Why I Hate Skills

[Retros_x]

How would you prefer to model a character that's supposed to know more than other characters? Just give them more information directly as the GM and say their character knows it?

I pretty much do this. I also encourage players to take initiative and ask me the DM for information like "with my sage background, would I able to decipher this script?" or "would I be able to know more about ancient elve religions?" etc.

IMO background knowledge should come from player backgrounds and not rolls. It also sucks hard when every player fails the roll and you have to hold back with information. IMO there are two kinds of informations: The ones you should give out to your player freely and the one you want them to find out / conclude themselves (you would never want the players to "roll for DM explain the twist" right?). Rolling for knowledge is often background info the player should know but instead of giving out freely you hide it behind a roll.

 

[GrimCo]

Lol.

I wish I had the video clip from Aliens:

Carter Burke: "He's just a grunt! No offense."
Corporal Hicks: "None taken."

Lol

But addressing the point of your post, I do like character skill, but I like it tied to player declarations. E.g., the swimming example I gave, where the players came up with a plan, but the character's Swimming skill determined success.

It makes for more interesting game, no question about it. Or at least more imersive and narative driven.

Secret door example. One player might describe how he looks at bookshelf, searching for book that looks more used or one that has no dust/less dust than others indicating it was recently moved. Or taps wall, maybe sprinkles some dust on the floor looking if there is slight breeze due to imperfect seal between door.

Other one might just say "I roll Perception/Search/Awareness to see if there are hidden doors".

Both approaches are valid. But i sense you are more interested in the first one. Where skill isn't used as short hand or as substitute for player engagement with problem solving.

But if the players aren't actually saying what their characters do, and there's zero consequence if they fail...in other words, if the player could be in the kitchen getting another the beer and the GM could both determine that a roll was needed and make the roll, informing the player of the results when they get back, e.g. "By the way why you were gone I rolled to see if you noticed something and you didn't".....then, yeah, no. Not interested.

Personally, if there are zero consequences for failed roll, i go with no roll. I look how high their skill is, how hard DC is, and go from their. Their either succeed or they are told task is too hard and after several attempts they figure out it above their skill level. Rolls are for when there is consequences for failure ( fe failing to pick lock might jam lock, failing to jump over hole means you drop into it etc) or there is time constraint that means you can't take your sweet time succeed trough trial and error method. Think of it as internalized 3.5 taking 10/20 rules that are applied situationaly.

Some people like that approach where they just declare what they wanna do and with what skill. I have group like that that plays PF1, they just declare " I use Diplomacy to convince guard to let us pass". Just declaration of what they try to achieve, without bothering to give a bit of explanation how they are trying to achieve it. No matter how many times i tried to explain to them that if they bother to give a bit of description of the method i might give them either bonus or sometimes even auto success. It's just how they roll (pun intended).

EDIT: But I also want to point out that for decades I played with skills and Perception checks and knowledge checks rolling to pick locks and all that stuff, and never really thought twice about it. So, yes, I'm familiar with that approach to RPGs. All this criticism about consequence-free dice rolling is a conclusion that I've come to only in the last few years.

Also note I titled the thread "Why I Hate Skills" not "Skill Are Bad Design". Because, of course, YMMV.

I have a feeling you don't hate skills per se, more like you hate how some people use skills as substitute for using their own creativity and engagement with problem solving, just relying on skills to do all the work.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe check out some of the Gumshoe games? In that system skills are split into ‘investigative skills’ and ‘general skills’. Investigative skills tend to cover all knowledge, perception, and social skills. General skills do everything else.

With investigative skills, if a player describes their character doing something that relates to a skill they have then they automatically succeed at a base level of success, and can potentially spend points for extra info / effect. So, a character who is perceptive will always find the hidden thing when they describe searching in the right place. It’s more nuanced than that, of course, and is based on a gamist / narrative model of moderating ‘spotlight time’ through resource depletion.

But it does illustrate a quite different way of modelling skills than a system like Dragonbane, BRP, GURPS and so on.

That sounds a bit like Shadowdark.

Do skills have a level that increases (e.g., allocate points to the categories) or is it binary: your character either has it or they don't?

