Setting ones skill level

[theebie]

hi,

how about this:

give the player the idea to set the skill-level of a skill to a lower value, to pretend he is doing things less good than he can.

example:

skills shows: --> cooking (advanced)
player command: "set cooking apprentice"
skills shows: --> cooking (apprentice) (max advanced)

now the player executes the cooking skill with a random "apprentice" value, and burns stuff more often.

in order to prevent skillabuse, one could have it that whatever skill is lowered by this won't get experience at all.

[James de Monet]

Is this just for RP sake? So your PC can sandbag?

You could probably just emote missing, or failing or whatever, unless you were crafting and wanted the fail craft item or something.

If so, it might just be easier to go with a blanket 'fail' command.

>fail craft thingee into awesome widget
You snap a thingee, and only salvage a broken widget.

[theebie]

i didn't only think about crafting, but other things too, combat for example, where you join a new gang and pretend that you're way worse than you are, or stuff like that.

[evilcabbage]

This belongs in code discussion.

[Lizzie]

I see problems with just emoting failures on coded skills:

1. This -is- a coded skill-based game. Like it or not, most of our skills -are- coded, and -do- come with successes/failures. Pretending to succeed on something without letting the code decide, is called metagaming. The same can - and should - be said for pretending to fail.

2. There has been an influx of players lately who "play the code" and wouldn't let you get away with it anyway. Example:

emote bends the branch, trying to shape a bow, only to have it snap.
junk branch [sending splinters flying]

The code-player says, OOC,
"Hey just type craft branch and let the code decide."

You say, OOC,
"I'm trying to prove ICly that my character is failing."

The code-player says, OOC,
"But you have the skill, you can make bows!"

And then you're faced with a choice: continue down the OOC conversation road and get frustrated because you're wasting time arguing about roleplay in the middle of a scene.. or, abruptly leave the scene, or just quit out and log back in later and hope that guy isn't there.

This kind of situation doesn't only happen - it has been happening with increasing frequency. I'd rather not do anything to encourage it.

The code decides if you succeed or fail, when it comes to coded skills. Let it continue to do that. That's what it's there for.

As such, I'd be fine with the ability to set your skill level to a little lower, to increase your chance of failure - but ONLY if it doesn't boost your skill (because failure = skill boost in our skills system). So if your skill max is at advanced, and you set it to journeyman, you would immediately STOP getting skill increases until you set it back to advanced.

[Patuk]

I see problems with just emoting failures on coded skills:

1. This -is- a coded skill-based game. Like it or not, most of our skills -are- coded, and -do- come with successes/failures. Pretending to succeed on something without letting the code decide, is called metagaming. The same can - and should - be said for pretending to fail.

2. There has been an influx of players lately who "play the code" and wouldn't let you get away with it anyway. Example:

emote bends the branch, trying to shape a bow, only to have it snap.
junk branch [sending splinters flying]

The code-player says, OOC,
"Hey just type craft branch and let the code decide."

You say, OOC,
"I'm trying to prove ICly that my character is failing."

The code-player says, OOC,
"But you have the skill, you can make bows!"

And then you're faced with a choice: continue down the OOC conversation road and get frustrated because you're wasting time arguing about roleplay in the middle of a scene.. or, abruptly leave the scene, or just quit out and log back in later and hope that guy isn't there.

This kind of situation doesn't only happen - it has been happening with increasing frequency. I'd rather not do anything to encourage it.

The code decides if you succeed or fail, when it comes to coded skills. Let it continue to do that. That's what it's there for.

As such, I'd be fine with the ability to set your skill level to a little lower, to increase your chance of failure - but ONLY if it doesn't boost your skill (because failure = skill boost in our skills system). So if your skill max is at advanced, and you set it to journeyman, you would immediately STOP getting skill increases until you set it back to advanced.

Right.

Be a real shame if low levels would die because no sergeant can adjust his skill!

Oh wait. That happens.

Be a real shame if a person new in time with godly skills would stand out immediately because of their fighting prowess!

Oh hey. That does happen.

Be a real shame if I couldn't 'accidentally' miss that one important shot on my secret associate even when the templar told me to kill them!

Oh wait. I can't. Oops.



I'd continue posting examples and saying why, but really, your argument makes no sense to begin with. I like this idea regardless.

