Let's talk about bullshit skills, Veeky Forums

Let's talk about bullshit skills, Veeky Forums.

Almost every tabletop RPG has them. Skills that are actually just straight up shitty. Generally these will be things like cooking, crafting, or things of that nature. Skills that take up resources to acquire, and give little-to-no in game benefit.

Games shouldn't include these skills. Now don't me wrong, if you want your character to be able to do things like maintain their own weapons and armor, weave their own baskets, spend their time adventuring making goblin gumbo, or whatever it is you want, go for it. Thing is though, these things ultimately don't matter unless you have a terrible GM that say you are limited only by what your sheet can do, or you are trying to cram in a bunch of rules that no one wants to use because they're basically universally bad.

go fuck yourself. if all you want to do is spend 4 hours rolling initiative and attack rolls, swinging your sword around then go play Diablo 3.

In the end non of this shit really matters, but I don't care. I want to play as a character who makes giant crab congee and spicy griphon wings. I do this because it makes me feel happy and not because it gives you a +1 to your attack rolls (although if I had my way it would also do that thing or maybe con saves instead).

When my character spends their down time creating a embroidered tapestry depicting the adventuring party to treasure forever it is for my own personal enjoyment and I hope just a little bit that the other players characters appreciate it too.

When my halfling rogue weaves a basket and trades that basket for a loaf of bread to share with the party I do it because I like that level of interacting in the game world with the other players. My enjoyment of the game is not predicated on endless, mindless combat. At least not in table top role playing games.

You misunderstand me, my man.

I am not saying that these aren't things that player characters should be able to do. It's quite the opposite.

I don't think you should need to be made to invest resources into skills that don't give you a tangible benefit in order to roleplay your character. Think about it, that's actively penalizing you for roleplaying. Your character is worse at their primary role, in order to get something that basically never nets you any real advantage.

Why should your wizard be a slightly shittier wizard because he's taken a cooking class? Why should your fighter be a shittier fighter because he's also into whittling and quite good at it. Why should your rogue take a hit to his efficiency as a rogue because he's got a knack for singing?

Rules like these don't encourage roleplaying, they discourage it. By making these sorts of choices into mechanics that consume limited, often non-renewable resources, it means that every point sunk into a bullshit skill is a point spent not making an actually useful character. If they are not going to be mechanically important or useful skills, there is little reason to actually have them consume the same resources as the important and useful skills. If they exist solely to be used for roleplaying, why are they behind a distinctively mechanical gate? Why are they something that you are not freely able to weave into your character?

That's what I like about 13th Age. Instead of skills you have descriptors. Descriptors you define, with broad potential for interpretation. It's like Aspects in Fate. So that makes them much more versatile, since instead of having to have separate Cooking, Wine Tasting, Tailoring, and Theater Appreciation skills you could just have a more widely-encompassing Aesthete descriptor. Also, you only role for them when it matters to the plot, so if you want to be a good cook but don't plan on your cooking skills ever being able to solve problems, you can just not invest points into that descriptor. And since those points are entirely separate from the ones for your class abilities, you don't have to worry about investing in them reducing your capability in your core competencies.

>Why should your wizard be a slightly shittier wizard because he's taken a cooking class?

Depends on what you mean by "shitty." Most systems that have these rando skills tend to be pretty broad systems that limit your ability to dump all of your points into one skill so you naturally wind up having oddballs to flesh out your character.

If you are referring to D&D, all crafting skills and shit let you actually invest time and resources to make stuff, giving you agency in the game world beyond the DM.

In fact, I have no idea what RPGs you are referring to when you say "Almost every tabletop RPG has them." My group has a problem with playing a bunch of different systems and games. I haven't noticed any that have the problem that you describe.

See, that's actually pretty good. By separating it from the core of the character, you've basically made it so that your mechanics aren't counter-productive to roleplaying.

Once again, the matter of limit resources at character creation or character advancement is important to the point of bullshit skills. By investing character points in cooking, it means didn't invest it into something that is more generally useful.

Also, regarding D&D, depending on edition the crafting rules range from practically non-existent, to suboptimal given time investments and comparative usefulness of other skills, or being able to basically maybe make sure you're getting your magic item wishlist.

The biggest issue here is that picking up these skills makes your character worse at what they're supposed to be in order to add something that normally shouldn't cost points in the first place.

It is a mechanic that stifles roleplay, rather than adds to it. By saying "you can't cook well unless you put points in" you have closed off an avenue of roleplay for the sake of having a "robust" skill system.

OP, the weakness of your opinion is that it is predicated upon the idea that the campaign will revolve around events where those skills are not handy.

