Crafting Difficulty Descriptors

[Pariah]

Now I may just be having horrible rolls of the dice here, but I've had some things in game that describe as EASY for me, where I fail them five times in a row.

Do you think this is something I should possibly request up about and have someone peek the code, or just that I have absolute shit luck making these things?

[mansa]

If you were to have a range of "success percentage", like if you were to roll a d20 (standard d&d dice rules, 5% increments)..

What would you expect to roll in order to succeed on an 'Easy' ?

Would you say you are successful if you roll higher than a 6?   Higher than a 10?

[Pariah]

If you were to have a range of "success percentage", like if you were to roll a d20 (standard d&d dice rules, 5% increments)..

What would you expect to roll in order to succeed on an 'Easy' ?

Would you say you are successful if you roll higher than a 6?   Higher than a 10?

I dunno.  But I would assume that something easy would be weighted heavily in the success side.  Maybe 90% success?

[triste]

The moons aren't favorin' ye, lad.

[Brokkr]

If you take the relevant number of crafting "words" and divide by 100, that would be the logical thing to do.

Seeing as how "easy" isn't the easiest category...yeah, nowhere near 90%

[Pariah]

If you take the relevant number of crafting "words" and divide by 100, that would be the logical thing to do.

Seeing as how "easy" isn't the easiest category...yeah, nowhere near 90%

Ahh thanks, no idea how the skill system really works.  Thanks for the insight.

[Fernandezj]

Well, effortless is the easiest and still fails reliably with mastery in the skill and tools.
Its just never-ending frustration.

[mansa]

Well, effortless is the easiest and still fails reliably with mastery in the skill and tools.
Its just never-ending frustration.

What percentage of success do you think "effortless", with tools, should give you?
85%?  90%?  95%?
aka you FAIL if you roll a 3, 2, or 1?

[Pariah]

Well, effortless is the easiest and still fails reliably with mastery in the skill and tools.
Its just never-ending frustration.

What percentage of success do you think "effortless", with tools, should give you?
85%?  90%?  95%?
aka you FAIL if you roll a 3, 2, or 1?

I wouldn't know really, mechanics aren't really talked about much by design.  But I would say that maybe the word effortless should be removed, because if something is effortless, you would probably never fail at it.

[Fernandezj]

Well, effortless is the easiest and still fails reliably with mastery in the skill and tools.
Its just never-ending frustration.

What percentage of success do you think "effortless", with tools, should give you?
85%?  90%?  95%?
aka you FAIL if you roll a 3, 2, or 1?

Failing on effortless to me would be equivalent of rolling a natural 1 or 20.

With this being a 5% chance each, so I'd assume either 95% chance of success, or 90% chance of success.

[mansa]

Well, effortless is the easiest and still fails reliably with mastery in the skill and tools.
Its just never-ending frustration.

What percentage of success do you think "effortless", with tools, should give you?
85%?  90%?  95%?
aka you FAIL if you roll a 3, 2, or 1?

I wouldn't know really, mechanics aren't really talked about much by design.  But I would say that maybe the word effortless should be removed, because if something is effortless, you would probably never fail at it.

There's always a chance to roll a fail.  That's built into Dungeons & Dragons.

[Rashad]

There are things that will increase your chance of failure with crafting, but it won't change the difficulty that is displayed. Crafting with your weapons out is one of them - make sure you either have empty hands or are holding a tool that helps with the craft.

[hyzhenhok]

There's always a chance to roll a fail.  That's built into Dungeons & Dragons.

No. Dungeons & Dragons has the concept of "taking 10." There are some things that you should literally never fail unless there's some kind of external time pressure or threat.

Also I don't think other skill systems in Arm have the same "there's always a chance to fail" thing going. The game would be radically different if skills like ride or climb or direction sense had a base 5% chance to fail that could never be removed.

[SpyGuy]

Easier crafting recipes often (not always) have conditions where instead of making two of something you just end up with one on a fail.  Or they return some of the inputs and in at least one case I know of you don't lose the inputs at all.

I sometimes roleplay failure in a craft as failure in the materials not necessarily the crafter.  That piece of wood had a knot in it.  The fabric was found to be damaged on inspection.  That got too hide was just too damaged from old scars or hunters beating on it. Etc etc.  Zalanthan materials are not factory made uniform items. 

Zalanthan processes for crafting are also very primitive.  Even the GMH are still using processes that are unlikely to succeed every time.

I say this as someone who has a love/hate relationship with the crafting system.  Even modern factories don't have a 0% defect rate.  Having some failure built into crafting is believable and doesn't affect playability (though it can be annoying).

If I were to offer a fix it would be to change 'effortless' to 'easy' and add another descriptor somewhere else.   Because 'effortless' sounds like it should almost never fail when in reality it might fail 10% of the time.

[Hauwke]

There's always a chance to roll a fail.  That's built into Dungeons & Dragons.

No. Dungeons & Dragons has the concept of "taking 10." There are some things that you should literally never fail unless there's some kind of external time pressure or threat.

Also I don't think other skill systems in Arm have the same "there's always a chance to fail" thing going. The game would be radically different if skills like ride or climb or direction sense had a base 5% chance to fail that could never be removed.

Pointing out that climb does, it's a crit fail that causes you to fall on your head.

[hyzhenhok]

There's always a chance to roll a fail.  That's built into Dungeons & Dragons.

No. Dungeons & Dragons has the concept of "taking 10." There are some things that you should literally never fail unless there's some kind of external time pressure or threat.

Also I don't think other skill systems in Arm have the same "there's always a chance to fail" thing going. The game would be radically different if skills like ride or climb or direction sense had a base 5% chance to fail that could never be removed.

Pointing out that climb does, it's a crit fail that causes you to fall on your head.

Either I have been extremely lucky on multiple characters with master climb to have never failed routine easy climb checks, or it is simply not true that there is always a chance to fall. For some of the more difficult checks sure, but not the easy stuff.

[Hauwke]

The chance is really quite low, but it causes you to take a lot of stun damage and usually cause you to fall unconcious. Coupled with falling from a great height its a death sentance.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Once in a blue moon, there's these moments in life where we just ... fuck up. Drop our drink. Lose our keys. Think we're on the bottom step instead of the next-to-bottom step. Go forward instead of reverse while backing out of a parking spot.

Sometimes, we just roll a natural 1 in life.

Should we in the game? I don't know. It doesn't bother me, but I do understand it's just a game. The point is, sometimes effortless doesn't mean we can't fail.

[Riev]

The chance is really quite low, but it causes you to take a lot of stun damage and usually cause you to fall unconcious. Coupled with falling from a great height its a death sentance.

I think this situation occurs when your Climb Check is SO FAR BELOW what is needed to succeed, that you get a "critical fail". Its not so much that you rolled a 1, its that 1 + shittyClimbSkill is more than 10 points away from the check you needed.

As you get up into master, even rolling a one lets you succeed the check, so its not seen.

[hyzhenhok]

Once in a blue moon, there's these moments in life where we just ... fuck up. Drop our drink. Lose our keys. Think we're on the bottom step instead of the next-to-bottom step. Go forward instead of reverse while backing out of a parking spot.

Sometimes, we just roll a natural 1 in life.

Should we in the game? I don't know. It doesn't bother me, but I do understand it's just a game. The point is, sometimes effortless doesn't mean we can't fail.

