Experience Systems

[SDLeary]

58 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

Often rules get in the way of having fun, often rules are an arse.

In a roleplaying game a rule that says stop role playing, and start roll playing is wrong and should be ignored.

Thats when you pause, then and there or at the beginning of the following session, and have the GM discuss it with the players. It could result in a new house rule, or simply a one off decision if its not expected that the situation will occur again. But it allows all players to know whats going on, the concern that the GM, a player, or players have, and what the ruling there on out will be. 

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Depends of your a wargamer or a roleplayer really?

if you take all social interaction down to a role of a dice were pretty much doing complex simulations and wargaming.

It does sound like the fun police invading the game table, "Now stop enjoying yourself, you haven't made an enjoy yourself gaming roll."

What next? refs saying "You cant use that idea, because I don't think you character is bight enough to think it."

Whats the aim of your evenings gaming?

• A perfect rule simulation of events that could never take place?
• or bunch of friends getting together playing a game/telling a story and having a set of rules to add structure to the event? 

No, it's a bit more complicated. If you let the player role-play everything you nerf the value of skills, and limit the character's abilities to those of the player.  It also means that inexperienced characters end up knowing more and doing better because they are run by experienced players. I think that for it to work out fairly, a GM has to do a bit of both. 

[Jon Hunter]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

No, it's a bit more complicated. If you let the player role-play everything you nerf the value of skills, and limit the character's abilities to those of the player.  It also means that inexperienced characters end up knowing more and doing better because they are run by experienced players. I think that for it to work out fairly, a GM has to do a bit of both. 

In short what you saying you cant let the role playing get in the way of the roll playing.

That seems completely oximoronic to me in a roleplaying game.

Is the aim of the evening to role play or to run a rules system fairly?

because it seems to me that you are saying roleplaying isn't the aim of the gaming evenings? 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Jon Hunter said:

Often rules get in the way of having fun, often rules are an arse.

In a roleplaying game a rule that says stop role playing, and start roll playing is wrong and should be ignored.

Have you ever considered playing Amber?

Basically the reason why there are skills, stats and game mechanics are to help the GM arbitrate various form of conflict in a RPG in a fair manner. Most RPGs don't role-play combat, vehicle operation, medicine, or language skills. If you just let players role-play social skills then it gives an unfair advantage to fast talking players, since they can save their improvement points, training and practice for the areas of the game that they can't just roleplay.

 Secondly, it limits the character to the interaction skills of the player. For example, when playing the James Bond RPG it's a common tactic for the PC to seduce some of the opposition, so that they can get information, win over allies, and so forth. Now, I haven't met anyone who can seduce someone as well or as easily as Bond can. For good reason, too, he's a fictional character. But if we want to game in that genre, then we need a way for the players to do so- and just roleplaying won't really cut it. 

[Atgxtg]

7 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

In short what you saying you cant let the role playing get in the way of the roll playing.

That seems completely oximoronic to me in a roleplaying game.

Is the aim of the evening to role play or to run a rules system fairly?

because it seems to me that you are saying roleplaying isn't the aim of the gaming evenings? 

No, what I'm saying is that you have to be fair and give a level playing field to all the PCs. If you let one player talk his way out of problems, with no regard to his character's social abilties, then why can't you let someone talk his way through a swordfight, by roleplaying how the character wields his blade? 

[Jon Hunter]

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Have you ever considered playing Amber?

Basically the reason why there are skills, stats and game mechanics are to help the GM arbitrate various form of conflict in a RPG in a fair manner. Most RPGs don't role-play combat, vehicle operation, medicine, or language skills. If you just let players role-play social skills then it gives an unfair advantage to fast talking players, since they can save their improvement points, training and practice for the areas of the game that they can't just roleplay.

 Secondly, it limits the character to the interaction skills of the player. For example, when playing the James Bond RPG it's a common tactic for the PC to seduce some of the opposition, so that they can get information, win over allies, and so forth. Now, I haven't met anyone who can seduce someone as well or as easily as Bond can. For good reason, too, he's a fictional character. But if we want to game in that genre, then we need a way for the players to do so- and just roleplaying won't really cut it. 

I'm using the old white wolf storyteller system at the moment and happy with it;

Straw man argument, i've always said revert to the skills when its sensible to do so. Many things cant be  played easily, that what skills are therefor. I'm just saying rolling should not replace roleplaying when possible. So combat magic et all, is what the skill systems there fore.

If there is a mechanic which also players to roll for social interactions they should be allowed to use it, but they should be not forced to use it, and cut out in character dialogue if possible. There is always a compromise of using rolls with significant bonuses to those who bother to role play there social interactions

 

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Jon Hunter

[rust]

6 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

...by roleplaying how the character wields his blade? 

