Driving & Defaults, again

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think you'll find that there is no such rule.

There is such an indirect comment from Dr Kromm on the subject back from when I espoused such stacking.

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...&postcount=188

[borithan]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think you'll find that there is no such rule.

I went back and checked, and yes, I can't find anything along those lines. Not sure where I got this idea from.

Oh... maybe it was from a forum post, going from the above link

I think that when Kromm says that "most people" are driving at default he actually means "most people" not just people in the US with 2 hour daily commutes for decades.

Not sure what you mean by this? Most people that drive have had training and experience in driving. Unless you just mean that any old person off the street, who has never been given any education, or is still learning how to drive, will drive at default. In that case I agree, as that is the fundamental purpose of defaults. However, if you mean most people who drive, I don't agree with. 1 point in driving generally only gives a skill that works reliably in non-pressured situations, such as normal driving around town, so seems about right for your average driver. As soon as pressure is added (eg car chase or similar, or even getting involved in an accident), you are looking at rolls that fail 50% of the time or more. Add that on to the fact that rolls will suddenly become much more frequent, and you very quickly get to a situation where a driver with 1 point in the skill is forced to drop out quite quickly or face serious consequences.

If they are driving at default, even with the bonus for a non-stressful situation you are talking about a roll that fails more than 50% of the time. Ok, they need to fail bad for really serious consequences, because of the SR, but I don't see your average driver failing that often (ok, perks can change these odds, but it still seems punishing).

One major way I can see a person who receives very basic training improving suddenly, but not good enough to get a skill point, would be by saying that the truly defaulted cannot claim the "non-stressful" bonus, regardless of the situation. Even if there isn't noticeable danger, trying to drive when you have never done so before is going to be stressful. A few hours having someone familiarise you with the very basics will give you enough to feel able to use in safe locations.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

I think I'm spotting one of the points of fundamental disconnect on this issue that keeps it among the greatest of the Level 3 Unkillable Zombie Debates. Let me see if I can clear this up a little:

Everybody who thinks a regular failure on a Driving roll means "you crash and die immediately," raise your right hand.

Everybody who thinks a regular failure on a Driving roll means "you screw up in some minor way like miss an exit, get a traffic ticket, have to make a Vehicular Dodge to avoid possible minor body damage, or any of the million other minor fails that happen to millions of regular commuters every day, and even most critfails are just a trip to the mechanic, not the ER, unless you were doing something truly adventurous or roll terribly on the critfail table," raise your left hand.

[left hand up]

[borithan]

Mostly left, but some of those seem to be so minor to not even justify qualifying for a failed driving roll in my mind. Absent mindedly missing your exit doesn't strike me as being matter of driving skill. I would also argue people would roll successfully on driving and still get a ticket (if it was for something like speeding, for example). It would be totally not worth doing in an actual game, but that is not a matter of skill and control but whether someone follows the rules of the road. The best driver in the world might get caught doing 80 on the motorway, even if he wasn't ever in any danger of loosing control of the car, while someone who would fall to pieces if put into any stressful situation could never get a ticket because they always drive under the limit. I don't know, if you really wanted to keep track of this I think it would be a matter of self-imposed mental disadvantages. However, a normal fail, less than the stability rating, is explicitly not a big deal. It would probably engender some minor inconvenience, or at worst another roll to see if they can avoid a minor accident.

I am trying to remember the stats again, but I think 1 point buys your average character 9 in drive. Give +3 for commuting in a large city and you have an effective skill of 12. Less than a 12 and nothin' happens barring characters choosing to do things like speeding (though in this case they are likely to get less of a bonus, barring empty roads). Rolling 13-16 (normal SR of a car being 4, based on the rulebook) means minor problem. A critical fail results in an actual accident, the severity of which depends on the situation (monthly commute roll - unlikely to be too dreadful), or a random roll on table of hideousness (if you just want to be mean).

This for your average driver this seems fair to me.

As soon as stress gets put into this equation it becomes a very different matter. Instantly loose the +3, so rolling 9 for a pass, 11-13 for a minor fail and 14+ for something more serious. In the case of something like a chase, taking into account that rolls will now be much more frequent, and a chase will likely mean more attempts to make manoeuvres which will lead to further penalties to the roll, this is a big deal. A basic driver (with 1 point in the skill) with average stats would be expected to find themselves out of the running in 2 rolls (and doesn't even have a 50% chance of passing the first roll). Most of the time they won't suffer consequences that are too bad, but keep pushing it (and somehow passing) and they will likely roll 14+ at some point. In this situation this could be an actual accident that leads to injury. Roll a critical fail and the consequences are likely to nasty.

[pfharlock]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

I think I'm spotting one of the points of fundamental disconnect on this issue that keeps it among the greatest of the Level 3 Unkillable Zombie Debates. Let me see if I can clear this up a little:

Everybody who thinks a regular failure on a Driving roll means "you crash and die immediately," raise your right hand.

Everybody who thinks a regular failure on a Driving roll means "you screw up in some minor way like miss an exit, get a traffic ticket, have to make a Vehicular Dodge to avoid possible minor body damage, or any of the million other minor fails that happen to millions of regular commuters every day, and even most critfails are just a trip to the mechanic, not the ER, unless you were doing something truly adventurous or roll terribly on the critfail table," raise your left hand.

[left hand up]

I think I agree with you, left hand.

I think another part of the debate is focusing on how many penalties to add on to stuff. People at various times have thrown out -10 and -12 as valid. (Which in their games totally is)

For me take say driving, dx-5 if you don't have the skill, dx-1 if you have 1cp, dx-3 if you are driving say a stick and you are used to an automatic and have 1cp in the skill. Assuming you have the skill at 1cp then dx+3 for the daily commute or in other normal non stressful conditions (that +4 could have gone for any of the above roles in my opinion except as someone deftly pointed out when you are first learning which is kinda stressful).

