Topic: XP Rules -> slow level progression?

[Ecthelion]

Hi,

I took a look at the conversion of the goal-based XP rules, taken from HARP, for RME. What struck me were the relatively low number of XPs handed out, at least when comparing the numbers to those used in HARP.

To explain this: In HARP a character needs 15200 XPs to reach level 20. In RM he needs 500000 XPs, roughly a factor of 30 more. This factor is more or less the same also for other levels. What I would have expected is that this would be reflected also in the XP rules and the XPs handed out would be about 30 times the XPs handed out in HARP. But instead it's only a factor of 5 or 10 (there is no distinction between personal and party-goals like in HARP, so it's not so easy to compare).

That looks to me like it would take quite long until an RME character advances a level, at least when comparing it to a HARP character. And when estimating the XPs for a typical session in our group according to RME's XP system it looks like we would gain significantly less XP when using this system than with the current RM2/RMSS XP rules.

Am I missing something? Could someone explain this to me?

Thanks

[allenrmaher]

Hi,

I took a look at the conversion of the goal-based XP rules, taken from HARP, for RME. What struck me were the relatively low number of XPs handed out, at least when comparing the numbers to those used in HARP.
...
That looks to me like it would take quite long until an RME character advances a level, at least when comparing it to a HARP character. And when estimating the XPs for a typical session in our group according to RME's XP system it looks like we would gain significantly less XP when using this system than with the current RM2/RMSS XP rules.

Am I missing something? Could someone explain this to me?

Thanks

Completely unofficial explanation...

RM experience has always been more frugal and the levels don't equate all that well when measured in number of encounters... the RME numbers were based on comparisons of how each system rewarded players for various monster encounters and the like.   RME experience will advance a little quicker than RMC rules in general, but the pace is not the same as HARP.  The advancement is pegged closely to RMC  with HARP like simplicity rather than to change the pace of player advancement signifigantly.

There are more opportunities to give away experience points with a goals based system.  Rather than giving travel points and other optional points, the goals within the adventure, beyond the simple encounters tend to make advancement reasonable.

For example an average fight in RME (equal opponents is 1000 XP) ten of those alone increases a level, but some may be easier at 500 or so.  In addition accomplishing mission goals, eg. rescuing the merchant's son (Hard goal for 1000xp) or discovering a plot (a note in a crevice as an easy minor goal at 150 xp) advancing clue will gain experience as well, nothing prevents these goals from occurring in the same encounter eg. fight the monsters, rescue the boy, find the note get XP for each (hence the ability to advance quickly).  The GM has a lot of discretion and can peg advancement where he sees fit by adjusting what he considers difficult.

[Ecthelion]

I am still not quite convinced . Lets choose an example: In HARP an adventure where the group has to rescue the above mentioned merchant's son (Hard major party goal) and in the course has one combat encounter (Hard minor party goal) and one other Medium minor party goal, will advance the members of this party from 1st to 2nd level. And it does not sound like such a small adventure will take more than one session.

With RMSS/RM2 rules the majority of the XP would be through the one combat mentioned above. A few maneuver and spell points might also be awarded, but the majority would be from critical points, kill points and the first criticals taken. With RMs experience multipliers of x5 or x2 for first and second time, most of the XPs for the fresh group will get one of these multipliers. The first killed orcs might be worth 2500 XP instead of 500, the first critical (let's say a D) received by a character will gain him 2000 XP instead of 400 etc. On top of this then come Idea Points, another 50% of the total points gained.

For a fresh group an adventure like the above would probably earn each member of the group about 5000-7000 XPs, assuming that each member kills an opponent and also suffers a critical strike and succeeds in some maneuvers and/or casts some spells. Not a full level like in HARP, but quite near. Perhaps we are too lenient with the x5/x2 multipliers, as we use them per type of creature and even per critical severity (but OTOH not at all for Spell Points, Maneuver Points and all other XP types), but taking a look at the HARP XP rules it seemed to me that we awarded XPs more or less in the amount which the ICE authors intended.

With the RME XP system the above plot would earn the characters 1000 XP for a Hard Major Goal + 500 XP for a Hard Minor Goal + 250 XP for a Medium Minor Goal = 1750 XP in total. That's not even a fifth of the full level gained according to the HARP rules and only about a fourth to a third of what will be awarded with the "old" RMSS/RM2 XP rules. This is what made me wonder why there is such a fundamental difference in the number of XPs awarded.

