Experience Checks - How hard to get?

[Marc]

So, I've just started playing in a new campaign on Roll20, with a GM and party that I've never played with before.  Pretty excited about it! 

However, during our first session, something happened that surprised me.  My character had gone around to the back of a tent that several emissaries from different clans were having a meeting in( one of the emissaries was from my clan ).  I wanted to know what they were talking about, so I tried a Listen roll.  I succeeded, and heard a few phrases, and then a companion managed to trip, and fall through the back of the tent!  

However, that's not the point of this post.  After I succeeded with the Listen roll, I was ready to check the box for an Experience check later.  That's when the GM said that I wouldn't get an experience check. I don't argue much with a GM during play, and sent him an email later.  We've resolved that, but it got me to thinking, What do other GM's do for this.  In the game I'm running on Roll20, and in my old RQ2 and RQ3 campaigns back in the early to mid 80's, I pretty much gave an experience check whenever I had asked for a player to make a roll.  My thinking was that, if I am asking them to roll, the outcome will have an impact on the character, and so, they deserved a check. What to other's do?  Is it pretty much automatic if you succeed?  Or is there some other criteria that must also be satisfied?

[JustAnotherVingan]

Its up to the referee to decide what warrants a roll and what doesn't. A successful roll that achieves something or when there was an element of risk are my criteria.

Sometimes I ask for a roll just to keep the players guessing or a player asks for a roll when theres nothing useful to be gained. In those cases they won't get a tick.

[jajagappa]

42 minutes ago, Marc said:

After I succeeded with the Listen roll, I was ready to check the box for an Experience check later.  That's when the GM said that I wouldn't get an experience check. I don't argue much with a GM during play, and sent him an email later.  We've resolved that, but it got me to thinking, What do other GM's do for this.  In the game I'm running on Roll20, and in my old RQ2 and RQ3 campaigns back in the early to mid 80's, I pretty much gave an experience check whenever I had asked for a player to make a roll.  My thinking was that, if I am asking them to roll, the outcome will have an impact on the character, and so, they deserved a check. What to other's do?

Unless it's something that shouldn't explicitly require a roll, I give Experience checks. If there is some risk involved or something that you don't learn if you don't make a roll, then you should get Experience for making the roll. Particularly for those with lower skill levels, this is where you get the opportunity to learn, and the Experience Gain rolls will naturally limit you as you get more and more skilled. Also, for a given session/scenario, you get one check for the skill so whether you get it sooner or later for a common skill like Scan or Listen is rather irrelevant.

 

[Shiningbrow]

I agree with the above comments, and would also add that in the specific example above, and experience check would have been quite appropriate, given the PC would have needed to STFU, control their breathing, focus and concentrate, all while hopefully not being seen... 

[Richard S.]

The way I run it is that if the situation warrants a roll in the first place, you get a check. You shouldn't be rolling for things that are so simple or low-stress that you wouldn't have an opportunity to learn from experience.

[soltakss]

I just don't bother with experience checks and use experience points instead, for that same reason.

If you sneak behind a tent and listen to a conversation, I'd say that was a risky proposition and should have an experience check.

[Akhôrahil]

I hand it out for everything that’s constructive even at a stretch, and would 100% have done it in that situation. Or rather, I don’t even hand it out, merely tell people on the rare occasions where they might not get it (typically where it’s obvious someone was only fishing for the check and nothing productive was being done).

[Lordabdul]

In this thread when people say "make a skill roll", do you mean just the act of rolling, or do you mean getting a success in the roll?

By RAW the experience check is generally only when you get a success, although things like Runes and Passions can get experience checks simply if you roleplay that Rune or Passion well.

I just go by RAW mostly because if the players roll the dice and succeed, they always enthusiastically remind me that yes, they got a success, and yes, they're going to check the little box (there's generally an accompanying giggle). I don't get any time in between to even say "but...". If I told them that they don't get a check because the roll wasn't so important, they would revolt and question why they rolled in the first place if it was inconsequential  

For people who want a different take on it, some BRP variants go with an experience check when you fail a roll -- and then if I remember it well, you get the straight +1d6 or +1d10 at the end of the adventure (no additional roll to see if you improve). The argument being that you learn more from your mistakes than from your successes. I don't have any preference here but I figured it might be interesting to somebody.

Edited February 23, 2020 by lordabdul

[jajagappa]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

In this thread when people say "make a skill roll", do you mean just the act of rolling, or do you mean getting a success in the roll?

For an Experience check, it means getting a success in the Skill roll.

