Task Checks: recognising expertise - assuming competence

[anselyn]

I like this paragraph. Traveller has a proud history of assuming competence from its Characters. If you look back at Annic Nova (JTAS #1) or The Kinunir then there are statements along the lines of

"Any character with Medic 3+ will recognise that ..."
"Any character with Computer 2+ will be able to ..."

The examples of automatic skill use demonstrate the competence of the characters and serve to automatically move the plot along.

If you look at the very modern game system GUMSHOE, then it has returned to and amplified this idea for investigative games. For GUMSHOE game, if you get to a scene with a relevant investigative ability (a subset of all the abilities) then you'll learn the core clues from that scene. This ensures that the flow of the investigation will carry on without being stymied by a failed skill roll. This idea is aired in the sidebar "Calling for Task Checks" but I would like to see that moved earlier to be part of the main intro to Skills and Tasks. I rather fear that currently it's rather overwhelmed by the ~4 pages of throwing ( :see CT) the skill check.

 

[anselyn]

POSSIBLE INCOMPETENCE ...

The rules say:
"A Routine task is trivial for a trained professional, and relatively easy even for an amateur."

I think all the following tasks from the current draft are actually Routine and possibly Easy depending whether you think trained professionals may be on a DM of +2 or (+3 plus) is the best guess.

Riding a Horse into Battle: Difficult (10+) Animals(handling) check (1D seconds, DEX).
[When did the cavalry ever fail to charge - Light Brigade/Heavy Brigade/7th Cavalry?]

Playing a Concerto: Difficult (10+) Art (instrument)check (1D x 10 minutes, EDU).
[When did a professional concert pianist ever fail to perform?]

Negotiating a Deal: Average (8+) Broker check (1Dhours, INT).
[This defines the job of being a broker - got to be routine for a Broker]

Greeting the Emperor Properly: Difficult (10+) Diplomat check (1D minutes, SOC).
[Courtiers get this right everday. Can't be difficult for those trained to do it (might be a specialisation)]

Searching a Crime Scene For Clues: Average (8+) Investigate check (1D x 10 minutes, INT).
[This is what detectives do every day - with the Investigate skill.]

First Aid: Average (8+) Medic check (1D minutes, EDU).
The patient regains lost characteristic points equal to the Effect.

Treat Poison or Disease: Average (8+) Medic check (1D hours, EDU).

Long-term Care: Average (8+) Medic check (1D hours,EDU).

[See any first aider/doctor/hospital/nurse - it's what they do routinely everyday ]

Cooking a Fine Meal: Average (8+) Steward check (1D hours, EDU).
[Top restaurants manage this many times a night - it's routine]

So, while I can see that the rules need to show example tasks - I'd like to see much of this moved into the skill descriptions of what people can do routinely or easily.

Also, if the difficulties get moved down then the Travellers with the skills get to shine as they are skilled AND it become more feasible for the unskilled or those with Jack-of-All-Trades to succeed on their attempts.

 

[Stainless]

But pg. 56 defines what the different levels of skill correspond to. Skill level 2-3 is "a
skilled professional in that field" so the +2 to the skill check effectively means their difficulty is at least Routine.

Alternatively, the automatic success "gumshoe" concept is probably already encapsulated in the catch-all "Most actions undertaken by Travellers do not require a skill check." On page 56. This would require the GM to consider that, for example, someone with Medic 2 is at a professional level and so applying a splint to a broken bone doesn't need a roll at all. Perhaps that concept could be emphasised more in the rules; "Despite the fact that skill checks are often specified, a sufficiently skilled character may not need to make a check at all if the task is considered by the GM to be routine or easy for their level of skill."

That may want you to ask, then why have Easy or Routine difficulties? Those would be used by level 0 or 1 skill characters.

 

[paulsnow]

But pg. 56 defines what the different levels of skill correspond to. Skill level 2-3 is "a skilled professional in that field" so the +2 to the skill check effectively means their difficulty is at least Routine.

