Alternative Experience System

[Trifletraxor]

I think we should stick with the 13 Pendragon pairs (plus ad-hoc passions) as the "Industry Standard". Plenty there for varied RP.

What are the 13 pendragon pairs? And what do you mean with ad-hoc passions?

SGL.

[frogspawner]

Long before Pendragon, Chasoim did Thieves World.

Didn't we establish in another recent thread that Griffin Mountain had the earliest incarnation of Traits?

[frogspawner]

What are the 13 pendragon pairs? And what do you mean with ad-hoc passions?

Brave/Cowardly; Chaste/Lustful; Energetic/Lazy; Forgiving/Vengeful; Generous/Selfish; Honest/Deceitful; Just/Arbitrary; Merciful/Cruel; Modest/Proud; Pious/Worldly; Prudent/Reckless; Temperate/Indulgent; Trusting/Suspicious + 'Passions' = Love/Hate/Loyalty for something (by 'ad hoc' I just mean some chosen thing/s - there's not a fixed list).

Edited September 20, 2010 by frogspawner

[SDLeary]

Long before Pendragon, Chasoim did Thieves World. In the Thieves World rules there was a % system for traits. I'll dig out the trait pairs from that.

Aren't those the same pairs that appear in the BGB on pages 294-295?

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Brave/Cowardly; Chaste/Lustful; Energetic/Lazy; Forgiving/Vengeful; Generous/Selfish; Honest/Deceitful; Just/Arbitrary; Merciful/Cruel; Modest/Proud; Pious/Worldly; Prudent/Reckless; Temperate/Indulgent; Trusting/Suspicious + 'Passions' = Love/Hate/Loyalty for something (by 'ad hoc' I just mean some chosen thing/s - there's not a fixed list).

Though the 5.1 PDF still has it as Pious/Worldly, errata on Greg's page has changed this to Otherworldly/Worldly. Pious (Piety) becomes a Passion... Essentially Love (God<s>).

SDLeary

[frogspawner]

...Greg's page has changed this...

Naturally. But I wouldn't recommend chasing the latest 'greggings' - even though this one is extremely minor, it's a bad principle.

I for one can cope with the idea that in this context 'Pious' means 'Spiritual' (or whatever).

Aren't those the same pairs that appear in the BGB on pages 294-295?

It'll be interesting to find out! (In a forensic geeky sort of way... )

[sdavies2720]

Steve, that's exactly the kind of suggestion that I was looking for. So what you are suggesting is a mixture of Hero Points and Improvement Rolls taken from MRQ? I already use Hero Points, borrowed of course from MRQ, which does make a big difference to the gritty realism of combat. When it comes to Experience Rolls, do you allow the players to simply add D6 percentiles or do you make them roll a traditional Experience Roll to see if they get the bonus?

Yes, I'm suggesting a pool of points that do what Hero Points do (buy heroic abilities), improvement rolls, and some meta-gaming stuff.

For advancement, we still use the checkmark on successful use, then roll over the skill (with modifier for INT) to get an advancement of either 1d6 or 3 points. Players can spend one Game Point to get an advancement roll (which is not assured advancement) and 1d6% or 3% increase. Since that gets harder as character skill increase, over time players use game points less for that and more for heroic abilities and meta-game stuff.

So, the players that are going to advance the fastest are those that are most active (getting more skill checks) and rollplay the best (getting more game points). But over time, everything 'bunches' a bit as it takes more and more tries to advance the skill.

Steve

[Trifletraxor]

Brave/Cowardly; Chaste/Lustful; Energetic/Lazy; Forgiving/Vengeful; Generous/Selfish; Honest/Deceitful; Just/Arbitrary; Merciful/Cruel; Modest/Proud; Pious/Worldly; Prudent/Reckless; Temperate/Indulgent; Trusting/Suspicious + 'Passions' = Love/Hate/Loyalty for something (by 'ad hoc' I just mean some chosen thing/s - there's not a fixed list).

Though the 5.1 PDF still has it as Pious/Worldly, errata on Greg's page has changed this to Otherworldly/Worldly. Pious (Piety) becomes a Passion... Essentially Love (God<s>).

Aren't those the same pairs that appear in the BGB on pages 294-295?

The pairs in the BGB are: aggressive/passive, impulsive/cautious, extrovert/introvert, optimistic/pessimistic, stubborn/receptive, physical/mental, patient/nervous, emotional/calm, trusting/suspicious, leader/follower, greedy/generous,energetic/lazy, honorable/dishonorable, brave/cowardly, curious/incurious, dependable/unreliable, pious/irreligious, honest/dishonest, clever/dull, humorous/dour and innovative/conservative (at least in the zero edition).

