Why I Hate Skills

[VHawkwinter]

I still don't think most users would notice the difference of rolling below average for long stretches (again, as long as those rolls didn't come in "bursts")

I think that's probably correct, so long as it's only ~15% low. The more their abilities are off from where they should be. The faster they'll notice.

And of course as I pointed out yesterday, if they're being made to roll for things that should be an auto success, that will be quickly noticed as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that's probably correct, so long as it's only ~15% low. The more their abilities are off from where they should be. The faster they'll notice.

Yes, of course the larger the %, the more likely people are to notice.

If I could rewind the thread, rather than give percentages I think I would just claim that I think (I'm pretty darned sure) that the vast majority of people are less aware of probability advantages than they think they are, and would be surprised at how large a difference is required before they actually notice a difference in terms of game outcomes. It's much, much bigger than most people think.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Yes, of course the larger the %, the more likely people are to notice.

If I could rewind the thread, rather than give percentages I think I would just claim that I think (I'm pretty darned sure) that the vast majority of people are less aware of probability advantages than they think they are, and would be surprised at how large a difference is required before they actually notice a difference in terms of game outcomes. It's much, much bigger than most people think.

I think I'm more aware than the average person, and I'm certain it would take a while for me to notice a 20% difference. I'd probably suspect something was off after ~4 rolls, if they were close together. But I wouldn't be sure. Assuming no obvious tells like my auto tasks demanding rolls.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Oh.

That's curious, because lots of games have only a trained/untrained distinction. Odd to latch on to that one feature and assume that such a game would be "like 4e". That's like assuming that the use of d6's is "like Traveler".

There's also the desire to not have massive gulfs in skill bonuses. In 3rd, two different people could have a +20 or a +2 on any given skill and 4E thought to narrow that gap.

Another 4Eism is focusing too much on the game rules to improve play. Instead of talking about rules, perhaps you should go take improv classes with your players to improve their ability to negotiate the fiction with you???

 

[VHawkwinter]

There's also the desire to not have massive gulfs in skill bonuses. In 3rd, two different people could have a +20 or a +2 on any given skill and 4E thought to narrow that gap.

Yep. Don't like that. I don't see a reason everyone needs to have a close bonus in cooking to the party chef, unless the whole campaign is modeled after master chef. It's not saving throws in a game with a combat focus.

Another 4Eism is focusing too much on the game rules to improve play.

Interesting notion. I'm certainly guilty of wanting to improve play through changing game mechanics. As well. (Though I think 4e's "improvements" largely centred on building a system with all the worst parts of 3e and discarding the good stuff, so what changes to gameplay are "improvements" is certainly a matter of opinion. I'm sure the 4e fans would not care much for my de-emphasising miniatures and putting a bigger emphasis on noncombat stuff.

Instead of talking about rules, perhaps you should go take improv classes with your players to improve their ability to negotiate the fiction with you???

Are you suggesting that the game played doesn't matter, and it's just a social story construction activity? I do know a couple people who think that, I'm just checking.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think I'm more aware than the average person, and I'm certain it would take a while for me to notice a 20% difference. I'd probably suspect something was off after ~4 rolls, if they were close together. But I wouldn't be sure. Assuming no obvious tells like my auto tasks demanding rolls.

Like I said, its much harder to tell with big linear rolls in the first place, because they're so all over the place.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep. Don't like that. I don't see a reason everyone needs to have a close bonus in cooking to the party chef, unless the whole campaign is modeled after master chef. It's not saving throws in a game with a combat focus.

That tends to be an artifact of games that assume every character will participate in ever zone of play. Combat is the common one, but I've seen games where they'd make sure people weren't too far apart in piloting for similar reasons.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Interesting notion. I'm certainly guilty of wanting to improve play through changing game mechanics. As well. (Though I think 4e's "improvements" largely centred on building a system with all the worst parts of 3e and discarding the good stuff, so what changes to gameplay are "improvements" is certainly a matter of opinion. I'm sure the 4e fans would not care much for my de-emphasising miniatures and putting a bigger emphasis on noncombat stuff.

Are you suggesting that the game played doesn't matter, and it's just a social story construction activity? I do know a couple people who think that, I'm just checking.

If you really do want a social story construction story, you should be able to go pursue that goal. If you want to play a game where the rules matter, you should be able to pursue that goal. What I want is for people to understand what they want and how to go about getting what they want.