It's OK if there's always a chance to fail, but the odds need to be calibrated correctly. Sure, yeah, there's always a chance you'll trip and fall when you try to go down a staircase.  But how many trips down a staircase by a healthy, fit, alert person result in a tumble down out of all trips taken? 1 in 1000? 10,000? 100,000? At some point the chance of failure is so low that it's not worth simulating, hence taking 10 in DnD (or the DM just doesn't ask for a skill check!).

Consider frying an egg. How many eggs out of each dozen that you buy do you lose to "failure" trying to fry them? If you've learned how to scramble eggs (apprentice cooking?), how often do you burn them? 1 in 20 times? 1 in 50? Ever? "Effortless" difficulty is like an experienced cook making scrambled eggs. "There's always a chance to fail" is not a good reason for high failure rates in effortless crafts.

Part of the issue is crafting is binary -- either you succeed and get the item, or fail and destroy one or more of the ingredients.  Realistically, there should be partial failures and partial successes where you still get the item and it's just imperfect. Maybe the ongoing crafting revamp will address this, but just adjusting failure odds across the board by making skill level have a greater effect at reducing the odds (including to almost 0 in the correct circumstances) seems like the easier fix.

[Pariah]

I think the issue with adding partial failure and successes or subpar options is that it increases the crafting database of shit you have to actually code into being an item.

Then compound that by say it's a weapon and the successful weapon is is a plus two slashing damage weapon, then the imperfect one is a zero add or subtract weapon.  So now you're having to design a good, a halfway good and a failure process into crafting.  Which would at the minimum double the amount of craftables due to how it works now, success with an item spawned or failure without.

I do wish there was less failures that use the whole item.  Like failures to carve a pole doesn't lose the whole pole for one failure.

But I think the main problem would be the manpower, builder/staff level to make the new shit to institute a partial success system.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Weeellll ...

... in theory no new items are needed. Flags could be applied to the item. Those flags could be like, used, destroyed, xcetera. And then the code could check for those flags, and adjust the craft according to it. Now to be fair, crafting would have to be rewritten to check for flags on the items that are being used to create a new item, and then use logic to decide how those affect the new item.

Now I say all of this as though it's nothing, but it would definitely be easier in overall time to rewrite crafting, then to build all of the new items required and keep track of them all. The problem is that we have far more Builders than we do coders, and it would be a taxing proposition for either group.

If we were focused heavily on bringing in new players and building the population of the game player base I would absolutely advocate for rewriting the crafting system. Since I don't think we're heavily invested in increasing the playerbase, the crafting system we have now is good enough.

[X-D]

I am with the ones who think, at the very least the term "effortless" should be changed. Taking the eggs example, I first learned to cook scrambled eggs when I was 4 years old, By the time I was 5 I no longer failed in that, I am 52 now.....I have 6 children, I assure you, I have made more then 10k batches of scrambled eggs since age 5 without a single fail, And I do not think I will in the next forty years either.

Now, that is at the very least.

I am actually for NO FAIL on Novice crafts and the like if you have advanced or master. Let us take another example. Paper planes. Once you learned how to make one, How many times have you failed to do so? Even more, How many times did you not only fail, but ripped the paper to shreds in the attempt? Never...Yeah, Never, Nobody over the age of 5 who knows how to make a paper plane has ever ripped the paper to shreds in the attempt. Not in all of human history and I am sure that is BILLIONS of paper planes.

[Brokkr]

Take away the frying pan.  And the heat source in an area specifically designed for cooking.

If you want to make the really easy recipes (scrambled eggs) into things that fail much less or not at all, it may be that you need the right tool and the right area (for room bonus).  Depending on the recipe and your skill it may be possible to get there.

On the other hand, if you want to fail more often in RL, take away those things that enable you to do it consistently?  I can say from personal experience that cooking eggs on the top of a branding iron pit is surprisingly difficult (at least if you correctly like your yolks runny.

[X-D]

That is totally silly Brokkr.

I mean really DUMB.


Hey, I have eggs...and a fire, but I have no grease or a pan or anything to scramble the eggs with...Oh hey, I will just dump them on this rock and hope.

Come on now man. Give the players and the PCs a bit of respect, Hell, we cannot start a PC at age 2. Stop treating them as if they were.

You already have code where if you do not have this certain tool you totally cannot attempt the craft. What is so bad about saying Oh hey, you have these tools and it is a novice craft and you have master skill...you can ALWAYS make scrambled eggs?

If you are worried about somebody breaking the game with novice crafts make sure those crafts have very little value...Oh wait...they already do. And with shopkeepers only taking 5 of anything AND not going to zero on a reboot...this would not be anything game breaking and already handled by current code.

If you don't have a pan....No really man...Easily the dumbest thing I have ever seen a staffer post...and in the last 29 years...I have seen some dumb shit.

As it sits, you ALWAYS have a chance to fail ANY and all skills no matter if you have 100% on all stats and 100% on all skills and all the right tools and in the right room. And since that is impossible unless maybe you are an imm then you ALWAYS have a chance to fail, Shit, if there was the skill to fall down you could manage to fail that somehow.


What I am saying is, If you have the descriptor "effortless" Then it indeed should be, If the craft does not REQUIRE a tool, and is EFFORTLESS then it should be 100%. YOU, STAFF, have the ability to require tool, room etc. Hey, that skill says requires fire then Hey, you cannot make it without a fire and there is nothing stopping you from requiring the frying pan too.
BUT, if you do and it says effortless then it should be 100%.

[Riev]

I'm with X-D on this one, considering the code does allow for this kind of thing. AND recipes are now stored properly in the database.

I'm not calling for a "massive rework of all recipes", but in fact you CAN require more than 1 tool in a recipe, and even require a quality level TO that tool. You don't want people using "a bone grill" to cook eggs? Bone grills are now terrible quality, and pans are Decent quality, and you require a decent quality cooking to make eggs.

Effortless crafts having the failure rate they do feels atrocious. Why should I, someone with a mastered level of skill, and the tools of the craft, fail upwards of 1/5 effortless crafts? At least a descriptor of "easy" suggests that mistakes could be made, but "effortless" sounds like... well. There's no effort involved in creating this thing.

Its kind of ridiculous to say "YeAh BuT TaKe AwAy ThE PaN", and I don't think its an argument that someone who respects the playerbase would come up with.

[Narf]

Effortless crafts having the failure rate they do feels atrocious. Why should I, someone with a mastered level of skill, and the tools of the craft, fail upwards of 1/5 effortless crafts? At least a descriptor of "easy" suggests that mistakes could be made, but "effortless" sounds like... well. There's no effort involved in creating this thing.

Its kind of ridiculous to say "YeAh BuT TaKe AwAy ThE PaN", and I don't think its an argument that someone who respects the playerbase would come up with.

Currently, if a craft is effortless without a tool and you use a tool the craft can raise to 100%.

[Riev]

Effortless crafts having the failure rate they do feels atrocious. Why should I, someone with a mastered level of skill, and the tools of the craft, fail upwards of 1/5 effortless crafts? At least a descriptor of "easy" suggests that mistakes could be made, but "effortless" sounds like... well. There's no effort involved in creating this thing.

Its kind of ridiculous to say "YeAh BuT TaKe AwAy ThE PaN", and I don't think its an argument that someone who respects the playerbase would come up with.

