Jump to content

Occupational Experience, Research, and Training - a personal take


Akhôrahil

Recommended Posts

Here's a completely different way of thinking about training and research, spawned by the "Homebrew Downtime" thread.

When you get your occupational skill checks, that doesn't just mean that you're doing the same thing every time - it likely also mean that you're trying to improve as part of your everyday work (well, probably!). If you're a warrior, you already train - that's part of the job description, practicing your weapon, drilling in formation fighting, maybe sparring with others. If you're a crafter, surely you already try to find better ways of doing things, try out new techniques, and so on? You can be absolutely certain that the entertainer practices a lot as part of everyday use of the profession. And in fact, doesn't this hold true even for skills that the normal game doesn't allow experience checks for? It's really weird that you couldn't improve them while working with them for months on end - a farmer gets better at Farming but a librarian doesn't get better at Library Use or an alchemist at Alchemy, how does that even make sense? 

Further, the research system in particular is really bad when it comes to learning stuff - you commit an entire season to it, and then you get one experience roll, instead of the four you get when just doing your normal work (which also earns you money), and then the research gain rolls suffers a stiff penalty. It's appallingly inefficient. Even getting training is a bad idea compared to just working. Let me do the math here:

Let's say you have 50% in the skills you want to improve and just for the sake of ease, that you have no modifiers.

  • Occupational experience will get you four rolls. On average, two succeed, and you gain 2d6% for an average of 7% in those skills. This is actually pretty nice!
  • Research gives you one roll. It succeeds half the time. You gain 1.5% (1d6-2) on the average roll, or 0.75% for the season. Just above one-tenth o fwhat you gain from just working!
  • Training gives you one automatically succeeding roll, netting you an average of 2.5% (1d6-1) for the season.    

Now, assuming you're getting experience in skills you like, this is no contest. Paying absurd amounts for training (see the other thread - training costs are ridiculous) still gives you far less skill general improvement that just working!

(Small side note: Training makes sense in two specific situations. One, when you want to improve a skill that can not be improved through experience. Two, when your skill is pretty high and you only care about this one particular skill (this seems pretty unlikely, though - the one situation it might make sense is if you have a non-experience skill that you need to push through a skill-gated rank like Priest or Rune-Lord).)  

So the only reason to ever research or train a skill, is for when the skill is outside of your occupational skills (or when it can't be improved through experience). And when you do that, it's a major sacrifice not just of money but also of average skill gain. Being taught full-time or going to school is far less efficient than just working. I posit that this makes no goddamn sense!

So how could we handle things differently? Well, that's easy - we already have the seasonal experience system! Let's do this by modifying that instead! For these purposes, I will allow occupational experience checks even for skills that normally don't allow them, but if you don't like this, nothing breaks if you require research or training for that.

What parameters can we play with? Well, there's four - what skills you can put seasonal experience into, how many skills you can put seasonal experience into, your chance of success at raising the skill, and how much you gain in the skill. I'm not looking to for a fully developed system here, because that takes balance work, but here are some ways of thinking about it.

What: Research means trying to learn something through unproductive (as far as your occupation goes) work. You normally gain four checks to occupation skills. Why don't we just say that for each 25% of your time you waste not earning money, you get an experience roll for any skill you could have reasonably learned through research in your context (and at the regular 1d6% gain)? This means that full-time research would net you any four reasonable experience checks, at the cost of not making any money. Training would of course also let you do this. If you have the right teacher, any skill can be learned (except for ones that are specifically cult-restricted). You probably want some additional benefit from training, though.

How many checks: You could start playing with the amount of experience checks you can gain per season, but I don't think it's worth the hassle. See below instead.

Chance of success: If we go with research as per the above, what does a teacher offer? First, as mentioned, the possibility to learn any skill that can be taught. But hopefully the teacher can do better than this and actually teach you better than your own research would. This is where I would consider the following: depending on teacher quality, you gain a bonus to the experience gain roll (like, say, +10% for a decent teacher). A good teacher will, of course, be more expensive (but not so unbelievably expensive as in the rule book, unless it's a truly amazing teacher). By the way, I'm also ditching the idea that you can only train or research up to 75% for certain skills here - it makes no sense that researching or being taught would be restricted this way but regular work experience wouldn't be! 

