Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not who you asked, but I really like this question. I think time spent can be a consequence, because I think time is a resource that can (and arguably should) be managed in most adventures. Many if not all dungeon adventures. Success = immediate results, to the point of maybe getting a surprise round on the orcs, failure = results, but the orcs are ready instead. Or, as even further back (or maybe a different thread at this point, I've lost track), each check = 5 minutes pass, roll random encounters or keep track of the number of checks vs. the necromancer's ritual timer or mention that torches are starting to flicker and the party's starting to get hungry or so on.

Taking 20 is a great tool because it removes pointless rolling when it doesn't really matter, and because it also demonstrates the folly of ignoring time. The necromancer runs deep into his dungeon and starts the ritual. On his way, he locks six doors on his way to his sixth basement's six-sided Evil Inner Sanctum of Evil. GM starts the clock in his head --- the PCs have three hours to stop the necromancer. That's 36 dungeon turns or whatever-you-call-thems (I like "stretches"). If the party takes 20 on two doors, they might as well have not even been there. If they take 20 on one door, they're really starting to push things --- so the thief needs to be good, the party needs to be resourceful, or the party needs to be risky and take the unlocked, combat-heavy route.

The way I do this in Shadowdark is that an attempt at something costs a "crawling round" which increases the chances of random encounters.

So even though I would typically grant auto-success at picking a lock, it would still consume the thief's entire attention for that crawling round. Other characters can either think of something they want to do while waiting, or just wait.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yea, it isn't a big mechanical change, but I think it works well for @Bill Zebub's case of wanting the players to make their declarations within the fiction instead of using a mechanical option on the table. But at the same time, it also empowers character concept (and the mechanics supporting it) to play a major role in how the resolution actually occurs.

I do want to clarify that I want declarations within the fiction not just for narrative color, but to help determine what the stakes would be, if any.

If a player narrates a whole story about their background in order to justify why they might succeed at a 'knowledge check', there's still probably no consequences to failure, so I'm still not going to call for a roll.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If a character tries to climb a cliff, make an Athletics save to not fall or get stuck.

If a character has to pick a lock silently to not alert the guards in the next room, make a Finesse save.

If a character is interacting with a runic puzzle, make a Knowledge save to recognize this is a trap.

Having a tense negotiation with a merchant? Make a Presence save to not piss him off and he doubles the price.

Yeah, all of those work for me because they all have understood consequences.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I expect I'll be different in this regard, but conceptually I really like group knowledge checks. Roll and find out what you already know about (whatever). If you don't know what you had hoped, you'll have to work around your lack of knowledge or go for research (which takes time).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I have played a lot of 5e. I find very specific skill systems breaks immersion for me. Splitting hairs about two closely related skills does little for me.

I do like the more generalized approach in shadowdark I have just found. I am X background and when someone wants to do something X related (rated?) I like the idea of ability check with advantage.

I am just now coming to th point of thinking that juice is not worth the squeeze.

What is more, I am tired of every Thor character being a sailor in 5e for the sake of perception.

I am just over detailed skills. I will continue playing 5e…I like it. Bonus actions and the skill system notwithstanding

 

[Bill Zebub]

I will continue playing 5e…I like it. Bonus actions and the skill system notwithstanding

I'm planning to try Nimble. I'm happy with Shadowdark and Dragonbane, but my kids like the character options and gonzo fantasy of D&D.

 

[bsss]

I have hovered so many times over the Post Thread button to explain in adoration how much I love background systems as in 13th Age (and apparently Shadowdark, cool), but I just have not had the time.

 

[pemerton]

And I really do not understand what you mean by that. How does that relate to the problem of locks just being RNG checks? Because if they fail the check, I should remind them of that thing in their backstory where their parents locked them in the attic and they couldn't get out, and now they should roleplay emergent trauma? Or what?

Upthread, there were multiple posts about the use of Knowledge-type checks to learn backstory, or similar stuff. Reading stuff written in a strange language I think was one example; recognising a statue was another. You gave this illustration of the concern, in post 191:

Or, alternately, "Eight". "No, you fail." And all that cool backstory/history the GM spent time inventing doesn't get appreciated by the players.​

I assume that the cool backstory/history you're talking about is stuff to do with the history of the dungeon, the reason why some dungeon-maker (or previous dungeon occupant) included a statue of X rather than of Y, etc. In that particular sentence, I don't think you were talking about picking locks. Or, if you were talking about picking locks, you were talking about picking the lock to the chamber where the statue, or the mysterious writing, or whatever, is to be found.