Yes - but a skilled professional rolling effectively for routine (looking for 6+ on the dice) will fail 28% of the time. I don't think that the failure rate of treatment by experienced doctors or nurses is that high. If the task is defined as Routine, then they are rolling for 4+ (again assuming skill of 2). That's still an 8% failure rate - but more reasonable.

Summary: Tasks that you'd expect a qualified professional to routinely do without a problem have Routine difficulty.

That should be self-evident, when stated like that, but the rules don't seem to reflect it.

Alternatively, the automatic success "gumshoe" concept is probably already encapsulated in the catch-all "Most actions undertaken by Travellers do not require a skill check." On page 56. This would require the GM to consider that, for example, someone with Medic 2 is at a professional level and so applying a splint to a broken bone doesn't need a roll at all. Perhaps that concept could be emphasised more in the rules; "Despite the fact that skill checks are often specified, a sufficiently skilled character may not need to make a check at all if the task is considered by the GM to be routine or easy for their level of skill."

That may want you to ask, then why have Easy or Routine difficulties? Those would be used by level 0 or 1 skill characters.

I agree on both counts. I think we both want this to be given sufficient weight and prominence so that the message gets out there.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

Failing doesn't mean that you completely fail.

A concert pianist might "fail" by hitting a wrong note that is noticed by a critic, but not by the average audience member.

A Gourmet Chef might "fail" a check and the Sauce is a bit saltier than "perfect", again noticeable by a critic, but not by the average diner.

I HAVE seen chef's fail (steak was slightly under/overcooked - ever had that happen at a restaurant???), I have seen professional musicians in concert mess up - breaka guitar string, their voice cracks during a particular run, etc. so it CAN happen.

Ask a Concert Pianist how often they notice that they make a mistake during a performance and you might be surpised by the result. THEY notice the mistake, even if you don't.

 

[anselyn]

Failing doesn't mean that you completely fail.

A concert pianist might "fail" by hitting a wrong note that is noticed by a critic, but not by the average audience member.

A Gourmet Chef might "fail" a check and the Sauce is a bit saltier than "perfect", again noticeable by a critic, but not by the average diner.

I HAVE seen chef's fail (steak was slightly under/overcooked - ever had that happen at a restaurant???), I have seen professional musicians in concert mess up - break a guitar string, their voice cracks during a particular run, etc. so it CAN happen.

Ask a Concert Pianist how often they notice that they make a mistake during a performance and you might be surprised by the result. THEY notice the mistake, even if you don't.

Very good points. So essentially these are tasks where the effect is more important than the success/fail criterion. Perhaps rewording the phrasing on the skill checks could be used to nudge people into remembering that. So rather than,

Playing a Concerto: Difficult, Art (Instrument)

To See How Well A Concerto is Played: Routine, Art(Instrument)

etc. etc.

Any wordsmith like to propose the better generic version of "To See How Well ..."

 

[Stainless]

"Efficacy of concerto playing"?

 

[CosmicGamer]

There is not a whole lot of granularity in the skill system. The suggested playing a Concerto may be a "Routine task is trivial for a trained professional". Keep in mind the "relatively easy even for an amateur" portion of the description for a routine task.

 

[-Daniel-]

There is not a whole lot of granularity in the skill system. The suggested playing a Concerto may be a "Routine task is trivial for a trained professional". Keep in mind the "relatively easy even for an amateur" portion of the description for a routine task.

For me, this has always been difficult to balance in my mind. Games have to find some kind of middle ground between real life and overly general. Some do better than others. But at some point I just elect to accept that if one of the ships crew has Art (Musical Instrument)-1 they can somehow play the concerto their player says they do. I do so in order to allow the game to move forward and for us to have adventure and fun. So I accept the sum of all skill is grouped into 4 or 5 levels and they are not always logical in their descriptions. :mrgreen:

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

An expert at music can read ancient sheet music written in obscure handwriting and spot that there is a coded message contained within the notes. An expert in language can then decipher the coded notes. No rolls are needed for the experts.

Someone with less skill will need equipment to assist with such things, if they even know what they're looking for.