What people want and what makes them happy rarely coincide.

[Avoraciopoctules]

There should be no more or less expectation of being able to choose your own class features as you level up than being able to choose you items.

I can't agree to that. A class feature is intrinsic to the character, an item is by definition extrinsic. As a player you should have more control over intrinsic factors and less control over extrinsic factors.

For example: as a player character you have skill points. You are 100% in control over how those are spent. As a party you find a Blood Mace. As a player character you have one vote in 3-6 over who gets the Blood Mace. Because the skill points are intrinsic and completely controlled by you and the Blood Mace is extrinsic and only partially controlled by you.

I really don't see how it is even possible to claim otherwise. People who say that they should have the same rights to their furniture as they do to their own bodies are weird beyond belief. You have more rights to yourself than to your stuff. There isn't any possible argument otherwise.

-Username17

Frank, a player should not have the choice of keeping her character from learning from her experiences. If she does an arctic exploration adventure, she shouldn't be able to choose to trade all of that geographical, ecological, and survival knowledge for research or arcane lore.

If the character wanted to increase research and arcane lore, she should have chosen to go on a dungeon crawl in the Great Library of Ilsensine or something.

That said, it's reasonable to allow PCs to both learn from their experiences (GM/collaboratively determined advancement) and assumed regular practice (player-determined advancement). If the character was studying her tomes and doing a bit of magic research during her downtime in the arctic (for example, while preparing spells), it would be totally reasonable for her to improve in all of the above skills.

I disagree. People are totally capable of not learning from their experiences. If I'm playing Serena the Pyromancer, it is quite plausible that when the ranger is lecturing everyone on how build a snow cave or the difference between a seasonal tarn and one that stays year-round, her eyes glaze over and she distracts herself reminiscing about the time she burned down a wizard's library to get rid of all the nonmagic books she didn't care about and streamline looting.

When Serena falls through thin ice crossing the lake to get to the Blue Crystal Palace, she can totally learn nothing practical from the experience and risk repeating it a short while later. Serena is quite content to learn nothing more sophisticated than "I hate the North. It is cold". It is highly likely that, regardless of the environment she passes through, she will put her skill advancement points into the skills she personally cares about. Like sleight of hand, so she can do party tricks with balls of semisolid flame.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I can't agree to that. A class feature is intrinsic to the character, an item is by definition extrinsic. As a player you should have more control over intrinsic factors and less control over extrinsic factors.

For example: as a player character you have skill points. You are 100% in control over how those are spent. As a party you find a Blood Mace. As a player character you have one vote in 3-6 over who gets the Blood Mace. Because the skill points are intrinsic and completely controlled by you and the Blood Mace is extrinsic and only partially controlled by you.

I really don't see how it is even possible to claim otherwise. People who say that they should have the same rights to their furniture as they do to their own bodies are weird beyond belief. You have more rights to yourself than to your stuff. There isn't any possible argument otherwise.

-Username17

Frank, a player should not have the choice of keeping her character from learning from her experiences. If she does an arctic exploration adventure, she shouldn't be able to choose to trade all of that geographical, ecological, and survival knowledge for research or arcane lore.

If the character wanted to increase research and arcane lore, she should have chosen to go on a dungeon crawl in the Great Library of Ilsensine or something.

That said, it's reasonable to allow PCs to both learn from their experiences (GM/collaboratively determined advancement) and assumed regular practice (player-determined advancement). If the character was studying her tomes and doing a bit of magic research during her downtime in the arctic (for example, while preparing spells), it would be totally reasonable for her to improve in all of the above skills.

I disagree. People are totally capable of not learning from their experiences. If I'm playing Serena the Pyromancer, it is quite plausible that when the ranger is lecturing everyone on how build a snow cave or the difference between a seasonal tarn and one that stays year-round, her eyes glaze over and she distracts herself reminiscing about the time she burned down a wizard's library to get rid of all the nonmagic books she didn't care about and streamline looting.

When Serena falls through thin ice crossing the lake to get to the Blue Crystal Palace, she can totally learn nothing practical from the experience and risk repeating it a short while later. Serena is quite content to learn nothing more sophisticated than "I hate the North. It is cold". It is highly likely that, regardless of the environment she passes through, she will put her skill advancement points into the skills she personally cares about. Like sleight of hand, so she can do party tricks with balls of semisolid flame.

