Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

We're also compounding the issue with the "piling on" of rolls, which I'm not sure is necessarily an issue with skills, although perhaps they make it more obvious. I think it's a fair ruling to say that if the high Int guy trained in the skill can't do it, then others can't, but you still run into weird scenarios.

Imagine the "dumb barbarian dude" finds an ancient text and asks if he can decipher it. Perhaps he could, if he rolled really high. But he then fails and now the high Int guy trained in ancient texts arrives on the scene. Are you going to deny him the attempt because the barbarian failed? And if not, isn't it now the best tactic to let the low-skilled characters try first, as it provides more chances, since we have now established that the high int guy blocks all subsequent attempts?

You could then say "alright, to avoid that abuse, only the high Int ancient texts guy can event attempt from now on." But what if he's a relatively new character added to the party, and before he joined, the others were able to read ancient texts now and then. And now they suddenly can't because he's there? And what if he's away for a session? Do the rules now change for that session so ancient texts have a chance to be read?

Something always seems unsatisfactory about workarounds to the piling on effect, and I'm not sure what the best solution is. I guess one method for this particular example of reading an ancient text could be to do away with rolls and have a set DC and do it as a "passive check." Then either your character can or can't read it, and having multiple players "rolling" isn't a thing.

Yes! The piling on is not the core problem, but it's an indicator that something is wonky with how skills are implemented. In the absence of consequences for trying any workaround feels...artificial. Because it is.

 

[bsss]

Yes! The piling on is not the core problem, but it's an indicator that something is wonky with how skills are implemented. In the absence of consequences for trying any workaround feels...artificial. Because it is.

I would say that's more a problem with how the challenges are implemented, than the skills themselves. I don't think I'm splitting a hair, but you may consider those two closer than me, based on how the adventures you've seen sound.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes! The piling on is not the core problem, but it's an indicator that something is wonky with how skills are implemented. In the absence of consequences for trying any workaround feels...artificial. Because it is.

A pretty core problem here is that there an awful lot of situations that occur that are more likely to be solvable with more people to help.

If you have some kind of puzzle, or need to remember some obscure fact, it just makes sense that having 5 people give it a try is going to be more effective than just 1 person doing it.

You see the same effect in reverse with group stealth checks, where it makes a ton of sense that sneaking 5 people would be harder than sneaking just one.

I don't love the "everyone makes a check" situation when it plays out either, but it might be unavoidable in a lot of situations for games with detailed skill systems.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess what I don't understand in this argument that players made checks paper-thin RP and just dice rolls is, if that bothers you as GM, why don't you just ask for more RP? When you explain why you'd like some creative in-game justification or supporting event to take place, do your players take their die back in their hand and go "well never mind then!" and pout or something?

I think you're not understanding the problem. (Or my problem, acknowledging that some people are totally fine with it.)

It's not that the lack of narration/roleplaying bothers me, it's that RPGing seems to have evolved to where players (and GMs, and authors) don't expect players to engage with the

To put it another way, I don't mind when a player says, "Can I roll Athletics to see if I jump the pit?" Because I can say, "Sure...if you fail you die, ok?"

However, if a player gives a long monologue about their apprenticeship in the Crystal Tower of Tyranos and the trauma they suffered at the hands of their cruel master, and ends with, "Can I roll Arcana to see if I know the answer?" I don't have a way to make that an actual challenge to overcome. It's not an interesting decision to make that attempt.

Jumping over a chasm and "knowing" something are two very different kinds of challenges, of course, but what I see is the approach taken in knowledge checks creeping into all the other kinds of skill tests.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A pretty core problem here is that there an awful lot of situations that occur that are more likely to be solvable with more people to help.

Again, this is because of how the challenges are designed/presented.

Version A:
You come across a doorway barred by a portcullis, and next to it is a rusted wheel that presumably opens the portcullis. The players try to turn it, and learn that it's going to take a DC X Strength check. "Can I help?"

Version B:
You come across a doorway barred by a portcullis, and next to it is a rusted wheel that presumably opens the portcullis. But the alarm has been sounded, and two guards arrive. While you are fighting them, more guards arrive. If you can open the portcullis you can escape. The healer tries to turn the wheel and discovers that it's rusty and hard to turn. But the fighter and the barbarian are busy holding back the arriving guards. What to do, what to do....

If you have some kind of puzzle, or need to remember some obscure fact, it just makes sense that having 5 people give it a try is going to be more effective than just 1 person doing it.

Yes. If you are going to have knowledge checks or "puzzle solving checks" then absolutely it makes sense to let everybody roll. Unless there is a consequence for attempting. And since I struggle to ever have come up with consequences I try to avoid such checks in the first place.

