Why I Hate Skills

[VHawkwinter]

But when you do click on a circle, it shows you the starting hands as dealt:
View attachment 433049

That's pretty neat. So what is this WAR simulator for? Trying to optimise your strategy to get an edge when playing it with friends? idle curiosity? Something else?

 

[pemerton]

....

And do you think this example undermines the argument?

Because, sure, if in D&D the d20 was replaced by a d4 I also think the players would notice.

I didn't realise that you were talking only about 5e D&D. Your post (and the thread more generally) didn't make that clear.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I would argue that the only ways discrete skills make the games better is that some players enjoy both the character building aspect and they like imagining themselves as especially good at something. But the actual math isn't important/noticeable.

Those lists of benchmark tasks you can do without rolling that I mentioned, and under what conditions you can do them, is another benefit of discrete skills (and discrete benchmark tasks with set target numbers - something 5e lacks). Once friends saw me with my notes of what I could just do without rolling, they started doing the same, and have said they appreciate being able to plan around stuff they are 100% confident they can do.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I didn't realise that you were talking only about 5e D&D. Your post (and the thread more generally) didn't make that clear.

I don't think that they were only referring to 5e? I've also been operating under the assumption that we were talking about any TTRPGs.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think that they were only referring to 5e? I've also been operating under the assumption that we were talking about any TTRPGs.

Well in that case, this claim is false:

the only ways discrete skills make the games better is that some players enjoy both the character building aspect and they like imagining themselves as especially good at something. But the actual math isn't important/noticeable.

Because there are RPGs in which the actual maths of discrete skills is noticeable and is important to play.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I didn't realise that you were talking only about 5e D&D. Your post (and the thread more generally) didn't make that clear.

I wasn't talking about only D&D 5e, just using the dominant game system as the example. But obviously you can craft scenarios for a game where the statistical difference would be obvious. I made an example of +2 vs +5 (which perhaps I should have specified was in a d20 game, but maybe I should have also specified base-10? not base-16?). If I made it +15 vs. -3 then clearly the difference would be noticeable.

I don't know what roll is required for a "success" in the games you mentioned, but the odds of getting 3 of them in 1d6 are zero, so it wasn't really a useful comparison. And if the game specifies how many dice you get then it would be pretty hard for the game to have a "hidden" bias that rolled fewer dice, as a human player would very likely notice the difference between 6d6 and, say, 4d6.

But I would argue that general argument would hold true, to a reasonable degree: if a VTT could 'cheat' by lowering the success rate in your game by 15% (perhaps by rolling the correct number of dice, but 'weighting' some of them, sometimes) it would be a very, very difficult pattern to detect.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Those lists of benchmark tasks you can do without rolling that I mentioned, and under what conditions you can do them, is another benefit of discrete skills (and discrete benchmark tasks with set target numbers - something 5e lacks). Once friends saw me with my notes of what I could just do without rolling, they started doing the same, and have said they appreciate being able to plan around stuff they are 100% confident they can do.

I am all for 100% success at some things. That's how I play Shadowdark, for example: a thief is always going to pick a lock unless it's an unpickable lock or if they're trying to do it in difficult conditions (during a fight, for example).

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because there are RPGs in which the actual maths of discrete skills is noticeable and is important to play.

Yes, I definitely generalized too much with my original claim.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well in that case, this claim is false:
Because there are RPGs in which the actual maths of discrete skills is noticeable and is important to play.

As I noted, bonuses on 3D6 systems are not symmetrical throughout the range, and as such can end up playing a great degree of significance in a situation. For example, a +3 modifier on a roll-low 3D6 system like Hero or GURPS can turn an 8- roll into an 11_ roll. That may not look like a lot at a glance, but it turns a 25% roll into more than a 50% one. Its not nearly as big a difference at a high end (a 14- roll to a 17- is not nearly as significant. But you spend a lot more time wandering around the range where the impact is much stronger.

 

[VHawkwinter]

There are RPGs in which the actual maths of discrete skills is noticeable and is important to play.

Right - like my 3.x example where you may have more than a +20 difference between your abilities and those of another character, with lists of autosuccess task benchmarks based on your skill level; or various d100 games where you may have a skill at like 150% while someone else has it at 40%; or GURPS where one player might have a skill at the level of "roll under 24 on 3d6" (only failing if you roll an automatic failure or are attempting something of a task-difficulty-modifier harsher than a -7 AND roll low enough) while another has it at "roll under 6 on 3d6" and has a very low chance of success except on very easy tasks, etc. I get you.

Well in that case, this claim is false

Yeah, I think that claim only really applies to games like 5e where the difference between characters' individual-skill-based capabilities is pretty small; like that +5 vs +2 on 1d20.