Topic: Starting Level

[intothatdarkness]

I've never liked pooling and dividing XPs between the party...mainly because I've been in enough games where players who did squat (and I mean just that...nothing) advanced just as quickly as those who really worked their tails off. That said, I have added a mechanism to my game that allows players to earn XPs by identifying items, coming up with ideas, and some other "role-playing" things that help offset the combat bias in the normal RM2 XP system.

I also don't award XPs to players who aren't there. In my games, their characters tend to catch galloping dysentery or some other unspeakable ailment that confines them to the outhouse of the nearest inn until they return to the game. Between XPs for spells, travel, idea points, and other things I've never had a game where a spellcaster ended up at a major disadvantage when it came to XPs and level advancement.

[Zat]

I've never liked pooling and dividing XPs between the party...mainly because I've been in enough games where players who did squat (and I mean just that...nothing) advanced just as quickly as those who really worked their tails off. That said, I have added a mechanism to my game that allows players to earn XPs by identifying items, coming up with ideas, and some other "role-playing" things that help offset the combat bias in the normal RM2 XP system.

I also don't award XPs to players who aren't there. In my games, their characters tend to catch galloping dysentery or some other unspeakable ailment that confines them to the outhouse of the nearest inn until they return to the game. Between XPs for spells, travel, idea points, and other things I've never had a game where a spellcaster ended up at a major disadvantage when it came to XPs and level advancement.

The XP pooling idea was a concensus made many moons ago. It works fine for us and put an immediate end to 'kill stealing' and reduced the 'need'  for  min/max'ing in order to gain Xp and yet more power. It's led to people chosing professions and character concepts they want to play rather than feeling the need to chose a character that will provide them with enough XP to stay in-line with the group.

That said, there is still the 'smung' award. Each player calculates their own XP and writes it on the board for all to see at the end of a session. A player of ours has a slight stutter, but when he gets excited it becomes exagerated. The general idea was that he was trying to say 'You smug bastard' to the player who had the most XP for the session, but as he was pointing at the wrong person (the one with the lowest XP) the word 'Smmuuung!' came out of his mouth. From that point on, many, many years ago, the player with the lowest XP is know as 'the smung' for the following week. A humiliating experience. Quite often a player who was unable to attend the previous week will turn up to play and rather than the first question being 'what did I miss last week?' it is usually 'who's smung this week?'. So yes, there is a penalty for not earing Xp and letting your mates down - I can imagine only one thing worse for these unfortunate souls - a gimp mask 

As far as not rewarding players XP when they are absent; this was discussed at length. Our group is made up of people who do have to work for a living, have families and other commitments. We are all friends and respect each other's real lives beyond the gaming table. We felt it unfair that the nurse or security guard would have to miss some sessions and lose out on so much XP. Occasionally the teachers and lecturers (myself included) may find they have work commitments. And then of course there is illness (some of us are getting on a bit now and our health is not what it used to be) and holidays (now we can afford them). I am a bit of a fanatic, and I  have been known to discharge myself from hospital to game (GMing whilst on Morphine is not too bad actually), or plan holidays around the fact that I will be home in time for the next session. Most of my players have done similar things. I'm not in the business of penalizing my players, there's no need as they all actually do want to be there, just sometimes they can't.

[Usdrothek]

We started at 5th and have played once a week for 5-6 hours at a time for 10 months and not gone up a level.

How? No combat? XP given out for things besides combat? Do you consider it a fun game? (I imagine so if you have played for ten months)

The game I'm playing in now, going for maybe six months, every other week for 6 hours a session and we have gone from 1 to 7th level. A good amount of combat with fate points and an actual healer (healer class)

There is combat, but we are not combat driven as a playing group.

We long since gave up using the xp system. Now players go up levels when the GM says so. It seems to work for us: no book keeping, 'stealing' kill xp or spell user disproportionate xp.

Yes, we all find it a fun game. We enjoy a more realistic, gritty feel and low level play. Not being the GM, its not my call to gain levels or not. When I GM, I may have given one level up (and be a little along to the next) in that time. So not a huge difference but I think some level advancement is nice, and important, for players.

[intothatdarkness]

The XP pooling idea was a concensus made many moons ago. It works fine for us and put an immediate end to 'kill stealing' and reduced the 'need'  for  min/max'ing in order to gain Xp and yet more power. It's led to people chosing professions and character concepts they want to play rather than feeling the need to chose a character that will provide them with enough XP to stay in-line with the group.

So long as it works for your group, cool. I just had some really bad experiences with that kind of system and decided to avoid it. My group also had a high percentage of working folks, so we ended up playing about once a week (sometimes more, sometimes less). We never had a huge problem an XP imbalance, and we did have a wide variety of professions in the party (including a Farmer...). Part of it, I think, was due to our revision of the XP system. Combat was still important, but when the Farmer went out foraging or herb-gathering, he got XPs for each use of the skill. Since we were doing a woodlands adventure at the time, he had lots of work to do. We only had problems with kill-poaching once, and that player was roundly whacked by the party enough that he stopped doing it (that and an embarrassing encounter with a Chaos Commander who ended up putting his character in a coma for a week with a snap kick).