Currently, if a craft is effortless without a tool and you use a tool the craft can raise to 100%.

Staff informed me the other day that "effortless" has a specific fail rate that I am not sharing here, because its not in a helpfile.

The craft "can" raise to 100%? That seems pretty ambiguous and anecdotal. Maybe it can. Maybe the tools that exist currently just aren't good enough. Or maybe... just maybe... if you're using a tool and the craft is 'effortless' it shouldn't have a failure rate in the double digits.

[Narf]

Effortless crafts having the failure rate they do feels atrocious. Why should I, someone with a mastered level of skill, and the tools of the craft, fail upwards of 1/5 effortless crafts? At least a descriptor of "easy" suggests that mistakes could be made, but "effortless" sounds like... well. There's no effort involved in creating this thing.

Its kind of ridiculous to say "YeAh BuT TaKe AwAy ThE PaN", and I don't think its an argument that someone who respects the playerbase would come up with.

Currently, if a craft is effortless without a tool and you use a tool the craft can raise to 100%.

Staff informed me the other day that "effortless" has a specific fail rate that I am not sharing here, because its not in a helpfile.

The craft "can" raise to 100%? That seems pretty ambiguous and anecdotal. Maybe it can. Maybe the tools that exist currently just aren't good enough. Or maybe... just maybe... if you're using a tool and the craft is 'effortless' it shouldn't have a failure rate in the double digits.

It stops being anecdotal after a certain sample size.

Currently my successes with an effortless craft, that then had a tool added on top of it number in the several hundreds consecutively.

I'm not claiming this is true for all effortless/tool combinations. Just that it can be true.

[Riev]

It can also be true that you're lying, on the internet, to protect your own interests. Is it? Probably not. But it CAN be!

Regardless, unless the staffer that sent me information is intentionally lying (which CAN be true!), Effortless Crafts have a significant failure rate. I failed 3 effortless crafts, with a tool in hand, in a row. Random numbers being random numbers... why am I failing an effortless craft with a tool?

And, again, Narf... it CAN happen. So why doesn't it happen on a more normative basis? You're arguing that nothing should change, because sometimes its okay. My position is that sometimes should be a little more often.

[Delirium]

Effortless, just like easy, is a range. You were likely at the top of the range while Narf was at the bottom.

Please refrain from insinuating other people are lying just to win Internet Points.

[Narf]

And, again, Narf... it CAN happen. So why doesn't it happen on a more normative basis? You're arguing that nothing should change, because sometimes its okay. My position is that sometimes should be a little more often.

I didn't argue anything. XD and you implied that effortless crafts have a high chance of failure even with a tool in hand.

I know for a fact that that's not always true, and wanted to correct the impression that it was universal. You can have effortless tasks that, with a tool in hand, have 100% chance of success.

I'd have no problem if they narrowed the "effortless" moniker to a smaller range or took a look at some of the basic crafts to make sure they had a more realistic failure rate. But if you want to argue that, you have to start from a solid understanding of what's already true in the game.

[X-D]

Well, High chance...I never made that claim. My thing is ANY chance.

Also, as to tools, If I have no tool on lets say, fletchery, and I type craft bone, It does not give me effortless return on arrow shaft. So, I expect a chance to fail. But with a tool it says effortless, I do not expect to fail, At all, That is the meaning of the word.

effortless
[ˈefərtləs]
ADJECTIVE

    requiring no physical or mental exertion.

IE, one could succeed in this while asleep.


It is anecdotal if no other player has been able to repeat it, the term anecdotal does not mean from a sample size.....it means in your experience. Eeesh.

[Riev]

Just because someone's experiences are different, doesn't necessarily mean there is no issue.

X-D is arguing it better than I can. EFFORTLESS crafts, tool or not, should not be failing. Certainly not at the rate Staff told me that it does.

I don't care about Easy.
I don't care about your Sample Size.
I don't care that its a range, or a spectrum.

My position is effortless shouldn't be returning failures at the rate that it does. Change the word from effortless to something else, for all I care. Change the fail rate, change the terminology. It makes no difference.

[X-D]

All I am saying as well.

The Word is the issue not the fails.

Change effortless to Nearly effortless...problem solved.

Or make it truly effortless...problem solved.

[Krath]

Effortless, just like easy, is a range. You were likely at the top of the range while Narf was at the bottom.

Please refrain from insinuating other people are lying just to win Internet Points.

How is there a range for something that requires ZERO effort to do. This seems be in complete contrast to the word Effortless.

[Delirium]

The same way there is a range for novice, apprentice, journeyman, advanced, and master.

We don't see exact skill levels, we only see descriptive approximations.

[Krath]

I guess I am in the same boat as X-D..Change the wording from effortless. There should be no range for effortless based on definition alone.

[Brokkr]

So you want a 7th category added, one that is equivalent the the 'impossible' category that currently exists, only for a situation where you cannot fail?  And you'd like it to use 'effortless' descriptor,  because you've drawn conclusions about how it 'should' work, despite IG observations? I don't know the reasoning behind it not being that way currently, if I had to guess it was either an oversight or not wanting folks to know when something it no-fail.  I'd have to do a bit of exploration to see if this would work as I think you'd intend, due to room bonuses and when the are and are not applied.

There are most certainly some skills that hit no-fail levels.  I believe crafting is one of them, but is recipe and bonus dependent, I'd have to relook when it is truly no-fail or just really small.

I thought the eggs analogy was good, given the amount of crafting done out on the dunes, instead of a room specific to that craft (like a kitchen for cooking) with things at hand for cooking.  So like it's as if the system was designed to levels that are 'roughing it', and then you add bonuses to get to normalized levels, rather than vice versa, as a design decision.  For nearly everything, it isn't possible to get to no-fail without those bonuses.

[ArmaJunkie]

I always took the 'effortless' descriptor as meaning I didn't really have to think much about doing it, cuz I've done it so many times. Like, teaching myself to smith knives in my garage. At first, it was really hard, but now I can just grab a piece of metal and get to work, and while I'm pounding away at it, I can think about what I'm going to eat for dinner. But ... that doesn't mean something bad can't happen. Materials are never perfect, even tools can mess things up, I can completely miss a strike and hit the wrong spot. I don't know. In my head, no matter how good you are at something, there should be a chance to fail

And forgive us old Gary Gygax enthusiasts, but that thing about taking ten was never in real D&D (LOL sorry anything past 2nd edition was pfft) . One was always a failure, balanced by twenty always being a success.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Eh, fuck that old school D&D. 3.5 introduced me. 5e made me.

I don't have a problem with effortless being the best descriptor, but I completely understand what they are saying when effortless still gets you a fail per 3-5 tries. That's baffling.

[X-D]

I am moderating my own post as I did something I accused Brokkr of. And did not read his entire post.


Sorry.

Brokkr, Take a look, nobody is asking for more then it to make sense. No extra levels, Just, hey, You will not drop it in the dust or You might...that is it.

Simple, Is it effortless or is it ALMOST effortless?

Huh.....come on....

[X-D]

Armajunkie.

