Why I Hate Skills

[Desdichado]

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

Both.

 

[Retros_x]

I think the "I roll perception!" player is pretty rare overall.

True, its "DM, may I roll perception?" most of the time.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"I roll perception!" player is pretty rare overall.

That isn't my experience, at least not with experienced players new to my table. And not just perception. "I'll try to persuade him!" (reaches for dice). "I search for traps!" (reaches for dice). "Can I read the inscription?" (reaches for dice)

I love teaching new players because they don't come in with a bunch of expectations. I find kids in particular embrace the OSR mentality: they start engaging with the environment, hardly ever looking at their character sheets.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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?

Both.

OP clarified their concerns pretty well over the course of the first page.

• Consequence-free skill rolls incentivizes 'me too' pile-ons and looking for opportunities to roll the skill (particularly if you are rewarded for doing so, such as with XP or skill-boost opportunities).
• Skills as problem-solving means less opportunity for using other avenues (such as logic or logistics puzzles, or providing reasons to persuade someone rather than a persuasion check, etc.) to achieve the same ends.
• Skills can run into difficulty when used for passive or awareness purposes, since they clue the players in that the skill was being tested.

None of these are without reasonable solutions, and in fact they have been proposed and devised any number of times. However, it seems like they are all readily understandable complaints, even if one does not share them (or found a solution that meets one's satisfaction).

 

[Bill Zebub]

OP clarified their concerns pretty well over the course of the first page.

• Consequence-free skill rolls incentivizes 'me too' pile-ons and looking for opportunities to roll the skill (particularly if you are rewarded for doing so, such as with XP or skill-boost opportunities).
• Skills as problem-solving means less opportunity for using other avenues (such as logic or logistics puzzles, or providing reasons to persuade someone rather than a persuasion check, etc.) to achieve the same ends.
• Skills can run into difficulty when used for passive or awareness purposes, since they clue the players in that the skill was being tested.

None of these are without reasonable solutions, and in fact they have been proposed and devised any number of times. However, it seems like they are all readily understandable complaints, even if one does not share them (or found a solution that meets one's satisfaction).

I also thought that "I don't understand, but I also do understand and disagree" to be an interesting position to take. Very....Taoist.

 

[Desdichado]

None of these are without reasonable solutions, and in fact they have been proposed and devised any number of times. However, it seems like they are all readily understandable complaints, even if one does not share them (or found a solution that meets one's satisfaction).

If there are readily available solutions that obviate the problem, then no, I don't understand throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This isn't a binary. If there are problems with how skills are used at a given table and there are readily available solutions that are already used in almost every game that's been published since at least the earliest 80s, then trying to pretend like there's a binary: skills cause a very specific problem at my table because the way I play allows it, therefore skills are the problem is the worst kind of 8D analysis I've ever seen. And professionally I've seen lots of really, really bad ones.

Or are we not meant to have a discussion? Just validation?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If there are readily available solutions that obviate the problem, then no, I don't understand throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This isn't a binary. If there are problems with how skills are used at a given table and there are readily available solutions that are already used in almost every game that's been published since at least the earliest 80s, then trying to pretend like there's a binary: skills cause a very specific problem at my table because the way I play allows it, therefore skills are the problem is the worst kind of 8D analysis I've ever seen. And professionally I've seen lots of really, really bad ones.

Or are we not meant to have a discussion? Just validation?

I apologize, I didn't realize this was "discussion" let alone 8D analysis:

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.

But I nevertheless tried to engage you by asking whether you didn't understand, or whether you did understand but disagreed, and you replied, "Both". Wasn't quite sure where to go with that.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

I think you said plenty of reasonable things already in your original post. I don't think it's possible to design a skill system that is all-encompassing, realistic, satisfying from a gamist point of you, and self-managed all at the same time. So I always need to manage it myself as the DM to make it work well enough during play. A small but key idea such as "rule zero" goes a long way for me. I tend not to worry in advance but look at how each gaming group ends up under/over/abusing the system before exerting additional control.

 

[Willie the Duck]

If there are readily available solutions that obviate the problem, then no, I don't understand throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This isn't a binary. If there are problems with how skills are used at a given table and there are readily available solutions that are already used in almost every game that's been published since at least the earliest 80s, then trying to pretend like there's a binary: skills cause a very specific problem at my table because the way I play allows it, therefore skills are the problem is the worst kind of 8D analysis I've ever seen. And professionally I've seen lots of really, really bad ones.

No one has suggested a binary, or throwing anything out. Certainly no one is pretending anything. OP complained about a problem they were having (specifying that it was issues they were having at their table), people have offered up a mix of commiseration and advice. The tone has remained, for the most part, steadfastly civil, supportive, and cooperative; with a goal of resolving the OP's problem. Something which, given the must-win-the-discussion behavior that often pops up here and elsewhere, is welcome behavior.

Or are we not meant to have a discussion? Just validation?

Who do you think is preventing or attempting to dissuade discussion?

If your issue is that (all of two) people are singling you out, the entire reason for that is that you said you did not understand the OPs complaint (when the one thing I think we all agree on is that they have been pretty clear about their concerns).

If you want to read the OP's comments about their problems, come up with responses, and feel heard and validated, I think everyone would be wonderfully at peace with that. The more people ready and willing to help them resolve their concerns, the merrier.