NO everyman skills

[JmOz]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

The most common variations from general package have been either swapping background skills (Well I am a scientist, so I don't have a PS I have an extra SS) or in TF (I am an alien from a world of hovercrafts, I do not know how to drive, but can pilot a grav sled). Otherwise it does save characters a few points here and there, but it has yet to unbalancing over the years.

[Vondy]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

Actually' date=' an interesting variation might be to create several 25-point "normal person" archetypes, and let players choose one for their character. For example, the Perpetual Student type might have extra KS's, but no PS's. Or a Working Man type might have extra PS's but no KS's. The Sheltered Life type might not have KS: Common Knowledge. KS: Homeland, Acting, Conversation, or Persuasion, but has other KS's. And so on.[/quote']

 

I like this suggestion. And extension for more modular design would be....

 

Competent Normal Write Up + Selected Everyman Package + Additional Point Allotment

 

This could be simplified by including the everyman skills/points in the Competent Normal write up

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

What I have done for many years is have cultural everyman packages, and when a player chooses a background, they get that package. Typically, a culture will have some, but not all "everyman" types (Townsman, villager, noble, priest, barbarian, etc) to reflect the fact that a foundling raised in a temple in metropolis will probably have different background skills from a child raised by steppe nomads. Some everyman skills (climbing, conversation) are likely to be common to all of them - others will not be. In truth, it rarely comes up in play, but is does do so from time to time.

 

cheers, Mark

[prestidigitator]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

Allowing minor variation based on culture and physical background (inhuman races, animals, etc.) is what I have always done. I'm not sure I approve of the removal of the full-buy rebate for 6E, but I've gone with it so far (it does somewhat simplify the figuring of skill cost, I guess), and removed the ability to sell them off to match. Reasonable substitutions work well in the place of selling things off, and where neither work, lacking the Everyman Skill will be part of a Complication from which the character is getting points anyway.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

What I have done for many years is have cultural everyman packages, and when a player chooses a background, they get that package. Typically, a culture will have some, but not all "everyman" types (Townsman, villager, noble, priest, barbarian, etc) to reflect the fact that a foundling raised in a temple in metropolis will probably have different background skills from a child raised by steppe nomads. Some everyman skills (climbing, conversation) are likely to be common to all of them - others will not be. In truth, it rarely comes up in play, but is does do so from time to time.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I do this as well...I use the standard Everyman skills for most characters, but..for example..Solaria...is from Ancient Egypt....so she's not going to know anything about cars, but instead of Transport familiarity... she has Riding for equines and camels as an Everyman skill. That kind of thing

[Vondy]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

For one thing' date=' Skill-based characters are relatively expensive in Hero even in a Champions game. It's usually cheaper to just build a combat machine and combat capabilities often have a lot more instant gratification.[/quote']

 

Caveat: I run heroic games for the most part.

 

Skill based characters can be painfully expensive. I've started charging 25 Points and 2 points for +1 to a base roll for any skills that reasonably fall under the purview of the special effect/shtick. So, Master Ninja 13- would be 27 points. If its something a master ninja can do or would know they can make the roll. I've also simplified followers and contacts with flat costs based on their overall level of influence akin to the social status perk.

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

Caveat: I run heroic games for the most part.

 

Skill based characters can be painfully expensive. I've started charging 25 Points and 2 points for +1 to a base roll for any skills that reasonably fall under the purview of the special effect/shtick. So, Master Ninja 13- would be 27 points. If its something a master ninja can do or would know they can make the roll. I've also simplified followers and contacts with flat costs based on their overall level of influence akin to the social status perk.

 

I've taken a slightly different route, although my games also tend to be skill-heavy: I allow players to buy "professional skill modifiers" - I also interpret skills fairly broadly and assume that someone with a decent roll (14-) doesn't need to make a roll under normal circumstances. To compensate, I use both bonuses for appropriate situations and penalties for very bad situations fairly liberally, so players really only need to spend significant points on what they see as signature skills for their character.

 

What this means is that Ninja Master can buy "Skill Mod: Ninja Master" and get all relevant skills at -1 cost. In addition he can buy PS: Ninja Master 14- and get all the (non-combat) skills one would expect - he knows a whole bunch of stuff you'd expect someone in that role to know. OTOH, if he wants to use specific skills in stressful situations - in combat, to puzzle out an ancient ninja riddle of vast import - in other words, course-of-game-affecting stuff - then he should spend some points, because a general skill like PS: Ninja Master won't cut it. On the other hand it's fine for knowing what bits of Fugu not to eat, etiquette at the Ninja masters annual banquet, Who's Who in the world of ninja-ing and how to make smoke bombs at home, etc.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I've taken a slightly different route' date=' although my games also tend to be skill-heavy: I allow players to buy "professional skill modifiers" - I also interpret skills fairly broadly and assume that someone with a decent roll (14-) doesn't need to make a roll under normal circumstances. To compensate, I use both bonuses for appropriate situations and penalties for very bad situations fairly liberally, so players really only need to spend significant points on what they see as signature skills for their character.[/quote']

 

I too avoid having character's with relevant skills make rolls for ordinary-routine tasks. I also restrict situational modifiers to +/-4 in all but the most exceptional cases. I think Darren calls this the "He's frickin' Tarzan, Darnit!" principle.

 

What this means is that Ninja Master can buy "Skill Mod: Ninja Master" and get all relevant skills at -1 cost. In addition he can buy PS: Ninja Master 14- and get all the (non-combat) skills one would expect - he knows a whole bunch of stuff you'd expect someone in that role to know. OTOH' date=' if he wants to use [b']specific[/b] skills in stressful situations - in combat, to puzzle out an ancient ninja riddle of vast import - in other words, course-of-game-affecting stuff - then he should spend some points, because a general skill like PS: Ninja Master won't cut it. On the other hand it's fine for knowing what bits of Fugu not to eat, etiquette at the Ninja masters annual banquet, Who's Who in the world of ninja-ing and how to make smoke bombs at home, etc.

 

This sounds like the expert enhancer with the "background skills only" restriction removed. It sounds workable. I may do a few skill reworks this way as a compare and contrast exercise.

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I too avoid having character's with relevant skills make rolls for ordinary-routine tasks. I also restrict situational modifiers to +/-4 in all but the most exceptional cases. I think Darren calls this the "He's frickin' Tarzan' date=' Darnit!" principle.[/quote']

 

I go +/- 5, so not a big difference there. One thing that I have noted though is that many Gm's use penalties, but relatively few give bonuses. I think this warps their perception of skill use, since they tend to rate "how good" by the raw number. I look at it and think about what sort bonuses are readily available: if someone has KS: early etruscan pottery, 8-, that doesn't sound real useful, but with access to a good university library and a day's hard work and they can probably boost that to 12- or 13-. Now that's pretty useful giving them a very solid chance of answering even moderately difficult (-2) tasks.

 

This sounds like the expert enhancer with the "background skills only" restriction removed. It sounds workable. I may do a few skill reworks this way as a compare and contrast exercise.

 

It is indeed. I've been using PSMs (Professional skill modifiers) for a couple of decades now and strongly recommended it in the 6E discussion on skills. It's never proved unbalanced in play, for 3 reasons.

1. It allows you to get an 11- roll for 1 point. That's fine for background tasks (see my comment above) which means routine tasks can be handled, often with no roll at all. However, for mission critical skills, you'll want to spend more - and if you want a 16- or 18- roll (especially in heroic games) that 1 point price break isn't a huge giveaway. What this means in practice is that players will have a small number of core skills at heroic or legendary levels - but it's significantly cheaper to get a whole bunch of supporting skills. Without PSMs, I noted that PCs still tended to have a small number of core skills at heroic or legendary levels - but they skimped on the background.