How much: Everything becomes much easier to remember and makes more balancing sense if you just say that you gain +1d6% (or a static three if you go with that) regardless of the situation. However, there's nothing to stop the GM from saying that some particular circumstance or the virtue of the teacher means you gain an additional bonus to the roll.

So, putting things together: Seasonal experience is the baseline - if you just do your work without major interruptions, this is what you get. For each 25% of your work time you waste on research (this will concomitantly affect income), you can replace one of your seasonal experience rolls with a roll for a skill (or rune) you could reasonably learn in your context. If you have a teacher, it works the same way except that more skills may be available, and you may ge a bonus to the experience check depending on teacher quality. You can get these experience checks even for skills without a checkbox, and you are not restricted to 75% for research or training. Exceptional circumstances may allow you a bonus to the gain roll. 

And there you have it - an idea for a system that is more intuitive, far more balanced, takes up less space, and has less unique rules. 

Now if only increasing characteristics had an equally easy solution...

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching skill.

Adds percent to both chance to increase, and the increase itself.  Perhaps equal to crit value.

The best swordswinger could be the most useless teacher (they kill, not chat), but a good teacher can interpret an explain much better, even with less knowledge and skill.

I don't get why knowledge skills don't have auto-checks... When you read/write, you're seeing different styles, ways to use lexis & grammar to make meaning, etc. Other skills give you the chance to make a connection you've not realised before - or just more certain.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I don't get why knowledge skills don't have auto-checks... When you read/write, you're seeing different styles, ways to use lexis & grammar to make meaning, etc. Other skills give you the chance to make a connection you've not realised before - or just more certain.

I would imagine that the idea is that just because you know a fact about, say, geography, doesn't mean you learn anything more just by knowing that.

However, I think this could be far more reasonably handled by the GM only allowing checkmarks when there's something to actually be learned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I would imagine that the idea is that just because you know a fact about, say, geography, doesn't mean you learn anything more just by knowing that.

However, I think this could be far more reasonably handled by the GM only allowing checkmarks when there's something to actually be learned.

Isn't that the purpose of the roll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Isn't that the purpose of the roll?

Not necessarily. You could roll a knowledge skill just to see if you know some fact, and I can see the point of not granting an experience check in that situation (for one thing, players might be tempted to ask for knowledge rolls just to earn the check). You should probably only earn an experience checkmark if you're in a situation where you might learn something new.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2019 at 11:11 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Being taught full-time or going to school is far less efficient than just working. I posit that this makes no goddamn sense!

I agree with this. Perhaps this could be short-handed into working an occupation but not receiving income? For example, a warrior wants to spend time studying, so they go to school. They have funds for tuition (whatever that entails) so each season they use the Scribe or Philosopher occupation for seasonal experience. However, they don't make income during this time, because they aren't producing.

On 8/1/2019 at 11:11 AM, Akhôrahil said:

you gain a bonus to the experience gain roll (like, say, +10% for a decent teacher)

I like this, and I like it better than giving good teachers a bonus to the percentiles the adventurer learns. If you're removing the 75% hard limit, I suggest replacing it with 90 or 100%. I don't think it makes sense that a teacher could get you above mastering the skill; at some stage I think you must be forced to improve on your own.

On 8/1/2019 at 11:11 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Everything becomes much easier to remember and makes more balancing sense if you just say that you gain +1d6% (or a static three if you go with that) regardless of the situation.

I like the principle behind this. However, I suggest that the amount be either 1D4 or 1D6-1, and static 2%. I think it's more interesting if experience from adventures gives more benefit than occupation/training/research. But having downtime XP all be the same value is wise.

On 8/1/2019 at 11:11 AM, Akhôrahil said:

each 25% of your work time you waste on research (this will concomitantly affect income)

How would you math this, since income is determined yearly, not seasonally? -5% per skill trained/researched across the whole year?

It's also worth noting that IIRC the income penalty only occurs if you're gone adventuring for more than 3 weeks in the book. I don't recall a penalty to income when you're training or researching a skill in the core rules.

  • Like 1

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my publications here. Disclaimer: affiliate link.

