Skills are Good
By the time I'm done, you'll likely have this idea that I'm the kind of DM who tells people they're having badwrongfun and should stop. But, that's only partially true. I think skills are necessary in certain types of games, and I also think that certain types of games only need them in extremely narrow cases, or, at worst, in a very broad hand-wavy sense.
Classless systems, as an example, need skill lists in order to differentiate characters from one another. They form the core of "what the character does", their role or identity within the rule structure that gives the game world its form.
B/X derivative games (my favorite flavor of OSR) don't particularly need skills, since they (usually) assume a general level of competence in player characters. They know how to use ropes and climbing gear. They know how to ride horses and stow gear on pack animals. They know how to hunt, treat wounds, and find true north. And for the record, I do in fact take issue with B/X derivative games that use secondary skills and non-weapon proficiencies to track player character knowledge. But I'll get to that.
In most cases, if a player wants their character to know how to cook decent meals from camp food and play a musical instrument, it's completely allowable for them to have this bit of character. There aren't rules for it because B/X derivative games don't need complex crafting rules for food prep or detailed rules for improvising music from woodwind instruments. They do need exploration rules, and rules for sighting distances and for looting, tinkering with stuff, and fighting.
With B/X derivative games, the less you have to keep track of, the better.
I personally prefer to allow freeform skills you can fit into a 3-5 sentence paragraph. Any more than that is probably pushing it, and any less is just a list or just disconnected words. And yes, I know I'm a dirty heretic for even breathing the word freeform. How dare I use that narrativist garbage. The nerve!
Ideally, the skills you need rules for are the ones the game is actually going to be checking a lot, skills that should produce interesting and unexpected developments without bogging the game down with a ton of rolls.
Skills are Bad
There are however, four skills I never ever want to see in any game, B/X derivative or otherwise. And those are:
- Craft,
- Diplomacy,
- Knowledge, and
- Profession
Why exactly do I have a hate boner for these four skills? Because they make the game less interesting, and generally, they serve to allow another "build" option for a character rather than straight magic or straight might. Which should be a good thing, but typically isn't on a second examination.
Craft
There is zero reason to have the skill in any RPG, let alone one in the vein of B/X derivatives. In 3rd edition, it serves only to reinforce the nonsense world that the rules create, where crafting time is dependent on gold piece value (meaning it takes longer to make a gold candelabra than it does to make a set of leather armor - despite the fact that gold can be melted rather easily and poured into a mold). More to the point, in B/X derivative games, it's assumed that adventurer types know basically how to maintain their gear, and if they have the equipment, should be able to repair minor bends, knicks, cuts, dents, and so on without needing to have apprenticed to some legendary smith.
In B/X derivative games, it's fine if a fighter or other character writes their freeform backstory to include being a swordsmith, and to allow them to make swords at a reduced cost (whatever is reasonable, really) if they want to. It takes a day or two start to finish to make an Ulfbehrt sword from crucible steel, assuming you have someone competent helping you and you work together. I'm sure a little searching on this newfangled interwebs thingy will allow one to find the time needed to make all sorts of things from antiquity to the early modern period. It really doesn't matter - and adventurers who would rather make swords than go dungeon delving probably should be retired from the game.
Legendary smiths being found and hired by the PCs and such should be rewards for adventuring or for managing their domains wisely (if you like that sort of thing). The PCs should not be the legendary smith, just as they should not be the wise sage. They're adventurers, not homebodies.
Diplomacy
Ah Diplomacy, and by some extension Bluff in 3rd edition. What a sack of shit. Especially with the epic rules tacked on, which many 3rd edition rules lawyers will say is "core" - a claim I find both misinformed and genuinely disgusting, particularly if they're one of those players who also supports throwing out the PHB in favor of later supplements which supposedly "fix" the balance issues. First off, the epic rules are optional, and not every DM is required to use them. The same goes for prestige classes, but that's a post for another day. It's like saying a DM has to allow you to use an optional variant rule just because its in the three "core" rulebooks (and Core, by the way, are the DMG, PHB, and MM - and they're the only ones that say Core Rulebook I-III on them).
