Yeah, that addresses the "GK is an advanced skill" thing pretty well. A lot of people use it as a dump stat, and a lot of people will continue to. At the same time, players seem to inherently realize that there must be
some advantage to having it, which they're correct about - the trouble is that they don't really know how to use it well. It's something that takes player experience. Players "level" the same way their characters do, you might say.
Now, I'm going to address this first, and go from there:
Cha0zz wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
I most certainly was not misunderstanding it
I still think I may not have gotten this across correctly. So: clear your mind. Let's wipe the slate clean and start fresh.
General Knowledge is 100% about roleplay. It is not for giving boosts to stats in any way. If someone tries to use it for that, I will apply penalties to their GK rolls (scaled to make sense given what they're asking for) and they will fail more frequently (if not always, depending on the severity and their GK). Stat boosts, if any are given out, are small and applied only relative to how much I expect them to try to use it to give them an advantage. Stat bonuses are only applied as an "afterthought", mostly with the purpose of keeping it so someone who acts diplomatic, for instance, doesn't constantly fail their diplomacy rolls. As another example, if someone requested the ability to run faster, it would be much more likely to be granted if they planned to mostly use it to flee combat like a coward, and much less likely if they planned to use it to get close to enemies to melee attack them. (That's a middling example, though, because while it does grant something most characters don't actually have (ability to traverse terrain more quickly - in REKT everyone is just as fast as everyone else) it is also something that would be difficult to learn from studying. Hopefully you get what I mean though.)
To reiterate:
General Knowledge is not about giving advantages of any sort to your character. It is about roleplay. It may let your character learn things that may be helpful - usually in non-combat situations, less frequently in combat situations. I may use it to help a player's roleplay style evolve, as I did with Dino's parkour. (If you noticed, Dino (the character) used it even when it was a bad idea (he lost his legs if you remember), because that was his personality: Dinosawer (the player) used his character's parkour skill well. If he had used it
only to give himself an advantage, and I had expected as much, I would not have granted it to him.)
Now, following on with this topic: Players that are new to RPGs tend to see the most visible part first: the stats and rolls. This is how RPGs are advertised and how they draw in players. They are not what RPGs are actually about. An RPG is roleplay over stats, not stats over roleplay. Newer players often take some time to understand this and usually see General Knowledge as a method of obtaining unique advantages in combat - which is not how it's meant to be used. They may become puzzled or frustrated when this expectation does not align with reality. They are much more likely to ask for things that I would give penalties to than a seasoned player would be.
And that brings me to this:
Cha0zz wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
Second, it helps the curve stay higher and more rewarding for players at an upper end, without it becoming "too overpowered". I may need to tinker with it as time goes on, but we'll see. It doesn't really matter much anyway. If I gave you a 2 GK rolls with -2 GK, you'd only average about 0.36 new roleplay skills per mission, which is really sucky and would probably just serve to frustrate players that got -2 GK. Better to let players that chose -2 GK for their character not deal with it at all.
I disagree also with your second point, the amount of rolls indeed increases the chance of learning something but a higher skill level also increases the chance of successful rolls, I'm asking for a single GK roll for -2 GK characters, a roll that they can't even have a critical succes on but only partial successes, so I think that balances out fairly with characters with higher skill levels since they get more rolls, have higher succes chances and can have results that the -2 GK character won't ever be able to obtain.
About frustrating the -2 GK players, it's not about whether or not their chances are sucky but about giving them the option to do a roll, maybe they really want to try their luck? If they get frustrated it's because they would choose for that since rolling for GK is completely optional and a -2 GK character should know that the chance of success is very slim.
It's about having an option.
I understand what you're saying here, and why. However, I'm going to point out a few things.
As things are, assuming a player makes
reasonable requests with GK, and has -2 GK skill... the player will fail their GK rolls
89-93% of the time*. A single roll would give them, therefore,
great frustration, and the frequency of failure for a player that is new and doesn't actually understand GK would be
even higher. You say it's "about having options", but could you really call that an option at all? At those rates, they get a successful roll once out of the entire campaign. They might as well just give their character what they want at the start of the game, I think you'd agree, and work it into their bio. The players that really wanted that -2 GK to succeed would grow frustrated that they spent all that time coming up with something "good" only to have me shoot it down (in their mind), which would lead to debates. Debates on rolls waste my time and that of other players. Debates on rolls are bad.
Assuming you want a 50% chance of a successful roll on each mission with GK for GK-2 players, then characters with -2 GK should get 4-6* dice rolls. This however unbalances things for characters with -1 GK, which only learn something after a mission an average of 59-67%* of the time. I would need to give them more rolls to balance things out... and those rolls cause a cascade effect all the way up to the theoretical +6 GK. It's not a good solution. 0 rolls for -2 GK makes the most sense.
* depending on how much I like to give 0s, ranging from slightly more likely to give a 0 than a 1 than a 2, to twice as likely to give a 0 than a 1 than a 2
Moving on...
Cha0zz wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
I disagree that it would be a penalty on roleplay. And again I'm not arguing for a penalty possibility on all GK rolls, again I was addressing the charisma example you made.
Remember that I "balance" GK before I even roll for it. When I roll, it is already balanced. If it gives an advantage in combat, and would be used as an advantage, I would certainly apply a penalty.
Next, to make my point a little clearer: Roleplay is the most important part of an RPG. It's the part that actually makes it memorable. If you think over your favorite RPG anecdotes, I think you'll find it to be true. However, making it so you have a penalty to failed GK rolls makes it so that you are MUCH less likely to risk asking for things you want to roleplay, simply because you're worried you'll have a -3 to skills afterwards, which will hurt you quite sorely in the next mission. After all, a -3 is the equivalent of 1-2 large missions. It therefore encourages you to level your stats before you begin trying to roleplay with GK. It brings players to the incorrect conclusion that stats are more important than roleplay - and that's harmful not just to that player's experience, but to everyone at the table.
Failing a GK roll is penalty enough in this case. You lost a roll. It might be because it was a bad idea, or it might be because you were unlucky. You have to wait two missions now to ask for it again. I think that's enough of a penalty. Players can roleplay the fail if they want, and that's good! I love when players put their all into roleplay. That's when things really become amazing and memorable and everyone really shines.
Cha0zz wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:05 am
Finally:
You guys mention my (perhaps poorly chosen) example of the diplomacy boost. It would have to be someone that was an enemy but was willing to negotiate. Those don't show up very often.
An actual +1 to charisma would let you have a boost against any enemy, and any ally or neutral character as well. Furthermore, on granting this skill there's a fair chance I would introduce some kind of penalty to it for it to succeed (especially if your character doesn't act very diplomatic to begin with) - but it is something I would grant, which is the point of the list.
The way you formulated the example is not the same as what you're explaining here,
It's the same, but I didn't explain it well enough. It happens from time to time. That's why it's important that I always answer questions.