Jump to content
Marc

Training time

Recommended Posts

I've never really been happy with how training is handled in RQ:G. Needing to spend an entire season to train a skill seems a bit much.  Particularly when it seems to me the amount of time you spend should be dependent, at least in part, on how good you are to begin with. 

In both RQ2 and RQ3, the time you spent was dependent on your current skill level.  In RQ2, you had to pay more for training at the higher skill levels, and you could only spend 100L/week on training a skill. RQ3 was simpler yet, you needed to spend a number of hours equal to your current skill to get a chance for it to increase.

So, I'm curious what other people think.  Does it make sense to have to spend a whole season to get to add 1d6-1 to your 23% Track skill? Should the time it takes to earn the roll be based in part on how good you are to start with? Right now, not sure what I would do for a house rule to change this.  I've got ideas, but they have a bunch of holes in them.  Would love to hear what ideas, if any, others have on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all depends on the pace at which time passes in your campaign. 

If you are running one adventure a year or so, then a season for training works out to be simply, and improvement occurs as a decent rate, but not too fast.The old RQ2 and RQ3 methods could be too fast at that rate, since someone could go from "zero to hero" in a skill in a year or two, which would be only one or two game sessions. If you are running at a slower, more traditional pace, then a full season might feel like it's too long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I said, I'm not sure what I would do for a house rule.  I would like to see training time be dependent, somehow, on current skill level.  It  seems to me that taking a full season, doing nothing else is a bit extreme to be able to improve a skill that is currently at 25%.

As I said, I've got ideas, but with a lot of holes.  One is how any how rule should interact with the other rules for skill improvement from the "Between Adventures" chapter. I'm sure, if I continue with this, I'll find more.  That's the problem with house rules, making sure there are a minimal number of unintended consequences!  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Marc said:

Right now, not sure what I would do for a house rule to change this.  I've got ideas, but they have a bunch of holes in them.  Would love to hear what ideas, if any, others have on this.

Personally I like the simplicity of RQ G

A little odd for a RQ enthusiast to state, but... When one considers at the end of a year they can have easily pursued their trade for four experience checks, and adventured for 4 or more experience checks each season. That adds up to at least 8 skill checks per season or at least 40 a year That's not too bad. Now, I believe you can add one skill check a season or one Pow roll check or one stat check every 2 months. Works for me

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a side note, perhaps if your trade is being a full time student (trainee) maybe those 4 seasonal experience checks could be in skills you have been training. 'Course no income and money going out each season...

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a 'hard' example of why I think the RQ:G training rules are, RAW, broken.

My party leader has managed to enrapture a very stupid Trollkin, who has effectively volunteered to become his pet, having been treated better by the leader than her mother ever did. However, the Enlo speaks no languages that any of the party do. Having it take a season for even this rock-bonced reject to learn 5% in Tradetalk (resulting in a net score of -2; I told you she was stupid (and I''m not using 5% skill modifier brackets either; I've gone RQ3 in that respect)... I'm very much of a mind to simply drop RQ3's model straight in. It never bothered me as a player, and it won't bother me to administer it for my players, as a GM. I'll probably do a fair bit of rounding.

 

46 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

...someone could go from "zero to hero" in a skill in a year or two...

One thing I'd keep from RQG, which I think RQ3 had is the cap on training 'active' skills. 75% is by no means 'hero' level, and 'a couple of years' of fairly dedicated training with a bit of experience rolled in isn't unreasonable for someone to get 'competent' with a skill, if we even want to constrain our PCs (who're supposed to be Heroes eventually) with 'real world' considerations and comparisons in this regard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, womble said:

One thing I'd keep from RQG, which I think RQ3 had is the cap on training 'active' skills. 75% is by no means 'hero' level, and 'a couple of years' of fairly dedicated training with a bit of experience rolled in isn't unreasonable for someone to get 'competent' with a skill, if we even want to constrain our PCs (who're supposed to be Heroes eventually) with 'real world' considerations and comparisons in this regard.

Indeed, a skill rating of 75% means in RQG a score in the "Professional" range. Nothing special about it.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, womble said:

I've got a 'hard' example of why I think the RQ:G training rules are, RAW, broken.