My disgust toward those who are in favor of tossing out the PHB classes but insist that epic skills are "core" is because it allows you to (if you stack enough bonuses) create permanent zealots who will do anything you tell them to do, up to and including suicidal actions. It's the worst sort of munchkiny behavior with a side dose of making social encounters effectively moot because Rules As Written (a particular form of moral bankruptcy), anyone who is Helpful or Fanatic is conveniently interpreted by RAW aficionados to mean that NPCs behave in whatever way is most beneficial to the players, and thus they can no longer act in self-interest or even lift a finger to oppose the PCs without breaking the rules. This can include hostile NPCs who hate the PCs for various reasons if one takes a literal reading of the rules, since after all, you can make a Diplomacy check in combat as a full round action if you take a -10 penalty. A complete non-issue for the properly prepared munchkin.
Never mind that this interpretation is wrong and contravenes common sense. People don't suddenly act out of character because someone spent five to ten minutes talking to them. At least, not without magic, anyway.
Diplomacy and Bluff (and also Sense Motive) effectively reduce social encounters to rolling dice to determine if NPCs are friendly, or deceived, or are telling the truth, rather than talking to them, trying to convince them with arguments and evidence, or trapping them in lies with pointed questions. And here, the "no freeform skills!" people are going to spit and shout that if you don't allow people to roll, then you're penalizing the less eloquent speakers and unfairly favoring the roleplayers, the dirty well-spoken bastards - and if you're going to do that, you should allow the strong or quick or tough players get bonuses to in-character strength checks, dodging, or shrugging off fatigue.
And the counter-argument to this slippery slope, as Carlos often says, is that if that's the case, then we should start rolling to see how well you walk, whether or not you turn the door handle or fail to grasp it, or whether or not you start the car. Everything should be reduced down to a roll because it's not your skill, it's your character's skill; after all, you shouldn't be able to dive for cover just because you declare it, nope! Better roll that Agility to see whether or not you flub it and jump in front of the enemy's guns!
But I'm not proposing bonuses, or XP gained for roleplaying. At some level, RPGs involve player skill, and a person doesn't have to be eloquent to outline a basic argument, and say:
"Volagyrr is a very persuasive man, and he argues that the Nords should support the Imperials instead of the Stormcloaks because it's clear that the rebellion is weakening the Empire and splitting its attention, and worse, the Thalmor didn't and couldn't enforce their treaty so long as no one openly worshiped Talos - something Ulfric disrupted when he made it a point to re-establish open Talos worship in Markarth after he deposed the Reachmen."
The player doesn't need to make a flowery speech. A reasonable DM would take into account Volagyrr's arguments, and decide whether or not it persuaded the fence sitters of Volagyrr's position. There's no need to even have this down to dice, because a good roll isn't going to convince hardline Stormcloaks, just like Volagyrr's points above won't convince Skyrim players who think Skyrim is for the Nords that the Empire is worth fighting for. A bad roll might mean not convincing the fence sitters, but it certainly won't make hardline pro-Imperials to suddenly shirk their duty and abandon the Legions for Ulfric's cause.
Individuals might change their mind based on events or circumstances that cause them to reevaluate their choices, but it's unlikely Volagyrr's stirring speech will do so.
But under the 3.5 rules, everyone who hears Volagyrr has a chance to become fanatically pro-Imperial with a single well-modified d20 roll. Heck, Volagyrr might take a 20 and make it a really long and especially flowery speech just to ensure he can overcome that high DC for those potentially hostile Stormcloaks in the crowd.
Obviously, I take issue with this.
"But Fabian," say the pro-RAW, pro-dice rolling players "what about stupid players trying to play intelligent characters? Shouldn't they be allowed to roll intelligence to know that they're about to do a stupid thing?"
Nay, I say. Let stupid players suffer the consequences of their actions, and may the dice fall where they will.
Knowledge
This may actually be the worst offender of the lot, because knowledge skills are absolutely ridiculous. You should not be rolling to see if you know something. You either do or you don't, and if you do, it might be forgotten or misremembered, but it's still rattling around in there somewhere. They're also stupid, in 3.5 at least. Did you know that it's possible for a person (according to a RAW reading of the rules) who has lived all his life in a land with elephants to not be able to identify them because their hit dice are so high that it would be impossible for him to make the Knowledge (nature) check DC? I cannot recall clearly if taking 20 on a Knowledge check is possible, but I'm leaning toward no, plus, even if taking 20 is permissible, taking 20 is not the same as getting a critical success, which can only happen on attack rolls and saving throws anyway, not skill checks.
Even so, a character with no ranks in Knowledge (nature) who has seen real live elephants up close cannot identify them or recall any information about them because (even if they can take 20 on the check), they're limited to whatever common info you'd get from a DC 10 only. Which is probably "they're big and grey and covered in wrinkles".
