These aren't skills?!!

[Superfluous Crow]

Okay, this could go in my dislike thread as well, but i think it deserves its own thread.
The issue here is that there are simply some things generally classified as skills that i can't any reason to classify as skills. Perception skills are the most glaring examples: How the hell do you train "listening"? this has nothing to do with your training, only your talent. Other examples could be seduction, a skill present in some systems; I agree that training in this skill *could* be possible, but only if you are a courtesan: your dashing rogue would have to have a somewhat unnatural background to possess this skill.
I know some of you are big on skills and such, so i would like to hear what your opinion of this is? Am i the only one who finds this slightly strange?

[Moniker]

Training, in a sense, reflects talent. Perception in all cases would simply be a measurement of how well you listen and/or perceive things; a talent, as opposed to "training". Or heck, it could very well be training (insert typical martial arts training here example).

Seduction would simply be Diplomacy used in a very specific way. Or, it could be Streetwise (if you wanted to seduce a governor to learn a few secrety-secrets).

[Superfluous Crow]

Hmm, I've always considered ranks to be a reflection of training in that skill, especially when you consider that you can raise it every level (in D&D). but But this wasn't meant as a D&D-specific issue, but rather as a general issue.

[Moniker]

Ah, ranks. Bleh - I never was a fan of ranks. However, I do believe there is some merit in your Skills "growing" through the test of time (reflected in the /12 level modifier in 4E).

[SDragon]

I don't think either example are appropriate, although I understand what you're trying to say. I think in the first example, yes, there are some people who just happen to have keen senses, which isn't trainable, but still grants perceptive abilities. I think you can train in ways to improve your concentration and focus, separating "signal" from "noise", which also improve your perceptive abilities. In the second example, I think the difference between the courtesan and the rogue is the manner of training; the courtesan receives a much more formal training, whereas the rogue goes by the experience of trial-and-error.

However, like I said, I think I understand what you're getting at. Sure, you can work to improve your focus, but how do you improve the actual sensitivity of your ears (eyes, nose, etc.)? I think these can be appropriately handled with the use of advantages, which can work similarly to skills, but can't be advanced. Of course, to me, any system that uses advantages might as well use disadvantages, too. If nothing else, it adds a level of verisimilitude to the mechanics, which in turn reflects the game being played.

[Polycarp]

You may not be able to train hearing, but you can certainly train listening.  It's not just about the raw acuteness of the sense, but about knowing what sounds like what, and having the presence of mind to distinguish sounds even in difficult situations.

Think of a silencer on a gun.  A "silencer" isn't actually silent - it still can be quite loud - but the difference is that the shot doesn't sound like a gunshot any more, so in theory it doesn't attract attention.  A trained listener might not be fooled by this and realize that the generic "snap" he just heard might well be a gunshot.

It's the same thing for spotting.  People can be very careful observers, or they can be totally oblivious, even if their actual visual acuity remains the same.  It's not the physical trait itself, it's how you use it.

[Superfluous Crow]

My own personal opinion is also that this should be handled by advantages or the like.
When you can pick out the "signal", there isn't really much more in the way of training you can do. The idea of endlessly raising your listen skill seems slightly stupid to me. And if the rogue's seduction capability comes from experience, then it's a measure of natural ability as well, not training. At least, it seems arbitrary to say that a rogues charm and a courtesans skill is the same.

[Superfluous Crow]

Didn't see your post polycarp!.
ALthough what you're saying is true, nobody could do formal training of any kind in "listening". And i feel that when people can raise the scores at will (if they pay) it can't be dependent on experience as such, but is rather a voluntary choice of some kind. Of course, this is a rather subjective opinion.

[Wensleydale]

Actually, with the whole seduction thing...

Rogue goes by trial-and-error, gaining knowledge and skill by EXPERIENCE.

Levels are raised by gaining experience.

So, the Rogue gains experience in seduction, the rogue gains experience, the rogue gains a level (enough experience to justify a rank increase).

However, there are problems with this system. The Elder Scrolls system makes more sense here, where levels in particular skills are increased by practicing, not general levels. But that's not the point up for debate here.

[Superfluous Crow]

Yeah, already feel that I'll be having trouble making arguments for my point. It might just be a personal issue i have... Still seems awkward to me.

