Topic: Basic Question Re Racial Stat Bonuses and Development Points

[Serwyl]

I get how racial mods directly affect the stat bonus, and therefore skills- but I'm unclear whether the mod ALSO applies to Development Points.  It may be a factor of still having only the original edition of the core book on hand, but I can't be certain from what I'm reading whether it applies to both.  If it does, that would drastically increase the amount of development points available.

Thanks!
Chuck

[Thom @ ICE]

Only the Stat Based modifiers impact the DP development.  Racial modifiers do not impact it.

However, most people have found over the years that the flat DP model (using 40-50 depending upon GM preference) yields a better game.

[Uriel]

However, most people have found over the years that the flat DP model (using 40-50 depending upon GM preference) yields a better game.

Agreed, I'm using 50.
When we used DPs based off of stats (Rolled), some folks had 38, one had 67...
Made for some pretty bummed out players. Not only did one person have MUCH better stats, they also had almost double DPs. As a GM, I felt that 50 would make everyone more content (The girl with the 67 DPs agreed as well, albeit with a teensy little frown).

-Uriel

[Cory Magel]

Agree with the others... give a set amount of DP per level.  I wouldn't even give experience when running, I'd just tell everyone when to level up.  More control over the speed of the campaigns progression, more balanced player characters (against each other) and no "competition" for experience points.

[Ecthelion]

I wouldn't even give experience when running, I'd just tell everyone when to level up.  More control over the speed of the campaigns progression, more balanced player characters (against each other) and no "competition" for experience points.

That's easy for you because you have years of experience as a GM. For new players and GMs it's IMO good to have XP guidelines in the rules and use them. And the goal-based XPs of HARP or RMX can help avoiding the "competition" for XP you mentioned. Later it is possible to use shortcuts just as you do and simply tell players when to level up.

[Kasdaye]

50 DP per level you say?... hmm, that could explain why my players seem VERY powerful!

We use stat based DP, and we started at lvl 5. So given the option of plenty of free DP to begin with, all my players pumped it straight into increasing stats & therefore increasing DP for future levels. This balanced out characters who rolled low on their stats relatively earlyish and everyone seemed fine with it. Now they all seem to be getting 80+ DP a level!

Though this probably works because there are only 3 players at the moment (as opposed to the last game I ran which had 8 players & 2 GMs... the logistics of running that game could politely be described as a cluster%$#*!) and them being overpowered kind of works as they don't have the range of a full party.

I also just tell the players when they level up as it helps control the flow on such crazy characters.

[Thom @ ICE]

The 80+ DP per level issue is why I moved from dynamic to fixed DP gains.
Everyone focused on incresing stats until they walked around with 91 or 96 in every stat, and then began spending their huge DP gains.

[Mando]

We use a 40 + (reached level x 2) DPs house rule and it seems to provide fine character development, no rush for high stats at the start, and not too much power creep after.

To have a global grasp on char dev, you'll also have to consider how many XPs you give and why, but I think that the gaming style of your group matters more than rules here. And that relatively slow pace also seems fine as HARP doesn't have much content for very high level chars anyway...

[Ecthelion]

We use the HARP without professions modification that I created, where the number of DPs is fixed but higher stats lead to lower DP costs.

[Cory Magel]

I wouldn't even give experience when running, I'd just tell everyone when to level up.  More control over the speed of the campaigns progression, more balanced player characters (against each other) and no "competition" for experience points.

That's easy for you because you have years of experience as a GM. For new players and GMs it's IMO good to have XP guidelines in the rules and use them. And the goal-based XPs of HARP or RMX can help avoiding the "competition" for XP you mentioned. Later it is possible to use shortcuts just as you do and simply tell players when to level up.

In RM we eventually got rid of individual experience and just gave group experience with a couple of the GMs who run our games.  There were a couple players who were particularly bad about it, but everyone would occasionally take the opportunity to 'steal' experience when presented.  Basically if one character had pounded down a foe for some time and they knew he was about to go down they'd try for the last blow to get the kill experience.  This was mainly a problem with ranged combatants as they could switch targets on a whim.

However, I don't know if doing what I suggested would really be a problem for a new GM.  All you'd really need to know is what you wanted the pace of progression to be in your game.  Where we only play once a month at best anymore I'd pretty much have everyone level once per session (likely at the start or end of the sessions) until they really started reaching mid to high levels (maybe level 10), then I might slow it down to once every two.  Of course, if you're playing a lot you'd want to slow that down most likely.

Also, I'd never start the players over level two at the most anymore.  If anything I'd make them run through a minor task or mission and level up after they complete it.  You could do this over the course of three to four missions for the first session and have everyone up to level 4-5 on the first go round.  This gets them up to a more survivable level while limiting the unrealistic DP dumps into certain areas.  This does take experienced players who are going to do their level ups fairly quickly though.

[masque1223]

Agreed, I'm using 50.
When we used DPs based off of stats (Rolled), some folks had 38, one had 67...
Made for some pretty bummed out players. Not only did one person have MUCH better stats, they also had almost double DPs. As a GM, I felt that 50 would make everyone more content (The girl with the 67 DPs agreed as well, albeit with a teensy little frown).

We use dynamic DP, but when rolling up stats at the beginning of the campaign, I pooled all the rolls together and averaged them, so they all started with the same amount of points to spend on stats, and therefore the same amount of DPs.  Over the years, some players have jacked up their stats more than others, but it hasn't been a problem, as I deal with balance more in gameplay than in numbers on the sheet.