Skill failure all

I had intended, at some hazy point in the past, to write a series of "Skill Failure" articles griping in blistering detail about each individual skill in 5E. That is a level of tedium that I don't want to write and no one wants to read. The subject of 5E is however cropping up in my YouTube feed again and the game is well liked among my players. In light of these two factors I think a more thoughtful discussion is in order.

BUT ALSO LINK TO EARLIER DISCUSSION

I very broadly dislike skills because I don't think they make D&D better. I'm fully aware of course that skill systems are necessary to other games, "Call of Cthulu" comes to mind. But the action of CoC pivots around skills. The action of D&D, on the other hand, pivots around combat.

EDIT THE ABOVE TO BE LESS ABSOLUTE

The pro skills crowd has a fair argument, "My character can do things that I can't." Skills, they argue, capture that difference. This group also seems to feel that skills make the game more fair than arbitrary DM decision making. You may find this characterization incomplete or unfair but I assure you that isn't my intention. move to footnote

To be fair I think the first argument is unassailable. Skills may very well represent something the character can do that the player can't. But this simple assertion does nothing to evaluate the cost/benefit of skills.

For the "skills are more fair" argument I have to disagree. In a skills based system (roll over systems at least) the DM may set arbitrarily high levels of difficulty. I hope we can agree that's no more fair than making case-by-case judgment calls in a game without skills. (footnote: if not read no further)

DOES THE BELOW MAKE SENSE WITHOUT THE EXAMPLES?

Let's consider then 3 D&Ds; D&D with no skill system, D&D with roll under skill system and D&D with roll over skill system. The first bears no explanation. In a roll under system the player rolls a d20, adds positive and negative modifiers and succeeds if the roll is less than or equal to the ability score in question. In a roll over system the player rolls a d20, adds modifiers and succeeds if the result is greater than or equal to a target number.

Artificial Boundaries

There's a positive correlation between D&D with roll above skills systems and skills being printed on the character sheet. Don't take my word for it. Look at the character sheets for D&D 3E+. The fact of the matter is that when all (or most, 3e) of the skills are printed on the sheet they become the player's tools for interacting with the game world(1).

Sometimes the framework makes sense. If a player wants their character to charge into battle on an untrained horse an "Animal Handling" check may be in order. If the players want their characters to sneak past a previously unknown guard then a "Stealth" check should be called for.

INSERT REFUTATION

But what of the social skills? Are "Deception", "Insight", "Intimidation" and "Persuasion" the only ways to interact with the world? Can a successful "Deception" check make an NPC believe a lie when they posses evidence to the contrary? Is "Insight" a lie detector? Can your first level character really "Intimidate" the polymorphed ancient dragon? Can you persuade the chaotic evil fiend with murderous intent that you should instead be friends?

Worse is the player with a unique idea that doesn't neatly fit the skills, struggling over their character sheet trying to fit it into an incompatible framework. The player justifiably seeks to validate their understanding of the rules and the choices they made for the character within the skill framework. If the player doesn't attempt their unique idea because they can't see a way to fit the idea into the skills then we must accept that as evidence of a boundary the skill system places on the player.

I have yet to find (as a DM) the correct amount of encouragement that permits players to ignore skills and try their ideas. The DM says the skills aren't that important. The players understandably dissent. If the skills aren't important why are they in the rules?

The sad end is an invisible boundary that limits the ways in which players interact with the game world.

Perverse Incentives

The presence of skills creates 2 main incentives for the player. Firstly the player is incentivized to optimize their character build around the realization of some concept which may (but dosn't have to) revolve around maximizing some skill or set of skills. Secondly the player has the implicit expectation that their choices are meaningful and should be rewarded by consistent successful checks throughout the game.

In the first case a player may reason that in prior games their character has missed certain clues. The player therefore, builds their next character around "Investigation" in order that they don't miss future clues. The concept is sound but not without limits. Sometimes the player will roll a 1. Sometime there won't be anything to be found. Sometimes what can be found through "Investigation" is related to another character's personal story and it would be far more satisfying for that player to make the discovery regardless of roles.

