Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

That's basically what was said. I proposed giving out more points if the GM insists on calling for lots of skill rolls, and Varyon said "you also owe the players a warning" and "in my campaign you need skill 14+ if you expect to be able to do something reliably."

In short, we all agree: As the game is written, lower levels are fine because either you'll never roll against them or you'll always roll at a bonus. A GM is free to insist on higher levels because players will always roll against them and never at a bonus. If so, the GM should (1) warn the players explicitly that they have a quirky take on a game that recommends not doing things that way, (2) specify what skill levels they expect to see, and (3) give out extra points to make their GM habits less unfair to their players by making those skill levels accessible.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Oh, absolutely. I was referring to his comment about if a GM decides to call for an unmodified roll for basically everything, like driving to work. He mentioned that a GM who opts to do that needs to give characters additional points (going up one tier from whatever the intended power level is) so they can actually be proficient with their "background" skills. I was suggesting the GM needs to also warn his players that they need unrealistically high background skills, as otherwise you'll end up with players using the extra points to boost their primary skills, rather than using them to make their characters have serviceable background skills - in such a campaign, a character with Driving-11 has no place on the road (given normal driving could be assumed to be at +5 or so, as per Kromm's comments, this means Driving-11 in an "unmodified rolls for everything" campaign is roughly equivalent to one with Driving-6 in a normal campaign).

EDIT: Whoops, ninja'ed by Kromm. Yeah, what he said.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

A regular person is going to avoid situations where they don't get a routine skill use bonus and they're going to gear up as best as they can to avoid failure, but they're going to end up in a dangerous traffic situation, or a fist fight, or they'll need to lie to an angry boss, or they're going to fall off a boat moving boat and need to swim. Virtually everyone encounters stuff like that. People with a skill of 11 are slightly better than 50/50 survivors in those situations. That's not adequate in a life where things don't always go according to plan. Skill 12 is a big jump in success. Skill 13 nearly seals the deal and emphatically reduces the specter of critical failure when you're routinely on the job and don't have your specialized tools.

Realistically I don't think there are a lot of NPC's walking around the world that are getting by depending on a skill of 11. At least not for long.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

These mechanics also explain why magic rich worlds, like Merlin-1, don't have drmons running all over the place and dozens of craters where magic labs used to be.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

A failed Driving roll in a dangerous situation may mean an accident, but typically a minor one (if failure is by no more than the vehicle's Stability Rating - 4 for most automobiles). A failed Swimming roll means a loss of 1 FP and a new roll in 5 seconds (and once you succeed, it's 5 minutes between rolls, and I'd argue that once you've succeeded once, the +3 for intentionally entering the water should apply, even if you didn't enter it intentionally to start with - success means you've caught your bearings). Results in a fist fight are rather dependent on your opponent's skill level, as well as how serious the fight is (most people don't ever get into a fist fight to the death). I'd say most people never get in a situation where, in GURPS terms, they have to pass a single skill check or die.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

A lot of horses, especially older ones, know that trick. You have to wait a few minutes, then tighten the girth properly, or as you start riding off.

Our horse that did that knew quite a few tricks for discomforting or outright removing riders. Of course the simplest is effectively impossible to resist if the horse is determined - they find a tree that has just enough clearance for them (and the saddle, if any) and walk under it, scraping the rider off.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

While my mom can do the trick with fixing the girth while sitting on the horse, she has a lot of experience, and it is difficult enough that it would probably require a Riding roll at a -2 penalty to avoid falling off (worse if the horse is inexperienced and/or if you are experiencing inclement weather). I would say that attempting that stunt with a young horse in a driving rain would require a Riding roll at -6 to avoid ending up in the mud. Of course, riding around without a tightened girth will likely end up with you in the mud as well, as a loose saddle is probably going to inflict a -2 to Riding rolls, so it might be worth the risk.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Honestly, with a GM like that, I'm afraid I'd start telling him "I'll be taking an hour to mount my horse safely"

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

@Varyon & @Kromm
Ah, my bad. It was late and I did a poor job reading the comment I was replying to. Sorry about that.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

...Not sure how any of those qualifiers would be relevant to whether you use Merchant? Wouldn't that come down to (a) is there a price negotiation involved and (b) is the table actually going to engage with it?
To be fair to anyone making that mistake, Characters does expressly say to do so: "Make a skill roll when you first try to mount a riding animal"

It's still the wrong call, but it's not hard to see how it could happen.