So I'm running the 488 Water Leapers scenario and my PK has wisely suggested a week of training on coracles to see what kind of complications could arise. Swimming is, of course, a big concern and neither the PK nor the NPC knights have much skill here. My question is: if they train for a week in the simulationist mode, could they not earn a spot check for Swimming and Boating? Seems like they could get the basic and at least bump up 1 for some of these basic skills. Alternatively, I could just lessen the penalty for unsure footing or whatever due to the training and just take a check in the Winter Phase, as normal.

By extension, I think I've read on this forum where some game masters let their PKs take experience checks right then and there when they're earned, instead of waiting for Winter. This seems like a good idea to me. I'd like to hear thoughts, especially dissenting ones as to why this would be harmful to game balance, etc.

Thanks,


T.

Allowing the players to roll the experience checks for their (traits/passions/)skills when the check mark crops up, instead of waiting until Winter, means that they will, potentially, gain more than one point in the skill per year. Furthermore, the probability of gaining at least one point becomes much higher. These will lead to higher skill values towards the later game.

I am not saying you shouldn't do it, only that you have to consider the pros and cons. Since apparently you are running solo adventures with your wife, I would not sweat about it so much. If you think she would enjoy it, go for it.

This is of course related to the pacing, as well.

For instance, our group is using easily a few sessions per game year. We can have a couple of long adventures per game year, which means that there are often enough situations where checks might be awarded to the same skill. For example, the previous year the player chars could have participated in three battles, and in a couple of smaller fights. Each of which, using the roll-as-soon-as-you-get-the-check, could have resulted in an experience roll against Sword, ramping the chances for Sword increase up dramatically. On the other hand, the Winter Phases are far in between, since we spend so much time on the adventures.

On the other end of the spectrum, another group might do a quick, sharp adventure and then do the winter phase the same session. Obviously, it would not matter to them which option they use.

So my gut feeling is this... What kind of game do you want to have?

1. Emulate young heroes growing up quickly to challenge the established heroes?
- Have many adventures per year and allows rolling for experience straightaway, in effect cramming more 'rule-years' into the game year.
-> the characters will grow (in Glory and Skills) quickly in game years, enabling them to become the young stars of Arthur's court and qualify for the Round Table in their mid-twenties. By the time they hit mid-thirties, they are trading blows equally with the luminaries such as Gawaine and Lamorak.
- Downside is that you probably miss out on the generational aspect, or at least delay it a lot. Still, might be a fun campaign to play.
- This campaign is generational in a sense that your real children might finish the Great Pendragon Campaign for you. :P

2. Focus on the long term play and more mundane characters
- Have one or two adventures per year and just have winter phase rolling
-> the characters will grow slower and reach Round Table status later, in their thirties or fourties. While probably not equal to the named Round Table champions, they probably reach very respectable skill levels in their main area, still.
-> the campaign is more generational, as you go through the game years faster in real time, hence allowing you to play through the Great Pendragon Campaign during your own life time. :P

I fall somewhere in the middle: I have long game years but only allow experience rolling at the winter phase. So I combine the 'worst' features of those two examples: a slow character development with a glacial campaign progress. :P

Thanks, Morien. A thoughtful response, as always. Have some morning Glory.


Best,


T.

The skill checks system in my campaign falls somewhere between the two suggested by Morien. For the most part the players have 1 skill roll per year. However, in exceptional years, when the number of game sessions rises to three or more, I allow double ticking of the same skill. It can still only increase by 1 but the chance of it doing so is increased.

The skill checks system in my campaign falls somewhere between the two suggested by Morien. For the most part the players have 1 skill roll per year. However, in exceptional years, when the number of game sessions rises to three or more, I allow double ticking of the same skill. It can still only increase by 1 but the chance of it doing so is increased.
There was another alternative posted recently (can't recall which thread, sorry) where at the normal point during a game where you would get a check then you resolve the advancement test immediately and only actually check the attribute if you are successful. Then at next winter phase you automatically increase all checked attributes by one point.

This gives you multiple bites at the advancement cherry during a multi-session year, whilst still keeping experience-based advancement limited to one point per year.

