An alternative to XP

[Alf_the_Often_Incorrect]

I have had a cool concept sitting in my brain for a while, which probobaly already has been used, but I'll post it anyway.

This is an alternative to XP for advancement. It may be a bit too writing-heavy for most streamlined games, but if you're looking for versimilitude, it would be nice. This system assumes a skill and stat-based system.

Each time a character makes a roll, the GM will put a tally in a corresponding column. When there are some number of tallies (whatever seem appropriate to the GM), these are erased, and the skill is bumped up one point. The GM can require training to gain a new skill.

In addition, characters can get special training to learn a more advanced form of their skill when they get their skill level to a certain point (safecracking would be an advanced form of lockpicking, for instance).

This system means more realistic advancement; you get better at lockpicking by picking locks; not killing orcs. But you still get better at killing orcs by killing orcs.

[greyorm]

Welcome to the Forge, Alf!

As you suggest, there are many games which utilize the exact mechanic you have submited for skill-based advancement. I'll leave it for others to list those, but for my part, in case you haven't chanced across them yet, I would point you in the direction of the "Heartbreakers" essays located here: Fantasy Heartbreakers and More Fantasy Heartbreakers, and Mike Holme's thoughts on design and where to begin: Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby!

PS: the link in your .sig leads to an "Unavailable Tripod Directory" page; I found the correct link by checking your member profile, but you might want to fix that!

[Alf_the_Often_Incorrect]

Welcome to the Forge, Alf!

There are many games which utilize the exact mechanic you have submited for skill-based advancement. I'll leave it for others to list those, but for my part, I would point you in the direction of the "Heartbreakers" essays located here: Fantasy Heartbreakers and More Fantasy Heartbreakers, and Mike Holme's thoughts on design and where to begin: Mike's Standard Rant #1: Designers! Know your hobby!

PS: the link in your .sig leads to an "Unavailable Tripod Directory" page; I found the correct link by checking your member profile, but you might want to fix that!

Oh pooh. I was hoping I had come up with something new -.-

Thanks for the tip on my siggy. I'll fix that.

[M. J. Young]

For a slightly different take on the same idea, there's a game that simplifies the record keeping thus: if you use a particular skill in a game situation, at the end of play you get to roll against a probability that it will improve. I'm not sure of the numbers (or of which game it is, to be honest), but if for example you have to roll 1 on a d6 to advance the skill, you will typically advance it one place every sixth time, the functional equivalent of having to use it six times to advance it.

One of the problems pointed to with such designs (which would equally apply to yours) is that it encourages players to try to use as many different skills in a game as they can, thus rewarding diversification over specialization. If in one combat, one character uses his sword all the way through, and another uses his sword, mace, knife, dagger, spetum, and hand axe, the guy who used all six weapons advances faster than the guy who used just the one all the way through. I have yet to see a fix for this, although I expect it would focus on a narrowing of the definition of "use" such that in this example the swordsman would have gained credit for several "uses" but the generalist would have had some of his weapons fall below the level necessary to qualify.

Oh, and just because it's been done before doesn't mean it isn't a good idea that has potential to be used again.

--M. J. Young

[Moah]

I think the first system to use this was Runequest/Basic.

Most incarnations of this advancement system always give you "checks" when you succeed, or alternatively when you fail. I've also seen it with "when you roll a critical (either type).

Which generally leads to the problem that combat skills, being rolled dozens of time for one resolution (one combat) generally rises something like 5 times as fast as any other skill (which are rolled once to solve the situation, and are not generally used for every session).

For these reasons, I tend to favor experience (which i give as I see fit, and certainly not according to how many people got killed, or how much stuff got stolen).

[LoreTG]

The other bad thing with these system types, especially when a skill takes X amount of uses to increase, is simply the amount of book keeping. You always have the players (especially newbies who you are trying to get into the  hobby) who won't mark things down, and then at the end of the night they are saying "Hey does anyone remember how many times I used my 1-handed edged skill?". We tested such a system, along with many variants, for Lore: Uprising and eventually pulled away from it since it was making our relatively 'quick' rule concept really bog down in book keeping.... Some players do like this, and it does really fit well into you more "ultra-realistic" rule mechanics though.

[simon_hibbs]

Which generally leads to the problem that combat skills, being rolled dozens of time for one resolution (one combat) generally rises something like 5 times as fast as any other skill (which are rolled once to solve the situation, and are not generally used for every session).

RuneQuest, and other BRP bsed systems sucha s Call of Cthulhu doesn't have this problem. You can only get one check in any skill per game session, and roll for advancement at the end of the sesion. Skills you use more often will rise faster, but only because you use them in more game sessions, not because you use them 10 times every combat.

As a brakign factor, to increase the skill at the end of the session you have to roll D100 and roll over the skill percentage (usualy you roll the skill percentage or less to succeed). This means you improve your best skills more slowly, so that important skills that are used less often will still improve at a fair rate relative to your best and most used skills, so long as they are occasionaly put to use.

