Jump to content

Experience Systems


Jon Hunter

Recommended Posts

In our last RQ session, the PCs took a drink from the Well of Wisdom. One player argued that he could get a Species Max INT increase attempt, as gaining Wisdom relates to a possible INT gain. I agreed and we normally charge 3 Hero Points for the attempt and the chance is (Species Max - Current) x 5%, giving him a 25% chance of succeeding. now, we allor Hero Points to be spent on rerolling rolls/Flipping digits/making it when just failed (within 10% of the target number), so in theory he effectively had a 28% chance of success but would succeed on rolls such as 61, 82 and so on.

It took him 11 Hero Points to succeed!

he rolled 87, then 76, then 58, then 97 and so on, getting more and more determined on each roll,eventually becoming exasperated when he couldn't roll either dice below 50. I advised him to stop after 5 rerolls, but he was not to be denied. 

Eventually, he succeeded by rolling 50 and flipping to 05, a Special, which we play allows 2D3 to be rolled, choosing the best. He rolled 3 and said it was worth it as his PC was now cleverer. Everyone else questioned how clever the PC really was to blow 14 Hero Points in a single characteristic increase.

By the way, they had just finished a HeroQuest to unite all the World's Waters, turned the Syphon backwards to flow properly, banished the Gloomshark and Krarsht, so I had given them a 2D6+6 Hero Point gain and I think he rolled 15, so his net gain was 1 Hero Point.

It doesn't really advance the discussion, but we laughed so much I thought I'd share it ...

  • Like 2

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/09/2016 at 11:41 PM, Atgxtg said:

Yea! One of the best features of RQ returns to the game. Attributes just do't mean as much without category modifiers.

BTW, with the hybrid nature of the new RQ, are the category modifiers in 5% like RQ2, or 1% per point as in RQ3?

The answer has already been given in a previous thread here : skill bonuses will be multiples of 5%, like in RQ2.

This decision was taken to avoid too many skill modifications when POW increases or decreases.

As for myself, I'd rather have skill base values as the sum of 2 characteristics (one different base per category) and remove POW from those...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have chosen to wait a little bit before intervening in this debate that is another "classic" of RPG forums for turning into a flame war. Nevertheless, I think there is a point or two that require some clarification, and the simple fact that everyone went back to being nice does not mean the problem was solved. I think it cannot be oversimplified as an "it is your game, do as you like".

On 6/9/2016 at 0:50 AM, Jon Hunter said:

The object of my gaming session is 'roleplaying' so if a fair administration of the rules system means we have to stop roleplaying and roll dice. In my session i will prioritise roleplaying over fair rules administration.

It seems to strange to me that anyway would think that weird within a roleplayjng game, but if another way suits you and your players go fill you boots.

Emphasis mine.

The point is that there is no reason whatsoever why this should happen.

First of all, you used the term "roleplaying" but I think that what you really meant is "reciting". Note that here I am stressing the difference between "reciting" and "acting in character", as the word "acting" does not necessarily imply that you are making funny voices or speaking as if you were your character. You can act in character and not make any funny voice: you are still "acting as your character". And yes, "acting" here can include rolling dice.

Let us make a practical (and in topic, that is RQ:Glorantha) example. A bully is harassing people in the village. My Orlanthi character comes and punches him in the face; I roll "Fist Attack". I make no funny voice, but I am roleplaying big time, because "Violence is always an option". The roll represents the risk that my character is taking for doing what Orlanth would do in that situation, that is beating some sense in the idiot's head.

Let us assume that a Chalana Arroy healer comes, instead. She tries to talk the bully into sense, rather than calling for an Orlanthi to help her, knowing what the Orlanthi would do (punch him). She takes a risk for the sake of being more Chalana Arroy: the Persuade roll represents the risk, and so is extremely important to avoid trivializing the player's ethical choice, which could happen if the GM let her "sweet talk" her character out of trouble. By the very act of making the roll, the player is acting in character, and doing so more than making funny voices: the appropriate choice might turn against the character if the roll is failed. This is role-playing, and good role-playing, too. Choices come at a price.

