Skill base chances. What do you prefer ?

[Trifletraxor]

We don't make swordsmen "roleplay" their STR or skill, we don't make scholars "role-play" their INT and knowedlge skills. We should hand APP the same way, or get rid of it.

I don't suggest that characters should have to roleplay their APP. I it's the GMs responsibility to adjust the worlds reaction to the character accordingly, if relevant. So what if APP/CHA doesn't mean everything? I don't see the big deal about it.

Kind of makes the training system somewhat pointless then, doesn't it? If you're managing money in the campaign, they're still earning it, just indirectly. It also has the benefit of giving people some control over how they advance without encouraging people to hunt for excuses to use a particular skill.

I do use it, but more often by having them trained by employes during downtime. Basically I just limit the availability of teachers if I find that appropriate. People do get to train whatever they want occationally, but I usually throw some happenings/scenarios at them before they have spent 3 years going from beginners to masters of every skill.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

I don't suggest that characters should have to roleplay their APP. I it's the GMs responsibility to adjust the worlds reaction to the character accordingly, if relevant. So what if APP/CHA doesn't mean everything? I don't see the big deal about it.

I thinkit should mean something. Or be ditched. The problem with it "being the Gm's responsiblity" is that, frankly, it doesn't get used , nor does it affect things.

There are a few games where APP can be important. GURPS for one, and it's both an invalauble asset and sword in the back in the James Bond RPG.

It R/BRP is mostly something to write on your character sheet.

I do use it, but more often by having them trained by employes during downtime. Basically I just limit the availability of teachers if I find that appropriate. People do get to train whatever they want occationally, but I usually throw some happenings/scenarios at them before they have spent 3 years going from beginners to masters of every skill.

Ah, so you got the types of player who would hang around training until doomsday? I've had a couple of those. Generally, I just keep running adventures and if they want to stay in town training for a month real time while the rest of the group is adventuring they earned the skill points.

About the only time where I saw a large block of training being done was when the group was traveling on a ship and had a lot of free time. So a couple of characters asked the resident swordmaster for a few lessons. It kinda grew from there. It was kinda nice of the sorceror, too. He proved to quite the surprise with a 70% sword skill.

[Trifletraxor]

Ah, so you got the types of player who would hang around training until doomsday? I've had a couple of those. Generally, I just keep running adventures and if they want to stay in town training for a month real time while the rest of the group is adventuring they earned the skill points.

You got it!

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

You got it!

SGL.

There are some ways to light a fire under people like that.

Try running an adventure while they are training. That is always good. Three days into training an a PC gets jumped, shanghaied and finds himself in the slave pits.

Or just have things happen and point out what the PCs lost out on.

Or just say "Okay how many years do you want to train for. Let me know hen you want to play". Then run a high powered game. Chances are they won't be up to it (an 120% skill in the hands of someone who worked his way up is a lot nastier than the same skill in the hands on someone who just wrote it down before starting play) and get slaughtered. Two or three times repetitions and they will probably figure out that they aren't ready for the big leagues yet.

[Trifletraxor]

Try running an adventure while they are training. That is always good. Three days into training an a PC gets jumped, shanghaied and finds himself in the slave pits.

This is my favorite tactic. I'll let them start the training and get a few rolls, then something happen - and no-onw wants to be left behind when a scenario is unfolding. Cause while skills might make you better, loot is where the real power is.

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

This is my favorite tactic. I'll let them start the training and get a few rolls, then something happen - and no-onw wants to be left behind when a scenario is unfolding. Cause while skills might make you better, loot is where the real power is.

SGL.

Actualy playing is where the real power is. I once floored a guy who was really into building up his character and getting goodies. He told me how he wanted to take over the world. I say, "Okay, now what?"

I had time to go to the fridge and fill up my glass of Coke before he could stutter a response.

In mnay ways training in an RPG is just cheating yourself. Here is my theory:

1) The opposition's abilties are usually set to make the a challenge to the PCs. Inferior, yes, but still a challennge so they can provide an needed element of risk. Therefore if the PCs become twice as powerful the opposition must as well to maintain the element of risk.

