Rule Talk: Skills & Proficiencies

[atpollard]

Outside of chargen, make each skill level take a bit longer than the last one. What if it's the "next step"; Skill-1 takes a day, Skill-2 a week, Skill-3 a month, and Skill-4 a year? Outside of chargen, most characters aren't going to do the full year for a Skill-4, and will wind up with more 1-3 levels of skill. Even with stat mods, that won't break the 2d6 curve.

Skill-3 and +2 stat mod = +5
roll 10+ on 2d6+5 = 83% success; 17% failure [better add a +1 scope to that rifle to make it 2D6+6] ... basically still a version of "roll for critical failure on extreme situations, otherwise all tasks are automatic success" for most skills.

Which is fine for a Superhero game, if that is what you want. (It doesn't float my boat.)

[atpollard]

I don't think anyone should be rolling to see if a crash happens in a deadstick landing. Deadstick Landings

As a guide, the Space Shuttle program made 133 successful deadstick landings despite a crappier glide ratio than a jumbo jet. The only two failures in the program were during launch and completely outside the pilot's (or any of the crew's) control.

Traveller spacecraft fly more like Helicopters (with "magic" Drives to hold them up), so a Traveller Dead Stick landing is more like a Helicopter if the blades all fell off.

[Leitz]

In Classic Traveller (CT) books 4-7 characters can get up to half a dozen skills in a single year, killing the 4000 hours argument.

Which required either diluting skills [creating a "if you don't have the skill, then you cannot do the task" game where the character can drive like "Grand Theft Auto" unless you add tracks instead of wheels, then he cannot find the start button] or the "just roll for critical failure in impossible situations" game. I loved the added CHROME about your career, but skill bloat was never a good thing for Traveller and 2D6 mechanics.

Neither sentence is true as written. On the first, skill dilution is an option, but not required at all. Lots of skills transfer 1:1 but some, like fixed wing vs helicopter, may not be a full 1:1. A farm girl who ploughed the fields with mama's 1930's John Deere tractor may not know how to start an M113 APC. However, give her some orientation and she'll probably drag race with it.

The second sentence is only true for the style of game you like to play. As I pointed out earlier, the 2d6 mechanic is robust enough for many game styles. I ran a Star Trek setting Traveller game here and the players were given the option to "win" any dice roll with sufficient post word count. They seemed to enjoy the game as much as I enjoyed seeing what they came up with.

[SterlingBlake]

I don't think anyone should be rolling to see if a crash happens in a deadstick landing. Deadstick Landings

As a guide, the Space Shuttle program made 133 successful deadstick landings despite a crappier glide ratio than a jumbo jet. The only two failures in the program were during launch and completely outside the pilot's (or any of the crew's) control.

Traveller spacecraft fly more like Helicopters (with "magic" Drives to hold them up), so a Traveller Dead Stick landing is more like a Helicopter if the blades all fell off.

I don't think any level of Helicopter skill is going to save you in that case!

[atpollard]

I don't think anyone should be rolling to see if a crash happens in a deadstick landing. Deadstick Landings

As a guide, the Space Shuttle program made 133 successful deadstick landings despite a crappier glide ratio than a jumbo jet. The only two failures in the program were during launch and completely outside the pilot's (or any of the crew's) control.

Traveller spacecraft fly more like Helicopters (with "magic" Drives to hold them up), so a Traveller Dead Stick landing is more like a Helicopter if the blades all fell off.

I don't think any level of Helicopter skill is going to save you in that case!

It worked in "Serenity" (at least until the pilot was impaled at the end).

[atpollard]

In Classic Traveller (CT) books 4-7 characters can get up to half a dozen skills in a single year, killing the 4000 hours argument.

Which required either diluting skills [creating a "if you don't have the skill, then you cannot do the task" game where the character can drive like "Grand Theft Auto" unless you add tracks instead of wheels, then he cannot find the start button] or the "just roll for critical failure in impossible situations" game. I loved the added CHROME about your career, but skill bloat was never a good thing for Traveller and 2D6 mechanics.

Neither sentence is true as written. On the first, skill dilution is an option, but not required at all. Lots of skills transfer 1:1 but some, like fixed wing vs helicopter, may not be a full 1:1. A farm girl who ploughed the fields with mama's 1930's John Deere tractor may not know how to start an M113 APC. However, give her some orientation and she'll probably drag race with it.

