# Skill Systems [Considered Harmful](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful) tags: #thoughts  > One conclusion I have made about skill systems is that players shouldn't be thinking about resource allocation for any skill that isn't definitions for their character. > > If something doesn't materially affect the game, assume not core to their the characters can do a decent, if unspectacular job at it. For things that are core to the character, any non-direct game material actions they take are done spectacularly. > > -- https://x.com/John_Cyrano/status/2067025192476365128 This is a thing that I have wrestled with since I got into RPGs many decades ago. It culminated in the recognition that I don't like skill systems. I have yet to run into a skill system which is actually good at what it's supposed to do: communicating the competencies of a character, not their particular competencies, but competencies in general. Anything larger than a handful of skills is going to have things that a character should be at least reasonably good at, which they aren't. Systems which only have a small handful of skills really tend to tighten the scope down far too much. This gets directly at something that John touches on here, which is character competency. If you start with the basic assumption that a character is competent at generally whatever they put their hand at, unless it is their field of particular specialty, at which case they are a competent specialist, you find that most of the needs for a skill system, in the sense that it is traditionally meant, to disappear. Instead, you get to define a character by just what is remarkable about them, either more skilled outside of their specialty at something, or really hyper-skilled at something within their specialty, or they are particularly untalented at a particular thing. Suddenly you have defined a character by only what is meaningful and you've decreased the cognitive load of dealing with that character's capabilities. This is going to really piss off people who believe that all characters should follow the hero's journey and start at the whole zero to hero arc, but I don't care about those people. As much as that particular singular narrative has gripped the biggest RPG in the hobby since its inception, it's also not a particularly interesting story, especially when it's every story. It's actually interesting that stepping outside of this particular framework is something that goes back to very early story games, which is part of why I was always interested in them. Bringing down the definition of a character to just their exceptions simplifies so much, but it also allows more flexibility than a pure class-based system. Give me *[[Over the Edge]]* with its four Traits, or *[[Loner]]* with its handful of Tags, or *[[Ironsworn]]* with its set of Assets. It's so much easier to deal with, not just character creation, but the evolution of characters over time. When you just assume they're competent at what they do and who they are, then you can start telling meaningful stories about the choices they make along the way to accomplishing their ends. It's a good game if you can get it.