Why I Hate Skills

[pemerton]

And in this case you are factually incorrect. Most OSR games are very upfront about the function of encounter rolls. That function is only peripherally diegetic (at best). I don't give a good goddamn how many times you repeat the same biased and incorrect things btw, but if your throat is getting sore I'll happily offer you a nice lemon lozenge.

That a monster turns up is "diegetic".

That the GM rolls every <insert period here> to see if a monster turns up doesn't seem very diegetic. It seems like a clock designed to drive gameplay.

That the GM makes additional rolls to see if a monster turns up if the players have their PCs do noisy things (like, say, bash down doors) is gameplay with a diegetic lampshade that is vulnerable to breakage. Eg if the players come up with a solve for the diegetic element (eg the noise of bashing down a door) but still get the gameplay benefit of their action, the GM has to either ignore the diegetic action and make the additional roll anyway; or has to honour the in-fiction solve and allow the players to potentially break the game.

Versions of that last point - across a huge range of issues, not just encounter tables but almost all areas of game play, especially where spells are involved (and game-balance aspects like range, duration etc have some diegetic lampshades hung on them) - are a recurring problem with an ultra-sim game like Rolemaster. I report this from years of experience. (In Champions, @AbdulAlhazred has talked about a parallel example of the wizard character who is built so that all of their abilities are in their staff.)

 

[Campbell]

Sure. And I do.

(And sometimes the answer is, "Ummm....I, you know, Persuade.")

The point I was making is that so many players seem to have gotten used to the idea that that list of skills is similar to a list of spells or class abilities. Buttons to press to make something happen.

This seems pretty easy to me. "Cool. What does that look like?" or a dozen other clarifying questions. If they ask why you need to know just say you need it to determine what the consequences of success and failure are.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This seems pretty easy to me. "Cool. What does that look like?" or a dozen other clarifying questions. If they ask why you need to know just say you need it to determine what the consequences of success and failure are.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am not asking for GMing advice. I've got that. Thanks, though.

I'm making an observation about how a lot of gamers view gameplay, and how that seems to be tied to a list of skills.