How much do you enjoy the character upgrade minigame?

[Gef]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Apparently my group is weird...we give out 5 points per session at a minimum.

I don't think so. On these boards, I usually find myself in a minority recommending novice GMs start with low (100pt) starting characters and award experience generously thereafter.

That said, other structures work. I recently ran a supers game with the opposite setup, experience all but non-existent, yet the characters became more capable week to week as they figured out how to use their powers better (frex, by experimenting with stunts).

GEF

[exalted]

Originally Posted by A Ladder

Apparently my group is weird...we give out 5 points per session at a minimum. It's more like 7-8 on average. Campaigns go based on how long I want them to. I've had ~40 session campaigns and 2 session ones. I guess we average more in the ~20 range.

But, I digress, I personally looooove the upgrade minigame. Like Kromm stated it's all about focusing on the immediate needs vs. long term goals. This last campaign I've gotten to be a player and man, choosing between adding new skills, upgrading the skills that I rolled poorly on last session, or upping my combat prowess, or saving up for a big ol' attribute boost or expensive advantage....whew! I get choice paralysis, but in a good way.

Can only agree my last campaign in a gurps like system ran 39 sessions with an average of above 10 points per session, the current one is at 32 and expected to go way beyond that as the characters are still finding their legs as "heroes" and i think the average so far have been at least 12 points per session. Love it when the heroes grow but of course my players are exalted demigods and their stuff is expensive compared to playing regular folks for whom a skill up is actually a big thingy. My usual question for my players at the start of each session is "Have you picked up anything game breaking with your xp.".

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by Bruno

In my experience "advancement warped my character" is often "My character had personal growth".

Just so, and that growth can be something I hadn't thought of when I first created them. When that happens, it's far more interesting than just fulfilling an initial plan. This is where the collaborative element in RPG storytelling comes in; the characters influence each other.

D&D 3e+ always creeped me out with the expectation that you'd basically build your 20th level character, and then claw your way up to that final snapshot along a rather fixed path.

I didn't even realise that was meant to be the case for several levels, the first time I played 3e. Oddly enough, I haven't played much more of it.

[martinl]

Originally Posted by Bruno

D&D 3e+ always creeped me out with the expectation that you'd basically build your 20th level character, and then claw your way up to that final snapshot along a rather fixed path.

I've never played DnD that way, although I do understand that is the meta at the moment.

The thing that creeps me out the most about DnD is the way folks go from "similar in deadliness to to a house cat in hand to hand combat" to "most skilled warrior in the whole world" in about six months of game time. (I still like DnD, but this aspect of it is just wierd.)

GURPS allows smaller steps in power growth, and IME a lot of folks like it that way, which is why we see so many games that start at 200-300 CPs and only award 2-3 per session.

A more DnD style would be to start at 100CP and award 25 a session, which would not be hurting wrong fun, but would feel weird to me.

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by martinl

GURPS allows smaller steps in power growth, and IME a lot of folks like it that way, which is why we see so many games that start at 200-300 CPs and only award 2-3 per session.

A more DnD style would be to start at 100CP and award 25 a session, which would not be hurting wrong fun, but would feel weird to me.

I was just having a conversation with a person who is bipolar who said that the incremental advancement of GURPS triggers his mental disorder and he does much better with large amounts of cps given at milestones rather than incremental bits.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by martinl

I've never played DnD that way, although I do understand that is the meta at the moment.

The thing that creeps me out the most about DnD is the way folks go from "similar in deadliness to to a house cat in hand to hand combat" to "most skilled warrior in the whole world" in about six months of game time. (I still like DnD, but this aspect of it is just wierd.)

It's not strictly the character advancement mini-game that pushes that though. You need to survive something on the order of a *hundred* dangerous enough to be potentially deadly fights to do that. The realism problem isn't so much that veterans of a hundred life and death fights are pretty good, that makes a certain amount of sense, but that a world dangerous enough anyone remotely sane can get into that many deadly fights in six months has a population of zero level survivors the starting PCs can come from.

[whswhs]

For my current players, a particularly interesting question seems to be whether to buy something small, or save points toward a boost to a stat or something else big. I have a couple who are doing the trick of buying up Will, and then Per, and then buying the rest of IQ. I tend to give about 3 points in a typical session, so players can take several sessions to get up to where they need to be, and those partial steps add enjoyment.

I also find, though, that players think it's cool if I give them a single point that's earmarked for a specific thing. That's a really high-end way for a GM to reward excellent use of character traits.

[Kalzazz]

It isn't my favorite, I have characters with over 100 unspent CP, it often just feels a hassle

Usually 3-6 CP a session

[Purple Haze]

Originally Posted by martinl

The thing that creeps me out the most about DnD is the way folks go from "similar in deadliness to to a house cat in hand to hand combat" to "most skilled warrior in the whole world" in about six months of game time. (I still like DnD, but this aspect of it is just wierd.)

The XP awards in D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are flat out 10x what they were in D&D 1st or 2nd editions for low level creatures, and more like 30x for high level ones. Though, the high level ones are probably 3x as tough, but then again the characters are at least 3x as tough.

Our 1st edition games went ~2 sessions per week for 13-14 years and the highest level characters were hitting 14th when we quit. Playing the modern game you could hit retirement level in a year. The Pathfinder rules even state that XP are a nuisance, characters should simply level up every third session.

[D10]

mini game? That is the great game!

As someone who is playing a campaign that has lasted 4 years now, with PCs over 1100 points, and skill caps at 40 pts. Its really really fun.