Point of clarification: As written, most modern skill systems STILL do not require you to roll skill checks to do mundane things like ride a horse or swim. However, the way most players actually PLAY these days is a different matter -- people end up calling for these checks (whether they are the DM or the player!) for the most ridiculously simple things. ("I roll Perception to see if there's a clock that says what time it is... ugh, it's a 1..." "Hmmm, you see a large clock five feet away, but you can't make out what it says.") Where the skill systems differ from what we did in the old days is that they codify how these checks are done in 99% of cases -- whereas we did EVERYTHING on the fly back in the '70s and '80s. The way I DM, I still tell my players, "Just tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you if you need to roll." The way I see it, if there's no risk or threat, there's no roll.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting. Fair point, but as you mentioned, I think a lot of modern players and DMs don't understand that and play them as though lack of a skill on a sheet means you can't do that thing. Conversely, having a skill means you're always looking for opportunities to use it rather than adapting to the situation at hand and being flexible. I run the Moldvay Basic D&D game for my 13yo daughter and her friends very similar to your style. They ask me, "Can I do XYZ?" and then tell them: A) Yes B) Yes, but you need to roll to see if you succeed C) Yes, but you need to roll to see if you succeed, and if you fail, there will be consequences. Only *very* rarely do I say "no," and if I do, I talk to them about why. In 2.5 years of playing, I've only said "no" maybe 5 times. Thanks again for your comment. I hope you enjoy the rest of the channel.
@drz0b
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 at least with 5e everyone 'has' all of the skills- it's just a question of how good you are at it. That removes the mistake that if they don't see a skill on their sheet they think they can't do it, which happened in 3e/3.5 and Pathfinder.
@redwyrmofficial
Жыл бұрын
You are obviously proficient in both History and Storytelling. Another great video!!!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Ha! I like that - I'll take it! Thanks so much for watching and commenting. I always appreciate your support. It means a lot. Has the Wyrmling watched any of the videos yet? I think they're all "family friendly" but I also know they're quite long so they might not be super engaging to him.
@VioletDeliriums
Жыл бұрын
First...Neat-o historical survey about skills!...I like this comment about not having skills assumes PCs are competent adventurers, and adding skills assumes they are only competent in areas where they possess special skills...Also, I like how you spotted the trend of Dave Cook's game design as including skills. Great observations! However this is one exception that you didn't mention for whatever reason (I am guessing it was intentional): the Thief class has a set of skills built in. Second...This video is useful for a DM who delves into customizing rules or doing game rules design. I have designed my own rules a few times and often wonder whether I should include skills. In the end I think it depends upon what you and your players like, and whether or not your campaign would call for their presence somehow. But, left to my own devices, I would prefer to simplify back to some sort of straight up ability check system (with none of 5e's special things underneath each ability), with the possible use of 4e's Difficulty Class and/or something like the "Skills Challenge" encounters where you roll a bunch of times to see if what you are trying to do worked, but only for things where you want to challenge the PC's abilities rather than the gaming skill/wits of the players at the game table. Great stuff Mr. rolled a 1!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! I really appreciate you taking the time to watch and comment. I had a series of videos planned about the different character classes and was going to address the Thief Skills issue with that video, but in hindsight, based on your and a few others' comments, I should have at least mentioned it here. But I have now moved that video up in my queue so I can tie it back to this one. So, thanks! When I first encountered skills via late 1E NWP's, I really liked the idea because I thought they helped to make characters "unique" but over time I've found that they are much more limiting and lead to my players "playing their sheet instead of playing the game." In the game I run for my 13 year-old daughter and her friends (a modified B/X), my players never are looking at the sheets to see if they can do something. They just ask if they can, and I give them a ruling (which is usually "Yes, but..." - I have a whole video planned on that). Your system of trying to simplify skills sounds intriguing! I'd be interested in keeping up on how it progresses!
@KabukiKid
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I remember reading once that Gary had nothing to do with writing Oriental Adventures, but they decided to put his name on the cover because they felt it would sell more copies. Not sure if that is true, but I have definitely heard that before. I tend to believe it, since it doesn't feel like a book Gary wrote.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks! I hadn't heard that, but I think it makes a lot of sense. I know he had thought about the idea and recall him mentioning it (probably in his "From the Sorcerer's Scroll" column in Dragon Magazine, but I agree with you that the writing style doesn't seem very "Gygaxian" to me.
@AlexandreEisenhauer
Жыл бұрын
I’ve heard that once or twice too.
@YouTellemFrosk
Жыл бұрын
I’m pretty sure he was fired long before this book entered the market
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Oriental Adventures was published in October 1985, meaning it had been worked on for months prior to printing and distribution. October 1985 was also the same month Lorraine Williams took control of TSR and pushed Gary to the side. He finally resigned all his positions at TSR in October 1986 and settled his outstanding financial disputes in December of that year, effectively removing himself from the company.
@thesonofdormammu5475
Жыл бұрын
It's so funny comparing what we have now (5e) vs the evolution of the complexity of characters through 2e. It went from very simple characters to overly complex characters back to less complex but still complex characters. I feel 2e was the best system, but now I'm longing to play a skill based system instead of a level based system. Call of Cthulhu here I come! We LOVED those 2e handbooks, the kits in those books really spiced up our campaigns. Admittedly some of them were not as good as others but they all added variety to the game. My favorite was the Psionics handbook, I've been obsessed with psionics since WAY back in the day. I also really enjoyed the backgrounds in those books. I'll never forget my noble fighter who had trouble while adventuring because he expected to be treated well but he wasn't in his homeland anymore so no one knew who he was. Classic story trope but it was still fun for everyone. Luckily one of the other players was a paladin who smoothed over any problems that I caused. Excellent video!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! As always, I really appreciate your support. I, too, liked the 2E Complete handbooks and I got most of them over the years even though, at the time,. I wasn't actually playing 2E. But I did use them a lot to help develop my campaign world that I eventually used for a 3E game that's still going 22+ years later. Fun trivia about the Noble Kit in the Fighter's book... I always liked the idea of Noble characters in D&D, but outside of the 1E Cavalier, the system never really seemed to support the idea that much. When 3E came out and included the Aristocrat NPC class in the DMG, I thought that was a brilliant idea, and that led to me writing the Quintessential Aristocrat 3E supplement for Mongoose Publishing. You can still buy it on DriveThruRPG (I don't make any money off it - they paid me upfront to write it).
@christopherdecator9742
Жыл бұрын
Love this stuff! I started my D&D journey late in the Basic era and 1e. I didn't have many of the materials from before 2e ('91). It's satisfying to have some of these things demystified, or to understand where they came from. Every new product was built on the products that came before, and the assumptions that carried over were rarely explicit. Sometimes you could get hints from older players, but that was always rife with misinformation or speculation.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I'm so glad you enjoying the content and yes, you hit the nail on the head as far as what I'm trying to do here: "Demystify" is a great word for it. All of these things exist for a reason and weren't added to the game willy-nilly, but were expansions and extensions of things that developed over time. But if you weren't around to watch those changes unfold, it can be difficult to trace them back to their roots. Thanks again for your support!
@sable2146
Жыл бұрын
1981 also saw the release of The Mechanoid Invasion by Palladium Books. This book introduced their core Class + Skill approach. And while I have seen very few discussions of old school systems which Palladium games, they did hold licenses for two very popular franchises (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Robotech).
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I had the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness soft cover game book and let a friend borrow it, and never got it back! After that, I began make an Excel spreadsheet of people I'd loaned games or DVDs/Blu-Rays to, so I could get them back!
@sable2146
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 yeah, lost some realms of chaos books from loaning them out. Was into TMNT when it came out. Which led into Beyon Supernural, a bit of Robotech, and then Rifts for a few years when it first came out. Ended getting into the entire line.
@CaptCook999
Жыл бұрын
The only skills we used were the Secondary Skills and that was later because we didn't see a Dungeon Masters Guide until we had been playing for a few years. If you created a character and gave them a background in something, then the DM just took it into account when you tried to perform a task related to it. Sometimes it was a D20 roll or maybe an Ability Score roll on 3 D6. When we started using secondary skills, it was decided to roll a percentile to see how good you were at it. So if you rolled a 01% for farming then you sucked as a farmer but knew the basics. The roll was adjusted for difficulty. You could also gain new skills. These were more specific. Such as when we needed to learn how to use Kayaks and after training we all rolled to see how good we were. If you were a good player, then most DM's would just let you roleplay it without any rolls at all.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for all this! I prefer your methods on how you mentioned "...the DM just took it into account when you tried to perform a task related to it" and "...most DMs would just let you roleplay it without any rolls at all." That's very similar to how I use this kind of thing in the game I run for my daughter and her friends. They didn't write complex backstories because this was their first time playing and they weren't aware that was a thing they should do. So, I collaborate with them during the session. Me: "Who grew up in the forest?" Player: "Me!" Me: "Cool. Tell me about that." And then the player gets to think on their feet and add to the background on the world, maybe come up with a new ara to explore in the future, and why their character grew up in the forest. Me: "Okay, great. You notice some tracks that appear to be wolf tracks, but it's a huge wolf..." Then from that point on, that character gets a chance to notice animal tracks of forest animals, etc. I'm sure some people might think it's arbitrary, but I don't see it that way. The tracks are there. Making them roll to see if they can see them kind of defeats the purpose of putting them there in the first place. But sometimes if there are consequences for something, I'll make them roll and a failure indicates that something bad happened (maybe it's actually a pack of wolves but they misidentified it at one, maybe the wolf had doubled back around and is now stalking them, etc.).
@RuiSaltao
Жыл бұрын
Like what @markzsombor6059 mentions, I'd love to get your thoughts on how the introduction of the Thief class in the 1975 Greyhawk supplement may have contributed to the introduction of skills in early RPGs, and in D&D specifically.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting. And, I definitely have this planned now. I had some notes on videos for the various classes but have now moved the Thief one forward to address this issue. I hope you like it when it comes out.
@RuiSaltao
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 many thanks! Look forward to seeing it 🤘
@BanjoSick
Жыл бұрын
Monte Cook worked at ICE (publisher of Merp/Rolemaster) and it is no wonder that 3 and 3.5 took many cues from Merp.
@adrianogoulart6096
Жыл бұрын
You forgot to add that in old editions the Thief (who later turns into Rogue), have a special set of skills that only they could do, like Hide in Shadows, Pick locks, Climb Walls, ....
