Max-out skills at 100%?

[frogspawner]

I never liked Traveller, or superhero-type games. Perhaps I'm just discovering why.

People who really don't want progression don't have to use the rules for it. But those rules should exist (and work!), for the benefit of the rest of us.

 

[Adept]

For me, the character is the thing, rather than any particular episode they take part in. Progression is necessary, or there is no point. It doesn't have to be quick - and indeed it shouldn't be - but it should be possible.

PS: The dream is that you are steering your character towards glory, hero-, even superhero-dom. And for that you need progression. (Beyond 100% too...)

"The character is the thing" indeed, but what has that got to do with skill progression? To me the phrase means immersing myself in the character. I wish to experience a different life, in a different world.

Many of my characters also achieve great deeds. I like to think they have more to do with determination and courage, than the fact that my character has reached 20th level and is now capable of epic deeds.

My character Ravin, in a Kulthea* game started out as a very skilled 40+ year old mercenary. He has gone on to do great deeds, but for the most part his skills haven't changed that much.

*Kulthea, aka Shadow World is a high fantasy setting.

 

[canology]

My character Ravin, in a Kulthea* game started out as a very skilled 40+ year old mercenary. He has gone on to do great deeds, but for the most part his skills haven't changed that much.

*Kulthea, aka Shadow World is a high fantasy setting.

Well, most beginning characters aren't "very skilled 40+ year old mercenaries". To get to the point where he was "very skilled" did he not improve from when he was a young, inexperienced recruit? Even if that was before he was a character, the concept of his improvement is implied in your description of him.
So if you can improve prior to play, why not after play starts?

 

[weasel_fierce]

In Traveller they were

It depends on the scope of the game too. If your campaign is 10 days of frantic investigation to stop an evil plot, or a military campaign for a specific city, then there'd be no meaningfull skill gains.

 

[canology]

OK, in a game like that (10 days of investigating, or a specific military mission), I would agree that there is no real need for skill improvement.

I was under the impression, however, that we were discussing longer, more "epic" campaigns that last over several game years. In a game like that, I think improvement is both logical and fun.

 

[weasel_fierce]

OK, in a game like that (10 days of investigating, or a specific military mission), I would agree that there is no real need for skill improvement.

I was under the impression, however, that we were discussing longer, more "epic" campaigns that last over several game years. In a game like that, I think improvement is both logical and fun.

Oh ,definately

We were propably just talking past each other.

 

[Adept]

My character Ravin, in a Kulthea* game started out as a very skilled 40+ year old mercenary. He has gone on to do great deeds, but for the most part his skills haven't changed that much.

*Kulthea, aka Shadow World is a high fantasy setting.

Well, most beginning characters aren't "very skilled 40+ year old mercenaries". To get to the point where he was "very skilled" did he not improve from when he was a young, inexperienced recruit? Even if that was before he was a character, the concept of his improvement is implied in your description of him.
So if you can improve prior to play, why not after play starts?

This is played in Hârnmaster, and sure, he has still improved later, but it was in pace that seemed real. It took years (and learning from & facing master swordsmen) for him to develop his swordplay to 90+

I'm just trying to illustrate that the "local lad makes hero" is not the only story possible. And if one moves away from starting characters who are green recruits, one can begin to see "experience" quite differently.

I played in an excellent near future (cyber without the punk) game that was run on GURPS. The game centered around investigative journalism on a grand scale. The characters were quite impressive, and well able to take care of themselves.
GURPS is very traditional in that experience is given easily and plentifully. That became really annoying really quickly. When a competent and dedicated 30 year old suddenly starts to become super skilled in a few months (because of game session experience) the suspension of disbelief really starts to suffer. It certainly did with me, and the rest of the gaming group. I think we solved it by reducing the experience gain to 1/10th of what is recommended in the books.

 

[Adept]

For the record, I love campaign play. I have many characters that have been played for five years or longer of real life time, and decades (or even centuries) of game time.

This, more than anything, has led me to love realistic (slow) experience systems, and even systems where a character's skills can go down when they aren't actively maintained.

 

[canology]

For the record, I love campaign play. I have many characters that have been played for five years or longer of real life time, and decades (or even centuries) of game time.

This, more than anything, has led me to love realistic (slow) experience systems, and even systems where a character's skills can go down when they aren't actively maintained.

It sounds like we are more in agreement than I first thought.

Skill degredation is something that I am a big fan of (my players aren't always so enthusiastic, however...)
And one of the very nice things about a percentage based system is the ability to fine tune said degredation, to say -1% per month a skill isn't practiced (that was off the top of my head, not neccesarily a suggestion). Unlike, say GURPS where a -1 to a skill is a large drop.

 

[atgxtg]

BB,

If you are going to cap off non combat skill at 100%, might I suggest the old RQ exception for Lhankhor Mhy Runemasters?

