Because I've come to think we are playing two different games, out of the exact same rulebook.
In the game I play, I picked up from the start on the "don't roll skill checks unless you're being shot at, opposed or working under adverse circumstances" (my paraphrase, but true to the spirit I believe) language of the skill chapter, and realized that a broad base of trained skills that don't have to be very high will take characters pretty far outside desperate circumstances. If I ignore or minimize anything in the rulebook, it's assigning negative penalties to skill checks willy-nilly - the fact you're rolling at all is the first penalty. If players really need a bonus to a particular roll they can probably get that through a skill chain, assistance, upping the time, etc. (And for new players I'll give them suggestions of the kind of thing I'll accept for skill chains.)
I also took literally the suggested scale for skills, of skill-2 = professional, skill-3 = specialist, skill-4 = literally famous, and use that for NPCs. So if I need an NPC on the fly, a doctor probably has Medic 2 and Edu +1, a ship's captain probably has Pilot 2 and Dex +1, and so on. Supporting skills will be at +2 total, and ancillary at +1. Often I don't even break down what comes from stats and what comes from skills for many NPCs, just +3/+2/+1, and not all characters will have the +3's. It doesn't take a very high skill for player characters to hang with these guys.
In the game other people play, people notice the negative modifiers to skill checks for difficulty and assume they're supposed to use them often. And players want to be good at their chosen specialty, and assume they need a 3/4/5 in a skill to be good - higher is better, right? But skill 4 and stat 2 means you can't fail an unmodified roll, so now the GM needs to be thinking of negative mods if they weren't before, and now the whole table thinks they need a high skill just to deal with those -2 or worse mods the GM is handing out, and they congratulate themselves for their foresight in specializing. And if the GM ignores or minimizes anything out of the rulebook it's "don't roll unless..." because hell, with their skills and stats the players can probably handle it.
In my game a scattering of skills at 1 and 2 is perfectly respectable. That represents a competent character in the world, and you'll be able to do quite a lot at the table. And if you want a particular skill at 3, you can probably get there with Connections.
But people play that second game as well, and they come online talking about character creation "I want a skilled character" or "I want to play a specific concept". And those are reasonable goals in themselves, but the premise that you actually need a skill-3 or -4 to be good simply does not apply to everyone's game. So if you're frustrated that by the book character generation isn't giving you the Pilot-4, Astrogation-3, Sensors-2 character you think you should have to play a pilot, it's not a failure of the book, it's a difference in assumptions.
I almost put this in No Navy Medics?, but First and Second Edition reminded me as well. But I'm not trying to call any particular person out, it's something I've seen before this.
Am I wrong? Am I leaving something out? Am I understating the argument for the second game?
In the game I play, I picked up from the start on the "don't roll skill checks unless you're being shot at, opposed or working under adverse circumstances" (my paraphrase, but true to the spirit I believe) language of the skill chapter, and realized that a broad base of trained skills that don't have to be very high will take characters pretty far outside desperate circumstances. If I ignore or minimize anything in the rulebook, it's assigning negative penalties to skill checks willy-nilly - the fact you're rolling at all is the first penalty. If players really need a bonus to a particular roll they can probably get that through a skill chain, assistance, upping the time, etc. (And for new players I'll give them suggestions of the kind of thing I'll accept for skill chains.)
I also took literally the suggested scale for skills, of skill-2 = professional, skill-3 = specialist, skill-4 = literally famous, and use that for NPCs. So if I need an NPC on the fly, a doctor probably has Medic 2 and Edu +1, a ship's captain probably has Pilot 2 and Dex +1, and so on. Supporting skills will be at +2 total, and ancillary at +1. Often I don't even break down what comes from stats and what comes from skills for many NPCs, just +3/+2/+1, and not all characters will have the +3's. It doesn't take a very high skill for player characters to hang with these guys.
In the game other people play, people notice the negative modifiers to skill checks for difficulty and assume they're supposed to use them often. And players want to be good at their chosen specialty, and assume they need a 3/4/5 in a skill to be good - higher is better, right? But skill 4 and stat 2 means you can't fail an unmodified roll, so now the GM needs to be thinking of negative mods if they weren't before, and now the whole table thinks they need a high skill just to deal with those -2 or worse mods the GM is handing out, and they congratulate themselves for their foresight in specializing. And if the GM ignores or minimizes anything out of the rulebook it's "don't roll unless..." because hell, with their skills and stats the players can probably handle it.
In my game a scattering of skills at 1 and 2 is perfectly respectable. That represents a competent character in the world, and you'll be able to do quite a lot at the table. And if you want a particular skill at 3, you can probably get there with Connections.
But people play that second game as well, and they come online talking about character creation "I want a skilled character" or "I want to play a specific concept". And those are reasonable goals in themselves, but the premise that you actually need a skill-3 or -4 to be good simply does not apply to everyone's game. So if you're frustrated that by the book character generation isn't giving you the Pilot-4, Astrogation-3, Sensors-2 character you think you should have to play a pilot, it's not a failure of the book, it's a difference in assumptions.
I almost put this in No Navy Medics?, but First and Second Edition reminded me as well. But I'm not trying to call any particular person out, it's something I've seen before this.
Am I wrong? Am I leaving something out? Am I understating the argument for the second game?