Oiling the cogs of use-based systems

[DraQ]

(To avoid grinding)

Use based systems are fairly attractive - they are inherently more logical than XP based ones and they allow for large degree of automation of the gameplay mechanics which results in greatly improved flexibility in cRPGs where there is no GM who could reward player who came up with an unorthodox solution to a problem. They also have virtually no limitations (apart from things like preventing a barbarian from learning alphabet from his all-day head bashing session, that is) compared to XP based ones - you can manually (as in "by the hand of GM") add points to individual stats where it's applicable too, which can be used analogously to plot-based XP rewards.

There is only one problem - most (if not all) implementations suck horribly by allowing egregious exploit in the form of grinding. The problem is so prevalent one would think the use-based is beyond all help, were it not for the fact that dreaded RL uses similar kind of mechanics, yet, no matter how many hours of your life you devote to stabbing hamsters, it won't turn you into expert swordsman. Something is very clearly wrong with the implementation, not the underlying principle. And I know how to fix this:

The simplest way around it would be making experience gain in given skill dependent on the chance of failure. The experience earned from successful use could be directly proportional to the chance of failure (hence when you can perform given task fully reliably it's trivial to you and won't yield any experience), while experience earned from failure might be proportional to the probability of success (a bit fuzzier logic here - if you can only fail epically in given situation there isn't much to learn from such failure, but technically it works the same as in previous case, being simple inversion of aforementioned mechanism).

Second stopper to unlimited self-improvement would be time, or, more specifically, time that matters in game.

Third one - limited (but flexible - we don't need no rigid classes) character potential. It can't stop self improvement, but will direct it, preventing characters from becoming identical, infinitely versatile jacks of all trades.

Thoughts?
Discuss!-ion?
Andhaira?

 

[Andhaira]

use based systems are not only easily exploitable, they are also so tempting to exploit they ruin the game. I mean if you have a jumping skill, you are forced to jump around everywhere like a retard to increase it.

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

Experience + useage + money for training = how many points in a certain skill you can have perhaps.

Magic Candle wasn't very easy to exploit when it came to skills. Now and again you could gain a point through successful experience, but for larger gains you needed money and time to attend training.

 

[coldcrow]

Why can't you just think a little step further so I won't have to repeat it over and over:

Just impose a cap on use-trained skills/stats. Tie that cap to anything making sense: Age, combat experience, study, realism, whatever. Then you have the perfect stat-based rpg.

But again, people are so used to constant gratification after killing stuff or doing quests that they seemingly can't think out of that box.

 

[Kz3r0]

Well an interesting implementation would be that more a skill is developed more handicaps gives to you, if you are overspecialized in some skill some other skill, of the same area of expertise, get higher malus when using it.
For example, epic use of the sword equals to crappy use of the shield, or inefficient use of the armour.
Also you can implement a grudge system that improve the capabilities of your enemies if you kill too much of them, to the point that they start to chasing and ambush you, raising the difficulty of the game.

 

[Dionysus]

The simplest way around it would be making experience gain in given skill dependent on the chance of failure. The experience earned from successful use could be directly proportional to the chance of failure (hence when you can perform given task fully reliably it's trivial to you and won't yield any experience), while experience earned from failure might be proportional to the probability of success (a bit fuzzier logic here - if you can only fail epically in given situation there isn't much to learn from such failure, but technically it works the same as in previous case, being simple inversion of aforementioned mechanism).

I don't think you've solved it. It's tough to put a failure rate into some skills (like acrbatics in TES), and there's still nothing to stop someone from "practicing" certain skills by themselves (like many spells).

A use-based system could only work with few skills and little or no opportunity to use the skills outside of solving quests. I really don't see the appeal. People say that the systems are more logical or realistic, but I don't think that's very important in RPG design. It isn't fun to become a better fighter in RL. Winning is fun, but practice sucks.

 

[Phelot]

Well, probably the simplest solution to the grind problem in use based systems would be to not have respawning enemies.

 

[Castanova]

No, that's not a solution. Then you just artificially prolong combat encounters in order to beef up your skills that don't directly damage your opponent. Plus, this is RPG Codex, so implying that all skills are combat-related in the first place amounts to egregious blasphemy.

Use-based systems can actually be quite addictive because your skills can improve continuously rather than every hour or so of gametime. After every single fight in Wizardry 8, you get that pop-up box with your skills improving. Very satisfying from an addiction point of view. Not very interesting at all from a character development point of view, though.

A manual assignment of skill points or whatever is still the best system. It's fun to build characters and even for the resident LARPers, here, it's pretty stupid for your "Diplomacy" skill to go up a point each time you chat with an NPC.

 

[Mystary!]

Hm, just a thought. You can make it so the skills increase only when used to complete quests. Jumping across a cliff to lure an ogre down the edge to kill it would increase the jumping skill, had you chosen to fight it, your fighting skills would increase. Of course you would have to have alot of these different options throughout the game.

 

[Phelot]

Man, the more I think about this the more it stumps me. I was gonna say that if you leveled things like locks, monsters, or conversations so you only advance if it's still a challenge, but obviously that would still encourage grinding.

I wonder if a game has a fairly realistic survival system that requires food, water, rest, etc. if maybe that could break up the grind a bit. So you wouldn't be able to just hack through enemies all day and not get fatigued. Also, maybe a non combat skill can wear down a player, such as lock picking too much gives you shaky fingers or something, plus having to worry about food and water should also break it up.

The only way to remove the effects of fatigue or a tired mind would be to sleep which should help make the player feel that they're really playing a character as opposed to a machine, no?

I realize this won't really end the addiction of grinding, but it would at least make it a bit more realistic and I think rather fun having something break it up a bit.

 

[mondblut]

No, that would make grind twice as boring as it is now. Instead of grind, grind, grind here you have grind, rest, grind, rest, grind, rest. Yawn.

XP-based + no random encounters = no grind. Case closed.

 

[denizsi]

they are inherently more logical than XP based ones

This is the initial trap most everyone falls into. I did as well, once upon a time. There's a certain, addictive charm to use-based systems, which provides some kind of instant gratification similar to having fast food. Then you realize that, use-based systems so far have been inherently broken by lack of restrictions. If only those games restricted you from advancing in skill you didn't pick at all.

There is only one problem - most (if not all) implementations suck horribly by allowing egregious exploit in the form of grinding.

Actually, no. The real problem is that you can raise any stat given enough time and tries regardless of your base stats and choice of skills. Grinding to reach uber levels is just one of the aspects. However, you can use grind metaphorically to represent all game activities that can be repeated to advance in any skill.

Anyway, I've proposed two relevant things in two different threads in the past which I can't seem to find ATM. The first one is to provide a quick and easy fix in the form of putting advancement limits on objects and critters, as vaguely mentioned here as well. There would be a maximum limit of levels to everything that you could reach by performing the associated action, while entirely restricting advancing on skills you didn't pick. Eg. a giant rat would have a maximum level of 20, so if you're over level 20 in your associated skill, any further rat-grinding would yield no results at all. Or a lock with a maximum level of 40 (apart from the minimum level required to be able to pick it), meaning you can't raise you lockpicking skill beyond 40 by picking that lock.

This is, of course, a straightforward fix to the TES school of use-based. On a certain level, it's very similar to XP systems, as certain XP gains become so minuscule, insignificant and such a waste of time when you hit mid to higher levels, there's no point in doing it at all.

The other one (which I could only find vaguely mentioned by me here, basically proposes that a skill would consist of a level of knowledge, and level of experience where level of knowledge defined your actual current limits -not the average outcome of your usage of that skill- in your training, and where level of experience defined actual practical experience in the past, and something along the lines. Bah, I'm forcing myself to not fall asleep. I may post more later. Shame that I couldn't find the old thread.

Also, maybe a non combat skill can wear down a player, such as lock picking too much gives you shaky fingers or something

I like the sound of that. Not this, but the opposite, fighting with swords and such too much degrading your manual dexterity with such delicate skills. This is worth remembering in my opinion.

XP-based + no random encounters = no grind. Case closed.

That's bad design by principle. Grind is particularly bad when it's an obligation. Add travel guilds, caravans that protects you from the burden of random encounters. Skills that let you spot and avoid ambushes, traps, etc. If it's random encounters with thugs, find your local scum who's known to be related to such thugs, and pay tribute to him so you can travel safely. Better yet, join their filthy organization, and take over! It it's wild life, find guides, rangers etc, who will do the same. Or provoke hunting guilds into a cleansing. More yet, write quests that involve ways in and around random encounters, perhaps even connected to the plot. Put some incentive to avoid grind and find other things to do, and let those who prefer grind have their grind. Live and let live.

 

[ShavenApe]

Yeah, I'd kinda like to see a better go at use-based systems too. I think you may have hit on something good with basing the reward for actions on the "chance of failure". That way, when you're fighting someone weaker than you, or attempting to con a moron, etc, you don't receive much benefit in terms of those particular skills (loot is another story). I'd also have a cut-off point where skills receive no benefit at all if the chance of failure is below some minimum. This would be to prevent people running some sort of bot overnight to gain whatever small advantage they can with no effort on their part.

One thought for reducing the possibility of repetition-scumming could be to have consequences for failed actions that prevent the repetition. For example, in Arcanum where failed lock-picking would have a chance to jam the lock. Or a clumsy blow with a sword might blunt the blade or dislocate your arm, forcing you to go get (moderately expensive) healing or repairs. That way, its more of a waste of time to try and increase skills through repetitious easy tasks.

Hopefully this would result in players constantly looking for new ways to challenge themselves in order to improve themselves. Personally, I'd make the rewards for taking on dangerous situations (much lower chances of success) increase in a much-greater-than-linear fashion so that particularly clever players can achieve much higher levels by surviving tougher situations.

 

[Derek Larp]

What about a system that mixes use based and XP?

If you gain a level, the skills you used much get a multiplier like:

You never use a skill 0.333x or 0.5x

You used a skill once or seldom 1x

You used a skill often 2x-4x

You rolled a natural 20 (or whatever the maximum of the "dice" you use is) 5x+

 

[GarfunkeL]

What's wrong with the UO system? You had max 700 skillpoints, each skill could be anything between 0.0-100.0 and there were 20+ skills, iirc. Skills were raised by practice against more and more difficult obstacles/enemies - the final 10 points were very, very hard to get. That way nobody could master all the skills.

 

[mondblut]

Add travel guilds, caravans that protects you from the burden of random encounters. Skills that let you spot and avoid ambushes, traps, etc. If it's random encounters with thugs, find your local scum who's known to be related to such thugs, and pay tribute to him so you can travel safely.

Way to miss the point.

Random encounters = a grind exploit in xp-based game. Like, hit the wall or rotate on place until another encounter is triggered. No random encounters = nothing to grind at, other than maybe getting ahead of yourself in terms of encounter difficulty to earn more XP quicker, and then wipe the floor with skipped weaker encounters. But that's hardly "grinding", since you'll have the same amount of xp by the end of the day, and time and efforts spent on harder encounters may be about as equal as you'll save on weaker ones.

Put some incentive to avoid grind and find other things to do, and let those who prefer grind have their grind. Live and let live.

Personally, I have nothing against a little grind. Hell, I never left my first rented place in Daggerfall until I maxed the 6 skills that matter (which just happened to be 6 magic skills, heheh, magic absorption FTW), and killed like 6000000 of general Yamo's umpani guards in Wizardry 7.

 

[Lord Rocket]

If you guys have been following the PnP nerds recently, you've probably heard of the Old School Renaissance, who are a bunch of revisionist goons who are attempting to whitewash the lamer aspects of ye olde RP and especially D&D. But they have some interesting ideas about random encounters.
Anyway, since encountering monsters isn't the main source of XP in D&D - that would be acquisition (the second RPG, T&T, put it's emphasis on exploration, incidentally) - random encounters are bad, and a way of depleting a player's resources (HP, ammunition, and especially spells) rather than a means of strengthening them. Since the encounters were also time based, ie. check for an encounter every ten minutes of game time when you're in a dungeon (it was probably once per day overland, but I can't really remember), they also discouraged time wasting and excessive resting.
Hence, random encounters can be used to discourage grind. Just make the main means of XP growth something that isn't fighting - I'm not a huge PS:T fan on reflection, but this is something it did rather well. Or, more correctly, could have done rather well.

As for the topic at hand, use based systems in CRPGs just aren't going to work as well as they do in PnP games since there isn't a GM there to look askance at any blatant exploitation. Fyezall probably has the best system for preventing exploits but it isn't really very practical from a design and programming standpoint, and it might hamper player creativity since the devs are going to have to codify what they can do in a certain situation.
That said, there's a PnP game called FATE (it's generic version is free, by the way, and is worth plundering for ideas even if it isn't an appropriate ruleset for a CRPG) which uses a 'skill pyramid' system, where if you want a skill of level 4 you'd have to have at least two others of level 3, three of level 2 and four of level 1, or something like that, anyway. I forget. Implementing a similar system in a CRPG would eliminate hyperspecialisation, although it wouldn't eliminate grind entirely. I think that's OK, personally, since a little bit of grind is enjoyable in small doses. It shouldn't be the most viable strategy for winning a game, though.

 

[denizsi]

What about a system that mixes use based and XP?

If you gain a level, the skills you used much get a multiplier like:

You never use a skill 0.333x or 0.5x

You used a skill once or seldom 1x

You used a skill often 2x-4x

You rolled a natural 20 (or whatever the maximum of the "dice" you use is) 5x+

Think about this some more, I'm sure you'll notice that there's something severely wrong with it.

 

[Zomg]

Have a training system that burns other resources (time, money, nanomodules, obscure master NPCs, whatever) that raises caps on your skills. The actual values of the skills rise in a use-based method very quickly - the training is the bottleneck.

I guess that's basically a dodge away from a use-based system because use-based eats a dick without very smart contextualization (ex. knowing the subtle difference between a dangerous or costly fight and a trivial fight), meaning it's basically impossible for a computer.

 

[MisterStone]

I think that Linley's Dungeon Crawl had some good ideas about skill development. Basically you have to earn experience, which goes to an EXP pool, and you can only improve skills (through use) when you have EXP in the pool.

Of course, Crawl is a roguelike and all the EXP is to be had from killing monsters. But I think that the skill use mechanic would work well; you'd just need to make it so that EXP comes from quests rather than killing. Killing stuff would let you practice skills (if you had unused EXP in your pool), but not necessarily give you EXP.

Also stuff like finding rare trainers/spending cash to raise skill caps would be a good idea, I guess...

 

[J1M]

All of the "good" use based systems proposed here are just minor delays of acquisition of a standard XP/level/trainer based system.

Glad we have closed the door on use based systems for good.

 

[John Yossarian]

First, make sure the game does not allow the PC to do everything, and make it clear that it is this way. You can't kill everyone, or save/help everyone, or complete all quests, etc. Make sure the player knows he must pick his battles.

If done well, this removes the need to grind.

Second, do like AoD. You leave an area for too long, all quests in that area get solved to a default solution (except the ones where it makes sense not to, like multi-area quests).

Third, use the gameworld instead of contrived mechanics to penalize players who go out of their way to grind. Jumping all day? Out of my guild nutjob. What good is 100 acrobatics gonna do you if we don't tell you which mountain the loot is in?

Others like this:

I wonder if a game has a fairly realistic survival system that requires food, water, rest, etc. if maybe that could break up the grind a bit. So you wouldn't be able to just hack through enemies all day and not get fatigued. Also, maybe a non combat skill can wear down a player, such as lock picking too much gives you shaky fingers or something, plus having to worry about food and water should also break it up.

The only way to remove the effects of fatigue or a tired mind would be to sleep which should help make the player feel that they're really playing a character as opposed to a machine, no?

fighting with swords and such too much degrading your manual dexterity with such delicate skills.

One thought for reducing the possibility of repetition-scumming could be to have consequences for failed actions that prevent the repetition. For example, in Arcanum where failed lock-picking would have a chance to jam the lock. Or a clumsy blow with a sword might blunt the blade or dislocate your arm, forcing you to go get (moderately expensive) healing or repairs. That way, its more of a waste of time to try and increase skills through repetitious easy tasks.

These help in taking away the incentive to grind, by removing the ability to grind and do other stuff .


I don't know why it's so hard for RPGs. I'm just a newb at HoI2, but I can't imagine going around waging war on weak countries just so my generals and units get higher skill in preparation for a tough war being a good strategy. Are there any kind of skill caps in those games?

 

[DraQ]

The simplest way around it would be making experience gain in given skill dependent on the chance of failure.

I don't think you've solved it.

Maybe because it's only a part of the actual solution?

It's tough to put a failure rate into some skills (like acrbatics in TES)

I'm toying with making skills usable only in the proper gameworld context (which might be integrated with context-sensitive interface). For example, a character might jump over, onto, from, or away (dodge) from something, but wouldn't bunny hop or run against a wall. Climbing might only get experience when you're high enough to suffer serious injuries from falling, etc. Consuming supplies and getting character fatigued would also prevent grinding.

and there's still nothing to stop someone from "practicing" certain skills by themselves (like many spells).

It does handle practice by doing piss-easy tasks, however. One thing at a time - I did mention it was a partial solution, which could be inferred from the fact I posted other parts in my opening post as well.

A use-based system could only work with few skills and little or no opportunity to use the skills outside of solving quests.

Why? The more the merrier, and the very reason for using such system is automatically tying experience to tasks, rather than quests and restricting the use of this experience. If the game can determine whether the task was hard enough, accounts for limited potential of a character, preventing them from becoming an ultimate jack of all trades, and penalizes grinding itself, it succeeds at use-based.

I really don't see the appeal. People say that the systems are more logical or realistic, but I don't think that's very important in RPG design. It isn't fun to become a better fighter in RL. Winning is fun, but practice sucks.

Verisimilitude, convincing world, suspension of disbelief, etc. Notice that the use-based system doesn't force you to go from zero to hero, nor there is anything preventing it from being suplemented by things like system based on specific (technique, enemy type, etc.) knowledge.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, I'd kinda like to see a better go at use-based systems too. I think you may have hit on something good with basing the reward for actions on the "chance of failure". That way, when you're fighting someone weaker than you, or attempting to con a moron, etc, you don't receive much benefit in terms of those particular skills (loot is another story). I'd also have a cut-off point where skills receive no benefit at all if the chance of failure is below some minimum.

It'd be inefficient anyway - the math of the system shows that the skill will increase the fastest at 50% failure rate. If failure rate achieves zero, no further experience can be gained. You can also add some small percentage to the base failure rate to account for possible fuck-ups, while basing the experience on base failure rate to not get any experience for this small percentage.

This would be to prevent people running some sort of bot overnight to gain whatever small advantage they can with no effort on their part.

If time matters (character gets fatigued, supplies are consumed) and the gameworld isn't passive, it might be effectively discouraged. For example have the character fall unconscious from fatigue, then get eaten by wildlife, robbed by thugs, ass-raped while uncious (with added bonus in form of acquired STDs, incontinence and psychological trauma), stabbed in the kidney and/or arrested for vagrancy by city guards - it should send a message.

One thought for reducing the possibility of repetition-scumming could be to have consequences for failed actions that prevent the repetition. For example, in Arcanum where failed lock-picking would have a chance to jam the lock. Or a clumsy blow with a sword might blunt the blade or dislocate your arm, forcing you to go get (moderately expensive) healing or repairs. That way, its more of a waste of time to try and increase skills through repetitious easy tasks.

Excellent idea!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they are inherently more logical than XP based ones

This is the initial trap most everyone falls into. I did as well, once upon a time. There's a certain, addictive charm to use-based systems, which provides some kind of instant gratification similar to having fast food.

I don't see this instant gratification in use-based systems. I do, however, see jarring lack of logic - either due to lack of restrictions, or due to arbitrary ones - in XP based skill development.

Then you realize that, use-based systems so far have been inherently broken by lack of restrictions.

This. We need to make restrictions, that are not arbitrary, but are meaningful.

If only those games restricted you from advancing in skill you didn't pick at all.

An example of bad, arbitrary, restriction.

There might be some restriction based on character attributes (dumb character just won't grasp spellcasting, one with clumsy fingers might utterly fail at lockpicking), but restricting a fighter from picking some pointers regarding basic lockpicking from a rogue is artificial.

Anyway, I've proposed two relevant things in two different threads in the past which I can't seem to find ATM. The first one is to provide a quick and easy fix in the form of putting advancement limits on objects and critters, as vaguely mentioned here as well. There would be a maximum limit of levels to everything that you could reach by performing the associated action, while entirely restricting advancing on skills you didn't pick. Eg. a giant rat would have a maximum level of 20, so if you're over level 20 in your associated skill, any further rat-grinding would yield no results at all. Or a lock with a maximum level of 40 (apart from the minimum level required to be able to pick it), meaning you can't raise you lockpicking skill beyond 40 by picking that lock.

I don't like it, or rather the way it'd be implemented. The idea itself seems sound, but the implementation would require too much manual tuning on part of the maker. Some automation, like tying the gains from successful use to the failure probability, would be desirable.

The other one (which I could only find vaguely mentioned by me here, basically proposes that a skill would consist of a level of knowledge, and level of experience where level of knowledge defined your actual current limits -not the average outcome of your usage of that skill- in your training, and where level of experience defined actual practical experience in the past, and something along the lines. Bah, I'm forcing myself to not fall asleep. I may post more later. Shame that I couldn't find the old thread.

Do elaborate. What you have posted here might prove interesting, but it's too vague to do anything with it.

Also, maybe a non combat skill can wear down a player, such as lock picking too much gives you shaky fingers or something

I like the sound of that. Not this, but the opposite, fighting with swords and such too much degrading your manual dexterity with such delicate skills. This is worth remembering in my opinion.

I don't really like it - feels artificial again. Now, broken fingers hampering your dexterity...

XP-based + no random encounters = no grind. Case closed.

That's bad design by principle. Grind is particularly bad when it's an obligation. Add travel guilds, caravans that protects you from the burden of random encounters. Skills that let you spot and avoid ambushes, traps, etc. If it's random encounters with thugs, find your local scum who's known to be related to such thugs, and pay tribute to him so you can travel safely. Better yet, join their filthy organization, and take over! It it's wild life, find guides, rangers etc, who will do the same. Or provoke hunting guilds into a cleansing. More yet, write quests that involve ways in and around random encounters, perhaps even connected to the plot. Put some incentive to avoid grind and find other things to do, and let those who prefer grind have their grind. Live and let live.

I think the best way to state the goal of this thread would be:
"Devise a use-based system, where no grind is more time-efficient, nor yields better character than playing it normally".

Ok, how would you go about limiting character potential in a way that wouldn't hamper flexibility (arbitrary opposing pairs of skills, for example.) nor would it feel artificial, fellow codices?

 

[GarfunkeL]

I don't know why it's so hard for RPGs. I'm just a newb at HoI2, but I can't imagine going around waging war on weak countries just so my generals and units get higher skill in preparation for a tough war being a good strategy. Are there any kind of skill caps in those games?

