This was a subject matter that was covered on my site recently but one I wanted to pitch on this forum because it's quite possible it's a stupid idea.
I've been recently play-testing with my gaming group a game I've been working on that is something of a cross between The Invisible College meets Hunter the Reckoning original, mechanics and of invisible college, but the themes and lore more inspired by Reckoning.
One of the ideas I discussed and which my players thought was kind of cool was, what if every mundane skill worked like Attainment in Invisible College? mainly what if skills had a range of 0-100, the bonus for skill checks being 1/10th the skill score.
And at the end of every session you tally every skill you rolled with success and roll a percentile equal or greater, it goes up by +1.
This to me seems like it'd have a much more natural skill progression than simply assigning skill points every level up for mundane stuff, you get better at using skills, by literally using those skills.
Sounds like a mix of Star Frontiers and RuneQuest.
Collage =/= College
It could work. I would also add two successes for every critical failure rolled. You learn as much, or more from mistakes than you do from success.
I see some problems with this approach.
1) Why does it matter whether you succeeded or not? You can learn just as much from failure. And as a starting character, you'll be failing a lot, and as GM there is good reason to reward failure.
2) Having to roll to see if your skills advance completely sucks. I say this from experience as a former Runequest player. It's hard enough to be a starting character without being unable to spend your xp. Especially when you then lose that xp.
3) By its nature, this will cause some players to advance faster than others, for no reason other than sheer dumb luck. That's not good. And if you say "over time it will all even out," you're wrong. The odds are exactly the same for each roll. The dice have no memory, and someone who pulls ahead because of a streak of lucky rolls is likely to stay ahead. And someone who falls behind is unlikely to catch up.
4) If you think it's bad when people get shafted once on advancement, wait until it happens twice right out of the gate. And it will happen twice to somebody. I wouldn't expect that player to come back.
5) How do you buy up new skills that you don't already have? What if nobody bought Cartography?
6) In Runequest, this encouraged what was called the "golf bag" approach, where players carried around a (figurative) golf bag full of different weapons, each of which they would use exactly once per session, to maximize their chances of getting a successful advancement check.
7) Some find the extra bookkeeping during play to be distracting. And the time spent rolling skill advancement checks comes out of game time.
Basically, this is point buy with extra steps. And those extra steps are problematic.
I wouldn't use it for normal skill progression but there are two ways I think it might be useful.
First is getting a new skill. IRL, there are several skills that have a first success barrier that can frustrate novices. A good example is learning to ride a bike.
The second is overcoming a developmental plateau. In your example of 0-100, what if 70 is the normal max someone can obtain through the usual skill development but you can break through this ceiling through intense training and pushing yourself to the limit until you finally overcome the limit.
I would also add that even a failure shouldn't result in no positive results. If a player rolls and fails to achieve attainment, then perhaps a point could be added to attempt counter that accumulates until the success happens. Maybe this can be a roll modifier that makes the next attempt a little easier or maybe it can give an automatic success once a player has made 10 or so attempts.
This is similar to how Call of Cthulhu does it. It works but there are some problems.
It encourages players to roll as many checks for as many skills as possible hoping to get a success. Characters will do things just to get rolls so they can maybe advance.
Certain skills will go up much faster than others. It will be whatever skills the GM calls for the most rolls with. In CoC this is usually spot hidden, listen and library use. Skills that rarely come into play will rarely if ever advance.
If you're interested in keeping players at least potentially in sync with each other, the way I came up with was to have one skill advance per session but you got to roll in your choice of order based on skills you meaningfully used (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) in game. You kept rolling until you ran out or succeeding in upping a skill. Any sessions where no roll was successful was "banked" for the next session(s) until it succeeded. For example, if you failed two games in a row, you'd be able to roll potentially three increases on different skills if you got lucky after the third game. It's not perfect as you'd still only increase an individual skill once in that third session (as opposed to potentially multiple times if repeatedly successful over multiple games) but at least the attempts we're lost completely and characters stayed roughly on par with each other. This was a d20 system though so for percentile it may be better to have multiple successful rolls allowable per session due to the greater granularity there.
Quote from: yosemitemike on April 28, 2024, 04:46:38 AMThis is similar to how Call of Cthulhu does it. It works but there are some problems.
It encourages players to roll as many checks for as many skills as possible hoping to get a success. Characters will do things just to get rolls so they can maybe advance.
Certain skills will go up much faster than others. It will be whatever skills the GM calls for the most rolls with. In CoC this is usually spot hidden, listen and library use. Skills that rarely come into play will rarely if ever advance.
Exactly. And as much as we want to claim "rulings over rules" and just explain the Players and tell them to avoid metagame to stack successes, its just going to happen no matter what.
The players will eventually wise up and try to come up with ways to justify rolling for stuff. Its something that makes sense in theory but in practice you get Skyrim characters letting themselves be hit by crabs by the river to raise their Heavy Armor skill.
One way to go about it is that advancement requires GM approval, but by that point you can just cut the middleman and then have your players get GM approval to just buy skill ups with XP.
As Lurkndog said, this is just point buy with extra steps and opens up the door for a lot of metagaming/powergaming for very little added value.
I agree with some of the objections, but they seem easy to address: you skill spend XP as you want, but you can only spend them if you successfully roll over a skill you used.
If you use multiple skills, you get to choose which you want to try to advance first. If you fail in all your rolls, you can start again etc.
Quote from: Lurkndog on April 27, 2024, 09:28:32 PMI see some problems with this approach.
1) Why does it matter whether you succeeded or not? You can learn just as much from failure. And as a starting character, you'll be failing a lot, and as GM there is good reason to reward failure.
2) Having to roll to see if your skills advance completely sucks. I say this from experience as a former Runequest player. It's hard enough to be a starting character without being unable to spend your xp. Especially when you then lose that xp.
3) By its nature, this will cause some players to advance faster than others, for no reason other than sheer dumb luck. That's not good. And if you say "over time it will all even out," you're wrong. The odds are exactly the same for each roll. The dice have no memory, and someone who pulls ahead because of a streak of lucky rolls is likely to stay ahead. And someone who falls behind is unlikely to catch up.
4) If you think it's bad when people get shafted once on advancement, wait until it happens twice right out of the gate. And it will happen twice to somebody. I wouldn't expect that player to come back.
5) How do you buy up new skills that you don't already have? What if nobody bought Cartography?
