Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Druss_the_Legend on November 01, 2015, 03:06:19 AM
-
Compared to many other systems Rolemasters XP development is tediously slow.
1. What rewards system do you use?
2. Any house rules for XP?
3. Do you award XP for treasure and magic items?
-
We just goal-based XPs similar to the HARP rules. You can find the details in the RM House Rules document on my homepage (see the profile link).
-
I also use goal based but I have transplanted the RMU experience rules into my RMC game.
-
I have always used the RM2 activity based XP system.
While I understand the idea behind goals based XP I can't support it as it makes no empirical sense that you get better at skills because you achieved a goal. You get better at skills by using, practicing and studying them. While there is certainly not a 100% correlation between the activity based system and the skills you are gaining/improving I feel it better reflects reality, which I value highly.
For that same reason I never awarded XP for treasure or items.
My house rule is that you additionally get 10 XP per day of activity, 5 XP per day of light activity and 0 XP for days of sloth. This represents practice and study.
-
We use the GM fiat system. The GM decides when it's time.
I've contemplated trying RMU's goal based system. In general for XP systems, I think it's important that the system rewards the behavior that you want to encourage. I don't think RM's original systems did that. In other games, I've used systems that rewarded only three things: 1) roleplay, 2) having goals, 3) progress towards goals. Equal weights on all three. I thought that was helpful for keeping things focused.
-
I favor just letting the GM wing it but it's kind of hard putting that in print. In a finished product you need a quantitative system that is reasonably balanced.
-
We use the GM fiat system. The GM decides when it's time.
I've contemplated trying RMU's goal based system. In general for XP systems, I think it's important that the system rewards the behavior that you want to encourage. I don't think RM's original systems did that. In other games, I've used systems that rewarded only three things: 1) roleplay, 2) having goals, 3) progress towards goals. Equal weights on all three. I thought that was helpful for keeping things focused.
I have never played in that kind of a system, so how, as a GM, do you handle the player(s) that don't have, and/or don't want to have, goals? Or where goals are greatly different. Such as a Paladin who's most lofty goal is being a honorable knight, and a Dabbler that wants to overthrow the established order and make himself King. Some people have lofty goals, some are more modest, some players I have played with want to be the motive force, some just want to come along for the ride and have fun. It seems from my outside perspective that those differences would make it very hard to have a fair system.
-
I have never played in that kind of a system, so how, as a GM, do you handle the player(s) that don't have, and/or don't want to have, goals? Or where goals are greatly different. Such as a Paladin who's most lofty goal is being a honorable knight, and a Dabbler that wants to overthrow the established order and make himself King. Some people have lofty goals, some are more modest, some players I have played with want to be the motive force, some just want to come along for the ride and have fun. It seems from my outside perspective that those differences would make it very hard to have a fair system.
Goals can exist on different scales. Overthrowing the established order and becoming king is certainly a goal. I would encourage that character to form some intermediate goals along the way, because it's not really something they can act on without breaking it down into smaller steps. For example, if he wants to become king, he needs to either be building an army to conquer the nation with or, more likely, trying to acquire noble status (since commoners don't get elevated to the throne) and undermining nobles who will be obstacles.
"Being an honorable knight" is really a roleplaying motivation (being honorable) and not a goal, unless he isn't a knight yet (then becoming a knight is a goal). But if he is a knight, his goal(s) might be to carry out the instructions and intentions of his liege lord. That's easy for me as GM, I either assign some tasks or give him a selection of tasks to pick between, or I have his liege express a set of concerns and leave it to him to figure out how best to address them. Any connections the characters have (family, loyalty to teachers or organizations, etc) can motivate goals.
The party may have shared goals. Perhaps they are trying to reveal the traitorous actions of a particular noble. Or they may have related goals. The paladin may want to discover and reveal treachery, the dabbler may want to implicate a particular noble of treachery, the mercenary may want to get paid for doing the job well and improve his status, the mage may want to discover the secrets of the dark magic that the unknown traitor is using, etc. Those can all relate to the same adventure (in fact it's ideal if they do), and lead them to work together, even if what they want to get out of it is not quite the same.
The test for a goal is whether it motivates the character to take actions. In short it is a hook that I as GM can use to motivate the characters to progress some kind of story. If the character has no goals, there's nothing to keep their interest in that story, and they could just as well wander off at any time. I feel like I am failing as GM if the character is just here to hang out. I should find something about their interests, their character's background, their aspirations, etc to dangle in front of them and catch their attention. Otherwise maybe I am showing favoritism to the characters whose interests I have spent the time to catch.
Goals need to be compatible with the kind of story the GM is interested in telling. If the character wants to become the king, but I as GM don't want to deal with noble politics, it's not going to work. Some communication is required between the GM and player. Also, personally as GM, I'm not interested in running a game where the players are in direct conflict over the focus of the campaign. E.g. if the paladin wants to elevate the king, and the dabbler wants to overthrow the king, I don't want to run a game about the king and put them into direct conflict. I would rather run a game about some kind of external conflict they can agree on, and have those other motivations be side issues. A little bickering in the party keeps things interesting (if it doesn't get out of hand) and motivates roleplay, but direct conflict that leads to murdering each other does not make for a happy gaming group. Again, this requires some communication between the GM and players. How much dissent are you willing to have between your PCs? I've played games that fell apart because there was too much. Some players and GMs may enjoy having lots of conflict, and that's fine, it's just not for me.
-
The longer we played RM the simpler our Exp system got. We started with the normal system and made minor modifications, then we moved to a mission/goal based one, then we moved to a session based amount (at the end), then I finally just decided when I run it's simply when I tell you to level (which lets me control the pace of the campaign).
-
The longer we played RM the simpler our Exp system got. We started with the normal system and made minor modifications, then we moved to a mission/goal based one, then we moved to a session based amount (at the end), then I finally just decided when I run it's simply when I tell you to level (which lets me control the pace of the campaign).
As a player I think that would make me feel I had no control over the outcome, which I don't think I would like very much.
How did your players react to that?
I'm also interested in why you moved away from the base system. Going to something "simpler" is a common theme across a lot of discussions. What was "complicated" about the base system? The math seems to be a part of it for a lot of people. I'm a CPA so I'm not surprised that the math part never bothered me. :)
-
In the RAW for RMSS players tried to dominate everything by using as many skills as possible to gain XP that the game flow came to a stand still. Moving to a mission based XP was better but trying to figure the reward for each type of mission was more difficult to balance with the flow of the campaign goals to get to the XP level for that part of the campaign. I had to do a combination of both of these providing a base mission value with non-frivolous skill use. This is my base and works well for me.
-
...then I finally just decided when I run it's simply when I tell you to level (which lets me control the pace of the campaign).
As a player I think that would make me feel I had no control over the outcome, which I don't think I would like very much.
How did your players react to that?
So, one question to ask yourself first is: Do you (or your GM) pay no attention to how much exp the players are getting? Meaning do you have a pace that you try to keep or is it just a completely free flow of exp that you adjust your game to? Most GM's I talk to have a story/plot/pace they are trying to at least loosely hold to. It's rare a GM is running a sandbox campaign where there's really no real control needed.
