Big Skills

[Kaelik]

Uh... hey you idiot. You are the one full of hyperbole. You are literally arguing that every action ever must have at least one die roll and that no possible action can act without dice because Amber Diceless is bad.

You are basically the lyingest of liars.

I will answer both of these statements. No, I'm not.

I thought the conclusion for wanting dice (even tangentially through Concentration checks, saves, etc) stems from the established track record of failure from diceless systems is sufficient prior to err on that side of the argument.

Oh look, here is you saying that you want dice in situations in which 3e already doesn't have dice because Amber Diceless sucks.

Or is this "I'm not arguing it, I'm just uncritically stating dumb things and implying they are correct, so I don't actually have to defend my incredibly stupid statements!"

[virgil]

Or is this "I'm not arguing it, I'm just uncritically stating dumb things and implying they are correct, so I don't actually have to defend my incredibly stupid statements!"

No, it's you being wrong.

[virgil]

Ignoring Kaelik for the moment here.

Also not touching the gated content topic, since this thread seems to have migrated a bit.

I'm being simplistic on the sides here, but the "anti-dice" side says wall of stone (and similar examples) is an effect without dice. The "pro-dice" argue that dice do exist in the resolution of that spell. Why can't the protested skill resolutions (like Search or whatever) have that level of interaction with the dice, since it's evidently sufficient for sides' definition of whether or not it has a random factor?

[Kaelik]

Ignoring Kaelik for the moment here.

Also not touching the gated content topic, since this thread seems to have migrated a bit.

I'm being simplistic on the sides here, but the "anti-dice" side says wall of stone (and similar examples) is an effect without dice. The "pro-dice" argue that dice do exist in the resolution of that spell. Why can't the protested skill resolutions (like Search or whatever) have that level of interaction with the dice, since it's evidently sufficient for sides' definition of whether or not it has a random factor?

Because Frank would gut your mother before allowing people to find things without rolling dice, and then only rolling dice if the things you found caused you to roll dice.

[Username17]

Why can't the protested skill resolutions (like Search or whatever) have that level of interaction with the dice, since it's evidently sufficient for sides' definition of whether or not it has a random factor?

It can. And in 3e it already does. You make Search checks for time sensitive content finding, and you don't roll at all when you are scratching your dick taking twenty or the relevant findables are not hidden. And that's plenty.

The original claim that PhoneLobster and K made was that it was never OK to bin good content just because someone failed a Search roll. And that's wrong. And Kaelik went off on his weird tangent spam about how Wall of Stone doesn't have die rolls even though it obviously does, so ignoring him for the rest of the thread is probably the right choice.

If the MC is deeming "magic" or "giant" to disqualify a door from qualifying as a member of the set "any and all locks", then they are defying the rules. The described ability wasn't "open all normal locks", it was "open all locks full fucking stop".

Congratulations, you've just made an opening salvo in the Mother-May-I game that all diceless games devolve into. The MC now counters by saying that the magic door is "not locked, it is cursed" and the giant door is "not locked, it is heavy and jammed." You can proceed to argue that such things "are too" locked, to which the MC can respond "Nu-uh" and eventually one of you can tell on Mom that the other is being mean.

And if you begin to glimpse how fucking disempowering it is to even fucking have that conversation at all, welcome to gaming in 1976.

Deaddmwalking claims he wants players to choose what they'd like to do, but instead of actually allowing his players to choose, he lets his whims as a DM and the dice gods decide what they can and can't do.

Your claim that guaranteed success is necessary for agency is considered and rejected. You have agency when you have the ability to make informed choices. An informed choice is one where you understand the range of potential outcomes, not one where you always get the outcome you most want.

Choosing to make a power attack because you'd rather do twice as much damage on a hit and land your blows three quarters as often is an informed choice and making it or not is you having agency. Declaring that your character hits their opponent and blood comes gushing out and their head explodes until the MC says that actually no, you missed, because you are playing Cops and fucking Robbers like a four year old is not informed. It's not really agency either. If the MC accedes to your demand that "Bang! You're Dead!" that's not your agency, it's the MC's agency. And if the MC countermands you by saying "No! You Missed!" that is again his agency and not yours.

In pure narrative declaration play, the MC has the last word, so any player agency is essentially illusory. Which is high fallutin talk for you being so full of shit that if we were to scare you shitless you would fit in a glove compartment.