6) In Runequest, this encouraged what was called the "golf bag" approach, where players carried around a (figurative) golf bag full of different weapons, each of which they would use exactly once per session, to maximize their chances of getting a successful advancement check.
7) Some find the extra bookkeeping during play to be distracting. And the time spent rolling skill advancement checks comes out of game time.
Basically, this is point buy with extra steps. And those extra steps are problematic.
Well I disagree with that final statement, nor did you offer an alternative.
But to put it simply skills also progress on level up, or have a chance to, as I'm taking the RPGpundit approach of random level benefits, sometimes its extra HP, a boost to an attribute or 1d6+1 to a skill of choice. still random but it even's out. and you tally multiple skills, all skills you had success with or crit failed with have a chance of improving after the session, so it's very unlikely you get zero improvement.
And as well my system is pretty lethal in that OSR style tradition, the expectation is character may not live very long, so any one character plowing ahead of the others is not a very big issue.
Having played a few d100/BRP games, I don't like this form of advancement. Others have pointed out several problems, chief among which, IMO, players will find any excuse to use certain skills just so they can advance. And if the GM isn't aware of the problem, the whole game devolves into the same 5 skills being used all the time because that's what the players are good at.
I much prefer simple point buy. A character could have been studying, practicing, or learning from another character, and we don't need to role play those activities, so just assume it happened and move on with the actual game.
I don't hate the RQ version of this, but I prefer some of the later spins on it. Can't remember which parts of this are in later RQ versus MRQ versus Legend.
- You can only improve 3 things, no matter how many things you tried.
- You still need to try things to improve them, but it's just a check mark.
- The difference between failing and succeeding at improvement is +1% versus a random, modestly higher bosot (like 2-4%).
- The skills are more limited in number and more carefully curated to be useful--still a wide range but nothing so niche you can't try it.
- Skills start a little higher than early RQ--so trying something isn't a killer.
The effect is that most of the negatives others have mentioned above go away or are so muted that the only people who would object are those who hate the whole idea or really do want to control and balance every detail (in which case, point buy would be better). It does even out over time. In fact, the biggest effect is that people with starting scores can get them into competent range without too much trouble, and then advancement slows down--which is part of the point.
I don't like how any of these games handle percentage near/over 100, but that's a different critique, and often a side effect of doing a d100 roll under game of any stripe.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 28, 2024, 08:29:00 PMI agree with some of the objections, but they seem easy to address: you skill spend XP as you want, but you can only spend them if you successfully roll over a skill you used.
That still gives players an incentive to find any excuse they can to make to make checks so they can succeed at one and advance that skill. I had a player who wanted to go to a start a fight at a random bar in every scenario so he could make brawl checks to advance his brawl skill. I had to say no because otherwise a chunk of every session would have been taken up by a pointless bar brawl. That's just one example of players using whatever excuse they could come up with to make checks to advance their skills. If the system gives players an incentive to do something, they are going to do it.
I like this idea, it's something I've been toying with (again with a VTT system), but as others as posted it is not without it's problems. Player abuse being one, maybe the most, significant issue.
Part of that can be handled by the GM. A simple "No, you don't get a skill point for letting the kid hit your armor" would suffice in most circumstances I think. At worst, a talk with the problem player may be necessary, and perhaps a swift boot off the table.
@yosemitemike
Case in point, my approach to that player would have been. "Well, now that you've started the fight, your butt is in jail. Oh, by the way, you can add a skill point to the 'pick up the soap' skill."
One change that might help: if you roll and fail to advance, the check stays. Checks don't stack, but at least you have a chance to advance it next game session.
Quote from: aganauton on April 29, 2024, 07:36:27 AM@yosemitemike
Case in point, my approach to that player would have been. "Well, now that you've started the fight, your butt is in jail. Oh, by the way, you can add a skill point to the 'pick up the soap' skill."
and now the player is sitting there for the entire session and probably complaining the entire time. That's the sort of solution that sounds good but doesn't really work very well at the table.
Either that or they argue about how they should be able to get away from the cops et cetera and that takes up a chunk of play time.
I'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.
Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.
Point buy with bonus points for specific skills learned through good roleplay seems like it could facilitate improvement through use with less tracking and mechanic opportunity hunting.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.
Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.
Skyrim is the culmination of this type of improvement. As I said, in theory, you just go by your way and play the game in any way you want and you would slowly improve in a "natural and immersive way" the same ideal that you had when you decided to approach this style of improvement and implement it at the table.
In practice, the Players will start to compete for gold medals on mental gymnastics to create reasons and situations where they get to roll a skill. The bigger the number the skills they use in a session, the higher chances for most increases. That's just a by product of gating improvement after skill usage, skill success or skill failure.
Point buy is essentially this, as the Players will just spend their points on skills they care about or want to improve or make sense for their character to develop, but without the pitfalls of trying to engineer situations to roll the highest variety of skills per session.
As I said in my post (where I mentioned Skyrim), you could go the "rulings over rules" mentality and require GM approval, but then by that point just cut the middleman, and just use point buy requiring GM approval to improve a skill instead of requiring GM approval to add an advancement of a skill you used successfully during the game session.
Either way, it is still boiling down to "point buy, but with extra steps". You don't have to agree with the opinions given, but there's a reason why a lot of us have pointed at these pitfalls.
Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 01:04:13 AMQuote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.
Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.
Skyrim is the culmination of this type of improvement. As I said, in theory, you just go by your way and play the game in any way you want and you would slowly improve in a "natural and immersive way" the same ideal that you had when you decided to approach this style of improvement and implement it at the table.
In practice, the Players will start to compete for gold medals on mental gymnastics to create reasons and situations where they get to roll a skill. The bigger the number the skills they use in a session, the higher chances for most increases. That's just a by product of gating improvement after skill usage, skill success or skill failure.
Point buy is essentially this, as the Players will just spend their points on skills they care about or want to improve or make sense for their character to develop, but without the pitfalls of trying to engineer situations to roll the highest variety of skills per session.
As I said in my post (where I mentioned Skyrim), you could go the "rulings over rules" mentality and require GM approval, but then by that point just cut the middleman, and just use point buy requiring GM approval to improve a skill instead of requiring GM approval to add an advancement of a skill you used successfully during the game session.
Either way, it is still boiling down to "point buy, but with extra steps". You don't have to agree with the opinions given, but there's a reason why a lot of us have pointed at these pitfalls.
