So I've been working on a new advancement system

[Stryyke]

Thanks for all the responses! Some really good stuff here. I need some time to ponder some of your suggestions and criticisms, but I wanted you all to know that I read them all. As we are starting to delve into the implications of various parts of the system, it takes a little longer to consider, and then construct a response. But this is precisely why I posted about it in the first place. 100 heads are better than 1, right! LOL Give me a few days, and I'll get back with ya'll.

[Stryyke]

Given you can get 100% chance of success, why include the "You must successfully use it" Why not just give the training and the percentages, then once you finish training, stop the book-keeping.
Or, if you want successful use to matter, say that successful use means you've finished training in that feat

Very valid. Something I've considered, but maybe rejected for bad reasons. Like, it's different from what I'm envisioning in my head.

One of the main problems with systems like this is that your characters will quickly start to run too far apart. If I make a full fighter, concentrating on feats for that (which will include HP and attack bonus and stuff like that), and another character takes feats to be a super diplomat for instance (most likely without many HP and things), you end up in situations where during an encounter with both characters, anything that's an even fight for the fighter will simply crush the diplomat and a fight that's even for the diplomat is a walk-over for the fighter. We have noticed this with for instance Scion first edition.

This has the feel of a fallacy to me. Yes, someone could go 100% non-combat, and end up weaker; but that's something that's covered in session 0. "Hey guys, I want to do a non-combat character, who will need to be protected." Also, I'm not sure how many people would do that, anyway. Just because something COULD be done, doesn't mean it will be done.

But aside from that, with the number of core attribute increases, it could take IRL years before that degree of separation is achieved. Remember, you can only gain, at most, 21 additional hp a year in this system. And things like atk and dmg much much less, of course. And that's if you only take feats that increase that stat exclusively for an entire year.

Imagine an archer learning a feat that allows partially ignoring cover and getting in a fight with enemies that have cover and others who don't. To actually learn it, he now has to ignore the easy targets. And that is without getting into stupid stuff like abandoning scouting and stealth to learn something giving you a bonus when you are surprised.
How ? Imagine someone learning how to better fight construct. And then the next 5 gaming sessions no constructs appear.

Hmmmm. Fair. Either the system would have to exclude any specialized feat, that doesn't pop up routinely; or the DM would have to ensure that, if someone is training to combat constructs, constructs come up in game.

The system could include special dispensations for specialized feats. Perhaps a system where, once the initial training is done, one training session a month will keep it fresh; giving the DM time to work something into the campaign.

But the more I think of it, the more it makes sense as is. In such a situation, would the character randomly decide he needed to train to be especially effective against constructs, if there's no indication that he'll ever face them? And if he did decide to train to combat constructs, and he never faces one, that just means he wasted his time. Wasting your time on something not useful in a specific setting should be allowed, I think. It'll force people to not take stuff that they can't complete, just for the bonuses.

[Duff]

This has the feel of a fallacy to me. Yes, someone could go 100% non-combat, and end up weaker; but that's something that's covered in session 0. "Hey guys, I want to do a non-combat character, who will need to be protected." Also, I'm not sure how many people would do that, anyway. Just because something COULD be done, doesn't mean it will be done.

Not entirely a fallacy. But still, as you say, a non-issue with the right session 0. The related idea that session 0 may need to address is that this system would most likely have a greater difference between highly optimised characters and poorly optimised ones. So the non -combat character may be highly optimised, just for non-combat roles and that is also a conversation to have.
And of course, at some tables this will be more of an issue, at others a non-issue entirely.

[Vahnavoi]

@Stryyke:

Just because something COULD be done, doesn't mean it will be done.

This is a very important observation. When doing white room design, it's easy to get stuck fixing perceived or imagined problems. So, take a break, play a few games, see if the problem really occurs. If it doesn't, don't spend much time on it.

[farothel]

This has the feel of a fallacy to me. Yes, someone could go 100% non-combat, and end up weaker; but that's something that's covered in session 0. "Hey guys, I want to do a non-combat character, who will need to be protected." Also, I'm not sure how many people would do that, anyway. Just because something COULD be done, doesn't mean it will be done.

But aside from that, with the number of core attribute increases, it could take IRL years before that degree of separation is achieved. Remember, you can only gain, at most, 21 additional hp a year in this system. And things like atk and dmg much much less, of course. And that's if you only take feats that increase that stat exclusively for an entire year.

The fact that it goes slow is indeed a good thing, although some players might not like a slow progression. That's why I gave as example Scion (first edition) where the auto-successes make that there quickly is a big difference between optimized not optimized characters (especially after attaining demi-god status).

[Xuc Xac]

The problem with characters leveling up and learning new abilities unreasonably quickly has nothing to do with the XP system. The problem is the GM skipping through time too quickly.

