Skill Systems

[Zhaleskra]

I was really speaking more generally -- D&D's pretty much the only game I've looked at that does XP on a per-monster or per-encounter basis; most use a much looser per-session method.
D&D of course comes down to group preference, though personally I've never played in a group that didn't save XP awards until the end of the session.

While that is the default assumption for many games, there is no reason it cannot be changed. For example, I gave XP/skill points (really the same thing) after a single scene in a World Tree session. Not the assumption of the game, but I feel it alleviates some of the "it takes too long to advance in skill systems" sentiment. Basically, don't assume that because the game's default assumption is X, that every GM running that game is going to do X.

I doubt you'd get any complaints about giving XP after a scene, unless a player was really insistent on playing with RAW. Also D&D lost the per monster/per treasure thing at 3e, unless they put it back in 4, which I don't know because I only have one product for that edition.

 

[TKDB]

While that is the default assumption for many games, there is no reason it cannot be changed. For example, I gave XP/skill points (really the same thing) after a single scene in a World Tree session. Not the assumption of the game, but I feel it alleviates some of the "it takes too long to advance in skill systems" sentiment. Basically, don't assume that because the game's default assumption is X, that every GM running that game is going to do X.

I don't have any problems with that, my point was simply that in most games XP is handled in chunks at the end of the session by default, and generally isn't directly based on the number of individual encounters/scenes in the session. Of course groups can always do things differently than the assumed norm if that's what they prefer (heck, I've played games of D&D where we didn't use XP at all, just levelled up whenever the DM felt it was appropriate given what we'd accomplished so far).
All I'm saying is that the norm for most games is to handle XP awards at the end of the session rather than in bits and pieces throughout. Whether your group plays by that norm or not is entirely up to you...and entirely irrelevant to my point.

Also D&D lost the per monster/per treasure thing at 3e, unless they put it back in 4, which I don't know because I only have one product for that edition.

3e doesn't do XP on a strictly per-monster or per-treasure basis, but it does do XP per-encounter based on encounter level, which is essentially an extension of per-monster XP because an encounter's EL is calculated from the CRs of the monsters involved in the encounter.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

I feel like the XP per encounter is a bit more realistic, and I aim to make a realistic game like that, where you can level up right there (although not in combat, but you can during the adventure)

Spells and Tricks (tricks being akin to sunder and cleave and disarm) cannot be learned without training, however the concept is that say, you fight with power (power attack) and you use it enough that you get use to using it, and as such, can then fuel your sunder option, with that in mind, you cast burning hands enough, eventually you learn fire trap, and then, after understanding fire spells enough, you can learn fireball. It's the building on what you know concept, I feel a per encounter rather than per session would help in this, and with that said, would greatly slim down any time required to figure that out at the end, as you just fix the skills right there.

it isn't that complex really, you pick locks, you get better at picking locks, its just how it works.

 

[TKDB]

I feel like the XP per encounter is a bit more realistic, and I aim to make a realistic game like that, where you can level up right there (although not in combat, but you can during the adventure)

A fair goal. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the idea isn't without merit, just that it does add a little bit of extra bookkeeping compared to the usual method of giving out XP at the end of the session according to very broad and general guidelines. Even if that bookkeeping is pretty minor (such as marking off a box each time you use a skill), it's still extra bookkeeping, and thus worth at least calling attention to as a potential (but not guaranteed) issue that might need addressed. When people play a game after a long day of work/classes/both, they can have a tendency to forget simple things like if an effect's duration (whether helpful or harmful) has worn off, and other such things. When simple oversights like that can impact the long-term advancement of your character by essentially costing you XP, that's definitely something to take note of as a potential drawback to the system.

Again, doesn't inherently mean that the whole thing needs scrapped, just that it's something that needs to be seriously examined in playtesting.

 

[Wik]

As I mentioned upthread, I did something similar with my own game, and if you have it simply laid out, you CAN have a percentile system where you level skills as you use them, without having to resort to clunky XP systems. And, in the few playtests I ran before my deadline came, that part of the system worked beautifully.

I'd beware of training times. It's probably a better idea to have the game set up so that, at the end of an adventure, PCs can learn new powers, tricks, and spells, but during the game, you can only improve skills or whatnot. The reason is this - if you include training times, than PCs who have to train a lot (wizards) will take up a lot of time. This often leads to players running multiple PCs, because they always have someone off training. I play in a group that does this, and I am not a fan.

Finally, beware about that "r" word you keep throwing around ("realism"). It will kill you when you design a game, every time. Especially once magic is thrown into things. The fact is, D&D4E is just as "realistic" as Shadowrun, which is just as "realistic" as BECMI. The portrayal of "realism" is much better done on the DM side of the screen interpreting game effects, than through the rules.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

As I mentioned upthread, I did something similar with my own game, and if you have it simply laid out, you CAN have a percentile system where you level skills as you use them, without having to resort to clunky XP systems. And, in the few playtests I ran before my deadline came, that part of the system worked beautifully.

I'd beware of training times. It's probably a better idea to have the game set up so that, at the end of an adventure, PCs can learn new powers, tricks, and spells, but during the game, you can only improve skills or whatnot. The reason is this - if you include training times, than PCs who have to train a lot (wizards) will take up a lot of time. This often leads to players running multiple PCs, because they always have someone off training. I play in a group that does this, and I am not a fan.

Finally, beware about that "r" word you keep throwing around ("realism"). It will kill you when you design a game, every time. Especially once magic is thrown into things. The fact is, D&D4E is just as "realistic" as Shadowrun, which is just as "realistic" as BECMI. The portrayal of "realism" is much better done on the DM side of the screen interpreting game effects, than through the rules.

I looked at your skill system, I don't want to boast but I think the 'great minds think alike' could be used here, althought I wouldn't say my mind is that great.
The "XP" system is to make it so you get more out of challenging tests rather than simple tests. Quality of the training, not quantity.
I would have training when not adventuring, it would, however, cost gold. But with magic items at an artifact level (I personally hate finding a +1 longsword at every turn, and then selling it to buy a +1 battleaxe, why not find a magical sword that makes you better at X? just my personal thought), coffing up gold for skills isn't that big of a deal.

The 'realism' word is not an accurate term, as I only want to apply it to the skills. I want skills to be, well skills, you learn them through experiences. I don't mean realism in the sense of "oh, you got hit? lose an arm"
Thats no fun, I agree.

The main push for this skill system is to actually make a modern rpg concept where it is nothing but these skills. It'd be like call of cthuhlu but with this skill system.

Actually, the Call of Cthuhlu skill system gave me this idea, however the 'roll under YOUR check' makes it seem less understandable, thats just me personally.



And the extra bookkeeping is no different than keeping track of ammunition, which is something I only do with unique ammo. Like silver arrows or the like, but it doesn't really slow down play.

You can scribble in a box during your friend's turn, when...you know...you're not doing anything.