Second, and most important: you insisted, in the above sentence and elsewhere, that rolling dice when the rules call for it is be a cause of interruption in roleplaying. Why on Earth should this happen? What prevents you from acting in character while you are rolling dice? What rule in the player's manual says that "the act of rolling a die makes the player step out of his character"? In what manual is it written? On what page?

If you say that in your game this event happens, and that when it happens it spoils the fun at your table and makes you willing to avoid its occurrence, I believe you. Being thrown out of character when you are there to roleplay sucks, no question.

However, I am in complete disagreement that the reason for being catapulted out of character is "rolling dice" or "administering the rules": If the rules are good, they should encourage you to act in character, not stop you! If you experience discomfort when using the rules while someone is deeply immersed in his or her character, then it seems clear to me that the rules you are using are a poor fit for the purpose of your game. If the only moment when you allow the interference of the rules in your character's action is combat, then the problem is that you are actually using wargame rules, not roleplaying rules. But you still want your game to be about roleplaying and not just tactics. Typical result: people skip the rules and free-form most of out-of-combat interaction. Which saves fun, sure, but is a workaround, not a solution.

Therefore, I think that the correct response to the problem of "rolling which interrupts roleplaying" is a more appropriate application of the rules (or choosing a better ruleset), not dis-application of them.

And one last point: a good ruleset always includes an initial section devoted to "when the GM should skip rolls". So, even when you decide that the roll is not necessary, if your ruleset is well designed you are actually applying it, not skipping it.

Edited by RosenMcStern
  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

And one last point: a good ruleset always includes an initial section devoted to "when the GM should skip rolls". So, even when you decide that the roll is not necessary, if your ruleset is well designed you are actually applying it, not skipping it.

It does indeed. Next step is getting people to read the bloody thing.

I don't know what the con scene is like in Italy but in the UK there is an 'everybody knows' meme that Call of Cthulhu games are littered with 'make the Spot Hidden roll, fail make an Idea roll, fail, make a Luck roll, fail, miss the clue, game stalls' despite the fact that since 1st Edition the actual rule book has had very good advice on when to roll and what needs a roll

Maybe game designers and publishers just need to include that advice on every line of the arms and armour chart?!

  • Like 4

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Al. said:

I don't know what the con scene is like in Italy but in the UK there is an 'everybody knows' meme that Call of Cthulhu games are littered with 'make the Spot Hidden roll, fail make an Idea roll, fail, make a Luck roll, fail, miss the clue, game stalls' despite the fact that since 1st Edition the actual rule book has had very good advice on when to roll and what needs a roll

We are a bit off topic, but... alas, even worse. The meme is even more radicated in people's mind. It does not matter that the rules say otherwise, "it hides clues behind rolls" just because it is CoC.

Quote

Maybe game designers and publishers just need to include that advice on every line of the arms and armour chart?!

It is more of a problem than one might think. Experienced gamers tend to skip some parts of the rules your write "because they know", so when you write down a good principle which applies in general to "how you should run your game to obtain MGF", it is often treated as "unwanted interference with GM authority that I will rather skip". The result is that, as you have just pointed out, some misconceptions exist even when the rules clearly say that you are absolutely not supposed to play that way. And it is terribly difficult for a game author to convey the sense that the reader should focus on that part of the rules, too, and not just on "how many dice of damage does a charging mammoth do". Even if the players choose to ignore your directions - which is always an option - at least they will do it knowing that they are actually houseruling the game!

Experience checks are another example, to go back on topic. The rules are clear enough, but since sometimes there is a tendency to skip anything that does not remap to "Lose 1dx hit points", many groups experience the problem.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 06/09/2016 at 2:01 PM, Jeff said:

I've always been a fan of experience checks in RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu, and hence the new versions of both have experience checks. RuneQuest gets the skill category modifier (making it easier to improve through experience in skills you have a natural talent with). I'm not a fan of improvement points in RQ or CoC - as I think they go against certain essential features of the system - although am a fan of improvement points in HeroQuest and other such systems.

But I'm conviced by Jeff that Imp Points for RQ are bad because Checks skills + training already give player a lot of liberty. I personnaly use some improvement points in CoC 7 because it give player a bit control of what he want to progress and I choose to not allow training unlike in RQ (time consuming and didn't find/search a rule for). Most of time I wanted to use Imp points to fill what I was lacking for... BAD MOVE !!! XD

... I should find a way correct my lacking first ...