Skyrim in practice: Constantly cast the same spell as often as mana allows until you max the category. Repeat with spell from another category. Never stand up straight--crouch at all times until your stealth hits max. I could go on...
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 30, 2024, 01:44:19 AMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 01:04:13 AMQuote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.
Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.
Skyrim is the culmination of this type of improvement. As I said, in theory, you just go by your way and play the game in any way you want and you would slowly improve in a "natural and immersive way" the same ideal that you had when you decided to approach this style of improvement and implement it at the table.
In practice, the Players will start to compete for gold medals on mental gymnastics to create reasons and situations where they get to roll a skill. The bigger the number the skills they use in a session, the higher chances for most increases. That's just a by product of gating improvement after skill usage, skill success or skill failure.
Point buy is essentially this, as the Players will just spend their points on skills they care about or want to improve or make sense for their character to develop, but without the pitfalls of trying to engineer situations to roll the highest variety of skills per session.
As I said in my post (where I mentioned Skyrim), you could go the "rulings over rules" mentality and require GM approval, but then by that point just cut the middleman, and just use point buy requiring GM approval to improve a skill instead of requiring GM approval to add an advancement of a skill you used successfully during the game session.
Either way, it is still boiling down to "point buy, but with extra steps". You don't have to agree with the opinions given, but there's a reason why a lot of us have pointed at these pitfalls.
Skyrim in practice: Constantly cast the same spell as often as mana allows until you max the category. Repeat with spell from another category. Never stand up straight--crouch at all times until your stealth hits max. I could go on...
Precisely.
Yosemitemike mentioned an example of someone always trying to start a bar brawl every session to improve on his Brawl skill. That's the last station of the "skills improve as you use them!" train of thought.
And, as I said, sure you could just go and say "nah, you can't start this bar brawl because you are just trying to game the system to get a skill increase".
But, by that point you are now gating progress not behind skill usage in game, but behind GM approval of a valid skill usage in game. So you can just cut the middle men and have all skill increases require GM approval and that's the "point buy, but with extra steps" situation.
The other side of that coin is that the GM gets the buy in from all the Players not to game the system. But then, sometimes they will hesitate because what is considered "gaming the system" what isn't is down to GM approval so it devolves into the "mother may I?" game of "hey, can I use my skill here?".
Improving skills through usage sounds awesome but only in theory. In practice its not because it tries to abstract a part of real life that is just too complex to abstract that way. Skills do not improve with usage, they improve with training, study, discipline and repetition. And none of that is going to be a productive usage of game time after maybe the first few "roleplaying the training sessions".
And then we are right back at point buy. If we just assume that the players will just "use downtime for training/honing their skills" then you can just use point buy and we all understand that's going on.
I am doing a variation of the advancement system in DragonBane.
✦ Did you participate in the game session?
✦ Did you explore a new location?
✦ Did you defeat one or more dangerous adversaries?
✦ Did you overcome an obstacle without using force?
✦ Did you give in to your weakness (optional rule)?
For each of those you can answer "yes" to, you get a check. Players can then roll over the skill on a D20, OR automatically raise 2 skills under 15 by 1 point. Any skill from 15-18 (Max skill level) must be rolled for and only one attempt per skill. This ensures steady progression, gives players options and doesnt cause skill spamming.
To mitigate the players pushing for checks thing, you really do have to come down hard on the mentality of players deciding when they roll. However, you should be doing this in any system. It's not good to have, "How do I milk my basket weaving skill to impress the prince," thing whether or not advancement is tied directly to using it or impressing the prince. It's still being focused on pushing a button on your character sheet instead of playing a character in the setting.
Not saying that some systems can't push this more than others, but it is hardly limited to systems where you need success in skills to advance. It's only partially a system problem. It's also a GM spine problem and a player entitlement problem and a "players trained by video games" problem and a "what a player wants and what a player needs to have a good game aren't the same thing" problem.
A big part of the answer is that the GM describes the situation, the player acts by saying what their character is attempting to do, and then the GM describes if a roll is needed, and if so, which one. If the players sit on the tower all day long and throw rocks at rats to "improve" their throwing skill, then the GM says that's what you do, no roll needed, because there's no pressure or consequences for failure. So no check for improvement. If the players want to throw rocks at archers trying to peg them (just being silly or because their ammo is low or because they really do want to improve their throwing skill) then you allow it, call for rolls when necessary. If one of them gets shot between the eyes with a crossbow bolt and dies, (also possible in a RQ-type game), then that's also what happens. Sucks to be you, and maybe the next character will pick differently.
No rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 01:07:49 PMTo mitigate the players pushing for checks thing, you really do have to come down hard on the mentality of players deciding when they roll. However, you should be doing this in any system. It's not good to have, "How do I milk my basket weaving skill to impress the prince," thing whether or not advancement is tied directly to using it or impressing the prince. It's still being focused on pushing a button on your character sheet instead of playing a character in the setting.
Not saying that some systems can't push this more than others, but it is hardly limited to systems where you need success in skills to advance. It's only partially a system problem. It's also a GM spine problem and a player entitlement problem and a "players trained by video games" problem and a "what a player wants and what a player needs to have a good game aren't the same thing" problem.
A big part of the answer is that the GM describes the situation, the player acts by saying what their character is attempting to do, and then the GM describes if a roll is needed, and if so, which one. If the players sit on the tower all day long and throw rocks at rats to "improve" their throwing skill, then the GM says that's what you do, no roll needed, because there's no pressure or consequences for failure. So no check for improvement. If the players want to throw rocks at archers trying to peg them (just being silly or because their ammo is low or because they really do want to improve their throwing skill) then you allow it, call for rolls when necessary. If one of them gets shot between the eyes with a crossbow bolt and dies, (also possible in a RQ-type game), then that's also what happens. Sucks to be you, and maybe the next character will pick differently.
No rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.
Straight up point buy does.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 01:07:49 PMTo mitigate the players pushing for checks thing, you really do have to come down hard on the mentality of players deciding when they roll. However, you should be doing this in any system. It's not good to have, "How do I milk my basket weaving skill to impress the prince," thing whether or not advancement is tied directly to using it or impressing the prince. It's still being focused on pushing a button on your character sheet instead of playing a character in the setting.