My party leader has managed to enrapture a very stupid Trollkin, who has effectively volunteered to become his pet, having been treated better by the leader than her mother ever did. However, the Enlo speaks no languages that any of the party do. Having it take a season for even this rock-bonced reject to learn 5% in Tradetalk (resulting in a net score of -2; I told you she was stupid (and I''m not using 5% skill modifier brackets either; I've gone RQ3 in that respect)... I'm very much of a mind to simply drop RQ3's model straight in. It never bothered me as a player, and it won't bother me to administer it for my players, as a GM. I'll probably do a fair bit of rounding.

Well, since I'm sticking with RQ3 I can't disagree with you there.

2 hours ago, womble said:

One thing I'd keep from RQG, which I think RQ3 had is the cap on training 'active' skills. 75% is by no means 'hero' level, and 'a couple of years' of fairly dedicated training with a bit of experience rolled in isn't unreasonable for someone to get 'competent' with a skill, if we even want to constrain our PCs (who're supposed to be Heroes eventually) with 'real world' considerations and comparisons in this regard.

It depends on what you consider "competent". Tradiconally RQ seems to use about 50% or so for most people who do something for a living. In the real world, it usually takes a couple of years to be good enough with something to be a professional at it. 

 

1 hour ago, prinz.slasar said:

Indeed, a skill rating of 75% means in RQG a score in the "Professional" range. Nothing special about it.
 

Quite a bit special if you can do it in a few seasons. In the real world it takes a several years for someone to be good enough to get a degree at something, at thats with their being a full time student (although with the summer off). To be able to do something like that in somebody's spare time, while performing their other duties seems quite special to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Quite a bit special if you can do it in a few seasons. In the real world it takes a several years for someone to be good enough to get a degree at something, at thats with their being a full time student (although with the summer off). To be able to do something like that in somebody's spare time, while performing their other duties seems quite special to me.  

Yes, for sure, if we pointing at reality.
I only mentioned, that GMs have nothing to fear about 75% skill values. It's not the range of a Hero tier.
Two things are important to mention: first it's a fantasy world with its own natural laws. Second, RQG is a framework of rules to handle the narrative outcome at the table.
But I comprehend your argument.

Edited by prinz.slasar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prinz.slasar said:

Yes, for sure, if we pointing at reality.
I only mentioned, that GMs have nothing to fear about 75% skill values. It's not the range of a Hero tier.

I agree. 75% isn't Earth or Glorantha shattering.

1 hour ago, prinz.slasar said:

Two things are important to mention: first it's a fantasy world with its own natural laws. Second, RQG is a framework of rules to handle the narrative outcome at the table.
But I comprehend your argument.

I think you do, too. BTW, as a GM I'd be more concerned about the long term effects rather than the short term effects. Players could move several skills towards 75% over a few years, and that might be something a GM needs to be concerned about. Going from from RQG's improvement system to RQ3 would be kinda like how Green Knights' change to three improvements during the Winter Phase in 4th edition Pendragon. It definitely had long term repercussions. Characters qualified for Knighthood and other things much sooner, and were better rounded (since you couldn't stack the improvements on one thing). But since in RQ there is no reason why someone can't stack his training it could become problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, going with the old training rules. Say a character goes to the Great Library in Nochet to get a "bachelor's degree", ie. he studies there for 3 whole years. 15 * 2.5% = 37.5%. And he would get no other skill increases during the time. Makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new rules are in line with the new focus on the community life, with all the duties and obligations. This is not anymore the full time adventuring we were accustomed to. Even if I prefer RQIII rules on the matter (if only because of the time to study being relative to the current level), I understand this. Where I have a problem is with the 'non tickable' skills, especially lores. With max 1D6-1 per season on 1 skill when you need to drive 2 or 3 skills to 90% means some runic ranks are impossible to reach in a lifetime.

1 hour ago, Brootse said:

Yeah, going with the old training rules. Say a character goes to the Great Library in Nochet to get a "bachelor's degree", ie. he studies there for 3 whole years. 15 * 2.5% = 37.5%. And he would get no other skill increases during the time. Makes no sense.

The way I understand the new rules, he would gain 37.5% (on average) in addition to the other gains, because adventuring, learning and other are not full time. What we don't have is a rule for what you describe: somebody that learns full time, whatever the reason. The old RQIII rule could be used for that specific point (and no between adventure skill gain, no or half activity income, ...).

Kloster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kloster said:

The new rules are in line with the new focus on the community life, with all the duties and obligations. This is not anymore the full time adventuring we were accustomed to. Even if I prefer RQIII rules on the matter (if only because of the time to study being relative to the current level), I understand this. Where I have a problem is with the 'non tickable' skills, especially lores. With max 1D6-1 per season on 1 skill when you need to drive 2 or 3 skills to 90% means some runic ranks are impossible to reach in a lifetime.