Okay, now how do you use these traits? The BGB 0 only describes it as something to use for NPCs.

SGL.

[Wolverine]

For many years now the way I run experience in BRP is as follows:

1) Special levels of success automatically earn an experience check

2) Fumbles automatically earn an experience check

3) At the "end" of an adventure (i.e. when I let players roll their experience checks) I will also hand out a number of "free" experience checks to each character that the player can assign to ANY skill the can justify to me, even if it's NOT one the character specifically used e.g. A character body guarded a fellow PC whilst he was negotiating with the some traders so can he could have a tick against the language the negotiations were in (assuming they already had some skill in it).

4) Extended periods of down time: in addition to letting characters train I grant a number of hours equivalent of training then can spend on training in specific skills e.g. If they spend three months recovering with the Casali tribe in the Carash Gosan, I'd probably given them a "free" sixty hours then can spend on the local language and a couple of other skills related to day to day living with the wild halfling tribes of the swamplands.

Nick, thanks for your suggestion. It's a good one.

For advancement, we still use the checkmark on successful use, then roll over the skill (with modifier for INT) to get an advancement of either 1d6 or 3 points. Players can spend one Game Point to get an advancement roll (which is not assured advancement) and 1d6% or 3% increase. Since that gets harder as character skill increase, over time players use game points less for that and more for heroic abilities and meta-game stuff.

Thanks for that, Steve. I understand now. So it makes those "Game Points" a precious commodity then? Interesting idea.

As I'm not keen on traits, it would be great to hear what other people have to say about them.

[frogspawner]

Okay, now how do you use these traits?

Still trying to thrash out a mechanism. Current idea is to let players choose a few traits, initially at a CHA-related percentage (say CHAx5% distributed between up to 3). Percentage shows how much above normal the character is with that trait, e.g. 0% Brave = 0% Cowardly = Regular Joe, but 25% Brave is notable, 50% is renowned and 90%+ is heroic (rather like the scale for skills).

Act accordingly, and you get a 'tick' for it. (In systems using XPs/IPs/FPs or whatever, you might get one of those too - especially if it caused you amusing problems...). Act the opposite, and the GM can give you an 'anti-tick' - i.e. a tick for the opposite trait, which will lead to a decrease when checking-time comes.

What other use they'd be in terms of game mechanics... I'm not sure!

Already mentioned was the idea to add 1/5th Trait% to augment skills when acting especially in accordance with the Trait (or a Passion). But personally, I'm not keen on such fiddly modifiers. Currently I say players have to invoke & successfully roll the Trait% to make a related skill-roll Easy. But it seems a bit kludgy. Ideas would be most welcome!

PS: Thinking about it, maybe if the skill-roll is also under the Trait, they get a 'special' result. A bit like Martial Arts.

Edited September 21, 2010 by frogspawner
Added PS

[RosenMcStern]

Why not just stick to the Pendragon model, and have opposed traits going 01 to 99? We used this system in the glorious Kustria PBEM of 1997 and it was fun. It is simpler. The only problem is that it requires an opposed roll, so Frogspawner will not like it

The "fiddly" part of adding 1/5th to rolls can be solved by using a table approach instead of pure maths: 01-24% no modifier, 25-49% +5%, 50-74% +10%, 75-99% +15%. Be careful to add a corresponding penalty to another, opposed skill each time you invoke a Trait benefit. For instance, if you use Honourable to increase your Perform (Oratory), the next time you use your Persuade to cover an unpleasant truth your Honourable trait might detract from your skill roll (you are a bad liar), or increase your opponent's Insight.

The point to remember, however, is that the occurrences when the player's behaviour influences the Trait must be much more frequent than the ones when the Trait influences the behaviour.

Ah, and I like Frogspawner's idea of APPx5% as the starting pool of trait points very much.

Edited September 21, 2010 by RosenMcStern

[sdavies2720]

This is the first time I've started to see how I might use Traits in my game. Taking what everyone has suggested and cranking it through my skewed worldview, I'm thinking about something like this:

• Players start with APPx5% to apply to traits -- they can use any or all of it
  
• With GM approval, players can use 1/10th of a Trait to add to their chance on an applicable skill check
  
• If they apply their trait as a bonus to a skill check, they cannot do it again until the trait has been 'stressed' or increased
  
• When the GM feels a player is not acting in accordance with his trait, he can call for a trait check. The player has two choices: Either roll against the trait (and here success means the GM is right and the player needs to change action) or refuse to take the skill check, in which case the GM awards points to the counter trait
  
• Traits and Counter traits cannot total more than 100%. If a GM awards points to a countertrait that would take the sum over 100%, the corresponding trait decreases (and probably loses the advancement check)
  
