Coronavirus gaming related thread.

[Shasarak]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is now quite well known. Another way to look at that is that the more you know about something the better you are at understanding the complexity or difficulty of a problem. The higher your Climb skill, the better you are at knowing the difficulty level of a climbing skill challenge.  Do you know any games that incorporate this idea?

Pathfinder 2e incorporates how skilled you are (Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, Legendary) into your skill roll.

[nDervish]

Matt Collville made an interesting point in one of his postings about the multiple roles that GMs take.  Sometimes an NPC can say something that they believe but is wrong but (mostly starting) players will accept it as it comes from the GMs mouth and the GM normally states truths about the world.

I've even seen experienced gamers throw this under the "GM must never lie to players" category.  It seems that the distinction between "GM lies to you and says you should spit in the king's face" and "GM truthfully tells you that an NPC said you should spit in the king's face" is too subtle for some to be comfortable with.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is now quite well known. Another way to look at that is that the more you know about something the better you are at understanding the complexity or difficulty of a problem. The higher your Climb skill, the better you are at knowing the difficulty level of a climbing skill challenge.  Do you know any games that incorporate this idea?

EABA uses a (more or less) stat-plus-skill system, with Awareness as one of the base stats and no general "perception" skill.  Instead, for perception-type rolls, you roll Awareness plus the associated skill.  The usual example in the rulebooks is Awareness plus Firearms to spot hidden weapons, on the basis that someone skilled with guns will have a better feel for what to look for, where guns could be hidden, and so on.  Although it's not specifically mentioned in any rules I've seen, rolling Awareness plus Climbing to judge the difficulty of a climb seems appropriate in that context.

[Bren]

Players have to learn when the GM is playing an unreliable narrator.

Yes. The more the GM can make it clear about whether a statement is (a) something an NPC is saying or has said that they observed or experienced, (b) something a PC is directly observing or experiencing, or (c) something about the game system itself the less confusion there will be. I expect the GM to provide completely accurate information (to the limits of their recall and ability) regarding (c), but I expect (a) and (b) to have some inaccuracies, e.g. the NPC may be lying or just wrong or the PC have a mistaken impression or be missing data (they can't see invisible so they don't see the Invisible Stalker silently lurking in the room).

Interesting examples people gave on Dunning-Kruger. I've seen systems where different skill levels provided different levels of information (even without a roll). So higher skills provide more information or more detail. Many systems abstract rolls to the point where there isn't a differentiation between reasons for failure, e.g. a failed climbing roll could be you slipped because you aren't a good enough climber or it could be you slipped because you weren't a good enough climber to pick a better route. I suppose one could introduce a two-step process where a climber makes a skill roll to assess and select a route for climbing then the degree of success (or failure) with that roll is applied as a modifier to the climbing rolls for everyone traversing that route. That would have the added advantage that it allows a good climbing leader to benefit the entire group for the group's individual climbing rolls.

[Pat]

The Dunning-Kruger effect is now quite well known. Another way to look at that is that the more you know about something the better you are at understanding the complexity or difficulty of a problem. The higher your Climb skill, the better you are at knowing the difficulty level of a climbing skill challenge.  Do you know any games that incorporate this idea?

Too well known. At least on the internet, most of the people who throw the term around seem to embody the concept.

But that's a good observation about skill and assessment. I wrestled with something similar, a while back: Skill is also associated with surety. If you're an expert, you're not just better at assessing the difficulty of a task, you're also more likely to perform at your ability. Amateurs by contrast tend to be very swingy, able to perform brilliantly one day, and then awful the next. It doesn't make sense to just shift the bell curve of a dice roll up as skill increases; the range also narrows.

But that's only one of the many problems with most skill systems. I find skills to be one of the least realistic (versimilitudistic?) aspect of most RPGs.

[nDervish]

But that's a good observation about skill and assessment. I wrestled with something similar, a while back: Skill is also associated with surety. If you're an expert, you're not just better at assessing the difficulty of a task, you're also more likely to perform at your ability. Amateurs by contrast tend to be very swingy, able to perform brilliantly one day, and then awful the next. It doesn't make sense to just shift the bell curve of a dice roll up as skill increases; the range also narrows.