The problem is, Nobody is saying anything about something on the level of smithing knives. Now, I have been smithing for oh, around forty years, The two first things I learned was leaf hooks and nails, Now I assume the same for you. I do not know how much experience you have but Let us look at nails, This is an item that needs no grinding, no heat treat. And even if you were to fuck it up somehow, it almost always can be recovered. This level of craft is ALL this thread is about when you are a master of said craft, IE, I can make a Sword 99% of the time, nails are so easy I could make them WHILE forging a sword.

(self moderated)

[ArmaJunkie]

I once had a PC that had Advanced in a crafting skill, I think.... and I failed something like twelve times in a row. So, I totally get what you all are saying about that, and would have to agree, shouldn't fail that often even at that level.

Maybe I don't get exactly what is being asked for, because it sounds like some are saying that if the descriptor was changed from effortless to 'very easy' or something, all good. I thought you all were saying there should be a 0% chance of failure when you reach that level.

Also should consider the other end of the spectrum I think. We can be in the middle of nowhere, with only moonlight, and no tools, and still have success with a lot of crafts. Even weapons that I would consider master quality can be done like this.

So, are we talking about changing the percentage chance of failure to 0 for some things? Or just asking for a better descriptor?

[mansa]

If I had my way, I'd make these suggestions:

The "Difficulty" displayed after you use the craft command is based on the expected success rate, rather than the current skill percentage.

I'd put it in terms of 15% brackets.

effortless -> 90% success rate or more
easy -> 75%
manageable -> 60%
mediocre ->  45%
difficult -> 30%
impossible -> 15% or less




Ultimately, the tricky thing I think would be to change the skill percentage/success rate change, but if that's not possible, changing the brackets of the success rate would be better:
effortless -> 100% skill percentage or more.
easy -> 75%
manageable -> 50%
difficult -> 25%
impossible -> 0% or less

So you want a 7th category added, one that is equivalent the the 'impossible' category that currently exists, only for a situation where you cannot fail?  And you'd like it to use 'effortless' descriptor,  because you've drawn conclusions about how it 'should' work, despite IG observations?...

Exactly!  Well, maybe not "unable to fail", but just something where your skills/bonuses are over 95%~100%.

[Incognito]

While we are on the subject, let me also add in here that it is a definite discouragement, monetarily and otherwise, when an effortless craft fails and you end up losing expensive ingredients.

Yes, we are all aware that crafting fails destroy ingredients based on the craft recipe database.
We are also aware that crafting in certain areas might be beneficial and other areas might be detrimental.
Crafting success can be augmented with the use of tools, and better quality of tools.

Still doesn't explain an effortless craft eating up a costly or hard-to-find ingredient.

I'd even go so far as to say that even if an "easy" craft fails, lets say 4 times in a row, that's cause for concern. Of course it's dependent on random number-generation, but still, that's not how it works in RL.

A possible solution could be to modify the crafting code, to take into account the ease of crafting level, and then apply it to the recipe database craft fail effect.

For example :
Effortless - chance of failure < 5% - chance of losing ingredients on failure per recipe 0%
Easy - chance of failure > 25% -  chance of losing ingredients on failure per recipe 20%
Manageable - chance of failure > 40% -  chance of losing ingredients on failure per recipe 50% 
Difficult - chance of failure > 70% -  chance of losing ingredients on failure per recipe 70%
Impossible - chance of failure > 90% -  chance of losing ingredients on failure per recipe 100%

Currently, no matter what difficulty level a craft is, if you fail, you lose your ingredients 100% of the time, based on what is specified in the recipe.

In short - apply a percentage to losing the ingredients (after skill failure), instead of having it set to directly applying the loss of ingredients on failure.

Yes, you will fail from time to time, because sometimes you get a bad roll, but because you're an expert at something, atleast you won't end up losing your ingredients every single time you get a bad roll and fail the craft.

This would be a good balance to the crafting system IMO.

[Narf]

I'm a bit worried about some of these suggestions. In a vacuum it sounds great to create a level of craft that has no realistic failure level, or by reducing waste of easy crafts. The problem comes in that there's an equally unrealistic aspect of play that makes things too easy on crafters; that is the time required to craft something. A person can put together complicated furniture, or cook a banquet in a matter of a couple minutes. This was a sacrifice that was made for playability, and as a game decision it makes sense, but one of the things that balances the very rapid turnaround time for crafts is the unrealistic chance of failure or material waste.

If we do something that makes crafting easier, there needs to be something to counteract the 'playability adjustment' to the time scale that crafters can create things that would (and does) allow crafters to just churn out ridiculous amounts of items in a given game day.

Maybe change up 'effortless' items to be certain success, and not waste components, but have some sort of 'quit timer' like clock on creating crafts that prevents a character that has recently completed a craft from starting a new one until a certain amount of time has passed. The quit timer's length might be based on the size or complexity of the item, so a character could make things like arrows without any delay beyond the crafting delay, but if they tried to make a table (or a tent) they might be stuck not crafting anything else that particular game day.

Personally, I'm fine with making things easier that realistically should be easier, but I think that needs to be coordinated with an effort to make things realistically more difficult that should be more difficult assuming it can be done without sacrificing playability.

[creeper386]

In reply to Narf, I'd much rather big complicated crafts be broken down to involve multiple steps then anything else. I'd rather have more crafts broken down into steps that just make more since then just combining some random raw ingredients into this complicated item. Might make crafting more intuitive in my mind as well.

I'm definitely against making it so crafts couldn't craft all day after a craft happens, but I do agree with the sentiment.

Sitting at the bar, "Oh yeah, I can't make you any arrows. I'm working on a table today."

[Pariah]

In reply to Narf, I'd much rather big complicated crafts be broken down to involve multiple steps then anything else. I'd rather have more crafts broken down into steps that just make more since then just combining some random raw ingredients into this complicated item. Might make crafting more intuitive in my mind as well.

I'm definitely against making it so crafts couldn't craft all day after a craft happens, but I do agree with the sentiment.

Sitting at the bar, "Oh yeah, I can't make you any arrows. I'm working on a table today."

100%.

This is why I hated SOI crafting.  It was super cool the way it did it in steps and such and could be fleshed out, but the ooc timers on it were insane.

I made a bow an hours ago, I can't make anything else yet.

[X-D]

SOI crafting...Oh my.....that made me develop Tourette syndrome.

Leather bag, two tanned hides. Cool, Got two hides....Go find tanning room with all the right stuff, have the right tools begin tanning hides, 20 minutes later, one destroyed, other on tanning rack to dry, tan another, put it on rack and LOG THE FUCK out because it will be a Real life 30 hours till they are leather.

Log back in 2 days later, get my leather, Go to ANOTHER room because Although I have all the tools and other parts needed to stitch this bag, For some reason I also need a leather crafting table.

And that is a NOVICE craft...Pretty sure my last SOI pc logged out for the last time in a leather craft room in isengard.


Am I ranting...Maybe.


Still, I am only looking at this because I think if it says effortless it should be. At the very least a fail should not cost you the material. You know it is harder to rip some cloth to shreds then it is to cut it into strips right?

[ShaiHulud]

If it doesn't make sense, make it make sense.
Krath damned hunter brought me a beat up shell!
Distracted, wondering who that new blonde is passing through the room
The moons, sun, you've got hemorrhoids.
Why won't they stop talking! Can't they see I'm busy with something important!

Maybe the fails are there for you to be creative about your failures.

[Riev]

Maybe the fails are there for you to be creative about your failures.

