Looking for opinions/clarification on advancing skills "significant use"

[Boge]

Basic page 290 says,"You can only spend character points to improve skills or techniques that, in the GM's opinion, saw significant use in the adventure during which you earned the points."

So, in your opinion, what is "significant use"?

[Kelly Pedersen]

I've pretty much always run it as "did you roll against the skill this session? If so, you did 'significant use'." Personally, I find that much more significant restrictions on what counts is too onerous, both from a GM standpoint (having to keep track of how many times someone rolled, for example, or making the call about whether the skill roll was "significant" or not), and from a player perspective (at the suggested rate of 2-3 character points a session, it's quite easy, if "significant" is more limited than "did you use the skill", to have no skills you want to buy up at all, since most will hit the 4 points per level area fairly quickly).

[whswhs]

I mostly do what Kelly does, though I also limit it by saying that it has to be a "real" use. You can't buy something up if you used it in practice, or without time pressure, or with large bonuses for extra time (+1 okay, +5 not). Whatever you do has to really TEST your skill.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I mostly do what Kelly does, though I also limit it by saying that it has to be a "real" use. You can't buy something up if you used it in practice, or without time pressure, or with large bonuses for extra time (+1 okay, +5 not). Whatever you do has to really TEST your skill.

Yeah, I have basically the same caveat. I also generally say that it has to be rolls I, as the GM, call for - you can't say "I'm going to go to the library and research quantum physics for a week", if quantum physics doesn't come up in the adventure, just fishing for a Research boost.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

I've pretty much always run it as "did you roll against the skill this session? If so, you did 'significant use'."

If you want to be slightly more generous, the standard is "were you significantly involved in an action which involved skill use by someone else, or otherwise in a very good position to learn by observing them."

For example, if the party's brick was using his ST to act as a human jack to lift up a car while the party's gadgeteer fixed its engine, then the brick might have the opportunity to put a point into Mechanic/TL (Automobiles) since he had to stand there and watch the gadgeteer at work.

This is particularly suitable for cinematic games. But there's a case for it applying in realistic campaigns. For example, if you are lost in the woods for months and only survive because your party's ranger/woods-runner made a bunch of Survival skills for the group, then there's a pretty good chance that you managed to learn some useful skills from him, even if he wasn't formally teaching you at the time.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

This is particularly suitable for cinematic games.

My games are highly cinematic, as such I don't require any justification for buying anything beyond they want it on the sheet and I don't disapprove.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

My games are highly cinematic, as such I don't require any justification for buying anything beyond they want it on the sheet and I don't disapprove.

I specifically avoid that, in part because requiring a successful roll under stress gives players an incentive to try to use skills at default. Occasionally pulling off that kind of roll is also cinematic, I think.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I specifically avoid that, in part because requiring a successful roll under stress gives players an incentive to try to use skills at default. Occasionally pulling off that kind of roll is also cinematic, I think.

Whenever I've been exposed to incentive in that direction (from BRP), following it has seemed to strain characterization and result in slapstick. I would go to considerable lengths to avoid making character progression contingent on such behavior in any game.

[Ultraviolet]

I play in a looong time running Cliffhangers campaign, with changing GMs. We award exp at the end of an adventure. Since we play every two weeks, sometimes need to cancel, and adventures can run for a very long time there is a long time between points being awarded. And sometimes it comes in huge chunks, i just doled out 24-33 points per player for 11 sessions of "The Shenyang Incident". Points differ depending on attendance, activity, and adherence to character, with the guy who almost never came getting only 9.

Our convention is to allow points be spent on skills which have been used or are relevant for the adventure just finished. We don't note down everything, but the theme of the plot defines things. If we play urban investigation with no violence then neither Survival nor Guns or other combat skills are relevant. If we trek through jungles and fight prehistoric monsters then neither investigative nor social skills get improved.
points are also often spent on social Advantages like Reputation, Rank or Status. Attributes are often improved, both primary and secondary. And we handwave the flow of time somewhat, so we allow people to use between-time to take an language course, join a judo dojo, cram an academic subject - in order to start up those with a point. Further improvement usually needs to follow the adventures.