Members | Sign In
All Forums > Rules and Mechanics

Experience Points instead of Experience Rolls

posted Dec 30, 2012 19:09:02 by StreetBushido
I have said it before, and I'll say it again: I like RuneQuest 6. However, I do not like the idea of Experience Rolls. I do not think it's a good idea that one player could see a lot higher Skill increases than another, even though they were both rewarded with the same amount of Experience Rolls.

I've handled this by converting Experience Rolls to Experience Points. Say that the average succesful Experience Roll grants an increase of 3 (if using 1D4+1) to a skill. Instead of giving the players Experience rolls I just figure the amount of Experience Rolls that would be reasonable for the situation, multiply that by three, adjust for nicer numbers and give those points to the players to distribute amongst their skills as they see fit, within reason. I've also put in an increase cap: a skill can only be increased by 5 points (5%) each time.

Furthermore, at skill levels above 85% it costs 2 points per point of increase, and at skill levels above 100% it costs 3 points per point of increase.

We've also played around with marking each Critical Success or Fumble rolled for a skill. Each marked skill is then rolled as for a Experience Roll: roll over the current value. If that succeeds the skill is increased by 1%, if not nothing happens. For Combat Styles you need 5 marks before you can roll.

What do you folks think about this? Any huge flaws that could be easily remedied without going back to Rolls?
page   first prev 1 2
19 replies
JayVerkuilen said Jan 06, 2013 21:05:50
Pat Henry wrote:

***I think Pete Nash nails it: The expectation among players should be that improvements are hard and that failure is a likely result.***

In my experience players have quite varying expectations. One might love the uncertainty, another might really chafe at it. It's the GM's job to balance these interests with the feel of the game. Much like for the magic system or attribute allocation at chargen, having a few options in the rules isn't bad. For instance, if a majority of your players prefer deterministic attribute allocation and advancement, then it's nice to have both as a possibility.

***Investigate the cultic associations. If players want goodies for their characters, the cults can often provide them. If they can't get powerful through the game system, allow them power through the game.***

Sure that's one way of doing it and I think that having to develop a relationship with a trainer provides some great RP opportunities.

Afon y Bydysawd said Jan 07, 2013 23:49:03
I think the expectation was that the characters weren't advancing fast enough. Even though _in game_ the adventurers had only been at it for a month or so, we were only playing fortnightly. So in _real life_ time advancement was slow and they felt that failing an improvement roll just sucked.

Next time, I'm going to go over advancement expectations in some detail before embarking on the campaign. As a group, we'll decide on either fast-tracking advancements or something slower but more realistic.
JayVerkuilen said Jan 08, 2013 04:10:53
Yes, I've found that advancement rules in any game I run need to be tailored to RL time, but if game time seems too short then advancement will be silly, too. So I think that game time and RL time can't be too incongruent.

Pendragon had a neat idea: Each adventure happened once a year in game time but there were rules for non-game activity.

RudyBoe said Jan 08, 2013 15:23:15
We have training sessions in between completed scenarios. If the party did well, they can afford a number of weeks of paid training. Advancement gets very real that way, and each time we start a new scenario, the characters have improved quite a bit, which keeps them happy and in a perpetual planning state.
Login below to reply: