dynamic skill costing

[mjlush]

I was out walking the dog and got to thinking about an alternative metagame approach to costing skills.

Once play starts the GM keeps a note of the number and kind of skill rolls made at the end of the adventure hands out skill points based on the total number of skill rolls made in the session and the cost to raise a skill by one 'rank' is based on the number of times that skill gets used. at the beginning of the next session the costs drop by half so if the focus of the campaign shift so does the skill costing.

The rational is that the important skills in a campaign depend on the style of the game .. combat skills would probably top the list but in some games it may be survival or social skills. Having a high level in an important skill allows the character to have more spotlight time than other characters.

The idea behind this notion is that it allows players to develop a character by buying 'useless' skill without getting unduly penalized.

If you had five character points to spend on which would raise sword or flower arranging
by 1 rank be honest your going to spend it on sword..

but if flower +1 rank flower arranging arranging only cost 1cp and sword cost 4 cp you could justify using 'useless' skills to build character.

Thoughts?

[Grod_The_Giant]

So you're awarded skill points based on how many times you make skill checks... and it's harder to buy the skills that you're using more often? :smallconfused:

I don't like it. I mean, the goal (encourage people to put points into flavor skills) is worthy, but the execution... even if all goes as planned, it's completely opposed to reality (it's harder to advance when you practice more)? Never mind the fact that:

Players will constantly be rolling skills when they don't need to to game the system.
As a DM, the notion of having to track how many times my players use skills... GMing is already more than enough work without having to worry about minutia like that.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I had a sort of similar idea - skills would no longer go up at level up, but a critical success on a skill would give you a permanent skill point. Wouldn't work in D&D, though, and you'd have to have some rules about no "Trivial" checks - you only get a bonus for using spot if you actually spot an ambush, etc. Plus, everyone would try for every skill, so... yeah, probably not.

[Xechon]

You will love the Burning Wheels system, at least the skills portion. Essentially the concept is that for the skill level, you need a certain amount of tests of a certain difficulty, which is based on your skill level, and the first part is found on a table. For example, for a level one skill, you would need one successful routine (easy) test and either a difficult or challenging (medium or hard, respectively) to level up that skill. Then to advance it again, you need two routines and either a difficult or a challenging, but all three of those are adjusted to your newfound ability in that particular skill, so a difficult on level 1 is less than a difficult on level 2.

Now, I agree with the whole GM thing - we have plenty to deal with at the moment, have your characters mark them off; it would be little more than a pencil stroke for them, but paper-shuffling or notations for the GM. However, it does make sense that it is harder to advance in a skill that you have already become good at, since there are only more complicated or completely unique and intuitive aspects of that skill to practice. Also, a good GM should put a check on the characters' skill rolls anyways, there are many warnings and examples in BW, and even in 3.5 where it doesn't even really matter.

Just wanted to say, I completely support the dynamic semi-independent skill systems like this, but I would put a little more thought into it before any execution. Because the execution of good things is terribly difficult, especially if you are using D&D.

[mjlush]

So you're awarded skill points based on how many times you make skill checks... and it's harder to buy the skills that you're using more often? :smallconfused:

I don't like it. I mean, the goal (encourage people to put points into flavor skills) is worthy, but the execution... even if all goes as planned, it's completely opposed to reality (it's harder to advance when you practice more)?


Is it any more realistic that a player can spend all this skill points he got from killing dragons on flower arranging?



Never mind the fact that:

Players will constantly be rolling skills when they don't need to to game the system.

thats not exactly productive every time they make a skill roll there putting up the price of that skill:smallsmile: the reason I linked the number of skill rolls to the total amount of cp
awarded was because there are some games where you may make 1-2 rolls in an entire session cos its all done with roleplaying the skills don't matter when they are making lots of rolls clearly there getting lots of practice



As a DM, the notion of having to track how many times my players use skills... GMing is already more than enough work without having to worry about minutia like that.


that need not be too hard, a simple tickchart with wide (groups combat, social, knowledge and detection) would be enough

[Grod_The_Giant]

Is it any more realistic that a player can spend all this skill points he got from killing dragons on flower arranging?
The "by the book" way isn't 100% realistic, but it's at least simpler. And I think you glossed over my main objection, which is that (if I'm reading this right), practice makes it harder to advance your skills.


that need not be too hard, a simple tickchart with wide (groups combat, social, knowledge and detection) would be enough
Have you ever DMed? And had to constantly shuffle around a half-dozen or more books and paper with maps, stats, setting information, adventure notes and suchlike? I do not need one more unrelated thing to keep track of. Although getting the players to do it would work.