Social Media: Facebook Patreon Twitter Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Crel said:

I like this, and I like it better than giving good teachers a bonus to the percentiles the adventurer learns. If you're removing the 75% hard limit, I suggest replacing it with 90 or 100%. I don't think it makes sense that a teacher could get you above mastering the skill; at some stage I think you must be forced to improve on your own.

I think it's enough to require the the teacher to have, say, half again your skill. That is, at 100% you would require a teacher with 150% - both a lot harder to find and a lot more expensive. It makes sense that someone a lot better than you could always teach you.

Quote

I like the principle behind this. However, I suggest that the amount be either 1D4 or 1D6-1, and static 2%. I think it's more interesting if experience from adventures gives more benefit than occupation/training/research. But having downtime XP all be the same value is wise.

If someone does long-term play or simulation of this and can show it matters, then sure. Otherwise, I think it's simpler to just have the same roll for everything. If you adventure seasonally, adventure experience will dwarf anything else anyway.

Quote

 

How would you math this, since income is determined yearly, not seasonally? -5% per skill trained/researched across the whole year?

It's also worth noting that IIRC the income penalty only occurs if you're gone adventuring for more than 3 weeks in the book. I don't recall a penalty to income when you're training or researching a skill in the core rules.

 

I could go further than that - let's say -2% to the roll for every week lost for any reason. It's feels a bit gamey that the first 3/8ths lost time is free anyway. This sounds like it's only there to support adventuring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2019 at 4:56 PM, Akhôrahil said:

If someone does long-term play or simulation of this and can show it matters, then sure. Otherwise, I think it's simpler to just have the same roll for everything. If you adventure seasonally, adventure experience will dwarf anything else anyway.

I suspect where it would matter is more the subjective experience than in statistical growth. Sort of the "Oh, I got it while adventuring--I get a whole D6!" instead of the smaller, constant growths from occupation. The basis of an experience check is stressful situations, and the model historically for D100 games (as I understand it) is that you learn more from testing your skills in hardship than you do in daily stuff. I agree that all the "other stuff" should be just one type of roll for simplicity, but I think retaining the adventure experience/other stuff dichotomy adds fun, not detracts it.

Are you removing auto-success from training? I think so, but just confirming what I read. Also, do you plan to retain the seasonal experience check system? In RAW, you're intended to roll a max of one experience check per season for each skill (including occupation/cult skills), so those couldn't double-up with adventure experience.

My gut says that retaining differences in experience growth would help incentivize player behavior to be more heroic and adventure-ing, as opposed to "well let's get done and get home because there's not much benefit from sticking around longer than 'accomplish the thing'" but I'm struggling to form that intuition as a more proper argument.

On 8/2/2019 at 4:56 PM, Akhôrahil said:

let's say -2% to the roll for every week lost for any reason

That still comes out to a total of -80% to yearly income rolls, not 100. (Eight weeks x five seasons=40 weeks, not including Sacred Time.) Also, I feel like a weeks system doesn't work for your model; you're basically swapping out an occupation skill for a trained/researched skill among your seasonal four "free" checks. That's not accounting for number of weeks spent, but just caring about the season as a whole. I suggested the -5% per non-occupation skill because that adds up to the -20% RAW seasonal penalty, and also adds up to 100% if you're doing non-occupation stuff for a whole year (not including other social penalties...).

For what it's worth, the more I futz with these topics, the more admiration I have for RQ3's training model. I'm trying to make small steps with mine (and avoid the RQ3 bookkeeping) but it really does seem to math more solidly, by how I remember it. If you're not familiar with it, it may be worth checking out if you can acquire it.

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my publications here. Disclaimer: affiliate link.

Social Media: Facebook Patreon Twitter Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crel said:

Are you removing auto-success from training? I think so, but just confirming what I read. Also, do you plan to retain the seasonal experience check system? In RAW, you're intended to roll a max of one experience check per season for each skill (including occupation/cult skills), so those couldn't double-up with adventure experience.

Yes, but some of it remains in the form of an increased bonus to the experience check roll. My design philosophy is that the more unified the system is, the less likely it is to have weird balance issues (the reason the current system doesn't even remotely balance occupational experience against training is that it uses two different systems). 

