Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So like several others on this forum, I've been thinking a lot about XP progression. And like a few of you, I also feel that the revised schedule in the new ITL is off-balance somehow.

First, though, a few of my biases (which I'm happy to discuss as well, but I'd like to focus on the proposed XP schedule initially)...
1) The 40-point effective limit on character stats is too restrictive
2) Stat increases should remain the primary use for XP
3) Stat increases should get exponentially harder as the character advances
4) PC races that begin play w/ higher stat point totals should not increase as quickly as those at the 32-point baseline
5) Stat increases can be earned at least every 2-3 game sessions initially and every 5-6 sessions (or more, but not much) after they cross the 40-point threshold

32 or less total points = 75 XP per point*
33 to 36 points = 150 XP per point
37 to 40 points = 300 XP per point
41 to 44 points = 900 XP per point**
45 to 48 points = 2700 XP per point
49 to 52 points = 8100 XP per point
53 to 56 points = 24300 XP per point
57 to 60 points = 72900 XP per point***

*I lowered the required XP for the initial tier mainly to make it easier on characters who die during their early adventuring career.

**Once you cross the 40-point threshold, XP costs go up by a factor of 3 instead of doubling. This is similar, though not as severe, to the premise established in the original ITL rules.

***I honestly don't expect characters to get into this range (or really any higher than the low 50s), but I included the math just in case.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

What rules for learning talents are intended for use with this?

Seems to me like a pretty fast cruise through the 33-40 point terrain where I most like to play.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Rules for learning/training/study would be similar to what was presented in the original ITL and Advanced books. I haven't started working on the specifics yet, but suffice to say that some amount of time and effort will be required before new talents or spells can be added.

And yes, compared to the new rules, absolutely. The progression is not quite as fast as what was presented in the old ITL, especially when you factor in the different approaches to how much XP should be doled out by the GM. I believe, however, that it is more true to the 'live fast, die hard' (or is it 'die fast, live hard') philosophy inherent in Steve's original design for TFT.

Obviously, this solution will be more attractive to stubborn grognards like myself who prefer the previous style of play. ;)

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I mostly like that progression schedule even for NuITL where you HAVE to buy talents/spells with XP (no entitlements for IQ increases). I would make a slight adjustment based on Skarg's preference of the 33-40 range - which is also my preference range for most of play.

32 or less total points = 75 XP per point*
33 to 34 points = 200 XP per point
35 to 36 points = 400 XP per point
37 to 40 points = 600 XP per point
41 to 44 points = 900 XP per point**
45 to 48 points = 2700 XP per point
49 to 52 points = 8100 XP per point
53 to 56 points = 24300 XP per point
57 to 60 points = 72900 XP per point***

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

That was my thought as well... I wanted a progression model that would work for my preferred 'IQ dependency for talent or spell acquisition' as well as the option to 'buy' them directly using XP.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Give one bonus skill slot with each IQ point at creation or purchased later then.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

For my games, I will keep the connection between IQ and the acquisition of talents/spells post character creation.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Another adjustment that I will probably make in conjuction w/ my revised XP schedule would be to raise the XP cost required to purchase talents or spells directly. I would increase the baseline cost from 500 to 1000 XP for a 1-point talent.

I know that I have been critical of this new option, but I think I could be OK w/ it if didn't become viable until the character hits the mid-40s. Until then, each point of IQ purchased using XP can be used to aquire new talents or spells.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

What about only using XP to increase attributes but each time you increase ST or DX, you get 1 Skill/Spell Point (SP). Increase IQ and get 2 SP. At character creation, SP = IQ.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Talents from ST and DX increases? No, I don't like that. Those stats already have plenty of inherent 'value' w/o adding another benefit. Plus I can't really see the logic in connecting those physical attributes to skill acquisition (beyond their current role as prerequisites).

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

If each point of IQ doesn't add a SP then NPC construction needs to determine which talents and spells the NPC had at each point in time in order to determine the XPs spent, and hence the innate difficulty of the encounter. If you do get the bonus SPs then you can just calculate the cost from the final result.