A great houserule, but not how LBB4-7 handled it. One has Liaison or Carouse or Streetwise ... each applies in different situations, but they do not stack. There were only a handful of specific "treat as skill at 1 level lower". Mostly the books just gave you more skills to divide skill levels among.

The second sentence is only true for the style of game you like to play.

100% true

As I pointed out earlier, the 2d6 mechanic is robust enough for many game styles.

The statistics on 2D6+6 are what they are and MOST target numbers are automatic success with HIGH target numbers falling into the rage that "unmodified 2D6" called "easy". That means a game with little rolling needed (it is not THAT robust if you don't bother to roll).

I ran a Star Trek setting Traveller game here and the players were given the option to "win" any dice roll with sufficient post word count. They seemed to enjoy the game as much as I enjoyed seeing what they came up with.

Completely valid and probably fun, but not really a 2D6 mechanic if the roll doesn't ultimately count.

Just as a point of interest, 3D6 will support more modifiers and D20 or D100 systems support LOTS of modifiers. It is a limitation of 2D6 that it only has 5 values above and below the average ... so +5 or -5 forces the roll above or below the middle of the curve into HIGH or LOW territory with no alternatives. 3D6 requires +/-8 for the same result and D20 needs +/-10 with no statistical "curve" to impact probability.

[SterlingBlake]

Traveller spacecraft fly more like Helicopters (with "magic" Drives to hold them up), so a Traveller Dead Stick landing is more like a Helicopter if the blades all fell off.

I don't think any level of Helicopter skill is going to save you in that case!

It worked in "Serenity" (at least until the pilot was impaled at the end).

Maybe this is coming back to story vs. game. (Or maybe I'm holding a hammer so everything looks like a nail.) I think it's telling that you're citing an example from fiction to counter my example from NASA's record.

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

[Leitz]

I don't think any level of Helicopter skill is going to save you in that case!

It worked in "Serenity" (at least until the pilot was impaled at the end).

Maybe this is coming back to story vs. game. (Or maybe I'm holding a hammer so everything looks like a nail.) I think it's telling that you're citing an example from fiction to counter my example from NASA's record.

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

In some ways it is fiction vs simulation, but is your example valid? I can't think of anyone who would skew the 2d6 curve more than shuttle pilots; they must have high skill levels of Pilot before being chosen, and then they have a bazillion hours of sims and training after being chosen. They also have the situational modifiers of Houston Control and a specific landing time and location. If anyone can fly a falling rock, they are the ones to do it.

[Leitz]

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

I'm not sure the theory works, sorry. When I come up with a challenge for the players, I think of at least one way they can succeed with normal characters. That helps me ensure it's not overpowering. Once play begins they are free to bring in whatever physics, economics, or whatever their character might reasonably have access to in support of their solution. It seldom has any relation to my solution, but that's okay.

I ran a Traveller game and increasing trade was a goal. atpollard's character took a non-jump worthy large cargo ship and turned it into a miniature High Port, making transfer of goods from extra system traders to the seriously wave endangered planet much easier. Not something I would have come up with, but a fantastic solution.

[atpollard]

I don't think any level of Helicopter skill is going to save you in that case!

It worked in "Serenity" (at least until the pilot was impaled at the end).

Maybe this is coming back to story vs. game. (Or maybe I'm holding a hammer so everything looks like a nail.) I think it's telling that you're citing an example from fiction to counter my example from NASA's record.

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

Ok … MAYBE a dead stick landing was a bad example (I will not give you better than “maybe” until you can quote data from real starships) … however if we can zoom back to see the bigger picture, even as a facsimile of life, I simply posit that there exists [SOME TASK] that is difficult for a pilot and requires a roll of 10+ on 2D6. For someone with no modifiers to that roll, failure is the very probable outcome. For someone with +6 to that roll, success is almost guaranteed. A game with +0 common will be VERY DIFFERENT from a game with +6 common.

[Serenity is just plain cool and should be looked to for examples whenever possible ]

[SterlingBlake]

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

I'm not sure the theory works, sorry. When I come up with a challenge for the players, I think of at least one way they can succeed with normal characters. That helps me ensure it's not overpowering. Once play begins they are free to bring in whatever physics, economics, or whatever their character might reasonably have access to in support of their solution. It seldom has any relation to my solution, but that's okay.

