Skills in OSR/5e (proficient/expert) and the power law of practice

I've been thinking about skills lately and coincidentally I've read something about the power law of practice. For our purposes, you can say that this means that when you first learn something you learn fast, and then it takes more and more time to get better.

(BTW, I"m not even sure that this really works, and I don't particularly care; I'm thinking about archetype more than "realism").

I wrote Dark Fantasy Basic using a smooth skill curve, inspired by Basic D&D. With each level, your relevant bonuses get a bit better. I still like it, to be honest (which, TBH, makes me a bit discouraged when trying to write something new... but I digress).

But I've been thinking of an alternative. One thing that bothers me a little in 5e D&D is how the starting barbarian is bad at nature and survival. Dark Fantasy Basic is a bit better, IMO... but what if we tried something different? Something simpler and more binary?

If we were to make use the "power law of practice" in out games, we could simplify the whole logarithmic scale to three situations: novice, proficient and expert (to use 5e D&D lingo).

A novice knows nothing about a skill. Think of someone who has never picked a musical instrument. There is no chance to perform a song. You cannot make a living baking cakes without any knowledge of cooking, and trying to tame a horse will get you hurt. Do not bother rolling the dice.

Someone proficient has passed some amount of time learning a skill. Maybe 20 hours of serious practice, maybe the proverbial one year of training you get at most jobs (and then you do the same thing for 30+ years), or maybe an entire summer with your friends. Doesn't matter. If you have a background in cooking, you're proficient. If your have any graduation in a martial art other than "white belt", you're proficient. If you always lived in cold places, you're proficient in surviving in the snow even without formal training. If you've grown in a farm, you're proficient with animals and agriculture. If you can entertain people with a lute, build a small house, or tame a horse, you're proficient. Your knowledge might be practical, instinctive, or even based in superstition. But it gets the job done.

An expert is another matter. That is "10,000-Hour Rule" stuff (which, again, might not be true in real life): "black belt" fighters, agronomist or veterinaries (when compared to farmers), superb musicians, award-winning actors, architects, etc. There is not 1% chance (let alone 5%) that you will fail when performing a simple song or making a cake.

In real life, there are plenty of intermediary situations - and even experts that have advanced knowledge but no practical knowledge. RPGs do not require that level of detail, necessarily.

5e D&D has un-proficient/proficient/expert. It could fit. However, the difference is often a small bonus - the difference between +0/+2/+4 at level 1. At level 20, you've got +0/+6/+12, which is a bit better... but feels too little, to late (my campaigns do not reach level 20 usually).

Look, the difference between 20-100 hours of guitar and NO hours of guitar will show 100% of the time, not 95%, much less 70% of the time as the dice will tell you. Proficiency is the different between succeeding sometimes and not even being able to try. The 5e DMG points at this direction. Of course, there is some stuff that everyone should be able to try. adventurer stuff - climbing, breaking down doors, etc.

Another problem is that being a expert is hidden behind multiple walls ion 5e. If you are a druid, you can hardly be an expert in nature barring some very specific circumstances (maybe with multi-classin - which is an optional rule - or a non-core feat - and feats are also optional, and you must be a human... etc.).

If proficiency/expertise must have a bonus, if must be something significant... A 10th wizard must succeed at least 95% of the time against the barbarian when rolling arcana (of course, the barbarian can always punch him in the face before that). A difference of (about) +8 is simply not good enough (the wizard will lose/draw one time out of five).

It is worse for things that do not use skills. There is people that make a strength roll to break down a door, for example - no "athletics' skill. So the Str 20 fighter, against a DC 16, will succeed 50% of the time... And the wizard (or peasant) with Str 20 will succeed 25%. It's just not enough IMO.

All these numbers do not mean much at face value - I bet you do not care about this while you're playing, or never noticed the exact statistic. I dunno. For me, a +11 bonus just LOOKS to little for a level 20 wizard. This guy or gal is traversing planes, and even flying around SINCE LEVEL 5. If a peasant beats him in arcana, it should be a ONE IN A MILLION situation.

Anyway.

Long story short, here is my plan for my next game (Dark fantasy Hack). You get +5 (proficient), +10 (expert), or nothing. Plus your ability bonus (which is twice as normal). You can hardly beat someone skilled if you're a novice, and facing a expert is certain defeat barring mythical circumstances (even Sigurd had to learn a bit about blacksmithing IIRC). A 20th level wizard gets about +20 in arcana. sounds better to me.

Also, there is stuff everyone can try, and stuff you can't even try. Also, skills are optional.

But that's next post.