Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

It certainly is... and w/o restating Skarg's comment, I think part of the challenge is realizing who TFT is written for. As it stands, it's going to mostly appeal to those of us who know how to create the details necessary to run a fully-fleshed campaign. Guidelines for awarding XP, creating NPCs and other world-building elements would certainly be useful for new adopters, however.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So I've been re-thinking my revised XP schedule... well, maybe not so much re-thinking as expanding my definition of the ideal character advancement pace.

First of all, I still think the Legacy XP progression is far too slow and doling out XP at a greater rate than suggested is only a partial fix IMO, but I also realize that my assessment depends a great deal on the game's frequency of play. Characters in a regular weekly game session will advance much more quickly than those who only get to adventure together on a monthly basis. So clearly my original proposed schedule would not work for a weekly group (and certainly not for those of you dedicated and lucky enough to pull off more than one session a week) though it may be reasonable for less consistent monthly group (like mine).

All that being said, I would now like to propose for your review three different XP schedules for stat advancement... slow, medium, and fast progression. Most of my other previously stated biases still apply, however.

Slow Progression
(replacing the default table in ITL)
32 or less total points - 100 XP each
33 and 34 points - 200 XP each
35 and 36 points - 400 XP each
37 and 38 points - 800 XP each
39 and 40 points - 1600 XP each
41 and 42 points - 3200 XP each
43 and 44 points - 6400 XP each
45 and 46 points - 12,800 XP each
47 and 48 points - 25,600 XP each
49 and 50 points - 51,200 XP each
etc.

Medium Progression
32 or less total points - 75 XP each
33 and 34 points - 150 XP each
35 and 36 points - 300 XP each
37 and 38 points - 600 XP each
39 and 40 points - 1200 XP each
41 and 42 points - 2400 XP each
43 and 44 points - 4800 XP each
45 and 46 points - 9600 XP each
47 and 48 points - 19,200 XP each
49 and 50 points - 38,400 XP each
etc.

Fast Progression
32 or less total points - 75 XP each
33 to 36 points - 150 XP each
37 to 40 points - 450 XP each
41 to 44 points - 1350 XP each
45 to 48 points - 4050 XP each
49 to 52 points - 12,150 XP each
etc.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

My problem with the current system is that characters run into an exponential wall of ice that freezes their attribute totals while still allowing them infinite skill advance.

I.e.

• 34th attribute or 1/5th of a skill point
• 36th attribute or 3/5ths of a skill point
• 38th attribute or 2 skill points
• 40th attribute or 8 skill points
• 42nd attribute or 32 skill points
• etc

The only thing stopping every character from knowing every talent and spell of IQ or less is that they die of old age first.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

XP rate and expected totals is definitely variable since more than ever different GMs can give out very different amounts of XP.

And, for different things. For example, I don't relate to what you wrote above about a rate based on frequency of play, since play sessions don't necessarily reflect anything about the PCs in the game world, and I want XP to represent something in the game world, not the players' world.

I think more in terms of what stats represent what sort of character with what level of talent, training and experience?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Well, the schedules above address the first issue. The second one is trickier although restoring the relationship between IQ and the post-creation acquisition of talents and spells works for me TBH.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

BTW, I will probably use a variation to the 'Fast Progression' table above for my own games.

Alternate Fast Progression
31 or less total points - 75 XP each
32 to 34 points - 150 XP each
35 to 37 points - 300 XP each
38 to 40 points - 600 XP each
41 to 43 points - 1200 XP each
44 to 46 points - 2400 XP each
47 to 49 points - 4800 XP each
50 to 52 points - 9600 XP each
etc.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I get what you are saying, but in my experience, the pace of character advancement also has a real-world impact on player engagement and satisfaction. If it's too slow, the players may feel frustrated or bored because it takes so long to see their characters really grow and change. But to clarify my statement above, I didn't mean to say that frequency of play was the only, or even the most important, factor but i believe that it is a factor that a GM should consider when selecting a stat progression rate for their table. That's why I think having slow/medium/fast options might be a helpful tool for other GMs.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

This is what experience means to me but on the flip side there's a distance between the details of what the PCs actually do in the world and what happens in the stories you play at the table. As every player knows, GMs usually compress time during long-distance travel but the PCs can be training during that time. We don't simulate every practice session, every conversation, and every moment of inspiration.

Also, similar activities can produce wildly different amounts of learning. There's a huge difference between beneficial "deliberate practice" and non-beneficial activities. I.e. XP from activities shouldn't be deterministic, it will vastly depend on whether the activities actually teach the actor something. From this perspective, it might be more realistic to award weighted random amounts of XP since there's no way to know whether a combat actually teaches a character anything. I'm not in favor of this though.

What it boils down to for me is that XP systems are a matter of taste and it depends on what "feels right" for the players and the GM. As the RAW states, "it's a GM decision."

My personal preference is "what makes sense for the story" and "what is the most entertaining and fun." I have no problem, for instance, with the PCs having adventures "off camera" in between stories and taking all that XP and just smooshing it out to 100 XP per session :). Likewise for cash. I see cash and XP rewards as approximations of what the PCs earned in-game, on and off camera. I'd be happy with a session-based cash reward system for that matter.

Many of my preferences as a GM (and player) are obviously different from yours, Skarg, but I'm sure I'd have a ton of fun playing at your table!

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So what would be a good guideline for XPs per encounter?

My Firepower ratings?

https://www.hcobb.com/tft/firepower.html

Then at ITL129 the characters should have gotten 18 XPs each (Troll FP of 72 divided by four characters.)

Should this be adjusted by how curbstompy the fight was? This was clearly a two-troll party, so halve the XPs down to 9 each?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I think an XP award needs to accommodate both the 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' aspects of encounters. XP also needs to scale up as challenges become more difficult while remaining balanced relative to the 'level' of the character. The old rules did this somewhat by using damage dealt by characters as the basis for a good portion of earned XP (i.e. higher-level foes had more ST and thus would generate more XP), but the new rules abandon this approach to go with more a subjective model.

Your Firepower ratings definitely provide a clear guide for the 'quantitative' element, but they just seem too crunchy for TFT (that's just my own bias, though... I'm actually quite impressed with your FP formula). More importantly, however, they don't address the 'qualitative' side of the equation.

Since I personally find the rate of XP aquisition too slow in the Legacy Edition, the plan for my own games is to use the old method for calculating XP plus a bonus based on the new XP rules thus satisfying both the 'quantitative' and 'qualitative' factors. TBH, I'd like to come up with a better system, but for now I expect this combo approach should work just fine.