So taking that into account, if you think about it, just telling players when to level their characters really isn't much different than in-game mission based or out of game session based exp. The GM is still only giving you as much exp as they feel is appropriate. When I suggested it everyone reacted the same way... a slight look of approving surprise is the best way to put it. As if they'd never thought of doing it that way but were perfectly fine with it. I never did ask for specific opinions after that.
Also consider that this is not merely a way to slow the PC's down (again, go back to controlling the pace of your game - if you want to speed things up you give more exp), but it can also allow you to jump ahead if you wanted without a slog of exp gathering. If you wanted an epic style campaign maybe once the PC's got the 'lay of the land', made some friends, and started establishing themselves you want to jump ahead to grander things. So you say "Okay, spends a few years patrolling the plains for Orc bands and gain X levels, after those X number of years you notice a more focused effort and discover someone is organizing the Orcs into a more dangerous force..." and move on to a grander story-line.
I'm also interested in why you moved away from the base system. Going to something "simpler" is a common theme across a lot of discussions. What was "complicated" about the base system? The math seems to be a part of it for a lot of people. I'm a CPA so I'm not surprised that the math part never bothered me. :)
We've continually tried to find ways to speed things up and, being pretty darned familiar with RMSS and being a fairly intelligent group of people, there were a lot of little things about RMSS we knew we could toss out without much real change in the overall play. Part of our changes hinge on our playstyle obviously, and some of that playstyle hinges on the fact that we usually play to the low to mid teens in levels (I think in one campaign we stopped at like level 8 and one we stopped around 20th... but most hit around 12-17) which seems slightly higher than the norm for an RM user based on what I've seen in the forums over the years.
In discussing the size system in RMU (and I do NOT want to start a debate on that) I asked someone which problem you'd want to solve as written...
13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13x13? Meaning you need to repeatedly do the math.
or
13 to the 14th power? Meaning you use a shortcut calculation.
In reality they are the same problem with the same answer, one just takes longer to perform due to a repetition that could be built into a single calculation. Why do it the way that takes longer if there's a shorter way that results in the same answer?
End point, not worrying about how much Exp that last crit was worth, or that spell cast, or how many hits I took or gave, or how many miles I've travelled, was taking players attention away from book-keeping and giving them more actual gaming time. Basically, imagine if everything added itself up and you no longer had to keep any kind of ledger. The accounting took care of itself. We put you out of a job. ;)
You can't really change major aspects of RM without a high likelyhood of creating new problems, but there are often many small things you can eliminate or tweak that, added up, can make a difference. Almost no RM users I know of used Exhaustion Points because they were more tedious to track than it was worth. In my opinion, tracking Exp wasn't much different.
-
Our gaming group has experienced that there is not a large correlation between fun sessions when we had a great time and sessions when the main plot advanced. There are of course great sessions when the players progressed with the main plot, but much good roleplaying often happens when characters have different ideas about how to proceed or have some downtime in the city or similar to recover after an adventure.
To promote such play we decided to give most of the experience points for actually attending the game sessions, if you oversleep and miss part of the session you get less exp. I also reward bonus exp for sessions when I feel some player did heroic things or the group finished some major goal, but these are minor in comparison.
-
The longer we played RM the simpler our Exp system got. We started with the normal system and made minor modifications, then we moved to a mission/goal based one, then we moved to a session based amount (at the end), then I finally just decided when I run it's simply when I tell you to level (which lets me control the pace of the campaign).
That is basically what I did (over the course of twenty-five or so years).
That said, we only play RM* nowadays as a day quest (we do four day quests a year, and what the are really depends; they could be RM, D&D 3.x or Judge Dredd D20 these days). The only exception was about ten years ago, where I briefly ran a campaign in the evening (basically by stapling together about four or my previous day quests that this set of player had never played), but I am not even sure if they levelled up at any point there or (it would have been at a mandated point if the had). The quests are thus generally not contiguous, aside from the odd two-or-three parter, with in-universe time gaps between.
Further, the only other RM party we have played (until a week on Saturday) was one that had been kicking around for knocking onto twenty years and I have stopped advanced altogether on account of it becoming more or less impossible to present a combat challenge. (Despite them only being level 12.) But those games are as close to sandbox as we've ever gotten (in the sense that sometimes I would attempt to squeeze blood out of a stone and ask the players what their characters wanted to do next game) and was more about faffing around with those characters than advancement. (And also, of course, with only about six-eight hours or so for a day-quest, you aren't playing them long enough to have to worry about advancement.) So it wasn't really so much about mechanical character advancement.
(Having said that, neither I nor the other DMs track XP for day quest even when using something like D&D, though.)
For our weekly sessions, we tend to play D&D (again 3.x if I'm running (Paizo adventure paths nowadays), else 4E sometimes) and there, I do track the XP. And of course, D&D 3.x (and 4E to a lesser extent, though I'm not fond of the system) is a much more character-mechanics/character-build/character-progession based system, so scratches that itch rather better. (After all, in RM, you only have skills, so aside from the very few spellcasters, you only get better at what you do, not find new things to do most of the time.)
We are about to start our first new RM/SM party for ten years shortly, where they party have been set at level 6. (And they are Liches and part of one of the galaxy most high-tech powers; the fact this is a DOWNGRADE tells you something about the previous RM party...) I am not planning to advanced them after the first two-parter.
One thing I've found over the years, is that a party has a "life." At the end of which is the point where either the players are bored with the party or the DM can no longer sensibly concoct challenges for them. (4E went as far as actually codifying this by an actual level cap.) In D&D 3.x it's around 20th; we've run one party from 1st to low-Epic, and by the end, it was taking a disproportionate amount of time to sort the monsters for me. So, these days, with a D&D party, I work along the lines of "we'll play this party through the adventure path, and that will probably be it." With our RM parties and day-quest D&D parties, keeping the advancement rate down help extend the longevity of the party. (Especially in D&D, where a rate of one level per day quest which of one the other DMs does, I felt was far too fast, as my character didn't really get much chance to play with his new toys before he got his next lot.) RM is also bad enough to try and have meaningful combats in anyway (given players have tendency to open-ended splat EVERY boss monster), compounding the issue by inflating their numbers - especially in sci-fi, on high-end weapons where you can easily reach K-M crits and hundreds of hit damage - does not help.
Thus, out day-quests are a different sort of game to our weekly ones, and the criterion for advancement (and XP) are different.
*I say RM, I really mean RM/SM, since we haven't played an actual fantasy RM (as opposed to RM/SM sci-fantasy) game for... Well, the last one we played - and the only one fully on PC - dates back to 1998.
-
One thing I've found over the years, is that a party has a "life." At the end of which is the point where either the players are bored with the party or the DM can no longer sensibly concoct challenges for them.
I completely agree with that and I bet if more groups really thought about it they'd have a general idea of where that line was for them. You mention that 12th level is about your limit for RM. I think ours is in the upper teens to 20th level or so. When you start getting to the point that 20th level spells are flying fairly reliably the 'arms race' (so-to-speak) seems to start to ramp up. At that point you're either fighting stuff that has a unique name or you're running a kingdom. Back when we played D&D 2nd Ed I remember the point at which we knew we needed to find a new system was when the party took on two dragons at once with no deaths. After the fight we had a friendly/laughing discussion about how silly that seemed. I mean, dragons are what many of us see as being at the top of the food chain and we took out two simultaneously without breaking much of a sweat. There's almost no question that party would have been toast in RM.
Some gamers like the old school search a cave, take out the kobolds or orcs to save the village, and get a little loot out of it stuff. Some like seeing their PC grow powerful. Some like wide-scale politics and intrigue. Each has it's own level progression life.
I suspect out style has grown into what it is partially due the nature of our group. We've know each other for a very long time. The 'newest' member joined up in the early to mid 90's and some of us have known each other since '78-'79. While it's getting into psychology territory I think part of why we love playing a character for years on end (real time) is related to that. I can relate to both the role-play and roll-play crowds because we really put a lot into our characters and often extensively develop them, but at the same time we are very tactically/strategically oriented, so we love the combats (so long as they aren't just another boring slug-fest).
Relating to the overall topic, that 'level life' can be shortened or lengthened depending on how you give out Exp (and things like improved equipment or magical items). So tweaking how you handle character leveling can be a real advantage when trying to control the level range of play if needed.
-
I use an informal HARP version, mixed with GM control. After sessions I notify players of their XP gains, but they don't have formally stated project plan goals.... it's more of a matter where I know where they are going and are they making progress getting there - either individually or as a party. Level advancement is always done in between sessions and signed off on before the next session. I try to discourage players even mentioning when they advance levels, because not all of them advance together.
-
One thing I've found over the years, is that a party has a "life." At the end of which is the point where either the players are bored with the party or the DM can no longer sensibly concoct challenges for them.
I completely agree with that and I bet if more groups really thought about it they'd have a general idea of where that line was for them. You mention that 12th level is about your limit for RM.
It's more that we have only had only a few major RM parties 5/6 over the course of the last twenty-five years, and of that, this particular party was running the longest. Most of the other were in a set (weekly) campaign with a start, middle and end (sorta) and one which we just sort of fell out of favour of. This particular 12th level party (which is the highest we've gotten) is so broken, due to twenty-odd years of exacerbating issues (many of which Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time) that is is ridiculously hard to challenge them. (They have VERY ACTUALLY beaten two Greater Black Reavers with Sianetic Harbinger technology...! Granted, they did do it in the spacecraft, and it did take at least one set of fate points, but even so...!) And they aren't really important enough (or powerful enough) to be rolling with the Named Movers and Shakers of the galaxy (being basically a band of wandering misfits, Jedi and wanted criminals...) So I have said to the players that I plan to retire this particualr party on my 40th birthday year (about four years hense), after which, they'll have been clocking around for 22 years, which I think is a PRETTY good run, even if it's only been an average of about on adventure per year! (By "retire" I mean more like "end of the series" but leaving open the possibility of reuniting for "the movies" on occasion afterwards...!)
I suspect out style has grown into what it is partially due the nature of our group. We've know each other for a very long time. The 'newest' member joined up in the early to mid 90's and some of us have known each other since '78-'79. While it's getting into psychology territory I think part of why we love playing a character for years on end (real time) is related to that.
That, I suspect, is also quite a large part of it. As you may have surmised, I have been paying with mostly the same crowd for twenty-five years, both with the weekly and day-quest groups (most of the members ofd which are common). (in fact, the problem with the Agamemnon party is that there are a fair number of now-NPCs hanging around that have acrued over the years, sometimes from players who have left, who are sort of indepensible or who I have not, despite my geniune best efforts, to get shot of. (Damn you, Gillman. *shakes angry fist to the heavens*)
So Aggy is more about [Richard]ing around with those characters, rather than advancement or whatever, because they really are like old friends as this point.
What I've been working on flat-out since about, what May, is a new party, with a slightly more flexible set-up (it's basically Evil Lich Superpower Does Stargate SG-1), which I expect I will last another twenty years or so. Since this time, I am obviously better able to understand how to set myself up to not get into that same corner! I'll also be sparing with advancement, since part of the set-up is to make the PCs use their available resources (which includes skills), and the emphasis is going to be more on exploration than anything else.
-
I find a lot of GM's don't think about it for some reason... but I love using retired PC's as future NPC's and players get a kick out of it too. I mean, you've got a FULLY fleshed out and organically grown NPC at your fingertips.
Just something to think about after you retire those characters. 8)
-
I find a lot of GM's don't think about it for some reason... but I love using retired PC's as future NPC's and players get a kick out of it too. I mean, you've got a FULLY fleshed out and organically grown NPC at your fingertips.
Just something to think about after you retire those characters. 8)
That is something that we have bounre in mind before... Though in the case of the Aggy party, the problem is, the new one we're starting is sort of on the opposite side of the alignment spectrum...!
...
Though only of most of the group... Actually... Huh. There are about three characters that could fit in with the new Lich party as non-enemies (and at least one NPC I'd have no qualms about making the players kill if I can't manage it before then...!)
-
I find a lot of GM's don't think about it for some reason... but I love using retired PC's as future NPC's and players get a kick out of it too. I mean, you've got a FULLY fleshed out and organically grown NPC at your fingertips.
Just something to think about after you retire those characters. 8)
That is something that we have bounre in mind before... Though in the case of the Aggy party, the problem is, the new one we're starting is sort of on the opposite side of the alignment spectrum...!
That might actually be even more fun. They'd potentially partially know what they are facing and it might scare them. ;)
-
I follow the RMSS XP system pretty closely but I do award idea XP's and goal achievement XP. I find the level up pretty OK. As the party has grown in level, the spell casters accumulate a lot of XP each round especially if they get into combat. I never liked treasure XP as it was dumb luck and no real activity to get the XP. I think the RMSS system is more realistic.
-
Compared to many other systems Rolemasters XP development is tediously slow.
1. What rewards system do you use?
2. Any house rules for XP?
3. Do you award XP for treasure and magic items?
1. I use a "level" as a reward. All players share in EXP for missions, puzzles, skills, kills and treasure.
2. The house rules were so convoluted that we decided just to give a level every game session or two (we play for 10 hours straight, every other weekend in Nashville, TN)
3. I reward the group with EXP for completing quests, dungeons, rescuing someone, for destroying "evil" items or giving to charity. The typical good behavior mumbo-jumbo :)
As a basic rule, simply give a level a session. Rolemaster is so deadly that it doesn't hurt to give a level a game session! The highest I have ever seen a players character is level 23! I have been playing since 1987 if that gives you any idea about how deadly the crit tables are :P
-
I follow the formula in ChL&CaL RM2 ( I believe that's where it's found) as closely as possible. But, because the level advancement is a little slow, I add a Base XP for the gaming session that each player gets. If it was a particularly challenging or long session, the XP will be more.
After all the XP is calculated, I roll 1D10 and give an additional %bonus added on to the total to reflect the Fates, the gods, dumb luck, whatever you want to call it. At most the bonus 10% total bonus and that is really rare that I roll a 10 for the 10% bonus.
-
Each GM in my current group has a different method. GM1 gives everyone a level at the same time. GM2 gives a flat reward each session, with bonus points for creating a plan and succeeding. I tried a mix of flat experience (1000 XP per session), plus participation (1000 XP for showing and playing), plus a reward for roleplaying (variable), and experience for combat damage (1 XP/point of damage taken or given). In the past, I used the basic experience system from RM2 along with idea points. My first GM used the MERP system plus "balance points" where all players experience was calculated, halved, and players generally received an equal share.
