forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

How to improve one's character is one of the major areas in almost every rpg. In The One Ring skills are improved by using skills, gaining AP and spending them, while XP (recieved after playing sessions and reaching goals) are spent on weapon skills, Valour and Wisdom (and with that, Rewards and Virtues).

One of my players is interested in raising his general skills, more than in weapon skills and shiny armour. He plays a lordly dwarf scholar, but his social skills are lacking, as it is hard for a dwarf to get decent values due to low starting values in most social skills. He's asked me if he can spend XP to raise his skills.

So, the question here is: would letting players spend XP on skills (in addition to spending AP) unbalance the game? Either with the same or double the cost of bying starting skills with the 10 XP you get at character creation. Have any of you tried this house rule? Would it be interesting or just bland? I think that most players would want to get hold of the juicer rewards anyway, but the player who wants to be a skilled hero in some particular area of expertise could benefit from it.

Would appreciate any input.

Cheers
Magnus

Short answer: yes it would adversely affect the game.

APs and XPs are very different system artefacts within the game. XP accrues gradually with the completion of each session/adventure and is applied to non-common skills. APs are accrued by the PCs when using their Common Skills at a different rate. If you allow XPs to be spent on Common Skills then you're messing with that balance. Common Skills will increase at a greater rate which will cause a knock-on affect on Hope usage, etc.

If you're going to do something like this then I'd personally remove APs from the equation and just put together a model for XP spend across all the different parts of a character. That way it's one system artefact that shapes and controls a PC's growth and development. But this wouldn't necessarily solve the problem of common skills progressing too quickly and screwing the balance of the Hope mechanic. This would therefore make challenges trivial and the threat of the Shadow pretty much superfluous.

Personally, I'd steer clear of any alteration like we're discussing here.

In contrast, I've permitted limited conversion without any problems so far. In my campaign, some of the heroes have proven exceptionally unlucky in terms of earning APs, getting only a handful per adventure.

From my perspective, telling guys who show up and contribute positively every session (and earning EPs) that they need to play differently if they want to make progress is a dangerous game in terms of incentives. I'd prefer they figure it out on their own and keep showing up.

My only caution is to avoid using the same conversion both ways. 1 EP to 3 AP and 5 AP to 1 EP seems a good balance but your mileage may vary. Also, it should be a Fellowship Action and a larger conversion, if possible, should be even more expensive.

Mordagnir wrote:In contrast, I've permitted limited conversion without any problems so far. In my campaign, some of the heroes have proven exceptionally unlucky in terms of earning APs, getting only a handful per adventure.

A handful sounds about right. Common Skills are meant to progress fairly slowly - I think that's a design conceit of the system based on chatting to Francesco. Also, there's nothing new about skill development in RPGs locked in to those skills being used/passed/failed within the game. Off the top of my head Pendragon does this kind of thing along with many variants of BRP, etc.

Mordagnir wrote:From my perspective, telling guys who show up and contribute positively every session (and earning EPs) that they need to play differently if they want to make progress is a dangerous game in terms of incentives.

No one is saying that as far as I'm aware?

Mordagnir wrote:My only caution is to avoid using the same conversion both ways. 1 EP to 3 AP and 5 AP to 1 EP seems a good balance but your mileage may vary. Also, it should be a Fellowship Action and a larger conversion, if possible, should be even more expensive.

I'm not too sure... Although, I do have a house-rule where characters can purchase Specialities and some Distinctive Features within the game during the Fellowship Phase rather than swap ones out, which allow PCs to develop support of Common Skills, provided they can justify the purchase within the gameworld as part of their character's experiences. I prefer this route as it avoids just crunching numbers and increasing skill scores and instead focusses on those elements of the game (Specialities and Distinctive Features) that support Common Skills adding character growth beyond just increasing the rating of skills and improving opportunities for RPing the player's character.

If memory serves a player can get AP whether the skill use was successful or not, the only thing I see that would possibly hold a character up is the limit of only 3 AP per skill group, and the increase difficulty in in getting them above the first.

If they are having problems getting them during play and they have a skill(s) they really want to work on then give them a few APs and cut back XPs at the end of the adventure, or if they say they are going to do something that would allow them to practice these skills during a Fellowship phase give them a AP for their imagination.

Beran wrote:If memory serves a player can get AP whether the skill use was successful or not, the only thing I see that would possibly hold a character up is the limit of only 3 AP per skill group, and the increase difficulty in in getting them above the first.

That's correct as far as I can remember, I don't have the rules to hand - the game is designed for slow progression of Common Skills so it's okay to 'only' get a handful per adventure.

