Rewarding Advancement Points

[Ferretz]

I just started a new campaign with some of the players I've known the longest (we've played many other rpgs over the years), after an intense "marketing campaign" to get them to try out The One Ring. They really liked it, despite having misgivings about an rpg set in Middle Earth (arguments being that the best stories have already been told etc etc).

So, it seems we have a campaign going, with some of the players I really like to have at the table.

We did a crash course in the rules, and despite some confusion (they've been mostly playing Rogue Trader and Ars Magica before they tried TOR).

Awarding Advancement Points seemed to bring the most discussion, as they felt it awarded the players for rolling dice before roleplaying.

So this is the system I've been using so far:
First AP: Ordinary Success required.
Second AP: Great Success Required.
Third AP: Extraordinary Success Required.

One solution I came up with today is to let an automatic success from a Trait give the first AP, but the third AP requires Great or Extraordinary Success and the use of a Trait.

What do you guys think?

Eirik

[Stormcrow]

There are certain special abilities in Rivendell that allow a player to claim an automatic success AND an advancement point; your rule might interfere with those.

I think the revised rules may have become a bit too mechanistic regarding awarding advancement points. The original rules from Adventures Over the Edge of the Wild were as follows:

• First advancement point in group awarded if
  • Player succeeds and invokes a trait, OR
  • Player warned that roll would have dire consequences and succeeds, OR
  • Player succeeds against a Severe or Daunting difficulty.
• Second advancement point in group awarded if one of above AND player achieves something out of the ordinary. A great success MAY qualify.
• Third advancement point in group awarded if one of above AND player achieves something truly exceptional. An extraordinary success MAY qualify.

The new rules are as follows:

• First advancement point in group awarded if player succeeds at a roll.
• Second advancement point in group awarded if player achieves a great or extraordinary success OR the player succeeds and invokes a trait.
• Third advancement point in group awarded if player achieves a great or extraordinary success AND the player invokes a trait.

If your players feel like the new rules are too mechanistic, try the old rules. Only use great or extraordinary successes as a guide to whether a roll is worth an advancement point. I would stick to only awarding advancement points to rolls that are RELEVANT—for instance, if a player gets an extraordinary success while Searching someplace that has no clues in it, I probably wouldn't give a second or third advancement point for it.

It just occurred to me that according to the new rules you can't get the third advancement point in a group without invoking a trait. The first two points seem really easy and the third one seems really hard.

I unquestionably prefer the original rules.

[aramis]

It's not hard at all to get the third point in Travel - it's rolled often enough.

In other areas, not so easy, but most of my players have hit two categories at 3 AP earned every adventure.

[Ferretz]

I'm thinking about following the Revised rules.

But I read in Heart of the Wild and some other places that some Fellowship Undertakings gives temporary Traits. If you have this Trait already, you can use it to get two advantages (automatic success and advancement point, for instance).

What I'm going to try out (if I'm not breaking any rules I haven't thought about yet), is to let characters get to use an automatic success and advancement point IF they have two Traits that would clearly help on a skill.

Also, for those players who feel that dice are rolled too often just to get advancement points, we have the Eye of Mordor-rules from Rivendell. I really like that rule.

Eirik

[jamesrbrown]

We applied the Revised rules last night in game and they worked magnificently. Things are much simpler and I think the players enjoyed it. I still need to push them into proposing tasks, however (which would help them earn more Advancement points. Sometimes they clam up and aren't very creative, especially during encounters. I find myself coaxing them into asking the right questions. For that particular group, I might start setting up encounters with pre-determined tasks (kind of like encounters in a video-game). Come to think of it, those guys are video-gamers. No wonder!!!

[Ferretz]

I think I'm onto a solution my group will like. Whenever a character has a Distinctive Feature he can use with a Speciality, he will be able to gain two advantages from invoking a Trait, but ONLY for the first AP in a group.

Some examples:
Patient + Fishing
Secretive + Burglary
Hardy + Smith-craft
Wary + Quick of Hearing

and so on...

Eirik

[Morten]

When I first read the advancement rules, my impression was that it looked quite a lot like the BIT's rules (beliefs, instincts, traits) in Burning Wheel & Mouse Guard. And that is neat, because those are awesome and really drives player motivation.
But my first play experience was more like you get advancement points for rolling high dice rolls. And that mystified me. Not only because that didn't resemble what I've read in the rulebook, but also because it imho does very little to encurage players to be creative or imersed or portray believeable characters. It only encurages them to roll dice, preferably with their highest skills and nag the LM about wheter the result qualifies for an advancement point.

What I would like to see get awarded advancement points is when players contribute to the narrative in a way that is entertaining to their co-players and the LM. And one strong way to do that is to describe how the characters traits hinders them in a task. That sort of play has so many strong points. It is an easy way of portraying seemingly believeable characters, it's a opening for humor and for suspense, and it great for other players to see that you deer to show off the character's flaws and weak points.

[Glorelendil]

IMO you should get AP for invoking traits to explain why you fail rolls.

[Morten]

IMO you should get AP for invoking traits to explain why you fail rolls.

Yes, that's one way of doing excactly what I'm trying to say. Thanks for the example!

[Ferretz]

I like it! I'm writing up a list of what gives APs to my players, so they don't have to talk about it over the table all the time when rolling. Here's what I've come up with:

1st AP:
-Any successful roll
-Failure + Distinguishing Feature
-Specialy + Distinguishing Feature (see my previous post)
2. AP:
-Ordinary Success + Trait
-Great Success
-Extraordinary Success
3. AP:
-Great Success + Trait
-Extraordinary Success

I think this will make my players happy, while still keeping the rules for AP mostly intact.

E.