Advancement Confusion

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by theBruce
I think between the two suggestions, we may have found a way here. To recap:

1) Skills capped at 3, initially, or the value of their governing attribute, whichever is lower. Skill ranks cannot exceed governing attribute. (I really like this...there might also be bonuses for every advancement rank or two ranks...hmmm...)

2) Increasing a rank is equal to the current rank, not 1-for-1. (I really like this, too!)

Keep the ideas coming...

Ummm... I don't think either of these is particularly good.

Method 1 will basically mean that characters will be forced to "spike" their attributes in order to achieve any solid amount of skill - meaning that all fighters will have maxed-out Agilities. This basically screws races who take Agility penalties - such as Dwarves, forcing them to become unusually agile in order to become skilled with their armed combat skills.

Method 2 makes skill advancements ridiculously expensive, and unless Edges are comparatively increased, this will mean characters will just buy Edges and Order Abilities instead - why, for example, should I spend 5 advancement picks (a whole advancement) to increase my Armed Combat to 5 when I can buy Weapon Mastery (a +3 to a particular weapon) for only 2 advancement picks? I'd have enough left over for level of Warwise (+1 to all combat) and a specialty (adding another +2 to that weapon use). +6 with two edges and a specialty, or +1 with a skill point.

[theBruce]

Well, my initial reaction is; what if they already have the edges and abilities? But, I see your point.

I guess this boils down to my feeling that CODA allows itself to become ridiculously powerful (read: total obliteration of any sense of realism) without any effort. If we actually run into a munchkin, lord help the gamemaster that has to put up with it.

The typical foil to a munckin is to go for mental or social challenges, but CODA gives out enough points to where this wouldn't be a problem, either.

What I'm trying to communicate with this thread is that I, personally, am not satisfied with the power-mongering of the CODA system and there is no real way to avoid it within the existing rules.

[Tangent; I know this will be mentioned, that I, as a gamemaster, can simply say 'no' to advancement in certain situations. But, that makes me a tyrant. Players should be able to have a consistent, reliable method to look forward to advancing their characters.]

I was stunned with the exceptional presentation of the LotR books. I'm an avid Tolkien scholar, fan, etc. I'm trying my best to work with a system that destroys my, and our group's, enjoyment of the game. I don't feel Decipher needs to fix it; I feel that bouncing ideas off of other forum posters is the way to go. Our group is the exception, not the rule, so there is no need of a rewrite of the core rules, they simply need adjusted to more suit our group.

However. If anyone feels that this shouldn't even be discussed, or simply wishes to sling mud and offer no constructive suggestions as a result, find another post. Or, perhaps we should find another game system.

[Ineti]

However. If anyone feels that this shouldn't even be discussed, or simply wishes to sling mud and offer no constructive suggestions as a result, find another post. Or, perhaps we should find another game system.

I think you might be overreacting just a bit there. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't constructive.

Now, as for your ideas, here are some thoughts.

1) Skills capped at 3, initially, or the value of their governing attribute, whichever is lower. Skill ranks cannot exceed governing attribute.

I think both of these work, but I think you mean starting skills capped at 3 ranks, right? Just wanted to clarify.

2) Increasing a rank is equal to the current rank, not 1-for-1. (I really like this, too!)

I echo Jason's concern with this one. Raising a skill from, say, +6 to +7 would cost 6 picks with this idea, right? Would you allow players to carry over advancement picks from one advancement to another? How often do you plan to dole out advancements? If they're every few sessions, that's one thing, but if it's once in a blue moon, then making the costs really high is sort of pointless.

Just some thoughts.

[GandalfOfBorg]

The one thing about capping skills at 3 initially instead of 6 is what will the players who have really high Wits scores? With a 10 Wits, thats 30 picks to spend on Native skills, just Lore and Languages. If the character were a Noldor, that would be just 9 picks spent to max out his three languages and then 21 picks to spend on a relatively short list of skills and then it becomes hard to justify a lengthy list of specialties to reflect character creation. There are (at least) two ways to get around this:
1) Not my favourite idea, but you could allow skills other than Language and Lore to be bought with the Native Skills picks, or
2) Adjust the rules so that Lore skills don't have specialties such that you use them something like this....
<DEC> Lore: Race (Elves, Men) +Z
<new> Lore, Race: Elves +X; Lore, Race: Men +Y

[theBruce]

First off, my apologies. I feel I did overreact, and I apologize, especially to Jason.