This also applies to PCs with a specific goal in mind. With the bonus SPs all routes to the destination have the same cost and so the player can operate tactically. If the link doesn't exist then players need to plan out the entire route.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Not sure I follow... my proposal assumes that IQ increases will be the primary source for the addition of new talents/spells for both PCs and NPCs post character creation (at least until stat total reaches the mid-40s).

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I don't see it as "adding value" to those stats, especially when you get more SP from increase IQ. I see it as "what happens when you gain XP". To each his own though.

The stat increase isn't what's giving the SP. It's the XP that went into the stat increase.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I'm not sure I entirely follow this either but what I think I do follow, follows what I was thinking! LOL

If I'm reading your "goal" correctly, that same goal was the inspiration for this rule. My original thought was to simply say that SP = 10 at character creation (or whatever the average of ST+DX+IQ comes out to be). After that, you get 1 SP every time you raise a stat. I added an extra point for IQ because I thought Tippets would like that. I'd actually prefer 1 SP per stat increase. Period. The stat increase isn't what's giving the 1 SP. It's the XP that went into the stat increase. Therefore, SP is given by the stat-total of the character.

SP = (current stat-total) - (starting stat-total) + (starting stat-total)/3

Whether you use that formula for PC advancement or not, it would seem like a good rule-of-thumb for building NPCs.

SP = (current stat-total)/2 would probably work just as well for a rule-of-thumb though.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

For me, that would remove one of the key aspects that I associate w/ TFT character advancement... the choice I must weigh out in deciding which attribute to increase. Do I bump my ST so I can start using a greatsword or go with another IQ point and get the Strategist talent that I have been 'studying'?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

It doesn't remove that at all if you give extra SP for IQ increases. I don't see how you can think that. But like I said, to each his own.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I guess part of my problem is the idea that IQ and SP are two different things. My preference is to use the original model where IQ equals your talent/spell pool, period.

I have made an allowance, however, for the purchase of talents/spells using XP to see how it will work and effect gameplay over time.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Skill points based on ST & DX seems peculiar conceptually to me, and also seems like heading back towards people mostly/always using XP to improve attributes.

Also for me it competes with what I and several others thought was the new system until we read it in detail, which would be to have everyone have skill points equal to IQ, with an option to add more for 500 XP per point. It's consistent conceptually and with the character creation system, works like the old system, and avoids the problem with using the 500 XP method being so expensive compared to attributes for low-attribute-total characters.

The house rules I'm toying with (in addition to tweaking the attribute cost curve) is un-removing the time/teacher rules for learning things, and adding something about learning talents with time/teacher and not requiring XP. i.e. A way to buy talents/spells like the 500XP method, but costing training time rather than XP (more time than if you have unused skill points from IQ).

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

There are no magical items on Cidri.

Greater Magic Item Creation requires IQ 20, and DX 15 to succeed most weeks, plus ST 8 is 43 attribute points plus one spell.

That's 102900 XP. At 600 XP per year that's 171.5 years. With a 2% chance of death each month (Assuming youth potions, I guess?) that's one in 10^19 of wizards which are only 1 in 500 of the population.

The Mnoren never explored enough worlds to reach this much wizardly population.

Q.E.D.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Who needs to succeed "most" weeks? Isn't DX 11 going to succeed "most" weeks?

Do Lesser Magic Items and Weapon/Armor Enchantment not count as magical items?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

This is actually very interesting... the numbers you quote come from the new RAW so this is yet another example of unintended consequences from the much slowed XP progression found in the new ITL. My proposed schedule, on the other hand, is much more reasonable.
;)

Where does the 600 XP per year come from, though?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

These numbers are based on the completely _make-believe_ notion that the wizard must have DX15.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I wouldn't say that, but the numbers are based on several assumptions. TBH, though, I believe the actual RAW cost for a PC wizard could be even higher than hcobb predicts since they probably would not be singularly focused on the narrow goal of being able to create greater magic items and nothing else. Conversely, I also think a typical PC wizard would not be limited to earning only 600 XP per year. I have no idea what would be normal for an NPC wizard, though.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

An average adventure gives 50 XP and do one a month for 600 XP a year.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I agree. The costs could be higher if the wizard wasn't planning for it. I also agree that said wizard could earn more than 600XP per year. That's my whole point. Hcobb is subjectively cherry-picking.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

ITL p45
"A rate of 25 to 100 experience points per player per
session will be appropriate for most campaigns, but this,
again, is a GM call."