-
I use a combination of the original RM2 xp system, some what toned down, along with a group goal/story award system...
But I have been playing around with a personal/Professional goal system I saw/found when I GM'd another system Called Ace & Eights.
Basically it had Career Goal paths with goals/Accomplishments Recommended for the Profession of the Character to work towards, and as they achieved each goal they earned X amount of points.
-
I use a combination of the original RM2 xp system, some what toned down, along with a group goal/story award system...
But I have been playing around with a personal/Professional goal system I saw/found when I GM'd another system Called Ace & Eights.
Basically it had Career Goal paths with goals/Accomplishments Recommended for the Profession of the Character to work towards, and as they achieved each goal they earned X amount of points.
career goal paths sound interesting, can you post an example of how they work?
-
Okay, so firstly, a "Career Goal path", as you put it, is not necessarily based on ones profession. A Gm could create one for specific professions, But they don't have to be.
Let us say some one was Playing a Fighter, but they wanted to be a Bounty hunter and were Working on the "Bounty Hunter" Career Goal Path.
Each Goal can only be claimed once.
you can Only Skip ahead one Goal, Before you can get credit for a Goal 2 beyond one you skipped you must go back and complete the skipped goal.
A Goal can not be claimed be claimed for actions Prior to advancing to that goal.
A Player may Work on as Many Career paths as they Like, but may only "Claim" one goal at a time and may not Collect multiple goals from the same effort.
These would be the Goals.
Bounty Hunter
50 Eps = Capture a Criminal: Capture a person accused of a crime.
100 Eps = Bring in a Local Criminal: Capture a person accused of a crime locally and bring them into a local Law official for reward
200 Eps = Bring in a Notorious Outlaw (some one wanted for many crimes over a Period of time) Dead or Alive: and bring them into a Law Official for reward.
300 Eps = Bring in a Notorious Outlaw (some one wanted for many crimes over a Period of time) Alive: and bring them into a Law Official for reward.
500 Eps = Bring in a Notorious Outlaw (some one wanted for many crimes over a Period of time) Dead or Alive, that currently resides outside the territory/state/jurisdiction in which you currently reside, and bring them into a Law Official for reward.
700 Eps = Bring in a Notorious Outlaw (some one wanted for many crimes over a Period of time) Alive, that currently resides outside the territory/state/jurisdiction in which you currently reside, and bring them into a Law Official for reward.
1000 Eps = Bring in a a Whole Gang (4+ members) Dead or Alive, that currently resides outside the territory/state/jurisdiction in which you currently reside, and bring them into a Law Official for reward.
1500 Eps = Bring in a a Whole Gang (6+ members) Alive, that currently resides outside the territory/state/jurisdiction in which you currently reside, and bring them into a Law Official for reward.
you can expand it from there upwards...
Another Career Path might be Doctor
Doctor (Requires at leas to of these skills: First Aid, Second aid, Surgery)
50 Eps = Set up for business/Service in a Known location (can be a tent, cave, Rental, or what have you.)
100 Eps = Treat First Patient, from your establishment, Successfully
200 Eps = Buy Lot suitable for Constructing a Building for practice.
300 Eps = Improve two medical skills to rank 5
500 Eps = Build a structure in which to preform your practice.
700 Eps = Preform a Successful Amputation of a limb (Fingers and Toes not counted)
1000 Eps = Successfully preform a Life Saving surgery
1500 Eps = Save lives from a Plague (3+ survivors)
The Wizard
50 Eps = Successfully Learn a New Open List for your Realm.
100 Eps = Preform magical Services for a Local/minor Noble.
200 Eps = Learn two lists above level 10
300 Eps = Obtain/purchase Land to build a "Mage Tower" upon
500 Eps = Preform services for a Major Noble
700 Eps = Obtain an Apprentice.
1000 Eps = Build a "Mage Tower"
1500 Eps = Create some New Magic (spell/Item/Creature)
-
I have been testing level-less rolemaster where the players earn ranks in the skills they use rather than gaining levels and that seems to be working well.
For spell effects I use the rank in place of level eggins a duration would be 1 minute/rank rather than 1 min/level.
-
I use the RMFRP xp rules straight out of the book. However, I make the players track all of their maneuver and combat xp.
I as GM then award adventure/story and misc. xp awards for roleplaying, cool ideas, etc.
-
Like JDale and Corey, I basically just tell the players when to level up their characters. We used to use the RM2 experience rules, but tracking every single critical and hit point delivered became a big time waster for the GM. It is a little easier in DnD, where killing monsters is the primary source of XP. But gradually I just shifted to a system where I just tell the PCs when they get to level up, which is usually after every 3 sessions or so. It may not be the most detailed system, but it saves a lot of time for both them and me, so we're happy with it.
In regards to RMU, it might be best to set the xp thresholds very low for the first few levels of characters, since characters of levels 1-3 are very weak, and many parties are going to want to pass through those levels quickly.
-
In regards to RMU, it might be best to set the xp thresholds very low for the first few levels of characters, since characters of levels 1-3 are very weak, and many parties are going to want to pass through those levels quickly.
I agree with that. I think it's better to start low and advance quickly, giving people a chance to adjust what skills they develop in response to what happens, rather than starting off with higher level characters, unless your group is all experienced with RM.
-
I as a GM, also like to adjust the pace of the campaign by having ways to control the leveling of PC's. I am more story based than combat so I tend to give the goal base experience over XP from combat and spell casting. I have found that this tends to take over the game as players are more concerned with tracking all the hits and crits or PP used than actually being imersed in the game experience or the story.
-
After 1 session you go up to level 2, after two more sessions level 3, after 3 more sessions level 4 etc.
-
I give XPs according to age and lifestyle. By "age", I mean how old one is compared to when one started to work/adventure, based on an experience chart I wrote, which determines the experience level a person of a certain age is. By "lifestyle", I mean how "intense" one's everyday's activity is, in matter of experience, from "normal" activity (doing what everyone with the same "profession" does; for instance, for a "fighter", that'd be serving as a militiaman), "intense" activity (doing what the selected, "elite", few do; for instance, for a "fighter", that'd be serving in a special ops unit) and "heroic" activity (performing exceptional, extraordinary deeds only unique individuals are even able to perform).
-
I got tired of the ridiculousness of the the normal XP system years ago. Now I just hand out Development Points directly after the end of an adventure (usually several sessions).
Players can spend their development points immediately as long as their total ranks do not exceed (level +1)X2.
I did have to adjust the cost of all skills (so 2/5 became 3/3 for example) since they would be increasing their skill ranks more often.
DEVELOPMENT POINT AWARDS
Player was in an adventure: 3 DEV PTS
Player stayed in the spirit of genre: 3 DEV PTS
Player roleplayed well: 1-5 DEV PTS
Player advanced personal goal: 1-5 DEV PTS per
Player had an outstanding use of skill: 1-5 DEV PTS per
Player had a good idea: 1-5 DEV PTS per
Adventure was difficult: 1-5 DEV PTS
DEVELOPMENT POINTS NEEDED TO LEVEL
1st - 5th level = 100 DEV PTS
6th - 10th level = 120 DEV PTS
11th - 15th level = 150 DEV PTS
16th - 20th level = 180 DEV PTS
21st level and beyond = 210 DEV PTS"
-
I got tired of the ridiculousness of the the normal XP system years ago. Now I just hand out Development Points directly after the end of an adventure (usually several sessions).
Players can spend their development points immediately as long as their total ranks do not exceed (level +1)X2.
I did have to adjust the cost of all skills (so 2/5 became 3/3 for example) since they would be increasing their skill ranks more often.
DEVELOPMENT POINT AWARDS
Player was in an adventure: 3 DEV PTS
Player stayed in the spirit of genre: 3 DEV PTS
Player roleplayed well: 1-5 DEV PTS
Player advanced personal goal: 1-5 DEV PTS per
Player had an outstanding use of skill: 1-5 DEV PTS per
Player had a good idea: 1-5 DEV PTS per
Adventure was difficult: 1-5 DEV PTS
DEVELOPMENT POINTS NEEDED TO LEVEL
1st - 5th level = 100 DEV PTS
6th - 10th level = 120 DEV PTS
11th - 15th level = 150 DEV PTS
16th - 20th level = 180 DEV PTS
21st level and beyond = 210 DEV PTS"
thats looks reall
y interesting. far simpler than all the number crunching that normally goes on. how many adventures does it take them to level up?
i like the advancing personal goal award. ill use that.
-
When I ran GURPS, I gave XP for only three things:
* Making progress towards goals
* Roleplay
XP is an incentive for certain actions, the things I wanted to reward were having goals and finding ways to work towards them, and roleplaying. I didn't need to provide an incentive to get into combat etc.
-
When I ran GURPS, I gave XP for only three things:
* Making progress towards goals
* Roleplay
What's the third?
-
And I thought it was just me thinking that....
-
When I ran GURPS, I gave XP for only three things:
* Making progress towards goals
* Roleplay
What's the third?
Noticing missing list elements, obviously.
Myself, I prefer a flat amount of XP for any player who showed up. That way, players will roughly stay the same power level (I say roughly because not everyone will be at the table every time - everybody has to miss a session now and then). That's a lot less hassle for basically the same gain. Also, no one will try to game that system.
-
Myself, I prefer a flat amount of XP for any player who showed up.
I have always avoided such approaches, both as a GM and as a player.
My view is that players, and thus their characters, should be rewarded for their efforts, both individually and as a group. It almost always frustrates the player who is trying hard to accomplish things, either on a character's agenda or in the overall story, to be getting the same xp as the guy who just sits there like a sponge and whose only dialogue is "did I kill it?"
This is why I like the RMFRP xp system the most. It is RAW, so everyone can see exactly how it works and what to expect. It allows me as the GM to award group xp for the adventure while giving the players xp based on what they actually do and accomplish. And since Rolemaster is a skill based system, everyone no matter their profession has something to do.
The individual xp awards allow players to advance based on their effort, while the group awards allow less active players to get something.
-
I also prefer a combination of individual and group awards (for much the same reasons Pazuzu puts forward), and I prefer awarding XPs to giving out DPs. Typically I do XPs at the end of every session and have them ready to award at the start of the next. Since I tend to run more open-ended campaigns, "when the adventure's over" isn't always clear-cut.
-
When I ran GURPS, I gave XP for only three things:
* Making progress towards goals
* Roleplay
What's the third?
* Mindreading ;D ;D ;D
-
Myself, I prefer a flat amount of XP for any player who showed up.
I have always avoided such approaches, both as a GM and as a player.
My view is that players, and thus their characters, should be rewarded for their efforts, both individually and as a group. It almost always frustrates the player who is trying hard to accomplish things, either on a character's agenda or in the overall story, to be getting the same xp as the guy who just sits there like a sponge and whose only dialogue is "did I kill it?"
People being frustrated because others get something they get, too? I have never encountered that problem. But I have seen power differences in player characters ruining it for the group as a whole.
But then again, none of my players over all these years could be described as a "sponge". :)
-
thats looks reall
y interesting. far simpler than all the number crunching that normally goes on. how many adventures does it take them to level up?
i like the advancing personal goal award. ill use that.
I'd say on average it can take 6 - 8 full sessions for my players to gain a level. I just have to be careful not to be too liberal with my interpretation of words like "advanced", "well" and "difficult".
We all like to goof off, sometimes too much, so the "played in the spirit of the genre" reward helps keep us all in line.
-
People being frustrated because others get something they get, too?
At the risk of delving into politics, this is the crux of the difference between socialism and capitalism.
In the realm of this discussion, it is "get" versus "earn". It is human nature to want to be rewarded for one's effort. When the reward is unequal for equal effort, or when the reward is the same for different levels of effort, it takes away the incentive for making the effort. If all you have to do is show up, players may not take greater risks when there is no greater reward.
Let's take an example.
Player A works his butt off in the game. Researching clues, thinking of clever tactics, working out the logistics of hauling rations and loot, and being bold and adventurous.
And then there is Player B. He spends most of the night eating Cheetos and the group's snacks. He will roll the dice when it is his turn to make an attack in the combat round. But that is about all he is good for.
So in Scenario 1, we use the earned xp method. Player A gets more xp than Player B because he made the effort and did more. Player A is pleased because his rewards matched his effort. Players C through F see that Player A earned more xp, and they endeavor to increase their efforts in the next session. Player B may or may not care that he earned less xp. But if he wants to earn more, all he has to do is up his game.
In Scenario 2, we use the flat xp method. Player A pushes the envelope and pulls off all kinds of epic stuff. Player B grabs a Mountain Dew to go with his Cheetos. Everyone gets the same xp just for showing up and being able to fog a mirror. Player B keeps on keeping on just as always, because why take any chances when the rewards are always the same. Player A sees that it doesn't matter what he does, he will get the same participation trophy. So next session, he sits down and says "pass the Cheetos".
While these examples are to the extreme, this is done to make the point. If everyone at a table is pleased with getting the same rewards no matter the efforts made, then more power to them. In my thirty plus years of gaming, I have never seen this to be the case.
Giving everyone a participation trophy for showing up may make the mothers happy, but the players, or at least the ones with even the smallest amount of drive, think it sucks.
The same feelings tend to apply to the RPG table as well. Players are motivated to succeed and do cool things. The GM rewards these efforts and successes by handing out xp and treasure. Not every group can fill all of the chairs at the table with their preferred player type. Some of us have to take what we can get. That means one player may be Captain America, while the guy next to him is a sponge.
One of the things that I have found to work well to motivate a better and more full participation is the use of individual rewards. This is the carrot that can motivate most players. There are a few players out there who this will not work on. Then the trick is to find what does motivate them.
But if you get stuck with someone who is simply content to sit there and eat Cheetos, then the other players at least get someone to detect traps the hard way and to soak up some crits when they try to Leeroy Jenkins their way into the next room.
It's all good either way.
-
People being frustrated because others get something they get, too?
At the risk of delving into politics, this is the crux of the difference between socialism and capitalism.
[...]
But there's a significant difference here: XP are not a scarce resource. You, the GM, create them as needed with a wave of your hand. So there is no need to prioritize here.
