Why I Hate Skills

[VHawkwinter]

I think you're making a mistake thinking its going to only be a 15% there. As I noted, a 15% lands very differently in the point in the curve. At some levels people won't notice it because it won't even be a point on the roll. At others, it would be most of the range.

Again, I think the visibility is going to be vastly different. I don't think you can weight the dice there without it being pretty obvious over time in some circumstances. There can be situations where you're rolling in a particular low probability range for an extended period (or the opposite). You might get it to pass in the middle for a while, but the middle isn't the only thing that happens there.

He did say on a curve you'd need to swap from dice to a computer to apply a faux 15% disparity that STAYS at 15%. So, it wouldn't land differently at different points, because he's not talking about adding a flat number, he's talking about calculating the odds from the dice curve digitally, converting it to a % in the computer and then reducing your odds by 15%; and saying if the disparity is only around 15%, people would take a while to notice.

 

[Bill Zebub]

FYI, in 3e when playing with point buy stats, the range between "expertise" and actively bad at it at level 1 can be like from a -1 (Ability Score at 8) to potentially a +11 (Ability Score 20; 4 Ranks; +3 from Skill Focus; maybe +2 from Racial Skill Bonus) {I misremembered when I said +15 and was including an instance of aid another and masterwork tools, which you probably cannot afford until level 2}.

My position is that "skill" often has no noticeable impact on gameplay, I wouldn't include attributes, race, tools, etc., because you could (presumably) gain all those bonuses even without the skill system.

 

[VHawkwinter]

My position is that "skill" often has no noticeable impact on gameplay, I wouldn't include attributes, race, tools, etc., because you could (presumably) gain all those bonuses even without the skill system.

Oh. Alright; worth noting though that aside from the ability modifier, the things I listed are all things that increase your bonus to a single specific skill (*one of the two stackable skill feats gives you a +2 to two skills, but still quite narrow, while the other one gives you +3 to one skill); they don't apply to other tasks 'in general'. To not factor in the ability score (which would apply to many skills), subtract the 5 from ability score at 20; and you're looking at a range from +0 to +18 in a single specific skill at level 3. Though, sure, if looking at only ranks, your ranks in that specific skill only amount to +6 out of that remaining skill-specific potential +18. I figured things that boost a particular skill all counted as "skill" - but I can see an argument that the +5 from ability score modifier shouldn't apply since it's a general bonus. That other +18 out of the +23 though, is all stuff that will add to just one skill, except for the feat type that adds +2 to two thematically related skills (which I think probably still isn't "general" enough of a bonus to not count for the purposes of this discussion).

It's still a very large percentile difference on the d20, at low levels, in a single specific skill. A maximum potential 90% difference at level 3 rather than 120%. Not a difficult-to-notice 15%.

(At level 3) Even at a modest and more easily attained level of specialisation effort, max ranks + skill-synergy(a bonus you get from 5 ranks in a related skill) + single-skill masterwork tool + 1 feat + skill boosting magic item; (excluding the racial bonus + the second skill specialisation feat + the ability score that you pointed out is more of a general bonus); that's still +14 (6+2+2+3+1), a 70% difference on the dice vs the untrained guy. You could hit that with two skills at level 3 if you wanted to. Beyond that, you wouldn't have enough feats (unless you start getting more skill focus feats through items, but I don't think you could afford that at level 3, and they only had that option in 3.0).

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's still a very large percentile difference on the d20, at low levels, in a single specific skill. A maximum potential 90% difference at level 3 rather than 120%. Not a difficult-to-notice 15%.

Yes, no argument that this would be noticeable.

So my critique of a system like that is that having skills scattered all over the place from +1 to +11 is unnecessary. The difference between +9 and +11 is also not noticeable. Just have two settings per skill: unskilled, and skilled. "Skilled" gives you +10 (or whatever).

The difference between those two approaches....and this is the thing I've been trying to argue all along...is that the granular system, adding +5% (or similarly minor) adjustments at a time, mostly just serves to satisfy the craving that some players have to fiddle with character build. "Should I choose +3 and +5, or +5 and +3?" The +5 conveys the idea that you are better at one skill than the other, but it doesn't really matter.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Yes, no argument that this would be noticeable.

