S'mon said:
If anything I'd prefer players to request checks more often. I get tired of reminding them to use their resources. I'd prefer players to pay *more* attention to what is on their PC sheet, not less. Or they can rely on their own ability without regard to their PC's skills if they wish, but those PC abilities are resources available to them.
You often get a situation, when 5 characters are rolling for the same check, where
someone inevitably makes it, just with a lucky roll. In that case, it's pointless to even ask for the roll. Just tell them who is lying. They are going to find it out anyway.
As for 'aid other', I only allow it if the aiding PC can explain how they are aiding the aided PC. Nothing wrong with 'knack for success', though.
This results in the same situation as above. Everyone piling on the same check leads to HUGE bonuses that inevitably reveal what the check was for anyway, invalidating the need for a check.
That's just mathematics, man.
Your ability to win monopoly is based on your ability at playing the game, just like any real game - real games being those which involve an element of player skill (unlike, say, Snakes & Ladders).
Relevant skills for RPGs may include player ability at social interaction, insight, puzzle solving, memory, and for LARPs may include combat and other physical skills.
Debatably. Skill plays a vairable role in any game. In Monopoly, forex, success in the game is mostly about the luck of the die roll -- if you hit Boardwalk before anyone else, you're solid, but if you roll low repeatedly and spend most of your time in the purple and orange streets, your investment won't help you out in the long run, unless every other player has a string of bad luck and gets trapped in your slums. I'd think most people would balk at calling Snakes & Ladders "not a game" (in that case, what is it?!), just as they'd balk at saying The Sims is "not a game" (despite not having clearly outlined victory conditions and thus no way for "player skill" to contribute to any concrete goals).
It's also true that the "social interaction, insight, puzzle solvivng, memory" aren't necessarily truly relevant player skills in an RPG. In using Passive Skills, even for social interactions, I'm telling my players that they don't need to worry about determining themselves if every NPC they talk to is being honest or not -- their characters have a failsafe for that. Player strategy comes in when they determine if the failsafe is "good enough" based on how their character feels about the antagonist in question. If the player just thinks it's a normal deception, they may rely on their passive skill; if the player feels that it might be a bigger deal, they'll roll, and risk failure.
That's terrible - you're actually saying that the only strategy is in building the PC, before play even begins?!
The way the game is designed at the moment, that is the place most strategy comes in. It's part of the reason why I miss effects like
Charm Person or
Detect Lies that let a player spend a resource to affect their chances of success in a noncombat encounter, and why I endeavor to add effects like this back into the game.
BTW AIR Monpoly, if played correctly, has an adversarial bidding-for-property system - any property not purchased is bid for by the rest of the table - but this rule is often forgotten/not noticed, making for a much more boring game.
If it's not a rule that is often included in play, but it's very important, it's not a very well-designed rule. Possibly, in this case, it is because it abandons mechanics in favor of personal persuasion power and favoritism, leading to the sense that the winner is just the most charismatic person at the table, or the person with the most friends. Which is accurate to the world of real estate, certainly, but it doesn't make for the most fun
play for a lot of folks.