Mechwarrior RPG - XP and advancement

[Chimera]

OK...

Writing my thoughts down and opening this up for discussion.

Battletech RPG's are notoriously stingy but this one takes the cake.

10-20 XP per session over 20 sessions is 200-400 XP...
That's what -
2 to 4 attributte points (100 a pop)
Increasing 4-8 skills from +4 to +5. (50 a pop)
Purchase a few SPA's (50-200 each)

That's not much... over a yearly campaign...

I am looking to give 10-20 for stories each session.

Also my attributte to skill limit hits this wall hard. Nicoli sugested half attributte improvements (50 XP) improves the attribute by one level in determining skill Max.

Also - need to factor in how much I give for finishing plot arcs. Also if I allow players to have side quests running that grant XP.
I don't see the campaign having a great deal of downtime. But if it does downtime XP is relatively minor.

Thoughts?

[Brunhilde]

I like the homework idea - great for rounding out characters etc, and obviously, the more XP one can get, the better

Right now, I can't get past all the t's in attribute.

jus' sayin'...

[Loswaith]

Personally award the XP at the speed you want us to be advancing at, that's typically better than using their method, as they may have that based on a session being played once per week (quite a common occurrence) or even multiple times a week (or simply good starting characters with slower further development).

For plot arcs maybe do a 'typical' session award (presuming your going for a flat award style), so in most cases if we end a session on the end of a plot arc it will be a double award.
Side quests you can probably place somewhere in between the two awards or as you see fit for the effort involved.

Keep in mind with the homework bit, it can lead to a fair discrepancy over a decent number of sessions (or small number if its similar to a sessional award) between the characters.  This may or maynot be an issue.  Also whether catchup is going to be allowed.

Isn't the attributes to skill limit part of the game anyway?  I'm presuming you balanced the priority system around the 100xp attribute point thing, if you lower the cost it will effect that as well. 
Attribute to skill costs are presumably balanced for their use within the game, so modifying the award will be simpler than modifying the costs.

Are the rules for training or the limits on increasing skills going to apply as well?

[Chimera]

Personally award the XP at the speed you want us to be advancing at, that's typically better than using their method, as they may have that based on a session being played once per week (quite a common occurrence) or even multiple times a week (or simply good starting characters with slower further development).

For plot arcs maybe do a 'typical' session award (presuming your going for a flat award style), so in most cases if we end a session on the end of a plot arc it will be a double award.
Side quests you can probably place somewhere in between the two awards or as you see fit for the effort involved.

Keep in mind with the homework bit, it can lead to a fair discrepancy over a decent number of sessions (or small number if its similar to a sessional award) between the characters.  This may or maynot be an issue.  Also whether catchup is going to be allowed.

Isn't the attributes to skill limit part of the game anyway?  I'm presuming you balanced the priority system around the 100xp attribute point thing, if you lower the cost it will effect that as well. 
Attribute to skill costs are presumably balanced for their use within the game, so modifying the award will be simpler than modifying the costs.

Are the rules for training or the limits on increasing skills going to apply as well?

Yeah just trying to think what I want that speed to be...

Catch-up will be available for homework.

The attributes as a limit to skills is a house rule. Pretty much my only one. It is in return for dropping the attribute link modifiers. This combination is for two reasons, fist is that the base attribute link modifiers are very extream (+1 is big in this system), the second is it stops spike skills (attributtes 3 with skills around +6). The rule itself is borrowed from Shadowrun3.

I am reading the skill rules... Just trying to get my head around the training skill. I think the writeup of the skill shows a different application to the training rules inthe XP section. But I do like the use or training required to advance a skill. In general principles this limits skill advancement rates.

[Chimera]

So, the training rules PG.334.

Seem quite detailed.
Simple skills are easy to put up, roll on it at least once or get a weeks training and it can go up.
Advanced skills require training, a months worth from a trainer with better skills...

First problem here is that the PC's may in fact be the most skilled pilots on planet... This effectively locks out advancement.
The system does not seem to account for field learning...
What about learning more than one skill at a time during training?

Training skill PG.156
Using a skill to gain XP, sounds like a downtime application of a skill to me. I think I will treat it this way.

OK, time for two house rules. Or are they more house additions...

First - the character sheet needs a tick box for skill has been used and can be advanced. For simple skill just tick it as a reminder.

1) learning advanced skills by doing.
First step, the character spends the advancement points to advance the skill then ticks the advance box to signify the skill is in training.
This does not actually advance the skill.
Next the skill advances when one of two conditions are met. The first is that the character makes a test on the skill obtaining a MOS equal to the level the skill is advancing too. The second is that a number of months pass in equal to the new rank of the skill.
This option does not alow you to purchase an advanced skill at rank +0. Training is still required for that.

2) learning more than one skill at a time during training.
We do it in real life so why not...
Training time can be applied to a number of skills equal to the characters INT.


Some notes for my thinking, here is the incremental cost of skills -
+0 - +20
+1 - +10
+2 - +20
+3 - +30
+4 - +40
+5 - +50
+6 - +60
+7 - +70
+8 - +80
+9 - +90
+10 - +100

Finally, I forgot to add to the last post. Character creation under priority is balanced between point buy. Nicoli almost scared me a character with skills C buys 6 skills at +4 and one at +3 - this adds up to 800, as does 10 skills at +3 and 40 skills at +0. Anything else gives a refund. Took me ages to work that one out...
 

[Chimera]

Talking to myself again

OK how does this sound -

Base 10 per session.
10-20 per session as per the book.
10-20 claimable as a writeup per session (each player may claim one per session - may be done at any time)

That's 30-50 per session. About 600-1000 in a year?

Also do we want to do player rewards like in the past? Maybe each player may give two +5 reward per session to one or two players each with a tag line that I could post up in summary on the forum? That would add 1000/5=200 XP to the year if spread out. Also by posting totals on forum players can spread it as they want in future.

And is this too many writeups??? Each player gets to do one per session? Too much of an impost?

[Loswaith]

...
1) learning advanced skills by doing.
First step, the character spends the advancement points to advance the skill then ticks the advance box to signify the skill is in training.
This does not actually advance the skill.
Next the skill advances when one of two conditions are met. The first is that the character makes a test on the skill obtaining a MOS equal to the level the skill is advancing too. The second is that a number of months pass in equal to the new rank of the skill.
This option does not alow you to purchase an advanced skill at rank +0. Training is still required for that. ...

Keep in mind this puts the need for a roll result one higher than the typical TN so about  9 (27.78% chance) or 10 (16.67% chance), to actually gain the increase.

It also bring up the query can you have multiple ranks "in waiting" on the same skill and if so can you gain the increase more than one at a time (should your roll create sufficient MOS, a natural limit of course on stacked MOS will be 2-3 higher than your current skill rank).

[Chimera]

Yes definately multiple in waiting, thus the tick box.

I am picturing a method that sees player ticking an avanced skill every one too two sessions.

The advancement will come slowly maybe 2-3 sessions to get a critical success as it were.

I put the month thing in as an eventual default.

And only "real" rolls would count - no shooting innocent boulders that can't dodge on the hope of rolling a 12

[Loswaith]

I was thinking multple in wating on the same skill rather than different skills, will edit for clarification.

[Kaneski]

Yeeeeeah... can be done, but I'd feel remiss if I didn't list what the suggestions below get rid of, both mechanically and thematically. Keeping in mind, as the guy with some 8-10 Complex-Advanced skills, I'd actually benefit greatly from Chimera's proposed changes. I also think they break a lot of the themes.


1) Advancement is not locked out. To improve an advanced skill without training needs 2x the XP (p334, 2nd paragraph, last line). This means advanced skills can be improved 'in the field' and without a trainer. The characters may well be the best mech pilots and gunners on the planet - maybe the sector rulers are the only ones better. Good. They should be good, and certainly above the untrained rabble, but the path to godlike mech piloting should be hard.

I suggest a compromise, based on the tracking/ticking system below. Base cost of upgrading an advanced skill without a trainer - 2x as in rulebook. With every critical success (natural 12 on 2d6) earns you a 'tick' against that tracked skill. Every tick gets... I don't know... 10% discount up to 5 ticks. This only affects the XP cost - nothing on the MOS.

This compromise however, suffers from skill use frequency difference - maybe once every few sessions I'll get to use demolitions (explosions, after all, fix everything), but mech pilot and gunnery will go mad once in mech combat, making for a large difference in advancement ease.



2) Break of advanced vs basic skills. By removing the trainer requirement, there is no longer a separation, thematically or mechanically, between basic and advanced skills. You can get better at running just as cheaply as you can at configuring and repairing nuclear reactors. Some things in Battletech aren't meant to be easy - this makes them easy. Very easy.



3) MOS to improve the skill... really favours some skills over others. For example, small arms can get up to +7 to its roll with several stacked combat modifiers, making it a breeze. On the other hand, running gets no modifiers I can see throughout the whole rulebook, making it very hard to advance. If you want to put a threshold for advancement, make it natural dice

For Simple/Basic - TN10
For Simple/Advanced - TN11
For Complex/Basic - TN11
For Complex/Advanced - TN12

Or something similar. maybe drop it a notch.