Second, at a gaming table, you come together to have a good time. For many people (those that we all prefer to play with, for obvious reasons), actually playing the game is the fun part, and the XP reward is just a nice drop of honey on top of it. So we cannot sincerely claim that the XP reward alone will motivate anyone to do anything.
There is also one similarity to the real world, though: Power differences can ruin it for everybody. In the real world, that's super-rich oligarchs who run everything and make the poor suffer just to be more rich (like in Russia, for instance). Those people demonstratably make society less fun for eveyone, even themselves on the long run. They're just too short-sighted to understand that.
At a gaming table, it is the high-level wizard who blasts through every opponent without the low-level fighter even having a chance to do anything... which makes the whole game a solitary experience with spectators, instead of a fun group endeavor.
So what one wants to do is to not let power differences get out of hand, and have people have a good time - complete with a drop of honey at the end.
-
For those who do flat awards regardless of effort, how do you actually keep the more engaged players motivated? As a fairly motivated player (heavy background stories, staying in character, and so on), I always found it disheartening when the Cheetos-munching player advanced at the same rate I did, and usually reaped the same rewards as well (most GMs I've gamed with who did flat rewards also insisted on splitting treasure and similar stuff the same way). It's all well and good to talk about the companionship of the gaming table and all that, but if you're carrying deadweight there's not much companionship going on.
I never did flat rewards, but I also structured my XPs to create some parity in terms of awards. Sure, some did earn more than others, but on the whole the advance rate was fairly close. I think it's possible to keep a certain level of party balance while still rewarding solid play.
-
(most GMs I've gamed with who did flat rewards also insisted on splitting treasure and similar stuff the same way).
How did that work? Are you referring treasure creation, where the GM places items that can be useful to every member of the party? Or are you saying that the GM would actively tell the players how to split up the monetary rewards and who to give what items?
-
When I ran GURPS, I gave XP for only three things:
* Making progress towards goals
* Roleplay
What's the third?
* Mindreading ;D ;D ;D
+100 XP sir!
I originally was going to write "having goals" as a separate bullet point.
I don't see any issues with giving equal XP, although it depends on your players. If they are competitive and need some incentives to play in the way the GM wants, it might be better to have individual XP. But then there's more obligation on the part of the GM to give similar opportunities for XP and similar rewards for actions. If a character is a specialist whose specialty doesn't come up as often, and therefore has fewer opportunities to earn XP, is that the fault of the player for picking the wrong sort of character, or the fault of the GM for not writing the campaign to give that character a fair amount of focus? If the GM neglects a character and then also penalizes the character with less XP as a result, it makes the situation worse. As they fall behind, their skills become less and less relevant and then there are even fewer opportunities to earn XP (depending on how you award XP).
Our gaming groups tend to be less competitive so we don't feel we need individual XP. One of the GMs I am playing with still gives individual XP because he "doesn't want to give people something they haven't earned", I guess a sort of anti-communist attitude. But face it, the party is a communist enterprise, we pool all our money and assign magic items on the basis of need, not effort. :)
In our LARP, we always give flat rate XP, because it would be too difficult to be fair with subjective rewards. And consequently people worry about their character goals and roleplaying, not about how much XP they will earn.
-
My experience is similar to that of JDale. The party functions as an autonomous collective (just had to quote Monty Python!) rather than a capitalist competition. Maybe it is because we are Canadian ;) Magic items are distributed according to need or who could use them best.
I've never had to give anyone incentive to play, but then again, I don't demand much role-playing; some players are just not that into making up voices or acting out scenarios (they are more combat/gamist/simulationist focused), and prefer to narrate what their characters do. Those of us who do like a bit more vigorous roleplaying (like me) just do it, but we don't expect rewards for it; we do it because we have more fun that way.
-
I give group and individual XP. The group reward is for the accomplishment in the story line and achievement of group goals so far. The individual ones are for being in character and performing side goals to enhance character story lines. The group XP is the greater amount and will generally bring PC's up at the same leveling. The personal XP will only really affect one level out of 5-6 levels played at the most or no affect in the least.
-
For those who do flat awards regardless of effort, how do you actually keep the more engaged players motivated? As a fairly motivated player (heavy background stories, staying in character, and so on), I always found it disheartening when the Cheetos-munching player advanced at the same rate I did, and usually reaped the same rewards as well (most GMs I've gamed with who did flat rewards also insisted on splitting treasure and similar stuff the same way).
NPC's. The NPC's will recognize those people they observed doing important stuff, people they regard as heroes, and will make it clear when someone is more or less seen as a sidekick. You can even create additional fun by inverting this, and have at some point have the most inactive player be the "hero" in the locals' eyes, a bit like the Firefly Episode "Jaynestown". :D
That said, I usually don't observe any need for that. People who enjoy playing will do so intrinsically, people who are more passive will enjoy that just as much.
By the way, in the past, I also tried a different approach: Each player got a pool of XP to distribute among his fellow players. But it almost always ended with equal points for everyone.
-
When I ran GURPS, I gave XP for only three things:
* Making progress towards goals
* Roleplay
What's the third?
* Mindreading ;D ;D ;D
+100 XP sir!
SCORE!!!
Wait.... is that 100 individual XP or the entire group got 100XP? ;D
OK, back onto topic. Our group was fortunate enough to have 4-5 players who GM'd and we rotated pretty frequently so everyone got to play and we had a mix of methods for GM's awarding XP. There were some sessions where the flat XP for the group just worked. As much as I don't like flat XP, I can't deny that sometimes it just works.
Example: The group was in between major events in the campaign. Searching for info, looking for our next direction, resupplying. Lots of role play, little "action" or dice rolling. In those instances, the flat amount seemed to work. But there was one GM who was notorious for just doing flat XP for a session and there was a definite change in the feel of the game and the players' effort they put into the session.
After a year of gaming with the group, I picked up on it more and what I thought was just good-natured ribbing at the GM was more akin to mild complaining about the flat XP method. I'll admit, one time, after a particularly long session where my PC had a major role, I really felt slighted by flat XP because the "Cheeto-eater" who was doing his homework and tutoring a student for Bio/Chem class and who wasn't really paying attention to the game was awarded the same amount of XP. We had to get his attention and tell him to roll the dice and add whatever skill. He rolled, said the total, then went back to tutoring. He didn't even care what the results of his actions were! The GM could have easily rolled for him. I realized 'more' what they were referring to and why they were complaining about it.
I give group and individual XP. The group reward is for the accomplishment in the story line and achievement of group goals so far. The individual ones are for being in character and performing side goals to enhance character story lines. The group XP is the greater amount and will generally bring PC's up at the same leveling. The personal XP will only really affect one level out of 5-6 levels played at the most or no affect in the least.
I do the same, as I mentioned in an earlier post. All of the players get XP for the session ( I believe is mentioned in RM2: ChL&CaL), then I add in as best I'm able XP for the high rolls, the crits, the killing blows, the damage done, damage taken (that's all learning experience....) "Hey, I SHOULDN'T block the mace with my face!", etc.
