De-characterizing Effects of Currency

[Christoffer Lernö]

I've been touching on this in my recent threads. In an attempt to discuss it a little more focuse I start up a new thread here.

Let's start with an example.

I'm making a character, Brighthands. The idea is "Almost Reformed Thief gone Hero". Naturally I pump him up with thieving skills and then the hero fighter adventure kit.

Now, creating Brighthands I will in most sim games be punished for doing so. Even though to all effects the thief skills are nothing but colour (I don't expect them to be useful), I will usually have to pay for them as if they are. In some games they might be cheaper, reflecting that - but I'd still have to pay for them.

No matter what, I will have less points to put into fighting skills than a fellow player making Urk the Barbarian.

Urk doesn't have any other skills than fighting. Urk can fight, very well with a wide range of weapons and he also has fighting talents which makes him even more optimized.

Despite both are supposed to be fighter/heroes, Brighthand starts out with a disadvantage.

Anyway, 20 dungeoncrawls later, the situation varies depending on the system.

1. In a game which only let's you improve skills you use during the adventures, Urk and Brighthand now looks pretty much the same. They become more and more a reflection of their skill rolls than their character concepts. Even Urk becomes less of a barbarian and more of a honed treasure hunting fighting-machine.

For Brighthand, he probably has lost all his initial characteristics as that "Almost Reformed Thief", for aside from stealing from his friends there is little chance to practice those thieving skills.

2. In a game which let's you improve any skill for a cost, I have two choices:

Either I optimize Brighthand as a treasure hunting fighter or I try to stay true to the original character concept. In the former, I'll end up with a character much like in 1), whereas in the latter I'll after a while have a well characterized although compared to say Urk, a very useless character.


This appears in many many games. It's not a big concern in those games where character improvement is rare. The characters simply don't improve too much beyond their initial concept. However, there is the issue of the original concept. Is there a concept or is there simply optimization? Even if it's not as simple as a dungeoncrawl, there are still plenty of ways to optimize, and thus be punished if you choose well characterized characters rather than optimized.

Although a GM might be kind and let a player use their character's "colour" skills more or less often, I don't see that as a solution. The fact is that the game system is working against the characterization if it is rewarding to make optimized characters. There has to be a way to avoid that.

In a way D&D avoids the problem, because of two things: a) there are no skill choices to make and b) all skills improve on level up.

With AD&D that changes of course. At least from what I heard of 3rd ed.

A game with a similar but not the same take would be Palladium's Robotech. Here you get plenty of skill choices made for you after choosing class, but since the "optimal" skills are so few, you have plenty of chance to choose "useless" but characterizing skills to make it a little different. Level up in Robotech and all your skills increase by a step depending on the skill (usually around 5%).

What would I like to see then?

Well, I want a game where the character is firmly grounded in a concept from beginning to the end, and that the game facilitates that and not punishes it.

I'm playing around with ideas of allowing for a huge bunch of "colour skills". These are not traded with for example combat-efficient skills.

In addition, these colour skills also should be increased separately from combat skills.


Sounds good? Well it has already been tried. Rolemaster had primary skills and secondary skills. Primary skills were the optimized adventuring abilities and secondary skills were stuff like fletching and bowmaking and equally only semi-useful skills.

Originally the secondary skills were optional and if you used them you got an extra batch of devpoints to put only on those.

Only that got too complicated and later supplements ended up extending the secondary skills until almost anything conceivable was there. That together with starting to treat primary and secondary skills equally. This was semi successful as you could only increase a skill by two or three steps and originally that was enough for most of what you want.

However as the skills began to increase it really got out of hand. Besides, everyone took pretty much any skill they could  and there wasn't left any "extra colour" feeling to the secondary skills of RM.

Anyway. What I'm saying is: If the same currency is used to buy character in-game effectiveness as you buy character colour, you are going to punish players who come up with interesting characters.

However, separating colour from effectiveness is not always easy, so there has to be a compromise somewhere. I'm suggesting that the compromise shouldn't be put so that the imaginative players suffer for it. That's it.

[contracycle]

Now, creating Brighthands I will in most sim games be punished for doing so. Even though to all effects the thief skills are nothing but colour (I don't expect them to be useful),

Eh?  Why are they useless?  Why doesn't this character do thieving things?

Seems to me you are assuming that "what the game is about" is dungeoncrawling, and its THAT that reduces the relevance of the thiefly skills.  (although, that said, a thief in on of my games managed to assasinate 6 frost giants in succession while lost, alone and on 1hp.)

You then say:

Anyway. What I'm saying is: If the same currency is used to buy character in-game effectiveness as you buy character colour, you are going to punish players who come up with interesting characters.

This is true.  But, I challenge your assumption that thiefly skills are "just" colour; there is no reason that even D&D cannot be a game about a group of thieves, say - or several actual thieves and some muscle.  In these circumstances, the thieving skills are not colour, they are effectiveness.  And lastly, I completely obviate the problem by not asking the payers to pay for either effectiveness or colour, cos I can't be bothered to limit their ideas.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Eh?  Why are they useless?  Why doesn't this character do thieving things?

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. The assumption is that the character is not going to get to use his thieving skills. Or at least the use of these skills will be very minor compared to spending the same point of game-currency on other skills.

Let's assume this is the true for this particular campaign this GM has stated he is going to run.

Actually we could look at a game where everything was about thieving and there was no chance for real fighting and most of the barabarian's skills would similarly be considered "useless" for the sake of illustrating the problem.

This is true.  But, I challenge your assumption that thiefly skills are "just" colour; there is no reason that even D&D cannot be a game about a group of thieves, say - or several actual thieves and some muscle.  In these circumstances, the thieving skills are not colour, they are effectiveness.  And lastly, I completely obviate the problem by not asking the payers to pay for either effectiveness or colour, cos I can't be bothered to limit their ideas.

The point was not about whether thief skills are useful or not. Pick any other skill. Let's say the skill of knowing pi to 10000 decimals. Whatever, it doesn't matter. You could probably come up with a use for that skill too. The point is that there is a problem when this is paid for with currency.

The solution you point out could work in some games, but it wouldn't in say AD&D. Nor does it work in Ygg. There has to be a certain balance and limit to the player efficiency. However, I don't want that to obstruct player use of skills as a means of providing colour.

[contracycle]

The solution you point out could work in some games, but it wouldn't in say AD&D. Nor does it work in Ygg. There has to be a certain balance and limit to the player efficiency. However, I don't want that to obstruct player use of skills as a means of providing colour.

What is it that would not work in AD&D?  I have run all-thief or nearly so games in D&D.

There is no way to work around the central problem: if your players design a bunch of violent psychos, and you send them somewhere that violent psychodom is a Bad Thing, then the characters are not going to be effective.  Obviously.  And yes indeed, they paid for that effectiveness which is now irrelevant.  But so what - thats becuase they're in the wrong story, and either the fish-out-of-water thing is part of the point, and addressed, or it is crap design and problematic.

Soltions:
1) the highly focussed game, ala WoD.  You know who you are and roughly what you are expected to do; your kewl powers support those aims
2) develop each "zone" of effectiveness so that it more than just colour, and design stories/adventures that play to the characters strengths.

The question is this: why would the skill to know pi to a thousand decimals be available to take if it was not relevant to the game?

[Jasper]

I think this just about sums it all up:

The question is this: why would the skill to know pi to a thousand decimals be available to take if it was not relevant to the game?

Chris, I think you're creating your own problem here.  First, you're too hung up on D&D.  From what I've read, I guess Ygg is headed in a pretty similar direction, but still I think you're overworking the example beyond its point of usefulness.  Many of your complaints seem to hinge specifically around how it and one or two other games have failed.  Okay, why do you keep going back to them then?  Use something else as a basis.  There have been games that were more mechanically successful.

Beyond that though, you're making something out of nothing.  You seem to be bemoaning the fact that characters with useless skills are less useful, and how can you prevent this?  This isn't a problem though, but simply a logical truth.  If useless skills exist, players are free to choose them, and they replace useful skills -- yes, those characters will be less useful.  What you need to do is question the assumptions your complaints rest on:

Should your game include useless or less useful skills?

Should players be able to choose to have these skills?

Should these "skills" be treated like any other skills?

It seems to me that if you define a game where thieving is useless in-game but still costs "points" in character generation, that's your own fault ("you" being a general you -- not you, Chris).    Either don't allow useless skills, or don't treat them like useful skills.

[Christoffer Lernö]

What is it that would not work in AD&D?  I have run all-thief or nearly so games in D&D.

This:

And lastly, I completely obviate the problem by not asking the payers to pay for either effectiveness or colour, cos I can't be bothered to limit their ideas.

is what doesn't work in AD&D without changing the premise of the game.

There is no way to work around the central problem: if your players design a bunch of violent psychos, and you send them somewhere that violent psychodom is a Bad Thing, then the characters are not going to be effective.

No you misunderstand. That was not the central problem.

The central proble is say we have two characters, A and B. A is fleshed out, interesting, and averagely efficient. B is onedimensional boring and extremely efficient.

How do we prevent the "fleshed out" from equalling "averagely efficient" and "extremely efficient" equalling "one dimensional and boring"?

If there is currency to be paid for fleshing out the character that will happen.

That is problem 1.

Problem 2: If skills used are easier to improve, how do we prevent that from making the characters increasingly more alike as the story progresses?

[Le Joueur]

Anyway, 20 dungeoncrawls later,

That's your problem right there.  What the hell are "fleshed out characters" doing on a dungeoncrawl?  (By your implication, anything but a 'fleshed-out adventure.)

If you send them on dungeoncrawls, the only thing relevant will be optimized characters.  We're talking unstoppable force/immovable object here.  (Hint; if there is a force unstoppable, then by definition there is no immovable object.)  Either "fleshed out characters" go on 'fleshed-out adventures' or "optimized characters" go on "dungeoncrawls," you can't have it both ways.

To prevent just exactly this kind of misunderstanding (and it is a misunderstanding if the gamemaster creates dungeons and the players 'flesh-out' their characters), we created the Genre Expectations Technique.  With that in place, everyone knows it's a dungeon and no one makes 'fleshed-out' characters, or vice versa.

However, there is the issue of the original concept. Is there a concept or is there simply optimization?

That's pretty much it.  And it has to be the same for both adventures and characters.

What would I like to see then?

Well, I want a game where the character is firmly grounded in a concept from beginning to the end, and that the game facilitates that and not punishes it.

Then don't make a game that supports "dungeoncrawls;" they're irreconcilable.

Actually we could look at a game where everything was about thieving and there was no chance for real fighting and most of the barabarian's skills would similarly be considered "useless" for the sake of illustrating the problem.

Now you're only talking about games where you 'win.'  Obviously, if you want to win, you'll optimize.  'Fleshed-out' characters have nothing to 'win' (except maybe an Oscar).

what doesn't work in AD&D without changing the premise of the game.

That's why you don't play 'fleshed-out' characters in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.  They don't work.

Problem 2: If skills used are easier to improve, how do we prevent that from making the characters increasingly more alike as the story progresses?

Avoid "story progress" that has 'winners and losers;' then no one will have to "optimize" and no one's currency will be "wasted."  Another trick is to have the gamemaster think of what the players want by looking at their character designs.  Really, I went over the whole idea of 'what the players want' in a point-based system back in my Fundamental Particles of Character Class article.

Until you either give up the 'round hole' (dungeoncrawls) or the 'square peg' ('fleshed-out' characters), you're not going to find a way to make them fit.

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

Ok, this thread is going in circles a bit and I think I know why.

PF has brought up a very valid point that is a problem with some games.  Unfortuneately the example he chose to illustrate the point is not a very good one and so people are concentrating on picking apart the example.

So I suggest...forget the thief thing.