2) The higher you skill the more hits you get and the greater the chance of a critical.

1+2= The more powerful the PCs become the more often the foes will hit and the more often the foes will critical. It true for the PCs too, but since the villains are the ones playing the game, who cares?

So by becoming more powerful the PCs cut into their margin for error and increase their chances of getting killed through a lucky hit.

So in most cases they are better off having fun and playing an adventure.

[Nightshade]

It isn't the primary contributor. THe weapon is. STR 's

In the sense of the main thing that _adds_ to it, it certainly is. Size does so too, but unlike Strength, in several BRP versions it has negative consequence too, which isn't true of Strength (or any other attribute but sometimes Power, far as that goes).

Not really. Not when you consider that going first and striking first are not the same thing. A character could train up weapon skills much faster and get a more concrete benefit.

I'm sorry, A, but I've never seen something pay for itself as much as going first. Obviously if there's too big a gap that isn't much help, but as soon as a first shot advantage can be critical, its simply too important to brush off the way you're doing here, and that was true in an awful lot of BRP versions. It certainly was with both RQ and Superworld 2.

Several things. For starters POW points. That sort of bumping really only comes in a high PW campaigns. Besides if bumping up DEX and STR weren;t providing benefits, a character would be better to pick up more bludgeon or bladesharp. Unless someone is sitting near a cusp, the benefit per magic point favors bladesharp.

The problem is you couldn't pick up "more" Bladesharp; you had to pick up a bigger one, which meant some non-trivial money expenditure. In addition, any spirit spell acquisition involved spirit combat. And that's assuming you weren't already at the point where you'd pretty much reached the practical limit of what spell availability on that front there was. Often people who had hit Bladesharp 4 or better really couldn't move it up much more, because of availability, lack of magic points to be able to fuel it, or both (yes, most people had some extra sources, but there were also other things competing for its use in battle such as Protection, Countermagic and Shimmer).

I can't think of any. If you aren't using Cat mods. Not in the human range. Gaints have problems with falling damage and are easier to hit, but without cat mods there isn't much that makes going from SIZ 12 to SIZ16 unappealing. Probably one reason why SIZ can't be trained.

I distinctly remember at least one game where you started giving attack bonuses to your opponent within the human range of Size (I'm pretty sure it was at 16 and up in fact).

Nope/. Independant of interaction skills. THe reason being that any modifers for APP to skills arew minor. Someone with Persuade 30% and an 18 APP isn't as good as someone with APP 10 and Persuade 40%.

Except that at least in RQ the former will in the long run outreach the latter because of the way skill category modifiers impact advancement

[Lord Twig]

Players in my long running RQ game always loved training, but they wouldn't train for years.

Adventures don't happen everyday and you have to do something in between. Generally once combat skills progressed to a certain point it was no longer possible/practical to continue to train them up, so they would focus on other skills that they felt their characters would be interested in.

They would train up First Aid, some Lores, magic skills, Climb, Jump, Hide and Sneak. This is also when they would work on secondary weapon skills or their Dodge skill if they primarily parried. All of this was done to round out the character. If you did nothing but adventure you would find that your primary sword skill was 200%, but your chance to fight with your dagger was 30% and your World Lore was still 8%. Or your "Heroes" would come to a river and drown because no one had a Swim higher than 20%.

Money is also a factor. I required them to spend money on living as well as training and eventually they would run out and need to go get some more. Usually off the bodies of defeated foes like any other upstanding member of society. :thumb:

[soltakss]

Actualy playing is where the real power is. I once floored a guy who was really into building up his character and getting goodies. He told me how he wanted to take over the world. I say, "Okay, now what?"

I had time to go to the fridge and fill up my glass of Coke before he could stutter a response.

Of course, a real power-hungry player would have them destroyed the world, because he could, and then taken over another one. Or is that just me?

In mnay ways training in an RPG is just cheating yourself. Here is my theory:

So, the better you become the worse you are? Very mystical.

I don't mind people training - it costs money and doesn't always succeed. It also allows for some interesting scenario hooks as they search for a suitable trainer.

[Atgxtg]

Of course, a real power-hungry player would have them destroyed the world, because he could, and then taken over another one. Or is that just me?

I have seen a PC do something like that, but forget to iron out the escape plan first. Sort of like the guy who came home early from work and found his wife in bead with another man. Vowing revenge, he pulled out a pistol and put it to his head, telling them that they were next.

So, the better you become the worse you are? Very mystical.

It's one of the fatal flaws of the D&D "balance is everything" approach. If the PCs get tougher, the opposition gets tougher to maintain balance and challenge. So if a first level group is usually dealing with CR5 encounters, and 5th level groups are usually facing CR5 encounters, experience isn't a reward. THe game maitains a status quo. D&D can get comical with this, and suspenion if disbelief can fly out the window. If the group averages 20th level 25th or 30th it gets consistiently more difficult to come up with challenges without people starting to wonder about things like how there can be so many "master thieves" or how the land coup support so many large predators. Or even how the local farmers could survive with 30HD monstrosities all over the place (that is common enough for the players to run into CR30 encounters).

If 4 goblins constitute a CR 1 encounter, and every time you double the number you add 2 to the CR, a CR 20 encounter is about two thousand goblins.

The "more skilled =more killed" dilemma is something that most RPGs have to some extent. Games that use some sort of absolute scale for ranking characters rather than a relative scale do better in this respect.

Generally since the offense/damage out advances faster than defense/damage absorbed in most games higher level translates to more dangerous.

We actually had all this come up in an RPG session and realized it was a form of escalation. In theory a character gets tougher and thus his chances of survival improve. In practice the GM usually maintains a status quo to keep the fights tense, and thus if the PCs go up 30% so do the bad guys. So what is the benefit?

[Nightshade]

We actually had all this come up in an RPG session and realized it was a form of escalation. In theory a character gets tougher and thus his chances of survival improve. In practice the GM usually maintains a status quo to keep the fights tense, and thus if the PCs go up 30% so do the bad guys. So what is the benefit?

Well, its two-fold:

1. You get to play with cooler toys, in terms of abilities, spells and skill levels. Like it or not, that _is_ what a lot of people like about this hobby.

2. You get into the power range where what you're doing has real impact.

That's pretty much it, but that's plenty for most people.

[Atgxtg]

Well, its two-fold:

1. You get to play with cooler toys, in terms of abilities, spells and skill levels. Like it or not, that _is_ what a lot of people like about this hobby.

2. You get into the power range where what you're doing has real impact.

That's pretty much it, but that's plenty for most people.

Both points don't necessarily apply. In games like Bond or most Superhero or Sci-Fi RPGs for instance, you get 1 & 2 from the start.

But I think a lot of that is because people don't see the "net zero" effect. Most people actually think that if they have twice the hit points they are twice as tough. That their foes are now twice as tough tends to slip their minds.

I see a lot of that when I talk to people about economics. There is this believe that people "make" money, instead of redistributing the wealth that already exists. That's also why "trickle down" economics doesn't work.

[Nightshade]

Both points don't necessarily apply. In games like Bond or most Superhero or Sci-Fi RPGs for instance, you get 1 & 2 from the start.

I'd also argue that in most of those, you don't see a huge slope in increased ability with advancement, either; it mostly adds up to small steps up and spreading out. The games where the power curve goes up much tend to be fantasy and (to some extent) SF games, and perhaps some action-horror genre games.

[Lord Twig]

If your character gets more powerful he can take on tougher opponents. That is a benefit by itself. So instead of fighting goblins or feral broos, you are fighting dragons and chaos terrors. Instead of seeing these things and thinking, "Oh crap! Run away!" you are thinking, "I think I can take him!"

Of course it is different in other games. I played Champions for a long time and the characters grew very little in power. Add some skill levels, maybe a minor power and that was it. There were also a couple "Radiation Accidents" when someone really wanted to remake their character, but even then the "new" character was only moderately more powerful than a starting character. Really we played that game for different reasons than we played RQ.

[Atgxtg]

I'd also argue that in most of those, you don't see a huge slope in increased ability with advancement, either; it mostly adds up to small steps up and spreading out. The games where the power curve goes up much tend to be fantasy and (to some extent) SF games, and perhaps some action-horror genre games.

With Supers the advanement slope tends to be slight. In something like Bond the slope is just a steep as in a Fantasy RPGs.

If your character gets more powerful he can take on tougher opponents. That is a benefit by itself. So instead of fighting goblins or feral broos, you are fighting dragons and chaos terrors. Instead of seeing these things and thinking, "Oh crap! Run away!" you are thinking, "I think I can take him!"

I don't see this. Basically I don't "Oh boy, it's a dragon, lemme at 'em!"

And It isn't a benefit. The dragon and chaos terror has a much better chance of one-hit killing you that the broos did. So it's more like going to the front of the execution line.

[Nightshade]

With Supers the advanement slope tends to be slight. In something like Bond the slope is just a steep as in a Fantasy RPGs.

I won't speak of Bond specifically because I don't know about its advancement, but that's not true in most of the spy and modern adventure games I know of; in most of those, you start as anything but a beginner, and the slope of advancement is slow (the exception being D20 based ones which are stuck in a "start at the bottom" paradigm, but they're stuck in that on everything).

[Gnarsh]

And It isn't a benefit. The dragon and chaos terror has a much better chance of one-hit killing you that the broos did. So it's more like going to the front of the execution line.

Sure. But you have a much better chance of one-hit killing them, right? And you have more heal spells to use.

I'll also point out that the factor you are describing is one of the many reasons why I use a "subtract combat skills over 100% from the opposing skill" system. It effectively resolves that, since two 200% guys fighting end up identical to two 100% guys fighting.

And the bigger factor is that you aren't challenged by the random group of broos and bandits that might be along the way to the super powerful dragon or chaos terror you're going to fight. We touched on this in the balance thread. You're correct that it gets silly trying to make everything a challenge to the PCs as power levels increase. But that's a failure of the GM in my opinion. A good GM should certainly balance the major encounters of a scenario to the power level of the characters, but the game world itself should not arbitrarily get nastier because of that. Bandits should not be higher level because the players are. Random encounters should not be tougher because the players are. The players should always feel that their characters are more powerful when they actually *are* more powerful.

And as a GM, you show this by tossing the occasional much weaker group of bad guys at the group. Yup. They plow right over them. They don't get much from it, and it didn't take much time from the game session, but it ensures that the players do get a sense of their character's power relative to the "norm" of the game world. IMO, that's kinda important.

And honestly, it makes more sense...

How does this affect training? Well, if you do it right as a GM, it doesn't. If someone wants to set a character aside and train instead of adventuring, so be it! Let him start up a new character and play that instead. We always allowed for a number of potential characters that anyone could play at any time on any adventure.

Honestly though, training was always about supplementary skills. Main skills (the ones that you'd be using in that fight with a dragon) have a serious point of diminishing returns if you're trying to train them. No one trained their primary weapons skills. You'd get tons of increases on an adventure, and they'd usually go up pretty darn fast. It was things like sorcery, lores, and stats that you spent time training up if you could.

Maybe your game is different, but in mine, if two identical characters are created, and one spends the next 30 years doing nothing but training, and the other spends the same time adventuring, the adventuring character will so massively outpower the guy who trained that it isn't even funny. His skills will not only be higher (massively so), but he'll also have whatever neato magic items he might have gained on his travels. And that's excluding the possibilities of unique abilities, spells, rewards from deities and whatnot that tend to make long standing characters both unique and powerful.

I just never had any issues with training in RQ. It certainly was never a route to too much power in any game I've played. It served mostly to help players round out their characters. Getting dex to that next SR cuttoff was huge for example and something that virtually everyone did.

I'll also observe that it seems as though you didn't play RQ with encumberance rules, or you'd not dismiss the benefits of increasing str, nor the disadvantages of a high siz stat...

[Atgxtg]

Sure. But you have a much better chance of one-hit killing them, right?

Two answers. For dragons and choas terrors then answer is no, not really. Those nasties tend to be beyond the one hit-kill range.

