Back in the Olden Days, under the WEG regime, there was a rule that said if a player wanted to raise a skill, they had to either have used it during the game or spent some down time working on it and studying it. Now of course there's no such rule in the FFG engine - but I still find myself with the old mindset of "Why did this skill get better?"

Anyone else do this? Or is your skill buying a free-for-all? "Sweet! I have enough points to raise my Underwater Yak Shaving skill" regardless if you were nowhere near yaks, a shaver or were underwater at any time.

Smooth as an Underwater Yak...

Anyways, for me, part of it is that I don't think that what's going on mid-adventure is the whole of my character's life. There will be practice or research or learning new tricks from old friends in hundreds of "deleted scenes".

I'm ok with just allowing a skill to be raised, used recently or not. Enough of my players would be hesitant to use a skill they had no points in, and I feel shoehorning a skill into an adventure is sorta railroady, be it GM or Player originating.

Felt that way with WEG too, never caused a problem worth mentioning...

I think the difficulty is that this can lead to unintended metagaming. If someone is looking ahead to raise a certain skill, they'll try to go find the underwater yak to try and shave it, whether or not its relevant to the adventure. I see the xp and skill raises is that the character becomes more confident in their abilities or talents to use them more effectively or even try something new (in the case of talents).

As much as I appreciated the WEG approach, I find it too restricting for how players may wish to develop their characters.

Whew, I brought something like this up for Force users on another thread, and got beat up over it.

I feel that most skills that players have can be easily learned through data and training programs, tech manuals and such. So making the a particular skill in game is kind of pointless to me.

It could be one thing to be the "tough guy" and all of a sudden greeting ranks in skulduggery of some of the other "social" skills. If you wanted to be a little more stringent on it, talk to the players and ask them which ones they would like to raise, and then incorporate into your adventure for them. Have the "tough guy" do the talking in one encounter, or whatever. But for all my love of WEG, that is one rule that I never really adhered to. I wouldn't make your group do that. Just my 2 cents worth.

I'd be thrilled with characters who volunteered reasons for why their character had improved their ability with Charm, or Skulduggery, or Ranged (Light), or why they'd recently acquired the ability to shoot better at Point Blank or their talent at Inspired Rhetoric.

I don't think I'd require it, though--as others have stated, I'd assume that for the most part there is some downtime between encounters and the player could be studying, meditating, concentrating, and deliberately learning. Or, it could be the result of past experience that is just now starting to 'gel' enough in the character's mind that they've improved their skill.

I really think this depends on your GM and group style. The way you present things make sense narratively, as if some doesn't use a blaster for a scene, them raising Ranged (Heavy) doesn't really make any sense, as a demonstration of 'improvement'. At the same time, I think if you want to pursue this path, it should be discussed with your players prior to them creating a PC so they have a clear-cut thought process of how the game will be played progression-wise and to make sure they're into this type of gameplay.

Viability for players just raising skills makes sense as well, but is perhaps a little less narrative, which isn't bad. I run a game where I let people raise skill however they please, just because of the game 'type' and another game that relies on skill growth organically.

It's a naritive system. They were always training towards raising that skill. It just wasn't mentioned sooner because it wasn't relevent to the story.

I tend to be more forgiving in this system than others, since it sets itself up so well for using a wide range of skills in every session. Plus, since taking a skill outside your chosen Specialization costs extra, I'm less inclined to block the Politico from raising his Ranged (Light) skill since he clearly had to invest time and XP into getting it.

In other systems like L5R, though, I tend to restrict increasing skills past 5 or so unless the character has shown both a frequent use of that skill and has devoted time in-game to practicing it.

I encourage this type of thinking, that raising skills, gaining talents, etc., should be relevant to what they've been doing. Most of my players naturally look to the skills they use most and relevant talents anyway.

Also, depending on how close to chargen you are, there may be things that the player could use his backstory for as narrative relevance.

On the flip side, remember that hyperspace jumps can take a good bit of time, so you can get quite a bit of training done in just a long route or a handful of short jumps. (remember Luke & Obi-wan between Tatooine in the Outer Rim and Alderaan in the Core: they had awhile.)

Whew, I brought something like this up for Force users on another thread, and got beat up over it.

Interesting - I would think if there was any facet of character development that would fit that criteria, it'd be Jedi and the force. It doesn't apply to me since we've got no Jedi within 12 parsecs of my game, but if I could see needing some source of external knowledge for a Jedi to get better with the force, be it with a mentor, a holocrons, ancient scrolls of power or whatever. I wouldn't forbid it, but I would strongly encourage it.

Mind you, I would then work with that player to build that mentorship into the story, provide opportunities for holocrons and make games about seeking out that lost ancient knowledge.

We always require an explanation. Honestly it's never that hard I can't remember a time a player raised a skill they didn't use. They normally raise a major skill they always use or feel they need to raise a skill that is low and no he has and they failed at it.

But yes I like the idea and we use it.

To me it depends a little on the skill. If you're a Mechanic and doing a lot of tinkering over the mission and want to raise Mechanics mid-mission after getting XP, it makes perfect sense - you've been using your skill!

If you have no Medicine and want to pick up Medicine 1, you might need to wait til you can view some holoclasses on first aid or something.

But generally I prefer to let the players improve what they want rather than impose additional restrictions.

Whew, I brought something like this up for Force users on another thread, and got beat up over it.

Interesting - I would think if there was any facet of character development that would fit that criteria, it'd be Jedi and the force. It doesn't apply to me since we've got no Jedi within 12 parsecs of my game, but if I could see needing some source of external knowledge for a Jedi to get better with the force, be it with a mentor, a holocrons, ancient scrolls of power or whatever. I wouldn't forbid it, but I would strongly encourage it.

