Originally Posted by Wormerine
I find it appealing if not all options are avaible to me. I feel it helps roleplaying if I need to make decisions through what my character can do rather then being able to pass each check that I choose - to be RPGs are half about making active choices, and half about watching consequences of those choice (including the character I made and his flaws).

Perhaps, I just had poor experience with team based RPGs, but the ones I played I always feel it ends up being about composing the party that will pass every skillcheck rather being a reactivity to our character(s). If that is a case, I don't really see a point of skill checks to begin with.

Well, one of the very principles of a party-based RPG is, precisely, to build a party with a reasonable range of skills, so that they can face a reasonable range of challenges. Part of the point (especially in a single-player, video game context) is in composing your party, then venturing forth in the world and seeing if the assembled roster works.

You won't pass every skill check. At best, you might have a tool for every situation (e.g. a companion with the appropriate Skill Proficiency), so you may have better odds. But success is not guaranteed.

Also, for me, it helps with roleplaying and immersion if I can have scenes that make sense.

  • When walking in the swamp, if I have Lae'zel in front and the GM (i.e. the game) calls for an Ability Check (only one roll, from only one character, just because) to see if the group spots something, I'd like to choose my Druid or Gale for that roll. I don't like being told by the GM/game :
    "Actually, you have roll with Lae'zel because she's in front. Yes, yes, I know, I would ask everyone to roll a Perception check to spot an ambush in the Blighted Village, because everyone cares about their skin, so it makes sense. And, yes, I would ask everyone to roll for Religion if you passed by a statue in a temple, because everyone has eyes and knowledge, and a tongue to share that knowlege, so it makes sense. But this is different. Completely different. Nothing in common. You are now in a cutscene. What is that, you ask ? Nevermind. But it means I can really have only one of you roll the dice. And you can't even choose who that character is. Well, you can, but for this you'd have to reload the game and use fore-knowledge. So just assume that everyone now doesn't care about their skin and trust the person in front to spot every danger."

  • When walking into Kagha's first conversation with my PC, and hearing Wyll tell me "please, you have to do something for that child", I can't help thinking, "yeah, it would be great if I had someone in the party that I took with me mostly because he's good at Persuasion. Too bad I don't have someone like this in my party my PC isn't my party's Face".


Originally Posted by Wormerine
I suppose it can work in coop play, as at least it is not I who can do the task, but I always approach RPGs a single player experience first.

I just want to draw the distinction between two concepts, that are certainly connected, yet very different. On the one hand, you have the number of adventurers : is it a Party of adventurers/companions, or a Solo adventurer ? On the other hand, you have the number of players : is is Single-Player or Multi-Player ?

I feel (perhaps wrongly, you tell me), that in the first part of your post you are saying that you're not fond of a Party-based RPG (with a party that can have multiple skills, instead of a Solo adventurer who would make do with what they themselves are good or bad at). Whereas in the second part you sort of say that you prefer Single-Player RPG.