That's about as far as my bonuses/penalties swing. For me it's enough. My general rule on equipment familiarity would be that you can only have -2 for that since that's all I see in the basic set, and only if you already have the skill.

That's about as far as my skill bonuses range

[Kromm]

Since we're talking about what I meant: I meant "Most people on Earth who get behind the wheel of a car more than once."

Where I used to live, it was possible within my memory (if barely) to buy one's license, no questions asked – the requirement was "Do you have enough money?", not "Did you pass a test?" My mother-in-law has such a license . . . her father bought it for her years ago, and she has had it renewed over and over. Where I currently live, we have 3.8 million people in the CMA, and the drivers are good mainly at waiting in traffic jams, not highway driving; when my wife and I moved here by van, the drop in driver quality was palpable as we approached the city. When I was visiting São Paulo, which has 21 million people in its metro area, I commented on the dangerous driving, which spurred not one but two of my Brazilian hosts to laugh and remark that most people see lessons and licenses as unnecessary complications. My wife had identical experiences in Buenos Aires and Seoul. One of my closest friends growing up made a similar comment about his former home in rural Australia, explaining that the main qualification there was being able to reach the controls.

So worldwide, I really do believe that most people who get behind the wheel and make the car move are winging it to some extent. It may well be that in the United States of America, everybody takes a course, everyone passes a test, retesting is mandatory, and ordinary people commute for hours across both urban and rural landscapes on a daily basis, racking up impressive skill. Most of the other 95.5% of us don't share that experience.

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

Everybody who thinks a regular failure on a Driving roll means "you screw up in some minor way like miss an exit, get a traffic ticket, have to make a Vehicular Dodge to avoid possible minor body damage, or any of the million other minor fails that happen to millions of regular commuters every day, and even most critfails are just a trip to the mechanic, not the ER, unless you were doing something truly adventurous or roll terribly on the critfail table," raise your left hand.

That is what the game intends. A regular failure is at worst a little lost time, wasted gas, etc. A critical failure might be an accident if you were doing something accident-prone. Usually it's just a ticket or a chipped windshield or another slightly expensive annoyance. Only critical failures in combat or a chase, or when large penalties cause them (e.g., your skill 12 becomes skill 4 thanks to -8 for road conditions, and you roll 14+), lead to true disasters. That's because Driving, like all GURPS skills, is normed to use under adventuring conditions (p. B171). Here that means battle, pursuit, heroic speed runs through blizzards to bring medicine to the village, etc.

Example: In my high-powered secret-agents campaign (see .sig), I always require Driving rolls when the PCs – who do illegal things under false IDs – travel from A to B by ground vehicle. All that measures is the quality of their driving. I treat it as a Quick Contest against the average policeman's professional skill of 12, and if the PCs win, they manage to make the trip without any LEO or traffic camera ever realizing they did it; that is, they arrive unexpected, with the element of surprise, no matter how much trouble they're in. If they lose, they still don't get intercepted . . . they just gave a cop or a camera a clear look at their plates or faces, which means that if their enemies have the right contacts, they might be expected. Only a natural 18 means something worse: a traffic stop, a breakdown, a wrong turn into a bad area that gives me an excuse to liven up the adventure with a gang attack, etc. I usually roll 1d for what actually happens and only call it an accident if that comes up higher than the vehicle's SR (that's 4-5 for most automobiles), in which case I still allow a vehicular dodge to avert disaster.

—

In short, it's hard to really, truly mess up Driving. That's why most people can get by on default.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by pfharlock

I think I agree with you, left hand.

Except that apparently you don't actually agree with him.

That's about as far as my bonuses/penalties swing. For me it's enough. My general rule on equipment familiarity would be that you can only have -2 for that since that's all I see in the basic set,

Originally Posted by p. B188

-2 for an unfamiliar control system (e.g., an automatic when you are used to a manual); -4 or more for a vehicle of an unfamiliar type within your specialty (e.g., a race car when you are used to stock cars).

and only if you already have the skill.

Which means that people with points in a skill can have lower effective skills from familiarity penalties than people using defaults. Which again, doesn't make sense.

[PK]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Which means that people with points in a skill can have lower effective skills from familiarity penalties than people using defaults. Which again, doesn't make sense.

This is why nothing about Familiarity says that it only applies to people who have points in the skill. If you're using Familiarity in your game, it should apply to skilled use and default use equally; otherwise, you'll get weird imbalances like that.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by PK

This is why nothing about Familiarity says that it only applies to people who have points in the skill. If you're using Familiarity in your game, it should apply to skilled use and default use equally; otherwise, you'll get weird imbalances like that.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. These other people in this thread are arguing against this.

[Kraydak]

Originally Posted by PK

This is why nothing about Familiarity says that it only applies to people who have points in the skill. If you're using Familiarity in your game, it should apply to skilled use and default use equally; otherwise, you'll get weird imbalances like that.

But if you apply familiarities to default use, then default use becomes a case of "mother-may-I". After all, a defaulter (usually) won't have familiarities, and so the GM can add as many -2s as come to mind.

Driving is actually an interesting case there. There was a phase where automatic transmission was so rare that a theoretical GM living back then who found GURPS books dropped off by a time traveler wouldn't apply familiarity penalties for automatic/manual transmission because automatic functionally didn't even exist. Someone in the modern world would be applying greater penalties for default use of a skill that had actually become easier simply because the new option created a new familiarity.