Flatter XP curve
 

If per-session rewards remain at 60 XP then it's gonna take forever to add talents and attributes past the first few. The advantage of heroes of adding talents twice as fast as wizards just won't catch up with the wizard's starting pool of memory points.
The fix here is that adding an IQ point with XP (but not wishes) brings an additional memory point with it, and to flatten the XP curve to +200 per level like this:

• 33rd - 100XP (2nd session)
• 34th - 100XP (4th session)
• 35th - 200XP (7th session)
• 36th - 400XP (14h session)
• 37th - 600XP (24th session)
• 38th - 800XP (37th session)
• 39th - 1000XP (54th session)
• 40th - 1200XP (74th session)
• 41st - 1400XP (97th session)

So a ST 12, DX 12, IQ 8, Myrmidon who started with Sword and Shield talents would spend 4400XP to raise his stats to ST 13, DX 14, IQ 13, and then spend another 1500XP to add the final 3 memory points for Sword Mastery and Shield Expertise, by his 100th play session.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

That certainly works.

But, if one is going to revamp the attribute gain chart, why not dispense with it altogether? One could achieve something similar by declaring that the cost to increase an attribute is the sum of ST, DX, and IQ. This drastically changes the dynamic under RAW that it gets relatively harder to increase attributes as one’s attribute point total goes up. And it requires a very different approach to awarding XP, but it provides a simple method of flattening the progression curve with the additional benefit of one never needing to go searching for an XP chart again.

The cost to learn a talent or spell could be the sum of the value of the character’s spells and talents plus the cost of the new one and its IQ level. This makes learning a higher-IQ talent or spell more difficult than learning one with a lower IQ prerequisite, even though the listed cost might be the same.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

Henry's table isn't too far from what I'm about to use in my game.

Due to promoting over compatibility among GM worlds, I was going to use the same chart up to 38 attributes and then make it less insane after that. That way, if GMs wanted to allow characters from other GM's games, they would know that characters from my game are compatible up to 38 points if they use ITL RAW.

34th or lower 100 XP
35th 200
36th 300
37th 600
38th 1,000
39th 1,300
40th 1,600
+300 XP for each attribute above 38 points.

This still makes it tough to get to 40 points but not almost impossible. And for all those Classic TFT nerds, it eventually crosses the Classic XP curve at 60 points. However, it is a harder curve for all points in between.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

I've been considering a super-simple formula. 100 for the first increase, 200 for the second, 300 for the third, etc. Not much to remember there! It ends up being just a little steeper than the mid-point between the original and Legacy edition ITL costs -- 3600 career XP to reach the 8th attribute point increase.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

I actually tried that earlier this year. I think that the attribute increase is a little fast for my preference since I was using a method of XP based upon what was suggested in ITL. To me, it would work better if the XP award was somewhat stingier than what is suggested in ITL.

I opted for the compromise that I stated above. I would like to keep characters from my game potentially open for other GM's to allow them into their games. So, you need to have some level of compatibility for that. Using a completely different XP to Attribute cost scale harms such compatibility.

The characters that I developed under this different scale were destined to be NPCs so, no harm done within my own game.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

I think the kind of experience system needed depends too much on the campaign to have a single system. Instead we need several systems, and the players and GM choose one based on what kind of game they want.

My suggestion: a XP to gain an attribute, b XP to gain a talent/spell point (should we call this "skill"?) and after you reach c attributes the cost to gain your next attribute doubles every point. Then examples might be

• The RAW ITL, purpose uncertain, is roughly a=125, b=1500, c=35.
• An epic long campaign where characters rise slowly but with little limit might be a=250, b=100, c=50.
• A short campaign with an epic ending might be a=100, b=50, c=50.
• A gritty campaign where the characters progress slowly and have a low ceiling might be a=300, b=150, c=36.