In each case the DM and player must now confront the player's disappointment because the dice went against them or because the dice were with them but there was no reward or worse, that the dice were with them and they feel slighted that another player's moment overshadowed their decisions.(2) None of this touches on the fact that the only lever left to the DM to challenge this player(4) is to raise an invisible number; difficulty class.

In the second case the DM is compelled by the nature of the game that provides such skill systems to reward players by designing enocunters that allow them to use and succeed at using the skills. 4E explicitly enshrines this in its Dungeon Masters guide as "Skill Challenges"(3). 5E makes no mention of skill challenges (probably to distinguish it from 4E) but 5E would benefit from 4E's "Skill Challenge" mechanic.

The end result is that encounter design becomes (in part at least) a matter of making lists of skills, difficulty classes and results. Perversly changing the game from R-O-L-E-playing to R-O-L-L-playing.

Story Games vs Sandbox Games

After a lot of reading, and youtube and considerationg I've come tp th econclusion that at some time in the 80s/90s the story game crew won the battle for D&D. What this group needs to succeed is a way to limit the players from making decisions (very random decisions) that may derail their carefully crafted stories.

A sad truth about the human condition seems to be that if you take someone freedoms all at one (the rail-road, toot toot) they'll rebel. But if you reduce their freedom to a subset of "acceptable" options they'll tend to comply.

The result is a limmited game in which the players only options are when to roll their dice against pre-defined encounters and what targets they wish to attack in combat. This sums to the story DM being allowed to tell whatever the story is without derailing plauer shenanigans.

Is this the only way? in the words of Yoda, "There is another..."

Trust the DM/Emergent Story Telling

The common wisdom of modern D&D seems to be that this is not game of DM vs Players. This is fantasic beginner advice but like so much other advice given to beginners the truth of experience is far more subtle.

Monty Ha(u)ll -> Beholder

Dwarven Poney -> Land SHark

Braggind Part -> S1

Examples

A few examples of encounter design and the impact of skills on these encounters. Some examples are imagined, others culled from previous games. For the sake of brevity we'll assume B/X is our no skill system, 2E is the roll under system and 5E is the roll over.

The Dungeon in the Pit

Imagine if you will the players come upon a dunehon whose entrance is at the bottom of a pit. When the players arrive they need to tie the rope off on a nearby tree or rock and repel into the pit. We'll assume that when the playerts arrive the monsters are unwaware of their presence so they can repel into the pit at their liersure.

B/X: The players tie the rope off and repel into the pit. No further checks necessary.

2E: The players want to tie the rope off so they make a "Rope Use" check. If the check is successful the players repel into the pit. If not then the knot may fail at a bad time. Perhaps one character falls d3 x 10 feet as a result this depleting player resources.

5E: The players tie the rope off with no issues but each player needs to make an "Athletics" check to repel into the pit. Since the players have plenty of time it's an easy check (DC 10). Unlucky rolls mean 1 or more players may fall this depleting player resources.

The DM must ask himself the purpose of this encounter. Is it to deplete character resources? If so the 2E and 5E cases this seems to be a good example of one of the 6-8 encounters the players are supposed to face in any given day.

And on the way back and up. The monsters are in hot pursuit. Was the purpose of this encounter a TPK? If so, the random failure of a 2E or 5E system may be fi8ne. If not,

B/X:

2E:

5E:

Is the encounter desing mean to TPK

Intimidation is Fear

Once upon a time I had a particulary nedry player at my table. By this I mean no offense. I am, for those who know me, particularyly nerdy myself. This player had designed a human barbarian that likes of which would be the middle-school bully nightmare of us all. He reasoned that anyone in the world would shrink from such a terrible fellow.

But, nerdy as I am I have had somewhat (due to being several year older) more life experience. I've found in my time that there are three main respinses to threatening behavior. Some people shrink to be sure, but others confront. For some intimidating beahovori is an invitation to ifghty.

B/X:

2E:

5E:

Speech!

There was a player in a past game who reasoned (quite soundly) that because they had taken the "Perssuaion" skill that they only think required to make an epic speach was a die roll.

B/X:

2E:

5E:

Investigation

How I design rooms vs how Skills systems expect rooms to be designed.

B/X:

2E:

5E: