This isn't anything new, and it was talked about in the GM Toolkit, but how many of you allow players to bank advances and spend them during play?

The GMT example uses a character hanging over a cliff edge about to fall into the river wanting to spend an advance to train swimming then and there. Using the rationale that just because he's never swam before doesn't mean he can't swim or doesn't know how to explain spending the advance. It could be used in any number of ways, including training research skills "Sure, I haven't gone reading tomes about ancient Lahmia, but I do know how to read".

Are you allowing this? In what capacities if so? I'm planning on allowing it from time to time (with good rationale/RP) for skill training/specialization, but probably not for stat/wound/action card buys. I might allow it if the action card sought fits the narrative perfectly, but otherwise planning on leaving it as skills.

Thoughts/experiences?

I allow banking as its clearly needed for attribute buying (plus book learning skills in my campaign as peopel need to have a source to learn from) but I've stuck to only allowing the spending of advances once a session has ended. I have twice given a free advance in game for achieving certain campaign goals and those were to specific skills - specialisations in both cases that represented putting together a lot of facts and threads and a "Eureka!" moment. In my opinion allowing spending of advances on the fly is asking for trouble as players can counter their enemies whatever they do. Indeed they already have a limited method of doing that, aka fortune points, so why do they need more?

letting them spend banked points on skills will encourage players to spend advances in unexpected directions and gives them a chance to tell stories about their characters: how and when they got a skill (and maybe even why they have kept it a secret until now). letting them buy one specialization die that they might or might not need in a tight spot won't break your game. what's the worst thing that could happen? players keep a few points around just in case something crazy comes around so they can get a one die bonus. otoh, the best thing that could happen is that when you let one player do it and the roleplaying comes off right then you are really encouraging great roleplay from all your players. a big win.

i think you are right not to want players to spend advances on action cards. it will kill the game because then they will try to sort through the whole deck to buy just the right action for just the right moment. annoying.

Definitely.

Letting them buy action cards feels like the gamist mentality I'm hoping to avoid the more I think about it. now, there may be that rare occasion where a player comes up with something too cool his character wants to do that can be translated into an action card and its simply worth allowing it, but that'd be rare to the rareth power.

As long as it doesn't affect the suspension of disbelief (or slow down the game) I will allow it.

Ex.: Last session, everybody was at a loss in front of the vault door. Nobody had the Skulduggery skill... Now this session, PC #1 suddenly remembers that he does know how to pick locks ! (I wouldn't allow this.)

Ex.: For the first time, the party is heading out of Altdorf, into the woods. PC #1 shows that his background as a peasant makes him quite an asset in the countryside... (I would allow that, since the new skill could "always have been there, but not called upon")

If it's good for the story, it's good for me. But don't abuse it ! No shopping for skills mid-game.

I think the 'not called upon previously' requirement makes perfect sense. Like the swimming example, if the characters haven't needed to swim until that point it would make sense they might have the skill but never applied it. Things like the skullduggery check, if there's been opportunity to pick their way into a locked room/chest/whatev would be tougher to explain why suddenly now they have the ability.

keltheos said:

Well, I use this sort of thing all the time in many different games. I find it works very well. It's not supposed to promote a gamist mentality, it's supposed to be more narrativist, to emulate that moment in a book or film when the protagonist pulls something out of the air, reveals a talent the reader/viewer never knew he had, shows a bit more about his background, puts him in a new light, etc, and also ensure he has a skill/talent/action etc that is relevant to the game. From a story pov there's nothing more tedious than buying a s/t/a etc and then not using it for 5 sessions; where is the story in that?

If a player does that sort of thing just coz it gives him a system advantage, then he's gonna do lots of stuff just because of the system advantage, and a banked advance won't be a big deal in that regard, istm.

keltheos said:

I don't see how that works. Would you let them buy it at the beginning/end of a session? How would that be explained?