The way I understand the new rules, he would gain 37.5% (on average) in addition to the other gains, because adventuring, learning and other are not full time. What we don't have is a rule for what you describe: somebody that learns full time, whatever the reason. The old RQIII rule could be used for that specific point (and no between adventure skill gain, no or half activity income, ...).

Kloster

Yeah, I get why it was changed, it's just that RAW don't work right now.

YZlo3Ab.png

The rules say that training is a full time activity. If the rules were changed so that the training was only a part time activity, then it would be kinda ok. Though just like you said, there would still be a need for full time training rules.

Edited by Brootse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have to spend a whole season training a skill, then I would expect few players would choose that option. Especially when skills can be increased through experience rolls. 

Personally, although I see why the "One scenario per Season" guideline has been introduced, it isn't something I would adhere to in my games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as "at least one"... :) It very much depends on what 'phase' your campaign is in, and what you're focussing on. In some ways the 'emphasis' on 'one per season' can be used as license to skip forward when other pressures are trying to bog you down in stepping through the Calendar one day at a time (which can get tiresome).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, soltakss said:

If you have to spend a whole season training a skill, then I would expect few players would choose that option. Especially when skills can be increased through experience rolls.

Agreed. And some skills don't have exp.

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

Personally, although I see why the "One scenario per Season" guideline has been introduced, it isn't something I would adhere to in my games.

Same for my tastes.

Kloster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Brootse said:

The rules say that training is a full time activity. If the rules were changed so that the training was only a part time activity, then it would be kinda ok. Though just like you said, there would still be a need for full time training rules. 

Yes, seen (P416). In that case, it becomes impossible to reach rune level in any lore, nor alchemy (that can't progress by experience, and neither by 'between adventures' experience). It is a blocking point for Rune lord status in at least the following cults: Chalana Arroy (only 4 exp. raisable cult skills, 5 needed at 90%), Lhankor Mhy (only 2 skills). Priest status for Daka Fal and the 2 above mentioned cults is also problematic.

Kloster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 2:56 AM, Kloster said:

Where I have a problem is with the 'non tickable' skills, especially lores. With max 1D6-1 per season on 1 skill when you need to drive 2 or 3 skills to 90% means some runic ranks are impossible to reach in a lifetime.

For the time being, I've been allowing my players to choose skills like this for their "between adventures" skills, if they've been doing their profession. If you're rummaging around in libraries for a living, you're gonna get better at it. It ameliorates that downside a little bit. I still don't let them gain experience checks proper in those skills.

I'd missed the bit about "an adventurer must train with an instructor for a whole season, and do little else." That doesn't make sense to me, considering RQG's focus on the integrated adventurer. I've been pitching training to my players as "you're basically doing that whenever you're not doing obligatory stuff." Sort of like, instead of working hard at your profession and cult stuff, you're doing the minimum required then going and spending time with that teacher who knows weird stuff.

The other thing I think can help this is letting adventurers change professions. For example, one of my players started as a herder, but as we played we all sort of agreed that it didn't make much sense if he stayed as a herder--he's basically doing light infantry stuff. I checked his skills, and the only one which was significantly lower than I'd expect is Battle, so I figured he could start working as a peltast or scout. We don't have a formal system in place yet for professions, but I feel like some level of mutability, provided the adventurer has the relevant skills, can really help growth. Of course as they progress, this is going to be less viable--it's not like a priest can just go spend some seasons working as a heavy infantry warrior in most cults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crel said:

I'd missed the bit about "an adventurer must train with an instructor for a whole season, and do little else." That doesn't make sense to me, considering RQG's focus on the integrated adventurer. I've been pitching training to my players as "you're basically doing that whenever you're not doing obligatory stuff." Sort of like, instead of working hard at your profession and cult stuff, you're doing the minimum required then going and spending time with that teacher who knows weird stuff.

This is also what I had understood, and that's why I had written:

On 1/19/2019 at 9:56 AM, Kloster said:

The way I understand the new rules, he would gain 37.5% (on average) in addition to the other gains, because adventuring, learning and other are not full time.

 

2 hours ago, Crel said:

For the time being, I've been allowing my players to choose skills like this for their "between adventures" skills, if they've been doing their profession. If you're rummaging around in libraries for a living, you're gonna get better at it. It ameliorates that downside a little bit. I still don't let them gain experience checks proper in those skills.