-Username17

[ishy]

Your claim that guaranteed success is necessary for agency is considered and rejected.
-Username17

Fuck you Frank, stop strawmanning. I never made that fucking claim.

[Username17]

Your claim that guaranteed success is necessary for agency is considered and rejected.
-Username17

Fuck you Frank, stop strawmanning. I never made that fucking claim.

Deaddmwalking claims he wants players to choose what they'd like to do, but instead of actually allowing his players to choose, he lets his whims as a DM and the dice gods decide what they can and can't do.

You're obviously illiterate, because there's basically no other way to read that statement you made. If you think that the "whims of the dice gods" preventing you from doing a thing you wanted to do (by which we mean that you attempted to do something and failed because of a bad roll) means that you don't have Agency, then you're saying that guaranteed success is required for Agency. Or you're just a fuckup who is shitting on this thread with dumb hyperbole because you don't have a coherent position at all and still want to argue with people.

Which is it?

-Username17

[ishy]

You're obviously illiterate, because there's basically no other way to read that statement you made. If you think that the "whims of the dice gods" preventing you from doing a thing you wanted to do (by which we mean that you attempted to do something and failed because of a bad roll) means that you don't have Agency, then you're saying that guaranteed success is required for Agency. Or you're just a fuckup who is shitting on this thread with dumb hyperbole because you don't have a coherent position at all and still want to argue with people.

Which is it?

-Username17

Neither, because you're just building a giant strawman again. There was no player choice involved in that specific scenario. You got to work on your reading skills a bit Frank.

[MGuy]

Umm Frank what part of failing a dice roll is actual player agency?

[Kaelik]

If the MC is deeming "magic" or "giant" to disqualify a door from qualifying as a member of the set "any and all locks", then they are defying the rules. The described ability wasn't "open all normal locks", it was "open all locks full fucking stop".

Congratulations, you've just made an opening salvo in the Mother-May-I game that all diceless games devolve into. The MC now counters by saying that the magic door is "not locked, it is cursed" and the giant door is "not locked, it is heavy and jammed." You can proceed to argue that such things "are too" locked, to which the MC can respond "Nu-uh" and eventually one of you can tell on Mom that the other is being mean.

Because remember kids, you can totally uncurse cursed magic doors by rolling a high enough Open Lock check and the kind of DM who tells you "fuck off, this door is unopenable even though you have an ability to open all doors because screw the rules, I have money" is totally going to let you unlock the same fucking door he refuse to allow you to open as long as you roll a die.

[K]

People really need to stop using Amber Diceless as an example because you look fucking stupid. You obviously have never read it or played it.

Yes, it claims to be Diceless rpg game. It is not. Claiming that its failure is a blow to the idea of Diceless games makes you look ignorant.

For people who would like some details, Amber is a book with a handful of stats, 99% fluff cribbed from the Amber books, and exactly one mechanic. The SRD could fit on a fortune cookie fortune, and even that one mechanic is subject to GM whims.

Amber Diceless is an improv game that marketed itself as an RPG before there were places like the Forge to put your improv games pretending to be RPGs

[Jason]

He was specifically talking about desigining encounters after he knows what abilities his players have. And creating encounters based on those abilities, so no previous player choices don't matter in this specific case.

That's only one very specific interpretation of what he wrote and I hardly doubt you lack the capacity to understand that. What he was most likely referring to was that when designing the challenge he is aware of the abilities of the player's characters, allowing him to design an encounter around their abilities. No point in setting a dc no one in the group can beat after all.
That is not what you are taking from it, however. If you stop only looking at things black and white for a second you will realize that the player that invested in the skills of his character, relevant to the challenge will have a better chance of success than the characters of players who didn't. The player chose for his character to be better at that task, so he is better at it, than other charactersa. You can't simply view only the outcome of the die roll alone.
Now, I am not arguing whether that is the best solution, but claming there is no agency in the entire challenge is simply wrong. What the roll adds, however, is not increased agency (that comes through the investment, but chance and uncertainty, something very relevant to the enjoyment for most players. Humans love games of chance, especially ones where they can directly influence the outcome. That is what the dice rolls add.

Dice rolls don't actually give you the answer to the questions you are asking. They don't tell you if you know the right people, your way around the underbelly, or if you can remain under the radar.