 

[Bill Zebub]

One final thought specific to Dragonbane:
Let 1 and 20 determine marks as usual, but also as a GM, let them mark their skill in times you feel like they really derserve it too. Like being clever enough in their description to not need one or pulling off a really important task. Heck, I'd even let them do it for an elaborate description that was just flat out disasterous if they still put in the effort (since this is effectively rolling a 1).

Yeah, that's actually a really good thought.

Thanks for the longer feedback.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have a feeling you don't hate skills per se, more like you hate how some people use skills as substitute for using their own creativity and engagement with problem solving, just relying on skills to do all the work.

Well, yes, sort of, but it takes two to tango and in this case the dance partner is game/adventure design, which tends to encourage (what I see as) mindless rolling.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Secret door example. One player might describe how he looks at bookshelf, searching for book that looks more used or one that has no dust/less dust than others indicating it was recently moved. Or taps wall, maybe sprinkles some dust on the floor looking if there is slight breeze due to imperfect seal between door.

Other one might just say "I roll Perception/Search/Awareness to see if there are hidden doors".

Both approaches are valid. But i sense you are more interested in the first one. Where skill isn't used as short hand or as substitute for player engagement with problem solving.

For secret doors, my preferred solution, although it's a lot of work, is to telegraph their presence so that observant players search in the right place, in which case they automatically discover it. That could be as obvious/immediate as a draft, or footprints that end mysteriously, but my most successful ones...the secret doors that still get talked about by the group...are when the players figure out there must be a secret room somewhere and it takes some work to figure out where, and where the entrance could be, and then more work to figure out how to open it. I've had players cheering when I say, "...click..."

WAY more fun, imo, than "Give me a Perception roll...Bill you notice the outline of a secret door..."

But the former (footprints, etc.) can only be used so many times, and the latter takes a ton of work. So in general I tend to use a lot fewer secret doors than perhaps is common.

 

[Reynard]

But sometimes it's just hard to think of one. Do they notice the footprints? Can they read the inscription?

Even in Dragonbane, if there is no time pressure and no consequence of failure, there is no reason to call for a roll. So include a consequence or throw out the test. Half the time, you can probably throw out the "challenge" entirely because itisn't one -- it is just a speed bump.

We aren't required to run badly designed adventures as written.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Even in Dragonbane, if there is no time pressure and no consequence of failure, there is no reason to call for a roll. So include a consequence or throw out the test. Half the time, you can probably throw out the "challenge" entirely because itisn't one -- it is just a speed bump.

We aren't required to run badly designed adventures as written.

Yes.

I think one reason "I hate skills" is...again referring to the tango...is that they so often lead to bad adventure writing. So although we don't have to run them as written, it would be nice if we also didn't have to re-write them.

(And I don't really want to bash the adventure we were running. It was a good adventure in a lot of ways, it just had these meaningless skill checks sprinkled around. As so many adventures do.)

 

[Reynard]

Yes.

I think one reason "I hate skills" is...again referring to the tango...is that they so often lead to bad adventure writing. So although we don't have to run them as written, it would be nice if we also didn't have to re-write them.

(And I don't really want to bash the adventure we were running. It was a good adventure in a lot of ways, it just had these meaningless skill checks sprinkled around. As so many adventures do.)

I think there is a lot of inertia in adventure design -- especially for games that go for that "old school" feel. I love nothing more than an adventure that surprises me with cool ideas and well designed challenges for the players.

I haven't run a ton of Dragonbane, so I don't know how good its adventures are overall.

 

[GrimCo]

Well, yes, sort of, but it takes two to tango and in this case the dance partner is game/adventure design, which tends to encourage (what I see as) mindless rolling.

No argument there.

I haven't played Dragonbane, but by your description in initial post, only way to raise skill is by rolls. So game design incentivises players to roll as much as they can. It also ties into adventure design in 2 ways. 1) It's easier to write "Room contains secret door, DC X Awarness rolls reveals them" than write few sentences of clues for players to pick up. Ideally, good adventure would have both though. 2) Since only way to raise skill is by rolling and hoping for that 1/20 that gives you opportunity for skill raise roll, you need to put generous opportunities for players to actually roll their skills.

Personally, what i would do, is grant mark on skill for clever play. Instead of rolling, if player uses skill and gives interesting description of how he uses his skill, give player that tick next to skill. It would encourage more player engagement, reduce need for safe rolls and leave rolling skills for times when outcomes are uncertain and there is consequence for failure.