You can't seriously be that daft. Talk about taking things way too literally, especially considering the rest of Hell Kitty's post.
Hell Kitty is talking about your skills as a game player, and the skills of the character. For example, a classic point of a contradiction was in Morrowind, when you could shoot someone with a bow and arrow point blank, but then your character's skill determined after the fact whether or not it actually was a hit.
I can't really shoot a compound longbow, but if my skill as a player has me shoot an arrow (not a real arrow, but one in a video game, by using a mouse or some other form of input) and I see that arrow hit someone, but some bizarro mechanic says "nope, your skill wasn't good enough" then that's not a good thing.
That's because you're looking at RPGs as action games, not as what they are, storytelling games. The goal isn't "to beat the enemy," though that's what many CRPG developers turn it in to. The goal is to "see what happens." Win or lose, either is good. The character is just one you play, much like an actor, and you improv his actions, using the rules to determine the outcomes. And the character can die, it's okay when he loses, it just plays the drama along.