Not saying that some systems can't push this more than others, but it is hardly limited to systems where you need success in skills to advance. It's only partially a system problem. It's also a GM spine problem and a player entitlement problem and a "players trained by video games" problem and a "what a player wants and what a player needs to have a good game aren't the same thing" problem.
A big part of the answer is that the GM describes the situation, the player acts by saying what their character is attempting to do, and then the GM describes if a roll is needed, and if so, which one. If the players sit on the tower all day long and throw rocks at rats to "improve" their throwing skill, then the GM says that's what you do, no roll needed, because there's no pressure or consequences for failure. So no check for improvement. If the players want to throw rocks at archers trying to peg them (just being silly or because their ammo is low or because they really do want to improve their throwing skill) then you allow it, call for rolls when necessary. If one of them gets shot between the eyes with a crossbow bolt and dies, (also possible in a RQ-type game), then that's also what happens. Sucks to be you, and maybe the next character will pick differently.
No rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.
This was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.
Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 26, 2024, 05:42:40 PMThis was a subject matter that was covered on my site recently but one I wanted to pitch on this forum because it's quite possible it's a stupid idea.
I've been recently play-testing with my gaming group a game I've been working on that is something of a cross between The Invisible College meets Hunter the Reckoning original, mechanics and of invisible college, but the themes and lore more inspired by Reckoning.
One of the ideas I discussed and which my players thought was kind of cool was, what if every mundane skill worked like Attainment in Invisible College? mainly what if skills had a range of 0-100, the bonus for skill checks being 1/10th the skill score.
And at the end of every session you tally every skill you rolled with success and roll a percentile equal or greater, it goes up by +1.
This to me seems like it'd have a much more natural skill progression than simply assigning skill points every level up for mundane stuff, you get better at using skills, by literally using those skills.
Interesting mechanic!
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.
Are you 12 years old?
How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?
Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.
Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.
Well one thing to try, if you're new to skill based games, don't let the players roll individually outside of combat. All the skill games I've played have a rule that says, instead of individual rolls, the party gets to make one skill check and they can choose who rolls and someone else might give a bonus for helping.
Eg a party of 5 is trying to persuade an NPC. Only one player rolls. If someone wants to help, the rule might state that he can also roll but his success only gives a bonus (eg 10%) to the player doing the actual roll. The number of players who can help is also limited. Only the player doing the actual test can improve the skill.
Lots of people ignore this rule and let everyone make their own roll. Not only does that mess with the chance of success, it also encourages skill-spam rolls.
If you enforce that rule, at least you avoid the egregious cases of all players attempting the roll just to advance.
Anyway good luck and let us know if we were being too negative and you found a good way.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 26, 2024, 05:42:40 PMOne of the ideas I discussed and which my players thought was kind of cool was, what if every mundane skill worked like Attainment in Invisible College? mainly what if skills had a range of 0-100, the bonus for skill checks being 1/10th the skill score.
The system in Bushido (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushido_(role-playing_game)) (Daredevil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daredevils_(role-playing_game)) and Aftermath! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath!)) by Robert N. Charrette and Paul R. Hume (FGU) basically is this, except that the 100 (skill value) is divided by 5 (now called BCS or Base Chance of Success) and you roll under for success (ie the Blackjack roll system).
The skill value starts with a base value based on Characteristics (a bit like Runequest, CoC, Mythras etal). The skill value is improved by one week training which gives you around 1 to 7 points depending on if you have access to a school, and dedicate your full time and have one on one etc. After your skill gets above 60 this is halved, not having a teacher/school etc all halve the amount you can get etc.
Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.
Are you 12 years old?
How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?
It's right there in the post you originally quoted.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 08:05:20 AMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.
Are you 12 years old?
How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?
It's right there in the post you originally quoted.
Your post doesn't address point buy, at all.
I said as much, but if we use straight up point buy and we also assume that the characters use their downtime to train/research/study to increase the skills they are buying with their points, then there is no need for a GM slap.
Unlike with the approach of "skills require a success in game, but only the skill successes that are approved by the GM or that the GM allowed to be rolled in the first place."
Funny that you called me a "12 year old", yet you are the one throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 03:01:35 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 08:05:20 AMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.
Are you 12 years old?
How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?
It's right there in the post you originally quoted.
Your post doesn't address point buy, at all.
I said as much, but if we use straight up point buy and we also assume that the characters use their downtime to train/research/study to increase the skills they are buying with their points, then there is no need for a GM slap.
Unlike with the approach of "skills require a success in game, but only the skill successes that are approved by the GM or that the GM allowed to be rolled in the first place."
Funny that you called me a "12 year old", yet you are the one throwing a temper tantrum.
No, I'm calling you a 12 year old (with apologies to 12 year olds everywhere) because you didn't think for 2 seconds about what I said before you wrote a 1-line answer. And despite the back and forth, you still haven't thought about it. If you did, you'd either know the answer, or you'd at least have a better response.
My replies since then have been short because I'm mirroring your effort. If that comes off as a temper tantrum to you, then again, apologies to 12 year olds everywhere.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 06:07:46 PMQuote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 03:01:35 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 08:05:20 AMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.
Are you 12 years old?
How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?
It's right there in the post you originally quoted.
Your post doesn't address point buy, at all.
I said as much, but if we use straight up point buy and we also assume that the characters use their downtime to train/research/study to increase the skills they are buying with their points, then there is no need for a GM slap.
Unlike with the approach of "skills require a success in game, but only the skill successes that are approved by the GM or that the GM allowed to be rolled in the first place."
Funny that you called me a "12 year old", yet you are the one throwing a temper tantrum.
No, I'm calling you a 12 year old (with apologies to 12 year olds everywhere) because you didn't think for 2 seconds about what I said before you wrote a 1-line answer. And despite the back and forth, you still haven't thought about it. If you did, you'd either know the answer, or you'd at least have a better response.
My replies since then have been short because I'm mirroring your effort. If that comes off as a temper tantrum to you, then again, apologies to 12 year olds everywhere.
I did read your answer. You are boiling it down to "GM Fiat", I've already replied about that on this thread. You still haven't made your case on how straight up point buy requires GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.
Because you can't. And that's why I answered that, because you said:
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 01:07:49 PMNo rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.
And that's why I replied:
Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PMQuote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMHow does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?
So, clearly, the one not putting an effort is you who resorted to flinging poo instead of engaging in the discussion.
