Why I Hate Skills

[Fenris-77]

Let me try this a different way...

Let's say the party is at a fork in the road, and they have divined/listened/sniffed etc., and have determined that going left leads to chocolate cake, and right leads to brussels sprouts. As it turns out, the villain is from the Elemental Plane of Chocolate, and they have learned the villain is vulnerable to vitamins. So clearly they want to go right first in order to stock up on missile weapons. BUT! ALAS! There is a LOCKED GATE in the way. WOE BE THEY!

Fortunately the Rogue has +7 in Lockpicking, so he opens the gate. Or, maybe not, because he still has a 10% chance to fail.

I really don't see how the RNG on the lock...a 10% chance they will have to think of another way to open a locked gate...adds anything interesting/worthwhile to the game.

Locked doors are just a soft gate, and in this example are doing that job. I'd agree that it's not super interesting, but that's true of a lot of locked doors. To my mind they are a spotlight moment for the thief as much as anything else.

Where and how to gate dungeons is a design skill all it's own.

 

[Fenris-77]

This seems like an issue of GM skill, at least to an extent. What I mean is, if your backstory matters then you should be able to convey it to the players - instead of them getting it in advance and using it to their benefit (on a success), you bring it out as part of the bringing home as a brutal consequence (on a failure).

Not really, or at least that's not what I was talking about. There are lots of published adventures that gate all sorts of important information behind various kinds of rolls. I think that's really bad adventure design and I don't run games like that.

Edit - For clarity, I'm talking about binary pass-fail type systems here.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can't be faulted for not reading the entire thread, so I'll offer a couple of clarifications...

But the idea that there is a tension between having skill ratings, and players engaging the fiction, is fairly foreign to me.

There isn't, or shouldn't be. But I have observed a lot of substitution of "Can I roll X?" in place of genuine problem solving, not just in how players play but in how adventures are written. I'm positing that the existence of skills leads to that mindset.

But I have offered multiple examples of how player problem solving can be combined with character's using skill.

This seems like an issue of GM skill, at least to an extent.

Not quite sure how GM skill is a factor in how adventures are written, except to the extent that it can require difficult improvisation to turn "A successful X check will result in Y" into an interesting challenge with consequences on the fly. But ok.

What I mean is, if your backstory matters then you should be able to convey it to the players - instead of them getting it in advance and using it to their benefit (on a success), you bring it out as part of the bringing home as a brutal consequence (on a failure).

And I really do not understand what you mean by that. How does that relate to the problem of locks just being RNG checks? Because if they fail the check, I should remind them of that thing in their backstory where their parents locked them in the attic and they couldn't get out, and now they should roleplay emergent trauma? Or what?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

I really don't see how the RNG on the lock...a 10% chance they will have to think of another way to open a locked gate...adds anything interesting/worthwhile to the game.

Typically if plan A fails in this sort of game, you are driven to using a backup plan to achieve the same result at a greater cost. The rogue being unable to bypass the lock might mean:

• The party goes to the chocolate room first, fighting their enemy without obtaining his weakness.
• The party spends a limited use item (Acid) or spell (Knock) to open the door.
• The party spends time breaking the door down, which will make enough noise to attract an encounter or give their foe warning to flee/fortify the chocolate room

There's a number of choices for what the party can choose to do in this situation which will have different costs/risks. The die roll determines whether the party can take the easy path or one of the hard paths. The cost of failure isn't an immediate cost, but a denial of an option and forcing the party to choose a non-optimal path.

 

[bsss]

Let's say the party is at a fork in the road, and they have divined/listened/sniffed etc., and have determined that going left leads to chocolate cake, and right leads to brussels sprouts. As it turns out, the villain is from the Elemental Plane of Chocolate, and they have learned the villain is vulnerable to vitamins. So clearly they want to go right first in order to stock up on missile weapons. BUT! ALAS! There is a LOCKED GATE in the way. WOE BE THEY!

Fortunately the Rogue has +7 in Lockpicking, so he opens the gate. Or, maybe not, because he still has a 10% chance to fail.