And yes, it also means that under this solution, you couldn't both gain adventuring experience for a skill and also a training check, the same way you can't even currently gain both for occupational skill experience.

Quote

My gut says that retaining differences in experience growth would help incentivize player behavior to be more heroic and adventure-ing, as opposed to "well let's get done and get home because there's not much benefit from sticking around longer than 'accomplish the thing'" but I'm struggling to form that intuition as a more proper argument.

This is a possible issue depending on campaign. What I'm working on currently is a Risklands campaign where the basic idea is that as far as the characters are concerned, they would rather just be left alone to run their farm, but that trouble has to be handled when it comes knocking. This might have formed a part of this design.  

Quote

That still comes out to a total of -80% to yearly income rolls, not 100. (Eight weeks x five seasons=40 weeks, not including Sacred Time.) Also, I feel like a weeks system doesn't work for your model; you're basically swapping out an occupation skill for a trained/researched skill among your seasonal four "free" checks. That's not accounting for number of weeks spent, but just caring about the season as a whole. I suggested the -5% per non-occupation skill because that adds up to the -20% RAW seasonal penalty, and also adds up to 100% if you're doing non-occupation stuff for a whole year (not including other social penalties...).

The nice thing about a weekly penalty is that you can use that to track everything - training, practice, that week they worked as caravan guards instead, and so on. Yours works very nicely for just the training angle, though.

Another potential issue is that -5% to the income roll doesn't really mean -5% to income (you can have -100% and as long as you don't fumble, you still get half income. At this point though, why not just get a cottar to work the land instead, so it comes out decently in the end anyway). You could start tracking percents for income penalties, but at this point, it's probably getting too detailed - this is RuneQuest, not ExcelQuest.

And man, if you want a look at a good training system, Ars Magica's is so good.

 

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

You could start tracking percents for income penalties, but at this point, it's probably getting too detailed - this is RuneQuest, not ExcelQuest.

Main reason I don't just slap RQ3's on top and call it a day. I never GM'd RQ3, but I know my GM had a bunch of Excel utilities for keeping track of stuff and just... ugh, y'know? Sometimes design just comes down to "I don't want to." I'll have to check out Ars Magica--I've heard of it, but never touched a book or played it myself. Super-wizards and their lackeys basically, yeah?

7 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This might have formed a part of this design.

Table definitely informs my downtime rules. My milieu's pretty settled into murder-hobo-ing, so defining exactly what downtime means or tracking farm stuff typically takes a backside to the hack n' slash (which RuneQuest does well because it's scary).

11 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

why not just get a cottar to work the land instead

Well, if your occupation isn't farmer or herder, it's probably tricky to get a cottar to do your job ;). But that's a good point about the income table, I hadn't looked too closely at it TBH. But it is interesting that even during a Famine year you barely worked, technically you still have at most a 5% (96-00) chance of not getting half your base income. Now that I'm looking at it, it's also worth noting that some professions have a massively improved yearly income since they don't have to pay their own Standard of Living (Warrior and Scribe). So a warrior's supposed to typically have 60L/year floating around for use. Which is about a point of Spirit Magic for most spells, I believe, or a season's training per RAW for most actually interesting skills.

Gee. No wonder people go adventuring.

I'm currently anticipating that my players will pay Standard of Living more through adventurer income than work income.

25 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

My design philosophy is that the more unified the system is, the less likely it is to have weird balance issues (the reason the current system doesn't even remotely balance occupational experience against training is that it uses two different systems).

I generally agree with your principle, but I'm not sure I see it as two systems. I see this sort of as:

  1. Adventure Experience
  2. Seasonal Experience
    1. Occupation/Cult
    2. Training
    3. Research

So, sort of an "Adventures" and "Other stuff" organization, although within other stuff there's differentiation since 2.1 uses the same mechanics as 1.0. Hrm. Guess I do see sort of where you're at, now. Some stuff to think on, yeah. As I'm pondering, I am starting to lean toward one mechanic, but I think I still like differentiation in how much an adventurer can grow from Adventure v. Other Stuff; but keeping experience rolls throughout does make it simpler, and a teacher bonus could make training worth it. Expletive, but research is so bad for skills. It's only worth it for characteristics because of the nasty, nasty 500L.