As such, the answer remains, this system is just point buy with extra steps and straight up point buy solves the problems that arise with that system in ways that do not require GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.
Alright, here's a hint. Your identification of the problem is faulty. If avoiding GM Fiat was the only problem, you'd be correct. However, not only is it not the only problem, it's not problem at all.
There's this issue with questions like this where people drill down to the lowest level, apply a "fix" at that level, and pay no attention to the larger context. Whereas when you zoom out and identify the real issue, it turns out the low level stuff goes away almost effortlessly. It's failing to see the forest for the trees thing.
Don't get me wrong. There are real issues with RQ-style advancement, and some of them are in the details (exactly what depending on the version of RQ in question). This just isn't one of them.
Quote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 10:20:54 PMAs such, the answer remains, this system is just point buy with extra steps and straight up point buy solves the problems that arise with that system in ways that do not require GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here. Where do the points come from in the point buy system?
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 02, 2024, 04:24:03 PMQuote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 10:20:54 PMAs such, the answer remains, this system is just point buy with extra steps and straight up point buy solves the problems that arise with that system in ways that do not require GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.
Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here. Where do the points come from in the point buy system?
Depends on the type of game.
You could do killing things like 3E D&D. You could do gold/treasure. You could go by goal completion. Passage of in-game time (1XP every day or 1XP every week, etc.) You could even just give them a specific amount of points every session just for surviving.
In their newest edition, Savage Worlds gives advancements every session, or even in the middle of the session for one shots. But, in the Deluxe Explorer's edition, which is the previous one, the GM awards a number of XP points.
The difference here is that you either get XP/Advancements or you don't and if you do then you decide how to spend that XP or what advancement to take. So, there's no need to come up with in-game situations to roll for skills to chase that success. And, the GM doesn't need to vet those ideas out. Once the style of advancement is established, let's say we go the ACKS route of XP equals treasure, then the players are motivated to gain treasure for advancement, not to try to eek out just another usage of a skill they haven't used this session to get another increase.
GURPs 4e also just goes the route of getting Character Points (XP) for the players to use freely. Streets of Peril has detailed guidelines on how much XP the characters get every session, the more you pursue your character's goals or help another character to pursue their goals, the more XP your character gets.
Now, if the argument is: "Well, the GM also decides how much XP you get, so its the same" that's not really true. Let's use D&D 3e:
If you are level X and you kill a monster that is CR Y, you get Z amount of experience points. Sure, the GM can just ignore the rules and do whatever he wants, but that's going against the specific system set in place by the rules.
Whereas, in a game where skill successes grant increases, then the Players are the ones trying to follow the rules but because their increases are tied to skill usage then they will try to use the skills to get those increases. In the same manner of why WotC D&D is all about combat, since combat is the thing that grants experience points and thus character advancement.
With a straight up point buy system, the GM decides how many points to give, or if the player characters even get points at all after the session. But, once the points are given, then the player is free to spend them and develop his character as he sees fit. In that sense, there is no need for GM Fiat/Spine/Slap in the middle of the game vetting the Player's ideas or their usage of skills. There is no need for that, since it is not tied to actually rolling a success in game. As I said, the table could just agree that the characters use their downtime to study/practice/research and then the XP usage is reflected to that.
The GM could even make the ruling of: "You will get XP during every session, but you can only spend it once you are back to safety and spend some in-game time (downtime) developing those skills". Or go for a milestone approach and then give a sizeable amount of XP after an adventure is over and thus the in-game time progresses before the next adventure and during that downtime the players spend their XP. There are many ways to approach this since a lot of games use point buy and most of them have their own rules on how/what gives XP and many using the "XP every session" model.
The difference here is at no point are the players in any need to come up with ideas to justify rolling for skills. Gating increases to skill successes means that the higher variety of skills used each session yields the biggest advancement, nudging the players to try to roll as many different skills as possible each session.
In the same manner as only granting XP for killing creatures. That doesn't mean players won't opt for other options besides combat, but they do so by relinquishing their character's developing their skills/powers/earning levels.
As such, straight up point buy doesn't require GM moderation during the game in ways that gating skill increases behind skill usage/failure/successes does.
Quote from: rytrasmi on April 28, 2024, 09:24:31 PMHaving played a few d100/BRP games, I don't like this form of advancement. Others have pointed out several problems, chief among which, IMO, players will find any excuse to use certain skills just so they can advance.
This is where competent GMing comes in. "A roll is required only when you are
challenging your skill. Using your skill when it's not relevant is not challenging your skill. It's practice. We have a separate game mechanic for that."
The mechanics can be something like: a skill used during an adventure may improve by 1d6; one used in practice may improve by 1d6-2 (ie may actually go backwards, you learned the wrong lessons). Practice takes (say) 3 months of an hour a day. In either case you must roll over your current skill level to get any improvement. And so you have diminishing returns over time. Honestly, this is probably the most realistic representation of how real-world skills improve.
Of course then there's the issue of how many skills you have, and how broad they are, and whether you have narrow skills in one area (eg combat) and broad skills in another, and so on. Nonetheless, the basic guideline of, "you only roll the dice when using a relevant skill," is a fair one.
You can't go, "As I come into the melee, I'm going to do a backflip! Let me test Acrobatics so I can improve it!" Acrobatics is irrelevant. "You move into melee. No roll required." Or if the player was really insistent, "Alright, you can do a backflip into combat - but if you fail, the enemy gets a free attack on your at +20% which you cannot parry or dodge." Now the use of Acrobatics becomes relevant.
Quote from: HappyDaze on April 30, 2024, 01:44:19 AMSkyrim in practice: Constantly cast the same spell as often as mana allows until you max the category. Repeat with spell from another category. Never stand up straight--crouch at all times until your stealth hits max. I could go on...
I played Skyrim for literally hundreds of hours before I got tired of it. I never did any of that. Simply because it's not fun, it's tedious, and the only reason I play games is for fun.
It seems likely the same would be true in an RPG. If you have players who want to twink the rules for an advantage even though it eats up a lot of time with boring stuff, they're going to find a way to do that regardless of system. No system is perfectly proof from this kind of stuff.
Quote from: Mishihari on May 04, 2024, 11:06:34 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on April 30, 2024, 01:44:19 AMSkyrim in practice: Constantly cast the same spell as often as mana allows until you max the category. Repeat with spell from another category. Never stand up straight--crouch at all times until your stealth hits max. I could go on...