"session" does not equal "adventure"

average per session would be 75

one session a month would be 900XP per year.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

TBH, I find this problematic as well whether you are looking at XP progression by RAW or even my revised schedule. The premise that the rate at which a PC can earn XP remains flat over the course of their adventuring career is flawed IMO.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Only 114 years of adventuring then. No wonder wizards have such long beards.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

114 years? Only because you are house-ruling it that way. Since we are picking random numbers out of the air, I will claim that it only takes 50 years - just because I have 50 cents in my pocket right now.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Or maybe all greater magic items are made by Elves who can afford to invest 100+ years in the necessary training?
;)

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

True. And/Or maybe 114 years is completely bogus.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Without the overstatement, a human wizard can make a greater magic item with IQ 20, and how about DX 10, ST 8. That's 38 points, which with the (sigh) RAW costs would be a minimum of 100 + 100 + 200 + 400 + 800 + 1600 = 3,200 XP. Not 102,900 XP. The consequence is it takes them on average twice the listed number of weeks to create a greater magic item, since they miss half the rolls (unless the wizards' guild loans them a +2 charm to bring their effective DX up to 12).

The rate of XP gain is entirely up to the GM, and is also entirely disconnected from GAME TIME and even from GAME EVENTS. Per RAW suggestion, a GM might play a "session" at lunch at school and hand out 100 XP because the other players made them laugh and were cooperative, AND that session might represent half an hour or less of game time. Or it could be the opposite extremes, or anything else.

And XP now seems intended to only be used for PCs (sigh), since the rates are based on what the players do (sigh), which leaves the RAW without any guidelines on what NPCs do to improve at what rates. And NPCs are probably going to be the ones making (or having made) most/all of the magic items that exist in the world.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

How about this for an Alternate XP progression schedule:

Attribute increase attempts always cost 100XP.

You pay 100 XP, name the attribute you are attempting to increase and roll 8 dice. If the total rolled is greater than your current attribute total you increase the named stat by one. Otherwise better luck the next time you've saved up 100XP.

Giants automatically increase their ST by one point on each birthday.

Gargoyles get a bonus roll (wanted or not) to attempt to increase their ST by one point on each even birthday.

Reptile People and Centaurs get a bonus roll (wanted or not) to attempt to increase their ST by one point on each third birthday. (21, 24, 27, ....)

Halflings, Goblins and Elves roll against 7 dice for ST attempts.
Dwarves roll against 7 dice for DX attempts.
Hobgoblins and Gargoyles roll against 7 dice for IQ attempts.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Yikes! No thank you!

Points for out-of-the-box thinking, though.
;)

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I think you've left out how often people get to make the attempt.

Also, since you don't even charge the 100XP for a failure, the cost is just 100 XP per attribute, with some sort of delay added. So experienced characters will end up with piles of XP to spend on talents and spells and wishes (and gold, if the GM allows that), and just waiting until they fail these rolls to advance in attributes. My first thought was to have each attempt cost 100 XP whether it succeeds or not.

I think the roll-over idea is a nice idea with potential - I knew a GM who did something sort of similar for an improvement system in GURPS and other systems, where you gained experience in things only when you failed significant rolls to use those things. In that case, it was a way to combine tracking of how much you were using things to do difficult things in a natural way that had those things improve with a built-in diminishing returns curve.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

You know NPCs don't really exist, right? LOL

A lot of people write backgrounds for their NPCs as if they were PCs. How did NPC get to be who he is today? Gather 'round the camp-fire and let me tell you a story...