Failing an "effortless" craft 4 times in a row... I can emote all I want about how I'm concentrating or how I'm in a room all by myself, it won't have any effect.

Why should I emote the failure 4 times in a row? Why not just change "effortless" to "simple". I can fail a simple craft. I can not understand how I'm failing effortless crafts.

[LindseyBalboa]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstances at the time.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

[LindseyBalboa]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstance.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

[Fernandezj]

Everyone is just playing the semantics game to justify unclear descriptors.
This is peak GDB and why its so hard to have a discussion about anything.

[Fernandezj]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstance.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

If you are a master woodworker you should not be so easily distracted that youre tripping and falling in the shower with regularity while trying to make a simple wooden chess piece. You are arguing totally different things that don't make sense in the context of a crafting discussion.

I shouldn't fail to make a stone round, as a master stonecarver with decent tools, four times in a row. Arguing "it gives you chances to roleplay your failures" is a cop out for a poor description of the skill level. I would rather they be more realistic/accurate descriptions (even if it means there are more of them, or even if it means I'm not truly a master), then having to be surprised why I can't do a simple rote task.

I would much rather things say something like Talented or Expert than "Master", or Easy and Simple instead of "Effortless". They set different expectations.

Like in all likelihood, with numeric based code systems, master is just like 80 or 90 in a skill that goes to 100, and similarly with the effortless skill level. So more like a 10% chance of error. But who knows.

[betweenford]

If you are at the point where you're literally maxed out on a crafting skill (beyond being at base level master), I highly recommend wielding two (sensible) tools for your craft. Even average tools help a ton to the point where it becomes ridiculously unlikely for your master level character to fail, barring certain circumstances. But yeah.... that 10-20% chance of failure at master can be...................... fun, without tools.

[LindseyBalboa]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstance.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

If you are a master woodworker you should not be so easily distracted that youre tripping and falling in the shower with regularity while trying to make a simple wooden chess piece. You are arguing totally different things that don't make sense in the context of a crafting discussion.

I shouldn't fail to make a stone round, as a master stonecarver with decent tools, four times in a row. Arguing "it gives you chances to roleplay your failures" is a cop out for a poor description of the skill level. I would rather they be more realistic/accurate descriptions (even if it means there are more of them, or even if it means I'm not truly a master), then having to be surprised why I can't do a simple rote task.

I would much rather things say something like Talented or Expert than "Master", or Easy and Simple instead of "Effortless". They set different expectations.

Like in all likelihood, with numeric based code systems, master is just like 80 or 90 in a skill that goes to 100, and similarly with the effortless skill level. So more like a 10% chance of error. But who knows.

You're picking out one example using appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy. But okay I'll play along. Let's focus on the craft of joint rolling. A little easier than smoothing a stone with neolithic technology. It can still go wrong for many reasons: a weak paper, a hidden stem, flower is too sticky, the air blows suddenly in a gust of wind, etc. Done focusing on that because it easily backed up what I was saying.

Because again.

Your skill at something has no bearing on exterior circumstances. You can be 100%, all the time, perfect, masterful, the best in the world at a craft - and outside circumstances will still change the outcome. The best painters make easy mistakes. The best bakers still burn bread. The best coders still typo. The best baristas are foiled because of humidity changes in the air throwing off the taste of the carefully ground and weighed espresso.

These failures don't reflect skill.

[ShaiHulud]

Maybe the fails are there for you to be creative about your failures.

Failing an "effortless" craft 4 times in a row... I can emote all I want about how I'm concentrating or how I'm in a room all by myself, it won't have any effect.

Why should I emote the failure 4 times in a row? Why not just change "effortless" to "simple". I can fail a simple craft. I can not understand how I'm failing effortless crafts.

Oh, for Krath's sake then, let us all just know effortless is 'near effortless'. If some folks want that extra descriptor to make sense for them, maybe staff will add it for you.
But I think, much of the designs of the game are to promote role play, emotes...interaction with the world around and others.
I'm well aware that I can fail crafts that I am Master in, and sometimes in jarring inconsistency, but again, it is an -excuse- to roleplay why. You don't have to.

[hyzhenhok]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstance.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

If you are a master woodworker you should not be so easily distracted that youre tripping and falling in the shower with regularity while trying to make a simple wooden chess piece. You are arguing totally different things that don't make sense in the context of a crafting discussion.

I shouldn't fail to make a stone round, as a master stonecarver with decent tools, four times in a row. Arguing "it gives you chances to roleplay your failures" is a cop out for a poor description of the skill level. I would rather they be more realistic/accurate descriptions (even if it means there are more of them, or even if it means I'm not truly a master), then having to be surprised why I can't do a simple rote task.

I would much rather things say something like Talented or Expert than "Master", or Easy and Simple instead of "Effortless". They set different expectations.

Like in all likelihood, with numeric based code systems, master is just like 80 or 90 in a skill that goes to 100, and similarly with the effortless skill level. So more like a 10% chance of error. But who knows.

You're picking out one example using appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy. But okay I'll play along. Let's focus on the craft of joint rolling. A little easier than smoothing a stone with neolithic technology. It can still go wrong for many reasons: a weak paper, a hidden stem, flower is too sticky, the air blows suddenly in a gust of wind, etc. Done focusing on that because it easily backed up what I was saying.

Because again.

Your skill at something has no bearing on exterior circumstances. You can be 100%, all the time, perfect, masterful, the best in the world at a craft - and outside circumstances will still change the outcome. The best painters make easy mistakes. The best bakers still burn bread. The best coders still typo. The best baristas are foiled because of humidity changes in the air throwing off the taste of the carefully ground and weighed espresso.

These failures don't reflect skill.

Half the time the echo is literally "you're a stupid klutz." And by suggesting we make up extenuating circumstances to explain the unrealistic failure rate you pretty much admit that the failure rate is unrealistic.

It doesn't have to be you can literally never fail -- as discussed earlier, the issue is that the failure rate is too high, not that it necessarily has to be 0%. I don't have a 0% chance of tripping when I walk to the kitchen, but it's certainly not 10% no matter what kind of extenuating circumstances I want to make up, and "just dual wield two canes and the failure chance will go away" doesn't help.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that crafting feel like most other skills in the game -- with master skill level and the right attributes, certain tasks should have a failure rate of <1%. Why shouldn't crafters get to reach the same badass heights that other classes reach with other skills? "I'm such a crafting badass I don't ruin materials on the easiest crafts" seems like an incredibly modest ask in a game where 100% undetectable ninja pickpockets who are never caught are possible.

[Fernandezj]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstance.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

If you are a master woodworker you should not be so easily distracted that youre tripping and falling in the shower with regularity while trying to make a simple wooden chess piece. You are arguing totally different things that don't make sense in the context of a crafting discussion.

I shouldn't fail to make a stone round, as a master stonecarver with decent tools, four times in a row. Arguing "it gives you chances to roleplay your failures" is a cop out for a poor description of the skill level. I would rather they be more realistic/accurate descriptions (even if it means there are more of them, or even if it means I'm not truly a master), then having to be surprised why I can't do a simple rote task.

I would much rather things say something like Talented or Expert than "Master", or Easy and Simple instead of "Effortless". They set different expectations.

Like in all likelihood, with numeric based code systems, master is just like 80 or 90 in a skill that goes to 100, and similarly with the effortless skill level. So more like a 10% chance of error. But who knows.