I played Skyrim for literally hundreds of hours before I got tired of it. I never did any of that. Simply because it's not fun, it's tedious, and the only reason I play games is for fun.
It seems likely the same would be true in an RPG. If you have players who want to twink the rules for an advantage even though it eats up a lot of time with boring stuff, they're going to find a way to do that regardless of system. No system is perfectly proof from this kind of stuff.
Skyrim is a one-player game. What one player considers fun is all that matters. Most tabletop RPGs have multiple players, and often they have different views of what is/is not fun. Best case, those closely match, but even then they won't be identical. You may find that some players find their fun in "beating the system," and yet they might still be fun to play with.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.
Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.
I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.
Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AMQuote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.
Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.
I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.
This is exactly why I dislike this style of character advancement. Might as well just turn it into the GM telling the players which skills they can use XP on to advance or which skills get an increase and cut the middle man of requiring a success in game if at the end of the day the GM is going to be the gatekeeper of what is a "valid use".
Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 03:32:16 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AMQuote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.
Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.
I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.
This is exactly why I dislike this style of character advancement. Might as well just turn it into the GM telling the players which skills they can use XP on to advance or which skills get an increase and cut the middle man of requiring a success in game if at the end of the day the GM is going to be the gatekeeper of what is a "valid use".
I'm sorry, but what kind of boardgame-adjacent psuedo-roleplaying game are you referring to here? The DM
always determines what skill uses are relevant in an RPG. In every RPG I've ever heard of, the player describes what he wants to do, and the DM then decides whether a roll is necessary and what kind. If no roll is required, the DM describes the result, and the process continues. If a player attempts a trivial action, there's no need for a roll, and no xp accrued (in the kind of system in the OP). There's no more "mother may I?" than in any other circumstance.
Wait, are you talking about that weird style of gameplay I've heard of where the players announce, "I want to use Perception to see if there is anything hidden on the tablet" or "I want to roll Medicine to see if I can determine what killed him" and then roll whatever skill they declare, while the DM is just there to narrate what happens every time the players roll? I've heard of that, but never seen it in action (sounds stupid and horrible!). Not sure I would ever purposely devise an argument based on that kind of terrible gameplay.
So, I need you to lay out, preferably as an example of play, as to when the player would be "attempting" a skill that was not a "valid" use. Because at all of the tables I'm familiar with players don't "attempt skills." They describe what they are trying to do, and the GM determines what skill rolls are necessary. Looks like just another example how WotC (via 3e and 4e) completely destroyed the definition of roleplaying game...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PMQuote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 03:32:16 PMQuote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AMQuote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.
Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.
I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.
This is exactly why I dislike this style of character advancement. Might as well just turn it into the GM telling the players which skills they can use XP on to advance or which skills get an increase and cut the middle man of requiring a success in game if at the end of the day the GM is going to be the gatekeeper of what is a "valid use".
I'm sorry, but what kind of boardgame-adjacent psuedo-roleplaying game are you referring to here? The DM always determines what skill uses are relevant in an RPG. In every RPG I've ever heard of, the player describes what he wants to do, and the DM then decides whether a roll is necessary and what kind. If no roll is required, the DM describes the result, and the process continues. If a player attempts a trivial action, there's no need for a roll, and no xp accrued (in the kind of system in the OP). There's no more "mother may I?" than in any other circumstance.
Wait, are you talking about that weird style of gameplay I've heard of where the players announce, "I want to use Perception to see if there is anything hidden on the tablet" or "I want to roll Medicine to see if I can determine what killed him" and then roll whatever skill they declare, while the DM is just there to narrate what happens every time the players roll? I've heard of that, but never seen it in action (sounds stupid and horrible!). Not sure I would ever purposely devise an argument based on that kind of terrible gameplay.
So, I need you to lay out, preferably as an example of play, as to when the player would be "attempting" a skill that was not a "valid" use. Because at all of the tables I'm familiar with players don't "attempt skills." They describe what they are trying to do, and the GM determines what skill rolls are necessary. Looks like just another example how WotC (via 3e and 4e) completely destroyed the definition of roleplaying game...
Not "valid" to use, "valid" to count for increases.
Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example. Imagine a game where your character, a Human Fighter that is level 4 and your character earns enough experience points to reach level 5. However, the GM determines that because your character didn't really spend much time during the game fighting and opted to resolve conflicts with persuasion, rhetoric and other non-combat options, as well as sneaking around monsters and using his wits to decipher how to circumvent traps, then for your 5th level you are not allowed to progress in levels of Fighter and must take a level of Rogue.
That's basically what gating skills behind in-game usage/failure/success is equivalent to in a skill based game. The GM gets to determine which skills are the players allowed to increase.
Gating gaining a new level in a class behind actions related to the features of that class would be unheard of in any d20 style game, retroclone or otherwise.
Some versions of D&D offer bonus experience to certain classes for certain actions, but never gate their progression to those actions in game, meaning as a Fighter you bonus exp for killing monsters but you are not limited to ONLY getting experience points if you kill monsters and nothing else, unless that's the only way to earn experience for every single character, Fighter class or not.
I agree, most people roleplay by saying: "While I am in the balcony, I jump down and try to land in that stack of hay so I can cushion my fall and then follow that bandit down the street!". Is that a skill usage? Something like Athletics or Acrobatics or the like? If not, then what does a character need to do to 'earn' a valid skill roll so that character can potentially gain an increase in that skill?
Whereas, in straight up point buy, that character would roleplay that same action, whether there is a roll or not, a success or failure, that character would get XP/Advancements/Character Points in the same manner as every other character and the Player would decide how to invest to points to develop his character.
Like I said in that very lengthy reply that I posted replying to your earlier question, in straight up point buy there is no point where the GM needs to adjudicate if a skill usage is valid for increase. The players either get experience/advancements or they don't but when the GM decides that the player characters get those, then the Players decide how to use them to develop their characters as they see fit.
The problem me an others have described only exists if you are playing a skill based game and gate the increases for those skills behind skill usage/success/failure in-game instead of allowing the player characters to increase their skills freely. Hence why some others and I have said "this is point buy with extra steps."
If the GM is the gatekeeper of when a Player has declared an action that warrants a roll and thus is eligible for an increase, then the GM is basically gatekeeping what can the Player increase or not. Like I said in my Fighter example.
