Lol.
I wish I had the video clip from Aliens:
Carter Burke: "He's just a grunt! No offense."
Corporal Hicks: "None taken."
Lol
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.
It makes for more interesting game, no question about it. Or at least more imersive and narative driven.
Secret door example. One player might describe how he looks at bookshelf, searching for book that looks more used or one that has no dust/less dust than others indicating it was recently moved. Or taps wall, maybe sprinkles some dust on the floor looking if there is slight breeze due to imperfect seal between door.
Other one might just say "I roll Perception/Search/Awareness to see if there are hidden doors".
Both approaches are valid. But i sense you are more interested in the first one. Where skill isn't used as short hand or as substitute for player engagement with problem solving.
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.
Personally, if there are zero consequences for failed roll, i go with no roll. I look how high their skill is, how hard DC is, and go from their. Their either succeed or they are told task is too hard and after several attempts they figure out it above their skill level. Rolls are for when there is consequences for failure ( fe failing to pick lock might jam lock, failing to jump over hole means you drop into it etc) or there is time constraint that means you can't take your sweet time succeed trough trial and error method. Think of it as internalized 3.5 taking 10/20 rules that are applied situationaly.
Some people like that approach where they just declare what they wanna do and with what skill. I have group like that that plays PF1, they just declare " I use Diplomacy to convince guard to let us pass". Just declaration of what they try to achieve, without bothering to give a bit of explanation how they are trying to achieve it. No matter how many times i tried to explain to them that if they bother to give a bit of description of the method i might give them either bonus or sometimes even auto success. It's just how they roll (pun intended).
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.
I have a feeling you don't hate skills per se, more like you hate how some people use skills as substitute for using their own creativity and engagement with problem solving, just relying on skills to do all the work.
