I really need to not edit my posts in window. I nearly finished this post, only to have the brower interpret my use of the backspace key as the "return to previous page" shortcut.

Then I retyped the whole thing and did it again.

So apologize if this is a bit less clear or detailed than I originally intended.



KAP page 96, heading Obtaining Experience, sub-heading Skills

What counts as a significant situation? The rules don't actually give a positive example for this that I have found.


--For all the following assume no crits were scored--


Is the first lance charge of a battle enough to get a check in lance?

What about the many rounds of swordfighting after?

Is beating the bear enough to get a swordmanship check. (For all involved, only the the "MVK" of the fight, or only if it turns out to be a one on one match?)

Fighting a water leaper?

Lancing (+10/-5 after all modifiers are applied) some Saxon heorthgenats? Does it matter why the players are fighting them? (that is - if the Saxons are 'story relevant' does the fight become significant?) For example there is that embassy adventure where the players can kill time by going out and killing some Saxons... it doesn't really advance their cause in any meaningful way to do so.

And it's not all combat of course.

Is finding the bear during the intro adventure enough to gain a hunting check?
Successful hunting in general?
Sighting the questing beast?

Is a first aid check significant if the patient is only lightly wounded? What if they have many wounds, but are still conscious?

The more I GM Pendragon, the more I feel to be generous with checkmarks. It is to players like catnip is to cats. :P This is especially true if you are playing like one session per year or some such, since there will be even less opportunities to get checkmarks.

So nowadays, my rule of thumb is pretty much 'a successful roll using a skill when the GM calls for it'.
GM: "Roll courtesy to make a favorable impression on the leader of the border patrol, so that you are allowed to continue on and finish the adventure in a timely fashion. Get a check if you are successful."

'Frivolous rolling' does not gain you any checks.
Player 1: "I roll my Courtesy to act with good manners as I ride with my friends." No check even on a success, nor even at a critical.
Player 2: "I'd like to use my Intrigue to find out why everyone is so tense at this court." GM says to roll Intrigue, and a check is gained on a success, not a frivolous use.

With Combat skills, practice weapons do not gain you any skill checks (not even on a critical), although they can be used as a justification to gain a 'free' check at the end of the year (I tend to give out 1-3 skill check marks). Tournament use is an exception, I tend to give Lance checks if one does well in Jousting, and weapon skill used in Melee. I might even give Battle check for the Leader of the Melee, if he is successful in his Battle roll.

With actual combat, if it is ernest and the PK was successful with the skill, I tend to give a check nowadays. Definitely if he managed to win a duel / beat an enemy.

I tend to award Battle checks each time the players participate in a big Battle, successful or not. At least they have seen the 'elephant' now. As the battle rounds do represent longer chunks of time, yes, I do give checks for a successful use of a weapon.

So as for your examples, I would give a check in pretty much all of those.
- Success at Hunting the bear: extremely significant, as that was their quest.
- Sighting the Questing Beast: a glorious encounter, certainly a good cause for some checks. (I tend to award Faerie Lore checks whenever the PKs deal with faerie creatures, for good or ill.)
- First Aid of a wounded comrade: I'd give a check on a successful First Aid, as long as it is happening 'in the scene' rather than 'I go out and use my first aid on the peasants who have gotten hurt in the field.' I don't mind if the players 'game' this slightly, such as 'Let me use my First Aid, I don't have a check in it yet.' from a guy with FA of 10, rather than the party healer with FA of 15. After all, people learn by doing and using first aid on a wounded PK is significant enough in my opinion. But then again, I am a bit of a softy, like I said in the beginning. :)

So nowadays, my rule of thumb is pretty much 'a successful roll using a skill when the GM calls for it'.


+1

I've been forcefeeding my players experience checks through the whole campaign yet none has emerged omnipotent, far from it. If anything, I would like the knights to become more powerful faster, so that each generation can feel the progress and I can lead them to more epic adventures.

I've noticed that even when I award them checks - they almost never succeed anyway.

One of my players ended up with 7* personality checks, 2 passion checks, and 3 or 4 skill checks. I think he scored one increase. (*it was a pretty dramatic session for his character, many feels)

He threw his d20 at the end of winter session. (mostly for comedic effect)

It is all in the numbers and diminishing chance of increase via an experience check. I really like that mechanism, as it allows rapid increase of low skills, but makes it very difficult for the high skills to 'break the game'. :)

Lets assume that a Player has 4 skills at 15, and gets a check in each. The chance of rolling 16+ is 25%, so with four rolls, we'd expect one skill to increase, on average. Hardly overpowered.

Once the skills reach 17, the chance becomes 15%, or close to 1 in 8. Thus, even if he gets a check in all skills, the chance of one increase is once per two years. Again, nothing that I'd worry about.

By the time the skills are 19 or more, the chance for an increase is 5%. Hence, it takes around 5 years for one of the skills to increase, again assuming they all get checks each year.

So yeah, feel free to be generous with checks, especially if you are playing 1 session / game year, since there won't be that much time to roll for skills anyway.

EDIT: Just as an example, we tend to have a slower pace, about 4 sessions to a game year. This of course means that there are more chances for people to roll their skills. Latest Winter Phase, I think the checks were around 7-8 in traits, 1-3 in passions and 10-14 in skills. I usually give people a chance to argue for one trait or passion check (or two, if they don't have many), and 1-3 skill checks, using those to 'balance' out the check accumulation, for instance if one player has 10 skill checks and another 5, I might give 1 additional check to the first player and 3 to the more unfortunate second player. Those checks of course need to be something reasonable, but I tend to be generous with skill checks. Traits/passions I tend to require some justification, and definitely not if they have clearly gone against the trait/passion in the game.

So nowadays, my rule of thumb is pretty much 'a successful roll using a skill when the GM calls for it'.


This is what Greg recommends as well.

The traditional interpretation of "significant situation" is any situation that advances the narrative in a meaningful way. You don't want people making frivolous checks in situations where they've done little to advance the story.


T.

It is all in the numbers and diminishing chance of increase via an experience check. I really like that mechanism, as it allows rapid increase of low skills, but makes it very difficult for the high skills to 'break the game'. :)


I like that aspect of the system, my players are just horribly unlucky.