CT Experience System (1st draft)

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

The improvement rate is low (on purpose).

Consider this: Two game sessions per month. That's 24 game sessions a year.

Now consider that every game session averages a week in-game time. That's less than 6 mos. of in-game time for the characters.

So, if anything, this slow improvement system is being generous to a CT character (who, in chargen, gets 1-4 skills, or so, per 4 years, averaging about 2 skills per term).

This system will actually improve a character faster than chargen.

Almost not worth keeping track of.

Well, if a player wants to improve a skill level, yeah.

But, my guess is, unless a player wants to spend a long time grooming his character (saving up XP), then most players will use XP to draw on experience. Those DMs could come in handy during a game (especially if a GM allows their use for extra hit points!).

As I said in the beginning of this doc, I want this experience system to mirror chargen.

And, I actually doubt game sessions will average one week of game time each session. I've had 6 games so far in my face-to-face campaign. We've covered a month and a half in the first session, and about 10 hours of game time in the next 5 games.

We're actually "averaging" a week per game session, but I think you will see that average drop over the next several game sessions as we will not be using the ship's jump drive (a planet-side adventure in the campaign will begin next session...and it will probably last for a few sessions...and I'm guessing in-game time will cover about a week).

Drawing on experience is for those players who want to use their XP now. Today.

For those players who actually want to improve their characters, it will take a lot of time to earn the needed XP.

I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Or, you could cut the cost of XP needed to go up a level--that'd make it quicker too.

I just didn't want this to turn into a d20 style thing where characters are improving every 2-3 game sessions. Do that in a CT game, and your PCs will unbalance the game in no time.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

The improvement rate is low (on purpose).

Consider this: Two game sessions per month. That's 24 game sessions a year.

Now consider that every game session averages a week in-game time. That's less than 6 mos. of in-game time for the characters.

So, if anything, this slow improvement system is being generous to a CT character (who, in chargen, gets 1-4 skills, or so, per 4 years, averaging about 2 skills per term).

This system will actually improve a character faster than chargen.

Almost not worth keeping track of.

Well, if a player wants to improve a skill level, yeah.

But, my guess is, unless a player wants to spend a long time grooming his character (saving up XP), then most players will use XP to draw on experience. Those DMs could come in handy during a game (especially if a GM allows their use for extra hit points!).

As I said in the beginning of this doc, I want this experience system to mirror chargen.

And, I actually doubt game sessions will average one week of game time each session. I've had 6 games so far in my face-to-face campaign. We've covered a month and a half in the first session, and about 10 hours of game time in the next 5 games.

We're actually "averaging" a week per game session, but I think you will see that average drop over the next several game sessions as we will not be using the ship's jump drive (a planet-side adventure in the campaign will begin next session...and it will probably last for a few sessions...and I'm guessing in-game time will cover about a week).

Drawing on experience is for those players who want to use their XP now. Today.

For those players who actually want to improve their characters, it will take a lot of time to earn the needed XP.

I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Or, you could cut the cost of XP needed to go up a level--that'd make it quicker too.

I just didn't want this to turn into a d20 style thing where characters are improving every 2-3 game sessions. Do that in a CT game, and your PCs will unbalance the game in no time.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Too low?

The rate of skill improvement is way too high

A CT character should be able to gain 1 skill per two years IMHO, otherwise game time experience is worth more than prior history.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Too low?

The rate of skill improvement is way too high

A CT character should be able to gain 1 skill per two years IMHO, otherwise game time experience is worth more than prior history.

 

[mike wightman]

A question for Supplement Four - when you use XP to draw from experience do you lose the points?

 

[mike wightman]

A question for Supplement Four - when you use XP to draw from experience do you lose the points?

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Too low?

The rate of skill improvement is way too high

A CT character should be able to gain 1 skill per two years IMHO, otherwise game time experience is worth more than prior history. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

My thought is this: Adventuring characters are "in the shit" more often (and more consitently) than a character going through normal life in a career (chargen), therefore advancement is accelerated (a little...it's still sloooowwwww.).

The GM can use this system to accelerate or decelerate advancement to a pace he's comfortable with.

The suggestion has already been made to either increase or decrease the number of XP awarded in a game session, and that's certainly a viable way of doing it.

