Why I Hate Skills

[Reynard]

You can certainly combine player interaction and rolls (I'd suggest this is roleplaying at its best perhaps). I'm sure there are groups that love getting into a new dungeon room and just rolling a series of rolls off a playbook. If they are having fun, good for them. But that doesn't make it 'good' in terms of adventure writing nor does it inform best practices.

Despite having run many different games for many, many players over the years (due to running at cons) I think the "I roll perception!" player is pretty rare overall. Same for the "I run my hands over the rim of the chest looking for irregularities" player. Most players engage with the fiction in addition to the system in about equal measure. They want to play in the world WITH their mechanical tools.

 

[ART!]

I go back and forth on skills.

On the one hand, as a GM, without PC skills you're looking at the PC's class or background or such to figure out if they would know how to do X. I find myself spending too much time or mental energy making these decisions - I get decision exhaustion pretty easily.

So, I like skills because I don't have to make those decisions. However, finding or coming up with a skill list that's both long enough to cover most things and short enough to be manageable - I find that tricky, too.

 

[Fenris-77]

Despite having run many different games for many, many players over the years (due to running at cons) I think the "I roll perception!" player is pretty rare overall. Same for the "I run my hands over the rim of the chest looking for irregularities" player. Most players engage with the fiction in addition to the system in about equal measure. They want to play in the world WITH their mechanical tools.

It's always a balance, which is fine, and the balance is different for every system and genre.

 

[Desdichado]

I love skills. I don't understand why people have a hard time with them. Heck, some of my favorite RPGs are JUST skills, like BRP or GURPS related games.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I love skills. I don't understand why people have a hard time with them. Heck, some of my favorite RPGs are JUST skills, like BRP or GURPS related games.

Don't understand the reasons, or understand but don't share the reasons?

 

[Gorgon Zee]

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?

One thing I do for situations like this is ask for everyone who wants to try to make a roll, then I look at the group successes and failures and adjudicate like that.

So if 2 players notice the footprints and 2 do not, I might say something like “you think you saw something on the ground, but the wizard walked on it before you got a good look”, or “as a group you are pretty sure the inscription is about opening the door, but you can’t agree on what the runes actually mean”

Basically, if the players want all to try something without designated a leader (and the others assisting), they get a group answer based on how well they, as a group, did.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One thing I do for situations like this is ask for everyone who wants to try to make a roll, then I look at the group successes and failures and adjudicate like that.

So if 2 players notice the footprints and 2 do not, I might say something like “you think you saw something on the ground, but the wizard walked on it before you got a good look”, or “as a group you are pretty sure the inscription is about opening the door, but you can’t agree on what the runes actually mean”

Basically, if the players want all to try something without designated a leader (and the others assisting), they get a group answer based on how well they, as a group, did.

Another thing I've done is have everybody roll and whoever gets the best roll is the one who notices the thing.

I don't find it fully satisfying, but at least slightly better than some of the alternatives.