In the current system a player has to chose from three possibilities to increase one or more scores by one point.

-- Skills, +1d6 points (up to 15)
-- Trait or Passion, 1 point (up to 19 for Traits / up to 20 for Passions)
-- Base Stats, 1 point (up to cultural max & no SIZ increase after age 21)

Some of my players found that this system yields unequal benefits for good or bad 1d6 rolls. In our first three adventures, one player rolled 1, 3, 1 (total 5), while his comrade rolled 6, 5, 5 (total 16 points).

==========

Here's our House Rule:

Each player receives 40 Training points (TP), to be spent freely as follows:

-- Trait, Passion or Skill: TP costs = current score (up to max 20)
-- Base Stats: TP costs = always 40 (up to cultural max & no SIZ increase after age 21)

Example:
..... Pious from 8 to 9 [Cost 8]
..... Honor from 12 to 13 [Cost 12]
..... Swimming from 17 to 18 [Cost 17]
..... TP left: 40 - 8 - 12 - 17 = 3

Remaining TP can be used to get one extra check in a score, lowered for the number of allotted TP.

Example:
..... check “Loyalty (lord) 12” for a succesfull roll of 12 (current score) - 3 (TP) = 9 on a d20.

==========

The advantages are that players all get the same amount of Training, and that they will choose to increase lower scores more often, since they become relatively cheaper.

(Also, the rule is more elegant in the sense that Traits, Passions and Skills have the same max. increase values.)

What do you think of this?

Sounds good to me. But instead of a flat 40, what about a 20 + (Energetic x 2) ?

That would take into consideration that an energetic character is always looking to do something, while a lazy character will do nothing.
20 base so that there is not too big a difference, and 2 times Energetic, which average to 20 (both being then around 40, the number you propose)

Putting the Energetic trait into the Training rule would make it too powerful, I think. Plus it would again give the differences in Training benefits between PKs -- something I aimed to eliminate.

I think it's a mistake to allow people to divide points between skills and other things, especially if your system is allowing on average 2 points of increase among traits, stats, and passions, as well as some left over skill increases. Bearing in mind, assigning an experience roll to, say, 5-10 low level skills, is worth far more than 1d6 skill points.

My own approach was simple:
you don't get 1d6 for skills, you get a fixed 5 points, up to score 15.
Everything else, the same.

I think it's a mistake to allow people to divide points between skills and other things
Why? What's the problem?


... especially if your system is allowing on average 2 points of increase among traits, stats, and passions, as well as some left over skill increases
Stats still are treated differently.
With 40 Training points, you can indeed raise 8 scores from 5 to 6, or 5 scores from 8 to 9, or 3 scores form 13 to 14.
In the current system, with an average roll, a player can raise 3.5 "high" scores (in the 10-14 range).
The main difference is in the lower range, where my system allows for more raises.
The other difference is of course to let players influence their Traits and Passions more often (cf. supra).


Bearing in mind, assigning an experience roll to, say, 5-10 low level skills, is worth far more than 1d6 skill points.
I don't understand what you mean...

Mistake is probably too strong a word.

My concern is keeping the rate of advancement roughly the same as it is in standard pendragon. Many people use house rules that speed up the rate of winter phase advancement, but I think they don't take into account the 20 years or more a character can be in play for. Allowing more than one point of advancement per year on, say, passions and personality traits, or skills above 15, allows characters to achieve major benefits too quickly (getting passions to 'safe' high scores, getting chivalry or religion, while still being able to get sword to 20 fairly quickly). Players don't have such difficult choices the system intentionally presents, and downtime advancement becomes more useful than in-game adventuring advancement (which is much more hit & miss).

Under your system I could raise Sword from 16 to 17, also get a passion from 15 to 16, and raise a chivalry-contributing trait from, say, 7 to 8 (raising low traits is cheap, and helps get to that 80-point total just as much as a 15-16 would), and still be able to give experience checks to two skills. Or, rather than that low trait, I could give experience checks to 9 skills - and picking skills that are in the 3-10 range, many of them would succeed.
An opportunist player might just pick 20 skills, and give them experience checks every year, and still be increasing his sword from 15 to 20.

In fact, I just noticed you can assign a point to non-skills to get an experience check. I could just raise sword each year, and distribute 20-25 checks between traits, passions, and skills, and massively increase my rate of advancement. Even if you reigned that in, players are getting the ability to advance at least twice as fast as under the standard rules.

Your initial problem was "Some of my players found that this system yields unequal benefits for good or bad 1d6 rolls." Your system does much more than that. You can fix that problem simply be saying every d6 roll results in a fixed result. I know one GM replaced it with d3+3, whereas I used a fixed result of 5 points.