If it were me, though, I'd leave the XP awards the way they are (getting any less, and a player won't feel like he's getting anything at all--which defeats the purpose of using this system...it's a kind of "pat you on the back for a nice night of gaming" type of system"), and alter the amount of XP needed for advancement either up or down instead.

Right now, I've suggested Skill Level x 10 as a number of XP needed for advancement. That could be halfed to Skill x 5, or it could even be increased to Skill x 50, or even Skill x 100.

You could even use a character's stats to adjust the number of XP needed for advancement: Say something like [Skill x (10 + EXP Penalty)].

Again, this is a first draft of the system. The basics are down, but find details like these needed to be adjusted.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Too low?

The rate of skill improvement is way too high

A CT character should be able to gain 1 skill per two years IMHO, otherwise game time experience is worth more than prior history. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

My thought is this: Adventuring characters are "in the shit" more often (and more consitently) than a character going through normal life in a career (chargen), therefore advancement is accelerated (a little...it's still sloooowwwww.).

The GM can use this system to accelerate or decelerate advancement to a pace he's comfortable with.

The suggestion has already been made to either increase or decrease the number of XP awarded in a game session, and that's certainly a viable way of doing it.

If it were me, though, I'd leave the XP awards the way they are (getting any less, and a player won't feel like he's getting anything at all--which defeats the purpose of using this system...it's a kind of "pat you on the back for a nice night of gaming" type of system"), and alter the amount of XP needed for advancement either up or down instead.

Right now, I've suggested Skill Level x 10 as a number of XP needed for advancement. That could be halfed to Skill x 5, or it could even be increased to Skill x 50, or even Skill x 100.

You could even use a character's stats to adjust the number of XP needed for advancement: Say something like [Skill x (10 + EXP Penalty)].

Again, this is a first draft of the system. The basics are down, but find details like these needed to be adjusted.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
A question for Supplement Four - when you use XP to draw from experience do you lose the points?

Absolutely.

A Xan has 8 XP. He can either keep that XP, growing it to use for skill advancement (waaaayyyy down the line). Or, if Xan gets in a tight spot, he can draw from his experience during the game.

To gain a +1DM, a 2D check vs. XP must be thrown.

Xan throws 2D: If the throw is 8-, Xan gets the +1DM and burns an amount of XP equal to the roll. If the throw is 9+, all XP are burned. Xan doesn't get the +1DM, and Xan will be left with 0 XP..


Example:

Roll 2D: 3, 2

Xan's total is 5. That's less than his 8 XP, so Xan has burned up 5 XP, but he's got a +1DM to show for it. Xan will then have 3 XP.


Also, remember that a character can try for bigger DMs to help him in his time of need, but these bigger DMs will cost more XP.

Let's say Xan went through several more sessions and grew his XP from 3 XP to 14 XP.

Now, in a particular game situation, Xan needs all the help he can get, and it is decided that he'll draw on his experienc for a +2DM.

A 3D check is needed for a +2DM (and 4D for a +3DM...5D for a +4DM...and so on...).

Xan will throw 3D for 14 or less. If the throw is 14-, Xan will eat up a number of XP equal to the roll, but gain the +2DM. If the throw is 15+, then Xan will only eat up the XP.

Note that I've suggested above that drawing on experience be limited to the character's skill level (I'm thinking those with Skill-0 can get a +1DM by drawing on experience, though). That way, you won't have a player who, mid-way through saving XP for skill advancedment decides he wants to draw on experience for a +10 DM.

(On the other hand, though...it would only be a one-time affair, if this was allowed in a game, as it would take forever to gain enough XP so that an 11D throw to draw on experience was successful.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
A question for Supplement Four - when you use XP to draw from experience do you lose the points?

Absolutely.

A Xan has 8 XP. He can either keep that XP, growing it to use for skill advancement (waaaayyyy down the line). Or, if Xan gets in a tight spot, he can draw from his experience during the game.

To gain a +1DM, a 2D check vs. XP must be thrown.

Xan throws 2D: If the throw is 8-, Xan gets the +1DM and burns an amount of XP equal to the roll. If the throw is 9+, all XP are burned. Xan doesn't get the +1DM, and Xan will be left with 0 XP..


Example:

Roll 2D: 3, 2

Xan's total is 5. That's less than his 8 XP, so Xan has burned up 5 XP, but he's got a +1DM to show for it. Xan will then have 3 XP.