Serena uses her fire magic to survive falling through ice, and therefore learns more about using fire magic to combat cold. She practice the subtle art of keeping warm without setting on fire, and should not be able to trade that for Sleight of Hand. Although, if she was entertaining the party while they camped (or just practicing in her spare time), she should totally be able to improve at prestidigitation as well.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Frank, a player should not have the choice of keeping her character from learning from her experiences. If she does an arctic exploration adventure, she shouldn't be able to choose to trade all of that geographical, ecological, and survival knowledge for research or arcane lore.

If the character wanted to increase research and arcane lore, she should have chosen to go on a dungeon crawl in the Great Library of Ilsensine or something.

That said, it's reasonable to allow PCs to both learn from their experiences (GM/collaboratively determined advancement) and assumed regular practice (player-determined advancement). If the character was studying her tomes and doing a bit of magic research during her downtime in the arctic (for example, while preparing spells), it would be totally reasonable for her to improve in all of the above skills.

I disagree. People are totally capable of not learning from their experiences. If I'm playing Serena the Pyromancer, it is quite plausible that when the ranger is lecturing everyone on how build a snow cave or the difference between a seasonal tarn and one that stays year-round, her eyes glaze over and she distracts herself reminiscing about the time she burned down a wizard's library to get rid of all the nonmagic books she didn't care about and streamline looting.

When Serena falls through thin ice crossing the lake to get to the Blue Crystal Palace, she can totally learn nothing practical from the experience and risk repeating it a short while later. Serena is quite content to learn nothing more sophisticated than "I hate the North. It is cold". It is highly likely that, regardless of the environment she passes through, she will put her skill advancement points into the skills she personally cares about. Like sleight of hand, so she can do party tricks with balls of semisolid flame.

Serena uses her fire magic to survive falling through ice, and therefore learns more about using fire magic to combat cold. She practice the subtle art of keeping warm without setting on fire, and should not be able to trade that for Sleight of Hand. Although, if she was entertaining the party while they camped (or just practicing in her spare time), she should totally be able to improve at prestidigitation as well.

I suppose that's certainly a possible way things could play out. But isn't it equally plausible that the only skill she uses is the basic swimming skills the whole party retrained their useless ranks of airship maintenance into when they went to fight the Green Eye pirate brigade? She treads water for a round, makes her fortitude check against cold, and then someone tosses her a rope. She learns that she hates cold water, but that seems kind of specific for a mechanical investment of PC power.

Or, alternatively, one could argue that she saves herself using the same Blazing Leap spell she perfected 5 adventures ago, and the change of scenery makes no particular difference in this case, so she learns nothing new.

Even if you learn a skill to solve a problem once, you don't necessarily have to retain it. And if Serena's only reaction to falling through thin ice is a fierce desire to repress the memory, she may very well have the same problem on multiple occasions and be no better at avoiding thin ice when she comes back to the area 4 adventures later than when she started this quest.

[PhoneLobster]

From the perspective of this thread puerile "but maybe she felt fluffy ideas about fluffy solutions to fluffy advancement!" arguments are irrelevant.

From the perspective of this thread Serena was stupid to think she wanted to advance with fire party trick skills. And when she is HANDED cold climate survival skills instead by the outside input of the adventure that is what she REALLY wanted but was too stupid to know she wanted.

Mind you from the perspective of this thread that outside input is ALSO randomized, and the theory that outside input is SOMETIMES good instead becomes a rather remarkable ALWAYS.

But it is actually over all a very good example. There is absolutely nothing differentiating learned skills from gained magic items in regards to the arguments set forth by various people in this thread.

If it holds that Serena is STUPID for wanting to get level appropriate daggers and BADWRONGFUN for having the concept of "uses daggers" and would UNKNOWINGLY prefer to be handed awesome completely random crossbows...

Then it ALSO holds that Serena is STUPID for wanting to get level appropriate fire party tricks and BADWRONGFUN for having the concept of "uses fire party tricks" and would UNKNOWINGLY prefer to be handed awesome completely random "I know how to hollow out banthas and live inside their stinking carcasses".

Personally I prefer the simple compromise of offering some or partial "outside" input into characters and would happily see that extend to skills just as much as items. But for those taking the rather extreme stance that one should NEVER EVER be a "sword guy" and all the arguments they have made related to that they don't have a leg to stand on when someone suggests their personally designed arcane fire ball researcher shouldn't happen and he should instead end up with the randomly "outside" selected ability to ride sandworms and take worm LSD in desert caves.

