Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 26, 2024, 05:42:40 PMOne of the ideas I discussed and which my players thought was kind of cool was, what if every mundane skill worked like Attainment in Invisible College? mainly what if skills had a range of 0-100, the bonus for skill checks being 1/10th the skill score.

The system in Bushido (Daredevil and Aftermath!) by Robert N. Charrette and Paul R. Hume (FGU) basically is this, except that the 100 (skill value) is divided by 5 (now called BCS or Base Chance of Success) and you roll under for success (ie the Blackjack roll system).

The skill value starts with a base value based on Characteristics (a bit like Runequest, CoC, Mythras etal). The skill value is improved by one week training which gives you around 1 to 7 points depending on if you have access to a school, and dedicate your full time and have one on one etc. After your skill gets above 60 this is halved, not having a teacher/school etc all halve the amount you can get etc.

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.

Are you 12 years old?

How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?

It's right there in the post you originally quoted.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 08:05:20 AM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.

Are you 12 years old?

How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?

It's right there in the post you originally quoted.

Your post doesn't address point buy, at all.

I said as much, but if we use straight up point buy and we also assume that the characters use their downtime to train/research/study to increase the skills they are buying with their points, then there is no need for a GM slap.

Unlike with the approach of "skills require a success in game, but only the skill successes that are approved by the GM or that the GM allowed to be rolled in the first place."

Funny that you called me a "12 year old", yet you are the one throwing a temper tantrum.

Quote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 08:05:20 AM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.

Are you 12 years old?

How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?

It's right there in the post you originally quoted.

Your post doesn't address point buy, at all.

I said as much, but if we use straight up point buy and we also assume that the characters use their downtime to train/research/study to increase the skills they are buying with their points, then there is no need for a GM slap.

Unlike with the approach of "skills require a success in game, but only the skill successes that are approved by the GM or that the GM allowed to be rolled in the first place."

Funny that you called me a "12 year old", yet you are the one throwing a temper tantrum.

No, I'm calling you a 12 year old (with apologies to 12 year olds everywhere) because you didn't think for 2 seconds about what I said before you wrote a 1-line answer.  And despite the back and forth, you still haven't thought about it.  If you did, you'd either know the answer, or you'd at least have a better response. 

My replies since then have been short because I'm mirroring your effort.  If that comes off as a temper tantrum to you, then again, apologies to 12 year olds everywhere.   

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 06:07:46 PM

Quote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 03:01:35 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 01, 2024, 08:05:20 AM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMStraight up point buy does.

Are you 12 years old?

How does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?

It's right there in the post you originally quoted.

Your post doesn't address point buy, at all.

I said as much, but if we use straight up point buy and we also assume that the characters use their downtime to train/research/study to increase the skills they are buying with their points, then there is no need for a GM slap.

Unlike with the approach of "skills require a success in game, but only the skill successes that are approved by the GM or that the GM allowed to be rolled in the first place."

Funny that you called me a "12 year old", yet you are the one throwing a temper tantrum.

No, I'm calling you a 12 year old (with apologies to 12 year olds everywhere) because you didn't think for 2 seconds about what I said before you wrote a 1-line answer.  And despite the back and forth, you still haven't thought about it.  If you did, you'd either know the answer, or you'd at least have a better response. 

My replies since then have been short because I'm mirroring your effort.  If that comes off as a temper tantrum to you, then again, apologies to 12 year olds everywhere.   

I did read your answer. You are boiling it down to "GM Fiat", I've already replied about that on this thread. You still haven't made your case on how straight up point buy requires GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.

Because you can't. And that's why I answered that, because you said:

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 01:07:49 PMNo rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.

And that's why I replied:

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 08:36:49 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 07:15:13 PM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 06:30:20 PMHow does straight up point buy requires the GM to "grow a spine"?

So, clearly, the one not putting an effort is you who resorted to flinging poo instead of engaging in the discussion.

As such, the answer remains, this system is just point buy with extra steps and straight up point buy solves the problems that arise with that system in ways that do not require GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.

Alright, here's a hint.  Your identification of the problem is faulty.  If avoiding GM Fiat was the only problem, you'd be correct.  However, not only is it not the only problem, it's not problem at all. 

