Suggestion Box.   Posted by Director.Group: 0
Serevan Tarsus
 player, 9 posts
 Repentant apostate
Thu 5 Feb 2015
at 18:46
Re: Suggestion Box
Ylva:
The main problem however is the lack of an advancement system.


I have been telling the Director this in real life for fifteen years. 8-]  Though, in fairness, the character traits system does allow a measure of advancement, or at least shifting in focus, because you can change them around pretty freely.

That is a heck of an analysis, Ylva. It seems very workable to me.
Ylva
 player, 11 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Thu 5 Feb 2015
at 19:52
Re: Suggestion Box
Thanks :)

And yeah, the main issue with a system without advancement is that people aren't motivated to do stuff. Especially in a visceral RP where death looms around the corner of every fight and may happen in the span a few bad dice rolls there's no reason for people to want to be anywhere near a fight. Or pretty much do anything that endangers them in any way.

"Yes i can, but why would i want to?"

The inherent danger is that without proper incentive (money, SPs etc.) who would want to create a Legionnaire? You're spending a week on a character sheet, two rolls into your first combat you die and that's all she wrote, and while it generally isn't that bad you'd have to admit there needs to be something to balance it out other than the common people being real happy that the Legion is doing all the fighting so they won't have to. Sugarcoat it in honor and glory all you want, but odds are melee infantry have the highest odds of being the expendable throwaways with two lines of backstory. I mean, Attus has a backstory and is currently being made, but he's not a melee infantry, he's an Engineer. Support troops. Ylva's more of a scout and deadly accurate with a bow so even with her pressganged into service she's not going to stand in a line with a spear, a shield and a clout of arrows heading her way.

Point is, melee centered characters are going to be the ugly bastard stepchild of the RP. Servius is a melee Legionnaire, but if combat is as lethal as it was made out to be he's facing a disproportionate amount of risk in his line of work compared to everyone else. It's only logical that there'd be some way to balance this out, and the Character Trait system is good if you want to apply some extra bonuses to aid survivability without boosting SP (which would be permanent by nature) and drop them when they are no longer needed or applicable, but too many +1s and +2s just cause a bookkeeping headache, especially if everyone has them. Note that Natural Traits aren't that much of a problem since it's tied to race, but Character Traits are different for every individual character. Too many of those around and the GM's going to spend more time on Numerology than running the actual RP.

Think of it this way: Most (older) soldiers know they can't be in that line of work forever, so they work to pick up a trade they can do when they start getting less healthy due to old age, or take a disabling injury. If one, for example, wants to become a painter, how would you explain killing Draks would help him get a +1 to Artistry? Character Traits would make him a better soldier or whatever he's doing at that time since that's literally what they're there for, SPs are for the book on strategy he's studying in his tent at night, for the Material Craft he's practicing by helping out Engineers like Attus, or Teaching combat skills to the new recruits (They'd get Character Traits which they'd later on make permanent by buying that +1 with SPs). Otherwise there'd just be no point in teaching people if said knowledge had no way of being retained for extended periods of time.
Serevan Tarsus
 player, 10 posts
 Repentant apostate
Thu 5 Feb 2015
at 20:44
Re: Suggestion Box
Ylva:
Thanks :)

And yeah, the main issue with a system without advancement is that people aren't motivated to do stuff.

The Director's argument would be that the motivation is the plot and the character arc - and to his credit, the man weaves a mean, well-plotted campaign without sacrificing flexibility. But I agree with you; our PCs are our tools for interacting with the world, and without the ability to change those tools over time in a meaningful, mechanical way it limits our ability to grow and adapt with the story.

quote:
Especially in a visceral RP where death looms around the corner of every fight and may happen in the span a few bad dice rolls there's no reason for people to want to be anywhere near a fight. Or pretty much do anything that endangers them in any way.

True story: one of my characters in this system (albeit a few revisions ago) was jumped by an assassin, and I had him pick up a lantern with the point of his sword and fling it at the attacker's face, hoping to gain a moment of distraction. Instead, the assassin catches fire and goes down with a brain full of metal and glass shards. It can be a pretty unforgiving system at times.

quote:
If one, for example, wants to become a painter, how would you explain killing Draks would help him get a +1 to Artistry? Character Traits would make him a better soldier or whatever he's doing at that time since that's literally what they're there for...

Something like Tired of War or Should Have Been A Painter are also valid character traits.

quote:
Otherwise there'd just be no point in teaching people if said knowledge had no way of being retained for extended periods of time.

There are some weird implications, yeah. Hey, kids, don't train and study TOO hard at school, or you'll fossilise your brain and won't be able to life-long learn! That's the opposite of the way it works in real life. (Well, it is possible to developed fixed ideas early on of course, but the ability to learn itself is something that you get better at with use and practise).
Ylva
 player, 12 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Thu 5 Feb 2015
at 21:31
Re: Suggestion Box
Serevan Tarsus:
Ylva:
Thanks :)

And yeah, the main issue with a system without advancement is that people aren't motivated to do stuff.

The Director's argument would be that the motivation is the plot and the character arc - and to his credit, the man weaves a mean, well-plotted campaign without sacrificing flexibility. But I agree with you; our PCs are our tools for interacting with the world, and without the ability to change those tools over time in a meaningful, mechanical way it limits our ability to grow and adapt with the story.


Oh, i'm not challenging the GM's ability to write, i mean, to his credit there's a bunch of perfectly readable and engaging lore up on the wikia that promises much for the actual RP, it's just...

The whole purpose of a classless system is that you can mix and match any way you like to build the character you want to play. But without the ability to change you run into something i'd like to call the 'Ant Syndrome' in that you're still playing a 'class': Soldier Ant for combat, Worker Ant for mental and Queen Ant for social characters. And once that 'role' has been determined (usually at chargen) you're stuck with it and a marginal smattering of +1s and +2s is about as good as it gets.

Serevan Tarsus:
Ylva:
Especially in a visceral RP where death looms around the corner of every fight and may happen in the span a few bad dice rolls there's no reason for people to want to be anywhere near a fight. Or pretty much do anything that endangers them in any way.

True story: one of my characters in this system (albeit a few revisions ago) was jumped by an assassin, and I had him pick up a lantern with the point of his sword and fling it at the attacker's face, hoping to gain a moment of distraction. Instead, the assassin catches fire and goes down with a brain full of metal and glass shards. It can be a pretty unforgiving system at times.


I'll keep in mind to stay on the good side of lanterns :P

Serevan Tarsus:
Ylva:
If one, for example, wants to become a painter, how would you explain killing Draks would help him get a +1 to Artistry? Character Traits would make him a better soldier or whatever he's doing at that time since that's literally what they're there for...

Something like Tired of War or Should Have Been A Painter are also valid character traits.


Yeah, but if you take Should Have Been A Painter and then retire from the army to become a painter, you'd still only be able to be a comparatively poor painter unless you spend some of your unspent skill points or start selling down your combat skills. The net change is zero, you're not actually earning anything for your efforts to become a painter.

Serevan Tarsus:
Ylva:
Otherwise there'd just be no point in teaching people if said knowledge had no way of being retained for extended periods of time.

There are some weird implications, yeah. Hey, kids, don't train and study TOO hard at school, or you'll fossilise your brain and won't be able to life-long learn! That's the opposite of the way it works in real life. (Well, it is possible to developed fixed ideas early on of course, but the ability to learn itself is something that you get better at with use and practise).


It gets funnier when you realize that most of your skill points come from stats called Intelligence (theoretical knowledge from books), Knowledge (practical knowledge from experience) and Wisdom (ability to correctly apply knowledge), which are all three things you are not born with. As you get older you just get better at it, which is what the stat penalties for younger characters are meant to represent.

There's some inherent silliness in that a 6 year old Ylva would have been as strong as an average landsman Adult (75% of 22 is 16,5), but no one's blaming anyone for that. More realistic estimates would be All Stats Reduced to 25% for Infants, and 50% for Children, but as i mentioned when i made some numerical estimates, no one's going to play an under-11 character anyway.

This message was last edited by the player at 21:34, Thu 05 Feb 2015.

Director
 GM, 73 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 01:42
Re: Suggestion Box
Wow, okay I really appreciate the time you've taken on this, it's miles beyond the level of depth I expected, so thank you.

Let me open with a hard rule - people have spent 2-3 weeks trying to get their heads around characters and creating them, often in PMs, so I don't want to stuff them round by making changes that would undo their work now, but I will take any and all suggestions under advisement, and look at implementing them in chapter breaks. It means that if I do institute a formal advancement system it'll have to be bootstrapped on to the current chargen for this game. I'm asking for a lot of patience from people as it is, so I don't want to stuff any of you around by flip-flopping on rules, even when its in favour of something better.