Otherwise the answers is-it doesn't matter. NPC opponents aren't fighting in each encounter, the players are. So an overall increase the the average competentcy of the foes means an overall increase in the lethiality So even if the PCs have twice the one-hit kill chance of the foes they are facing, an increase in the ability of the foes still translates to increased lethlity for the PCs.

This is one reason why people have often noted that at the Rune Levels fights tend to be decided by criticals.

There is also the fact that as the opponents get better they tend to get smarter, and the cushion the PCs have for errors diminishes. That was one of my reasons for starting off most groups weak. Not because I had a problem running a high powered campaign, but that the players would have problems surviving against high powered foes who knew what they were doing. Experienced foes might do something nasty, like concentrate missile fire on the Rune Lord. A mix of a dozen speedarted, fire and mitltimissied arrows can be a great equalizer.

I'll also point out that the factor you are describing is one of the many reasons why I use a "subtract combat skills over 100% from the opposing skill" system. It effectively resolves that, since two 200% guys fighting end up identical to two 100% guys fighting.

Not quite. For starters if there is a discrepancy is skill it magnifies it. Also since it does adjust the cirtical chances that doesn't really make it a better situation. The higher mortality rate is actually quite sensible if you think about it. Regardless of your own skill, if you are fighting better skilled foes, you will take higher casualties. You should. Throw a crack unit at another crack unit and you will see more slaughter than throwing two green units at each other.

The actual issue is the escalation of the foes to keep a "net zero" effect. That is what gets the PCs killed. Eventually you hit a point where if sheer firepower doesn't overwhelm you, mathematics will.

But that's a failure of the GM in my opinion. A good GM should certainly balance the major encounters of a scenario to the power level of the characters, but the game world itself should not arbitrarily get nastier because of that. Bandits should not be higher level because the players are. Random encounters should not be tougher because the players are. The players should always feel that their characters are more powerful when they actually *are* more powerful.

Actually it is a failure of many game systems and example of how too much game balance ruins things. If a game system is inherently lethal enough so that there is always a decent risk to characters, escalation is unnecessary because there is still risk. In D&D you reach a point where a single orc has no chance of taking out an experienced fighter-or to be more accurate, the orcs chances are lower than hitting the lottery for a few hundred million. The orc would have to luck out and get a series of hits while the experienced fighter had an unbelievably bad run of luck and missed continually.

In RQ a guy with 50% skill always has that 3% critical chance and 10% special chance and so has a slight chance of "one-hit" dropping just about anyone. SO that group of bandits always presents some challenge. So a group of bandits with Bow 50% or Rifle 50% are still a viable threat to experienced characters.

And as a GM, you show this by tossing the occasional much weaker group of bad guys at the group. Yup. They plow right over them. They don't get much from it, and it didn't take much time from the game session, but it ensures that the players do get a sense of their character's power relative to the "norm" of the game world. IMO, that's kinda important.

And honestly, it makes more sense...

I agree. In a Supers campaign in particular. While a purse snatcher isn't a challenge for the Man of Steel, that is precisely the point that needs to be brought across in play.

But it does sort of show that experience isn't so much a reward for good play, but really a penalty for surviving. Basically, most games just keep upping the foes until they finally kill the PCs.

How does this affect training? Well, if you do it right as a GM, it doesn't. If someone wants to set a character aside and train instead of adventuring, so be it! Let him start up a new character and play that instead. We always allowed for a number of potential characters that anyone could play at any time on any adventure.

I'd go so far and to not let the guy write up a new character. That is the price for training all the time. In general I have no problems with training. Even main skills. In fact training for main skills is encouraged. But there is usually a point where the PCs will want to do something else. Or events pass them by.

About the nastiest thing I can think of for a GM to do is just sit back, wait until the players are happy with their new skill scores and then toss them up against a worthy adversary. Chances are the PCs will take some losses because while their characters have the skills scores on paper the players haven't worked out the right tactics for them yet.

I certainly did play with ENC rules. I had very few characters train STR though. It generally took more time for a less sure return that there were willing to spend.