There's this issue with questions like this where people drill down to the lowest level, apply a "fix" at that level, and pay no attention to the larger context.  Whereas when you zoom out and identify the real issue, it turns out the low level stuff goes away almost effortlessly.  It's failing to see the forest for the trees thing. 

Don't get me wrong.  There are real issues with RQ-style advancement, and some of them are in the details (exactly what depending on the version of RQ in question).  This just isn't one of them.

Quote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 10:20:54 PMAs such, the answer remains, this system is just point buy with extra steps and straight up point buy solves the problems that arise with that system in ways that do not require GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.

Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.  Where do the points come from in the point buy system?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 02, 2024, 04:24:03 PM

Quote from: Cipher on May 01, 2024, 10:20:54 PMAs such, the answer remains, this system is just point buy with extra steps and straight up point buy solves the problems that arise with that system in ways that do not require GM Fiat/Slap/Spine.

Sorry, but I'm not following the logic here.  Where do the points come from in the point buy system?

Depends on the type of game.

You could do killing things like 3E D&D. You could do gold/treasure. You could go by goal completion. Passage of in-game time (1XP every day or 1XP every week, etc.) You could even just give them a specific amount of points every session just for surviving.

In their newest edition, Savage Worlds gives advancements every session, or even in the middle of the session for one shots. But, in the Deluxe Explorer's edition, which is the previous one, the GM awards a number of XP points.

The difference here is that you either get XP/Advancements or you don't and if you do then you decide how to spend that XP or what advancement to take. So, there's no need to come up with in-game situations to roll for skills to chase that success. And, the GM doesn't need to vet those ideas out. Once the style of advancement is established, let's say we go the ACKS route of XP equals treasure, then the players are motivated to gain treasure for advancement, not to try to eek out just another usage of a skill they haven't used this session to get another increase.

GURPs 4e also just goes the route of getting Character Points (XP) for the players to use freely. Streets of Peril has detailed guidelines on how much XP the characters get every session, the more you pursue your character's goals or help another character to pursue their goals, the more XP your character gets.


Now, if the argument is: "Well, the GM also decides how much XP you get, so its the same" that's not really true. Let's use D&D 3e:

If you are level X and you kill a monster that is CR Y, you get Z amount of experience points. Sure, the GM can just ignore the rules and do whatever he wants, but that's going against the specific system set in place by the rules.

Whereas, in a game where skill successes grant increases, then the Players are the ones trying to follow the rules but because their increases are tied to skill usage then they will try to use the skills to get those increases. In the same manner of why WotC D&D is all about combat, since combat is the thing that grants experience points and thus character advancement.

With a straight up point buy system, the GM decides how many points to give, or if the player characters even get points at all after the session. But, once the points are given, then the player is free to spend them and develop his character as he sees fit. In that sense, there is no need for GM Fiat/Spine/Slap in the middle of the game vetting the Player's ideas or their usage of skills. There is no need for that, since it is not tied to actually rolling a success in game. As I said, the table could just agree that the characters use their downtime to study/practice/research and then the XP usage is reflected to that.

The GM could even make the ruling of: "You will get XP during every session, but you can only spend it once you are back to safety and spend some in-game time (downtime) developing those skills". Or go for a milestone approach and then give a sizeable amount of XP after an adventure is over and thus the in-game time progresses before the next adventure and during that downtime the players spend their XP. There are many ways to approach this since a lot of games use point buy and most of them have their own rules on how/what gives XP and many using the "XP every session" model.

The difference here is at no point are the players in any need to come up with ideas to justify rolling for skills. Gating increases to skill successes means that the higher variety of skills used each session yields the biggest advancement, nudging the players to try to roll as many different skills as possible each session.

In the same manner as only granting XP for killing creatures. That doesn't mean players won't opt for other options besides combat, but they do so by relinquishing their character's developing their skills/powers/earning levels.

As such, straight up point buy doesn't require GM moderation during the game in ways that gating skill increases behind skill usage/failure/successes does.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 28, 2024, 09:24:31 PMHaving played a few d100/BRP games, I don't like this form of advancement. Others have pointed out several problems, chief among which, IMO, players will find any excuse to use certain skills just so they can advance.

This is where competent GMing comes in. "A roll is required only when you are challenging your skill. Using your skill when it's not relevant is not challenging your skill. It's practice. We have a separate game mechanic for that."