[Glorion]

6 hours ago, lordabdul said:

In this thread when people say "make a skill roll", do you mean just the act of rolling, or do you mean getting a success in the roll?

By RAW the experience check is generally only when you get a success, although things like Runes and Passions can get experience checks simply if you roleplay that Rune or Passion well.

I just go by RAW mostly because if the players roll the dice and succeed, they always enthusiastically remind me that yes, they got a success, and yes, they're going to check the little box (there's generally an accompanying giggle). I don't get any time in between to even say "but...". If I told them that they don't get a check because the roll wasn't so important, they would revolt and question why they rolled in the first place if it was inconsequential  

For people who want a different take on it, some BRP variants go with an experience check when you fail a roll -- and then if I remember it well, you get the straight +1d6 or +1d10 at the end of the adventure (no additional roll to see if you improve). The argument being that you learn more from your mistakes than from your successes. I don't have any preference here but I figured it might be interesting to somebody.

In Rayquest, for a long time the rule was you'd get an experience check if you *fumbled* a roll, not just a failure. Dropped due to GM's being too annoyed at the idea. BTW, the death of Yahoo Groups killed the main repository for the "Fire and Sword" (Rayquest) rules, up to version 6 in our old house campaign, but there is a twenty year old early version of the rules, v1, still available on the Net. http://www.orion-forever.com/firesword/ More modern versions for those who happen to be interested can be emailed by me or others.

[Bill the barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Glorion said:

In Rayquest, for a long time the rule was you'd get an experience check if you *fumbled* a roll

I do not know if I home ruled that or if it actually existed in RQ2 and 3 but I have always used that for every fumble roll (though I seem to recall that if it was an actual rule It only happened the first time you fumbled) 

If special note I allowed a great/impactful action on critical roll for an attribute roll to do the same for attributes (very def a home rule)

[Akhôrahil]

9 hours ago, Glorion said:

In Rayquest, for a long time the rule was you'd get an experience check if you *fumbled* a roll, not just a failure. 

In Burning Wheel, you need combination of successes and failures in order to gain a skill advance. I like this a lot.

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

In Burning Wheel, you need combination of successes and failures in order to gain a skill advance. I like this a lot.

Going to be trying a full campaign of BW soon... I hope!!

[Darius West]

On 2/23/2020 at 9:53 AM, Marc said:

So, I've just started playing in a new campaign on Roll20, with a GM and party that I've never played with before.  Pretty excited about it! 

However, during our first session, something happened that surprised me.  My character had gone around to the back of a tent that several emissaries from different clans were having a meeting in( one of the emissaries was from my clan ).  I wanted to know what they were talking about, so I tried a Listen roll.  I succeeded, and heard a few phrases, and then a companion managed to trip, and fall through the back of the tent!  

However, that's not the point of this post.  After I succeeded with the Listen roll, I was ready to check the box for an Experience check later.  That's when the GM said that I wouldn't get an experience check. I don't argue much with a GM during play, and sent him an email later.  We've resolved that, but it got me to thinking, What do other GM's do for this.  In the game I'm running on Roll20, and in my old RQ2 and RQ3 campaigns back in the early to mid 80's, I pretty much gave an experience check whenever I had asked for a player to make a roll.  My thinking was that, if I am asking them to roll, the outcome will have an impact on the character, and so, they deserved a check. What to other's do?  Is it pretty much automatic if you succeed?  Or is there some other criteria that must also be satisfied?

I can see a point for not getting to check your listen roll if you are listening and there is nothing to hear and no threat, but otherwise, a judicious use of skill that reveals something or achieves something is worth a tick, given that the tick is not any concrete guarantee of a skill increase.  It can also lead to some unusual skills developing slowly.  I had a player who had nothing but linen bandages with which to secure mostali prisoners, and did so quite successfully, developing the skill of "dwarf wrapping" as a result, which he eventually increased to 45%.

[Diana Probst]

On 2/22/2020 at 10:53 PM, Marc said:

However, that's not the point of this post.  After I succeeded with the Listen roll, I was ready to check the box for an Experience check later.  That's when the GM said that I wouldn't get an experience check. I don't argue much with a GM during play, and sent him an email later.  We've resolved that, but it got me to thinking, What do other GM's do for this....

If something has tension or impact, and if failure can be a problem, you're likely to learn from it.  That's an experience tick.  If listening was trivial, or didn't last long, then I wouldn't.  I probably would have if you'd listened for longer or if the phrases were interesting.  Maybe if it wasn't interesting but you still decided it was a good idea and learned from it.  It's not automatic but it's probable.