I ran a Traveller game and increasing trade was a goal. atpollard's character took a non-jump worthy large cargo ship and turned it into a miniature High Port, making transfer of goods from extra system traders to the seriously wave endangered planet much easier. Not something I would have come up with, but a fantastic solution.

I think maybe it's that we're coming at situations in which the characters find themselves from different angles. I never come up with challenges for my players. I focus on the setting, the entities in it (NPCs, monsters, polities, and so on) and their agendas and activities. I have some idea of what the players are going to run into because of knowing where they are, how fast they can move, and who else is there doing what. On the other hand, they'll typically walk by things that as I player I would have muckled on to, yet grab at something I thought was inconsequential. Usually that thing ends up not being inconsequential to them.

In any case, I'm not planning challenges for them. I focus on making a living environment. I'm interested in it. Like a botanical garden that I'm tending. Who know what interests the visitors; I don't care. I imagine that the players want to find XP, because that's what AD&D is about, and I make sure there are sources of XP about and that they know about them to at least some degree. Some of those sources might be beyond their ability, others beneath their notice. Maybe one of those things I think beyond them, they will reconnoiter and devise a plan to assault or plunder. No plan survives contact with the enemy, as we said in another thread, if they might succeed it will be some way I never thought of. Whether they succeed or fail it will be in a way I never thought of, because I give little consideration to their actions before they take them.

[SterlingBlake]

It worked in "Serenity" (at least until the pilot was impaled at the end).

Maybe this is coming back to story vs. game. (Or maybe I'm holding a hammer so everything looks like a nail.) I think it's telling that you're citing an example from fiction to counter my example from NASA's record.

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

In some ways it is fiction vs simulation, but is your example valid? I can't think of anyone who would skew the 2d6 curve more than shuttle pilots; they must have high skill levels of Pilot before being chosen, and then they have a bazillion hours of sims and training after being chosen. They also have the situational modifiers of Houston Control and a specific landing time and location. If anyone can fly a falling rock, they are the ones to do it.

An absolutely valid argument against my example. I picked it because I had easy access to hard numbers and that situation had unusually difficult parameters. Anecdotally in the Smithsonian article I linked when citing those numbers, "During the war, engine reliability was so poor that pilot recruits had to prepare for the likelihood—not just the possibility—that an engine would quit. They were taught to land within a 150-foot-diameter circle with the engine off. Today, engines are so reliable that most pilots will never have to make a forced landing; nevertheless, in flight training, engine-out procedures are still standard. To prevent a simulated emergency from turning into a real one should the engine fail to restart, instructors simply pull the throttle to idle and direct students to set up an approach to a suitable landing site, then add power before touching tires to ground." This is what Pilot-1, maybe Pilot-0, has learned.

[SterlingBlake]

It worked in "Serenity" (at least until the pilot was impaled at the end).

Maybe this is coming back to story vs. game. (Or maybe I'm holding a hammer so everything looks like a nail.) I think it's telling that you're citing an example from fiction to counter my example from NASA's record.

If the game is a tool for producing exciting fiction, then I think your example is very apt. If it's a tool for producing a facsimile of life, then I think my example is the better one. One of the reasons I favor the "more like life" approach is to maximize the players' ability to solve problems in ways I haven't foreseen. Real physics, economics, and so on are not dependent on the referee's decisions as fiction, so relying on those real-world elements as much as possible maximizes players' agency. That's my theory anyway.

Ok … MAYBE a dead stick landing was a bad example (I will not give you better than “maybe” until you can quote data from real starships) … however if we can zoom back to see the bigger picture, even as a facsimile of life, I simply posit that there exists [SOME TASK] that is difficult for a pilot and requires a roll of 10+ on 2D6. For someone with no modifiers to that roll, failure is the very probable outcome. For someone with +6 to that roll, success is almost guaranteed. A game with +0 common will be VERY DIFFERENT from a game with +6 common.

[Serenity is just plain cool and should be looked to for examples whenever possible ]

I'm fighting you on whether and when a pass/fail die roll should be involved, not the legitimacy of the difficulties and bonuses involved.

Serenity is just plain cool, no question. But Firefly is fiction, and I'm arguing that the objective of games is not to create fiction, but to practice for war.

That's why I'm interested in games, anyway.

[atpollard]

I'm fighting you on whether and when a pass/fail die roll should be involved, not the legitimacy of the difficulties and bonuses involved.

