Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PMI'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. 

None of this is really relevant to what I am talking about.  Take the player I was talking about for example.  There's a scenario set in, say, Providence.  The character gets there and say they are going to a bar.  I want to punch this guy and start a fight.  I succeed.  The question is not what skill they should use.  It's obviously brawl.  The question is whether this counts as a valid use of the skill to get an advancement check. The character used the skill successfully.  By RAW, they should get a check to advance it.  If you allow it, that incentivizes this sort of behavior.  Players will come up with whatever excuse they can to check as many skills as possible as much as possible until they succeed at least once.  Yeah, the GM decides which skill they use but it's not hard at all to describe your actions in such a way as to point to a particular skill.  If you say it's not valid, then this become a constant game of "Mother, may I" while you adjudicate whether this use of a skill is a valid use or not.  I have enough to do while running a game without dealing with this headache. 

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 11:49:38 PMSince 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.

This is where it helps to have a thorough knowledge of the things you're referring to.

In AD&D1e, the DM would assess each player on how well they played the fighter, cleric or whatever, a rating of 1-4. This acted as a multiplier to the cost of the training to level up. So in your example, the fighter could still level up, but it'd take him four times as much as it'd cost for his same-level buddy who'd got the treasure by fighting. If you're a Fighter and you don't fight, you're not a "rogue" (a Thief), you're just a crappy Fighter.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 04:08:03 AM

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 11:49:38 PMSince 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.

This is where it helps to have a thorough knowledge of the things you're referring to.

In AD&D1e, the DM would assess each player on how well they played the fighter, cleric or whatever, a rating of 1-4. This acted as a multiplier to the cost of the training to level up. So in your example, the fighter could still level up, but it'd take him four times as much as it'd cost for his same-level buddy who'd got the treasure by fighting. If you're a Fighter and you don't fight, you're not a "rogue" (a Thief), you're just a crappy Fighter.

That's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

The AD&D 2e Player's Handbook lists Hercules, Percival, Siegfried and Sinbad (amongst others) as examples of fighters. Sinbad, particularly from that list, is described in his fiction as clever and using more cunning to attack his enemies when they are vulnerable and sneaking around.

So, if I make a Fighter that plays like Sinbad, a fictional character described by the book as an inspiration for the class, and I roleplay as the Sinbad in the fiction, then by your logic he is a "crappy fighter".

Imagine if you can only spend weapon proficiencies to specialize in weapons you have used effectively in combat and not in weapons you want to have specialization as a Player for your Fighter character in AD&D 2e. And not just by "starting a bar brawl and using your dagger". No, the GM must approve the usage of those attack rolls as valid for specialization when you get more weapon proficiencies as you level up. It has to be confirmed kills that had "meaning", not just any random kill or else you cannot spend your weapon proficiencies on that weapon.

That Wizard character that is very selective when to use magic because the party is in a theocracy that deems all sort of sorcery as witchcraft and is punishable by death? He can't take his next level in the Wizard class. He used too little magic and too much darts/daggers. It has to be either Fighter or Thief because you can only develop in a class if you use the features representative of that class. Oh, and it has to be in a meaningful way, as well.

That's exactly what gating skill increases behind uses/successes/failures in-game does in skill based games. Specially if the GM has to provide approval to what constitutes a "meaningful and valid" usage of that skill to qualify for an increase.

Another side-effect of needing to succeed at a skill to improve it in CoC is that interactions with NPCs tend to become weird and stilted.  PCs do not talk to NPCs.  They attempt to use interpersonal skills on NPCs.  Everything is framed in terms of the character trying to charm, fast talk, persuade or (less commonly) intimidate the NPC depending on which skill the player is trying to raise.  Also, the PCs question everyone's motive all the time in every interaction because that's a psychology check. 

Quote from: Cipher on May 05, 2024, 11:49:38 PMNot "valid" to use, "valid" to count for increases.

That's where you misunderstand.  There ain't no such distinction if the GM has a spine.  A player does not decide what skills to use.  The player decides what the character does.  If the GM determines that this course of action requires a roll, then the player rolls.  If the GM determines that this course of action does not require a roll, then the player does not.  If playing in a game with RQ-style advancement, then if the GM requires a roll, it counts for advancement, and if the GM does not require a roll, it doesn't count for advancement.  It's very straight-forward, and exactly like a game with some other style of advancement  (other than the accounting tick mark the player makes to note the advancement opportunity).