Ot maybe using the Ki skill idea from RQ2's Land of the Ninja, where characters who master a skill can start to increase their critical chance?

Isn't the latter the same as allowing the skill to go over 100%, and calculating the critical range based on the real skill but only treating skills over 100% as 100%?

Not quite. With Ki skills, the character actually improved the critical chance semi-independently of the skill score, so ti was possibly to have (in RQ3) a 120% skill and a 15% critical chance. Ki skills had certain restrictions, requirements (like Magic point costs) and were more difficult to raise (in MRQ terms an advanced skill needed a new improvement system).

I had considered using the Ki skill system for Agents of Law in the eairly editions of Strombringer to help offset the magic advantage.

Something like th Ki skills could be useful for players seeking Rune Status is areas other than combat. It doesn't take long for a begining character to hit 100% in a skill that is part of the core character concept.

I think that if a GM is going to cap skills, then they should cap ALL the skills. it doesn't make sense to me that Healing, speak Language, Spot, Sneak, Swim, and Craft skills are limited, but sword isn't. Then again, I'd prefer using the same skill resolution mechanics for combat and non\combat skills.

 

[Gnarsh]

I'd argue that there are games where progression isnt really important. A lot of superhero games f.x., or games that are intentionally not written for campaign play, f.x.

Certainly. I played a lot of Champions back in the day. It had an experience system, but it was so minimal in terms of character improvement as to be somewhat irrelevant. The difference between the abilities of a brand new superhero and one that had been played for a long time wasn't usualy even noticable (and the "fun" was in playing the characters, not developing them).

But that's not RuneQuest. While we can point to things like armor points, and hit locations, no levels, and a percentage based skill system as being the hallmarks (and at the time unique) features of RuneQuest, it was also the time and experience process that was a signature thing as well. RuneQuest has always had the concept that characters start out young and relatively inexperienced and then gain skills as they get older and do more things. RuneQuest was also somewhat groundbreaking in that it tied this skill gain pretty firmly with time passing. In past games (like D&D) you gained experience points of some sort for "doing things" in a game setting. RuneQuest tied skill increases (it's equivalent to gaining experience points) to time. You used to roll your skill increases once a week, on God day. It also had the idea that characters started at a set age, or could start out older and with higher skills. This was expanded on in RQ3 with the idea of characters having professions and gaining skills over time even when not being actively played. Contrasted with games like D&D where age and level were pretty much unconnected, this was a big deal.


I guess where I'm going with this is that you *can* play RQ and remove/retard skill increases over time (whether via time in a profession or experience on an adventure), and I'm sure you can make it work, and I'm sure you can make it enjoyable. But that's *not* RuneQuest. There's certainly nothing against anyone deciding to play that way, but for a general discussion of how RuneQuest "should" be, I don't think it's a valid idea. The concept of skill based character growth over time has been an intergral part of RuneQuest since it's inception and should not be chucked out IMO.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Im not saying that its runequest, just that an RPG can exist with no mechanical advancement.

 

[simonh]

I guess where I'm going with this is that you *can* play RQ and remove/retard skill increases over time (whether via time in a profession or experience on an adventure), and I'm sure you can make it work, and I'm sure you can make it enjoyable. But that's *not* RuneQuest.

My orriginal comment on this was just that in some specific games, advancement might not be a concern because, for example, the game is set in a very tight time frame, or the characters start off at a very high competence already. Those would still be RuneQuest games.

I agree that one of the hallmarks of RQ has always been the distinctive way it handled advancement, but as I get solidly into middle age, I become less fascinated about playing post-adolescent young bucks kicking about in the wilderness and getting started on the skills ladder. I'd rather play characters that know what they're doing, and are trying to do something that matters in the game world, so my take on this has shifted. I'm realy talking about character geenration though, more than advancement I suppose. The game needs advancement rules, but they're not always necessery.

Having said that, I'm of a training course right now, sending this during my lunch break so I'm not completely fossilized just yet.

 

[Banned Beetle]

Well first off under normal circumstances you've reduced the chance of automatic failure from 5% to 2% (99 & 00). May or may not be a good thing.

I know. Fumble at 00 and failure at 99. Huge advantage to chose after rolling, but this would be a reward for those extremely few who manage to master a non-combat skill.

Second, it doesn't really matter whether you put the spell modifiers before or after situation modifiers, you still have the same problem. Let's say you're trying to whip up a crowd with your Persuasion skill of 95%, the crowd are already angry giving you a +20%, but I'm using Fearsome Din 6 in the background, your success chance will still be 65% rather than 85%.

Good point, what about this then?

"Spells or situational modifiers cannot bring a non-combat skill higher than 95%. The effect of negative situational modifiers and spell are always subtracted before positive modifiers or spells are added."

Finally, you need to define non-combat skills. For example, is Dodge a combat skill? Runecasting?

For the time being I'll treat Dodge as a combat skill. I'll use POW x5 instead of Runecasting skills, but sorcery and divine will not be considered combat skills.