2. I restrict access to the skills available. The rule of thumb is "What would I expect everyone with this description to have?" not "What could someone with this description possibly have?" So, to take your ninja master example, anything to do with martial arts (well, not the maneuvers themselves ) poisons, smoke bombs, disguise, misdirection - all that jazz. However, when I think of ninjas, I think of stealthy fightin' guys. It might be entirely plausible for a modern ninja to have systems operation, KS: computers and modern firearms KS's but I would (depending on setting) probably not allow those under "PSM: Ninja master." In addition, for a professional skill modifier there has to be an actual profession, or a way of learning the skills. I wouldn't allow PSM: adventurer unless there was an actual adventuring guild somewhere training people, because that definition is so broad as to be meaningless: a brawny adventurer with a big sword and heavy armor will likely have a different skill set from a slim stealthy adventurer with a dagger.

3. Skill based characters are expensive and once you have covered the basics, you typically get less bang for your buck as you get more esoteric skills. Giving characters a break on skills is not going to hugely enhance their efficiency - in truth, it merely makes them less inefficient

 

However, I like players whose characters have lots of skills - it opens up possibilities. And players love getting something for free - even if they have to buy three skill just to break even. So anything that encourages them to buy skills is a good deal IMO.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I go +/- 5' date=' so not a big difference there. One thing that I have noted though is that many Gm's use penalties, but relatively few give bonuses. I think this warps their perception of skill use, since they tend to rate "how good" by the raw number. I look at it and think about what sort bonuses are readily available: if someone has KS: early etruscan pottery, 8-, that doesn't sound real useful, but with access to a good university library and a day's hard work and they can probably boost that to 12- or 13-. Now that's pretty useful giving them a very solid chance of answering even moderately difficult (-2) tasks.[/quote']

 

I may be an oddball GM, but I'm fairly liberal about positive bonuses. One thing I do is give a +1 (to a max of +4) for any reasonably compimentary skill without requiring them to make rolls for the complimentary skills (I like to keep things moving). I also keep the situational modify tables handy.

 

It is indeed. I've been using PSMs (Professional skill modifiers) for a couple of decades now and strongly recommended it in the 6E discussion on skills. It's never proved unbalanced in play' date=' for 3 reasons.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't think it would be overly unbalancing.

 

1. It allows you to get an 11- roll for 1 point. That's fine for background tasks (see my comment above) which means routine tasks can be handled' date=' often with no roll at all. However, for mission critical skills, you'll want to spend more - and if you want a 16- or 18- roll (especially in heroic games) that 1 point price break isn't a huge giveaway. What this means in practice is that players will have a small number of core skills at heroic or legendary levels - but it's significantly cheaper to get a whole bunch of supporting skills. Without PSMs, I noted that PCs still tended to have a small number of core skills at heroic or legendary levels - but they skimped on the background.[/quote']

 

Makes sense and mirrors my experience as well.

 

2. I restrict access to the skills available. The rule of thumb is "What would I expect everyone with this description to have?" not "What could someone with this description possibly have?" So' date=' to take your ninja master example, anything to do with martial arts (well, not the maneuvers themselves ) poisons, smoke bombs, disguise, misdirection - all that jazz. However, when I think of ninjas, I think of stealthy fightin' guys. It might be entirely plausible for a modern ninja to have systems operation, KS: computers and modern firearms KS's but I would (depending on setting) probably not allow those under "PSM: Ninja master." In addition, for a professional skill modifier there has to be an actual profession, or a way of learning the skills. I wouldn't allow [i']PSM: adventurer[/i] unless there was an actual adventuring guild somewhere training people, because that definition is so broad as to be meaningless: a brawny adventurer with a big sword and heavy armor will likely have a different skill set from a slim stealthy adventurer with a dagger.

 

Overall this makes sense, but for me the milieu is a major factor. A modern ninja would probably have security systems, etc. For instance, in the Jovian Chronicles materials there is a reference to "Void Ninja," the spaceborne descendents of Earth's shinobi clans, who reside on secret iron-wheel stations and space freighters, etc. They only use traditional weapons when they want to make a point and would train extensively with modern weapons and necessary technology (encrypted communications, etc).

 

3. Skill based characters are expensive. and once you have covered the basics' date=' you typically get less bang for your buck as you get more esoteric skills. Giving characters a break on skills is not going to hugely enhance their efficiency - in truth, it merely makes them less inefficient [/quote']

 

Agreed. I'm not an efficiency fetishist, though. A few superfluous things to flavor the pot are good.

 

However' date=' I like players whose characters have lots of skills - it opens up possibilities. And players love getting something for free - even if they have to buy three skill just to break even. So anything that encourages them to buy skills is a good deal IMO.[/quote']

 

Also agreed.

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I may be an oddball GM' date=' but I'm fairly liberal about positive bonuses. One thing I do is give a +1 (to a max of +4) for any reasonably compimentary skill without requiring them to make rolls for the complimentary skills (I like to keep things moving). I also keep the situational modify tables handy.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I thought that might be the case.

However most GMs I have played with don't give bonuses. This applies, incidentally, to combat as well: I am happy to give bonuses when the players do unexpected things or things that sound ike a good idea: it breaks the mould of "I stand there and hit him" OTOH, I give my NPCs bonuses for cool maneuvers too.

 

 

I wouldn't think it would be overly unbalancing.

 

Oh that wasn't meant to be a direct response - just that I (and a couple of fellow GM's) have used this house rule in quite a lot of heroic games covering a lot of genres from dark ages northumbria (semi-realistic, no magic, etc) to science fiction (Judge Dredd, Strontium Dogs knockoffs) as well as standard fantasy, and pulp. I was just making the point that whatever genre, this approach seems to work relatively well. As an aside, I first came up with this idea back in the mid-80's when we were playing the Judge Dredd setting because it was so frickin' expensive to give PCs all the skills we thought Judges should have. The GM for that game (great game BTW!) is on the boards as Sir Ofeelya.

 

 

 

Overall this makes sense' date=' but for me the milieu is a major factor. A modern ninja would probably have security systems, etc. For instance, in the Jovian Chronicles materials there is a reference to "Void Ninja," the spaceborne descendents of Earth's shinobi clans, who reside on secret iron-wheel stations and space freighters, etc. They only use traditional weapons when they want to make a point and would train extensively with modern weapons and necessary technology (encrypted communications, etc).[/quote']

 

I'd agree with this. It's why I wrote "depending on setting". If there are clans of void ninjas, then PSM: void ninja would make perfect sense. I was thinking more of supers comics - even though ninjas are like cockroaches and pop up wherever, they always seem to favor HTH weapons, smoke bombs and stealth rather than popping their victim with a sniper's rifle from a rooftop a kilometer away. The main point is that - in my games at least - for a PSM to exist there has to be a well-defined and relatively limited skill set tied to it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I go +/- 5' date=' so not a big difference there. One thing that I have noted though is that many Gm's use penalties, but relatively few give bonuses. I think this warps their perception of skill use, since they tend to rate "how good" by the raw number. I look at it and think about what sort bonuses are readily available: if someone has KS: early etruscan pottery, 8-, that doesn't sound real useful, but with access to a good university library and a day's hard work and they can probably boost that to 12- or 13-. Now that's pretty useful giving them a very solid chance of answering even moderately difficult (-2) tasks.[/quote']

 

I think this is a very valid point. If the GM is going to interpret "familiarity" as about a 25% chance of accomplishing even the most basic task, and impose penalties moving up the chain, then of course a familiarity is looked at as virtually useless. But that flies in the face of the suggestion that a familiarity is probably good enough to get an entry level position in the field. They must be able to accomplish something productive with that Familiarity. An 11- roll is, according to the Everyman skills structure, good enough to make a career in that area. You don't make a career of something if you fail at a mundane task over 1/3 of the time, so clearly you must have some bonus (whether intrinsic or based on taking extra time) in performing a mundane task.

