We play 3E still, and practically everything apart from hitting in combat or making a "saving throw" is codified as a mechanic under the skill list.
|
|
|
Here's a list furnished by the SRD site. It features the skillset relevant to a medieval fantasy setting (no computers or astro-navigation or anything like that.) and includes some skills not even listed in the core books, like the psi stuff.
Covering so many facets of gameplay and conceivable actions as "skills" is part of the attempt to unify gameplay under a single mechanic: All of these things can are intended to be checked with a roll on a d20.
But the success/failure result this offers doesn't give a lot of information to help interpret what actually resulted. So players and DMs frequently interpret the severity of a success or failure by the distance of the result from the difficulty class.
The Difficulty Class is another squidgy issue. The rules for determining it vary from skill to skill; meaning that for practical purposes, the system is hardly unified at all.
Also, a characters bonus to a skill check can be improved with level- creating an arms race of difficulty class. DMs get infected with the notion that skill checks must always present a chance of failure, regardless of the characters objective skill level.
So a Rogue of the 15th level, with a +25 to open lock will find himself confronted with DC 40 locks. As a result, his success rate will be about the same as when he was level 2 with a +9, dealing with DC 20 locks.
Characters are thought to have a certain number of "skill points" to spend on ranks in whatever skills. But the distribution of these skillpoints is always carefully min-maxed to the greatest efficiency, and some skills clearly outweigh others. Survival is a broad skill, for a variety of applications- used for navigation on foot, foraging, protecting oneself from the elements, the generalized act of "hunting," even cooking sometimes. Compare this to Use Rope- which in real life is generally considered an aspect of survival training.
It is far from elegant.
But we need mechanics for these things.
- especially the more numinous things like diplomacy or knowledge.
The players simply are not their characters, so they can not really be expected to speak or know or perceive as their characters might. a mechanic is necessary to separate the player from the character.
Also, traps are a thing where the player is definitely separated form the character..
Sometimes, DMs toy with the notion of having players roleplay the spotting and disarming of a trap as opposed to rolling for it. In practice, this is a mess.
I, for one, simply lack the descriptive powers to make it as if the player were really there, examining the suspicious seems in the wall in person.
As soon as you try something like this, the player gets a clear notion that they are "supposed" to do something; that there is some magic word that will please the DM and resolve the issue.
DM: You notice a metal wire, stretched taut across the hall at about knee-level.
Player: Uh, I cut the wire?
DM: Sorry! that wire was the only thing holding the crushing block-trap up. Cutting it has released the crushing weigh. Saving throw time!
Player: What the hell?
DM: Hey, why do you think the wire was so easy to spot?
(fisticuffs ensue)
Once again, some sort of dice mechanic is best for this sort of situation.
My goal here is to create some elegant solutions for the operations which are lumped under skills
One obvious measure is to collapse some skills into eachother- move silently and hide should just be "stealth" for instance. Or get rid of "use rope" since you will generally be using rope in the context of sailing or climbing or crafting traps or some other already defined skill.
5E introduces "tool proficiencies." This is odd- since a given tool is only an aspect of any craft. plumbers and automotive techs both use wrenches, but that doesn't mean they can do eachother's jobs. Use Rope is just a weird tool proficiency.
Another obvious step is to get rid of the "Professions."
According to the rules, professions allow characters to make some income at a regular job. It also assumes that the character has a collection of skills which allow them to do the job.
But this isn't how stuff works. A job does not grant a person "skills," Rather, a persons' skills qualify them for the job.
A job like being a fantasy adventurer.
AD&D allowed for proficiencies- some of which were broad ranges of skills-like boating for instance, while others were oddly specific-like ventriloquism.
There is a certain appeal in skill blankets. It seems reasonable and logical. but it doesn't account for the weird and unrelated stuff.
Another mechanic used in AD&D was the simple skill check.
The attempt to climb a tree or spot an elf in the brush; the things that technically anybody could do with or without training- were not tied to a skill, but the relevant ability score. This was simple, and didn't require any additional paperwork.
But it doesn't account for the possibility that someone might train themselves in these fields- to actually become better at climbing or swimming or looking at distant horizons.
Investment of time and training-
That's the issue of economy here. With the limited time and resources a character had before the start of game, How much skill and knowledge were they able to develop? That is the absolute that we will butt up against when determining a character's capabilities.
Presumably, we are going to attempt some sort of balance- so the players will be on equal footing with eachother, So they should have the same amount of skills to invest.
Come to think of it, isn't something basic like combat ability or magical power a skill that takes time and effort to learn?
Dammit.
No comments:
Post a Comment