It keeps all of the players still earning some points and somewhat closer in levels and by being present they do contribute to the group, yes even if they are only sitting there eating Cheetos. The NPC's attacking have to consider the Cheeto-eater PC as a threat, or the party can use the Cheeto-eater as cannon fodder... Which we may or may not have done on occasion to some sponge players, which I cannot confirm nor deny at this point in time. LOL Whether they wanted to or not, the sponge did contribute to the party to some extent.
This is just what works for our group. What's nice is that it keeps the players still somewhat close in level, but the more active players get a little more reward but it shouldn't outpace the less active players by too much.
-
With the World of Darkness system, the flat XP seems to work well. That's a game system we also play pretty frequently. The system seems to lend itself well to the method of XP. We've never had issues with that.
Apologies for the multiple post. I waited too long to modify my previous post.
-
(most GMs I've gamed with who did flat rewards also insisted on splitting treasure and similar stuff the same way).
How did that work? Are you referring treasure creation, where the GM places items that can be useful to every member of the party? Or are you saying that the GM would actively tell the players how to split up the monetary rewards and who to give what items?
This particular GM pooled treasure and money and assigned them using a mechanism he created to do this (mercenaries' guild).
-
And to track back to JDale's example, if it's a failure by the GM to design adventures which have potential for all characters, then YES I do blame the GM. A good GM should design things to allow for each character to contribute, or modify the design if that proves to not be the case. RM did a very poor job of allowing for non-combat XPs; something I house ruled as soon as I could.
The game that really soured me on equally dividing XPs was D&D (don't remember the exact edition, but it was what they came out with right after AD&D). I was playing a Ranger, which turned out to be the most combat-capable character in the group. The rest of the party was more optimized for stealth and lore (I think we had a bard, thief, and something else...maybe a cleric - no fighters to be seen). The GM's campaign was heavily combat-focused, so I got stuck doing almost all the fighting and party-saving. Almost went broke buying healing stuff, since they didn't pool for any of that (and tended to hide as soon as combat started). The guy playing the thief tended to miss about every other session, but he got as many XPs as everyone else. Eventually that stops being fun (at least for me).
Most of the modern games I've played base XPs on goal or mission accomplishment and skill use (Top Secret, Gangbusters, Old West and so on), and I borrowed from those ideas when I redid RM XPs. My system is a blend of shared and individual XPs, and I've found it works well. Of course it's also developed from trying to award XPs for a successful cattle drive, a shootout in the middle of town, and deciphering a coded message showing the location of a hidden waterhole that saved the drive. One character also got XPs for a series of skill rolls allowing him to head off a stampede.
-
Interesting stuff. I had no idea the struggles some GMs have to get their players to engage and pay attention. It's just never been a problem in our group except maybe with one player, whom we pretty quickly stopped inviting to our games.
I do kind of like what DnD 5e does with 'Inspiration'. Basically, characters get an inspiration point when the GM judges them to have done something particularly good (it can be good roleplaying, accomplishing a character goal, etc.). The character can then spend that inspiration point to reroll an attack, skill check, or saving throw. Characters can't have more than 1 inspiration point at a time. I'm thinking of doing something similar for my Rolemaster games. This would be less of an xp system and more of a system to reward good play though.
-
I do kind of like what DnD 5e does with 'Inspiration'. Basically, characters get an inspiration point when the GM judges them to have done something particularly good (it can be good roleplaying, accomplishing a character goal, etc.). The character can then spend that inspiration point to reroll an attack, skill check, or saving throw. Characters can't have more than 1 inspiration point at a time. I'm thinking of doing something similar for my Rolemaster games. This would be less of an xp system and more of a system to reward good play though.
That was close to how you got Hero points in the old James Bond RPG, except the points weren't capped and came from any QR1 skill success roll that DIDN'T result from combat (if I remember the name and ranking correctly, but I do know combat was specifically excluded from generating hero points). It specifically encouraged players to use their non-combat skills frequently, and you could use HPs to modify skill rolls (within limits...again, don't have the rules in front of me).
-
This particular GM pooled treasure and money and assigned them using a mechanism he created to do this (mercenaries' guild).
Interesting.
I think if I tried that with my players I'd have the table overturned on me "Brian of KOTD fame" style.
-
One GM we played with gave out special points for great roleplaying as well as out of game things like taking notes, tracking initiative, bringing food, etc. They weren't usable as XP but could be expended for bonuses on any roll. (It was World of Darkness, so +1 die per point, max of three per roll.) We could use them on other people's rolls, too, so they could be personal or things important to the whole party, or just to yourself (e.g. you might spend some on the healer's attempt to heal your character). He used coins as the representation, so it was a tangible reward and a tangible investment to use them.
It's a little out-of-game, but it gave incentives without affecting long term party balance. I thought it worked pretty well, although I haven't done it myself. My players don't need much incentive. (Although I would like them to take better notes.)
-
And to track back to JDale's example, if it's a failure by the GM to design adventures which have potential for all characters, then YES I do blame the GM. A good GM should design things to allow for each character to contribute, or modify the design if that proves to not be the case. RM did a very poor job of allowing for non-combat XPs; something I house ruled as soon as I could.
Well put. There should be a little creative balance on the part of the GM. Something for everyone to allow them participation. It's not easy, and not every single session calls for it, but the overall campaign should have all of the PC archetypes considered to exploits strengths as well as weaknesses. This (to me) is where the XP for the PC's really starts to shine, but it really keeps all of the player engaged and invested in the session.
One GM we played with gave out special points for great roleplaying as well as out of game things like taking notes, tracking initiative, bringing food, etc. They weren't usable as XP but could be expended for bonuses on any roll. (It was World of Darkness, so +1 die per point, max of three per roll.)
We did something similar as well I would give out +1 to +5 XP if the PC stumped me or came up with a really awesome way of overcoming something I threw at them. +1 for making the GM laugh. +1 for bringing Funyuns. ;-) I love Funyuns! In RM2, when it takes 20,000XP to go from Level 6 to Level 7, 1XP won't be any impact, but I found it really encouraged the players to be creative... because conversely, when it takes 20,000XP to level up, they do anything they can to get XP.
One particularly well spoken player (he ended up switching careers from architect to lawyer in real life) had me fast talking and had me so engaged in trying to follow the conversation so my NPCs wouldn't slip up and he ended up tripping me up anyway. The guard gave him the sword, the Burglar stabbed the dragon wing, the dragon woke up pissed off and blasted every one with a fireball. Much fun was had by most of the party. LOL. (not those who got stuck in the blast).
-
I can't recall if I actually posted in this or not......but, I don't track Experience. We play once or twice a month, so , I track sessions. Leveling from 1-2 is 2 sessions, 2-3 is 3 sessions etc. If a player misses a session they cannot level up until after the next played session and cannot skip levels.
-
Depends what system I'm running :)
For RM I was as detailed as the system. What can I say... I liked the complexity!
We kept a record of:
The hits caused/suffered.
The crits caused (per different type of Creature) and suffered (by Type)
Significant skill use (by difficulty).
Loads of other stuff..
What the players earned as individuals they received.
I then totalled the total xp for the session and allocated this as "bonuses"
50% was shared evenly between all the characters that participated.
50% was based on Role-playing and ideas.. (this bit was subjective but gave the unlucky but inventive players a reward). Quite often I'd let the players chose how this was divided...
