Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Totally fair. As other responders have pointed out, they really enjoy rolling dice to see which way the story/adventure goes, even when there is no real trade-off or decision to be made, or consequences to failing, and wouldn't like to see that disappear.

 

[Fenris-77]

Totally fair. As other responders have pointed out, they really enjoy rolling dice to see which way the story/adventure goes, even when there is no real trade-off or decision to be made, or consequences to failing, and wouldn't like to see that disappear.

That's fine,. of course. That said, if that's what I wanted I'd just keep playing 40K and roll great joyful handfuls of d6's.

 

[bsss]

Yeah, it is indeed totally fair and fine. Feeling I'm somewhere in the middle, I'm mostly trying to make a case for "having both skills and interesting consequences is achievable!"

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's fine,. of course. That said, if that's what I wanted I'd just keep playing 40K and roll great joyful handfuls of d6's.

Yeah...or...I try to refrain making comparisons to board games because that's so easily interpreted as being intentionally denigrating...but...but...I guess that's genuinely how I feel when dice are rolled "to see which way the game goes". What others describe as "character skill" (without player skill) feels to me like playing a board game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, it is indeed totally fair and fine. Feeling I'm somewhere in the middle, I'm mostly trying to make a case for "having both skills and interesting consequences is achievable!"

Yes, absolutely. Several times in this thread I've described ways of doing that.

Again, my beef is not that skills exist in a game, but rather that once they are on the character sheet it seems to pull people away from the (admittedly) hard work of both designing and interacting with complex, interesting challenges and instead just "I roll to check for traps."

 

[Fenris-77]

Yeah...or...I try to refrain making comparisons to board games because that's so easily interpreted as being intentionally denigrating...but...but...I guess that's genuinely how I feel when dice are rolled "to see which way the game goes". But what others describe as "character skill" (without player skill) feels to me like playing a board game.

Well, yes and no. Sometimes you do need a straight fortune roll to decide something, but I don't think it should be that common.

 

[bsss]

I think it's more about synthesis than fortune or kneecapping hard work/interesting challenges. It's not "this is a evaluation of chance" or "this is the players' cheat code", but more "this is how we abstracted sometimes countless variables". The game is merely synthesizing a (modifiable) variability to anyone successfully picking a lock, the modification in part by the character being simply by definition good at it (skill points, etc.).

I think going through the motions of that synthesis is largely unnecessary if there's no exciting cause and effect dependent on the synthesis, but I appreciate what has been abstracted into "you know, there's just too much to get into here, Picky McPickface, you've got a 95% chance and Jim Hamhands, you've got a 25% chance". To synthesize or not are both valid choices, even in the same game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think it's more about synthesis than fortune or kneecapping hard work/interesting challenges. It's not "this is a evaluation of chance" or "this is the players' cheat code", but more "this is how we abstracted sometimes countless variables". The game is merely synthesizing a (modifiable) variability to anyone successfully picking a lock, the modification in part by the character being simply by definition good at it (skill points, etc.).

I don't disagree with that at all. I certainly don't want, for example, a mini-game meant to simulate actual lock picking. Even one as rich but still abstracted as combat is. I'm perfectly happy resolving an attempt to pick a lock with a single dice roll.

My only questions are:

• Under what circumstances does that occur, and what kind of gameplay does that result in?
• How does the design of that resolution system signal that the game is meant to be played?

I think going through the motions of that synthesis is largely unnecessary if there's no exciting cause and effect dependent on the synthesis, but I appreciate what has been abstracted into "you know, there's just too much to get into here, Picky McPickface, you've got a 95% chance and Jim Hamhands, you've got a 25% chance". To synthesize or not are both valid choices, even in the same game.

Yup. And, again, under what circumstances does that arise?

 

[bsss]

I don't disagree with that at all. I certainly don't want, for example, a mini-game meant to simulate actual lock picking. Even one as rich but still abstracted as combat is. I'm perfectly happy resolving an attempt to pick a lock with a single dice roll.

My only questions are:

• Under what circumstances does that occur, and what kind of gameplay does that result in?
• How does the design of that resolution system signal that the game is meant to be played?

Yup. And, again, under what circumstances does that arise?

I don't mean this as a cop-out, but I feel like that's the essence of GM adjudication. Even if players aren't used to it and/or modules are written not as desired.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't mean this as a cop-out, but I feel like that's the essence of GM adjudication. Even if players aren't used to it and/or modules are written not as desired.

Well, it is by necessity. Unfortunately.