Inverting roll-under percentile systems?

[Lev Lafayette]

I am not saying that the things you are saying are false because you are a liar, I am saying you are a liar because the things you say are demonstrably and demonstratedly false. It's different, learn to understand that or get the fuck off this board.

Yes, someone who is wrong is different to a liar. You would do well to look up a dictionary if you're confused. You may discover that the definition that I provided is somewhat more accurate than yours.

Here, let me help you out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

You're wrong. Everything you say is false. Because you are saying things that are obviously not true, it's clear to me and everyone else that you're a moron and a fraud.

By "obviously not true" you mean the directly referenced material is wrong? That's an interesting proposition. You're asking people to believe you over their own eyes.

What the fuck? Look, page 49 says:

The keeper determines when and what the needed roll is. It may be a skill roll, a characteristic roll (perhaps modified for special conditions), or a characteristic match-up on the Resistance Table.

That's what it says. That is not a rule, or even a guideline. That is a pointer to some set of keeper guidelines about what is and is not an appropriate time to call for skill checks. And those guidelines don't exist. The rule is "ask your keeper" and when the keeper asks the book what answers they should be giving the book just trails off.

Impressively disingenuous. People can look this up, you know. The pointer and rules you refer to is in the previous three paragraphs (and in specific skill descriptions), as previously mentioned.

Skill advancement in RuneQuest is based on training and learning by doing. In order to be allowed to train, you have to get the learning by doing check as well.

No you don't. The rules make it very clear that you simply spend the time (and perhaps money) and you gain an increase in your skill (either 1d6-2, or 2). You can even increase skills that have a zero percent base chance by spending an initial fifty hours (p278, op cit)

So whether you have moneys and free times to spend on skill training or not, the skill advancement is always dependent on getting the checks on your skills. In order to get the checks on your skills you have to make and succeed on tests.

The following is under 'Skill Training' p39 op cit.

"No experience roll is needed - completion of a unit of training always allows a skill increase roll".

It would seem that you are quite incorrect.

But I'll be generous enough to assume that you're not a liar.

[Username17]

Now the version of RuneQuest I happen to be looking at has an absolute hard cap that you can't get bonuses from training two times without getting a skill check in between. Maybe the version you're throwing out page citations but not quotes from says something different. Or maybe not, I honestly don't care.

Because either fucking way, none of that shit matters in the slightest. Regardless of whether or not you literally are required to get a skill checked before you are allowed to train again, it's still blooming obvious that its rate of increase will be much higher if you do. The contention that your rate of advancement crucially depends on how many skills you are allowed to make rolls for during an adventure is something that your entire wall of text hasn't even disputed.

So stop being an evasive twatshitter. You know, and I know, and everyone who is even a little bit familiar with RuneQuest knows that it is advantageous to your character's rate of advancement to roll a bunch of skills that aren't literally required to complete the current adventure. That is how it fucking works. And it is my contention that despite the fact that RuneQuest fans get all defensive about how people who deliberately trigger skill rolls to trigger advancement are munchkins - actual rules preventing such don't exist. Which is pretty fucking sad when you consider that this particular problem was first described in 1978.

-Username17

[Lev Lafayette]

Now the version of RuneQuest I happen to be looking at has an absolute hard cap that you can't get bonuses from training two times without getting a skill check in between.

Could you be so kind to mention which edition? I have all of them.

Maybe the version you're throwing out page citations but not quotes from says something different. Or maybe not, I honestly don't care.

I gave you direct quote and continue to give them. "Not caring" in the sense that you don't care whether you're right or wrong would be a good start, because that's how people learn.

"Not caring" because you're going to continue to assert that you're right regardless of the evidence.. well, that's getting close to theology.

Because either fucking way, none of that shit matters in the slightest. Regardless of whether or not you literally are required to get a skill checked before you are allowed to train again, it's still blooming obvious that its rate of increase will be much higher if you do.

Not necessarily from my experience. The rate of from experience checks is 1d6 (or 3) from one adventure and one game week (p41 RQ3 Deluxe).

To train a skill up to 75% from a low level would require about 18 months. Following the recommendations in other scenario packs we typically had one year pass between adventures i.e.

