Why I Hate Skills

[Bill Zebub]

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.

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:

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.

I think I’m following you, and agree about how background knowledge can provide an advantage (although when I was writing that I was really thinking about the pure flavor sort).

But “not learning the useful information” does not, in my mind, meet the criterion for “consequence of failure” because the PCs are not worse off, so there is no risk to trying.

(Unless, of course failure means bad information, but that opens a can of worms.)

 

[pemerton]

Something I was thinking about during my drive to work: What is skills were saves?

Rather than being something on the sheet a player invokes to do something, they become a particular competence at avoiding the consequence of taking a risky action?

That changes the gameplay loop to one where the players simply declare actions within the fiction. When the GM judges that a declared action has a risk of a meaningful negative consequence, then they call for the appropriate save.

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.

Classic Traveller calls all player-side rolls (I think it's all of them) throws, short for "saving throws". Though some are closer to what you describe - eg Vacc Suit skill, or evasion using Ship's Boat skill - than others.

As far as "That changes the gameplay loop to one where the players simply declare actions within the fiction. When the GM judges that a declared action has a risk of a meaningful negative consequence, then they call for the appropriate save." - aren't you drifting pretty far into the territory of say 'yes' or roll the dice? (Which then opens up the question of how do we know if an action is risky - which I posted about recently in the context of GMing Mythic Bastionland.)

 

[TwoSix]

But “not learning the useful information” does not, in my mind, meet the criterion for “consequence of failure” because the PCs are not worse off, so there is no risk to trying.

I mean, they're worse off than they would have been if they had made the check!

I think of it this way: the starting position of the PCs at the start of the module is "might learn the important info that will help them survive". After the failed check, their position is now "did not learn the info that will help them survive". That's a notable change in their circumstances.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, they're worse off than they would have been if they had made the check!

I think of it this way: the starting position of the PCs at the start of the module is "might learn the important info that will help them survive". After the failed check, their position is now "did not learn the info that will help them survive". That's a notable change in their circumstances.

Imagine a casino game where if you win you get money but if you lose … you don’t get any money. But you don’t lose any either.

If the consequence of losing is only that you don’t win, what are rational people going to do?

 

[TwoSix]

As far as "That changes the gameplay loop to one where the players simply declare actions within the fiction. When the GM judges that a declared action has a risk of a meaningful negative consequence, then they call for the appropriate save." - aren't you drifting pretty far into the territory of say 'yes' or roll the dice? (Which then opens up the question of how do we know if an action is risky - which I posted about recently in the context of GMing Mythic Bastionland.)

Since we're in the context of predominantly trad/classic play for this use case (exploring a pre-designed module), my assumption would be GM judgment/fiat as to whether an action declaration causes a raise of stakes; more than likely this is a determination based on the module's pre-generated notes of the "dungeon" setup.

It's certainly in the area of "SYoRtD" (I think we use this term enough to make up a shorthand!), but I think that's a pretty solid principle to allow for engaging play in even a predominantly trad paradigm, as opposed to the constant "keep testing to see if the PC is actually capable of something interesting" methodology that skill checks can sometimes devolve into.

 

[pemerton]

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-them

If the players don't know, and can't reasonably learn, that they have 36 turns, then the GM's clock doesn't add much to gameplay.

 

[TwoSix]

Imagine a casino game where if you win you get money but if you lose … you don’t get any money. But you don’t lose any either.

If the consequence of losing is only that you don’t win, what are rational people going to do?

I don't think this metaphor is exactly aligned with what I was proposing.

At its core, my proposal is that the player's can't "choose" to roll; a roll only happens when the GM decides a consequence might be inflicted if their action incites a roll.

 

[TwoSix]

If the players don't know, and can't reasonably learn, that they have 36 turns, then the GM's clock doesn't add much to gameplay.

Well, it might create a situation where the players all sagely nod their heads and say "Yep, there's no way we would have known how long that ritual took, all of us getting killed by the ritual definitely enhanced the verisimilitude of the setting" while rolling up new characters.

 

[pemerton]

But “not learning the useful information” does not, in my mind, meet the criterion for “consequence of failure” because the PCs are not worse off, so there is no risk to trying.

(Unless, of course failure means bad information, but that opens a can of worms.)

I use bad information in some RPG contexts, but I don't think it's a good fit for a game where (i) the players roll the dice, and (ii) the players are playing to beat the dungeon in the classic manner.

In the classic game, the GM often rolls the dice, and so can hand out bad information with a straight face - see eg some of the old "rumours" tables with false entries - but I think the contemporary vibe leans towards the players rolling. And a game where rolls => advancement probably requires the players to roll.

In a fairly classic dungeon-crawl-y game, the minimum risk to trying should be (i) uncertainty as to whether the runes, if misread, will soul-blast or curse you, and (ii) the passage of time (and hence the light clock, the wandering monster clock, etc). Take away those risks (or analogous one) and then I think you're changing play a lot, and scenario design and implementation has to change too.

Imagine a casino game where if you win you get money but if you lose … you don’t get any money. But you don’t lose any either.

If the consequence of losing is only that you don’t win, what are rational people going to do?

I don't think this metaphor is exactly aligned with what I was proposing.

I think @Bill Zebub is making a point about "cost free" rolls/checks.

Hence why some sort of "clock" is probably the minimum to make a broadly classic approach work. (Leaning too hard into uncertainty will give a Tomb of Horrors vibe!)

Since we're in the context of predominantly trad/classic play for this use case (exploring a pre-designed module), my assumption would be GM judgment/fiat as to whether an action declaration causes a raise of stakes; more than likely this is a determination based on the module's pre-generated notes of the "dungeon" setup.

Yep. My issue with Mythic Bastionland is its combination of low(ish) prep and GM judgement/fiat. (Not an insoluble issue. But it was the main thing I bumped into in getting ready to play, and then playing.)

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Interjecting this article as it is pretty relevant to the conversation. It's focused on Fate specifically but imo is applicable for any kind of game, including trad games.

Specifically, the part about thinking about rolls less about "Overcoming Challenges" and more as about "Determining What Happens Next".

Failure • Odds and Ends

fate-srd.com