[Desertman]

I see problems with just emoting failures on coded skills:

1. This -is- a coded skill-based game. Like it or not, most of our skills -are- coded, and -do- come with successes/failures. Pretending to succeed on something without letting the code decide, is called metagaming. The same can - and should - be said for pretending to fail.

2. There has been an influx of players lately who "play the code" and wouldn't let you get away with it anyway. Example:

emote bends the branch, trying to shape a bow, only to have it snap.
junk branch [sending splinters flying]

The code-player says, OOC,
"Hey just type craft branch and let the code decide."

You say, OOC,
"I'm trying to prove ICly that my character is failing."

The code-player says, OOC,
"But you have the skill, you can make bows!"

And then you're faced with a choice: continue down the OOC conversation road and get frustrated because you're wasting time arguing about roleplay in the middle of a scene.. or, abruptly leave the scene, or just quit out and log back in later and hope that guy isn't there.

This kind of situation doesn't only happen - it has been happening with increasing frequency. I'd rather not do anything to encourage it.

The code decides if you succeed or fail, when it comes to coded skills. Let it continue to do that. That's what it's there for.

As such, I'd be fine with the ability to set your skill level to a little lower, to increase your chance of failure - but ONLY if it doesn't boost your skill (because failure = skill boost in our skills system). So if your skill max is at advanced, and you set it to journeyman, you would immediately STOP getting skill increases until you set it back to advanced.

The person OOC'ing here should be reported. Not only for being a bad player. But also for being a stupid douche.

That being said, I like the idea. There have been more than a few times I wished I could have made my character fail to fool those around me into underestimating me for RP purposes.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Yes I like it too.

>set slashing weapons journeyman

You will function at a journeyman level in this talent.

>set slashing weapons master

You will function at your maximum efficiency in this talent.

[Narf]

I've wanted this for a long time. Even started making notes on various canned responses to skills to try to spoof them... many are impossible if there's more than one person involved with the skill (combat with an observer for instance).

I think as long as you can't learn while you've got your skill set lower, there wouldn't be any downsides.

Maybe just for fun make a very difficult 'watch' check to notice someone's boffing it on purpose!

[LittleLady]

I don't think you need to code this really. I think you should be able to rp out your character failing when you're just looking for rp. You're not gaining any skill advantage for role playing it out, and the role play is supposed to be what is important in Arm, not the skills. I think it should be acceptable as long as what you are role playing is themely.

IE:
emote attempts to craft a branch into a bow and snaps the branch. - acceptable
emote farts rainbows and poops butterflies - yeah, not so much.

That being said, if someone doesn't accept you wanting to role playing something so simple, why are they on a role playing game?

[LauraMars]

LittleLady, the reason we would like this is because certain skills, like combat, can't really be "faked" or "roleplayed" to be worse than they are.

(Well, they SORT of can...you can make yourself worse at combat by carrying heavy things and using a weapon you're not familiar with.)

But this would allow people to legitimately pretend to be worse than they are and get a coded result.

The one thing I'd want is for people not to gain any skill with their almost sure failure at whatever they're trying to do.  If you're pretending to be worse than you are, you probably aren't learning anything new about the skill.

[LittleLady]

I can see this being a system that would have to be put into place for combat.
Perhaps instead of a whole new system to lower skills, you can put in a setting under nosave.

It would be something like nosave throw, and toggle you will now attempt to throw a fight/you will not attempt to throw a fight

[Jherlen]

I like this! Nice idea, theebie. RPing out a failure works in some cases, but not always - sometimes you need to make a coded roll on a skill, and when you do you don't always have a good way to make yourself fail at it if you want to. Combat and crafting are definitely good examples, but I could see shady types wanting to fool people into thinking they're a bumbling goof when they're actually the best thief this side of Tuluk.

[zealus]

I agree that this would be mostly for combat, since it really doesn't make that much sense if a sergeant fights at their best while a hopelessly bad fighter tries to hit them once.

[Riev]

I've wanted "set effort" for a long time now, where its literally just a command that sets skills at a percentage of max. Like, set effort 50 sets your skills, including offense and defense, at 50% of their current.

And yes, it'd be great for combat, especially since you COULD do the Dragonball Z style set effort 100;em STARTS GLOWING FUCKING YELLOW.

But I think it would be great to 'accidentally' fail at something you're a master at. If you're a crafting mentor, showing an apprentice how to make something, you could "purposefully" fail and show them how "most apprentices try to cut corners" or etc. I agree its not AS necessary with crafting, but it'd be a nice prop.

