I think you identified the problem quite well - sometimes games include certain player options (stealth + ranged attacking in Skyrim, abuse of Charisma skills in 5e, etc); that the game isn't designed to respond to in interesting, challenging ways.
Increased mechanization is one way to solve such a problem - you could improve the Skyrim enemy AI, introduce various subsystems that make sneaking more difficult, etc. This takes time and effort though - the game becomes more complex, and the added complexities will affect other facets of the game in unexpected ways.
On the subject of 5e Charisma skills, you could add various subsystems for diplomacy, but you run the risk that it becomes too onerous to use or that the subsystems themselves are exploitable. The payback may not be worth the investment.
The other option is to remove the problematic "buttons" for the player to push - to de-mechanize. Old D&D doesn't include skills generally, so attempts at diplomacy are left to the DM with assistance from the Reaction Roll table. I tend to prefer this approach that leaves the mechanics of diplomacy in the hands of the DM, for D&D at least.
Choosing whether to mechanize or de-mechanize a system is partly down to what the game is *about*. If the game is about political maneuvering where negotiation takes center stage, then yeah you probably need some mechanics for that.
Good stuff!
I think you identified the problem quite well - sometimes games include certain player options (stealth + ranged attacking in Skyrim, abuse of Charisma skills in 5e, etc); that the game isn't designed to respond to in interesting, challenging ways.
Increased mechanization is one way to solve such a problem - you could improve the Skyrim enemy AI, introduce various subsystems that make sneaking more difficult, etc. This takes time and effort though - the game becomes more complex, and the added complexities will affect other facets of the game in unexpected ways.
On the subject of 5e Charisma skills, you could add various subsystems for diplomacy, but you run the risk that it becomes too onerous to use or that the subsystems themselves are exploitable. The payback may not be worth the investment.
The other option is to remove the problematic "buttons" for the player to push - to de-mechanize. Old D&D doesn't include skills generally, so attempts at diplomacy are left to the DM with assistance from the Reaction Roll table. I tend to prefer this approach that leaves the mechanics of diplomacy in the hands of the DM, for D&D at least.
Choosing whether to mechanize or de-mechanize a system is partly down to what the game is *about*. If the game is about political maneuvering where negotiation takes center stage, then yeah you probably need some mechanics for that.