Talk:Ranking Interruptions

From DQWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Interrupted Ranking

I know that this is the consensus for the ranking time, but I wanted to comment on the rule that states:

 Time spent training for a particular rank of an ability may be interrupted 
 by other activity (including being on adventure). However training for a 
 given rank must be completed within 6 months of starting training for that rank.

This is too restrictive IMO. Ranking that takes a short time is not a problem since you normally do not have to interrupt it. Ranking that takes a really long time is too risky to interrupt using this rule. For example, training a RK 20 ritual or Rk 10 weapon takes 20 weeks. If it is interrupted for more than 6 weeks, then the training can't be completed in time. If you have spent an entire 13 week session ranking and you want to adventure, then if that adventure ends up taking longer than 6 weeks, you lose.

Why do we want to enforce a rule that says characters must not be played every session if they want to rank high level abilities? This rule indicates that a character ranking a high level ritual or weapon really should not be played for 6 months, otherwise you risk losing at least 3 months of training time.

Given that the character is still spending the right amount of time and exp, who cares how long the training is split over? What would be the problem if the character split their ranking up over 4 years? Why do we have this constraint?

Imagine that one of my characters wants to learn alchemy and spends one week each year over 8 years to complete the ranking. Does this cause any problems? If it doesn't hurt the game (and I can't see how it could), then why don't we free up the restrictions and make it easier for people to develop their characters the way they want, and still play them as often as they want.

I suggest that we allow people to spread the ranking time out over as many days as they want.

Andrew 10:15, 4 Nov 2005 (NZDT)



I think I can see why this is. If you're learning something and then you break partway through, then you tend to forget part of it. The longer the break, the more you forget.

So, yes, I can understand why this rule is there. If the break is too long then, you're going to have to revise all the old stuff again to get back up to speed.

Keith 13:59 6 Nov 2005 (NZDT)



Firstly, rules like this should be justified on their contribution to the game, not on what would happen in "real life". If we worry too much about real life, then we should all roleplay being IT professionals - dragons just don't come into it. My question is about what this rule contributes to the game / to the enjoyment of people playing the game.

Secondly, if you really want to talk about "real-life", there is some evidence that taking breaks between study actually improves retention of information. There are many people who study a subject part-time over many years and do so very successfully. There is no "real-life" reason to insist that if you take longer than 6 months to learn something, then you have to start over.

Andrew 17:55, 6 Nov 2005 (NZDT)



It is a single training track so is already part time.

--Jono Bean 18:34, 6 Nov 2005 (NZDT)


I'd still like there to be some restriction else there is an auditing nightmare when someone tries to allocated every little spare half-day.

My immediate thought was that someone may only have one outstanding interrupted ability, that the length of any interruption may be no longer than 3 month and that a minimum of 1 week training is required to "end" an interruption.

Struan 14:58, 25 Jul 2006 (NZST)


I think the restriction is fine and that some limits on the high level skills and rituals is a good thing. In the main rituals are very powerful magics, wanting to rank them and adventure is just wanting you cake and eating it too.

Mandos 15:22, 25 Jul 2006 (NZST)


I've always played this as resuming training within 6 months of breaking off the last lot. And I don't span over more than two sets of ranking, otherwise the paper trail gets too long.

Stephen 16:39, 27 Jul 2006 (NZST)


The game mechanic is a fine one, exactly as it reads, there is no need to remove or reinterpreted this rule. Ranking high level abilities *should* be difficult to achieve and be seen as something valuable when achieved.

This appears to be yet another push to change rules to power up characters, I don’t believe altering this rule will in benefit the game.

Terry


It was fairly recently that I noticed that this 'rule' wasn't actually written down anywhere, it was just something that many people thought was a rule, and applied. So we voted in the most common understanding. It is perfectly appropriate to question its usefulness, and benefit to the game, at this point IMO. So far the responses haven't been convincing to me in game terms.

In terms of realism, I think most of us would be uncomfortable with a PC say doing a few weeks training, then another few weeks to finish off a couple of years later, regardless of the impact on the game. This 'feels wrong' and too different from 'normality'. While non-realism is OK in most people's minds in reference to dragons, we seem to have a different standard for mundane matters.

I think Struan's suggestion is worth exploring - my gut feels better if the minimum required to end an interruption is longer, perhaps as much as 4 weeks. While a catch-up requirement (say an extra week of training) would 'feel right' to many after a long break, I think this would add unnecessary complexity. Whatever we do, we need to make sure that it isn't a pain to administer.

Errol 10:49, 28 Jul 2006 (NZST)


I find myself thinking the easy solution to this is to change the wording to resumed rather than completed with in six months.
Thus Andrews Adventurer could train his x many weeks over several years as long as he did a bit each season (though why you'd want to train a skill that slowly is beyond me, surly if your training it you have need/want of it sooner). And your adventurer training that 16-20 weeks ritual or weapon skill can afford his long adventure.
Yes Rank 20 in a ritual should be hard but isn't all the ep and the limit of only being able to train magic for those 20 weeks being hard enough on the PC/players.
--Helen 11:33, 29 Oct 2007 (NZDT)

If by "the easy solution" you mean "change the rule to be something quite different by changing one word", yes. From the point of view of being easy to check, not so good. --Errol 15:02, 29 Oct 2007 (NZDT)

I much prefer the "resumed" option. Why not take as long as you want, overall. It's all about playing the game. It's hardly a big change as implied by Errol, and for keeping track of, much easier to check when last worked on than when first worked on. --Kelsie 10:27, 21 Mar 2008 (NZST)


What about taking away the trainer bonus or adding an ep cost (for non-skills) when splitting ranking over multiple sessions? Michael


And why exactly are we preventing or penalising people for wanting to play their characters without long enforced layoffs? Given that "toughness" is mainly measured in items, high ranks in rituals (and to a lesser extent weapons) are a matter of showing a character's specialisation and focus; its usually "more optimal" to avoid rituals > Rank 10 (apart from purification) and learn hand and a half rather than rank 10 weapons, so it's not about powering up characters. If a player wants to split ranking, they just need to have as much paperwork as they have chosen to create, and it takes very little time for a GM to say "yup, the time on those ranking sheets add up for that skill - your rank 20 ritual is OK".

Also, for those (rare) skills that take 3 or 4 weeks a rank, the rule is somewhat limiting. Andreww 17:15, 21 Mar 2008 (NZST)