[adzling]

I happen to know that the SRM FAQ people thought long and hard about what to do about training times for organized play.
...
But for what it's worth, the CRB's rule is that the GM simply says how long training takes.  the "suggestions" may look like official rules due to being incorporated into the Advancement Costs table, but at the core of things those times are still just a suggestion on how long training should take in a campaign.  As stated, admittedly understatedly, in the Character Advancement rules preceding that table...

It doesn’t matter how carefully you describe something as being merely a suggestion if they are, objectively, just really, really bad ideas.

Let’s be clear: the “suggestions” are six months to take Firearms from 5->6 and a full year to take Agility from 5->6. I cannot imagine anyone’s table being the better for accepting these times. The fact that even the SRM team rejected them should tell you how bad these are, given how closely SRM hews to RAW.

They’re a waste of paper. Just because they’re “suggestions” doesn’t mean it’s OK that they suck. The book would be flat-out better if that table was just completely deleted.

Edit - and actually you’re overselling what the CRB says anyway: “The time it takes to raise any given ability is truly only suggested—the actual time used is up to the gamemaster, with times best fitting the story they want to tell, but we offer the listed times to create a general consensus.” (emphasis mine). That’s a bit stronger than “here’s some numbers, ignore them if you want.” GMs are being encouraged to riff on these numbers, not discard them out of hand.

This is all just another fail due to the lack of coherent editing/ proofing/ people knowing wtf they are doing at Catalyst.
I mean there are sooo many things like this in the game it's rather hilarious.
You can't flip a page without bumping into some other half-baked, poorly thought-through rule, suggestion or fluff text.
It's clear why the products are like this, and it's not money or the size of Catalyst because both the French and German publishers are far better than Catalyst at this stuff.
It boils down to will & competency.

[Reaver]

 Part of this is perception.

Attributes are not a linear power scale. The human record for a powerlift is 2380lbs. (That impressive!!). But that doesn't mean someone with a 1 in strength can powerlify 400 pounds.....


And really, how much training and practice is needed to improve a skill? Going from dropping your gun every pull of the trigger to pitting Aces at 200 yards is sonething thst takes YEARS of practice!





Or, 175 karma and an afternoon to some people...

[Lormyr]

You're not wrong Reaver, but this is also a game. I firmly believe that, when playing a game, the majority of players would prefer to receive the benefit of their karma spends relatively quickly, rather than potentially 10 or more sessions later (which is only 1 run/month).

[Reaver]

You're not wrong Reaver, but this is also a game. I firmly believe that, when playing a game, the majority of players would prefer to receive the benefit of their karma spends relatively quickly, rather than potentially 10 or more sessions later (which is only 1 run/month).

And I don't disagree either. But this is one of those things that people will bitch about on both ends. Classic no win. They even put it as a suggestion, and yet people bitch! Imagine if they said 'month per rank. No exceptions!'.  Fireworks....

And considering I have legitimately seen people say "well the rules don't say anything about Gravity...:"


Take some responsibility for your fun!!!!
What, is it only us cavemen gamers that say "this rule sucks, lets ignore it!" (Looking at you, DnD encumbrance rules).



EDIT:
Phones + fat fingers - spell check = unreadable post.. cleaned up now that I am at a keyboard.

[Marcus]

From beginning of TTRPGs the whole question of character advancement has been a point that's always created controversy. Starting with Level systems, then into more granular approaches. Eventually we reach the point of some of the more exotic attribute raising schemes developed in the game Morrowind.

At heart this is fairly simple players like rewards, players like their characters to get stronger. This is good for your game. The complicating factor players also need to be challenged, and something worked for is more satisfying then something easily achieved.  So how does one make a graph and find the intersection of those two curves? I don't think you can. SR isn't overly simulationist particularly sense 4th. So my suggestion is always try and link it to play, allow player to advance a skill when something in the game makes it feel appropriate. Whether that's training with someone, or X number of failures on that roll, or whatever seems sufficiently interesting. People are different they learn and improve at different rates. Often the more subtle components of a given skill only become apparent when you try and explain it or teach it to another person. Try and make it fun.