So my critique of a system like that is that having skills scattered all over the place from +1 to +11 is unnecessary. The difference between +9 and +11 is also not noticeable. Just have two settings per skill: unskilled, and skilled. "Skilled" gives you +10 (or whatever).

The difference between those two approaches....and this is the thing I've been trying to argue all along...is that the granular system, adding +5% (or similarly minor) adjustments at a time, mostly just serves to satisfy the craving that some players have to fiddle with character build. "Should I choose +3 and +5, or +5 and +3?" The +5 conveys the idea that you are better at one skill than the other, but it doesn't really matter.

But that's the type of thinking that lead to 4th Edition!
Note: If memory serves, I could replace "4th Edition" with the SEIGE engine of Tunnels and Trolls

 

[Fenris-77]

Just when it applies.


It's about the distance between the decision making that is made by the player and the decision making that is made by the character; and being able to make your decisions in-character, with your out of character knowledge matching up with the in-character knowledge, vs out of character, or needing to try to separate your out of character knowledge from in character knowledge more to compensate for a large disconnect between the two. The more "Meta" gameplay, I don't particularly enjoy as a player. Never have.


That doesn't make sense. If the entire game is making decisions out of character, that makes ALL of it meta. One example of a game like that would be Chess. No part of Chess' game mechanics are in-character. FATE came a little too close to that for me, same with Savage Worlds, and 4e. In those, too much of the game was out of character decision making, which to me, just misses what I am playing a TTRPG for. If I'm a player, I'm looking to stay in character as much as possible. As such, I don't enjoy games built around meta currency exchanges, stepping into the GM chair for scene editing, 'compelling' other characters 'for drama'; and my interest in miniature-skirmish combat in a TTRPG is also kind-of low. Those make for a very different feeling game.

It makes perfect sense, I'm just not saying what you think I am. Every single thing that happens in RPG play is abstracted, most of it quite abstracted. It needs to be so in order for the game to even function. When I say that makes none it meta I mean not necessarily, by dint of that abstraction meta. Meta in common usage is talking about in-character or not (for some value of that term) not abstraction generally.

I do think that fact of abstraction generally poses some problems for people who want detailed taxonomies of 'meta', but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[VHawkwinter]

So my critique of a system like that is that having skills scattered all over the place from +1 to +11 is unnecessary. The difference between +9 and +11 is also not noticeable. Just have two settings per skill: unskilled, and skilled. "Skilled" gives you +10 (or whatever).

You certainly could just have 1-2 levels of skill with a sizable percentile performance gap, and that would be differentiable. I do personally think there's a benefit to the granularity of skill investment though.

"Should I choose +3 and +5, or +5 and +3?" The +5 conveys the idea that you are better at one skill than the other, but it doesn't really matter.

Here, I agree, if all your skills are progressing at a similar pace, or two-tracks, this doesn't particularly matter. You could have the half-progression track and the full progression track; or 1/3 and 2/3, or whatever - though even here, there's a bit of a benefit to the granularity: you can progress all your 'full-track' skills at a pace a little slower than full-track in order to squeeze in another skill and be almost as good at all of them. If you have 6+int skill points and a +0 int mod (ranger), and say you don't care to do anything fancy, but there are 8 skills you want; At level 1, you have +3 in everything instead of +4. Then every level thereafter you only advance 4 of your 6 skills in ranks, rotating which ones you advance. Giving you 8 skills which are all at 75% ranks progression (plus whatever you invest in gear, synergy bonuses once you get them above 5 ranks, etc). The granularity gives you the freedom to make a slower advancement track to be a bit more of a jack of all trades and have more skills that youre good at.

The difference between those two approaches....and this is the thing I've been trying to argue all along...is that the granular system, adding +5% (or similarly minor) adjustments at a time, mostly just serves to satisfy the craving that some players have to fiddle with character build.

But here's where I disagree more tangibly: (in 3.x - less so in 5.x with its wishy-washy fuzzy-fiat DCs)

Consider Ride: The mechanics are fleshed out. If all I care about doing with it is ride a trained warhorse in combat without falling off if it gets spooked or either of us takes damage, and I don't need ever-increasingly athletic horsemanship tricks, once I have a +5 in the skill from any of the sources that could give me a bonus to it (and at least one rank); I never need to increase it again. That could be as simple as 1 rank in ride for +1; 5 ranks in handle animal for +2 (if I need it for something else); and a +2 dexterity modifier (or a suitable masterwork saddle for +2 instead of one of the other options for a +2). I will never have to roll to stay on the horse when I get hit. Put a couple points into ride training, buy the nice saddle, and you're done - congratulations, you can ride a horse.

