Why I Hate Skills

I suppose I could have titled the thread “What happens if you…” and then described a narrow definition of skill use.

I guess I learned all about clickbait thread titles from zaardnar.

pemerton said:

Flashbacks!

Click to expand...

Well no, time is linear. The only verisimilitudinous explanation is that the relevant knowledge spontaneously appears in the character's brain.

soviet said:

Well no, time is linear. The only verisimilitudinous explanation is that the relevant knowledge spontaneously appears in the character's brain.

Click to expand...

But that’s TOO real. I might never be able to return to reality.

TwoSix said:

Pretty much all knowledge checks in skill-based systems basically acknowledge that a particular character's knowledge is all in a Schrodinger's box state; the check is just when we actually decide to open it.

I do think the check will generally have an in-fiction narration, though; it's the character taking a second to wrack their brain and try to remember a detail. That isn't always applicable, but I think it's pretty common for situations that call for some kind of Lore/Knowledge/Intelligence check.

Click to expand...

Would you rather the GM write up/buyl a hundred pages of setting knowledge and give players access to certain parts based of class/background/intelligence/etc. ???

This will also require a system of gaining access to more bits based on PC actions.

VHawkwinter said:

When you say clock do you mean it in the OSR "visual progress clock" sense, or does "the game runs on calendars and timelines and appointments and time tracking and encounter / event intervals" count?

Click to expand...

I mean some sort of game-regulated countdown or measure that leads to consequences. Eg each action takes a turn, and a torch burns for 4 turns (light clock); each action takes a turn, and every 4 turns the GM rolls for wandering monsters (wandering monster clock); each action takes a turn, and after X turns you get hungry (and so need to eat) and/or tired (and so need to rest) (hunger/exhaustion clock).

The first two sorts of clock are as old as D&D; the third is also found in a clear form in Moldvay Basic. The closest to a dungeon crawler that I play regularly these days is Torchbearer 2e, which has a light clock and a conditions clock.

pemerton said:

I mean some sort of game-regulated countdown or measure that leads to consequences. Eg each action takes a turn, and a torch burns for 4 turns (light clock *); each action takes a turn, and every 4 turns the GM rolls for wandering monsters (*wandering monster clock); each actio takes a turn, and after X turns you get hungry (and so need to eat) and/or tired (and so need to rest) (hunger/exhaustion clock).

The first two sorts of clock are as old as D&D; the third is also found in a clear form in Moldvay Basic. The closest to a dungeon crawler that I play regularly these days is Torchbearer 2e, which has a light clock and a conditions clock.

Click to expand...

I see.

In my case I was thinking more like "the patrols pass by every (varies, let's say 2 minutes); you have X amount of downtime for the week to allocate to working, studying, training, crafting, socialising, inventing, or researching, and thus only have so many hours to work with; you have enough savings to last three weeks; you have N days of rations and water for this expedition; you have X hours of daylight to work with while you're lost in the forest; and various faction plans are in motion and will complete by various dates if you don't intervene, uncovering what those timelines are isn't impossible but requires legwork; and the town's longterm food-stores are enough to last Y months, if guys don't procure more food to preserve, people will start starving in January.

Less abstracted, but still observable clocks and time to waste. My time is measured in rounds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, and months though, not abstract turns.

How long things take varies by the thing, but the time should usually matter, though sometimes you'll have some wiggle room.

I don't really like hours as an in-game measurement tool. Once you get to things that take that long you're abstracting an awful lot of little things (by necessity). I think it's also tough to say exactly how long those tasks will take. Let's say you need to find a snitch in the poor quarter. How long does that take in hours? Who the heck knows, never mind if I have two other characters scouring the library at the same time for a book they need.

My preference is for something like 'watches' that allow a general action each, probably four watches per day. So finding that snitch takes a watch (assuming nothing goes wrong). The research at the library might take two watches, but it's still way easier to keep the party synched up and for them to plan a day's worth of stuff.

At any point during that watch scale action you can zoom back down to turn-by-turn and then zoom back out when that scene is finished. Let's say that was an unexpected combat - I'll just fold it into the same watch period and move on.

The other reason I like this time scale is that it's also useful for wilderness travel. Two birds and all that...

Bill Zebub said:

Maybe a better way of looking at this scenario (or, at least, a way I prefer) is that the characters already either know or don't know the information. The roll is just to find out which it is. They aren't doing something that might change that state.

Therefore a failed roll changes the state from "the characters don't know the information, but the players don't know that" to "the character still don't know the information, but now the players do know that and can plan accordingly." Which, in my opinion, is an improvement.

Click to expand...

Knowledge checks:

1. should be defenses; they're ultimately the same thing as perception, and allow players to shift resources from action effectiveness to action planning during character creation. Making them proactive action rolls complicates them, mostly unnecessarily. Sometimes a time cost can be appropriate to try and get more information, but that really doesn't need even need to be the same skill or kind of action at all.
2. exist as a somewhat mitigatable randomizing element on top of scenario design. Generally, they either reveal new action options or clarify the tactical/strategic implications of the existing set of actions players might take.

The gameplay implication of knowledge is way too frequently muddled by tying the checks in to exposition or characterization. They can be an effective design tool, if you go in with a clear goal.

Gahh. I hate knowledge checks. Not I guess in principle, but almost always in execution. I think my plan going forward is to grant knowledge without a roll to a PC with the right skills/background/class and maybe have them roll for extra info.

I'm your opposite number: I LOVE skills and skill systems in RPGs.

I do look askance at the skill-improvement mechanic you describe for Dragonbane. RuneQuest 2e had something similar, with similar problems.

I see the "me too-ism" as a feature, rather than a bug; it's a bug when it's usually one character only who gets to take an active part with all the other PCs sitting on their hands.

I see the character doing things, with skills and abilities different from the player, as a feature, rather than a bug. There is a balance-point problem in getting the player to experience that he-as-his-character is doing a thing, rather than the PC being either the player's waldo or a separate entity doing things while the player watches, but having the player do things, without the character having separate skills, is just kicking that problem to one far side away from that balance point.

I find it incredibly satisfying to play a PC who does things that I cannot, ought not, or dare not do in the Real World. It's perhaps the most important reason why I play, and what I seek to provide my players with when I GM. And I find good skill systems to be a wonderful tool toward providing this experience.