One change that might help: if you roll and fail to advance, the check stays. Checks don't stack, but at least you have a chance to advance it next game session.

Quote from: aganauton on April 29, 2024, 07:36:27 AM@yosemitemike

Case in point, my approach to that player would have been.  "Well, now that you've started the fight, your butt is in jail.  Oh, by the way, you can add a skill point to the 'pick up the soap' skill."

and now the player is sitting there for the entire session and probably complaining the entire time.  That's the sort of solution that sounds good but doesn't really work very well at the table. 

Either that or they argue about how they should be able to get away from the cops et cetera and that takes up a chunk of play time.

I'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.

Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.

Point buy with bonus points for specific skills learned through good roleplay seems like it could facilitate improvement through use with less tracking and mechanic opportunity hunting.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.

Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.

Skyrim is the culmination of this type of improvement. As I said, in theory, you just go by your way and play the game in any way you want and you would slowly improve in a "natural and immersive way" the same ideal that you had when you decided to approach this style of improvement and implement it at the table.

In practice, the Players will start to compete for gold medals on mental gymnastics to create reasons and situations where they get to roll a skill. The bigger the number the skills they use in a session, the higher chances for most increases. That's just a by product of gating improvement after skill usage, skill success or skill failure.

Point buy is essentially this, as the Players will just spend their points on skills they care about or want to improve or make sense for their character to develop, but without the pitfalls of trying to engineer situations to roll the highest variety of skills per session.

As I said in my post (where I mentioned Skyrim), you could go the "rulings over rules" mentality and require GM approval, but then by that point just cut the middleman, and just use point buy requiring GM approval to improve a skill instead of requiring GM approval to add an advancement of a skill you used successfully during the game session.

Either way, it is still boiling down to "point buy, but with extra steps". You don't have to agree with the opinions given, but there's a reason why a lot of us have pointed at these pitfalls.

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 01:04:13 AM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.

Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.

Skyrim is the culmination of this type of improvement. As I said, in theory, you just go by your way and play the game in any way you want and you would slowly improve in a "natural and immersive way" the same ideal that you had when you decided to approach this style of improvement and implement it at the table.

In practice, the Players will start to compete for gold medals on mental gymnastics to create reasons and situations where they get to roll a skill. The bigger the number the skills they use in a session, the higher chances for most increases. That's just a by product of gating improvement after skill usage, skill success or skill failure.

Point buy is essentially this, as the Players will just spend their points on skills they care about or want to improve or make sense for their character to develop, but without the pitfalls of trying to engineer situations to roll the highest variety of skills per session.

As I said in my post (where I mentioned Skyrim), you could go the "rulings over rules" mentality and require GM approval, but then by that point just cut the middleman, and just use point buy requiring GM approval to improve a skill instead of requiring GM approval to add an advancement of a skill you used successfully during the game session.

Either way, it is still boiling down to "point buy, but with extra steps". You don't have to agree with the opinions given, but there's a reason why a lot of us have pointed at these pitfalls.

Skyrim 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...

Quote from: HappyDaze on April 30, 2024, 01:44:19 AM

Quote from: Cipher on April 30, 2024, 01:04:13 AM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.

Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.

Skyrim is the culmination of this type of improvement. As I said, in theory, you just go by your way and play the game in any way you want and you would slowly improve in a "natural and immersive way" the same ideal that you had when you decided to approach this style of improvement and implement it at the table.

In practice, the Players will start to compete for gold medals on mental gymnastics to create reasons and situations where they get to roll a skill. The bigger the number the skills they use in a session, the higher chances for most increases. That's just a by product of gating improvement after skill usage, skill success or skill failure.

Point buy is essentially this, as the Players will just spend their points on skills they care about or want to improve or make sense for their character to develop, but without the pitfalls of trying to engineer situations to roll the highest variety of skills per session.

As I said in my post (where I mentioned Skyrim), you could go the "rulings over rules" mentality and require GM approval, but then by that point just cut the middleman, and just use point buy requiring GM approval to improve a skill instead of requiring GM approval to add an advancement of a skill you used successfully during the game session.