[Prak]

What the fuck is this even about anymore? The only constant thread I can see is "Advancement should be (at least partially) randomized!" "But I don't want to advance randomly!"

[RadiantPhoenix]

@PL: I'm pretty sure that the argument that the other pro-random-item people (besides me, because I'm pretty sure I know what kind of argument I'm trying to make) are trying to make isn't, "this thing we randomly selected is what will really make you happier," but rather, "the fact that you weren't expecting this and/or it's different from what you did last time makes it more fun."

[Seerow]

@PL: I'm pretty sure that the argument that the other pro-random-item people (besides me, because I'm pretty sure I know what kind of argument I'm trying to make) are trying to make isn't, "this thing we randomly selected is what will really make you happier," but rather, "the fact that you weren't expecting this and/or it's different from what you did last time makes it more fun."

But doesn't that apply equally to class features and skills? Because what's being implied is that if you have any control over any aspect of it, the fun of the other random stuff isn't the same.

The whole thing becomes boring. By that argument character advancement in general is boring, so you need to make the whole thing random/come from what happens in game, rather than be a player choice. After all, now you can get the random class features and skills that you didn't think about, and might not have gotten on your own, and occasionally you might even get a really strong ability!

At least I think that's the point PL is trying to get across.

[PhoneLobster]

...because I'm pretty sure I know what kind of argument I'm trying to make...

I would give that more credence if you then described the different thing you are supposedly arguing for as being any different.

No seriously.

"this thing we randomly selected is what will really make you happier,"

"the fact that you weren't expecting this and/or it's different from what you did last time makes it more fun."

You could stick those in the SAME quotation marks and everyone would thing you are just using tautological reinforcement of your position.

Those are NOT mutually exclusive or notably differentiated. To the point that your entire post was virtually complete nonsense.

At a stretch I could say that the second one in fact is a position AGAINST randomization since randomization does NOT in fact permit you to reliable provide something "different from what you did last time". But that ISN'T what you are trying to say, has NO relevance to skills OR items, and invokes a "need to be different from what you did last time" which I don't think ANYONE has seriously considered worth talking about for the entire 30 million pages of this thread. Because it ISN'T worth talking about because its stupid.

[Username17]

People actually really like the way experience based skill advancement ends up. Rune Quest, Burning Wheel, and World of Warcraft all get a bunch of mileage out of the learn by doing system. I think it is bad fit for tabletop because it is too much paperwork, not because it is disempowering or unrealistic or even unpopular.

-Username17

[Seerow]

People actually really like the way experience based skill advancement ends up. Rune Quest, Burning Wheel, and World of Warcraft all get a bunch of mileage out of the learn by doing system. I think it is bad fit for tabletop because it is too much paperwork, not because it is disempowering or unrealistic or even unpopular.

-Username17

Pointing out WoW literally removed their experience skill advancement (assuming you're referring to their weapon skills, which is the only thing I can think of it had that remotely qualifies) with the last expansion because they realized players hated having to waste a hour or so wailing away at trash to be able to use a new weapon in anything level appropriate.

[Kaelik]

I assume he means crafting.

[Seerow]

I assume he means crafting.

That would make more sense. I was thinking skill systems for actual combat shit, but if you want to look at just non-combat skill systems it works all right. (Though WoW's is still too grindy, it's a LOT better than some other games. Looking at you Dofus!)

[Prak]

Well, conceivably, a character sheet could just have a box or boxes for hashmarks that are made when a skill gets used. At the end of a session/adventure/whatever marks your "level up" point, if there's a hashmark, you can level up that skill.

Such systems are typically skill based and give out small amounts of character points at the end of each session (Runequest, World of Darkness, Mutants and Masterminds, in my experience), so maybe at each session you have the opportunity, and then at the end of the adventure, you erase all hashmarks and have to start accumulating stuff again.

[Fuchs]

Well, conceivably, a character sheet could just have a box or boxes for hashmarks that are made when a skill gets used. At the end of a session/adventure/whatever marks your "level up" point, if there's a hashmark, you can level up that skill.

Such systems are typically skill based and give out small amounts of character points at the end of each session (Runequest, World of Darkness, Mutants and Masterminds, in my experience), so maybe at each session you have the opportunity, and then at the end of the adventure, you erase all hashmarks and have to start accumulating stuff again.

That's just more bookkeeping, and doesn't really prevent anyone from raising skills outside edge cases. "Oh, before we end the adventure, I practise my sleight of hand so I can raise it." "I go practise my forgery" "I go for a ride (counts as practise!)"