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting! A few people have brought that up, and in hindsight, I should've mentioned it. I have a series planned in which I plan to discuss the history of the different classes, including the Thief, which is where I was going to discuss that, so because this video was already really long, I left it out. But, I didn't "forget" it. 😃 For me, I don't necessarily consider those "skills" as they are part of the abilities of the Thief class that other characters can't do. Anyone can Climb, but only a Thief can Climb *sheer surfaces*. Anyone can try to Hide, but a Thief can Hide *in plain sight.* Anyone can *try* to pick a Lock, but only a Thief is trained and can do so under adverse conditions such as combat. Also, a Thief does not incur a negative situation for failure, whereas another character that does not possess the Lock Picking special ability, would (e.g., they ruin the contents of whatever is behind the lock, or they make noise and draw a wandering monster encounter, etc.). I hope you enjoy my Thief video when I post it, and thanks again for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it!
@russellharrell2747
Жыл бұрын
I love the Thief (or Rogue if you prefer) just for the wonderful flavor of the archtype. I hate how the class has been implemented most times in modern games, and the common interpretation that a character is narrowly defined by what they can or can’t do based on their skills or lack thereof. I also hate the modern need for ‘balance’ among classes that necessitates that the Thief/Rogue become a DPR combat powerhouse. In a game about sneaking into dark, dangerous places and stealing treasure this should be THE class to choose, a specialist in burglary and stealth, with the other classes as being able to handle combat or magical threats. Instead the Rogue is now a light fighter with ninjutsu and assassin skills meant to neutralize threats quickly and deal consistent damage throughout every fight, and maybe do some skill work here and there. The flavor has been baked out almost completely.
@pickard72
Жыл бұрын
My current group has been playing AD&D 2E - 2.5E since 2002. We use Weapon Proficiencies, Weapons Specialization, Non-Weapon Proficiencies, Class Abilities, Racial Abilities, Traits and Disadvantages. How can we keep up with all this? We have TSR Software on CD-ROMs called AD&D Core Rules 2.0 that calculates and stores the PC's data (including the PC's Back Story) and prints out Character Sheets in a logical, organized format. AD&D 2.5E means we allow the use of all of 2E The Complete Class Handbooks, as well as the 2E Player Options books (Skills & Powers, etc.) The additional details of all these "skills" and abilities allow more specialization and uniqueness of the PC's and keeps PC builds and growth more flexible and interesting to long-time players and DMs. I enjoyed your video very much, Sir - it was very well researched and very well presented!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I really appreciate that! Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I remember those CD-ROMS for 2nd Edition - I never got them, and at the time I couldn't understand how they would help. Now with modern editions, it seems that most folks create their characters using some kind of software. For my daughter's game, we used old-fashioned notebooks, pens, and physical dice (all of which I bought for each player in her favorite color, based on the input from my daughter on what those colors would be). It works fine for us! Thanks again! Cheers!
@Game.Master.Allen83
7 ай бұрын
Awesome video and very insightful on the history of TTRPGs and how skills came about. The core six abilities define D&D, emphasizing ability checks over skill checks. D&D isn't centered on skills but on how the six abilities guide actions. Providing examples of actions tied to each ability helps players and DMs decide the right check to use. In contrast, classless, skill-based systems like CoC, SWADE, and WoD rely on extensive skill lists to define characters, essentially creating their class or profession through skills.
@steelcaress
Жыл бұрын
If you're looking for a skill-based system, try Dungeon Questing. It's original D&D, minus levels, classes, and even the d20 is gone. Instead of levelling up, you gain skill ranks. There are 17 skills, each of them corresponding to more hit points, higher attack bonus, area of expertise, etc.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
That sounds really interesting! Thank you for watching and commenting!
@shadomain7918
Жыл бұрын
i think the idea of skills makes it easier for the DM. Previously things like "i want to climb that steep surface" would have been up to the DM to make up a way to ejudicate, this gives them an easy way to assess success. But I think what's happened in 5e, especially with new players coming to the game is they aren't proposing anything they can think of and then the DM decides what roll would be appropriate. They think that they are limited to the options in the skills area of their character sheet, often not trying anything they don't have a high bonus in.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you, as always, for your support! Your second part of your statement is the main reason I don't always like skills, especially in a class-and-level game. I think it adds a level of complexity that's not needed - your class should describe what your character is good at. Everything on top of that it due to the DM to making a ruling depending on the circumstances, etc. I'm always so happy that the players in my daughter's group are never looking at their sheets during the game. They just ask, "Can I do XYZ?..." and I make a ruling based on what they're describing, perhaps their PC background, and the circumstances at the time. As a consequence, their actions tend to be much more creative than the way I played in 3E (which is similar to the way you describe 5E play), in which I would stare at my character sheet looking for the most optimal thing to do based on the skills and feats I had selected. All that said, when Non-Weapon Proficiencies, and later Skills, were added to the game, at the time I thought they were great specifically for the reason you point out: it takes pressure off a DM on how to decide how those kinds of things work. I've just changed my viewpoint on that over the years.
@douglasaustin7532
Жыл бұрын
Great video! I love seeing the evolution of the rules over the various editions. I also enjoy you comparing the skills systems with other games of the time. I’d love to get your thoughts on the introduction of the thief class and the thieves skills it added to the system.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for watching and commenting! The Thief commentary is something that a few people mentioned and in hindsight I should have at least mentioned it in this video. I have a series of videos I'd made some notes on regarding the various classes and I'd planned to discuss the Thief Skills issue then, so it didn't occur to me to address it here. Were I ever to remake this video, I'd definitely bring it up!
@Penfold497
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1thiefs RAW were the first terrible mistake of d&d. In a game about searching and sneaking, why would you give those abilities to a specialist? It makes the other characters stand around and wait while the thief does thief things. I took the thief out of my home game. Everyone does thief stuff. It is better.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@Penfold497 Thank you very much for watching and commenting (and reading the other comments!). The Thief class is definitely a topic of discussion among many old-time gamers, many of whom feel the same way you do. And, I can definitely see that point of view. Prior the Thief, pretty much any class could have been consider to occupy that role. I can see why the developer of the class thought it made sense based on the circumstances in his group, but I think it also could've just been handled as a DM ruling that a person could use STR *or* DEX to bypass a locked door, rather than creating a class specifically designed to pick the lock. Thanks again!
@Phsstpok
8 ай бұрын
as one who lived and played through almost all of those iterations and development (aside from the most earliest 70's ones) I applaud you.. that is exactly along the line of my memory.... and was a lot of fun listening to. :)
@joshpearson1870
Жыл бұрын
I was suprised you didn't discuss the Skills and Powers books that came out at the tail end of 2nd ed. My gaming group spent a lot of time working with that "2.5" system, which added a lot of flexibility for advanced play.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, I brought them up in my "History of D&D Editions" video, but in hindsight I could've mentioned them here. There's just so much material and so little time in these videos that it's inevitable I'm going to gloss over someone's favorite edition! I hope you liked the rest of the video. Thanks for watching and commenting.
@sststr
Жыл бұрын
The idea that there are certain types of things that all adventurers are assumed competent in and no explicit skill is required, there's an RPG out there called "Fading Suns" which has two types of skills, so-called "Natural Skills", which are of that sort and everybody has a certain minimum skill level in them (that can be improved with experience) and thus can attempt regardless of their class and background, and then there are "Learned Skills" which you have to have gained at least one level in to be able to attempt. It's one way of handling the problem that there are some things everybody should be expected to be able to do, while still walling off things that should require very specific training and knowledge.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Very cool! I know of Fading Suns, but my only experience with it from a gaming perspective is via the D20 Version from the early 2000's. The original game system you're talking about sounds really interesting! That is a great way to handle it.
@divergentlife493
Жыл бұрын
Thumbs up! This is perfect. I was trying to find info on when skills and opportunity of attack were added. At least there's info on skills. I tried reading that First Fantasy Campaign because that is my main interest. And I eventually found out about it. But I can't comprehend any of it.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I'm so glad you found my channel and this video! I can look into making a video about some other mechanics, like attacks of opportunity. They officially debuted as that term in 3E but prior to that there were specific rules for getting a free attack on an opponent that turned and fled/ran from combat - the specifics depend on the edition. 3E made it a lot clearer and simpler as well as expanding the definition of what triggered an attack of opportunity versus relying on a DM ruling. And I can very much relate with you on trying to read First Fantasy Campaign. It makes it very clear how much of an editing job Tim Kask had to do regarding Blackmoor: Supplement II (I talk about that more in my video on Assassins, Monks and Druids), and also makes one appreciate the work Gygax would have had to do to read Arneson's notes to make a cogent set of rules for Original D&D. First Fantasy Campaign seems, to me, as though it wasn't really edited - the sentences are unclear and many are not even full sentences, there are typos and grammatical mistakes throughout, and there is very little in the way of organization to help a person reading the book to find the information they are seeking. It's still a fun book as a peak into the history of the game and I'm glad I have it as an historical artifact, but as a usable document to try to run a Blackmoor game, it's not really helpful. Thanks for watching and commenting! I hope you stick around and find other videos you like!
@stefanyalpoesy42
7 ай бұрын
I notice in your discussion of OD&D you don't mention the Greyhawk supplement and the introduction of the Thief class and the associated percentile based "thieving skills" (Open Locks, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, etc.). I recall playing with a D&D group in 1978 or thereabouts where ALL characters were granted thief skills, just if you weren't a Thief (or other class or race that incorporated them, e.g. the Monk) the skills were stuck at something below the ratings for a 1st Level Thief (perhaps modified by DEX, I don't recall). I don't know this for a fact: but I strongly suspect the Greyhawk thieving skills were a significant influence on Steve Perrin's design of RuneQuest (and later BRP/D100 systems) with its percentile skill system.
@daddyrolleda1
7 ай бұрын
Funny you should mention that! You'll want to watch these two videos: "History of the Thief/Rogue Class": kzitem.info/news/bejne/oqlnz5aHhXNhf6gsi=OFT4iNuTFu-7rhg0 And this details much more specifically why I consider the Thief to have "class abilities" not "skills": kzitem.info/news/bejne/1WmtyZqhkaSQiYYsi=-fbgK7YtPK7vOyZJ Thank you for watching and commenting!
@scottmarsh2991
Жыл бұрын
Love how the story goes full-circle back to Ability Scores. Yeah, words mean shit! Who knew?
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
It's one of those cases where I think folks focus too much on what's different across editions versus what's the same!
@andrewsnee
8 ай бұрын
Early published adventures would often include spot rules for how to handle situations that now would require a skill check. The adventure in the back of the Holmes book, for example, has a spot rule for falling into a rushing river and being carried from one dungeon room to the next. Collectively it suggested to the novice DM that every situation was different, and the odds of various outcomes were up to you to set.