And what I'm saying is that, if all that cool backstory/history matters in some way - eg if knowing it would give the players an advantage, say by allowing them to make preparations to help confront a challenging dungeon denizen - then the GM should be able to convey it to the players, in a more brutal fashion, when they fail or suffer for not having that information.

Eg suppose that the players - perhaps because they fail a check to have their PCs read the secret writing, or to open the door to the room with the statue of Cthulhu in it - fail to learn about the Cthulhu cultists in the NW corner of the dungeon; in that case, when they get to that NW corner, they won't be ready for being mind-blasted. And then, when one of the cultists mind-blasts them, they learn the cool backstory/history the hard way.

Not quite sure how GM skill is a factor in how adventures are written, except to the extent that it can require difficult improvisation to turn "A successful X check will result in Y" into an interesting challenge with consequences on the fly. But ok.

To me, at least, it seems that part of the skill of GMing is to use the material that the adventure writer has provided in your framing and your consequences.

But if the adventure writer has included backstory/history that doesn't matter to anything - eg the dungeon-builder's mother was a furniture maker, but knowing that fact doesn't provide any advantage in actually doing stuff in the dungeon - then we seem to be once again looking at poorly-conceived/designed adventures.

EDIT:
Here's another bit where you talk about knowledge-type skill checks:

I don't mind when a player says, "Can I roll Athletics to see if I jump the pit?" Because I can say, "Sure...if you fail you die, ok?"

However, if a player gives a long monologue about their apprenticeship in the Crystal Tower of Tyranos and the trauma they suffered at the hands of their cruel master, and ends with, "Can I roll Arcana to see if I know the answer?" I don't have a way to make that an actual challenge to overcome. It's not an interesting decision to make that attempt.

Jumping over a chasm and "knowing" something are two very different kinds of challenges, of course, but what I see is the approach taken in knowledge checks creeping into all the other kinds of skill tests.

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.

The monologuing thing doesn't seem very interesting or exciting to me - it seems like mere colour - but I guess some people enjoy it.

But in fairly classic dungeon play, I think the consequence for failing the knowledge check can manifest either immediately - misreading the runes triggers a curse, a soul-blast, whatever - or down the track, when you're not prepared for being mind-blasted.

Whether the mechanic for being able to obtain the knowledge is a skill-check (say, the thief's Read Languages ability) or a memorised spell (a Comprehend Languages spell) or a magic item (say, a Helm of Comprehending Languages and Reading Magic) seems secondary - the classic dungeon-crawling game combines all of the above. When GMing Traveller in the past little while, where the information has been Imperial codes, I've used rolls modified by EDU skill: with a PC's backstory (of having served in the Imperial Navy) opening up the possibility of making the roll at all.

 

[pemerton]

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

In a classic dungeon crawl, you might get through the gate with the rusted lock by pushing over a large statute to have it crash into the gate and break it open. But pushing over the statue would often require some sort of STR-based roll.

There's a tradition/practice, going back to the beginnings of D&D, of having a luck/gambling component to play: even when you come up with your plan, it's not guaranteed to succeed.

Related to the luck/gambling component is using limited resources to circumvent the need to roll. So instead of a STR-based roll to push over the statue, you summon a monster or charm a giant that is strong enough to just do it. Or instead of rolling to pick the lock, you use a charge of your Chime of Opening or your memorised Knock spell or whatever. (Which @SpellObjectEnthusiast also mentioned.)

I get that not everyone likes this interweaving of luck, planning and resource management. But it does have a long tradition.

With that said:

I've read, and heard of, modules/adventures where the design departs in various ways from the classic design, with a lack of meaningful choices/paths. And I've also come across modules/adventures which try to use the classic design, but in a context of PC build and action resolution that is different from the classic one, and so doesn't work properly: eg there is no limit (hard or soft) on re-tries, there is no skill required in planning and memorising spells, etc.

To take an extreme example: the way that a locked door figures in, and matters in, a Prince Valiant scenario is going to be completely different from the work that it does in a dungeon written in accordance with the 1970s ethos.

 

[pemerton]

Sometimes, the consequence for failure is just time wasted. Which is less important outside combat

That depends very much on other features of play and system.

Eg if there is a light clock, and/or a wandering monster clock, and/or a hunger/exhaustion clock, then spending time is quite important.