A question for GMs. How many checks do you award a PK annually? Or another way of asking this is what criteria do you use when evaluating whether a non-critical success on a skill counts as sufficiently significant for a check? The Solo adventures in the core rules award 2-3 checks, which serves as some guidance.

Do you award a check in any of these scenarios:

1. PK successfully uses Sword against a giant.
2. PK successfully uses Sword in the Battle of Mearcred Creek.
3. PK successfully uses Sword fighting a knight of equal skill.
4. PK successfully uses Orate in front of King Uther.

I appreciate that the answer is going to be "it depends" and that such discretion is what makes a good GM. But I'm curious to hear what people who have been running campaigns do in practice. Thanks!
--Lee

We all do it differently.
For me, the answers are
yes, yes, yes, yes

--Greg



A question for GMs. How many checks do you award a PK annually? Or another way of asking this is what criteria do you use when evaluating whether a non-critical success on a skill counts as sufficiently significant for a check? The Solo adventures in the core rules award 2-3 checks, which serves as some guidance.

Do you award a check in any of these scenarios:

1. PK successfully uses Sword against a giant.
2. PK successfully uses Sword in the Battle of Mearcred Creek.
3. PK successfully uses Sword fighting a knight of equal skill.
4. PK successfully uses Orate in front of King Uther.

I appreciate that the answer is going to be "it depends" and that such discretion is what makes a good GM. But I'm curious to hear what people who have been running campaigns do in practice. Thanks!
--Lee

The cruel side in me delights when I award skill checks only for the players to fail on their improvement rolls.

This is the beauty of the advance system.

Bwahahaha!

My answers are the same as Greg's (gets a check to Sycophant trait).

You probably can't be too generous when it comes to checks.
I give checks for any trait or skill rolls used in situations that may move things forward, or cause interesting (good or bad) things to happen. For instance, anytime a player makes a roll where a fumble could have damaging or humiliating consequences (that Orate check in the presence of Uther), deserves a check for success.

Thanks to all for the prompt answers. Earl de la Warr, you are an evil man to drink the tears of your players so. ;)

Has anyone let players train failed checked skills at a discount to help characters improve organically based on the previous year's activities?

We all do it differently.
For me, the answers are
yes, yes, yes, yes

--Greg


Wow! That's a surprise. Based on the criteria given in the KAP 5 rulesbook, I was expecting some no responses.

I hand out checks directly when it has significance for the tale. So just hitting with a weapon does not give a check, nor does hacking down some levies, but defeating a knight or villain certainly does.

Then post-session we do a wrap up where we go through each character and the players can suggest checks for the other characters, which usually is traits&passions.

A one-session small adventure usually gives 5-10 checks to he main character and 3-7 to the other PKs.

Oh yes, we do the same thing - discuss at the end of a session (or in the experience step pf the Winter Phase) what other checks might have been learned. Players usually get some trait checks that way.

I let them have a check if they are actually challenged e.g. if the fight a fellow knight yes, if they are experienced knights in full armour with sword/lance of 18+ and they attack 3 peasants who are dressed in rags armed with farm implements (sharp pointy wood) then no.

I give a check for critical successes in routine circumstances (ie fighting a worthy opponent, at the feast, riding the bounds etc).

I also give a check for normal successes in heightened circumstances (ie you are the focus of attention for a large crowd, in front of a major lord, at a significant place or event).

Finally I give out checks irrespective of success/failure on the dice roll, when I have created 'moral quandry' encounters - for example, I recently worked up an expanded version of the trait checks given for 'THE RAID/THE PILLAGE' for the PKs to work through when Caer Colun got invaded by the Anglish. The PKs got auto-checks for as long as they were willing to ride out to try and and rescue their neighbours from the invaders, with the trait checks getting progressively darker (and the risks being run progressively higher) the longer they went on with it.

Regards
Luke

I give a check for critical successes in routine circumstances (ie fighting a worthy opponent, at the feast, riding the bounds etc).

I also give a check for normal successes in heightened circumstances (ie you are the focus of attention for a large crowd, in front of a major lord, at a significant place or event).

Finally I give out checks irrespective of success/failure on the dice roll, when I have created 'moral quandry' encounters - for example, I recently worked up an expanded version of the trait checks given for 'THE RAID/THE PILLAGE' for the PKs to work through when Caer Colun got invaded by the Anglish. The PKs got auto-checks for as long as they were willing to ride out to try and and rescue their neighbours from the invaders, with the trait checks getting progressively darker (and the risks being run progressively higher) the longer they went on with it.

