forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Beleg wrote:Regarding Advancement Points, in general the first AP can be given simply for achieving a great success on a roll. The second AP requires something a bit more impressive, and I think the third AP has to come from invoking a trait on a roll, whether the roll succeeds or not. In fact, I think it's almost better if it's on a roll that failed, as it builds on the idea of learning from one's mistakes. Equally, a fellowship phase is when the fellowship is at the end of a journey or adventure, long enough to relax and recupperate. So unless you have really long game sessions or really short adventures, you won't have a fellowship phase each session.

A reasonable interpretation.

In the beginning, this was one of the most confusing aspects of the game (aside from Trait use for auto-success). Since much of it is subjective (along with much of the game in general), without a lot of hard-fast rules to adhere to, I created a bullet-point narrative and presented it to my players to use as a tool and guideline to help us navigate this part of it until we became comfortable enough with the "rules as intended" aspect and could then be confident in spot-rulings and ad-hoc decisions.

I posted this on my personal gaming forum for my players to print and learn and have handy; in time we've gotten a little more lax to not need to follow it so close-fisted, but I feel it's still a good point of reference and helps one understand the way it's intended to work at least for the most part.


http://z6.invisionfree.com/World_Of_Myd ... topic=2218



Robert

Beleg wrote:Regarding Advancement Points, in general the first AP can be given simply for achieving a great success on a roll. The second AP requires something a bit more impressive, and I think the third AP has to come from invoking a trait on a roll, whether the roll succeeds or not.

I've just been reading this section of the rules, and I'll respectfully disagree with this interpretation. I'm going by page 30 of the Loremaster's Book here. There are three conditions given for when to consider awarding an AP:

• 1. A player succeeds on a roll and then invokes a trait (this is how players lobby for APs)
  2. A player makes a roll after being told that the consequences of failure would be particularly dire (The Adventurer's book notes that Advancement points can be awarded on failures, too).
  3. A player succeeds at a roll of TN 18 or 20.

When any of these occur it's time for the LM to decide whether an AP should be granted. If the player has yet to receive any APs in that skill group this adventuring phase "The Loremaster should feel free to award an Advancement Point as soon as a player makes a roll satisfying the requirements given above".

You can earn a maximum of 3APs in each skill group per adventuring phase. If you've already got advancement points in a skill group, the requirements for the LM saying "yes" get a bit steeper. According to the Loremaster's Guide: "the LM should only grant a second point when something out of the ordinary has happened, and a third point only in exceptional cases".

So if you've already earned a point in the Movement group, passing a random Fatigue check on a journey and invoking a trait won't justify an AP. But maybe tackling a Hazard event while lost in a blighted land might.

There's a line in the LM Guide (p31) that I think has caused a bit of confusion: "...the distinction between simple successes and great or extraordinary ones may be used as a guideline..."

I don't think that means you need to get Great or Extraordinary successes to qualify for APs - for a start that makes it impossible for characters without a skill to ever earn one (because they can't get a Great success) and very hard for characters with skills at 1 or 2 to earn APs.

Instead, I think it means you should look at the description of what Great and Extraordinary successes mean to guide your decision. This is on p27 of the Adventurer's Book: a Great Success is an "accomplishment out of the ordinary" and an Extraordinary success is "absolutely exceptional and memorable."

So when deciding whether to award a second AP in a skill group, ask yourself if the task attempted was out of the ordinary (so probably not general attack rolls against orcs, standard healing rolls, most fatigue checks). When granting the third, ask if it was absolutely exceptional and memorable (taking a stand against a troll when wounded and on a couple of points of Endurance, beating an Elf-king at riddles, using Awe to intimidate away a barrow-wight's last point of Hate, etc, etc).

I think the design intent of circle-checking and the requirements for APs increasing is to:

• 1. Pace how quickly characters advacne. It stops skills rising more than a certain amount each Adventuring Phase
  2. Encourage players to act more boldly and ambitiously as the adventure progresses.

A couple of things to note:

• First, APs are only given when rolls are made, not when someone uses a trait to guarantee an automatic success. APs reward risk.
  Second, the rules cover two distinct stages to the process of granting APs: (a) when does the LM consider granting an AP, and (B) under what circumstances do they say yes. The first stage is spelled out quite clearly, the second stage is more open to LM interpretation.

