RQ2 Skill Advancement

[Guest Vile Traveller]

That's Chaosium 2nd Edition RuneQuest, by the way.

Back in the day, we always assumed that non-combat skill advancement worked in the same way as for combat skills. That is, you could buy a 5% increment in training, but then you had to advance 5% through experience before you could buy another 5% training, and so on.

However, I can't find anything in the RAW that actually states this. The Combat Skills chapter spells out combat skill progression pretty explicitly, but the only thing I can find in the Other Skills chapter is "Some skills must be learned all at once, rather than 5% at a time." That seems to refer mainly to alchemy skills, so it's not that helpful. Likewise, the examples only show 5% training increases, but that's just the way they are written - they don't actually say that this is because 5% is all that's possible.

Does anyone know of any RQ2 references that confirm or invalidate the 5% training / 5% experience progression for non-combat skills?

[rust]

Unfortunately not. The way we handled it the character could increase any of

the "other" skills as much as he liked, provided he found a teacher and had the

money and time for the learning.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

We may have found the answer (over in Gringle's Pawnshop). The example of previous experience through apprenticeship in the back of the book clearly shows the character (Devora the thief) learning her guild skills with no breaks for experience. So, looks like you were right and we were wrong, all those years ago.

Mind you, the militia training in the same chapter might be a bit buggy, because it doesn't mention anything about the restriction on combat skills under the same circumstances. Going by the number of rules examples in the text which manage to conveniently avoid such situations, I'm beginning to conclude that the writers knew very well about these issues, but picked examples which would not have to deal with them ...

[sdavies2720]

We may have found the answer (over in Gringle's Pawnshop). The example of previous experience through apprenticeship in the back of the book clearly shows the character (Devora the thief) learning her guild skills with no breaks for experience. So, looks like you were right and we were wrong, all those years ago.

Mind you, the militia training in the same chapter might be a bit buggy, because it doesn't mention anything about the restriction on combat skills under the same circumstances. Going by the number of rules examples in the text which manage to conveniently avoid such situations, I'm beginning to conclude that the writers knew very well about these issues, but picked examples which would not have to deal with them ...

My fuzzy memory of one of the original versions let you train up to 25%, or 50%, or 75%, but that crossing over the threshold required experience. So you had to be field tested at least a couple of times in your career. But maybe that was a houserule along the way -- too many variants, names, and years to remember clearly.

Steve

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Yep, you can train combat skills up to 25% in one go, but after that you need to go feel the wind of a passing blade in your hair.

[Atgxtg]

I7ll pull out my RQ2 book.

I think I know the answer, but I could be thinking RQ3. I think there is no such limit on lore/academic skills, since you learn those mostly by study rather than use. For instance, you can learn more history by reading than by talking about it. That is also why such skills can be trained past the 75% limit that most skills have.

But,like I said, I might be thinking RQ3. I7ll check RQ2 and see if it is he same, or not.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

RQ3 definitely had no 5% on / 5% off training, and it introduced the "tick-box" method of differentiating between skills that could train up to 75% and those that could train up to 100%, on the basis that only skills which could not be improved by experience could be taught (or researched, another RQ3 innovation) past 75%.

So I think you may be thinking of RQ3. But I believe we have the answer gleaned from slightly less-than-obvious places in RQ2 now, that the training/experience shuffle only applied to combat skills, and then only after 25%.

[Atgxtg]

Well, I know that there were a few differences made with lore type skills. Lhankor Mhy cultists could train past the 75% limit in RQ2. But, I probably am thinking in RQ3 terms.

If I were running, I'd drop the 5% shuffle anyway. it is artificial, and silly. Realistically, you can train a sjill up without "combat experience" and the only reason for the rule in the game was to prevent players from staying in town training until their money ran out. I say, let 'em. With RQ2 money, it shouldn't take that long to run out. And let the experience shuffle go the way of RQ1's experience potions.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I think it's probably more realistic to have a limit on learning by experience rather than training. Doesn't matter how much you practice, you'll never become a master by yourself - those masters are standing on the shoulders of centuries of other masters. No person can replicate that in one lifetime without learning what others have done.

That may be why RQ3 removed the experience option from some skills - you don't learn lore without reading some books (or equivalent).

[Atgxtg]

I think it's probably more realistic to have a limit on learning by experience rather than training. Doesn't matter how much you practice, you'll never become a master by yourself - those masters are standing on the shoulders of centuries of other masters. No person can replicate that in one lifetime without learning what others have done.