I also give ticks to passions if people do supporting work around the campaign.  A player who wrote a poem about his fellows got a tick on Loyalty Clan for that, because those sorts of things just make the campaign better and I want to support them.  I yoinked that idea from my own GM.

[Lysus]

6 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

In Burning Wheel, you need combination of successes and failures in order to gain a skill advance. I like this a lot.

This is a bit of a quibble, but you don't actually have to fail any tests to advance. At higher skill levels (and all stat levels), you do have to attempt tests that aren't possible to succeed without metacurrency, though. 

[PhilHibbs]

On 2/22/2020 at 10:53 PM, Marc said:

However, during our first session, something happened that surprised me.  My character had gone around to the back of a tent that several emissaries from different clans were having a meeting in( one of the emissaries was from my clan ).  I wanted to know what they were talking about, so I tried a Listen roll.  I succeeded, and heard a few phrases, and then a companion managed to trip, and fall through the back of the tent!  

... the GM said that I wouldn't get an experience check.

What was his reasoning - that the mission has been a failure, and so no XR for failure? That's wrong, in my opinion, and my opinion is correct in this instance. If he's new to RQ, I can understand how "No XR for failure" could be extrapolated from "skill failure" to "mission failure".

The classic RQ "check on success, gain on rolling higher" method has the advantage of being simple, but people often come up with alternative mechanisms such as awarding a number of skill improvement rolls, rewarding fumbles, or the other systems like those mentioned here.

I see that as part of the wider RQ metagame, RQ has always provided a base for groups to elaborate on. If it tried to fix all of its historical quirks, then that would take away some of the fun. Many people thought that RQ3 fell into that trap, that it was too complete.

[Bill the barbarian]

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Many people thought that RQ3 fell into that trap, that it was too complete.

Which is just sad.

[Marc]

12 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

What was his reasoning - that the mission has been a failure, and so no XR for failure? That's wrong, in my opinion, and my opinion is correct in this instance. If he's new to RQ, I can understand how "No XR for failure" could be extrapolated from "skill failure" to "mission failure".

I think he was keying on the "stress" thing a bit too much.  He's new to RuneQuest.   I sent him a message, explained my point of view, and he responded.  I'm pretty sure we understand each other, and he has laid out his criteria for awarding experience checks, which, after he thought about my comments, and assuming I'm understanding it correctly, has shifted to be more like mine.  He stated that he had originally understood it to mean the result of the skill check had to influence the story/adventure in a significant way.  After  reading my message, and going back to the rules, his understanding has  changed, to something similar to my understanding.  So, it's all good.

[Akhôrahil]

8 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Which is just sad.

Yes, I hate this attitude. "We can't fix the bad parts of the game, because people expect them."

That said, if I had to list 100 issues with RQ, the experience gain check would not even make the list...

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Yes, I hate this attitude. "We can't fix the bad parts of the game, because people expect them."

Our specific concern was that RQ3 tried to fix things that didn't need fixing. Fatigue, 5% skill thresholds, bland and fiddly occupations system, etc. RQ2 by some measures had big chunks missing, sure, but trying to fill all the gaps inevitably tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one.

And hating different gaming tastes, that's a little over the top isn't it? There are plenty of games out there that take approaches that aren't to my taste, but I let them exist in peace, I don't feel the need to hate on them publicly.

[Akhôrahil]

9 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

And hating different gaming tastes, that's a little over the top isn't it? There are plenty of games out there that take approaches that aren't to my taste, but I let them exist in peace, I don't feel the need to hate on them publicly.

It's not your taste that's the problem, it's when a game feels that it can't modernize because of this kind of feeling, or when an actually better game fails because of fan nostalgia for the old rules even if - even because! - they were clumsy and clunky. So yes, I strongly dislike (if you prefer that phrasing) how fan nostalgia gives us worse products. Nostalgia is a poison.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

So yes, I strongly dislike (if you prefer that phrasing)

Better...

7 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

how fan nostalgia gives us worse products.

Damn, you were so close, but you had to finish off with a declaration that anyone else's tastes are objectively wrong. Never mind, I'm dropping this now.

[Akhôrahil]

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

Damn, you were so close, but you had to finish off with a declaration that anyone else's tastes are objectively wrong.

I believe there is such a thing as rules that function objectively better or worse. Tastes about what kinds of things the rules should attempt to accomplish can reasonably vary, but within this, they can be designed in ways that work better or worse to achieve this.

