[+]Training and Reward, not Assumed Advancement

[Thomas Shey]

The d20 change is just a question of rounding to 5% intervals, and then simplifying the physical act of rolling. It doesn't change any probabilities to roll with a d20 as opposed to d100 against numbers at 5% intervals. Pendragon did this well before D&D 3e made all of its rolls d20-based.

It does, however, eliminate the ability to bake in the various special results in one roll unless you're willing to strongly round them up.

 

[Staffan]

I think that depends on one's definition of "far". Even if shifting to a D20 doesn't count for you, there are a number of other elements that don't exist in any other BRP game I'm familiar with.

I don't really see Pendragon as being that much different from other BRP games than e.g. Call of Cthulhu and Runequest (of various editions) are different from one another. But then again, I'm one of those who see Troubleshooters as clearly BRP-derived as well, and that's way more different than Pendragon is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't really see Pendragon as being that much different from other BRP games than e.g. Call of Cthulhu and Runequest (of various editions) are different from one another. But then again, I'm one of those who see Troubleshooters as clearly BRP-derived as well, and that's way more different than Pendragon is.

I said it was BRP derived in my first post about it. I just think its much farther afield than most such games.

 

[aramis erak]

It does, however, eliminate the ability to bake in the various special results in one roll unless you're willing to strongly round them up.

The only special result truly missing is the impale result. Doubling a hit's damage but losing your next attack or two pulling the weapon free is, while not unrealistic, excessively common. And it becomes more common as skill increases, which is a verisimilitude issue.

Crits get more common - both ends - but that's not a huge difference. It's a bit more vague.

The personality traits are a difference of note - but the processes of them are firmly grounded in the processes of BRP - opposed rolls resolved in 5% increments, most flavors use starting values for abilities in 5% increments. Use it to raise it.

Proceduraly, the only novelties of Pendragon are

• making the experience check resolution annual instead of per session or adventure.
  • Note that BRP 1e was per session
  • RQ3 is per adventure.
• using traits/passions to limit or enable specific actions
• using passions to boost skills.
• the switch to figured personal damage modified by weapon from weapon damage modified by character.
• High-but-not-over rolling.

The use of up to ±50% modifier increments for difficulty is not novel; Elfquest has mods to -50 for perception and stealth, all in 5% increments, It also has a skill vs skill procedure.
RQ3 uses attribute × 5% chances for some resistance rolls, rather than the resistance table. Most modifiers are in 5% increments.

---

Coming back onto topic...
RuneQuest 3rd Ed - my introduction to use it to raise it. (A week later, I found ElfQuest used. I have run more EQ than RQ...) Currently referencing the GW version. Pages 19-21.

Training in RQ3 takes considerable time - hours equal to current experience %ile. Maximum of 50 hours per week. Maximum of 75%. Provides a 1d-2 increase, and this can be negative.

Not all RQ3 skills are raisable by use - mostly academic; these remove the training cap.

Research/Self-training/Practice - takes 1 hour per current percent, requires rolling over the current %, and then grants the choice of 1d6-2 or 1 point.

Experience checks, on those skills which allow them, require a success in a "stressful situation," then end of the adventure, roll over current % to raise by choice of 1d6 or 3 points.

King Arthur Pendragon 4th Ed
Note: the High-but-not-over is used a lot, since most rolls in KAP are opposed.

• Skills are ticked when a critical success is scored. That's when the d20 rolls exactly the target number.
• Skills can be ticked when the GM allows on a successful check in "time of crisis" or "significant use" (different pages use different wording)
• Skills can also be ticked for use in one of the "solo" activities.
  • Once characters have a manor, the Your Own Land solo is nigh-obligatory; it's run as the first step in Winter Phase.
  • the solos generally tick a skill that would be used often but in low stress.
• During the winter phase, roll over any ticked skill to raise it by 1.
  • Any skill of 20+ is still raised on a roll of a nat 20.
• Winter Phase one option from...
  • add 1d6 points to one skill, raising it no further than 15; excess go to another skill of choice also capped at 15, recursive while points remain.
  • add one point to a skill to a maximum of 20
  • add one point to an attribute not to exceed maximum cultural rollable value
  • add one point to a Personality Trait, not to exceed 19.
  • add one point to a Passion, not to exceed 20.
• Winterphase, when new glory is finally applied, each 1000 pt threshold crossed gives 1 point to anything but size; it can be size if under age 24. Glory gains can exceed all the above limits.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that's fine. I'm just noting that, other than the detail level, that part is not fundamentally different from "I'm giving out 4 improvement points at the end of this session to everyone: Joe gets it in Z, Y, X and W and Jane gets it in A, B, C and F, as those are the things they used", perhaps with the player's declaration of trying to improve them informing those decisions.

The only issue I can't tell is whether you're planning a finite or open ended tick situation; the former fits more with the finite case than the open ended one (I have some mixed feelings about the open ended ones even though I used it with RQ for years).

So, I’m still having trouble figuring out what the disconnect even is, unless it is just a difference in what we see as “fundementally different” or not.

I’d say it is fundementally different to have the DM decide how many “advancement points” you get vs having the player take actions to train specific things during play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, I’m still having trouble figuring out what the disconnect even is, unless it is just a difference in what we see as “fundementally different” or not.

I’d say it is fundementally different to have the DM decide how many “advancement points” you get vs having the player take actions to train specific things during play.

But the latter is exactly the open-ended case I was referring to. That's what old-school RQ did.

The problem we saw with it over time was that it all too often turned into a compulsion for people to hunt after ticks, to the degree of drowning out what it seemed like the game was actually supposed to be about. It wasn't a problem with training because that was self-limiting for the most part, but learn-by-using it was absolutely an issue. That's why Mythras went over to the finite amount approach.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But the latter is exactly the open-ended case I was referring to. That's what old-school RQ did.

The problem we saw with it over time was that it all too often turned into a compulsion for people to hunt after ticks, to the degree of drowning out what it seemed like the game was actually supposed to be about. It wasn't a problem with training because that was self-limiting for the most part, but learn-by-using it was absolutely an issue. That's why Mythras went over to the finite amount approach.

I literally addressed that concern.

Ya know what, forget it

I’m done with the whole thread. Have fun arguing about which games are more BMR derived or whatever.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I literally addressed that concern.

Ya know what, forget it

I’m done with the whole thread. Have fun arguing about which games are more BMR derived or whatever.

Sorry I annoyed you, man. Wasn't my intention. Tried to engage as best I could.

 

[Blue]

In Call of Cthulhu 7th, you raise your skills in a two step process.

First, you must successfully use the skill during a session. This marks it.
Second, at the end of an adventure you must attempt a roll for all of the skills you're marked and fail a skill roll. This makes high skills harder to raise.

This seems to fulfill the requirements put forth.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In Call of Cthulhu 7th, you raise your skills in a two step process.

First, you must successfully use the skill during a session. This marks it.
Second, at the end of an adventure you must attempt a roll for all of the skills you're marked and fail a skill roll. This makes high skills harder to raise.

This seems to fulfill the requirements put forth.

Well, that's no surprise since its a BRP derivative. Unless I've been utterly misunderstanding the OP (and it seems like I have in some fashion) he seems to want the in-game advancement to be self-regulating the way BRP training is, and I can't seem to understand how he expects that to work, since he seems to think it won't have the same issues with the GM needing to decide legitimacy of a skill use you get in CoC and other BRP derivatives. Or I'm just missing something completely.