Skills and Fluff in WoD

[The Sands]

@lithium said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Firearms is a bad example to use here, because not knowing to lead? That's called rolling badly because you're not using that many dice.

Except I am rolling just as many dice as someone with Dexterity-3 and Firearms-3. This is a penalty only the people with Firearms-1 are being given (and is the equivalent to the penalty being given to the person with Medicine-1). Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of such a penalty. I'm pointing out that applying o ne to the person with Medicine-1 is not in keeping with the core of the system and you would never do such a thing to a person with Firearms-1.

Situational modifiers are something that are supposed to be given by the ST not by the players, the PC's can pitch something, and the ST can go yeah ok, or nope, not gonna fly. In the same vein, if there is no ST, if a player pitches a situational modifier, other players have the ability to go: Nope, not gonna fly in this situation.
Now I also agree a specialty is a specialty and you should only get one since... it's a specialty. Once you start overlapping them you're not specializing, you're now diversifying so that defeats the point of a specialty.

True, but they are suppose to be given by the ST because of aspects of the situation (it's dark, people are shooting at you while you are trying to do surgery, you're using a gun with a misaligned sight, etc.) They aren't suppose to be applied simply to represent a character's ability to do something because there's already a mechanism that represents that; their dice pool.

But I also agree, this shouldn't be in the mildly constructive area either.

I started the thread in this forum simply because the subject was taking over another thread in the forum and people wanted to return to the original subject. I would be happy for it to be moved to a more appropriate forum though I'm not sure which one that would be.

[Thenomain]

RPG systems are imperfect at accurately representing real world situations.

I have absolutely nothing more constructive to say on this matter, because RPG systems are imperfect at accurately representing real world situations.

[The Sands]

@thenomain Absolutely, and I'm not suggesting that they aren't.

That is not the subject being discussed. The subject is 'should skill descriptions be treated as rules?'

[ThatGuyThere]

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

@thatguythere said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Edit: Over in the social skills section you mention seduction shouldn't be able to work in some situations, yet in the write up for seduction as an action in WoD 1st edition there is no mention of the a target needing to be attracted to the seducer, having a significant other is listed as a bonus for the resistance roll though doesn't negate the attempt either, wouldn't a GM deciding a seduction didn't be just as arbitrary as my medicine example?

In that context I'm talking about designing a system. I'm saying that when you write up said system you should take these things into account.

So then by that logic in a game using WoD 1.0 whether a character is attracted to the attempted seducer is irrelevant, it would just be a presence + persuasion with maybe a modifier due to the last of attraction, because that is your rules as written standard.

[The Sands]

@thatguythere said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

So then by that logic in a game using WoD 1.0 whether a character is attracted to the attempted seducer is irrelevant, it would just be a presence + persuasion with maybe a modifier due to the last of attraction, because that is your rules as written standard.

No, because the fact that Seduction is being used on the 'wrong' target is a situation. It is not tied to 'I don't like how you got 6 dice so I'm going to apply a penalty'.

[insomniac7809]

I mean, if (I probably wouldn't do this, but) if I were STing a scene, and an Int 5 Med 0 guy was trying to perform open heart surgery on another character, I'd have zero problem saying "no."

"But I have three dice!" Yeah, and no medical knowledge. You can't just crack 'em open and work it out from there.

"But would you say do the same thing with guns?" I mean, maybe? The basic use if guns is pretty straightforward, you point the bang-bangs at the bad mans and they fall over. That's the point of guns. If we're talking about Dex 5 Firearms 0 picking up a high-powered sniper rifle and trying to nail one of those "wind speed, bullet arc, angle of the earth's rotaion" shots, then yeah, I'd probably give the same "try again or find someone who knows what they're doing" answer.

[faraday]

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

The subject is 'should skill descriptions be treated as rules?'

I think a better way to frame the question is: "when mechanics and fluff text are in conflict, which do you believe?"

Because really... how do you define "rules"? Lots of stuff in the player's guide describing a given nationality/clan/world/faction/classes/weapons/etc. is "fluff text". None of it has any mechanics associated with it. That doesn't mean it's not important, it just serves a different purpose. It provides information about the game world or - in the case of the skill descriptions - indications as to the game-designer's intent.

Do you really think the authors of WoD intended the guy with Medicine 1 + Int 4 to be able to do brain surgery just because he's got 5 dice? Or the guy with Piloting 1 + Dex 4 to be able to fly a space shuttle? I really don't. As a GM I would have absolutely no problem telling those characters: "Lol, no." And I daresay my players would agree with me.

[The Sands]

@insomniac7809 said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

I mean, if (I probably wouldn't do this, but) if I were STing a scene, and an Int 5 Med 0 guy was trying to perform open heart surgery on another character, I'd have zero problem saying "no."
"But I have three dice!" Yeah, and no medical knowledge. You can't just crack 'em open and work it out from there.
"But would you say do the same thing with guns?" I mean, maybe? The basic use if guns is pretty straightforward, you point the bang-bangs at the bad mans and they fall over. That's the point of guns. If we're talking about Dex 5 Firearms 0 picking up a high-powered sniper rifle and trying to nail one of those "wind speed, bullet arc, angle of the earth's rotaion" shots, then yeah, I'd probably give the same "try again or find someone who knows what they're doing" answer.

That's a terrible example. It is already covered in the rules as written, is not ambiguous, and is not what is being talked about (that being a character with 1 point in Medicine and Intelligence-5). It looks like either you are trying to sucker me into the trap of saying they should be able to when they are expressly forbidden, meaning you don't feel you can win your argument legitimately, or you don't actually know the rules that well. (I'm not saying either of these is the case, merely that that is the appearance you are giving).

Now you could decide that as open heart surgery is pretty damn difficult everyone attempting it has a 6 die penalty, but that's a penalty that affects everyone. It doesn't just affect the person with low skill. Apparently an open heart surgeon is someone with a normal pool of about 8 or 9 dice, and that's fine, it isn't something a very large percentage of doctors can achieve. Likewise in your argument about the person attempting to pull off the 'impossible shot' you should be applying penalties that wind up exceeding the die pool available to the untrained person. The expert still has those penalties as well, however.

Which leads us back to 'Situational Penalties'. They are penalties that are based on a situation, meaning they are external to the standard (Skill + Attribute) resolution. The person using Seduction on someone completely unattracted to them (because of things such as incorrect gender) has a modifier because of circumstances external to them (that being that the other person is not attracted to their gender). A person shooting at long ranges has a modifier because the target is far away. Even something such as a surgeon being Blind is a valid situational modifier because the condition of being Blind is external to the Intelligence + Medicine pool.

[The Sands]

@faraday said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Do you really think the authors of WoD intended the guy with Medicine 1 + Int 4 to be able to do brain surgery just because he's got 5 dice? Or the guy with Piloting 1 + Dex 4 to be able to fly a space shuttle? I really don't. As a GM I would have absolutely no problem telling those characters: "Lol, no." And I daresay my players would agree with me.

What is being discussed is two characters with equivalent dice pools but one of them is not being allowed to attempt an action, not someone with a pool that is simply too low (because it is only 5 dice) who is attempting an action.

Thus this is a strawman argument unless you would let someone with Medicine-4 + Int-1 do brain surgery.

Would you?

[Jennkryst]

If we want hyper realism for surgery, you will have plenty of teamwork dice and equipment bonuses and specializations and merits. So it's more than just Int + Medicine.

So....

ETA - If we want Hollywood realism (as is my suggestion, since it makes the most sense with other rules, too) then yeah, let whoever use whatever.

Edit 2 - without going too POLITICSy, remember that Ben Carson - the man who thinks the Pyramids were grain silos - is also a world class brain surgeon who invented at least one revolutionary surgical proceedure. So massive Int is not a requirement.

[faraday]

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Thus this is a strawman argument unless you would let someone with Medicine-4 + Int-1 do brain surgery.

