Skills and Fluff in WoD

[The Sands]

@thenomain Nope. Not at all. The point of the discussion is 'are those rules?' This is why the statement 'it's semantics' can't be regarded as an answer to the problem.

You can feel free to keep talking about how people aren't 'playing by the rules' without supplying any proof that they actually are rules or refutation of the arguments made, but ultimately that's not very helpful either.

[faraday]

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

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'.

I really don't know where our wires are getting crossed.

<something> is written in the rulebook.
Player A sees <something> and says, "Wow, that's stupid. I'm gonna ignore that."
Player B sees the same thing and says, "No you can't ignore that - it's in the rules. That's cheating."

It really doesn't matter whether the <something> perceived to be broken is a mechanic (hello social conflict thread), flavor text (hello skill fluff thread), a bit of theme that someone thinks is nonsensical (hello Arx thread) or what. Different people have different tolerances for chucking bits out of the rulebook, whether you consider them "rules" or not.

[The Sands]

@faraday We're getting our wires crossed because you're operating under what I believe is a false syllogism.

Everything written in the book is a rule.
Something is written in the book.
Therefore it is a rule.

Using that logic everyone who fails to conform to their character cliches are quite literally cheating because they are not following all the flavor text.

[faraday]

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

Using that logic everyone who fails to conform to their character cliches are quite literally cheating because they are not following all the flavor text.

Uh, yeah, that's literally not at all what I said. Anyway - we obviously don't see eye to eye and I see no point in prolonging our frustration.

[The Sands]

@faraday My apologies. I didn't mean to say that is what you have said verbatim. I am saying it seems to be how you are operating and then added why I believe it is a false syllogism.

[Derp]

So, in reading this thread... I think folks are missing an important point.

Generally speaking, you make skill checks when there is a substantial risk of failure, at least in WoD, and you don't otherwise. Those are in the actual rules.

So the question about shooting someone I don't think is entirely apt, because what you are checking for is to see whether you miss. If there is no chance of missing, you generally just follow coup de grace rules and have a weapon inflict straight damage.

Same deal with drive... you don't need drive to drive a stick, you need drive to drive a stick effectively in hot pursuit, since manually shifting while trying to get the fuck away is more complicated.

If we're going to use examples, at least use examples that would actually require rolls. Yeah?

[The Sands]

@derp Really, we aren't (I hope) arguing about cases where it's a question of whether you need to roll or not. What I would like to focus on is how important is the text in the skill descriptions? When it says 'Practiced: You can drive a stick shift' under 2 dots of Drive does that have a bearing? Do you have to roll because you have a possibility of failure since you only have Drive-1 but Dexterity-5 while someone with Drive-2 and Dexterity-4 (i.e. an exact identical pool) doesn't have to? Do you have no chance to do something that a person with an identical pool (and no other modifiers such as Specialties) has?

Some people want to take the position that because 'Practiced: You can drive a stick shift' is written down that is a rule. It doesn't seem to matter that there is nothing anywhere in the system that says to treat two identical pools different depending on skill levels, not does it seem to matter that they view other things written in the book as 'not rules' (e.g. I believe they feel people do not need to play pure stereotypes based on clan descriptions).

Now I want to be clear I am not trying to put words in anyone's mouths. I am simply saying this is the impression I have. I would dearly love for someone on the 'it's a rule' side to explain where I am mistaken, but explaining doesn't mean just stating 'it's a rule' and asking 'why don't you want to follow the rules?'

[Ganymede]

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

I would dearly love for someone on the 'it's a rule' side to explain where I am mistaken, but explaining doesn't mean just stating 'it's a rule' and asking 'why don't you want to follow the rules?'

It's not a rule.

But, as Faraday pointed out, a Storyteller probably would not permit or heavily penalize an attempt by a Medicine 1 person to accomplish what a Medicine 4 people could do more easily, even if the former may have Intelligence 5 and the latter Intelligence 2. It's a judgment call, one that a Storyteller can easily justify using the skill descriptions.

The book expressly mentions that a person's expertise in a mental skill may not track precisely with the dots in a particular skill. (Chronicles of Darkness, p. 31.) But I don't think it's unfair for the Storyteller to make that call. There is a higher emphasis on knowledge, and the lack thereof, in the game, which is built into the increased penalty for an unskilled Mental skill roll. (Id.) In other words, Mental Skills are different.

[ixokai]

Frankly, all this "is it a rule?" comes off as deeply pedantic reading of text and reactions. There exists between "rules" and stuff that is just fluff, stuff that is guidance and has force of intent though is more flexible.

