Why I Hate Skills

[Blue]

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.

If you fail your weapon or skill roll, there are consequences that are directly applied because of the failed roll? Like in PbtA where a failure makes the situation worse? Or a failed chance to disarm a trap in D&D might set it off?

Or is it like D&D combat, where there are zero consequences for the actual roll of a failure except that it took time, e.g. on one or part of one of your actions?

Because I thought I was quite clear breaking out direct consequences of the failure mechanically vs. indirect ones, but from what you wrote I'm not sure you grasped that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you fail your weapon or skill roll, there are consequences that are directly applied because of the failed roll? Like in PbtA where a failure makes the situation worse? Or a failed chance to disarm a trap in D&D might set it off?

Or is it like D&D combat, where there are zero consequences for the actual roll of a failure except that it took time, e.g. on one or part of one of your actions?

Because I thought I was quite clear breaking out direct consequences of the failure mechanically vs. indirect ones, but from what you wrote I'm not sure you grasped that.

In combat I think it's not the consequences of failure, it's the opportunity cost of making the attack. If you knew you were going to miss, would you choose something else? Such as take the Dodge action? In a really well-designed game, I think the choice between those options would be a meaningful one. (Sometimes, depending on circumstances, in 5e the choice between attacking and dodging can be a meaningful decision. Usually it's not.)

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah...or...I try to refrain making comparisons to board games because that's so easily interpreted as being intentionally denigrating...but...but...I guess that's genuinely how I feel when dice are rolled "to see which way the game goes". What others describe as "character skill" (without player skill) feels to me like playing a board game.

That doesn’t seem denigrating to me. A lot of TTRPGs could benefit from being as thoughtfully designed as a lot of modern board games.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That doesn’t seem denigrating to me. A lot of TTRPGs could benefit from being as thoughtfully designed as a lot of modern board games.

Right?

And I love board games!

 

[Kichwas]

So, yeah....I hate skills.

I recently reached this point too, as a result of three things.

Seeing a comment in the Daggerheart book about 'only roll when there's consequence', coupled with the tag system of Legends in the Mist, and then suffering through an otherwise good Pathfinder 2e GM who made us roll for EVERYTHING. I felt like if I wanted to breath through my nose needed a die roll, and my mouth a different die roll. When we'd hit a door, we'd roll a whole pile of perception checks, and the 5 or 6 thievery checks to pick a lock one tumbler at a time... and then find we were in an abandoned hallway opening a locked empty closet. Something that just didn't matter.

So Daggerheart's advice there was something I read the very same day we had one of those roll-every-last-thing Pathfinder sessions, and then the following week I bought Legends in the Mist and saw a way to do character definition that didn't need numbers, skills, feats, lists of spells, and so on...

I feel like, whatever system is in play, I don't want to waste time on wasting time just to run out the clock on the session ending. As a player I want to focus on the things that move the story or the action or both. As a GM I want to only highlight the things that increase player engagement. And on a character sheet I want piles of numbers for things we're not interested in using or doing. Just give me the parts that matter.

For some people that might be an old school tRPG. But for me it's the tag system of Legend in the Mist. For me Daggerheart didn't go far enough. After all - first they say to only roll dice when it matters, and then in another section they have an example of a success check where the player is rolling to pick a zero-consequence lock. And the Finesse stat just ends up being used the same way Pathfinder 2E would have used Thievery.

Pointlessly rolling an attribute is the same as pointlessly rolling a skill. The problem isn't what you're rolling, but why you're rolling.

So I'm now at a stage where I want to shed both sides of that. The little details that don't add actual character definition, and the fussing over the minor non-story / non-action moments.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I recently reached this point too, as a result of three things.

Seeing a comment in the Daggerheart book about 'only roll when there's consequence', coupled with the tag system of Legends in the Mist, and then suffering through an otherwise good Pathfinder 2e GM who made us roll for EVERYTHING. I felt like if I wanted to breath through my nose needed a die roll, and my mouth a different die roll. When we'd hit a door, we'd roll a whole pile of perception checks, and the 5 or 6 thievery checks to pick a lock one tumbler at a time... and then find we were in an abandoned hallway opening a locked empty closet. Something that just didn't matter.

So Daggerheart's advice there was something I read the very same day we had one of those roll-every-last-thing Pathfinder sessions, and then the following week I bought Legends in the Mist and saw a way to do character definition that didn't need numbers, skills, feats, lists of spells, and so on...

I feel like, whatever system is in play, I don't want to waste time on wasting time just to run out the clock on the session ending. As a player I want to focus on the things that move the story or the action or both. As a GM I want to only highlight the things that increase player engagement. And on a character sheet I want piles of numbers for things we're not interested in using or doing. Just give me the parts that matter.

For some people that might be an old school tRPG. But for me it's the tag system of Legend in the Mist. For me Daggerheart didn't go far enough. After all - first they say to only roll dice when it matters, and then in another section they have an example of a success check where the player is rolling to pick a zero-consequence lock. And the Finesse stat just ends up being used the same way Pathfinder 2E would have used Thievery.

Pointlessly rolling an attribute is the same as pointlessly rolling a skill. The problem isn't what you're rolling, but why you're rolling.

So I'm now at a stage where I want to shed both sides of that. The little details that don't add actual character definition, and the fussing over the minor non-story / non-action moments.