Moving on:

Gandalfofborg; Excellent suggestion, and I concur - Language and Lore skills should both be allowed to start at 6. A justification for this would be a post I read by...I believe it was Doug Burke, on the other LotR forum...which stated that profiiciency with a native language would be 5 or 6. Which, then, follows that at least one Language should be at 5 or 6 ranks, to show proficiency with at least their Language. The same logic follows for Lore skills.

Additionally, as far as enjoyment goes, my group really loves the native Languages and Lore skills, as they lend a great amount of non-unbalancing (word?) interraction.

Ineti; Yes, skills would be capped at 3 only during initial 0-advancement character creation.

Also, I wanted to mention something that just occurred to me. Awhile back, over on the other forum, I saw a post that mentioned allowing Strength to be the governing skill for certain weapons, like axes and such, and that Nimbleness would be the governing skill for others, or an option for certain light or flexible weapons. I don't believe anyone arrived at a conclusion, but it seems to me that certain weapons could certainly be governed by Strength...

For instance, Legolas' bow would certainly be governed by Nimbleness, if we're thinking 'real life.' Likewise, it's entirely possible that he could opt for Nimbleness to be his governing attribute for his long knives, correct? They appear to be weapons that would benefit as much from Nimbleness as anything, if I may say.

However, if we think about Gimli's axe-work, I feel that Strength comes to mind. Perhaps even Strength for Boromir's sword, or Aragorn's.

So, what is everyone's thoughts about allowing players the option of choosing a governing attribute for certain Armed Combat weapons? Does it make sense? It certainly meshes more easily with the revisions we're discussing, but does anyone see potential problems or glaringly obvious errors?

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by theBruce
If anyone feels that this shouldn't even be discussed, or simply wishes to sling mud and offer no constructive suggestions as a result, find another post. Or, perhaps we should find another game system.

I hope you don't think I was slinging mud - I offered explanations of what I felt were flaws in your suggestions.

I work as a game designer (in computer games). That means, literally, every day at work, I am thrown design principles and discuss them round-table-style and explore the potential flaws, weaknesses, and virtues.

I think if you reread my comments, you will find that they are not abrasive, or particularly argumentative, but merely pointing out the limitations and outcomes of your suggested fixes.

Ultimately, my personal experience is that as a GM and player, there is no system free from player abuse, and absolutely no way to stop players from abusing systems.

Thus, the only means to limit it is trust between the Narrator and the players, and an understanding that a munchkinistic arms race with character promotion is to the detriment of the game.

If players refuse to stop acting like munckins, and continue to point-screw systems until they break, then they aren't invited to my games any more, and our group's current Narrator is of the same viewpoint.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by GandalfOfBorg
The one thing about capping skills at 3 initially instead of 6 is what will the players who have really high Wits scores? With a 10 Wits, thats 30 picks to spend on Native skills, just Lore and Languages. If the character were a Noldor, that would be just 9 picks spent to max out his three languages and then 21 picks to spend on a relatively short list of skills and then it becomes hard to justify a lengthy list of specialties to reflect character creation. There are (at least) two ways to get around this:
1) Not my favourite idea, but you could allow skills other than Language and Lore to be bought with the Native Skills picks, or
2) Adjust the rules so that Lore skills don't have specialties such that you use them something like this....
<DEC> Lore: Race (Elves, Men) +Z
<new> Lore, Race: Elves +X; Lore, Race: Men +Y

Good points, and an overlook on my part.

I guess I would allow native languages and lores to "break" that limit, and just live with it.