4) Using the training skill - reading p334, the benefit of doing so only really counts for the first 3 grades of a skill - the discount is measured in training skill roll MOS = 1 XP discount. By the time you're up to the 4th tier of a skill (ie, +3 to roll), the discount is going to be miserly. Considering the planned generosity of XP rewards, I would say the impact of training is even less.


5) Downtime. See no need to modify base rules.


6) XP reward volume - the latest iteration looks ok. Cross-awarding should be good for this, but reckon it should take some of the session thunder, since it's basically transferring awards from GM's discretion to player opinion. So... maybe... 5 base, 1-5 by players, 10-20 for story in session, 10-20 for writeups.

[Loswaith]

Keep in mind the chances of those TN showing up

For Simple/Basic - TN10 :: 16.67%
A chance it will happen occcasionally, that it's possible but not good enough to count out that it wont ever happen, though the proposed MOS rule has no effect on the basic skill, even by the core rules you simply have to have used it to advance it.

For Simple/Advanced - TN11
For Complex/Basic - TN11 :: 8.33%
Not that likely, but still not something one would push outside the realsm of posability, again the basic skill doesnt need to worry about the MOS.

For Complex/Advanced - TN12 :: 2.78%
Unlikely enough to occur that unless you realy want this skill, your XP is likely better spent elsewhere, as it has a good chance of never actually increasing.

[Kaneski]

Agreed, but any system based on a successful roll for a skill to improve (as opposed to making use of the skill - even if the roll results in a failure), will greatly favour skills that are used frequently - namely combat skills.

Which is why I'm not a fan. Personally, I can't see a reason to change the core rules - 2X for advanced skills without a trainer is the cost for a good thematic reason. Removing that is messing with the skill balance of the universe too much (IMO). If Chimera wants advanced skills to cost less to advance than 2X then... something as simple as this might do it:

Players may tag a number of advanced skills up to their intelligence rating. For every full play session the skill is 'tagged', a cumulative -10 to -20% discount applied to training the skill without a trainer (up to 100%, setting the cost back at base improvement). This way, after 3 full session, an advanced skill may be improved by spending 140% of the ordinary cost

If the player improves the skill or removes the tag - the bonuses reset to 0..

This prevents rapid advanced skill acquisition and achieves the result of improvement without trainers.

[Chimera]

How odd... My PDF version lacks three paragraphs on page 334 but the print version has it...

OK, no need for a house rule then. Is their a want?
I say this as skills are limited to attributtes as well so an advanced skill of +6 requires two attributtes of 6.
This acts to limit rapid advancement anyway.
Also I thought advancing a skill to +6 by hitting MOS 6 with a +5 skill would not be too hard... isn't it just 1 over a standard unmodified roll?

Oh, and for now I will just stick with the rulebook.

Update - speaking of which - re-downloaded - seems I had first printing in PDF. Seems some things have changed since then. Glad the Limited Edition was not first printing. Double glad this was picked up early

[Chimera]

Oh, and about balance Its a bit of an illusion in a tabletop RPG, unless you have an antagonistic GM. Which you don't.

I am not so much asking what is balanced. I am asking what sounds fun. How fast is fast enough?

At present - advancing an advanced skill to 6 that has two attributes? Assuming 5 in attributes and the current skill =
200 for two attributes to 6 +
120 for the skill of +6 =
520

At an XP rate of 40 per session assuming write ups that's??? 13 sessions - about 6 months of game play.

Future skills with those attributes? only 120 = three sessions per advanced skill.

Is that a 'fun' rate of advancement?

Considering standard XP is 10-20 per session depending on your definition of session length.

Context in universe: +4 is veteran; +5 Elite. +6 or more is the skill of gods!!!!

[Kaneski]

I suspect saying its an illusion will have made a lot of RPG designers cry  . IMO RPG rules are more like... company replaceable rules - you get the baseline, but can do what you like if you don't like that baseline.


Anyway, the attribute limit certainly applies for most characters - LaughingMage being the exception at launch - but that's only a good argument for getting a single skill to a high level. The fact that I have 8-10 Complex-Advanced skills milling around at the +2/+3 mark, with much room for improvement means the skill-of-gods thing shouldn't be the only consideration.


I also reckon that tagging is a decent compromise - if Mage or anyone else with attributes permitting god-like skills starts on today's play session, they should be able to buy their Rank 6 skill at regular XP cost (assuming -20% discount per 'tag') in 10 sessions. 4.5 months - just under end of campaign. And that's for complex-advanced skills they really want to max out. This doesn't prevent them spending XP in other places.