One is really being discussed is this:

1) The system offers a game reward (like XPs) for activity X.
2) The character creation system offers ways to minmax character effectiveness to maximize the ability to perform X and get the reward.
3) Players who create such characters generally pass up a lot of the "flavorful" type of character feature in order to concentrate on those features that specifically maximize the ability to achieve X.
4) Players who instead choose to create characters with depth, may enjoy the added depth, but are effectively penalized by the system because they can't accumulate the reward nearly as fast as the min maxed character can.

PF's example focused on the idea of having to pay for a character background that is no longer relevant.  An extreme example of my own:  A game of naval combat in the age of Napoleon.  The PC creates his background as a free farmer who had been in town selling his crop when the gangs pressed him.  If the game requires that background to be "paid for" in some way, it is essentially a hit to PC effectiveness because in the scope of the game there will be virtually no use for a farmers skills, so those points are essentially "wasted".

There are many other examples (Having every single Paladium character be an acrobatic boxer is my favorite).  The deaf combat god with the crippled son is another aspect of the same issue.

Really this issue is nothing new.  It is the standard issue of "character balance".  What PF is having issues with is simply that a player who develops a deeper character will be unbalanced compared to players who develop a min maxed character and how then to encourage deep characters.

The solution Christoffer is one that has been suggested many times.  You have to broaden your horizons beyond the games you are familiar with (especially D&D).  There are many games that have no such problems.

Some ways of addressing the issue:

1) Use class/professions/skill packages.  Take a look at Riddle of Steel.  You select 2 skill packages.  You select how effective the character is at the package, the package provides the skills you have, and the level of each skill depends on how important it is in the package relative to your overall ability with the package.  This doesn't eliminate the problem altogether (you can still pick a less "effective" package) but it does reduce it conciderably since players don't have the option of building maxed out 1 dimensional characters (all packages have "less effective" (as in less frequently used) skills, so there is no ability to pass up those flavorful skills in preference to "good" ones.  The other thing RoS does is completely seperate combat effectiveness (proficiencies) from non combat effectiveness (skills).  Strangely this dichotomy stretches back to AD&D 1ed's Unearthed Arcana book, later hugely expanded in 2ed.  Those games used Non Combat Proficiencies just so that players wouldn't have to "waste" weapon slots on "color" skills.

2) Change the reward system.  This is the very CORE of good game design.  Its one of the fundamental concepts of GNS.  What you reward is how the game will be played (by most players anyway).  If you build a reward system into the game where reward is given for X than there should be no surprise that players will find ways to make their characters more effective at X.  Thats not a player problem, thats a design problem.  The solution is simple.  Don't reward X.

I offer up 2 dramatically different methods that are similiar only in that the "X" they reward is very different from the sort of "traditional" things one used to see in RPG advancement systems.

First Brian Gleichman's Age of Heroes rewards players for showing up to play.  I may be remembering it wrong, but I think its something like 200XPs for being present...no bonuses for roleplaying, kills, successful skill rolls...just showing up.  I can't say I particularly like that solution, but it does effectively eliminate any motivation to min-max for reward purposes.

Second, Riddle of Steel again.  The game's central mechanic is combat based, but the reward system has nothing whatsoever to do with combat.  It is purely behavior based.  The player selects how his character is supposed to behave (in terms of what is important to him) and earns points for playing that way.  Points which then can be used for improvement.


So PF, yes your issue is a very real one.  But its also one that can be dealt with and there are literally dozens of different ways to address it.

I think the solution for you lies (once again) in decideing what the game is meant to be about.  What kind of thing do you want PLAYERS to do?  Is having deep, thought out, interesting character backgrounds important to you?  Then design a system that rewards such backgrounds.   Talking in witty one liners in character was important for Dieing Earth so there is a mechanic that rewards it.  Being willing to risk your character on amazing feats of derring do was important to 7th Sea, so they designed a system that rewarded high profile risk taking (rather than penalizing it like most systems would).  Having your character suffer through and perservere against a never ending stream of Trouble in a world that really IS out to get you was important for Orkworld and so Trouble is how players are rewarded.

What do you want the PLAYERS to be doing in your game.  Reward that.  Problem solved.