Honestly, though, combat is the only place where scores gets out of hand. I would have to scrip and twist every rule imaginable to get a combined skill/ability/edge/order ability bonus for a skill like Climb up to over +20, while scores of 25-30 are not difficult to achieve for combat skills.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it really just boils down to a matter of trust between the GM and players. If creating characters who are killing machines is what the players want to do, then perhaps LotR simply isn't the game for them.

[Jason Durall]

Originally posted by theBruce
Also, I wanted to mention something that just occurred to me. Awhile back, over on the other forum, I saw a post that mentioned allowing Strength to be the governing skill for certain weapons, like axes and such, and that Nimbleness would be the governing skill for others, or an option for certain light or flexible weapons. I don't believe anyone arrived at a conclusion, but it seems to me that certain weapons could certainly be governed by Strength...

From page 122 of the rulebook, under the description of the Armed Combat skill:

"Most Armed Combat tests depend on Nimbleness, for you must be deft and accurate to hit an enemy. But with large, heavy weapons such as axes or clubs, the Narrator may allow you to use Strength instead."

It is a notable failing on Decipher's part not to emphasize this in italics, bold print, or some other means, to draw attention to it.

[theBruce]

My playgroup, bless them, despise munchkins worse than I do,

The thing that started all this, though, was that our Shield Maiden ended up unbelievably bad-to-the-bone as the luminaries like Aragorn or Glorfindel with only 6 advancements and only 4 ranks out of those 30 going to Armed Combat: Polearms (Spears). She opted only to take Swift Strike 1, no other abilities (she already had Weapon Mastery as an edge), and we were all simply confounded as to the level of her bad-to-the-bone-ness. We felt that being this proficient at fighting with but 6 advancements (when many of the luminaries have 60-100 or more) was grossly unbalanced, and the fact that she avoided putting even 10% of her ranks in the skill and still reach this level...

Just feels like going from a young warrior to luminary combatant that swings battles simply by being there...it was just too fast, that's my concern.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by GandalfOfBorg
The one thing about capping skills at 3 initially instead of 6 is what will the players who have really high Wits scores? With a 10 Wits, thats 30 picks to spend on Native skills, just Lore and Languages. If the character were a Noldor, that would be just 9 picks spent to max out his three languages and then 21 picks to spend on a relatively short list of skills and then it becomes hard to justify a lengthy list of specialties to reflect character creation.

I disagree in part, here. I like the idea of limiting skills to 3 ranks at the start, except perhaps one native language that could be 6 ranks.

Using the rest of the native languages and lore picks, though, could be limited to 3 ranks per skill easily enough, even if you have a high Wits and lots of points to spend.

Lore is just about the most open-ended skill imaginable. There's so much room there to really customize a character and make them unique. So much can be represented.

[theBruce]

There should be at least one language (Westron for most Men, Sindarin for most Elves, etc.) that should be allowed to start at 6. Actually, wait a minute...I think the reply from Doug was something along the lines that someone was considered to have mastered the skill at 6...

Well, let's use logic, here. The game caps skills at 12, no questions asked. Therefore, 6 is 50%, or half, of your potential in the skill. 3 is one-quarter. So, if we imagine...language as a skill in real life...if we consider 6 proficiency with training, then that would be the equivalent of college-level education (myself being partly an English major), then we can see that yes, Ineti is right, most should be limited to 3, actually.

Okay, I just talked myself into agreeing with Ineti.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by theBruce
Okay, I just talked myself into agreeing with Ineti.

You say that like it's such a bad thing.

[Markraven]

Ineti, isn't there a limit to raising a skill or ability "one rank/level" per advancement?

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Markraven
Ineti, isn't there a limit to raising a skill or ability "one rank/level" per advancement?

From the FAQ:

Page 278: There are limits to how much you can increase a skill with one Advancement.

Order Skills: 2 Ranks, Non-Order Skills: 1 Rank.

(NOTE: this does not mean you get 2 Ranks for a chosen Order Skill when you spend an Advancement pick on it, merely that you can only improve any given Order Skill by a maximum of 2 Ranks per Advancement).

[Ineti]

And, because of their costs, you can only raise one attribute per advancement. Favoured attributes cost 4 to raise +1, and non-favoured attributes cost 5.