With only a 10% chance to fail, thinking in game terms, that means he fails on a 1 or a 2 on a d20, so his bonus is amazing and/or the locked gate to the Cursed Plane of Gemmifera is really simple (because no one wants to break in there anyway, perhaps). I just wouldn't bother with a roll at this point, you know your table and go "rogue, this lock is child's play. Tell us how awesome you are and make a fool of this lock."

I really don't see how the RNG on the lock...a 10% chance they will have to think of another way to open a locked gate...adds anything interesting/worthwhile to the game.

Coming up with a different, potentially clever, way around the gate does add something to the game, as the post above me just gave some suggestions on. It doesn't even have to be common dungeon dilemmas --- if your players are as gonzo as mine often are, they'll either go "hell with it, straight to the Choco-Demon it is!" or concoct some cockamamie scheme where they come up with a metal to spaghetti ritual and everyone laughs at how this is a very serious game while discussing the party's upcoming dinner. YMMV on the silliness but you get the point.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Coming up with a different, potentially clever, way around the gate does add something to the game, as the post above me just gave some suggestions on.

Yes! It does!

So....how about a gate with a lock that's rusted shut, so that the "interesting something" is required?

Does that make sense? Do you see why I'm scratching my head about the value of just rolling dice to see whether or not the lock is a challenge?

if your players are as gonzo as mine often are, they'll either go "hell with it, straight to the Choco-Demon it is!"

Yes, definitely. And a genuinely challenging gate will make that an interesting decision.

or concoct some cockamamie scheme where they come up with a metal to spaghetti ritual and everyone laughs at how this is a very serious game while discussing the party's upcoming dinner. YMMV on the silliness but you get the point.

I'm not understanding. Are you suggesting my example scenario is somehow silly? You clearly have never encountered a Chocolate Elemental Lord.

 

[Fenris-77]

An easier way to do that same bit is to use a hard gate. Assuming the party doesn't have passwall or anything, a magically locked door that opens only with a specific key found elsewhere in the dungeon will work fine and also be pretty satisfying for the players.

 

[Blue]

There's 24 pages to read at this moment, I want to make some comments before I see others thoughts that might influence my initial thoughts.

When you roll a 1 or a 20 when using a skill, you mark that skill, and at the end of the session you roll a d20 for every marked skill: if you roll above your current skill, it increases by one. That end-of-session rolling is really fun, but unfortunately (in my opinion) it creates an incentive to roll dice during the session.

In fairness, there was one instance where skills did work the way I think they are supposed to: there was an incentive for a character to dive into a pool, and I explained that the water was frigid and turbulent, and that Swimming checks would be required, with consequences for failure. They tied a rope around the waist of the swimmer, for which I granted a Boon (i.e. Advantage) on the roll.

Would, for you personally, the skill system had worked if (a) it was only active roll that (b) had consequences (outside time spent) for failure?

Oh, and then there's lock-picking and trap-disabling. The dungeon had several instances (at least three) where the key to a lock was hidden in another part of the dungeon. Which is a pretty standard video game trope, but when you have a sleight-of-hand skill, and an incentive to use skills, eventually all the locks get picked. Not only was there no problem solving, planning, or other trade-offs, just dice rolling, but the presumed purpose of the locks and keys...getting them to explore the other parts of the dungeon...wasn't actually achieved.

This reminds me of a really poor experience I had with an early edition of Mechwarrior, which they resolved in later editions I'm told. It was the same sort of thing where rolls led to advancement, but the most roll-dense part of the game was mech combat. And one player's mech might have have two weapons, one long range and one short, and another might have an even dozen machine guns (each with their own roll) as well as other short range heat-generating weapons.

I dislike the idea of a meta-level of optimization by picking skills that get used more. And in cases like this, if not everyone can pick locks or open traps, you're the one who will get those rolls.

At least this the skill advancement seems linked to the skill used, unlike in that case.

I resolved it this weekend by just having everybody roll. And inevitably somebody in the party of five succeeded in every case, so at least we avoided the "now we know we missed something syndrome." But I find it incredibly unsatisfying. My players are learning they don't really have to be very thoughtful; they just blunder around and I tell them what dice to roll.