The idea of a skill based game that progresses through in-game usage sounds cool on paper but in practice it provides little to no value when compared to straight up point buy, which does not fall into those same pitfalls.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PMI'm sorry, but what kind of boardgame-adjacent psuedo-roleplaying game are you referring to here? The DM always determines what skill uses are relevant in an RPG.
None of this is really relevant to what I am talking about. Take the player I was talking about for example. There's a scenario set in, say, Providence. The character gets there and say they are going to a bar. I want to punch this guy and start a fight. I succeed. The question is not what skill they should use. It's obviously brawl. The question is whether this counts as a valid use of the skill to get an advancement check. The character used the skill successfully. By RAW, they should get a check to advance it. If you allow it, that incentivizes this sort of behavior. Players will come up with whatever excuse they can to check as many skills as possible as much as possible until they succeed at least once. Yeah, the GM decides which skill they use but it's not hard at all to describe your actions in such a way as to point to a particular skill. If you say it's not valid, then this become a constant game of "Mother, may I" while you adjudicate whether this use of a skill is a valid use or not. I have enough to do while running a game without dealing with this headache.
Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 11:49:38 PMSince you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example. Imagine a game where your character, a Human Fighter that is level 4 and your character earns enough experience points to reach level 5. However, the GM determines that because your character didn't really spend much time during the game fighting and opted to resolve conflicts with persuasion, rhetoric and other non-combat options, as well as sneaking around monsters and using his wits to decipher how to circumvent traps, then for your 5th level you are not allowed to progress in levels of Fighter and must take a level of Rogue.
That's basically what gating skills behind in-game usage/failure/success is equivalent to in a skill based game. The GM gets to determine which skills are the players allowed to increase.
This is where it helps to have a thorough knowledge of the things you're referring to.
In AD&D1e, the DM would assess each player on how well they played the fighter, cleric or whatever, a rating of 1-4. This acted as a multiplier to the cost of the training to level up. So in your example, the fighter could still level up, but it'd take him
four times as much as it'd cost for his same-level buddy who'd got the treasure by fighting. If you're a Fighter and you don't fight, you're not a "rogue" (a Thief), you're just a crappy Fighter.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 04:08:03 AMQuote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 11:49:38 PMSince you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example. Imagine a game where your character, a Human Fighter that is level 4 and your character earns enough experience points to reach level 5. However, the GM determines that because your character didn't really spend much time during the game fighting and opted to resolve conflicts with persuasion, rhetoric and other non-combat options, as well as sneaking around monsters and using his wits to decipher how to circumvent traps, then for your 5th level you are not allowed to progress in levels of Fighter and must take a level of Rogue.
That's basically what gating skills behind in-game usage/failure/success is equivalent to in a skill based game. The GM gets to determine which skills are the players allowed to increase.
This is where it helps to have a thorough knowledge of the things you're referring to.
In AD&D1e, the DM would assess each player on how well they played the fighter, cleric or whatever, a rating of 1-4. This acted as a multiplier to the cost of the training to level up. So in your example, the fighter could still level up, but it'd take him four times as much as it'd cost for his same-level buddy who'd got the treasure by fighting. If you're a Fighter and you don't fight, you're not a "rogue" (a Thief), you're just a crappy Fighter.
That's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.
The AD&D 2e Player's Handbook lists Hercules, Percival, Siegfried and Sinbad (amongst others) as examples of fighters. Sinbad, particularly from that list, is described in his fiction as clever and using more cunning to attack his enemies when they are vulnerable and sneaking around.
So, if I make a Fighter that plays like Sinbad, a fictional character described by the book as an inspiration for the class, and I roleplay as the Sinbad in the fiction, then by your logic he is a "crappy fighter".
Imagine if you can only spend weapon proficiencies to specialize in weapons you have used effectively in combat and not in weapons you want to have specialization as a Player for your Fighter character in AD&D 2e. And not just by "starting a bar brawl and using your dagger". No, the GM must approve the usage of those attack rolls as valid for specialization when you get more weapon proficiencies as you level up. It has to be confirmed kills that had "meaning", not just any random kill or else you cannot spend your weapon proficiencies on that weapon.
That Wizard character that is very selective when to use magic because the party is in a theocracy that deems all sort of sorcery as witchcraft and is punishable by death? He can't take his next level in the Wizard class. He used too little magic and too much darts/daggers. It has to be either Fighter or Thief because you can only develop in a class if you use the features representative of that class. Oh, and it has to be in a meaningful way, as well.
That's exactly what gating skill increases behind uses/successes/failures in-game does in skill based games. Specially if the GM has to provide approval to what constitutes a "meaningful and valid" usage of that skill to qualify for an increase.
Another side-effect of needing to succeed at a skill to improve it in CoC is that interactions with NPCs tend to become weird and stilted. PCs do not talk to NPCs. They attempt to use interpersonal skills on NPCs. Everything is framed in terms of the character trying to charm, fast talk, persuade or (less commonly) intimidate the NPC depending on which skill the player is trying to raise. Also, the PCs question everyone's motive all the time in every interaction because that's a psychology check.
Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 11:49:38 PMNot "valid" to use, "valid" to count for increases.
That's where you misunderstand. There ain't no such distinction if the GM has a spine. A player does not decide what skills to use. The player decides what the character does. If the GM determines that this course of action requires a roll, then the player rolls. If the GM determines that this course of action does not require a roll, then the player does not. If playing in a game with RQ-style advancement, then if the GM requires a roll, it counts for advancement, and if the GM does not require a roll, it doesn't count for advancement. It's very straight-forward, and exactly like a game with some other style of advancement (other than the accounting tick mark the player makes to note the advancement opportunity).
In the example of starting a brawl (presumably because the player wants to fish for advancement but could be for some more legit reason), there's no difference. If this is a low-powered character starting a brawl in a rough neighborhood, then the GM may call for a roll or even start a combat that ends up providing many opportunities for rolls. A character may even get hurt or killed. There's consequences; so players rolls some skills.
If it's a more borderline situation, where the players aren't in any real danger from the bar patrons, the GM may simply narrate it (no player rolls) or the guard may show up and now there's a different opportunity with consequences. Depending on how the players react to that, they may get opportunities to fight (but maybe not brawl) or opportunities to talk their way out of the problem (not brawl) or opportunities to escape (not brawl). Either way, the player doesn't get to roll on brawl, and thus doesn't get to choose their own advancement as a side effect of said GM having a spine.
