Topic: Extended Experience Points for Maneuvers

[Elrich Maltah]

In the Alternative Experience Points Table (15.7.4) found in ChL, the experience points listed for successfully accomplishing a unique or inspired maneuver are as follows:
Routine: 0
Easy: 5
Light: 10
Medium: 50
Hard: 100
Very Hard: 150
Extremely Hard: 200
Sheer Folly: 300
Absurd: 500

This list was never updated to reflect the new difficulty levels introduced in RMC4: Trivial, Insane, Phenomenal, and Virtually Impossible.

In an effort to determine reasonable experience points for these higher difficulties, I graphed the given experience points and the opposite values of their corresponding difficulty modifiers (-30 to +70). Seeing that the curve of the experience point line started to go exponential, I then added the new difficulties following a similar direction. The resulting numbers are as follows (opposite difficulty mod / experience points):

Trivial: -50 / 0
Routine: -30 / 0
Easy: -20 / 5
Light: -10 / 10
Medium: 0 / 50
Hard: 10 / 100
Very Hard: 20 / 150
Extremely Hard: 30 / 200
Sheer Folly: 50 / 300
Absurd: 70 / 500
Insane: 100 / 750
Phenomenal: 150 / 1250
Virtually Impossible: 200 / 2000

Do these extended experience points seem okay or are they out-of-line (meaning, too high)? If they are too high, what would be more appropriate?

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I personally think the experience points are too low, considering how hard it becomes to even try and miraculous to succeed. You perform a "virtually impossible" task yet only get 2000 XPs? Starting with "insane", I'd go with "insane" = 1000, "phenomenal" = 3000, and "virtually impossible" = 6000, at least.

[MisterK]

I personally think the experience points are too low, considering how hard it becomes to even try and miraculous to succeed. You perform a "virtually impossible" task yet only get 2000 XPs? Starting with "insane", I'd go with "insane" = 1000, "phenomenal" = 3000, and "virtually impossible" = 6000, at least.

I would tend to disagree, if only because it basically rewards luck (which is a kind of double reward). I would, on the other hand, reward *failure*, but only if there is a consequence commensurate with the difficulty [otherwise, I can see munchkins pouncing on inconsequential tasks to pad their XP total...].

[jdale]

At mid to high levels, your bonuses are high enough that those maneuvers become easy. If you have a skill bonus of +100 or more, a magic item, a spell giving you +50 (e.g. Tracking is a 3rd level spell that gives +50), etc, achieving a Virtually Impossible result is not really that hard. How many of those does it take to go up a level? How does the difficulty of advancing that way compare to the difficulty of advancing through combat?

[MisterK]

At mid to high levels, your bonuses are high enough that those maneuvers become easy. If you have a skill bonus of +100 or more, a magic item, a spell giving you +50 (e.g. Tracking is a 3rd level spell that gives +50), etc, achieving a Virtually Impossible result is not really that hard. How many of those does it take to go up a level? How does the difficulty of advancing that way compare to the difficulty of advancing through combat?

Actually, even with a +200 total (including skill and magic), you would end up at +0, and you need to beat 110 for a full success, so it's far from a done deal. Beating Insane difficulty, however, is easy, so there's that.
But the point is, I don't think XP rewards should be correlated with luck at dice rolls. It's not really fair, it's not really balanced, it's not especially realistic, and in my opinion, it's not really fun, especially for those who fail those rolls.

[jdale]

That's a fundamental issue with granting XP on the basis of maneuvers, attacks, spellcasting, etc. I don't disagree (and RMU has a more narratively based XP system), but it's orthogonal to the original poster's question.

[MisterK]

That's a fundamental issue with granting XP on the basis of maneuvers, attacks, spellcasting, etc. I don't disagree (and RMU has a more narratively based XP system), but it's orthogonal to the original poster's question.

I know, that's why I suggested to reward failure instead (but only if the consequence of failure was commensurate with the difficulty).

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

At mid to high levels, your bonuses are high enough that those maneuvers become easy.

Indeed, but then "absurd" maneuvers are even easier, yet should two such maneuvers grant more than one "insane"? Because of the way skills are calculated in RM2, where upper ranks grant less than lower ranks, I think a linear experience way to award XPs from skill success is incorrect.

I would tend to disagree, if only because it basically rewards luck (which is a kind of double reward).

Well, a lucky critical roll that allows a PC to kill a NPC still grants him the kill XPs so, yeah, someone who disagrees with "rewarding luck" should just use a different XP system, which is NOT what the OP's question is about.

But the point is, I don't think XP rewards should be correlated with luck at dice rolls. It's not really fair, it's not really balanced, it's not especially realistic, and in my opinion, it's not really fun, especially for those who fail those rolls.

But the point is, the OP doesn't ask about whether you agree with the XP system he uses, but about whether you agree with the points he wants to award.

[Elrich Maltah]

But the point is, I don't think XP rewards should be correlated with luck at dice rolls. It's not really fair, it's not really balanced, it's not especially realistic, and in my opinion, it's not really fun, especially for those who fail those rolls.

But the point is, the OP doesn't ask about whether you agree with the XP system he uses, but about whether you agree with the points he wants to award.

Yes, this, thank you. The intent of my post was not to debate the merits of the XP system designed in RM2, but rather to ask if the progression I came up with makes sense given the framework provided.

Considering that moving maneuvers must obtain a "100" result to be successful, this makes the threshold for Insane, Phenomenal, and Virtually Impossible difficulties be at least results of 276, 326, and off the chart (376+?), respectively. This puts my suggested XP for a successful Virtually Impossible maneuver on par with the bonus for killing a dragon (2000) as presented in the standard ChL Experience Table (15.4.2).

It's within this reference that I'm asking if my suggested XP numbers are reasonable.

[jdale]

This puts my suggested XP for a successful Virtually Impossible maneuver on par with the bonus for killing a dragon (2000) as presented in the standard ChL Experience Table (15.4.2).

I would say that making a single maneuver roll, no matter how hard, is never equivalent to the amount of work required to kill a dragon.

[Elrich Maltah]

This puts my suggested XP for a successful Virtually Impossible maneuver on par with the bonus for killing a dragon (2000) as presented in the standard ChL Experience Table (15.4.2).

I would say that making a single maneuver roll, no matter how hard, is never equivalent to the amount of work required to kill a dragon.

You're right, of course. Looking deeper at the rules in Creatures & Treasures, I find that the scale for bonus XP for killing a dragon actually ranges from 1000 to 5000, depending on the type of dragon and level of the character doing the killing. So, clearly, the number in ChL is not meant to be a one-size-fits-all amount (nevermind that different developers at different times likely didn't compare notes).

Do you suppose it makes more sense to lower my suggested XP values to, say, 650, 800, and 1000?

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

This puts my suggested XP for a successful Virtually Impossible maneuver on par with the bonus for killing a dragon (2000) as presented in the standard ChL Experience Table (15.4.2).

I would say that making a single maneuver roll, no matter how hard, is never equivalent to the amount of work required to kill a dragon.

It's probably easier for a 20th level party (or even 15th party, really) to kill several dragons than to succeed a single Virtually Impossible manoeuvre…