Topic: Alternate Progressions

[arakish]

Here is a web page I rebuilt from an old Species Generation Worksheet I was working on for my world of Onaviu.  When I was going to post it, RMU came out and I rewrote it.  Even still working on it.  Also, there is a second link below.

Refer to A-2 Race Generation, Gamemaster Law, pp 174-179, specifically, page 175.

My biggest beef was the default progression of 0•6•4•2•1 and the next highest of 0•7•3•2•1.  There is literally no difference between these two except for shifting a single point.  The sum is the same, yet it costs 5 points!?  To me, that seemed ridiculous.  If it was going to be worth 5 points, then the progression should have been 0•7•4•2•1.  An increase of one to the sum in the first position would be worth 5 points.  But never shifting one point from the second position to the first.  IMHO, going from a progression of 0•6•4•2•1 to 0•7•3•2•1 is NOT worth 5 points.  A simple shift of 1 in this manner may be worth only 1 point, maybe 2 points at most.  Additionally, a few other supposed increases in the BDP use the same method.  Yet, IMHO, they were not worth the difference in cost.

Another example of this is going from 0•6•5•2•1 to 0•7•4•2•1.  Literally no difference between the two except a shifting of a single point.  And it costs 3 points to go from 0•6•5•2•1 to 0•7•4•2•1!?  Again, I say it is worth only 1 point in cost.  Maybe 2 at most.

Thus, I sat down and thought of a way to make the creation of a BDP totally independent at each position.  I used the 0•6•4•2•1 progression as the standard default and set the cost to change the number in each postion to 0•5•4•2•1.

Example 1: Say you want a horribly physically strong Stone Troll with a BDP of 0•10•8•6•4.  This would cost 47 points.  0•10•8•6•4 minus 0•6•4•2•1 equals 0•4•4•4•3.  Then (4 × 5) + (4 × 4) + (4 × 2) + (3 × 1) = 47.

Example 2: Now let's do the 0•7•3•2•1 thing.  0•7•3•2•1 minus 0•6•4•2•1 equals 0•1•-1•0•0.  Then (1 × 5) + (-1 × 4) + (0 × 2) + (0 × 1) = 1.  Exactly the 1 point cost I mentioned above, it is much better than the 5 points.  IMHO, I don't think it is worth 5 points just to have only 10 extra Hits at 10 ranks, then be back even at 20 ranks with the default value.

After I did this, I decided to apply it to the Power Point Development progressions.  I set the defaults at 0•6•5•4•3 for Channeling, and 0•5•3•2•2 for the other realms.  I set Channeling default to the 0•6•5•4•3 since all species got it for 0 points (pp 180-185, GmL).  I figured if all the RM species got it for free, then why should any other species be forced to pay for it.  Thus, I threw out the ChanDev table on page 175.

Here is a web page I rebuilt so you can play around with this concept.

I will be the first to admit that the costs are lower than the costs for the progressions as listed in A-2 Race Generation, Gamemaster Law, pp 174-179.  However, this method does allow one greater variability.

Example 3: On my world of Onaviu there is a species known as the Harini who are incredibly small with a Base Height of six inches.  Although they do wield potent power, they are also incredibly physically fragile with a BDP of only 0•2•2•1•1.  In the new RMUS, the Harini have only 5 Base Hits and the problem of dealing with a natural -3 or -4 size classes.

Example 4: The Hatharnd are incredibly powerful psionicists with a PPDev of 0•10•9•8•7, but are incredibly weak physically with a BDP of 0•3•2•2•1.  Of course, this was the original RMFRP write up.  In the RMUS, the PPDev is the same, but Base Hits are only 5 and they have the flaws Infirm I and Decrepit II.

rmfr

[jdale]

So basically you set a +1 in the first ten ranks as 5 points, +1 in the next ten ranks as 4 points, +1 in the next ten ranks as 2 points, and +1 in everything beyond the first thirty ranks as 1 point. And decreases priced the same, just as a negative rather than a positive.

The basic idea makes sense to me. The first ten ranks affect everyone, the next ten ranks affect a smaller subset of characters, etc.

That said, it would be easier if the costs came in around the same as the ones in GM Law. In that case existing races need no adjustment (as long as you can overlook a race point variance of just a few points). Looking at the existing examples, you can roughly read a +1 in the first ten ranks for BD as 8 points and in the second ten ranks as 13. For magic, the cost is lower.

Suppose the cost for changing your magic progression is 4/2/1/1 rather than 5/4/2/1 as you have it (that's the additional cost to raise the progression for the first ten ranks/second ten/third ten/beyond). Then the costs in GM Law look like this:

Progression - Old - New
0.2.1.1.1 - -25 - -18
0.3.2.1.1 - -20 - -12
0.4.3.2.1 - -10 - -5
0.5.3.2.2 - +0 - +0
0.6.4.3.2 - +5 - +7
0.6.5.4.3 - +10 - +10
0.6.6.4.3 - +13 - +12
0.7.6.5.4 - +15 - +17

Pretty close eh? At least on the positive side. On the negative side, it doesn't match as well. GM Law gives more incentive to lower than it costs to raise the progression. But if you're unlinking the different segments, I think it's important not to mirror this behavior, because you could gain points by lowering one segment in order to increase another.

Body Development:
GM Law has the cost to improve the BD progression as higher then the magic progression. Perhaps price it double, at 8/4/2/2?

Progression - Old - New
0.6.2.2.1 - -17 - -10
0.6.3.1.1 - -15 - -6
0.6.3.2.1 - -10 - -4
0.6.4.2.1 - +0 - +0
0.7.3.2.1 - +5 - +4
0.6.5.2.1 - +10 - +4
0.7.4.2.1 - +13 - +8
0.7.5.3.1 - +15 - +14


Also, in both these cases I have the same cost for adjusting the third and fourth segment. On one hand, the fourth should cost less, because it will be relevant to fewer characters. But on the other hand, something special is happening with the fourth rank -- it sets the advancement rate not just for 10 ranks but for an unlimited number of ranks. I don't think it should be discounted too much.

My last thought is more of a departure. I actually don't think that a penalty should have equal weight to a bonus. That's because a bonus will often be focused on a core ability of the character, but a penalty will almost never be focused on a core ability. The bonus almost always matters; the penalty often does not matter. Really poor magical progressions don't matter if you are playing a fighter. In general, I would weigh a penalty as being worth half as much as a bonus.

[arakish]

Thanks jdale.

I kind of like your analysis.  I never really went back to study what I did once I set it where I did.  I just left it alone when I noticed there was a new edition of RM coming out.  Thus, I just threw this idea on a back burner on a back stove and left it alone, waiting to see what the new version was going to do.

Again, thanks for the additional analysis and suggestions.  They do work.

rmfr