• A Trait is 'stressed' whenever the player rolls against it, or the player & gm agree that it was stressed (i.e. the player is playing in accordance with the trait in a stressful situation)
  
• Stressed traits are eligible for advancement
  

Edited September 21, 2010 by sdavies2720
typos

[RosenMcStern]

[*]When the GM feels a player is not acting in accordance with his trait, he can call for a trait check. The player has two choices: Either roll against the trait (and here success means the GM is right and the player needs to change action) or refuse to take the skill check, in which case the GM awards points to the counter trait

Ought to be tested a bit, but it has a great advantage. You cannot be forced to do something you do not want!

Traits and Counter traits cannot total more than 100%. If a GM awards points to a countertrait that would take the sum over 100%, the corresponding trait decreases (and probably loses the advancement check)

Another good idea. In the end, you will have a total of 100 in the opposing pairs if you roleplay a lot, but you start with low traits.

[*]A Trait is 'stressed' whenever the player rolls against it, or the player & gm agree that it was stressed (i.e. the player is playing in accordance with the trait in a stressful situation)

[*]Stressed traits are eligible for advancement

Ditto. A good variation on the Pendragon theme.

[frogspawner]

• With GM approval, players can use 1/10th of a Trait to add to their chance on an applicable skill check
  
• If they apply their trait as a bonus to a skill check, they cannot do it again until the trait has been 'stressed' or increased
  

Only quite noteworthy Trait-related actions should be 'applicable'. And yes, there definitely needs to be some limit on Trait bonus usage. Not convinced this is quite the best way.

• When the GM feels a player is not acting in accordance with his trait, he can call for a trait check. [etc]
  

Just give a 'counter-check', I'd say. Simpler. In practice, the player would back down and change their intended action, if they didn't want one. Don't bother with the roll - it's just a way for the player to evade the GM's judgement (which we should assume is correct). Otherwise the GM would be over-ruling the Player's control of their own character - which should be sacrosanct.

• Traits and Counter traits cannot total more than 100%. If a GM awards points to a countertrait that would take the sum over 100%, the corresponding trait decreases (and probably loses the advancement check)
  

Doesn't seem right. Should you be able to have 50% Brave and 50% Cowardly? I don't think so. If you have a Trait, you just can't have it's opposite - because they are just different labels for two ends of the same scale.

[rust]

Doesn't seem right. Should you be able to have 50% Brave and 50% Cowardly?

Yes. If Brave and Cowardly are the opposite ends of a scale, 50 % Brave does

mean 50 % Cowardly, just like a glass that is 50 % Full is necessarily also 50 %

Empty.

[frogspawner]

Ah, and I like Frogspawner's idea of APPx5% as the starting pool of trait points very much.

Ta. Also, I'm glad to hear a system with Traits led to Fun and Glory!

Inevitably I disagree with other things, though...

The Pendragon model was on a d20 scale, but I get the point: a d100 scale would mirror it more closely. Having thought about it though, I just feel that having Traits on the same scale as skills is actually simpler. With your 01-99 scale the norm would be the mid-point of 50%: Brave 25% would actually be Cowardly 25% - it's counter-intuitive.

Sorry, no fiddly bonuses for me, no matter how simplified - I've watched and waited for too long while a supposedly senior accountant player struggles to add up his bonuses!

I'd rather not penalize players for their character's traits. I see Traits more as a 'carrot' to encourage good RP, not a stick. The Honest guy who tells significant lies would get an 'anti-tick' for Honest (i.e. a decrease roll). But that's all. Not punishment - just documenting how he is.

And obviously I wouldn't concede that any situation would require an opposed roll!

[rust]

I'd rather not penalize players for their character's traits. I see Traits more as a 'carrot' to encourage good RP, not a stick.

The way I use traits, the inner logic of the setting provides the stick: The nor-

mally honest character who is caught telling a lie will from then on suffer from

a negative modifier when attempting to use his social skills with any characters

who have heard about his lying.

[frogspawner]

Yes. If Brave and Cowardly are the opposite ends of a scale, 50 % Brave does mean 50 % Cowardly, just like a glass that is 50 % Full is necessarily also 50 % Empty.

Ah yes, but sdavies2720 was saying that opposed Traits were otherwise independent, I think. So you could have, say, Brave 50% and Cowardly 10%. That don't seem right to me, either.

Given that I don't think every character should have every possible trait listed, I recommend shifting the scale so that "Normal" is 0%, not 50%. So Brave 25% would be Cowardly -25%, or the equivalent of Brave/Cowardly 75/25 on a Pendragon-like scale (converted to d100).