[GrumpyOldFart]

My group has been playing together since.... well, some of them since the early 80s, some of them since they were old enough (grown up kids of older members, including my son.) So in a lot of ways we have long since grown out of the jockeying for power, or in some cases never learned it in the first place. I'm usually, but not always, the GM.

We always used XP, but... well for example, we never had "kill stealing" because I only give the entire kill value to one person if he kills it one-on-one with no assistance at all. Otherwise he splits it with his support team. Not just anyone else who hit him, but the guys who kept all the other monsters busy, the guy who thought up the plan that gave them the victory, etc. Any given monster's KV generally gets splits 2-5 ways. And just as the fighters got XP for the damage and crits they did, the healers got XP for the damage and crits they healed, etc.

...but when the Farmer went out foraging or herb-gathering, he got XPs for each use of the skill.

Yeah, that.

However, I have since gone to HARP, and the basic "any skill anywhere up to 3 ranks/level, flat 50 DPs per level" makes me think I'll just start giving straight DPs from now on, and have total DPs rather than XPs. After all, if _____ XP = 1 level = 50 DPs = +3 to max ranks, then +1 to max ranks = 16 2/3 DPs, and levels and XP become no more than ballast. Spend them whenever you like, just don't go over your max. And if you want a talent or something that costs lots of DPs, tell the GM when you start saving DPs for it, not when you finally spend them. That gives him time to work your newly acquired 20 point talent into the story logic.

I'll let you know how that works out, but it seems like it should allow a very granular development throughout the game, while being less housekeeping and paper shuffling than XP and levels. Then again, this method is also extremely reliant on a basis of trust existing between GM and players. The GM has to trust that the player is not going to try to stop the game between combat rounds so he can spend a few DPs and gain a bit of extra advantage before his next parry. The player has to trust that when he tells the GM he's saving 20 DPs for _____ Talent, the GM isn't going to make a special effort to kill him when he gets 15-18 DPs saved, that kind of thing.

[VladD]

I like seeing all the different solutions to the XP dilemma and how people react to that, so I present my own here:

Level advancement is only when the next campaign achievement is reached.

This leads to less time spend on useless (albeit profitable) side adventures. People that can't attend; their character will be played by another player and abused for tasks like gathering fire wood and trying wands of wonder and such. Therefor everyone will lvl at the same time. Every player tries his best to reach the next achievement, or they all agree to stay the same lvl to gain some other profit, such a nice magic loot or perhaps a useful ally. I must concede that I like to write people's personal stories in the main quest line, so that usually isn't a problem.

I'm against arbitrary level gains such as after x sessions, or y kills since it tends to disrupt my adventures by suddenly injecting powers and spells in to a smooth running adventure that can turn against me...

I do admit I like the idea that your character will only advance when you are attending, and when I'll ever suffer dropping attendence, I'll use that XP ploy

[Cory Magel]

We long since gave up using the xp system. Now players go up levels when the GM says so. It seems to work for us: no book keeping, 'stealing' kill xp or spell user disproportionate xp.

That is my preference also.  Aside from eliminating some of the bad habits the xp system encourages (such as kill stealing) it also also allows you to completely control the pace the overall campaign.  (Our games run, on the short side, six months and, on the long side, a few years).

[Marc R]

I tend to go with that same logic, though I have dabbled in DP as XP. . .you make each level say 50 DP.

After each session you get some DP to spend, each time you reach a multiple of 50 in total (50/100/150/200/etc) you go up a level.

It makes characters develop in a steady pace, rather than in surges of 50 DP at irregular points, but it does make for a bit more book keeping.

[Kristen Mork]

We track EP in a database.  As soon as you get EP, you can spend the corresponding DP for that level.  However, in our next game we're going to straight DP.

[GrumpyOldFart]

One of the things I like about DP instead of XP is that it allows the players to get feedback on their play right at the moment.

"Ooo, nice one, have a point."

or

"The good news is you can learn from this experience. You know, if you ever regain consciousness you'll get 2 DP for this.... but I don't recommend this method of character development. Just sayin'."

[RandalThor]

I tend to go with that same logic, though I have dabbled in DP as XP. . .you make each level say 50 DP.

After each session you get some DP to spend, each time you reach a multiple of 50 in total (50/100/150/200/etc) you go up a level.

It makes characters develop in a steady pace, rather than in surges of 50 DP at irregular points, but it does make for a bit more book keeping.

That is precisely what I have been looking at doing. I understand the reason for character levels - to deal with those aspects of a characters capabilities that are more tied to how much experience they have (like initiative and reaction/surprise and various RRs) - but have come to dislike the sudden surge of ability, especially in skills that they did not use at all. But I am thinking on a little difference: you get XP directly towards the skills you use and when you get enough, that skill goes up. That way, it is a more natural progression. Of course, you can train, but you need someone to train you and it is likely going to cost you (money or otherwise); and some skills require a certain amount of training, especially when first learning.

