Alternate XP progression schedule

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

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.

In Legacy the cost per attribute doubles each point. So your change is very close to just giving everyone one free attribute and halving all the non-attribute advances (mana, talents, spells). It's a thing you could do, but I'd be a lot happier if the post started out saying "I want to make mana and talents cheaper" and *then* stated the mechanic. More like how your next paragraph starts:

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

Consequence of this is that characters are encouraged to buy talents as early as possible, and the number of experience points needed to make the character depends on its history. IMO these are undesirable consequences.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

don't want a character to reach a point in their progression where the choice between adding talents or increasing attributes becomes a forgone conclusion (as it does in RAW once they hit high 30s).

These are all commonly considered desirable features:

• Characters continue to progress and develop at a reasonable rate.
• Character attributes don't get ridiculously large.
• Attributes and other advances are generally both practical choices.

Choose two.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I disagree. Talents are valuable and provide things that basic attributes do not. Under these house rules, if your ST is above 10 or more, Brawling will give you a cheaper bare-hand damage bonus than will buying up ST.

Yes, if brawling damage is central to the character. Otherwise, ST does lots of things, like providing hit points and weapon damage and encumbrance and yes, brawling damage, and is likely to look more attractive overall.

Raise IQ all you want to, but you can't read until you acquire Literacy. Weapon Expertise costs no more than increasing an attribute to 15. If you want to heal people, you have to buy Physicker.

These are all examples of talents that might be core to a character concept, as might be lots of others. And player will grumble at the price but buy them because the character is impossible without them. What we won't see at these prices is much in the way of talents the character doesn't strictly need but thinks it would be fun to have. Characters will get more focused.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Yes, if brawling damage is central to the character. Otherwise, ST does lots of things, like providing hit points and weapon damage and encumbrance and yes, brawling damage, and is likely to look more attractive overall.

Which is why Brawling is cheaper than buying up ST.

These are all examples of talents that might be core to a character concept, as might be lots of others. And player will grumble at the price but buy them because the character is impossible without them. What we won't see at these prices is much in the way of talents the character doesn't strictly need but thinks it would be fun to have. Characters will get more focused.

Again, we disagree; those talents need not be at the core of a character’s concept. Literacy is useful regardless of whether or not it is central to a character. Similarly, Weapon Expertise is attractive (albeit rather expensive) for low-ST characters whose primary role is non-combat, since it gives their lighter weapons more punch while buffing their defenses so as to be a bit more likely to survive should they find themselves in a fight, anyway.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Everyone else has an experience progression system here so I may as well append the one I used in my last game:

• XPs awarded by GM fiat at the end of scenes.
• To raise an attribute costs 10 XP until you reach the attribute cap, which is campaign-dependent: thereafter it doubles every point.
• Talent points and spells cost 4 XP each.
• After each scene the GM will say something like, "Well, you all spent a lot of time in that scene jumping onto and off boats, so if you want to buy Boating, right now one-time offer, it costs 2 XP," or "The Hermit-Wizard is willing to teach you a spell for 2 XP but it has to be at the level of your current IQ because he doesn't tolerate your wasting your time with anything easy."
• If you want to multiply everything by 10, feel free.

There have been lots of good ideas put out here but I think the one bold emphasized point above is brilliant.

I feel that part of the fun in a RPG is the character advancement. Make it too slow and folks loose interest. So, finding new ways to give extra XP is always good. And David's point above does this very well and ties into the adventures at hand. More so than a GM just giving extra XP for a given action taken.

---

BTW, David's x/10 XP system is nice too. Back when we were counting damage points to figure XP we needed it to be 100 base. Why not simplify now, since it is just an arbitrary number the GM decides now. Although, may be a bit late to change.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

These are all commonly considered desirable features:

• Characters continue to progress and develop at a reasonable rate.
• Character attributes don't get ridiculously large.
• Attributes and other advances are generally both practical choices.

Choose two.

Why would I do that when I can solve for all three?

I get that we probably don't agree on the definition of "ridiculously large" here, but there are other system controls that can mitigate high attributes.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

Consequence of this is that characters are encouraged to buy talents as early as possible, and the number of experience points needed to make the character depends on its history. IMO these are undesirable consequences.

Of course, the number of experience points needed to make a character already depends on history in RAW. A character who starts with IQ 10 and adds and IQ point and a talent has spent more XP than one who started at IQ 11 and added a point of ST or DX.

Axly's suggestion would make XP spent depend rather a lot more on character history however.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by phiwum

the number of experience points needed to make a character already depends on history in RAW.

I consider this to also be an undesirable feature.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Why would I do that when I can solve for all three?

I don't think you can. Attributes either can keep growing, in which case the second objective gets violated, or they don't and talents become more practical, in which case the third principle gets violated, or both become impractical, in which case the second principle gets violated.

RAW violates the third principle in two different ways: initially talent/spell increase is impractical, later attribute increase is. Rick Smith's system, often used in PBEM games, violates the first. The system I proposed violates the third principle after some point and expects the GM to make a decision when that will be, if the point is delayed excessively then it doesn't violate the third principle nearly as badly and starts violating the second instead.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Weapon Expertise costs no more than increasing an attribute to 15. If you want to heal people, you have to buy Physicker. And so on.

Doesn't it cost twice that much? 30 vs 15?