That depends on what "gather information" is simulating.

The one who'll decide the outcome is determined by your action resolution system, it can be any number of things.

Yeah, I agree. Dice add risk, however. An RPG without risk is a rather dull affair. The ourcome of the challenge feels more rewarding, if there was a chance of failure involved.

[Kaelik]

The player chose for his character to be better at that task, so he is better at it, than other charactersa. You can't simply view only the outcome of the die roll alone.

This continues to not in any fucking imaginable way be an argument for dice granting agency.

Now, I am not arguing whether that is the best solution, but claming there is no agency in the entire challenge is simply wrong.

Look little child of the age of 5, deadDM was specifically making an argument that this is a situation in which dice granted agency that wouldn't exist without the dice.

If the dice don't add agency where it didn't exist before, then he was fucking wrong, and you are an idiot for defending his argument.

What the roll adds, however, is not increased agency (that comes through the investment, but chance and uncertainty, something very relevant to the enjoyment for most players. Humans love games of chance, especially ones where they can directly influence the outcome. That is what the dice rolls add.

So what you are saying is that deadDM is completely and totally wrong in that post and full of shit, and that anyone who defends that post is an idiot?

Yeah, I agree. Dice add risk, however. An RPG without risk is a rather dull affair. The ourcome of the challenge feels more rewarding, if there was a chance of failure involved.

Here's the thing though, you aren't allowed to talk about how dice add risk or chance, and that's good. Because when I said that dice add risk or chance but not agency, every fucking dice sucker in this thread immediately decided to declare me the biggest idiot in the universe and a monster because DICE ADD PLAYER AGENCY.

If you show up in a thread and start yelling at all the democrats about how they are wrong, and that all the trumpers are great people, because "Trump is huge idiot and you should vote democrat" then you are in the wrong, no matter how correct your conclusion.

That is what you are doing right now. Stop it.

[Username17]

People really need to stop using Amber Diceless as an example because you look fucking stupid. You obviously have never read it or played it.

Yes, it claims to be Diceless rpg game. It is not. Claiming that its failure is a blow to the idea of Diceless games makes you look ignorant.

For people who would like some details, Amber is a book with a handful of stats, 99% fluff cribbed from the Amber books, and exactly one mechanic. The SRD could fit on a fortune cookie fortune, and even that one mechanic is subject to GM whims.

Amber Diceless is an improv game that marketed itself as an RPG before there were places like the Forge to put your improv games pretending to be RPGs

My contention is that without an RNG, an RPG is necessarily as bullshit and ultimately unsatisfying as Amber Diceless. Remember that even Munchhausen has an RNG. It's literally Rock Paper Scissors, but that's still an RNG. If you don't have that, then whatever you have ultimately boils down to Cops and Robbers. Like Amber Diceless does.

The fact that you're willing to contend that it shouldn't even count as a game is rather my point. The "mechanic" of "make an argument to the MC who either agrees with you or not" is not a game.

-Username17

[Jason]

This continues to not in any fucking imaginable way be an argument for dice granting agency.

And it shouldn't, because you built a giant strawman out of "dice granting agency". In your inability to stop raging you keep failing to realize that the point is not about the dice, but about having an objective resolution over a subjective one. Player agency comes (as ishy pointed out already) from long term investment. Said investment is worth jack shit without an objective resolution mechanic however.

You are either arguing for the sake of arguing or you are actually too inept to understand that. I don't care whch of those two it is, because you are not providing anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument, rather you just rage like a nine year old, hoping that if you keep screaming long enough people will get bored and you can claim yourself "victor". It's rather pathetic to watch, really.

Look little child of the age of 5, deadDM was specifically making an argument that this is a situation in which dice granted agency that wouldn't exist without the dice.

If the dice don't add agency where it didn't exist before, then he was fucking wrong, and you are an idiot for defending his argument.

You can cuss all you want, but you're wrong, regardless. I explained it above. You either get it by now, or you won't get it at all.

So what you are saying is that deadDM is completely and totally wrong in that post and full of shit, and that anyone who defends that post is an idiot?

Your reading comprehension is about where I expect it.

Here's the thing though, you aren't allowed to talk about how dice add risk or chance, and that's good. Because when I said that dice add risk or chance but not agency, every fucking dice sucker in this thread immediately decided to declare me the biggest idiot in the universe and a monster because DICE ADD PLAYER AGENCY.