Regards
Luke



Willing to share that expanded version?

fg,
Thijs

Finally I give out checks irrespective of success/failure on the dice roll, when I have created 'moral quandry' encounters - for example, I recently worked up an expanded version of the trait checks given for 'THE RAID/THE PILLAGE' for the PKs to work through when Caer Colun got invaded by the Anglish. The PKs got auto-checks for as long as they were willing to ride out to try and and rescue their neighbours from the invaders, with the trait checks getting progressively darker (and the risks being run progressively higher) the longer they went on with it.



Willing to share that expanded version?



Second! I'd love to hear what you have to add here. The player knights in our campaign are from Hertford and Caer Colun is close by.

Willing to share that expanded version?


Second! I'd love to hear what you have to add here. The player knights in our campaign are from Hertford and Caer Colun is close by.


Sure. Things have been a bit busy lately, but I should have time tonight to clean it up and turn it into a post.

[Edit]
Done - see this thread (http://www.gspendragon.com/roundtable/index.php?topic=704.0)

Regards
Luke

As long as the action the player takes is made while attempting to advance the story in some way they deserve a check. After all they only get one check per year in any given skill so it isnt nice tto be stingy. The only tome i disallow a check is when a player is being conniving just to squeeze a check from me. Even if they are JUST trying to get checks though, as long as there is a consequence for failing , i would still even give them a check for succeeding. Being Liberal with checks is better than too stingy i think. Once sword is checked for instance , then its checked. End of story, so no matter how many fights you have that year it doesnt matter. Ill give the knight a check in sword for whacking a peasant. Cause later that year he will probably do some real fighting and then he will already have his check anyway. Best not to Overthink the matter! LOL

I also give a check EACH TIME they critically fail with dire consequences. So yes, maybe two or three checks for two or three critical failures.

I also give a check EACH TIME they critically fail with dire consequences. So yes, maybe two or three checks for two or three critical failures.

Checks 4 failures? is that correct!? ???

I also give a check EACH TIME they critically fail with dire consequences. So yes, maybe two or three checks for two or three critical failures.

Checks 4 failures? is that correct!? ???


Depends upon HOW your intrepret the rules on page 96. To summarize, "...A box may only be checked when the Gamemaster says the player may do so." It does continue, "A check is possible only if at least on the of the following two statements pertain:" and then tells us this is when a player gets a critical success, or a success in a significant situation occures. The dire consequences could be used for the success in a significant situation. I know of GMs who give players 1-3 skill checks on skills they used during the year, whether on screen or off as not every minute situation is role-played. So, allowing a check when you critically fail (which also gives other major plot hooks) could be a viable way to allow knights to make up for that problem.

"Well, I supposed I should remember where my feet are and never come forward after I have spun the earl's daughter around, stepping on her dress, causing her to stumble"

Bob

I also give a check EACH TIME they critically fail with dire consequences. So yes, maybe two or three checks for two or three critical failures.

Checks 4 failures? is that correct!? ???


Depends upon HOW your intrepret the rules on page 96. To summarize, "...A box may only be checked when the Gamemaster says the player may do so." It does continue, "A check is possible only if at least on the of the following two statements pertain:" and then tells us this is when a player gets a critical success, or a success in a significant situation occures. The dire consequences could be used for the success in a significant situation. I know of GMs who give players 1-3 skill checks on skills they used during the year, whether on screen or off as not every minute situation is role-played. So, allowing a check when you critically fail (which also gives other major plot hooks) could be a viable way to allow knights to make up for that problem.

"Well, I supposed I should rembember where my feet are whand never come forward after I have spun the earl's daughter around.

Bob


hmm.. okay

Checks 4 failures? is that correct!? ???

Depends upon HOW your interpret the rules on page 96. [snip]... I know of GMs who give players 1-3 skill checks on skills they used during the year,


Everyone may interpret the rules as they wish for their own game.
The author's intent was a maximum of one check per year

The result of multiple checks is that character will rise unusually quickly, concerned to the pace of the game.
It is especially off balance since the characters with the highest skills will get the most checks, and thus the most chances to improve.

That is too true. Once one player starts to outpace others, then everyone will want a chance to catch up and then pcs can indeed rise too quickly.

Bob

The more skilled a character is, the less critical failures he should do, such reducing this type of problem, in case of critical failure checks.

The more skilled a character is, the less critical failures he should do, such reducing this type of problem, in case of critical failure checks.


My concern is with multiple checks for success or failure.
The rules are set up to hav players make one experience check per year, not more.

-g

To answer the original question, then I would be Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. I'd amost certainly award some glory as well.

I've never really counted how many checks my characters have but I gnerally award a check for something performed in a stressful situation where there is a significant consequence if it is criticalled or fumbled.

So, to me, fighitng the three peasants at the same time - so splitting one's skills three ways - and they actually have a chance of harming the knight (sometimes you can calculate that even on a hit that no damage will be done by inferior weapons, and no chance of a knockdown) - then I would award a check for sword.

