Skill Systems vs. No Skill Systems

 

From one of the greatest books of our generation, the Dolmenwood Player's Guide

After talking with my players at length last night, I'm exploring the idea of old school gaming again. Turns out, ACKS gets many, many things right, as far as it relates to my preferences for running these types of games. Upon further examination, we might find ways to integrate these types of things into a modern DND game (not necessarily 5e, but still).

One of the reasons my players objected to Dolmenwood is a lack of an official skill system. Now, I've gone back and forth on skills in games, and recently landed on the side of liking them a lot. However, there's something to be said about games without them. I also noticed that a vast majority of the time, players tend to rely on a small set of moves during their turns in combat, and a small set of skills while exploring. That is, players always advocate for rolling the things that gives them the highest bonus and/or damage output.

My question is, "is this really so different from a game with no skill system?"

Let's look at Arcana. Player A always plays these wizardly characters who know a lot about magic. In 5e and Pathfinder, he always builds his skills to include this knowledge. Let's say he has a +5. In a game like ACKS, where there is no arcana skill (or skills of any kind), he is (on paper) no better at identifying magic than anyone else with the same modifier. Here's an example scenario.

The party enters a wizard's workshop, full of strange and wonderous toys and gadgets. Player A's wizard finds an interesting object and wants to know more about it. I tell him it's an Arcana roll, and I set the DC at 10 since it's normal for him. He has a +5 to his roll, so by rolling a 5 or higher on a d20, he will succeed. Sure enough, he figures out the magical toy is just that, a child's toy in the shape of a crow, that animates via magic and says several phrases.

The same scenario in an old school game would run the same, except without the Arcana skill. Player A rolls under his Intellect attribute (which is 14 in this scenario), and succeeds, giving him insight into the nature of this magical bird toy.

Conversely, I may simply declare that given 10 minutes (1 round) with the toy bird is enough time to automatically determine the inner workings of the bird toy; any mage worth his or her salt would surely be able to figure it out.

What if Smart Sally, Player B's shockingly smart scholar-knight wants to determine the same thing? She picks up another toy in the wizard's house, and asks the DM what she knows about it. In a modern RPG, she may or may not have a skill in Arcana, but if her basic intellect score is indeed above average, she could conceivably try another Arcana roll set at DC 10, and could conceivably determine something of worth about the object. In an old school game, I might decide that a scholar-knight simply knows nothing about the object, or I could have her roll, just the same as the wizard, to learn the same thing. However, if she failed the roll, I probably wouldn't let her automatically succeed given 10 minutes' investigation.

My conclusion is that these scenarios, while mechanically different, are functionally the same. In fact, given no skill system, there is more room for narrative and character building, given by the DM. The wizard is able to shine in his area of expertise, while in a modern skill system, any idiot might know a thing or two about Arcana, regardless of their backstory. A base proficiency bonus is initially a +10% chance of success in a given skill, which is fairly substantial.

Moving on, I notice that most spells cast during a combat are the same. This also goes for general combat abilities, like firing off a shot from a bow. On most given turns, players may decide to reposition (though often don't need to), and perform the same sort of attack they've done every turn for the last 20 sessions. The Warlock uses Eldritch Blast. The Ranger uses Hunter's Mark and fires his bow. The wizard might do any number of things, but frequently just uses Firebolt. The main difference between 5E and ACKS let's say, is the available options.

Visiting a restaurant with a limited menu is quite different from one with 100 items on offer. Compare the menus of In-n-Out to a local Chinese restaurant with a colossal menu. It's reasonable to assume that 80% of their sales come from just 20% of the items, with everything else being outliers. Compared to In-n-Out, which only offers essentially 1 item, prepared in either single or double patties, with or without various toppings.

ACKS in this case provides dramatically fewer tactical choices in combat, especially for martial classes. I must concede that the lack of tactical options can be uninteresting for players who are used to having more options like those found in a modern RPG, but like those customers of the Chinese restaurant with 100+ food options, they soon realize they only order the same handful of things.

My point is that skill systems don't add as much diversity as my players seem to think. While it's important to have specialization, I think the generally lower bonuses and flatter math of OSR-style games means that characters are still able to find their specialization, without as much need for mechanical support.

As for combat skills, I think there is a need for SOME amount of tactical variety in combat. I suspect that the Without Number games do a good job of filling this niche, as players are able to select Foci that give them more tactical options.