In the "Lord of the Rings", the fellowship is formed (my sword ... my bow... my axe... etc.) but doesn't leave Rivendell until 8 WEEKS later. They rest, stock up on provisions, eat well to put on a few pounds to burn off on the road, consult with the smart people who aren't going in order to get all the advice they can, and so on. In most RPG campaigns, that would have been "Ok, so the next day..."

Stop moving so fast. Reasonable PCs should be resting and doing a lot more down time stuff. "Hey, guys. We've had frost three mornings in a row and I saw a snowflake today. If the next village looks nice, let's find a place to stay for the next 4 months. I don't want to freeze to death on some snowy road in the middle of nowhere."

[Stryyke]

The problem with characters leveling up and learning new abilities unreasonably quickly has nothing to do with the XP system. The problem is the GM skipping through time too quickly.

In the "Lord of the Rings", the fellowship is formed (my sword ... my bow... my axe... etc.) but doesn't leave Rivendell until 8 WEEKS later. They rest, stock up on provisions, eat well to put on a few pounds to burn off on the road, consult with the smart people who aren't going in order to get all the advice they can, and so on. In most RPG campaigns, that would have been "Ok, so the next day..."

Stop moving so fast. Reasonable PCs should be resting and doing a lot more down time stuff. "Hey, guys. We've had frost three mornings in a row and I saw a snowflake today. If the next village looks nice, let's find a place to stay for the next 4 months. I don't want to freeze to death on some snowy road in the middle of nowhere."

The inherent problem with this philosophy is that the BBEG probably isn't taking a break. One of the things that makes them so fearsome is that they have endless supplies of disposable followers. Because of that, such issues as bad weather aren't really a bar to their plans. This means that the heroes have to push through, and persevere; or risk letting the BBEG achieve his ambitions while they sip coffee at an inn.

[Anonymouswizard]

To be fair, I've seen multiple attempts to add time components to levelling, but they're generally in the AD&D model of 'you get the XPs, reach the next level, then need X days or weeks of training to actually get the benefits', BRP and Traveller being an exception in my experience. I've also seen systems that let you collect advancements but only let them be spent in 'downtime' periods.

The thing with these is that it's just a limit on when you can level, not the whole process. It's to avoid the occurance of going into a dungeon, fighting your way through three of the fourteen levels, and suddenly being better at picking locks.Because of this 'training times' tend to be short, anywhere from 'when not actively on an adventure for a day' to 'a couple of weeks', because they're not so much about slowing advancement as they are controlling when it occurs.

Some games are more explicit about this than others. Righteous Blood Ruthless Blades even suggests shortening pre-level meditation if the timescale you're using doesn't support it.

In general you can scalew these times to what the BBEG is doing. Sauron allows months of downtime because even as a Maiar coordinating his empire of otrcs and negotiating alliances with human kingdoms takes a long time. If your BBEG is Big Jeff the local supermarket owner who's operating on a much smaller scale he might be able to recover from even major setbacks in a matter of days. If it's Smelly Jim the boy from down the road you might measure downtime in hours )I'm assuming in this game the PCs are kids around the same age as Smelly Jim).

[gijoemike]

I have 4 questions or perhaps issues with the idea of this.


1. How can you play a campaign that is fast paced? Similar to Harry Dresden novel by Jim Butcher? 3 to 12 days to save the world. One couldn't expand or adapt to anything in such a short amount of time.

2. Archetype of rough street raised orphan. You never had any training. You learned how to fight by getting beaten and giving a beating. You learned to do X by failing a dozen times in actual use. There are many many stills that one learns by doing or can learn by doing without any formal training. I am thinking of innate powers of a sorc or dirty tricks of a rogue. Characters that go by their gut, instinct, ain't have no time for tha' book learning sort of character.

3. Why space out time and effort into months like this? I don't see a benefit to forcing time be an aspect of this. Give players xp, let them buy stuff with that xp. Maybe it is HP, a power, spell, feat, or attack bonus. Why overly complicate the system by grouping it all together in a feat?

4. By grouping it all into one item of feat, skill, hp, attack I foresee balancing this and expanding on it will be a huge pain. Other systems allow players to spend xp to obtain bonuses in a skills based format.

Let me tell you about an alternative way of leveling in the game 13th age. In that game every class gets a feat, hp, attack bonus, skill, and power when they level. It is similar to milestone leveling. When the characters hit a time to level milestone they may choose one of the 5 items from the list. Next time they hit a milestone they choose another. Once every thing is choose they start over. Normal leveling gives all 5 at one time. spaced leveling gives just 1 aspect. The Wizard may choose a power, the fighter attach, the rogue HP and the ranger could choose attack as well.