 

This becomes a matter of interpretation. Does "PS: Lawyer - 11-" mean you routinely succeed because you have a research library (+2) and take Extra Time for a task with a baseline of a turn to get a +3 bonus, so now you have a 16- to accomplish this routine task in what, an hour? A day? Or if the base time required for this task a half day to a day, and the required equipment is a research library, such that trying to perform this task off the top of your head (lack of appropriate tools; -2 penalty) off the cuff when challenged in front of the judge (reduced time; -3 penalty) mean that only the best have a decent shot at success (you need a 15- to have a 50/50 chance - because this is no longer a mundane task due to the conditions imposed)?

 

If the GM allows the player to get some milage from these skills, then the players are inclined to see them as a good use of points. If the GM requires a roll for even the most routine task, and routinely imposes penalties to anything of real impact to the game, then the players learn you need a 14- or better skill before it's of any use whatsoever - forget it, I'll spend that 5 points on another skill level in combat instead, where it will actually be useful, and the GM scratches his head, wondering why his players don't invest more points in skills and round out their characters.

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I think this is a very valid point. If the GM is going to interpret "familiarity" as about a 25% chance of accomplishing even the most basic task' date=' and impose penalties moving up the chain, then of course a familiarity is looked at as virtually useless. But that flies in the face of the suggestion that a familiarity is probably good enough to get an entry level position in the field. They must be able to accomplish something productive with that Familiarity. An 11- roll is, according to the Everyman skills structure, good enough to make a career in that area. You don't make a career of something if you fail at a mundane task over 1/3 of the time, so clearly you must have some bonus (whether intrinsic or based on taking extra time) in performing a mundane task. [/quote']

 

With you so far.

 

This becomes a matter of interpretation. Does "PS: Lawyer - 11-" mean you routinely succeed because you have a research library (+2) and take Extra Time for a task with a baseline of a turn to get a +3 bonus' date=' so now you have a 16- to accomplish this routine task in what, an hour? A day? Or if the base time required for this task a half day to a day, and the required equipment is a research library, such that trying to perform this task off the top of your head (lack of appropriate tools; -2 penalty) off the cuff when challenged in front of the judge (reduced time; -3 penalty) mean that only the best have a decent shot at success (you need a 15- to have a 50/50 chance - because this is no longer a mundane task due to the conditions imposed)?[/quote']

 

I went into this in some detail on my site's house rules page. I even used precisely the lawyer example. If you call a lawyer and try to get an answer to a legal question, even if you they are on retainer, you will almost never get a top of the head answer, except for the most trivially easy questions. At the very least you spend 5 minutes discussing what you mean precisely. Moreoften you get an "I'll get back to you".

 

So yeah, I interpret that as "extra time" and he's almost certainly using that extra time to look stuff up, meaning some kind of equipment bonus. Now I wouldn't say "OK base time for that is a half day" because I know - having been in a similar situation with regard to scientific advice - that he probably could give an off the cuff answer if he wanted. There's even a reasonable chance it'd be right. That suggests the base time to formulate a reply is one phase. He just wants to be sure that it's right - which to me sounds like extra time. Likewise, I wouldn't throw a penalty on him if he didn't have access to a library. But he wouldn't be getting any skill bonuses.

 

If the GM allows the player to get some milage from these skills' date=' then the players are inclined to see them as a good use of points. If the GM requires a roll for even the most routine task, and routinely imposes penalties to anything of real impact to the game, then the players learn you need a 14- or better skill before it's of any use whatsoever - forget it, I'll spend that 5 points on another skill level in combat instead, where it will actually be useful, and the GM scratches his head, wondering why his players don't invest more points in skills and round out their characters.[/quote']

 

Ayup. Many GM's do 2 things that discourage players from buying skills. One is piling on the penalties, making skills far too expensive to be of any use. The other is being too lenient and saying "Oh, you don't have the skill? Make a Dex roll instead". Why pay 3 points to get a Dex roll in the skill if CombatMonsterMan gets a Dex roll for free? Better just to buy your Dex roll up.

 

cheers, Mark

[JmOz]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I have a house rule that you can automaticaly pass any skill roll you want (out of combat), if you are ready to spend the time.

 

Basicaly I decide on a base time for the skill (Let say it will take a mechanic 1 turn to fix a bike chain), then you roll, if you make it you do it in the set time (or less on a good roll, one step down per 2 points made by), if you fail then it is one step up the time chart per point of failure (so mechanic fails by 3 it will take him 20 minutes)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I went into this in some detail on my site's house rules page. I even used precisely the lawyer example. If you call a lawyer and try to get an answer to a legal question, even if you they are on retainer, you will almost never get a top of the head answer, except for the most trivially easy questions. At the very least you spend 5 minutes discussing what you mean precisely. Moreoften you get an "I'll get back to you".

 

So yeah, I interpret that as "extra time" and he's almost certainly using that extra time to look stuff up, meaning some kind of equipment bonus. Now I wouldn't say "OK base time for that is a half day" because I know - having been in a similar situation with regard to scientific advice - that he probably could give an off the cuff answer if he wanted. There's even a reasonable chance it'd be right. That suggests the base time to formulate a reply is one phase. He just wants to be sure that it's right - which to me sounds like extra time. Likewise, I wouldn't throw a penalty on him if he didn't have access to a library. But he wouldn't be getting any skill bonuses.

 

I think you can interpret it either way. Assuming that the skill takes negligible time and no resources for a base roll seems like pretty much every real world question must have substantial penalties, or even basic training (11- roll) could get the answer right virtually every time. Of course, it depends what the actual question is. If the tax lawyer is being asked àm I taxable on my salary, or how a fairly common income item is taxed, he can likely give you an off the cuff answer - it`s a question so basic that it should be a mundane task - automatic answer. If he`s asked how this changes if the gain in question is realized by a resident of a small European country, bringing issues of international tax, and likely treaties, into the question, not so mundane and requires more time for an answer.

 

Ayup. Many GM's do 2 things that discourage players from buying skills. One is piling on the penalties' date=' making skills far too expensive to be of any use. The other is being too lenient and saying "[i']Oh, you don't have the skill? Make a Dex roll instead[/i]". Why pay 3 points to get a Dex roll in the skill if CombatMonsterMan gets a Dex roll for free? Better just to buy your Dex roll up.

 

Agreed. And some GM`s do both - say, Acrobatically leap over the car - that will be a -2 penalty because the ground is wet, and a further -3 because the car is moving. If you fail, you fall in front of the car and get run over. You want to question the receptionist - role play out what you say and I will decide how she reacts (your character`s skills have no real impact, just how the player role plays it and the GM feels about it).

 

And both do the same thing - make an investment in skills not worth the points spent.

[dmjalund]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I would use skill levels to determine an extra "common sense" so that If the Player says something stupid, yet made a good roll, the GM should advise him that he should not be saying that

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I think you can interpret it either way. Assuming that the skill takes negligible time and no resources for a base roll seems like pretty much every real world question must have substantial penalties' date=' or even basic training (11- roll) could get the answer right virtually every time.[/quote']

 

That is what the rules suggest, no? That an 11- roll is enough to get a job performing that function. That wouldn't happen if you got most of the job-realted questions wrong at your interview - or even if you got a noticeable minority of them wrong. The opposite - that answering a question in your field without a full office-style backup exerts a penalty - means that you would expect most professionals to be wrong when giving an answer outside those settings, or that skill rolls of 15- are routine. Neither seems to fit well with the rules as written or common sense.