4 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Even if the players choose to ignore your directions - which is always an option - at least they will do it knowing that they are actually houseruling the game!

Experience checks are another example, to go back on topic. The rules are clear enough, but since sometimes there is a tendency to skip anything that does not remap to "Lose 1dx hit points", many groups experience the problem.

"Lose 1dx hit points" It remind me of The Legend of Zagor ..."Dwarf fireball ! you lose one staminaaaa" : Sometimes things happens and players are not happy or don't understand what the game master want ! This is a problem of communication not RULES ! House rules are good because they intend to be an exposed point of view of the master OR an answer to a player's complain about some rules.

In term of experience systems, I've rise the evolution rate because I feel it too slow (1D6 -> 1D10; Training 1D6-2 to INT roll). What bother is the adpatabilties in term of evolution. In CoC v7, you can choose your Game Level form HardCore to Tremble_poor_mortal or even Pulp Mode ! In some Game Like Herowars (or HQ) you can adjust evolution from mortal (Mastery 0-1) to even play Godly being (Mastery 5-6).

...In these cases we all think the system is lacking something, but is it true ? or are we the one that don't understand the rules / the objectives behind them ?

I'm now a teeny little bit unsure of it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I have always loved the RQ system, so much so that I used to award XP points in Ars Magica in specific skills that characters performed and succeeded at regularly and cut down the overall scenario XP reward points a bit.

Of course if you want players to be able to develop their character in BRP then offer them a 1d6 increase in 1 skill of their choice if they fail but survive a scenario, 1d8 if they manage to scrape a reasonable outcome, and 1d10 if they demonstrate brilliance.  This is on top of the skill checks they have received.

Personally I think a good Keeper or GM should gear scenarios somewhat towards giving characters situations that somewhat play to their strengths and encourage them to make plenty of ups in the areas they use most often.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on approach.

Are you (as the DM) a storyteller primarily crafting a tale for everyone to enjoy?  Some people want that, others might feel a lack of agency: either railroaded along the story you want to tell, or that their actions don't matter ("whether I think to search this room for a clue or not, the DM's going to throw it in our laps anyway if it's important").

Or, are you the impersonal arbiter of the world's rules, in which case you simply rule the way the ball bounces (or the dice roll) and characters *can* get screwed if they happen to miss the sole critical McGuffin?

Obviously, these are archetypes, and most DMs fall somewhere on the spectrum.  

Where I think one gets into thin ice is declaring "THIS IS THE ONE TRUE WAY TO PLAY RPGs".   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to see GM'ing as both; the neutral arbiter of the ways of the world, and a 'hand of fate' who can guide the players only when necessary, and subtly.  I will generally have a story line, but I'm also able to improvise a new scenario if the characters get off-script or have a local NPC whisper in a PC's ear that it really might be a better idea to do thus-and-so instead.  And I'm a firm believer that stupidity does and should kill.  Players who continue in that vein over an extended number of plays don't tend to last too long.

It's all about a balanced approach, keeping in mind the ultimate goal of enjoying the experience.  I don't find much enjoyment in things being too easy for players, nor do I think it's a great deal of fun to beat your head against walls for little reward.

As far as skill checks are concerned, I find them a lot more logical than the "I killed x monsters, therefore some or all of my abilities and attributes improved and/or I gained new ones" rationale.  The GM is the one who assigns the checks in the first place.  If you let your players abuse it, as GM you have only yourself to blame.  Power gamer types don't make it very far in my campaigns either, because I don't let them get away with minmaxing in place of roleplaying.  When I GM I collect RP'ers; birds of a feather and all that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, styopa said:

It depends on approach.

Are you (as the DM) a storyteller primarily crafting a tale for everyone to enjoy?  Some people want that, others might feel a lack of agency: either railroaded along the story you want to tell, or that their actions don't matter ("whether I think to search this room for a clue or not, the DM's going to throw it in our laps anyway if it's important").

Or, are you the impersonal arbiter of the world's rules, in which case you simply rule the way the ball bounces (or the dice roll) and characters *can* get screwed if they happen to miss the sole critical McGuffin?

Obviously, these are archetypes, and most DMs fall somewhere on the spectrum.  

