Experience Systems

[Jon Hunter]

On a different thread this was said, i thought id like the right to reply

It's called levels of experience. Many people like them. Go check out D&D for their merits and drawbacks 

Seriously, an advancement system that is "evenly balanced between players" is a myth or joke. Why should all characters advance at the same rate? Should somebody who just sits like a lump and contributes nothing advance as fast as someone who is doing all sorts of things? 

The skill check advancement system has some flaws, but it sure beats any of the abstract, controlled and so called evenly balanced systems I've ever seen. Generally they are either so controlled that the players have little choice in what advances (i.e. D&D level), or so evenly balanced that characters are forced to become one trick ponies and you wind up what is essentially a class system in all but name, where players are afraid to "waste" improvement rolls on a skill that's outside their narrow focus.

Pentallion has a point. Skill check hunting does get raised on a fairly regular basis, and does get shot down pretty quickly. In most cases, skill check hunting is a problem that is created and enpowered by the GM. Not necessarily intentionally so, but done so never the less.  

And since people are raising opinions, one of mine is that since we now have all sorts of versions and variant of RQ that have incorporated such divergent ideas such as GM allocated improvement  rolls, action points, custom specials and critical hits, opposed rolls, etc. etc. could it be possible to have at least one version of RQ on the market with actual RuneQuest rules? The systems been changed, adapted, simplified, revised, re-envisioned, renamed, revised, resurrected, revamped. updated, altered, and adulterated in just about every way imaginable.  By now, there should be enough variants to please just about anybody who wants to play something related to RuneQuest. Why not actually have the actual RuneQuest rules in print, and not just some variant system that swiped the name?

To respond;

Who was mentioning D&D or D&D based experience system? Nothing I have suggested has remotely gone close to that. The desire to argue a point it about suggests point scoring as an agenda not engaging with the arguments presented.

If the skill check issue comes regularly it suggests many people aren't happy with it as an eternal ideal solution, and though you may thinks its the ideal solution a significant number of others may not, and its fair conversation for people to have.

The over specialisation issue that comes with the spending experience point system is a real issue i have seen, ( with one or two players in particular) over the years. However prudent g'ming, varied plot obstacles and a couple of minor rules tweaks can limit that weakness. 

As regard what I regard as the 'real Runequest has skill checks and anything else is a deviation from real Runequest' argument, if you followed this argument we would all be sat round playing RQ1 and nothing would ever change.

RQ was first printed over 40 years ago, RQ and d100 system was a massive leap forward from the D&D class based systems. But RPG's have had 40 years on innovation since that point, and I believe that are numerous concepts which have developed in that time which are better than what was done as a first draft in the 1970's. Debate and discussion about them is not trying to kill runequest off and steal the name, but ensure that Runequest is a game which is accessible, playable and up to scratch 15 years into the next millennium.

I was a big WOD:Storyteller player before my 15 year absence from gaming, many of ideas I like hail from those system. However those systems are now old hat and there are probably better ideas out there again, which I haven't encountered yet. I need to flexible and open to those ideas.

If the RQ community wants remain solely in the halycon days of the 80's and reject all good role-playing developments since I think we will have to wave goodbye to RQ as a commercial game. 

Stifling honest debate can only be bad for the game, even debates you think you have settled in your own mind many years ago. I bothered to respond because i got what i thought was a emotional and rather rude response to a fair and valid opinion.

I will fully explain my preferences and reasons in another post, so you can throw things at my actual opinion. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Jon Hunter

[Jon Hunter]

also

Opinions can be wrong.  Just because they're opinions doesn't make them sacred and unassailable.  The complaint that players take advantage of skill checks is invalid because the DM has full control over whether or not the players can check the skill.  Invalid arguments are not valid opinions.  Sorry.

And excuse me for being sick and tired of hearing this argument dredged up all the time.  It's old. 

You are being rude and flippant and arguing against i point I hadn't made. I never made that argument. I actually started my position by saying "the skill check system isn't broke."

I just think better options have been developed in the last 40 years.   

[Jon Hunter]

OK what I would argue for is a spent experience system which covers skills, stats, spirit magic and rune magic spells.

The major reason for this are not because I object to "golf bagging" as i used to call it.

But for the players control of character development and the one combined experience system.

However every system as has pros and cons, here is how I understand it.

Skill Check System

Positive

• It is what everyone knows

• It rewards activity learning matches action

• It can encourage skill diversification

Negative

• No Player control on character development

• Can be relatively messy to administer

• One of 4 or 5 advancement mechanics in the game

• Random

• Can be abused without proper gm'ing

Spent Experience System

Positives

• Player control of character development

• One system can covers all advancement

• Not random players always rewarded

• Relatively simple to administer

Negatives

• Can lead to players over specialising characters

• It is a change from what we have

[Nick J.]

No offense, but this just feels like a hammer looking for a nail to me. There's already a mechanism for players to get the skills they want outside of organic 'learn-by-use' and that's paying for, or otherwise obtaining training from a tutor/mentor.

To each their own I suppose. I wouldn't object to some kind of optional system being outlined in the new rules, but as a relative new-comer to d100 games in the last couple of years I can't say it's been any detriment to the games I've run (Magic World). So far in my experience, players typically stay in-character and don't do a lot of meta-gaming.

[Jon Hunter]

5 minutes ago, Nick J. said:

No offense, but this just feels like a hammer looking for a nail to me. There's already a mechanism for players to get the skills they want outside of organic 'learn-by-use' and that's paying for, or otherwise obtaining training from a tutor/mentor.

To each their own I suppose. I wouldn't object to some kind of optional system being outlined in the new rules, but as a relative new-comer to d100 games in the last couple of years I can't say it's been any detriment to the games I've run (Magic World). So far in my experience, players typically stay in-character and don't do a lot of meta-gaming.

I'd agree I don't think its broke. I'm just not sure if its the best.

I also like my character in game time to be about character and plot not, not running round trying to gain advancement. 

[Nick J.]

8 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

I'd agree I don't think its broke. I'm just not sure if its the best.

I also like my character in game time to be about character and plot not, not running round trying to gain advancement. 

Same here . . . I just don't see those goals as mutually exclusive with organic 'learn-by-use' skill rolls. I try to build in a certain amount of downtime (winter is a real thing) and give out enough opportunities for characters to enrich themselves so they can afford their training if/when they decide to pay for it. That doesn't prevent things from happening and it doesn't prevent characters from developing in my experience.

[Mugen]

10 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Skill Check Syste

SpePom Experience System

It's possible to mix both approaches if you state that players have to put some of their experience points into skills they used in play.

It's also possible to let the GM chose which skills will get those session-related xp.

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

On a different thread this was said, i thought id like the right to reply

Seems fair to me. I'd cut & paste replies but haven't figured out how to do that on the forum yet. I used to know how, but Triff used to change the forum software several times a year. I miss the old

[/QUOTE} method. I also can't answer for comments posted by anyone else. Just my own stuff. Okay, so here we go. 

 

1) My commend about D&D and levels of experience was in reponse to you statement of " I'm all up for an abstract system which deals with all advancement in one mechanic, is controlled and is evenly balanced between players"  That is precisely what D&D sets out to do with levels of experience and experience points. And, as I said, many people like them (it is the most popular RPG out there, and is still using an advancement system that is basically 40 years old. 

2) Yes, if skill check issues comes up regularly it does mean than many people are unhappy with it. But RQ was (and to some extent still is) a very different system from the mainstream, and just about every aspect of and game mechanic of it comes up regularly. A short list, off the top of my head, includes critical and/or specials percentages, hit locations, the resistance table, skill category modifiers, differences between RQ2 and RQ3 and reasons why some who like one don't like the other, major wound table, how RQ3 sorcery is broken, opposed skill rolls, Gloanthan non-humans vs. D&D/Generic Fantasy RPG/J.R.R. Tolkien non-humans, how HeroQuest changed Glorantha from what was presented in old RQ, how MRQ1, MRQ2, RQ6, Mythas, Open D100, Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Strombringer, or whatever does something compared to Chasoium's RQ and "Gregging". 

About the only things that I  think everybody on this forum has agreed on are that:

- Jason did a good job compiling most of Chasoiums variant rulesets into BRP.

- That Pete and Loz did a better job with MRQ2/RQ6 than Mongoose did with MRQ1

- That we all like the nostalgic cover for RQ6/Mythas. 

 

3) Just as "the over specialization issue that comes with the spending experience point system," can be  dealt with by prudent GM'ing, so can the skill check issue be dealt with by prudent GMing. And it's much easier to do. The GM can declare that a given action isn't challenging enough to warrant a skill check. That's specifically mentioned in every version of the rules that uses skill checks. And several GMs have seen PCs pay for going after "free checks."

One of the perks with skill checks as opposed to assigning improvement rolls is that advancement is more realistic. Characters improve faster in those things that they actually do, as opposed to those things that they want to get better in. And sometime characters improve in things that they really weren't trying to get better at. 

 

4) Just because something is old doesn't mean it isn't good. And just because something is newer doesn't mean it's better. The reason why RQ keeps coming back is because it did some things better than many or most other game systems. And if people muck with it too much, it ends up being RuneQuest in name only. If you don't believeme look online for RuneQuest: Slayers. 

Now many newer games have some interesting rules and fine advancement system, but not that many are as flexible as the 40 year old methods used in RQ. You can actually train other characters in RQ2/3. 

 

5) We waved goodbye to RQ as a commercial product decades ago. If it comes back, it probably won't be because of all the good roleplaying developments since the 80s , but because of the things that RQ does (and did) very well. And, as I mentioned before, there are so many versions and varaints of the game, that there really ins't a reason or need to make it like MRQ, RQ6 or even CoC. And if they do that, they will take away the very things that make RQ unique and turn in into yet another game that's just like something else. 

I'm not opposed to incremental changes that (hopefully) improve the game. Such is the natural evolution of a living product. What I am opposed to is throwing out core concepts of RuneQuest in order to incorporate alternate rules from some other D100 based RPG. If people think RQ6 does things better than how RQ4 will do them, they are free to run RQ6 instead, or even port over rules from one system to the other piecemeal. So why force those who like things such as skill checks to go with the improvement roll system?

 

If you are going to claim that assigned improvement rolls are a better advancement system, you will have to try and back it up. And, as other have mentioned, we've had this debate multiple times before, and both camps are pretty firmly entrenched. I think throwing out the skill check advancement system would probably alienate a lot of people who would otherwise buy the game. But I don't think keeping it will prevent any of us from buying it. MRQ gave the system a radical update and alienated so many RuneQuest fans that somebody went and started this website.    

 

6) Oh, I agree that stifling honest debate is bad for the game. Heck, I'm the guy who spent months debating on the MRQ forum about the flaws in MRQ1. And, and many can attest to here (and not always happily), I'm more than will to debate just about anything. If you want to debate the merits and flaws of various advancement  methods I'd certainly be glad to toss in my two cents. 

But I think the burden of proof is on your shoulders as to why it should be chanced, and in what particular way. And people will throw out opposing arguments. For instance, I'll throw out that I like the fact that advancement in RQ isn't treated as some sort of reward doled out by the GM for showing up, or tied to how many things somebody kills. I also like how a character can actually train and/or practice a skill without necessarily having to go out adventuring. 

 

 

[styopa]

To be clear, in that same thread:

Once a year at least.  This old excuse for not liking skill checks raises it's hoary old head at least annually.

This person was of course either begging the question or building or strawman.

I personally have NO PROBLEM with skill systems and skill checks (it's miles better than level based systems).  My point in bringing up the whole issue in the FIRST place was more about addressing the 'false bottlenecking' of skill checks being limited to "one per skill per adventure".  THAT was my goal, we just got dragged off into a tangent with people insisting that "skill check hunting" was apparently inconceivable to them.

We currently use a probably-overly-complicated system of checks and ticks which I've laid out elsewhere but the gist is:

Success gets you one check, a special gets you two, a crit gets you three.   Subsequent successes either give you more checks (if they were better than what you'd had) or 'ticks'. Ticks can be "spent" during xp roll times.  Before the roll, they can be spent 1:1 to give you +1% to 'fail' the xp roll.  After the roll, they can be traded 4:1 to increase the skill gain by +1.  Ticks are all reset to zero when xp rolls are completed.

What I didn't like is that if my player swung his sword 'successfully" on the first blow of an adventure, welp, he could swing it 1000 more times before the next xp check-time, never going to learn more than from that first swing.  Frankly, THAT'S SILLY.

Further, everyone seems to insist that there's always "ample time to buy training".  What a sedate world their campaigns must run in??

Hell no, my PCs are seen as troubleshooters and problem-solvers by their communities; as they advance in power and capability ever moreso.  Their services are always in demand, if not by their own cults, relationships, or responsibilities, then by associated cults or simply people in trouble.  If they see a quiet week or two they're utterly delighted,

Moreover, likely a part of it is that I have dispensed with the overly simplistic and risk-free training rules from RQ RAW where you "block out" time in weeks and spend it training.  No, using the RQ RAW as a guideline, and (IIRC) Kim Englund's great stuff on varying cost and difficulty/risk of training, I'd built a calculator (an excel sheet) that you enter:

1. (select what skill you want to train) (from a dropdown)
2. Enter starting skill %
3. Enter that category bonus %
4. Enter INT
5. Enter APP (as a standin for CHA; usually I'd modify this up or down based on their local reputation)
6. - the calculator would determine if you could self-train
7. You pick if you are self-training (if available).  Self training made it MUCH cheaper, slower, and one category more risky.
8. - the calculator would display the hazard level (inherent to the skill, raised if you were self-training)
9. training pace - you could select if you were trying to rush it, go at a normal speed, or be extra careful (with concomitant impacts on risk)
10. Enter trainer's skill 

..and from that, it responds with:

"After 103 hours of training, I get a skill roll"

"That will cost me 5p (based on 2.05p/week)"

It also actually does the xp roll, showing the result, skill gain (if there was one) and if a fumble was indicated, the injury result.

(For example, I just did a low starting skill, self-training, hasty, very risky skill until a fumble, and the result was "Medium Injury;-8% to skill, -4% to Manipulation skill group for 1 days.")

I don't tell them the "hours needed" until they reach it.  Meaning, if they start training, and after a week and a half, (~60hrs) someone needs rescuing so they abandon training, I simply say "you haven't seen much improvement yet".  My judgement call if they can come back and restart training at that same point, or lose some ground being away from it for a while.

This makes training 1) more interesting, 2) much less predictable as a mechanical money=skill transformer, imo 3) more realistic, 4) FAR faster to implement than people scratching out their hours/week calculations.

If you think training is a safe way to increase your skills IRL, just ask Teddy Bridgewater this week....

[Atgxtg]

Okay, heres my replay to your comment on the pros and cons of skill checks vs. spent experience. I think you'll see we have very different views.

Skill Check System

Positive

• It rewards activity learning matches action

• It rewards actually doing things. Characters who do more can learn more. 

• It can encourage skill diversification

• Pretty easy to administer. It's not hard to check off a box, or roll percentile dice. 

 

Negative

• Requires a good eraser

• Can (and will) wear out character sheets quickly.

 

Points of Contention

• No Player control on character development. Since skill checks are gained in skills that are used, and the player usually decides what skills he is going to use, the player has a great deal of control over character development. If the player didn't want his character to improve in greatsword he shouldn't keep using one. 
•  
• One of 4 or 5 advancement mechanics in the game. Not really. The training, practice, and POW gain rules are basically the same game mechanic, slightly modified. 

   

• Random. Not really. I've never seen a character improve is a random skill. It was always something he used. Now how quickly a character improves and at what increments are somewhat random, but why is that a negative? That's why everybody isn't a master swordman.  

   

• Can be abused without proper gm'ing. Yup. definitely. Of course that's not a negative of the skill check system, but of RPGing in general. Anything can be abused without proper gm'ing. And I say that spent experience systems are just as open to abuse. 

 

 

Spent Experience System

Positives

• What a lot of players expect and want. To be rewarded for showing up and playing.  

Negatives

 

• Can lead to players over specialising characters. Yup, in fact it actually encourages it, since spending an improvement point outside of a characters primary field of can result in the character falling behind and becoming vulnerable. 

   

• It is a change from what we have. Yeah. Which is why any change really needs to be a solid improvement, over what's there.
• Throttles the rate as which characters advance. There just are enough improvement points to improve combat skills, perception skills, healing skills, and POW at a decent rate. Anyone who tires to cover them all is going to take forever just to get to mediocre.   
• Leaves some big gaps in important areas. Since players can only improve a small number of skills they will invariably leave some vital skill unimproved. These can turn out to be Achilles heels, when the characters runs into something that happens to hit them in a weak area.  
• Turns character advancement into a stick an carrot game with the GM.  Basically, character improvement becomes all about pleasing the GM. 
• Eliminates the ability to learn from training and practice. 

 

Points of Contention

 

• Player control of character development. First  off I don't think that is all good. Secondly I don;t think it is all true. The Gm controls both the rate at which improvement rolls are doled out, and which skills need to be improved the most. A GM who rums a lot of ambushes will make perception skills very important and thus force the players prioritize those skills. A GM who runs a lot of combats will force the player to priotize combat skills-at the expense of everything else. Same with languages, social skills. magic or whatever.

   

• One system can covers all advancement. Not as written. There would need to be a way to earn IPs from training, and since POW is't on a % scale, it would need a different method. 

   

• Not random players always rewarded. Why should character advancement be considered a reward? it isn't. Think about it. The character gets better, so the GM throws tougher opponents into the adventures, who have a better chance of critically and killing off the characters. 

   

• Relatively simple to administer. Not any simpler than skill checks. Telling a player to put a check mark into a box during play isn't complicated, is it?

 

[MJ Sadique]

Just love this "battle on Experience" even if I don't care a bit now... I'll explain why ...

 

21 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

1/ Seriously, an advancement system that is "evenly balanced between players" is a myth or joke.

2/ The systems been changed, adapted, simplified, revised, re-envisioned, renamed, revised, resurrected, revamped. updated, altered, and adulterated in just about every way imaginable.

3/ If the RQ community wants remain solely in the halycon days of the 80's and reject all good role-playing developments since I think we will have to wave goodbye to RQ as a commercial game.

1/ Experience system and Players : Experience systems are not design for players, it's for the gamemaster ! Thinking of experience with a player mind and you'll get the short stick... because, as we all know, experience is a reward for playing that the master give to player to evolve if they do what he wants. A balanced system is a myth ? yes, because we are human and I sometime want to give more to a player that do the good thing and save the campaign or the one who give me a fresh beer... a balanced system as a joke ! Yes, some masters (I know a lot) strictly want to play it this way because nobody will complain and it's easy to manage them (players). for me, such gamemaster is coward or a hypocritical master !

Experience is a reward for a player's character who act like he is suppose to do, who atteint the objective fixed by the master ! So I cannot accept a balanced experience but it must be equitable and fair, everyone who participate must have a reward :

-Equitable is the everyone get some reward, it's the principle of XP Points System. But it take times and " I " don't like doing all the XP points counting.

-Fairness is the better player get better reward, it's the principle of Skill Check System. It's easy to use in game and the players do the job not the master.

2/ (I agree this quote at 42.000%) Every gamemaster in the world have different priority toward Equity and Fairness so as we evolve, the system evolve... None systems are perfect and none can evolve as we want THEN we change it by ourselves. And I've made so much change during these 20 last years that I've even created a set of "Rules of Authorized Evolution"... so no system is perfect as no-one is perfect

3/ So you speak about RuneQuest 2.5, It's true there a lot of RQ2 fan that woke up after the reprint and more that will choose the 2.5 edition. Why ? RQ2 was different that RQ3, in the rules, skills, systems evolutions and also the way of playing it. I'm a fan of RQ3 (the French one, with a lot of translate error and missings chapters) and always will be.

What I know that the communauty who "reject all good role-playing developments" is non-existant fact and the "we will have to wave goodbye to RQ as a commercial game." is false too because the two RuneQuest side evole :

The Runequest system : D100, which survive and commercially evolve and exist in Moongoose RQ4 to Legend and now Mythras. (not Mythas).
The Runequest world : Glorantha who still exist in M.RQ4 and really evolve in Herowars then in Heroquest and now in the "Guide of Glorantha" for HeroQuest.

But there are still very bad news :

Primo : For the Runequest 3 system i love,... It will never exist anymore unless one of us personnaly release a new one. Glorantha.com, Chaosium and the designmechanism (Legend and Mythras) has chosen to use their own system base on XP Points for heroquest and good ol' skill check for Mythras. You can go for BRP in Cthulhu 7 for a more recent system (it has a lot of good thing it) and it can be even greater with Cthulhu Pulp (not as great as I wish XD).

Secondo : Experience itself will still be a problem ! Why ?? Because Equitable or Fairness is only achieve by the master no only by the systems (the systems offers, the master choose ... like men offer, women choose - if you're picky, you're screwed ). A great system offer or authorize multiples choices and the rest is up to you !

 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I'd built a calculator (an excel sheet) ...and from that, it responds with:"After 103 hours of training, I get a skill roll","That will cost me 5p (based on 2.05p/week)"

It also actually does the xp roll, showing the result, skill gain (if there was one) and if a fumble was indicated, the injury result. I don't tell them the "hours needed" until they reach it.

This makes training 1) more interesting, 2) much less predictable as a mechanical money=skill transformer, imo 3) more realistic, 4) FAR faster to implement than people scratching out their hours/week calculations.

The marvellous excel calculator... Mine is still working but I don't like using it XD. Styopa are you really still using yours ? 

The main problem in skill check system and why D&D and level-games users don't like check is the mystery and not predictable box called "random DICE evolution" ... yes, they prefer get few experience, almost not evolving but they know that they evolve than "perhaps evolving this time and probably wining more than 3%". Like we frenchies said ""a here-you-go is worth more than two you-can-have-it-laters".

The main problem in XP points system is not the specialization, I am playing Warhammer 1ed, Fantasy craft, Polaris, Kuro... old or new systems specialization is the consequence of big level monster not the system but the master fault. Most of them, as a hero you can find a way to evolve a lot of thing. Complain to you master if you need to be a level 50 warrior to be able to do anything in the campaign. The problem is the gap of evolution and the non-existence of alternate learning or evolution...you are like a pokemon that double you power strength as you gain a level ! And any logical or realist way to evolve and learn or change yourself is absent !

A lot of question, but can I give a answer ? Is there a solution ?

YES : I've started to play a lot of new systems, as player and master ... the best in RQ / HW / HQ are : skill check on actions or Fumble, characteristic check by heroic actions, Learn by spending money (RQ2), XP points by session, XP points by extremely funny actions/moments and a lot others of thing. Skill check system is good for low level and basic progress as your character can become anything unlike any others heros. XP points system is good for great evolution, high level gaming.

Few of the best recent system are "Space Pirate Cobra" or the "Game of thrones" RPG with XP points and Hero points. The idea of two different system of evolution in the same game is great and give a good compromise between Equity and Fairness... you can evolve as you want and still take in account some idea like training ( it's a Roleplay action that can be rewarded as the same level as spending tons of money to get a master).

NO : There is a tons of way to do thing and a compromise or a mix of skill check system and XP points system can solve them... BUT I WILL CREATE AND RUN such system, but all the game-masters I know WILL NOT bother themselves to do it.

