Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

Is this a "I hate skill systems" or really "I don't like XP tied to rolling for skills" post? Most games I've seen that include a skill system of any sort also include some degree of guidance around when to use them, generally positing uncertainty/risk/negative outcomes/etc.

More like, "I hate skill systems, and when they are tied to XP I can't even ignore them."

 

[Bill Zebub]

The system as described does seem to have some gaps in between how rolls happen and what they do and the way/s people can plausibly improve them. Skills as such don't seem to be the problem here. I don't disagree with the OP that the incentives are a little weird in the system described, if the players are in charge of determining who rolls and when.

Again, I think the flaws are present in all skill systems, especially those that have skills relating to knowing or noticing things (as opposed to performing actions). The incentives just mean it is harder, as a GM, to hack the system to behave the way I want it to.

Although even if a system where XP is not tied to skill use, downplaying skills like Perception and History tends to annoy players who "invested" in those skills.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, I think the flaws are present in all skill systems, especially those that have skills relating to knowing or noticing things (as opposed to performing actions). The incentives just mean it is harder, as a GM, to hack the system to behave the way I want it to.

Although even if a system where XP is not tied to skill use, downplaying skills like Perception and History tends to annoy players who "invested" in those skills.

How would you prefer to model a character that's supposed to know more than other characters? Just give them more information directly as the GM and say their character knows it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe it's because I've had a "fiction first" approach to TTRPG play long before that ever became a term people used, but the idea of player's deciding when or what to roll, or "fishing" for rolls is anathema in my games. Players describe what their PCs are doing, that's it and that's all. All skill tests are determined by what happens in the fiction, and are directed solely at my preview as GM baring instances where skill use is explicit, such as an attack roll immediately after describing attacking with a weapon. In fact, the more a player "fishes" for skill rolls the more likely I am to not call for a roll and either declare the action automatically successful or impossible. The issues described in the OP, in my opinion, is more of a meta game thing than anything else. Simply solution, insist that players don't meta game, if they refuse to do that, get better players.

I get what you're saying, but even without the meta-game reward of skill advancement, the "Can I roll, too?" thing is pretty common. The bard and wizard fail in their attempts to read the ancient runes, and the barbarian with Int 6 says, "Can I roll, too?" Because, why not?

 

[Bill Zebub]

@Bill Zebub

Don't take this the wrong way, it's not attack or anything like that. But from this, and posts on other topics, i get the feeling you are more into "player skill" camp. Nothing wrong with that, plenty people like it. Preferences are preferences.

Every reason you listed why you don't like them is reason why i like them. Skill represent character's abilities. Player maybe doesn't have idea how to search for secret doors, but his Character, a seasoned adventurer who spent half his life searching for it, he knows how and where to search, hence high Skill.

And to be fair, some people really like rolling dices. It's what makes game fun for them. Specially when their character is good at something, they wanna roll to show how good character is.

Lol.

I wish I had the video clip from Aliens:

Carter Burke: "He's just a grunt! No offense."
Corporal Hicks: "None taken."

But addressing the point of your post, I do like character skill, but I like it tied to player declarations. E.g., the swimming example I gave, where the players came up with a plan, but the character's Swimming skill determined success.

But if the players aren't actually saying what their characters do, and there's zero consequence if they fail...in other words, if the player could be in the kitchen getting another the beer and the GM could both determine that a roll was needed and make the roll, informing the player of the results when they get back, e.g. "By the way why you were gone I rolled to see if you noticed something and you didn't".....then, yeah, no. Not interested.

EDIT: But I also want to point out that for decades I played with skills and Perception checks and knowledge checks rolling to pick locks and all that stuff, and never really thought twice about it. So, yes, I'm familiar with that approach to RPGs. All this criticism about consequence-free dice rolling is a conclusion that I've come to only in the last few years.

Also note I titled the thread "Why I Hate Skills" not "Skill Are Bad Design". Because, of course, YMMV.

 

[Reynard]

One potential solution, if you are looking for such, is to make sure failed skill rolls have real negative consequences commensurate with the benefit of success. The trap goes off or the door is now jammed. The enemy gets a surprise attack. Or whatever. So every roll is a real choice of risk versus reward.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One potential solution, if you are looking for such, is to make sure failed skill rolls have real negative consequences commensurate with the benefit of success. The trap goes off or the door is now jammed. The enemy gets a surprise attack. Or whatever. So every roll is a real choice of risk versus reward.

Yes, in other games (e.g. Shadowdark) I don't call for checks unless there's a consequence.

But sometimes it's just hard to think of one. Do they notice the footprints? Can they read the inscription?

Also, when the adventure is designed such that these sorts of rolls are meant to be passive, even if I could think of a consequence I'm not sure I would impose one for a roll the player didn't initiate with the knowledge that there would be consequences if they fail.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One potential solution, if you are looking for such, is to make sure failed skill rolls have real negative consequences commensurate with the benefit of success. The trap goes off or the door is now jammed. The enemy gets a surprise attack. Or whatever. So every roll is a real choice of risk versus reward.

The problem with that of course is that it really stretches setting logic to have a significant consequence every time someone attempts an action and fails.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, I definitely prefer games that tie "skills" to doing an active thing to overcome an obstacle the GM has fronted.

 

[prabe]

Again, I think the flaws are present in all skill systems, especially those that have skills relating to knowing or noticing things (as opposed to performing actions). The incentives just mean it is harder, as a GM, to hack the system to behave the way I want it to.

Although even if a system where XP is not tied to skill use, downplaying skills like Perception and History tends to annoy players who "invested" in those skills.

It seems as though it should be possible to make a character who notices things, or who knows things. As a GM I actually prefer having such characters in the party to not. Different people will have different tastes and preferences, of course.