[Christoffer Lernö]

You got it right Ralph, I just want to point out one more thing before going to bed:

1) The system offers a game reward (like XPs) for activity X.

Note that "a game reward for activity X" might be something like "being able to fight efficiently in combat". If combat is common, it might be more fun to be able to participate than to stand on the sidelines and watch.

This is despite the fact that combat results might not have anything to do with actual XP awards or anything within the system.

What I mean is, while 1) is correct, there is also the variant that "the system often has activity X, although there is no reward associated with it, it is so common that most players would like to have the skills associated with the activity or have little to contribute with in most situations"

Just pointing out that there doesn't need to be an explicit reward implied so the "solve it by changing the reward system" might not necessarily apply.

[ADGBoss]

A person (character) only has so many hours in a given day, days in a given week, weeks and in a given month etc.. I fail to see how this punsihes a character.  Now, I am all for those skills which are purely for color as they add a more realistic flavor to the character (ie Steven Segal's character in Under Siege "I'm a Cook" etc) .

However, many player's want to be able to be expert cooks, wizards, sowrdmasters etc etc and this makes no sense what so ever. Yes a general XP or reward system can be too generic as skills which were never used move up.  Those system which reward a skill for being used make more sense but how often do you get to cook?

Well right there is the whole crx of the issue, in my opinion. Its not a case of "I want my color skills to be useful" as much as it is a chance to USE those skills provided by the GM.

A typical fantasy campaign may take place over one or two years in which the players start as 17 year old nobodies and are 19 year old Mega-Gods by the end.  Two years of constant campaigning takes a toll phsycially and mentally but this is often ignored. Needless to say there woul dnot be alot of time for learning how to sew.

To get back to the point, a game system needs to foster an approach to reward which makes sense. When we do something Heroic (ugh I hate that phrase) in real life we are given money and medals and fame. In an RPG you get this AND a PHD in Cthulu-ology. Huh? Does not make too much sense.

Time. One cannot become an expert in twenty skills in two to three years unless they devote all of their time to study study study and it does not leave alot of time for other things.

The best system would reward a character for skills they use and or study on a regular basis with a better understanding of those skills. A skill one does not use in three months (or ever) may very well begin to deteriote.

Just my 2 Lunars...

SMH
ADGBoss

[Valamir]

Understood.  It still works the same way, however.

You have a game with alot of combat.  The characters have a limited number of resources to buy effectiveness with so spending those resouces on non combat things reduces combat effectiveness.  That's an issue as old as RPGs.  

However, its ONLY a problem if the primary way of earning character improvement rewards is through combat, thus you have the vicious circle of I have to fight to get better at fighting, but I can't fight well, so I keep falling farther and farther behind.

If the character improvement system rewards <other things> than the initially non combat oriented character (PC-A) will have as many opportunities to earn rewards as the combat oriented character (PC-B) does.  Since most games have some sort diminishing returns for improvement, PC-A will be able to catch PC-B in terms of combat effectiveness if he so desires.  If he doesn't desire, than obviously he doesn't have an issue with relative combat effectiveness.

This is, in fact, exactly what RoS does.

I can make a character where I put Gifts and Skill very high on my priority list (for background purposes) but Proficiencies (Combat stuff) very low.  You can do the opposite.  Initially you'll mop the floor with me.  However, I can play my character's Spiritual Attributes as much or more than you do and increase my combat effectiveness accordingly

So mechanical rewards are still worthwhile here.


However, you are quite correct in pointing out that "being effective in combat" is its own reward.  The solution to that, even aside from mechanical rewards, is to make sure that other aspects of the game are equally rewarding.  Most players who design a character who isn't a combat god already understand they aren't going to be as effective in combat as someone else.  This is ONLY a problem if the ONLY interesting activity in your game is combat.  If the other activities in your game are equally interesting than a player desiring that sort of character will have no problem trading one interesting activity for another.  

Another solution is to make your combat actually entertaining.  That means make is quick, cinematic (meaning focused and interesting not necessarily unrealistic), and exciting.  If the combat is enjoyable enough to watch, the non combat players won't mind sitting on the sidelines as much.  Contrast this to AD&D where combat is hideously painfully slow even for the effective participants and down right agonizing to the point of leaving the table to go play Playstation for the inneffective ones.