Sorry for the length

Edited September 2, 2016 by MJ Sadique
spelling fault and excuses

[RosenMcStern]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

MRQ gave the system a radical update and alienated so many RuneQuest fans that somebody went and started this website.    

This is an unfair statement. It was not the radical changes which alienated people. Most people were alienated by some poor choices made when MRQ1 was designed (armour penalty and physical runes, anyone?), and the mess you could find in some pre-Loz supplements.

Once the MRQ2 branch was created, the consensus was wide that although one could still find the system not fitting for his personal tastes, it was a good game. Heck, I have asked Steve Perrin in person, in Lucca in 2010, what he thought about the changes, and he replied verbatim "I think the changes are for the better".

As for the rest of the debate... I have the popcorn ready.

[Pentallion]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

people insisting that "skill check hunting" was apparently inconceivable to them..

What's inconceivable is that any DM would allow it to occur.  The only strawman being built was the argument that people out there would be allowed to skill check hunt. 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Pentallion said:

What's inconceivable is that any DM would allow it to occur.  The only strawman being built was the argument that people out there would be allowed to skill check hunt. 

Wh?\y?. I generally allow it. Going strickly by the rules, in order to get a check the character has to make the roll in a stress situation, and that means that the character is at risk. In RQ, it's just not worth risking two or three more chances of getting impaled, maimed or killed just for an extra skill check.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Experience is a reward for a player's character who act like he is suppose to do, who atteint the objective fixed by the master ! So I cannot accept a balanced experience but it must be equitable and fair, everyone who participate must have a reward :

I don't agree with that. When a PC gets experience and improves, it's no reward, because in most RPGS the GM ups the level of opposition to compensate. So all that happens is a spiraling escalation. In a game like RQ that actually works against the players, since the greater to abilities of the opponents the greater the chance of a player getting killed by a lucky roll. And coming back from the dead isn't all that common in RQ. 

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is an unfair statement. It was not the radical changes which alienated people. Most people were alienated by some poor choices made when MRQ1 was designed (armour penalty and physical runes, anyone?),

The poor choices were Which were radical changes. I think a third of the old RQers dropped off the Mongoose forums within two weeks of the games release, complaining about how various changes made to the ruleset were going to cause a domino effect, and lots of problems. 

[Pentallion]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Wh?\y?. I generally allow it. Going strickly by the rules, in order to get a check the character has to make the roll in a stress situation, and that means that the character is at risk. In RQ, it's just not worth risking two or three more chances of getting impaled, maimed or killed just for an extra skill check.

Let's recap:

RosenMcStern makes the point that " If they have kept the "experience check" method of advancement (and IIRC they have), I can assure you, with hundreds of hours of playing and GMing Gloranthan and non-Gloranthan sorcerers in my past, that this is absolutely not an issue. "

 

To which Sytopa responds that: " the flip side of that is since checks are effectively limitless currency, it does reward 'check hunting', the bane of RQ forever - that is, deliberately using sub-optimal skills at times because "I already have a skill-check in my sword, I might as well use my mace and get a skill check in that".

It is to that point which I disagree.  "check hunting" has never been the bane of RQ, only the bane of GM's who let their players get away with it.  Since the GM controls the dispersement of skill checks, there isn't any real issue here and never has been.

I've been taking a bit of crap for pointing out the truth.  If that undermines what some on here want to believe, I can't help that.  Maybe they love RQ6 so much they feel they have to defend the improvement method, which addresses an issue that never existed to begin with.  Better for the GM to hand out however many skill checks as he wishes than be limited in his campaign.  Also better that the players actually use the skills they improve in than get to choose whatever they want.  That's for training.

Now, if you take issue with having marked a skill then can't mark it again, I don't think you sacrifice simplicity for tracking the number of times you mark a skill.  It's a game, it's supposed to be fun.  However, nothing stops you from doing so in your campaign.

 

 

[Sayerson]

Pass the popcorn... 

