Character growth and advancement

[Keeper]

Okay i missed understood or read some thing wrong How do you raise you skill and what skill is needed to fly the tardis
Thank you page number would be nice everyone

[dvalkyrie74]

From my experience in gaming Doctor Who and from other past Doctor Who games, I simply use Ingenuity + Technology (+AOE: TARDIS, if you have it). After all the TARDIS doesn't exactly have a steering wheel and is technically supposed to be pilotted by 6 figures.

Or you could use Coordination + Technology (+AOE: TARDIS) to represent the constant running around the TARDIS to operate all those sections if you are the only pilot.

[allivingstone]

Dec 23, 2009 6:29:51 GMT Keeper said:

How do you raise you skill

GM Guide: p63-64 and p125.

what skill is needed to fly the tardis

Ingenuity + Technology.
It's buried in the Traits text on p10 of the GM Guide.

[Keeper]

thank you all for your help

[hogscape]

The rules don't really state how skills, attributes etc. are increased, only that it happens. Is it entirely up to the GM or is there a game mechanic?

[allenshock]

Jan 3, 2010 1:18:06 GMT allivingstone said:

Dec 23, 2009 6:29:51 GMT Keeper said:

How do you raise you skill

GM Guide: p63-64 and p125.

what skill is needed to fly the tardis

Ingenuity + Technology.
It's buried in the Traits text on p10 of the GM Guide.

Well I've been doing that wrong then...I use Ingenuity + Transport. Seems to make more sense to me but hey...

Allen

[Siskoid]

It's one of the things I like about the system: Its flexibility. Ing+Transport makes as much sense as Ing+Tech, so I'd personally allow it. Certainly, when the TARDIS is flying (Christmas Invasion), that's Transport. I'd allow players to use any Attribute+Skill combination that made sense, and let the effects of "Yes, but" etc. be related to the skill chosen.

A Tech screw-up blows the console. A Transport screw-up puts the TARDIS in an awkward place. Etc.

[da professor]

For character advancement, if you want something more than when the GM feels like it, you need a house rule, such as awarding XP when you award story points and basing cost to raise an attribute or skill on some multiple of the new value.

[hogscape]

The rules do give some guidelines for raising attriubtes - once every 12 sessions or so... But no info on Skills which I'm guessing would be more often?

[knasser]

I actually like the "GM Whim" method of skill and attribute raising. Once you disentangle the two concepts of "playing the game" and "earning improvements", you find you can happily play for ages without advancement. After all, is saving the Earth not a reward in and of itself?

That said, in a way it's merely cutting out an unnecessary step. In most games, the GM awards experience points and the players then spend them to improve attributes / skills. In this game, the GM awards those attributes and skills directly.

If you want a mechanic for increasing skills and attributes, then perhaps use something like this: if you roll a double six when using that skill. put a tally by the side of it. Get to four and it goes up a point. Do the same for Attributes, but make it five you have to get to. Adjust to taste.

HTH,

K.

[Curufea]

Have to give you karma for that. The point of the game isn't to transfer power from GM to player - either narrative or mechanical. The point of the game is to tell a story that everyone enjoys.

[Siskoid]

Though I understand the XP thing, having long played superhero games, there's really no need for "improvements". In superhero games, the character is already at the top of its game and when simulating comics, doesn't change in ability very often. When it does, there's a story reason behind it (further mutation, a new gimmick, etc.). Hero points/Karma/etc. which amount to DWAITAS' story points are given instead and though these CAN be used to buy more attributes and skills, the cost is very high.

Not all games are about "levelling". DWAITAS certainly isn't. All improvements in my game will either be story-related (for example, Martha after a year of walking the Earth) or else be an increase in Story point maximum.

[JohnK]

Hullo, Cur

Feb 21, 2010 21:58:34 GMT Curufea said:

Have to give you karma for that. The point of the game isn't to transfer power from GM to player - either narrative or mechanical. The point of the game is to tell a story that everyone enjoys.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Personally, for those who require a Character Growth and Advancement set of mechanics, that is just a symptom of power gaming and number crunching. Not what DW: AiTaS is all about.

[thewatcher]

Feb 22, 2010 15:21:43 GMT JohnK said:

Personally, for those who require a Character Growth and Advancement set of mechanics, that is just a symptom of power gaming and number crunching. Not what DW: AiTaS is all about.

