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

[Crimson Longinus]

So there’s a clear way to connect the events of play and you choose not to do so and then blame the system?

Ugh.

It was not my example!

 

[pemerton]

in the original example it was specifically stated that the roll did no measure how well the character cooked, merely the odds of that cooking being interrupted by the bandits.

This is wrong.

Here is the post that you are referring to:

in my most recent Torchbearer session, the PCs were camping and one of them wanted to smoke the flesh of the giant frogs they had killed. Mechanically, this triggered a Cook test to turn game into preserved rations. The test failed. The failure narration didn't have anything at all to say about the PC's ability as a cook; it took the form of the PCs' camp being brought to an unexpected end by the arrival of bandits trying to take them prisoner.

The concept of measurement does not figure. There is no reference to odds at all, and certainly no reference to the odds of cooking being interrupted by bandits.

The roll, in Torchbearer, does not measure anything. It is a determination-process, not a measuring process.

The obstacle for the roll determines how likely it is, in the play of the game at the table, that the player's desire for how things unfold will prevail. It is set by reference to the in-fiction difficulty of the task attempted - this is part of the risk/reward calculation players can perform. The obstacles set out in the skill rules don't purport to be measures of anything, though: eg the fact that the Obstacles for preserving game step up by 1 for each doubling of the number of portions is a straightforward formula, but not an attempt at measuring anything.

The obstacle does not determine the odds of being interrupted by bandits. If the player fails their roll, the GM has to decide what happens - either they get the result they wanted, but suffer a condition; or a twist is narrated. After the roll failed, I decided on a twist, making reference to my notes for the Moathouse (which identify additional bandits as a possible twist).

You assert that it is not logical, in a game, for (i) a player's chance of getting what they want from cooking to depend on their PC's Cook skill, and (ii) for the difficulty of getting what they want to also be a function of the in-fiction difficulty of what is attempted, and (iii) for a failure to open up the door to narration of some adverse consequence other than a poor performance on the PC's part.

My response is the same as to @Emberashh: where is it written up in heaven that bandits interrupt your cooking and your camping is not a permissible consequence for a failed Cook test while in camp? Or, more generally, where is it decreed that the only logical failure narration, in a RPG, is that in the fiction the character performed poorly?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is wrong.

Here is the post that you are referring to:
The concept of measurement does not figure. There is no reference to odds at all, and certainly no reference to the odds of cooking being interrupted by bandits.

The roll, in Torchbearer, does not measure anything. It is a determination-process, not a measuring process.

The obstacle for the roll determines how likely it is, in the play of the game at the table, that the player's desire for how things unfold will prevail. It is set by reference to the in-fiction difficulty of the task attempted - this is part of the risk/reward calculation players can perform. The obstacles set out in the skill rules don't purport to be measures of anything, though: eg the fact that the Obstacles for preserving game step up by 1 for each doubling of the number of portions is a straightforward formula, but not an attempt at measuring anything.

The obstacle does not determine the odds of being interrupted by bandits. If the player fails their roll, the GM has to decide what happens - either they get the result they wanted, but suffer a condition; or a twist is narrated. After the roll failed, I decided on a twist, making reference to my notes for the Moathouse (which identify additional bandits as a possible twist).

Why you keep obfuscating what is happening? The dice rolls have odds. You derive those odds from skill and difficulty of the task. And then you used those odds to determine whether bandits arrive. That is what according your own account happened, verbosely reframing it doesn't change that.

You assert that it is not logical, in a game, for (i) a player's chance of getting what they want from cooking to depend on their PC's Cook skill, and (ii) for the difficulty of getting what they want to also be a function of the in-fiction difficulty of what is attempted, and (iii) for a failure to open up the door to narration of some adverse consequence other than a poor performance on the PC's part.

My response is the same as to @Emberashh: where is it written up in heaven that bandits interrupt your cooking and your camping is not a permissible consequence for a failed Cook test while in camp? Or, more generally, where is it decreed that the only logical failure narration, in a RPG, is that in the fiction the character performed poorly?

Because (i) and (ii) solely represent things that makes cooking well easier or harder, so using them to draw odds of completely causally unrelated (iii) is illogical. Seriously, this is not that complicated. You can do what you want, and I even get your reasons for doing so, but it is pretty obvious that certain amount of logical coherence is sacrificed for that. You obviously consider the trade worth it, but it is just weird to deny that it happening at all.

 

[Staffan]

This whole thing would have worked much better in a system like Star Wars/Genesys, where "creating rations" would have been a matter of success/failure on the roll, while "summons bandits" would have been an appropriate thing for the GM to spend Threat on. Ah, 2D task resolution, it's a wonderful thing.