That's the strawman you built out of your inability to grasp the concept. The dice add the nescessary objective resolution mechanic for actual investment (the part that is then player agency) to matter in the first place. In your rage you fail to understand that.

Don't bother responding, though. I am done with you and your inane temper tantrum in this thread.

[MGuy]

Jason... Kaelik isn't making a strawman. Here let me put it in other terms. Dice do certain things. Primarily you use dice because there is a disagreement between what the players want to do and what the GM is having happen. At least that's the point outside of combat. What people are telling you and others is that there are things that a roll doesn't add anything to. Can you tell me what Agency is gained if instead of having knowledge checks characters put resources into having instead of just always working required an additional roll? I bet you can't without talking about what if the GM says no. Now imagine the rules say it Always works.

Hell I'll give you the same challenge that dead failed. If you can come up with one I'm all ears.

[Jason]

Jason... Kaelik isn't making a strawman. Here let me put it in other terms. Dice do certain things. Primarily you use dice because there is a disagreement between what the players want to do and what the GM is having happen. At least that's the point outside of combat. What people are telling you and others is that there are things that a roll doesn't add anything to. Can you tell me what Agency is gained if instead of having knowledge checks characters put resources into having instead of just always working required an additional roll? I bet you can't without talking about what if the GM says no. Now imagine the rules say it Always works.

Hell I'll give you the same challenge that dead failed. If you can come up with one I'm all ears.

I am not defending deaddm. I, myself am often foregoing rolls in our sessions, where they would simply not add anything meaningful. And yes, that still leaves player choices open. But here's the thing about these situations:

1. They are rather clear in their outcome. Why roll a skillcheck, if the player rolling is 99% certain to suceed? There is nothing gained foregoing the roll. Just time saved.

2. The outcome of those foregone rolls is not crucial or dramatically relevant.

I can forego those rolls, because whether I roll or not has hardly any effect on the outcome. It's an arbitrary decision, however. And in the extreme, such arbitrary decision can completely void player input.

So, let me rephrase my point, if you will. You don't need dice rolls for player agency to happen. You need dice rolls or another objective resolution mechanic, however, to guarantee player agency. Dice rolls simply also add the extra risk mechanic needed for dramatic actions that static resolutions lack.

My reply to ishy wasn't about whether dice add agency on their own. My reply to him was about the strawman of "you say dice add agency" as if that had ever been the actual argument. It hasn't. Dice are just an objective resolution mechanic and objective resolution mechanics are needed to guarantee player agency. The agency in deaddm's excemple was the skill investment of the player in the skills that then influence the die roll, not the roll or the die itself. And that's what Kaelik is unable or unwilling to understand.

[PhoneLobster]

The dice add the nescessary objective resolution mechanic for actual investment (the part that is then player agency) to matter in the first place. In your rage you fail to understand that.

Dice don't get to matter unless they generate outcomes that matter.

You are right back to claiming that knowledge checks can matter...

But we know that knowledge checks either don't matter or they result in "you failed a star trek trivia check GAME OVER!".

So are you arguing that the rolls DO matter because they DO actually exclude content, or are you going to go right back to the usual bullshit evasion that they never really exclude anything because you just keep rolling more of them until the content is delivered by hook or crook, and then pretend THAT matters... because no reason...

[ishy]

He was specifically talking about desigining encounters after he knows what abilities his players have. And creating encounters based on those abilities, so no previous player choices don't matter in this specific case.

That's only one very specific interpretation of what he wrote and I hardly doubt you lack the capacity to understand that. What he was most likely referring to was that when designing the challenge he is aware of the abilities of the player's characters, allowing him to design an encounter around their abilities. No point in setting a dc no one in the group can beat after all.
That is not what you are taking from it, however. If you stop only looking at things black and white for a second you will realize that the player that invested in the skills of his character, relevant to the challenge will have a better chance of success than the characters of players who didn't. The player chose for his character to be better at that task, so he is better at it, than other charactersa. You can't simply view only the outcome of the die roll alone.
Now, I am not arguing whether that is the best solution, but claming there is no agency in the entire challenge is simply wrong. What the roll adds, however, is not increased agency (that comes through the investment, but chance and uncertainty, something very relevant to the enjoyment for most players. Humans love games of chance, especially ones where they can directly influence the outcome. That is what the dice rolls add.