There's math to adjust for 1 roll at X chance to be the same as Y rolls at Z chance. I wonder if a quick conversion chart for your party size would be worth it to attach to your GM screen, so that these rolls have the same chance to succeed as the adventure expects, while you're letting everyone roll.

Other than spellcasting and weapon attacks during combat, which in Dragonbane uses the skill system, the lock picking (because of the hazard checks) and the swimming were literally the only examples I can think of where skill checks were called for in response to action declarations for which there would have been consequences for failing. And overall we did a LOT of dice rolling.

I don't think there I would consider combat "skill use" to have a consequence. There is no penalty for failure. Sure there's the indirect issue that the time spent not succeeding can have negative consequences, just like the 15 minutes picking a lock can lead to negative consequences. But it doesn't seem that failing an attack/casting check imposes a direct consequence on the character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Would, for you personally, the skill system had worked if (a) it was only active roll that (b) had consequences (outside time spent) for failure?

If you do actually read 24 pages you'll find some clarification, but yes in general what I advocate are dice rolls that:

1. Result from player action declarations
2. Have consequences for failure (where failure itself doesn't count as a consequence; it has to lead to some game state that is worse than not having tried)

The problem with implementing that in this particular game is that advancement depends on the dice rolls.

This reminds me of a really poor experience I had with an early edition of Mechwarrior, which they resolved in later editions I'm told. It was the same sort of thing where rolls led to advancement, but the most roll-dense part of the game was mech combat. And one player's mech might have have two weapons, one long range and one short, and another might have an even dozen machine guns (each with their own roll) as well as other short range heat-generating weapons.

I dislike the idea of a meta-level of optimization by picking skills that get used more. And in cases like this, if not everyone can pick locks or open traps, you're the one who will get those rolls.

At least this the skill advancement seems linked to the skill used, unlike in that case.

Agreed. One thing I do like about Dragonbane skills is that the chance of improvement is inversely proportional to your current skill. So there's a great incentive to "invest" in your lower skills.

There's math to adjust for 1 roll at X chance to be the same as Y rolls at Z chance. I wonder if a quick conversion chart for your party size would be worth it to attach to your GM screen, so that these rolls have the same chance to succeed as the adventure expects, while you're letting everyone roll.

Dragonbane has fixed "DCs", meaning that you roll your skill or lower on a d20 (is that like Pendragon?) with literally no modifiers except Advantage/Disadvantage (called "Boons" and "Banes", which can stack), so implementing that kind of math would really mess with the game.

In any event, it's not the math of having everybody roll...and thus succeed...in itself that bothers me (especially since I'm inclined to grant autosuccess on zero-consequence checks anyway). It's that I find the absence of any incentive to not roll an indicator of a poor skills system. So when everybody says, "Can I roll, too?" I think "This system is dumb."

I don't think there I would consider combat "skill use" to have a consequence. There is no penalty for failure. Sure there's the indirect issue that the time spent not succeeding can have negative consequences, just like the 15 minutes picking a lock can lead to negative consequences. But it doesn't seem that failing an attack/casting check imposes a direct consequence on the character.

It's not consequence but cost: the attack costs you your turn, which could perhaps be used to do something else (Drink a potion? Cast a spell? Shove the orc? Dodge?). In general when talking about skills I refer only to consequences, but really anything that makes the player pause and say, "Hmm...do I really want to pay the price to try?" is good enough.

Admittedly, in some/many games, for some/many classes, there aren't really all that many choices, so perhaps "I swing my sword" is the only real option to consider. But that's a problem with specific implementations. (I've been wanting to try Nimble, which seems to have an interesting design around that choice.)

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think there I would consider combat "skill use" to have a consequence. There is no penalty for failure.

Um, the consequence is getting ganked in the liver instead of gloriously killing yet another rabid kobold. Opportunity cost perhaps, I would have thought the cost for failure there is pretty obvious. When you don't kill them they get extra chances to kill you.