What's Your "Sweet Spot" for a Skill system?

[hawkeyefan]

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?

 

[pointofyou]

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?

Hey there are some bandits around. Give me a cooking roll to see if you escape their notice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hey there are some bandits around. Give me a cooking roll to see if you escape their notice.

But that’s not what happened.

“I’d like to prepare some rations from those frogs we killed. Can I do that?”

“Sure, but it’d be risky in this dangerous area. How much do you want to try and make?”

“X amount.”

“Okay… that'll be an Ob 4 Cooking Test. If you fail, I’m introducing a Twist. Some bandits will discover your camp. Cool?”

“Yeah, cool. I’m gonna risk it.”

And there you go.

 

[pointofyou]

But that’s not what happened.

“I’d like to prepare some rations from those frogs we killed. Can I do that?”

“Sure, but it’d be risky in this dangerous area. How much do you want to try and make?”

“X amount.”

“Okay… that'll be an Ob 4 Cooking Test. If you fail, I’m introducing a Twist. Some bandits will discover your camp. Cool?”

“Yeah, cool. I’m gonna risk it.”

And there you go.

Actually what happened seems to have been the player asking to make a cooking check to avoid attracting the bandits' attention.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Actually what happened seems to have been the player asking to make a cooking check to avoid attracting the bandits' attention.

Come on, man. You know that’s not at all what happened.

I summarized it pretty well in my last post.

I get that some folks have an axe to grind about games that don’t fit their preferences. Never had you pegged as that type.

 

[pointofyou]

Come on, man. You know that’s not at all what happened.

I summarized it pretty well in my last post.

I get that some folks have an axe to grind about games that don’t fit their preferences. Never had you pegged as that type.

What happened at the table was the player rolled badly on a cooking check and the bandits appeared. What happened in the narrative was of course something more like the character attempting to prepare the rations lost control of the fire and thus attracted the tender ministrations of the local bandits. Narratives are flexible things and can be rearranged in many ways for many reasons.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What happened at the table was the player rolled badly on a cooking check and the bandits appeared. What happened in the narrative was of course something more like the character attempting to prepare the rations lost control of the fire and thus attracted the tender ministrations of the local bandits. Narratives are flexible things and can be rearranged in many ways for many reasons.

It even wasn’t something like you describe here, as the whole point of the original example was that the bad roll didn’t represent the character cooking badly, so there couldn’t have been even this sort of tenuous causal connection.

 

[pointofyou]

It even wasn’t something like you describe here, as the whole point of the original example was that the bad roll didn’t represent the character cooking badly, so there couldn’t have been even this sort of tenuous causal connection.

Because the consequences aren't supposed to come from the characters being incompetent. Makes sense per what I've seen and read and played of these games which isn't a whole lot.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because the consequences aren't supposed to come from the characters being incompetent. Makes sense per what I've seen and read and played of these games which isn't a whole lot.

Right, but then it is questionable to draw the odds of failure from a value representing the character’s skill, if that failure doesn’t manifest as them doing badly. In such approach a character with low skill is not actually any more unskilled than ones with a high skill, they are just merely inexplicably more prone to causally unrelated bad stuff happening when they attempt to employ the skill.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It even wasn’t something like you describe here, as the whole point of the original example was that the bad roll didn’t represent the character cooking badly,

This part is true. It’s not about the outcome being that the cooking didn’t turn out well.

The quality of the cooking was not in doubt. Let’s say the player waited till they were back in town and then said that he wanted to prepare the rations. The GM would calculate the Obstacle Level and share it and then the player would decide to roll or not… they’d decide if they wanted to take the risk.

If they failed, bandits wouldn’t arrive in town! Instead, they’d take a condition as a result. No one really cares about the quality of the food in either case. That’s not what’s at risk… because it’s not interesting. The game only calls for tests when there’s a risk involved.

so there couldn’t have been even this sort of tenuous causal connection.

His is where you leap to a conclusion that is simply not true. The game does not have to work the way you prefer it to. And if it doesn’t, that doesn’t make it illogical.