Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 6096892" data-attributes="member: 4303">As other posters have noted, the BRP system of Runequest and CoC used this model; I can't say I'm a fan. It takes the granularity of 'advancement' to an extreme which I find unpalatable.I think there is an analogy to be drawn between early edition &quot;gp-for-XP&quot; and later edition &quot;increase any skills you choose (to a defined limit) as you level&quot; - inasmuch as the gp-for-xp rule is simply best viewed as an abstraction of how much adventuring you've done. If you've accrued lots of gold, that means you've done lots of adventuring - hence, your level is higher. Likewise, in later editions, if you've levelled, it means you've gotten better at a &quot;bunch of things&quot; - allocating those skill points is within the purview of the Player. Making skill advancement contingent upon specific uses of a skill enforces a degree of simulationism that is rather extreme - and this is from someone who is generally most comfortable within the 3.x ruleset. Nor does it allow for assuming &quot;off-screen&quot; use of skills. And I think it disempowers the Player. It's all a question of where you draw the granularity bar in terms of advancement.Awarding XP for clever/inventive/extraordinary skill use is an abstraction which suits me better, as it feeds into the &quot;getting better at a bunch of things&quot; motif whilst empowering Player choice in the specifics of where the mechanical improvement actually happens (choices which are made when the character levels). A better solution might be to have story-based awards which target specific, extraordinary uses of skills (e.g. the character gains 1 rank in the Bluff skill if he executes some amazing scam on the Baron). These might even allow a character to exceed normal skill limits - although some other hard cap would still be necessary.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 6096892, member: 4303"] As other posters have noted, the BRP system of Runequest and CoC used this model; I can't say I'm a fan. It takes the granularity of 'advancement' to an extreme which I find unpalatable. I think there is an analogy to be drawn between early edition "gp-for-XP" and later edition "increase any skills you choose (to a defined limit) as you level" - inasmuch as the gp-for-xp rule is simply best viewed as an abstraction of [I]how much adventuring you've done[/I]. If you've accrued lots of gold, that means you've done lots of adventuring - hence, your level is higher. Likewise, in later editions, if you've levelled, it means you've gotten better at a "bunch of things" - allocating those skill points is within the purview of the Player. Making skill advancement contingent upon specific uses of a skill enforces a degree of simulationism that is rather extreme - and this is from someone who is generally most comfortable within the 3.x ruleset. Nor does it allow for assuming "off-screen" use of skills. And I think it disempowers the Player. It's all a question of where you draw the granularity bar in terms of advancement. Awarding XP for clever/inventive/extraordinary skill use is an abstraction which suits me better, as it feeds into the "getting better at a bunch of things" motif whilst empowering Player choice in the specifics of where the mechanical improvement actually happens (choices which are made when the character levels). A better solution might be to have story-based awards which target specific, extraordinary uses of skills (e.g. the character gains 1 rank in the Bluff skill if he executes some amazing scam on the Baron). These might even allow a character to exceed normal skill limits - although some other hard cap would still be necessary. [/QUOTE]

Verification