Hey, you can do that, it's called LARP. 

[Jon Hunter]

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, what I'm saying is that you have to be fair and give a level playing field to all the PCs. If you let one player talk his way out of problems, with no regard to his character's social abilties, then why can't you let someone talk his way through a swordfight, by roleplaying how the character wields his blade? 

Firstly no one has to do anything, these are games they are played to our preferences and wrong and right don't come into it.

That's all we are doing discussing different styles and preferences, if you want to do it your ways that fine, i wont come round to your house watch and criticise.

I do give tactically advantages to players to tactically describe what they are doing, a player who says 'i attack the monster' is making on set of challenges. One who bothers to say 'i wait for the dragon snail to attack the party , then step out from  cover and attack from the flank', is making different roles for different effects.

 

[MJ Sadique]

Answer to page2, Atgxtg remark : As for the 2D6% improvement is probably from  RuneLord abilities or advantage. I'm only sure that 2D6% is use in "La voie du Sabre" (Land Of ninja french ed.) because none of my PC whant to see the tengu who ***offer*** training in mountain. I won't read the RuneMasters a second time, it's long complex and my eyes are too much tired 0_0.

To rejoin the theme of the lasts posts : We need rules for equity and fairness .Even if sometimes rules is again fun we can cope with it a lot of way. But what can I do if the rules really get in the way, and becoming extremely annoying. Not any rule but a core rule ! To level up a skill, you basically have to (1) check the box (2) make a roll to know if we evolve (3) make a roll to know how much we evolve.

(1) Check the box complain is not a problem for me because you can do it in a multiple way :

1. Stick to the rules and try to use your skill in any situation (hunting check' player is born)
2. Do it roleplay because RQ and Basic FIRST(s) rules are If you cannot fail a test, you don't roll the dice. If you cannot succed either. If you have more than 100% too. If the master think to give you situations bonus that will make the test impossible to fail... don't bother ask for rolling dice to check.
3. Ask your master why he is a jerk ! (Master hiding being rules VS player's fun)

(2) Roll to know if you can learn something : it's the most realist part and as Atgxtg said "Now the 90% guy is also getting check boxes easier, too." Yes but to evolve, he will have some big problem at this step !

The question is what to do when someone who try very hard and for very long time does not get any improvement and why the system/dice don't accept training for +75% skills...(yes I can ignore it and I usually do). This is the main reason why I think check skill have a weak point and this is the strong point of XP system like Herowars.

-My only valid answer was to dig up some peculiar rules like a god's help or gift... this why I use the +2D6% special training trick. And I don't like it ! XD

(3) Make a roll to evolve : is a lesser one because you can evolve randomly by the dice or take the average dice number (1D6% or 3% same for POW D3-1 or 1pt). Don't ask me where in the rules : I'll said "Everywhere !!!!". For myself i've modified this part as my own first master does (1D10% for EXP; INT roll for training INTx1 : +5% minus 1% by INT multiple superior).

 

In the Roleplay VS Rules box fighting between you guys : I will said I prefer Roleplay whenever I can but since I'm bad with it I always come back  to roll the dice baby ... because it's funnier, sometimes surprising thing append (no fumble surprise in Amber), my player won't get sleepy and I'm a scientist in the core so Rule's Lore is my forte !

+1Pt for Jon (sorry...)

 

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, Jon Hunter said:

Firstly no one has to do anything, these are games they are played to our preferences and wrong and right don't come into it.

That's all we are doing discussing different styles and preferences, if you want to do it your ways that fine, i wont come round to your house watch and criticise.

I do give tactically advantages to players to tactically describe what they are doing, a player who says 'i attack the monster' is making on set of challenges. One who bothers to say 'i wait for the dragon snail to attack the party , then step out from  cover and attack from the flank', is making different roles for different effects.

 

I think you're missing my point. A GM has to try and be fair to the players. And if he lets some players who are good at talking roleplay through social encounters then he should do the same for other players who are good in other skills. Role rolplaying a fight is a lot more than just saying your going to try to ambush and flank an opponent. Do you just let you players say, "I'm going to con him out of his last coin." and let it go at that? 

 

Basically, it all boils down to being conflict. The player characters want things to go one way, and the NPC bad guys want it to go another. All the dice do is to help fairly arbitrate the outcome-so we don't end up with the "I'll killed you first!" arguments we had when we were kids. 

[Atgxtg]

15 minutes ago, rust said:

Hey, you can do that, it's called LARP. 