Now that you say that, I have a vague memory of reading about a skill system in which increased skill was represented by rolling a smaller die size and adding a larger constant to the roll.  So, e.g., a total beginner might roll 1d20, while an expert rolls 1d10+10 and a grandmaster rolls 1d4+16.  In this completely ex recto example, they would all have the potential of rolling a 20, but it's more likely as skill increases, and the more skilled are also guaranteed not to roll extremely low results.  Alas, I don't recall the name of the system which did this, or even whether it was an actual system or just a theoretical discussion.


I'll also repeat my earlier reply's mention of EABA.  It's a d6-only system, in which skill levels go 1, 2, 1d+0, 1d+1, 1d+2, 2d+0, etc., but you only keep the best three dice for your roll, so, once your skill exceeds 4d+1, the range of likely results starts tightening up at the high end instead of going ever-upward.  (Why when it exceeds 4d+1 instead of 3d+2?  Because there's an option to forego rolling one die in exchange for making the constant addition a +2, which you pretty much always want to do.  So 4d+0 and 4d+1 would normally be rolled as 3d+2, and you would only start rolling four actual dice at 4d+2 and above.)

The system also has options which play with this mechanic to tweak the range of possible results in certain situations.  On one side, there's the "Larger Than Life" advantage (mainly intended for characters with some degree of superhuman ability) which allows you to keep the best four dice instead of the best three, thus raising the high end of your possible results, provided you have sufficient skill to get there in the first place.  On the other, skills can be bought at a discount if you declare them to be "Hobbies", but, when used in a real-world situation outside of the scope of hobby activities, you only keep two dice.  e.g., A black belt martial arts hobbyist wth a skill level of 4d+2 would always roll his full 4d+2 and would keep the best three dice in a tournament, but only keep the best two dice in a no-rules street fight.

[estar]

I've even seen experienced gamers throw this under the "GM must never lie to players" category.  It seems that the distinction between "GM lies to you and says you should spit in the king's face" and "GM truthfully tells you that an NPC said you should spit in the king's face" is too subtle for some to be comfortable with.

One of the reasons that I stress first person roleplaying is that it mitigates this noticeably. It far clearer when I am roleplaying an NPC versus making a ruling or explaining a detail in my referee voice.

[Bren]

On the other, skills can be bought at a discount if you declare them to be "Hobbies", but, when used in a real-world situation outside of the scope of hobby activities, you only keep two dice.  e.g., A black belt martial arts hobbyist wth a skill level of 4d+2 would always roll his full 4d+2 and would keep the best three dice in a tournament, but only keep the best two dice in a no-rules street fight.

That's an interesting idea. I've seen something similar done for tournament/target shooting vs. a real fight by providing a bonus to the skill or ruling that such usage is automatically successful if you have say a 60% skill (in d100 based skill systems) or using a lower difficulty level (in systems like WEG D6 with variable difficulties).

[Bren]

One of the reasons that I stress first person roleplaying is that it mitigates this noticeably. It far clearer when I am roleplaying an NPC versus making a ruling or explaining a detail in my referee voice.

Does your referee voice actually sound different?

[SHARK]

Does your referee voice actually sound different?

Greetings!

Well, yes, speaking for myself, I am quite animated when portraying an NPC, and use a variety of distinctive voices for them, male or female, as appropriate. Then, when speaking as the DM, I speak in a different tone, and manner, more in-line with my normal way of speaking. There is always a distinct difference between the way I speak as the DM, compared to when I am portraying an NPC.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Bren]

Well, yes, speaking for myself, I am quite animated when portraying an NPC, and use a variety of distinctive voices for them, male or female, as appropriate. Then, when speaking as the DM, I speak in a different tone, and manner, more in-line with my normal way of speaking. There is always a distinct difference between the way I speak as the DM, compared to when I am portraying an NPC.

That definitely helps the players keep straight who they were listening to. I find I can't do different voices/speech patterns for every NPC. There are just too many of them.