[PhoneLobster]

Well, conceivably, a character sheet could just have a box or boxes for hashmarks

Or that might be exactly the administrative crap that Frank pretends is the only thing stopping him from doing this. It is ALSO not an approach to character advancement born out of a desire to insert interesting organic influences but born out of an obsessive compulsion to simulate what some idiot somewhere sees as an accurate model of human learning.

Conceivably monsters and other challenges would give out experience points and the skills you would get with those would say "Cold Resistance Cost: 1 XP from a challenge that deals Cold Damage ; You have proven your spectacular resistance to cold based stuff, huzzah.".

And even then prices will have to be low, probably usually just 1 point, and experience would have to be spent pretty much on the spot so character sheets don't have to record 24 flavors of XP after a short trek through the ice wastes.

But you could have that, and when you defeat the Brawny Ice Troll everyone immediately spends 1 point of XP on Cold or Brawn related junk, and when you climb the Ice Cliffs everyone immediately spends 1 point of XP on Cold or Agility related junk, etc...

That sort of thing is doable, not overtly complex, exploits the advantages of table top RPGs and fits very well as a comparison to treasure acquisition.

Now the question THEN becomes "should you do this", "what does this even do?" and "should you demand 100% of character advancement does this?".

And really the results of most 100% "practical learning" systems, (especially those TERRIBLE "boxes and hash marks" systems) are one of the worst things about them. The effects on game balance, specialists vs generalists, player input into the story, the nearly compulsory encouragement to game the system to get ANYTHING done, etc...

[K]

Honestly, most skills should be stat checks while the rest should be given away for free whenever there is an excuse to do so.

We've had this argument before and I still stick to the belief that skill systems are being used to force a roll for boring things (Climb checks, I'm looking at you) or are simply mechanics for flavor's sake (Knowledge checks).

You could just give way ranks in Airship Repair to PC working crew on an airship and don't make it into a trap option where people are losing ranks in something important like Hide.

[Swordslinger]

People actually really like the way experience based skill advancement ends up. Rune Quest, Burning Wheel, and World of Warcraft all get a bunch of mileage out of the learn by doing system. I think it is bad fit for tabletop because it is too much paperwork, not because it is disempowering or unrealistic or even unpopular.

I've never found the learn-by-doing system to ever be a good thing anywhere I've seen it. Not in Elder Scrolls, Not in WoW, and certainly not in anything tabletop. It's tedious and boring.

Miraculously I agree with lobster on this one. In every kind of game where skills go up from use, gaming the system always seems to be a natural consequence.

Anyone remember having to constantly cast those custom cantrips in Oblivion to raise your magic skills? Because I do and it was a pain in the ass. Everywhere you went, you were spamming that stupid 1 mana cost spell that slightly fatigues you or makes visible light for a second or something equally stupid. You had to always be jumping to boost acrobatics and athletics seemed to randomly go up from you running around. And you did all that crap because seriously, why the fuck not. While you're walking form place to place, you could be gaining XP so long as you mash that button.

In a tabletop you can't even do that, because your friends want to do other stuff than have you run around town randomly breaking into houses to practice picking locks or randomly stealth from townspeople for an hour to buff your sneak. And it's not that your character may not do those things, but if he does, it's off camera and something that's part of a training montage. The fact is that you're not going to do everything while on camera, nor do PCs actually want to.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think you're missing the point, which is that being able to unilaterally declare that you get a cool morningstar rather than a neat sword is not really different from being able to unilaterally declare that you learn icicle spear rather than fire blast.

And all y'all who even consider making a table top RPG work like an Elder Scrolls 3 clone have gone full retard. That was a shitty way to do experience-dictated advancement even for a computer in the early '00s. At the very least, TTRPGs are not set up for that kind of bookkeeping and mathematical fappery.

[Swordslinger]

I think you're missing the point, which is that being able to unilaterally declare that you get a cool morningstar rather than a neat sword is not really different from being able to unilaterally declare that you learn icicle spear rather than fire blast.

That's not true at all. One option fast forwards the story, the other option actually edits it.

Allowing training montages instead of actually forcing them to use it during an adventure is a lot different than actively altering treasure you find in a dungeon.

A proper analogy would be allowing PCs to buy equipment out of the book instead of forcing them to roleplay interactions with shopkeepers.

