Skilled Characters

[Rich H]

... so something like 14 AP per adventure

Whereas with my game (and my house-rules that are supposedly easier than the RAW in allowing accrual of APs) my players' characters only get between 5 and 10 APs per adventure. I think that's your problem. You've awarded APs far too quickly and therefore allowed your PCs to progress skills at too high a rate and therefore you've broken the balance of the game with regard to skill ratings, hope usage, and target number probabilities.

[Yusei]

Whereas with my game (and my house-rules that are supposedly easier than the RAW in allowing accrual of APs) my players' characters only get between 5 and 10 APs per adventure

Could you give some details about your house rules? When one PC rolls a great or extraordinary success, unless the action was unimportant, I allow the first check of the three. Which means that if they do a little bit of everything, they can get one check in at least 3 of the skill groups per session. Without using traits or anything.

Do you require the roll to be really vital to the story, or the action to be special?

Also, do you sometimes award APs for failure with grave consequences, as is suggested in the books?

[Rich H]

Could you give some details about your house rules?

Yeah, sure - apologies if this derails the thread somewhat.

You can tick 1 of the 3 AP boxes associated to the skill in question when any of the following occur:

1) After a successful roll, invoke a trait afterwards and explain why it helped your character succeed.

2) Make a successful roll that results in a great (t) or extraordinary (tt+) success.

3) Make a successful roll when the LM tells you it will have serious negative consequences if you fail.

4) Make a successful roll that overcomes a severe or daunting difficulty.

5) Fail a roll by 1 or 2 points only and explain what your character has learned in doing so.

It's a while ago, so I may have forgotten the specifics, but I think I adopted these rules after discussions on an old thread and the fact that in my game the PCs were only getting around 3 APs per adventure so I wanted to up their rate of accrual/progression.

Do you require the roll to be really vital to the story, or the action to be special?

Not necessarily vital but certainly significant. The players only roll for their character if it's progressing the story, or more specifically, they can roll but don't get APs unless it's significant to the story.

[Yusei]

Am I correct in understanding that with your house rules, even the third box can be checked without invoking a trait? In that case, I suppose the biggest difference between our groups is the amount of rolls that are made. With just rule 2, my group would probably check more than half the boxes in one session.

When they had only 2-dice or 3-dice skills, great successes were rare and extraordinary ones were, well, extraordinary. But nowadays they are much more common.

I'm trying to have them roll less, but they want APs, so they want to roll, and take every opportunity to do so.

I think it's fair to say that there is a problem with APs, since you had to tinker with the rules because your group was progressing too slowly, and my group, which was progressing at a good rate, is now progressing (slightly) too quickly.

[Rich H]

Am I correct in understanding that with your house rules, even the third box can be checked without invoking a trait?

Yes, any of the boxes can be checked using any of the listed conditions.

In that case, I suppose the biggest difference between our groups is the amount of rolls that are made.

Very probably. Impossible to compare though...

With just rule 2, my group would probably check more than half the boxes in one session.

That's not been the case for me. Skills of 1 or 2 don't get this very often. A skill of 3 does but then such a skill would only be applied when relevant to the task at hand and then only relates to that particular AP category. Regularity of rolls is key though.

When they had only 2-dice or 3-dice skills, great successes were rare and extraordinary ones were, well, extraordinary. But nowadays they are much more common.

Yeah, agreed. Once you start awarding APs too quickly then PCs will get their higher skills and then it's too late to pull back the accrual rate.

I'm trying to have them roll less, but they want APs, so they want to roll, and take every opportunity to do so.

So, let them roll but don't award APs unless something critical at stake and/or they're progressing the story in a significant way. I've used that in my game.

[LukeZ]

... so something like 14 AP per adventure

Whereas with my game (and my house-rules that are supposedly easier than the RAW in allowing accrual of APs) my players' characters only get between 5 and 10 APs per adventure. I think that's your problem. You've awarded APs far too quickly and therefore allowed your PCs to progress skills at too high a rate and therefore you've broken the balance of the game with regard to skill ratings, hope usage, and target number probabilities.

Surely I've given my players more than the "right" amount of AP (let's say double).

Do you intend to retire your characters when they'll reach the point of having 4 or 5 "main" skills at 4+?