[Chimera]

(Not so much a reply Kaneski - been working on this since last night. Read what you wrote but it does not invalidate what I had prepared. It seems my perception of advancement rates required is faster than yours. Enjoy!)

Ok, thinking on it further after reading the right Rulebook.

It seems to me the x2 cost for advanced skills is tacked on too move people towards trainers.

But in my setting there are almost no trainers. So, I have two choices, stick by the rules and slow down progression, or house rule something in that fits my setting.

It is not just training that makes advanced skills different Kaneski. Their are three differences between advanced skills and basic skills in the normal rules. (OK there are a few more but three important rules)
1) advanced skill have +1 base target numbers - they are harder in game.
2) advanced skills have two linked attributes - this gets hurt hard by my rule to stop skill spikes and attribute breakpoints.
3) advanced skills take longer to learn or twice the cost - they take more effort to put up out of game.

So, first I have taken away trainers and next I have linked to attributtes to slow things down. I do eventually want to see skills of 5 or 6. Players who spent up on attributtes have an edge here in game looking at the stats.  I want to see skills of 5 or 6 as they are linked to SPAs.

What to do...

Normal advancement for our groups is 1-2 Widgets per session. Each session you can do something meaningfully... at the most you need to wait 3 sessions.
No complexity. No percentages or bookkeeping. Ticks are as complicated as i want to get. In most games with training rules in the past I have just dropped them and put in simple things like only one advance per session. Basically I trust my players to manage it and get on with the cool stories.
I like the idea of use it to improve it. Yes this advantages combat skills or frequently used ones. But that is the point of it - self fulfilling - the most use skills are the ones you will want to advance .
I don't mind my original idea but it could be too easy???
Maybe use it a number of times equal to the advance?
Sorry Kaneski - I don't like the idea of percentage cost reductions or sticking with the x2 cost in any way. From experience i have found bookkeeping gets lost, ask any player how many advances they had after 10 sessions. Again, I don't want to penalise players for having no trainers due to location  and my attribute rules that slow advancement .
Also to further differentiate advanced from basic - in a normal game everyone takes fast learner. If you don't you cripple yourself. I have taken fast learner track  out. How about simple skills use the fast learner cost track?

For now i will use the following two house rules:
1) Advanced skills may be advanced by spending the standard cost then (after points spent) achieving a number of successfull tests equal to the new skill level.
2) Basic skills use the fast learner costs for advancement purposes and still require one success to advance.

An alternative could be to go back to the MOS version as per above for the first house rule, this rule can be subject to change based on later discussion.  Any change will be about time taken not cost. Cost stays flat. Still enforced is the only one advance per session rule.

[Chimera]

I will re-calculate refunds based on this.

[Kaneski]

Ahh, house rule arguments. Somewhere between  and 

At the risk of being pedantic... in your houserules, by Simple, do you mean Basic? You switch the words halfway through the exposition of Fast Learner. Different pairings - Simple-Complex, Basic-Advanced. And as far as I can tell the major difference is that Simple-Complex is the difference in time to perform skill.


Anyway, had my plorp. The only result, I think, is that I would've spent some initial skills differently - even more skills, spread out. *shrug* CBF now But ooh - just saw your last post. Refund calc...


Edit: Doing the recalc, assuming you meant Basic, rather than Simple - 326XP refund...

[Chimera]

OK, yes I need to watch my words.

Skills are
Simple or Complex
And
Basic or Advanced

Effectively base target is 7. But either complex or advanced add +1 to the TN.
Basic skills have one linked attribute while advanced have two.
Tiered skills switch words on you at the half way point creating a speed hump.
I see this system as a skill system divorced from attribute influence on rolls, so I like that skills are differentiated.

The second rating effects training. Basics are easy, Advanced is harder.

My house rules for Basic skills means you should get slightly less than 20% back on your starting skills total as refund. I was originally hoping players would get refunds around 100 to 200. So its only a little higher. This bonus is to make sure all characters start on equal footing. It should allow you to start advancing your character in a meaningfully way from the first session. Yes I expect an explosion of skills and attributes in the first session, that will slow based on the players advancement goals.

If you feel this would have impacted your starting spend feel free to change things around. From what I can see it does not impact actual XP points - just plans for advancement progression. All characters start with the same 5200 in build - this is important to me.  XP awards are the only influence in build points after that. Rates and maximums are at the discretion of the player.

If I was to provide tips on spending the windfall at the start I would say make sure you have some awareness of the SPAs you want before spending it all. Talk to me about this if you are unsure.

[Chimera]

Edit: Doing the recalc, assuming you meant Basic, rather than Simple - 326XP refund...

Sounds about right - enjoy the windfall. Feel free to re-gig your staring skills if this impacts your progression plan.