05-17-2019, 07:47 AM | #11 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
I think hcobb's approach works very well. Assign an attribute penalty. Say that a Reptileman is given a penalty of 4 attributes for DX and IQ. Then, a 38 pt. Reptileman may purchase ST as if his total attributes are 38, to purchase DX or IQ he pays as if his total is 42. Etc. Some may be given a bonus to make it easier to get a specific attribute.
The same can done after a particular number is reached. Halflings pay more for ST after they have ST =12. Etc. Talents can cost double or x1.5 after attributes reach 42, etc.
__________________
Helborn |
05-17-2019, 10:13 AM | #12 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
What happens when you have talent costs based on attribute total, is that many players delay increasing attributes to put as much XP as possible into talents, and the result is a character with some combination of attributes and talents can have cost a very different amount of XP to get there based on when they spent the XP on the talents.
Some people may not mind that, but having experienced it in the context of slightly different house rules that essentially did the same sort of thing, it felt very gamey and not representative of an actual situation that existed in-game for the characters. i.e. "I'm studying a bunch of talents/spells now before increasing my attributes because it will be much more XP efficient" is a gamey thing players think that doesn't map to anything characters would have a reason to think. |
05-17-2019, 02:39 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Arizona
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2019, 08:31 AM | #14 | |
Join Date: May 2019
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
Quote:
I do prefer the simplicity of using a standard flat factor per strong race though (for example gargoyles may be 2Xs XP, lionmen 1.5Xs XP, and hawkmen 1.25Xs XP) rather than basing it on attribute total. |
|
05-21-2019, 11:17 AM | #15 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
What I did (when I converted my long-standing enormous TFT campaign to GURPS) was make improvement cost tables for every attribute of every race, with potentially different values and curves for each, because I prefer detail to one-size-fits-all simplicity.
Even if you just do something like use the human XP cost table, but then apply the racial per-attribute adjustments AFTERWARDS, it gains the nice advantage of keeping the differences between races in play. TFT has always had the issue that using just the total attributes to determine limits and costs means that the minimum attribute differences between most races is mostly meaningless, since any attribute below 8 is usually a major problem. I see the appeal for many of using very simple universal rules for everything, but trying to stuff a giant into a human-shaped XP table just doesn't work very well. |
05-21-2019, 12:08 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
Quote:
One of the ways I am trying to deal with this is my own game is to give starting giant characters the following stats... ST 20, DX 8 and IQ 8 (no added points). That's a 36-point character, but I would add another 10% XP penalty for size. In other words, using my system stat increases or adding talents will cost 50% more than the baseline 32-point human character.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
|
05-21-2019, 01:39 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
I feel like the most adaptable general model would be one where creatures have a default assumed adult 'base' (perhaps associated with a progression for things that come in different ages/sizes like dragons), and advances on top of that base occur under specified constraints (e.g., a giant's max DX) but otherwise at a rate like human progression above 32 total. But even this would leave the GM feeling constrained. e.g., it would imply that the most experienced giant could have a ST of 33 (8 points above the 25 point start). Yet I'd happily plop a ST 50 giant into a scenario.
|
05-26-2019, 10:58 AM | #18 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
What about a multiplier on the attribute themselves?
A giant could have x3 with a starting ST of 8 (24), an average giant has ST 10 (30). A lizardman could have x1.5. These races buy their attributes from their base character. And then add the advantage of x3. And then we count lower maximum attributes as disadvantages, off-set by the ST x3 advantage. And races are just a package of advantages and disadvantages that end up at +-0. If we can't find a way to balance a race like a gargoyle with both good attributes and lots of advantage, we add psychological disadvantages, negative reaction modifiers and as a last resort an XP disadvantage of having to buy new attributes as if their total was 1-4 points higher. So every race would follow this example and be 32 point characters, but with different sets of adds and disads. Different multipliers or maximums to their attributes. Halflings could have the disadvantage of ST x .5. They need to buy two points of base ST to increase their actual ST. And they would be 32 point characters, but with an XP advantage of attributes costing 2 less. So a base ST 8 starting halfling would have ST 4 with the .5 penalty. But since halflings already are a playing race, there is no need to redo them. |
05-26-2019, 12:30 PM | #19 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
I think this is the right general idea, but again wants some more refinement or you run into some issues, such as:
* Running into maximums. e.g. for giants, x3 works ok for the starting value (8x3=24, one less than the minimum and suggested PC start value), but giant max ST is supposed to be 40, and even a starting character could be 16x3 = 48. The max would be about 24x3 = 72, possibly higher. * Minimums need a multiplier of cost, or else all PCs will quickly and trivially reach their race's maximums... unless of course you don't care and/or actually like that. * In the case of giants, too, there is the issue that the starting character has zero extra points, so you need to figure out how you want to map that. Such issues are why I prefer a proportional approach of one sort or another, that takes into account both the start/minimum value, and the maximum value, and map _that_ to whatever scale of experience I want it to take to get a figure from min to max. The proportional math is middle-school stuff and/or doable with a spreadsheet. The trickier part is satisfying myself that I'm really setting the values to something I think is satisfying. I'm also liking playing with Steve's original posted suggestion, where each attribute would have its own cost table, and then shifting that per race. So it's less expensive for dwarves to raise ST (their curve is shifted 2) and more expensive for halflings to raise ST (their curve is shifted down). I'm enjoying adding to that a choice during character creation to apply a few points that shift that character's costs, representing inherent gifts, so some people are just naturally larger/stronger or more graceful or whatever. |
06-04-2019, 12:07 PM | #20 | |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: XP for Unbalanced Races
Quote:
I am not so fond of shifting the cost, because, it will just be a straight up +2 or -2 attribute point put into one specific value. With an exponential XP cost, there is not much you can do. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|