[frogspawner]

The way I use traits, the inner logic of the setting provides the stick: The normally honest character who is caught telling a lie will from then on suffer from a negative modifier when attempting to use his social skills with any characters who have heard about his lying.

More than an only averagely honest character? That doesn't seem fair.

Anyway - how would you record the fact that this character had told a lie? I'd say, just decrease his Honest trait a bit...

[rust]

More than an only averagely honest character? That doesn't seem fair.

Well, if an only averagely honest characters tells a lie, this is no big surprise, be-

cause people expected him to tell a lie now and then anyway. But if a character

with the reputation to be honest and trustworthy is caught telling a lie, people

tend to be disappointed and shocked, and therefore to remember this much lon-

ger.

[sdavies2720]

First-off, good discussion & disclaimer: My post came from an 'aha' moment, not from any kind of play experience. It was just the first time I could see a way that traits (which I like in theory, but could never see how to use) could work for me.

Re: 1/10th bonus -- I'm using MRQII and this is the 'standard' bonus for a helper skill. I think there might also be a limit that there can only be one helper skill at a time, so that would mitigate the 10-minute accounting drill.

Re: Counter-check instead of just increasing the counter-trait -- yes, this is probably simpler and more in keeping with the rules.

Re: Having the player roll if they want to act against a trait -- what I like about having this option, is someone who is, say, 25% Brave, could still run away and 75% of the time they would get away with it without getting a GM check. Someone who is 75% brave would only get away with not being brave 25% of the time. Having this as an option (for the player) makes the Trait percentage mean something other than just how big a bonus they get, and gives an immediate way to resolve the argument about whether the character is brave enough to stay or not.

Re: Should Trait and Counter-trait add to 100: I like a couple of things about this: First, the counter-trait doesn't (or shouldn't) have any points in it unless the character did something consistent with that trait. At creation, a player could put 35% into Brave, and Cowardly would be at 0%. The only way to get points in Cowardly would have been for the character to act cowardly, or the player put points in (reflecting a conflicted background?). So, the limit only comes into play after a history is developed, and then we have a balance point where we have to see which way the character will go.

I didn't address how you advance once the trait & counter-trait sum to 100. My thought is you have to 'clear space' first and reduce the counter-trait before you can increase the trait.

Re: Which Traits should a character have? -- I'd leave this up to the player. If you take points in a trait (or ask for a check during game-play for specific action), you get the attendant bonus, but you are subject to the limits/tracking as well. So characters would be 0%/0% for most Traits -- those just don't apply in any meaningful way for their character.

I need to go back and reread the allegiance section -- Ultimately I'd want a system that works for allegiance as well. The in-game need feels the same to me between the two areas, and fewer mechanics are better.

Steve

Edited September 22, 2010 by sdavies2720
clarity equal->"sum to"

[RosenMcStern]

Really nice ideas. A shame that Jason did not include an "official" option for traits in the golden books. Maybe I can incorporate these ideas into our new settings.

[Moonowl67]

This is an old topic, but one that came up in my relatively new BRP game . . . so I took a crack at creating yet another set of alternate rules for advancing characters in BRP . . . uploaded them right here:  

[p_clapham]

I wrote up some optional advancement rules a while back for the Legend board, but they work equally well for BRP.  The skills derived from profession and personality types comes from Magic World.  Since I am terrible at rolling dice I came up with the other two rules.

 

Skills derived from Profession and Personality Types
The advancement for these skills is 1D6+1 rather than 1D4+1. If the improvement roll is failed the character gains 2 points in the skill rather than 1 point.

Taking the Average
Rather than rolling for skill points after a successful advancement roll the player can choose to take the average. If the roll is 1D6+1 the player adds 4 points to their skill, if the roll is 1D4+1 the player adds 3 points to their skill.

Automatic Advancement
There is no need for the player to make a advancement roll for their character. It is assumed they automatically succeed.

[Moonowl67]

One of my players also suggested this:

 

Add a check-mark for EACH success in a skill check, and that shows how many rolls you get to make at the end of the night. BUT there's only one success allowed per night (two on a Saturday). So at least you get more rolls if you make multiple successes.

 

To Which I've added:

To increase a characteristic, sacrifice a number of check-marks (chances to increase) equal to the value of the characteristic being increased.  These check-marks must be sacrificed before you check to see if a skill advances. You must use check-marks from skills that fall under the characteristic being increased, except POW.  With POW, you can use check-marks from any skill (represents personal power).

 

Under this system, you'd have to be able to save up the check-marks.

 

We haven't tested this system yet . . . or my elaborate (just over a page) write up posted on this site.