If a combat takes 3 hours to resolve than you have an issue of how to keep the non combatants interested.  If a combat take 3 minutes, or even 13...no biggie.  Its over quickly, move on to something else.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Chris,

It seems to me that you might be making a box out of air.

What I mean is, while 1) is correct, there is also the variant that "the system often has activity X, although there is no reward associated with it, it is so common that most players would like to have the skills associated with the activity or have little to contribute with in most situations"

Often, if activity X has no reward associated with it then activity X isn't a necessary part of play for the particular game in question.  Activity X is more akin to color that the GM may or may not include at his discretion and according to the desire of his players.  Even in game systems where activity X is highly rewarded, like combat in AD&D, there are still rewards for other behaviour and accomplishments.

The thing is that certain games like AD&D, while working mighty fine for dungeoncrawls and being geared towards them, are not so entirely focused on dungeon crawls that they can't be used for any other style of play.

From what I gather you want to have a game, in the D&D vein, focused on a particular style or activity in play, like dungeon crawling.  For that to be successful and still allow for varied character types I think you need to be creative in your dungeon design.  I've been in a few "dungeons" where skills beyond the normal scope of brutal combat efficiency were a necessity for success.  At the very least they made the characters' lives a little easier.

At any rate, I have to second/third everything that has been said about player rewards.  If you reward activity X, Y, and Z then, as far as the system goes, that is what the game is about.

I think you should really look to games like Donjon or The Riddle of Steel for examples and inspiration.

Best of luck,

 Chris

[ADGBoss]

If the character improvement system rewards <other things> than the initially non combat oriented character (PC-A) will have as many opportunities to earn rewards as the combat oriented character (PC-B) does.  Since most games have some sort diminishing returns for improvement, PC-A will be able to catch PC-B in terms of combat effectiveness if he so desires.  If he doesn't desire, than obviously he doesn't have an issue with relative combat effectiveness.

This (and indeed your whole post) wa basically what I was trying to say only you got to the point much better then I did. :)

I will only say that I have been involved in and seen 3 hour combats which were exciting, mainly becuase the non-combat people had things to do (aside from healing us combat monkeys).

SMH
ADGBoss

[Christoffer Lernö]

Since Ralph already asked about my game focus and I think some of the nuances of this problem might be better illustrated by bringing up my particular problems with my game, I'll talk about how Ygg fits into this discussion.

First, a month back or so I resigned to the fact that things would probably be the easiest if everyone was a fighter. You can take a look at older threads for more background on that.

What I mean by that is that every character should be able to be competent in combat. Of course if the stats and skills suck they won't be that good, but there is nothing within the system which is supposed to yield a disadvantage in fighting to a certain type of characters.

Basically think about everyone as of the "adventurer" class. Any character would build on top of that.

Thinking a little about it, I couldn't see people coming up with nice character archetypes fitting the setting without making a lot of compromises to abilities or introducing professions/classes as a kind of start-up kit.

I chose the latter.

Now looking at these classes, they are to be understood as fighters with different color added on top. Think about the fighter subclasses of Ranger and Paladin. Only in my game there are no "pure" fighters like in AD&D.

Sketching at the character classes I wrote them with keywords, like this:

Dwarven Artillery Man
Armour Movement
Crossbow
Ballista/Catapult
Pyroalchemy (little)
Bomb throwing

It didn't mean there necessarily was a skill of Pyroalchemy to be selected in the game, but it was a hint that this was something associated with the particular archetype.

Having ready-made classes like this pretty much throws out any problems with balancing. I can fiddle with that as I design them, there is no need to cover player optimizations because there are no choices. At least not with the design like this.

However, what would happen with our Dwarven Artilleryman as he continued adventuring? Oh, he could run around trying to make bombs every second, trying to find ballistas and catapults to operate and things. Otherwise after a few adventures he'd become simply a master of the most frequently used skills.