Where I think one gets into thin ice is declaring "THIS IS THE ONE TRUE WAY TO PLAY RPGs".   

 

I agree. I also think that system and setting also factors in. I run RQ differently that I run Marvel Super Heroes or James Bond, or Star Wars, or Toon, just to name a few. In some games I'm more in "impersonal arbiter" role and in others more of a storyteller. In more cinematic campaigns, I'm more likely to run more tightly scripted adventures, but also run things more biased towards the PCs. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I agree. I also think that system and setting also factors in. I run RQ differently that I run Marvel Super Heroes or James Bond, or Star Wars, or Toon, just to name a few. In some games I'm more in "impersonal arbiter" role and in others more of a storyteller. In more cinematic campaigns, I'm more likely to run more tightly scripted adventures, but also run things more biased towards the PCs. 

My angle tends very much toward what the group wants.  I can DM either way, but my longest-playing group prefer a crunchier, story-lite dungeon-crawly game, so that's what we do.  It's all about MGF for the players, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, styopa said:

my longest-playing group prefer a crunchier, story-lite dungeon-crawly game, so that's what we do.

And your D&D players' opinion on crawling evolution ? Do they like crawling-rules and lite-evolution for 1% per mission or they prefer leveling up more ?

 

On 14/09/2016 at 4:57 PM, styopa said:

Obviously, these are archetypes, and most DMs fall somewhere on the spectrum.  

Where I think one gets into thin ice is declaring "THIS IS THE ONE TRUE WAY TO PLAY RPGs".

There is one true way to play RPG : that everyone have fun ! if not : just go find something else ! (I like to be on thin ice)

Archetypes : I'm the most archetype one. In RQ Glorantha, the system of evolution is so slow that an old PC have much more experience, plus, making a new character take a lot of time and if you play in Glorantha there is a lot of way to deal with death; so I don't kill my PC unless they really ask for it... they know the consequence which is LOSING DEFINITELY all the experience accumulated ! No Bargain, No Pity, No Refund (of XP) !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, i really prefer the check system. I played CoC, RQ and others games using BRP system and the check system fit better with BRP than system with Heroe points.

I m not sure the GM have to be afraif of check hunting. You have the players you deserve, if yours only want to increase theirs skills, change them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2016 at 2:44 AM, MJ Sadique said:

And your D&D players' opinion on crawling evolution ? Do they like crawling-rules and lite-evolution for 1% per mission or they prefer leveling up more ?

 

I think I've laid it out here (so I won't go too far into it) but we have a fairly fast-advancing system:

normal success gives you one check, special two, critical three.  Fumble gives you one, also, always.  (You learn from what you screw up and still survive.)

Subsequent successes with that skill, if they don't give you more checks, give you ticks.  Ticks can be spent at next skillup either 1:1 to increase chance to get a skill up, or 4:1 to improve the skill improvement if you get one.

It works for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, styopa said:

Subsequent successes with that skill, if they don't give you more checks, give you ticks.  Ticks can be spent at next skillup either 1:1 to increase chance to get a skill up, or 4:1 to improve the skill improvement if you get one.

Ohoh.... very interresting ! I won't use it because the sheet will turn to shreds but I really like the idea. I may be more interresting than the skill up roll combining it with the skill class system. It's not really far from the experience system : My main complain about evolution it was that a skill' percentage never give you a true meaning of how good you are !

I've got 50% in attack, am I a good ? or just bad ? I am a pro, an elite ? Same thinking with a artisanal skill ?

Chaosium brp/cthulhu answers : creating class (% ranges) to give an skill a level ! In most different versions I could resume them in four to five levels from 0% to 100% ( Beginner / Pro / Veteran / Elite / Master) personnally I prefer the percent ranges : Beginner at 10% / Pro at 30% / Veteran at 50% / Elite at 70% / Master at 90%.

With this, you have a better understanding of how good you are ! But one question came back, another time Beginner VS Elite (fight or contest), does we need to even do a fight ? because elite soldier like (hero from Gladiator the movie) vs yourself (neet/roleplayer) ... do you really think you have any chance ? Do an elite really learn anything, because checking a skill by fighting a noob is not

Chaosium brp/cthulhu answers : give one bonus dice at Veteran level and two bonus dice at Master level ! (It really work well)

As for myself, I always think that you can fight/contest someone to a level close to you (next level higher or lower) but not more than that unless being some gloranthan heroes with Runes Power of by Fate's Rune power. What I like in Styopa system is that you can eliminate the skill roll for evolution (Elite is need 4 check and beginner only one)... but I don't know if deleting the random part of evolution will be so good ???