It seems unnecessarily complicated to me, but each to their own

I actually find it kind of simplifying. Not something that will be used often, as non-combat skill above 100% have been virtually non-existent in my games, but removes the potential problems with opposed rolls.

Trif.

 

[Banned Beetle]

BB,

If you are going to cap off non combat skill at 100%, might I suggest the old RQ exception for Lhankhor Mhy Runemasters?

Could you explain that a bit more? Was there a skill cap in the previous RQ with an exception for Lhankor Mhy? I started playing 3rd edition, haven't tried the older ones.

Trif.

 

[Banned Beetle]

We'd most certainly see a preponderance of characters with a whole bunch of "100"s marked on their sheets. Doubly so since MRQ actually reduces the number of core non-combat skills. I have several characters right now that have over 100% in hide, sneak, conceal, scan, search, and listen. Not to mention things like ride, throw, track, jump, climb, etc... Most of which are condensed into far fewer skills in MRQ, meaning the same characters, had they been run under MRQ rules would simply have a sheet full of 100s on just about everything and in far less time...

Without skill category modefiers, the experience gain at high skill levels will be much slower than in RQ3. But if you run a game with the same character for several years of heavy rpg playing, that character would probably have mastered several skills.

This may not apply to everyone, but I think it's incredibly limiting to simply place hard skill level restrictions in your game. IMO, the problem is that you want to start out characters with "decent" skill levels (to avoid the "wiff fest" factor that many players dislike), but that leaves relatively little room between those decent levels and the max level (if you make 100% the max). You could artificially slow down advancement, but now the players will be discouraged that their characters aren't growing fast enough. You could start them with lower skill levels, but now you're back to the "I'm not heroic at all" factor.

I actually like starting with characters with low skills. The world is more lethal and intuitive at those levels.

If you're going to "fix" the problems with dealing with opposed skills, and this fix requires changing some of the core MRQ rules, I just think that everything being equal, coming up with a fix that allows skills to progress over 100% and stay meaningful is better then one that does not.

No math required this way. Simple and easy, which our group needs as some of our sessions include variable amounts of ethanol. :wink:

Trif.

 

[Banned Beetle]

I think that if a GM is going to cap skills, then they should cap ALL the skills. it doesn't make sense to me that Healing, speak Language, Spot, Sneak, Swim, and Craft skills are limited, but sword isn't. Then again, I'd prefer using the same skill resolution mechanics for combat and non\combat skills.

I agree, but I haven't really figured out how I will do it with combat skills. Maybe cap experience, but allowing spells and modifiers bring the skill above 100%. I'm going to use many elements from RQ3 in combat, like 2 combat actions/reactions for most humanoids, possibility to split attacks and parries, etc.

Trif.

 

[yeahgday]

heres my (unfortunately maths heavy skill cap formula...)

final skill = rounded ((((invested skill minus 50)divided by invested skill)times 45)Plus 50)

ok now here is the explanation...

this equation caps skills at 95% (if you want it to cap at 100% change the 45 to a 50.) This is intended to be used when skills are over 50% (it doesn't work at under 50%.)

the invested skill, is the skill calculated using the standard MRQ formulas, and the final skill is the scaled down capped version.

this formula can give some pretty high decimal places, which is cool, because the decimal places can be used for tie breakers (eg. a 52.3567% skill beats a 52.2356% skill in the case of a tie)

the problems with it are...

a) maths heavy
b) do you apply it on the character sheet (save time, but still run the risk of skills going over 100% with modifiers) or do you apply it during play (you can the factor in modifiers, but play is slowed down.)

here are some examples of percentages capped with this system...

51% stays at 51% (it's actually 50.88%)
80% becomes 67%
92% through 95% becomes 71%
200% becomes 84%
1000% becomes 93%

 

[Trifletraxor]

Could you explain when and how you would use it?

SGL.

 

[yeahgday]

Could you explain when and how you would use it?

SGL.

that bit depends on how much time your willing to sacrifice in order to cap. if you want to only sacrifice the minimal time to this system then the skills on your charactor sheet might look something like this:

acrobatics DEX 81% (67%)
athletics STR+DEX 123% (77%)
boating STR 46% (46%)

...etc...

the first value is what gets calculated and what you spend experence on. the second value is what you get after you use the formula that I put forward in my previous post, this is the value that gets used in play, under this system, somone who was also wearing a chainmail shirt (20% penalty) would have an acrobatics of 47% and an athletics of 57%

the second option which takes more time is to calculate these values on the fly, so with the above examples with the chanmail shirt again, acrobatics would be 81-20 = 61, scaled = 58% and the athletics would be 123-20 = 103, scaled = 73%

as you can see the second option is better chance wise, and imposes less of a penalty, but if half way through an adventure somone picks up some plate mail, everything gets re-calculated.

hope that helps (Im hopeless at explaining things)