Does this make sense?

[allenrmaher]

I agree that you can make a case about multipliers... they of course only happen once  so a third level orc with 40 hits is 75+40+60 or 175 XP (x5 for the first one or 900 xp) and 350 for the second... but every other orc in the adventure is only 175 and once routine forever after it is only half value so the multipliers have diminishing returns.

When you have goal based it is always pegged to your abilities so orcs of low level become lesser and lesser threats as you become more powerful relative to them.  There is of course nothing to prevent the GM from awarding bonus points for new experiences under the goal based system either.

When you look at the example adventure in the back of RME it has an  example XP rewards.  So the scenario has two combats, and a few tasks that can be preformed for xp with a goal of rescuing someone... gives and example of that having up to 3500 xp without bonus awards by the GM.

Really for just a few encounters to make up for 1/3 of a level is not a bad rate of advancement... but then again the GM ultimately sets the pace.  For me the sample adventure would not be enough to level in any system I play in... it is just a one session adventure (I usually like 2 to three sessions between levels).

HARP for example sets first level at 350 points but this increases with each level until that reaches 2500 per level... which is HARP's quick acceleration xp system.  RM stays at 10000 per level for quite a while. When I GM first level HARP... I am stingy, and no less than a half dozen encounters will make first level for me... I seldom give out more than 100 points for an encounter,  because in HARP terms  all  combat is a minor party goal (saving your skin).  I often give out role playing bonuses for HARP of up to 75 XP for good players (which is significant at low levels) each session.

This is an example of the GM setting the  pace with a goals based system, I am sure others do it differently... the RMC/2 XP system is an accounting based system with measured returns and considerable bookkeeping.  There are advantages to both approaches... I am sure that with the multipliers early advancement could be faster, mind you in RME base hit points and base power points make low levels more survivable so even if it is longer at low levels... it is not quite so dangerous to be there.

There is nothing to prevent more rapid advancement at low levels if the GM decides it is necessary.

[Ecthelion]

I agree that you can make a case about multipliers... they of course only happen once  so a third level orc with 40 hits is 75+40+60 or 175 XP (x5 for the first one or 900 xp) and 350 for the second... but every other orc in the adventure is only 175 and once routine forever after it is only half value so the multipliers have diminishing returns.

OK, I see that we have quite different XP usage even with the old RM rules. A 3rd level orc would be worth far more XP in our group as we use the RMSS Kill Point rules, which are more akin to the RMC Kill Points Table 09-04. This gives 300 points for the 3rd level orc + 40 points for his 40 hits and this total of 340 points gets multiplied by 1.5 as the orc is an intelligent creature (the latter is AFAIK not a RMC rule, but only RMSS/RMFRP) resulting in ~500 XP, or 2500 XP for the first orc killed.

When you look at the example adventure in the back of RME it has an  example XP rewards.  So the scenario has two combats, and a few tasks that can be preformed for xp with a goal of rescuing someone... gives and example of that having up to 3500 xp without bonus awards by the GM.

It is hard to judge how many XPs a character would earn using the RMSS (and RMC, if options are used) XP system as it heavily depends on factors like criticals sustained, who kills how many monsters etc. My guessing would be that the PCs could each kill one Giant Ant in the adventure ((200 + 40)*5=1200 XP) and either an Orc or Goblin ((250+50)*1.5*5=2250). If the PCs are not harmed at all during the combats and succeed in no maneuvers they would only get on average an additional 50% Idea Points on top of the above XP for a total of (1200+2250)*1.5=5175 XPs. With perhaps a first C critical sustained and a few Spell Points and Maneuver Points they could get a bit more, maybe about 7000 XPs.

Nevertheless the example adventure in this comparison gives at least about half the XPs which I would have expected, which is at least a better ratio than I had in my example above (which was 1/4 to 1/3). The main reason is that the main adventure goal is rated as Very/Extremely Hard which gives quite a lot of XPs.

Really for just a few encounters to make up for 1/3 of a level is not a bad rate of advancement... but then again the GM ultimately sets the pace.  For me the sample adventure would not be enough to level in any system I play in... it is just a one session adventure (I usually like 2 to three sessions between levels).

I admit that the RME XP system can fulfill this expectation, especially if GMs use similar rewards as in the example adventure. Perhaps I simply had the "wrong" expectation. I'd rather have expected to advance levels quite quickly during the first sessions, having the PCs advance a level rather twice in three sessions, with that rate going down later.

HARP for example sets first level at 350 points but this increases with each level until that reaches 2500 per level... which is HARP's quick acceleration xp system.  RM stays at 10000 per level for quite a while.

Nevertheless, if you use a multiplier of around 30, you can easily convert from HARP levels to RM levels. Level 2 in HARP requires +350 XPs, in RM +10000 (x28.6), level 5 in HARP requires +1700 XPs, in RM +40000 (x23.5), level 10 in HARP requires +4950 XPs, in RM +140000 (x28.3), level 20 in HARP requires +15200 XPs, in RM +490000 (x32.2).

When I GM first level HARP... I am stingy, and no less than a half dozen encounters will make first level for me... I seldom give out more than 100 points for an encounter,  because in HARP terms  all  combat is a minor party goal (saving your skin).  I often give out role playing bonuses for HARP of up to 75 XP for good players (which is significant at low levels) each session.

Then it is strange that, using the same difficulty ratings as in the example adventure, a HARP character would get 100 XP for a Hard Minor Party Goal to fend of the Giant Ants + 100 XP for a Hard Minor Party Goal for avoiding the pit + 200 XP for a Hard Major Party Goal for solving the adventure, for a total of 400 XP i.e. straight into level 2. Why such a difference?

There is nothing to prevent more rapid advancement at low levels if the GM decides it is necessary.

I still wonder why the pace seems so different between the HARP and RME guidelines.

[shnar]

My problem with XP in general, especially when you talking about more and more subjective doling of XP, is I never know how much to give. Especially when it's ad hoc adventuring. The guidelines for HARP/RME aren't bad, but still seem subjective. I'm writing up a Ready-To-Run adventure module and putting in specific situations for XP awards to help us dumb GMs

I hope that future modules from ICE do this for us, can be really helpful

-shnar

[allenrmaher]

Then it is strange that, using the same difficulty ratings as in the example adventure, a HARP character would get 100 XP for a Hard Minor Party Goal to fend of the Giant Ants + 100 XP for a Hard Minor Party Goal for avoiding the pit + 200 XP for a Hard Major Party Goal for solving the adventure, for a total of 400 XP i.e. straight into level 2. Why such a difference?

...

I still wonder why the pace seems so different between the HARP and RME guidelines.

Well the adventure was originally written for HARP which gave out a total possible XP of about 85 (a little under a third of a level)...  What is hard using RM at low levels is not necessarily so using HARP rules.  There is still a lot of difference in character capabilities at low level (max ranks is a big factor... as is the PP and Endurance points of HARP vs RMC/E).  It is hard to make really direct comparisons between two systems since one level in HARP is not necessarily one in RM based on a comparison of Hits, skill probabilities and spell availability, each system advances at different rates in different areas.  HARP is very very close to a levelless system while RM is heavily level dependant... it is apples and oranges.

There are only five enemies in the HARP version and 6 in the RME one... so kill points would only be one each or perhaps two for an average party of four. Which would reduce your totals a little... as would using core RMC experience.  The other difference is individual rewards vs group rewards.

More core RMC rewards are given to individuals rather than the party as a whole.  Kill points 9-04 for a first level character killing a 2nd level orc are 250 in RMC (and strictly optional) they replace the 175 in the core rules so the first one would be 1250 to the first one ever and 500 for the second in the adventure.  Like wise with the goblin... these are awarded to individuals that deliver killing blows.  So in our adventure there would be at most 6000 or so points of that nature available to the whole party from kills (divided according to actual circumstance) assuming a new player killed each of one type.  The rewards would be less if a character delivered killing blows on two orcs.  When you compare that to the 3500 x a party of four or 14000 available points split equally (unless bonus points are assessed)

When you get down to actual accounting (and our beginning example was not a representation of the adventure in RME so there may be some confusion here because again we may not be comparing apples to apples) the difference is not nearly so much.  The rate of advancement will change wildly in RMC depending on what options are used, and the luck of the draw.  RME experience provides an alternative to this for those that want it.