That being said, let me open by explaining my thinking, not to defend it, but because crits are at their most useful when they can assess both the intent of an action, and its success in that intent.

There are two fundamental ideas I'm trying to channel here. The first, and less relevant to this discussion, is that the rules are a set of interchangeable pieces used to find some numbers of randomize the action you narrate, rather than needing to narrate the result of some dice. It's a tiny but telling reversal in the dice/story relationship.

The second, far more salient to this discussion, is division of labour between player and GM. Choosing stats on creation, choosing which stats and skills to use on a tests, proactively providing numbers for things that you're ready for or things you're describing, these are all things that players wouldn't normally do, but that make a game, especially a PBP, and I like to think that while it demands knowledge of the system, it involves players more, and roots rules-strategy in story.

Now let me get to the point - my hope for character advancement is that it's the player's job to have a character arc. It's their job to chart their improvement, to tell their story. Basically to decide when it's time for their character, or their group to "level up". Having a mechanic means that there's no drama, but allowing players to decide on a steady advancement seems to me like a way to put your character more in your hands.

However the demands of limiting a character on creation, when you can clearly see that you can go further, is tempting. I think that Serevan would agree, the kid-in-a-candy-shop nature of being given SPs and told you can't use them seems to be the source of some frustration.

It's not that I disagree that evolution towards one's ceiling of potential doesn't belong in the game. It's more that I want it to be a player-managed function. To that end, perhaps there needs to be a clearer set of guidelines more front and centre as to how a player undertakes this?

What do we think? Is that a sound aspiration on my part, or am I flawed from the ground up?
Director
 GM, 74 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 01:50
Re: Suggestion Box
Oh, a few things that came up that are worth commenting on:
quote:
There's some inherent silliness in that a 6 year old Ylva would have been as strong as an average landsman Adult

Yes, she honestly would've been. Remember Kardes aren't human, they're a different, much more physically powerful race altogether. It doesn't sound wrong to me that a six year old would be as powerful as a grown man at all.

quote:
Especially in a visceral RP where death looms around the corner of every fight and may happen in the span a few bad dice rolls there's no reason for people to want to be anywhere near a fight. Or pretty much do anything that endangers them in any way.

I would advise avoiding combat situations where possible - perhaps its a personal taste but while I find big set-piece fights to be great action, mook-fights bore me, especially in PBP form. They're quick with this system, but also risky, and I'd far rather hear a creative plan to get past the guards than a tired charge at them. Unless the latter is very much in character of course. This too will perhaps take a shift in thinking, and some coaxing on my part, but I find I reminisce about the interesting and creative stuff I've done in RPGs far more than the big fights.
Ylva
 player, 13 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 03:27
Re: Suggestion Box
Oh, no worries about that, wgiven that this setting has basically been written from the ground up there's bound to have been some revisions in the past and more upcoming in the future, and Serevan's post mentioned this in msg #6 as well. No one would be forcing them to sell down their skill points (though your intent has been that they shouldn't spend more than 70%-80% of their skill points anyway) since this would basically be a test run for revisions i wasn't around to see :)

On the point... To be entirely honest, what you're asking of your players isn't that they come up with plot arcs centered around their characters (preferably involving other players' characters as well), but that they act as a form of 'mini-GMs' in charge of character advancement and growth of their own characters, with you focusing on providing an overarching plot and keep the main story arc going. Your intent is to have them award skill points from their 'pool' to themselves, and quite honestly not everyone is capable of doing that. I know i can't, for example, and going by the frustration you mentioned it's clear that i'm not the only one. There are some things that, for the general enjoyment of the game, should be better left behind the GM screen.

For example, an ambushed enemy patrol manages to get a messenger pigeon up. You try to shoot it, but miss by an inch. It's annoying, but provides some incentive to work on it and get better. It's an entirely different type of annoying when the means to be better has always been yours (the pool of skill points) and the decision to be less good at Marksmanship than you could have been had been yours since the beginning. It makes you feel like you should have spent it.

And that's why people spend all of it. And why you're saying in every single character creation thread after the initial skill draft that people aren't supposed to spend all of it. I mean, i'm saying it myself back in my character creation discussion thread right after hearing i get over 200 skill points to start out with:

 
quote:
Ehm, 206 SP. That's enough to get 20 skills at level 4. Sure, why not?