In a game where I want to play an alchemist with his alchemical concoctions created in the form of hearty meals or mixology-inspired tasty drinks, I want to be able to key those abilities off of Cooking or whatever. In that context, the Cooking skill is extremely useful.

Similarly, in a game about merchant lords raising armies, expanding towns, exerting the influence of their own organizations and using political maneuvering against each other, the following skills would be useful:
Merchant
Current Events
Accounting
Propaganda
Strategy
Leadership
Haggling
Connoisseur (Fine Jewelry)
Diplomacy
Packing
Mental Strength
Architecture
Farming
Engineering (Civil Works)
Acting
Sex Appeal
Intelligence Analysis
Savoir Faire (High Society)
Acting
Shadowing

Whereas the following skills would be useless or near-useless:
Broadsword
Shield
Hiking
Survival
Observation
Fast-Draw
Brawling
Climbing
Swimming
Bow
Holdout
Stealth

Now, you're thinking, "okay but if we're all playing that game then the OTHER skills are useless so same idea, just different skills get cut out."

Well sure. If every single one of you is playing an alchemist cook, a merchant lord, a haughty noble princess, a rat-catcher, etc.
Except most of the games I run feature people wanting to play very different character concepts, all together. If that doesn't match your experience then fair enough, but the fact is that different skills are valuable in different ways for different people.

I agree with the core idea that "if it doesn't matter in the context of the campaign, it shouldn't cost resources to have." That's a fine statement. As an example, what good is an Elf living for 500 years in a campaign that will be taking place within the span of a few months? Should he have to pay for his Longevity, in that case? No. I don't think he should.

Continued>>>>>

...you didn't address my statement asking you about what RPGs you are talking about...

...you also completely ignored my statement about caps on skills during character creation...

>>>>continued

However! If everyone has a niche in which they feel they can contribute, and in which their skills are valuable within the scope of the campaign, then they should spend points (or whatever resource) on them the same as anyone else. A master cook who can impress people and impart magical effects to people via his skilled cooking should be able to play in the same campaign with the merchant lord, should be able to play in the same campaign as the haughty princess, should be able to play in the same campaign as the noble knight, so on and so on...

... with the assumption that the party understands what the game will be about; what the other PC's are like; how their skills will be able to come into play once the Campaign is underway.

tl;dr
No skill is useless unless it is completely outside the scope of the game you are running. That is a decision that needs to be made on a group-by-group and game-to-game basis; not something to make a blanket-statement OP about, in an attempt to rule some kind of an "ultimate verdict" on so-called 'fluff' skills like cooking.

Yep.

From what I've played of The Dark Eye, I like how it incentivizes coziness. Healing is slow by RPG standards (and healing magic doesn't help much because it just converts MP to HP on a one-for-one basis, and MP comes back just as slowly as HP.) One of the few ways to get bonuses to regeneration is by eating well and sleeping in ideal environments. It really gives you a reason to splurge on that single room at the inn instead of bunking together. And conversely, if you made a shitty campsite, let yourself get overexposed to the elements, or aren't eating a balanced and pleasing diet, you get a penalty on regeneration. If you let yourself get sick, even a cold, you get nothing back at all until you get well.

Sounds like a more rigorous Ryuutama. Man that shit is comfy as fuck.

Seconding this. Was gonna say it myself, but you did a much better job than I could.

>being this far up your ass because you made your game about shit that's boring instead of shit that's exciting
Well aren't you special.

>shit that I find boring instead of shit that I find exciting
Fixed that for ya, friend. I know typos can get even the best of us. Didn't want somebody to read it and misunderstand you, so I'm going the extra mile. Cheers, and happy gaming!

See, you kind of get it but you sort of missed the forest from the trees.

My problem isn't having skills like those in games (albeit they tend to be so poorly implemented that they're unusable, but this will change based on games.) It's having skills like that when they run contrary to the design of the game in general.

The reason I take issue with skills like cooking isn't because cooking is a dumb skill that should never be included in RPGs. But rather that cooking is pretty emblematic of the problem of trap skills masquerading as robust skill systems, and penalizing players who want to roleplay.

In the example of your merchant lord game, I'd largely agree (though depending on the scope of observation, I'd say that's a misstep to say it's not useful.)

The point is not this kind of skills should be removed entirely or that niche skills are a bad thing. But when a skill is so outside of the scope of the game that the only thing it's doing is limiting roleplaying by existing, it should be discarded.

From the beginning, my problem has been that actual bullshit skills interfere with roleplaying by virtue of their existence. They are skills for the generally inconsequential things about a character. The largest thing that goes into bullshit skills is "why do I have to roll for that."