You're picking out one example using appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy. But okay I'll play along. Let's focus on the craft of joint rolling. A little easier than smoothing a stone with neolithic technology. It can still go wrong for many reasons: a weak paper, a hidden stem, flower is too sticky, the air blows suddenly in a gust of wind, etc. Done focusing on that because it easily backed up what I was saying.

Because again.

Your skill at something has no bearing on exterior circumstances. You can be 100%, all the time, perfect, masterful, the best in the world at a craft - and outside circumstances will still change the outcome. The best painters make easy mistakes. The best bakers still burn bread. The best coders still typo. The best baristas are foiled because of humidity changes in the air throwing off the taste of the carefully ground and weighed espresso.

These failures don't reflect skill.

The point of skill levels is to indicate some sort of control over things. If skill levels don't matter, because at any point you can just have a brain aneurysm, as you suggest, then get rid of skill levels.

And quoting your own post for emphasis shows you've really made up your mind. So no point in really having a discourse with you.

[LindseyBalboa]

I can effortlessly pour a glass of water. I might still spill some if I'm distracted.

I can effortlessly roll a joint without looking. Sometimes a stem is hiding in here and pokes a hole in the paper.

I can type effortlessly, exceedingly so, and very quickly: but sometimes I typo (more if I'm on my MacBook Pro, but that's a keyboard issue).

I can effortlessly get into the shower without even thinking about it, but sometimes I might slip a little due to circumstances outside of my control.

I can, without any conscious effort on my part, do a lot of things, and each of those things can go wrong due to circumstance.

Your skill at something does not change the exterior circumstances in which you are making that action.

If you are a master woodworker you should not be so easily distracted that youre tripping and falling in the shower with regularity while trying to make a simple wooden chess piece. You are arguing totally different things that don't make sense in the context of a crafting discussion.

I shouldn't fail to make a stone round, as a master stonecarver with decent tools, four times in a row. Arguing "it gives you chances to roleplay your failures" is a cop out for a poor description of the skill level. I would rather they be more realistic/accurate descriptions (even if it means there are more of them, or even if it means I'm not truly a master), then having to be surprised why I can't do a simple rote task.

I would much rather things say something like Talented or Expert than "Master", or Easy and Simple instead of "Effortless". They set different expectations.

Like in all likelihood, with numeric based code systems, master is just like 80 or 90 in a skill that goes to 100, and similarly with the effortless skill level. So more like a 10% chance of error. But who knows.

You're picking out one example using appeal to ridicule, an informal fallacy. But okay I'll play along. Let's focus on the craft of joint rolling. A little easier than smoothing a stone with neolithic technology. It can still go wrong for many reasons: a weak paper, a hidden stem, flower is too sticky, the air blows suddenly in a gust of wind, etc. Done focusing on that because it easily backed up what I was saying.

Because again.

Your skill at something has no bearing on exterior circumstances. You can be 100%, all the time, perfect, masterful, the best in the world at a craft - and outside circumstances will still change the outcome. The best painters make easy mistakes. The best bakers still burn bread. The best coders still typo. The best baristas are foiled because of humidity changes in the air throwing off the taste of the carefully ground and weighed espresso.

These failures don't reflect skill.

The point of skill levels is to indicate some sort of control over things. If skill levels don't matter, because at any point you can just have a brain aneurysm, as you suggest, then get rid of skill levels.

And quoting your own post for emphasis shows you've really made up your mind. So no point in really having a discourse with you.

Bro you've literally misquoted me in every response and used farcical attempts at fallacy arguments without ever once actually addressing a point in a salient, coherent manner. If I have to keep quoting what I wrote so you read it before knee-jerk responding to three random words picked out of my posts, I guess I can. "You're wrong but I don't wish you ill will, stranger on the internet," -Lindsey. I can go all day. However:

Skill levels matter a lot when it comes to success, crafting or doing anything else. But there are other, exterior circumstances that will change the outcome of an action, regardless of the skill level of the actor. This is being reflected, very obviously, in the mechanics of the crafting code which is also trying to offset the fact that you can make a table in 30 seconds, 50 times in a row.

To be honest, if you're crafting 4+ things in a row, you'll probably start messing up, if you want to be realistic about it. You'd also take hours and hours instead of seconds, if you want to be realistic about it.

I completely understand that the ACTUAL issue people have is it seems like people don't like the word 'effortless' the same way people get mad on the GDB because 'master weapons are too hard to get' or 'even with master I'm still just a regular person and not a super hero' etc. But asking for less than 1% fail rates and also being able to unrealistically craft something in 30 seconds and do it nonstop without ever actually getting tired may be a bit much.

tl;dr Failing a few times is the obvious mechanical trade-off to instant crafting. Effortless is obviously referring to your ability, not the actual act of creation, but I could personally care less if the word changes; if people are happy about it, then hell yeah.

[Khorm]

since this is on the verge of becoming too contentious to continue, i'd like to propose a solution that we can all agree on.

this is surprisingly simple.

we already have a system in place that recognizes our greatest achievers, but what it DOESNT do is offer a substantial in-character reward.

it's easy.

three karma gets a passive boost to only craft skills (except component crafting and metal smithing). this is just enough of a boost to craft 10000 effortless batches of eggs without a single fail.

two karma and below get whatever the other math works out to.

[Pariah]

Remember to debate the merit of posts and not attack others.

I'm also not sure if Karma for a crafting boost would be worth it because there are already crafts that if you don't learn them in order you'll be lost.

[X-D]

Or, Just change one single word.


Really cannot believe so much more has been argued.

And LindseyBalboa.

Rolling a joint is apprentice craft, We are talking novice crafts with master skill and tools. So novice craft, Packing a pipe when all alone in a glass floored room with a tamping tool and so no possible way to lose anything even if you did drop some. Although, I have never failed to pack a pipe, Not ever, not when I started as a near teen or when I quite 15 years of daily use later.

And I am going to use the word silly here as well because the other problem with many things put in the game is that the people that put them in, be they players or staff have no practical knowledge Of the craft they are trying to describe.

"Smoothing a stone with neolithic technology" Would actually be nearly impossible to fail even if you had a kid on the tit and were telling a story.

And the entire arguement of Oh, you get to practice your fail emotes is for the most part silly as well. When the PC is alone in a room with the correct tools. Does it really make sense to have to make up some distraction to explain that though yu were just rubbing two rocks together for some reason you decided to slam one into the other, breaking one and degrading the other? Um...NO.

Honestly, if changing one single word is too hard then the next best thing is to have effortless crafts NOT COST MATERIAL on a fail. At least that can be role played around with ease...Ooops, Almost started cutting the wrong spot, Start over, Oops, forgot to wet my smoothing stone, Start over.

I mean, I hate how crafting has gotten so I avoid it like the plague now days, so I don't have a dog in the fight other then I agree things should make some kind of sense. And there is VERY little of that in arm crafting to begin with.

[LindseyBalboa]

Okay first of all don't underestimate my joint rolling skills lol bro you don't know.

[ShaiHulud]

'rolls a joint while performing some great head'
I got this bros!

[X-D]

True enough

But not really the point.