Yes but the caps in HoI are quite high plus since you loose a skill point when you promote and gaining xp slows down the higher rank you are... But there's also people who issue a general for each and every division so that they maximize the amount of generals gaining XP and go through the hassle of giving orders to single divisions instead of army corps.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Well an interesting implementation would be that more a skill is developed more handicaps gives to you, if you are overspecialized in some skill some other skill, of the same area of expertise, get higher malus when using it.
For example, epic use of the sword equals to crappy use of the shield, or inefficient use of the armour.
Also you can implement a grudge system that improve the capabilities of your enemies if you kill too much of them, to the point that they start to chasing and ambush you, raising the difficulty of the game.

Is hyperspecialisation really a common problem in use-based systems? I would have thought the opposite - that hyperspecialisation (i.e. min-maxing) was a side-effect of xp + stat-point systems, where you had full armchair control over stat-point allocation, and insufficient points to master them all, and usually it is better to be really good at a couple of things than average at all (better to be able to pick 100% of locks, than be able to pick the easiest 50% and also bash the easiest 50% - ok, that's skill duplication, but you could say the same about stealth vs combat).

The problem I've encountered in use-based games is the exact opposite - master-of-all-trades, i.e. bunny-hopping with the sprint key permanently pressed, and randomly swinging the sword constantly, only stopping to cast one's entire mana-pool of spells, with the result of grinding up every single skill, without trading off any. Some means of encouraging specialisation in use-based games, or at least greater specialisation than is common now, would be a good start.

Enemies learning, hunting and ambushing if you piss them off too much is a great idea in any event, not just for a use-based game, but it strikes me as something that sounds brilliant but isn't practically possible for a non-ASCII game. It just has that ring of 'enormous programming and system requirements' shining off it. If a developer tried it, I think we'd be more likely to get some lame half-implementation that is worse than none at all, i.e. simply adding hp and damage to monsters, so that rats become vermin tanks with claws-of-fiery-death, or random BG-style spawns (ala the flaming fist in BG1, if you have low rep) when you enter an area.

Edit: come to think of it, actual Warhammer-esque tanks, driven and manned by packs of rats, raining claws of fiery death from their cannons, would be a pretty neat encounter in a comical rpg-lite sendup. Have the player do the oldstyle 'kill the rats' quest at the start of the game, and then sprinkle various 'revenge attacks' by the deceased rats' family over the course of the game, culminating in said tanks late in the piece..

Back on topic: there's a lot of ways the use-based system could be improved, many of which have been mentioned, but there's always a question of whether the changes leave any point in there being a use-based system. Any sizeable reform seems to require hefty limits on the ability to improve through use. In a single-player game, there's not a lot of point making the last few points take forever to get, as that just makes people grind longer, OR if it is really too hard, then 95 (or wherever the 'realistic' cutoff point occurs) becomes the new 100, with all the encounters designed on the expectation that players aren't going to ever max out the skill. So instead, we basically limit the ability to improve through use, by exp, quest requirements, time requirements etc. Now for those limits to have any effect, they have to kick in AFTER one does the necessary use-based grinding, or else they wouldn't be real limits (i.e. there has to be some period where you've got enough use-based experience, or would have, but you still need to get the exp, or quest, or time, requirement). Which just begs the question: why not just ditch the use-based aspect altogether, then, and just use whatever system of exp, quests, time, etc that you are using to limit the use-based growth.?

Take WoW, for example. That has a use-based system, capped by levels and class. You can only increase your skills by a certain amount per level, and those amounts are determined by class. So you can't grind your way to max melee, because you'll hit a point where it goes 'sry, you're level 1, so you can't have more than 10 in melee'. The trouble is that the use-based element becomes trivial, and hence even more of a blatant (though less pervasive and less problematic) grind. You get your level - i.e. the 'limit' requirement, which is also the REAL system for improvement - and then go grind up your skills to the cap for that level. It's barely noticeable because it doesn't take long, but that's just because the use-based system is so minor.

But that also reflects the problem: as soon as you cap or limit use-based growth, you may as well just ditch that growth and use whatever system is providing the cap.