>their primary role

This is generally a design philosophy issue. Arbitrary skill lists are always terrible, trying to fill in every possible option rather than stepping back and asking 'What skills actually matter to our system?'

Once you know what you care about, you can focus. What might be a single stealth or thievery skill in one game might be better represented as a lot of more nuanced skills in a game focused on espionage. No one skill should ever be something absolutely everyone will want to have. A 'must take' option is just as bad as a 'never pick' option in design terms, both remove player choice.

let me guess: you want to play a highly trained magic operative, who spends most of his days perfecting his witchcraft in order to optimize his performance in dungeonbashes and similar fantasy spec ops, rrrright?

get outta here, you disgust me.

>'What skills actually matter to our system?'
t. gamist
all of this is only relevant if you have bought into the D&D paradigm of roleplaying to begin with. jesus, this is a terrible den of ignorance

No? It's not related to any branch of GNS. It's a simple statement of good design.

If you're playing a game about espionage, you want a lot of different skills for espionage related things, and to give everyone a base level of core competence in that regard. This is a perfect logical and intuitive idea that is often missed out on due to people trying to assign skills arbitrarily.

Fantasy games are another example, especially since different kinds of fantasy game have different requirements. For a low fantasy game, mundane medicine and survival are important enough to get their own skills, but less so in high fantasy. If your game is about a mix of characters, you probably only want one skill for magical knowledge, while if your game is all about mages you'll want a selection of skills which cover different parts of magical theory and practice.

This lets you create balanced skill lists where everything you offer to your players is of roughly equal value, making them all viable choices and ensuring none of your design effort is wasted.

>it's another "this issue I just made up makes me angry" thread
In all games I've played, I usually had enough points to both increase my characters combat prowess and invest in some of those "useless" skills you mentioned. Basically, you want to min-max your character but also want to get skills supplementing your role-playing, which seems at odds. Maybe you should try a more rules-light system, or stop treating a pen and paper rpg like a videogame.

Why are you so concerned about making everything "equal" and "viable"? As long as somebody can contribute to the party, why do you care if they took underwater basketweaving and profession (patisserie)?

Because it sucks to be forced to choose between competence relevant to the core ideas of the system and flavour skills you only take to represent aspects of your character. A well designed system will let you achieve both without needing to compromise one for the other.

What system are you playing that's forcing you to choose the mechanically superior option, elsewise the GM will shrug their shoulders and said you chose to not be able to contribute to the party?

>No? It's not related to any branch of GNS. It's a simple statement of good design.
no, in simulationism it's: which skills would this character have? arguably, it's similar in narrativism since narrativism is defined by having an emerging theme aka it's not entirely clear what is going to matter in the next session.

>If you're playing a game about espionage, you want a lot of different skills for espionage related things, and to give everyone a base level of core competence in that regard
but what if I want to play an amateur that gets thrown into the world of espionage and still makes it through somehow?

>If your game is about a mix of characters, you probably only want one skill for magical knowledge, while if your game is all about mages you'll want a selection of skills which cover different parts of magical theory and practice.
ayup, fantasy spec ops. absolutely disgusting.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not about the GM forcing you to do anything, it's that being made to choose between flavour options and mechanical competence isn't a pleasant choice. It can lead to imbalance in the party without establishing an expected split between the two, at which point you might as well design with that split as a mechanical assumption. There's no benefit to doing otherwise.

I still don't see how GNS has any relevance there. There's always the assumption as to what the system is about and what the characters should be capable of doing. 'Simulaiotnist' doesn't mean you need a granular, arbitrary skill list, especially if you already know the kind of characters the system is built for, and Narrativist systems are the least likely to have arbitrary skill lists in my experience.

If you want to play an amateur, it depends on whether the system supports it. If it's a game about experienced, professional spies then that might just not be an appropriate character concept for the system. Otherwise, the system might have some other rules or traits to allow for it.

As for the last point... What the fuck are you talking about?

The GM isn't forcing you, nor did I say that. I asked about what system you are playing that is forcing you to sacrifice "viability" for "background." You're still worrying about "balance" when balance only has a place in story-driven games where the characters are expected to overcome most every challenge put in front of them, as long as it's narratively interesting to do so. And in those cases, the GM is going to be designing the encounters to be balanced around your group anyway, so it doesn't matter. Balance doesn't exist in living, breathing worlds. There's no leveled lists making sure every rock you stumble over leads to an encounter of appropriate level.

>If it's a game about experienced, professional spies then that might just not be an appropriate character concept for the system.
in spite of fiction time and again pairing amateurs with heroes/professionals, not the least of which being the works of JRRT

Balance matters in cooperative games because everyone being able to contribute equally makes for a more enjoyable team based experience. In different ways, within their own sphere of competence, but overall still equivalently effective.