[faraday]

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

I would dearly love for someone on the 'it's a rule' side to explain where I am mistaken

OK, new day. Let me try one last time, a different way...

It seriously depends on your definition of "rule", which is why I'm with @ixokai in thinking that the argument is a bit of semantic pedantry. So I'm going to answer the question in a slightly different way.

I think that the Player's Guide (any rulebook, really) contains different kinds of information:

1. Vital mechanics that are at the core of the system. (e.g. mechanics for conflict resolution as stat + skill + modifiers, how chargen works, etc.)
2. Detailed statistics and descriptions that are important to gameplay but easily altered by the GM without fundamentally changing the game. (e.g. the attribute list and what it means, XP costs, weapon stats, what you can do with skills/powers, etc.)
3. Clarifying examples that are intended to be accurate but not complete/exhaustive. (e.g. sample characters, pie-in-the-sky clan descriptions, etc.)
4. Fluff text that really has no impact on the game but is fun and helps you understand the world better. (e.g. fiction)

If your question is whether the oWoD skill descriptions are category 1, then no - I don't think they are.

I place them somewhere between 2-3. I don't think they're just category 4 "fluff text" and here's why...

If Bob makes up his character assuming that Drive means "stunt driving" and I make up my character assuming that Drive means exactly what it says in the skill descriptions, then our characters are not on a level playing field. Same thing if Bob makes up his character assuming that Medicine-1 means First Aid and I make up my character assuming that Medicine-1 means "medical/nursing student". This can have impacts down the line if we try to use said skills and are told by the GM "No, you can't splint that broken bone / drive that stick-shift because you lack the requisite skill". It also effectively gives Bob more points for “useful” skills since I spent some unnecessarily to get basic driving and first aid.

I think that's a Bad Thing.

That doesn't mean that Bob is a Cheating McCheater because he "didn't follow the rules". But it does mean that skill descriptions are important and games should clarify what they intend the skills to mean if they're not going to follow the pre-written skill descriptions in the Player's Guide.

[surreality]

WoD is the example I know we're discussing here, but... damn, it's such a bad example in some ways.

This is a company that tucks additional powers (usually merits) as footnotes in sidebar fluff text on the regular.

This is a company that basically went, "Game balance? ...is that like, weighing the book on a scale? How do you do that with pixels?" years ago, and I'm not talking about 'decided to switch primarily to pdf'.

[Nemesis]

@surreality said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

WoD is the example I know we're discussing here, but... damn, it's such a bad example in some ways.

This is a company that basically went, "Game balance? ...is that like, weighing the book on a scale? How do you do that with pixels?" years ago, and I'm not talking about 'decided to switch primarily to pdf'.

I don't think that's really fair.

The oWoD (not nWoD 1.0 but the really really old thing with V:tM and WW:tA etc) started out in the late 80s, before public internet was even a thing. The V:tM core book(s) always had "sample NPCs" for werewolf/lycanthrope types and in that game system the lycanthrope always had Potence and Celerity and anything else a GM deemed fitting, if in "werewolf" form which WW:tA would call Crinos, and some other set in "wolf" form which WW:tA would call Lupus, and should be treated as a normal/average mortal during daylight. I don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure V:tM also only allowed for lycanthropes to shapeshift during the full moon, without any trace of "auspices." V:tM never allowed for lycanthropes to have a Glabro or Hispo form. WW:tA and M:tA were exactly the same - their Vampire/Werewolf/Mage samples used stats such as Rage and Gnosis or Arete and Paradox, always drawing powers from the same core book that the template/sample appeared in.

Nobody ever expected tabletop troupes to run a V:tM chronicle crossing over with a WW:tA or M:tA story (because Mage and Werewolf goals such as the use of areas suitable for a Node/Caern would pit those PCs against each other in PvP pretty constantly), so "game balance" was never relevant. The oWoD also had a Rule Zero printed in every corebook, reprinted in every Player's Guide and Storyteller's Handbook, so if you want to blame somebody for bad game balance in MU crossover environments, you have to blame the game God/Sphere staff at any individual MU.

The oWoD's definition of Rule Zero was literally the same as Faraday's last post in this thread: Everything presented in canon was intended as a rough outline for GMs to build on or expand, not as gospel.

[The Sands]

@faraday said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

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

I would dearly love for someone on the 'it's a rule' side to explain where I am mistaken

OK, new day. Let me try one last time, a different way...

It seriously depends on your definition of "rule", which is why I'm with @ixokai in thinking that the argument is a bit of semantic pedantry. So I'm going to answer the question in a slightly different way.

