Why I Hate Skills

[Pedantic]

Sure, that can work.

My worry as a GM there would be that scenario would encourage the party to split up, based on each character's individual odds of succeeding at one of the three paths.

That's hopefully what the monsters are for. A sufficient scary world should push players away from that, but frankly if that's what the players want to do, I'm down.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure, that can work.

My worry as a GM there would be that scenario would encourage the party to split up, based on each character's individual odds of succeeding at one of the three paths.

Sometimes that is the result. But sometimes (often?) having one character take a risk and succeed means that others don't have to. I.e., climb the wall, then tie a rope at the top for the others to use.

 

[TwoSix]

Sometimes that is the result. But sometimes (often?) having one character take a risk and succeed means that others don't have to. I.e., climb the wall, then tie a rope at the top for the others to use.

That would work for Path A in @Pedantic's scenario, sure. But Paths B and C both look like everyone involved would need to make personal skill checks.

I really never want to provide encouragement to split the party; people gravitate towards that too often (because "it's what my character would do") and it ends up slowing down play tremendously. My tables are slow enough without me as GM mucking it up more.

 

[Pedantic]

That would work for Path A in @Pedantic's scenario, sure. But Paths B and C both look like everyone involved would need to make personal skill checks.

I don't really think so. I'm my 3e days, there was a lot of stuff like making the barbarian Large and tying ourselves to them to deal with stuff like that swimming challenge. That, and I think there's lots of ways for players to do stuff (more often spells than skill checks, but that's a different design question) to overcome the obstacle for the whole party.

I really never want to provide encouragement to split the party; people gravitate towards that too often (because "it's what my character would do") and it ends up slowing down play tremendously. My tables are slow enough without me as GM mucking it up more.

This just doesn't fit with my experience. Splitting up just always felt more risky.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That would work for Path A in @Pedantic's scenario, sure. But Paths B and C both look like everyone involved would need to make personal skill checks.

I really never want to provide encouragement to split the party; people gravitate towards that too often (because "it's what my character would do") and it ends up slowing down play tremendously. My tables are slow enough without me as GM mucking it up more.

I don't want to encourage splitting the party, but in weighing various options I love having that be a factor in the decision. Different options, different risks, different skill rolls. That's my ideal.

 

[TwoSix]

This just doesn't fit with my experience. Splitting up just always felt more risky.

Yea, we definitely play with different people, on top of the fact that it seems we're looking for very different experiences out of our games, even when playing the same system.

 

[Pedantic]

Yea, we definitely play with different people, on top of the fact that it seems we're looking for very different experiences out of our games, even when playing the same system.

One factor that's relevant here, I do feel like the been a shift towards a gameplay loop that calls for individual character actions in the non-combat/exploration phases. That felt significantly more fluid to me in the past; we often collapsed into a single party level problem solving unit and expanded back out to individual actors dynamically, in a way that feels pretty different from modern 5e play in particular (and even to skill challenges and other 4e structures, that emphasized each player taking an action).

Problem solving wasn't an individual activity and it was the gameplay.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One factor that's relevant here, I do feel like the been a shift towards a gameplay loop that calls for individual character actions in the non-combat/exploration phases. That felt significantly more fluid to me; we often collapsed into a single party level problem solving unit and expanded back out to individual actors dynamically, in a way that feels pretty different from modern 5e play in particular (and even to still challenges and other 4e structures, that emphasized each player taking an action).

Problem solving wasn't an individual activity and it was the gameplay.

Interesting. I hadn't really thought about this, but I agree.

 

[TwoSix]

One factor that's relevant here, I do feel like the been a shift towards a gameplay loop that calls for individual character actions in the non-combat/exploration phases. That felt significantly more fluid to me; we often collapsed into a single party level problem solving unit and expanded back out to individual actors dynamically, in a way that feels pretty different from modern 5e play in particular (and even to still challenges and other 4e structures, that emphasized each player taking an action).

Problem solving wasn't an individual activity and it was the gameplay.

I do think the "group huddle to problem solve" happened more (just a gut feeling), but that feels more just like a generational/cultural shift than anything caused by a game's specified procedures.

Maybe not, though. 3e did have a lot more spells that were essentially "auto-win" or "trump cards" that would essentially negate or obviate certain kinds of challenges; 4e and 5e both favor spells that shift odds but don't actually break/negate challenges. Planning around those kinds of abilities often required more group cohesion.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I do think the "group huddle to problem solve" happened more (just a gut feeling), but that feels more just like a generational/cultural shift than anything caused by a game's specified procedures.

Maybe not, though. 3e did have a lot more spells that were essentially "auto-win" or "trump cards" that would essentially negate or obviate certain kinds of challenges; 4e and 5e both favor spells that shift odds but don't actually break/negate challenges. Planning around those kinds of abilities often required more group cohesion.

I've noticed a shift back to "group huddle" since switching from 5e to Shadowdark. So I do think the system is a factor. (Not that generational shift isn't.)