@manfredconnor3194
10 ай бұрын
I enjoyed this. Thanks for all that you do in covering the game. I especially enjoy your game-history segments as I started with the red box back in the day and made it up to 1e and 2e after that life interfered with my gaming and I missed a lot until 5e came out. Your game history-segments really help me gain an overview of what has happened in the hobby since the golden age of role-playing! Here are my scattered thoughts on skills in D&D . . . . (sorry it's long) Skills-based games are much better than class based games. Ideally however, one would have a game that is a matrix system of both. Any medieval fantasy game is going to be rooted in guilds and hereditary professions. There was not much class mobility in medieval societies. If you want a game that has this kind of realistic feel. Then classes should be used to make certain sets of skill available to characters. This allows you to provide certain historical professions backgrounds and fields or schools. For example, characters with a rogue character could choose to be part of the Thieves Guild. This would give them certain benefits and access to a particular skill set that others would not necessarily have. At the same time, it would saddle them with constraints and duties, that could be interesting or used as plot devices. Schools of fighting can be developed to reflect certain schools of swordsmanship, archery, etc. Knightly orders could be created that would give characters certain obligations and vassalage, but perhaps also really good riding or weapons skills. One of the most streamlined, beer and pretzels ideas in D&D 5e is the concept of the level-up. It is also one of the stupidest ideas in terms of role-playing. Your character's ability goes up across the board. For get that you have not used your crossbow in 50 battles or encounters, you just magically get better at it. Stupid. You have to practice with, work at, use a skill to get better. You do not just get better at everything at once. The idea that everyone within a particular class gets better at everything they do across the board at the same time in the same way at each level is not only boring, but it is stupid and unrealistic. Everyone knows what a 5th level fighter can do. Every one of them gets the same few options to chose from. Some of the class options are not great at all and are ruin a character's effectiveness just because they want to roleplay a Beastmaster, for example. In addition, the skills in D&D 5e are way too vague. Acrobat for example covers acrobat (like human fly and trapeze tricks) just as it covers sliding on ice or fighting on a ship's deck. Why couldn't someone be good at picking locks but have no skill at sleight of hand? Why couldn't a wizard learn to fight with a shield and sword or maybe even a poleaxe? Certainly, they would not be as good as a Paladin or a knight with such weapons skills, but they could certainly give a rogue a surprise. In a way the addition of damage-dealing cantrips that you can cast all the time took away the need for this, which is good in one sense, but also bad in another. There is really no real diversity among characters of a certain class. They are cookie cutter characters with a few possible variants and they all predictably get better at the same things at the same time. Every 5th level fighter gets 2 attacks for example. Adding skills lets players diversify their characters and it gives them a more varied palette of strengths and weaknesses. It also allows for some interesting variations. Perhaps a Paladin has learned lockpicking, but only uses this skill for "good" purposes. Why not? I would get rid of the across the board proficiency bonus and add skills with 3 to 5 levels, each level would get you a plus in that skill. Each level would require a higher expenditure of experience. Characters could skill level to gain ability scores or feats and HP, but skills could be bought out of level and they would be a little cheaper in exp. than leveling up. This might incentivize players to invest in their character's skills after say 3rd level instead of spending experience points on the next level up. Sure it is a bit more "fiddley" but it creates a richer more diversified game and a more realistic one. Players might weigh whether it is better to level-up their character to get some more HP, an attribute increase or a particular feat or perhaps a special ability like the 2nd attack, but maybe it would be cheaper and better for them to get better with their spear, sword, shield or bow? A 5th level fighter might think twice about engaging in a duel with a 2nd level fighter, who had sunk all their experience into their sword skill, for example. D&D 5e is certainly missing certain skills that would add flavor to the game. Nature and Survival for example could be kept as all-encompassing skills for rangers, druids and monks, but there could be herblore, animal/monster lore, hunting, fishing, tracking, snares, knot-tying, shelter-making as separate cheaper more broken-down skills. So maybe your fighter paladin or wizard is not a bloody ranger with full nature and survival skills, but s/he can at least track or make a shelter, see what I mean? Maybe your thief learned a thing or two about Medicine? Perhaps your paladin learned how to do the tango? Whatever. To me D&D 5e characters also get to big too fast. I would like to keep the PCs in the sweet spot longer before they become superhero-gods. I am not articulating this very well, but I hope you get my point(s)? Skill-based systems are more fun and provide more rich, unpredictable, diversity to characters and they give player more autonomy in shaping their characters. They also give NPCs and villains more flavor and a few surprises. Maybe you do not like that kind of game play? Well, 5e is always there waiting for you then.
@paavohirn3728
Жыл бұрын
Despite knowing and having been through almost everything mentioned I found this very interesting and nicely presented. Thank you! When I learned enough English as a kid to read the Alphatia and Thyatis books I immediately fell in love with the skill system. I'm the last few years I've enjoyed more simplified OSR approaches. Never really liked the percentile skill based systems I'm afraid.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I really appreciate you watching and commenting - thank you so much! And I especially appreciate that you watched even though you knew most of the content already. Those Gazetteer books were great and I had a similar journey as yours, appreciating skills systems from those as well as the NWPs from the later 1E books, but over time, I've preferred a more simplified approach as well. I run a modified 1981 B/X game for my 13 year-old daughter and her friends, and we don't use skill systems at all. Thanks again!
@paavohirn3728
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 Yeah. I started with the Finnish translation of BECMI and got that Gazetteer box when I saw it in the game store even though I couldn't read most of it. Once I learnt enough English I switched to 2nd ed and Forgotten Realms which were really well supported by that time in the first dedicated RPG store in Finland (I'm pretty sure it was the first). The skill system in BECMI was quite well developed I think. Now I'm learning not to depend on skill checks in OSE though I notice I'm having my players roll under ability quite often. Mostly when it makes the action more exciting though so not as much as in 5e. Super cool that you get to play with your kid and I'm sure B/X still rocks for that too!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@paavohirn3728 Over the past few years, I've come to learn there is a vibrant RPG community in Finland! That's fantastic! Yes, I am very lucky to be able to play D&D with her. It was something I started for her during the pandemic lockdowns as a way to her to be able to engage with her friends on a regularly scheduled basis (she's an only child and desperately needed to talk to kids/friends her age). And as she's gotten older, it's a way for me to have something that she and I do together since she no longer wants to play Legos with me or have me read stories to her, etc. (which makes sense, of course, but I have no experience with fashion or make-up or the stuff she's interested in, so this gives us some "common ground").
@paavohirn3728
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 I'm not really connected to the wider rpg community here as I'm not much of a con goer but I'm aware it's going strong. There's even a club in the small town I live in now. I'm lucky to have a couple of groups of friends to play with and especially lucky to share the hobby with my wife. We also found a new shared hobby in Legos, such as the new Rivendell set designed for mature (i guess 🤣) builders. Darned expensive stuff though. Real happy to hear about your gaming with your daughter! I hope it's a great bond for the two of you going far into the future.
@cragland94
Жыл бұрын
love your videos! hope you get to 1k subs soon 📈
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! I really appreciate your support, and I'm really glad you liked the video. Cheers!
@FreeBroccoli
6 ай бұрын
Interesting point regarding assumed competence. I came into the hobby with 4e Essentials, and I never thought you *had* to be trained/proficient in a skill in order to use it, unless something in the rules specifically said so for a certain application (e.g. halving falling damage with an acrobatics check). The same has been true as I've played 5e. It may be that 5e's skill system works just fine as long as DMs know when to call for checks, and players know that their skill proficiency don't limit their actions. I've been thinking about this recently as I'm trying to move from 5e into OSR. I like the idea that, while every character can attempt to climb a tree or ride a horse, some characters are better at it based on their background and class.
@daddyrolleda1
6 ай бұрын
I think the last part you write is specifically why these things get so tricky when trying to tack a skill system onto a class-and-level game that originally used the class abilities to describe what certain characters were good at doing and kept them distinct, as archetypes. Fighters fight, magic-users cast magic, clerics heal and turn undead, thieves sneak. That's part of the beauty and simplicity of a class-and-level system. The differentiation comes from roleplaying and things like that, versus relying on skills or other abilities to define a character.
@retrodmray
Жыл бұрын
Totally agree with Nick here! Great video, sir! Thnx 👍Having to have that skill to do something also implies the reverse too...that if you don't have that then you can't do that thing... like you say. Love you approach to how you sorta ask a "background" kinda question of the players at the table at that time. 😎
@DMTalesTTRPG
Жыл бұрын
Skills kinda get in the way in D&D and derivatives, but I do like the roll under agility score to do tasks. It makes the scores mean something.
@retrodmray
Жыл бұрын
@@DMTalesTTRPG Absolutely. 👍 🤓
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much - I really appreciate your comments and your support. I'm planning some videos that will delve a bit more into my approach at the table and some of the different things I do, like the background question. I hope folks will enjoy those.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@DMTalesTTRPG I would be honored!
@RoninCatholic
Жыл бұрын
I believe a full point-buy skill system, subclasses, feats, and kits are all good customization systems for a finite set of broad but well-defined classes. I believe having more than one or maybe two of them is customization overkill, leading either to D&D 3e/Pathfinder's issue of "good builds" vs "bad builds" and intentional developer-laid "beginner traps" to make the difference in character customization mastery even sharper in the _better designed_ cases, or leading to bland adventures where your customization doesn't matter because all parties are guaranteed victory anyway planning around the potential for poor optimization. Keeping the list of customization options narrow and well defined so it can be planned around is good. Like if the only classes were Fighter (skilled at combat in all its forms), Thief (skilled at circumventing and avoiding combat through stealth and social skills), Wizard (special powers derived from knowledge of and impersonal relationship to natural forces), and Cleric (special powers derived from personal, social relationship to specific supernatural entities) and there were, for instance, Kits/Subclasses to turn your base wizard into a partial warrior by specializing in spells of protection and direct damage and granting proficiencies in some weapons and armor and for turning your base fighter into a partial wizard by broadening his personal definition of a weapon to include spells and magic items like wands and staves. Under such a system, I'd give the Thief and Cleric at their base level less fighting capacity (both on par with the Wizard, whether by giving the Wizard light armor to raise him up or not) and Thieves wouldn't have Use Magic Device by default. So you'd have pure Fighter, Thief, Mage, and Cleric, then Fighter-Mage, Fighter-Thief, Fighter-Cleric, Thief-Fighter, Thief-Mage, Thief-Cleric, etc. etc. and possibly even triple and quadruple classes ("classic JRPG Hero" is a Fighter with equal Mage and Cleric but a distinct lack of Thief skills, "classic WRPG solo adventurer" is a Fighter with equal Mage and Thief secondary skills but his clerical aspects if any amount to the Mage spell list including a self-healing spell or two). There's a lot to be said for pure point buy systems too, but I feel most point buy systems offer too many options overall, or not enough firmly worked examples. The Fantasy Trip and Dark City Games (a retroclone of it) are roughly my preference there, though the former still having a Hero/Wizard class divide overly penalizes the character concepts of blended warrior-wizards which are among my favorites, and the fact that spells are cast from HP makes healing magic almost automatically either useless or completely broken, which is why it doesn't exist in that system at all. Healing is done naturally with rest, through mundane medical care, and through expensive consumable potions. Having Fatigue burn off a different stat than Strength leads to a different issue, in that the usual stat trinity is cleverly made in such a way that all character archetypes have different priorities but ultimately all want all their stats to be high. For me, I don't care as much how the system lets me get it, I want a guy who can wear chainmail, wield a boomerang, a sword or a battle axe, cast healing spells, and throw around elemental blasty blast magic.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for this very detailed and insightful comment! I really appreciate it! I am definitely not a "build" person when it comes to creating characters, and it's one of the reasons I've soured on 3.5 and Pathfinder 1E, when, if you'd asked me ~10 years ago, I really liked them! The majority of my RPG Collection is actually 3.5/PF stuff, I think (especially if you count PDFs in addition to physical books) but it just doesn't appeal to me any more. Your last paragraph/statement is fun. For myself, I prefer more niche roles versus a one-man army who can do all those things, but I do understand the appeal!
