Hi Indur Dawndeath -- I did not think you were trying to change my game. And I'm certainly not trying to change your game. I'm sorry if my post came across that way. I thought I was just adding to the conversation, and trying to help.Indur Dawndeath wrote:Sorry Angelalex242, but this is exactly the reason, why I chose to distribute the APs equally between all players.Personally, I don't use auto success till I have 3 AP in a category. Before that, I'd rather go for AP, so I always try the roll. Advancement is far more important than success on any single action.
If you can get an auto success, in a non critical part of the game, to speed up the story and not take an unnecessary risk, then I think you should do that, but if everybody is competing for the APs, then players start taking chances to get the APs they lack.
I my oppinion advancement is definitely 2nd compared to successfully swimming back out from the Marsh dwellers abode, when you have already rescued the Dwarves or another situation where you put the party at risk for no reason except to get another AP...
If one player take chances like that and succeed, then the other players will do the same, because if they don't, then it will just be the reckless player that advances.
Hi Beckett, I actually don't think that auto success is broken, because it is too powerful, as the rules describe, that you only get auto success when the task is not dramatically relevant. The reason I have for making this change with the distinctive traits, is that it is too difficult to agree on the tests they should apply to. And in my opinion, stated above, you need the actual skill as well. It is not enough to be Tall, you need Awe to be intimidating.Hope I didn't come off sounding like a grumpy old man. I mistook your "I never saw it this way..." post as agreeing with the general notion that invoking traits for auto successes was somehow broken because it was too powerful.
But just to be clear, I am not trying to change any of your games or way of playing, I am simply presenting another way to look at APs and Traits, which really helped my group.
You wrote:
"I felt, like many others, that you can argument on auto success for too many things if you are fx: Adventurous, Determined, Energetic.."
This statement is incorrect when you apply the rules as written: A player cannot invoke an auto success if the roll has dramatically relevant consequences or if the action is deemed too difficult to warrant the player passing up a die roll. The Loremaster needs to step in and say, no auto success is allowed under the current circumstances.
You wrote: "It is not enough to be Tall, you need Awe to be intimidating." And I think it circles back to what I was saying regarding the rules as written. A player cannot invoke a Trait (in your example, Tall) if the roll has dramatically relevant consequences or if the action is deemed too difficult to warrant passing up a die roll.
Also, please remember that the player only gets the AP if he succeeds at that Awe roll first, and then invokes his Tall trait and provides a little narrative about how being Tall helped him succeed. It's a mechanic to encourage the player to role-play (to take the narrative from the LM for a second and narrate something entertaining).
If your group needs stricter guideline for AP awards, Francesco Nepitello provided these on his blog. Maybe it will help?
1) AP-for-Trait: if a player succeeds at an action he may invoke a Trait to gain an Advancement point. Additionally, this is the only way to get a point if two circles out of three are already checked.
2) if a player succeeds at an action with TN above 14, he gains an Advancement point (unless it's the third in a row)
3) if a player succeeds at an action producing a great or extraordinary success, he gains 1 Ap as above (not third circle).
And while they are talking to Aragorn, the waitress accidentally drops something. With a seducing smile she asks the player to please pick it up for her. What to do, what to do...?