The advantages are that players all get the same amount of Training, and that they will choose to increase lower scores more often, since they become relatively cheaper.
Note: this is a bug, not a feature, when it comes to traits, since scores of 5 should be just as hard to change as scores of 15 - the further away they are from 10, the more extreme they are. And qualifying for religious bonuses and chivalry becomes easier, because the lower scores that can be a major hindrance become much less of a problem (and in the case of chivalry, actually become a benefit).



(Also, the rule is more elegant in the sense that Traits, Passions and Skills have the same max. increase values.)


Sometimes elegance is wrong. There are good reasons why different categories scores have different maxima.

Under your system I could raise Sword from 16 to 17, also get a passion from 15 to 16, and raise a chivalry-contributing trait from, say, 7 to 8 (raising low traits is cheap, and helps get to that 80-point total just as much as a 15-16 would), and still be able to give experience checks to two skills. Or, rather than that low trait, I could give experience checks to 9 skills - and picking skills that are in the 3-10 range, many of them would succeed.
An opportunist player might just pick 20 skills, and give them experience checks every year, and still be increasing his sword from 15 to 20.

In fact, I just noticed you can assign a point to non-skills to get an experience check. I could just raise sword each year, and distribute 20-25 checks between traits, passions, and skills, and massively increase my rate of advancement. Even if you reigned that in, players are getting the ability to advance at least twice as fast as under the standard rules.

20-25 checks?
In the house rule I propose, it says "Remaining TP can be used to get one extra check in a score, lowered for the number of allotted TP."
So, 1 extra check, not more!


The advantages are that players all get the same amount of Training, and that they will choose to increase lower scores more often, since they become relatively cheaper.
Note: this is a bug, not a feature, when it comes to traits, since scores of 5 should be just as hard to change as scores of 15 - the further away they are from 10, the more extreme they are. And qualifying for religious bonuses and chivalry becomes easier, because the lower scores that can be a major hindrance become much less of a problem (and in the case of chivalry, actually become a benefit).

Mmm, indeed. You are right. I hadn't thought of that...
Maybe you're rule of say 4 or 5 points per roll to even things out isn't that bad :-\

I still like the idea of Training Points, though. Perhaps limit them to 30 and maintain some maxima for Skills, Traits and Passions (like current max values, or all 15 or even 20?)...

To me, the random d6 represents the fact that sometimes knights have other duties that get in the way of their preferred training. A knight who rolls a 1 or 2 for yearly points might have had several out of game events crop up during that winter phase. He may have wanted to do the training but duties dictated otherwise.

The way I'd approach it would be to give starting characters the option of choosing the average amount of points, rather than rolling, for any years xtra advancement that are taken beyond the default starting age. Then, once the character enters play, revert to the standard rules. That at least guarantees them a reasonable pool of points to begin with.




My own approach was simple:
you don't get 1d6 for skills, you get a fixed 5 points, up to score 15.
Everything else, the same.


I like this idea.

It could also be tweaked with Cromcrom's idea of factoring in Energetic (or maybe even other stats/traits)...

Say an average knight gets 4pts/year.

+1 for energetic 16 - 18
+2 for energetic 19+

Though this might still give too much significance to the energetic trait?

Although I like the idea of training points, I am not completely sold on the idea. One has allowed energetic knights to get a bonus. That seems to fit very well with the idea that lazy/non-energetic knights would not train as hard. However, in games where you set the stats, every power gamer would immediately make that one of their highest traits as it will pay dividends in the long run. Now, if the bonus is small, as suggested of 1 or 2 points, then it might not be too big.

My experience has been most players are not used to the idea of a dynastic game where you are playing out your family's history during King Arthur. Thus, the attitude, I must make this character to be as powerful as quickly as I can, mimicing other games with levels. When one realizes that the game spans 80 years as each period has its own strengths/weaknesses, then playing that 21 year old until the very end is unrealistic. I know of one campaign where one knight actually made it the whole way through.

So, I would think it over. Why do you want to have knights rise in 3-4 traits, 8 or 9 skills, a few passions every single year? Once an entire party starts having knights of Lancelot's caliber, then the challenges start becoming fewer and fewer. And if there are indeed many knights of the level, what made Lancelot so special?

Bob

Although I like the idea of training points, I am not completely sold on the idea. One has allowed energetic knights to get a bonus. That seems to fit very well with the idea that lazy/non-energetic knights would not train as hard. However, in games where you set the stats, every power gamer would immediately make that one of their highest traits as it will pay dividends in the long run. Now, if the bonus is small, as suggested of 1 or 2 points, then it might not be too big.

My experience has been most players are not used to the idea of a dynastic game where you are playing out your family's history during King Arthur. Thus, the attitude, I must make this character to be as powerful as quickly as I can, mimicing other games with levels. When one realizes that the game spans 80 years as each period has its own strengths/weaknesses, then playing that 21 year old until the very end is unrealistic. I know of one campaign where one knight actually made it the whole way through.