[Yummri]

I honestly think the toggle idea for throwing would be the best bet. I think it might save a bit of coding and I think it would make the watch command more useful to see if someone is deliberately throwing fights. Well watch and some combination of your own skill at fighting. A master swordsmen would be able to tell if other swordsmen are better then they are pretending to be.

As for crafting? You could simply not make the roll and rp it out. I personally would be fine with this. Alternatively, you could make it and rp some flaw that makes it below quality and trash it that way. Both I think are acceptable.

[Refugee]

I think it would be especially helpful for advanced combat characters trying to train new ones, to be able to codedly take it easy on them beyond just weighing yourself down and using a weak weapon.  I agree the advanced PC should not be able to learn anything at all from this.

I've watched martial arts masters with decades of experience spar with brand new students without knocking them senseless.  I watched Bill "Superfoot" Wallace "spar" with my (then) brown-belt 14yo kid in a training seminar!  (Sort of a Billy Jack moment - I'm going to put this foot up the side of your head and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.)  But it's well known that the inexperienced fighter is the most dangerous thing in the dojo, because they have no control.

Control is a facet of fighting skill and it's realistic that an advanced combat PC would be able to take it easy on another if they so desired.

[ShaLeah]

I'm all for this if it could only be used once you master a skill.

[Fujikoma]

Also, joining a clan and humiliating one of the clan leaders in the sparring ring is not the best way to make a good impression, or keep your head even. I agree, please let us lower our skills temporarily.

[Fujikoma]

I'm all for this if it could only be used once you master a skill.

This would make it very difficult for combat PCs as weapons skills, well, you know.

[ShaLeah]

I'm all for this if it could only be used once you master a skill.

This would make it very difficult for combat PCs as weapons skills, well, you know.

Welp. You can fake it with emotes and every one of us should honor that emoting system. However, I feel like no one is really a master of his/her art until they are... well... a master. So if you want to be an 80 day maxed warrior and go fake the funk in the opposing city you should be able to pretend just fine. No one else should be able to though.

[Fujikoma]

You shouldn't have to be a master to take it easy on someone, that's not realistic, though you should have to have something beyond a basic understanding.

[Jherlen]

Not sure I buy that, Shal. Why would a person who's only "advanced" or "journeyman" not be capable of to pretending to be a novice? At the core we're just talking about "not using everything you know", which you wouldn't need to be a master to do.

[HavokBlue]

Not sure I buy that, Shal. Why would a person who's only "advanced" or "journeyman" not be capable of to pretending to be a novice? At the core we're just talking about "not using everything you know", which you wouldn't need to be a master to do.

I think this is a neat idea and I agree with Jherlen. When I get paired up against newer fencers at the fencing club, I don't go at them like I'm trying to qualify for the Olympics. I move slower, I lunge slower, I refrain from using fancier tricks to score. I'm by no means an expert fencer.

[Desertman]

The idea that you could "emote" being bad or not as good at a skill and people would go along with it is absolutely sound.

IC'ly, I would trust most of the player base to roleplay right along with the happenings, but, I don't want to set me skill lower to fool them IC, I am trying to fool the player of that character on an OOC level.

You know, and I know, that even if the player of that character roleplays at the time to believe you are "not as good" as you are, that OOC'ly, they are probably going to sway their decisions in regards to your character based on the fact that they now know OOC'ly you are probably better than you are acting.

Why? Because they know OOC'ly you are acting.

Being able to lower your skill level to IC'ly and codedly (the important part) make your character look worse at something will ensure the other players you are counting on to make the right IC decisions aren't tempted to do otherwise.

If they don't have that knowledge, they don't have to make a decision to roleplay correctly, and you don't have to trust them to, because unfortunately, especially in combat situations, people are going to make the right decision based on the choice to live, instead of the right decision based on the choice to remain IC.

If they think John the Warrior is a novice fighter on an OOC level, they will roleplay John the Warrior is a novice fighter IC'ly. If they think John the Warrior is probably an advanced fighter, but they know he is pretending to be a novice fighter, well, when shit hits the fan, they are going to make decisions based on what they know OOC and not what they know IC, most of the time.

I don't much care for that fact, but, for most of the player base, it is exactly that, a fact.