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Well, they exist on paper, and however they exist in the game. I and most of the friends I most enjoyed playing with, were interested to some degree in immersing by taking the experience somewhat seriously and that included having the NPCs have some logical existence, at least in theory. We had a lot of NPCs who spent a fair amount of time with the players because (as TFT greatly rewards and almost requires) adventuring parties tended to have quite a few NPC members. Where are they from, what are they like? As we continued to play, we as players got more curious about the world, and we as GMs got more and more capable and interested in what's in the world and why it's that way, and one of the topics of particular attention started to be what's available at wizards' guilds - what (if any) magic items, gates, services, information, training? We tended to play out visits to guilds, which means there were natural questions at least about what you saw, who you talked to and saw, and what they said, and so the GM naturally would think about how many wizards there would be in a guild house, what their abilities would be like, and what they would choose to do with themselves. If you stop and think about that sort of thing, you realize that unless you are in a huge guild house filled with many powerful wizards, and they all are interested in doing all sorts of things for adventurers for coin, then there will be limited goods and services available, and having a self-consistent idea about how much that is, is something we very much enjoyed exploring both as GMs and as players. It leads to thinking of interesting situations and reasons for various sorts of intrigue and adventure and plotting, which can be naturally supported by the game system and the thought the GM puts into it. If the GM does not put much thought into it, but the players explore and exploit what they can find, you can get into paradoxes or at least embarrassing weirdness when the GM has to choose whether there were really as many wizards with the IQ and spells needed to produce the things he just said "ya sure" to in the past, and then how many wizards are there in the rest of the world, and how does that compare to the world population... it's nice when some thought has been given to that sort of thing, and it can hold some water and therefore enable play that can be interacted with without the world having weird situations that don't make sense.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Read my text. Cost is clearly stated as 100XP for an attempt, win or lose.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

That's a sturdy wall of text you built there! I don't plan on banging my head against it! LOL

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Oh, I was mis-reading this part:
My old eyes kept reading that as "Otherwise better luck the next time [AND] you've saved up 100XP."

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.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I can. Pretty much any physical talent, weapons skill, etc should be tied to physical skill increases. The IQ thing is artificial and more a game relic than any reflection on real world behaviour.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

"Conan the Wizard" isn't the only problem the new XP guidelines are trying to solve.

Any old-school dungeon-crawl system is going to have a distinct tendency to degenerate into a bunch of teenagers (mental, if not physical) indulging their sociopathic tendencies as a bunch of medieval superhuman murderhobos, but the old system of XP for landed blows and coups-de-grace positively encouraged it.

Steve writes at length in the Companion essay about how distasteful he finds that style of play. It's no surprise whatsoever that he took the opportunity to rip that dynamic out by the roots.

The increased emphasis on talents at high experience levels is a pretty clear attempt to shift the emphasis from raw progression-as-a-goal-in-itself to roleplaying, per se. I'm not seeing how the proposals here are much more than just an attempt to re-enshrine murderhobo-ism at the heart of the progression system.

[ Not to be construed as an attack, mind you. I'm of the tactical combat school of TFT - slamming roughly equal squads into each other and watching the blood spray is great! But these contests are frankly more interesting at low-to-middling power levels. And balance is absolutely necessary. To invoke Ogre, if you run a MkVI against a MkIII defense, neither player is gonna have fun, no matter how hard the MkVI player worked to "earn" it. ]

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Of course it's artificial... all game systems must abstract reality into limited rule mechanics, TFT moreso than most, but that doesn’t invalidate the approach. I think it is an inspired bit of game design TBH. Besides, dependencies on other stats are already built into the system in the form of prerequisites.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Fortunately, I never experienced that kind of gameplay in TFT (though I certainly did in AD&D) so I don't think you can hang that on the ruleset. And shifting the progression emphasis away from stats to talents will not remove the possibility of gameplay degeneration into 'murderhobo-ism' since all you are doing is redefining what it means to achieve true power as a character.

On the subject of how XP is awarded, however, I strongly believe that a well-balanced approach includes both quantitative and qualitative elements (see one of my previous posts). Rewarding nothing but monster-killing, gold-grabbing behavior (I find treasure-driven XP to be particularly objectionable) is what leads to 'murderhobo-ism' IMO. It has nothing to do with how XP is eventually spent.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

OK, I think I've finally settled on the character progression model that I will be using in place of the LE revisions in my campaign. I've worked on a few iterations over the last 8 months or so, but always felt the initial novice phase was over too quickly with my previous attempts. So without further ado...