[Kloster]

I won't speak of Bond specifically because I don't know about its advancement, but that's not true in most of the spy and modern adventure games I know of; in most of those, you start as anything but a beginner, and the slope of advancement is slow (the exception being D20 based ones which are stuck in a "start at the bottom" paradigm, but they're stuck in that on everything).

With Bond, the advancement curve is quite steep, even more than with BRP. A starting rookie can reach agent level in a few scenarios. 00 level is slower to reach, but not because the curve slows (it is even steeper), but becausethe requirements are difficult to reach. And when you reach 00, the curve is furter steeped.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

If your character gets more powerful he can take on tougher opponents. That is a benefit by itself. So instead of fighting goblins or feral broos, you are fighting dragons and chaos terrors. Instead of seeing these things and thinking, "Oh crap! Run away!" you are thinking, "I think I can take him!"

Of course it is different in other games. I played Champions for a long time and the characters grew very little in power. Add some skill levels, maybe a minor power and that was it. There were also a couple "Radiation Accidents" when someone really wanted to remake their character, but even then the "new" character was only moderately more powerful than a starting character. Really we played that game for different reasons than we played RQ.

On this, I tend to disagree. The most powerful Champion character I've played had about 100 XP, and he was way more powerful than when created. It took about 18 month to reach that point, so I would not qualify this as a slow rise.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Kloster]

Players in my long running RQ game always loved training, but they wouldn't train for years.

Adventures don't happen everyday and you have to do something in between. Generally once combat skills progressed to a certain point it was no longer possible/practical to continue to train them up, so they would focus on other skills that they felt their characters would be interested in.

They would train up First Aid, some Lores, magic skills, Climb, Jump, Hide and Sneak. This is also when they would work on secondary weapon skills or their Dodge skill if they primarily parried. All of this was done to round out the character. If you did nothing but adventure you would find that your primary sword skill was 200%, but your chance to fight with your dagger was 30% and your World Lore was still 8%. Or your "Heroes" would come to a river and drown because no one had a Swim higher than 20%.

Money is also a factor. I required them to spend money on living as well as training and eventually they would run out and need to go get some more. Usually off the bodies of defeated foes like any other upstanding member of society. :thumb:

For 1st part, same for me.

For 2nd part, I agree.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[Lord Twig]

On this, I tend to disagree. The most powerful Champion character I've played had about 100 XP, and he was way more powerful than when created. It took about 18 month to reach that point, so I would not qualify this as a slow rise.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

Well, I guess it can be done. Honestly we usually had so much fun making characters that we rarely played the same one more than a handful of times. A few favorites were played more often and accumulated about 30 to 40xp. It was nice, but not overpowering.

We also had some GM oversight on the power level of the characters, so even an experienced character would not do too much more damage than a starting character. Maybe a couple more d6. Without oversight you could have someone with 40d6 Energy Blast (and not much else), blowing villains away.

[Nightshade]

Unlimited choice of advancement in Hero can, indeed, lead to some pretty significant differences in power level, but neither of the last two editions have suggested unlimited choice of advancement.

[Lord Twig]

Unlimited choice of advancement in Hero can, indeed, lead to some pretty significant differences in power level, but neither of the last two editions have suggested unlimited choice of advancement.

I haven't played since 3rd edition, though I did by the 5th edition rule book.

[Gnarsh]

Well, I guess it can be done. Honestly we usually had so much fun making characters that we rarely played the same one more than a handful of times. A few favorites were played more often and accumulated about 30 to 40xp. It was nice, but not overpowering.

Hah! Absolutely true. I've still got an entire notebook filled with various characters, most of which maybe got played a couple times. Those were good times...

We also had some GM oversight on the power level of the characters, so even an experienced character would not do too much more damage than a starting character. Maybe a couple more d6. Without oversight you could have someone with 40d6 Energy Blast (and not much else), blowing villains away.

And you also had a GM who spent significant effort and thought coming up with any possible method of "cheating", and testing said cheats by building epic super-villains and blasting you guys into bits with them.

You do remember "The Master", right? Muahaha! The most ludicrously overpowered character ever built, using completely by-the-book legal rules. Duplication and "power usable by others" is just wrong on so many levels...