DarkLightHitomi:
So is there a reference, even a vague one, of our character's skill in things?
Feedback from your senses, self-estimation, and the results of your prior actions. Based, of course, on how good at self-assessment your character is, or if he or she is overconfident, prone to underestimating him or herself, or subject to the Dunning Kruger effect.
quote:
Also, how consistent is it? By this I mean how much of a bell curve around our skill level? DnD is very poor in this area, one roll is worse than apprentice while the previous roll was better than a master, and the next roll could be anywhere on the spectrum with minimal regard to actual skill of the character. (Mostly it is good to know whether being successful means I am [the character is] actually good at something, or if it is equally likely to get a pathetic result the next go round.) Consistent games will have most results around one point with only a slim chance of performing above or below your general skill. Inconsistent games, and there is hardly any point to knowing a skill.
Depends on the task. The purpose of the black box system is to keep players focused on the story, making choices for reasons of characterization, rather than playing the char op metagame.
Treat it like your character would. Sometimes skills see massive breakthroughs of understanding or enlightenment, but usually it's a process of getting a little better so slowly you don't even notice in the day to day, and it's only obvious when you look back after, for example, a year of consistent practice.