Novice tier: Up to 36-points
31 - 100 XP
32 - 100 XP
33 - 200 XP
34 - 200 XP
35 - 300 XP
36 - 300 XP

Veteran tier: 37 to 42 points
37 - 600 XP
38 - 600 XP
39 - 800 XP
40 - 800 XP
41 - 1000 XP
42 - 1000 XP

Legendary tier: 43 to 48 points
43 - 2000 XP
44 - 2000 XP
45 - 2500 XP
46 - 2500 XP
47 - 3000 XP
48 - 3000 XP

Advancement beyond this point is possible, but unlikely given the escalating costs.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So, I kind of like this but the original TFT was even a little tougher than this. One could adopt the original EXP cost/Attribute chart and still be a little more strict.

I agree that per the current ITL suggestions for EXP award, this schedule should still combat the attribute bloat of the original system while still promoting the EXP purchase of talents/spells due to the increased cost of attributes. It would also address the talents/spells bloat at a stalled IQ promoted by the EXP cost/attribute in the new ITL.

In my personal opinion, they didn't have to make the EXP cost/attribute so mathematically unreasonable to combat attribute bloat. merely adding the option to purchase talents/spells with EXP would have done that and added an interesting dimension in character development to the same game.

The new ITL still reveals itself to be an exercise in NERFing and stifling run amok. Character development is also one of the fun aspects of this game that seems to have been NERFed out of it. I get that there was Attribute bloat under the original system. As a GM, I knew how to deal with it while keeping the game active and fun. I will attribute that to the fact that our encounters and battles grew to involve more than a small handful of characters. It is easier to accommodate a wide spread opf attribute totals when you have a battle involving 40+ PCs.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So bearing in mind that I haven't updated this thread since August of 2019, I actually have stuck pretty close to the XP schedule that I posted back then. The difference is that my progession model is only one of numerous other significant changes that I have made to TFT over the last couple years. For example, the concept of character 'Tiers' is now core to my revised ruleset.

I also did a complete 180° with regard to keeping talents tied to IQ increases after character creation (i have actually eliminated most IQ prerequisites), but that’s a whole 'nother thread.

Anyway here's the framework I use now...

NOVICE Tier progression:
100 XP for each attribute point if character total is less than 32;
200 XP for 33rd/34th points;
300 XP for 35th/36th points;
250 XP for simple talents or spells (mostly equivalent to 1-point abilities);
400 XP for complex talents or spells (mostly equivalent to 2-point abilities);
450 XP for Tier 1 Powers (my own addition to the rules)

Once the character earns their 37th attribute point, they are in the VETERAN Tier.

In the VETERAN Tier:
600 XP for 37th/38th points;
800 XP for 39th/40th points;
1000 XP for 41st/42nd points;
900 XP for simple 'Veteran' talents or spells;
1200 XP for complex 'Veteran' talents or spells;
1300 XP for Tier 2 Powers

The two VETERAN tier categories (simple/complex) roughly correspond to talents that cost 2 or 3 IQ points respectively, though TBH, those 'weights' are no longer relevant in my system.

And finally, if the character manages to advance to their 43rd attribute point they cross into LEGENDARY status (which is still a ways off for my group).

In the LEGENDARY Tier:
1600 XP for 43rd/44th points;
2000 XP for 45th/46th points;
2400 XP for 47st/48th points;
2200 XP for simple 'Legendary' talents or spells;
2800 XP for complex 'Legendary' talents or spells;
3000 XP for Tier 3 Powers

The two LEGENDARY tier categories (simple/complex) roughly correspond to talents that cost 3, 4 or 5 IQ points, but I'm still developing a number of new talents and spells for this tier.

Beyond that, I have guidelines (only in draft) for a theoretical MYTHIC tier game.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

How well has this worked?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Untested -- just one of the models I came up with after reading this thread the first time. Figured something slower than original ITL, but faster than Legacy ITL, might be an appealing compromise for some

Personally I don't like the slower start this formula would impose on new characters, but once over 36 points it will move much faster than Legacy's rules (which strike me as abysmally slow).