@protohacker9303
Жыл бұрын
Firstly, the caveat. Most of this is from nearly 50-year old memory now, so I won't say I've got it right. But much of new material that made it into later editions started as articles in either Dungeon or Dragon magazine. I'll bet (I can't verify this as I only have a handful of Dragon magazines, although I do have the one that created the bard class) that the discussion of weapon proficiencies started there because someone came up with the idea for it and published it in the magazine. That led to a later discussion of non-weapon proficiencies which was a natural evolution of weapon proficiencies. I don't know if you have any Dragon or Dungeon magazines, but I think it would be a cool set of videos to do some on the evolution of various now common rules/classes, etc as begun in the pages of the magazines.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
This is a great idea for a series! I'll add it to the queue! I loved Dragon back in the day. My first issue was a gift from my friend and his mom for my birthday - issue #76. I hadn't even heard of the magazine before then. The next time we went to Waldenbooks at the mall, I went to the magazine racks and found #72 with the Cavalier, and began reading pretty consistently from that point on. Best of Dragon I and II were some of my favorites. Starting with issue #90, my grandma gave me a subscription, and I kept that up all the way until the bitter end of the print issues with #359. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@TurboWulfe
8 ай бұрын
Great vid series, I like the skill system from Palladium myself I always thought it rounded out a character a bit more. My opinion. Take care 😎🤘🍻
@daddyrolleda1
8 ай бұрын
Thank you so much for watching and commenting. I really appreciate it! Other than owning "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness" (which I loaned to a friend, forgot about, and never got back), I didn't really dabble too much into the Palladium systems. My gaming group was 100% TSR so I "missed" a lot of other games back in the day.
@markzsombor6059
Жыл бұрын
The discussion seems incomplete to me without mentioning Thieves. The 3e skill system to me always seemed like taking the previous rogue skill system, converting it to d20 and expanding it to be available to all classes. The implementation of 3e (and later) skills doesn't really take much from non-weapon proficiencies, but is firmly grounded in rogue skills. Additionally my guess why non-weapon profs weren't called skills was to keep them distinct from the skills thieves/bards/rangers received. I feel like where the old rogue skills were superior to modern skills is they represented extraordinary things, like not being seen while in plain view or climbing a smooth surface, and were outside of the realm of things a normally competent character could be expected to do..
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting. This is a good point. I have a list of topics I plan to make into videos, and one of those was on the different character classes so I had thought to discuss this when I got to the Thief video. But, in retrospect, it might have been good to at least address it here. I can see your point. I do hope you stick around and watch (at least) the Thief video when I get to it. I'm now moving it up in the queue based on yours and a few other peoples' comments.
@markzsombor6059
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 Makes sense. I've really enjoyed the videos so far!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@markzsombor6059 Thank you for letting me know! I appreciate you taking the time to comment. Have a great rest of your weekend!
@stevenkennedy4130
Ай бұрын
Thanks for the share!!
@daddyrolleda1
Ай бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting!
@DareToWonder
Жыл бұрын
man i can't believe its been 50 years
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I feel that way all the time! It's crazy to think it's been that long. Thank you for watching and commenting!
@josephpurdy8390
10 ай бұрын
A bell curve can be utilized in skill checks. If a set value is done this way. A roll equal to or less than the value determines success. Unlike advantage/disadvantage rolls. Advantages can be plusses to dice rolled, and disadvantages can be subtracted from the required value. The nature of the rolls will be more consistent with meeting the difficulty class in the middle of the range. Below the difficulty class will be lower, but those count as success. The upper range is used to determine failure chance. Players can make choices about their outcomes. The more dice they roll. The more challenging the outcome is to accomplish. Trival tasks can be accomplished without any roll for those whom are skilled. Meanwhile, those lacking proficiency need to make a check.
@lukerabon7925
Жыл бұрын
Havent watched the whole thing so this may come up, but the interesting thing about "you're assumed to be competent unless the DM thinks this circumstance requires a check" is that the same sentiment is actually in the rules of most editions of D&D. Like, in 3e/3.5 you dont actually roll Ride unless you're doing something acrobatic or dangerous with your horse, you wouldn't roll Swim except in rough waters or if something was trying to drown you, etc. But in 3e's case it puts these expectations *within* the rules instead of laying them at the feet of the DM to figure out and be consistent on, for better or worse. And because that influenced some groups to roll for everything except walking and eating , you get this insistence from some people that D&D requires a roll for every action you take. But if you read the rules of a given edition it often explicitly tells you to not roll too often or for trivial things.
@antondovydaitis2261
Жыл бұрын
For early skills, I would have started with Thieves, pick locks, remove traps, and so on, and also racial, like Dwarves detect slopes, and Elves, Spot Secret Doors. CalTech-MIT/Warlock Thieves had abilities that they could pick based on level.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I few folks have mentioned that, and I guess it's just the way I interpreted those things, as I don't really see them as "skills" but rather as "class abilities." I always looked at Skills as something *any* character can do, whereas class abilities are specific to only those characters. So, something like a Thief's backstab and pick locks are something only a Thief can do. Another character can attack from behind, but only a Thief can backstab and get the extra bonuses to hit and damage. Any character can brute force open a lock by breaking it and making a lot of noise and taking a lot of time, but only a Thief is skilled enough to pick it, being quiet while doing so and leaving the lock in a state that it can be reused. That's why I separated them in my head. But, I did make a video on the Thief class if that's of interest to you: kzitem.info/news/bejne/oqlnz5aHhXNhf6gsi=UJdgc0v9SwyOcNFG Thank you for watching and commenting!
@antondovydaitis2261
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 I saw the Thief Video. You might want to look at CalTech MIT Warlock D&D variant Thieves.
@BillWiltfong
Жыл бұрын
I'm surprised you didn't mention that 5th edition returns to the "characters are competent" model, in that it doesn't restrict any (non-tool-required) action based on proficiencies.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
That's a good point. I do tend to focus most of my history videos on the earlier days, as I have assumed (maybe incorrectly) that folks are more familiar with the more current versions. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@GenuineMattyC
11 ай бұрын
I LOVE your videos, but the KZitem advertisement settings seem a bit high. I get notably more ads when watching these videos compared to other channels with similar content. I don't know if there's a way for you to adjust this (or if you would want to), but I thought I'd mention it.
@daddyrolleda1
11 ай бұрын
Firstly, thank you so much for watching and commenting, and for your support of the channel! The ad settings are just set to the default - I didn't change anything, so I'm not sure why that's happening. I've noticed it happen to me on other videos, though. Sometimes I'll watch a video and there are no ads at all, and later I'll go back and re-watch it and there will be a ton of ads. I'm not sure why that happens. Thank you again - I hope it gets figured out so it doesn't ruin your viewing experience.
@shawnfisher9976
Жыл бұрын
This is an outstanding video. Well done. A perfect review. Subscribed!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much! I really appreciate your support. I'm so glad you liked the video! I have a bunch of other "historical" videos on here and I'll be making more in the future. Cheers!
@BX-advocate
Жыл бұрын
I think skills in D&D detract from the game overall I prefer BX roll under system add a lot of flexibility. However I do like games that are skill based like Call of Cthulhu, so really to me its either all skills or no skills I think the mix doesn't work well but thats just my opinion.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I tend to agree with you. Back when Non-Weapon Proficiencies were created in the late 1E era, then part of the core game in 2E and finally changed to the Skill system in 3E, at the time, I thought it was a great way to help define and differentiate a PC, but over time I've come to the conclusion that class-and-level systems don't really need skills, as those "skills" are part of the class design, and then ones that aren't can be roleplayed and adjudicated by the Referee as needed. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@Demonskunk
9 ай бұрын
I think skills add to the game. I feel that they make the character feel more fleshed out, whereas characters without skills feel more like an avatar for the player to project onto rather than a complete character separate from the player.
@ryannilsson7955
Жыл бұрын
I played a lot of Palladium games when I was a kid, and those lean heavy into skills for your character. Looking back, it was very obnoxious - it made character creation take forever and a lot of the skills were never used, when things you would want in a given moment were not on your character sheet. Looking at old school D&D, where these things were not a feature, is so refreshing to me. You can just jump in the game and have fun. I can see a use for class-specific skills, or abilities, like in the case of a thief. And it is even interesting to be able to develop these along a customized path, differently from how another player might. But I don’t like the idea at all of everyone having to set down to a long list of skills and go through the tedious process of selecting various skills that may not have anything to do with your character’s class. If someone wants to flesh out a character beyond their class, then a simple table to roll on for a previous occupation should be sufficient.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I definitely resonate with this comment and think we're on the same page. When 3E came out, I really *liked* the skill system, but over the past few years, I've really come back to the idea that it's not really adding much to the game, and it does also mean character creation takes that much longer. I'm also of the mind that the more options you add for PCs to pick from actually means less freedom to do things in the game, because you start focusing only on the things you've put points into and avoid doing things you didn't put points into because "you're not good at it" or whatever. The players in my daughter's game almost never look at their sheets because there is very little on there they need during the game other than HP and Saving Throws. They all have their attack bonus memorized. So instead they are always engaged and asking, "Can I try this?" instead of looking at their sheet hoping it will give them an idea of what to do.