 

Of course' date=' it depends what the actual question is. If the tax lawyer is being asked àm I taxable on my salary, or how a fairly common income item is taxed, he can likely give you an off the cuff answer - it`s a question so basic that it should be a mundane task - automatic answer. If he`s asked how this changes if the gain in question is realized by a resident of a small European country, bringing issues of international tax, and likely treaties, into the question, not so mundane and requires more time for an answer.[/quote']

 

Heh. I take it you haven't had much to do with attorneys. I actually had to ask this question "Am I taxed on this salary" recently and it took us half an hour to get a definitive answer. It took much longer to get an answer to "How much" - and she was on retainer, so I wasn't paying by the minute.

 

Agreed. And some GM`s do both - say' date=' Acrobatically leap over the car - that will be a -2 penalty because the ground is wet, and a further -3 because the car is moving. If you fail, you fall in front of the car and get run over. You want to question the receptionist - role play out what you say and I will decide how she reacts (your character`s skills have no real impact, just how the player role plays it and the GM feels about it).[/quote']

 

I'd agree these are both examples of poor GM'ing and yes, in that setting, players won't buy skills - which I think is a lost opportunity all round.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

That is what the rules suggest' date=' no? That an 11- roll is enough to get a job performing that function. That wouldn't happen if you got most of the job-realted questions wrong at your interview - or even if you got a noticeable minority of them wrong. The opposite - that answering a question in your field without a full office-style backup exerts a penalty - means that you would expect most professionals to be wrong when giving an answer outside those settings, or that skill rolls of 15- are routine. Neither seems to fit well with the rules as written or common sense.[/quote']

 

At a senior level, very few professionals are hired based on any kind of technical testing or Q&A. A discussion of the type of work they'e done (necessarily vague due to client donfidentiality reasons - litigators have an advantage here in that some of their work is public domain once a court decision is rendered) and their experience and reputation in their field tends to be the guide as far as technical expertise goes. Simple questions are not generally "job related". More complex situations that dovetail the answers to many questions (typically including some that get asked only if the professional considers them) are the more common function in practice.

 

Heh. I take it you haven't had much to do with attorneys. I actually had to ask this question "Am I taxed on this salary" recently and it took us half an hour to get a definitive answer. It took much longer to get an answer to "How much" - and she was on retainer' date=' so I wasn't paying by the minute.[/quote']

 

As an acountant practicing in taxation, I come into considerable contact with both tax counsel and corporate counsel on a fairly routine basis, actually. If it took half an hour to get a definitive answer on "Is this salary taxable" then I would have to assume the question moved beyond a basic paycheque. Now, if the question was "is this salary taxable outside my country of residence", "is there a way to compensate for this issue which would not attract taxation" or "is this payment a taxable benefit or a non-taxable payment", those questions get much more complex. Actually, in the tax field, the ability to get a definitive answer is, in ityself, an indication that the question is a basic and simple one.

 

But it comes down to how and where we assign bonuses. If I assume the base time requirement for answering a research question is a half day, and that appropriate research materials are a basic tool of the trade, such that I would penalize you a total of, say, -2 for lacking the research materials and -3 for dropping the time to 5 minutes, but the question is one which, in the skill area, is a very basic one and I would award a +6 bonus for such a basic question, then someone with an 11- roll (basic professional) has a 74% chance (12-) of getting the right answer in that 5 minute period.

 

If you take the position that both the research materials and more than 5 minutes' time are added extras not needed to get the job done, so there are no penalties for a 5 minute off the cuff answer, but also no bonus for the fact that this is a pretty basic and routine question, then you give that same professional an 11- roll (his base roll), and a 62.5% chance to get the right answer. A pretty similar result.

 

Now, I suspect our thinking is close enough that we both circumvent the "bonus/penalty" process anyway and decide that a professional like this can answer a basic question in his area of expertise with a few minutes, no research materials and no need to roll simply because he is a professional, and professionals know basic answers off the top of their heads. Grill him under a spotlight, and under extreme pressure, and then he might actually have to make the roll to get the right answer (ie not to be disoriented enough to overlook something basic, or misspeak), but under normal circumstances, answering a basic question is so far below his level of expertise that there's no need to make a roll.

 

As to what level of expertise he has, I guess that depends. If I'm dealing with general counsel, or a corporate/commercial lawyer, I'd say that a tax question is probably not "routine and mundane" for him, so no +6 bonus. Maybe he gets a +3 bonus because it's a pretty easy question and, assuming he has access to appropriate research materials (which would be tax-focused - whether he has that access wold depend on the firm's resources) he could avoid a penalty to the skill roll. But he's now looking at (my model) the same -3 penalty for trying to short cut it with off the cuff advice, and lacking the use of research materials, he gets a -2 penalty, so he now has a 9- chance to get the right answer off the cuff - a 37.5% chance. Still a fairly respectable chance to get a basic answer to a question outside his area of expertise, but a significant chance of failure (which is pretty consistent with professional negligence results - people trying to rush outside their area of expertise tend to get sued). But, assuming he takes the time to consult appropriate reference sources, he can bump that back up to 11- (he may not know the answer off the cuff, but has a pretty good chance of finding it), and if he takes a half day to research it, now he has a 14-, so he's very likely to find the answer. Again, we both probably say "after half a day of research, the answer's pretty easy for this guy to find - no roll needed". Of course, he just wasted half a day on a mundane question - far more likely he would refer the questioner to someone specialized in tax law (whether a formal referral, or a quick walk down the hall to the Tax Guy in the corner).

 

Now, that Tax Guy doesn't have PS: Lawyer, or PS: Corporate-Commercial Lawyer. He has PS: Tax Lawyer. He's back up to that 12- roll off the cuff or, again, "basic question in his area of expertise - no roll required". Looking it up would allow him to give you a much more detailed memorandum, complete with references to the legislation and quotes from key jurisprudence, but that's papering the answer, not just knowing or finding it.

 

Of course, for a typical game, splitting down areas of expertise this fine isn't worth the hassle. Maybe if we're playing Law Firm Hero, but even most legal dramas focus on one specialty (criminal law), maybe with a few sub-focuses (litigator, researcher, etc.). So we just accept that PS: Lawyer can handle pretty much any relevant in-game question of law.

 

Maybe the better question is what about that novice articling student, and his 8- familiarity? Shouldn't he be able to get the answer to a basic question? Well, off the cuff, he needs his 8- roll under either of our approaches - not very likely (about 1 chance in four). But give him the research materials (+2, or 2 less penalty) and he has a 50/50 shot to find the right answer in 5 minutes. Given him that half day to research it, and he's got a 14- under my model and a 13- under yours, so it's pretty certain he'll get the answer - it just takes him longer to find it, be satisfied he does have the right answer, and paper it so that it can be reviewed by a more experienced practitioner to confirm he got the answer right. Which, frankly, is pretty close to real professional life.

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

At a senior level' date=' very few professionals are hired based on any kind of technical testing or Q&A. A discussion of the type of work they'e done (necessarily vague due to client donfidentiality reasons - litigators have an advantage here in that some of their work is public domain once a court decision is rendered) and their experience and reputation in their field tends to be the guide as far as technical expertise goes. Simple questions are not generally "job related". More complex situations that dovetail the answers to many questions (typically including some that get asked only if the professional considers them) are the more common function in practice. [/quote']

 

I beg to differ. Having hired senior level professionals myself and also attended job interviews, all of them have involved questions on "How would you address a problem like X". If you can't answer accurately, off the cuff, you won't get employed.