33 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

And yes, it also means that under this solution, you couldn't both gain adventuring experience for a skill and also a training check, the same way you can't even currently gain both for occupational skill experience.

What if you go on two adventures in a season? Will you allow adventurers to skill gain twice? Doing so is present in the rules IIRC, but more implied than explicitly stated as I read it since the general model is one adventure per season without an intra-season breakdown.

I think one of the ways I'm not grokking your system (not that I must grok it, by any means!!) is that you're working with a seasonal structure, but then trying to also use a weeks structure, and I'm not sure they're meshing efficiently.

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my publications here. Disclaimer: affiliate link.

Social Media: Facebook Patreon Twitter Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Crel said:

What if you go on two adventures in a season? Will you allow adventurers to skill gain twice? Doing so is present in the rules IIRC, but more implied than explicitly stated as I read it since the general model is one adventure per season without an intra-season breakdown.

The rules say you can allow this as GM, but it's not the default rules. I'm looking for a slow pace that will at least take the PCs from 1617 to 1623, so having a break on how often they want to adventure is a good thing for me.

Quote

I think one of the ways I'm not grokking your system (not that I must grok it, by any means!!) is that you're working with a seasonal structure, but then trying to also use a weeks structure, and I'm not sure they're meshing efficiently.

It fits my requirements perfectly, though - I'm aiming (we'll see how it goes...) for one (possibly two)  season per session with one important event. The idea here is also to make it unusually easy to play without all players present, as it just means this PC wasn't doing anything important this season, but is there for the next (and in the meanwhile got occupational experience and didn't die).

No idea how the timing will work out, though, and I suspect long combats will throw a wrench into the works...

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

It fits my requirements perfectly, though

Fair enough! I hope it does work for you.

5 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

for one (possibly two)  season per session with one important event.

Digression, but I find this a hilarious example of how different our playstyles and game expectations are. Sincerely, no disparaging intended, but this does amuse me. We've played my game since December-ish, maybe late November, starting in Sea 1625 (Argrath conquering New Pavis), and with weekly 3-hr sessions we're now just starting Dark 1625, and we've barely had a dungeoncrawl; lots of exploration and travel. The longest adventures I remember our RQ3 group playing took several months--AD&D's Castle Amber and Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan if I remember correctly, and similar big dungeoncrawls.

Not that one style's better than another, I just find it a bit... enlightening, on our respective downtime approaches.

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my publications here. Disclaimer: affiliate link.

Social Media: Facebook Patreon Twitter Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Crel said:

Not that one style's better than another, I just find it a bit... enlightening, on our respective downtime approaches.

This kind of thing is why it's good if a game has some "dial" to adjust for different kinds of role-playing styles and campaigns. The One Ring did this is a very nice way - the game assumes one adventuring phase followed by one recovery phase and so on, but it doesn't tell you how long these should be. You could play Lord the Rings with recovery phases just a few weeks apart (the house of Tom Bombadil, Rivendell, Lórien, Henneth Annûn), or you could do what they do in the 30-year campaign, where each year consists of a summer adventuring phase and a winter recovery phase (Pendragon-style).  

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This kind of thing is why it's good if a game has some "dial" to adjust for different kinds of role-playing styles and campaigns. The One Ring did this is a very nice way - the game assumes one adventuring phase followed by one recovery phase and so on, but it doesn't tell you how long these should be. You could play Lord the Rings with recovery phases just a few weeks apart (the house of Tom Bombadil, Rivendell, Lórien, Henneth Annûn), or you could do what they do in the 30-year campaign, where each year consists of a summer adventuring phase and a winter recovery phase (Pendragon-style).  

Agreed. Seasonal just wasn't really working for my group; the clan-based thing's interesting, but we're not super into it when the big magic fighty boyz are available to play instead. I feel like RQG's kind of presenting a dial in its less Typical Murder-Hobo occupations, but it's not super explicit; it requires most of the group saying "Lets be farmers!" or GM action to really cement what type of game's going on.