Chris Gardner fair enough. As they say, your mileage may vary. I was answering based on what I remember coming up last time I read a thread regarding APs, which including Francesco giving some advice. But it was so long ago I could easily have messed them up

Chris Gardiner wrote: I'm going by page 30 of the Loremaster's Book here. There are three conditions given for when to consider awarding an AP:

• 1. A player succeeds on a roll and then invokes a trait (this is how players lobby for APs)
  2. A player makes a roll after being told that the consequences of failure would be particularly dire (The Adventurer's book notes that Advancement points can be awarded on failures, too).
  3. A player succeeds at a roll of TN 18 or 20.

This seems to be the general understanding I believe. FWIW, the post I made for my players in the link I provided above, seems to mirror this M.O. pretty well.

I think the design intent of circle-checking and the requirements for APs increasing is to:

• 1. Pace how quickly characters advacne. It stops skills rising more than a certain amount each Adventuring Phase
  2. Encourage players to act more boldly and ambitiously as the adventure progresses.

Another balancing factor is that since only a maximum of three are allowed per skill group, and each subsequent within that group is harder to achieve, requires a more well-rounded skill base to "learn" better and more ways to deal with day-to-day skill needs. Mechanically, it prevents a person from simply continuing to succeed in a skill group that he's very well trained in, and spreading those earned APs to other areas. Without these checks, one can conceivably have three skill ranks in all three skills of a group and simply continue to get great successes, and use their traits to invoke in the same way for the same skill over and over and continue rack up APs. This way it creates the need to creatively come up with new ways to invoke traits, and more creatively be diverse in using all skills if you wish to gain a high number of APs.


Robert

SirKicley wrote:Another balancing factor is that since only a maximum of three are allowed per skill group, and each subsequent within that group is harder to achieve, requires a more well-rounded skill base to "learn" better and more ways to deal with day-to-day skill needs. Mechanically, it prevents a person from simply continuing to succeed in a skill group that he's very well trained in, and spreading those earned APs to other areas.

Good point!

I have a large party of players and everyone doesnt always get a chance to make rolls. So I take the PC with the highest APs at the end of the scenario and give that to everyone...plus a bonus 2 for the PC with the highest.

I justify it by imagining the players learn from each other as well as themselves. Keeps them happy.

If i suspected they were abusing this however and letting one character do all the rolls to garner more APs...its would stop. But i trust my players...they are not in deep with the shadow.

MordorsB1tch wrote:I have a large party of players and everyone doesnt always get a chance to make rolls. So I take the PC with the highest APs at the end of the scenario and give that to everyone...plus a bonus 2 for the PC with the highest.

Wow! You are very generous toward your players. How many do you have? Is there any other reason (besides the number of players) that some are not getting a chance to participate in tasks or tests?

I found that I had to offer more opportunities for tests and encourage the players to propose more tasks during the game. Most of the time, they are just listening to the narration and it is very easy for a session to fly by without them proposing tasks. This, of course, leads to a lower number of earned Advancement points.

jamesrbrown wrote:

MordorsB1tch wrote:I have a large party of players and everyone doesnt always get a chance to make rolls. So I take the PC with the highest APs at the end of the scenario and give that to everyone...plus a bonus 2 for the PC with the highest.

Wow! You are very generous toward your players. How many do you have? Is there any other reason (besides the number of players) that some are not getting a chance to participate in tasks or tests?

I have nine players though they dont all regularly play. With large groups there are often crossovers of skills so not everyone can use their skills as not every encounter allows every character a check. Smaller groups have quicker character advancement that larger groups in merit based xp systems like this.

In a large group I also don't have time to award APs based on the characters traits when using a skill. So i let the players themselves decide if it was appropriate. The honour system works well i think and keeps the game flowing.

I award XP to all players, whether they attend or not and APs to those who attend. In the fellowship phase i spend the XP of those who could not attend for them.

To be honest, its doesnt really make any difference to me if the PCs advance slowly or quickly as i'll just adjust the encounters accordingly. But they like to earn APs...so i'm generous. Also, we don't have a very regular game so its nice for them to see their characters advance.