The RMC experience system gives a lot of variability and excitement over accomplishments and for those who are up to the bookkeeping it can be great.  I played through more than one ME campaign where kill points were highly sought after.

Advancement rates increase with each option you add to the RMC experience system... but they are held in check by their individual nature  (one reason for optional spell points is that the tank can tend to hog the kill points) 

A goal based system approaches things from a very different perspective and some will prefer one or the other.  In all cases I suggest you use the one you like the best.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Just want to interject a point here.....

The core RMC XP system awards XP almost entirely for combat and very little else. It encourages combat, hack-n-slash style accounting of who killed what and who did how much damage to what over everything else.

The RME XP system was given as a much streamlined alternative. It does not require much, if any accounting, and it promotes other styles of gaming while still supporting the same style found in the core rules.

Are they designed to allow progression at the same rate? Nope. It would be an impossible task to attempt, so we didn't even bother trying.

Besides, in both cases it all DEPENDS on the GM and the type of game he is running.

With the core rules, a game with little to no combat will find characters progressing much slower than in a game with a lot of combat.

In the Goal Based system -- surviving combat is always considered to be a goal, so while a combat-light campaign may progress slower than a combat-heavy campaign, the inclusion of OTHER types of goals will make that difference less sharp than you would find when using the core rules....

Plus....
Core rules == apples
RME rules == oranges

[Ecthelion]

Yes, comparing the RMC XP rules with the RME XP rules is comparing apples and oranges. OTOH I though that on average both systems should yield similar results. Perhaps they do, but, as can be seen from the example numbers used by allenrmaher and myself, it is hard to find out as the interpretation of the "old" RM rules is a bit subjective and also the rules changed between the RM2/RMC and RMFRP.

But my initial posting mainly compared the RME XP system with that of HARP. And there I expected not to compare apples and oranges (comparing other parts of the two systems probably would again do so). Nevertheless I get very different total XP results for the two systems, with the sample adventure promoting a HARP character to second level while a RME character advances at most a third of a level. And that still seems strange to me.

I would expect that an adventure where the 1st level characters solve two Hard Minor (Party) Goals and one Very Hard Major (Party) Goal should advance the characters by roughly the same rate - but this does not happen. I can understand that differing character capabilities of 1st level characters in the two systems have e.g. an influence on the number of opponents, with perhaps a HARP adventure using less but tougher opponents, because otherwise it would perhaps be a Very Hard Goal instead of a Hard Goal to overcome the opponents. But once the number of opponents etc. have been adjusted, so that they correctly represent the goal difficulty rating, I had expected that these same goal difficulty ratings would lead to similar level advancement, what they seem not to do.

[allenrmaher]

Here is a copy of the original HARP version of said adventure... it adds up to about 1/3 of a level as well... hopefully this helps you compare. This was a sample adventure for the HARP kLoOge Werks program from way back.

The difficulty levels in the HARP version are pegged according to the HARP system and are very different.  Some GM's may call me stingy... but I think 40 to 50 xp is a great reward for an encounter at first level... I once or twice gave out 100... but they really had to earn it.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Ecthelion]

Yes, the XPs earned according to the adventure guidelines also only advance the characters a part of the way from level 1 to level 2. But then the question arises why the difficulty ratings for the very same goals vary so much between HARP and RME? Why is it only a Light Major Party Goal in HARP to overcome the goblins and orcs and free the kid, while it is a Very Hard Goal for RME? That looks like the too low values in the RME XP table on pg. 71 have been countermeasured by increasing the difficulty ratings. Sorry, but the two systems IMO don't differ that much that overcoming a group of four goblins and orcs is really light to solve for 1st level HARP characters while it is very hard for 1st level RME characters. It's not three levels of difficulty between those tasks for the two systems.