If it's a high-powered character that loves to go slumming, the character is in no danger, already has an out with the authorities, and probably even the patrons know it is all in good fun. Barring some special case, such as an assassin after the character and using this slumming tendency for cover, there's no skill checks, because there are no consequences.
Point-buy has absolutely no effect on the above, as does any advancement method. Because you don't get to go slumming for brawl advancement whether that's for a check or for the more indirect XP. I've got a few players right at this moment that are (effectively) one fight away from gaining a character level. They make jokes about stabbing a goblin so that they can level, as they would do in a video game. It's only jokes, because they know in my games it doesn't work that way.
In other words, once the GM is the proper gatekeeper for what skills to use and which ones have consequences during play, all these advancement shenanigans disappear as an issue.
Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.
No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.
Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating
[DMG p.86, my emphasis]
Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.
In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.
Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.
Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.
Quote from: yosemitemike on May 06, 2024, 03:52:21 AMQuote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PMI'm sorry, but what kind of boardgame-adjacent psuedo-roleplaying game are you referring to here? The DM always determines what skill uses are relevant in an RPG.
None of this is really relevant to what I am talking about. Take the player I was talking about for example. There's a scenario set in, say, Providence. The character gets there and say they are going to a bar. I want to punch this guy and start a fight. I succeed. The question is not what skill they should use. It's obviously brawl. The question is whether this counts as a valid use of the skill to get an advancement check. The character used the skill successfully. By RAW, they should get a check to advance it. If you allow it, that incentivizes this sort of behavior. Players will come up with whatever excuse they can to check as many skills as possible as much as possible until they succeed at least once. Yeah, the GM decides which skill they use but it's not hard at all to describe your actions in such a way as to point to a particular skill. If you say it's not valid, then this become a constant game of "Mother, may I" while you adjudicate whether this use of a skill is a valid use or not. I have enough to do while running a game without dealing with this headache.
My players already get xp for defeating enemies. Why don't they attack every patron in every bar they enter in order to get xp? You are either theory-crafting what you
think will happen under this system, or you have the worst DM and group of players in the history of RPGs. Players are not Pavlovian reductionists, at least not in actual games that people really play around a real table. You need to pull your DM aside and suggest a different hobby, like knitting...
While I generally like the idea of gaining skill through what is effectively practice, there are two very real problems:
- The bookkeeping this adds to the session is pretty darn significant.
- Not all skills or attribute improvements are things you can practically learn on your own. Many things are things you must be taught by someone with far more experience than you do.
It's this combination of the flavor never quite matching what you actually need and the mechanics leaning towards breaking the game that makes me leery of it.
If I am doing custom advancement things, I tend to have tutor characters with quests. You do the quest and the tutor character will teach you something. While I occasionally have to veto combinations which clearly go out of flavor or balance lines, I am generally fine with players asking Tutors to teach them things from different classes, so long as it is something the Tutor would reasonably know and be able to teach them. The progression in the book is what you can do if you have experience without teaching, but if you have some teaching then you can wind up with different abilities.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AMQuote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.
No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.
Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating
[DMG p.86, my emphasis]
Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.
In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.
Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.
Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.
I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.
I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.
Quote from: Fheredin on May 06, 2024, 05:16:25 PMNot all skills or attribute improvements are things you can practically learn on your own. Many things are things you must be taught by someone with far more experience than you do.
It's worse than that, but it would be a rare game that cared about the distinctions. There's at least three broad categories of learning situations, even leaving aside all the various stages of childhood development:
- Things that you can learn very fast just by being around them and breathing, though a bit of timely instruction can accelerate the process.
- The typical much easier to learn when taught, even if part of that teaching includes a lot of practical activities.
- The point where you've outstripped the "teachers" and are increasingly reliant on peers, research, and hard thought to make any progress. Which also typically includes a lot of practical activities in most fields.
Most games are uninterested in the first one, because that's supposed to be assumed in the background before the character started play. Which is why a lot of games make it either unreasonably hard or unreasonably easy to go from "totally clueless about X" to "mostly incompetent about X". In reality, it's a weird mix of hard and easy, where a lot of chances to make mistakes with low consequences is very helpful, i.e. something like a moderately protected childhood. While the exceptions are often bland. For example, it's not terribly risky to go from "hopeless cook" to "barely incompetent cook", but it does take some work and time, and no one wants to eat the results in the meantime.
The second one is where many game designers think their games live. Some of them are even correct!
The third one is the advanced stuff in the game world, which is where the game designers of skill-based systems either throw up their hands and assume the GM will handle it or make such things inaccessible, while the class-based system just gate it all behind XP/levels and try not to think about it too much (which in fairness, is the purpose of XP in such a system.)
This also ignores, of course, that very few named "skills" worth having are discrete things. They are usually a mix of a lot of different skills, learned at different times, in different ways, and then synchronized into an effective activity.
All three of those sources of learning could be easily modeled.
Sometimes an epiphany results in a sudden increase in skill. That could be modeled too. I wonder if crits could factor into that.
The book keeping is annoying though. We normally just do it end of session while it's fresh. People help remind others what skills they used.
I like just a basket of points, though. The reason is that it seems more like a reward than practical and predicable slight increases in skill. It's more like leveling up in level based systems. I think that's an important consideration in games.
Ideally for me then would be a system where you get a bundle of points every now and then and you're allowed to distribute them based on several models of learning that could have happened. That would be perfect except for the book keeping.
Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PMQuote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AMQuote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.
No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.
Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating
[DMG p.86, my emphasis]
Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.
In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.
Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.
Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.
I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.
I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.
Greetings!
Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on May 06, 2024, 06:49:37 PMQuote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PMQuote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AMQuote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.
No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.
Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating
[DMG p.86, my emphasis]
Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.
In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.
Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.
Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.
I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.
I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.
Greetings!
Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hey, Shark!
I don't mind fighters that just fight. I was specifically responding to Kyle's claims that a fighter that doesn't fight is a 'crappy fighter'. A chivalrous knight that only draws his sword when there's no other option or to vanquish the scourge of foul undead is not a 'crappy fighter'. Kyle is the one claiming that if a character that is of the Fighter class uses his wits, cunning, diplomacy and guile to avoid conflict then is a 'crappy fighter', which I disagree.