Also, since I was using the original RM diminishing XP returns method of the awards, continued success in specific xp areas tended to be accelerated at the beginning of a characters career and reduced markedly in the mid-levels. Generally, players quickly progressed to 4-6th level. (which is my favourite Level ;) )
Rather than have players effectively pre-select and allocate skills on which their DP would be spent when they increased level, I allowed players to earn DP with the XP they had earned each session.
Each character could pre-select up to 10 specific skills which their characters *wanted to improve*, as they earned xp.
The total number of DP that could be earned in a level was divided by the number of XP required to achieve the next level.
This gave a XP = DP number so, that when players earned XP, they would also gradually be able to "spend" it on DP, reducing the DP they gat when they achieved the next level.
They could only spend XP to get the DP early, if it was on this list or was actively used in that session..
If the DP earned wasn't used, then once the level was achieved (and a period of rest/recuperation/training was available) they could spend any remaining DP however they pleased. Characters still couldn't earn more skill levels than they would normally though... so a fighter with a 1/2 skill could still only earn 2 ranks etc.
Therefore the acquisition of skills would be a relatively gradual affair, rather than a "lump" when they went up a level.
-
What I personally like about RPGs (be it video games or tabletop RPGs) is the choice we have as a player to choose our challenges based on a risk/reward ratio
I like that if i take great risks (e.g. exploring a cave full of trolls at low levels), there will be great rewards (loot and xp)
The RAW for RMSS XP system is based on that fact by giving bonus xp for higher level monster, skills used while in danger, etc
I admit it is tediously slow at times when calculating everything manually but the system is not bad at its core. A software that calculates everything is of great help in that regards.
Missions or goals based xp is a lot simpler though and is not a bad way of doing it either. It all depends on the general pace of your campaign in the end and what kind of gameplay you like to promote in your games
-
I usually give players the same amounto of XP, and if a player did something really outstanding (brilliant idea to manage a situation, unconventional solution to a problem, finding a way to advance in the plot that I didn't foresee or achieving a personal goal very important to that character) gets an extra.
I really don't appreciate the classic "killing things" method to amount PX, I always found it very prone to turn an roleplay game into a dungeon crawler boardgame. It's not always the case, I know, but i really have that feeling. And also the ability reward system does not completely sitisfy me, because in the end you are rewarded only for playing your character "as it's supposed to be". A thief MUST steal, pick lock etc. all the time, a wizard HAS to cast spells like there's no tomorrow, otherwise they are left behind. It shift focus on archetypes and less on roleplay, leaving the players less free to create a unique character.
Just my opinion, of course, but people I play with have the same view on this point so I thought it was worth sharing.
-
A thief MUST steal, pick lock etc. all the time, a wizard HAS to cast spells like there's no tomorrow, otherwise they are left behind.
I think this is true if the GM rewards all the mundane "non-important" actions or skills. Like I said, I like the RAW but I do not grant XP for using a skill or a spell that serves no purpose.
So no xp for a PC that uses his "Locate Hidden" skill for every square-inch of a cave just to make XP. If the action (skill or spell) serves a purpose, or if I judge that the player really thought it would (even if it is useless in a given situation), I award the XP.
In the end, the spell casters gains xp by playing normally, as does the thief. Of course, the GM must make sure that every PC shares a part of the story and if not, some PCs will get far behind others and that will really be unfun for them. So if you have a Thief character, make sure you give him opportunities to use his skills by putting locked doors, locked chests or by having enemies stand watch "looking the other way" so he can stalk and ambush
So in the end, if the GM creates game scenarios that involves everyone, everyone will have to use their character the "way it's supposed to".
-
I think this is true if the GM rewards all the mundane "non-important" actions or skills. Like I said, I like the RAW but I do not grant XP for using a skill or a spell that serves no purpose.
So no xp for a PC that uses his "Locate Hidden" skill for every square-inch of a cave just to make XP. If the action (skill or spell) serves a purpose, or if I judge that the player really thought it would (even if it is useless in a given situation), I award the XP.
In the end, the spell casters gains xp by playing normally, as does the thief. Of course, the GM must make sure that every PC shares a part of the story and if not, some PCs will get far behind others and that will really be unfun for them. So if you have a Thief character, make sure you give him opportunities to use his skills by putting locked doors, locked chests or by having enemies stand watch "looking the other way" so he can stalk and ambush
So in the end, if the GM creates game scenarios that involves everyone, everyone will have to use their character the "way it's supposed to".
When my players performed skills that seemed to serve no purpose and succeeded, I award in most cases, that sounds illogical, but it's "the practice makes perfect". However, continuous repetition simply meant that they received less of a reward for doing so, eventually becoming so mundane they'd get nothing.. unless it DID have a purpose. Think of it like sparring.. no different.
-
(Apologies if I already posted this, but the Forum icon says I haven't.)
My XP system is very much a homebrew, but it does follow the basic outline of the RM2 system. They get Xp for
Crits given/received
Hits given/received
Spells cast
Maneuvers
Death/near-death
Ideas
Kills
Avoidance
Basic multipliers for first time, second time, etc. apply to crits, spells, maneuvers, ideas, and kills (species specific).
Maneuver points are on a different scale than the RM2 scale. It's based on the actual probability of success for the maneuver AND the maneuver difficulty level.
I'm pretty generous with Idea points. I apply them to targets of sleep, hold, calm, etc. when the caster controls the target then the fighters take it down. (Last session, the cleric calmed a giant snake, and got 1/2 of all the xp others were able to get because the snake was calmed - up to the first attack on it, when the spell was broken.)
Avoidance points are given when the choice of entering battle is under the PCs' control, and they maneuver to avoid that combat. They get 1.1x(Kill Points+Hit Points+Bonus Points).
Also, experience is increased based on MEmory stat bonus, up to 10%. (Memory should be good for SOMETHING!)
Because I've also modified the development point system, experience feeds into how many DP a character gets. All characters get 35 DP/level to start with. Each character has a chosen "motivation", things like cleverness, some big cause, playing with magic, traveling, or beating things up. For every 1000 xp they get in that realm for a level, they get an extra DP. This has helped encourage the PCs to both add color to their characters, and to look for opportunities to use their relevant skills for their motivation.
-
When my players performed skills that seemed to serve no purpose and succeeded, I award in most cases, that sounds illogical, but it's "the practice makes perfect". However, continuous repetition simply meant that they received less of a reward for doing so, eventually becoming so mundane they'd get nothing.. unless it DID have a purpose. Think of it like sparring.. no different.
Well in order to prevent abuse, I generally do not reward repetitive use of a skill or spell unless it is really appropriate to the situation. Instead, I like to be generous if needed with the basic available multipliers to the XP rewards such as, failure of the skill results in danger / extreme danger / etc .. those multipliers make a big difference in the long run ... Though I do not know if they exist in RM2 ( I play RMSS)
I also like to use "extra" xp rewards such as Quest rewards, ideas and roleplay bonus, etc. I usually attribute a flat Quest XP reward that everyone receives at the end and while playing I take notes of good ideas or roleplay situation that arise. I then divide another flat xp amount between the players by looking in their respective "good ideas and roleplay" column
-
I play RMSS as well. I do use those modifiers.. so if the players "burn" the XP from skills use without the extra danger, they don't get the big boost.