However, since this is also objectively drifting from the thread, I'm fine with dropping it.

[Joerg]

On 2/24/2020 at 5:29 PM, PhilHibbs said:

The classic RQ "check on success, gain on rolling higher" method has the advantage of being simple, but people often come up with alternative mechanisms such as awarding a number of skill improvement rolls, rewarding fumbles, or the other systems like those mentioned here.

The lack of having to award experience points (XP) fairly (as opposed to the handwavium "everybody gets 5 points now the scenario is through" which I hate almost as much) was what sold me on the concept of BRP games.

 

Check-hunting? So what? If the rules system insists that the sword ability has a separate skill from the axe ability, and your axe has better penetration power against an opponent with better armor, it makes sense to sacrifice a few percents advantage.

Stressful situations? One might argue that a sword-tranced Humakti doesn't feel any stress, and cannot earn skill checks on any sword ability while in trance. A similar reasoning can be applied to skill checks gained with the aid of Berserk or even just Fanaticism as the character was not in control when these successes were rolled.

 

Skill checks have a diminishing reward mechanism, as are training or research. They are unfair in the way skill category bonus plays into this (especially in RQ3), but then, characteristic training (or other forms of raising them) are available, too.

On 2/24/2020 at 5:29 PM, PhilHibbs said:

I see that as part of the wider RQ metagame, RQ has always provided a base for groups to elaborate on. If it tried to fix all of its historical quirks, then that would take away some of the fun.

Only if you learned to loath/ve those quirks.

On 2/24/2020 at 5:29 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Many people thought that RQ3 fell into that trap, that it was too complete.

Having started BRP games with RQ3, I don't have any sentimental ties to the RQ2 rules whatsoever, and their best features were the brevity of their presentation and the meta-rules that could be applied to any situation.

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Our specific concern was that RQ3 tried to fix things that didn't need fixing. Fatigue, 5% skill thresholds, bland and fiddly occupations system, etc.

RQ3 was far from a perfect system, though it fixed quite a few of the weaknesses that RQ2 has.

Neither rules system was a Gloranthan rules system. RQ2's Rune Power concept (not in the sense of reusable spell points, but as a measure what one point, two point and three point rune spells would be able to do) as a meta-rule is applicable to any setting with divine or demonic magic through some form of religious worship. It was superseded by the explicit spells provided in Cults of Prax and subsequent publications (accumulated in the Cults Compendium).

 

The RQ3 previous experience method wasn't that fiddly in my experience once I had it in a spreadsheet. The mathematical problem with it was that it allowed linear additions against a system that gives diminishing rewards at higher competence, leading to several "Murphy's Rules" nominations when used outside of the goldilocks zone where linear and non-linear advancement didn't diverge noticeably.

It suffered from a weird fetish for inept characters with maybe one area of at best journeyman level of competence, too. Except for the weapon proficiencies.

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

RQ2 by some measures had big chunks missing, sure, but trying to fill all the gaps inevitably tries to please everyone and ends up pleasing no-one.

RQ3 went in quite a lot of directions at once, and brought in a number of good concepts that were previously missing.

The only real complaint about Fatigue is that it is a book-keeping nightmare using simplified assumptions that don't add realism because of those simplifications (and it would be even worse without those simplifications).

 

10 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

It's not your taste that's the problem, it's when a game feels that it can't modernize because of this kind of feeling, or when an actually better game fails because of fan nostalgia for the old rules even if - even because! - they were clumsy and clunky. So yes, I strongly dislike (if you prefer that phrasing) how fan nostalgia gives us worse products. Nostalgia is a poison.

The nostalgia isn't for the rules of yore, it is only projected on those as they were present when one had those awesome moments. You cannot bottle or refill the innocence with which you had those firsts as experiences.

Tolerance and even admiration for rules-based silliness doesn't counteract getting jaded. I suppose there are players of the other game who miss their characters being able to fall 200 feet effectively unharmed because they had high levels. 

 

 

Both HQG and RQG have an IMO unhealthy fixation on over-specialization. If I wanted to play character classes, I'd play D&D or one of its slightly modified clones. This results in one-dimensional character concepts which are ill-suited to gaming situations where other skills take the spotlight.

HeroQuest offers enough flexibility in the application of abilities to a situation that this doesn't result in complete incompetence - in case of doubt, you still have your cultural keywords to fall back upon. There is no such thing in RuneQuest, though - the Character Sheet tells you explicitly what your character has a shitty or no chance to succeed at.