[quote=“Xcerus”]So - returning to the actual topic here.
No one can justify why the two characters have different skill levels when they have done exactly the same things and are essentially copy pasted characters.[/quote]
I thought I did. So I will make it even clearer.
It is because XP rewards are not just a character reward
[quote=“Ants”][quote=“Xcerus”]So - returning to the actual topic here.
No one can justify why the two characters have different skill levels when they have done exactly the same things and are essentially copy pasted characters.[/quote]
I thought I did. So I will make it even clearer.
It is because XP rewards are not just a character reward[/quote]
The view that xp can be ‘stored’ by a player to be used on any character they wish is a totally new concept to me (well since I moved to NZ). In essentially every other game I have ever played the xp you get is for that character and that character alone.
I don’t see why a complete clone should end up with less xp.
Don’t get me wrong - I understand that GM’s want to run their games in their own way and I support them on that. I for one will more than hapily ‘remind’ people how a rule works and as far as I am concerned what any GM chooses to do in their game is their own business.
My key point is here:
Take a linea game where there is only one way to play. There are no options outside of the path put infront of you by the game designer (be they a gm or other wise) Sure it doesn’t leave you much variation or choice but it can still be a fun game.
If one player finishes the game they will have collected and done everything set before them because that is what is there.
So now that player re-plays the game in exactly the same way but now has fewer powers because he has been penilised for his gear being damaged from the previous game (out of character damage such as scuffs or marks from falling) and is then expected to be able to cope with the same end of game challenges the second time round and (shock) can’t. How is this justified.
Sure if you are a new character and have less xp you are never going to be able to catch up to the big guns. But why should somone who has been in it since the beginning stuggle to deal with somthing somone else has been in since the beginning (or even more absurdly who only joined half way through) can deal with swiftly and without problem.
I guess my opinion stems from games which have a much greater power level at end game (represented by more calls although this is definatly not the thread for that discussion) where somone who has been in the game just as long would not be able to even scratch some of the creatures the GM’s create.
If you have players in your group who are able to one hit your monsters then as a gm you know you need to provide tougher oponents.
What then happens when you know a group of players has been around since the beginning and so presume they are able to take out the massive monster with 100hp that you have created suddenly is unable to cope with it because these guys are the ‘bad role players’ or the ‘poor members of the community’ But being the resonable gm that you are you don’t think of them like that - they are still players in your game and they have been here since day 1. You have over 50 players - you cannot (and fair enough too) remember all their stats and abilities off the top of your head so they all die.
But a duo of AWSOMENESS! swaggers into the clearing as the characters lay dying at the feet of said gribly monster and will a well planned out combo they essentially two hit the creature with their POWERS OF AWESOME! because of their MEGA ROLE PLAYING and UNLIMITED BUDGET!
Yea…
I would feel really great about myself as i watched two people pritty much one hit the creature that just dropped my mates…
I would think:
Great - I am shy… i am broke and the one way I have of breaking away and roleplaying somthing awesome in my pathetic life has just been destroyed by those ritch outgoing players…
‘Why do I do this to myself.’
Alot of you are probably wondering why I for once give a shit about the little people.
The surprise for most of you is that I do care alot about most of the people here that I roleplay with. [size=50]I just hate looking weak.[/size]
This is a slightly unrelated topic to the initial thread, but on xp so I will post it here. An idea occurred to me that rather than everyone writing to the gms to justify why everyone else was awesome, they could send a brief to the gms outlying what they did in the game, and rate their own costume and roleplaying. Yes, you can be modest and recommend yourself too little in the hopes the gms will appreciate this and give you more, or you could recommend yourself too much in the hopes the gms agree, but its actually more to your advantage to recommend you get what you deserve, and justify it - anything else and you risk getting less than you deserve.
Taking this a step further, the gms could write up a questionnaire with some 1-7* scales for your costume (e.g. on a scale of 1-7, how well was your costume themed to the genre, on a scale of 1-7 how well was it themed to other members of your group etc), and it could have an overall scale for your roleplaying on the weekend (on a scale of 1-7, how good was your roleplaying over the weekend), and then provide a few specific boxes where you could highlight examples of your roleplaying (e.g. a box labelled “give an example or examples of your character interacted with a member of a group with different belief systems”, and one labelled “give an example or examples of your character moving the plot along”). There can also be some boxes specific to that game (e.g. “how did your character respond to situation X” where situation X can be either one that everyone was exposed to or not everyone).
At the end of each section it could give a question on how much xp they should be rewarded as a result, though this part isnt strictly necessary to achieve the desired results.
The advantage being it would require people to reflect on their gameplaying, it would give gms the ability to specifically reward and encourage the parts they want to from what the player believes is desirable, and it would give a guide to the players as to what is expected. It would also give the gms feedback on what the players thought was fun/awesome, and what happened in the game.
*I use 1-7 because of my background in psychology. They use this scale often because any larger doesnt provide much more information, and any less is too restrictive in your options. 1-10 or 1-100 are also good enough options.
Huh. There’s some merit in this.
I particularly like that it asks people to be reflective. I think honest reflection and being asked to cite examples could encourage positive rp/costume/involvement growth as well as provide opportunities to go “yeah, you know what? I did REALLY well in that instance.”
I appreciate the intent of that idea, but I’d hate it in practice.
It’s bad enough having to rate yourself at work for regular reviews, wouldn’t want that sort of thing creeping into my fun time too.
Well I can think of a better solution than this.
Award everyone 6 xp.
Now I know what you’re thinking. Why not 7? But six is a wonderful number. You can count it on one hand if you just remember its all your fingers +1. That just doesn’t work for 7. Also 6 is 123 and 1+2+3. Again this won’t work for 7. 6 is an even number. Thats very important. With an odd number like 7 you could run into some serious problems. Also 6 goes into 36 very cleanly. Who wants to put 7 into 36 and have to worry about the decimal places?
So I think you’ll agree 6 is a good number to award everyone. If you agree you can put a 6 in your forum signature to show your support.
P.S. Seriously I like even xp for all.