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

[hawkeyefan]

It's an improper causality, however, for simulationism at most levels.
The proper causality is that the bandits showed and interrupted the cooking. That should not be triggered by the failed cooking.
Many people take huge offense at the idea that rolls failure modes can be non-causal in normal play.

But the causality was established. The result of the cooking roll meant it took more time to successfully prepare the rations. That additional time is what allowed the bandits to arrive before the PCs could break camp.

I don’t understand why folks don’t seek a way to explain the results of rolls. If it’s not immediately obvious how something can happen, give it a moment and figure out what makes sense. Remember… there is no actual causality happening.

 

[aramis erak]

But the causality was established. The result of the cooking roll meant it took more time to successfully prepare the rations. That additional time is what allowed the bandits to arrive before the PCs could break camp.

I don’t understand why folks don’t seek a way to explain the results of rolls. If it’s not immediately obvious how something can happen, give it a moment and figure out what makes sense. Remember… there is no actual causality happening.

That's still improper causality. The failed roll is still causing the bandits.

 

[Thourne]

That's still improper causality. The failed roll is still causing the bandits.

Meta causality would be the roll, but the narrative causality would the in game explanation, perhaps?

*edit: I think perhaps some references are player facing while others are character facing. Causing a bit of mismatch.

 

[aramis erak]

I'd agree for more trad players/systems, completely.
For several other games, it would be normal play.
I can't understand why some of the people who prefer trad games can't grasp that.
It is ok to dislike it and not play those games, but I have trouble understanding how they don't understand it.
*(Not implying you don't. Just a generalization)

I like causality to be direct - I don't like to have to do such legwork.

The only ways I can see the failed cooking triggering an encounter are that the smells or the smoke or the light/fire trigger an encounter; anything else I've seen creates cognitive dissonance for me. I'm one of that many that cannot accept improper causality in play, even in games where the resolution is non-direct.

By non-direct, the best example I can think of is John Wick's Houses of the Blooded and its sister game, Blood & Honor. The rolls do not determine success/failure; they determine who decides, and who can contribute modifications to, the challenge which was rolled for.

More simply, the outcome needs to, on its face, appear to be a natural outgrowth of the situation and the challenge - that cooking example is one where that's VERY much makes me reject the alternat approach it envisions.

Many things that work fine mechanically still utterly fail the sniff-test as part of a story. Improper causation for me, is a huge red flag that I'm not playing a fair game anymore - I can't trust my knowledge to assist me in decision making for the character.

 

[Thourne]

I like causality to be direct - I don't like to have to do such legwork.

The only ways I can see the failed cooking triggering an encounter are that the smells or the smoke or the light/fire trigger an encounter; anything else I've seen creates cognitive dissonance for me. I'm one of that many that cannot accept improper causality in play, even in games where the resolution is non-direct.

By non-direct, the best example I can think of is John Wick's Houses of the Blooded and its sister game, Blood & Honor. The rolls do not determine success/failure; they determine who decides, and who can contribute modifications to, the challenge which was rolled for.

More simply, the outcome needs to, on its face, appear to be a natural outgrowth of the situation and the challenge - that cooking example is one where that's VERY much makes me reject the alternat approach it envisions.

Many things that work fine mechanically still utterly fail the sniff-test as part of a story. Improper causation for me, is a huge red flag that I'm not playing a fair game anymore - I can't trust my knowledge to assist me in decision making for the character.

Makes sense. Always good to know what you like to better match up with others at a table

 

[Thourne]

Many things that work fine mechanically still utterly fail the sniff-test as part of a story. Improper causation for me, is a huge red flag that I'm not playing a fair game anymore - I can't trust my knowledge to assist me in decision making for the character.

On this part specifically, I was just wondering, have you played games where you determine the outcome of your failed rolls?
In several I play the failures outcome is dictated by the player (obviously within some reasonable boundaries).
I only wonder because you're the decision maker in that instance.

 

[niklinna]

there is no actual causality happening.

But my odds of success at cooking, and the results thereof, have to be determined purely and solely by my skill rating in cooking, which is always some percentage even under ideal conditions—and anyhow, conditions must never factor into success/failure rates or, heaven forbid, be narrative factors in success or failure! (That was sarcasm, of course.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's still improper causality. The failed roll is still causing the bandits.

It’s not “improper”.

The bandits were already established as being in the area. Their presence was already known.

The failed test meant that the cooking took longer. Meaning that the bandits had more tome to track the cookfire and make a move on the camp.

Nothing “improper” about it.

It’s fine if you don’t like that kind of indirect causality. But that doesn’t mean it’s “improper” or that there’s something strange going on.

 

[aramis erak]

On this part specifically, I was just wondering, have you played games where you determine the outcome of your failed rolls?
In several I play the failures outcome is dictated by the player (obviously within some reasonable boundaries).
I only wonder because you're the decision maker in that instance.

Yes, I have. And I've often let players in other games suggest the failure result before even rolling. I found the one player whose results were non-causal to be deal breakers, not just for me, but for the rest of the people I was playing with.

I've even run a game where the roll is made before the narration of the attempt -- Brute Squad -- it's excellent, but not well suited to the players I was running it for.

I'm not deep in the simulationist corner, but tend towards it.

 

[Thourne]

Yes, I have. And I've often let players in other games suggest the failure result before even rolling. I found the one player whose results were non-causal to be deal breakers, not just for me, but for the rest of the people I was playing with.

I've even run a game where the roll is made before the narration of the attempt -- Brute Squad -- it's excellent, but not well suited to the players I was running it for.

I'm not deep in the simulationist corner, but tend towards it.

Appreciate the response.
Cheers