Understanding Advancement Points and Traits

[Majestic]

Me too. Once you get the swing of things, accomplishing the average of 4 AP per session is quite doable (with the caveat that you will probably have more in the first session, being as the first ones are easier than later ones).

[snapeye]

I think he means "cumulative" as in: if you start the game fresh, and your first roll is a great success with invoked trait, then you don't get to mark it down because you first need to score a simple success, and then a great success or invoked trait. The order is important. Is that true? If so, it makes advancement significantly slower. I assumed I could have my players mark the third diamond without first bubbling in the preceding ones.

The way I would do that is still just to mark off the first diamond - you've simply over exceeded the qualifying criteria to get the first AP check.

Thanks, I like it. I'll handle it this way.

[zedturtle]

Just joining the chorus... you fill in the first bubble, but the second one still requires a Great success or other similar situation and the third requires an Extraordinary thing... I rather like the AP rules as written, but tweak qualifications on occasion.

[Rich H]

I rather like the AP rules as written, but tweak qualifications on occasion.

I do miss some of the elements of the original RAW, so have added them back in.

[Majestic]

I rather like the AP rules as written, but tweak qualifications on occasion.

I do miss some of the elements of the original RAW, so have added them back in.

Rich, what elements are you meaning? The part where the player is told that failure could result in serious negative consequences, and overcoming a severe or daunting difficulty?

[zedturtle]

Not Rich, but one of the thing I miss is the explicit APs for notable failures aspect. I learn by screwing up, seems like my PC would too.

[Rich H]

Not Rich, but one of the thing I miss is the explicit APs for notable failures aspect. I learn by screwing up, seems like my PC would too.

Yep, that's the one.

[Majestic]

Thanks for explaining. If this hadn't come up, I wouldn't have realized that aspect was actually taken out (I don't have the revised rules yet; right now I've got the old school books and the Clarifications document).

[Stormcrow]

I think the original rules are far superior. The new rules have only the advantage of being easier to apply.

For those who don't have them or don't remember, the old rules said:

You get advancement points for the following circumstances:

• You succeed at an action and invoke a trait to support it.
• You succeed at an action you were told would result in severe consequences should it fail.
• You succeed at a severe or daunting action.

Advancement points are limited as follows:

• To get the first point, you do any of the above.
• To get the second point, you have to do any of the above and in doing it achieve something out of the ordinary.
• To get the third point, you have to do any of the above and in doing it achieve something exceptional.

Part of the confusion was about what exactly "out of the ordinary" and "exceptional" meant. The rules warned that great and extraordinary successes could only act as guidelines. My own guidelines are: an action is out of the ordinary if your reaction might be, "All right!" and you feel an urge to describe just how cool your success was. An action is exceptional if it makes you want to drop your mouth open and you feel a little stunned, hardly believing it, and you'll remember this situation for a long time. This may happen as part of a great or extraordinary success, or it may happen as the result of out of the ordinary or exceptional circumstances.

Under the new rules, the advancement points are simply awarded as:

• To get the first point, succeed at a roll.
• To get the second point, get a great success or succeed and invoke a trait.
• To get the third point, get an extraordinary success and succeed and invoke a trait.

It's more straightforward, but it only rewards good rolling and trait invocation.

[Falenthal]

I think the original rules are far superior. The new rules have only the advantage of being easier to apply.
[...]
It's more straightforward, but it only rewards good rolling and trait invocation.

I'm not going to discuss which rules are better, but I like the new ones better, just for the two reasons you expose. The difference between your likes and mines is that I value this two reasons higher than you!

I like it when rules are written so that I don't have to look at the books during the game session AND they are so clear that the role-playing isn't interrupted by interpretations of said rules. In this, the new ones are better. If they achieve the same results with less effort, then for me they're better.

And second, I see the need to invoke a trait to gain the third and maybe the second point as a way of inducing players to roleplay their characters. If the players just say "I invoke my trait of Hardy and gain one AP", well, then the new rules aren't better. But if they make the effort of describing the great success related to their trait, then we have gained some nice history for the hero.
If a player isn't capable of doing such effort, then I guess the same player wouldn't react with "All right!" or "drop his mouth" as you described.

For my group, the new rules work better than the old ones, but everyone has his own experience.