Regards
Luke

So I'm running the 488 Water Leapers scenario and my PK has wisely suggested a week of training on coracles to see what kind of complications could arise. Swimming is, of course, a big concern and neither the PK nor the NPC knights have much skill here. My question is: if they train for a week in the simulationist mode, could they not earn a spot check for Swimming and Boating? Seems like they could get the basic and at least bump up 1 for some of these basic skills. Alternatively, I could just lessen the penalty for unsure footing or whatever due to the training and just take a cheek in the Winter Phase, as normal.

You are the GM.
You can say, "as boys you all hung around the old swimming hole, and have a Swimming skill of 3d6," or "10" or...


By extension, I think I've read on this forum where some game masters let their PKs take experience checks right then and there when they're earned, instead of waiting for Winter. This seems like a good idea to me. I'd like to hear thoughts, especially dissenting ones as to why this wold be harmful to game balance, etc.

"harmful" is not the relevant term here
it's an imaginary thing and cannot be harmed. :)
It is just that everything in KAP has consequences. :D

As for consequences of changing the number of times you can go up, well
I spent years working out some of these numbers, chances of growth and rates of assent.
and have played through GPC a few times, to get an idea of how it actually works
Advancing ahead faster makes your character more powerful quickly
I never give more than one check per year, even when a game adventures lasts 3-4 sessions.
And sometimes I would say, go up 2 points.

The skill checks system in my campaign falls somewhere between the two suggested by Morien. For the most part the players have 1 skill roll per year. However, in exceptional years, when the number of game sessions rises to three or more, I allow double ticking of the same skill. It can still only increase by 1 but the chance of it doing so is increased.


I might adopt this for our campaign as well. Depends how the year shakes down, but I definitely could see myself giving the players a couple of chances to up their characters' sword skills, for instance, if they have been on a couple of quests taking several sessions to play through which involved heroics with the sword. On the other hand, if the year goes swiftly (in a couple of sessions), then I think they'll be fine with the normal Winter Phase with just one check.

Like you said, in exceptional years, they might get double checks, but can only go up one point. I doubt that would unbalance my game, but it probably would make the players squeal like little schoolgirls with joy when they -finally- see their high skills creeping upwards! :)

Thanks again, one and all, for an interesting discussion. Your input is very valuable to me.

Best,


T.

Of all suggestions, this one of granting multiple checks, but only one chance to go up, is my favorite.





The skill checks system in my campaign falls somewhere between the two suggested by Morien. For the most part the players have 1 skill roll per year. However, in exceptional years, when the number of game sessions rises to three or more, I allow double ticking of the same skill. It can still only increase by 1 but the chance of it doing so is increased.


I might adopt this for our campaign as well. Depends how the year shakes down, but I definitely could see myself giving the players a couple of chances to up their characters' sword skills, for instance, if they have been on a couple of quests taking several sessions to play through which involved heroics with the sword. On the other hand, if the year goes swiftly (in a couple of sessions), then I think they'll be fine with the normal Winter Phase with just one check.

Like you said, in exceptional years, they might get double checks, but can only go up one point. I doubt that would unbalance my game, but it probably would make the players squeal like little schoolgirls with joy when they -finally- see their high skills creeping upwards! :)

I had a look for the previous thread where this got a mention.

http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=1245.0

You could allow multiple ticks and therefore multiple rolls to improve in Winter phase but still only allow the skill to go up once per winter phase.

Actually though, in your position I'd do as some smart individual here (or in your other leapers thread) suggested and send along some peasant boatmen.

HTH

GR

Thanks GR. I guess I'm more concerned about the lack of a Swimming skill. Swimming is not that hard to learn--it's not like archery or smithing or playing a musical instrument. Although everyone has heard the story of the man who was thrown out of a boat as a boy and told to sink or swim, that literally happened to my father! Certainly most adults could learn to swim enough to stay afloat (except in the most extreme conditions) with a week's worth of instruction and practice, given the desire or will to learn. But the RAW provide no way to pick up this skill quickly. If my character doesn't know how to swim, he can't be even a passable swimmer for years even if he tries to apply himself. If I have to wait until the Winter Phase to pick up 1 point of Swim skill I am not going out on a lake fighting monsters on unstable boats! That doesn't seem like bravery to me, it seems unbelievably stupid.