After which i proceeded to give myself 17 professional level skills despite only being 17 years old. A completely heavy-handed method, because rank 4 is considered professional level expertise. Because of this, being a professional will be seen as 'the rank above Beginner' rather than something you can actually make a living with. True professionalism would start at Expert since it'd require a little over 20 skill point as investment.

That said, the worth of something is determined by the effort one went through to get it. If i have Marksmanship 5 and want to improve it to 6, with the 3-5 SP advancement it'd take two chapters of working on the skill until i've gathered the 6 SPs required to bump it up by a point. It's two chapters of work effort that's been put in, and the end result is that when i finally saved up enough points to bump Marksmanship up to 6, it's worth much more to me than if i had a pool of some 80 points that i could award myself with a couple of whenever i'd feel like it. The second scenario lacks any kind of effort-reward system since there is no effort required for it. It's simply something you have access to and decided to spend.

Effort-reward is necessary to keep people interested and motivated, which is pretty much why i (and Serevan) are hammering on an advancement system. Every RP, to keep people engaged, needs a place for players to put their effort into, and a reward to encourage and entice good amounts of effort being put in. It's a cycle you want to keep going. Becoming stronger than you did starting out would be the most common type, awarding Hero Points is another (another method is allowing skill points to be bought with Hero Points in between chapters) and in all those cases you can award more of them to players who put in visible effort to encourage others to put in more effort as well.

-----

On combat: Yes, i understand that you want players to explore other options that just combat, but there are ways for this. Combat is often regarded in... pretty much every system as the sole means of gaining experience points. Making the combat scary and lethal won't change this, it'd just mean that even the street sweepers are going to be ninjas with Martial Combat on 5+ for the sole purpose of surviving combat should they ever get caught up in it. If you had an advancement system -- and i'm sorry to keep bringing this up again -- you could award a little more of something for well thought-out solutions that don't involve combat. It's simple to do, even in systems such as D&D where every monster has a clear-cut XP value my diplomat still gained a level negotiating a treaty. You decide what to give out when, in the years i've been RPing i've never heard a GM say 'well that was a nice solution, but you didn't kill them so you don't get XPs'. You want to encourage creative thought over big fights, then give creative solutions a bigger payout. Encourage rather than discourage.

That said, we're all either missionaries from the Divh of War or Legionnaires and armed Hirelings tasked with guarding and protecting said missionaries. Given the nature of the mission (investigating a religion that's essentially calling Haederas a fraud and a sham) it's a surprise that the Order of the Interrogators and Traitor Hunters aren't actively stabbing the One Faith's followers yet. While it's your intention to discourage combat, given the setting there will be combat. Given how the Haedrasians are, it's simply unavoidable. Even talking about the One True Faith anywhere on Haedrasian soil is like loudly promoting atheism in the middle of St. Peter's Square: It would be out of character for any Haedrasian born citizen not to step in given how their faith in Haederas is intertwined with everything about their lives.
Director
 GM, 75 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 03:59
Re: Suggestion Box
quote:
For example, an ambushed enemy patrol manages to get a messenger pigeon up. You try to shoot it, but miss by an inch. It's annoying, but provides some incentive to work on it and get better. It's an entirely different type of annoying when the means to be better has always been yours (the pool of skill points) and the decision to be less good at Marksmanship than you could have been had been yours since the beginning. It makes you feel like you should have spent it.


That's a very interesting viewpoint.

So having a portion of your total skill pool 'locked' until such time as the GM rewards you by unlocking it (effectively awarding SPs as XP up to a maximum ceiling) would put hard limits on chargen based on the 'level' of a campaign.

For instance, for now, if I enforced the 70% ceiling as a campaign rule rather than a guideline, I could then unlock SPs in 5-20 point portions after story achievements or to reward clever or characterful play?
Director
 GM, 76 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 04:02
Re: Suggestion Box
Incidentally, it may not have been clear (though the prologue will clear things up) but Nardaan is NOT under Haedrasian rule. And Haederas is only associated with war outside the Empire - though Haedrasians are, indeed, militant in character.
Director
 GM, 77 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 04:22
Re: Suggestion Box
Linking advancement to hero points in a sort of minor permanent advance vs. substantial short term benefit is interesting.
Ylva
 player, 14 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 04:44
Re: Suggestion Box
In reply to Director (msg # 11):

Well, not exactly 'locked', but if they'd have 200 skill points to spend at 100% then for a 70% ceiling you'd simply tell them they have 140 skill points to freely distribute. The other 60 they wouldn't know about and (since it's locked) wouldn't matter.

And yes, you'd award them with SPs, something gained from their point of view. Eventually they'd hit 200 and could no longer advance (depending on whether you'd count skill points used to buy stats or not) but by then the campaign would already be over.

Keep in mind, 20 points buys a lot of skill ranks so it all depends how often you hand it out. You'd want to give the players the idea that they're making progress in seeing their characters grow beyond what they started out as, but you don't want them hitting the (hidden) cap too fast.

But yeah, that's the gist of it. 'Nice solution, everyone gets 1 SP for getting past the guards undetected and Attius gets an additional SP for having come up with the plan'. It naturally adds up and by the time you reach the end of the chapter (or session or whathaveyou) the players will have accumulated enough SPs that they can advance a skill or two to counter a weakness or build on a strength that will help the party get past the next obstacle. And in the meantime, they'll keep being below their 100% skill cap. Once you'd have the advancement system in place you wouldn't even need the skill cap anymore since you can regulate the characters' growth rate based on the amount of SPs you'd be handing out. You'd still use the formulas to determine starting points though, but after chargen they'd likely never be brought up again.

-----

As for Nardaan, i knew it wasn't in Haedrasia, but there were mentioned to be Haedrasian settlements showing up along its coast so i figured those would fall under Haedrasian rule rather than Nardaan.
Ylva
 player, 15 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 06:05
Re: Suggestion Box
Director:
Linking advancement to hero points in a sort of minor permanent advance vs. substantial short term benefit is interesting.


Well it's certainly possible, i mean Hero points were already intended to be given out during RP so the rate at which they're gained would remain the same, all you'd basically need to do is 'price' skill points at a balanced amount of Hero points apiece, and ten skill points to the stat point.

Short term gain, or roll with the punches and get slightly better because of it. It's certainly taking 'Strength through Adversity' to a more literal level ;)
Director
 GM, 78 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 06:18
Re: Suggestion Box
I think that's well within the scope of what I want the system to be. Any thoughts Serevan?
Serevan Tarsus
 player, 11 posts
 Repentant apostate
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 06:33
Re: Suggestion Box
Director:
For instance, for now, if I enforced the 70% ceiling as a campaign rule rather than a guideline, I could then unlock SPs in 5-20 point portions after story achievements or to reward clever or characterful play?

Now that's interesting. If you phrased it so that the '70% total' was presented as the normal ammount and the '30% reserve' as a bonus, that would be vastly more psychologically satisfying than the present encouragement of 'abstainence'.

Director:
Linking advancement to hero points in a sort of minor permanent advance vs. substantial short term benefit is interesting.

As I think I've explained before, I loathe this approach. Hero/Action Points should not be exchangeable for Experience/Advancement Points. It punishes temporary bad luck and the desire to perform cool moments of heightened action with permanent character growth retardation.
Ylva
 player, 18 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 06:59
Re: Suggestion Box
Serevan Tarsus:
Director:
For instance, for now, if I enforced the 70% ceiling as a campaign rule rather than a guideline, I could then unlock SPs in 5-20 point portions after story achievements or to reward clever or characterful play?

Now that's interesting. If you phrased it so that the '70% total' was presented as the normal ammount and the '30% reserve' as a bonus, that would be vastly more psychologically satisfying than the present encouragement of 'abstainence'.


And that would be what i was aiming for as well tbh :)

Serevan Tarsus:
Director:
Linking advancement to hero points in a sort of minor permanent advance vs. substantial short term benefit is interesting.

As I think I've explained before, I loathe this approach. Hero/Action Points should not be exchangeable for Experience/Advancement Points. It punishes temporary bad luck and the desire to perform cool moments of heightened action with permanent character growth retardation.


Hmm... True, but both systems are essentially using the same mechanic of being awarded during the RP and subsequently spent during downtime. There is some overlap, and spending Hero points due to bad luck honestly wouldn't impact ones total that much:

Advancement and Rewards - Hero points:
Indeed, often the result of using a hero point warrants earning a new one.


So in effect, the difference in Hero point totals between using them and not using them is marginal, it's just whimsical use that is punished since those aren't the type of actions under pressure that warrant being awarded a Hero point. But both systems can of course exist alongside one another as well.