The mechanics can be something like: a skill used during an adventure may improve by 1d6; one used in practice may improve by 1d6-2 (ie may actually go backwards, you learned the wrong lessons). Practice takes (say) 3 months of an hour a day. In either case you must roll over your current skill level to get any improvement. And so you have diminishing returns over time. Honestly, this is probably the most realistic representation of how real-world skills improve.

Of course then there's the issue of how many skills you have, and how broad they are, and whether you have narrow skills in one area (eg combat) and broad skills in another, and so on. Nonetheless, the basic guideline of, "you only roll the dice when using a relevant skill," is a fair one.

You can't go, "As I come into the melee, I'm going to do a backflip! Let me test Acrobatics so I can improve it!" Acrobatics is irrelevant. "You move into melee. No roll required." Or if the player was really insistent, "Alright, you can do a backflip into combat - but if you fail, the enemy gets a free attack on your at +20% which you cannot parry or dodge." Now the use of Acrobatics becomes relevant.

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 30, 2024, 01:44:19 AMSkyrim in practice: Constantly cast the same spell as often as mana allows until you max the category. Repeat with spell from another category. Never stand up straight--crouch at all times until your stealth hits max. I could go on...

I played Skyrim for literally hundreds of hours before I got tired of it.  I never did any of that.  Simply because it's not fun, it's tedious, and the only reason I play games is for fun.

It seems likely the same would be true in an RPG.  If you have players who want to twink the rules for an advantage even though it eats up a lot of time with boring stuff, they're going to find a way to do that regardless of system.  No system is perfectly proof from this kind of stuff.

Quote from: Mishihari on May 04, 2024, 11:06:34 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 30, 2024, 01:44:19 AMSkyrim in practice: Constantly cast the same spell as often as mana allows until you max the category. Repeat with spell from another category. Never stand up straight--crouch at all times until your stealth hits max. I could go on...

I played Skyrim for literally hundreds of hours before I got tired of it.  I never did any of that.  Simply because it's not fun, it's tedious, and the only reason I play games is for fun.

It seems likely the same would be true in an RPG.  If you have players who want to twink the rules for an advantage even though it eats up a lot of time with boring stuff, they're going to find a way to do that regardless of system.  No system is perfectly proof from this kind of stuff.

Skyrim is a one-player game. What one player considers fun is all that matters. Most tabletop RPGs have multiple players, and often they have different views of what is/is not fun. Best case, those closely match, but even then they won't be identical. You may find that some players find their fun in "beating the system," and yet they might still be fun to play with.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.

Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.

I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.

Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.

I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.

This is exactly why I dislike this style of character advancement. Might as well just turn it into the GM telling the players which skills they can use XP on to advance or which skills get an increase and cut the middle man of requiring a success in game if at the end of the day the GM is going to be the gatekeeper of what is a "valid use".

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 03:32:16 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.

Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.

I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.

This is exactly why I dislike this style of character advancement. Might as well just turn it into the GM telling the players which skills they can use XP on to advance or which skills get an increase and cut the middle man of requiring a success in game if at the end of the day the GM is going to be the gatekeeper of what is a "valid use".

I'm sorry, but what kind of boardgame-adjacent psuedo-roleplaying game are you referring to here?  The DM always determines what skill uses are relevant in an RPG.  In every RPG I've ever heard of, the player describes what he wants to do, and the DM then decides whether a roll is necessary and what kind.  If no roll is required, the DM describes the result, and the process continues.  If a player attempts a trivial action, there's no need for a roll, and no xp accrued (in the kind of system in the OP).  There's no more "mother may I?" than in any other circumstance.

Wait, are you talking about that weird style of gameplay I've heard of where the players announce, "I want to use Perception to see if there is anything hidden on the tablet" or "I want to roll Medicine to see if I can determine what killed him" and then roll whatever skill they declare, while the DM is just there to narrate what happens every time the players roll?  I've heard of that, but never seen it in action (sounds stupid and horrible!).  Not sure I would ever purposely devise an argument based on that kind of terrible gameplay.

So, I need you to lay out, preferably as an example of play, as to when the player would be "attempting" a skill that was not a "valid" use.  Because at all of the tables I'm familiar with players don't "attempt skills."  They describe what they are trying to do, and the GM determines what skill rolls are necessary.  Looks like just another example how WotC (via 3e and 4e) completely destroyed the definition of roleplaying game...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PM

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 03:32:16 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 05, 2024, 09:54:29 AM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 30, 2024, 08:17:41 PMThis was a very concise and thoughtful answer, and dispelled an assumption that many others were making, that the GM themselves is not somehow a filter.

