I've grown to hate "comprehensive skill lists".

Quote from: RPGPundit;988586I've grown to hate "comprehensive skill lists".

I knew eventually you'd come to my position!

All skill like activities should be resolved as rolls vs. stats, perhaps with some modifier for class/level. First of all, what the hell are stats for if you don't use them for some quantitative purpose? And second, detailed skill systems are total wankery.

Every skill system out there strikes a perfect balance between laughably too few, just right, and ridiculously over the top...just not for everyone.

Find the one you like.
Profit.

If you don't make a list, but still have skills, it means the GM gets to decide what skills there can be.

Another thing I like about skill in Beyond the Wall, there is no formal, collected skills list. I did go through all the playbooks and compile a list of skills given for my own use as GM, but the game itself doesn't provide one.  Even better the skills given are not defined beyond their name.

So different characters within the group might have the skills "Dark Secrets", "Forbidden Knowledge", and "Occult Lore". Any or all of which might apply to a roll to discover the true Name of the demon that has been tormenting the village.  I would still require the players to tell me how they were applying the skill and what they were doing to discover the name. "Occult Lore" would be of no help in discovering the identity of the Queen's lover, but either "Dark Secrets" or "Forbidden Knowledge" might if properly applied.

It is about asking the question "do I have a skill that might make it easier for me to do the thing?" Too many games and gamers seem to take skills as being "do I have the skill the will allow me to attempt the thing?"

Quote from: estar;986562Agreed, even in the most wargamish of RPGs (like D&D 4e) I was able to make it work by insisting players describe first, roll second. And if they didn't do that I would negate the roll, have them pick it up then  give me a description afterward they can now roll. They learn quickly after losing a critical result.

I had to train one of my players to tell me what she was doing for "diplomacy". Once she understood some sort of rough explanation was needed, and that cool plans would increase her chances of success, she got into it a lot more, and approached it more in terms of role-playing for the explanation.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989186Too many games and gamers seem to take skills as being "do I have the skill the will allow me to attempt the thing?"

#1 reason why I dislike games with dozens upon dozens of skills that have tiny differentiations between them.

Quote from: Dumarest;989239#1 reason why I dislike games with dozens upon dozens of skills that have tiny differentiations between them.

Yeah - most games should keep it to about a dozen.  Maybe two dozen if it's a skill-based game.  (no other significant states to track)

Now - there are exceptions where it still follows KISS.  Shinobigami has 72 different skills (as the only stats) - but it's a semi-narrative game with a 6x12 table, and mechanically their biggest differences are how far away an attack is on the table from your skills affects your defences.  

Note: I'm on the Kickstarter for Shinobigami and have read some of the rules - but I haven't actually played it yet as the full thing isn't fully translated yet.  For all I know it's terrible - but it seems pretty interesting for a one-shot.

I'm thinking of the relatively sane skill list that was in 2nd edition Champions, then a little expansion in the Champions II book, then I think it was about right in 3rd edition, and then suddenly with 4th/BBB martial arts and languages turned into a huge detailed mess, and then by the time 5th came around instead of just Acrobatics, you'd have to buy Acrobatics, Breakfall, Tumbling, etc. all as separate skills...I was quite happy with Acrobatics or Gymnastics or whatever you want to call it covering that whole gamut of acrobatic-gymnastic type activities...

...but I get the feeling I'm in the minority as  lot of gamers seem to think "more rules is better." Well, particularly in the Hero Games subset. I can't see playing Champions again unless we're going back to maybe 2nd or 3rd edition.

This topic was interesting enough to me that I decided to branch off and create another thread specifically about whether people prefer defined skill lists or no defined skill lists.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989186
It is about asking the question "do I have a skill that might make it easier for me to do the thing?" Too many games and gamers seem to take skills as being "do I have the skill the will allow me to attempt the thing?"

One of the differences in my group between playing a Traveller-like game or even DwD Studios' Barebones Fantasy and the game I wrote for my players, is that in my game, my plays say "I do X", while in the other games, they usually asked "Can I do X". Other than a few "needs training" skills, anybody can try anything. If one of your two careers applies, you get to use your full skill ability. If no career applies (and we allow careers to be pretty broad), the skill roll falls back to a minimal but doable chance.

Quote from: estar;987302Or they want to play a campaign as a character that is better than they are at diplomacy. As far I am concerned when this is a factor what I am looking for is the plan and the intent. The diplomacy roll comes after the fact to see how it was executed.

For example in one campaign I had a kid who out of game had a bad stutter. By doing things this way, his character's charisma helped just as it would a players who is a smooth talker out of game. However isn't a good roll in the world that will fix an idiotic idea or plan something that kid (and others) quickly learned when they tried to rely on skill rolls in my campaigns.

For me this approach fixes a who lot of issues when players have characters that are better or worse they are out of game.

Someone with a disability is a special case.

In the general case, a "diplomacy" roll is like a "tactical genius" roll in a wargame.  You want to be tactically brilliant, learn tactics.  You want to be a good negotiator, learn to negotiate.  It's not some arcane black art open to only a few, any more than learning what "refusing the center" means is an arcane black art open only to a few.

Quote from: DavetheLost;989186It is about asking the question "do I have a skill that might make it easier for me to do the thing?" Too many games and gamers seem to take skills as being "do I have the skill the will allow me to attempt the thing?"

Because for a lot of people, not just gamers, if it's not mentioned/listed it's assumed not possible.  It's how humans are.  We have to train them into thinking otherwise.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;982385Not by this old schooler.

From effort comes results. You can't be good at everything. There's the occasional guy who rolled good stats and multi-classed, but most of us only rolled enough for one character class.

As a dude studying to maybe get my certification for training people I applaud your example - it spoke to me in a language I get.

When people get all into math in their examples my eyes glaze over. No offense to anyone. I'm not the most mathematically inclined fellow into gaming, and I like keeping things easy.