In the example of starting a brawl (presumably because the player wants to fish for advancement but could be for some more legit reason), there's no difference.  If this is a low-powered character starting a brawl in a rough neighborhood, then the GM may call for a roll or even start a combat that ends up providing many opportunities for rolls.  A character may even get hurt or killed.  There's consequences; so players rolls some skills.

If it's a more borderline situation, where the players aren't in any real danger from the bar patrons, the GM may simply narrate it (no player rolls) or the guard may show up and now there's a different opportunity with consequences.  Depending on how the players react to that, they may get opportunities to fight (but maybe not brawl) or opportunities to talk their way out of the problem (not brawl) or opportunities to escape (not brawl).  Either way, the player doesn't get to roll on brawl, and thus doesn't get to choose their own advancement as a side effect of said GM having a spine.

If it's a high-powered character that loves to go slumming, the character is in no danger, already has an out with the authorities, and probably even the patrons know it is all in good fun.  Barring some special case, such as an assassin after the character and using this slumming tendency for cover, there's no skill checks, because there are no consequences.

Point-buy has absolutely no effect on the above, as does any advancement method.  Because you don't get to go slumming for brawl advancement whether that's for a check or for the more indirect XP.  I've got a few players right at this moment that are (effectively) one fight away from gaining a character level.  They make jokes about stabbing a goblin so that they can level, as they would do in a video game.  It's only jokes, because they know in my games it doesn't work that way.

In other words, once the GM is the proper gatekeeper for what skills to use and which ones have consequences during play, all these advancement shenanigans disappear as an issue.

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.

Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating

[DMG p.86, my emphasis]

Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.

In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.

Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.

Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 06, 2024, 03:52:21 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 05, 2024, 09:02:57 PMI'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. 

None of this is really relevant to what I am talking about.  Take the player I was talking about for example.  There's a scenario set in, say, Providence.  The character gets there and say they are going to a bar.  I want to punch this guy and start a fight.  I succeed.  The question is not what skill they should use.  It's obviously brawl.  The question is whether this counts as a valid use of the skill to get an advancement check. The character used the skill successfully.  By RAW, they should get a check to advance it.  If you allow it, that incentivizes this sort of behavior.  Players will come up with whatever excuse they can to check as many skills as possible as much as possible until they succeed at least once.  Yeah, the GM decides which skill they use but it's not hard at all to describe your actions in such a way as to point to a particular skill.  If you say it's not valid, then this become a constant game of "Mother, may I" while you adjudicate whether this use of a skill is a valid use or not.  I have enough to do while running a game without dealing with this headache. 

My players already get xp for defeating enemies.  Why don't they attack every patron in every bar they enter in order to get xp?  You are either theory-crafting what you think will happen under this system, or you have the worst DM and group of players in the history of RPGs.  Players are not Pavlovian reductionists, at least not in actual games that people really play around a real table.  You need to pull your DM aside and suggest a different hobby, like knitting...

While I generally like the idea of gaining skill through what is effectively practice, there are two very real problems:

• The bookkeeping this adds to the session is pretty darn significant.
• Not all skills or attribute improvements are things you can practically learn on your own. Many things are things you must be taught by someone with far more experience than you do.

It's this combination of the flavor never quite matching what you actually need and the mechanics leaning towards breaking the game that makes me leery of it.

If I am doing custom advancement things, I tend to have tutor characters with quests. You do the quest and the tutor character will teach you something. While I occasionally have to veto combinations which clearly go out of flavor or balance lines, I am generally fine with players asking Tutors to teach them things from different classes, so long as it is something the Tutor would reasonably know and be able to teach them. The progression in the book is what you can do if you have experience without teaching, but if you have some teaching then you can wind up with different abilities.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.

Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating

[DMG p.86, my emphasis]

Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.

In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.

Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.

Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.

I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.

I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.

Quote from: Fheredin on May 06, 2024, 05:16:25 PMNot all skills or attribute improvements are things you can practically learn on your own. Many things are things you must be taught by someone with far more experience than you do.

It's worse than that, but it would be a rare game that cared about the distinctions. There's at least three broad categories of learning situations, even leaving aside all the various stages of childhood development:

- Things that you can learn very fast just by being around them and breathing, though a bit of timely instruction can accelerate the process.

- The typical much easier to learn when taught, even if part of that teaching includes a lot of practical activities.

- The point where you've outstripped the "teachers" and are increasingly reliant on peers, research, and hard thought to make any progress.  Which also typically includes a lot of practical activities in most fields.

