Why I Hate Skills

[Fenris-77]

I prefer the more granular nature of the skill list, so you can model specifically what the character knows and is good at, since not everyone with the same background should have identical skills.

No one with the same background will ever have identical skills because the player is always interrogating the background based on specific situations and no two players will do that the same way. You'll get broad similarities (as one would expect) but the details will be very different from player to player.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No one with the same background will ever have identical skills because the player is always interrogating the background based on specific situations and no two players will do that the same way. You'll get broad similarities (as one would expect) but the details will be very different from player to player.

What do you mean by "interrogating"? That seems a strange word choice in this context.

 

[Fenris-77]

What do you mean by "interrogating"? That seems a strange word choice in this context.

Not really. Let's say you have a background like 'squire in the Black Guard'. That suggests a whole bunch of possible skill type things, but in a system like Shadowdark that uses that sort of background you need to look at the background and figure out how it might provide you with the skills you need right now. The more times the player does this the more their actual background comes into focus and the better they understand their character.

I have no issue with skill systems, but they don't really do that job. We all like different things.

 

[Bill Zebub]

it's just iterated gambling with the level of stakes set by GM/system taste.

...or, as per my response to Micah upthread, even iterated gambling where you might not win, but you can't really lose, either. (E.g., "Can I roll to see if I know?")

 

[Bill Zebub]

What do you mean by "interrogating"? That seems a strange word choice in this context.

unpacking, analyzing, probing, considering....

EDIT: Or, to paraphrase Billy Collins, tie it to a chair and beat it with a hose.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hey, this has been a really fruitful discussion for me. Once again, the pushback and questioning helps me think about (dare I say, "interrogate") my instincts and beliefs and figure out in a more structured way what's going on in me poor brain.

So, thanks everyone!

 

[bsss]

Not really. Let's say you have a background like 'squire in the Black Guard'. That suggests a whole bunch of possible skill type things, but in a system like Shadowdark that uses that sort of background you need to look at the background and figure out how it might provide you with the skills you need right now. The more times the player does this the more their actual background comes into focus and the better they understand their character.

I have no issue with skill systems, but they don't really do that job. We all like different things.

What I love about backgrounds is that the character is not fully realized. You and/or the GM look at "squire in the Black Guard" and metaphorically ask "what the hell does that mean?" and whether you wrote a page-long backstory or say "dunno, Black Guard sounded cool", you get to have that interrogation/etc constantly. Your character and world building is never done.

 

[Pedantic]

...or, as per my response to Micah upthread, even iterated gambling where you might not win, but you can't really lose, either. (E.g., "Can I roll to see if I know?")

This is the kind of play I find most confusing. I personally don't like gambling (narratively or otherwise), but I grasp the general appeal. I struggle to understand what kind of appeal people are finding in gameplay built entirely out of meaningless decisions.

My best guess is that's it's an entirely character focused subset of gambling, combined with elements of performance; the player is gambling on the small personal question of whether their character can do X or knows Y, and/or is asking for the check as a very abridged way of performing "my character has trait Z" to the table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is the kind of play I find most confusing. I personally don't like gambling (narratively or otherwise), but I grasp the general appeal. I struggle to understand what kind of appeal people are finding in gameplay built entirely out of meaningless decisions.

My best guess is that's it's an entirely character focused subset of gambling, combined with elements of performance; the player is gambling on the small personal question of whether their character can do X or knows Y, and/or is asking for the check as a very abridged way of performing "my character has trait Z" to the table.

I also think it's just habit/history. So often when I bring this topic up I get these sideways looks (or, at least, that's how I'm interpreting a text response...) as if I'm crazy for even questioning this assumption.

 

[Fenris-77]

I also think it's just habit/history. So often when I bring this topic up I get these sideways looks (or, at least, that's how I'm interpreting a text response...) as if I'm crazy for even questioning this assumption.

Yeah, IDK man, nothing I've described is anything like gambling and I think we're on the same page.