In Defense of Skills-Based Systems

I love AD&D. I love D&D. I grew up playing both and they are indelibly tied to my very existence. It is not hyperbole to say that they helped shape the man I am today: Unemployed.

Now, with that out of the way, both of the aforementioned systems have serious flaws, or did when I played them regularly, and a stats-based (now modifier-based, but those mods come from the stats) system is one of the biggest flaws those games have.

One cannot truly choose one's traits and characteristics IRL; these are chosen before you can tie your own shoes. So, dicing randomly for stats makes sense. And, in keeping with the nature of the game, because it is a game, allowing players a little extra input here (by allowing them to drop scores, change them around, et.al.) also makes perfect sense. I actually like dicing for stats better than points-based systems where you purchase them because it's just more true to life, and that's verisimilitude that games like D&D sorely lack.

NWP (non-weapon proficiences) and background skills also make all the sense in the world and, yes, your ability in these skills should be directly tied to one or more stats (mods), but you can actively go learn a new or improve a known skill; you can't do that with many of your stats. In fact, all you can really do is get an appropriate Proficiency to offset any drawbacks you have in the stats department, like Disguise for CHA.

Further, most systems allow you to default to a stat if you do not possess the skill based on that stat - d20 and both flavors of D&D do this, too. Thus, you always have a stat roll to cover anything you want to try to do, proficient or not. Yes, there is s small disadvantage to the roll but because the Proficiences list is so anorexic, the likelihood of this situation occurring during play is pretty high.

Systems like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Chill, and others, rely more on skills than on stats - at least for most things. Again, you can still default to a stat (with a negative mod) if you do not possess a skill, but trying to perform things like trick shots would require a higher negative modifier to unskilled rolls, as well as a higher success level even with the necessary skill. Further, if the skilled professional misses the trick shot, he can also default to his stat to try again (in some cases), giving the skilled PC basically two shots at solving the problem; the unskilled PC gets a single chance at a disadvantage.

All of this makes far more sense than the way D&D chooses to handle NWP which, in earlier versions at least, were little more than an afterthought. In fact, in 1^st-Ed. AD&D, you received a Proficiency based on your upbringing and tied to your parents' skills. Also an afterthought few players included.

Skills-based systems just make more sense from a simulation standpoint than attributes-centered systems. That one can be utilized without upsetting the game play puts games that focus on stats and stat modifiers at a disadvantage for grognards like myself who like crunchy, more realistic, gameplay options. I'm never comfortable playing through a scenario like headhunting the Arasaka CEO in which you rely on your basic stats to succeed.

You're going to fail. Even at 20^th-level or whatever, one has to assume that Arasaka, a defense contractor, hires 20^th+-level employees to guard their other employees, especially those as important as the CEO.

From my POV, this is such a no-brainer that I don't even know why it's still argued, but I'm all ears if you have a different take. Still, if you're looking for a game that hews more closely to how things actually work (and are willing to do a little more work yourself), a skills-based system is what you're looking for.

© The Weirding, 2024