Any rule or system you devise will break or not work if you throw it at the right kind of munchkin player, regardless.

I have things to do while running a game other than playing "Mother, May I?" with players over what is a valid use of a skill for advancement.

This is exactly why I dislike this style of character advancement. Might as well just turn it into the GM telling the players which skills they can use XP on to advance or which skills get an increase and cut the middle man of requiring a success in game if at the end of the day the GM is going to be the gatekeeper of what is a "valid use".

I'm sorry, but what kind of boardgame-adjacent psuedo-roleplaying game are you referring to here?  The DM always determines what skill uses are relevant in an RPG.  In every RPG I've ever heard of, the player describes what he wants to do, and the DM then decides whether a roll is necessary and what kind.  If no roll is required, the DM describes the result, and the process continues.  If a player attempts a trivial action, there's no need for a roll, and no xp accrued (in the kind of system in the OP).  There's no more "mother may I?" than in any other circumstance.

Wait, are you talking about that weird style of gameplay I've heard of where the players announce, "I want to use Perception to see if there is anything hidden on the tablet" or "I want to roll Medicine to see if I can determine what killed him" and then roll whatever skill they declare, while the DM is just there to narrate what happens every time the players roll?  I've heard of that, but never seen it in action (sounds stupid and horrible!).  Not sure I would ever purposely devise an argument based on that kind of terrible gameplay.

So, I need you to lay out, preferably as an example of play, as to when the player would be "attempting" a skill that was not a "valid" use.  Because at all of the tables I'm familiar with players don't "attempt skills."  They describe what they are trying to do, and the GM determines what skill rolls are necessary.  Looks like just another example how WotC (via 3e and 4e) completely destroyed the definition of roleplaying game...

Not "valid" to use, "valid" to count for increases.

Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example. Imagine a game where your character, a Human Fighter that is level 4 and your character earns enough experience points to reach level 5. However, the GM determines that because your character didn't really spend much time during the game fighting and opted to resolve conflicts with persuasion, rhetoric and other non-combat options, as well as sneaking around monsters and using his wits to decipher how to circumvent traps, then for your 5th level you are not allowed to progress in levels of Fighter and must take a level of Rogue.

That's basically what gating skills behind in-game usage/failure/success is equivalent to in a skill based game. The GM gets to determine which skills are the players allowed to increase.

Gating gaining a new level in a class behind actions related to the features of that class would be unheard of in any d20 style game, retroclone or otherwise.

Some versions of D&D offer bonus experience to certain classes for certain actions, but never gate their progression to those actions in game, meaning as a Fighter you bonus exp for killing monsters but you are not limited to ONLY getting experience points if you kill monsters and nothing else, unless that's the only way to earn experience for every single character, Fighter class or not.

I agree, most people roleplay by saying: "While I am in the balcony, I jump down and try to land in that stack of hay so I can cushion my fall and then follow that bandit down the street!". Is that a skill usage? Something like Athletics or Acrobatics or the like? If not, then what does a character need to do to 'earn' a valid skill roll so that character can potentially gain an increase in that skill?

Whereas, in straight up point buy, that character would roleplay that same action, whether there is a roll or not, a success or failure, that character would get XP/Advancements/Character Points in the same manner as every other character and the Player would decide how to invest to points to develop his character.

Like I said in that very lengthy reply that I posted replying to your earlier question, in straight up point buy there is no point where the GM needs to adjudicate if a skill usage is valid for increase. The players either get experience/advancements or they don't but when the GM decides that the player characters get those, then the Players decide how to use them to develop their characters as they see fit.

The problem me an others have described only exists if you are playing a skill based game and gate the increases for those skills behind skill usage/success/failure in-game instead of allowing the player characters to increase their skills freely. Hence why some others and I have said "this is point buy with extra steps."

If the GM is the gatekeeper of when a Player has declared an action that warrants a roll and thus is eligible for an increase, then the GM is basically gatekeeping what can the Player increase or not. Like I said in my Fighter example.

The idea of a skill based game that progresses through in-game usage sounds cool on paper but in practice it provides little to no value when compared to straight up point buy, which does not fall into those same pitfalls.