Serenity is just plain cool, no question. But Firefly is fiction, and I'm arguing that the objective of games is not to create fiction, but to practice for war.

That's why I'm interested in games, anyway.

Games fail at the task.

While they may have some benefit in teaching/learning tactics and (maybe) strategy, the nature of war involves a mental attitude that “chance” utterly fails to simulate. While I have never had the “pleasure” of combat in the traditional sense, I have empirical experience at the sort of urban warfare that accompanies the DRUG/GANG culture including but not limited to beating someone with a chain, being stabbed, shooting another human being and setting an enemy on fire. Success and failure had little to do with chance and everything to do with the force mentally prepared to act with less moral restraint and suppress all fear. The real challenge proved living with the consequences after the dust settled and the nightmares began. That was when people self-destructed.

I do not think that 2D6 pass/fail rolls can simulate that (except maybe Cuthulhu).

[SterlingBlake]

I'm fighting you on whether and when a pass/fail die roll should be involved, not the legitimacy of the difficulties and bonuses involved.

Serenity is just plain cool, no question. But Firefly is fiction, and I'm arguing that the objective of games is not to create fiction, but to practice for war.

That's why I'm interested in games, anyway.

Games fail at the task.

While they may have some benefit in teaching/learning tactics and (maybe) strategy, the nature of war involves a mental attitude that “chance” utterly fails to simulate. While I have never had the “pleasure” of combat in the traditional sense, I have empirical experience at the sort of urban warfare that accompanies the DRUG/GANG culture including but not limited to beating someone with a chain, being stabbed, shooting another human being and setting an enemy on fire. Success and failure had little to do with chance and everything to do with the force mentally prepared to act with less moral restraint and suppress all fear. The real challenge proved living with the consequences after the dust settled and the nightmares began. That was when people self-destructed.

I do not think that 2D6 pass/fail rolls can simulate that (except maybe Cuthulhu).

Not even Cthulhu. The dice can't do it. That is, really, part of my point I suppose now that you mention it. (Thanks for sharpening my thoughts on it!)

I've been spared first-hand combat, too, but my father and one of my grandfathers were not so lucky. I'm drifting wide of point here, though. Nothing besides actual war fully prepares one for war. And often, not even that, I'd imagine.

Nevertheless, games, whether chess or D&D, can offer some practice for tactical and strategic thought if played with that intention. I think most adult games offer this in some measure. I like to play RPGs in a way which emphasizes, even maximizes, that value.

[scarik]

Y'all are verbose and active. I can barely keep up.

I generally only play wargames these days hence why my D&D rules are all about adapting wargaming to personal scale. The dice rolls are meant to determine outcomes and they do that well by being nonbinary and not strictly simulationist.

Frex: you go to hire some soldiers. I roll to see how many are in town and then you make a Reaction Roll to see how they respond. If you get a middling result (6-8) you score a partial success, that doesn;t mean they don't want to work for you necessarily. Perhaps someone else has already hired some of them or is actively recruiting as well and the men figure they can hold out for a signing bonus due to demand.

You only ever fail outright on a roll of 2. Any more and you don't make progress but you can keep trying. What you lose is time and effort.

[Leitz]

Serenity is just plain cool, no question. But Firefly is fiction, and I'm arguing that the objective of games is not to create fiction, but to practice for war.

Games fail at the task.

While they may have some benefit in teaching/learning tactics and (maybe) strategy, the nature of war involves a mental attitude that “chance” utterly fails to simulate. While I have never had the “pleasure” of combat in the traditional sense, I have empirical experience at the sort of urban warfare that accompanies the DRUG/GANG culture including but not limited to beating someone with a chain, being stabbed, shooting another human being and setting an enemy on fire. Success and failure had little to do with chance and everything to do with the force mentally prepared to act with less moral restraint and suppress all fear. The real challenge proved living with the consequences after the dust settled and the nightmares began. That was when people self-destructed.

Games are used for war preparation all the time, they have been for decades, if not centuries. By gaming we reduce the cognitive on the prefrontal cortex's ability to evaluate data and then plan a good response. Since the brain can use up to 25% of the body's calories, and since mental exhaustion is a killer in combat, reducing the work load by gaming risk assessment and tactical response allows the warfighter to stay fully engaged in the battle longer. Often success is not in luck, but in not making a mistake before the enemy gives you a mistake to exploit.

atpollard, aren't gangs sort of like the pirates you talked about in Traveller? That is, if they were any good at what they did, they wouldn't be pirates (or gang members). If the gangs had honestly gamed the events and aftermath, how would behavior have changed?

