Why I Hate Skills

[TwoSix]

I've noticed a shift back to "group huddle" since switching from 5e to Shadowdark. So I do think the system is a factor. (Not that generational shift isn't.)

Could be. I find it hard to tell when switching systems; is it because the system rewards it, or because the GMing style has shifted because of the new engine?

 

[Fenris-77]

That would work for Path A in @Pedantic's scenario, sure. But Paths B and C both look like everyone involved would need to make personal skill checks.

I really never want to provide encouragement to split the party; people gravitate towards that too often (because "it's what my character would do") and it ends up slowing down play tremendously. My tables are slow enough without me as GM mucking it up more.

The inability of the general flow of OSR style play to handle party splitting has always been an issue. You essentially need to bend, break, and otherwise ignore certain rules to make it anything but a death sentence. I'm talking about more of a split that the thief nipping ahead to take a quick shufti while the Paladin tries to stand a still as possible. That's doable. Less so the further the thief actually goes.

 

[Fenris-77]

Could be. I find it hard to tell when switching systems; is it because the system rewards it, or because the GMing style has shifted because of the new engine?

If you're GMing it as designed and written I would suggest the former, as that is what the system is designed to do.

 

[TwoSix]

If you're GMing it as designed and written I would suggest the former, as that is what the system is designed to do.

Maybe? I mean, huddling up as a group to discuss strategies for spell use isn't really a spelled-out procedure that I'm aware of.

I feel like it might be more a factor of the relative consequentialness of spell use. And Shadowdark might require more planning because of the unpredictability of spell use ("If your spell fizzles, we'll switch to plan B.")

 

[Pedantic]

I do think the "group huddle to problem solve" happened more (just a gut feeling), but that feels more just like a generational/cultural shift than anything caused by a game's specified procedures.

Maybe not, though. 3e did have a lot more spells that were essentially "auto-win" or "trump cards" that would essentially negate or obviate certain kinds of challenges; 4e and 5e both favor spells that shift odds but don't actually break/negate challenges. Planning around those kinds of abilities often required more group cohesion.

I do think this is the source of the scope problem; is the game about gambling and spinning up reactions to the results of that gambling (either emphasizing real stakes, or creating the appearance/sensation of stakes, even when low rolling doesn't really impact forward momentum) or is it about managing resources/risk to overcome problems?

What isn't immediately clear is that the design of problems themselves needs to be different between those scenarios. If you're gambling, you can make the scope of any action flexible; the climb check can be the whole wall, part of the wall, a whole mountain, etc. What you're actually doing is setting the parameters you're betting on, and the differences between a single big roll and iterated rolling is just a matter of the precise probabilities and maybe the aesthetic experience at the table.

If you're doing the resource expenditure/problem solving model, that flexibility goes away, and you cannot make "climb this wall" an interesting problem without expanding it. The wall has to be taller than a single check's allowance at the least, and/or be surrounded by other features that influence the player's action calculus. A problem that is defeated by a single "auto-win" feature or even just a single check around 80% isn't a problem, it's at best part of a problem.

I think most of the issues identified with skills in this thread come down to trying to move problems from one kind of game to another without fully appreciating how the gameplay loop needs to influence their design. We're jumbling too many tools that aren't all turned toward the same purpose together, on both the obstacle (adventure/encounter etc.) design side, and on the player facing skill design side.

 

[Fenris-77]

Maybe? I mean, huddling up as a group to discuss strategies for spell use isn't really a spelled-out procedure that I'm aware of.

I feel like it might be more a factor of the relative consequentialness of spell use. And Shadowdark might require more planning because of the unpredictability of spell use ("If your spell fizzles, we'll switch to plan B.")

I wasn't suggesting that the huddle was spelled out. But SD is specifically designed to reward thoughtful, tactical play on the part of the players (as are all OSR games, ostensibly anyway). Plan B is part of that.

 

[Pedantic]

The inability of the general flow of OSR style play to handle party splitting has always been an issue. You essentially need to bend, break, and otherwise ignore certain rules to make it anything but a death sentence. I'm talking about more of a split that the thief nipping ahead to take a quick shufti while the Paladin tries to stand a still as possible. That's doable. Less so the further the thief actually goes.

Is this a problem if that's obvious? Like, definitely there's some issues with forced party splitting that constrain adventure design, but if it's clear that it's a bad idea, players should just learn not to do it. I'm put in mind of kinds of rules that come up in some economic board games I like.

1862: Railmania in the Eastern Counties has a phase where you bribe parliament for the right to start chartered rail companies. You're then obligated to spend enough money to start such companies operating before they receive grant funds. Practically, this means you must reserve enough money to buy 50% ownership of any company you buy the right to start. The game has rules to resolve the situation a player can legally get to where they don't do this, but they're so punitive (you are fined, and then forced to liquidate other stocks to make up enough money to do it anyway) that it is never correct not to reserve enough money to float the company.

The rule is necessary to ensure all possible board states can be resolved, but it's clearly intended never to be invoked, or certainly not more than once in the lifetime play of any given player, if they didn't understand the impact from reading the rules alone.

 

[TwoSix]

I wasn't suggesting that the huddle was spelled out. But SD is specifically designed to reward thoughtful, tactical play on the part of the players (as are all OSR games, ostensibly anyway). Plan B is part of that.

That does make sense. It's ultimately why although I like aspects of OSR play, it isn't really my go-to play experience. I don't do "caution" or "strategy" well.

 

[TwoSix]

Is this a problem if that's obvious? Like, definitely there's some issues with forced party splitting that constrain adventure design, but if it's clear that it's a bad idea, players should just learn not to do it. I'm put in mind of kinds of rules that come up in some economic board games I like.

Ideally, it's disincentivized by both strategic reasons AND by scenario/encounter design.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wasn't suggesting that the huddle was spelled out. But SD is specifically designed to reward thoughtful, tactical play on the part of the players (as are all OSR games, ostensibly anyway). Plan B is part of that.

I also think that "the answer is not on your character sheet" thing is part of it. When the solution is on your character sheet...when a player is invoking an ability/spell/item that belongs to their character...then I think there is going to be a tendency to view the solution as an individual action. But when you're looking around the table saying, "What do we do?" it's going to tend to be more of a group solution.