Why I Hate Skills

[TwoSix]

You (as GM) would be ok with that? With a player just saying, "I use Wisdom!" without explaining what they are doing?

Not normally, because that doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm just saying that Wisdom (and the other stats) are indirectly used as widgets on the character sheet because they modify skill and attacks that do get invoked directly.

Contrast that with a pure identifier like "hair color" or "age".

 

[Gorgon Zee]

I don't think I really have anything I disagree with in what you're saying, but would you not say that "playing their character in-genre" and "players [ignore how their characters would interpret the results of the rules, and play] like the genre dictates" is part of what is the "meta", as it isn't coming from the character? The character doesn't know (as in, it's an in-world truth or objective) that the interesting horror roleplaying stuff --- the genre --- is found within investigating mysteries and potentially losing their minds, those activities and their outcomes are what's important to the game and thus outside the character's world.

Similarly — I basically agree with you. Definitely the character does not know that the fun is in going insane, and I think it would be just as much a sour note if a player actively sought out those plots as it would be if they avoid it. For me, the genre of CoC is “weird things happen to normal people”, and so to play in genre, you would try to play like a normal person.

My original contention was with the thought that the rules are more important than the stated genre as far as choosing what a character should do. So I’m not dogmatic about how the genre is to be played as much as the fact that it is important to do so!

 

[Gorgon Zee]

You (as GM) would be ok with that? With a player just saying, "I use Wisdom!" without explaining what they are doing?

I would be as happy with that as “I use persuade” or “I use mind control”. If the player is not very experienced I’d let any of these slide, but after a while I’d urge them to let me know their intent. For me, that is the most important piece of info I need to adjudicate a mechanical element.

If they said “I have X wisdom and I want to understand what the temple views as evil” that seems an excellent statement to me. If it was D&D I might ask for a d20 roll. In pendragon I might say “since you are famously wise, you can work it out immediately). In Gumshoe I would almost certainly say “yes, no problem, and if you spend you might find out some of the secrets also”

If I was in a system that had a religion skill, i’d adjucate the same way, substituting religion for wisdom. In fact, for D&D specially, you can view all the skills as specializations of the stats they are based off. Wouldn’t be hard to run that way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not normally, because that doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm just saying that Wisdom (and the other stats) are indirectly used as widgets on the character sheet because they modify skill and attacks that do get invoked directly.

Yes, it's indirect. That's my point. (Although I wouldn't use the word "widget".)

Players should (in the approach I favor) just describe what they are doing. If things like attributes or skills or background are going to factor it, that can be adjudicated.

I've heard it argued that "Isn't it just a time saver to say, I use Persuade instead of requiring the player to spell it all out, only to have the GM say ok let me have a roll and add your Persuasion modifier if any? It's a short hand but everybody knows what it means." But what I see is that players stop engaging with the environment and end up "pushing the button" on the character sheet, and what that leads to is an inability/unwillingness to even conceive of ideas/plans that don't use one of those buttons.

Contrast that with a pure identifier like "hair color" or "age".

In most games I play those don't come with any defined mechanics. So, yes, it's different in those cases. (In some cases age does result in modifiers.)

 

[GMMichael]

That isn't a problem specifically with skills....if we were playing Shadowdark they wouldn't have even had to roll dice to pick the locks...but it's a common design feature (flaw, imo) that is part of the whole skills ecosystem problem: that because there's a skill for picking locks, you put locks in the dungeon.

Huh. I put locks on things because that's what the NPCs would do. And I assign a Myths and Legends difficulty to know about how cryptic that writing is. It's partially to reward a PC with a high Myths and Legends bonus, partially to know how much additional effort the PCs will have to apply if they don't have the Translating Codex.

Basing a secret location's discovery solely on a die roll is the same as saying, "I like to do some session prep purely for my own entertainment. "

 

[Bill Zebub]

Huh. I put locks on things because that's what the NPCs would do.

I totally agree with putting locks on things because that's what NPCs would do. And opening those locks is what PCs do! (Well, some of those PCs.). Locks add color.

The only thing I'm criticizing is using locks to somehow...maybe, depending on the roll, creating an obstacle. Or maybe not. (See final comment.)

And I assign a Myths and Legends difficulty to know about how cryptic that writing is. It's partially to reward a PC with a high Myths and Legends bonus, partially to know how much additional effort the PCs will have to apply if they don't have the Translating Codex.

The desire to "partially to reward an NPC with a high...bonus" is, in my opinion, a symptom of the design problem.

Basing a secret location's discovery solely on a die roll is the same as saying, "I like to do some session prep purely for my own entertainment. "

Yes! I 100% agree with this. And that's how I feel about locks, too. If the goal is to make the exploration challenging, then make it challenging for the players: don't hinge it on whether or not they happen to succeed on a die roll.