"Hey, I am smarter than Einstein and I never even did the homework"

[Afrodyte]

What a great webpage! It's nice to have someone break it down by the numbers.

With that in mind, I think what you're going for is to have a clearer idea of what skill ranks actually mean. A lot of times I get pretty frustrated as a player because I like having a diverse array of skills to represent my character's interests and abilities, but it's hard to tell the difference between competent and superlative. To be frank, I usually want only 10 ranks at most for a character's best skills. More than that, and it all starts to seem cartoonish (Like you, I tend to favor mundane skill uses over mythical ones before hitting high level).

With that in mind, this is the sort of scale I keep in my head for my characters:

1 rank: novice
3 ranks: competent
5 ranks: expert (where synergy bonuses kick in due to more training and experience)
10 ranks: master
15 ranks: legend
20 ranks: godlike

IMO, anything at or above 10 ranks needs a serious in-game justification. Up to 5 ranks can be explained as "on the job training," but more than that requires dedicated effort to make me think it works. If players want their characters to have larger bonuses for certain skills, they need the time (Take 10 or Take 20), specialization (Skill Focus), and tools (equipment bonus) to do it. OTOH, DMs need to be aware of what skill ranks represent in the world and stat NPCs and monsters accordingly.

 

[ardentmoth]

i've played in a few campaigns where skills were earned separately from experience, like little goodies along the way. The DM decided when it was time someone (or all of us) realized a new truth about <skill>, and then we did. It worked out very well, and meant that a fighter who kept getting hit by traps would eventually learn not to, or that a mage who rides a lot on horseback would get better at it with time.

 

[Folly]

I have never been particularly fond of training systems. I have found that people preference for this is largely based on the type of learner the player/dm is. If the player is an individual that follows the focused and methodical then they tend to perceive training as making complete sense. Others that function off of intuite understanding and pondering about things as a passive state, tend to not see the need for training. Not that either is superior or more effective, but it shows through in their understanding.

Given the difference in people in the real world, I believe it is better to give your players a nudge to consider the type of learner their character is, and then to ask them to role play that decision. I have always found that letting your players help create the fluff of the campaign through how they decide to role play their characters creates a much more authentic session that all of the players enjoy. Basicly, I view the DM as determining the campaign setting (the fluff of people, places, and things) and then being a moderator to the game the players are playing.

 

[Engilbrand]

If my DM said, "Let's do training rules." I would pitch a fit. They don't make sense to me. I can understand "training" to enter a class. If you're a Fighter, and you want to add a level of Wizard, but there's no Wizard in the party, you'd better find someone. Don't have any Knowledge Arcana? Talk to the party Sorceror a bit. Want to be better as a Fighter? Hit things. Maybe train with one of the martial classes in the group. I don't mean "Train" in a mechanic-sense. I mean train as in "We go off before it's time to sleep and he shows me how to attack." That's it.
Complex Knowledge or Craft training, though? No thanks. You read things, talk to people and observe the world around you. I don't see Knowledge skills as necessarily being depth of Knowledge, more breadth of Knowledge.
An increase in Knowledge History isn't necessarily moving from Semester 1 American History to Semester 2. It might just be moving from American History to European History. Heck, it might be reading an article in a Time magazine and integrating that with information you already have.
That's how I view Knowledge skills. Long "RP" based "training sessions" seem like a waste of time to me. I don't view it as RP-based, either. It just seems like an arbitrary reason for characters to go to a certain place or just spend some time sitting around and talking. If I wanted to LARP, I would. Just because the people are talking, doesn't mean that they're role-playing. There's no plot advancement. If you want them there for plot advancement, describe it in game as a great source for knowledge. A good RPer would go there for that reason alone. Brining level-up mechanics into it seems trite.

 

[ardentmoth]

largely agreed, though to be picky Engilbrand, Knowledge (history) would be in general; Knowledge (Region: America) and Knowledge (Region: Europe) would probably be different skills then? ^_^ just being persnickety tonight, I know what you mean.


however, the following just occurred to me....

Skills =/= Int. Int helps. That's the point.

Int = Propensity for learning.

More Int = More ability to learn.

That said, it is quite possible to be smarter than Einstein without doing the homework; Einstein flunked phonetics, did poorly in arithmetic, and absolutely stank it up in grammar class. His IQ (Int) was quite high, however, it was not higher than a game-int of about 24. His knowledge skills did not include high scores in phonetics, arithmetic, or grammar, but did have high scores in a variety of other topics; he wouldn't make a good wizard, but he was a crack scientist.

As for knowledge skills, the number you can have are limited by how many skill points you can get. Skill points are limited by how much Int you have. Your Int is representative of your IQ. Case rested.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Right but sort of what I am saying here is that don't pass up the RPing potential and hand wave the scenario. Once characters start getting into the realm of "autosuccess" with some skill checks make em really earn those last few points.

They did earn them. They earned them by doing the stuff that gained the the next level (and thus the skill points that they are spending). If you want those experiences to be roleplayed, you should (in my opinion) give them the opportunity up front. Allow the characters the chance to attend symposiums and research arcane formulas as a part of the encounters that lead up to their next level, rather than making the player seek out those opportunities after the fact.

Also, I don't know about you or your players, but I'd personally find it pretty boring to roleplay reading a dusty tome or attending a lecture about a made-up history. When stuff like that comes up, I tend to break out the handwavium in a hurry.

Later
silver