Yup, but even LARPs have rules/guidelines that govern how things play out. Inexperienced fencers don't just take down master swordsmen because the told the GM that's what they were doing.

 

And I don't really see how any of this relates to check boxes or Improvement points. 

[rust]

6 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

 

The question is what to do when someone who try very hard and for very long time does not get any improvement ...

Frankly, I would give him the improvement without a dice roll. The rules are there to organize the game, not to frustrate a player who has bad luck.

[Jon Hunter]

8 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think you're missing my point. A GM has to try and be fair to the players. And if he lets some players who are good at talking roleplay through social encounters then he should do the same for other players who are good in other skills. Role rolplaying a fight is a lot more than just saying your going to try to ambush and flank an opponent. Do you just let you players say, "I'm going to con him out of his last coin." and let it go at that? 

 

Basically, it all boils down to being conflict. The player characters want things to go one way, and the NPC bad guys want it to go another. All the dice do is to help fairly arbitrate the outcome-so we don't end up with the "I'll killed you first!" arguments we had when we were kids. 

I'm not missing your point i'm disagreeing with it.

For me roleplaying is about being in character and in the character interactions. Fair application of rules is well and good, but if it destroys the object of the evening and its unnecessary, i'm willing to put it to oneside.

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.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Jon Hunter

[Jon Hunter]

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yup, but even LARPs have rules/guidelines that govern how things play out. Inexperienced fencers don't just take down master swordsmen because the told the GM that's what they were doing.

 

And I don't really see how any of this relates to check boxes or Improvement points. 

the discussion moved on, but it the deviation started when someone asked what do you do when someone roleplays there way through a potential skill check.

People were horrified that people could actually role-play in a roleplaying game.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Jon Hunter

[rust]

8 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

People were horrified that people could actually role-play in a roleplaying game.

Not really, at least in my case there is only some disagreement concerning the relation between roleplaying and dice rolls. In the end my "paradigma" as the referee is the internal logic and verisimilitude of the setting, which includes the abilities and skills of the characters within the setting. As long as a character acts according to the way he was designed by the player, I do not really care whether his player chooses roleplaying or the dice, and the character can get an experience check for both. However, I would step in whenever a character would roleplay some activity where he has neither the ability nor the skill to do it and therefore could not roll the dice, like for example a character designed as illiterate reading or writing a message.

[Atgxtg]

15 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

People were horrified that people could actually role-play in a roleplaying game.

Please don't make such blanket assumptions. No one was horrified.

But if you value role-play over roll-play so much, why do you need an improvement mechanic anyway?

[Atgxtg]

32 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

The question is what to do when someone who try very hard and for very long time does not get any improvement and why the system/dice don't accept training for +75% skills...(yes I can ignore it and I usually do). This is the main reason why I think check skill have a weak point and this is the strong point of XP system like Herowars.

What I do when somebody tries for a long time and gets no improvement is just live it it. It happens. I once had a character who's  shield parry was a running gag. Each week I'd make several attack and parries and at the end of the night my attack shill would always go up, but my shield parry didn't. I had a 30% shield parry for quite a long time. 

 

The reason why the system doesn't allow training for skills over 75% (and btw, RQ did allow it for academic skills)  is twofold. First off, there is a belief that somebody can only get so good at something without actual practical experience "in the field". The second reason is that, back when RQ was written, it was a radical idea to allow characters to improve by a method other than adventuring. 

 

And I think most of the people who play RQ prefer it to HeroQuest. Those who don't won't be playing RQ anyway, and so there is no need to cater the skill improvement system for them. 

[Nick J.]

I just had a thought about character social skills versus player social skills.

I've always sort of envisaged the player as being that little voice that lives in the back of your character's head -- that one that is always the most witty, self-assured, convincing and suave version of him/her. Invariably though, some people open then their mouths and they say stuff like "ummm," "ah . . .," "erm," stammer and flub and generally come across as completely unpersuasive no matter how smart they sound in their own head. That's where the skill roll comes in for me in a "Fast Talk" or "Oratory" check; it's the translation between a player's super-convincing and utterly logical attempts to sway and their character's ability to project that into the game. So by all means, encourage players to roleplay their conversations in the 1st person and that always comes first in my games before the dice ever come out -- I don't let people say stuff like, "I use my oratory skill." They have to tell me what they want their character to say in either 1st (preferable) or 3rd person or it doesn't happen.

