03-31-2022, 05:33 AM | #1 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
[GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
In another thread, RyanW proposed the following modification to the Maintaining Skills optional rule on p. 294 of the Basic Set:
Quote:
Maintaining Skill (p. 294) is adjusted to require the following number of hours per week of practice for higher Skill levels:Am I missing anything obvious that would make this unworkable (other than the slight addition to record-keeping, which I don't consider particularly onerous)? |
|
03-31-2022, 08:29 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Luxembourg
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
I like it !
I wonder if you could not extend it lower, switching to hours/month but starting at attribute +1 would roughly line up with your times. On the other hand, it is probably not worth the bookkeeping below att+5, as long as the player remember to give a nod toward the skill from time to time, and the time use sheet are in weeks anyway ... In either case, Att+14 is the max you can maintain with 8h of daily practice. Att+10 is the max you can maintain with 1 hour of daily practice. Att+5 is the max you can maintain with 1 hour of weekly practice. |
03-31-2022, 09:47 AM | #3 | |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
Quote:
This became a problem in some RuneQuest campaigns, where you got a free chance to improve a skill if you used it successfully in the field. You saw characters in fights that they didn't consider especially dangerous drawing, using and discarding several different weapons to get a "tick" in each one. There was also the sport of "tick-fishing", which consisted of trying to catch fish using as many skills as possible. It went something like this: Stalk along the riverbank (Move Quietly) looking out for fish in the water (Spot Hidden). When you see one, jump into the river (Jumping) and attack it (Heavy Maul). A character noted for this did finally manage to succeed on all those skills, got a tick for all of them, and was told never to do it again.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. Last edited by johndallman; 03-31-2022 at 09:48 AM. Reason: Spelling |
|
03-31-2022, 10:14 AM | #4 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
One idea for maintenance - treat the nominal time required per week as Self Study. Thus, training under a teacher is worth twice as much, and more intensive training is worth four times as much. Field use is more intense still; how much it shaves off training time is up to the GM - 10 hours per stressful encounter might work alright. You should only really expect a character to have one or maybe two skills that call for extreme maintenance, such that they'd be inclined to seek out stressful situations in order to make use of it. For a character obsessed enough about, say, Rapier that he/she has bought it up to DX+11 (so 1 encounter per week will do), I'd argue it's very much in character to purposefully seek out duels and the like.
Maintenance time would take away from any sort of learning. For the above character with Rapier at DX+11, self-study for 20 hours a week only nets 5 hours (of the 200 per [1]) per week toward increasing skill - 10 hours is spent on maintenance, and the other 10 gets cut in half due to being self-study. Said character training under a teacher for 40 hours a week instead nets 35 hours per week - 5 hours go toward maintenance (training under a teacher handles maintenance at double speed). Said character undergoing more extreme training, say for 60 hours a week, would net 115 hours per week - extreme training means learning at twice the normal rate, for 120 hours work, but 5 hours of that is again going toward maintenance. Things are worse for someone with even higher skill, of course - extreme training for 60 hours a week for someone at DX+18 would only net 20 hours of learning.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
03-31-2022, 10:20 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Dec 2020
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
Looks good to me, because in rea life you need to hone your skills permanent or start to get a bit rusty.
As for rusted skills, they should be kept a the lower level until reuse. The higher the skill loss before the longer it will take to get back in shape. Does anyone made a corresponding skill relearning scheme like that for keeping your skills in this thread? |
03-31-2022, 02:13 PM | #6 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
Quote:
That said, if a particular GM isn't able to rein in that sort of behavior (usually by simply disallowing obvious attempts to game the system, but there are other ways of dealing with it such as creating a culture of play over power acquisition), just get rid of that provision. It's mostly there to cover the perception that use is equivalent to practice and study anyway, which is not necessarily a realistic assumption. But as I said, it's up to the GM to decide what counts as an actual skill use and not just gamist abuse. Quote:
And of course, the same idea holds with GURPS. A skill use that isn't legitimate doesn't count for anything. |
||
03-31-2022, 02:20 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
Quote:
And for sure, one of the things I like about Skill Maintenance is that it forces players to really consider what Skills their character is really built around. |
|
03-31-2022, 02:22 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA USA
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
Quote:
|
|
04-01-2022, 05:01 AM | #9 |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Rome, Italy
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
On one side your system makes sense...
...on the other hand if the purpose of "Maintaining Skills" rules is to provide a somewhat realistic limit on the number of high level skills PC can have, would it be simpler to just enforce arbitrary limits and call it a day? I know I am a particularly lazy GM (especially regarding booking) but to me is just more straightforward to say directly to a player something like: "Your character can have only 3 skills past att+5 and in no case past att+10". As other have pointed out complex or recursive mechanics shift the focus from the game to the meta, and that's something not everybody likes.
__________________
“A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?” Last edited by Opellulo; 04-01-2022 at 05:29 AM. |
04-01-2022, 05:26 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: [GRITTY REALISM]Proposed House Rule Modifying Skill Maintenance
Quote:
__________________
Farmer Mortal Wombat "But if the while I think on thee, dear friend All losses are restored and sorrows end." |
|
Tags |
gritty, house rules, skill maximums |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|