Either way, it is still boiling down to "point buy, but with extra steps". You don't have to agree with the opinions given, but there's a reason why a lot of us have pointed at these pitfalls.

Skyrim 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...

Precisely.

Yosemitemike mentioned an example of someone always trying to start a bar brawl every session to improve on his Brawl skill. That's the last station of the "skills improve as you use them!" train of thought.

And, as I said, sure you could just go and say "nah, you can't start this bar brawl because you are just trying to game the system to get a skill increase".

But, by that point you are now gating progress not behind skill usage in game, but behind GM approval of a valid skill usage in game. So you can just cut the middle men and have all skill increases require GM approval and that's the "point buy, but with extra steps" situation.

The other side of that coin is that the GM gets the buy in from all the Players not to game the system. But then, sometimes they will hesitate because what is considered "gaming the system" what isn't is down to GM approval so it devolves into the "mother may I?" game of "hey, can I use my skill here?".

Improving skills through usage sounds awesome but only in theory. In practice its not because it tries to abstract a part of real life that is just too complex to abstract that way. Skills do not improve with usage, they improve with training, study, discipline and repetition. And none of that is going to be a productive usage of game time after maybe the first few "roleplaying the training sessions".

And then we are right back at point buy. If we just assume that the players will just "use downtime for training/honing their skills" then you can just use point buy and we all understand that's going on.

I am doing a variation of the advancement system in DragonBane.

✦ Did you participate in the game session?
✦ Did you explore a new location?
✦ Did you defeat one or more dangerous adversaries?
✦ Did you overcome an obstacle without using force?
✦ Did you give in to your weakness (optional rule)?

For each of those you can answer "yes" to, you get a check. Players can then roll over the skill on a D20, OR automatically raise 2 skills under 15 by 1 point. Any skill from 15-18 (Max skill level) must be rolled for and only one attempt per skill. This ensures steady progression, gives players options and doesnt cause skill spamming.

To mitigate the players pushing for checks thing, you really do have to come down hard on the mentality of players deciding when they roll.  However, you should be doing this in any system.  It's not good to have, "How do I milk my basket weaving skill to impress the prince," thing whether or not advancement is tied directly to using it or impressing the prince.  It's still being focused on pushing a button on your character sheet instead of playing a character in the setting.

Not saying that some systems can't push this more than others, but it is hardly limited to systems where you need success in skills to advance.  It's only partially a system problem.  It's also a GM spine problem and a player entitlement problem and a "players trained by video games" problem and a "what a player wants and what a player needs to have a good game aren't the same thing" problem.

A big part of the answer is that the GM describes the situation, the player acts by saying what their character is attempting to do, and then the GM describes if a roll is needed, and if so, which one.  If the players sit on the tower all day long and throw rocks at rats to "improve" their throwing skill, then the GM says that's what you do, no roll needed, because there's no pressure or consequences for failure.  So no check for improvement.  If the players want to throw rocks at archers trying to peg them (just being silly or because their ammo is low or because they really do want to improve their throwing skill) then you allow it, call for rolls when necessary.  If one of them gets shot between the eyes with a crossbow bolt and dies, (also possible in a RQ-type game), then that's also what happens.  Sucks to be you, and maybe the next character will pick differently.

No rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 01:07:49 PMTo mitigate the players pushing for checks thing, you really do have to come down hard on the mentality of players deciding when they roll.  However, you should be doing this in any system.  It's not good to have, "How do I milk my basket weaving skill to impress the prince," thing whether or not advancement is tied directly to using it or impressing the prince.  It's still being focused on pushing a button on your character sheet instead of playing a character in the setting.

Not saying that some systems can't push this more than others, but it is hardly limited to systems where you need success in skills to advance.  It's only partially a system problem.  It's also a GM spine problem and a player entitlement problem and a "players trained by video games" problem and a "what a player wants and what a player needs to have a good game aren't the same thing" problem.

A big part of the answer is that the GM describes the situation, the player acts by saying what their character is attempting to do, and then the GM describes if a roll is needed, and if so, which one.  If the players sit on the tower all day long and throw rocks at rats to "improve" their throwing skill, then the GM says that's what you do, no roll needed, because there's no pressure or consequences for failure.  So no check for improvement.  If the players want to throw rocks at archers trying to peg them (just being silly or because their ammo is low or because they really do want to improve their throwing skill) then you allow it, call for rolls when necessary.  If one of them gets shot between the eyes with a crossbow bolt and dies, (also possible in a RQ-type game), then that's also what happens.  Sucks to be you, and maybe the next character will pick differently.

No rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.

Straight up point buy does.

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

Are you 12 years old?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 30, 2024, 01:07:49 PMTo mitigate the players pushing for checks thing, you really do have to come down hard on the mentality of players deciding when they roll.  However, you should be doing this in any system.  It's not good to have, "How do I milk my basket weaving skill to impress the prince," thing whether or not advancement is tied directly to using it or impressing the prince.  It's still being focused on pushing a button on your character sheet instead of playing a character in the setting.

Not saying that some systems can't push this more than others, but it is hardly limited to systems where you need success in skills to advance.  It's only partially a system problem.  It's also a GM spine problem and a player entitlement problem and a "players trained by video games" problem and a "what a player wants and what a player needs to have a good game aren't the same thing" problem.

A big part of the answer is that the GM describes the situation, the player acts by saying what their character is attempting to do, and then the GM describes if a roll is needed, and if so, which one.  If the players sit on the tower all day long and throw rocks at rats to "improve" their throwing skill, then the GM says that's what you do, no roll needed, because there's no pressure or consequences for failure.  So no check for improvement.  If the players want to throw rocks at archers trying to peg them (just being silly or because their ammo is low or because they really do want to improve their throwing skill) then you allow it, call for rolls when necessary.  If one of them gets shot between the eyes with a crossbow bolt and dies, (also possible in a RQ-type game), then that's also what happens.  Sucks to be you, and maybe the next character will pick differently.

No rule is going to completely remove the need for that kind of hand slap from the GM.

This 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.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 26, 2024, 05:42:40 PMThis was a subject matter that was covered on my site recently but one I wanted to pitch on this forum because it's quite possible it's a stupid idea.

I've been recently play-testing with my gaming group a game I've been working on that is something of a cross between The Invisible College meets Hunter the Reckoning original, mechanics and of invisible college, but the themes and lore more inspired by Reckoning.

One 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.

And at the end of every session you tally every skill you rolled with success and roll a percentile equal or greater, it goes up by +1.

This to me seems like it'd have a much more natural skill progression than simply assigning skill points every level up for mundane stuff, you get better at using skills, by literally using those skills.

Interesting mechanic!

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"?

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 29, 2024, 08:42:46 PMI'm going to give this concept a try at my table, given some advice, though it's kind of interesting how many people think it's a not good.

Like this it's either point buy or nothing mentality that doesn't really offer up any sort of alternative, likewise someone using SKyrim as an example sort of utterly missing the point.

Well one thing to try, if you're new to skill based games, don't let the players roll individually outside of combat. All the skill games I've played have a rule that says, instead of individual rolls, the party gets to make one skill check and they can choose who rolls and someone else might give a bonus for helping.

Eg a party of 5 is trying to persuade an NPC. Only one player rolls. If someone wants to help, the rule might state that he can also roll but his success only gives a bonus (eg 10%) to the player doing the actual roll. The number of players who can help is also limited. Only the player doing the actual test can improve the skill.

Lots of people ignore this rule and let everyone make their own roll. Not only does that mess with the chance of success, it also encourages skill-spam rolls.

If you enforce that rule, at least you avoid the egregious cases of all players attempting the roll just to advance.

Anyway good luck and let us know if we were being too negative and you found a good way.