Well, maybe. Let us assume you have the correct tools, Say A good grinder and your material is top notch along with fav papers, And let us assume it is apprentice skill, I mean loading a bowl would be novice. Anyway, Would you fail 1 out of 5 times? With the above tools and materials, I am betting it would be closer to one in a hundred if using one hand and riding on a public bus. But lets say you DID fail, What would that fail be? Would you start to roll and then just suddenly go into a frenzy and shred the paper and throw the green all over the room? No, Even if a stem somehow got past everything and was still large enough to poke a hole in the paper you would get a new paper and start over with the remaining MJ.

This is the great problem with crafting difficulty descriptions, Skill level descriptions and fail % and fail results.

It is not an issue to RP fail when your PC has lower skill, even on lower crafts. You hand the works to a first timer and there is every chance of loss of product several times in a row, paper and all, and easy to play off.

I really think the best change would be for there to be less loss of materials depending on if the craft is effortless, easy etc. It would be pretty realistic at least.

Hell, I am still trying to figure out the in game fletchery fail, I have made tens of thousands of arrows And I have never failed the assembly in a manner that destroys anything, let alone the shaft. Oh sure, I still fail making the arrow head when using stone/glass, Not steel or bone though, Maybe fail to craft 1 in 500 shafts, never failed on the fletchings themselves. And considering how the attachments are made...how exactly do you mangle feathers and shaft with string/hide and glue?

And I use a knife...rarely anything else.

On the other side, I also cannot figure out how you manage to use a branch to make arrow shafts, that would account for fails on MAKING the shaft I guess. (pssst, you use logs irl)

Anyway, Still would be fine with simply changing how that one single rank is described as the easiest thing that makes any sense. Though I agree that master skill and effortless should just be reduced to around 1% chance to fail, way more realistic to how things are described.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

... I hate how crafting has gotten so I avoid it like the plague now days ...

I'm down with everything you said, except ... this. What? Crafting is WAY better now than it used to be!

[X-D]

Nah, Brew is the worst of them, Alright, I have to have 3 different herbs, they will not be near each other and I get 2 chances to fail...and Oh, I am likely to not remember what the hell it is in a week. Weeee. NOT.

As to the rest, 90% of crafts never made much sense but at least I could emote using the correct tool. Now, Oh hey, you need to be in a room with this object, You need a tool that makes no sense to the craft most the time. Oh, and if you fail, not only will you somehow shred/shatter your materials but must slam your tool onto the ground every time because you will damage the tool as well. The tool descriptions don't make sense, You need a smoothing tool, Oh, here is a whetstone...Nope, that is a sharpening tool...UM, WTF do you think sharpening is? Nothing is a tool cept a "tool" item. Add to that an unreasonable fail rate when mastered and fail messages and results that are usually rather silly...like every single cooking fail. I need scissors to cut cloth even though they should not even exist but cannot use a razor sharp bit of obsidian even though it would be WAY better.

Way more hassle then it is worth for me. If others like it, great. I don't. Most my PCs use slings just because bullets actually DO make sense, have a low fail rate and if you break the rock into a billion bits, forage rocks...Woot.

Wanna make a dart though, Oh, I have a thorn and a feather, craft into dart, You slip and shatter the thorn and the feather for some reason explodes...why? Don't know. I guess string/twine/sinew etc in arm have special crushing properties.

[Patuk]

This is a crafting thread, and no crafting thread is ever complete without a mention of every chef's bane: dusty carru meat.

[X-D]

So, I was thinking of the RL skills I have, mostly the ones which are basically master. (have plenty that are not even close) And how long it took to get there for many of them.
In most cases that was several years, Though certain skills bleed over into others. So, like lets use wood working, To get to a mastery in that took around 6 years but That was also with plenty of carpentry back round before it. But the woodworking made fletchery pretty easy to master.

SO...

What if crafting skills took much longer to get to master, say...three times as long. But not even across the scale. But progressively slower. IRL it is usually pretty easy to get to what in arm is "apprentice" and even Journeyman, Which in many crafts and trades is about as far as most people get, Getting to advanced and beyond tends to take commitment.

But the payoff is that when you get there you fail WAY less, Like no more then 20% on even the hardest crafts while "effortless" Would be 1%. Assuming correct tools and all that.

[LindseyBalboa]

'rolls a joint while performing some great head'
I got this bros!

See now that's effortless crafting you got going on there.

[Delirium]

I'm seeing a lot of words for a problem that has a simple explanation:

RNG gonna RNG.

[Riev]

I'm seeing a lot of words for a problem that has a simple explanation:

RNG gonna RNG.

Effortless crafts having a 20% chance of failure is less about RNG, and more about the idea that Effortless shouldn't carry a 1/5 chance of failure.

In simple Tabletop gaming, when you're really good at something (expertise), you can't fail more than 5% of the time, and thats the 'critical failure' rate. Because you're SO good at that one thing, that even rolling low, your bonuses make up for it.

Either effortless is effortless, or it isn't. Its not about RNG, its that 20% failure rate at anything isn't effortless.

Any argument beyond that is just "I don't like change" or "it doesn't bother me". If it doesn't bother you, then changing it won't bother you.

[Pariah]

Unless I'm misunderstanding how rolls work in this game (100% totally possible).

If you have a simple 1-100 chance to do something, as your skill increases the lower that number can be and still "succeed".

So if 1-100 is percent to keep it simple and using Riev's example above that say Mastery of a skill only has a five percent fail rate, that means that you'd have to roll a 1-5 to fail, so the chances of getting a failure on mastery would be pretty damn rare.

Based on playing a few characters who have reach mastery and seen that this is not the case it leads me to believe that there are other factors than simple die rolls.

Now if there are other things that are influencing that die roll, like plus and randoms that apply because of some random factor that we aren't aware, then I would be less inclined to call it a true Random Number Generator issue.

However, we are in the hard spot of noticing it as players, and talking about it, here or possibly in requests but have no idea if this is the vision of the game or not.  Perhaps it's on the list of shit to fix?  Perhaps they simply don't care that it's not as seamless and reliable as it should be?

I understand both sides of the conversation here though, yeah you will occasionally just have shitty roles and should just RP it as such, "Man I cut the shell when I killed that scrab so it broke." etc.  However, I also do see the frustration with certain systems and rarer ingredients that you are technically a master at failing.  It's hard to roleplay being a super proficient cure maker for instance when you fail to make a cure five times in a row.

We also as non-coders have no idea how hard it is to change this. It could be something buried in years of legacy code that if you fix stonecrafting breaks every other craft.  I don't know how interdependent things are as just a dude who types craft thing 2.thing into #1.

My only advice I can give to help you possibly get clarity or a "real" answer will be to send in a request as a question to staff about it when you're playing a character that has the master whatever skill and you notice things being silly or what you feel is unrealistic.  Because then you can give actual evidence from your side, hey I was playing tuesday night and broke three scrab shells in a row on an effortless craft, is there any way you could look at this?

It's frustrating as fuck, but lots of things on this game are frustrating as fuck and technically "working as intended."

[Delirium]

Okay change 'effortless' to 'very easy' and I guess all this quibbling over semantics will be solved....

[Tranquil]

Okay change 'effortless' to 'very easy' and I guess all this quibbling over semantics will be solved....

This whole thread really does seem sort of pointless, especially considering it's all over semantics on a system that's widely known has 'common sense' modifiers. Even a grand master would fuck up carving a figurine out of a stick with his bare hands, or a mostly broken carving knife. Aren't there better things to focus on?

