Under the standard rules, you get 1d6 skills or 1d6+1 skills, when you choose the training option.
I never liked the randomness here, when there is no similar randomness associated with increasing traits, passions, or stats. So this is the rule I use:

Winter Phase Training: add 5 points to skills, to a max of 15.
This gives slightly higher average than d6+1, without the downer of rolling 2 or 3.

At one point, I used to give players the choice of rolling or taking the 5 points. But players are gamblers, and are often insanely optimistic even against their better judgement. So many players frequently take the roll, even if they consistently roll below average. Then they get disappointed, and blame the system for them doing badly. So, for their own good, I removed the roll option, and have been pleased with the results.

But players are gamblers, and are often insanely optimistic even against their better judgement. So many players frequently take the roll, even if they consistently roll below average. Then they get disappointed, and blame the system for them doing badly. So, for their own good, I removed the roll option, and have been pleased with the results.


Ancient GM wisdom! When I started my current campaign we rolled for stats. This soon led to some rather unbalanced characters, so we switched to the 60 points by. One of my players wanted the option to chose between rolling and buying. I said no, with your argument.

For skills? I use 1d3+3. Only slightly higher average from 1d6+1, but you are guaranteed 4 points. It works well. But I like your idea too.

We use 1d6+1 OR 4 points. Take your pick.

I may switch to using 1d3+3 OR 5 points, though, after reading this thread. Losing 1 point from 5 will not sting nearly as badly as losing 2 from 4.

We use:

3+1d3 direct training points (up to skill max 15) + a check in 1 general skil, 1 courteous skill and 1 combat skill (all of which must be unchecked and untrained that year).

Winter Phase Training: add 5 points to skills, to a max of 15.
This gives slightly higher average than d6+1, without the downer of rolling 2 or 3.



I like this idea - though I'd tend to be a bit more conservative and make it 4 pts, which is closer to the current average of 3.5 pts/yr.

I re-roll 1s. So the result range is 3-7. No great elegance just suits my like of the unknown while avoiding the total downer of the dreaded 1. My PKs now fear the - not quite so - dreaded 2.

I used to reroll 1's too, but it created the odd situation that rolling a 1 was better than rolling a 2, and it just shifted the sinking feeling from a 1 to 2. I found the randomness there wasn't adding anything I liked to my game, and removed it.

I used to reroll 1's too, but it created the odd situation that rolling a 1 was better than rolling a 2, and it just shifted the sinking feeling from a 1 to 2. I found the randomness there wasn't adding anything I liked to my game, and removed it.


Very true. I did say it was inelegant :)

My friends I and have been gaming for a very long time and we still prefer the elements of randomness even if it means one character does "better" than the other. After 30+ years (for some of us) it's become more entertaining to play with what you're given rather than worrying about balancing out points. Failure/bad results can be as interesting, story-wise, as success/good results.

Depending on how we feel, sometimes we'll go with a roll of 1 counting as a 2. That eliminates the extreme bad result without changing the chances of getting a good/bad result.

jolt

For skills? I use 1d3+3. Only slightly higher average from 1d6+1, but you are guaranteed 4 points. It works well. But I like your idea too.


I personally like this idea best. For my campaign I'm going to adopt this rule with a slight change -- 1d4+3 instead. It also guarantees 4 points but reduces the variance even further and still allows for a maximum of 7, per RAW.

I used to reroll 1's too, but it created the odd situation that rolling a 1 was better than rolling a 2, and it just shifted the sinking feeling from a 1 to 2. I found the randomness there wasn't adding anything I liked to my game, and removed it.




I do it treat a roll of '1' as a '2'. Which avoids both of those problems but assuredly isn't perfect.
Initially this was for random generation of charcateristics as I hate the 3d6 for everything except Siz (and Int in the related RQ rules); for the skill points per year thing I'd favour the fixed 5 points.

I roll all the dice and take 'em as they come. My one concession is to let the players 'convert' a poor training die roll into the 'raise a skill over 15 by 1pt' option.

That was originally done when the training roll was just an unmodified d6, so it stings a bit now it's 1d6+1, but I let them do it if they want.

Regards
Luke

Are you aware that that's the most generous option so far listed in this thread?

Normally, there's a tension between rolling for skills, and choosing the 16+ skill option:
* If I take +1 to skills above 15, it's slow, but that's the price for increasing to high level
* If I roll for skills, I might roll low, and may as well have chosen the high skill option.

Your house rule removes that tension, and in a way rewards low skill rolls. It certainly leads to faster overall skill increases, since low d6 rolls will be swapped for +1 to very high skills.

I like silburnl's idea of being able to swap out a low roll for the 16+ option. Would certainly take the sting out of getting a bit of bad luck with the dice for a player.

Or how about:

Roll D6 +1, or choose five points, and add the points to any skill up to 15

If you choose to roll, and dont like the result, you can instead add one point to any skill above 15, or add one to a stat, trait or passion as per the normal Winter Phase rules.

Expanding the option from allowing it just for skills, to allowing it for all the Winter Phase one point increase options...?

Are you aware that that's the most generous option so far listed in this thread?

<Shrug> I'm aware it's more generous than RAW, I'm not sure I'd go along with saying it's the *most* generous variant.

It removes the potential for buyer's remorse on the annual skill improvement roll, thus more such rolls get made and, on average, more points end up going into lower ranked skills. My players tend to focus more on stat buffs than skill raises in any case - so anything that tips them towards skilling up (especially in non-focus areas) is good by me - and this way I feel there's enough scope in annual improvement to not require a 'minimum combat skill' houserule fr'instance.

Regards
Luke

and this way I feel there's enough scope in annual improvement to not require a 'minimum combat skill' houserule fr'instance.


Nice riposte :)
I like your reasons for using it. I guess I've had a lot of players who go more for skills at 16+ (and traits for glory purposes) at the expense of lower skills, partly to avoid the buyer's remorse you mentioned. So my approach was to make the sub-16 skills option a worthwhile one in its own right.