He would no longer be an Artilleryman but more of that basic "Adventurer" class with the skills associated with it.

Or in other words, the character would lose the class flavour.

If the skills were paid for in any case. I could always go the D&D route and let everything increase. However, that feels not a little unsatisfying.

Beyond that there was the possible aquirement of new skills. Some skills like "Resist Pain" seems like a good choice for a Dwarven Soldier, but it gets silly if the Goblin Fortuneseeker has the chance to pick up the same skill. Although one might disallow certain races from picking up different things it seems like one is going quickly down the D&D road of "mages can't use armour or swords".

The best solution I can come up with right now is to isolate them into groups like this:

Abilities, Learned Skills, Stats and  Moves & Spells

Abilities covers everything associated with the class. They are the same level as the character (have to introduce levels for this to work). You can't learn an ability of a different class. These are usually very wide skills and special abilities.

Learned Skills work outside of that system. You don't use these for combat or anything like that. They are... colour. If I want to be able to cook well, I might have a skill in cooking. Whatever. These can be freely taken. They can also be learned in game. There would be rather lasseiz-faire rules for how to aquire and increase them.

Stats stats cover the basic stats as well as the most important skill ratings such as close combat skill and magical ability. Here there is a clear currency trading.

Moves & Spells. This is a little vague yet, but if it turns out like I'm thinking of it, you basically get to add a little extra effect to a known spell or create a martial art move every time you level up. There is no great advantage to doing so, it is mostly for colour. However it is regulated so that there are no great disparities between the characters.

Anyway, that's the best I can come up with. As for the Artillery Man, he'd be increasing those abilities corresponding to the keywords as he levels up. He can learn any skills he wants by training, but they won't be as powerful as the abilities. Stats and skills may be increased and he might be making up new colourful missile attack moves with every level up (if I create that rule).

That's Ygg.

[C. Edwards]

Dwarven Artillery Man
Armour Movement
Crossbow
Ballista/Catapult
Pyroalchemy (little)
Bomb throwin

This was my first impulse when I saw this, and it may be completely daft, but here goes:

All the skills would still go up every level but would be set in a numbered heiarchy that could be decided by the player.

Dwarven Artillery Man
5 Crossbow
4 Armour Movement
3 Ballista/Catapult
2 Bomb throwin
1 Pyroalchemy

Someone else might assign different levels of effectiveness to the skills of their Dwarven Artillery Man but this is how I like mine.  The numbers on the side would represent the effectiveness of the skills.  I don't know the details of your mechanics but a reasonable translation could be found for any system I imagine.  As a character went up in level all the skills would jump upwards one number.

Dwarven Artillery Man
6 Crossbow
5 Armour Movement
4 Ballista/Catapult
3 Bomb throwin
2 Pyroalchemy

When a character gained a new skill it would enter at the bottom of the ladder.

Dwarven Artillery Man
6 Crossbow
5 Armour Movement
4 Ballista/Catapult
3 Bomb throwin
2 Pyroalchemy
1 Resist Pain

If a Player decides he wants a character to focus more on a particular skill he can let it jump places in the ladder as the character goes up in level.

Dwarven Artillery Man
7 Crossbow
6 Armour Movement
5 Ballista/Catapult
4 Pyroalchemy
3 Bomb throwin
2 Resist Pain

Bomb throwin stayed on its rung while Pyroalchemy used its own development point plus Bomb throwin's development point to jump a rung in the ladder.  Any skill should only be able to make one rung jump during a level transition.  This way it would take a few levels for, say, Pyroalchemy to overtake Crossbow.  For a very simple level system I think that would represent increased training time in a skill fairly decently.

Something like this would also allow you to have a seperate ladder for each kind of ability you want to introduce.  The skills you expect to have more for color could have their own tree and wouldn't interfere with the prime skills.  They could be set to go up, say, every other level to represent the lesser amount of a characters time spent on them.

I know this is very simple, but I find I get the most enjoyment out of simple systems that have interesting permutations.  Plus, the simpler the basic system, the easier it is to add on other goodies.

Hope that is of some help to you,

Chris