I don't favor Greg's suggestion (as much as I appreciate it) of saying, "Erm, you character spent a lot of time at the swimming hole when we was young" and then dropping 3d6 skill points on him out of the blue. That's what cultural background skills are for. However, I do favor a scenario that says "You spend a week training in and around the water with these fishermen and thus pick up 2d6 points in swimming now and maybe 1d6 in Boating."

I wouldn't advocate such an approach for every skill, of course. Many skills have a subtlety or intricacy that makes a slow progression more sensible. But Swimming? Maybe it should just be another kind of DEX roll, like jumping or dodging. Small water craft, too, don't require all that much skill besides basic training and dexterity. Now when you get into sails—maybe, but a punt or coracle? Looking at the skill list, these two seem to stand alone in this regard. All other skills require more of a mental component and one can understand a sort of onion skin effect of many of these pursuits. But boating and swimming are not like these others skills. I became pretty good at handling a canoe after just one or two trips on a river and some very basic training at summer camp when I was, like, 10. Yeah, I wasn't ready for kayaking through white water, but it's absurd that it would take 16 or more years to achieve mastery in these skills, which have more to do with reflexes, coordination and muscle memory than intellectual know-how and lore. I'd put bike riding in this same character, but of course there are no bikes in 5th century Britain! Maybe you can perform these basic physical skills at 1/2 Dex as well, after some basic instruction, just like the house rule for weapons you've never used.

My two cents.


T.

Now for coracles a week is nothing, those are tricky buggers and take a lifetime to get good at. So spending a week would get a maximum of 1 skill point.
Do the same thought excercise with horses. Do you really think knights should be able to spend a measly week with horses and then get multiple skill points, I hope not. That would be ripe for abuse.
Or worse lets take your text and shovel in a weapon skill instead:
"Certainly most knights could learn to shoot a crossbow easily enough to hit a target (except in the most extreme conditions) with a week's worth of instruction and practice, given the desire or will to learn. But the RAW provide no way to pick up this skill quickly. If my character doesn't know how to fire a crossbow, he can't be even a passable archer for years even if he tries to apply himself. "
That's a big ouch right there. You and your players are thinking a bit too "modern" on this problem. Your knights have been training fighting with swords for literally a life time, that's months upon months of training. If skills were that easy to pick up they'd be in their early 100s of skill points. It just doesn't translate well to modern thinking of crash courses etc.

Take the advice of the others, order some local peasant fishermen around instead.



I had a look for the previous thread where this got a mention.
Here is an even older discussion on the same topic
http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=623.msg8310#msg8310

http://nocturnal-media.com/forum/index.php?topic=623.msg8310#msg8310



"What started the house rule change for us was if you played a longish game year over 2-3 sessions you'd be all "checked out". For skills that doesn't matter that much but for traits that meant that you usually had a check in both directions, given that if we kept that up it would eventually even out the traits towards 10/10. Something which is highly counter productive to the role playing."


Rereading the thread - this is what I was noticing too. After 3-4 sessions most skills would be ticked out. Hoots of underwhelmed glee would then erupt if someone somehow managed a tick to gaming or compose. ::)

The skill checks system in my campaign falls somewhere between the two suggested by Morien. For the most part the players have 1 skill roll per year. However, in exceptional years, when the number of game sessions rises to three or more, I allow double ticking of the same skill. It can still only increase by 1 but the chance of it doing so is increased.
What I have done is allow multiple checks on a single skill, the first check being the one that lets you make the roll, and additional checks giving you a +1 to the roll itself. Thus if your skill is a 14 and you have three checks on said skill, then the skill goes up on a roll of 13+ instead of the usual 15+.

Still only allowing one roll per skill. It does increase the chance that your skill will go up, but not by so much that I am worried about game balance.

Pax Arturus!

What I have done is allow multiple checks on a single skill, the first check being the one that lets you make the roll, and additional checks giving you a +1 to the roll itself. Thus if your skill is a 14 and you have three checks on said skill, then the skill goes up on a roll of 13+ instead of the usual 15+.
The problem with that approach is that it makes it easier to increase really high skills. Say a 19+ skill suddenly have double or triple chance of improving´. While a really low skill <5 doesn't get a significant increase at all. (+5% for low skills, +100% for high skills).
So your system is geared for the high skills that players use a lot, ie combat skills. Not really a good option in my mind.