 

As an acountant practicing in taxation' date=' I come into considerable contact with both tax counsel and corporate counsel on a fairly routine basis, actually. If it took half an hour to get a definitive answer on "Is this salary taxable" then I would have to assume the question moved beyond a basic paycheque. Now, if the question was "is this salary taxable outside my country of residence", "is there a way to compensate for this issue which would not attract taxation" or "is this payment a taxable benefit or a non-taxable payment", those questions get much more complex. Actually, in the tax field, the ability to get a definitive answer is, in ityself, an indication that the question is a basic and simple one.[/quote']

 

Actually, I expected that it would be a fairly simple question. At the time, I had two jobs and two paychecks and the taxation question regarded taxation in my country of residence. I would not have expected it to be that hard ... but like a lot of legal people, our lawyers hate to give definitive answers, so we had to work thorough lots of what-ifs getting it.

 

To be fair, if someone calls me and asks for professional advice, even if it's a relatively simple question, I too will usually take extra time to make sure I get it right. Which often involves asking lots of extra questions to make sure that I have understood the question correctly. 9 times out of 10, I end up giving the answer that popped into my head immediately, but if you are a professional, 9 out of 10 isn't good enough

 

But it comes down to how and where we assign bonuses. If I assume the base time requirement for answering a research question is a half day, and that appropriate research materials are a basic tool of the trade, such that I would penalize you a total of, say, -2 for lacking the research materials and -3 for dropping the time to 5 minutes, but the question is one which, in the skill area, is a very basic one and I would award a +6 bonus for such a basic question, then someone with an 11- roll (basic professional) has a 74% chance (12-) of getting the right answer in that 5 minute period.

 

If you take the position that both the research materials and more than 5 minutes' time are added extras not needed to get the job done, so there are no penalties for a 5 minute off the cuff answer, but also no bonus for the fact that this is a pretty basic and routine question, then you give that same professional an 11- roll (his base roll), and a 62.5% chance to get the right answer. A pretty similar result.

 

You could do that, but adding a lot of penalties and then adding a bonus specifically for the purpose of negating those penalties seems an odd way of proceeding - not to mention the fact that your +6 bonus is well above anything suggested for a routine task and still makes answering a basic question a dodgy option in less than a minute.

 

Now' date=' I suspect our thinking is close enough that we both circumvent the "bonus/penalty" process anyway and decide that a professional like this can answer a basic question in his area of expertise with a few minutes, no research materials and no need to roll simply because he is a professional, and professionals know basic answers off the top of their heads. Grill him under a spotlight, and under extreme pressure, and then he might actually have to make the roll to get the right answer (ie not to be disoriented enough to overlook something basic, or misspeak), but under normal circumstances, answering a basic question is so far below his level of expertise that there's no need to make a roll.[/quote']

 

Yup.

 

As to what level of expertise he has' date=' I guess that depends. If I'm dealing with general counsel, or a corporate/commercial lawyer, I'd say that a tax question is probably not "routine and mundane" for him, so no +6 bonus. Maybe he gets a +3 bonus because it's a pretty easy question and, assuming he has access to appropriate research materials (which would be tax-focused - whether he has that access wold depend on the firm's resources) he could avoid a penalty to the skill roll. But he's now looking at (my model) the same -3 penalty for trying to short cut it with off the cuff advice, and lacking the use of research materials, he gets a -2 penalty, so he now has a 9- chance to get the right answer off the cuff - a 37.5% chance. Still a fairly respectable chance to get a basic answer to a question outside his area of expertise, but a significant chance of failure (which is pretty consistent with professional negligence results - people trying to rush outside their area of expertise tend to get sued). But, assuming he takes the time to consult appropriate reference sources, he can bump that back up to 11- (he may not know the answer off the cuff, but has a pretty good chance of finding it), and if he takes a half day to research it, now he has a 14-, so he's very likely to find the answer. Again, we both probably say "after half a day of research, the answer's pretty easy for this guy to find - no roll needed". Of course, he just wasted half a day on a mundane question - far more likely he would refer the questioner to someone specialized in tax law (whether a formal referral, or a quick walk down the hall to the Tax Guy in the corner).[/quote']

 

That's the weakness of your approach summed up. She could - with a high degree of certainty - have given me a correct answer in about 30 seconds - equivalent to say a 12- or 13- roll. However, in real life, "high degree of certainty" isn't good enough. You want to be right 99% of the time on mundane questions, - which means pushing that chance of success up in to the 17- or 18- range. And mundane questions should not take a half day to answer: if they do, they're by definition, not mundane. I wouldn't last long in my job, if I cold only answer 10 questions a week - typically I field more than that in an hour's meeting - where often I have to give off the cuff answers in 30 seconds. And I'm almost always right. It's flattering of you to suggest that I have 23- in my speciality area ... but I don't think I do.

 

Now' date=' that Tax Guy doesn't have PS: Lawyer, or PS: Corporate-Commercial Lawyer. He has PS: Tax Lawyer. He's back up to that 12- roll off the cuff or, again, "basic question in his area of expertise - no roll required". Looking it up would allow him to give you a much more detailed memorandum, complete with references to the legislation and quotes from key jurisprudence, but that's papering the answer, not just knowing or finding it.[/quote']

 

Yup, exactly. In a game situation, "knowing the answer" is usually what counts.

 

Of course' date=' for a typical game, splitting down areas of expertise this fine isn't worth the hassle. Maybe if we're playing Law Firm Hero, but even most legal dramas focus on one specialty (criminal law), maybe with a few sub-focuses (litigator, researcher, etc.). So we just accept that PS: Lawyer can handle pretty much any relevant in-game question of law.[/quote']

 

Agreed

 

Maybe the better question is what about that novice articling student' date=' and his 8- familiarity? Shouldn't he be able to get the answer to a basic question? Well, off the cuff, he needs his 8- roll under either of our approaches - not very likely (about 1 chance in four). But give him the research materials (+2, or 2 less penalty) and he has a 50/50 shot to find the right answer in 5 minutes. Given him that half day to research it, and he's got a 14- under my model and a 13- under yours, so it's pretty certain he'll get the answer - it just takes him longer to find it, be satisfied he does have the right answer, and paper it so that it can be reviewed by a more experienced practitioner to confirm he got the answer right. Which, frankly, is pretty close to real professional life.[/quote']

 

Yup, I'd agree. For longer times, your approach works fine. For anything which happens in stress situations, though, it doesn't work fine since characters often need to be able to perform skill-based tasks in less than a few minutes and with only their personal resources - which means to have any chance at all of success, they need phenomenal skill rolls. I'd go with your earlier suggestion and just buy combat skill levels in such a setting, because skills will be largely worthless. It also means that ordinary professionals will be unable to function except when comfortably ensconced in an office with plenty of time - and while that's the ideal, it's often not attainable. An ER paramedic, for example may only have a few minutes to make a decision, when he attends an accident and little time for consultation - and yet they usually get it right. Are they all operating with 18- skill rolls? Under my model, that's not required - under yours, it more or less would be.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

To be fair' date=' if someone calls me and asks for professional advice, even if it's a relatively simple question, I too will usually take extra time to make sure I get it right. Which often involves asking lots of extra questions to make sure that I have understood the question correctly. 9 times out of 10, I end up giving the answer that popped into my head immediately, but if you are a professional, 9 out of 10 isn't good enough[/quote']

 

9 out of 10 is about a 14-. And whether something is relatively simple is simply relative. A "relatively simple" question for a professional in a given field is rocket science to the typical questioner. I note that, while you consider your tax question fairly simple, you still felt the need to communicate with legal counsel, not read a tax guidebook from your country of residence's web site. Sometimes, it takes an experienced professional just to recognize that a seemingly simple question isn't really so simple. In a perfect simulation, you might make an unmodified skill roll after a minute of discussion to recognize that the answer is not as simple as it first appears. Make the roll, and you know you need more time to look up the issue; miss it and you miss the nuance and provide bad advice, but you do so very quickly.