That seems good to me. Those skills can not have a proper experience tick, but at least could be raised between adventures for professional and cult skills.

 

2 hours ago, Crel said:

The other thing I think can help this is letting adventurers change professions. For example, one of my players started as a herder, but as we played we all sort of agreed that it didn't make much sense if he stayed as a herder--he's basically doing light infantry stuff. I checked his skills, and the only one which was significantly lower than I'd expect is Battle, so I figured he could start working as a peltast or scout. We don't have a formal system in place yet for professions, but I feel like some level of mutability, provided the adventurer has the relevant skills, can really help growth. Of course as they progress, this is going to be less viable--it's not like a priest can just go spend some seasons working as a heavy infantry warrior in most cults.

We are on the same line here. My character has been created as a philosopher, but has been hired as a scribe and another player that plays a character similar to the pregen Vishi Dunn (but from Agimori tribe)had to leave his activity as Assistant Shaman because he was not able to serve his tribe (because he is now in Sartar), so he currently works as hunter.

Kloster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Kloster said:

This is also what I had understood, and that's why I had written:

 

That seems good to me. Those skills can not have a proper experience tick, but at least could be raised between adventures for professional and cult skills.

 

We are on the same line here. My character has been created as a philosopher, but has been hired as a scribe and another player that plays a character similar to the pregen Vishi Dunn (but from Agimori tribe)had to leave his activity as Assistant Shaman because he was not able to serve his tribe (because he is now in Sartar), so he currently works as hunter.

Kloster

 

On 1/19/2019 at 12:03 PM, Brootse said:

Yeah, I get why it was changed, it's just that RAW don't work right now.

YZlo3Ab.png

The rules say that training is a full time activity. If the rules were changed so that the training was only a part time activity, then it would be kinda ok. Though just like you said, there would still be a need for full time training rules.

It seem I wrote that less carefully than it should have been. It means you can do little else in addition to whatever normal stuff you are doing for your occupation, community, etc. So only one skill can be trained at a time, and you can't take on any tasks above your allotted "adventuring time" per season.

So if you train a skill, that's your "extra activity" you can do that season above and beyond your "adventuring time". 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

It seem I wrote that less carefully than it should have been. It means you can do little else in addition to whatever normal stuff you are doing for your occupation, community, etc. So only one skill can be trained at a time, and you can't take on any tasks above your allotted "adventuring time" per season.

So if you train a skill, that's your "extra activity" you can do that season above and beyond your "adventuring time". 

Thanks for the clarification! How would you handle a character training full time instead of working? 5 skill increases per season and allow skill increases in lores too?

e: caught a typo in the training text: "though" should be "through"

Edited by Brootse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brootse said:

Thanks for the clarification! How would you handle a character training full time instead of working? 5 skill increases per season and allow skill increases in lores too?

I will defer to individual GMs how to handle that in their campaigns. In my campaigns, the idea of "training full time" just isn't plausible. All characters have cult responsibilities, occupational roles, community obligations, etc. Even if you were living in a Humakt temple as some kind of devoted initiate, you need to eat, sleep, worship the god, pray and meditate more than persuade a Sword Lord to train you. In a Knowledge Temple, you are going to be copying scrolls, writing down records, and working as a scribe. And so on.

Once upon a time, Greg and I played around with breaking down the percentage of time a character can devote to any type of activity - working, cult responsibilities, family obligations, praying and meditation, dreaming, sex, whatever. It was an interesting exercise but waaaaaaay too much book-keeping for a game system. What is in RQG gets you to more or less the same result without the bookkeeping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Jeff.

Thanks for the explanation. I have 1 question:

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

So if you train a skill, that's your "extra activity" you can do that season above and beyond your "adventuring time".  

Does that means you can (in addition to normal community time and duties) both train and adventuring, or that you can perform only one during a given season?

Kloster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Hello Jeff.

Thanks for the explanation. I have 1 question:

Does that means you can (in addition to normal community time and duties) both train and adventuring, or that you can perform only one during a given season?

Kloster

I thought the explanation was pretty clear - in a normal season, you can get your "adventuring time" of up to about three weeks and can train ONE skill, and still do the things you need to do to survive as a member of the community. But now you are pretty much "fully booked up" - anything more and I'd say your Sacred Time rolls are going to be severely penalized. Or as the rules say, you can do that much and little else.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×