"Allow approximately one game-year to pass between every major scenario." (p5 Scenarios Book, RuneQuest Vikings)

"We suggest a nominal period of one year to pass between each major scenario" ("Land of Ninja, p3 Scenarios Book)

(I could do the same from others as well, but the point is made).

So from training one could gain 75% + occupational bonus in a skill and from adventuring over the same period using recommended rates, about 9%.

The contention that your rate of advancement crucially depends on how many skills you are allowed to make rolls for during an adventure is something that your entire wall of text hasn't even disputed.

Because it's not under dispute. Adventurers are meant to take risks (i.e., engage in skill use that is under stress, p28 and p35), and these will be remembered. However deliberately engineering skill tests for no purpose will not give them a skill check (p38).

You know, and I know, and everyone who is even a little bit familiar with RuneQuest knows that it is advantageous to your character's rate of advancement to roll a bunch of skills that aren't literally required to complete the current adventure.

"Whenever an adventurer successfully uses a skill and the gamemaster agrees that the success is worth an experience roll, the player checkmarks the small box next to that skill on the adventurer sheet" (p38. emphasis mine)

[Username17]

"Whenever an adventurer successfully uses a skill and the gamemaster agrees that the success is worth an experience roll, the player checkmarks the small box next to that skill on the adventurer sheet" (p38. emphasis mine)

That is not a system by any possible stretch of the imagination. You resorting to that means that you have, in effect, conceded the argument.

We're done here.

-Username17

[Lev Lafayette]

That is not a system by any possible stretch of the imagination. You resorting to that means that you have, in effect, conceded the argument.

I agree it's not systemic, and I agree that it could be elaborated. So sure, I'll concede those points. Hopefully, you've - at least internally - learned a few things along the way too.

But really, your complaint is that other (or maybe your circle) people played RuneQuest in such a fashion that a subjective clause was ignored and exploited that's more of a problem with the group than it is with the game. The game rules are not perfect and they do require reasonable people.

Here's how a rules-as-writ situation should occur.

Player: I pick the lock on the side door that's irrelevant to the adventure.
GM: OK you have Devise skill. It takes a while, but you succeed.
Player: I don't get a check?
GM: No, it's not a stress test (refers player to p20 )

Later characters are in a midst of battle with trolls.

Player A: I'm thinking of changing to shortsword.
Player B: What the hell? You have that at 15%!
Player A: But if I succeed I get a skill check if I change weapons!
Player B: Dude, and the troll could kill you with a great club whilst you're fapping about with your shortsword, pun not intended. Just kill the troll, get the loot, and we'll train up your shortsword when we get back to Pavis. Changing to shortsword in the middle of combat is just stupid. (Player B refers Player A to p41)

Player A, who really is not very bright, is still after an experience check for shortsword and goes chasing a rubble runner. After being bit twice, the player finally lands a blow.

Player A: I hit! Do I get an experience check?
GM: Well... I it was a stress test and there was some inherent danger. But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character. It's not worth an experience check. I'm taking up the rule on p38 that this doesn't constitute a check. You're just making taking irrelevant risks for the purpose of trying to get checks.
Player A: .... I know! I'm going to convert to Chaotic Neutral! I do random shit all the time, like attack a rubble runner for no in-story purpose, because that's my in-character motivation! What could go wrong?
GM: You're thinking of 2nd edition AD&D.
Player B: Is there a cult with Chaos, Disorder, and Movement runes?

Good luck with that player.

We're done here.

Quite. Have a nice day Frank.

[silva]

Lev, just give up. Youre discussing with the more intelectually dishonest person in the face of earth.

[Foxwarrior]

You make it sound like such a railroad, Lev.

[Lev Lafayette]

You make it sound like such a railroad, Lev.

Could you kindly elaborate? I am more familiar with the term 'railroad' to refer to narrative development within scenarios which allow for little deviation from a pre-established plot (a lot of White Wolf products were guilty of this and, with some humour, Cthulhu's Horror on the Orient Express, despite some awesome set piece events).

I am less familiar with the term "railroad" to refer to skill usage or improvement, although I can see perhaps what you mean here. For example, both GURPS and White Wolf games give experience points for "advancing the story". Is that what you mean?

As noted, whilst it is not explicit, my own treatment in RuneQuest has been to allow experience checks from a simulationist orientation, taking into account various memory biases (e.g., Zeigarnik effect, Von Restorff's distinctive encoding). I would, for example, allow experience checks for important critical failures because they are so memorable to the character. Yes, that does mean a degree of subjectivity.

[Aryxbez]

Good luck with that player.

Sooo, in a game with everyone understood on the conceits of it having a focus in powerleveling E.S-style, gang-up on the player, eschewing the rules that were in place? It's fine if not going to play that particular game, but don't pretend its a play experience of that game, if just going to ignore the rules anyway. Otherwise, the game sounds kinda interesting, albeit only conceptually, I'm sure if I sat down to read it, I'd probably pass up on it. Otherwise, I didn't really appreciate your terribly shortsighted & biased example.

That said, I do think it was odd that Frank decided to feel ye were being a liar, despite lack of intent, but I guess he got fed up w/people's ignorance. I would prefer he continues the conversation to its fullest, to refute what ye had said at the very least. If its incorrect like previous stuff he said, then that's fine, if not, then conversation adapts & continues.

You don't serve your argument well by making such ad hominen remarks about your interlocutor. Please try to discuss a gaming issue (for goodness sake) like a civil person. I assure you, nothing will be lost by it and you may even gain some respect from others for engaging in mature and well-reasoned discourse, even when you're demonstrably incorrect.

Like other new posters, ye shouldn't seek to take it personally. It's not an insult to your person, but rather to the ideas or position you are currently undertaking. Even if its phrased that way, just some turn of phrase. As well that adults curse all the time, some do it in casual conversation, so I'd advise to not let it bother you. Reasoning behind it, beyond Frank's summation is thus (really seems like a lesson we need to put front & center somewhere for people). Though that otherwise, you've seemed to not let it hurt discussion, so I give you props for not opping out through some emotional reaaction, as others have.

[Lev Lafayette]

Sooo, in a game with everyone understood on the conceits of it having a focus in powerleveling E.S-style,

Sorry, I don't know what 'powerleveling E.S-style' means.

Otherwise, I didn't really appreciate your terribly shortsighted & biased example.

Could you explain why? The short examples cover the rules for automatic versus non-automatic skill tests, the relative disadvantages of attempting risky skill experience checks, and the subjective element on justifying skill experience checks.

Like other new posters, ye shouldn't seek to take it personally. It's not an insult to your person, but rather to the ideas or position you are currently undertaking. Even if its phrased that way, just some turn of phrase. As well that adults curse all the time, some do it in casual conversation, so I'd advise to not let it bother you.

Well, it's hard not to take it personally when it's directed against a person. But don't worry, it doesn't bother me personally that much. I've been involved in online conversations since the late 1980s (FIDONET, usenet political groups, livejournal dramas and beyond), so I've seen plenty of examples of people who are sufficiently brave to cast insults at people on the other side of the world as a means of convincing them. I have also had the opportunity to be the moderator of a number of political and technical mailings lists where people have, shall we say, "strong opinions".

Reasoning behind it, beyond Frank's summation is thus (really seems like a lesson we need to put front & center somewhere for people). Though that otherwise, you've seemed to not let it hurt discussion, so I give you props for not opping out through some emotional reaaction, as others have.

Meh, I have the hide of rhino. Which is fine for me, but not for others. Although there is the issue of why would one bother to engage with such a community. If the link you provided is the norm here, I don't think I'll stay for much longer. I prefer places where there is a genuine interest to be helpful and friendly towards other people, even whilst engaging an furious debate over ideas.

(Also, my apologies to the OP for having their thread so completely derailed, and alas, I suspect that my initial post seemed to be quite the cause of it)

[rampaging-poet]

Sorry, I don't know what 'powerleveling E.S-style' means.

E.S. = Elder Scrolls, computer games in which you get better at each skill by using it. This results in weird behaviour like standing in front of a crab that can't hurt you for three hours to level up your Light Armour skill. Dwarf Fortress would be another example with adventurers picking up and throwing rocks for hours at a time to increase their skill.

