I am...perplexed by this situation.

[Psion]

This is a first for me. I've never had someone complain about having an option they didn't have to use, and I'm a bit apprehensive. ANyone ever had this problem before? Anyone know what I can expect?

Well, GR's Advanced GM Manual warns that some players hate training... this falls in the same boat. So someone predicted it.

You say it's an option you don't have to use, but you ARE making them jump through extra hoops to get additional power or be denied it.

Not that I have a huge problem with such a scheme myself, but I can see why that might bother some. That said, it does seem like it would consume play time, and I wouldn't use it myself unless I really didn't have enough to fill up my limited play time up with. I do have a training option that incurs downtime; if all players agree to take a break, they can pursue their research "of screen". Perhaps you can try to open that up as an option.

 

[HellHound]

Sammael - my only comment on your system is it REALLY rewards fighter-types who use it, as they gain extra feats while at the same time reducing their XP count and thus falling ebhind inlevels, which in turn grants them MORE XP from encounters (if you are using the core XP system) - in the end, it changes their effectiveness to be much greater than their character level would indicate.

 

[Sammael]

Sammael - my only comment on your system is it REALLY rewards fighter-types who use it, as they gain extra feats while at the same time reducing their XP count and thus falling ebhind inlevels, which in turn grants them MORE XP from encounters (if you are using the core XP system) - in the end, it changes their effectiveness to be much greater than their character level would indicate.

Even if I were using the core XP system 100% as written (and I don't; I only give 50% xp for combat; the other 50% comes from role-playing and story awards, et al), I fail to see how this would favor the fighter-types. All characters receive identical XP for defeating opponents. A wizard who purchases a feat may fall back behind other characters and then gain more XP for challenges, despite having one feat more, which may or may not make a difference in combat. I simply don't think that several feats more make a big difference at the levels when characters can afford to spend 3,000+ XP a pop.

The party IMC consists of two fighter-types, a cleric, a wizard, a rogue, and a bard. The only characters who haven't purchased any feats are the fighter types. Cleric is in the lead with four feats purchases (I think), but three of those four are role-playing oriented, and he is playing a completely non-combat cleric. Even if he were more combat-oriented, four extra combat feats would hardly make him as effective as the fighters. The bow-wielding rogue also purchased several feats, but they only increased his usefulness in combat situations from "useful in the first round, useless afterwards" to "sometimes useful for more than one round."

In the end, I indicated that this system works IMC. YMMV.

 

[fusangite]

I have a relatively new player in my group. He has only played one or two sessions from the previous campaign before it was scrapped. I 've been writing up a new campaign, and announced on our on-line group that I would be intro'ing a system for purchasing skill points/feats beyond those alloted by level increase...

you have to do research, finding books/journals/blue prints with the info you seek to gain the additional skills/feats. The option is still there, you just have to work a little harder to get them.

How is this work represented in play? Am I correct that all you are rally doing is creating a new class of treasure that basically works like the Manuals but for skills and feats? If so, it seems like this guy is being totally unreasonable. You can either kick him out because this bodes ill for his personality or you can call these items "magic items" and he'll calm right down. Of course, this advice is premised on a particular understanding of how these items will affect play so I may be totally off-base here.

EDIT: Actually, the fact that he accused anything of making the D&D experience system "unrealistic" is a sign that he's totally out of touch with reality. D&D experience is already completely unrealistic; it would be a challenge to make it more so. Now, if he had said "unbalanced" then he might have a point.

 

[swrushing]

My problem: When I intro'd this option, the newer player informed me that he felt it was a waste of his time. He didn't mind finding schools or instructors, but questing for a mundane book was uninteresting/boring/unrealistic. He wasn't in the mood for 'scavenger hunting'.

This is a first for me. I've never had someone complain about having an option they didn't have to use, and I'm a bit apprehensive. ANyone ever had this problem before? Anyone know what I can expect?

Well, could he expect that the other character will use the rule, resulting in quests for books (scavenger hunt sessions) that as a player in the game he would be a part of? Does he have an option to tell you and the other players "don't run joey's book hunt tonight, lets do something heroic"? Are all these book quests going to b extra runs, solo perhaps outside the normal sessions?

if not, then this is not a case of a rule that wont affect him, that he wont have to play thru.

Some players enjoy the shopping trip sessions where characters spend time simply getting stuff more than others. if every character avails himself of the quest for book choices, i could see this becoming a mor than trivial amount of the game, this quest for stats.

if the player is not a shopping buff, and the player is mor interested in "playing heroic characters doing heroic stuff" then i can see him getting concerned about the amount of time this new option will take up if the other players choose to use it and how that will cut into the actual "heroic quests saving people fantasy sort of stuff" he is looking for.

I might suggest to him he find a group more in sync with his goals, one with fewer "shopping sessions" and more of a pace of the "heroic fantasy" or whatever he wouldcall what he is looking for.

 

[Enkhidu]

I fail to see why this is a problem at all. The player doesn't look like he's objecting to the mechanics, but to the flavor text (books and tomes versus training and teaching). So try this:

Instead of "declaring your intent a level in advance" for all methods, only require that declaration if the learning is done from manuals/blue-prints/etc (self-teaching). Otherwise, allow training to occur at any time (but make training time in weeks equal to the number of thousands of XP spent, rounded up. So you're 3000 XP buy gets three weeks of training).

Of course, training would be to the exclusion of other activites, but that way you've got two methods to use the same mechanic.

 

[Storyteller01]

Have you considered an alternate method of allowing the players to gain additional skills or feats? Such as buying them with XP (similar to how item creation works)?

Method uses an EXP cost, it just lets me control what available.

 

[Storyteller01]

And as far as I got the description, it's just a bit of flavour text around "mechanical" effects...spend X amount of time and Y amount of money to locate/purchase the needed information and gain Z amounts of skill points. That there's some roleplaying attached is a preference of the individual GM, no? And just because one player isn't "in the mood", he's supposed to put his ideas aside? Sorry, sometimes a player either takes the carrot if he wants the goodie bag attached, or he looks for another carrot.

There is an exp cost of the additional points/feats. Sorry for not mentioning this.

 

[KenM]

On a related note. The MMORPG World of Warcraft has something like this,, IMO. Basically in WOW, if you don't pick a couple of professions for your character, your character can't make/ trade/ sell, ect. stuff to get more money. The system forces you to play a character with secondary professions to get cash. If you don't you can't afford the equipment you need need for your chaacters level, ect.. I don't like to play like that, i just want to play an adventurer that goes out on adventures. I don't want to sit there making bags all day.
If the player does not want to play that way, fine, let him play his character they way he wants to. But don't punish him for it.

 

[Storyteller01]

If the player does not want to play that way, fine, let him play his character they way he wants to. But don't punish him for it.

I may be misunderstanding this, but I'm not out to punish him. If he doesn't use the option, he'll have a leg up on levels (if others are using said option ). Just wondering what to expect. Do you predict problems?