Also, remember that a character can try for bigger DMs to help him in his time of need, but these bigger DMs will cost more XP.

Let's say Xan went through several more sessions and grew his XP from 3 XP to 14 XP.

Now, in a particular game situation, Xan needs all the help he can get, and it is decided that he'll draw on his experienc for a +2DM.

A 3D check is needed for a +2DM (and 4D for a +3DM...5D for a +4DM...and so on...).

Xan will throw 3D for 14 or less. If the throw is 14-, Xan will eat up a number of XP equal to the roll, but gain the +2DM. If the throw is 15+, then Xan will only eat up the XP.

Note that I've suggested above that drawing on experience be limited to the character's skill level (I'm thinking those with Skill-0 can get a +1DM by drawing on experience, though). That way, you won't have a player who, mid-way through saving XP for skill advancedment decides he wants to draw on experience for a +10 DM.

(On the other hand, though...it would only be a one-time affair, if this was allowed in a game, as it would take forever to gain enough XP so that an 11D throw to draw on experience was successful.)

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Too low?

The rate of skill improvement is way too high

A CT character should be able to gain 1 skill per two years IMHO, otherwise game time experience is worth more than prior history. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

My thought is this: Adventuring characters are "in the shit" more often (and more consitently) than a character going through normal life in a career (chargen), therefore advancement is accelerated (a little...it's still sloooowwwww.).

The GM can use this system to accelerate or decelerate advancement to a pace he's comfortable with.

The suggestion has already been made to either increase or decrease the number of XP awarded in a game session, and that's certainly a viable way of doing it.

If it were me, though, I'd leave the XP awards the way they are (getting any less, and a player won't feel like he's getting anything at all--which defeats the purpose of using this system...it's a kind of "pat you on the back for a nice night of gaming" type of system"), and alter the amount of XP needed for advancement either up or down instead.

Right now, I've suggested Skill Level x 10 as a number of XP needed for advancement. That could be halfed to Skill x 5, or it could even be increased to Skill x 50, or even Skill x 100.

You could even use a character's stats to adjust the number of XP needed for advancement: Say something like [Skill x (10 + EXP Penalty)].

Again, this is a first draft of the system. The basics are down, but find details like these needed to be adjusted. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't get me wrong I never minded the lack of experience in CT.
I'm not looking at it from a game time perspective but from a real time perspective.

I view experience points as a reward mechanic for the player that reinforces what is being rewarded. Make the reward too infrequent, once every 6 months real time for a skill 1 increase, and it loses much of its reward value. Put another way, if such rewards mean something to you, then this system is way too infrequent. If you don't care about such rewards (e.g., playing well is its own reward) then you may not really care about tracking them.

If instead the experience points are meant to be a simulation of actually improving through experience, they look pretty good for that. In that case I'd have the GM track them and when needed announce a skill increase.

Yet the xp system here appears to have a heavy metagame and reward aspect since you can spend them.

I also share Sigg's concern about xp surpassing the career system. But from personal experience, at least in some skill areas, sink-or-swim situations do help some people advance quite fast. Since players are making many more survival rolls usually while adventuring than during their career, it seems like a fair exchange.

I see two concerns about increasing the reward or lowering the cost: (1) players buy lots of level 1's; (2) players pump everthing into getting a high skills. My personal view of learning is that going from no skill to level 1 is pretty hard (harder than going from 1 to 2); and increasing skills above a high level, say 4, can be hard or impossible for most unless they are really talented. I've seen both of these in skill buy systems where cost is linear, i.e., (base cost) x (level) and spending rules are not in place.

What I would like to see in an xp approach then is a non-linear cost structure that promotes raising skills from 1 to 2 as fairly easy (once per 4 game sessions for example) much more infrequently for 2 to 3 if you save your points(once per 8 game session). Going from 0 to 1 would be at least as hard as going from 2 to 3. Here's an example chart with relative cost values.

Current Skill......Relative Cost for 1 point Increase
0.......................6
1.......................2
2.......................4
3.......................8
4.......................16
5.......................32

 

[Ptah]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ptah:
The improvement rate seems very low, 1 or 2 skill levels within 1 real year. Almost not worth keeping track of. Otherwise like the way you've set it out. I guess the suggestion would be to up the reward some.