Like..

checks hate cycle

.. slings?

[Riev]

Okay change 'effortless' to 'very easy' and I guess all this quibbling over semantics will be solved....

Yes. This. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

The issue is either semantics, or code. If nobody believes its a code issue, then just change it to 'very easy' instead of effortless.

I don't know why thats such a hard thing. What is the resistance to this kind of change, where you can literally do a find + replace

[Khorm]

Okay change 'effortless' to 'very easy' and I guess all this quibbling over semantics will be solved....

What is the resistance to this kind of change, where you can literally do a find + replace

EFFORTLESS as that may be, it's probably not that simple and requires at least a few other obnoxious steps. would guess it ranks pretty low on the list of pressing shit to do.

you can literally get your mud client to find + replace effortless with whatever you want.

[Khorm]

i did it.

https://imgur.com/a/BbHRGab

----------------------------------KNIFE MAKING----------------------------------
4) some bullshit                                   very easy   | -none-
5) some other bullshit                         very easy   | -none-

doesn't even get more effortless than that

edit: since doing this i have failed two very easy crafts and it's never felt better

[Riev]

I am not going to code things on my end, to change words. Thats not an acceptable alternative.

[Khorm]

ok

[LindseyBalboa]

If your argument is 'it doesn't matter to anyone else so just change it for the couple of people that are really bothered by the word choice it's just semantics,' I'm not sure why changing it client-side doesn't fix that issue. It's just word choice and semantics, and a simple enough script you can probably just look it up and copy/paste it with a change or two.

Again, doesn't matter to me, but it also doesn't seem to have far-reaching effects. Nobody's asking for changes to the process of crafting, which would affect other people, and change the game. It's as cosmetic as changing your input/output colors.

I'm actually thinking of changing 'effortless' to read 'impossible to fail' in my client, just to keep me humble.

[mansa]

If your argument is 'it doesn't matter to anyone else so just change it for the couple of people that are really bothered by the word choice it's just semantics,' I'm not sure why changing it client-side doesn't fix that issue. It's just word choice and semantics, and a simple enough script you can probably just look it up and copy/paste it with a change or two.

Again, doesn't matter to me, but it also doesn't seem to have far-reaching effects. Nobody's asking for changes to the process of crafting, which would affect other people, and change the game. It's as cosmetic as changing your input/output colors.

I'm actually thinking of changing 'effortless' to read 'impossible to fail' in my client, just to keep me humble.

This whole thread is a semantics argument.  That is the point of it.

[LindseyBalboa]

This whole thread is a semantics argument.  That is the point of it.

but... exactly.

[mansa]

This whole thread is a semantics argument.  That is the point of it.

but... exactly.

And your solution for the problem many players have stated is to:
a) have a player research what client they use
b) figure out if there's some code available as an addon
c) learn to code
d) implement something to interpret the game text and replace what is written

?

[LindseyBalboa]

And your solution for the problem many players have stated is to:
a) have a player research what client they use
b) figure out if there's some code available as an addon
c) learn to code
d) implement something to interpret the game text and replace what is written

?

... I have to point out the hilarity of a WHOLE STEP being dedicated to LEARNING WHAT CLIENT YOU USE. Thank you for that.

And it's not many. It's a few. Seven, maybe, who have chimed in, with less than that saying it's important to them. It's a small problem (edited: I don't mean small in how important it is to someone. I can't judge that. I mean in terms of the functionality of the game) for a few people that can easily be fixed by anyone that finds an issue with the wording, by spending 20 minutes figuring it out on your own - even if you break it into a hundred steps, it's still just a Google search and some copy/paste action. You could even then share that solution with one another, if it's a problem so important that people should be spending time on it.

However, it's becoming pretty clear that any solution besides "staff has to listen to me when I have a problem" is not going to be acceptable, and I have no stake in that. If it's all or nothing, then keep fighting that fight.

[Khorm]

i just wanna point out that there is a six minute gap between my suggestion and its implementation.

that's how long it took me to google it, copy and edit the snippet that i found, get it into my client, take a screenshot and upload it to imgur, then post it.

six minutes.

if not effortless than at least very easy.

[mansa]

Please help me do that.

I use GMUD as my client.

[hyzhenhok]

If your argument is 'it doesn't matter to anyone else so just change it for the couple of people that are really bothered by the word choice it's just semantics,' I'm not sure why changing it client-side doesn't fix that issue. It's just word choice and semantics, and a simple enough script you can probably just look it up and copy/paste it with a change or two.

Again, doesn't matter to me, but it also doesn't seem to have far-reaching effects. Nobody's asking for changes to the process of crafting, which would affect other people, and change the game. It's as cosmetic as changing your input/output colors.

I'm actually thinking of changing 'effortless' to read 'impossible to fail' in my client, just to keep me humble.

This whole thread is a semantics argument.  That is the point of it.

I mean not really.  Some of said easy crafts should not fail so frequently at high skill levels no matter what you label the difficulty. Literally the second post was you saying that there must a base minimum failure rate for all crafts, even the easy ones, which others such as myself said is silly. It's pretty clear that the skill bonuses and crafting DCs are out of whack compared to both (1) what they would be like like in traditional D&D and (2) other skill systems in the game.

I understand that realistically a code overhaul to make easy crafts feel a little better for master craftsmen is not going to happen, but that's not excuse to pretend the system is perfect as currently implemented except for a superficial disagreement on semantics.

[Khorm]

Please help me do that.

I use GMUD as my client.

install mudlet and call it 12 minutes

[mansa]

Please help me do that.

I use GMUD as my client.

install mudlet and call it 12 minutes

So your solution is to stop playing the game how I've been playing it over the past 20 years, and to play a different game.

[Maso]

Wow this thread.

Can someone just add "Change effortless to 'very easy' or 'simple' in the crafting menu" to the QoL thread and then this conversation can be put out of its misery?

[Patuk]

Please help me do that.

I use GMUD as my client.

install mudlet and call it 12 minutes

So your solution is to stop playing the game how I've been playing it over the past 20 years, and to play a different game.

Your solution is to change 20 year old code to something different, too.

[Khorm]

Please help me do that.

I use GMUD as my client.

install mudlet and call it 12 minutes

So your solution is to stop playing the game how I've been playing it over the past 20 years, and to play a different game.

it'll be the same game, except now you'll be able to rest easy at night knowing that failing a very easy craft isn't so implausible.

also....................................

you use mudlet. what?

[Khorm]

i get that i'm being a bit of a shithead here and it's probably not the most effective way to illustrate my point.

the discussion is important and i will agree that failing effortless tasks and wasting 1k worth of ingredients sucks.

once the discussion has been boiled down and decided to be one about semantics i start to wonder- okay. now what? what's the next step?

whether i like it or not, the game is a collaboration and i'm just as much a part of that as any member of staff. we're always going to have different priorities but we all have a responsibility to make it fun and entertaining. if i'm given the opportunity to take care of one of the those things myself... why not just do it and move on to the next thing?

denying responsibility for your own engagement and enjoyment of a 20+ year hobby strikes me as a non-starter. this thread is a marginal example of that, but it's something i see echoed a lot on the gdb.

[th3kaiser]

This whole thread is ridiculous.