 

[niklinna]

This whole thing would have worked much better in a system like Star Wars/Genesys, where "creating rations" would have been a matter of success/failure on the roll, while "summons bandits" would have been an appropriate thing for the GM to spend Threat on. Ah, 2D task resolution, it's a wonderful thing.

I can see how that would work much more to some people's preferences. The Torchbearer example (from actual play) seems to have worked just fine for the people playing.

 

[Emberashh]

Clearly we need more skills: Survival by foraging and hunting, Survival by cooking rations, Survival by locating potable water, Survival by foraging and hunting with bandits about, Survival by cooking rations with bandits about, Survival by locating potable water with bandits about, Cooking in a kitchen, Cooking in the woods, Cooking by taking that frozen pot pie out and chucking it in the microwave, Cooking in a kitchen with bandits about, Cooking in the woods with bandits about, Cooking by taking that frozen pot pie out and chucking it in the microwave with bandits about....

While this is hyberbolic, I do actually agree when it comes to something like Survival ala 5e. It combines way too much for no good reason, while other skills that could be combined (religion, history, etc) stand alone, again with no underlying logic.

By my reckoning (ie in my game), Survival could stand to be split amongst Survival, Tracking, Pathfinding, and Foraging at least. You could also split out Cooking, though I wouldn't. Survival itself depresses into being about actual survival skills, dealing with camps and campsites, cooking, facing the weather, etc.

The reasoning for the split is just fidelity. Not every person who'd be specifically skilled in one of these skills is going to also be skilled in the others.

But at the same time, its also an efficiency issue, which is why I don't split out Cooking; it doesn't have broad enough use to stand up against the rest of the Skills.

Which also leads into the fact that how my game uses Skills is a pretty heavy departure from the norm in TTRPGs. Skill Design is very close to how Skyrim does it, which isn't how most anything you're going to see in a DND type game is done.

I find Skills tend to just be unsatisfying when they only exist as arbitrary ribbons to ensure the game can support non-combat scenarios. I much prefer Skills that not only introduce new and defined capabilities but are also directly integrated into progression, ala the Skyrim/BRP heritage.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I tend to like skills that cover many varieties of action, though I do prefer a discrete Cooking skill over a generalized Survival skill. You can take the combining too far sometimes. BRPs skill list is about right for me.

 

[pointofyou]

My sweet spot for skills is probably better described as a range and defined as a set of principles.

There should be more skills than any single character can be good at. Jack of all Things is a viable idea but that's typically defined as much by the Master of None addendum as anything else.

There should not be more skills than a typical group of PCs can be good at. Most groups won't be good at the entire selection but that's a difference between principle and practice.

If skills are priced roughly equivalently they should be roughly equivalently useful. This is of course difficult to execute.

Characters should be able to succeed more or less reliably at what they're trying to be good at. There's some slack in this principle for tastes and preferences about both "more or less reliably" and whether there should be any consideration of level or tier or however a given game calls different power levels if it has them.

The more granular the skills list is the more skills I should be able to acquire. The problem I remember from Call of Cthulhu was that there were a bunch of skills what were useless unless they were vital. It practically seemed like a theme in the game that we could have figured out the thing if we only had this obscure skill that no one had.

 

[Thourne]

The more granular the skills list is the more skills I should be able to acquire. The problem I remember from Call of Cthulhu was that there were a bunch of skills what were useless unless they were vital. It practically seemed like a theme in the game that we could have figured out the thing if we only had this obscure skill that no one had.

Very true, but in small defense of the skill bloat most skills everyone had some small default in at least.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Since we're talking BRP, here's the actual skill description:

Craft (various)
Base Chance: 05%
Category: Manipulation
Use this skill to construct or make things, from a chair to a meal to a
house. Specialized tools are often required for this skill, and it takes time
and raw materials. This skill can also be used to identify how an object
was made, and possibly identify the crafter who made it. A fumble
destroys the material and yields nothing useful, success means it works,
and a better quality of success yields a finer, sturdier, or more valuable
version of the thing being made, perhaps with additional qualities like a
+10% or +20% to its efficacy when used, higher hit points, etc. This is
about function and practicality: fashioning objects solely for aesthetical
purposes falls under Art (page 37).
Specialties: Blacksmithing, Carpentry, Ceramics, Cooking,
Leatherworking, Locksmithing, Metallurgy, Stonemasonry, and others
as appropriate.
System Notes: Using Craft without the proper tools is Difficult. See
Chapter 8: Equipment for more information about making, modifying,
or repairing equipment. Possession of a fine item of clothing or gear may
even increase CHA while the item is worn or displayed.