It's possible to abuse this system (the weapons golf-bag approach noted earler), in practice there is actualy little real incetive to do this. Also combat in RQ is very deadly, so there's a strong dissincentive to go through your golf bag to improve weapon skills you're not so good at - doing so can leave you unnecesserily exposed to danger.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Some players do like this, and it does really fit well into you more "ultra-realistic" rule mechanics though.

Not really particularly realistic, however. That is, development rates depend on how much stuff happens in a session. I think that it might be better said that it is interesting as it parallels reality in some way.

The other problem, in addition to the "golf-bag" problem is that the same thing happens in other cases than combat. People really into "gaming" this will have the character in the group with the least experience try things first so that the group as a whole can advance more. That is, if you come to a locked door, the guy nominated to open it isn't the one with the 95% chance to do do, but the guy with the 25% chance. If/when he fails, if the system does not allow repeated attempts (or, at least, doesn't reward them), then the guy with the 95% takes over at that point.

Also, strangely, games like this have to prohibit practice from doing any good in this way. That is, you can't go find a lock and unlock it to get your checkmark, it has to happen in the natual course of play. This is because that otherwise players go off and just practice (and less interesting stuff happens). This is very strange because while, yes, there's some truth to the notion that doing something in the field is more valueable than several practice repititions, learning rarely happens even by one field repetition. You need to have practice as well. (And because of this, most of these systems have a statement that says that characters are always practicing in their "off" time - making development actually an abstraction and again begging the question why not just do advancement in a clearly abstracted way).

So, in the end you have a system that encourages all sorts of odd behaviors that are unrelated to what the game is about in the end (at least this is the case in every game like this that I've seen). If the players ignore the system, and just play straight, then the question becomes why bother to have the system at all?

Innovative for 1978, but not the state of the art, IMO.

Mike

[LoreTG]

Actually I totally agree with what mike is saying. I think I mis-represented what I was getting at in my previous post. Instead of insinuating that this created a more "realistic" rule set, I really meant to get at the fact that many players look at this as the more realistic method. It has never been a favorite of mine due to the inherit system oddities that Mike expertly pointed out.

[Ben Morgan]

What Alf proposed is more like the Improvement Point system in Cyberpunk, at least the way my friends and I played it. The Ref would award a certain # of IP every time you successfully used a skill, and when that number reached the skill level x 10, the skill went up by 1.

The problems with this were twofold:

1. The bookkeeping was atrocious, and far more than I am willing to put up with these days.

2. The Ref was entirely too stingy with the IP (this is more an issue of style). I remember going more than 10 or 15 sessions without raising a single skill (and it didn't occur to me at the time to voice a concern).

That's why I dumped the system last time I ran the game, in favor of one that was far simpler, and actually rewarded the behavior I wanted to see more of in-game (namely, anything that made the story more exciting; or more accurately, crazy gonzo risk taking).

-- Ben

[ErrathofKosh]

How about raising a character's "experience level" or awarding "skill points" or anything similar, based on the amount of game time that has passed.  Any in-game use (not between session) of that skill or whatever, would shorten the amount of time taken to gain that "next level". (Practice in the field is more effective...)

The player would simply tell the GM which skills his character was practicing, studying, etc.  The GM would state the amount of time it took to develop a certain profficiency.  Then again, at the beginning of each session, the GM could determine the amount of time that has passed and move the skill up incrementally, as another option.  Then there is no XP, just the skill or whatever going up.

[M. J. Young]

How about raising a character's "experience level" or awarding "skill points" or anything similar, based on the amount of game time that has passed....

The player would simply tell the GM which skills his character was practicing, studying, etc.  The GM would state the amount of time it took to develop a certain profficiency.  Then again, at the beginning of each session, the GM could determine the amount of time that has passed and move the skill up incrementally, as another option.  Then there is no XP, just the skill or whatever going up.

That's very close to what Multiverser does. The primary way to improve skills is to practice them; that requires that the player define which skills are being practiced, how practice will proceed (e.g., when, how long, by doing what). The referee has basic guidelines for how much practice is needed to raise a skill (it becomes more difficult as the skill gets better), and periodically a practiced skill improves.

It applies to attributes as well. If you work out, there is a game time factor for how long it takes to get stronger, assuming you're working out at least a certain amount.

It also allows skill improvement for "new use"--if in the field you use a skill in a manner or situation that is significantly different from anything you've done before, that will boost your ability.

Skill improvement can be accelerated in a number of ways, most notably by having a trainer who knows what he's doing supervise your practice.

It works well in the Multiverser context; there are no experience points and no rewards. On the other hand, one thing that supports it is that the players frequently are on completely independent time lines. If Joe wants to take a year to go to college and improve his education level while learning new skills, that doesn't impact Bob's play at all, as he can be doing something entirely different during that time.

--M. J. Young