hawkeyefan
Legend
I am not. The original example did not contain such logical explanation, it was specifically made to point out that one doesn't need to exist.
If you don’t think there’s a logical explanation, then you should use your imagination to come up with one. Plenty were suggested. It’s not like there can’t be one. You’re insisting something is illogical because you’re refusing to apply logic.
That's because you're looking at it backward. If you were calling for a test to see if the PCs could avoid drawing the attention of bandits known to be in the area would the first skill you called for be cooking?
Because the test was about preparing rations from the giant frogs that had been killed. The character was cooking.
So in those games do you think players in an area where bandits or other threats are known to be active would start by wanting to test cooking? Why wouldn't they start by finding or making a secure or hidden place to spend the night?
That’s literally what they did. The player wanted to try and prepare rations from some kills. The Obstacle Level was calculated and shared. The risk was likely stated overtly (“what’s at risk is that you may be discovered by the moathouse bandits”) or perhaps just hinted at (“you’re in a dangerous area”). My GM in Mouse Guard would have stated definitively before hand what the risk involved. I’ve not played Torchbearer myself, but I’ve played Mouse Guard and the games are variations on the same system. @pemerton would have to confirm, though I believe that he already has.
Once the Obstacle level is known and the risk is understood, the player decides to roll or not. The player rolled and the check failed… and their camp was discovered.
If the Test had succeeded then the result would have been additional rations. So why would the test not be one of Cooking?