@johnparochelli9202
Жыл бұрын
Using the Original D&D rules and a lot of work, I put together a game for some girls at my school. They wanted R.P. heavy gaming WITHOUT hack and slash! I relied heavily on "skills and crafts" as opposed to weapons and spells. They played Rabbits fleeing from the destruction of their warren aka Watership down. I had to figure out how to monetize R.P. and the creative use of skills. Each game session had 1 major event and a jackpot of xp. Numerous things could go wrong and each element of that session was worth so much xp. Fail to achieve an element through R.P. and skill use, lose that much xp. from the total. Definitely a learning experience and not for the faint of heart. Are you aware of the use of skills in GURPS? I didn't hear it mentioned and don't remember the publication date.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I have a few GURPs books that I bought as inspiration for other things I was working on, but never played the system. As a system it isn't released until 1986 (after Man-to-Man in 1985) and, IN GENERAL, I tend to focus my history videos on that era before that. RPGs exploded in the 80's and there's always going to be ones that I don't mention either due to time or unfamiliarity. Your custom game sounds like a lot of fun! Have you heard of Bunnies & Burrows? One of the very earliest TTRPGs and it might have some elements in there you could use in your game for inspiration, if you're still running that game or intend to run it again in the future. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
@hectorcornejo1468
Жыл бұрын
I stopped playing briefly after 3.5 and returned for 5th, but during my exodus I missed the whole reason of the split that caused Pathfinder to be created. Can you make a video based on that history? I dont know much about that game to be honest. I bought the beginners boxset a couple weeks ago but only barely touched upon it so far. I see that there are a lot of skills in that system, and it looks very much like the 3rd edition(s) that I left behind when I stopped playing.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Firstly, thank you so much for watching and commenting! I really appreciate it! And that's a great idea for a future video, and one I can start to work on. But, your initial analysis is correct in that Pathfinder (at least, Pathfinder 1E; they're onto a 2nd Edition now) is very similar to D&D 3.5 and that was an intentional design choice made during the days of 4E. But I can certainly go into the reasoning why and some of the design choices that were made. Thanks again for your support!
@MrBubbydoo
Жыл бұрын
I like the idea of skills in D&D or any other game. I can make my Character more defined. I like the idea that a character can know some mundane info because of skills. eg We should not eat that carcass (due to having cooking skills,or survival ). Or that weapon is garbage (Blacksmith/Weapon Smith).
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for watching and commenting. I really appreciate it! I loved Non-Weapon proficiencies when they first came out in the mid-80's during the late 1E era. Over time, I've used them less and less and now in the Moldvay Basic game I run for my daughter, I just ask for ability checks, but it's very rare (at most, 1-2 times per session). But this has encouraged the players to ask me, "Can I try XYZ?" which I think they wouldn't do if they had a list of defined skills. They come up with a lot of really creative ideas that I wouldn't have considered and that I think they also wouldn't have thought of if they had a list of skills on their sheet that limited what they thought they were capable of doing. Thanks again for watching! I hope you continue to watch and enjoy the channel. If there's a topic you'd like to see me cover, let me know!
@Lightmane
Жыл бұрын
I think skills are fine, if that's what you want to play, but clearly they're not necessary, as millions of people loved playing D&D before skills were introduced into the game. The first time I played was 1980, so no skills were in the game, and that first game is still the best D&D I ever played, knowing none of the rules. It was great because the entire game took place in my imagination. We played in our dorm room, and either sat on the floor or one of the beds. We all had a piece of paper that we turned into our character sheet. No mini figs were used. The DM wrote down what our marching order was. My character was a fighter, so all I did was fight with my sword. There were some abilities, like Ranger abilities, Thief abilities, etc. but the game was just the DM telling us what's happening, and us saying what we were doing, and the DM would tell us what would happen, etc. Now D&D is all about your character and their back-story. That's fine, if you want to have a back-story, but it's not necessary to play D&D, but I think today that most people think it is. I'd love to see a video where 5e players sit down to play BECMI D&D, or 1st edition AD&D, to see what they think. Maybe someone's already done a video about this, and I've just never seen it : )
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for sharing your experiences! For folks here reading the comments, Lightmane has a channel that covers his early experiences with roleplaying and there's also a fantasy story there as well. Check it out! The way you describe playing at your first adventure back in the 80's is very much how I run the modified B/X game I run for my 13 year-old daughter and her friends now. It's theater-of-the-mind (no minis, I use maps only very occasionally, but I do show pictures of creatures, NPCs, etc., as I mentioned in your video a few days ago) and the way we play is they ask me, "Can I do XYZ?" and I make a ruling which is usually about 90% "Yes" or "Yes, but you need to roll" or "Yes, but you need to roll, and if you fail, there will be a consequence." It's only very rarely "No" and when it is, I explain to them exactly why and help them work toward a solution that's close to what they wanted. I like your idea of introducing 5E players to B/X or BECMI. I do believe there are some channels out there that have dabbled in this, but I can't recall off the top of my head. I don't currently know any 5E players who are completely unfamiliar with earlier styles of play, or else I'd try to take a stab at it!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@Lightmane You did mention Dungeon Minister before, and I have heard of The Dungeon Delver, but I will definitely go back to check them out. Thanks!
@Lightmane
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 Well, there's the yt channel that's called 'The Dungeon Delver' and then there's 'thedungeondelver'. Too bad someone made that channel before he did : ) His name is Bill Silvy, and he both knew, and worked with Gary Gygax for a time. He livestreams M-F evenings, and plays 1st edition AD&D, Gamma World, and sometimes Traveller, on his stream. He also puts out videos during the day sometimes. I think you'll enjoy both channels. ttyl : )
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@Lightmane Ah, yes. I've chatted with thedungeondelver on Twitter. He and I were just recently chatting there about my Skills video. Cheers!
@dontyodelsohard2456
Жыл бұрын
I like skills as a concept... But there is always something that is either grouped together or could be combined and the arguments over what a skill covers compared to something else ensues. So, really, I think the perfect solution is sort of what it appears what skills (or non-weapon proficiencies) used to be... And that's a theoretically indefinite list of skills where anyone can sort of try anything but maybe you are a bit better if you are trained in it. Also some things you just cannot really do to well untrained. Like if the skills section was a blank list and you can write down skills and your bonus to them as needed-if you can't tell, being a comparatively modern gamer official character sheets are ingrained in my perception of the hobby. That's also why a skill based system really appeals to me even though I have never really got to play one in any real sense. It makes sense that anyone might be able to do anything if they train to do so... But in a sense class and level systems with enough variety and multiclassing also have that concept: like anyone can technically learn how to pick out vitals on someone by simply taking a level in rogue... Or with some more levels you can learn anything else a Rogue might... Or a Barbarian's rage (another more modern concept, here)... Spellcasting even is within reach for those willing to put a level in any spell caster! Sorry, my use of ellipsis is horrible here, but I think you get the point.
@RobertWF42
Жыл бұрын
Interesting that D&D didn't have skills for melee and ranged weapons - being a combat oriented game you'd think that would be first priority! In fact melee should have been resolved as an opposed skill roll rather than to-hit v. AC. After all learning to parry, block, riposte, etc. is part of being a skilled fighter, not just attacking. In 3.5 there were optional rules for a Defense Bonus that adds a level bonus to your AC. IMO this makes a lot of sense. For 5e, adding your weapon proficiency to your AC is equivalent to a Defense Bonus.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I can see that viewpoint. I think they were just built into the character class abilities (so, Fighters got better at fighting quicker than other classes and can use all kinds of weapons, etc.). Over the years, lots of folks have done systems like the parry, block, riposte, etc., that you're talking about to add more "realism" to combat, and I know a lot of folks like that. I tend to prefer a more abstract combat system myself, with the assumption that there are dozens of those moves happening during a combat but what we call "hits" are just the ones that struck a vital area and did significant damage. As for AC improving with level, I can see that, too, but if attack bonus is also increasing, then the net result kind of all equals out, right? But it's an interesting experiment! I seem to recall Arms Law for Rolemaster had a ton of mechanics for making combat more detailed and realistic and used a lot of these ideas. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
@AchanhiArusa
Жыл бұрын
You forgot the Wilderness Survival Guide and the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide.
@matusfekete6503
Жыл бұрын
For me skills may be great tootl how to differentiate your character and make game more interactive but best to let them be optional. My two 'rules' how to implement skills are: 1; Anybody can do it (otherwise it's class/race ability), but proficiency makes you better. 2; Skill checks are made on DM's discretion, skill check should be called for only if there are consequences for failing. (For example, anybody can ride horse without any dice rolling until they enter race, have time limit to reach goal, etc.)
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
That is a great approach - I like it! It's very similar to what I do in terms of rolling (only if there's a consequence for failure) but I just use straight attribute checks. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
@andrewtomlinson5237
Жыл бұрын
With you 100%, especially on number 2. I've caught beef with so many newer players over my absolute refusal to allow anyone to say "I'm going to roll for X Y Z..." and often get told that I'm "Denying player agency" (I'm not even sure what that means) by not allowing a player choose what skill they want to use. But my very simple rule is that the player tells me what they want their character to try and do, and I will decide if it even needs a roll, if it does I say what that roll IS, what the target is, and whether it works or not. I even apply this rule in Skill based games like Runequest/Mythras and Call of Cthulhu, because with those kinds of games "Skill Management" can become a big distraction. I run a very "You just play your character, I'll tell you when you need to roll some dice" table.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@andrewtomlinson5237 I'm a bit lucky in that my daughter and her friends have absolutely no context of having played a TTRPG before, but for her game, they *never* think of picking up the dice or even looking at their sheet when they want to do stuff. They just ask, "Hey, can I try XYZ...?" and I answer either: "Yes, that's fine" or "Yes, but you need to roll to succeed" or "Yes, you need to roll, but if you fail, there's a consequence." It all depends on the situation. And they I tell them what to roll, and adjudicate the outcome of their dice rolls.
@martinbowman1993
6 ай бұрын
I like Traveller but it only has one class - traveller - and everyone is distinguished by their back story. I love traveller and skill systems but I haven't seen a skill system that does professions and professional development and skills really well
@korakys
11 ай бұрын
I think it's better to have character building be skill based rather than class based, but it's a good idea to have preset packages of skills that act as easy starting points for players that don't want to think too hard about this stuff.
@Michael-ws7rc
2 ай бұрын
Man I am loving your videos.
@daddyrolleda1
2 ай бұрын
Thank you so much! I really enjoy hearing that!
@martinbowman1993
6 ай бұрын
I think in early D&D everything was solved with violence and non violent situations were either stealing or magic; but there didn't seem to really be a mechanism for solving problems without violence. I like Basic Roleplaying Game from Chaosium for Call of Cthulhu, but like Traveller there is one class - Investigator - and profession is a kind of narrative element with some mechanical elements but not much. I don't really like the system for anything outside of CoC.
@SuperFunkmachine
Жыл бұрын
One thing skills do is slow down character creation as now there a dozen things you have to pick from and half dozen thing to note down.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I agree with this! It's one of the main things I really like about creating characters in B/X D&D. It only takes about 5 minutes!