You see the same effect in reverse with group stealth checks, where it makes a ton of sense that sneaking 5 people would be harder than sneaking just one.

One of my "least terrible" skill systems, or least one of my "least terrible features of a skill system" is how in The One Ring you can use bonus successes to give teammates automatic successes. E.g., the Burglar not only succeeds on stealth, but he throws a pebble at just the right time to give his clumsy friend a chance to dash across the open area.

I don't love the "everyone makes a check" situation when it plays out either, but it might be unavoidable in a lot of situations for games with detailed skill systems.

Exactly!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I would say that's more a problem with how the challenges are implemented, than the skills themselves. I don't think I'm splitting a hair, but you may consider those two closer than me, based on how the adventures you've seen sound.

That's pretty much what I've been trying to say.

I combine player skill (real decision making with stakes) and character skill (dice rolling) all the time. My complaint is that the existence of skills has a corrosive effect that leads to treating those skills as buttons, by players, GMs, and writers.*

In games where you don't have skills, but you sometimes apply an attribute modifier to a roll if it seems relevant, I don't see the symptoms nearly as much.

*And honestly my main complaint is about the adventures: it is much harder to design challenges that have genuine stakes and decision-making, which means it's hard to just edit adventures on the fly. It's one thing to tell a player with "bad habits" (in my opinion) to stop saying, "I check for traps!", and it's another thing to improvise interesting traps with telegraphs while running the adventure.

 

[bsss]

However, if a player gives a long monologue about their apprenticeship in the Crystal Tower of Tyranos and the trauma they suffered at the hands of their cruel master, and ends with, "Can I roll Arcana to see if I know the answer?" I don't have a way to make that an actual challenge to overcome. It's not an interesting decision to make that attempt.

I still think that knowing the answer can be interesting in terms of 1) adventure proceeds down informed, optimal path A [success] vs. 2) adventure has to swerve into blind, complicated path B [failure], but I agree that it's not a player challenge. My form of interesting here, though, does intersect with...

And honestly my main complaint is about the adventures: it is much harder to design challenges that have genuine stakes and decision-making, which means it's hard to just edit adventures on the fly. It's one thing to tell a player with "bad habits" (in my opinion) to stop saying, "I check for traps!", and it's another thing to improvise interesting traps with telegraphs while running the adventure.

Yeah, fair enough, I guess. I don't run published adventures much at all, at most I'll mine them for ideas and build my adventure including what I stole, so I get an "editorial pass" of a sort to say "this seems pointless, I'm not bothering" or "this is cool, but we need to raise the stakes".

 

[Bill Zebub]

I still think that knowing the answer can be interesting in terms of 1) adventure proceeds down informed, optimal path A [success] vs. 2) adventure has to swerve into blind, complicated path B [failure], but I agree that it's not a player challenge.

Yeah, there's nothing terribly wrong with it. But, honestly, the player could be in the kitchen and when they get back the other players could say, "Hey, we needed a knowledge check to see which way the adventure is going, and you have the highest skill, so we rolled for you...." It would be weird (this is just a thought experiment) but nothing actually wrong with it. And that, for me, is a signal that something is...mediocre.

 

[SkidAce]

Yes. If you are going to have knowledge checks or "puzzle solving checks" then absolutely it makes sense to let everybody roll. Unless there is a consequence for attempting. And since I struggle to ever have come up with consequences I try to avoid such checks in the first place.

Re: consequences.

If they fail a knowledge check by more than, say 10, I give them bad info.

Since they didnt know the DC for the knowledge check, they may not be sure of themselves.

They can roll play suspicion if they think they rolled low, or roleplay confidence if they think they rolled high enough.

edit:spelling

 

[Bill Zebub]

Re: consequences.

If they fail a knowledge check by more than, say 10, I give them bad info.

Since they didnt know the DC for the knowledge check, they may not be sure of themselves.

They can roll play suspicion if they think they rolled low, or roleplay confidence if they think they rolled high enough.

edit:spelling

Some issues I have with that:

• I'm personally not interested in roleplaying suspicion or confidence; I want the players themselves to experience suspicion or confidence and, perversely, if the roll is especially low they will know with certainty they failed, and I don't like to put players into the position of "Knowing X but expected to roleplay not-X".
• It's still not actually a consequence. No player his going to hesitate before committing to the attempt because they might end up objectively worse off than not having rolled.
• It also still leaves the difficulty of coming up with the 'consequence'...the bad knowledge that could lead to actual consequences...when an adventure says, "Anybody who passes a history check knows that the statue is of...etc."