Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

Um, the consequence is getting ganked in the liver instead of gloriously killing yet another rabid kobold. Opportunity cost perhaps, I would have thought the cost for failure there is pretty obvious. When you don't kill them they get extra chances to kill you.

See my reply above. The question is not whether the action makes sense, it's whether the decision to do so is itself trivial. In your example it is trivial, if the only two choices are swing your sword or stand there.

It's when you have other possible action declarations that it gets interesting.

 

[Fenris-77]

See my reply above. The question is not whether the action makes sense, it's whether the decision to do so is itself trivial. In your example it is trivial, if the only two choices are swing your sword or stand there.

It's when you have other possible action declarations that it gets interesting.

Dying is never trivial.

 

[Fenris-77]

Beyond that there are all kinds of possible combat actions one might attempt, depending on system. Again, it's not trivial.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dying is never trivial.

I don't mean the consequences are trivial; I mean the decision of whether or not to attack is. It's a no-brainer.

But the example is also a great illustration: if the risk:reward ratio is too skewed, there is no "interesting decision making." If a failed skill check on reading the runes will not only blast you, but will vaporize your character with no saving throw, then the correct decision is obvious. I'm more ok with trivial consequences....such as consuming some time and making wandering monsters slightly more likely...because I'd rather encourage action instead of inaction. But, still, the harder the decision, the more interesting the game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Beyond that there are all kinds of possible combat actions one might attempt, depending on system. Again, it's not trivial.

Yes, exactly. It's the presence of other options that makes the decision interesting.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Dying is never trivial.

Also....except in 5e.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't mean the consequences are trivial; I mean the decision of whether or not to attack is. It's a no-brainer.

But the example is also a great illustration: if the risk:reward ratio is too skewed, there is no "interesting decision making." If a failed skill check on reading the runes will not only blast you, but will vaporize your character with no saving throw, then the correct decision is obvious. I'm more ok with trivial consequences....such as consuming some time and making wandering monsters slightly more likely...because I'd rather encourage action instead of inaction. But, still, the harder the decision, the more interesting the game.

Yeah, but it's not. Not for, say a wizard, or even a thief. Combat is a significant fail state for some classes in many games. We're picking one roll out of a series of actions, which is occluding the core issue a bit. In most games though there are options other than swinging a pointy bit of metal that some characters should be considering. Like running away like a booger so you can live to magic missile in some future turn.

 

[Fenris-77]

Also....except in 5e.

You hush.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, but it's not. Not for, say a wizard, or even a thief. Combat is a significant fail state for some classes in many games. We're picking one roll out of a series of actions, which is occluding the core issue a bit. In most games though there are options other than swinging a pointy bit of metal that some characters should be considering. Like running away like a booger so you can live to magic missile in some future turn.

Ok, I think we're "agreeing past each other".

 

[bsss]

So....how about a gate with a lock that's rusted shut, so that the "interesting something" is required?

Does that make sense? Do you see why I'm scratching my head about the value of just rolling dice to see whether or not the lock is a challenge?

I don't, really. I had a lot of responses like "the value is it's fun to be surprised" or "the game values something you don't", but that doesn't help me understand your position here.