@DareToWonder
Жыл бұрын
20 on performance roll!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Oh, wow, thanks! I really don't like he sound of my voice, and others have suggested I show show myself talking about these books but my teenage daughter has politely requested that I not show my face on camera so as not to cause her ultimate embarrassment in the event that someone from her school stumbled across my channel. I am so glad you enjoyed the video and found my channel. I look forward to continuing to chat with you. Cheers!
@DareToWonder
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 oh come on, teenage girls are the least likely to see vids about old old school rpgs
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@DareToWonder Oh, I know! But I'm trying to respect her wishes for a bit. I'm sure she'll grow out of it!
@ObatongoSensei
Жыл бұрын
What I never liked much about skills/proficiencies is how underestimated they have been through most of the story of D&D. They were mostly seen as an accessory, kinda secondary and unimportant. That's the main reason why 4th edition cleaved away most of them, leaving basically only the ones that had some evident utility in combat or in skill challenges. I admit that at times the skill list was quite excessive, with many things that shouldn't even have been labeled as their own skills (for example, the grooming nonweapon proficiency from the al Qadím setting) and others that had only one single use in the game (for example, most of the Profession skills from 3.x), but treating them only like flavor or characterization was a bit excessive in my opinion. In 3.x, for example, giving a +1 to a skill was worth 20 times less than giving a +1 to a weapon, despite having in the game some incredibly versatile, useful, and powerful skills. Also, classes that should have been masters at using skills actually had absolutely no advantages over other classes when using them (the rogue, ranger and bard from 3rd edition onward are a good example). The typical 3rd edition/Pathfinder 1e player doesn't even know that the primary stat of the rogue class is Intelligence, because he doesn't even think about building up its skills. Most of the time they go Dex to optimize sneak attack and end up having a somewhat fragile, one-trick pony combatant, instead of a multitalented jack of all trades capable of solving a ton of problems in an uncountable number of ways.
@JayVandemark-v1f
Жыл бұрын
True I will point out that 2nd addition had non weapon profesioncies though it’s not actually called skills
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Yes - I chat about that at this point here: kzitem.info/news/bejne/xIGru4h5joZ0pG0si=tBIo80ZhhYhGat5Y&t=943 Thanks for watching and commenting!
@KabukiKid
Жыл бұрын
Personally, I like D&D without skills. I have played plenty of RPGs over the years that do include skills and that can be fun, but I don't feel like they fit as well in D&D, since it is a class-based system. I played in a Palladium/AD&D 1e hybrid game for a while and our DM used the skills from Palladium Fantasy and honestly, they drove me nuts. lol I also am not a big GURPS fan. It takes ages to make a character, as well. I did like skills in the Storyteller games, though... Hunters Hunted was the one I liked, since you were the humans fighting the supernatural beings, rather than being the vampires and werewolves. Being the monster was the popular thing in those games, but I liked being the human. Call me boring. ;-) Also, in a skill-based game, everyone is always picking up their sheet and staring at it for a solution to the issue at hand. I much prefer old-school style D&D that omits skills like that and makes the game flow easier.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
"Playing your sheet" versus "playing the game" is something I've really come to understand I don't particularly like in tabletop RPGs. I'm not sure exactly what the turning point was for the industry in general, but for me I began to notice it after playing 3E for a few years. I I realized my solution to every challenge one of two things: 1) I did the same thing I always did, based on how I had maxed out my skill points, picked my feats, and maximized my class and racial abilities; or, 2) I didn't try, because I did not have the relevant skills/feats/powers to attempt the thing with a statistically likely chance of success. I began to view the game from a numbers standpoint and it was very much a video-game approach, and I started to grow dissatisfied. It's part of the reason one of my game groups started playing Savage Worlds, as that game is almost designed *not* to be able to be min-maxed. Every PC in that game has Hindrances, which are role-played. And, it's the reason I chose to have my daughter and her friends start playing with the same game I began with, my old 1981 Moldvay Basic set. I have modified some things, but we're really enjoying it!
@KabukiKid
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 Moldvay Basic is maybe the best starting point there is... that or the Mentzer Basic. Basically the same thing. That bare-bones and simplified version of the game is maybe the best there is. Part of why OSE is getting so much attention and love recently. I started with Moldvay Basic too, btw. :-)
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@KabukiKid That's awesome! Great to meet a fellow Moldvay gamer! I actually do use OSE at my table for the game for my daughter, mainly to keep my old Moldvay Basic box from getting even more worn (as you saw in the video, the box is showing its age even though the book is in really good shape). And I like the layout of OSE for finding things quickly if needed.
@knghtbrd
Жыл бұрын
I know your focus is more on early stuff, but as we're beginning to look more and more at a post D&D® world because WotC's pace for unforced errors seems to be rapidly accelerating, I greatly appreciate some newer games are using backgrounds in lieu of a formal skill system specifically because I had access to 1E and B/X games as a kid (though the books I owned when I finally did own books were 2E!) We didn't usually put too much thought into a character's background until they'd survived a couple of levels because there wouldn't be much point. Why did my thief turn to a life of crime? Dunno, he's got 2HP max, Ask me again if he lives long enough to have 8-10! But with the addition of a one line background, I have a plausible reason why I'd be better than average at some things, but I can still do anything.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for watching and commenting. I really appreciate it! I'm a big fan of a lot of other games, such as Knave 2nd Edition that's coming out (the Kickstarter is going on as I write this, May 2023) that has a table of random backgrounds one can roll (or, if preferred, choose from) to determine what the PC did prior to becoming an adventurer. I do think that's a great way to add a bit of uniqueness to a PC without a detailed background. I know a lot of old-time gamers don't like backgrounds, and while I don't need an 8-page background, having a player hand me a few sentences or a paragraph can help me as a DM because then I automatically have some ways to help engage that player. And, of course, I always twist them and do unexpected things with the background, but they definitely can give me ideas!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Oh, also, I'll definitely be including reviews of other games (mostly old-school clones and such) and also talking about my DM philosophy and showing examples of how I run a modified B/X game for my 13 year-old daughter and her friends. But what I've noticed is that my review videos (such as my "Desert Island" series) get far fewer views and comments than my "D&D History" videos, so I'm trying to balance that a bit. I'm not sure if it's because I'm reviewing things folks aren't interested in, or if it's because I've been pigeon-holed into "the D&D history guy."
@knghtbrd
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 I consider Knave, Maze Rats, Old School Essentials, Shadowdark, Index Card RPG, and Cairn to be indespensible. Add Mausritter to the list if you're going to play with little ones at some point, and I'm glad to be supporting Knave 2E as well (Premium - All In!) I can recommend all of them, and a couple more besides for "metal AF" artistic reasons (Mörk Borg, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Deathbringer). A person can get started playing any of them for less than the cost of getting started with 5E D&D-in fact the core books for all of them can be had for less than what the average DM spends on 5E core books!) I've got the heretical viewpoint that OSE and Shaodwdark are an egg timer away from being the same game with different dice rolls. That's intended as a complement to both Gavin and Kelsey, because they've independently done "Basic" D&D justice in very similar ways. I'm happy to play either. (I'm running Shadowdark though since the unified d20 mechanics mean fewer tables I need in front of me.) Knave 2E might shorten my list a little since it proves to combine the best of Cairn, Knave 1E, and Maze Rats. We'll see!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
You've picked a lot of my favorite games there, and I use pretty much all of them (I haven't explored Knave yet, but I did contribute to the Knave 2E Kickstarter, and I've not checked out Cairn, nor did I get on-board Shadowdark unfortunately). But I really like OSE, Index Card RPG, Mörk Borg, Deathbringer, LotFP, etc. for ideas to mine for my B/X game I'm running. I suspect I'll end up getting Shadowdark at some point as well. The reviews I've seen look fantastic.
@shallendor
Жыл бұрын
Skills is one of the why i preferred Palladium Fantasy over D&D and AD&D back in the 80's!Older editions challenged the player, while newer games challenge the character! Older editions were designed for the "well read" players, while newer games are playable by all people!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
The only Palladium book I ever had was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness, which I quite liked as I was a huge fan of mutant characters (particularly in post-apocalyptic settings) and I really liked a lot of the differences in character creation, and especially liked the "alignment" system. Sadly, I let a friend borrow it and never got it back. I agree with the shift in play styles as well. My daughter and her friends never "play their sheet" because there's hardly anything written on there that they need. They don't stare at their sheets when I ask them what they want to do. They say, "Can I do XYZ?" and I say, "Yes," or "Yes, but you have to roll to succeed," or "Yes, but you have to roll to succeed, and if you fail, there will be a consequence." I can count on one hand the number of times I've said, "No, you can't do that" because I don't want to stifle their creativity and also they've never asked for anything so outrageous that it wouldn't make sense. They've figured out to how maneuver within the construct of the world I've created and they don't try to take advantage. It's the most fun I've had playing a TTRPG in a really long time!
@shallendor
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 I had read some of the comics, and being into RPG's, i immediately bought the copy of the TMNT rulebook i saw at the toy store when i saw it! Me and my highschool friends tried and love the TMNT RPG at our irregular game weekends at somenes house! I had already got Palladium Fantasy back in 82, so i knew the basic system!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@shallendor That's fantastic! I never got into the TMNT comics back in the day, but I did have some comics that were inspired by them, such a Samurai Penguin. I'd love to get my TMNT RPG book back, but at this point, I don't even remember which friend I lent it to, and I've moved so many times since I recall having lost it!
@swirvinbirds1971
Жыл бұрын
Palladium Fantasy was great but the mechanics of it all was a slog.
@DickGallo-dk7wi
Жыл бұрын
Hi Daddy. Good video. Lots of blasts from the past! 👍 I like the skills in 3.5, took me forever to learn, and have to reference my tome a bunch. But I sank a ton of cash into my 3.5 books, so I'm stuck. 😆 have a good one, dude.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much - glad you enjoyed it! I also bought a *ton* of stuff for 3.X and PF1 (I lump them all together), and I still refer to a lot of those books frequently even while running 1981 B/X for my daughter and her friends. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@johnross1048
Жыл бұрын
Great video. I feel skills aren’t necessary as your class dictates what you’re proficient at. A skills based, class-less system could be cool though if you’re looking for full customization.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I agree with you that class-and-level systems don't really need skills, and I'm also okay with skill-based systems that don't have classes! Combining them never really seems to work, at least for me. Thank you so much for watching and commenting!