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

But one question came back, another time Beginner VS Elite (fight or contest), does we need to even do a fight ? because elite soldier like (hero from Gladiator the movie) vs yourself (neet/roleplayer) ... do you really think you have any chance ? Do an elite really learn anything, because checking a skill by fighting a noob is not

 

That's actually a pretty good point.  It's a way to implement a mechanic (rather than DM fiat, which I hate) that says when players earn an xp check and when they don't.

Frex, if you're fighting something with <1/3 your best combat skill, you get no skill check.  Or 2 things (simultaneously) with <1/4, or any number of things <1/5 your skill = no check possible.*  It could be a little 'tougher' if you use 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 respectively, too.

*I'd still say you always could get a check from a fumble, since that always has the potential to truly wreck you.  Although, you could also make that immediate - fumble skill check is the fumble-consequence roll, so really, skilled toons will only learn from a mistake when it's particularly bad.

Hmm, might be worth considering.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, styopa said:

I think I've laid it out here (so I won't go too far into it) but we have a fairly fast-advancing system:

normal success gives you one check, special two, critical three.  Fumble gives you one, also, always.  (You learn from what you screw up and still survive.)

Subsequent successes with that skill, if they don't give you more checks, give you ticks.  Ticks can be spent at next skillup either 1:1 to increase chance to get a skill up, or 4:1 to improve the skill improvement if you get one.

It works for us.

For RQ3 & BGB we used to rule that a normal success gave you a check, and a crit gave you one as well. Each subsequent successful use of a 'ticked skill' gave a +1% to your chance with the Experience Roll for that skill. That seemed reasonable, the more you used a skill, the more likely you were able to succeed in a Skill Check Gain due to the bonus accrued. It worked well for our troupe.

I think CoC 7E is pretty vague on what qualifies an action to award a Skill Check, but at the minimum the action requires a Hard Success (under half of regular skill value). This is a pretty good idea in my opinion, as it provides a base mechanic for what constitutes as a significant roll, and of course the GM arbitrates beyond this.

As an aside, having the CoC 7E skill levels comes in handy in many aspects of the game, and it's something I think would be beneficial in the new RQ as well. Considering it's the same BRP origin system I don't see why some innovations from one can't be used for the other, and it only adds one more degree of success to the current RQ rules. I have found this this doesn't add any degree of complexity, it just helps clarify alot of things during game play.

Edited by Mankcam

" Sure it's fun, but it is also well known that a D20 roll and an AC is no match against a hefty swing of a D100% and a D20 Hit Location Table!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

As an aside, having the CoC 7E skill levels comes in handy in many aspects of the game, and it's something I think would be beneficial in the new RQ as well. Considering it's the same BRP origin system I don't see why some innovations from one can't be used for the other, and it only adds one more degree of success to the current RQ rules. I have found this this doesn't add any degree of complexity, it just helps clarify alot of things during game play.

It would be nice if the RQ4 system was more or less unified with the CoC7 system, or that they were harmonized.

HOWEVER, as CoC7 was AFAIK essentially a child born of different parents and RQ4 is focused more on delivering a RQ2.1+ experience, I'm not sanguine about it being so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/09/2016 at 2:24 PM, Haimji said:

I m not sure the GM have to be afraif of check hunting. You have the players you deserve, if yours only want to increase theirs skills, change them.

Boom!

I agree fully. But also disagree slightly in that the GM can also influence their player's approach and behaviour.

RPG boards and forums (in general this less than most) are full of GMs moaning that their players all load up combat skills and shooty-killy magics. But then they run adventures which are full of fight scenes. And situations where the PCs lose their primary weapon but still need to fight.

If you don't want players to spend their time trying to maximise as many weapon skills as possible, don't make it a requirement of surviving the adventure and advancing the story that they are competent in lots of different weapons.

Edited by Al.
darned autocorrect
  • Like 2

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...