Mind you, I would then work with that player to build that mentorship into the story, provide opportunities for holocrons and make games about seeking out that lost ancient knowledge.

There is a difference between "developing talent in the Jedi way" which involves following a strict code of honor, behavior, and training regimen honed over millennia versus "developing natural talent in the Force" which IMO can be as appropriately internal and lacking-support as the character wants. Of course, the institutional support of the Jedi (or the Sith) provides more structure, support, information, and opportunities to learn different things, whereas further unlocking your own power might seem rather linear in comparison.

There are plenty of Force users who never belonged to a formal sect, I don't see any benefit from writing personal development of your own talent out of the game as a house rule, and I'm very glad it wasn't codified as "needing some kind of mentorship" in the RAW.

There are plenty of Force users who never belonged to a formal sect, I don't see any benefit from writing personal development of your own talent out of the game as a house rule, and I'm very glad it wasn't codified as "needing some kind of mentorship" in the RAW.

Gand Findsman are mentioned in the book and typically develop Force usage in their own ways, through shamanism and tracking. They are seen as mystics among their people and ironically aren't mercilessly tracked down and murdered by the Empire for some odd reason. They don't have a sense of balance in the force and I'm not sure if a Gand has ever 'fallen' to the dark side in Canon. While still considered a 'religious order' like the Jedi, few Findmsan have mentor-ship or adhere to any strict code that dictates their lifestyle...

My guys watch a lot of holo youtube...

As a player, I've always thought about what skills / abilities my character has recently used when it's time to spend XP or "level up". All my slicer has been doing has been making Computer skill checks and slicing into systems, that is why he has 4 yellow dice to roll when slicing. He made a few incredible astrogation checks this last session, so instead of spending points on more Computers skill goodness, he's a better astrogator now. I would even spend XP on a non-class skill that he used over a series of gaming sessions as well. Once in a Zombie Apocalypse campaign for Savage Worlds, I increased one of my social skills after my "slow dumb hick" of a redneck rifleman (with the social graces of a cement block) gave an arrogant, reckless lawyer a good tongue lashing.

As a GM/DM/SM (Star Master ... it's what we call our DM for our Star Wars games), I don't hold my players to anything like this and let them play the game the way they enjoy. I have the gambit when it comes to play styles in my groups I've run from the roleplayer (social encounters), the min/maxers, the powergamers, the hack n slashers, the accountants, etc.

Game on!

Z

My only real issue with this is that you could have two sessions heavy on rolling a skill, but not have the xp to raise it. Then a session or two later your justification is stale or forgotten.

If one session's worth of use is all that is needed, does it have to be the last session?

Too fiddly. I don't like it. By the same token, you could say no skill at all may be learned until tried. Pay XP, raise/get skill.

I remember that rule. It made raising some skills like the tech ones a pain. You had to basically hope your ship or equipment either took damage in the adventure or you stumbled across a damaged non-hostile ship or gear to fix. Or buy tech manuals with your credits and hope you were somewhere that you could find bookstores during the pause between adventures.

My only real issue with this is that you could have two sessions heavy on rolling a skill, but not have the xp to raise it. Then a session or two later your justification is stale or forgotten.

If one session's worth of use is all that is needed, does it have to be the last session?

If you're GM is using this ruling, you'd be wise to keep some XP banked for when opportunities arise rather than rushing to spend it as soon as you get it.

I do that (loosely) for my characters in EotE and in Pathfinder and have, oddly enough, found it fun and interesting as my character grows and develops "organically" in ways I never imagined upon initial creation.

I wouldn't require it of my players as a GM, however.

Back in the Olden Days, under the WEG regime, there was a rule that said if a player wanted to raise a skill, they had to either have used it during the game or spent some down time working on it and studying it. Now of course there's no such rule in the FFG engine - but I still find myself with the old mindset of "Why did this skill get better?"

Anyone else do this? Or is your skill buying a free-for-all? "Sweet! I have enough points to raise my Underwater Yak Shaving skill" regardless if you were nowhere near yaks, a shaver or were underwater at any time.

No, I don't force my players to justify developing their characters. I think it's too draconian, personally. I encourage it, but I don't require it.

The way I figure it, there's usually tons of off-screen time where the PCs might have been working on the skills. Forcing players to justify stuff like that is very old-school RPG thinking, and I never cared for it.

Our GM does not ask this of us, but most of us at the table do it anyway. It's fun to see that Gand is wanting to do some negotiation and doing poorly at it. With time and experience (XP) he finds himself getting better at it.

As a player, I find it to have a more organic feel and guides me more in an RP sense.

I always ask for justification. It doesn't have to be elaborate, especially not if the skill has been used often in the story so far - but I do ask for two reasons: a) it shows that the player is thinking through the process of how his character is changing based on in-story events; and b) it helps me to spot the rare individuals who are simply trying to min/max their way toward an uber-slayer (when you don't really know your players - which happens a lot when you play exclusively online - this is always a risk).

If my player wants to gain Toughened and Ranged (Heavy) 2, then all they have to do is remind me that they've been involved in a lot of firefights recently, and that his/her PC took more than a few Wounds - and a Critical Injury - and survived. It doesn't require an essay, just a little thought on events.

I find it especially important for when XP is being spent during extensive downtime: if I give the PCs a two-week reprieve, and say that the players get XP to spend during that time, justification is a good way for the players to tell me what their characters are doing during the period. It gives me more insight into them, and also helps me write up detailed posts that narrate the interludes.