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

[Crimson Longinus]

An example of (4): 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.

I just find this sort of muddling together of unrelated things very confusing. Why would being bad at cooking increase your chances of being attacked by bandits?* And on what was the difficulty of the check based on? On how hard the meat was to cook properly or on the prevalence of bandits on the area?

(* Unless of course there was some actual causal connection, like the bandits getting angry at you because you fed them terrible food.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I just find this sort of muddling together of unrelated things very confusing. Why would being bad at cooking increase your chances of being attacked by bandits?* And on what was the difficulty of the check based on? On how hard the meat was to cook properly or on the prevalence of bandits on the area?

(* Unless of course there was some actual causal connection, like the bandits getting angry at you because you fed them terrible food.)

As stated, the failed roll doesn’t equal being bad at cooking. That’s not what happened.

Perhaps it took longer than expected and the additional time attracted bandits. Surely bandits are the kinds of folks who might look for cook fires.

I’ve not yet played Torchbearer, but I have played Mouse Guard, and it’s a similar system. In MG, the difficulty of any Obstacle is defined by a few different factors. For a Cook test, I’d expect it’s the quantity of food being prepared… something like that. That would determine how many successes were needed on the roll.

If the player rolls enough Successes, they pass the Test. If not, a complication is introduced. In this case, the arrival of the bandits.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As stated, the failed roll doesn’t equal being bad at cooking. That’s not what happened.

Perhaps it took longer than expected and the additional time attracted bandits. Surely bandits are the kinds of folks who might look for cook fires.

I’ve not yet played Torchbearer, but I have played Mouse Guard, and it’s a similar system. In MG, the difficulty of any Obstacle is defined by a few different factors. For a Cook test, I’d expect it’s the quantity of food being prepared… something like that. That would determine how many successes were needed on the roll.

If the player rolls enough Successes, they pass the Test. If not, a complication is introduced. In this case, the arrival of the bandits.

So we use the character's cooking skill and the quantity of food, not to measure how well they cook at all, but instead we use it to measure an utterly unrelated likelihood of an bandit attack. Yeah, makes total sense...

 

[payn]

So we use the character's cooking skill and the quantity of food, not to measure how well they cook at all, but instead we use it to measure an utterly unrelated likelihood of an bandit attack. Yeah, makes total sense...

You need the pit cooker feat so the bandits are not attracted by smoke or scent…

 

[Thourne]

So we use the character's cooking skill and the quantity of food, not to measure how well they cook at all, but instead we use it to measure an utterly unrelated likelihood of an bandit attack. Yeah, makes total sense...

It makes perfect sense to me.
They are attempting to reach a goal of having cooked the food.
Failure occurred.
This means the goal of having cooked the food was not reached.
The reason can be anything.
It simply, may not be your cup of tea to play in such a fashion.
Which is fine.
It definitely fits the narrative style of several games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It makes perfect sense to me.
They are attempting to reach a goal of having cooked the food.
Failure occurred.
This means the goal of having cooked the food was not reached.
The reason can be anything.

Why are we using one's cooking skill to determine the chances of success, if the reason of failure is completely unrelated to this? It is illogical.

It simply, may not be your cup of tea to play in such a fashion.
Which is fine.
It definitely fits the narrative style of several games.

I know. I've played such games. And it works in practice well(ish) enough. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really make much sense.

 

[Thourne]

Why are we using one's cooking skill to determine the chances of success, if the reason of failure is completely unrelated to this? It is illogical.


I know. I've played such games. And it works in practice well(ish) enough. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't really make much sense.

You use cooking because they are cooking.

Failure can be due to anything. It is just the narrative reason for the failure.
(Some games even encourage outcomes to be more imaginative.)
So, you choose something interesting that propels the story. Bandits showing up is far more interesting than, "Willy burned the toast".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You use cooking because they are cooking.

Failure can be due to anything. It is just the narrative reason for the failure.
(Some games even encourage outcomes to be more imaginative.)
So, you choose something interesting that propels the story. Bandits showing up is far more interesting than, "Willy burned the toast".

But in practice this means that worse you're at cooking, more likely you're to be attacked by bandits (and suffer other completely unrelated misfortunes.) This really doesn't make much sense. Like I get it it is just a mechanic to propel the game, but from logical perspective it is just bizarre.

 

[Thourne]

But in practice this means that worse you're at cooking, more likely you're to be attacked by bandits (and suffer other completely unrelated misfortunes.) This really doesn't make much sense. Like I get it it is just a mechanic to propel the game, but from logical perspective it is just bizarre.

Coming from a simulation stand point it can seem so.
Coming from a more narrative one it is totally in line.
Just different flavors.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So we use the character's cooking skill and the quantity of food, not to measure how well they cook at all, but instead we use it to measure an utterly unrelated likelihood of an bandit attack. Yeah, makes total sense...

Why do you insist it’s not connected? I literally explained how it’s connected.

The point is that any test has meaningful stakes. So the decision to try and prep the rations is a meaningful choice. There’s risk involved.

What would be fun about finding out how well something is cooked? Instead, let the test have meaningful results.