I guess you could say previous player investment can matter a tiny bit even though Deaddm didn't mention that and in fact only stated he wanted the RNG to dedice no matter what abilities the player had. So yeah, even if you have a +0 or a +40, you still gotto roll that d20 to see if you succeed and fail, but if if you have a +0 you might need to roll a 13 and if you have a +40 you might need to roll a +7 (since deaddm stated he didn't want auto-success or failure). That is still hugely depowering to the players though. Probably unclear at what point investing in the skill stops mattering too.

Dice rolls don't actually give you the answer to the questions you are asking. They don't tell you if you know the right people, your way around the underbelly, or if you can remain under the radar.

That depends on what "gather information" is simulating.

Okay, technically true. But what I was thinking about was a gather information check result is a binary failure / success (like say the D&D one). If for example you roll for all of those separately it might actually answer that.

The one who'll decide the outcome is determined by your action resolution system, it can be any number of things.

Yeah, I agree. Dice add risk, however. An RPG without risk is a rather dull affair. The ourcome of the challenge feels more rewarding, if there was a chance of failure involved.

I don't think an RPG without risk has to be dull, but I do definitely prefer to have some kind of risk in an RPG. I don't think the outcome necessarily feels more rewarding if there is risk involved though.
And obviously you can have risk without involving a RNG in your RPG as well.

- Edit: because I forgot to reply to this:

No point in setting a dc no one in the group can beat after all.

This is completely wrong. If you ask your players to invest in being able to do either A) or B) and if they choose A) they never encounter B), in most cases it leaves a really really bad taste in the mouths of the players. If you want your players to feel like their choices matter, you generally have to show them that their choices matter.

[Kaelik]

Hi I just got here, but I'm absolutely sure I know what the conversation is actually about, and to prove it, I'm going to say literally the opposite of what the actual discussion has been the whole time was the discussion the whole time.

The point is that . . . good and bad rolls made by the player are all player input. They all influence the course or potential course of the story because it's a cooperative storytelling game.

If you actually believe this, you are delusional. The results of dice rolls are not player input, they are random input. Some things need random inputs, some things don't. But it would be a hell of a lot better conversation if we talked about which things needed random inputs than trying to claim that the totally random result of things that are literally designed to ideally completely remove all influence the person rolling could ever have on the result, is "player input"

[MGuy]

You need dice rolls or another objective resolution mechanic, however, to guarantee player agency.

Did you read all of what you quoted?

Jason... Kaelik isn't making a strawman. Here let me put it in other terms. Dice do certain things. Primarily you use dice because there is a disagreement between what the players want to do and what the GM is having happen. At least that's the point outside of combat. What people are telling you and others is that there are things that a roll doesn't add anything to. Can you tell me what Agency is gained if instead of having knowledge checks characters put resources into having instead of just always working required an additional roll? I bet you can't without talking about what if the GM says no. Now imagine the rules say it Always works.

Hell I'll give you the same challenge that dead failed. If you can come up with one I'm all ears.

You roll dice whenever what the players want to happen and what the GM is having happen differ. That means rolling exists, not to guarantee player agency, but to settle a dispute between GM and player (also player v player but that's not the focus of the discussion). You COULD just have a rule where when you decide to cast Wall of Stone, you get your Wall of Stone. That seems like a pretty solid way of guaranteeing the player agency, no dice involved.

[deaddmwalking]

I guess you could say previous player investment can matter a tiny bit even though Deaddm didn't mention that and in fact only stated he wanted the RNG to dedice no matter what abilities the player had. So yeah, even if you have a +0 or a +40, you still gotto roll that d20 to see if you succeed and fail, but if if you have a +0 you might need to roll a 13 and if you have a +40 you might need to roll a +7 (since deaddm stated he didn't want auto-success or failure). That is still hugely depowering to the players though. Probably unclear at what point investing in the skill stops mattering too.

????

Dice are not a strictly random inout. I mean, the actual roll of the die (between 1 and 20 on this check) is random, but that is the only part that is random. Choosing to roll is a player input. Investing resources into the relevant ability is a player input.

...

I think there's a big difference between a character who has invested significant resources in Search finding everything by taking 10 (no rolling) and revealing every possible thing to the party even if they have not spent any resources.

