Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I think I missed this comment earlier.

It's not that negative consequences have to be defined every time an action is declared. The idea is that if there aren't negative consequences that would naturally follow, don't bother rolling dice.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I think I missed this comment earlier.

It's not that negative consequences have to be defined every time an action is declared. The idea is that if there aren't negative consequences that would naturally follow, don't bother rolling dice.

I've heard this comment a lot. What's the method people who follow this philosophy use to determine how long something takes, if you're not rolling if there's no immediate badstuff? Do you just never roll to determine how long it takes? Do you have an "extra time" rule you add on to convert extra time into bonuses? A simple take20 rule where if there's no immediate consequences for failure you spend 20x the time and get the results of a rolled 20? Something else?

 

[Fenris-77]

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

In terms of old school play time wasted is a valuable and measurable resource. Far less so in newer versions of D&D or Pathfinder.

 

[VHawkwinter]

In terms of old school play time wasted is a valuable and measurable resource. Far less so in newer versions of D&D or Pathfinder.

Sure. Absolutely. It matters more if every 10 minutes is a new random encounter check, than in a 3.x /5.x, PF2, GURPS, etc game where a few minutes wasted often won't matter. If you're running a scenario about sneaking into a fortress or some other thing where you're trying to avoid alerting guards to your presence or making noise to call down all the guards, suddenly the time matters. I do a lot of encounter checks (travelling a city or wilderness or staying still, but in 'public' in a city or wilderness), but it's whatever window makes sense for the situation rather than a static 10 minute interval.

 

[pemerton]

Uh, yeah.

I'm puzzled that you think you need to tell me that. I'm wondering if you are at all understanding my critique of skills systems.

Well, you've brought up lockpicking quite a bit. It seems to me part of the point of a lockpick skill - as used in a traditional dungeon context - is much the same as any other open door check: it means that the players aren't guaranteed to be able to go where they want. I mean, AD&D has at least 4 versions of this: the STR-based roll to open doors, the STR-based roll to bend bars/lift gates, the thief's roll to pick a lock, and the Knock spell. It seems pretty inherent to the game that there is no guarantee of being able to get through the door you would like to get through - some of that ability to get through doors is gated behind a mix of luck (how well did I roll?) and planning (did we bring along a thief hireling? did we memorise a Knock spell?).

As a result, sometimes the players have to have their PCs take an alternative path - or try and find an alternative path.

This is why I don't see same disjunction that you are positing, between PC build including a skill (like lock-picking) and players having to make decisions about what their PCs do.

I can see that an adventure design without alternative paths aren't well-suited to this - but then to me the issue is more about the adventure design not being well-suited to an "open doors" skill, then to the existence of the "open doors" skill itself. Similarly, an adventure which only works if the PCs win a fight isn't well-suited to the use of a "fighting" skill.

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.

This seems like an example of an adventure without there being meaningful alternative paths.

The lock-picking skill was invented in a different context, where there are multiple meaningful paths.

It can survive outside that context, I think, but only if there is a willingness to adopt a different methodology from the typical D&D one (something closer to what @SpellObjectEnthusiast called "PbtA" - which is not unique to PbtA games).

 

[pemerton]

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.

To me, this reinforces that the issues in this thread pertain to scenario design, including (but probably not limited to) it not being a good fit for the PC build and resolution systems.

 

[TwoSix]

I think I missed this comment earlier.

It's not that negative consequences have to be defined every time an action is declared. The idea is that if there aren't negative consequences that would naturally follow, don't bother rolling dice.

Something I was thinking about during my drive to work: What is skills were saves?

Rather than being something on the sheet a player invokes to do something, they become a particular competence at avoiding the consequence of taking a risky action?

That changes the gameplay loop to one where the players simply declare actions within the fiction. When the GM judges that a declared action has a risk of a meaningful negative consequence, then they call for the appropriate save.

If a character tries to climb a cliff, make an Athletics save to not fall or get stuck.

If a character has to pick a lock silently to not alert the guards in the next room, make a Finesse save.

If a character is interacting with a runic puzzle, make a Knowledge save to recognize this is a trap.

Having a tense negotiation with a merchant? Make a Presence save to not piss him off and he doubles the price.

 

[bsss]

I've heard this comment a lot. What's the method people who follow this philosophy use to determine how long something takes, if you're not rolling if there's no immediate badstuff? Do you just never roll to determine how long it takes? Do you have an "extra time" rule you add on to convert extra time into bonuses? A simple take20 rule where if there's no immediate consequences for failure you spend 20x the time and get the results of a rolled 20? Something else?

I'm not who you asked, but I really like this question. I think time spent can be a consequence, because I think time is a resource that can (and arguably should) be managed in most adventures. Many if not all dungeon adventures. Success = immediate results, to the point of maybe getting a surprise round on the orcs, failure = results, but the orcs are ready instead. Or, as even further back (or maybe a different thread at this point, I've lost track), each check = 5 minutes pass, roll random encounters or keep track of the number of checks vs. the necromancer's ritual timer or mention that torches are starting to flicker and the party's starting to get hungry or so on.

Taking 20 is a great tool because it removes pointless rolling when it doesn't really matter, and because it also demonstrates the folly of ignoring time. The necromancer runs deep into his dungeon and starts the ritual. On his way, he locks six doors on his way to his sixth basement's six-sided Evil Inner Sanctum of Evil. GM starts the clock in his head --- the PCs have three hours to stop the necromancer. That's 36 dungeon turns or whatever-you-call-thems (I like "stretches"). If the party takes 20 on two doors, they might as well have not even been there. If they take 20 on one door, they're really starting to push things --- so the thief needs to be good, the party needs to be resourceful, or the party needs to be risky and take the unlocked, combat-heavy route.

 

[bsss]

Something I was thinking about during my drive to work: What is skills were saves?

Rather than being something on the sheet a player invokes to do something, they become a particular competence at avoiding the consequence of taking a risky action?

That changes the gameplay loop to one where the players simply declare actions within the fiction. When the GM judges that a declared action has a risk of a meaningful negative consequence, then they call for the appropriate save.

If a character tries to climb a cliff, make an Athletics save to not fall or get stuck.

If a character has to pick a lock silently to not alert the guards in the next room, make a Finesse save.

If a character is interacting with a runic puzzle, make a Knowledge save to recognize this is a trap.

Having a tense negotiation with a merchant? Make a Presence save to not piss him off and he doubles the price.

I feel like that's how a lot of good skill checks play out, honestly, but I like that twist of language to get the point across. Clever.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel like that's how a lot of good skill checks play out, honestly, but I like that twist of language to get the point across. Clever.

Yea, it isn't a big mechanical change, but I think it works well for @Bill Zebub's case of wanting the players to make their declarations within the fiction instead of using a mechanical option on the table. But at the same time, it also empowers character concept (and the mechanics supporting it) to play a major role in how the resolution actually occurs.