It's debatable whether someone with Int-1 should be allowed to have Medicine-4 (Surgery) in the first place unless there were a compelling story attached about how exactly they managed to make it through college, medical school and the exceptionally challenging specialty of neurosurgery with such a low IQ. Just as I would have a hard time buying someone with Dex-1 Piloting-5 claiming they were an elite fighter pilot. I believe that sheets and backgrounds should hold together in a logical fashion.

But assuming you let them get it then sure - they should be able to do it.

@jennkryst said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

So massive Int is not a requirement.

I think someone with average (2) could argue they just worked really hard. But 1 is pushing it for me.

Either way - a GM's job is to use the rules to enable other players to have fun and tell a good story, not to be a blind slave to said rules and allow situations that defy common sense.

[The Sands]

@jennkryst said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

If we want hyper realism for surgery, you will have plenty of teamwork dice and equipment bonuses and specializations and merits. So it's more than just Int + Medicine.
So....
ETA - If we want Hollywood realism (as is my suggestion, since it makes the most sense with other rules, too) then yeah, let whoever use whatever.
Edit 2 - without going too POLITICSy, remember that Ben Carson - the man who thinks the Pyramids were grain silos - is also a world class brain surgeon who invented at least one revolutionary surgical proceedure. So massive Int is not a requirement.

Honestly, though, the purpose of this thread isn't to talk about how difficulty it is too make a realistic system or how we would House Rule a game to prevent these examples. It is really a question of whether the rules really support a Storyteller coming in and saying 'you know, even though Alex has the same die pool as Bill I'm going to assign a penalty to Alex' (beyond the obvious rule of ST fiat).

In fact I actually should slightly reverse my position on one point. If a Storyteller wants to say 'you have to have 3 dots of Medicine to be a licensed doctor' I can actually get behind that to some degree (except see my next post) because to become a licensed doctor you have to graduate from an accredited medical school, undergo a residency, and then pass your boards. A character with Intelligence-5 and Medical-1 might have the same skills as a doctor but they have not gone through all the steps required to receive their license. That said, I still do not support the idea that the Intelligence-3 Medical-3 character is more skilled than the Intelligence-5 Medical-1 character. They have the same pool and should be capable of undertaking the same tasks.

[The Sands]

@faraday said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Just as I would have a hard time buying someone with Dex-1 Piloting-5 claiming they were an elite fighter pilot. I believe that sheets and backgrounds should hold together in a logical fashion.

This is less about what people claim (I would agree with you that during approval the ST should at least ask how this happened) and more about how the system functions.

This is about saying 'you can't do something with a 6 die pool that someone else with only a 4 die pool can do because their Skill is higher'. Not that they have a specialty that they need. Not because they have a license and you don't. Literally saying a character with a lower die pool and no other modifiers is allowed to do something a character with a higher pool cannot attempt.

Either way - a GM's job is to use the rules to enable other players to have fun and tell a good story, not to be a blind slave to said rules and allow situations that defy common sense.

Ok, but can you honestly look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me that they skill descriptors were intended to be 'rules' and not 'guidelines'? They are so hysterically badly written that it says that a General Practitioner only has to go through 6 years of school and that driving a stickshift requires the same rigor to master as a college (pre-med) degree.

[faraday]

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Ok, but can you honestly look me in the eye (metaphorically) and tell me that they skill descriptors were intended to be 'rules' and not 'guidelines'? They are so hysterically badly written that it says that a General Practitioner only has to go through 6 years of school and that driving a stickshift requires the same rigor to master as a college (pre-med) degree.

Having not picked up a WoD book in almost 20 years, I would not venture an opinion as to the current state of WoD skill descriptors. I was just musing about the general importance of fluff text in rulebooks.

That aside, lots of things in RPGs are hysterically badly written when compared to reality. That's why there's a GM involved - to interpret the rules and keep players from trying to take out a tank with a dikoted crossbow bolt (true story - just not WOD related) just because the rules say they can.

Random side note - becoming a general practitioner does typically take 7 years of medical training so it's not like they were off by a mile or anything.