In the section you quoted, I indicated that there are things that you always succeed, and things that you always fail. There is no point in rolling for either of those categories. Rolling would be a waste of time.

In the event that something does not fall into either category, meaning you sometimes succeed and you sometimes fail, you will need a resolution mechanic to determine which one happens on this particular attempt. Rolling is a good resolution mechanic. It allows a chance for both success and failure, and if the modifiers to the roll are sensible, the chance of success and failure will be in reasonable proportion.

Looks like someone skipped 10 pages of discussion.

To recap:

Phonelobster believes that any of these types of checks either necessarily does not matter or causes the game to end. Which may or may not just mean 'bad things happen' as if sometimes that doesn't make the game better.

MGuy agrees with Phonelobster. But if there is an opposed check, he thinks you should roll it. He doesn't believe that success and failure can meaningfully change the game - you're either going to get the content or the game is worse, not that you end up in a different direction and it is equally good but very different (meaningfully so).

Kaelik is strawmanning very hard because he's tired of being ignored. His hatred of any type of dice rolling has him insisting that everyone else in this thread believes that every action should require a roll, no matter what or 'no agency'. Since nobody has actually made that claim, I don't know why he's still here. I originally was confused because I thought he was agreeing with Phonelobster and Mguy, but that's not correct. Apparently, he believes that a game is better when you can either always succeed or always fail and that there is no situation where it might be better where you have some chance of both success and failure. Unless he's not talking about the situations where he thinks that is appropriate (like combat) and implying that he thinks it is true for everything but it's really only true for certain abilities that he has in his mind but he's not sharing the list, only revealing 'movement' and 'wall of stone' as examples.

For myself:

I believe that 'Take 10' and 'Take 20' cover most of the 'auto-success/auto-fail' territory that I want. If my PCs have a +15 and the TN is 25 or lower, I certainly think 'auto-succeed' is the way to go - treat them like they're taking 10 on every task. I don't think that you should reveal everything to someone with a +5 that you should to a +15. That appears to be what Phonelobster and Mguy are arguing for - that any investment in those types of skills is ultimately wasted because you should give them that content no matter what, even if they invested in other abilities instead...maybe especially if they invested in other abilities instead.

[Kaelik]

Whhhhaaahhh, Kaelik thinks no rolls should ever happen, or maybe he does think they belong in some places but he won't tell me what they are.......

I didn't direct quote you, because your tags are fucked, so I'm not sure which parts are supposed to be you quoting yourself or quoting someone else or what. By I summarized the relevant parts.

The results of dice rolls are not player input, they are random input. Some things need random inputs, some things don't. But it would be a hell of a lot better conversation if we talked about which things needed random inputs than trying to claim that the totally random result of things that are literally designed to ideally completely remove all influence the person rolling could ever have on the result, is "player input"

And here's an entire post talking about which things should or shouldn't have rolls, almost like I'm not secretly refusing to tell you what, and am in fact, begging to have a conversation about what things benefit from random chance, instead of listening to you and Frank lie for hours on end about how dice grant magical agency powers:

So how would a standard "Dungeon crawl with some traps, ancient lore to give clues on things inside, ruined sections that need to be worked around, and monsters" use yer ideal vision of a skill system?

When would dice be rolled, when wouldn't they be rolled.

To expand upon myself three years ago:

1) Things that should be things everyone should do, and not fucking graduated skills with rolls: Appraise, Gather Information, Heal, Perform, Profession, Use Rope.

I would imagine Gather Information and Appraise have rolls that don't scale with level, and that anything you can do with Heal, Perform, Profession, or Use Rope, you can just use. There would be between 0 and 1 graduations in what you can do. Either you "are trained in heal" or you aren't. Or it is assumed that all adventurers can do all the things that heal allows them to do.

Gather Information falls under the generic MTP social systems are hard no one ever does it right setting, but basically, no one invests character resources, they are better or worse based on things that happened in the campaign. Appraise is either a roll independent of level (if you have a more torchbearer game) or totally something everyone can just do for non magic items (if you are using a D&D style but more dungeon crawly).

2) Things that should be class features, or racial features, or feats, and not fucking graduated skills with rolls: Balance, Decipher Script, Forgery, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Open Lock, Ride, Sleight of Hand.