[BeCareful]

Yeah, my philosophy on advancement is to factor that in with how you plan on setting up the whole campaign. If everyone wants to have a downtime calendar, planning training time will be another complication. If everyone wants it light and episodic, "You can improve 1 thing between sessions" is simple, especially if people normally plan on getting up to 3 ranks in tertiary skills anyway.
At some point, I want to reward my PCs with an all-expenses-paid trip to a resort, where they can spend the whole time training in half the time (or just chug cocktails on the beach).

[Reaver]

FWIW,
At my table the basic way I handle this is  if you are improving a skill that gets regular use from you, then I see the Karma spent raising it as a natural progression of your use of said skill. Spend the Karma and be done with it.

If its a skill that you rarely use, or a new skill, then you must account for its increase somehow. This usually boils down to "on my downtime I spend it learning Basket Weaving from the online college... And at the end of the week, he got a new skill... (in usually 20 mins of table bull-shittery that happens at every table).


Seriously, there are real issues that deserve the Salt. This is such a minor thing in the grand scheme

[Sphinx]

We keep it simple at our table. To prevent characters from becoming "overnight experts," they can only raise skills or attributes by one point between adventures. E.g., the street samurai became the team's designated lockpicker by building up her Locksmith skill from 0 to 6, one rating point at a time, over the course of six shadowruns.

[Michael Chandra]

For reference: In SR6, to raise your Engineering from 0 to 6 would cost 105 Karma (aka 15~20 runs), and 21 months under normal training time guidelines. You're allowed to train 3 things at the same time.

[Aria]

Skillwires... “I know Kung Fu...!”

[Reaver]

Skillwires... “I know Kung Fu...!”

Which is a good counter to why they needed a guideline in the first place. One of the advantages of a SKillwire is "any skill, anytime, any level*" (*with in the scope of the rating you bought)... This matters if it can take weeks or months for a character to learn a suddenly vital skill. But being able to just "Jack and Go" is a huge advantage.

An advantage reduced if you allow sudden, instant skill progression.

Food for thought anyways.

[markelphoenix]

GM should make it clear up front how they're ruling per game. If not, you'll be in awkward place of misaligned expectations and probably players looking for another game/table.

[Shinobi Killfist]

What works for one campaign doesn't necessarily work for another.

Time is basically a third metacurrency.  It goes along with how much nuyen and/or karma something costs to acquire.  There are reasons why time might be more or less valuable, and therefore the pricing in time is more or less important.  But yes if time is so cheap it approaches "free", then time basically just becomes nothing more than extra nuyen tax in the form of more lifestyle payments during that time.

A freaking year to advance one attribute by one point. A year! You are defending it taking a year! Listen to yourself, man. I’m not saying it should be free. I understand why you might want some time in there. But let’s be reasonable. A year is ridiculous. Surely you know this.

Yeah its one thing to offer things up as suggestions, its another to have one set of suggestions and for them to be so far off its not conceivable it will ever be used in any game.  When its like divide by 10 and the suggestion would be okay as a mid range, you are just crazy far off.

[Reaver]

GM should make it clear up front how they're ruling per game. If not, you'll be in awkward place of misaligned expectations and probably players looking for another game/table.

Well, I usually play with the same group of players, so we all know the deal.

For those times I am with a new group of people, I like to spend the first session building the characters all together, while we discuss both the general plot of the campaign (so they know what to expect), go over any "Rules of Issue" such as house rules, or how I determine certain things that are ambiguous. I Also listen to the players, and get a feel for what they are expecting from me as the GM as well, and consider any house rules they may be used to. This also allows me to customize the campaign around the party, and to cover for any group weaknesses. After all, there is no point in me wasting my time with loads of Matrix events if not a single player is playing a matrix based character. Nor do i want to be throwing lots of awakened talent at a largely mundane party.
The idea is for everyone to enjoy themselves for the night. I'm there to tell a Story. The players are the protagonists, from there, I have no idea where it ends; That's up to the players.

BUT, This is a bunch of blokes sitting around a bar table or on basement couches! This is not organized Missions Play. For that there has to be a solid grounding of rules and resolutions, as the expectation is I can take my character and play in Vancouver one week, and then in New York the next with an entirely new group of players while still advancing an plot.

[markelphoenix]

Really weird part for me, is training examples would hyper accelerate the time line if GMs adhered to them and simply did 1 month a run (in game time). Any semi-regular groups would be quickly in the 2090s :-p