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

[pemerton]

If a Move has been engaged, are you allowed to contradict its preordained outcomes, yes or no?

What RPG are you talking about?

My example of a failed Cook test was from Torchbearer. Torchbearer doesn't use "Moves". It is very close to Burning Wheel in its technical characteristics, and not especially close to Apocalypse World.

You are eliding the illogical part: that in the fiction the task failing might have nothing to do with the skill. It is illogical to draw odds of a thing happening from values that do not represent anything related to it. That the system "works" in a sense that it produces clear results doesn't change that. Again, the reason why I am less likely to successfully bake macarons than Gordon Ramsey, is not because being a less skilled cook makes me more prone to ninja attacks while baking.


Then why take account the character skill and the difficulty of the task when determining the odds?

You set up a nonsense example - cooking sweets and being attacked by ninjas while baking - and then complain about nonsense and illogic. If you can't frame compelling situations, and choose compelling consequences, that's your problem and not mine.

In my game, the PCs were camping in the Troll Fens, having escaped a Troll Haunt (but becoming lost in the swamp in the process), killed some giant frogs, and then captured a marauding Dire Wolf and made a deal with it. In the course of this, they observed the Moathouse nearby, and they learned more about it from the Wolf (who had come from it).

They then decided that they would preserve some frog meat before breaking camp. A decision was made to try and preserve 4 rather than 2 portions (from memory) despite the greater risk of failure. The group's best Cook made the attempt, helped by the others. Now you seem to think that it makes no sense to have the best cook try and get the portions preserved before anything goes wrong or anyone hostile shows up. But I don't know why. If, in the circumstances I'd described, I could pull Gordon Ramsey out of my bag of tricks to preserve the frog for me, why wouldn't I? He would do a better job more efficiently.

 

[Emberashh]

What RPG are you talking about?

My example of a failed Cook test was from Torchbearer. Torchbearer doesn't use "Moves". It is very close to Burning Wheel in its technical characteristics, and not especially close to Apocalypse World.

Can you answer the question? You know what I'm talking about, so don't deflect.

Now you seem to think that it makes no sense to have the best cook try and get the portions preserved before anything goes wrong or anyone hostile shows up.

So out of curiosity, I went and looked at what you said originally:

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.

You're very much ignoring the idea that a player making a Cooking test shouldn't have anything to do with why the bandits showed up. Doesn't matter how its narrated. (Particularly as you just noted in the other topic that just narrating is bad)

The ninja thing is just your own example restated, as is any other option where a Player has to make some sort of test to resolve a Task and the world, for some reason, changes depending on what they rolled. Ie, rolling a better Cooking check means no Bandits.

You may not find the connection between a task resolution and the world changing in response to be a problem, but others do.

You should be more empathetic to that.

 

[pemerton]

Can you answer the question? You know what I'm talking about, so don't deflect.

The question you asked is "If a Move has been engaged, are you allowed to contradict its preordained outcomes, yes or no?"

I asked which RPG you're talking about. Torchbearer doesn't use Moves, so the question makes no sense in relation to it.

If you're asking about Apocalypse World, then as I assume you know if you do it, you do it. But presumably you also know that AW has no when you set about preserving rations . . . move, so I still don't know what you are asking about.

You're very much ignoring the idea that a player making a Cooking test shouldn't have anything to do with why the bandits showed up.

I'm not ignoring that. I'm denying it. Where is it written in the heavens that bandits interrupt your cooking and your camping is not a permissible consequence for a failed Cook test while in camp?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You set up a nonsense example - cooking sweets and being attacked by ninjas while baking - and then complain about nonsense and illogic. If you can't frame compelling situations, and choose compelling consequences, that's your problem and not mine.

In my game, the PCs were camping in the Troll Fens, having escaped a Troll Haunt (but becoming lost in the swamp in the process), killed some giant frogs, and then captured a marauding Dire Wolf and made a deal with it. In the course of this, they observed the Moathouse nearby, and they learned more about it from the Wolf (who had come from it).

My example is your example. It doesn't change the underlying lack of logic whether it is macarons or frogs or bandits or ninjas.

They then decided that they would preserve some frog meat before breaking camp. A decision was made to try and preserve 4 rather than 2 portions (from memory) despite the greater risk of failure. The group's best Cook made the attempt, helped by the others. Now you seem to think that it makes no sense to have the best cook try and get the portions preserved before anything goes wrong or anyone hostile shows up. But I don't know why. If, in the circumstances I'd described, I could pull Gordon Ramsey out of my bag of tricks to preserve the frog for me, why wouldn't I? He would do a better job more efficiently.

Yes he would. But not because being a great chef makes him less prone to bandit attacks! That is the issue I'm talking about, the one you refuse to address and keep deflecting.

 

[pemerton]

My example is your example. It doesn't change the underlying lack of logic whether it is macarons or frogs or bandits or ninjas.

Your complaint is about the relationship between events in the fiction. Of course it matters what the fiction is.

Have you ever had ninja interrupt the great bake-off in your game? I can tell you it's not come up in mine. So why are you talking about it?

Yes he would. But not because being a great chef makes him less prone to bandit attacks! That is the issue I'm talking about, the one you refuse to address and keep deflecting.

You don't think being more efficient in preserving the meat reduces the likelihood of being found and interrupted by bandits?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Your complaint is about the relationship between events in the fiction. Of course it matters what the fiction is.

Have you ever had ninja interrupt the great bake-off in your game? I can tell you it's not come up in mine. So why are you talking about it?

I think something like that might have happened in my Exalted: Dragon-Blooded game ages a go, where one chracter was master chef. In any case, getting stuck on the exact trappings is obfuscation, can we just address the underlying principle?

You don't think being more efficient in preserving the meat reduces the likelihood of being found and interrupted by bandits?

No, and neither do you:

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.

 

[pemerton]

No, and neither do you:

The failure doesn't tell us they cooked poorly; it tell us they were interrupted by bandits. Obviously had they finished the job more quickly, they would have been done before the bandits turned up. That's just common sense!

For instance, the character might well be thinking "I should have tried to preserve a smaller bit of frog, because I could have got that done already!" For all I can recall, the player may even have expressed such a thought.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The failure doesn't tell us they cooked poorly; it tell us they were interrupted by bandits. Obviously had they finished the job more quickly, they would have been done before the bandits turned up. That's just common sense!

But if objective is to cook fast, then cooking slowly is cooking badly! Though as it was already pointed out, being a better chef doesn't actually make the meat cook any faster. It takes as long as it takes.

For instance, the character might well be thinking "I should have tried to preserve a smaller bit of frog, because I could have got that done already!" For all I can recall, the player may even have expressed such a thought.

Yes. Which was actual decision point you mentioned. Deciding to stop to do anything will affect the chances of the bandits finding you. What you actually do during that time or how well you do it doesn't actually affect the chances of bandits finding you, unless what you did was an attempt to camouflage your hiding location.

 

[Aldarc]

There would be far less arguments on this forum, IMHO, if people stopped treating TTRPGs with diverging play agendas, aesthetics, and preferences from their own play preferences - especially those games they have little to no game experience playing - as being dysfunctional, illogical, or BadWrongFun.

 

[Wolfpack48]

In a more simulationist game, the fumbled cook roll could result in an inedible meal, but it also could result in spilling the broth which falls into the fire, resulting in a lot of smoke. You might then roll to see if said bandits in the area notice the smoke...