@JoelFeila
Жыл бұрын
in Ironclaw your class amd race are attributes that gives bonuses to certain skills. so a warrior will always have some skill with melee weapons but not the same as other warriors
@Backfromthedeadguy
Жыл бұрын
After some thought I would say that skills beyond your class abilities are a distraction. If you’re a fighter that wants to be a “master weapons smith” then you’re an NPC not an adventurer. Someone who is a master craftsman of anything must dedicate their entire lives in pursuit of that perfection and has zero time to adventure. A fighter will be good enough to make basic repairs and to recognize quality but that’s it. Also I’ve noticed that players can become distracted by their skills. Instead of being an adventurer they want to use their skills that takes them away from their party. Most craft skills need dedicated workspaces and a lot of time to utilize and so (realistically) when would you ever have time to use those skills? I could go on but I don’t want to turn this into an essay, lol.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I largely agree with this point-of-view. Thank you for watching and commenting! I appreciate it!
@JoelFeila
Жыл бұрын
building defenses for a village. I have been in groups that used all kinds of crafting there.
@aaronu6870
Жыл бұрын
Sorry for the late reply, but in my games it takes at least a week in town or equivalent to recover from a dungeon crawl. My players end up with lots of downtime, so magic users do their research, fighters train their soldiers, clerics tend their shrines or churches, thieves work on their network connections. Any of these can be a way to drop a plot hook (what do you read? What do your soldiers/parishioners/cohorts tell you?) But also a time for players to roleplay using their skills if they want to without distracting from the campaign itself. For example, a master smith adventurer in my setting would have many assistants to handle the mundane parts of crafting and when the master returns from adventure he'll put on the final touches and so on during his down week.
@nicklarocco4178
Жыл бұрын
In a class based game I'd prefer no skills. You're skilled at what your class would imply. A fighter is skilled in soldiering, arms maintenance, maybe a bit of foraging and negotiation. But I do prefer to just roleplay instead of simply having a skill roll accomplish whatever you want to do. I'm a big fan of 13th age's background system instead of bespoke skills.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I do tend to agree with this approach as well. I feel that class-and-level systems don't really need skills. As I was mentioning to Fredrick in the comments above, I tend to do things like ask the players in the 1981 Moldvay Basic game I run for my 13 year-old daughter and her friends, "Which of your characters grew up in the woods?" or "who learned to identify animal tracks in their youth?" and I'll let the player come up with a reason and a quick backstory on-the-fly. If it's reasonable, I'll allow it, and then going forward, everybody knows that PC is good at that thing. They have not abused it so far, and it's helped them to get into character more and develop their characters, as this is the first TTRPG they've played and none have watched actual plays or anything, so they have no context other than what's transpired in our game. Thank you so much for your continued support and for commenting! I love chatting with fellow gamers to see how they approach the game and situations like this. Cheers!
@marks7037
Жыл бұрын
I think you might like whitehack
@john-lenin
Жыл бұрын
And all the characters of that class are the same.
@john-lenin
Жыл бұрын
You can't roleplay having a skill. Roleplay brain surgery for us. Without skills (or a narrative analogue for backgrounds) all characters of a class end up the sane.
@nicklarocco4178
Жыл бұрын
@John Lenin of course you can, don't be thick. More to your point dnd skills aren't equivalent to real life skills, they're more akin to general competence. Insight, diplomacy, bluff, those are just how well you can hold a conversation. Pcs don't tend to have professional skills like dentistry, because that's not the kind of game dnd is trying to be. BRP fills that niche much better.
@mrgunn2726
Жыл бұрын
Great video! I hate skills and feats in D&D 5e. Pick a lane, I think skills have no place in D&D, D&D is a class based system! Classes assume a tool box of skills and abilities based on the class; thieves sneak and pick locks, fighters bash things, wizards magic stuff, clerics bash and heal, etc. Feats are generic class based abilities that anyone can acquire to customize their characters. They are fine but poorly implemented, feats should be additional selectable class abilities. Want your Rogue to be more of an assassin, level up and choose the backstab feat, etc. Skill based systems are just that, you choose a career and have skills available to that career path or it is a totally open system where you can choose any skills to build your PC. Skills detract from the core class based system underlying D&D; you just don't mix chocolate ice cream and lime ice together!
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for watching and commenting! I appreciate your passionate views! No chocolate in your butter peanut, huh? 😃 I largely agree with this point-of-view now. I wasn't always this way - when NWPs debuted in late 1E, I thought they were a great idea. I loved the 3E Skill system (at the time) because as a kid in the 80's I hadn't understood that Thief skills were "extraordinary" and as soon as I saw a Thief had a % chance to Climb, I couldn't figure out why other characters couldn't climb, too. Having DMs who didn't understand that, either, didn't help. Now, revisiting older versions of D&D (I'm running B/X right now for my 13 year-old daughter and her friends) I finally understand that the Thief skills are above-and-beyond what a normal PC can do. Any character can climb. A Thief can climb *sheer surfaces." Any character can try to hide. A Thief can hide *in plain sight.* Understanding that really helped changed my viewpoint on skills. Sad that it took me decades to finally get it. Thanks again! I always appreciate when folks comment and, as I mentioned in my very first video for my channel, I love chatting with folks!
@andrewtomlinson5237
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, got to say I'm wholly on board with this. When Hasbro took over at WotC I think there was an impetus to make the Big Brand appeal to as many potential players as possible. So they took as many elements of various systems and streamlined 5E into some sort of Frankestein's Monster, Super-Powered-Furry, Battle, MMO Simulator. (Not a fan...)
@garrick3727
Жыл бұрын
When I started with TTRPGs in the late 80s there were so many game systems, and D&D was seen as a relatively bad system due to its simplicity. We bounced around from D&D to RuneQuest to Warhammer Fantasy and a few others, and none of them quite worked for us. We were very focused on skills in particular. D&D was bad because it had none (that we knew of). RuneQuest had too many, and there was a lot of "which skill does this fall under" debates. Warhammer had a great system whereby you either had a skill or not, usually tied to your previous occupation (like pirate, soldier, gravedigger) but we didn't like how there was no progression. Over time we evolved our own homebrew game system that was somewhere between RuneQuest and D&D. On balance, having too many skills seems worse than too few or none. If you have no skills, it just becomes an issue of which ability to test. The downside is that there is less that defines a character since the focus is all combat and magic, and some players prefer roleplaying to combat. However, there are multiple issues with having too many skills: (1) Which skill applies? (2) What happens when none of the skills apply (since ability checks are a bit strange with an extensive skill list); (3) What do you do when no-one picks a skill that ends up being needed? (4) How does the DM ensure that skill based characters get to use their skills? (5) How to handle two characters with similar skills but one is clearly better? (6) Characters neglecting combat skills in a game that still requires them (for example, Call of Cthulhu); (7) What to do with basic versus specialized skills, such as everyone can climb but hardly anyone can pick locks; (8) How to deal with the illogical situation where a character is good at one skill but knows nothing about a similar skill (Expert in religion knows zero history, master tracker has no survival skills, artist cannot forge a signature). Overall, I think D&D 5E works reasonably well skill-wise; however, I like the idea that all characters have basic skills that do not need listing, and skills themselves are specialized knowledge over and above what is normal.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for watching and commenting! I love your in-depth analysis and also sharing your history. Thank you so much for taking the time to do that! You've definitely uncovered a lot of the issues that I personally have with skills in a class-and-level game; I'm of the mind that many of them should just be assumed as class-based abilities that align with the PC's class but also their background. A barbarian-type fighter is skilled at outdoor survival stuff, while a court-raised fighter is good at strategy, tactics, and military history. That kind of thing. It doesn't need an exhaustive list, but rather and understanding and trust between DM and player as to what is reasonable. In a skill-based game, it does get trickier if players don't take skills the GM thinks they should have, but I guess in that case either: 1) The players learn for next time, or 2) the GM works to ensure that they are planning encounters & challenges that allow the player skills to shine. Probably a combination. In any event, loved your analysis! Thank you!
@MrRourk
Жыл бұрын
This is where the OSR is superior. Roll Under like in Black Hack Style Games. I use 1 off per adventure skills. You do not need to have a skill to attempt a roll but a skill gives a +1 to a roll. Tools may often be employed for another +1 to the roll. However tools will be subject to a usage die check. So the tool may brake.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I'm currently running B/X D&D for my daughter and her friends, and I use the roll-under ability scores for checks, but even calling for those checks is extremely rare and maybe comes up at most once or twice per session. I'm more likely to follow a narrative route, but asking the players questions like "who grew up in the woods?" or "who learned to identify animal tracks in their youth?" and I'll let the players describe a situation, and then I'll make a ruling based on that. And then, going forward, it's known in the game that PC is good at that particular thing. They never fight or argue about it, and don't abuse it, so it works well. Thank you so much, again, for watching and commenting! I truly appreciate your support!
@davidjay7116
Жыл бұрын
Wow, did 1995's AD&D Skills & Powers book mean nothing to you?! To be fair, I only know that book because of its sweet cover and because I spun it off into my own RPG that I convinced myself was the best game system ever developed when I 13.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching and commenting. Hopefully that didn't impact your enjoyment of the video too much. I do tend to forget about the Player's Options books (I do mention them in my History of D&D Editions video: kzitem.info/news/bejne/s52l36WciaF-oawsi=r4BKfILcCmxb0-cR) mainly because I'd moved states (dad got transferred) before 2E came out, and by the time I found a new group, they were playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. I got the 2E Player's Handbook and Monstrous Manual and most of the "Complete" books and some of the green Historical Guides, plus the Dark Sun boxed set, but other than that, I didn't really interact with 2E that much, so the Player's Option books are not top of mind when I make these videos. I will endeavor to remember in the future. I will have the first RPG I ever wrote when I was a kid based on my very limited knowledge of the 1981 Moldvay Basic Set: daddyrolleda1.blogspot.com/2011/03/game-design-quest-my-first-rpg.html. I suspect it's much more "amateur" than your system!
@davidjay7116
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 Not at all! I'm loving your videoes. I've only recently discovered them and have been going down the playlist. I started in the mid to late AD&D 2nd Edition days myself, so they (along with all the hype and excitement of the WotC buyout and the year or so of 3E teases) will always have a special place for me. Thanks for all the work you've done shining a light on history many aren't aware of!
@Penfold497
Жыл бұрын
One or the other. In d&d, no skills. Just presume the characters are competent enough to what they need to. In a game like Pendragon where everyone is essentially the same class, skills matter.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for watching and commenting. I definitely agree with your viewpoint, as you probably picked up on by my commentary in my video. Thanks again!
@owenbloomfield1177
Жыл бұрын
I played a lot of different rpgs in the 80s from many different companies and TSR. D&D was the only one that didnt use a skill system of some sort. By the end of the decade it seemed it was falling behind, mechanics-wise, and was a bit old fashioned. It needed to do something. I think 5e solved that issue nicely. Some of the other games had the issue of having too many skills. It bogged the game down.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks again! I'm so glad you discovered my channel and I really appreciate you leaving comments. I was thrilled when 1E added Non-Weapon Proficiencies in the mid-to-late 80's and I quite liked 3E's skill system when I first encountered it. Over time, I've come less enamored with having a skill system in a class-and-level game, but I do think the 5E system does a pretty good job if skills are something one wants in a D&D game. I just use ability checks (very infrequently) in the B/X game I run for my daughter and her friends, and that's essentially what 5E does: ability checks. It seems very "old school" to me!
