[+]Training and Reward, not Assumed Advancement

[Thomas Shey]

This is a separate question from “who decides” or “whose hands is the process in”.

The group and GM enforce the rules regardless of what rules we are discussing. The rules decide when you fail a death saving throw in 5e, and the DM enforces those rules if there is an issue with the rules at the table.

That doesn’t make it any less up to the player to decide when the the PC is engaging in a given action.

Like…it’s literally an action the PC can undertake. It’s “I’m going to use my week of downtime to take a training endeavor to train that fire kick technique I improvised during the adventure.” And then the GM operates the rules engine in the sense of asking for rolls, but success or failure isn’t even up to the GM, it’s up to the dice and the success ladder.

Its not the training part I'm arguing about; training is pretty easy to set up that way. Its the advance-by-use part that I'm arguing about. I've seen numerous games that use that sort of thing and all of them require someone to decide when a "use" is legitimate. I'm hard pressed to see how you're going to dodge that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Its not the training part I'm arguing about; training is pretty easy to set up that way. Its the advance-by-use part that I'm arguing about. I've seen numerous games that use that sort of thing and all of them require someone to decide when a "use" is legitimate. I'm hard pressed to see how you're going to dodge that.

The GM makes sure all rules are being properly used, sure.

But the idea isn’t that you just get a tick any time you get a total failure or a critical success with a skill you are trained in.

I mean that does work and requires no “is this a legit use” nonsense because you just don’t call for a roll if there isn’t a reason to, and if there is a reason it’s a legit use.

But the idea is that you are using your skill, and you declare that you’re trying to improve a given skill, and while you are working on that skill your checks count toward training, or you simply make a check when you rest, with maybe bonus dice in your pool for any XYZ result from checks earlier.

It’s just mechanics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The GM makes sure all rules are being properly used, sure.

But the idea isn’t that you just get a tick any time you get a total failure or a critical success with a skill you are trained in.

I mean that does work and requires no “is this a legit use” nonsense because you just don’t call for a roll if there isn’t a reason to, and if there is a reason it’s a legit use.

But the idea is that you are using your skill, and you declare that you’re trying to improve a given skill, and while you are working on that skill your checks count toward training, or you simply make a check when you rest, with maybe bonus dice in your pool for any XYZ result from checks earlier.

It’s just mechanics.

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).

 

[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.

False.

It is quite different, in ways and for reasons I have already explained.

Like it’s…literally not up to the GM. Neither what is improved nor whether the player gets improvement.

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).

This doesn’t parse.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think we're talking past each other somehow here, but at this point I can't pin down how; my questions seem relevant given what you've posted, so if they don't to you there's obviously some kind of indeterminate communication breakdown I don't know how to address.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think we're talking past each other somehow here, but at this point I can't pin down how; my questions seem relevant given what you've posted, so if they don't to you there's obviously some kind of indeterminate communication breakdown I don't know how to address.

I’ll come back to it later and try to figure out what the issue is, or maybe just restate my questions and ideas and see if the disconnect is solved by that.

 

[pemerton]

I believe that this also describes the Burning Wheel family of games too: i.e., Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, and Mouse Guard.

I don't know Mouse Guard in this level of detail.

But I do know Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e quite well.

In BW, advancement is by making the requisite number of tests at various levels of difficulty (routine, difficult and/or challenging). Success or failure doesn't matter, except for a small number of abilities which requires success for a test to count towards advancement.

One consequence of this is that players have a reason to have their PCs take on difficult tests - so they don't always want to deploy all their resources.

Instead of actually making a test, it is also possible to accrue a test of a given degree of difficulty by training the designated number of hours per day for the designated number of days.

In TB2e, to advance an ability from rank N to rank N+1 depends on succeeding at N tests and failing at N-1 tests. This is similar, but not identical, to BW. It's also simpler, as you don't need to be familiar with the table telling you what counts as a routine, difficult or challenging test when rolling N dice.

As well as actually making tests, it is also possible under certain circumstances to mark a test towards advancement, either a success or a failure. The main instance is being mentored by a fellow adventurer or by a NPC, whether in camp or in town.

 

[aramis erak]

Well, Pendragon is arguably a BRP offshoot itself (though its obviously gone pretty far afield). I wasn't aware of that regarding the other games you mention.

Greg Stafford, one of the founders of The Chaosium (now having dropped the definite article in most uses), is the author of Pendragon (1e, 3e, 4e, 5e, and much of 6e. There is officially no 2e), is also the co-author of the original 1980 Basic Role Playing, by Greg Stafford and Lynn Willis. Greg has stated categorically in several occasions that Pendragon is BRP derived. It's not even that far from that BRP...
Both use a single hit point total.
The Att List for Pendragon drops Int and Power from the 7 standard BRP atts, changes Charisma to Appearance, leaving Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Size and App the same, and in the same range. (Size being 2d6+6 is in line with later BRP settings, but the 1980 BRP used 3d6 for all)
Pendragon drops the "Impaling" level of success (also called "Special Success" in some later BRP line games) but keeps CF, F, S, CS...
Both set a default set of skills to specific levels; BRP's are in increments of 5... Pendragon's are culturally determined, rather than species related.

Worlds of Wonder was a 1981 boxed set, with 3 settings and the 1980 BRP. Those settings are Magic World, Future World, and Super World. The reason these are worth mention is that Drakkar och Demoner was a translation and minor alteration, under license, of BRP 1e & Magic World. Into Swedish. The 4th edition of DoD has moved to a 1d20 instead of 1d100 mechanic, dropping size as a numeric (but making it a label). It also is known in it's new English translation as Dragonbane...

Note also, the RuneQuest line always has had more skills than the original BRP, or even all of WoW...
And most of the other BRP family were built off of a RuneQuest base.

---

As for Mouse Guard...
Advancement in Mouse Guard requires Level-1 failures and level successes, all with consequences set, no skill can get more than one mark per combat.
Training time isn't accounted for directly, but the winter phase provides some training.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Greg Stafford, one of the founders of The Chaosium (now having dropped the definite article in most uses), is the author of Pendragon (1e, 3e, 4e, 5e, and much of 6e. There is officially no 2e), is also the co-author of the original 1980 Basic Role Playing, by Greg Stafford and Lynn Willis. Greg has stated categorically in several occasions that Pendragon is BRP derived. It's not even that far from that BRP...

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.

Both use a single hit point total.
The Att List for Pendragon drops Int and Power from the 7 standard BRP atts, changes Charisma to Appearance, leaving Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Size and App the same, and in the same range. (Size being 2d6+6 is in line with later BRP settings, but the 1980 BRP used 3d6 for all)
Pendragon drops the "Impaling" level of success (also called "Special Success" in some later BRP line games) but keeps CF, F, S, CS...
Both set a default set of skills to specific levels; BRP's are in increments of 5... Pendragon's are culturally determined, rather than species related.

See, I think once you've thrown in all that--and the virtues and vices--you've swung considerably far afield. I mean, its still obviously related, but that's a lot farther than most BRP games, even some multi-generation descendants go.

And most of the other BRP family were built off of a RuneQuest base.

Even the BRP Big Gold Book was sort of a hybrid.

 

[John Dallman]

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.

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.