Skarg's Experience Point house rule

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Just because my ideal now would not be to match the ITL EP system, I'm still interested in systems that do.

That's great SKARG as I think you have some "good meat" in the philosophy in-back of your old system, and I would like to work to see if we can't take some "filet" out of there, and mix it in our perspectives on TFT as we view it today, and see if we see how close we can get it to retro-fit in the 1980 rules-set; retaining that all-important: TFT Form, Feel, Flow, Flavor, and Function I am forever on about.

Originally Posted by Skarg

It seems to me that the system I posted at the top (which I still quite like and is what I'd choose to use for TFT unless/until I invent something else) is very much a "restoration" effort. It's basically just some adjustments on top of the ITL EP system.

It is good, to be sure; I would just like to buck for something which mirrors the actual system a bit more closely - but you know, perspectives change through dialog too.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'm willing to agree to talk about what sort of EP system you want to work on, as long as we can define what what that is, and I can relate to it enough to be interesting to me.

Fair enough my friend; I will be pleased to work on this one with you, until we meet our goal, or you say: quit.

Originally Posted by Skarg

It sounds to me from the above and other examples you've written, that you would like to build an EP system with what I might call a broader "scope" than TFT usually uses.

And I would say that your statement and your explanation is a very accurate assessment.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Looking at ITL (page 10) Experience Points rules, we see experience is "do[ing] something "well"" and for actions, each point of damage done in combat, killing foes, using fatigue casting spells under pressure, making 4-die or harder saving rolls against danger or when putting talents "to good use" ... So far, all of those are for specific actions so small/narrow in scope, and what you called Actual. Then there's also time spent in play (which we very rarely used because it seemed OOC and could instead fall under GM discretion) and GM Discretion.

Spot-on, and an excellent analysis. However, you and I seem mostly to agree that this concept of THREAT is, or should, also be accounted for in defining a figure when calculating more precisely for the inequity between combatants - and the current system does not account for this.

So, we both know what we want an enhanced Combat EP Award system to do; it seems we just need to agree on WHAT goes into that AND what does not, and then, it is down to the processes of HOW to balance the thing, and HOW we are going to state it as a simple formula.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'm curious whether you'd agree, but it seems to me that what you're talking about with giving more EP for beating someone with more Potential threat, is what I'd call a higher-scope perspective.

Correct. I am talking about accounting for BOTH, not being of equal-value, but BOTH, the POTENTIAL and the ACTUAL. I do agree that the potential should not be worth the same as the actual; but i do not feel we should wholly dismiss it either, as the rules do now.

Originally Posted by Skarg

...If that's what you mean, then I might be more inclined to agree with the idea that a wide range of combat talents might be thought to all be relevant to the difficulty of defeating someone. Because you're talking about the difficulty of defeating an opponent who lives a day away, and the whole adventure of being in the same world as that foe and all the circumstances that lead up to you defeating them or not. With that broader scope, sure in a sense the foe is more dangerous if they have multiple weapon skills, because you might in theory be more likely to meet them in situations where there is a weapon they know how to use nearby.

Yes, THAT is the idea. When you defeat a man in combat, you just don't beat his Strength, Dexterity, and Weapon, you must defeat the totality of his being.

Bruce Lee had a saying: "The enemy has only images and illusions, behind which he hides his true motives, destroy the image (POTENTIAL THREAT), and you will break the enemy (ACTUAL THREAT).

Originally Posted by Skarg

But I'm afraid I'm still going to complain about just adding up memory points, because when you do face someone, they generally can only use one weapon at a time against you,,,

Yes, and I would complain about that also! LOL! That is not the sole factor, and as said in my last post about the "two brothers" in combat, the potential of the brother with more combat talents - expressed as total internalized combat knowledge - needs to be accounted for because it is omni-present; however, what talents and weapons you ACTUALLY use in combat, should have a greater value - but BOTH make up the TOTALITY of your enemy.

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'd like to ask not just what the formula or desired sort of EP amount you'd want, but literally what I asked, i.e. "what you think you'd (ideally, or practically) like the amount of EP for a fight to represent." By "represent", I mean, what in the way things work in the game universe is it that has the victor gain an amount of useful experience by defeating someone?

(For example, I might say that there is the experience of being in deadly combat, and the experience of fighting someone trying to kill you using various strength, abilities, and equipment, and the more formidable that is, the more you learn what it is like to fight someone at that level and what you can do about it and details of techniques they use and so on. It trains your muscle memory, reflexes/reactions, and how you do what you do when you fight, and the more capable the opponent relative to your own ability, the more you're liable to learn and improve if you survive.)

I'm interested in how you'd answer that, if materially different from what I wrote?

I think I understand what you are looking for here SKARG, but I want to take some time to sleep on the question, so I feel confident in what you are asking me, and that I can provide you a quality answer. So, more to follow tomorrow night my friend,

JK