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

[Jd Smith1]

I've found that doing that actually REDUCED the tension over any given roll.
It was even worse when it was concealed GM rolls. After a few session, it became just noise... and no tension.
Which is why I've entirely quit doing so. Every roll I call for has a consequence. After session, my players will sometimes ask what they were for, and that keeps the tension when I roll without immediate obvious impact.

I've never had that problem. I expect it has a lot to do with GM personality.

And especially running long-term campaign with systems that have permanent death, replacement PCs starting at the bottom of the development track, and unforgiving damage systems.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

That was not part of the original example, this is something you brought up as a possible explanation. Perhaps you were part of the game too, and this is actually how it happened, I don't know.

In any case, why we started to discuss this in the first place, was the idea that a bad skill roll didn't necessarily mean the character did badly. I.e. bad cooking roll didn't mean the character cooked badly. But if the objective is to cook fast, and you end up cooking really slowly, then you in fact cooked badly!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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)

So if people would just say that "it really doesn't make that much sense, but it is just mechnic to make the game work" or something like that, I would be fine with it. Games often have such concessions in department of sense-makery for playability, and it is pretty much a matter of taste when that becomes a deal breaker.

I get how narrative games work, I have played them. I still find it weird when one tries to draw narrativist conclusions for simulationistic premises though. This is less pronounced in some games, but here it seemed to be rather obvious.

 

[Emberashh]

But if the objective is to cook fast, and you end up cooking really slowly, then you in fact cooked badly!

You can't really cook fast though; cooking takes as long as it takes. Unless you're willing to accept poor quality, but then we come to whether or not thats being modeled. And even then; you can crank the heat and scorch the hell out of a chicken breast to try to cook it quickly, but the middle could still be ice cold and inedible. The heat transfer takes time and unless the heat is insanely out of the norm for cooking, which would destroy the item anyway, it isn't going to be sped up no matter how skilled the chef is.

What time saving hacks a chef can employ mostly have to do with preparation. Butterflying a chicken breast for example would reduce cooking time, but that takes time in of itself.

All in all, this tends to be why, at least for crafting, I don't consider single dice rolls to be an adequate solution to convey a complex, multi-step process.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well, I take huge offence at railroads!

But of course the causality, in the fiction, is that the bandits show up and interrupt the cooking. The technical question is under what circumstances is the GM allowed to narrate an interruption by bandits?, thus establishing that in-fiction causality.

One option is whenever. Another is via some form of random encounter system. And another is when a player fails a roll, and hence doesn't get what they wanted in the situation.

More simply, the outcome needs to, on its face, appear to be a natural outgrowth of the situation and the challenge

Well, I was the only participant in this thread who was present in the session in question, and I can assure you that it was, and did appear to be, a natural outgrowth of the situation and challenge (making camp in the Troll Fens within sight of the Moathouse).

As the player of the character who failed the Cook test said, at the end of the session,

I really liked how everything flowed into the next thing: frogs to feed the Wolf, the Wolf helping fight the bandits, the bandits in the moathouse.

 

[Emberashh]

One option is whenever. Another is via some form of random encounter system. And another is when a player fails a roll, and hence doesn't get what they wanted in the situation.

All of these produce different aesthetics, however, which is what you're not really acknowledging. The method makes a difference in how the outcomes are perceived, and the perception is then weighed against preferences.

There isn't one true way, but people aren't wrong for not finding one way to their preferences, even if their dislike is strong enough to be considered criticism. Particularly when even under the premise of preferring a particular option, the option may not actually be ideal.

Thats why Crimson and others pointed out that it isn't logically sensible that one's skill in Cooking has anything to do with why the Bandits showed up, which is a consequence of having the roll be used simultaneously to advance the scene and be an emulation of the characters skill at a given task.

Ergo, one solution in the premise of wanting to ensure the narrative continues could be the Tension pool, as I noted, which just splits the roll into its parts.

Another is just not leaving the chance of the Bandits showing up to a roll. You stopped to Cook > they show up is a lot more logical than the actual act of Cooking having any influence on that matter.

But by asserting that there must be a random chance of this and combining it with a task-resolution, you are creating a gamey solution to a practicality concern (how to be the most efficient at accomplishing both objectives) at the cost of logic idiosyncrasies.

 

[pemerton]

All of these produce different aesthetics, however, which is what you're not really acknowledging. The method makes a difference in how the outcomes are perceived, and the perception is then weighed against preferences.

There isn't one true way, but people aren't wrong for not finding one way to their preferences

I haven't said otherwise. Re-read my posts. They say nothing about preferences.

They refute (1) false claims about causality, and (2) false claims about the coherence of the fiction.

Thats why Crimson and others pointed out that it isn't logically sensible that one's skill in Cooking has anything to do with why the Bandits showed up, which is a consequence of having the roll be used simultaneously to advance the scene and be an emulation of the characters skill at a given task.

What does logical mean in this sentence? Is it meant to be a synonym for "not preferred by you and @Crimson Longinus"? That's not a usage I'm familiar with.

I mean, given that I will never play a RPG with you or CL I don't have any stake in what your preferences are. But I'm not obliged to take seriously your pronouncements about whether or not my RPGing is logical or coherent.

 

[Emberashh]

What does logical mean in this sentence?

It means the same thing it means in any context. If you don't get what Im saying, it isn't rooted in that word.

But I'm not obliged to take seriously your pronouncements about whether or not my RPGing is logical or coherent

Why do you believe you personally are under critique in the context of this comment chain? Tmk, Crimson hasn't levied any personal criticisms of you nor have I (at this time anyway). I believe Aremis did, but he's not the one talking to you right now.

 

[pemerton]

It means the same thing it means in any context. If you don't get what Im saying, it isn't rooted in that word.



Why do you believe you personally are under critique in the context of this comment chain? Tmk, Crimson hasn't levied any personal criticisms of you nor have I (at this time anyway). I believe Aremis did, but he's not the one talking to you right now.

You and @Crimson Longinus are asserting that my game play is not logical. I don't agree, and you haven't offered any standard of logic other than your own preference as to what bits of the fiction should be resolved by a player's roll to see if their character succeeds when using a skill.

 

[Emberashh]

You and @Crimson Longinus are asserting that my game play is not logical. I don't agree, and you haven't offered any standard of logic other than your own preference as to what bits of the fiction should be resolved by a player's roll to see if their character succeeds when using a skill.

I think you're a little too attached to the idea that the example the discussion is revolving around is your own. I can't speak for Crimson, but when I evoke the example Im doing so on a theoretical or even hypothetical level; I'm using it to illustrate an issue. At no point am I making a value judgement of you or a game you played.

There just isn't much sense in making up a new example when the discussion spawned out of the cooking example, especially when its actually a really good one for illustrative purposes.

But if its bothering you, we can change the example to "Aragorn stops to sharpen his sword, and the Nazgul show up". It doesn't make any difference to either Crimsons nor my arguments, but we no longer have to utilize your personal anecdote.