Ah, now you see I'd be half tempted to run AiTaS with powergaming munchkins because we all know what happens to people in the Doctor Who universe when they selfishly seek power..........

[hogscape]

Sooo... Getting back to my original question... The book says you can add an attribute point to a character (attribute chosen by the GM based on which attributes the character/player has favoured) roughly every 12 sessions.

For those who have already played for several sessions, have you granted any skill increases along the way? If so, did it just seem appropriate or were the players baying for rewards?

I'm totally happy with the idea that the GM metes out rewards when appropriate and I do not like systems that call for experience point accounting. I'm just after a little feedback from experienced players and GMs on pacing.

Cheers

[Siskoid]

Just about to start our first season, which I clock at 8 episodes (no more than 10 sessions). End of season will be when I'll hand out attribute point rewards.

[JohnK]

Hullo, Watcher,

Feb 22, 2010 16:26:01 GMT thewatcher said:

Feb 22, 2010 15:21:43 GMT JohnK said:

Personally, for those who require a Character Growth and Advancement set of mechanics, that is just a symptom of power gaming and number crunching. Not what DW: AiTaS is all about.

Ah, now you see I'd be half tempted to run AiTaS with powergaming munchkins because we all know what happens to people in the Doctor Who universe when they selfishly seek power..........

Power gamers and munchkins seek different things in rpgs, and the problem would be the attitude of the gamers, not the characters (given how these two types of gamers play as well as create their characters), but it would still be quite satisfying.

[JohnK]

Hullo, hogscape,

Feb 23, 2010 2:42:10 GMT hogscape said:

Sooo... Getting back to my original question... The book says you can add an attribute point to a character (attribute chosen by the GM based on which attributes the character/player has favoured) roughly every 12 sessions.

Indeed, that is what the rulesbook says.

Feb 23, 2010 2:42:10 GMT hogscape said:

For those who have already played for several sessions, have you granted any skill increases along the way? If so, did it just seem appropriate or were the players baying for rewards?

Well, let's see... to this point, my Friday gaming group has played six (or is it seven?) sessions of the game, and the Sunday gaming group has played a total of four sessions of the game. The Friday nighters have said that they didn't really think that they deserved any skill increases yet, and the Sunday group hasn't played enough sessions to merit changes in skills. That said, given Kelasa Vostune's actions in the first scenario near the end of the game, I did reward her with an extra Story Point (so she's now got 10, up from 9).

I suspect the pacing and the like in terms of rewards and all will be a function of GM and player preference.

[knasser]

Feb 22, 2010 15:17:35 GMT Siskoid said:

Though I understand the XP thing, having long played superhero games, there's really no need for improvements

I think you put your finger on it. There's really less need for improvements in Doctor Who. If you take a game like D&D, then you improve so that you can fight bigger and badder monsters. But really in DW:AITAS, who you do battle with isn't a function of your personal power. Does an expert martial artist have a better chance of diverting the Dalek battlefleet than Rose who probably pulled another girl's hair in school? Ditto for the acumulation of treasure and equipment: Will the custom body armour make one whit of difference when you're trapped in an airlock suffocating, surrounded by Judoon or racing through a canyon avoiding falling rocks. (Well, it will in the last case - it'll slow you down, but anyway...). Character abilities can and do make a difference, granted, and it's a nice reward sometimes to be given an extra point in a skill or an attribute. But really, there just isn't the need for "levelling up". Like Donna says: "Some people can handle it, and some people can't". It's got little to do with your hitpoints or how much you can benchpress.

[da professor]

Good points all. Actually, I agree, but for those who want an actual experience mechanic, even if they only intend to use it as a stronger guideline than what the book gives, there is no reason why you can't use a houserule.

[JohnK]

Hullo, professor,

Feb 24, 2010 9:50:22 GMT da professor said:

Good points all. Actually, I agree, but for those who want an actual experience mechanic, even if they only intend to use it as a stronger guideline than what the book gives, there is no reason why you can't use a houserule.

Umm, err...without a game mechanic in place to do this, one has no choice but to use a house rule if one wants a mechanic for advancement and all.

[cib]

A homebrew system a friend of mine ran (and wrote) had a ballot system which was used (in part) for advancement.

Basically, if a player thinks that some skill (or attribute) should have gone up, let everyone (including the GM) vote on it. Secret ballot is better if feasible. Perhaps do it black ball slightly (that is, if one person votes against the increase, then the skill/attribute does not increase). That way, the player wanting the increase has to justify it to the satisfaction of everyone around the table. Certainly only allow one increase at a time, and limit how often players may 'apply' for advancement (i.e. a number of sessions you feel apropriate).

One of the main concerns I have with pure GM fiat is balance. While this ballot system also unbalances the PCs (in terms of power level) the fact that it's not purly the GMs doing may make this an improvement in some eyes. It's also a bit more cooperative than pure GM fiat. Not sure if I would do it this way however.

[Stormcrow]

Feb 25, 2010 22:19:09 GMT cib said:

Basically, if a player thinks that some skill (or attribute) should have gone up, let everyone (including the GM) vote on it. Secret ballot is better if feasible. Perhaps do it black ball slightly (that is, if one person votes against the increase, then the skill/attribute does not increase). That way, the player wanting the increase has to justify it to the satisfaction of everyone around the table. Certainly only allow one increase at a time, and limit how often

Isn't that kind of like letting legislators give themselves raises?

[cib]

Thats why the GM has a vote (and possibly a veto if such becomes a problem).

All depends on purpose. Legislators give them selves pay raises only when they think that it won't damage their chances of re election. Players (if they're in the right mind set) will only ok each others advances if they think it will improve the story and make sense. As I said, I've seen this work in a homebrew where the players voted on each others advancements.

Incidentally, I live in the UK. We've just had a scandal because our legislators (The MPs) were to nervous to give themselves a pay rise and instead fiddled the expenses system.

Also, you'd be surprised how competitive players can be. When the party scientist sees folk buy up their Technology skill, they may oppose it as it lessens there role in the party.

[da professor]

Yes ,JohnK, one does have to houserule to have a mechanic. The reason I say there is no reason one can't is that someone who's an even bigger noob than me might not automatically think of houseruling as a possibility. We need to take all levels of ability and experience into account.

[Curufea]

Feb 26, 2010 20:51:14 GMT cib said:

Players (if they're in the right mind set) will only ok each others advances if they think it will improve the story and make sense. As I said, I've seen this work in a homebrew where the players voted on each others advancements.

This I find dubious as the GM knows the story arc of the campaign and the players do not. The players may well out-experience the story without the GM realising it unless they are very, very dilligent in how they award each other.

[cib]

Feb 28, 2010 10:23:53 GMT Curufea said:

Feb 26, 2010 20:51:14 GMT cib said:

Players (if they're in the right mind set) will only ok each others advances if they think it will improve the story and make sense. As I said, I've seen this work in a homebrew where the players voted on each others advancements.

This I find dubious as the GM knows the story arc of the campaign and the players do not. The players may well out-experience the story without the GM realising it unless they are very, very dilligent in how they award each other.

Thats why the GM controls the rate that the players can apply for advancement. Say one advance every N sessions if that whats apropriate for the campaign. (where N is a positive integer)

All the players really do here is decide whether character A really has done enough to get his Knowledge skill up to 3 when the GM lets them advance.

[Bob the Rutan]

I'm having my players keep track of their skill use any time they have a result better than "Success" or a "Disastrous" result (you learn from your mistakes). Every three episodes, I look over what they've used and raise a skill. They cannot gain a skill raise in the same skill twice in a row.

At the end of the Season (thirteenth "episode"), they'll be able to raise one of their Attributes... and that will be their choice.

[da professor]

Mar 3, 2010 1:01:34 GMT Bob the Rutan said:

I'm having my players keep track of their skill use any time they have a result better than "Success" or a "Disastrous" result (you learn from your mistakes). Every three episodes, I look over what they've used and raise a skill. They cannot gain a skill raise in the same skill twice in a row.

At the end of the Season (thirteenth "episode"), they'll be able to raise one of their Attributes... and that will be their choice.

I'll probably use something similar, though I may require a minimum of a 'Good' result for learning from a success.

[Bob the Rutan]

That's what I meant by "better" than Success... Good or better. Sorry that wasn't more clear... unfortunately I'm a bit of a stream of consciousness writer sometimes...