Computer games can get away with it because they keep track of all the bookkeeping and your time is the only time you're wasting. "Level by doing" in RPGs either bogs down the game as people go out of their way to use every skill they want or results in forced upgrade paths if the DM vetoes every skill that wasn't "part of the adventure."

[TheFlatline]

(Also, my apologies to the OP for having their thread so completely derailed, and alas, I suspect that my initial post seemed to be quite the cause of it)

*shrug* I asked a definitive, answerable question, got a definitive answer. I stopped giving a shit at that point.

I was mildly engaged in whether it was substantially smoother to houserule to a roll-over system instead of a roll-under system, but not particularly.

[Lev Lafayette]

E.S. = Elder Scrolls, computer games in which you get better at each skill by using it. This results in weird behaviour like standing in front of a crab that can't hurt you for three hours to level up your Light Armour skill. Dwarf Fortress would be another example with adventurers picking up and throwing rocks for hours at a time to increase their skill.

Ahh, thanks. That reminds me of hanging out on a bridge Ultima V in the 80s. Bridges generated trolls, trolls generated experience points, experience points generated levels!

"Level by doing" in RPGs either bogs down the game as people go out of their way to use every skill they want or results in forced upgrade paths if the DM vetoes every skill that wasn't "part of the adventure."

Yes, if the only way or even majority way of improving skill levels in an RPG was "by doing" in-game, it would become very dull for all concerned. It would be like roleplaying the character's training.

(Apropos the discussion thread, that is not the case in RQ. One does get skill bonuses from doing in editions 1-3, but there are other and even easier ways to pick up skill levels in RQ3, such as out-of-adventure training and occupational experience. Improvements by doing are special and additional bonuses.)

*shrug* I asked a definitive, answerable question, got a definitive answer. I stopped giving a shit at that point.

I was mildly engaged in whether it was substantially smoother to houserule to a roll-over system instead of a roll-under system, but not particularly.

Fair enough; glad that the thread derailment isn't a problem.

[Longes]

That is not a system by any possible stretch of the imagination. You resorting to that means that you have, in effect, conceded the argument.

I agree it's not systemic, and I agree that it could be elaborated. So sure, I'll concede those points. Hopefully, you've - at least internally - learned a few things along the way too.

But really, your complaint is that other (or maybe your circle) people played RuneQuest in such a fashion that a subjective clause was ignored and exploited that's more of a problem with the group than it is with the game. The game rules are not perfect and they do require reasonable people.

Here's how a rules-as-writ situation should occur.

Player: I pick the lock on the side door that's irrelevant to the adventure.
GM: OK you have Devise skill. It takes a while, but you succeed.
Player: I don't get a check?
GM: No, it's not a stress test (refers player to p20 )

Later characters are in a midst of battle with trolls.

Player A: I'm thinking of changing to shortsword.
Player B: What the hell? You have that at 15%!
Player A: But if I succeed I get a skill check if I change weapons!
Player B: Dude, and the troll could kill you with a great club whilst you're fapping about with your shortsword, pun not intended. Just kill the troll, get the loot, and we'll train up your shortsword when we get back to Pavis. Changing to shortsword in the middle of combat is just stupid. (Player B refers Player A to p41)

Player A, who really is not very bright, is still after an experience check for shortsword and goes chasing a rubble runner. After being bit twice, the player finally lands a blow.

Player A: I hit! Do I get an experience check?
GM: Well... I it was a stress test and there was some inherent danger. But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character. It's not worth an experience check. I'm taking up the rule on p38 that this doesn't constitute a check. You're just making taking irrelevant risks for the purpose of trying to get checks.
Player A: .... I know! I'm going to convert to Chaotic Neutral! I do random shit all the time, like attack a rubble runner for no in-story purpose, because that's my in-character motivation! What could go wrong?
GM: You're thinking of 2nd edition AD&D.
Player B: Is there a cult with Chaos, Disorder, and Movement runes?

Good luck with that player.

We're done here.

Quite. Have a nice day Frank.

Question. Does this mean that the Danger Room from X-Men is the one true way of training in RuneQuest? If you pick locks while blind and on fire - you get a check. If you pick locks in a nice beige room with a manual in one hand while listening to Chopin, you get jack shit.