Moreover, in B/X derivatives, knowledge really should fall under classes and that paragraph of freeform backstory. A fighter who is a hedge knight probably should know how to ride a horse and take care of it. He is also likely a pretty good judge of horseflesh, and has at least a working knowledge of practical heraldry, meaning he's memorized famous knights and their devices. Furthermore, he probably has a pretty good grasp of how to take care of his weapons and armor, since his profession (and his very life) depend on them.
Having Knowledge skills (as well as Crafting skills, actually) also hurts the structure of the game, because players will load up on them so they can bypass the tedium (and resource/time consumption) necessary to roleplay finding sages, scholars, and smiths to get those questions answered and legendary weapons reforged.
Profession
I take it back. This one is the worst of the lot.
This skill should not exist in any game. In a classless game, a character's profession should be defined by the collection of skills he has, like Astrogation, Pilot (starfighter), Weapon Training (starfighter), and whatnot. They should not have Profession (space ace), and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to roll their Profession (space ace) to make double dollars for off-screen bounties. That's not only boring, but defeats the entire purpose of playing a Space Ace in the first place. Why have dashing adventures as a swashbuckling Space Ace when you can roll a die and win without ever having to bother doing anything?
"But what about NPCs?" Well, what about them? They should only have the bare minimum of statistics and shouldn't be built using PC rules unless it's a classless system, and they don't need to have Profession (lovely filth farmer). You can just assume that they're competent at farming lovely filth, and can identify lovely filth with only a modicum of effort. What is the point of statting out every single NPC in a given settlement and deciding the very important question of whether or not the village headman should have 4 or 5 ranks in Profession (mayor)?
This skill cannot be justified. It doesn't benefit any adventurer who is reckoned to have a modicum of skill in their area of expertise, it doesn't benefit the DM when crafting NPC statistics, and it certainly doesn't benefit those players who decide to take it in lieu of more useful combat or social oriented skills, so who is it for? Is it for the roleplayers who want a mechanical representation of their backstory? Is it for the players who find they have too many skill points and can consider wasting them on a skill that skill point starved classes would murder close acquaintances just for the opportunity to have enough skill points to waste like that?
No, Profession exists in 3.5 as a skill tax for prestige classes. That's its true purpose. The money making thing is just a consolation prize for being required to waste precious skill points on a nearly useless skill. By all the gods odoriferous and flatulent, Profession should get flushed.
Previous Editions
Secondary Skills and Non-weapon Proficiencies are actually worse than 3rd edition's craptacular stacking modifier skill system, since they heavily favor higher ability scores, and thus penalizing anyone who rolled poorly or (gasp) assigned their points to avoid the possibility that they'd be terrible at everything. I suppose you could say "well, don't take the skills associated with your low ability score", but that's build-talk, and defeats the entire purpose of having skills for roleplaying reasons, because if you min-maxed in favor of physical prowess at the expense of sagacity, and being a competent sword smith requires Intelligence, well... you've just made an incompetent sword smith when you could have made a competent long distance runner or survivalist instead.
Certainly, I have strong opinions on skill systems, but I can't force you to think the way I do, and even if I had the power, I'd never use it because the very idea of doing such a thing fills me with repugnance at the thought.
Get to the Fucking Point
Skills are best when they serve a meaningful aspect of the game. A sci-fi game where characters might be expected to navigate between stars and unsuccessful navigation could mean danger or death adds an element of uncertainty, and creates opportunities ranging between being stranded on a primitive world or making a daring escape from an enemy fleet. A skill that adds nothing is bloat, a wasted opportunity to keep the game lean and fast, a resource sink for the foolish or the boring. PCs need no Profession - their class or their collected skills should suggest their Profession, and NPCs don't need anything more than "check out clerk at the Duper Mart". The last thing they need is 3 ranks in Profession (sales associate), and the DM certainly doesn't need the headache of keeping track of dumb shit like this.
It's rather late (or early, I suppose), and I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I think I'll fuck off to bed. But ask yourself a couple of questions next time you're considering whether or not to include a skill:
- Does it provide a meaningful impact on the way the game will be played?
- Does it create an opportunity for organic (and dramatic) changes in the circumstances of the gameworld?
- Is it worth the book keeping that will be necessary to keep track of it?
- Does the skill require characters to choose between being good at the skill, or being good at their chosen class/archetype/role in the party?
- Does it conflict with common sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment