Difference in skill advancement between chargen and experience

[drjones]

I've found myself wondering why character generation and subsequent in-play experience work differently in terms of skill cost. During chargen skill cost is linear; you have a certain number of points to distribute and it doesn't matter how high the character advances a skill, the cost remains the same. Experience gained during play works differently, with a weighting factor applied. I'd hypothesize that it could either be a realism factor or a simplification of game mechanics. I'm skeptical of the former possibility as the same chargen process is used for both green and elite characters; it's hard to argue that the process models some sort of more efficient skill development during adolescence and formal education.

[Horsemen]

I've always viewed it as a means to prevent PCs from advancing extremely quickly so that it takes at least a little time to get to those truly exceptional statuses.

[drjones]

I've always viewed it as a means to prevent PCs from advancing extremely quickly so that it takes at least a little time to get to those truly exceptional statuses.

Agreed; the issue I have is with the less costly development during chargen leading to inflated statistics right out of the box. I'm not sure why chargen uses a different system that allows for easier skill advancement.

[Horsemen]

I suspect some of it has to do with the image of simplicity. There are the caps of course but I've always believed that any system is just the starting point. The GM needs to help guide the players toward how they build their characters based upon the campaign which will be played.

If the campaign is balanced and the players realize their characters are going to be using a variety of skills and not just be in the cockpit, they'll build appropriately. Those that don't can be given a chance to rebuild their characters once they realize how much they've handicapped themselves.

[drjones]

I suspect some of it has to do with the image of simplicity. There are the caps of course but I've always believed that any system is just the starting point. The GM needs to help guide the players toward how they build their characters based upon the campaign which will be played.

That's quite likely. However, it in turn raises the question of why have two different systems for improving skills. It seems to me that having one way to handle skill improvement would improve simplicity.

[Horsemen]

Hard to say for sure. It might be a legacy thing as several systems often have a different progression between the two. It could be a maintaining of the status quo given the CUE system use rather than modify it.

Design philosophy and design decisions often can lead to wondering especially if one wasn't a member of the team. There are several other RPGs I play which have left me scratching my scalp at times wondering what they were thinking at the time and wishing I was a fly on the wall. Compared to some of them, this works though. Shrug.

[koraq]

Almost all RPG systems work that way. So, tradition weighs heavy.

It's almost certainly the design intent for experience during play to be a drawn out experience (pun unintentional) so the development of the character builds and arc, and also to slow it down appropriately as to not hit a power level ceiling.