EDIT: Actualy no. Apparently neither of those two gives you anything because neither of them are "advancing the story".

[Red_Rob]

As noted, whilst it is not explicit, my own treatment in RuneQuest has been to allow experience checks from a simulationist orientation, taking into account various memory biases (e.g., Zeigarnik effect, Von Restorff's distinctive encoding). I would, for example, allow experience checks for important critical failures because they are so memorable to the character. Yes, that does mean a degree of subjectivity.

So you admit basically this comes down to "guess what the GM thinks would be a valid skill use for an experience check". Which was one of the original complaint about the "system".

I just want to point out that if I pulled a stunt on a horse in a "learn by doing" game because I really wanted to get better at horse riding, I would not be impressed by the GM dressing his refusal up in some pseudo-scientific pop-psych clothing when the real answer is "I don't want to give you a skill advance".

D&D at least has a defined metric for experience rewards based on overcoming challenges. Only getting to level up skills that the GM decides were used "memorably" seems terrible.

[GâtFromKI]

If you're looking for other examples, check out first edition (1981) rules p17 for the Astronomy skill; "... especially well-known stars (such as Betelguese, Antares, etc) will be known automatically by any Astronomer with a skill of 25%". If you look in the second edition for the previously mentioned Drive skill (p22) you will read "Anyone will a skill of 25% in driving can successfully drive a car down the road". Likewise Operate Heavy Machinery (p23) "If he has a skill of 25% or more, he may successfully use the machine, except for difficult tasks or in bad conditions, when the roll must be made" & etc., etc., etc.

As far as I remember, a typical CoC sheet has like fifty skills or so; I don't know the exact number, and I don't want to know, I just don't want to play this piece of shit again at any time in the future. I simply remember that looking at the sheet is like being punched in the balls:"Your investigator will die soon, so don't invest yourself into the character. Now, you spend the next 4 hours to attribute 320 points into 50 skills and you shut up".

Therefore, your three example aren't rules, it's more... 3 anecdotes about 3 skills, in a system that has more skill than the whole party has fingers. anyway those anecdotes will never come into play: you'll never have to locate Antares during actual play, you'll never use heavy machine since monsters are immune to anything anyway, and using a car in CoC with your 30% skill is just an elaborate method of getting your character killed and stop playing (in other games, you'd have to drive while drunk to get the same result).

In actual play, those 3 anecdote will never apply, and the system will resume to "convince the MC you success because you have 25%, or fail without actually bothering rolling the dice".

[Lev Lafayette]

Question. Does this mean that the Danger Room from X-Men is the one true way of training in RuneQuest? If you pick locks while blind and on fire - you get a check. If you pick locks in a nice beige room with a manual in one hand while listening to Chopin, you get jack shit.

I don't know what the Danger Room from X-Men is. But using your example, if the GM said that the check was worthy, then yes would get a check. The other circumstance that you describe perhaps research, which also gives you skill improvements as well. In most cases I wouldn't recommend roleplaying that out

EDIT: Actualy no. Apparently neither of those two gives you anything because neither of them are "advancing the story".

Actually no. That's not what the RQ3 rules say. They say that the GM decides whether a skill test in an adventure is worthy of a check then one is applied. I was giving an illustration of the sort of justification a GM might apply.

So you admit basically this comes down to "guess what the GM thinks would be a valid skill use for an experience check". Which was one of the original complaint about the "system".

My reading of the thread is was the argument that skill use was the only way to improve skills. This is not true, at least not in RQ3, MRQ, MRQII, and RQ6. I would have to check RQ1 and RQII as I can't remember off-hand. I am less troubled by the suggestion that a GM can pull rank and say, "no, your test of Climb in this instance not worthy of skill check" during an adventure.

I just want to point out that if I pulled a stunt on a horse in a "learn by doing" game because I really wanted to get better at horse riding, I would not be impressed by the GM dressing his refusal up in some pseudo-scientific pop-psych clothing when the real answer is "I don't want to give you a skill advance".

If that was their real answer, no, it wouldn't be helpful.