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Thanks. I'm running a data analysis on EXP per Attribute Point Cost between Classic TFT, Legacy TFT, and three different House Rules mentioned in this thread. I will summarize later.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

The new attribute points are much more useful than the old ones, except for ST which has been reduced in value by at least a point.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

The great unexamined idea in experience is exponential increase. Every now and then, whether it's every attribute point or every five, the cost to go up doubles.

It has all sorts of consequences I think are undesirable. Characters rush through the early levels, hardly getting to experience 32 points before it's gone for ever. But the higher levels they sit at for ages, their character development stalled, dreaming of new abilities they won't see for a long time. This can't, to my thinking, be desirable.

Yet basically every time I hear people say, "I have a new XP system," it turns out to be exponential. There's generally no argument why it should be, it's just assumed this is how it should be, that all experience systems are exponential. Legacy sort of has one, that character development is less important later because people have come to love the campaign, but I think enjoying a campaign (during adventures) and enjoying character development (between adventuring) are basically separable activities. People enjoy both, and should get both, rather than being offered first one, then the other.

Why do people use exponential increase? As far as I can tell, just because everyone else does. (In particular because D&D's original edition did, which is basically what everyone is copying. But original D&D assumed the XPs earnt would also increase rapidly, which according to Legacy guidelines-as-written isn't the case. Even in D&D, when they use a "milestone" experience system, progress is more or less at a constant rate.)

My way of thinking about this:

• Take the number of sessions you want a PC to sit at a level. (Never mind NPCs, they'll take what they're given and like it.) I think this should, over the development of a character, be more or less constant. How long the campaign is supposed to be will determine what the constant is.
• Multiply by the number of XPs per session. GAW suggests constant. You can vary that if you like but I don't see the point.
• There'll probably be a maximum level you want it to be hard to exceed, so as you approach this point you can make it much more expensive to progress (e.g. doubling every point).

The net effect is that experience cost to progress should be more or less constant for a long time, then go up fast as it approaches the maximum desirable character level.

I appeal to game designers to consider alternatives to exponentiation, and to ask themselves what they want to happen before they touch pen to paper.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I think the tendency to exponential growth, at least at higher levels, is easily explained.

I want my player's characters to advance, but I don't want a bunch of supermen running around. The campaign is open-ended, so a planned advancement as you suggest is impractical. If they advance quickly for a while and then the XP costs go to exponential (except for new talents in TFT, of course), then older characters will be a lot better than newer characters, but they won't be invincible.

Now, it might work out poorly once they reach 40 attribute points and thereafter gain literally every talent available at their IQ, but I suppose we'll see just how likely that is. At 500XP per point, talents aren't exactly cheap.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Replace exponential with quadratic.
The first added attribute costs 1k, the second 2k, the third 3k, and so on.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

That's linear, not quadratic. Perhaps you meant 4k for the third point? If so, the next point would cost 7000 pts.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Fibonacci for the win!

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Differences between quadratic values is linear.
1+3 = 4, 4+5 = 9, 9 + 7 = 16, etc.


So total number of attribute points scales as the sqrt of total XP.


Current system scales as log total XP.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I don't understand at all.

Let's take the current system, which doubles for each new point after 40. Thus, the progression is

4000, 8000, 16000, 32000,...

or, in other words,

4000 * 2^0, 4000 * 2^1, 4000 * 2^2, 4000 * 2^3,....

The total number of XP spent on attribute points is thus

4000 * (2^1 - 1), 4000 * (2^2 - 1), 4000 * (2^3 - 1), 4000 * (2^4 - 1),...

This is what is meant by exponential growth, whether we mean the amount required for the next attribute point or the sum total to get to the next attribute point.

Accordingly, using RAW and assuming that all XP is spent on attributes to simplify matters,

AttrTotal = ceiling(39 + log(XPtotal - 4300))

where 4300 is the sum needed to reach 39 attribute points.

Quadratic growth means that the growth is like a quadratic. Clearly, 1000, 2000, 3000, ... is not quadratic growth. There is no ellipse containing the points (40,1000), (41,2000), (42,3000). Those points are collinear.