Most games are uninterested in the first one, because that's supposed to be assumed in the background before the character started play.  Which is why a lot of games make it either unreasonably hard or unreasonably easy to go from "totally clueless about X" to "mostly incompetent about X".  In reality, it's a weird mix of hard and easy, where a lot of chances to make mistakes with low consequences is very helpful, i.e. something like a moderately protected childhood.  While the exceptions are often bland.  For example, it's not terribly risky to go from "hopeless cook" to "barely incompetent cook", but it does take some work and time, and no one wants to eat the results in the meantime.

The second one is where many game designers think their games live.  Some of them are even correct! 

The third one is the advanced stuff in the game world, which is where the game designers of skill-based systems either throw up their hands and assume the GM will handle it or make such things inaccessible, while the class-based system just gate it all behind XP/levels and try not to think about it too much (which in fairness, is the purpose of XP in such a system.)

This also ignores, of course, that very few named "skills" worth having are discrete things. They are usually a mix of a lot of different skills, learned at different times, in different ways, and then synchronized into an effective activity.

All three of those sources of learning could be easily modeled.

Sometimes an epiphany results in a sudden increase in skill. That could be modeled too. I wonder if crits could factor into that.

The book keeping is annoying though. We normally just do it end of session while it's fresh. People help remind others what skills they used.

I like just a basket of points, though. The reason is that it seems more like a reward than practical and predicable slight increases in skill. It's more like leveling up in level based systems. I think that's an important consideration in games.

Ideally for me then would be a system where you get a bundle of points every now and then and you're allowed to distribute them based on several models of learning that could have happened. That would be perfect except for the book keeping.

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.

Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating

[DMG p.86, my emphasis]

Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.

In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.

Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.

Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.

I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.

I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.

Greetings!

Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 06, 2024, 06:49:37 PM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 05:43:51 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 06, 2024, 09:08:30 AM

Quote from: Cipher on May 06, 2024, 04:54:16 AMThat's your interpretation of what a "crappy fighter is". Many warriors in legends use their wits to overcome challenges and resort to words to solve conflict.

No, that's not me, that's the AD&D1e DMG.

Quote from: GygaxClerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating

[DMG p.86, my emphasis]

Now, you may have some different idea of what a great warrior does, and that's fine. Play whatever commie games you like. But you were saying, "Since you guys seem to love d20 games, let's use that as an example." And the original d20 game is AD&D1e, which contradicts what you said.

In AD&D1e, fighters who fail to fight do not become "rogues" (they're called thieves), they are simply crappy fighters, and find it costs more money and takes longer to level up as fighters.

Again, you may or may not think that's a good way to run things. But that's the way AD&D1e runs things. If you're going to speak authoritatively about the way particular games do things, then you have to actually know what you're talking about.

Know whereof you speak, or speaketh not.

I never spoke "authoritative" about AD&D 1e, that's you trying to make a straw man about my argument. You were the one talking about AD&D 1e.

I showed what the player's handbook of AD&D 2e lists as the inspirations of the Fighter class, Sinbad is one of those inspirations. According to AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, your idea of what a "crappy figther" is wrong. So, you 'speaketh not'. What I said about that is 100% in line with AD&D 2e. If you want to have an edition war of which version of D&D is more truer D&D than the other, you can do so you on your own.

Greetings!

Hello there, Cipher! Indeed, throughout the AD&D 1E years, in my experience many gamers more or less interpreted the AD&D 1E game and rules as largely creating simplistic, one-dimensional characters. With the introduction of WFRP 1E, and the presentation of AD&D 2E, there was much more emphasis and focus on creating broader characters. More skills, more depth, more and different interpretations. Old grognards seldom like to admit AD&D's perceived flaws, but the fact is, by 1985 and onwards, there was a huge demand for richer, more complex characters. 2E AD&D was certainly seeking to lean into that era's new zeitgeist, and a spotlight on such characters as Sinbad was one such example. Perfectly valid, but at the same time, it can be seen how 1E had a more simplified focus. As usual, both arguments also flowed from Gygax, on one hand insisting on the more straightforward models, and then on the other hand, celebrating creativity and broader interpretations.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hey, Shark!

I don't mind fighters that just fight. I was specifically responding to Kyle's claims that a fighter that doesn't fight is a 'crappy fighter'. A chivalrous knight that only draws his sword when there's no other option or to vanquish the scourge of foul undead is not a 'crappy fighter'. Kyle is the one claiming that if a character that is of the Fighter class uses his wits, cunning, diplomacy and guile to avoid conflict then is a 'crappy fighter', which I disagree.