The other skills are full of similar examples. Once you hit the skill bonuses needed for autosuccess on the things you care to do with them (or to hit the tedious prerequisites of some feat or prestige class you want), you can stop investing in them entirely to focus all your training and money elsewhere; allowing you to be "good enough" at the things that are less important to you to not have to worry about it, and really good at the things that matter to you.

By way of autosuccess thresholds via math and benchmark DCs, the skills serve as perk-tracks (like Skyrim perks) you can advance in to get a growing categorised list of things which you just do, without risk of failure. Once you get the perks and roll modifiers you want, you can stop advancing in that track.

 

[VHawkwinter]

It makes perfect sense, I'm just not saying what you think I am.

Alright, that's certainly possible.

Every single thing that happens in RPG play is abstracted, most of it quite abstracted. It needs to be so in order for the game to even function.

Okay, agreed.

When I say that makes none it meta I mean not necessarily, by dint of that abstraction meta.

Oh. Sure. Abstraction isn't automatically meta.

Meta in common usage is talking about in-character or not (for some value of that term) not abstraction generally.

That is how I was using it as well, yes.

I do think that fact of abstraction generally poses some problems for people who want detailed taxonomies of 'meta', but that's a different issue entirely.

Here I'm unsure exactly what you mean.

My criticisms of abstraction causing metativity was specifically when the abstraction is taken to an extent where it moves the decision making into an increasingly out-of-character space, or unnecessarily forces you to pretend you don't have some out-of-character information in order to try to act in character; both of which I would say pull me out of 'the zone', and the latter where I as a player have a bunch of information dumped on me that my character couldn't possibly know or act on, is an ongoing dissonance that gets in the way of getting into 'the zone'.

 

[Fenris-77]

Alright, that's certainly possible.


Okay, agreed.


Oh. Sure. Abstraction isn't automatically meta.


That is how I was using it as well, yes.


Here I'm unsure exactly what you mean.

My criticisms of abstraction causing metativity was specifically when the abstraction is taken to an extent where it moves the decision making into an increasingly out-of-character space, or unnecessarily forces you to pretend you don't have some out-of-character information in order to try to act in character; both of which I would say pull me out of 'the zone', and the latter where I as a player have a bunch of information dumped on me that my character couldn't possibly know or act on, is an ongoing dissonance that gets in the way of getting into 'the zone'.

I completely understand your point of view. However, we have entered very much into the realm of personal taste here. Different folks have very different tolerances for what we're calling meta. While I'd agree that increasing abstraction in specific ways affects what some people refer to as immersion, broadly speaking, I don't think there anything like the clearcut lines and definitions that some people want there to be about the mechanics in question.

Everyone has a clear idea what they personally like or can tolerate, but it doesn't line up in a way that makes definitions and categories easy or useful except in the broadest of ways.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I completely understand your point of view. However, we have entered very much into the realm of personal taste here. Different folks have very different tolerances for what we're calling meta.

Absolutely. Different people; Different priorities; Different tastes; Different tolerances for unwanted ingredients in their soup. No disagreement.

While I'd agree that increasing abstraction in specific ways affects what some people refer to as immersion, broadly speaking, I don't think there anything like the clearcut lines and definitions that some people want there to be about the mechanics in question.

No, probably not, but when they exist you can point out those two types of dissonances I mentioned that pull you out of character or persistently keep you from getting into character and clearly explain why they are one or the other.

Everyone has a clear idea what they personally like or can tolerate, but it doesn't line up in a way that makes definitions and categories easy or useful except in the broadest of ways.

Sure. Absolutely. My thresholds for "this is good"; "these bug me but I can put up with it if this is as far as it goes; "these are ruining it for me I better really like these people since I'm clearly not here for the game"; and "I don't want to play this even if I like these people I would rather stay home to avoid it" are not going to be the same as other people's, even if they care about in-character immersion (and I acknowledge that many players don't care about that factor at all).