[allenrmaher]

Because a first level fighter in HARP can inflict more damage, have more hits and wear more/heavier armour than an RM counterpart... plus it is not unreasonable for a spell caster to have an offencive spell at first level.  (Also the number of ants is just one in  HARP making a slightly easier encounter (the armour of ants made multiple ones very challenging however one was a much easier encounter)... and there are goblins rather than orcs... stock orcs are too powerful for the encounter in HARP)

HARP has relaxed skill progression (max 6 ranks plus up to 10 level bonus and another 10 specialization for some fighters) compared to RM (with rapid advancement maybe 3 or 4 ranks in one weapon and a small level bonus) and so they will find combat easier and more survivable at first level.

Differing levels of risk and capability between the two systems results in a different assessment of danger, plus two different people pegged the rewards.  (the GM sets the rate of advancement according to their own tastes and assessments of their players abilities) 

[Arioch]

The core RMC XP system awards XP almost entirely for combat and very little else. It encourages combat, hack-n-slash style accounting of who killed what and who did how much damage to what over everything else.

While I like RM way to award experience over other systems because it gives XP for many things other than combat, it is also true (as Rasyr says) that it's still very combat-oriented.
This is why I like HARP goal-based system 

Like Ecthelion, however I was a little surprised by the RME xp chart... the XPs awarded are very few compared to the number of XPs that you need to gain a level in RM!
But then maybe I only need to do some practice with this system! 

[Arioch]

A thing that i like of the "usual" RM xp system are the idea points, do you think that it's a good idea to add them to the goal-based system? Or should I just give extra xp if I feel that somebody had a great idea during the session?

PS: Sorry for the redundancy of the post... 

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

RME page 71, right hand column, under Bonus Experience Points, just above the table in that column, reread that paragraph.

Bonus XP are given for good role-playing, good ideas, or anything else that the GM wants to award XP for.

As for the XP awards for the specific goals, there was much discussion regarding those values. They were not picked willy-nilly out of a hat. Those were the values that myself and the RMC Team agreed upon after all of the discussion as we collectively thought that they fit best.

[Ecthelion]

They were not picked willy-nilly out of a hat. Those were the values that myself and the RMC Team agreed upon after all of the discussion as we collectively thought that they fit best.

I am sorry if I offended you or the team and I did never assume that the values were picked "willy-nilly". It just seemed (and still does) strange to me that the XP values appear to differ quite much between HARP and RME. Both systems list a typical combat encounter as a Hard goal difficulty, but with four such combats as Minor Party Goals a group of HARP characters will have reached 2nd level while a RME group has only accomplished a fifth of the way to level 2.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

Ecthelion -- you  didn't offend anybody, I was simply trying to get the point across that those things WERE considered.

Of course the values are different between HARP and RME, they are, afterall, different games, and each has a difference type of balance inside of its rules.

HARP was designed to be a faster flowing and slightly speedier advancing game than RM was.

Just because they share a number of features does not mean that every aspect about them should be identical. As I posted before, it is an apples and oranges (and even pears) type of situation. 

Just stop thinking that just because something is one way in one system, that it should be the same way in the other. That will not always be the case....

[Arioch]

RME page 71, right hand column, under Bonus Experience Points, just above the table in that column, reread that paragraph.

Bonus XP are given for good role-playing, good ideas, or anything else that the GM wants to award XP for.

OK, thanks for the answer! 

[Marc R]

Stress the key element of how the GM chooses to interpret the XP rules and/or award bonus XP.

Regardless of the method used, that tends to be the most important one.

I did suggest a simplification ala the Cory method:

"You go up a level when I tell you you go up a level." One line. . .the header "Experience guidelines" would take up more space.

I was only half kidding, and the simplified HARPesque method works pretty nicely, especially in stressing group effort and goals over personal effort (And or personally dealing and taking criticals).

But, I still beleive that in the end the "method" inside both versions does boil down to the "Cory Method" in the end. . . far more than the specifics of the mechanics of the XP method, the generosity or tightfistedness of the GM will be the single greatest factor in terms of speed of level advancement.

In the end, the way that the HARPlike method encourages group play makes it an improvement for use as the basic template, and I doubt it'll have much affect on speed of advancement. (As soon as the GM gets used to a method, the rate of advancement will be adjusted to their comfort level via the grey area mechanics each method includes.)

[Ecthelion]

Good point, LM. An experienced GM probably can simply tell the group when they are to advance another level. And any XP guidelines help the less experienced GM to get a feeling for when it is time for such a level advancement (and give the players a means of verification).