 

You could do that' date=' but adding a lot of penalties and then adding a bonus specifically for the purpose of negating those penalties seems an odd way of proceeding - not to mention the fact that your +6 bonus is well above anything suggested for a routine task and still makes answering a basic question a dodgy option in less than a minute.[/quote']

 

The base time needs to start somewhere. In very few professional engagements is it reasonably assumed that a task can reasonably be accomplished in 5 minutes, unless it is a pretty routine and mundane task. Any question which can be answered in less than a minute, with confidence the answer is correct, would be a very basic and mundane question which is so simple for someone with the skills to work in that field that it should not have a failure chance. Even a 17- has about a 1/2% failure chance. I would suggest that, if 1 in 200 numbers entered into a tax return is wrong, or 1 in 200 lines of code in a software program, contain an error, the person who did the work is not very competent, so some of the issue comes down to what constitutes an actual "task" under the skill in question. That's a function of the granularity of the system - no system can accurately simulate reality and still be playable.

 

That, to me, is the reason that very basic or routine issues require no roll. Perhaps it is also a reason to increase the bonus for very routine tasks.

 

Part of the problem, of course, is that we also need to examine the task itself to assess an appropriate base time required. "Determine whether a typical salary is taxable", "Compute the taxes payable", "prepare the tax return" and "prepare your case for litigation in court" are all tasks which might be asked of a professional practicing in taxation. The base time for each would be pretty different, requiring exercise of considerable judgement. I suggest a lot of tax practitioners, at any level, can tell you whether your salary is taxable and be right under mundane circumstances. Very few will be able to compute the taxes you will owe in a minute, prepare your tax return in 5 minutes or prepare a case for litigation in an hour. Now take away their computer and see how well they do (despite the fact that we were able to work without computers 50 years ago, and perform all of these tasks).

 

That's the weakness of your approach summed up. She could - with a high degree of certainty - have given me a correct answer in about 30 seconds - equivalent to say a 12- or 13- roll. However' date=' in real life, "high degree of certainty" isn't good enough. You want to be right 99% of the time on mundane questions, - which means pushing that chance of success up in to the 17- or 18- range. And mundane questions should not take a half day to answer: if they do, they're by definition, not mundane. I wouldn't last long in my job, if I could only answer 10 questions a week - typically I field more than that in an hour's meeting - where often I have to give off the cuff answers in 30 seconds. And I'm almost always right. It's flattering of you to suggest that I have 23- in my speciality area ... but I don't think I do. [/quote']

 

But where is the actual skill utilized? I suspect she likely DID give you a correct answer in about 30 seconds. She did, however, spend considerable time gathering the information required to know, with certainty, that the answer provided was to YOUR question. Is the time required to ask the question part of the base time for the skill? Certainly, knowing the right questions to ask can shorten the process, but I still have to ask the questions, you need to answer them, and I need to assess the additional questions your answer opens up.

 

As to the question of how many questions could be answered in a week, we come to defining the task. Is the task answering one question at a meeting, or is it successfully guiding the meeting through the technical nuances of the subject to bring your portion of that meeting to a successful conclusion? Perhaps all of your technical skill is only a complementary skill roll to assist the meeting chair in successfully using his management skill to make the appropriate decision. Is there a roll for your skill every time you answer a question? Fielding, say, 10 questions in a 1 hour meeting means about 400 questions in a 40 hour work week (OK, not all week is spent answering questions, but how many of us REALLY work only 40 hours a week anyway?), 2 of those 400 rolled an 18. Do you screw up twice a week, or is it possible you don't make a roll for every question? Maybe that "working under mundane circumstances" skill roll is more like one roll for a week to determine how successful or productive that week has been and less like a roll for each minor sub-task performed during that week?

 

We could make the blacksmith roll once for a week to see how much money he makes that week, roll for each horse he shoes to see how successful he was, or roll for each nail he used in shoeing each horse. Presumably, he'd get better bonuses the more we break down the task. And the lawyer who makes one roll to research and try a case probably gets less bonuses for that one roll than if we make him roll for every step of the process (roll to see if he finds Precedent #1; roll to see if he realizes its significance; roll to see whether he realizes the result he wants is set out in the minority dissent, and not the majority ruling, so he focuses his argument around differentiating his facts from that case, rather than presenting it as a clear and binding precedent - that last drawn from an anecdote told by a judge - the judge whe decided the case first, on the same basis as the dissent at the appelate court, and got overturned).

 

Yup' date=' exactly. In a game situation, "knowing the answer" is usually what counts.[/quote']

 

And if knowing that answer is essentially a prerequisite to being a professional in the field, then the simple purchase of the skill to qualify as a professional in that field should mean you know the answer. Only things that would actually create some difficulty for a qualified professional should require a roll. And someone who is not a qualified professional probably has no hope of getting the right answer, so they either have someone with the skill, or they can't solve the issue that way.

 

Yup' date=' I'd agree. For longer times, your approach works fine. For anything which happens in stress situations, though, it doesn't work fine since characters often need to be able to perform skill-based tasks in less than a few minutes and with only their personal resources - which means to have any chance at all of success, they need phenomenal skill rolls. I'd go with your earlier suggestion and just buy combat skill levels in such a setting, because skills will be largely worthless. It also means that ordinary professionals will be unable to function except when comfortably ensconced in an office with plenty of time - and while that's the ideal, it's often not attainable. An ER paramedic, for example may only have a few minutes to make a decision, when he attends an accident and little time for consultation - and yet they usually get it right. Are they all operating with 18- skill rolls? Under my model, that's not required - under yours, it more or less would be.[/quote']

 

Again, every task is different. The paramedic doesn't get to spend a few hours researching the condition. It's pretty clear that "normal circumstances" for the paramedic skill is a much more rapid timeframe.

 

But his job is restricted to "keep the patient alive" in truly trying situations. And in some cases, the only thing that Paramedics roll is going to tell him is that the victim is not going to survive - there's simply not enough time to get him to a facility with the tools to save him - regardless of whether his roll is 13- or 23-. But maybe that 23- roll might enable him to beat the odds and keep the victim alive long enough to get him to surgeryy. But not every accident victim is injured to that extent, so the paramedic's 13- roll is normally adequate.

 

I'll suggest, however, that Paramedic isn't the best skill to test our discussion on. The Paramedic rules impose a penalty for every 2 BOD the subject is below 0, as I recall, so if the victim is a very health felllow with 15 BOD, and he's down 14, the paramedic takes a -7 penalty, and has about 12 seconds to save the victim. A 17- base roll gives him a 50/50 chance. He needs a 23- to save 49 out of 50.

 

Oddly, if the victim were just as close to death, but much less healthy (say 7 BOD), then the roll would only be penalized by 3 points, and a 13- roll would have a 50/50 chance, and a 17- would be over 90% likely to succeed. A 23-? He needs a 20- (and wll fail no more often than the guy with a 20- skill). Mind you, presumably the healthier guy has amuch more serious wound.

[Escafarc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

I also don't use Everyman skills. I start PCs out with more points(amount varies based on genre/power level) that have to be spent on skills including the "everyman" skills. I also use all the skill/talent options in the APG to encourage more skills. I then make sure that the skills are then used during adventures so the players don't feel like they wasted those points.

[torchwolf]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

Interesting discussion. I agree with much of what has been said on Skill Rolls, especially that Skills should feel warranted if the genre and players expect Skills to be meaningful (most campaigns).