Too low?

The rate of skill improvement is way too high

A CT character should be able to gain 1 skill per two years IMHO, otherwise game time experience is worth more than prior history. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

My thought is this: Adventuring characters are "in the shit" more often (and more consitently) than a character going through normal life in a career (chargen), therefore advancement is accelerated (a little...it's still sloooowwwww.).

The GM can use this system to accelerate or decelerate advancement to a pace he's comfortable with.

The suggestion has already been made to either increase or decrease the number of XP awarded in a game session, and that's certainly a viable way of doing it.

If it were me, though, I'd leave the XP awards the way they are (getting any less, and a player won't feel like he's getting anything at all--which defeats the purpose of using this system...it's a kind of "pat you on the back for a nice night of gaming" type of system"), and alter the amount of XP needed for advancement either up or down instead.

Right now, I've suggested Skill Level x 10 as a number of XP needed for advancement. That could be halfed to Skill x 5, or it could even be increased to Skill x 50, or even Skill x 100.

You could even use a character's stats to adjust the number of XP needed for advancement: Say something like [Skill x (10 + EXP Penalty)].

Again, this is a first draft of the system. The basics are down, but find details like these needed to be adjusted. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't get me wrong I never minded the lack of experience in CT.
I'm not looking at it from a game time perspective but from a real time perspective.

I view experience points as a reward mechanic for the player that reinforces what is being rewarded. Make the reward too infrequent, once every 6 months real time for a skill 1 increase, and it loses much of its reward value. Put another way, if such rewards mean something to you, then this system is way too infrequent. If you don't care about such rewards (e.g., playing well is its own reward) then you may not really care about tracking them.

If instead the experience points are meant to be a simulation of actually improving through experience, they look pretty good for that. In that case I'd have the GM track them and when needed announce a skill increase.

Yet the xp system here appears to have a heavy metagame and reward aspect since you can spend them.

I also share Sigg's concern about xp surpassing the career system. But from personal experience, at least in some skill areas, sink-or-swim situations do help some people advance quite fast. Since players are making many more survival rolls usually while adventuring than during their career, it seems like a fair exchange.

I see two concerns about increasing the reward or lowering the cost: (1) players buy lots of level 1's; (2) players pump everthing into getting a high skills. My personal view of learning is that going from no skill to level 1 is pretty hard (harder than going from 1 to 2); and increasing skills above a high level, say 4, can be hard or impossible for most unless they are really talented. I've seen both of these in skill buy systems where cost is linear, i.e., (base cost) x (level) and spending rules are not in place.

What I would like to see in an xp approach then is a non-linear cost structure that promotes raising skills from 1 to 2 as fairly easy (once per 4 game sessions for example) much more infrequently for 2 to 3 if you save your points(once per 8 game session). Going from 0 to 1 would be at least as hard as going from 2 to 3. Here's an example chart with relative cost values.

Current Skill......Relative Cost for 1 point Increase
0.......................6
1.......................2
2.......................4
3.......................8
4.......................16
5.......................32

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The rate of skill improvement is way too high

Originally posted by Ptah:
What I would like to see in an xp approach then is a non-linear cost structure that promotes raising skills from 1 to 2 as fairly easy (once per 4 game sessions for example) much more infrequently for 2 to 3 if you save your points(once per 8 game session). Going from 0 to 1 would be at least as hard as going from 2 to 3. Here's an example chart with relative cost values.

Current Skill......Relative Cost for 1 point Increase
0.......................6
1.......................2
2.......................4
3.......................8
4.......................16
5.......................32

Both very good comments by Ptah and Sig, and I've taken them to heart.

I'm just noodling here, trying to come up with the best XP system for CT.

Here's an outline of a slightly different system that is simple--and something I think will satisfy both comments above--

(1) XP is awarded each game session as described earlier in this thread (0-5 points per character per game session).

(2) Drawing on experience is allowed (and may be limited to a character's skill level to ensure abuse doesn't happen).

(3) There are two ways to increase skills: by Experience or by Instruction. Experience is experience "in the field". Instruction is some type of learning by instruction (be it via an instructor, reading a book, practicing, computer simulation, whatever).

I'll cover learning by instruction later. Let's focus on learning by experience here.