I suspect my players ended up with around 3-4 passion checks and around 10 skills checks per year (they've not been putting themselves around as proper knights if they haven't got a check to Lance, horsemanship, and Sword). A number of those would be on the social skills. This would be becasue I would run at least two sessions a year. I only ever have one check against a passion or skill though.

One session would always be Pentecost and the Grand Tournament at Camelot (or wherever Arthur is). One player got as far as the final (and the last four rounds were against meaty oppostion who just rolled poorly) one year, and thereafter it was always "assumed" that barring overseas service they would be able to get to attend. The Pentecost feast would often see ticks in 5-6 social skils, given that it lasts over a week. The other session would be a more traditional adventure with a combat theme - either military service or monsters. Very, very rarely a third scenario would be played out in a year as a result of characters actions - someone's wedding tournament and feast, rescuing treasure etc about which they have heard during th year, helping out a round table knight on something specific, or another battle when there are multiple battles in the year and players are fit enough to attend.

Once or twice I suspect I have allowed players to roll against some of their checks (combat skills) before the year end. I think I did this during a couple of times when there are multiple battles in the year, with gaps in between, to reflect "learning by Experience" (which often means just by surviving).

I have also allowed players to auto improve low level skills (to me which means below 5) if they can come up with a specific plausable basis, and allocate the time (which has often meant missing out on the second scenario). To me a low level of a skill can easily be improved by formal training, personal guidance or dedicated practice depending upon the skill. An example of this would be the (new) Baron who wanted to spend three months improving his dance by learning from his future mother in law (who in game terms was set up a former skilled dance mistress) whilst sorting out the other preparations etc as well (for which I may have given a point in stewardship). The same Baron was also removed from play for six months (game time, not real time) whlst he learned the job of deputy keeper of the Privy Seal (and improved his intrigue and gained a basic reading skill) - which would have meant missing the second adventure of the year.

But then I tend to reward "playing in character", and someone coming up with a good story or attempt/event that means everyone at the table has a good time. As one of my players phrased it when I was talking about GMing (as they were preparing to do so) - I'm looking for someone to justify me giving them a chance of a die roll that might improve things in their favour. After all, in the movies, the heroes always have the scriptwriter on their side.

Chris

Wait a minute, are we talking about skill checks for different skills? :o
Estoy estupido! ::)

For individual skill uses, I have no limit (nor does the game) for the number gained in a year.
I give plenty of opportunity to give checks out.

Wait a minute, are we talking about skill checks for different skills? :o
Estoy estupido! ::)

For individual skill uses, I have no limit (nor does the game) for the number gained in a year.
I give plenty of opportunity to give checks out.



So, are you saying that I can get say five checks against my sword skill, and roll five times to improve it ?

I thought it was one check per skill per year.... - which meant one chance to improve it in the winter season...

Chris

I thought it was one check per skill per year.... - which meant one chance to improve it in the winter season...



This was always my interpretation.

So, are you saying that I can get say five checks against my sword skill, and roll five times to improve it ?


NO! Absolutlely NOT!
Never!!



I thought it was one check per skill per year.... - which meant one chance to improve it in the winter season...


Yes, correct.

My experience as a player has been that we get 1 or 2 skill checks if we're lucky, maybe a passion and/or trait check. Anything else comes from manorial improvements (no solos). In my case, the improvements give me 5 checks per year

My experience as a player has been that we get 1 or 2 skill checks if we're lucky, maybe a passion and/or trait check. Anything else comes from manorial improvements (no solos). In my case, the improvements give me 5 checks per year

Bummer! Seems kinda stingy to me! BAD GM!!!!! hahahahah :P

The result of multiple checks is that character will rise unusually quickly, concerned to the pace of the game.
It is especially off balance since the characters with the highest skills will get the most checks, and thus the most chances to improve.

I'd disagree. I run with a house rule of up to four checks per year, yupp that is right four checks per skill/trait per year. The first two you get easily as per usual. The third only by special deed. The fourth only by unique events.
Now mind you that my PK's start with lower skills than in KAP5.
But our experience is the opposite. That is that it is the lower skills that rise quicker. Not the high ones. I'd also go so far as to say that the math back me up. (At least if you can get checks for not just rolling the dice but for actual good roleplaying as well). This since most "important" skills are already being driven up by the players into famous ranges 16+ because they want to keep their characters alive. Regardless if they are munchkins or not this means that if they want a character that will survive they will not put points to those "other" non life saving skills/traits.
So even if I get multiple checks to my sword skill the % chance that it actually increases diminishes vs a low skill even if I get fewer checks to it. This means that odd skills in my campain are used more often and that my knights usually have 2-3 good ones to use every now and then.

Also if I look at your campain pages etc your PKs have waaaaay higher combat skills than do mine.

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.