Any change to the Experience system?

[Durand Durand]

Does MRQ make any changes to the Experience System of RQ? That was something we always thought needed review. The better your skills got, the faster you progressed, with poor newbies out in the cold, and people with 50%+ skills rocketing up to 90%. Experience then stalling at very high levels of 100%+.

I'd seen one system where exp checks were awarded for crits and failures, resulting in a higher and faster increases at low levels, and stalling 95%+. Also, increases were only max 1-2% unless you also trained, so progressing quickly required training and instruction. This second part I really quite liked, as it encouraged PC's to actively train for fast immprovement rather than rely purely on checks.

Any word? Any changes?

DD

 

[atgxtg]

I recall one RPG where you actuall got more xp to a skill for failures and fumbles as opposed to success. The idea behind it was that if you fumble you sword in the middle of combat and lived you would probably remeber it and learn something. On the other hand a guy who manages to easily cut down all his opponenets probably didn't.

It was an interesting concept.

 

[Steve B]

One of my favorite sayings:
"Good judgment comes from experience and most of that comes from poor judgment."

I am in total agreement that many times the best lessons are learned from failing.

 

[atgxtg]

That which does not destroy you makes you stronger.

It's just the not gettting destroyed that's the tough part. :shock:

 

[andakitty]

I think you have it reversed. It is the higher your skill gets the less chance you have of getting better, the lower the skill the more chance. The phrasing was a little confusing sometimes, but essentially you subtract your present skill from 100 and roll that number or less on percentile, in RQ. Other BRP games simply have you roll higher than your present skill to advance. Either way your chance to succeed shrinks, the higher the skill.

 

[SteveMND]

I think you have it reversed. It is the higher your skill gets the less chance you have of getting better, the lower the skill the more chance.

I think what he meant was that at low levels, you're almost assured of getting that successful skill check, but you get the opportunity to do so much less frequently. On the other hand, at higher skill levels, you may have a small chance to make the skill check, but you have a far larger number of successful uses to prompt those checks.

I'm not sure if the larger frequency of successful checks at higher skill levels really outweighs the larger chance of skill gains at lower levels, but I could see how that might be the case with some skills.

 

[wartorn]

...

I'm not sure if the larger frequency of successful checks at higher skill levels really outweighs the larger chance of skill gains at lower levels, but I could see how that might be the case with some skills.

As I understood it that was offset by the fact that once you'd had one success subsequent ones were ignored until you made the skill check

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah, I think the point is that with low skill scores, a character is going to fail more often than not, and so won't get a skill check, and thus no chance for an improvement roll.

Higher skill levels are more likely to make the skill roll, and thus an experience check. Making the imrpovement check is less likely.


After doing a little math, I can see some reasoning behind the argmenent. At the very low and high ends of the % range, the chances of improment are lower that at 50% (the best chance with 50% to get a check and 50% to improve for a 25% total chance for improvement).

Skill Total Improvement Chance
05% 4.75%(5%x95%)
10% 9% (10%x90%)
20% 16% (20%x80%)
30% 21% (30%x70%)
40% 24% (40%x60%)
50% 25% (50%x50%)
60% 24%
70% 21%
80% 16%
90% 9%
95% 4.75%

The chart does get "skewed" a bit by several factors:

1) Some skills, such as weapon skills, get mutiple rolls during a "use" and so are more likely to get the check. This skews in favor of low skill score improving faster, since every encounter will mostly likely result in a skill check.

2) In most version of RQ and it's variants the character can add something to his chance of improvement (RQ3 Category Mod, RQ2 INT bonus). This skews the chart in favor if high skill scores, as the improvement roll becomes easier, desite the greater chance of acquring the skill check.

3) At the very high end, the improvement chance caps off to a flat % (RQ3 Category MOd, RQ2 INT if you are a Rune Level Character). So after a point the improvement chance is the same.

Note how from around 40-60% the chance of improvment doesn't change much. In fact, from around 28%-72% the chance for improvment doesn't vary by more than 5%. It isn't until you reach 75% or so that it really starts to drop.


Hey! You know that lokking at it thins way, we should be about twice as many elf Rune Lords as any other species. Their high INT and DEX translates into a a much higher Attack Bonus, speeding the Elf along in his weapon skills. It improves something like an extra 1% per 10 skill points. Elf Rune Lords would improve much faster too. :shock:

 

[andakitty]

Maybe. Also, you could get training, which tended to get real expensive as the skill improved. What I remember for sure in the RQ2 games I was in was improving fast upto 75% or so (upper limit for training, right?) and then slowing. YMMV, I suppose.

 

[RMS]

I'm curious how MRQ handles experience too. I always liked the BRP/RQ way of handling experience checks. It's simple and logical. However, I agree that it could use some tweeks. In fact, I've never seen anyone who sticks by the system, as written, in 20+ years of playing BRP. There seem to be a thousand variations on automatic skill increases (based on fumbles or criticals generally, and ironically most groups choose one or the other, but argue against the other ). The big one though is awarding skill checks for any skill that's used in a stressful situation, regardless of success or failure. I think every independent BRP group I've seen has used some variation on this procedure, and it makes sense to increase on failures as well as successes.

It also seems like there are a lot of variations on how much a skill should increase. In RQ it was 5% (or 1d6% in RQ3), in Stormbringer 1d10, and many wanting slower progress use the Harnmaster way of only handing out 1% per check (though checks occur more frequently in HM).

 

[andakitty]

For sure, I've always used a mixed bag for experience checks. One thing I tried which worked better than I expected was just assigning an exp. roll per exp. point, of which I handed out an average of half dozen per session. I also had a 'fate point' thing going. The players actually tried to get high skills higher instead of putting the rolls where they were sure to advance, ie lower skills. It was +1D6 per success. I've also experimented with using higher die roll gains for higher skill bonuses. That didn't work so well.

 

[Halfbat]

In MRQ experience rolls get handed out almost like adventure rewards. The player selects a skill for each reward and the improvement is automatically at least 1 but if the (100-current skill) check is made it goes up by a dice roll.

It assumes that characters investigate other things in their own time and explore the avenues in which they are interested rather than just gaining experience from the things they did.

 

[waiwode]

In MRQ experience rolls get handed out almost like adventure rewards. The player selects a skill for each reward and the improvement is automatically at least 1 but if the (100-current skill) check is made it goes up by a dice roll.

It assumes that characters investigate other things in their own time and explore the avenues in which they are interested rather than just gaining experience from the things they did.

Is this instead of Experience Checks or in addition to Experience Checks for successful use of a skill?

One of the most "meta-game" problems of old RQ was player "Check Hunting." If volunteering to jump over a water trough didn't garner a check, they'd jump in combat ... everyone would try to read the Scroll hoping for a language check, etc.

Getting rid of Experience Checks does three things:
A)It slows down Check-Hunting,
B) and it skews this chart:

05% 4.75%(5%x95%)
10% 9% (10%x90%)
20% 16% (20%x80%)
30% 21% (30%x70%)
40% 24% (40%x60%)
50% 25% (50%x50%)

over to this:

05% 95%
10% 90%
20% 80%
30% 70%
40% 60%
50% 50%

; and
C) it puts skill advancement firmly in the hands of the player, instead of a reflection of the player's success at handling the tests the GM throws at them.

I'm happy either way, but I am curious.

Doug.

 

[Urox]

One of the most "meta-game" problems of old RQ was player "Check Hunting."

As someone who's gamemastered and designed a few adventures, Skill Check Hunting was a valuable tool. I would take a specific skill (actually, usually a set of skills), and design an encounter around it, and it would make a nice break between combat and role-playing encounters.

It will be quite disappointing if MQ hands out skill checks like experience points at the end of the adventure.

 

[andakitty]

To you, maybe. The method does work, by itself or (especially) in combination with skill checks. Players I have had love more control over their character's development. I'm lazy these days so I'll probably just use whatever they have written into the rules. MRQ seems to have had some thought put into it, so I'm not worried.

 

[SteveMND]

It will be quite disappointing if MQ hands out skill checks like experience points at the end of the adventure.

True. One of the defining points of RQ that I really liked was the very fact that you didn't get good at skills if you never used them.

 

[waiwode]

As someone who's gamemastered and designed a few adventures, Skill Check Hunting was a valuable tool. I would take a specific skill (actually, usually a set of skills), and design an encounter around it, and it would make a nice break between combat and role-playing encounters.

As someone who ran RQ II and III, and ran a four year Pendragon (the d20 game of the BRP mechanic) campaign I am well aware of the technique, and I must concede your point.

None-the-less, Check-Hunting became a favoured hobby of some of my players.

"I see a merchant? I jump over to him, speak Oogally-boogally, then stand on my hands and haggle over the price of horses."

Doug.

 

[SteveMND]

"I see a merchant? I jump over to him, speak Oogally-boogally, then stand on my hands and haggle over the price of horses."

Heh. To which, as the GM, I would say "Fine, you do so. Of course, none of this is in a stressful or even demanding situation, so no skill checks, but you neatly clear the hedge, ask him if he knows where the library is, impress him with your acrobatics, and then buy a mule for 25 lunars."

I never really found 'skill hunting' to be a major problem in that regard. If a PC wanted to raise some of those obscure skills that he never much used, then the RQIII rules on training and research were more than adequate, IMHO.

 

[Urox]

None-the-less, Check-Hunting became a favoured hobby of some of my players.

As it was in most RQ games I played. My comment was that MQ may have removed one of the more player-friendly mechanics in their XP system.

It almost seems that they've moved more towards the HW/HQ system of awarding points -- I wonder MQ has cost multipliers. (such as 2x for trying to improve a skill you didn't use this session).

Speaking of XP systems -- anyone know if can you still convert $ to % via training in MQ?

 

[waiwode]

It almost seems that they've moved more towards the HW/HQ system of awarding points -- I wonder MQ has cost multipliers. (such as 2x for trying to improve a skill you didn't use this session).

Buried in one of the previews (or maybe a thread here) is a line that Advanced Skills (and I don't really know what that means yet) require two skill improvements to increase. That effectively acts as a multiplier ... although without seeing the rules I can't comment accurately on this.

Doug.