Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

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.

...which is why I prefer to not require rolls if there are no consequences. Auto-success (and occasionally auto-failure) FTW.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Oh, totally! I'm all for a character having a particular ability to "notice things", and if a character did have such a skill I would work that in by sometimes giving information to that character that others would have to declare a relevant action to gain. In fact it would be awesome for putting my finger on the scale when nobody notices the telegraph. Like, I've set up all these hints that there's a secret door, and NOBODY CATCHES ON! /sadtrombone. But, oh, Bill just happens to notice it! /sticksave

(I put that last part in just to torture Micah. And Lanefan, if they're reading.)

The problem arises when everybody has a relevant skill, but with different ratings. Suddenly multiple people have "invested" in it, and they want their investment to pay off.

This is yet another reason why I like Shadowdark's system so much: you don't invest in your skills, they are just part of your class description. You don't have to allocate points, or choose Lock Picking instead of Persuasion, or whatever. So there's no whining about "I invested in such-and-such but you never give me a chance to use it!"

 

[prabe]

Oh, totally! I'm all for a character having a particular ability to "notice things", and if a character did have such a skill I would work that in by sometimes giving information to that character that others would have to declare a relevant action to gain. In fact it would be awesome for putting my finger on the scale when nobody notices the telegraph. Like, I've set up all these hints that there's a secret door, and NOBODY CATCHES ON! /sadtrombone. But, oh, Bill just happens to notice it! /sticksave

The problem arises when everybody has a relevant skill, but with different ratings. Suddenly multiple people have "invested" in it, and they want their investment to pay off.

This is yet another reason why I like Shadowdark's system so much: you don't invest in your skills, they are just part of your class description. You don't have to allocate points, or choose Lock Picking instead of Persuasion, or whatever. So there's no expected return.

A) I'd argue that choosing the class is the sort of choice at least some players might think of as an investment. B) There are probably ways other than fiating someone getting information to make the decision to make a character who notices things pay off. C) Most newish games I've read, played, and run have had something (maybe not a good something) to deal with characters working together; if multiple people decide to, say, make a character who notices things, that something can suit the purpose.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A) I'd argue that choosing the class is the sort of choice at least some players might think of as an investment.

Perhaps, but I haven't noticed the effect in Shadowdark. I strongly suspect the fact that the skills are not the result of distinct choices is the reason why.

B) There are probably ways other than fiating someone getting information to make the decision to make a character who notices things pay off.

Agreed. Probably.

C) Most newish games I've read, played, and run have had something (maybe not a good something) to deal with characters working together; if multiple people decide to, say, make a character who notices things, that something can suit the purpose.

Yes....but I've yet to see a system for teamwork/cooperation that I think requires any kind of interesting decision-making or trade-offs. It's all about identifying the two characters with the highest skill. "I'm going to [attempt something]." "I'll help!"

It's kind of like the guidance cantrip while playing Baldur's Gate 3: why wouldn't you hit the button that gives you a bonus 1d4?

 

[Piperken]

...the players aren't doing anything. Why are they rolling to see if they spot the hidden door? Because they happened to walk past it. There's no thoughtfulness, no planning, no risk-taking. Finding the door isn't a reward for good game-play, unless you count "putting points into Awareness" as good game play. Which I don't. Or, at least, if the skill in RPGs comes down to knowing how to build a character, I'm not really interested.

Third, if nobody succeeds they know they missed something, so then they start poking around really carefully, even looking in exactly the right spot. So...I'm supposed to give them their reward, even though they failed the skill roll, because the roll itself signaled they should stay in that spot searching for something until they click the right pixel?

I resolved it this weekend by just having everybody roll. And inevitably somebody in the party of five succeeded in every case, so at least we avoided the "now we know we missed something syndrome." But I find it incredibly unsatisfying. My players are learning they don't really have to be very thoughtful; they just blunder around and I tell them what dice to roll.

Oh, and then there's lock-picking and trap-disabling. The dungeon had several instances (at least three) where the key to a lock was hidden in another part of the dungeon. Which is a pretty standard video game trope, but when you have a sleight-of-hand skill, and an incentive to use skills, eventually all the locks get picked. Not only was there no problem solving, planning, or other trade-offs, just dice rolling, but the presumed purpose of the locks and keys...getting them to explore the other parts of the dungeon...wasn't actually achieved.

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. (I did rule that each attempt takes an entire 15-minute "stretch", which then triggered a random hazard check, but that's still safer than going to look for the key.)

In fairness, there was one instance where skills did work the way I think they are supposed to: there was an incentive for a character to dive into a pool, and I explained that the water was frigid and turbulent, and that Swimming checks would be required, with consequences for failure. They tied a rope around the waist of the swimmer, for which I granted a Boon (i.e. Advantage) on the roll.

Other than spellcasting and weapon attacks during combat, which in Dragonbane uses the skill system, the lock picking (because of the hazard checks) and the swimming were literally the only examples I can think of where skill checks were called for in response to action declarations for which there would have been consequences for failing. And overall we did a LOT of dice rolling...

This likely won't handle all of the issues you mention in your original post, but I recently watched this video by John Harper. While it specifically was done to help D&D GMs with the BitD playloop, I found when I used this scaffolding on occasion for presenting situations, I got much less "I roll X skill to do Y, Z." in the moment, and more, "Well, my character as a tiny spider will climb on a wall rather than the floor, to avoid the dancing couples from stepping on them. Once they get into the room they want to reach, they'll will stay low to the floor and out of the way to avoid being seen, in case someone happens to have arachnophobia."