[Anonymouswizard]

1. How can you play a campaign that is fast paced? Similar to Harry Dresden novel by Jim Butcher? 3 to 12 days to save the world. One couldn't expand or adapt to anything in such a short amount of time.

Side note, I'd argue that in this model each book is an adventure with little to no advancement, while the campaign is the entire series with a year or so to train between each adventure.

Not that it matters, because there are many other decent examples. The Lord of the Rings, just to pick a classic.

Let me tell you about an alternative way of leveling in the game 13th age. In that game every class gets a feat, hp, attack bonus, skill, and power when they level. It is similar to milestone leveling. When the characters hit a time to level milestone they may choose one of the 5 items from the list. Next time they hit a milestone they choose another. Once every thing is choose they start over. Normal leveling gives all 5 at one time. spaced leveling gives just 1 aspect. The Wizard may choose a power, the fighter attach, the rogue HP and the ranger could choose attack as well.

I'll note that Cypher does something similar, where you need to advance four times in order to gain a Tier (level), and can pick from Stats, a new Skill, more Edge, more Effort, and a couple of other benefits. Once you've taken your fourth advance you go up in Tier, gain your Type and Focus benefits, and your choices of which advancement to take reset.

It's nice, I wish more levelled systems would be built around such systems.

[Stryyke]

I have 4 questions or perhaps issues with the idea of this.


1. How can you play a campaign that is fast paced? Similar to Harry Dresden novel by Jim Butcher? 3 to 12 days to save the world. One couldn't expand or adapt to anything in such a short amount of time.

2. Archetype of rough street raised orphan. You never had any training. You learned how to fight by getting beaten and giving a beating. You learned to do X by failing a dozen times in actual use. There are many many stills that one learns by doing or can learn by doing without any formal training. I am thinking of innate powers of a sorc or dirty tricks of a rogue. Characters that go by their gut, instinct, ain't have no time for tha' book learning sort of character.

3. Why space out time and effort into months like this? I don't see a benefit to forcing time be an aspect of this. Give players xp, let them buy stuff with that xp. Maybe it is HP, a power, spell, feat, or attack bonus. Why overly complicate the system by grouping it all together in a feat?

4. By grouping it all into one item of feat, skill, hp, attack I foresee balancing this and expanding on it will be a huge pain. Other systems allow players to spend xp to obtain bonuses in a skills based format.

Let me tell you about an alternative way of leveling in the game 13th age. In that game every class gets a feat, hp, attack bonus, skill, and power when they level. It is similar to milestone leveling. When the characters hit a time to level milestone they may choose one of the 5 items from the list. Next time they hit a milestone they choose another. Once every thing is choose they start over. Normal leveling gives all 5 at one time. spaced leveling gives just 1 aspect. The Wizard may choose a power, the fighter attach, the rogue HP and the ranger could choose attack as well.

1) Well this format isn't designed for that sort of campaign. One progression system doesn't have to fit every scenario.
2) Training doesn't have to be formal, as in paid training. It's an hour a day to work on the muscle memory necessary to use the skill in stressful situations, or memorizing the information for the skill.
3) I explained my reasoning in spacing it out into months. To provide a more realistic time scale.
4) I really don't like the concept of spending points to accomplish something. That's literally the reason I started developing this system. That concept doesn't sit right in my head. If you like that kind of system, that's fine. I don't.

[Anonymouswizard]

3) I explained my reasoning in spacing it out into months. To provide a more realistic time scale.

Realism is overrated. Does waiting around for X weeks while your characters train sound fun?Does having to choose between training and building connections sound fun? Do arguments over how much downtime players should have because one player really wants that ability while another wants the extra week to allow for more contingency if their plan doesn't work sound fun?

Realism should be at the bottom of your list when designing for RPGs. In what way does enforcing realistic time scales make the game more fun than, say, handing out an advancement/feat every session but only letting players cash them in during downtime? You can still ensure that periods of downtime represent realistic lengths, but what advantage do you get from mechanically enforcing realistic lengths that, let's be honest, 90& of groups are going to throw out as 'not fun'?

4) I really don't like the concept of spending points to accomplish something. That's literally the reason I started developing this system. That concept doesn't sit right in my head. If you like that kind of system, that's fine. I don't.

Okay, but honestly it still sounds really hard to balance, and what are the advantages compared to 'when you advance you can increase a stat by 1, learn a new Talent, Learn a new Spell, learn or X skills, or whatever'?

Also I really do suggest you look at Basc Roleplay, and maybe OpenQuest. They both do realistic advancement including improvement by use, and BRP even includes improvement by study (although not in every game, I don't remember it in CoC0.

But then again, considering I like d00 Lite, this system clearly isn't for me.