[The Sands]

@faraday Seven years of medical training after two years of pre-med. It actually takes 9 years generally. Meanwhile 2 dots is 'College: Premed or paramedic' (which in this context appears to mean you've completed premed, not are currently enrolled since at least most Knowledge skills have two dots as 'College' and 3 dots as 'Masters'.

2 dots in Computes in the meantime apparently means 'You know your way around various applications and the Internet' (apparently only people who have completely Master's coursework are able to handle command prompts).

And I do apologize but in this context what's being discussed is quite definitely whether the fluff descriptors for oWoD (there are no fluff descriptors in nWoD) are 'rules' as some people want to maintain or just descriptors meant to give people some kind of idea as to what the dots represent. I know there are games where the skill descriptors are quite important. We simply aren't discussing those games.

[Thenomain]

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

@thenomain Absolutely, and I'm not suggesting that they aren't.

That is not the subject being discussed. The subject is 'should skill descriptions be treated as rules?'

What kind of rule? Game system rule? Setting rule? Metagame rule? Do you subscribe to Rule Zero?

The answer to the first two should be both yes and no, because the answer to the third should always be yes.

Unless you are Lumpley and or know how to assure that your system rules match 1:1 with your setting rules. Then there is almost no need for Rule Zero.

Games with a Rule Zero are admitting that they may not have everything perfect, so to ignore things when they don’t make sense.

Therefore, your core question is the wrong question. It’s incomplete. It is without sufficient context.

Because if that, you should really go easier with people who see a different issue or answer.

[faraday]

@the-sands said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

And I do apologize but in this context what's being discussed is quite definitely whether the fluff descriptors for oWoD (there are no fluff descriptors in nWoD) are 'rules' as some people want to maintain or just descriptors meant to give people some kind of idea as to what the dots represent. I know there are games where the skill descriptors are quite important. We simply aren't discussing those games.

Yes, I'm aware of the thread title. I'm making a point that applies to RPGs across the board, WOD included:

Flavor text is there for a reason. It provides context and details beyond the numbers. It clarifies how the designers intended the system to work. There's no inherent reason to discount a section on "here's what you can do with these skills at different levels" any more than there's reason to discount a section on "here's what these attributes cover" or "here's what these disciplines cost". They're all pieces of the game.

Whether or not they're "rules" is a matter of semantics, as @Thenomain pointed out, and ultimately irrelevant.

Because your problem isn't that it's flavor text. Your problem is that it's broken flavor text. It's flavor text that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in context with the dice mechanics, nor general common sense. Like any other broken rule, it falls to the GM (or staff, in the case of a MU) how to remedy it.

Personally I don't think skills need to be valued equally, so I have no objection to the fact that a modest skill in driving costs the same as a master's degree in theology. Maybe they did that on purpose because they figured Drive would come up more often. Maybe they always intended skills to have their own independent scales. Maybe it's just a goof. Who knows. In the end, all that matters is how an individual game chooses to set their playing field.

[surreality]

...and we loop back to that whole 'systems designed for tabletop are designed with the understanding that someone at the table will inflict common sense upon the rules as written when and however necessary, typically have a rule that insists this should occur whenever necessary, and people who don't like the interpretation or definition of common sense that table takes won't return to it' thing.

[The Sands]

@faraday said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

Whether or not they're "rules" is a matter of semantics, as @Thenomain pointed out, and ultimately irrelevant.
Because your problem isn't that it's flavor text. Your problem is that it's broken flavor text. It's flavor text that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in context with the dice mechanics, nor general common sense. Like any other broken rule, it falls to the GM (or staff, in the case of a MU) how to remedy it.

To be clear, it isn't a matter of semantics. Apparently some people quite literally want to say you can't drive a stick-shift car unless you spent two points in Drive.

And this is my problem. My problem isn't that the flavor text is broken. I'm fine with broken flavor text. I look at it and go 'huh. That's stupid' and then move on. However, apparently some people want to say 'no, you can't do that, it's cheating'.

[Thenomain]

@the-sands

Your issue is that people want to play the rules as written?

Huh. Okay.