If you are a good Balancer, you can just balance on things, if you are good at escaping, you can do that, and if there is any roll, it would be for time. If you can Decipher Scripts, Open Locks, or Forge things, you can just do that. For a more dungeon crawly version of D&D, Open Lock would probably have levels, but certainly the other two wouldn't.

If you want to ride a horse you get on a horse and you know how to ride it. If you want to give people specific advantages to riding based on their class, then those are class features and whatever they do, they do.

Sleight of Hand tricks that don't involve literally taking other people's stuff, you can just do. Sleight of Hand that involves pickpocketing people is just not a skill that really makes sense competing with other skills in a Dungeon Crawler focused game.

3) Movement modes, which would have some other method of increasing them that might be a pool of points be level, or might be feats/class features. Jump, Climb, Swim, Fly.

You have some method of improving movement speeds, you pay points. Obviously Fly costs the most, and doesn't work underwater, and this is balanced on the Dungeon Crawling nature of the game.

4) "Knowledge Skills" that you get points that can only be spent in this category, This would be all Knowledges, all Crafts, Speak Language, and maybe Spellcraft, these could be rolls or just abilities, probably better as just abilities honestly, but that would involve reinventing the entire knowledge system.

It really depends what you want Knowledges to use, you say something about ancient lore or some shit, so if it isn't helping you with monsters, and it's just a gateway to hints or content, it could go without rolls. Or if it does tell you about monsters, there should be a roll, see my knowledge houserules.

Spellcraft... Honestly, I don't know, you could have rolls or not, I'm mostly indifferent.

Obviously crafts and languages are just things you do and know.

5) Exploration skills: Disable Device (and everyone would have trapfinding up to their DD skill, so if you can disable it you can find it, and if you can't, then you can't basically, DD would be essential to finding traps, where Search is something everyone has to find doors and gold and shit), Hide/MS, Spot/Listen, Survival.

So no searching, you either all can find secret doors or you can't. If the game is very craw focused, people might buy different kinds of search abilities, like depth sense, stonecunning, elven hearing or whatever.

Traps are a completely different almost certainly reactive roll to notice.

Perception skills are rolls, so are hiding skills.

6) Social Skills (hopefully made less shit in some way, but probably won't happen): Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, Disguise, Intimidate.

Fuck it, just MTP all this shit, still no one has a better system.

7) Things that should be incorporated into the combat system as rolls that have to do with your level and nothing to do with any skill system: Tumble, Concentration.

If you need to cast a spell when you might be interrupted, that is a combat thing, not a skill thing. If you need to get past someone without being hit, that is a combat thing, not a skill thing. As combat things in a combat game, they will have rolls. Not opposed ones, because opposed ones are dumb. (To be clear, I mean where both people roll shit, the DCs will of course be based on the opponents, because that is how combat works.)

8) Things that shouldn't exist: UMD.

[Lokey]

His bbcode is fine, it's just the board protecting itself from stupid compounding stupid.

[Jason]

Dice don't get to matter unless they generate outcomes that matter.

You are right back to claiming that knowledge checks can matter...

But we know that knowledge checks either don't matter or they result in "you failed a star trek trivia check GAME OVER!".

So are you arguing that the rolls DO matter because they DO actually exclude content, or are you going to go right back to the usual bullshit evasion that they never really exclude anything because you just keep rolling more of them until the content is delivered by hook or crook, and then pretend THAT matters... because no reason...

Knowledge checks are a weird beast. Personally, I hate them. My character either knows something or he doesn't. Simulating failing memory hardly ever elevates the game experience in my opinion.

That said, I 'd like to give you an excemple out of my own current predicament: I am working on a homebrew monster hunter rpg. In it, the basic outline follows three steps:

1. Information gathering
2. Stalking the Prey and setting up the fight
3. Engaging and killing the monster.

Since I am basing most Monsters on european folklore, they all have specific weaknesses and are mostly impervious outside of those. Players need to find out, what those weaknesses are and prepare accordingly for the fight to have a reliable chance of winning.
To cut a long exposition short: how do you evaluate when they found out the weakness? Let each player memorize all monster stats? Then how do you surprise players? Might a character plauslibly have heard about a specific weakness? How do you judge?

Personally, I like to keep rolls out of such challenges, let players find their own clues, but to find those clues, I need to provide them. And if I let them find those clues without any resolution mechanic, then I am just telling them them the weaknesses outright, which feels terribly disempowering to the players.