I think some sort of randomized occupation table would help emphasize that, instead of the quick-list of common occupations provided in RQG. I'm thinking back again to RQ3's tables for culture & background. When rolling, it didn't really feel bad to end up with a stickpicker, but if we got to choose, we always chose something more "adventurey." Sorcerer's apprentice, mercenary, etc.

  • Like 2

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my publications here. Disclaimer: affiliate link.

Social Media: Facebook Patreon Twitter Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/1/2019 at 7:11 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Further, the research system in particular is really bad when it comes to learning stuff - you commit an entire season to it, and then you get one experience roll, instead of the four you get when just doing your normal work (which also earns you money), and then the research gain rolls suffers a stiff penalty. It's appallingly inefficient. Even getting training is a bad idea compared to just working.

I also thought that this was the rule, but it was clarified by Jeff and you can train/research in addition to your normal stuff. Unfortunately I'm unable to find where he answered me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brootse said:

I also thought that this was the rule, but it was clarified by Jeff and you can train/research in addition to your normal stuff. Unfortunately I'm unable to find where he answered me.

Surely not? You have to work at least 5/8ths of the time to get Occupational, and training and research are surely full-time activities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brootse said:

When I used 'fulltime training' the search found it:

Wow. I realize that this is a designer ruling, so this might be tilting at windmills, but: This makes no sense .

Let's say we go with what Jeff says here. In a season, you can adventure full-time for four weeks, and then you can do your work for four weeks (if anything, it's very generous that you don't get any penalties for working part-time, but I digress). In the remaining 0 weeks, you can train with a teacher enough to get a training roll. It also means that you will always, always do at the very least your research in a season, no matter what else is going on.

But let's ignore this particular case, and say that you  only adventured for two weeks effective time. This means that you can get your training in in two weeks. Fair enough, but let's say you're an adventurer without a regular line of work and few social obligations (your common murder-hobo), living off your hard-gotten (possibly ill-gotten) gains, and want to train full time in preparation for your next go at grave-robbing adventuring? Shouldn't you be able to do that at four times the rate? Now, I see that Jeff says that such full-time training isn't really socially feasible, but this strikes me as odd - we have already established that training might take only a week or two, so what if instead of adventuring for two weeks and training for two weeks, you just train for four weeks instead (perhaps that season's adventure only took a couple of hours)? 

(And if you though teachers were overpaid before, when they at least taught full-time, now it gets even more absurd as they can get this payment for just a week or two of training. Forget about adventuring - teaching, that's where the big money is! Someone teaching, say, five journeymen scribes, might earn 300 L in a week.)

And what you go with here matters a lot for campaign progression. If you get a season's worth of training and research with no particular time expenditure each season (free time above adventuring and occupation), this means that at the very least, everyone will get five season's worth of research yearly. That's 2.5 Characteristic Gain rolls per year. That's a lot in any multi-year campaign. 

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm increasingly starting to think that if down-time is an important part of your campaign, you should start to track activity by the week. I'm resisting the idea because of the additional book-keeping, but stuff like the above gives me a headache. It's not really reasonable that you can be away from your occupation half the time with no ill effects to income, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many silly rules in Runequest and other RPGs, but the thing is that you only have to care about the official rules if you are writing official material. Eg. these days my group uses rules that are heavily houseruled RQ3 rules with mostly unchanged RQG magic rules. I've been thinking about making a thread to chat about different groups' houserules, but I've been too lazy to collect our own houserules.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brootse said:

Eg. these days my group uses rules that are heavily houseruled RQ3 rules with mostly unchanged RQG magic rules. I've been thinking about making a thread to chat about different groups' houserules, but I've been too lazy to collect our own houserules.

For what it's worth, that's a thread & topic I'd find interesting to read/discuss. :)

  • Like 2

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my publications here. Disclaimer: affiliate link.

Social Media: Facebook Patreon Twitter Website

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just had a thought on this topic.

Some occupational experience is listed as.optional skill choices (e.g., first weapon, a more skill, etc) rather than a specific (e.g., Ride, Herd).

During occupational experience checks, can those options been changed? Or do they need to be the same as that chosen at character creation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

During occupational experience checks, can those options been changed? Or do they need to be the same as that chosen at character creation?

As I understand it, they have to be done in order to avoid chicanery and egregious munchkinerry, alas.

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...