Do You Have the Skill for That?

One of the defining differences between Castles & Crusades and most other games is the lack of a skill system, though an optional one is available. The game eliminates the referee question, “Do you have a skill for that?”

This streamlines play to a degree I don’t think many designers appreciate. The system works on assumed knowledge. If the roll is skill-like and “something your class should know or do,” then add your level to the roll. If not, don’t. You could disallow the roll or penalize it. The system is elegant and simple.

Skill-based games have this “do you have the skill for that” question on almost every roll, inserting an extra referee question and player character sheet check in every die roll in the game. It gets cumbersome and tiring, and some games go to a pedantic level of depth for every action, requiring skill rolls for searching, spotting, and bifurcating every sense and type of searching into a separate skill.

How do you get “trained in seeing something” anyway? While yes, there is honing your perceptual abilities, it goes way too far into levels of depth that should just be covered by a simple ability score roll, if needed at all, and the game should move on. If a player guesses the correct place and thing to search, no roll is even needed.

Some games force unnecessary dice rolls, and they suffer for it.

Some games go to such a deep level of simulation detail that they suffer for it.

Castles & Crusades does a beautiful job of erasing the need for skills. Is this a skill check that your class should know something about? Great, add your level to the check, and you may get a bonus. Is it outside your character’s realm of knowledge? No level is added, and there could be a penalty on it if the roll is even allowed.