There could be other implementations. There could also be limits on talents and spells. Or we could just have a bunch of tables rather than a formula.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

Heresy incoming! Use the progression from the Size and Speed/Range Table:

1. 1.5
2. 2
3. 3
4. 5
5. 7
6. 10
7. 15
8. 20
9. 30
10. 50
11. 70
12. 100

and so on, increasing by a factor of 10 every 6 points of attribute increase. Decide on some base cost that a beginning figure has to pay for their first attribute point increase, then shift this cost along the table by one step for each point after that. For example, if a 32-point figure has to pay 100 XP for their first increase:

33rd: 100 XP
34th: 150 XP
35th: 200 XP
36th: 300 XP
37th: 500 XP
38th: 700 XP
39th: 1,000 XP
40th: 1,500 XP
41st: 2,000 XP
42nd: 3,000 XP
43rd: 5,000 XP
44th: 7,000 XP
etc.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

Again, the simplest thing is to come up with an character advancement system that obviates the need for a table.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

Anthony is correct, of course, but Experience Tables are so ubiquitous in RPGs at this point that it's hard to argue against their inclusion.

My issue goes beyond the progression scheme, however. I want to restore the ability for characters to hit 45, 50 or even higher TAP (if they can keep themselves alive long enough).

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

If you radically changed XP/progression by making the cost of a new attribute the attributes new value, you would flatten the progression curve while still making it harder to raise higher attributes relative to lower ones. You'd probably want to limit XP per session to 2-4 points. Characters could progress to 40+ points much more quickly than by using RAW advancement.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

I'm going to give the one that I suggested a try. I tried the 100 XP increase for every attribute. That's simply too fast unless you limit each session to 40-50 XP earned or less. Doubling it for each attribute after 38 at 1,000 XP is also ridiculous.

Taking that approach also promotes some compatibility with the GMs of other games especially if they stick to RAW.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

I have used a Fibonacci sequence once four digits are reached. It allows for a slower ramp up but with the same idea of making high levels extremely expensive:

below 35 100 pts each
35: 200
36: 300
37: 600
38: 1,000 (base)
39: 1,000 (1+0*1000)
40: 2,000 (1+1*1000)
41: 3,000 (1+2*1000)
42: 5,000 (2+3*1000)
43: 8,000 (3+5*1000)
44: 13,000 (5+8*1000)
45: 21,000 (8+13*1000)

etc. just keep adding the two numbers above to get the next in the sequence.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

For my game, I track experience points per stat, talent points and power (for the Wizard Staff spell).

1 XP = 1 Hour of play. So, +10 in the table below means 10 XP (10 hours of play).

I start my player characters at 30 points (level 0). Each time they check off a box, their "level" goes up by one (level 1 = 31 points, level 2 = 32 points, etc...)

This keeps things really simple. If the GM feels the party didn't really do much that evening to warrant much advancement, dole out 1 XP for every 2 hours. Season to taste.

To raise a PC's ST 1 point from its starting value, it takes 10 hours of game time. To raise it another point, it takes another 15 hours of game time. Our evening games rarely last longer than 5 hours so that's at least two weeks to bump ST up one, three more weeks to bump it up again. Adjust as needed...


EXPERIENCE TABLE
__ST__|__DX__|__IQ__|__TAL_|_PWR_
+10 □ |+10 □ |+10 □ |+10 □ |+10 □
+15 □ |+15 □ |+15 □ |+10 □ |+10 □
+20 □ |+20 □ |+20 □ |+10 □ |+10 □
+25 □ |+25 □ |+25 □ |+10 □ |+10 □
+30 □ |+30 □ |+30 □ |+15 □ |+15 □
+35 □ |+35 □ |+35 □ |+15 □ |+15 □
+40 □ |+40 □ |+40 □ |+15 □ |+15 □
+45 □ |+45 □ |+45 □ |+15 □ |+15 □
+50 □ |+50 □ |+50 □ |+20 □ |+20 □
+55 □ |+55 □ |+55 □ |+20 □ |+20 □

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

Fibonacci asymptotes to XP=exp(0.48*attributes). It's not that different to Legacy, where the constant is 0.69, and much harsher than Classic, where it's 0.14. So this isn't a huge change.

I remain convinced exponentiation is mostly something that should happen just before the character is retired or the campaign ends, if then.

Re: Flatter XP curve
 

While I agree that it doesn't make much difference at higher levels, it does allow for a flatter beginning - which is where most play is.