[Nomadic]

Didn't see your post polycarp!.
ALthough what you're saying is true, nobody could do formal training of any kind in "listening". And i feel that when people can raise the scores at will (if they pay) it can't be dependent on experience as such, but is rather a voluntary choice of some kind. Of course, this is a rather subjective opinion.

Actually you can train your perceptions and there are formal ways to go about doing so. You do this by purposefully experiencing the required conditions. Need to get better at spotting things, your teacher might set up an area of forest with hidden items and send you out to discover them. He might well give you tips on how to recognize things in the brush (looking for outlines that don't belong, odd unnatural colors, etc). This being just one example. It is essentially like the training you get from experiencing it in real life but as it is focused training you can learn it much faster since you control how often you experience it.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents (more like 10 cents with the size heh).

[LordVreeg]

Boy, so many questions to answer...

In Guildschool, skills are under general heading skills.  'Basic detect' is the 'basic' skill for a number of detection skills, including 'detect noise'.  The skill of decting noise, and the success in same is not merely the detection of a noise, but where the noise is coming from, filtering out other noises, and most importantly the identification of what that noise is, and much of these can get better with practise and experience, especially the discernment.
This skill is just as used in Guildschool for trying to listen in to a conversation or to try to discern what kind or size of creature is growling commands behind a corner.

'Basic Carnal', which is, by the way, Nomadic's Favorite skillset, does, in fact, have seduction as a a subskill.  Charisma and wisdom have very strong effects in both skills, and appearance adds a very big bonus on as well to Seduction'.  

However, while many factions have access to the 'basic social' skill, very few have access to the actual subskill 'Seduction'

So a rogue with 'basic social' with a very high charisma might actually have a better chance at seduction than a more average attribute courtesan with both 'basic social' and 'seduction', but all things being equal, the courtesan's training in what music to play, what questions to ask, the social backgrounds of the 'victim', etc, would give a huge advantage.  
 

[SDragon]

Didn't see your post polycarp!.
ALthough what you're saying is true, nobody could do formal training of any kind in "listening". And i feel that when people can raise the scores at will (if they pay) it can't be dependent on experience as such, but is rather a voluntary choice of some kind. Of course, this is a rather subjective opinion.

Actually you can train your perceptions and there are formal ways to go about doing so. You do this by purposefully experiencing the required conditions. Need to get better at spotting things, your teacher might set up an area of forest with hidden items and send you out to discover them. He might well give you tips on how to recognize things in the brush (looking for outlines that don't belong, odd unnatural colors, etc). This being just one example. It is essentially like the training you get from experiencing it in real life but as it is focused training you can learn it much faster since you control how often you experience it.

Anyhow, just my 2 cents (more like 10 cents with the size heh).

Seconded, with the extension that it can apply to any sense. It's one way musicians are trained, and I imagine professional taste-testers are trained this way, too.

Edit- CC, if you're trying to argue that, since the abilities take basis, even in part, in things that can't be trained, the ability itself can't be trained, then you have a false argument. However, it seems to me that you're argument is closer to simply pointing out that there are untrainable elements to the abilities, in which case, you'd be right. I think the untrainable elements should be used as advantages/disadvantages, which can act as modifiers, of sorts. You can forget how to seperate signal from noise (or grow unused to seperating the two), but you can't "forget" keen hearing.

[LordVreeg]

we can talk about the training wine-tasters get for hours.  do you have any idea what the tasing requirments for a Masters of Wine certifications are???  Nearly inhuman...

[SDragon]

I think a more appropriate example would be luck. If you're lucky, then dammit, you're just lucky. It's not because you read some book on being lucky. Sitting in some monastery for hours on end won't improve it, either. It's just... there. I can't see any argument for luck being handled like a skill. I think this is the whole point of using advantages and disadvantages in a skill-based system. I think it's also one of the flaws in core d20, but it's certainly fixable, at least to some extent. Assuming players don't mind being limited to one advantage per character, they could accept a first-level-only feat, which could work very much like an advantage. Of course, an actual advantage/disadvantage system could be attached to core d20 (or even integrated in a d20-based system), but that's beside the point.