Having training montages does not change the world at all, it just means that the two hours you spend hacking on a training dummy aren't actually RPed out.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Honestly, most skills should be stat checks while the rest should be given away for free whenever there is an excuse to do so.

We've had this argument before and I still stick to the belief that skill systems are being used to force a roll for boring things (Climb checks, I'm looking at you) or are simply mechanics for flavor's sake (Knowledge checks).

You could just give way ranks in Airship Repair to PC working crew on an airship and don't make it into a trap option where people are losing ranks in something important like Hide.

That sounds fine. If finite PC resources are not being spent when Mister Cavern mandates that everyone now knows how to build an igloo, I don't have a problem.

[Username17]

I think it important to note that After Sundown actually does use a system of skill advancement in which potential advances are presented to the party at random and players bid on getting them. Which works fine.

It's based on a system Josh made, and it works.

-Username17

[Swordslinger]

I think it important to note that After Sundown actually does use a system of skill advancement in which potential advances are presented to the party at random and players bid on getting them. Which works fine.

I'm curious. How does this work?

[Username17]

I think it important to note that After Sundown actually does use a system of skill advancement in which potential advances are presented to the party at random and players bid on getting them. Which works fine.

I'm curious. How does this work?

You draw cards that correspond to certain upgrades. Many cards give you a choice of upgrades (for example: increase your choice of Physical Skills by 1). Players have advancement tokens that they can use to auction the cards, one at a time. They can save tokens from one auction to the next, so that if someone doesn't see anything they want in one set of cards, they can overbid on something they feel they need in the next batch.

It's pretty fast.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

People actually really like the way experience based skill advancement ends up. Rune Quest, Burning Wheel, and World of Warcraft all get a bunch of mileage out of the learn by doing system. I think it is bad fit for tabletop because it is too much paperwork, not because it is disempowering or unrealistic or even unpopular.

I've never found the learn-by-doing system to ever be a good thing anywhere I've seen it. Not in Elder Scrolls, Not in WoW, and certainly not in anything tabletop. It's tedious and boring.

Miraculously I agree with lobster on this one. In every kind of game where skills go up from use, gaming the system always seems to be a natural consequence.

Anyone remember having to constantly cast those custom cantrips in Oblivion to raise your magic skills? Because I do and it was a pain in the ass. Everywhere you went, you were spamming that stupid 1 mana cost spell that slightly fatigues you or makes visible light for a second or something equally stupid. You had to always be jumping to boost acrobatics and athletics seemed to randomly go up from you running around. And you did all that crap because seriously, why the fuck not. While you're walking form place to place, you could be gaining XP so long as you mash that button.

In a tabletop you can't even do that, because your friends want to do other stuff than have you run around town randomly breaking into houses to practice picking locks or randomly stealth from townspeople for an hour to buff your sneak. And it's not that your character may not do those things, but if he does, it's off camera and something that's part of a training montage. The fact is that you're not going to do everything while on camera, nor do PCs actually want to.

The learn by doing system in Morrowind and Oblivion works best is you consider it a supplement to the learn by spending massive amounts of gold system, rather than a primary system in and of itself. I find that if you rely on trainers the skill advancement you get from using skills is a nice surprise rather than a tedious nightmare.


Anyway, the best way to implement a learn by doing system in a tabletop game is by making it very broad and awarding points per plot-relevant encounter rather than per action.

For the sake of broadness, lets make three categories, sneaking, fighting, and talking. If you go around the encounter the whole party gets a sneaking point, which can be applied to going around future encounters. If you stab your way out of the encounter, the whole party gets a fighting point that can be spent in combat. If you talk your way out of an encounter the whole party gets a talking point that be be used to enhance future diplomacy.

If you're sufficiently flexible with what you allow your players to do, those points are useful for everyone. If, for example, you let the fighter threaten someone with his sword skill (instead of making him take a skill called intimidate) then you can make good use of that bonus to talking his way out of situations without compromising his basic functionality.

[echoVanguard]

We've had this argument before and I still stick to the belief that skill systems are being used to force a roll for boring things (Climb checks, I'm looking at you) or are simply mechanics for flavor's sake (Knowledge checks)..

I was once in a GURPS game where a climb roll literally meant the difference between life and death. We were usually relieved when we were attacked by opponents with deadly weapons, because they were often a lot less dangerous than environmental encounters. We nearly starved to death during a blizzard in the mountains after our mule froze to death and we could no longer carry all of our food supplies.

echo