D&D at least has a defined metric for experience rewards based on overcoming challenges. Only getting to level up skills that the GM decides were used "memorably" seems terrible.

Sure, recent editions of D&D in particular I believe are quite good that. Of course, it's a different focus. D&D has more general challenges and general improvements (experience points to levels) whereas RQ 3e (which was, I must mention, in 1984) had specific challenges to specific improvements (Ride skill check or training directly to Ride skill percentage). More recent versions (MRQ, MRQII, RQ6) if I recall correctly go down the path from general adventure knowledge gains (say 3 Hero Points per adventure) to specific skills.

I simply remember that looking at the sheet is like being punched in the balls:"Your investigator will die soon, so don't invest yourself into the character. Now, you spend the next 4 hours to attribute 320 points into 50 skills and you shut up".

So, six skills at 50% and one at 70% took four hours?

In actual play, those 3 anecdote will never apply, and the system will resume to "convince the MC you success because you have 25%, or fail without actually bothering rolling the dice".

Yet in the current campaign (Masks of Nyarlathotep) I'm running all three skills have been already been used. So YMMV.

[ishy]

GM: Well... I it was a stress test and there was some inherent danger. But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character.

If the DM decides what my characters story is, why do you have players?

[GâtFromKI]

So, six skills at 50% and one at 70% took four hours?

The system isn't "distribute six 50% and one 70%", but "distribute 320 points. No guideline. Create a consistent character, with enough point in relevant skill. No guideline. No indication of how much a character need to accomplish something."

So, yes, trying to create an astrophysician not knowing if he needs mathematics and astronomy and how much he needs either takes several hours, either takes 5 minutes. "screw that shit, 150 points in shotgun and 170 in explosive, done". The second method is encouraged in the rules, in the part saying you shouldn't invest yourself in the character.

Yet in the current campaign (Masks of Nyarlathotep) I'm running all three skills have been already been used. So YMMV.

A player had to name Antares? In what circumstances ?

[Lev Lafayette]

If the DM decides what my characters story is, why do you have players?

Where does it say that? The example made it quite clear that the player was deciding their character's own motivations, however munchkin like

The system isn't "distribute six 50% and one 70%", but "distribute 320 points. No guideline. Create a consistent character, with enough point in relevant skill. No guideline. No indication of how much a character need to accomplish something."

There are guidelines; its on page 40 of CoC 5.5 under the heading "sample occupations", which provides a list of skills that such characters should have. No, they don't give exact percentages or even proportions. That's up to the player. There is a balance between speed of generation and templates vs freedom and outlines, and CoC has chosen the later. Now, as an aesthetic choice you could argue that you want more templating and that's fine. There's eight sample characters at the back of the book, take one of them. Or divide by the ten or so skills that are listed for each sample occupation. It's up to you.

A player had to name Antares? In what circumstances ?

No, not Antares as such, but they did make use of their astronomy skill; multiple occassions actually. "The stars are right!" is a fairly important motif in the game.

[Longes]

There are guidelines; its on page 40 of CoC 5.5 under the heading "sample occupations", which provides a list of skills that such characters should have. No, they don't give exact percentages or even proportions. That's up to the player. There is a balance between speed of generation and templates vs freedom and outlines, and CoC has chosen the later. Now, as an aesthetic choice you could argue that you want more templating and that's fine. There's eight sample characters at the back of the book, take one of them. Or divide by the ten or so skills that are listed for each sample occupation. It's up to you.

That's not a list of skills that such characters should have. That's a list of skills you can buy out of your EDU pool. Most of which aren't going to be on the list of skills CoC deems useful, which is given a bit further.

[Lev Lafayette]

That's not a list of skills that such characters should have. That's a list of skills you can buy out of your EDU pool.

"Can be out of your EDU pool" is a game rule, "should have" is a personal opinion. My personal opinion is that you should buy skills out of your EDU pool. Your opinion might differ, and that doesn't trouble me.

[ishy]

If the DM decides what my characters story is, why do you have players?

Where does it say that? The example made it quite clear that the player was deciding their character's own motivations, however munchkin like

GM: [. . . ] But really, it didn't constitute an advance in the story or your character.