This has no relation to whether the game world is balanced against the PC's or not, and it doesn't even hurt people who want to play an imbalanced party. It's only a benefit to have things balanced initially, letting you properly understand how things work if you choose to change them around.

Why does that obligate every system to make it a viable option?

Frankly, it doesn't. It might be what you prefer, in which case you should seek out systems which support it, but staying true to their design intentions and vision for the game leads to a better experience, in general. If a designer doesn't think it's appropriate, they have no obligation to make it so.

Most people don't care about contributing equally, actually. Most want to have a chance in the spotlight, many don't care much about the in-game roleplay and get their kicks from watching the game/spending time with friends, or pulling off plans and overcoming logistical/tactical challenges, or steering the story in the direction they "feel" it should head in, or want their character to be presented with interesting situations to develop in and test their ideals and such. You're coming at this with such a fucking narrow-minded perspective that I can only think you've been playing nothing but D&D. Very little of the above requires equal contribution. As long as their needs are being met, they're having fun.

None of that excludes equal contribution, either. People might have different priorities, but that doesn't make that sort of balance a bad thing. It's only ever a design strength of the system, whether it's made use of or not.

Your obsession with D&D is amusing, especially since it's notoriously a system which fails at exactly this, outside its most loathed incarnation.

>Very little of the above requires equal contribution.

And absolutely nothing of the above is lost by equal contribution.

You are basically arguing about not needing seatbelts because some people like to pull their windows down. The two are unrelated.

Nah, I think a lot of games really benefit from systems that tell you just how good a character is at such things and how well they do at different tasks. I've literally run games of D&D where a character's ability to cook a delicious meal was plot critical and rolling for stuff is just part of how D&D plays. I'd be doing the atmosphere of the game a disservice by just narrating success, even with all their preparation

Also, is everyone assuming example that "flavor" capabilities consume the same resource as "action" capabilities? That's true in point buy games, but it's usually a simple matter to either make the flavor things worth taking or make them a less unattractive choice (for example, by giving points specifically to spend on such things or lowering their cost). Lots of games (like most editions of D&D) allot completely different resources to both categories (secondary skills, nonweapon proficiencies, backgrounds, etc.).

I'm all for reducing clutter where appropriate and things like secondary skills where you just know what your character can do in the parts where the rules don't care are great, but I wouldn't advocate removing weird, fiddly stuff from most fairly generic games. I certainly don't agree that they are, "universally bad," though I do agree with you that skill system implementation that forces players to choose between effectiveness in the parts of the game the system cares about and their character concepts and flavor is generally undesirable.

>rolling for stuff is just part of how D&D plays
I should clarify that rolling for success for most things is part of my interpretation of what D&D is (how is "feels") and how I run those particular games.

I generally only have dice rolled when there's interesting consequences for both success and failure, as well as expanding the definition of 'failure'- If something has to happen for things to move on, a failed roll won't mean things just come to a dead stop, but they might mean an imperfect result or extra consequences to deal with, making the situation more interesting and challenging going forward.

I will admit that some of its skills, and especially its special abilities, seem a bit bloated. For example, there is a special ability that increases your yield when fishing. Getting this ability is slightly different from increasing your fishing skill. The reason why both exist when one would have done the job is anyone's guess. There is also a special ability that does nothing but give you the ability to use disguise kits on horses for the purpose of making them look healthier and selling them at a higher price. The number of campaigns in which this situation arises probably does not warrant its inclusion in the rules.

>but what if I want to play an amateur that gets thrown into the world of espionage and still makes it through somehow?
Then you're going to need fate points or some other metacurrency as well, and that's a whole other category of argument.

>Your character is worse at their primary role
Mate, your primary role is making sure everyone makes it out of the dungeon alive.
Your secondary role is, failing that, at least getting alive yourself.

That's your role. That's where skills matter.

But I do agree with you if we're talking D&D 3rd edition or more recent, in which case the classic solution applies.

>getting out alive yourself

Your mechanical role is whatever the system defines it as. No sense making assumptions that only apply to a small number of systems when you can make a more generally accurate statement.

In any RPG with a set of mechanics, you'll have a mechanical role of some sort that you want to be competent at. The only place this arguably isn't true is in comedy games like Paranoia and Maid.

Someone's gotta go buy the diamonds.

What if the system offers possibilities, and your role is defined narratively?

You'll still have a mechanical role. The system will have something its mechanical weight is focused on, or multiple things, and you will be defined by your mechanics as approaching one or both in a certain way. Sometimes roles are flexible, sometimes you can shape yours to a degree, but they always exist.

...