Experience Points

[Skarg]

I had players racing to get to the enemy to get the most EP, too! Good times...

The GM says how much EP people get in the new system, so they could award it that same way... unless they're a new GM and that option isn't mentioned anywhere so they never think of it. (Though, the system as written was very unbalanced in the sense that it gave much more EP-per-difficulty to slaughtering unworthy opponents, compared to the modest increase of facing dangerous opponents (unless the GM intervened and only gave good EP for worthy opponents - we made a whole system for that).

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

(Though, the system as written was very unbalanced in the sense that it gave much more EP-per-difficulty to slaughtering unworthy opponents, compared to the modest increase of facing dangerous opponents (unless the GM intervened and only gave good EP for worthy opponents - we made a whole system for that).

The RAW also exponentially increases the required EP for advancement which I always thought took that into account.

I do like your idea of threat values though and it seems to me that scaling the EP rewards should reduce the advancement costs, maybe by an order of magnitude so it changes from exponential to quadratic, linear, or even constant. A constant cost would be best, to me -- like the next attribute always costs 100 EP since it gets harder to earn EPs. This is about the old system, of course, where you don't buy talents with EP and the cost of a talent doesn't become less and less, relative to an attribute. You can't do that as easily if the attribute cost is constant (the talent cost would have to reduce with experience, which would seem strange to me).

Do you use the RAW EP amounts for attribute advancement? I don't remember seeing that in your write up...

[JLV]

I'm kind of with David L. Pulver on this -- I loved the "feel" of the old experience system too (and it was so much better than the AD&D system that existed at the time), but I actually think that mechanically speaking (as a GM), I like the new system a lot better. Still, I wonder if there isn't some way to combine the two... Ah well, let's see what Steve gives us, first.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by zot

The RAW also exponentially increases the required EP for advancement which I always thought took that into account.

It may give that hope, but it's actually not a very steep curve, and relative ability of opponents is a different issue from how hard it is for one character to advance.

That leaves it up to the GM (and/or a system like what we came up with) to notice and assign reduced (or zero) EP when defeating opponents who are lesser, little-, or nearly-zero- threat to the victor (and hopefully more EP when actually defeating something difficult or even better that you are).

Originally Posted by zot

I do like your idea of threat values though and it seems to me that scaling the EP rewards should reduce the advancement costs, maybe by an order of magnitude so it changes from exponential to quadratic, linear, or even constant. A constant cost would be best, to me -- like the next attribute always costs 100 EP since it gets harder to earn EPs. This is about the old system, of course, where you don't buy talents with EP and the cost of a talent doesn't become less and less, relative to an attribute. You can't do that as easily if the attribute cost is constant (the talent cost would have to reduce with experience, which would seem strange to me).

Do you use the RAW EP amounts for attribute advancement? I don't remember seeing that in your write up...

We mostly stopped playing TFT after about six years and converted to GURPS, but we used the ITL EP costs, but actually felt they were slow to get steep. I don't know how many sessions we got in, but we played regularly (though there were several campaigns), and the EP system started getting used in the later years. It was about 3 years of play for one example to go from 32 to 42, and about 5 years of play for another example to go from 32 to 46, but we also were not using the relative EP system until later on.

My feeling now is I'd probably add some intermediate ranges e.g. maybe 35-37: 250, 38-40: 500, 43-45: 2000 or something, as I think the breaks in rate are too far apart and don't reflect the power gaps. That is, I think 2 attribute points is a distinct advantage and 4 attribute points is a heavy one (at least for fighters concentrating in ST + DX), and I also tend to think of characters in categories like that, and that probably it makes sense to have progress rate shifts at such places.

That is, I think relative EP awards makes sense and is a separate though related issue from what the development curve should be like. I think that even if someone is fighting peers when they are world-class folks, that their rate of improvement is still going to tend towards diminishing returns, rather than improving significantly when they beat about 5-6 people, as it is when they are just starting out. Otherwise, abilities will just keep skyrocketing for some people. I think there should be diminishing returns points where it's only humanly possible to get so good.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

[*]The skill monkeys with tactics, physicker, etc. are in trouble because they don't get XP awards for that role, and they won't be as good at fighting as the specialists.[/LIST]
I would be perfectly happy just awarding points per session or objective or whatever. But if Steve is retaining the current system then he needs to keep the awards for non-combat activities, for the sake of non-combat characters.

David nails it. The XP system slows down the fun of combat with record keeping and yet punishes those whose role is support. For example, the tank that manages to keep your wizard alive by block the damage instead of dealing damage. Since the team wins by fighting as a team, I just sum up the available XP (ST+DX of all fallen foes) at the end and evenly distribute it to all participants. Bonuses for acting in character, etc, to be added/removed from that base value.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

David nails it. The XP system slows down the fun of combat with record keeping and yet punishes those whose role is support. For example, the tank that manages to keep your wizard alive by block the damage instead of dealing damage. Since the team wins by fighting as a team, I just sum up the available XP (ST+DX of all fallen foes) at the end and evenly distribute it to all participants. Bonuses for acting in character, etc, to be added/removed from that base value.

David's post was very early in the thread, before Steve posted his new XP rules, but the new rules do line up with the sentiment: players get XP per-session and not based on the sort of accounting in original TFT.

[larsdangly]

I agree that the balance of EXP from combat vs. non combat actions should be shifted, both because the 'accounting' involved in combat experience is too fiddly, and because the risk/reward balance is not great. I don't think it is really possible to progress much if your only source of stat advances is EXP from combat. Earning ~30 points for fighting a well matched foe doesn't go far; each such combat forces you to face a pretty substantial chance of death!

On the other hand, I am a firm believer that the game is more fun if you earn EXP reward for tangible things. I always liked the standard rules that you get rewards for making die rolls and time spent in play. If there were a reward for each standard 3d roll made during play, and you got more for time spent at table (say, 10 per hour), that would go a long way.

[zot]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

If there were a reward for each standard 3d roll made during play, and you got more for time spent at table (say, 10 per hour), that would go a long way.

My problem with that kind of reward system is that we would always forget things like that and then remember at some point and go back to figure out how many we rolls we forgot to record exp for. It really breaks up the flow of play. Also, if you're always "monitoring" for experience, it can take you out of focusing on the play at hand.

[Jim Kane]

I am a firm adherent to EP Award Rules as written; with 1 EP per hit put on a foe, and EP equivalent to the foe's DX going to the figure who delivered the killing blow.

I like that formula *a lot*.

As far EP for doing things successfully, time spent in play, and role-playing, historically speaking, I am probably the *cheapest* GM who ever lived - you would think those EP's were coming out of my own pocket!

A lot of my old pat answers to my stingy EP Awards were things like:

• "Combat is it's own reward."
• "You're alive, ain'tcha !?!"
• "Oh, I see... so you saying you want to go back in there, and go after more EP's... is that it?"
  
  It helps to dramatically :::squint eyes::: at the players when you say these.

Come to think of it, I was even cheaper with the GP Awards you might find in the pouch a Labyrinth Guard, etc. so inflation - EP or GP - was never an issue for us.

JK

[Tolenkar]

After careful consideration, I have to say that I'm with Jim Kane on this. I always thought that the ITL XP rules were excellent. Our GM was more generous with XP for talents used and good role playing, but... still pretty stingy. I appreciate that now and realize, after reading all of the discussions about it, that we avoided the XP and GP bloat that plagued many. I guess I don't mind the changes, but will really make players earn XP no matter what.

Respectfully,
Tolenkar