Gobs more specific, and easier to determine when and where to make calls for rolls. And what skills might apply.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This likely won't handle all of the issues you mention in your original post, but I recently watched this video by John Harper. While it specifically was done to help D&D GMs with the BitD playloop, I found when I used this scaffolding on occasion for presenting situations, I got much less "I roll X skill to do Y, Z." in the moment, and more, "Well, my character as a tiny spider will climb on a wall rather than the floor, to avoid the dancing couples from stepping on them. Once they get into the room they want to reach, they'll will stay low to the floor and out of the way to avoid being seen, in case someone happens to have arachnophobia."

Gobs more specific, and easier to determine when and where to make calls for rolls. And what skills might apply.

I've been wanting to understand BitD better, so this seems right up my alley. Thanks!

 

[zakael19]

A) I'd argue that choosing the class is the sort of choice at least some players might think of as an investment. B) There are probably ways other than fiating someone getting information to make the decision to make a character who notices things pay off. C) Most newish games I've read, played, and run have had something (maybe not a good something) to deal with characters working together; if multiple people decide to, say, make a character who notices things, that something can suit the purpose.

Yeah, both Draw Steel! (Which has explicit skills) and Daggerheart have simple ways to designate a primary Roller for something and an opportunity cost for helping. I think that latter bit is a real neat addition, in DS! you can absolutely try and help - but you need to roll to see if you actually help or hinder! In Daggerheart, you expend a resource to help - a Hope.

Interestingly, while generally DS! expects a single character to make a test, Intuition tests to notice hidden creatures and the like are called out as an exception.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, both Draw Steel! (Which has explicit skills) and Daggerheart have simple ways to designate a primary Roller for something and an opportunity cost for helping. I think that latter bit is a real neat addition, in DS! you can absolutely try and help - but you need to roll to see if you actually help or hinder! In Daggerheart, you expend a resource to help - a Hope.

Interestingly, while generally DS! expects a single character to make a test, Intuition tests to notice hidden creatures and the like are called out as an exception.

Oh...I like that! I can think of a bunch of ways to implement it.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Dragonbane GM here. I definitely try to discourage “I just make a roll” mentality by asking players to describe what they’re doing, not just asking to make a roll.

Searching a room, tell me what parts, what furniture, what sections of the wall. Only one person at a time can search a given area, though another PC can Help (as in the game action), meaning they don't get to roll themselves, but give another player a Boon.

I also see no problem with automatic success in some situations that might call for a roll under different circumstances.

One trick from early editions of D&D many games seem to not really discuss anymore is the GM-only roll. It helps combat the “I failed my Search roll, but I still think there’s something here” syndrome. Or making Alertness rolls without even telling the players they’re being made. It helps that I’m running a VTT game right now and have quick access to the PC character sheets. To be fair, the GM should track any crits for rolls he makes for the players.

And for skill check consequences, for some situations they’re spelled out or obvious (Sneaking, any weapon attack), for others, there’s always the risk of a critical failure. I try to make those meaningful - a knocked over lantern for a Search roll, broken lock picks for Sleight of Hand, etc. One spectacular series of mishaps setting up camp in my game lead to a ruined tent and most of the party getting food poisoning. To this day the party still packs excess rations to avoid a similar situation, though their skills involved have all improved since then.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dragonbane GM here. I definitely try to discourage “I just make a roll” mentality by asking players to describe what they’re doing, not just asking to make a roll.

To be clear, none of the issues with skills that I'm discussing are new/unique to Dragonbane. It's been my beef with skills in any system I've played. It's just that Dragonbane (and The One Ring 1st edition) creates additional incentive for players to "use" skills, which in my mind just shines a brighter light on the underlying problems.

Searching a room, tell me what parts, what furniture, what sections of the wall. Only one person at a time can search a given area, though another PC can Help (as in the game action), meaning they don't get to roll themselves, but give another player a Boon.

The other extreme from just making a Perception/Awareness/Search roll (depending on system) when they walk into an area is expecting players to search in the right spot, regardless of whether or not you then make a roll. In my experience that then leads to a lot of time spent searching everything the area description. And again raises that question of whether you have them roll only when they search when there's something to be found, versus rolling every time they say, "I search such-and-such!" which can lead to an awful lot of rolling.

I also see no problem with automatic success in some situations that might call for a roll under different circumstances.

One trick from early editions of D&D many games seem to not really discuss anymore is the GM-only roll. It helps combat the “I failed my Search roll, but I still think there’s something here” syndrome. Or making Alertness rolls without even telling the players they’re being made. It helps that I’m running a VTT game right now and have quick access to the PC character sheets. To be fair, the GM should track any crits for rolls he makes for the players.

I'm in the camp that GM never rolls secretly for players.

And for skill check consequences, for some situations they’re spelled out or obvious (Sneaking, any weapon attack), for others, there’s always the risk of a critical failure. I try to make those meaningful - a knocked over lantern for a Search roll, broken lock picks for Sleight of Hand, etc. One spectacular series of mishaps setting up camp in my game lead to a ruined tent and most of the party getting food poisoning. To this day the party still packs excess rations to avoid a similar situation, though their skills involved have all improved since then.

I do like the catastrophic failures in Dragonbane. In this last session we got a Demon on a lockpicking attempt, and after rolling for the mishap I ruled that the player's lockpick broke (resulting in Banes on lockpicking until he could get it repaired/replaced). It was on a pushed roll, too, so he chose Dazed because "when the tool snapped a shard hit me right in the forehead!"

But while that's great for those 1/20 epic fails, in general it's pretty hard to come up with a consequence for failing to know beast lore or spotting something hidden or picking a lock or translating a language.