The problem with skills vs stat checks! It is two mechanics solving the same problem, clumsily coexisting. Designers have patched this split a dozen different ways over the past two decades. But since D&D is main way people get into the hobby, we keep reinventing the same fixes
There’s a lot here that can be used to open up a system that has no stats and relies on skills.
It reminds me of the backgrounds in Barbarians of Lemuria. A character can have, I think, up to three backgrounds. If the player takes the same one three times they are masters at anything that can be done by that career. It makes them specialized while leaving how they apply their experience up to interpretation. A player could choose two of one background and one of another, or even three different ones. It depends on the concept and if the player wants to trade higher skill for broader knowledge.
That’s really cool! Lots of OSR games also use your backgrounds as skills, and it’s up to the player to invent a reason why their blacksmithing might help them hammer pikes into the door to keep it shut or something. I like that stuff
There’s a lot of interesting stuff here. I’d love to dig into this a bit if you’re willing. I don’t know if it matters, but I don’t like 5e as a system. But I’m not sure your criticisms of it land.
There’s a motivation piece. You write, “In heroic fantasy ttrpgs, the purpose of a skill system is to encourage character expression.” I don’t think that’s true. They could be for problem-solving. They could be for structure or fun. Abilities (and even ability scores) can play the role you’re suggesting is THE role of skills. There are many purposes. But you don’t need a claim that strong. It can be one motive for moving to different systems.
D&D moved away from attribute checks long ago. Like at 3e, much to the game’s detriment, I think. (Not for reasons you suggest.) But it seems like the skills in 5e don’t get a fair shake in your presentation. A fighter might ask to open a door in many ways. Shoulder charge. Kick. Weapon attack. It wouldn’t have to be a strength check. That’s really unimaginative DMing.
My system is like daggerheart, though I’ve never played that. There are plenty of games out there that approach checks this way. No stats. Many of them don’t even have a list and allow players to build the gambit (that’s what they are in my game) list as they go, inductively. My only rule is that any gambit they choose is fair game for NPCs. So, a player might be a sagely wizard with a sword (Gandalf). Or an intimidating stealthy barbarian (Conan).
I guess in the end, I love where you’ve settled, but I’m not sure 5e got a fair treatment from you.
Yeah, I see what you mean, and I basically agree with you about the other functions of a skill system. I guess my point was more that even though players could resolve things using just ability checks, the system of 5e and the broadness of skills encourages players to ask for an Athletics check to bust open the door as a catch-all. And IMO that lessens the impact of using skills to differentiate between different characters of the same class. Does that make sense?
Your system sounds cool by the way, do u have anything written about that?
I think you're 100% right. Stats are low compared to skills, so stat checks almost always suck in 5e. In 2e, the non-weapon proficiencies were based off stats and didn't really vary far from the stat they were tied to. They just broadened your abilities a bit. It was still _basically_ a single system. 3e introduced two different types of checks where the checks were vastly different. All downhill from there, in my view!
I think your point is well-taken. Suppose there are no skills. Just stat checks. All the rogues are going to have awesome dex. Skills open up the possibility that some rogues focus on persuasion and others on stealth. So, coming from that end, there are more options. There are also feats for variety. I think the 5e system and feel just don't appeal to me. I like a unified system (all rolls are the same type) as far as possible, and I think there are just too many minute options and trappings for characters.
I've seen Daggerheart mentioned a few times recently on Substack and Threads. It seems like people are really loving it. I may have to check it out.
Both of these are very short and introduce the system.
I'm glad to see that Daggerheart's experiences system works well. I've system hopped a lot and while I have problems with the overall system of dungeons and dragons, I haven't found another system that has a similar middle ground of crunch when it comes to roleplaying. I've found that when it comes to PBtA systems, it tends to leave too many options open to my playgroup which causes analysis paralysis. That bit of extra structure really helps out people who are not intrinsically able to embody their characters. When it comes to combat, currency system of fear seems like it will do well to balance action economy without the use of an initiative. It also seems like you can create balanced encounters with less creatures. I'd love to see your thought on it once you get some more time with the full release.
Yes, I’m definitely looking forward to playing the release version and writing about it. I did write about Daggerheart’s combat system a little bit in my article Out With the Action Economy, you might be interested in that.
