Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 7000812" data-attributes="member: 5890">Your mechanic is:Roll to see if you succeed.If you DO succeed, roll to see if you still fail anyway.If someone is competent and apt at a skill (ie - a starting character with proficiency and a 16+ stat), then they have a roughly 80% chance to succeed at an easy task. Which in itself is ridiculous, since an easy task is &quot;something joe blow can succeed at half the time&quot; and a proficiency requires ~2000 hours of active training (in the case of tool usage).Under your rules, they then have an 80% of 25% chance to super-duper fail the check and get incorrect information while being told it's correct. And the chance that they super-duper fail gets worse the better they are at doing the task.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuUopTPgjOI" target="_blank">And why am I wearing the watermelon on my feet?</a>That's actually probably an example dunning kruger effect: Fundamentally if you're completely incompetent at something, then you'll think you're better at it than you really are. It's not that those cops are bad at it because they think they're good at it: it's that they think they're good because they have no idea what being good at it really means.The other end of the scale is that when you're an expert at something, you tend to assume that there's more out there that you still don't know, and therefore that you are less competent than you really are.That said - you're still not going to decide that despite being an expert you won't even consider a basic question for fear of getting it wrong and not knowing, which is what your system simulates.Um, yeah, it does. You have to come up with plausible false evidence. Which you then give to someone who succeeded on their check.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 7000812, member: 5890"] Your mechanic is: Roll to see if you succeed. If you DO succeed, roll to see if you still fail anyway. If someone is competent and apt at a skill (ie - a starting character with proficiency and a 16+ stat), then they have a roughly 80% chance to succeed at an easy task. Which in itself is ridiculous, since an easy task is "something joe blow can succeed at half the time" and a proficiency requires ~2000 hours of active training (in the case of tool usage). Under your rules, they then have an 80% of 25% chance to super-duper fail the check and get incorrect information while being told it's correct. And the chance that they super-duper fail gets worse the better they are at doing the task. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuUopTPgjOI"]And why am I wearing the watermelon on my feet?[/URL] That's actually probably an example dunning kruger effect: Fundamentally if you're completely incompetent at something, then you'll think you're better at it than you really are. It's not that those cops are bad at it because they think they're good at it: it's that they think they're good because they have no idea what being good at it really means. The other end of the scale is that when you're an expert at something, you tend to assume that there's more out there that you still don't know, and therefore that you are less competent than you really are. That said - you're still not going to decide that despite being an expert you won't even consider a basic question for fear of getting it wrong and not knowing, which is what your system simulates. Um, yeah, it does. You have to come up with plausible false evidence. Which you then give to someone who succeeded on their check. [/QUOTE]

Verification