How do you award AP?

[Ferretz]

As the subject says, how do you (Loremasters) award Advancement Points? I've always felt that the rules for AP are a bit abstract and not very well defined. One of the players in my group have also started complaining alot about how the rules for awarding AP favours those players who roll alot of dice, and lets the less active (or shy) players lag behind.

One idea I came up just now is to have a more static way of handing out AP. Instead of basing it on skill checks, maybe this could work:

The LM decides the difficulty of a adventure segment, from 3-5. This is the number of AP that will be rewarded after the segment is completed. A segment could be a journey, an encounter or any collection of scenes, really.

Then the LM takes the difficulty (3-5) and divides it out on skill groups. For example, if the segment was a hard journey through difficult terrain, being hunted by orcs, it could be 4, where 2 AP goes to Movement, 1 to Perception and 1 to Survival. At the end of the journey, the players fill in those.
If a character has one or more Traits that could fit with the segment (Hardy, Orc-lore etc), he gets one additional AP for each of them.

That is one way of doing it that goes away from AP being based on skill checks. And it might be more "fair", but it gives the LM a bit more work when it comes to planning the adventure.

E.

[Rich H]

As the subject says, how do you (Loremasters) award Advancement Points? I've always felt that the rules for AP are a bit abstract and not very well defined.

I think they are extremely well defined, and explicitly so, in the revised rules. And as such they create their own issues, like this:

One of the players in my group have also started complaining alot about how the rules for awarding AP favours those players who roll alot of dice, and lets the less active (or shy) players lag behind.

... or more accurately those with higher skill ratings as there is more of a chance of obtaining a great/extraordinary success when required; players who are 'shy' need to be helped along by the LM so this should be something easily avoided.

One idea I came up just now is to have a more static way of handing out AP. Instead of basing it on skill checks, maybe this could work

The thing with any change to how APs are obtained, other than attempting tasks/tests is that it takes away the drawbacks to invoking a trait for an automatic, but ordinary, success and not getting an AP check. I'd consider that before making any alterations.

Personally, I actually prefer the old RAW of awarding APs as found within the softback rules. I think the revised rules remove ambiguities, or more accurately the need to adjudicate, and are therefore easier/quicker to apply but I think they lose something in doing so.

[Ferretz]

I think I have to read the revised rules again.

They way we've done it so far, is to award the first "box" for a regular success, the second box for a great, and the third for an extraordinary. Also, traits can be invoked for an AP at any time.

I think this system works very well. But some players just can't accept that one character advances quicker than another...

-E.

[Falenthal]

I think I have to read the revised rules again.

They way we've done it so far, is to award the first "box" for a regular success, the second box for a great, and the third for an extraordinary. Also, traits can be invoked for an AP at any time.

Quite, but not exactly. As far as I understand them, it works like this:

1) First box is checked after any rolled success (not to autosuccess by means of a Trait usage).
2) Second box is checked after a great or extraordinary success, or after an ordinary success if a Trait is applicable to the roll and narrated by the player.
3) Third box is checked after a great or extraordinary success only if the character has an applicable Trait and is narrated by the player.

I think the rules for APs encourage narrating on behalf of the players, and focusing on the traits of your character even more than simply rolling. For me and my group it works really well, but I can see the concerns that arise in yours.

In my experience, the limit of 3 boxes per category for a whole Adventure Phase usually means that, at the end of the adventure, even those players that do less rolling will keep up with the others, as there's a limit of APs to be gained for everyone.

[Stormcrow]

For comparison, here's how advancement points are awarded in the original rules.

Advancement points should be considered in any of the following circumstances:

• A player who succeeds at an action may invoke a trait to gain an advancement point.
• If the player was told prior to the roll that failing would have serious, negative consequences, a successful roll should always be considered worthy of an advancement point.
• Success at severe or daunting difficulties should usually be considered worthy of an advancement point.

Then there is the limit per skill group:

• The first circle is filled by satisfying any of the above.
• The second circle is filled by satisfying any of the above and if the character has achieved something out of the ordinary.
• The third circle is filled by satisfying any of the above and when something truly extraordinary has resulted.

The distinction between simple, great, and extraordinary successes is only to be used as a guideline by Loremasters, not an absolute measurement. A clever player will think of special things to do that have out of the ordinary or exceptional results, but which they manage to achieve with only a simple success. These can still fill in the later circles.

The revised rules are much simpler and are, in my opinion, inferior for it:

• The first circle may be filled upon any successful action.
• The second circle may be filled on any great or extraordinary success or if the player invokes a trait.
• The third circle may be filled on any great or extraordinary success and if the player invokes a trait.

That's it. It's purely about how well you roll and whether you can invoke a trait. The consequences and the difficulty have nothing to do with it. Hence, the revised rules favor characters who already have higher skill ratings.

[Stormcrow]

1) First box is checked after any rolled success (not to autosuccess by means of a Trait usage).

The first circle is not restricted only to actions that you actually rolled dice for. In some cases players gain the power to make two trait invocations on a single roll; when this happens a player who invokes both an automatic action and an advancement point should get the point, by the book.

Yes, the text says "upon any successful roll," but clearly the text was not trying to make clear at this point the distinction between action, roll, and automatic action. The text is often a bit lax in making this distinction.

[Cleggster]

This is something I have struggled with for a few years now. How I currently work it is:

to get the first point, you need roll a great/extraordinary success or invoke a trait
to get the second point, you invoke a trait.
to get the third point, you need roll a great/extraordinary success and invoke a trait.

The goal is to get my players to use their traits more. They seem to actively avoid using them at all cost. To the point where I am considering requiring an extraordinary success for the first.

But this has worked out quite well. That way, the players who rely on good rolls will not make the "quieter" players eat their dust.

[Falenthal]

1) First box is checked after any rolled success (not to autosuccess by means of a Trait usage).

The first circle is not restricted only to actions that you actually rolled dice for. In some cases players gain the power to make two trait invocations on a single roll; when this happens a player who invokes both an automatic action and an advancement point should get the point, by the book.

AFAIK, this double use of a Trait can only be done thanks to some Undertakings, that either grant one Trait or, if the character already posseses it, the chance to double-use it.

[Mando]

I find the fact that AP reward dice rolling annoying.

There is a resulting tendency for players to always want to roll the dice: Helping to hunt the "main" hunter, pushing forward to use "Awe" when another character is presenting the group, looking around with everybody else etc. Of course in some instances the demand can be readily discarded (not wise to talk all at once, only room for one there, and so on), but generally speaking I find it a bit straining. Rewarding skill usage is pretty common in RPG, for example I think it was the case in good old Cthulhu game, but I do not remember it being an issue at the time. Of course, in Cthulhu chances of success are often low and people often die or get mad on a failure, so nobody is in a hurry to roll the dice !

Now, while it annoys me as LM, I should say that some of my players enjoy this system tremendously and make a competition out of it. Others simply do not care, so in the end there is a 30% difference in total AP gained between the most enthusiastic "play-roller" (quite ready to narrate all his rolls, all night) and the quietest follower.

All-in-all, I would say the current system exists and fits the needs of most of the table, so I did not care to change it. Yes, I am lazy regarding all those technicalities !

[Stormcrow]

1) First box is checked after any rolled success (not to autosuccess by means of a Trait usage).

The first circle is not restricted only to actions that you actually rolled dice for. In some cases players gain the power to make two trait invocations on a single roll; when this happens a player who invokes both an automatic action and an advancement point should get the point, by the book.

AFAIK, this double use of a Trait can only be done thanks to some Undertakings, that either grant one Trait or, if the character already posseses it, the chance to double-use it.

Correct. Those are "some cases."