Anyway I don't think this is only my problem (because of how many AP I've given).
For example it applies to "XP skill" too (Weapon skills, Wisdom and Valour).

At the rate you give your characters XP (not AP), an averange of 10 XP per adventure (if I'm not mistaken), after 7 adventures the'll have 70 XP:
Main Weapon (from 2 to 5) = 32 XP
Valor (from 2 to 4) = 16 XP
Wisdom (from 1 to 4) = 20 XP
For a total of 68 XP.

Those characters will rarely miss an attack with their Main Weapon Skill, rarely miss a Fear test and rarely miss a Corruption test.

[grachinski]

I do believe that after 27 adventure phases the heroes should be bearing a lot of shadow with them and would preferably retire.

But either way, I think saying that a group with 27 adventures is a very strong group sounds about right. They've earned it. They are kind of veterans and should not fail in silly TN 14 tests.

[Rich H]

Do you intend to retire your characters when they'll reach the point of having 4 or 5 "main" skills at 4+?

That more depends on the game content, story, and development of the characters within it than on some skills being at too high a rating. I've never been one to gauge my games by the PCs ability to succeed at skills - I ran an Amber campaign for 5 years, every Sunday, with huge success - in that the PCs (Amberites and Chaosians) basically succeed at any skill test. It was still a challenging and interesting game because having great skills wasn't the point of the game. To be honest, I don't think it has been in any of my games.

At the rate you give your characters XP (not AP), an averange of 10 XP per adventure (if I'm not mistaken), after 7 adventures the'll have 70 XP:
Main Weapon (from 2 to 5) = 32 XP
Valor (from 2 to 4) = 16 XP
Wisdom (from 1 to 4) = 20 XP
For a total of 68 XP.

Those characters will rarely miss an attack with their Main Weapon Skill, rarely miss a Fear test and rarely miss a Corruption test.

I don't see a problem. Such heroes should be facing great foes and adventuring in far more dangerous environments than they were when they started out, as I mentioned upthread. Personally, unless outnumbered by lesser opponents I'd be inclined to let them auto-succeed against such enemies - facing them and defeating them is not important to the narrative of the game so why worry about rolling the dice to confirm what you already know? It's the more dangerous foes where the mechanical focus would be - those enemies that match your heroes in capability or superior numbers. Then, 4 or 5 points in a weapon skill is relative to the opponent(s) which also has a similar rating. Therefore the challenge is still there and from a narrative perspective it should be focussed upon. Same goes for Fear and Corruption tests.

What I would say is that you have progressed your game far too quickly and so are facing issues that I'm not. Who knows what's going to be in the new material with regard to 'high level play'.

[Rich H]

I do believe that after 27 adventure phases the heroes should be bearing a lot of shadow with them and would preferably retire.

But either way, I think saying that a group with 27 adventures is a very strong group sounds about right. They've earned it. They are kind of veterans and should not fail in silly TN 14 tests.

I agree on both counts. If I ever run 27 adventures in TOR with the same group of PCs, and they've managed to not succumb to Shadow, then I'd expect them to be advising Gandalf, Radagast, and Thranduil on matters and sit at the highest of tables as they'd be lords of men and dwarves on merit alone.

I'd be interested in LukeZ summarising each adventure and seeing how his PCs have grown within the context of the gameworld over such period rather than about which skill is at 4 or 5. It's that kind of thing that I'd find engaging.

[LukeZ]

The game (if I'm not mistaken) is set for difficulties that goes from TN 10 to TN 20, while skills goes from an average of 6 (0d6) to an average of 27 (6d6).
Yes, 6d6 is VERY rare, but 4d6 is normally good enough (with an average of 20).
My "problem" was only that after some adventures (like 10 or so), characters became very resistant to fear and corruption, very good in combat and adept at some common skills (their "specialties").
When the baleful gaze of a Dragon has a TN 16 and a Corruption test in a Dark place has TN 20 and, what would have a higher TN?
There are a lot of challenges that requires no dice rolling (mine was not a question about "role playing" vs "roll playing"). But there are challenges that are resolved with dice, simply put it seems that I'm not sure how to decide the "right" TN for a good challenge.