Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PM

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 03:32:16 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AM

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.

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: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 10:49:55 AM

Quote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.

Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.

  I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.

You've almost gotten to the realization that the problem might not be entirely with them, but also with you.

Nice try at being a corporate shill. But you fail miserably.

Quote from: oggsmash on May 05, 2024, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.

Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.

  I think they were bankrupt a long time ago we are just getting old enough to see the rehash/recycle.

The 90s all over again.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 05, 2024, 08:30:29 AM

Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 07:36:00 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 04, 2024, 03:06:41 AMI saw Fall Guy and thought it was great with a good mix of action and humor.

Another movie remake of an old TV show? Why? Hollywood truly is bankrupt of new ideas.

Why? Because it was entertaining. Sometimes entertainment only needs to entertain. Besides that, apart from character names and the premise that the lead character is a stuntman, it doesn't share much in common with stories told in the old series (at least as I remember them).

Then what the hell is the point of even calling it Fall Guy and using the names from the series?

Which era is this focused on? I'm supposing Late Medieval like Dark Albion, but you have High Medieval and Early Medieval settings out too now.

Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 06:51:11 AM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on March 25, 2024, 07:40:09 AMYes, sir, I've been doing it wrong forever in that case, but I started with Basic, which has the new HD added to current HP as shown with my copy paste below.

ROLLING HIT POINTS: Each time a character earns enough ex- perience points to gain a new level, the character gets to roll for more hit points. When starting out, each character rolls one hit die, using the type of die given for the character class. Upon reaching second level, the character rolls the same type of die a second time and adds the result to the first roll. This process is repeated for each new level. The result of each new hit die roll is always added to the total of the other hit die rolls.

What BX says as well.

This whole "Gary really meant you were supposed to reroll your HP EVERY LEVEL!" is just stupid.

It isn't stupid, it is simply another way of doing things. B/X is far more clear on the matter than page 18 of Men and Magic from OD&D. B/X also did away with plusses to hit dice. Every level is a roll of another die of the appropriate type. Are you saying that the dice for accum. hits on page 18 are cumulative? That would give a warrior (Level2) 3+1 hit dice. We know this isn't the case because the example in the text says that a superhero (level rolls eight dice and adds 2 to the total. Why would a level 8 be rolling 8 dice if the total was not meant to superceed the dice rolled at level 7? It is an interesting method for sure and completely possible.

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 03:32:16 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AM

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.

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...

In my experience, it's a minority of OSR tables that actually play 3d6-down-the-line. Systems vary, and I don't see the modern "4d6 drop the lowest" very often in OSR. The system I use for my game is "1d6+1d4+6 down the line", in order to produce middling scores. I think that Hyperborea campaign did "roll 3d6 down the line three times, and then pick from the three stat arrays generated".

I think in some OSR games you only need a 15 to get a +2 attribute bonus as well.

Quote from: Omega on May 05, 2024, 06:56:55 AMGW has been trash since at least the 2000s and was showing signs of trouble by the late 90s

Greetings!

Yes, that is right, Omega! I left Games Workshop back then when they just up and cancelled the Warhammer 40K Epic Space Marine game. I had invested literally *thousands* of dollars into this game, building out huge armies of Imperial Guard, Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar, and Tyrannids. Games Workshop showed me then that they were a selfish, greedy, and arrogant company that were disrespectful and thoughtless. So, I said fuck them! I have never been a customer for them since. I don't spend one dime on them anymore.

It is sad though to see so many people getting fucked over by Games Workshop. Just recently, like three weeks ago or so, GW cancelled 50% of the Age of Sigmar game. I saw this one video where a fan had spent 5,000 dollars on this huge, gorgeous army--that is now cancelled. He threw them all into the trash, and said "Fuck Games Workshop! I'm Done!" You could tell that he was both heartbroken and enraged. I am totally empathetic for his feelings. I was there, exactly similar. It does boggle me why though when Games Workshop has now a long history of price gouging, disrespect, and otherwise abusing fans through their policies and statements, for at least 25 years now, that people continue to sign up for them, and then proceed to invest god-awful amounts of money in their products, when it is a certainty that somewhere soon, GW will fuck them too in some way, either cancelling the game entirely, or modifying it severely, or something else stupid and greedy.

As you noted, I discovered that GW was a fucking BS company back in the late 90's. Games Workshop has simply gotten worse, and have continued to be them greedy, stupid selves again and again and again. This is a pattern of greed, stupidity, and disrespect.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AM

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.

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".