[GâtFromKI]

There are guidelines; its on page 40 of CoC 5.5 under the heading "sample occupations", which provides a list of skills that such characters should have. No, they don't give exact percentages or even proportions. That's up to the player. There is a balance between speed of generation and templates vs freedom and outlines, and CoC has chosen the later.

You're full of shit.

The balance between speed and customization isn't "attribute 320 points between more than 50 skills", for any reasonable value of "balance". You have to be full of shit to pretend the contrary.

In the case of CoC, the rulebook repeats that your character will die and become insane and fail and you shouldn't care about him; that's almost the only thing I remember about it. Therefore the character creation should be faster and have less options than D&D or Descent, or any game where you actually care about your character and expect to play him more than 1 afternoon.

If you're looking for other examples, check out first edition (1981) rules p17 for the Astronomy skill; "... especially well-known stars (such as Betelguese, Antares, etc) will be known automatically by any Astronomer with a skill of 25%". If you look in the second edition for the previously mentioned Drive skill (p22) you will read "Anyone will a skill of 25% in driving can successfully drive a car down the road". Likewise Operate Heavy Machinery (p23) "If he has a skill of 25% or more, he may successfully use the machine, except for difficult tasks or in bad conditions, when the roll must be made" & etc., etc., etc.

Therefore, your three example aren't rules, it's more... 3 anecdotes about 3 skills, in a system that has more skill than the whole party has fingers. anyway those anecdotes will never come into play: you'll never have to locate Antares during actual play [...]

Yet in the current campaign (Masks of Nyarlathotep) I'm running all three skills have been already been used. So YMMV.

A player had to name Antares? In what circumstances ?

No, not Antares as such

Yeah, whatever.

Are you still arguing that rules for auto success exist?

[Aryxbez]

Sorry, I don't know what 'powerleveling E.S-style' means.

As rampaging poet pointed out basically, I intended to clear that up, so my bad there, but I've assumed you've played at least one (not knowing what Danger Room in X-men is strange though, 90's cartoon & all). If that's a conceit of the game, shorthanding the player(s) who understand that notion of the game is kinda underhanded.

Could you explain why? The short examples cover the rules for automatic versus non-automatic skill tests, the relative disadvantages of attempting risky skill experience checks, and the subjective element on justifying skill experience checks.

Really looked like using the rules to create a negative play experience, painting the player who was playing in line of games expectations/incentives as one to ostracize. Seems shortisighted for DM to jank the player out of XP arbitrarily, and "biased" in the sense of you the author of the examples painting it all in that light.

Now, you do mention page numbers, but there's apparently a gallon of editions, so if I were to know for 110%, I would probably need the edition(s) in question (even if rules change little, I'm sure page numbers do)

If the link you provided is the norm here, I don't think I'll stay for much longer. I prefer places where there is a genuine interest to be helpful and friendly towards other people, even whilst engaging an furious debate over ideas.

That would be unfortunate, but we do help people, and can be generally friendly so long as the people aren't being dishonest, continually-incorrect (usually despite evidence), or passive-aggression BS where poster ends up freaking out on us despite likely being insulting in the first place. Again, I'd re-read that link, as the importance is it doesn't have fake niceties paralyzing discussion, assuming of course, you've been on past RPG forums with their strict rules (bonus if moderators corrupt w/their power).

Although there is the issue of why would one bother to engage with such a community.

We're willing to do the math, despite bias generally able to review a product on its merits, and extrapolate incentives & results of its behaviors the game would encourage. There was a time I stopped caring about RPG's, and RPG forums, and when former came back, Gaming Den brought me back to the forums full stop, very refreshing to find a place I could read and be informed again (back when Wizards community was a place worth going, and informed me of 3.5's flaws). The Gaming Den is also great for taking a look at a ruleset, and tearing it apart for an aspiring game designer wanting hard feedback on their RPG. I guess there's the idea that reading here too long might make you "feel" negative in turn, not towards anyone in general, but playing/DMing RPG's I guess, but that's rather subjective I would imagine.

So I'd recommend sticking around considering your traits, I think what ye mentioned above may find here. Lurking around some old threads might find some stuff to like (even if looking at stickied thread stuff)