Why I Hate Skills

[Andvari]

Doesn't 5E have the "aid another" rule which says that two PCs can aid another at a skill check, theoretically eliminating the need for a work around? We didn't use it much so IDK how well the mechanic works in practice.

I know Pathfinder 2E has that, but it's still only one of those workarounds that are open to scenarios where it doesn't make sense. For example, first one player wants to attempt, and the other player doesn't offer to aid, or isn't able to, as he is in another room. Then after this first attempt resolves, the other character wants to try. Now it's too late to aid another, and there's not necessarily a good justification for why he shouldn't try.

 

[R_J_K75]

I know Pathfinder 2E has that, but it's still only one of those workarounds that are open to scenarios where it doesn't make sense. For example, first one player wants to attempt, and the other player doesn't offer to aid, or isn't able to, as he is in another room. Then after this first attempt resolves, the other character wants to try. Now it's too late to aid another, and there's not necessarily a good justification for why he shouldn't try.

Now its the "Help" action. No system is going to be perfect but I dont think there is an easy fix without either severely overhauling the current skill system or abandoning it in for something new when a new edition eventually comes.

 

[bsss]

I guess what I don't understand in this argument that players made checks paper-thin RP and just dice rolls is, if that bothers you as GM, why don't you just ask for more RP? When you explain why you'd like some creative in-game justification or supporting event to take place, do your players take their die back in their hand and go "well never mind then!" and pout or something?

 

[bsss]

Also, regarding everyone trying the roll because why not, this is where I completely agree with @Bill Zebub --- the first result should change the state of the game in some way that dissuades from that unless that's what you want.

Various scenarios I can picture:

• Everyone rolls: jump over this chasm
• One person rolls, that's it: bartering with the shopkeeper, he commits to whatever price you both negotiated the first time
• One person rolls, failure is success with an asterisk: knock down this door, if you don't get it on the first try, the orcs know you're coming
• One person rolls, failure complicates further attempts: pick this lock, failure breaks a piece of your lockpick off in it
• One person rolls, others help: this ancient artifact does something, you need to activate it properly or you lose your shot for a day because magic; the brightest mind should try, but everyone can give a bonus by helping with the auras they sense
• Everyone can take a shot as a "you trained for this" gate [IMO, just take 10]: anyone recognize this old script?
• Everyone can take infinite shots, with enough time [take 20]: give that book to the wizard, he gets bored at camp anyway

Knowledge checks can be tried by anyone, but that's where I like taking 10, unless there's an element where getting "one shot" or "getting lucky" is important to you, the GM. If the players can't pass with their take 10, and want "one more shot", they need to explain what they're doing beyond their passive knowledge.

If 5e isn't giving this kind of advice, then I think even less of it than before.

 

[R_J_K75]

I guess what I don't understand in this argument that players made checks paper-thin RP and just dice rolls is, if that bothers you as GM, why don't you just ask for more RP?

Here is my experience in the last 10 years or so. I haven't played with a large number of players other than the small group of 6-8 players I've played 5E with. A few of my group I've played with for many years but at least half we're new to TTRPGs. Some had absolutely no experience in the genre while some came from a video game background. In both cases of new players, roleplaying didn't come naturally or easily to them, so it wasn't as simple as just asking for more roleplaying from them. For those that played video game RPGs, by the nature of those games, there is only a finite amount of pre-scripted choices to choose from in any given situation. So, I think when faced with a roleplaying scenario at the table their first instinct is to pick up a die for a quick resolution.

 

[bsss]

Here is my experience in the last 10 years or so. I haven't played with a large number of players other than the small group of 6-8 players I've played 5E with. A few of my group I've played with for many years but at least half we're new to TTRPGs. Some had absolutely no experience in the genre while some came from a video game background. In both cases of new players, roleplaying didn't come naturally or easily to them, so it wasn't as simple as just asking for more roleplaying from them. For those that played video game RPGs, by the nature of those games, there is only a finite amount of pre-scripted choices to choose from in any given situation. So, I think when faced with a roleplaying scenario at the table their first instinct is to pick up a die for a quick resolution.

Maybe I have become people-manager-brained, but that's what we call "a teachable moment". Of course it'd be better if you didn't have to do it because they already knew, but sometimes you have to explain the craft to make good craftsmen. I'd rather do that than throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[R_J_K75]

Maybe I have become people-manager-brained, but that's what we call "a teachable moment". Of course it'd be better if you didn't have to do it because they already knew, but sometimes you have to explain the craft to make good craftsmen. I'd rather do that than throw out the baby with the bathwater.

This thread got me thinking why players don't roleplay more and it occurred to me video games could play a part. I'm not saying roleplaying is non-existent in our games and it is something I did try and encourage more of it after playing with this particular group for a while. Though it's not worth stopping the game to explain the nuances of roleplaying when we only play a few hours every week or two.

 

[zakael19]

YMMV, but I ran a WOTC campaign for a group that had played BG3 & were all “Critters” and wanted to play a D&D game for the first time. Most of them wanted to say cool stuff and I sometimes had to figure out exactly what skill they were trying to get to! Even just “I take a look around the room trying to see signs of anything out of the place” came fast and often.

“So what does that look like?” and similar questions have gotten me past the “lack of fiction” moment 99% of the time. Depending on the playe and situation I might toss out a couple leading prompts (“do you think it’d like X? Y?”), as much to anchor how I see the scene as to give them something to jump off of.

 

[Andvari]

I suspect you are primed for role-playing if you are a critter, and primed for roll-playing if you solely know D&D from BG3.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For stuff like the runes example, where the PC has the skill needed to get through the gate to the info, I think I'd prefer something different than a pass-fail read-not read approach. In cases like that, or any other case where there's no actual benefit to gating the information completely, I'd adjudicate the d20 as indexing amount of information rather than the presence/absence of information. So on a fail they might glean a few words or maybe a general sense of what it's about, and on a pass they can read it fully.

I'm not exactly sure how I would set this up, but I like the idea that if you translate them incorrectly then something bad happens, although I'd want some in-game reason the characters would know this. Of course, you don't actually make the roll until the moment you utter them aloud or otherwise use them.* So you can either go for it and hope you roll well, or find a solution that guarantees the right translation. (Take a rubbing, travel to the only living scholar who knows that rune system, etc.)

*I deal with things like stealth and forgery the same way: you don't make the roll until the moment of truth.