[jdale]

We long since gave up using the xp system. Now players go up levels when the GM says so. It seems to work for us: no book keeping, 'stealing' kill xp or spell user disproportionate xp.

That is my preference also.  Aside from eliminating some of the bad habits the xp system encourages (such as kill stealing) it also also allows you to completely control the pace the overall campaign.  (Our games run, on the short side, six months and, on the long side, a few years).

We do the same. Another advantage is allowing the GM to gracefully handle the level discrepancies in the party (since not everyone joined at the same time).

Detailed XP systems are not worth the time invested, in my opinion. And there isn't necessarily any reason why you will learn more from things that require rolls (combat, skill checks, etc) than from puzzles and roleplaying that do not.

When I ran GURPS, I awarded points based only on three things: roleplaying, having goals, and making progress towards those goals. Those were the things I wanted to encourage. Everything else should be done in service to those things.

[Marc R]

One choice you need to make is how ranking limits and X/Y costs work.

i.e. you have 100 DP, you are 1st level in chargen, you can purchase 2 ranks at X cost and 2 at Y cost.

You gain 10 DP to 110, still 1st level, can you purchase another rank at X? Can you purchase 2 at X and Y?

[yammahoper]

ranks are purchased in order of dp cost when handing out dp in plave of exp.

so a 1/5 skill cost 1dp, then 5 dp.  if you have 7 ranks in the skill, it is not difficult to determine what the next rank will cost in dp. 

[Marc R]

True, but at 115 DP you're still first level, working on 2nd. . .

Are you limited to purchasing 0/1st level, i.e. max of 4 ranks, or can you purchase 5, or 6, or 8, or as many as you want?

Can you earn 18 DP taking yourself from 100DP/1st level to 118DP/1st level on the way to 2nd, and use that 18 DP to purchase 1/5/1/5/1/5 six ranks?

[Kristen Mork]

One choice you need to make is how ranking limits and X/Y costs work.

i.e. you have 100 DP, you are 1st level in chargen, you can purchase 2 ranks at X cost and 2 at Y cost.

You gain 10 DP to 110, still 1st level, can you purchase another rank at X? Can you purchase 2 at X and Y?

There are two solutions.  One is to still keep track of which level a character is when each skill is purchased.  I.e., the awarding of DP is simply letting a character spend the next level's DP immediately rather than waiting to spend all DP at level gain.

The second is to allow a character of level N to purchase up to N ranks of a skill for X DP each and another N ranks for Y DP each.  This eliminates the need to keep track of when a character purchased a skill, and lets a character catch up quickly.  The downside (if you view it as such) is that a character that has (for example) 10 ranks of a skill at level 5, but stops learning that skill, will "recover" (Y - X) DP for each of the next five levels.

In the latter case, you don't need to track level.  Instead, if you award 80 DP each "level" you can just divide by 80 to figure out what level a character is.

[Marc R]

That pay it back logic, it encourages you to focus heavily early, then broaden out and reap dividends.

I dunno if that would work out to be a benefit or a problem, I'd be speculating. Have you played that way? I'd be interested to hear how it worked in practice.

I think Ecthelion's system might work like that too if I'm recalling properly.

[yammahoper]

no restrictions on rank development, other than player and gm discretion.  were a bunch of 40 year old men, we trust our judgement.  which prehaps is the point and yet another strength of rm.  its a flexible system.  we like flexible.  note we also use the learning table, so ranks do not instantly manifest, it takes some time.

[markc]

 I do require DP expenditure to be recorded as to when they bought the skill so the PC can be recreated if necessary or taken back to a previous level. I give DP out on a 30%, 30%, 40% nature and then require them to list it as L=Level L1, L2, (L+1), ect. TP's are listed by number or L#1 and GM free ranks I am still working on a good way to handle it. Also I as Gm keep the official PC DP expenditure sheet and they have the unofficial one. (Which sucks when I lose it but not as bad as when they lose it.)
MDC

[pastaav]

One choice you need to make is how ranking limits and X/Y costs work.

i.e. you have 100 DP, you are 1st level in chargen, you can purchase 2 ranks at X cost and 2 at Y cost.

You gain 10 DP to 110, still 1st level, can you purchase another rank at X? Can you purchase 2 at X and Y?

I award DP after every session and keep track of the number of ranks purchased. When the character has received enough DP to match a level up we roll for stats and reset the counter for buying skills.

This means the 110 DP character in your example would most likely purchase two more ranks if the skill is of vital interest. In practice the players seldom has the patience to level up after every session, but usually they purchase the ranks in power points and weapons reasonably soon after a level up.

All in all I think it works nice. Everyone get one or two more ranks in their focus skills, but on the other hand there is no real reason to say that a particular level of exp is essential before it is fair you can purchase the next rank. As long as the limit when you can purchase a rank applies the same to all characters then there no ill effects at the game table.