Isn't it utterly perplexing how few people seem to see this?

 

[500 Toads]

In combat I think it's not the consequences of failure, it's the opportunity cost of making the attack. If you knew you were going to miss, would you choose something else? Such as take the Dodge action? In a really well-designed game, I think the choice between those options would be a meaningful one. (Sometimes, depending on circumstances, in 5e the choice between attacking and dodging can be a meaningful decision. Usually it's not.)

Depends on the system and specifics.

Off-hand, I don't remember missed attacks being explicitly punished in D&D 5E with any frequency, although there are certainly cases where actually hitting can be punished (melee attacks versus rust monsters, black puddings, fire elementals etc potentially having negative consequences on a hit, but not on a miss).


For something like Pathfinder 2E, even vs. basic Strikes some creatures might have a reaction that punishes a miss or critical miss. Critically failing a Strike against a swashbuckler or similar foe gives them the opportunity to make a Strike against you or attempt to disarm you, for instance. Likewise, critically failing certain combat actions, like grappling or tripping, will actually backfire and leave you in a worse situation than if you'd burned the action doing nothing at all. Actions with the "Attack" trait also increase multi-attack penalty; e.g. attempting and failing to Strike when you're grappled will increase the difficulty of attempting to Escape with a subsequent action on that same turn, because Escape has the "Attack" trait as well.

For certain systems (e.g. Call of Cthulhu 7E), attempting a melee attack gives the defender the choice of parrying, dodging... or counterattacking. If the defender chooses to counterattack in CoC 7E, he needs a better degree of success than the attacker to win the contest; but if he does, he'll hit and the original attacker will not be able to defend against it. In addition, the counterattack does not consume the defender's action for that round, so the defender would still be able to attack on his own turn for additional damage. In its cousin Runequest, counterattacking isn't an option; but a successful parry can damage the attacker's weapon, again potentially leaving him in a significantly worse situation.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Depends on the system and specifics.

Off-hand, I don't remember missed attacks being explicitly punished in D&D 5E with any frequency, although there are certainly cases where actually hitting can be punished (melee attacks versus rust monsters, black puddings, fire elementals etc potentially having negative consequences on a hit, but not on a miss).


For something like Pathfinder 2E, even vs. basic Strikes some creatures might have a reaction that punishes a miss or critical miss. Critically failing a Strike against a swashbuckler or similar foe gives them the opportunity to make a Strike against you or attempt to disarm you, for instance. Likewise, critically failing certain combat actions, like grappling or tripping, will actually backfire and leave you in a worse situation than if you'd burned the action doing nothing at all. Actions with the "Attack" trait also increase multi-attack penalty; e.g. attempting and failing to Strike when you're grappled will increase the difficulty of attempting to Escape with a subsequent action on that same turn, because Escape has the "Attack" trait as well.

For certain systems (e.g. Call of Cthulhu 7E), attempting a melee attack gives the defender the choice of parrying, dodging... or counterattacking. If the defender chooses to counterattack in CoC 7E, he needs a better degree of success than the attacker to win the contest; but if he does, he'll hit and the original attacker will not be able to defend against it. In addition, the counterattack does not consume the defender's action for that round, so the defender would still be able to attack on his own turn for additional damage. In its cousin Runequest, counterattacking isn't an option; but a successful parry can damage the attacker's weapon, again potentially leaving him in a significantly worse situation.

For me the question, though, is whether those potential consequences cause the player to weigh other options (e.g. dodging, etc.) or if the design of the game still makes attacking the obvious best choice. If the latter, then the consequences don't serve the function they could, which would be to make decision-making non-obvious and interesting.

 

[500 Toads]

For me the question, though, is whether those potential consequences cause the player to weigh other options (e.g. dodging, etc.) or if the design of the game still makes attacking the obvious best choice. If the latter, then the consequences don't serve the function they could, which would be to make decision-making non-obvious and interesting.

For PF2e, very much yes; the system is designed for that, and even low-level characters without any magical abilities can easily have multiple options with different odds c/o different proficiencies, relevant modifiers and defenses being involved. Tripping, demoralizing, pushing, grappling, feinting, aiding another party member, using dirty tricks to create a temporary advantage, recalling knowledge to identify weaknesses etc, disarming, moving (given that it competes for actions with attacks)... there's a lot that's codified, in addition to the obvious possibility of a player expressing what he wants to achieve and working with the GM to determine whether it's reasonable to attempt and how.

For CoC, combat is generally rarer and rather more dangerous when it happens (even if you're playing with Pulp rules) and there's less detailed mechanics; but depending on the situation, other options to consider can include fleeing and maybe hiding, or perhaps using a social skill like Intimidate or Fast Talk -- if the investigator can survive long enough to attempt a convincing argument against a potentially receptive target, anyway. Social skills are unlikely to help survival when being pursued by a large protoplasmic entity attempting to consume you (but the same could be said for swinging a crowbar at it ); but even trying to hit a police officer who's pursuing you because he just saw you attempt to break into an establishment whose proprietor you suspect is secretly up to no good, risks extremely negative consequences.

 

[VHawkwinter]

The problem with that of course is that it really stretches setting logic to have a significant consequence every time someone attempts an action and fails.

Sometimes, the consequence for failure is just time wasted. Which is less important outside combat, but IMO sometimes you're not rolling to see if you can do it ever, but rather are trying to determine how long it takes you