 

I've used 25 points extra to buy "Everyman" Skills (possibly shifting a few points around to fit backgrounds); I expect Everyman Skills will require around 20 points minimum for most campaigns, possibly more for high-powered, Skill-intensive campaigns.

 

 

On the subject of Skill use and Skill Rolls, I'd put the Base Times for information retrieval at these levels:

Remember a fact - Full Phase;

Research a fact - 20 Minutes or more.

 

I would assume that a professional with a Skill Roll of 11- or more would often (though not always) have a reasonable idea of both his/her own level of expertise, and degree of certainty about a specific question (even if they might want to appear to be more certain than they are, or insist on deliberating even if fairly certain). This would also mean that characters with Skills at 13-14 or higher might assume they are pretty much always correct and might sometimes reply or react fairly quickly to certain questions or problems, and characters with an 8- might always feel obliged to double-check everything or doing things slower than might actually be necessary.

I also think that professional pride and job security psychology comes into the picture; if asked an easy question on the job, a character might still want to research the answer, perhaps partly to be extra certain, perhaps partly to be able to claim failure is due to unforeseen errors (research material outdated, equipment faulty, etc.).

If asked the same question by a friend at a cocktail party, the same character might give an immediate answer, possible adding that it's "off the record" or "I can look into it again at work".

 

I would also consider a "basic" question to be at +2 to +4 to the Skill Roll, but I would not assume the automatic need of reference materials.

I would usually define the information asked for as being somewhere between common knowledge (+2) or obscure knowledge (-2); some specific information might warrant negative modifiers of -3 or worse, but very few facts would rate at +3 or better. That might affect the use of any PS or KS depending on whether the Skill used was defined as very broad, very narrow, or somewhere in between (an adjustment of +2 to -2 in relation to the information sought). Predefined Skills such as Mechanics or Computer Programming are treated as average for those purposes, giving no modifier in itself, but covering most applications.

 

When it comes to a PS (or more often the corresponding KS) I would allow an immediate roll to see if the character in question could recall that information (and likely allow a second roll in case of Eidetic Memory).

Failure: indicates that the character has to look it up (or access the proper resources/equipment), which would be subject to the modifiers mentioned as well as modifiers from Time, Resources (or lack thereof), Complementary Skills, etc. Still, the character would usually have an idea of where to start looking for the information.

Failure of 4 or more (or 18 rolled): indicates that the character feels certain about an actually incorrect answer, or knows that the answer has to be looked up, but has a completely wrong idea of where to search for it.

 

Examples (situational modifiers not included, Skills selected at whimsy for possible Complementary use):

"Can I deduct this expense of my tax return?" (+2 to -2 for yes or no, depending on whether the expense and/or the tax return form is common or obscure) vs PS: Accountant (+2 for tax questions), PS: Lawyer (+0), KS: Law (+0, possibly -2 if the answer is ambiguous), PS: [most others] (-2); total of -4 to +4.

"Is it the carburator?" (+2 for yes or no) vs PS: Car Mechanic (+2), KS: Car Engines (+2), Mechanics Skill (+0), TF: Cars (-2); total of +0 to +4.

In both of those examples, most characters might attempt an answer, and most would know if they knew the answer, even if some might guess even if they had no clue, but only those with the appropriate Skills would consistently know the correct answer (yes, those examples would hardly be focus of such detail in unstressful situations).

 

No matter how modifiers are arrived at, there will always be circumstances not covered so I chiefly use this concept to aim my eyeballing.

 

Using those guidelines I would usually allow a resulting modified Roll of 13-15 to automatically succeed, but in an appropriately dramatic situation I'd keep in mind how much the character would be willing to risk giving an incorrect answer (yes, most PCs would usually risk it, so I tend to give an odds estimate and then make a secret Roll if a PC doesn't want to double-check).

This all of course depends on whether there is any dramatic sense in making a roll; even a character with a Familiarity has a better-than-average (11- to 13-) chance to succeed in a Routine task, and I take the view that a better-than-average chance at mundane tasks can be assumed to be successful under normal circumstances.

 

I prefer allowing PCs to know things automatically if they have the proper Skills, and apply a similar approach to Interaction Skills; I give PCs with good Interaction Skills (or good Rolls where appropriate) more leeway and better results for interactions and vice versa (I consider how interaction is perceived by an NPC to be more vital than how it is delivered by the player - up to a point).

 

 

OK, now I wasted more space than necessary, you all know how to impose Rolls, just wanted to add my 2 copper pieces clearly.

[dmjalund]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

My conclusion is that Tax Law should not be an everyman skill

[Markdoc]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

9 out of 10 is about a 14-. And whether something is relatively simple is simply relative. A "relatively simple" question for a professional in a given field is rocket science to the typical questioner. I note that' date=' while you consider your tax question fairly simple, you still felt the need to communicate with legal counsel, not read a tax guidebook from your country of residence's web site. [/quote']

 

In that case, it turned out that my original surmise (that I pay unemployment tax only on my primary salary) was correct. If she could work it out in 30 seconds and I (with no professional skill in the area) could work it out in a couple of hours with appropriate reference, then yeah, it seems to fit the definition of simple: remember, simple tasks give a substantial bonus.

 

But of course, being wrong on your tax forms can bring a substantial penalty: being "pretty sure" isn't good enough. Sticking with that example, I'd put our company lawyers at the 11- to 12-, range. Giving them a +3 bonus for "routine question" means that most of the time they could give you a correct answer off the cuff. But if they want to be sure that it's correct, they need to take some extra time (pusing that 14 or 15 into 18- territory)

 

The base time needs to start somewhere. In very few professional engagements is it reasonably assumed that a task can reasonably be accomplished in 5 minutes' date=' unless it is a pretty routine and mundane task. Any question which can be answered in less than a minute, with confidence the answer is correct, would be a very basic and mundane question which is so simple [b']for someone with the skills to work in that field[/b] that it should not have a failure chance. Even a 17- has about a 1/2% failure chance. I would suggest that, if 1 in 200 numbers entered into a tax return is wrong, or 1 in 200 lines of code in a software program, contain an error, the person who did the work is not very competent, so some of the issue comes down to what constitutes an actual "task" under the skill in question. That's a function of the granularity of the system - no system can accurately simulate reality and still be playable.

 

That, to me, is the reason that very basic or routine issues require no roll. Perhaps it is also a reason to increase the bonus for very routine tasks.

 

Part of the problem, of course, is that we also need to examine the task itself to assess an appropriate base time required. "Determine whether a typical salary is taxable", "Compute the taxes payable", "prepare the tax return" and "prepare your case for litigation in court" are all tasks which might be asked of a professional practicing in taxation. The base time for each would be pretty different, requiring exercise of considerable judgement. I suggest a lot of tax practitioners, at any level, can tell you whether your salary is taxable and be right under mundane circumstances. Very few will be able to compute the taxes you will owe in a minute, prepare your tax return in 5 minutes or prepare a case for litigation in an hour. Now take away their computer and see how well they do (despite the fact that we were able to work without computers 50 years ago, and perform all of these tasks).

 

Agree with most of this. My rule of thumb is that if a question can reasonably be replied to more or less immediately (for example, is a second income fully taxable? Answer: yes, but without unemployment tax - requires PS: Lawyer, tax preparer, or similar), or "How do I get to the town hall?" Answer: "Follow this road over the bridge, past Tivoli, it's on your left before the traffic light" - requires AK: Copenhagen.) then its base time is a phase, at most a turn. If it requires some kind of action "write up a report" then the base time is going to be the shortest that that action could plausibly be completed in: 1-5 hours, say. To overhaul an engine might take 1-5 days depending on degree of damage.