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Pentallion said:

What's inconceivable is that any DM would allow it to occur.  The only strawman being built was the argument that people out there would be allowed to skill check hunt. 

I don't interfere with my players choices.  I'm the DM, not their parent.  My role is to neutrally rule how the world logically responds to their actions, not to make preferential judgements reacting to their choices, and run a game based on what I "feel" is appropriate.

Since you apparently missed my previous example: the enemy clearly had to focus on the primary warrior of the group, but there were plenty of PCs to fight it.  The 'backup' PCs could surround it, and "get in" a stab or two as best possible.  It remains dangerous - the creature could certainly turn on them, but honestly is unlikely to unless they crit and do a surprising amount of damage.  So it's still 'stressful'.  They use weapon 1, succeed.  Now, they could continue to POINTLESSLY use weapon 1...or, with an eye toward character improvement...switch to weapon 2 and try to get a check with it.

Personally, regardless of how I feel about their choices (perhaps my use of the word "bane" would suggest I don't really like it), I'd say a system that either i) mechanically incentivizes such behavior or ii) requires DM "interpretive intervention" saying "well that's not how it's SUPPOSED to be used" a BAD RULE and needs fixing. 

FWIW that's why I could never like RQ6 much, despite some good ideas in it... too many exploitable mechanics that would require DM fiat to prevent game-breakage.  If find that sort of DM-intervention unappealing.  Maybe you don't.

23 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

I've been taking a bit of crap for pointing out the truth.  If that undermines what some on here want to believe, I can't help that.  Maybe they love RQ6 so much they feel they have to defend the improvement method, which addresses an issue that never existed to begin with.  Better for the GM to hand out however many skill checks as he wishes than be limited in his campaign.  Also better that the players actually use the skills they improve in than get to choose whatever they want.  That's for training.

Now, if you take issue with having marked a skill then can't mark it again, I don't think you sacrifice simplicity for tracking the number of times you mark a skill.  It's a game, it's supposed to be fun.  However, nothing stops you from doing so in your campaign.

You're taking a bit of crap for being a bit of a drama queen, more like.  You're the one who somehow jumped from my commenting that "this is a broken bit of the skill check system" to concluding that this means I don't like it - which is simply, completely untrue.  I't better than anything else out there - I don't pretend it's perfect, however.

[Pentallion]

I was completely clear.  Since you keep being obtuse - and insulting - I won't waste anymore time with you.  You're not here to have an honest discussion.

[Atgxtg]

Can we disagree and debate about gaming without getting angry and insulting each other? 

[skoll]

19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Can we disagree and debate about gaming without getting angry and insulting each other? 

Seems to me that for some participants this thread was never about game mechanics, but about proving that they are right, and somebody else is wrong.

Edited September 3, 2016 by skoll

[Jeff]

FWIW, I've always liked the experience check system and it is part of the new RQ. I'm sure in some games some players try to do "check hunts", but so what? My own experience has been that most players tend to think it is stupid to use anything other than their best weapon skill - under the circumstances (frex, "if my sword breaks, maybe I can use that axe I've been carrying around and occasionally training" or "I am out of javelins, time to go to the bow"). RuneQuest combat is deadly, and if you expose your character to dumb risks, they are likely to die.

[g33k]

What if you incentivised retaining a weapon (or whatever) instead or switching to a lesser one?   That is, by the RAW you get that "Skill-Check" and then there's no further improvement to be had by keeping on, so you switch weapons...

What if, instead, you got a 1% better chance to improve on your Check, for every time you'd have gotten a Check but already had one?  Particularly at higher levels when "successful" Checks come more slowly, this incentivises staying with the weapon (or other skill), and nicely simulates the "time on task" effect...

 

[Jon Hunter]

When committed people talk about politics you see them react emotionally, not listen and argue against point they have rehearsed in there head not the points people make.

I did think id see this kind of reaction to RQ skills check systems and experience systems

Its shows passion and commitment, but its probably over egged.

Whats next formal duelling over it?