So, I would think it over. Why do you want to have knights rise in 3-4 traits, 8 or 9 skills, a few passions every single year? Once an entire party starts having knights of Lancelot's caliber, then the challenges start becoming fewer and fewer. And if there are indeed many knights of the level, what made Lancelot so special?

Bob
What he said! :D

Plus: One should really think things over before making the occasional trait "better" than the others (by adding more bonuses). I actually think the game already tilts a bit too much towards rewarding a certain type of character (and thus pushing everyone in that direction). So, if you're gonna reward the Energetic character with Training Bonuses, then perhaps the very energetic should also have a lower Healing Rate (from not being able to sit still at any time). See? I think you always need to balance stuff out, to encourage diversity.

// M

Leaving aside the merits of the proposed houserule (for the record I think it is rife with potential for unintended consequences) I think the OP is jumping the gun on this issue. He's done it because he thinks the RAW is broken based on observing what was, in effect, two flukey 3d6 rolls - a 5 is worse than 95% of all results, whilst a 16 is better than 95% of all results.

Pendragon is a long term game and balanced as such - IMO you need to see the various subsystems in operation over longer than three game-years before you start tinkering.

Regards
Luke

Leaving aside the merits of the proposed houserule (for the record I think it is rife with potential for unintended consequences)

You're making me curious now...

I've thought things over and my conclusion is that the critics are right: it tinkers and bends too many things. Perhaps just replacing the 1d6 option by 30 Training Points, to make lower Skill scores cheaper and higher scores more expensive -- but that's about all.

So, what unintended consequences are you thinking of?

So, what unintended consequences are you thinking of?


Basically I think giving your players a general fund of improvement points that can be mixed and matched opens up all sorts of potential for skewing the relative value of skills vs traits vs passions - see Darren's posts upthread for the sort of issues I'm concerned about.

Also if the reason you're introducing it is because of the flukey roles you observed (and you really wanted go ahead with a houserule), then what you propose 'fixes' much more than the problem you have. Why not go with a much less invasive change, like using a roll for skill points with less randomness? For instance d3+1 or even a flat allocation of points?

Regards
Luke

We have been using for Skills: 1d6+1 OR 4 points, pick before you roll. In the long run, it should even out. Also, funnily enough, people seem to think in fractions, not absolutes. That is to say, 2 vs. 7 (1:3.5) feels more like 1 vs. 3, rather than 1 vs. 6 (5 difference in absolute value).

I might replace it with Darren's suggested 1d3+3, though. 4-6 still has some variance to make the player feel good on a good roll, but not be as teeth-grindingly annoying when you roll a 1(+1 = 2). Hmm. I will need to ponder this.

We have been using for Skills: 1d6+1 OR 4 points, pick before you roll. In the long run, it should even out. Also, funnily enough, people seem to think in fractions, not absolutes. That is to say, 2 vs. 7 (1:3.5) feels more like 1 vs. 3, rather than 1 vs. 6 (5 difference in absolute value).


Out of curiosity, how often do your players choose to take 4 points over the D6 roll? I have found the lure of more often seems to override logic; I could see my group taking the D6 more often than not.

We have been using for Skills: 1d6+1 OR 4 points, pick before you roll. In the long run, it should even out. Also, funnily enough, people seem to think in fractions, not absolutes. That is to say, 2 vs. 7 (1:3.5) feels more like 1 vs. 3, rather than 1 vs. 6 (5 difference in absolute value).


Out of curiosity, how often do your players choose to take 4 points over the D6 roll? I have found the lure of more often seems to override logic; I could see my group taking the D6 more often than not.

That seems very likely to me too, especially since half of the rolls on a d6 are better than 4, and only 13rd are below. (Even players who are bad at probability tend to figure stuff like that out.)

We started out with d6+1, and that observation - and seeing players try go for luck anyway, and then get disappointed at the rolls of 1-2 - which led to trying d3+3.
Just going with a set 5 was a development of that too. It's the average of d4+3, and the average of 1d6+1 if you round up, and stops some people getting disappointed at feeling like they always roll low.

Out of curiosity, how often do your players choose to take 4 points over the D6 roll? I have found the lure of more often seems to override logic; I could see my group taking the D6 more often than not.

That seems very likely to me too, especially since half of the rolls on a d6 are better than 4, and only 13rd are below. (Even players who are bad at probability tend to figure stuff like that out.)


What Darren said, basically... There were differences. One player who felt the dice hated him tended to take the straight 4 rather than risk it, and there were other such occasions where the player wanted to be sure he had enough points to get a skill to a certain level. But yeah, the probability is still skewed towards throwing the dice. 1d3+3 seems much more robust in that sense.