@danielboggs2013
Жыл бұрын
Actually even 1974 D&D has skills. There are loads of NPC skills the PC's are assumed to not possess, and need to be payed for to acquire, as found in the specialist list (sailor, animal trainer, hunter, carpenter, sage, etc.). Also, there are race based skills - Hobbits are skilled with bows and get a bonus; dwarves are skilled at fighting giants and making saving throws, elves are skilled at hiding, resisting undead paralysis, using magic items and finding secret doors, etc. And of course, as has been mentioned, Thief skills are introduced a year after publication. I'm nit picking of course and I really enjoyed the video overall.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate it. I can see your point - I don't always look at this types of things as skills but rather class-based abilities (even for NPC specialists for hire), but I can see why some might view them more as skills. To me, a skill is something that *any* character could pick from and try, so hobbits getting a bonus to hit with ranged weapons isn't a "skill" because not everyone could pick that as an option. It's something that hobbits are just naturally good at. But, again, I do see your point and, as you said, I'm kind of nitpicking terminology here! I do appreciate your viewpoints and the fact that you watched and took time to comment. I love engaging with folks with detailed thoughts and commentary like this! It's one of the reasons I decided to make this channel in the first place, so thank you!
@danielgoldberg5357
Жыл бұрын
All I can say, after looking at the cumbersome skill systems in second and third edition, is thank God for fifth edition, or we would never get women like my sisters into this hobby! After I taught them 5e, their first remark was, “that was so easy! I don’t know why I avoided it all these years.“
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
5E definitely helped streamline things; it's sort of like a more cleaned-up version of 3E but with some old school inspiration as well. As a player at the time, the 3E skill system, to me, made much more intuitive sense than the 1E/2E non-weapon proficiencies. It just got out of hand with class versus cross-class skills and skill synergies and all that kind of stuff. That's something that affects all of 3E design, not just the skill system, though. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@danielgoldberg5357
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 I was very young so it's hard to remember exactly how we played 1E AD&D. If we used the optional skills at all, it was probably just as flavor. "Oh, and btw, you're a blacksmith on your days off." I like the skills system of 5E a lot, but I'm getting really tired already of how swingy rolling 1d20 is. Even if with +7 on a skill or a +8 to attack, your chances of missing or failing are pretty high. Then it's another 20 minute wait while the DM circles around the table again. Also, our DM pointed out, quite accurately, that 5E monsters are "meat bags" in that they all have elevated hit points. So it takes a ludicrous amount of time to whittle down, say, an archer so that the damn guy finally dies.
@cyntogia
Жыл бұрын
I prefer some skills.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
There seems to definitely be a split with regard to whether people like or don't like them. And, it's a pretty even split at that. Thanks so much for watching and commenting!
@woomod2445
Жыл бұрын
So my answer is.... Skills can enhance, but just numbers is boring. An "I am competent at this thing" option is interesting and can definitely add, but distributing skill points each level is meh, just let me be assumed competent if I can have it. On the other hand, what I think adds is meaningful "beyond competent" abilities that aren't spells. Things like hide in plain sight, or the chain mail superhero's morale effect forcing normal men opposed to him to flee while boosting his own troops.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
This is a great answer. I like this approach and agree with it. It's partially why I think people get tripped up on the issue of Thief skills. I'll admit I did when I was a kid. I tended to overlook the idea that the Thief's Climb ability was almost supernatural in nature, in that a Thief can climb sheer surfaces. I saw the Thief could Climb and immediately went to the viewpoint of "Does that mean other Characters can't climb? That doesn't make sense." And, it was the same with things like Hiding and Move Silently. I read them as just a regular use of Hiding, not a supernatural "hide in plain sight." So, I liked when 3E skills codified all that kind of thing for every character. Now that I've come to understand how the original Thief skills should have been interpreted, I'm back to just assuming competency for all PCs but some are better and/or can accomplish things that others can't. Thanks so much for watching and commenting!
@xaxzander4633
Жыл бұрын
The fact you got nervous about calling it "Asian style" A political circle you put yourself in. This is a great book, and I've never met a single Asian that was offended by it.
@BDSquirrel
Жыл бұрын
Pretty good history on the whole for D&D. I paid attention until you mentioned what I call the disater of 2008. For those who wonder why I call it a disaster is that it ripped off Shining Force and the Diablo video games. Yes, I can rightly call that out as I do have those games, played them, and beat them. Also, Dragonborn is from The Elder Scrolls series and there is already a half dragon template to work from. As for what came after the 2008 disaster, I'll still do not consider it D&D. It holds onto elements of the 2008 disaster. Both systems are overly simplistic, lazy, and coddle the players way too much. It is roll playing and not role playing.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for watching and commenting. I feel that I can't just ignore specific editions, as the overviews are intended to cover the full history, which includes 4th and 5th Edition. Hopefully that makes sense.
@billlyell8322
Жыл бұрын
You are playing word games to use semantics to claim that there wasn't skills in d&d. The classes DID have skills! Fighters could wear all armor and mages could wear none. That is a skill. Fighters had 4 weapons they could use without penalty and could use any weapon, others could not. That is a skill. Mages could cast arcane spells others could not. That is a skill. Clerics and paladins can lay hands and others could not. That is a skill. The skills that where added later just made options to make individuals more unique. Yes back then everybody could climb on a mount and hold on while it walked down a road. That doesn't mean you could ride across country at a gallop or fight on horse back. Think about today, everybody can change a tire, it's a simple skill with any intelligence. But it's not stripping an engine to the block and rebuilding it. That takes training, it's a skill. Anybody that thinks they can rebuild a transmission without training just because they can pump gas into a tank is a fool. Hell today most if us can't even start a fire without a lighter! Can you start a fire with just 2 sticks? No? How about with 3 sticks and a cord? No? How about with a piece of steel and a rock? Still no? A fero rod? No??? A match? Maybe? A lighter? Yes? If you have to start with fire to make a fire you can't make one. You don't have the skill. Do you?? And fire is the oldest and easiest of skills. If you know how to do it. If you practice to do it. It is a skill.
@normalstupid
Жыл бұрын
With all the class books it really took skill to juggle all the non weapon proficiencies in 2e AD&D, but it was fun. A low intelligence made you have less skills as far as I remember, and some classes sat for a long time just jotting down all their skills, while others had three or something
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
Yes, there ended up being a ton of non-weapon proficiencies in 2E when looked at across all the Complete books (although there were a lot of repeats of NWPs being listed multiple times in different books). As for intelligence affecting NWPs, I recall that in 3E and 3.5 but don't remember it from 2E.
@normalstupid
Жыл бұрын
@@daddyrolleda1 I might be mixing the editions, as I only have the 5e books around. The other editions are in boxes in the attic. So, you are most likely correct.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
@@normalstupid At least you still have your old books, even if they're in the attic!
@john-lenin
Жыл бұрын
Skills are irrelevant. I decided to do brain surgery today, just to make a little extra money.
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I think the discussion is more about whether skills are a pro or con when added to a Class-and-Level system, not whether skills are useful at all. Obviously in a system like Call of Cthulhu or Traveller, characters are built and defined by their skills, so that's not the discussion as far as I see it. For your brain surgery example, there are two examples: 1) It's a skill-based game, presumably in a modern setting. Characters are free to choose their skills, and a PC can choose brain surgery and be skilled at that. 2) It's a class-and-level game, also presumably in a modern setting. There might be a class called a "Medic" that has access to class-based abilities the could include brain surgery (whether automatically or perhaps as an option the character can select as the PC gains levels). But it's not a "skill" - it's a class-based ability that is not usable by another class. That is, the Engineer, Pilot, or Soldier can't pick to know brain surgery because that's beyond the purview of the abilities their classes give them (building and repairing, navigating, or the knowledge to use any and all weapons and armor). So, it's not about "role-playing how to do brain surgery" but rather which system (skills-based or class-and-level) is used to define which characters have the ability to do brain surgery.
@john-lenin
Жыл бұрын
Complaining about skills is just another example of the narcissistic isekai view of role-playing. "I'm a role player. I don't need skills or rules or anything else because I've become my character."
@nicklarocco4178
Жыл бұрын
Think about a novel. Think about the hobbit. In that book Bilbo and Gollum have a game of riddles. Now what do you think is more enjoyable? Them actually exchanging the riddles, or Bilbo just rolling a diplomacy check. In a game where we can only tell, and not show, you have to describe to live. Skills aren't a bad thing on their own, but they often lead to players becoming lazy with narrative. "I dash along the railing, swing from the chandelier, and land on the wobbly table to save my friend!" Becomes "I want to roll an athletics test to get over there."
@daddyrolleda1
Жыл бұрын
I don't 'think it's a complaint about skill systems. Some people like them, and some don't. That's totally fine. I used to really like them in my games, as I thought it was a way to make characters more unique. Over time, I found them to be more limiting, as I watched my friends and I just go the same thing every session and every combat, based on what skills/feats our PCs had. In my 3E game, I had a lightly armored Fighter type and I put tons of ranks into the Tumble Skill, and I was very bad at Ranged Attacks because I'd put all my Feats into Melee attacks with my sword. So, every combat was the the same: I never attacked from range, and instead I'd move into Melee combat, Tumble past the enemy and hit him with my sword. I never tried to do anything different, and I never attempted to use any skills I hadn't put ranks into because "it wasn't worth it." In games that are built on Skill Systems, that's a completely different matter. In those games, it makes sense to have a long list of detailed skills because your character doesn't have any inherent abilities without them, unlike a class-and-level game where classes have a suite of abilities built in. In the game I run for my daughter and her friends, which is a modified 1981 B/X game, there are no skills. As such, I've been surprised and delighted when the players don't stare at their sheets trying to determine what the most mathematically advantageous course of action is. Instead, they are constantly asking questions like "Can I try to knock the guy's mask off?" or "Can I grab a vial off the alchemist's shelf and throw it?" or "Can I jump up on this barrel to gain the high ground?" Those are just a few examples, but they come up with new ideas all the time and it's my job as the DM to be the referee and adjudicate whether they can do it, or whether they need to roll some kind of die to succeed, and whether there is a consequence for failing. For those who like Skill Systems in their Class-and-Level games, that's great! I have nothing against them and if someone were to run a game that used them, I'd totally play in it. For games that I run, I'd prefer not to use them.
Пікірлер: 195