Not quite. Otherwise, how did the first person get so good in the first place?

What I do think is that the learning curie is steeper than in RQ. As one gets better the rate of improvement should slow down.Tthe "roll over skill" improment method was supposed to reflect that, but as higher skills lead to more skill checks it doesn't quite hold. Also, the improvement increments should be smaller. Someone at 94% probably can't learn 6% all in one go, the way someone at 12% could.

But, come to think of it, most RPGs are very generous with what people can learn. For example, if RQ, a character who keeps practicing can eventually become a master musician. It might take ten years game time, but it is possible. The same with ""Physics" or any other skill. Obviously, that isn't true

t may be why RQ3 removed the experience option from some skills - you don't learn lore without reading some books (or equivalent).

I think the removal was more because of the shift towards removing artificial (ame balance) limits. Remember, the DEXx5% limits for magicians were made "optional" later on.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Atgxtg

[deleriad]

Not quite. Otherwise, how did the first person get so good in the first place?

What I do think is that the learning curie is steeper than in RQ. As one gets better the rate of improvement should slow down.Tthe "roll over skill" improment method was supposed to reflect that, but as higher skills lead to more skill checks it doesn't quite hold. Also, the improvement increments should be smaller. Someone at 94% probably can't learn 6% all in one go, the way someone at 12% could.

But, come to think of it, most RPGs are very generous with what people can learn. For example, if RQ, a character who keeps practicing can eventually become a master musician. It might take ten years game time, but it is possible. The same with ""Physics" or any other skill. Obviously, that isn't true

Well there is a general belief though I'm not sure how strong the evidence is that 10,000 hours or 10 years of deliberative practice or experience will see an individual reach their peak ability with a skill or practice of some sort. As wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert#Academic_views_on_expertise

[rust]

Well there is a general belief though I'm not sure how strong the evidence is that 10,000 hours or 10 years of deliberative practice or experience will see an individual reach their peak ability with a skill or practice of some sort.

I think it would depend a lot on whether the specific skill is a static or a dynamic

one. Someone learning a static skill, like for example to read and write Latin, has

less difficulties than someone who is learning a dynamic skill, like one of the sci-

ences, where much of what he learned early on has to be replaced and there is

a steady stream of new, additional knowledge to learn. So one can doubtless be-

come a master at a static skill with ten years of experience, but not necessarily

a master of a dynamic skill.

[Atgxtg]

Well there is a general belief though I'm not sure how strong the evidence is that 10,000 hours or 10 years of deliberative practice or experience will see an individual reach their peak ability with a skill or practice of some sort. As wikipedia says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert#Academic_views_on_expertise

Perhaps. But I doubt everybody peaks at the same spot.

What I was trying to get at is that in an RPG our characters WILL be able to reach ANY level of proficiency with ANY skill given enough time. In other words, I could become just as good (or better) physicist as Einstein, as good a test pilot as Chuck Yaegar, or even as good a guitarist as Eric Clapton, with enough training, and improvement rolls.

Personal experience seems to disagree with this.

[rust]

Perhaps. But I doubt everybody peaks at the same spot.

What I was trying to get at is that in an RPG our characters WILL be able to reach ANY level of proficiency with ANY skill given enough time. In other words, I could become just as good (or better) physicist as Einstein, as good a test pilot as Chuck Yaegar, or even as good a guitarist as Eric Clapton, with enough training, and improvement rolls.

Personal experience seems to disagree with this.

A way to avoid this would be a system with maximum levels of skills, based upon

the characters attributes, similar to the way many systems calculate a beginning

level of skill from the attributes.

The Ringworld RPG went a step in this direction with the maximum root skills for

general knowledge or skill in a field and the necessity to specialize in one of the

branch skills once the maximum of the root skill was reached.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Otherwise, how did the first person get so good in the first place?

The hypothetical first swordmaster (for example) would have learned the accumulated skills of many generations of sword fighters. He would not have reached his level of skill just by going out and fighting people. Or, to put it another way, no-one can learn in a vacuum. It is very unlikely that one person will be able to invent all the tricks and techniques to get a skill up to 100% without some form of training or research or building upon the experiments of others.

You can learn from mistakes, but that's not a recommended policy for duellists.

[Atgxtg]

The hypothetical first swordmaster (for example) would have learned the accumulated skills of many generations of sword fighters. He would not have reached his level of skill just by going out and fighting people. Or, to put it another way, no-one can learn in a vacuum. It is very unlikely that one person will be able to invent all the tricks and techniques to get a skill up to 100% without some form of training or research or building upon the experiments of others.

You can learn from mistakes, but that's not a recommended policy for duellists.

But you got a chicken and the egg thing going on here. Keep going back and eventually you half to end up with one person who did it first. Evenif it was the first primate who grabbed a rock and beat another primate with it.

So some ability to learn via trail and error ("experience") surley exists. The problem, is that it takes longer, and depending on what one is learning, surviving past the hard part of the "learning curve"

I think just swapping around the improvment rates in RQ3 so that training gives the most would make sense.

I have considered changing the imrpoment from a 2 roll method to a 1 roll method, replacing the D6 roll with 1% per 10% that one rolls over thier skill.

[Atgxtg]

A way to avoid this would be a system with maximum levels of skills, based upon

the characters attributes, similar to the way many systems calculate a beginning

level of skill from the attributes.

Ala HarnMaster. Yeah. But I think it needs to be a bit more that just that. In Harn, there is such a cap, but the difference between characters is fairly meaniningless, since there isn't a big spread between the attributes, especially since the Skill Bases are determined by averaging three stats.

Besides, there is more to the max that just one's attributes. Not all people with a 16 INT should have the same cap in music, physics or whatnot.

Not that I am complaining about this. It is just an observation. Part of the reason why I play RPGs is that my characters can be better thanI am at things. Imight never become a fighter pilot, rock star, or King of England, but I can do all of those things (at the same time!) in an RPG.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

So some ability to learn via trail and error ("experience") surley exists. The problem, is that it takes longer, and depending on what one is learning, surviving past the hard part of the "learning curve".

I think just swapping around the improvment rates in RQ3 so that training gives the most would make sense.

That's pretty much how I see it.

[Atgxtg]

That's pretty much how I see it.

I see it a bit closer to Harn. That is, smaller (1-2%) improvements. But the 1D6-2 roll ins't too bad.

[General Panic]

In Age of Treason for TRPGFKARQII I have put a cap in how high you can take a skill - which is basic percentage x5%, referred to as Aptitude. It works fine (so long as you don't prefer a game where your character can be infinitely good at whatever you want) as the basics are always the sum of two Characteristics. It also allows, if you like the extra crunch, to compare technical proficiency (= progress towards your Aptitude) to raw ability.

[Atgxtg]

In Age of Treason for TRPGFKARQII I have put a cap in how high you can take a skill - which is basic percentage x5%, referred to as Aptitude. It works fine (so long as you don't prefer a game where your character can be infinitely good at whatever you want) as the basics are always the sum of two Characteristics. It also allows, if you like the extra crunch, to compare technical proficiency (= progress towards your Aptitude) to raw ability.

I still doesn't really adress the basic issue, that anybody can master any skill. Again it isn't a complaint, just an observation about RPGs in general.

[Atgxtg]

I finally managed to dig out my RQ2 book, and the training/experience see-saw is speficailly listed as applying to combat skills.

[rust]

I still doesn't really adress the basic issue, that anybody can master any skill. Again it isn't a complaint, just an observation about RPGs in general.

In the German Midgard RPG a character needs a minimum attribute to be allowed

to learn a skill (e.g. a Dexterity of 61+ to be able to learn Climb), and the attri-

bute also determines the maximum skill level the character can reach. It works

quite well, but it adds another layer of complexity to the character generation,

because it also influences possible background skills, professions and character

types, and I am not certain whether this is worth it.

[General Panic]

I still doesn't really adress the basic issue, that anybody can master any skill. Again it isn't a complaint, just an observation about RPGs in general.

Actually it does - anyone with average Characteristics can master a skill (using the old school notion that 90%+ = mastery). That, in my view, is an entirely reasonable proposition, unless you consider a skill to be something that only someone with special talents can even attempt. However anyone with deficient characteristics cannot master the skill - let's say an 8 in STR plus a 7 in DEX - gives you a max of 75%. And to excel (attain something reasonably over 100%) you need above average stats. The fact that PCs are generally able to get away with a full set of above average stats is neither here nor there - in my games I generally don't like stat inflation in which a score of 10 on 3D6 is regarded as "poor".