Beran wrote:If they are having problems getting them during play and they have a skill(s) they really want to work on then give them a few APs and cut back XPs at the end of the adventure, or if they say they are going to do something that would allow them to practice these skills during a Fellowship phase give them a AP for their imagination.

I'd say that last bit of getting them is far more interesting than 'converting' XP - it promotes creativity and thinking about your character within the Fellowship Phase thus supporting role-playing. I'd say that's very much in keeping with the spirit of the game and AP awards.

Rich H wrote: A handful sounds about right. Common Skills are meant to progress fairly slowly - I think that's a design conceit of the system based on chatting to Francesco. Also, there's nothing new about skill development in RPGs locked in to those skills being used/passed/failed within the game. Off the top of my head Pendragon does this kind of thing along with many variants of BRP, etc.

Mileage may certainly vary but there was a wide distribution of AP earnings over the first two adventures with the top earner getting nearly double than the bottom earner. Over a dozen sessions, that translated into distinct differences in terms of their rewards despite contributing the same in terms of fun and fellowship. Four APs for a four-session adventure strikes me as low but perhaps I lack your perspective.

Mordagnir wrote:From my perspective, telling guys who show up and contribute positively every session (and earning EPs) that they need to play differently if they want to make progress is a dangerous game in terms of incentives.

Rich H wrote: No one is saying that as far as I'm aware?

Certainly not explicitly but, at least in my game, that would be the effective consequence. If a player comes to every session and makes a concerted effort to participate equally but makes limited progress compared to other players due to choices perceived as "bad" or "suboptimal," one can quickly encounter players trying to game the system or finding a different way to spend their Saturday mornings (most of my players get up at 730am on Saturdays to play so it's definitely a sacrifice!).

Rich H wrote: I'm not too sure... Although, I do have a house-rule where characters can purchase Specialities and some Distinctive Features within the game during the Fellowship Phase rather than swap ones out, which allow PCs to develop support of Common Skills, provided they can justify the purchase within the gameworld as part of their character's experiences. I prefer this route as it avoids just crunching numbers and increasing skill scores and instead focusses on those elements of the game (Specialities and Distinctive Features) that support Common Skills adding character growth beyond just increasing the rating of skills and improving opportunities for RPing the player's character.

Probably just a difference in preference then. I'd never permit that. Since my players tend to amass EPs quickly relative to APs (playing short sessions exacerbates this trend), I've found letting them make a limited conversion of EPs to APs a better compromise.

Mordagnir wrote:Mileage may certainly vary but there was a wide distribution of AP earnings over the first two adventures with the top earner getting nearly double than the bottom earner. Over a dozen sessions, that translated into distinct differences in terms of their rewards despite contributing the same in terms of fun and fellowship. Four APs for a four-session adventure strikes me as low but perhaps I lack your perspective.

It can vary in my game too - things tend to average out over time though. Saying that, I did houserule AP accrual very slightly in my own campaign - making it slightly easier to get the 2nd and 3rd APs in each skill group.

Mordagnir wrote:Probably just a difference in preference then. I'd never permit that. Since my players tend to amass EPs quickly relative to APs (playing short sessions exacerbates this trend), I've found letting them make a limited conversion of EPs to APs a better compromise.

Yeah, the XPs / game session is *another* issue with in-game rewards based on out-of-game time measurements. I posted in a recent thread how I'd removed all such elements from my game and what you describe above is a perfect example of the problems with how the rules are currently written... In an alternate universe, you guys could be playing the same way *except* your game sessions last 8 hours each time - that group would get *far* less XP than your 'real' group does for exactly the same events, simply because you've played it in short bursts. You'd also get more Fellowship Hope refreshes too as opposed to the gamers playing longer sessions.

Rich H wrote: Yeah, the XPs / game session is *another* issue with in-game rewards based on out-of-game time measurements. I posted in a recent thread how I'd removed all such elements from my game and what you describe above is a perfect example of the problems with how the rules are currently written... In an alternate universe, you guys could be playing the same way *except* your game sessions last 8 hours each time - that group would get *far* less XP than your 'real' group does for exactly the same events, simply because you've played it in short bursts. You'd also get more Fellowship Hope refreshes too as opposed to the gamers playing longer sessions.

I adopted your event-based Fellowship Pool refresh house rule at least six months ago for precisely that reason.

Hmmm. Which brings up another point. If a player wants to buy a new specialty or a new trait WITHOUT replacing old ones, how much should that cost?

Is it a new virtue called 'specialized?' (Sometimes, Elves want to know Elven Lore and Mirkwood Lore, but they want to know how how to make a fire too...) A new Trait "Distinctive" virtue (Why can't I be Swift, Quick of Hearing, AND Fair)? Or a flat XP cost? Or something else?