(4) In learning by Expereince, only skills the character already has can be improved. But, each character as many, many Level-0 default skills not included on his sheet (like every weapon skill). So, all default skills can be improved from Skill-0 to Skill-1 and higher by Experience.

New skills (of the non-default variety) can only be learned via Instruction (or some combination of instruction and experience). These are skills that require advanced training--thinks like Pilot, Engineering, Medical, Swimming, etc.


Consider all that...and here are the rules I'm thinking will satisfy CT.









(This applies to learning by experience only.)

A Critical Success thrown on a skill makes it elligible for improvement. Place a tick mark next to the skill to denote that it is elligible. Skills that are not elligible cannot be improved through experience (but they will be made elligible once a CS is thrown using the skill).

Once a skill is ellibile, the character must do two things: Spend XP in order to attempt a skill improvement, and be successful on a roll.

In order to satisfy Sig's comment above: No matter how much XP a character has, only skills that have elligiblity can be improved via experience.

And, the roll to improve the skill will be very, very hard. There will be many, many attempts at improving the skill, over the character's lifetime, before the skill is actually improved.

In order to satisfy Ptah's comment above: The XP cost for improvement will increase exponentially with each skill level.








So, how does a skill improve via Experience?

(1) Skill must be elligible (from previously rolling a CS on the skill).

(2) XP Cost to attempt improvement is based on the current skill level. XP cost for a Level-1 skill is on a 1-1 ratio. XP cost for a Level-2 skill is on a 2-1 ratio. XP cost for a Level-3 skill is on a 3-1 ratio, etc.

(3) The character's Experience Penalty increases the cost of each point of XP used to make the throw to improve the skill.

(4) The throw to increase a character's skill is to roll a number of dice equal to the current skill level, and the result on the throw must be all 1's.


Example:

Jack wants to improve his computer skill. He's got INT-7 and EDU-4, but his total skill levels are 14. So, Jacks got an experience penalty of +3.

His current Computer skill is Computer-2.

Therefore, the cost, in XP, to attempt improvement of that skill is 10 XP.

How did I get that number? He needs two points to attempt improvement. Each point costs 2 XP. That would normally be a total of 4 XP, but he's got a +3 XP penalty for each point--making it a total of 5 XP per point. He needs 2 points (Computer-2), so that's 10 XP.

(I know this is confusing, and I'm not explaining it well--I'm brainstorming as I write this.)

Now that Jack has spent the XP, he gets a roll. He rolls 2D, and the only way to improve the skill is to roll snake-eyes.

This won't happen very often. So, Jack will spend XP after XP, earning throws for improvement, until, finally, in his gaming life, he impoves his Computer-2 to Computer-3.


Let's do one more example.

Fred, INT-6 EDU-5, has a total of 10 skill levels, so he has no EXP Penalty.

He's got AutoPistol-1, and he's rolled a CS on the skill during a previous game.

He needs to come up with 1 learning point, and the cost of 1 learning point in XP is on a 1-1 ratio. So, 1 XP = 1 learning point.

If Fred spends 1 XP (and the skill is elligible due to the CS that was rolled on the skill), then Fred may attempt to improve the skill.

He rolls 1D, and the only result that will improve his skill is a total of 1.

I'm thinking new skills, as Ptah has suggested above, might be on a 10-1 ratio (costing 10 XP to attempt a raise from Skill-0 to Skill-1.

Or, maybe a new skill, at Skill-0 is on a 10-1 ratio, and the learning point cost is equal to the new skill level instead of the current skill level.

Does this make sense to anyone.

I think I'll have to re-explain myself in clearer language.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The rate of skill improvement is way too high

Originally posted by Ptah:
What I would like to see in an xp approach then is a non-linear cost structure that promotes raising skills from 1 to 2 as fairly easy (once per 4 game sessions for example) much more infrequently for 2 to 3 if you save your points(once per 8 game session). Going from 0 to 1 would be at least as hard as going from 2 to 3. Here's an example chart with relative cost values.

Current Skill......Relative Cost for 1 point Increase
0.......................6
1.......................2
2.......................4
3.......................8
4.......................16
5.......................32

Both very good comments by Ptah and Sig, and I've taken them to heart.

I'm just noodling here, trying to come up with the best XP system for CT.

Here's an outline of a slightly different system that is simple--and something I think will satisfy both comments above--

(1) XP is awarded each game session as described earlier in this thread (0-5 points per character per game session).

(2) Drawing on experience is allowed (and may be limited to a character's skill level to ensure abuse doesn't happen).

(3) There are two ways to increase skills: by Experience or by Instruction. Experience is experience "in the field". Instruction is some type of learning by instruction (be it via an instructor, reading a book, practicing, computer simulation, whatever).

I'll cover learning by instruction later. Let's focus on learning by experience here.

(4) In learning by Expereince, only skills the character already has can be improved. But, each character as many, many Level-0 default skills not included on his sheet (like every weapon skill). So, all default skills can be improved from Skill-0 to Skill-1 and higher by Experience.

New skills (of the non-default variety) can only be learned via Instruction (or some combination of instruction and experience). These are skills that require advanced training--thinks like Pilot, Engineering, Medical, Swimming, etc.


Consider all that...and here are the rules I'm thinking will satisfy CT.









(This applies to learning by experience only.)

A Critical Success thrown on a skill makes it elligible for improvement. Place a tick mark next to the skill to denote that it is elligible. Skills that are not elligible cannot be improved through experience (but they will be made elligible once a CS is thrown using the skill).

Once a skill is ellibile, the character must do two things: Spend XP in order to attempt a skill improvement, and be successful on a roll.

In order to satisfy Sig's comment above: No matter how much XP a character has, only skills that have elligiblity can be improved via experience.

And, the roll to improve the skill will be very, very hard. There will be many, many attempts at improving the skill, over the character's lifetime, before the skill is actually improved.

In order to satisfy Ptah's comment above: The XP cost for improvement will increase exponentially with each skill level.








So, how does a skill improve via Experience?

(1) Skill must be elligible (from previously rolling a CS on the skill).

(2) XP Cost to attempt improvement is based on the current skill level. XP cost for a Level-1 skill is on a 1-1 ratio. XP cost for a Level-2 skill is on a 2-1 ratio. XP cost for a Level-3 skill is on a 3-1 ratio, etc.

(3) The character's Experience Penalty increases the cost of each point of XP used to make the throw to improve the skill.

(4) The throw to increase a character's skill is to roll a number of dice equal to the current skill level, and the result on the throw must be all 1's.


Example:

Jack wants to improve his computer skill. He's got INT-7 and EDU-4, but his total skill levels are 14. So, Jacks got an experience penalty of +3.

His current Computer skill is Computer-2.

Therefore, the cost, in XP, to attempt improvement of that skill is 10 XP.

How did I get that number? He needs two points to attempt improvement. Each point costs 2 XP. That would normally be a total of 4 XP, but he's got a +3 XP penalty for each point--making it a total of 5 XP per point. He needs 2 points (Computer-2), so that's 10 XP.

(I know this is confusing, and I'm not explaining it well--I'm brainstorming as I write this.)

Now that Jack has spent the XP, he gets a roll. He rolls 2D, and the only way to improve the skill is to roll snake-eyes.

This won't happen very often. So, Jack will spend XP after XP, earning throws for improvement, until, finally, in his gaming life, he impoves his Computer-2 to Computer-3.


Let's do one more example.

Fred, INT-6 EDU-5, has a total of 10 skill levels, so he has no EXP Penalty.

He's got AutoPistol-1, and he's rolled a CS on the skill during a previous game.

He needs to come up with 1 learning point, and the cost of 1 learning point in XP is on a 1-1 ratio. So, 1 XP = 1 learning point.

If Fred spends 1 XP (and the skill is elligible due to the CS that was rolled on the skill), then Fred may attempt to improve the skill.

He rolls 1D, and the only result that will improve his skill is a total of 1.

I'm thinking new skills, as Ptah has suggested above, might be on a 10-1 ratio (costing 10 XP to attempt a raise from Skill-0 to Skill-1.

Or, maybe a new skill, at Skill-0 is on a 10-1 ratio, and the learning point cost is equal to the new skill level instead of the current skill level.

Does this make sense to anyone.

I think I'll have to re-explain myself in clearer language.

 

[Ptah]

It makes sense to me, I think.
The need for Instruction makes a lot of sense, that is what joining an organization is all about the training. So it really messes well with CTs prior career approach to me.