Are knowledge rolls the answer to that? They are A answer, but I wouldn't go as far as claiming they are the best answer yet. I just don't see a better solution atm.
I haven't introduced them into my system, yet. I get where you are coming from and emotionally, I am on your side of this. Objectively, and rationally it is not as simple, though. Unless you have a reliable, objective resolution mechanic, player agency is an illusion upheld by the cooperation of your GM.

I guess you could say previous player investment can matter a tiny bit even though Deaddm didn't mention that and in fact only stated he wanted the RNG to dedice no matter what abilities the player had. So yeah, even if you have a +0 or a +40, you still gotto roll that d20 to see if you succeed and fail, but if if you have a +0 you might need to roll a 13 and if you have a +40 you might need to roll a +7 (since deaddm stated he didn't want auto-success or failure). That is still hugely depowering to the players though. Probably unclear at what point investing in the skill stops mattering too.

The moment the GM starts to move those DCs as arbitrarily as that, the players becomes disempowered, yes. That's why most RPGs have standard target difficulties for standard tasks. If the GM then arbitrarily decides to inflate or deflate them, the systems tarts to fail, as the mechanic no longer simulates what it was meant to simulate.
That will happen in a challenge without an objective resolution mechanic as well, though, and for the same reason.

Okay, technically true. But what I was thinking about was a gather information check result is a binary failure / success (like say the D&D one). If for example you roll for all of those separately it might actually answer that.

That's how I explained the existence of the skill to myself for it to make sense and remain somewhat dramatic. If you merely look at the written rules then yes, it looks bland. It boils down to the same problem as with the knowledge skills I desribed above, however. Sometimes such a resolution option appears to be the only viable one.

I don't think an RPG without risk has to be dull, but I do definitely prefer to have some kind of risk in an RPG. I don't think the outcome necessarily feels more rewarding if there is risk involved though.
And obviously you can have risk without involving a RNG in your RPG as well.

"Dread" uses a jenga tower for challenge resolution and it adds risk without being dice. Whether that is better than dice or not is personal preference. It certainly lacks most of the empowerment of skill investments. Again: I never said dice have to be the only solution. They just appear to be the best one atm.

- Edit: because I forgot to reply to this:

No point in setting a dc no one in the group can beat after all.

This is completely wrong. If you ask your players to invest in being able to do either A) or B) and if they choose A) they never encounter B), in most cases it leaves a really really bad taste in the mouths of the players. If you want your players to feel like their choices matter, you generally have to show them that their choices matter.

Are you sure we are talking about the same thing here? If I set a dc of a challenge in my adventure so high that I know none of my players will be able to suceed, then why add that challenge in the first place? If I want players to reealize that their investment mattters, then at least the person that invested the most among that group should have a chance of success, don't you think? It doesn't need to be high, it just needs to be there. If the best character among the group has a lockpicking skill of +18 and I set the dc for the lock to 40 then I could just as well put a wall there and call it a day.

You roll dice whenever what the players want to happen and what the GM is having happen differ. That means rolling exists, not to guarantee player agency, but to settle a dispute between GM and player (also player v player but that's not the focus of the discussion). You COULD just have a rule where when you decide to cast Wall of Stone, you get your Wall of Stone. That seems like a pretty solid way of guaranteeing the player agency, no dice involved.

Objective resolution mechanics become relvant for player agency, when the outcome is unclear or of meaningfull impact.

Take the wall of stone excemple:

If the player has the spell (an investment) and simply wishes to cast a wall, out in the open, on a field, with no one the wiser, bothering no one, interacting with nothing, then why roll? I am fully on board with you there. But how is that relevant? The moment you use "wall of stone" to overcome a challenge, it does become relevant. Does the wall succeed? And at that point I am not talking about "can he cast wall of stone", either. Let's just assume he can, even though you could argue that combat and threatened life is distracting and makes conentration harder. So, he casts the wall of stone, but does it suceed? Does it stop the flow of lava? Does it block the tunnel entrance? does it work as a makeshift bridge? You can either adjudicate that arbitrarily (and yes, arguing on the basis of real physics in a fantasy game is still arbitrary) or you have an objective resolution mechanic in place to jude for you.
So, for the player agency in wall of stone to matter, you need a non-arbitrary challenge resolution or it will all simply depend on the whims of your GM.