Ability or Skill: Thoughts on D&D\Pathfinder Game Mechanisms
I mentioned a while ago that I would be joining an over-Skype gaming session. That fell through but it got me motivated to answer the call of a number of my friends that had been clamoring to try role-playing. So now I find myself rummaging through my collection of rulesets and trying to decide on which system to run for a mixed group of new and experienced gamers.
Ultimately, rule availability led to my decision of Pathfinder as our system to use. Now I have to confess that most of my gaming in college and before was centered around 2nd ed. AD&D. So while I did run a few games of 3.5, I’m afraid it’s not my comfort zone. No big deal though, I’ve been reading up. There are things I really like about the Pathfinder system and some things I don’t. For instance, I feel like they really streamlined a few problem areas with 3.5 while still holding to the essence of what D&D is all about.
That being said, while I don’t have anything against the Skills & Feats system, I can’t help but feel like it slows things down a bit while potentially limiting player’s creativity by boxing in their imagination. I feel like the Skills & Feats offer a lot for expanding a character’s flavor and allowing for more enhanced power gaming, however there is an element to depending almost exclusively on the skills and feats system for actions that bothers me. And while I’m thinking about it let me clarify something, when I say Skills & Feats system I really mean the DC check system that is being modified by individual Skills & Feats.
Photo from Paizo's Pathfinder Core Rulebook
The issue here is that while a system of Skills & Feats gives a broad range of specific modifiers for the DC, and then theoretically, a larger selection of actions to choose from, it can have two negative side effects. One is that it can limit the players to only trying and doing things based on the skills they have rank in. Second is that the added time taken by compiling all the positive and negative modifiers to get a final DC take time. Of course handy character sheets help this process along assuming the players have all the info filled out.
An Attribute based system simplifies the checking for success process, by simply requiring the player to roll agains a given skill with modifiers based on the ease or difficulty of the task. Now the hang up with the Ability system is two fold, first it can easily be manipulated by changing or buffing the stat line of a character. Second, the difficulty modifiers are often chosen seemingly randomly by the GM as most rules editions that have stats only, often don’t have a difficulty modifier system as they tend to be more rules light. Of course AD&D solved this by introducing the Proficiency system which clearly led to the development of the Skills & Feats in 3rd.
Photo from Paizo's Pathfinder Core Rulebook
Things I like about an Attribute system are the relative ease and simplicity of checks, the speed with which one can make them, and the openness left for players to be creative without as many possible restrictions. Ultimately your player base will likely dictate your choice of rulesets. Some players like a thicker ruleset to really maximize the benefits of their characters or to use a flaw\trait system to help with role-playing options. Other players may thrive more under a lighter ruleset allowing for more streamlined gaming experience. In my experience the thinner the rules, the more space for better roleplaying.
What has your experience been with Attribute vs Skill check systems and how do you feel they help or hinder your groups roleplaying?
I’ve found that with a skill system there’s a very delicate line to be walked to keep it being a list of things you can’t do rather than a list of things you can’t. Like the NWP system, I feel it’s more a list of things you can’t do based on how large it is. d20′s implementation in particular is also tedious – because there are escalating DCs, you pretty much have to max each skill out, and even if that wasn’t originally the design, because people were maxing the skills out, DCs for 3.5 from 3e got moved to match. What you end up getting is a situation where it’s largely about what you picked up at character generation, and after that it’s just more points.
Given the choice between the d20 skill system and the classic D&D attribute check system, I’d pick the latter. Other games, however, end up with a skill system that’s a lot more usable, each with its own merits.
i’m with you 100%. I much prefer the original D&D attribute system when it comes to D&D type games. Otherwise I’m cool with skill system like with the NWoD ruleset. That system i feel is much more conducive to a less distracting implementation of Skill checks. They also combine multiple Attributes in addition to the skills for a check. Takes a little getting used to if you’re a heavy D20\D&D system gamer but once you do it’s awesome. A bit harsher for hack and slash players but better for RPer’s. in my opinion, much like original D&D.
That’s one of the things that appeals to me about Dragon Age RPG as i hear it’s more similar to original D&D.
In a long running 3.5 campaign I was in, the solution (which I thought worked well) was that the DM kept the entire thing totally behind the screen. He called for a check, we rolled (nothing to do except roll the D20 and add the mod) and he told us what happened. You never knew the DC you were going for, or even really knew whether you had succeeded or failed, or whether there were degrees of success involved. This seemed to work particularly well for knowledge / social skills. Slightly less well in the case of skills used in combat (where the DCs for particular things were more well known), but that’s the less common application. There was most likely some DC bending going on or probably even some DM fudging (though he’d never admit or deny) but as a player you rolled the dice and the only thing going through your head was: either (a) I got a high roll and I’m good at that so I probably rocked; (b) I got a crap roll but I’m really good at this so hopefully I will pass anyway, or (c) I got a high roll and I’m not trained in this so hopefully that’s enough, or (d) I blew it. If the goal is to keep the players focused on roleplaying and not on game mechanics I think the key (in whatever system) is for the GM to simply front as much of the mechanics as possible, never letting the players in on the DCs of what they’re doing, the specific abilities of NPCs in game terms, or anything else that tends to put the rules too front and center.
you know that’s not a bad approach. i’ll give it a try next session. I typically would do that in 2nd Ed as well, so i guess it makes sense. Even though we had a good time last night I still feel that there are so many modifiers that it’s inflated the DC system. but then with DC’s i was much more accustomed to NWoD rules, which have a bit more conservative DC level.