This message was last edited by the player at 07:00, Fri 06 Feb 2015.

Director
 GM, 80 posts
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 14:19
Re: Suggestion Box
Okay, well it's the ceiling that's important to me, both in terms of the Dark Fantasy genre (a bit of a cop out, but valid) and in the name of keeping a consistent level-20-like cap on character advancement. So making an existing guideline a rule seems like a way more easy-to-implement solution than I was expecting.

Let's make the 70% guideline a hard ceiling for chargen on this game, and perhaps I can formulate something a little more sophisticated for future games. We'll halt any advancement during the prologue, and I'll try to have a clear plan by chapter 1.
Ylva
 player, 19 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Fri 6 Feb 2015
at 19:55
Re: Suggestion Box
Great. Tomorrow i'll set up my skill lists with the 70% cap in mind, i estimate it'd be 144 or so points?
Director
 GM, 81 posts
Sat 7 Feb 2015
at 00:37
Re: Suggestion Box
Sounds fine to me.
Gabreus Burani
 player, 6 posts
Sun 22 Feb 2015
at 08:14
Re: Suggestion Box
Director, I love the amount of detail you've put into the wiki, but a quick-start guide to character generation would be awesome (with links to the appropriate material that explains each section more in-depth).  A sample generated character would also be nice to include.

Also, it would be great to have a skills document that details all the skills on one page.  It's good to have a separate table that lists all the skills, too, but when coming up with a skills list, it's nice to see everything on one page without opening up a bunch of new links.
Director
 GM, 111 posts
 To the north my children,
 your destiny awaits!
Sun 22 Feb 2015
at 08:18
Re: Suggestion Box
Good call. Sample characters are in the work by-region, but I'll bump up priority. I'll implement short skill descriptions on the master skill appendix ASAP.
Director
 GM, 112 posts
 To the north my children,
 your destiny awaits!
Sun 22 Feb 2015
at 23:39
Re: Suggestion Box
Apologies that some of this is coming a bit later than ideal, but I'm reaction to suggestions ASAP.

A Cheat-Sheet (more or less a sequential checklist) for character creation is now available on the wiki.

This message was last edited by the GM at 23:40, Sun 22 Feb 2015.

Director
 GM, 302 posts
 To the north my children,
 your destiny awaits!
Fri 20 May 2016
at 15:26
Rules Update
There is a rules update to the system, and it is ENTIRELY optional whether or not the group adopt it. A brief rundown of the changes are as follows:

  • All statistics (not called 'Talents') have had their names improved slightly. Beauty has been removed entirely, and particularly attractive or unattractive characters should deal with this as a Character Trait.
  • All statistics now work around an average of +0, not 17. For conversion purposes, all current statistics should subtract 17 for a new value.
  • The skills Anatomy, Hiding, Law, Literature, Philosophy, Theology, and Trade have been removed. Others have been renamed - most notably Command to Leadership and Marquillage to Disguise.

The language of the rules has also been streamlined a bit, and many Trait-governed elements have been reduced to more intuitive advantage/disadvantage mechanics. For character updating purposes. If you wanted to shift, we'd keep refreshing simple, retaining all existing skills, skill points, and stats except where they are removed or adjusted.

Feel free to peruse the new treatment at your leisure from here
Director
 GM, 303 posts
 To the north my children,
 your destiny awaits!
Fri 20 May 2016
at 15:27
Rules Update
And let me reiterate, I appreciate that such changes are a headache, and so it's ENTIRELY at your collective discretion.
Ylva
 player, 133 posts
 Barbarus hic ego sum
 quia non intelligor illis
Fri 20 May 2016
at 21:41
Rules Update
I say we update and get it over with now rather than having more to update when the next 'patch' comes out.

Are we still tacking the 2d6-7 at the end of each roll?
Director
 GM, 304 posts
 To the north my children,
 your destiny awaits!
Sat 21 May 2016
at 06:32
Rules Update
Any changes to rules are annoying and disruptive. Wouldn't suggest this one save that we're only just getting into using them. So if I do suggest anything in the future it will be because I think it's worth the headache. And to be honest, it usually won't be.

Yes, tests are still +1d6 - 1d6. The 2d6-7 mechanic will work fine for that. When Advantage and Disadvantage (extra dice either side) come into play it might fall down a little though. Didn't we discover you could roll a plus and minus dice in the roller? If not I'm happy to go off-site for rolls and trust you guys to stay honest.