SterlingBlake, can you help me understand your above with your earlier statement: I never come up with challenges for my players. If you want to help a player train for war, don't you need to provide specific and relevant challenges for them to practice on? If you look at scarik's game, my character is a military commander and his part of the game focuses on domain level considerations. Sort of like the game Pendragon, but in a more fantastic historical setting. scarik and I have done the "wargame simulation" style game in years gone by, but for this one we're focussing on a different aspect of gaming.

[atpollard]

@Leitz

Games are used for war preparation all the time, they have been for decades, if not centuries. By gaming we reduce the cognitive on the prefrontal cortex's ability to evaluate data and then plan a good response. Since the brain can use up to 25% of the body's calories, and since mental exhaustion is a killer in combat, reducing the work load by gaming risk assessment and tactical response allows the warfighter to stay fully engaged in the battle longer. Often success is not in luck, but in not making a mistake before the enemy gives you a mistake to exploit.

That is the definition of “ While they may have some benefit in teaching/learning tactics and (maybe) strategy”, which I already granted.

An analysis conducted during WW2 revealed that most soldiers in a battle NEVER FIRED THEIR RIFLES! The statistic was something like 10% of combatants actually contributed materially to the outcome of a battle by shooting an enemy soldier or destroying an enemy vehicle. When I inquired of the more military minded whether that statistic had changed in the modern battlefield, I was assured that it had not. The percentage that fired weapons increased as more soldiers now fired in a general direction to provide suppressive cover fire, but the statistics for soldiers actually shooting an enemy was about the same.

Games cannot simulate the psychological factors that mark the difference between the 10% and the 90%. Training, maybe. 2D6 rolls, nope.

[atpollard]

atpollard, aren't gangs sort of like the pirates you talked about in Traveller? That is, if they were any good at what they did, they wouldn't be pirates (or gang members). If the gangs had honestly gamed the events and aftermath, how would behavior have changed?

Not sure if this is drifting too far off topic from “skills and proficiencies”, but when I took training classes to become a Foster Parent we learned something that applies to Gangs and may apply to pirates.

“You may feel tempted to pity theses children or to feel sorry for them, but you need to understand that these children are survivors. Many of the children that you will meet have lived through experiences that would have killed most adults.”

That was my observation of the “children of Sparta” background of most Gang members I knew and may be the background of most pirates.

[Leitz]

@Leitz

Games are used for war preparation all the time, they have been for decades, if not centuries. By gaming we reduce the cognitive on the prefrontal cortex's ability to evaluate data and then plan a good response. Since the brain can use up to 25% of the body's calories, and since mental exhaustion is a killer in combat, reducing the work load by gaming risk assessment and tactical response allows the warfighter to stay fully engaged in the battle longer. Often success is not in luck, but in not making a mistake before the enemy gives you a mistake to exploit.

That is the definition of “ While they may have some benefit in teaching/learning tactics and (maybe) strategy”, which I already granted.

An analysis conducted during WW2 revealed that most soldiers in a battle NEVER FIRED THEIR RIFLES! The statistic was something like 10% of combatants actually contributed materially to the outcome of a battle by shooting an enemy soldier or destroying an enemy vehicle. When I inquired of the more military minded whether that statistic had changed in the modern battlefield, I was assured that it had not. The percentage that fired weapons increased as more soldiers now fired in a general direction to provide suppressive cover fire, but the statistics for soldiers actually shooting an enemy was about the same.

Games cannot simulate the psychological factors that mark the difference between the 10% and the 90%. Training, maybe. 2D6 rolls, nope.

If firing a rifle was all that counted, then you're probably right. Think of all the leadership decisions that have to happen to get the troops to the fight. Think of the micro tactical decisions each combatant has to make; look for cover, run like h***, check on my buddies. I find it funny to compare games to reality and see the disconnect. That's one of the reasons I view games as fiction, an actual simulation would be so rules heavy as to be unplayable.

I've often experimented with leadership lessons in games, you've been subjected to seen it more than most. That was a simulation I really enjoyed, your world building just made it all the more fun.