> When you cook you are backed up by our societys intricate and
advanced
> infrastructure. You have excellent cooking equipment (at least +4
> bonus),
That's a fair point. Although it only gets that bonus because I know how to use it. Giving my dear mother a microwave would result in some really spectacular fumbles. Putting me in a modern kitchen that I'm not familiar with is a definite disadvantage.
> you have meat that is mostly prepared already (+4),
Butchery is a separate skill in any case: and yes, I do know how to fillet a fish.
> you can be sure that the ingredients you get from the shop
> are disease and vermin free (no food poisoning and such
> possible)... etc.
(Laughs manically) Really? I've been the victim of some fumbles along
just these lines. If you seriously believe that, I suggest you do
some
reading before you next cook or store meat. (Off-topic, yes, but I'd
like to hear from you again! If you need more details on basic
kitchen
hygiene, we'll go to private email)
> So you don't need to have a mastery in cooking, and if you are like
me,
> and mostly cook for yourself and don't pursue it as a qourmet
artform
> you propably don't have a mastery.
Well.... maybe I do have tendencies along those lines, but I see what you're saying. If you're only doing something for your own benefit, you can live with the failures, and the non-lethal fumbles. But when you're doing something for the clan's benefit, you'd better know what you're doing.
> When somebody says fumble, people tend to think of RQ, and cutting
one's
> own head off with a poleaxe.
One of the sillier examples, it has to be said.
> Getting a fumble result is relative to the
> task at hand, and it's difficulty.
"Appropriate to" rather than "relative to", perhaps?
> A riding fumble doesn't mean your
> horses head suddenly explodes,
Quite. The result has to be at least possible! I suppose you could bang your own head on an overhanging branch with lethal results.
> nor does a cooking fumble mean that you
> manage to poison your guests.
Sadly, I know people who do manage this (non-lethall
y
so far) on a 1:20 chance. (no, this doesn't mean that I ate their
food
20 times). And if you don't call it a fumble, what do you call it?
> Under normal circumstanses (in RL), if you fumble your cooking the
> food just tastes bad. Usually it is still edible, at least on the
> standards of a hungry person with nothing else to eat.
I'd call that a failure, not a fumble.
> Did you people use the old RQ language and craft skills by rolling
> on the skills every time somebody tried to do some simple craftwork
Yes. At least, if the result mattered. Mending armour or a bridge, getting paid for the end item. That's what the rules are there for.
>, or speak their native tongue?
If the circumstances were unusual, or the result was critical, yes.
(Remember RQ had that idea of adding your skill and that of the
person
you were trying to talk to: the given skill values are about half
what
you roll against.) Again, that's what the rules are there for.
> Hopefully not.
So what on earth *did* you roll for? Combat only, or did you apply the same idea to that? "A bunch of trollkin attack you, but this is nothing unusual, and you win."
> Herding 12 is quite enough for somebody you send out to watch over
> the sheep. A skill of 12 means that he has experiense doing the
thing, and knows quite a bit about it (it's not that hard).
> You really don't need a mastery in sheep herding.
Don't you? I've never tried it, but I know there are national competitions in sheep herding ("One man and his dog" or some such name), and presumably the extra skill is considered worth having by the sheep farmers who go out of their way to acquire it.
"Sheepless Nights" actually uses this sort of skill, so let's take a
look.
A bunch of kids aged 8-12 have Shepherd 13
A "proper" shepherd has Shepherd 3W and Herd 13W
> I think Greg is just wrong, and hasn't really tought out what he
> said at the Convulsion.
This would not be unusual, but it did actually fit with the published rules, and made sense. You *don't* fumble at your profession, unless there are extra minuses on the roll.
> > Looking at the Rules, p120 tells me that making a Journeyman
>> quality item starts at 1W: a Masterwork starts at 1W2.
> I'd definitely say that one makes ones masterpiece at 1W.
Well the rules are, for once, specific, and they seem to disagree. Anyone else get a different interpretation out of that bit?
Powered by hypermail