The problem with skills vs stat checks! It is two mechanics solving the same problem, clumsily coexisting. Designers have patched this split a dozen different ways over the past two decades. But since D&D is main way people get into the hobby, we keep reinventing the same fixes
There’s a lot here that can be used to open up a system that has no stats and relies on skills.
It reminds me of the backgrounds in Barbarians of Lemuria. A character can have, I think, up to three backgrounds. If the player takes the same one three times they are masters at anything that can be done by that career. It makes them specialized while leaving how they apply their experience up to interpretation. A player could choose two of one background and one of another, or even three different ones. It depends on the concept and if the player wants to trade higher skill for broader knowledge.
That’s really cool! Lots of OSR games also use your backgrounds as skills, and it’s up to the player to invent a reason why their blacksmithing might help them hammer pikes into the door to keep it shut or something. I like that stuff
There’s a lot of interesting stuff here. I’d love to dig into this a bit if you’re willing. I don’t know if it matters, but I don’t like 5e as a system. But I’m not sure your criticisms of it land.
There’s a motivation piece. You write, “In heroic fantasy ttrpgs, the purpose of a skill system is to encourage character expression.” I don’t think that’s true. They could be for problem-solving. They could be for structure or fun. Abilities (and even ability scores) can play the role you’re suggesting is THE role of skills. There are many purposes. But you don’t need a claim that strong. It can be one motive for moving to different systems.
D&D moved away from attribute checks long ago. Like at 3e, much to the game’s detriment, I think. (Not for reasons you suggest.) But it seems like the skills in 5e don’t get a fair shake in your presentation. A fighter might ask to open a door in many ways. Shoulder charge. Kick. Weapon attack. It wouldn’t have to be a strength check. That’s really unimaginative DMing.
My system is like daggerheart, though I’ve never played that. There are plenty of games out there that approach checks this way. No stats. Many of them don’t even have a list and allow players to build the gambit (that’s what they are in my game) list as they go, inductively. My only rule is that any gambit they choose is fair game for NPCs. So, a player might be a sagely wizard with a sword (Gandalf). Or an intimidating stealthy barbarian (Conan).
I guess in the end, I love where you’ve settled, but I’m not sure 5e got a fair treatment from you.
Yeah, I see what you mean, and I basically agree with you about the other functions of a skill system. I guess my point was more that even though players could resolve things using just ability checks, the system of 5e and the broadness of skills encourages players to ask for an Athletics check to bust open the door as a catch-all. And IMO that lessens the impact of using skills to differentiate between different characters of the same class. Does that make sense?
Your system sounds cool by the way, do u have anything written about that?
I think you're 100% right. Stats are low compared to skills, so stat checks almost always suck in 5e. In 2e, the non-weapon proficiencies were based off stats and didn't really vary far from the stat they were tied to. They just broadened your abilities a bit. It was still _basically_ a single system. 3e introduced two different types of checks where the checks were vastly different. All downhill from there, in my view!
I think your point is well-taken. Suppose there are no skills. Just stat checks. All the rogues are going to have awesome dex. Skills open up the possibility that some rogues focus on persuasion and others on stealth. So, coming from that end, there are more options. There are also feats for variety. I think the 5e system and feel just don't appeal to me. I like a unified system (all rolls are the same type) as far as possible, and I think there are just too many minute options and trappings for characters.
I've seen Daggerheart mentioned a few times recently on Substack and Threads. It seems like people are really loving it. I may have to check it out.
Both of these are very short and introduce the system.
https://dungeonchatter.substack.com/p/lets-build-an-rpg
https://dungeonchatter.substack.com/p/ars-arcana-getting-dicey
I'm glad to see that Daggerheart's experiences system works well. I've system hopped a lot and while I have problems with the overall system of dungeons and dragons, I haven't found another system that has a similar middle ground of crunch when it comes to roleplaying. I've found that when it comes to PBtA systems, it tends to leave too many options open to my playgroup which causes analysis paralysis. That bit of extra structure really helps out people who are not intrinsically able to embody their characters. When it comes to combat, currency system of fear seems like it will do well to balance action economy without the use of an initiative. It also seems like you can create balanced encounters with less creatures. I'd love to see your thought on it once you get some more time with the full release.
Yes, I’m definitely looking forward to playing the release version and writing about it. I did write about Daggerheart’s combat system a little bit in my article Out With the Action Economy, you might be interested in that.