 

In other words, start with the base and add penalties or bonuses based on whether it's really easy or really hard. To me it makes no sense to say - let's increase the time to make things more difficult and then increase the current bonuses to make it easier again.

 

And if knowing that answer is essentially a prerequisite to being a professional in the field' date=' then the simple purchase of the skill to qualify as a professional in that field should mean you know the answer. Only things that would actually create some difficulty [i']for a qualified professional[/i] should require a roll. And someone who is not a qualified professional probably has no hope of getting the right answer, so they either have someone with the skill, or they can't solve the issue that way.

 

I've snipped out a chunk to get to this, since my conclusion is exactly the same. If we assume a base time for most simple tasks of phases to minutes, allow a big bonus for extra time - where needed, routine tasks and support facilities then most people with an 11- roll will be hitting 17- to 18- in their professional work week. The occasional mistake - and god knows they happen - is caught eventually and corrected. In other words, no roll needed.

 

However the reason I'm opposed to making base times very long and then adding in huge bonuses for routine tasks in routine settings is that most games do not take place in routine settings where time is not important. In other words, if a GM takes the approach that base times should be substantial and then give bonuses for extra time, good support and routine tasks, they are more or less implicitly stating "I don't want to see a lot of skill use in this game".

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: NO everyman skills

 

Examples (situational modifiers not included, Skills selected at whimsy for possible Complementary use):

"Can I deduct this expense of my tax return?" (+2 to -2 for yes or no, depending on whether the expense and/or the tax return form is common or obscure) vs PS: Accountant (+2 for tax questions), PS: Lawyer (+0), KS: Law (+0, possibly -2 if the answer is ambiguous), PS: [most others] (-2); total of -4 to +4.

"Is it the carburator?" (+2 for yes or no) vs PS: Car Mechanic (+2), KS: Car Engines (+2), Mechanics Skill (+0), TF: Cars (-2); total of +0 to +4.

In both of those examples, most characters might attempt an answer, and most would know if they knew the answer, even if some might guess even if they had no clue, but only those with the appropriate Skills would consistently know the correct answer (yes, those examples would hardly be focus of such detail in unstressful situations).

 

Hmmm...what about the situation where there is no "right answer". The authorities, perhaps even the courts, differ to return to the tax question. Degrees of success would vary between "I don't know the answer" to "I know there is no answer" (likely with a better knowledge of the fact patterns more or less likely to get a specific result).

 

Of course, part of the problem is that we are trying to apply the Hero System outside its own purpose. That is, we are attempting to adjudicate "mundane reality" with a system which is intended to simulate "heroic fiction/cinematic reality". Why doesn't it handle a day in a tax advisor's life very well, or very clearly? Because that's really not what it's intended to do. Still, it's servicable if you want to stretch it into that role.

 

I prefer allowing PCs to know things automatically if they have the proper Skills' date=' and apply a similar approach to Interaction Skills; I give PCs with good Interaction Skills (or good Rolls where appropriate) more leeway and better results for interactions and vice versa (I consider how interaction is perceived by an NPC to be more vital than how it is delivered by the player - up to a point).[/quote']

 

Agreed. Making rolls for every minor detail bogs down the game, makes the skills less valuable and really doesn't simulate reality all that well.

 

In that case' date=' it turned out that my original surmise (that I pay unemployment tax only on my primary salary) was correct. If she could work it out in 30 seconds and I (with no professional skill in the area) could work it out in a couple of hours with appropriate reference, then yeah, it seems to fit the definition of simple: remember, simple tasks give a substantial bonus.[/quote']

 

Absolutely, and the answer to your question may well be common knowledge, or bordering on same, especially for those who work in the area. I can tell you that a person with two jobs in Canada is subject to employment insurance premiums on both salaries, will recover any payments in excess of a defined annual maximum when filing his tax return, but both employers will pay a premium as well, and they have no ability to recover. We ARE discussing unrelated employers with whom you act at arm's length, right?

 

But of course' date=' being wrong on your tax forms can bring a substantial penalty: being "pretty sure" isn't good enough. Sticking with that example, I'd put our company lawyers at the 11- to 12-, range. Giving them a +3 bonus for "routine question" means that most of the time they could give you a correct answer off the cuff. But if they want to be [b']sure[/b] that it's correct, they need to take some extra time (pusing that 14 or 15 into 18- territory)

 

The other issue is the odd fact patttern. When you look up the provision to ensure you are correct, you might be reminded (fictional example) that people over age 65 and collecting their government-sponsored old age security/pension plan are exempt from unemployment tax. Perhaps this is very uncommon because you must cease employment to qualify for that government-sponsored program. The mundane answer is not applicable to unusual facts, and that tends to be the reason to double check. Well, that and professionals always want to paper the file - it takes 30 seconds to provide the answer, and 30+ minutes to prepare the memorandum to the file documenting the answer given so it's there in the event of a future negligence claim (and might even say "I looked up Markdoc's HR records, and he is under 65, so this exception could not apply").

 

Agree with most of this. My rule of thumb is that if a question can reasonably be replied to more or less immediately (for example' date=' is a second income fully taxable? Answer: yes, but without unemployment tax - requires PS: Lawyer, tax preparer, or similar), or "How do I get to the town hall?" Answer: "Follow this road over the bridge, past Tivoli, it's on your left before the traffic light" - requires AK: Copenhagen.) then its base time is a phase, at most a turn. If it requires some kind of action "write up a report" then the base time is going to be the shortest that that action could plausibly be completed in: 1-5 hours, say. To overhaul an engine might take 1-5 days depending on degree of damage.[/quote']

 

It seems reasonable there would be some range. Pretty much any question can be replied to more or less immediately. For example, "what happens if we mix these six chemicals in these proportions" is pretty easy to answer "They explode". Do we know that's what happens? Are we speculating? Are we wrong? How mundane is the question? I'd say both the examples you provided require nothing more than the skill - no roll, because they are (or appear to be) very basic questions. Maybe there's a trick - a special rule for those over 65, or the bridge is currently closed for major repairs - and I have to make a roll. The character does not perceive the roll - he either remembers the catch (gets the answer right) or doesn't (gets it wrong). Or maybe he says "That assumes no construction; can you wait a minute while I check with the City Website and see if there's anything odd", or "There are a few exceptions - give me half an hour to look these up and see if any apply".

 

In some cases, it should probably work backwards - you don't know how long it will take to find the answer, so you roll first. If you made it by enough to answer in a phase, or a turn, you do. Run the time chart until you succeed, or decide it's not worth looking any more.

 

In other words' date=' start with the base and add penalties or bonuses based on whether it's really easy or really hard. To me it makes no sense to say - let's increase the time to make things more difficult and then increase the current bonuses to make it easier again.[/quote']

 

If we make the base a phase, or the bare minimum time, how do we simulate that incredibly skilled character who is able to do a job that should take a week in an hour, or who rattles off the correct result off the top of his head where even top men in the field would require days of research? It all depends what we want to simulate.

 

 

 

I've snipped out a chunk to get to this, since my conclusion is exactly the same. If we assume a base time for most simple tasks of phases to minutes, allow a big bonus for extra time - where needed, routine tasks and support facilities then most people with an 11- roll will be hitting 17- to 18- in their professional work week. The occasional mistake - and god knows they happen - is caught eventually and corrected. In other words, no roll needed.

 

However the reason I'm opposed to making base times very long and then adding in huge bonuses for routine tasks in routine settings is that most games do not take place in routine settings where time is not important. In other words, if a GM takes the approach that base times should be substantial and then give bonuses for extra time, good support and routine tasks, they are more or less implicitly stating "I don't want to see a lot of skill use in this game".

 

cheers, Mark