I wonder if exponential cost combined with the all 1's on multiple dice is a double wammy. The probabilities on rolling all 1's give you the non-linear effect very well. Very roughly, about 16% to succeed with 1D6, 3% with 2D6, about 0.5% with 3D6, and about 0.1% with 4D6. I actually like the roll approach determining it.

 

[Ptah]

It makes sense to me, I think.
The need for Instruction makes a lot of sense, that is what joining an organization is all about the training. So it really messes well with CTs prior career approach to me.

I wonder if exponential cost combined with the all 1's on multiple dice is a double wammy. The probabilities on rolling all 1's give you the non-linear effect very well. Very roughly, about 16% to succeed with 1D6, 3% with 2D6, about 0.5% with 3D6, and about 0.1% with 4D6. I actually like the roll approach determining it.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
I wonder if exponential cost combined with the all 1's on multiple dice is a double wammy. The probabilities on rolling all 1's give you the non-linear effect very well. Very roughly, about 16% to succeed with 1D6, 3% with 2D6, about 0.5% with 3D6, and about 0.1% with 4D6. I actually like the roll approach determining it.

OK, we could lower the cost of XP. This system is not ironed out completely by no means. We're noodling here.

And, I am aware of the very low probabilities of rolling all 1's on a number of dice.

My thoughts are:

(1) Players/Characters will be rewarded each game session for their outstanding play and creative input.

(2) Points earned (XP earned each game session) can be used to draw on experience--so that the outstanding play of one game session leads to a +DM needed in another game session. In this way, a player's outstanding play is rewarded, in-game, by favorable DMs he can use when his character really needs to make a task roll in the game.

(3) Points earned can be used to increase the characters skills, and the opportunity to do this will come up often (maybe even once a game session...keeping the players "interested"). Yet, the low probablility on the roll needed to improve will be so hard to achieve that character improvement will mirror the advancement rate provided in chargen (the roll is so low that characters, on average, will improve one skill level once every 1-2 game years).

(4) And, this idea can be taken and stretched into learnign by instruction as well (#3 above is learning by experience), where XP is not needed. If a character takes a computer class, for example, a roll can be attempted to improve his skill.

(5) And, I think any CT system should reference a character's Experience score (INT + EDU), which this system does with the EXP penalty.

That's the broad outline of what I am thinking. I just need to get it ginnin' real good before I decide on a final draft.

Everybody is welcome to comment on this.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Ptah:
I wonder if exponential cost combined with the all 1's on multiple dice is a double wammy. The probabilities on rolling all 1's give you the non-linear effect very well. Very roughly, about 16% to succeed with 1D6, 3% with 2D6, about 0.5% with 3D6, and about 0.1% with 4D6. I actually like the roll approach determining it.

OK, we could lower the cost of XP. This system is not ironed out completely by no means. We're noodling here.

And, I am aware of the very low probabilities of rolling all 1's on a number of dice.

My thoughts are:

(1) Players/Characters will be rewarded each game session for their outstanding play and creative input.

(2) Points earned (XP earned each game session) can be used to draw on experience--so that the outstanding play of one game session leads to a +DM needed in another game session. In this way, a player's outstanding play is rewarded, in-game, by favorable DMs he can use when his character really needs to make a task roll in the game.

(3) Points earned can be used to increase the characters skills, and the opportunity to do this will come up often (maybe even once a game session...keeping the players "interested"). Yet, the low probablility on the roll needed to improve will be so hard to achieve that character improvement will mirror the advancement rate provided in chargen (the roll is so low that characters, on average, will improve one skill level once every 1-2 game years).

(4) And, this idea can be taken and stretched into learnign by instruction as well (#3 above is learning by experience), where XP is not needed. If a character takes a computer class, for example, a roll can be attempted to improve his skill.

(5) And, I think any CT system should reference a character's Experience score (INT + EDU), which this system does with the EXP penalty.

That's the broad outline of what I am thinking. I just need to get it ginnin' real good before I decide on a final draft.

Everybody is welcome to comment on this.

 

[travlar]

I don't think that anyone will try to up skill levels much, because with the current setup you will almost never succeed, and each try costs XPs.

 

[travlar]

I don't think that anyone will try to up skill levels much, because with the current setup you will almost never succeed, and each try costs XPs.