Per this rule, the sums required would be

1000, 3000, 6000, 10000, ...

or 1000 * sum_{1 \leq i \leq n} i

I don't see how to relate attribute total to XP in terms of sqrts here. As I wrote below, this was just a momentary memory loss. 1 + ... + n = n (n + 1) / 2. This is quite a famous little theorem, one with which I am familiar, but I totally blanked today.

So, let's suppose that we were talking about actual quadratic growth. In that case, our sequence might be something like (returning to 4000 as the 40th point)
4000, 8000, 16000, 28000, ....
where the nth point is given by 4000 * (n^2/2 + n/2 + 1).

The total experience (after reaching 39) needed to reach a point is
4000, 12000, 28000, 56000, ....
or, dividing by 4000, we have the sequence
1, 3, 7, 14, 25, 41, ....
I don't know much about this sequence. It is not quadratic (that is, there are no quadratic functions which match these values). Given this, I doubt you're right that attribute value scales like the sqrt function as XP increases.

It's totally possible, mind you, that I just am missing something. It's clear that the sequence you first put up can't be called quadratic -- not in any sense I know, anyway. But maybe there is some growth related to sqrt. I'm just not seeing it anywhere.

Anyway, let me know if I am indeed missing something.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

Under my scheme:
32 point character: zero XP
36 point character: 10k XP
40 point character: 36k XP
48 point character: 136k XP

So doubling the number of added points increases the total number of XPs by about four times. Hence quadratic. Under the current system adding two attribute points increases the total cost by about four times, hence exponential.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So, this sort of answers my original question in this thread. In your games, the highest attribute total is 34 or 35?

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I was laying it out as an alternative with a less steep ramp.


Actually I'm fine with Legacy's "freezing" of attributes as it helps to maintain character distinction.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

So mathematical definitions aside, I hear where David is coming from, but I believe a certain degree of slowed progression as the character moves into higher 'levels' of experience is appropriate, even realistic.

My own model eschews the exponential increases of Legacy and Classic TFT, but still keeps the idea "the higher you go, the harder it gets".

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I was indeed being foolish earlier. There is a very well-known quadratic representation of the sums involved.

1 + 2 + ... + n = n(n + 1) / 2

Duh. Very, very well known, but it slipped my mind.

However, there is some ambiguity over what it means to say an experience progression is quadratic or exponential. In TFT, the table lists XP needed for the next attribute point. Hence, when we speak of the XP progression being quadratic, it is natural to mean that the entries in this table proceed as a quadratic.

In certain games, such as a common one which has (I just found) the same XP progression you suggest, the tables list total XP, not the XP between "levels". Quadratic progression of these figures corresponds to linear progression of TFT style tables.

As it happens, exponential progression of one corresponds to exponential progression of the other, so there is no real ambiguity there, as far as I can tell.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

And that's why everyone uses exponential: it's the only function where the cumulative and marginal functions are the same and nobody gets into pointless semantic arguments.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

But why should it be quadratic? Start with the reason, not the answer.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I'm assuming the experience system is really just for the benefit of PCs, and NPCs get whatever they get. Arguably that's a sacrifice in realism. But the alternative - setting up an experience system that allows you to do Henryesque calculations of the attribute distribution of NPCs - is almost certainly impractical.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I know you are directing this at Henry, but for me, it's the desire for a more gradual climb. The exponential ramp is too extreme, too proscriptive.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

I use it as my framework for NPCs as well, but not to create attribute distributions.

Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
 

An alternate fix to this is to increase the amount of XP given out. Say if you average game night averages 100 XP, then give out 200 XP.

This will shrink the XP whole scale by half. At some point you don't want humans (and the like) to continue to gain attributes. That will still happen but later. This will also make other purchases easier (Staff mana, talents, etc).

---

BTW, I think talents (per point) should never cost more than an attribute point. This can be done by saying a talent (per point) costs 500 XP or the cost of an attribute, whichever is cheapest. So, a beginning character can learn a 1 point skill for only 100 XP. They do say that the young learn faster than the old. But mostly this opens up talents to being acceptable purchases early on, instead of waiting until your character gets to 36 points.