[Xeratos]

If your aim is to make it so that the more you use a skill, the better you get at it, wouldn't it be simpler for you, as the GM, to simply award a circumstance bonus for having repeatedly used a skill recently. The rationale behind it would be that the more often you do something in a short period of time, the better you get at it, but when you've gone awhile without doing something, you get rusty.

From a rules perspective: you'd simply tally the number of hide check's your party's rogue has made, and when he hits 5 in a session or whatever, you award him a +1 circumstance modifier. When he hits 10, he's up to +2, etc. Then have your tally decay by 2 or 3 per day, so if he's not constantly using his skills, they fall back to normal level.

From a behind-the-screens stand point, yes, this certainly adds a bit of unnecessary work to an already complicated process (how many post-it notes are stuck to your screen?). You could theoretically have the players keep track of it as well, and that would certainly make things easier for you.

But as stated above, the biggest drawback would be having to wade through tiresome rp where your rogue "hides" from the rest of the party, or the serving wench, or a dozen other people who aren't even looking from him just so that he's got a nice bonus built up when he goes to sneak into Lord Moneybag's manor to rob his treasury.

Your original concept is nifty, but it seems like you've divorced it from the leveling process, allowing theoretical lvl 2s and 3s to spend so much time being a skills monkey that they're beating out opposing checks by people 10 levels higher than them. Of course, if that's the goal, then good on you for coming up with an inventive solution.

Counterpoint: If that's the goal, then maybe a system without levels at all, one wherein you simply spend your hard earned xp to upgrade whatever skill or attribute you want would work better all around.

[Xechon]

@Grod_The_Giant

The "by the book" way isn't 100% realistic, but it's at least simpler. And I think you glossed over my main objection, which is that (if I'm reading this right), practice makes it harder to advance your skills.

Practice makes it harder to advance in a skill. YES. If you practice your swordsplay a lot, you become good at it. The better you are at something, the harder it is to get better, since the better techniques are so much more advanced and require more time and effort on your part to get meaningfully better, even though you are good at swordsplay. Plus, when you spend enough time to become good at something, aspects of that skill become instinctual, habit almost, and it is more difficult to change a good habit into a great one. It should take more skill exp to rank up in that skill the higher rank the skill gets, probably exponentially. IT MAKES SENSE!



Have you ever DMed? And had to constantly shuffle around a half-dozen or more books and paper with maps, stats, setting information, adventure notes and suchlike? I do not need one more unrelated thing to keep track of. Although getting the players to do it would work.

Yeah, I usually delegate the tasks that don't need to be hidden to the players, and the skills can be just as easily marked by the player, when they use them, evidence of the Burning Wheels system.

@Xeratos



If your aim is to make it so that the more you use a skill, the better you get at it, wouldn't it be simpler for you, as the GM, to simply award a circumstance bonus for having repeatedly used a skill recently. The rationale behind it would be that the more often you do something in a short period of time, the better you get at it, but when you've gone awhile without doing something, you get rusty.
Well, this would work as a simplified 3.5 quick fix, but at least *I* don't want that. With your system, the circumstance bonus is linear and can be exploited big time, and your skills would be so temporary that if a master smithy went shopping in another town, he would get back and be just a mediocre smithy, until he makes 2 or 3 more items. The whole 'getting rusty' thing doesn't happen nearly that fast.



But as stated above, the biggest drawback would be having to wade through tiresome rp where your rogue "hides" from the rest of the party, or the serving wench, or a dozen other people who aren't even looking from him just so that he's got a nice bonus built up when he goes to sneak into Lord Moneybag's manor to rob his treasury.
The thing is, all of that would count as one or two hide checks. Plus, Lord Moneybag should have some trained guards and other security measures so the check would be higher than anything you could practice on in the town. If you aren't challenging yourself when using a skill, you just earn chump exp up to (maybe) the next rank, and then you have to get a challenging task to make you learn. It's the difference between practice and application.