I think that the Player's Guide (any rulebook, really) contains different kinds of information:

1. Vital mechanics that are at the core of the system. (e.g. mechanics for conflict resolution as stat + skill + modifiers, how chargen works, etc.)
2. Detailed statistics and descriptions that are important to gameplay but easily altered by the GM without fundamentally changing the game. (e.g. the attribute list and what it means, XP costs, weapon stats, what you can do with skills/powers, etc.)
3. Clarifying examples that are intended to be accurate but not complete/exhaustive. (e.g. sample characters, pie-in-the-sky clan descriptions, etc.)
4. Fluff text that really has no impact on the game but is fun and helps you understand the world better. (e.g. fiction)

If your question is whether the oWoD skill descriptions are category 1, then no - I don't think they are.

I place them somewhere between 2-3. I don't think they're just category 4 "fluff text" and here's why...

If Bob makes up his character assuming that Drive means "stunt driving" and I make up my character assuming that Drive means exactly what it says in the skill descriptions, then our characters are not on a level playing field.

Ok. I'm going to agree with you here completely. I am not being specific enough on what I mean when I say 'skill description'. If the skill description says 'this is what you need to operate a vehicle' (and it continues to be supported throughout the text) then you're right. anyone who wants to operate a car should have to buy it.

We get into a whole messy situation, however, when we consider the rest of the text because under 'Possessed by' the list is 'Cabbies, Truckers, Race Car Drivers, Automotive Show Hosts, Rebels' and if it really means 'anyone who can operate a car' that list should probably include 'most people in a modern society'.

I would like to leave that portion behind, however, because it is really not what I'm talking about. What I'm referring to is the '1 dot, 2 dot' section. Yes. I can definitely see your point about the earlier portion and we can go back and forth and ultimately it is so badly written that probably most oWoD games should include something somewhere to clarify which of these bits of text take precedence. Is it the earlier line that makes it sound like everyone needs to take it or is it the list of examples that suggests only people who spend quite a lot of time behind the wheel who should buy it?

Same thing if Bob makes up his character assuming that Medicine-1 means First Aid and I make up my character assuming that Medicine-1 means "medical/nursing student". This can have impacts down the line if we try to use said skills and are told by the GM "No, you can't splint that broken bone / drive that stick-shift because you lack the requisite skill". It also effectively gives Bob more points for “useful” skills since I spent some unnecessarily to get basic driving and first aid.

But now doesn't that open up the counter argument that Bob was expecting '6 dice means 6 dice' and is told 'no, even though you have the same pool you can't do that'? There's nothing anywhere in the rules that suggest to Bob that he could suddenly be penalized simply because his Skill is only 1 die. Bob's expectation is that he will always be able to roll 6 dice (adjusted by situational modifiers, of course) and suddenly he's not getting to.

I think that's a Bad Thing.

That doesn't mean that Bob is a Cheating McCheater because he "didn't follow the rules". But it does mean that skill descriptions are important and games should clarify what they intend the skills to mean if they're not going to follow the pre-written skill descriptions in the Player's Guide.

And I absolutely agree. They shouldn't write things badly. However, in this instance we are focusing on a specific game where they have. All we can do now is say 'just how should we handle all these conflicting things?'

One really big danger I see is that if your argument is 'no, you have to have Medicine-3 to attempt this' then shouldn't we forbid people from buying Medicine-3 unless they have earned their Master's degree, done 4 years of med school, and 3 years of residency (the requirements to be a GP)? After all, they aren't a GP so they are purchasing a skill their character 'can't' have by the dot-definition. Doesn't that mean they are cheating? If I expected that only characters with medical degrees could purchase Medicine-3 then doesn't that give you 'an advantage over me' because I'm following a more literal interpretation?

[surreality]

@nemesis said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

@surreality said in Skills and Fluff in WoD:

WoD is the example I know we're discussing here, but... damn, it's such a bad example in some ways.

This is a company that basically went, "Game balance? ...is that like, weighing the book on a scale? How do you do that with pixels?" years ago, and I'm not talking about 'decided to switch primarily to pdf'.

I don't think that's really fair.

The oWoD (not nWoD 1.0 but the really really old thing with V:tM and WW:tA etc) started out in the late 80s, before public internet was even a thing.

VtM1 came out in 1991. I know this because I bought the first edition V:tM sourcebook the moment it hit the shelves, and I had just graduated high school at the time. I read the fucker on the plane to college (which I started that summer).

About the rest: they have said they really don't give a crap about balance -- one game line being more powerful than another, or one clan being more powerful than another. This is not random guesswork and it isn't just a factor of crossing the streams. It's really just not so much a concern to the creators; they're not even especially trying for it. It may be a consideration, but it's not a primary one.

In part, yes, because you can go back to 'if you don't like the way this balances/works/whatever else, tweak it' is rule 0 (aka 'rule "Duh!"', because no tabletop GM with any experience doesn't know this already). Also in part because it really isn't one of their primary objectives and they've said as much. If they're saying it about themselves, it's far from being an unfair analysis on the part of someone else.

[faraday]

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

Is it the earlier line that makes it sound like everyone needs to take it or is it the list of examples that suggests only people who spend quite a lot of time behind the wheel who should buy it?

Right - that's what I was getting at. Games/GMs need to decide which one to follow, and that decision may vary from one GM to another. Since it's unclear in the game text, it needs to be made clear.

But now doesn't that open up the counter argument that Bob was expecting '6 dice means 6 dice' and is told 'no, even though you have the same pool you can't do that'? There's nothing anywhere in the rules that suggest to Bob that he could suddenly be penalized simply because his Skill is only 1 die.

See... that's where I think we disagree. There's never been any statement in any rulebook ever that says "you can attempt any task in the universe with your dice". Skills have limits. That's Rule Zero, or the basic rule of common sense, or whatever you want to call it.

Where those limits lie is ultimately up to the individual GM. We can (hopefully!) all agree that it's OK for a GM to say: "No, you can't jump over that giant chasm no matter how many Athletics dice you have. You're going to fall and die." Similarly, I have no problem as a GM telling a commercial airline pilot: "No, you have no chance of successfully launching this space shuttle no matter how many Piloting dice you have." Or a GM telling a paramedic: "No, you have no chance of successfully performing brain surgery no matter what your medicine dice are."

I prefer it when a system spells out these limitations so that all players are on the same page in advance. (FS3 does, for instance.) But even if the system doesn't, I have no problem whatsoever with a GM making that limit.

One really big danger I see is that if your argument is 'no, you have to have Medicine-3 to attempt this' then shouldn't we forbid people from buying Medicine-3 unless they have earned their Master's degree, done 4 years of med school, and 3 years of residency (the requirements to be a GP)? After all, they aren't a GP so they are purchasing a skill their character 'can't' have by the dot-definition. Doesn't that mean they are cheating? If I expected that only characters with medical degrees could purchase Medicine-3 then doesn't that give you 'an advantage over me' because I'm following a more literal interpretation?

Just because you got an advantage doesn't mean you're cheating. Cheating to me implies deliberate and malicious action.

But I think app review is an important part of any game, and addresses this problem. Whether you're a tabletop GM saying: "Yo, dude, you're a 16-year-old high schooler; how the devil did you get Piloting 5?" or a MU staffer saying, "We interpret Medicine-3 to mean an actual doctor and that is inconsistent with your background; you must lower your skill." I have absolutely done that.

[Thenomain]

@surreality

Well consider the RPG field of the late 80s and early 90s. D&D and other wargame style games, where if it’s written down then it absolutely is a rule. Shadowrun was written this way too, and the Vampire came out and the book said, “Eh, just have fun with it.”

Sure, White Wolf at the time was a bunch of egotists, drug users, and hippies, but they struck a nerve and got an almost instant cult following. Beforehand, Rule Zero was not a thing.

Nowadays it is, because almost no games are written without thinking about it. There are a few games without Rule Zero, but those are games written well enough that they don’t need one, or in some cases are worse off with it.

So we have a torturous discussion based on the expectations of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

D&D still lives firmly in the former where Storytelling lies in the latter, each of the systems flirting across the shades of grey that separate them,

[surreality]

@thenomain It always was at any table I was at in high school before them, in D&D and so on.

'GM fiat' was always a thing -- maybe that was just cultural with my group, but 'if it doesn't make sense, do something else' was always common sense to the table and everyone I ever played with (even when sometimes we really wish they had some other, saner standard... alas, this even applies to crazypants GMs... ).

[faraday]

@surreality Yeah we played with 'GM Fiat' long before Storyteller - even with 1st Edition Shadowrun. I agree with @Thenomain though that AFAIK Storyteller was the first system that made it an explicit part of the "rules" to avoid people trying to rules-lawyer the GM by bludgeoning them with the force of the rulebook.

[Thenomain]

@surreality

The game never gave GM Fiat, and there were arguments over that even before the Internet. D&D was a wargame style RPG, and any board game cannot just make things up unless that’s a rule.

Rule Zero flipped the discussion.

[faraday]

@thenomain I don't think we're disagreeing with the historical timeline - we're just saying that some (many? I didn't take a poll.) gaming groups recognized the need for Rule Zero and implemented it without needing the rulebook to spell it out for them. House rules have existed as long as RPGs have.