While a multiple check system which result in actual rolls for increases, increases the rate of low skills much much more than the high skills.

Or worse lets take your text and shovel in a weapon skill instead:

Well, I had thought I'd made it clear that boating and swimming were the only skills on the list that I thought were ridiculously hard to progress in. Leaving coracles aside, as I have no experience on such a craft, I was able to maneuver pretty damn well in a canoe—as in steer it in a figure 8 pattern and get it to go where I wanted without mishap with an just an afternoon of instruction and practice. Riding a bike might be in the same category. I haven't ridden a bike in probably 30 years but have no doubt I could get on one today and have no trouble riding one. But back to swimming. To think it would take ten years for someone to be an adequate swimmer doesn't make any sense to me.

Of course, you're all correct—I could hire boaters, and that's already in the plan. Presumably we need pilots and guides to get to these water leapers. But I can't hire a swimmer to keep my 0-Swimming-skill PK from drowning! And with these rules he can't learn to swim adequately for another decade. I know that you only drown on a Fumble, but that's kinda wonky, too. So you have a 5% chance of drowning no matter how good a swimmer you are? Maybe I'm missing something here...

Best,


T.

What I have done is allow multiple checks on a single skill, the first check being the one that lets you make the roll, and additional checks giving you a +1 to the roll itself. Thus if your skill is a 14 and you have three checks on said skill, then the skill goes up on a roll of 13+ instead of the usual 15+.
The problem with that approach is that it makes it easier to increase really high skills. Say a 19+ skill suddenly have double or triple chance of improving´. While a really low skill <5 doesn't get a significant increase at all. (+5% for low skills, +100% for high skills).
So your system is geared for the high skills that players use a lot, ie combat skills. Not really a good option in my mind.

While a multiple check system which result in actual rolls for increases, increases the rate of low skills much much more than the high skills.


That's my thinking too. Any kind of bonus is really dangerous, when you have the possibility of increasing skills above 20. Though, if there is only one roll made in the winterphase (rather than one roll per check), you could still limit it to: skills above 20 still only go up on a natural roll of 20.
That said, my system of multiple rolls but only one possible increase, when applied to skills of 20 or higher, gives similar odds to MrUkpyr's "one roll with +1 per check after first" system. You could use the following:
Each check after the first grants a +1 bonus, and roll of natural 20 always gives an increase. If you have 3 checks, but a skill of 23, you still need a natural 20 to increase. You need a +5 bonus to roll above 23 with anything other than a 20.



Of all suggestions, this one of granting multiple checks, but only one chance to go up, is my favorite.


Yay! One of my suggestions is favoured.

So I'm running the 488 Water Leapers scenario and my PK has wisely suggested a week of training on coracles to see what kind of complications could arise. Swimming is, of course, a big concern and neither the PK nor the NPC knights have much skill here. My question is: if they train for a week in the simulationist mode, could they not earn a spot check for Swimming and Boating? Seems like they could get the basic and at least bump up 1 for some of these basic skills. Alternatively, I could just lessen the penalty for unsure footing or whatever due to the training and just take a check in the Winter Phase, as normal.


It's within the bounds of reason, I think, that if players practice for a specific activity, carried out at a specific space and time, that they could get a bonus to Boating (not Swiming). Maybe even a +5 bonus. But it would only apply for that year, and at that particular stretch of river.

Actually getting player-knights to concentrate on such mundane peasant training might be a bit tricky - some kind of trait check seems in order.

Actually, the two times I ran this scenario, I assumed they weren't on coracles, but flat rafts. This made the idea of standing and fighting, poling the rafts around, and stuff like that a lot easier and justifiable as using STR or DEX. The players understood that if they went in the water, their characters were probably doomed, so it was very tense. In one of the playthroughs, one of the players did go in the water, have to tread water while others lay flat on rafts and reached out to them to rescue him- thus the rescuers avoided having to use swimming skill.