Quote Originally Posted by Vahnavoi View Post
- snip -
Well lemme tell you my skill challenge journey

The table I play at attempted to bring skills to a more central role in the game. So, DMs started doing simple skill challenges: the DM would describe a scenario, and then each player would get the opportunity to narrate how they contribute. The DC would be set at some number (+/- 15 usually), and each character could use a skill of their choice. And the object of it was to get X successes before Y failures. It was fun enough, at first, but the fact that people can choose any skill they want led to some narrative contortions (we'd joke about Athletics being used to "set the pace, power ahead, blaze a trail...).

DMs got fancier and more complicated with it over time; some would dictate more specific scenarios where the party had to use 1 of maybe 3 specific skills, so players couldn't just constantly use their best skill. That was an improvement IMO, but there's still a "funny time" quality to it; like the game was pausing to do this little skill challenge mini game.

And that brings me to my complaint about skills that I haven't thought of a good way to fix: skills are dumb luck. There's almost no satisfaction is rolling a good skill check, and no particular agency in their use. Classes like barb might be notoriously limited in what they can do, even in combat, but even a barb gets to decide things round to round - movement, grapples, using GWM, shoving, etc etc etc. Yes, heinous rolls can ruin even the best-laid plans but there's still a good deal of agency involved. Skills just don't have that. Getting the "option" to use athletics to jump a river or persuasion to convince the toll collector to let you use the bridge isn't much of a choice if your athletics is +9 and persuasion is -1. There's hardly ever meaningful choice in skill checks, as one of a couple things happens

1) The DM calls for a check you're good at. Yay!
2) The DM calls for a check you're bad at. Oh noes!
3) The DM describes a scenario and asks what you want to do. You narrate how you can use the skill you're good at.
3) A) The DM buys it. Yay!
3) B) The DM says that's dumb. Oh noes!

None of that to me is being tactical, or expressing real choice, not in the way combat choices are a choice.

And like, skill checks don't have to be literally as complicated with as robust a system as combat. But some way to bring actual agency to the skill system would be awesome.