Same goes for hyper intelligent players and low intelligence characters; maybe the player is just that hidden force that somehow makes every coin toss come up heads, or pulls your biscuits out of the fire by sheer dumb luck. I can't remember where I read it/saw it/heard it, but it was something like, "Having a character with low intelligence isn't supposed to be a suicide pact." That said, I'm always super impressed by players that have enough self-discipline to play it dumb even to the detriment to their character.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Nick J.
mucked about

[SDLeary]

7 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

In short what you saying you cant let the role playing get in the way of the roll playing.

That seems completely oximoronic to me in a roleplaying game.

Is the aim of the evening to role play or to run a rules system fairly?

because it seems to me that you are saying roleplaying isn't the aim of the gaming evenings? 

It appears to me as if he is saying that in order for everyone to have fun, you shouldn't let the knowledge of the player eclipse that of the character in the game world. Role playing is always the goal, but with the skills of the character being the borders of knowledge. 

SDLeary

 

[deleriad]

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But then isn't the skill check system an improvement point system in disguise? Once you get the check the rest of the game mechanics are the same. The differences, mechanically, as far as I can tell, come down to:

• Determining what triggers a chance for improvement
• If the number of things that can be improved are capped at some predetermined number. 

To an extent which is why I did say that these things are, fundamentally, not as different as they seem. There are of course many types of Improvement point system but using Mythras as an example:

1. Improvement Points are a limited resource vs BRP skill checks which are as close to an unlimited resource as you can get. (Limited by the number of skill rolls you get to make.)
2. Improvement Points are generated at the end of a play session. Skill checks are generated during play
3. There are no game constraints to what Improvement Points can be used on though there is an expectation that they will be spent in a way that is justified. Skill checks (house rules notwithstanding) can only be applied to skills successfully used in play and to which the GM has consented.

Point 1 tends to lead to specialisation in IP systems versus generalisation in skill checks.

Points 2 & 3 affect the interactions between players and GM during session.

When all is said and done, skill checks are popular among BRP players because they're seen as a form of simulation. I actually think that RAW they're very poor as simulation hence the myriad of house rules that try to make the simulation more granular. I like Improvement points because they don't try to simulate. This allows people to say "my wizard has been reading the scrolls of Megadeathmage while we're travelling so he spends his improvement points on wizardy things. Yes he may have whacked the burning goblin with his quarterstaff at one point but the main thing he learned from that was to stay further away from burning goblins."

[rust]

4 minutes ago, deleriad said:

I like Improvement points because they don't try to simulate.

I am not so sure about this, in fact in my view improvement points are actually the better approach to simulation. They enable the character to improve the skills he puts his personal focus on, the things he really wants to learn and spends some effort on. It is conscious, aimed improvement, while experience checks can be got without any thought on whether the character actually attempts to learn anything from the activity he was rewarded for. 

[Jeff]

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.

[styopa]

13 hours ago, Nick J. said:

Same goes for hyper intelligent players and low intelligence characters; maybe the player is just that hidden force that somehow makes every coin toss come up heads, or pulls your biscuits out of the fire by sheer dumb luck. I can't remember where I read it/saw it/heard it, but it was something like, "Having a character with low intelligence isn't supposed to be a suicide pact." That said, I'm always super impressed by players that have enough self-discipline to play it dumb even to the detriment to their character.

That's a tough call.  It's fun when someone wants to play that way, but hard to 'call out' someone who's having good ideas to "shut up, your toon's not that smart"?

I do use INT when it can be mechanically useful; so for example when we do statement of intent at the start of the round, I go by ascending INT order WITHOUT allowing extensive discussion (it's combat, after all).  So the stupid characters have to sort of make their action choices in a vacuum, while the smart characters get to know what everyone (on their side, anyway) is doing first.  It's not a huge advantage, but it does lead to the characters 'coaching' the dumber toons on "ok if this happens, you do this" which I think is both realistic and fairly funny.

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

 RuneQuest gets the skill category modifier

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?

[soltakss]

On 9/5/2016 at 0:02 PM, davecake said:

The difference is that the POW gain mechanic gives players a strong incentive to *decrease* their personal power. The optimal strategy to become powerful in the long term is to voluntarily decrease your personal POW, keep it relatively low by sacrificing it for Rune Magic (or use it for Enchantments, etc), and thus get much higher POW gain rolls. This is what I call a perverse incentive - the 'right thing to do' known to the player is different to that understood by the character. 

Its not a big game breaking deal for me. But I suspect I'll have some sort of workaround house rule for POW gain, perhaps involving Runes or passions or something. Maybe get a point of POW every time your Rune Affinity hits a certain level or something. 

What we tend to do is allow Species Max POW to increase by doing certain things, for example by participating in a HeroQuest. Over a period of time, Species Max POW crawls up, allowing a PC to have a higher POW and have a good chance of increasing it.