Your original concept is nifty, but it seems like you've divorced it from the leveling process, allowing theoretical lvl 2s and 3s to spend so much time being a skills monkey that they're beating out opposing checks by people 10 levels higher than them. Of course, if that's the goal, then good on you for coming up with an inventive solution.

Counterpoint: If that's the goal, then maybe a system without levels at all, one wherein you simply spend your hard earned xp to upgrade whatever skill or attribute you want would work better all around.

That's at least where I'm going with it. Except the xp is for skills only. Increasing one or more skills by a certain amount of ranks under a certain ability score increases the ability score, in turn giving a bonus to all of the skills in the tree below it. And combat and magic are all done with skills. Think GURPS, plus the BW skill system, and then take all of the mechanics and turn them into fillable templates with boundaries to prevent exploitation.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Practice makes it harder to advance in a skill. YES. If you practice your swordsplay a lot, you become good at it. The better you are at something, the harder it is to get better, since the better techniques are so much more advanced and require more time and effort on your part to get meaningfully better, even though you are good at swordsplay. Plus, when you spend enough time to become good at something, aspects of that skill become instinctual, habit almost, and it is more difficult to change a good habit into a great one. It should take more skill exp to rank up in that skill the higher rank the skill gets, probably exponentially. IT MAKES SENSE!
Agreed, but that's not practice you're talking about there. I can get behind the idea of diminishing returns as your skill improves. That makes sense, and does accomplish the goal of forcing more well-rounded characters. That's not what the OP seems to be proposing. His system would be based on how often you use the skill, not how good you already are at it.

[mjlush]

The "by the book" way isn't 100% realistic, but it's at least simpler. And I think you glossed over my main objection, which is that (if I'm reading this right), practice makes it harder to advance your skills.


Think of this as a game rather than a simulation for the moment, The most valuable resource in the game is GM attention, its fun to watch other players but the best bit is when your right in the spotlight (for good or ill). Players are essentially competing for spotlight time.

From this perspective the GURPS disadvantage Weirdness Magnet is an advantage to the player. It means the GM has to do do all the random nonlethal things to him rather than doing random nonlethal things to everyone. A real disadvantage would be something like Shy because it means the player has less opportunity to interact with NPCs and therefore less spotlight time.

From this POV to fail a skill check either something bad happens or play moves on the the next player, succeed you get to observe or alter the game environment. Play stays with your for longer, a high skill gives you more spotlight time.

The more frequently you use a skill the more chances get for spotlight time. so it makes sense to bolster you frequently used skills. For other players the only real counter is to bolster their frequently used skills (which are probably the same ones).

An alternative strategy would be to get a wide array of 'useless' skills they may get the spotlight more rarely but there likely to get it for much longer and they don't have to share it with anyone! The trouble is that they get the same number of skill points as everyone else
so their useless skills are liable to be of a useless rank.



Have you ever DMed? And had to constantly shuffle around a half-dozen or more books and paper with maps, stats, setting information, adventure notes and suchlike? I do not need one more unrelated thing to keep track of. Although getting the players to do it would work.

Yes I have, 25 years, my biggest admin overhead is taking notes for the campaign chronicle, I play rules lite and can't remember when I last had to check the book during game session. Of course there is no reason why a player couldn't do the job in a more rules heavy setting.

Frankly you probably don't need to keep logs for more than 3 sessions it should be pretty obvious by then what sort of campaign it is by then.

[Ialdabaoth]

Here's a D&D3.5-compatible system for you:

1. Your character class does not grant you skill ranks each level beyond level 1. Instead, it simply defines which skills are class skills and which skills are non-class skills.

2. The maximum number of skill ranks you can have in a class skill is equal to your class level + 3; the maximum number of skill ranks you can have in a non-class skill is equal to half your class level (round down).

3. At level 1 (and only level 1), you gain the number of skill points indicated on your class's "skill points per class level". You do not multiply this number by 4.

4. Whenever you roll a natural 1 or a natural 20 on a skill check, you gain one skill point. When you have more skill points than your current skill rank (for class skills) or twice your current skill rank (for non-class skills), if your skill rank is not yet at the maximum allowable for your level, your skill rank increases by 1 and your total skill points go back to 0.