|
|
Post by Alex ST on Jun 19, 2016 19:39:19 GMT -5
How much XP do we want to give out per session? Do we want it to be steady (i.e. everyone gets 10) or variable (you get 1 pt for a costume, 1 pt for being low rank, etc.)? How often do we want players to rank up? Do we want to limit how people can spend XP? Can players ever get XP if they miss a session?
The only XP area I feel firm on, is that I would like to use the optional XP for disadvantages used. This is described in the "Disadvantages & Role-Playing" side bar in the core book on p. 154. It reads:
For a game the scale of a larp I like the idea of doing something that encourages players to monitor their Disadvantages for us rather than have the GMs trying to remember everyone's Disadvantages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Resler ST on Jun 20, 2016 10:09:40 GMT -5
I would like to see a standard 10xp per game, even if we pulled it back for balancing reasons to something like 8xp a game, I am hoping for a system like that because variable xp is a pain in the butt to handle and only encourages more min-maxing for ludicrous reasons.
That being said though, I do like reward xp, especially reward for RPing disadvantages. How exactly we go about this is another question, but I like Alex's suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislerol on Jun 20, 2016 12:56:43 GMT -5
I love disadvantages. I love them so much, yes. Remembering is a big deal, and I think some sort of encouragement mechanism is delightful.
General xp/session should be tied to desired power level and overall campaign length(with some cushion for folks missing games), I think. I don't have any firm ideas here, save for wanting players to have a distinct power level increase over the span of the campaign. Stuff that was challenging early on should be routinely crushed by the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 20, 2016 13:28:29 GMT -5
I'd prefer a flat XP reward rather than a variable one, and while I like the idea of granting extra XP for disadvantages, monitoring it may be a pain. Even so, I think that self-reporting is the best way to deal with that. "Hey ST's, I was put out by my disadvantage at today's session when blah, blah, blah happened."
As for how MUCh XP, I think a key point we need to address is how long to run the game. 5 years is an ideal number for me, but it's a long commitment. As for folks who miss game, setting a minimum XP level I think is the best way to do that, but I don't necessarily feel that someone who isn't able to make games regularly should be able to match the XP of someone who doesn't, but I also feel the gap shouldn't be overwhelming.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislerol on Jun 20, 2016 13:36:58 GMT -5
I have no idea if I'll still be up for running a game in five years, but there is some value in building a game to last. Still, that sort of duration'll lean us toward a smaller xp/game award.
I think a healthy "catch up" rule for deaths, late starts is probably essential for that as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex ST on Jun 20, 2016 19:29:06 GMT -5
Consider the following:
Due to the increased costs of higher level Skills and Traits influence gets more expensive at higher levels. At Insight Rank 1, it's roughly 1.5 XP per point of Insight. At Rank 5 it's roughly 4 XP per point of Insight. On average it's about 3.5. To get to rank 5 a character needs 150 Insight, which means 525 XP. Of that 525, roughly 30 comes from the base school, so let's say 475 xp is needed. This means that if we want people to hit rank 5 in a five year game we should be averaging about 7.9 XP per session. At 10 XP per game they'll get there probably in year 4.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 20, 2016 21:12:46 GMT -5
However long we run the game, I'd like the opportunity for people to reach rank five.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex ST on Jun 20, 2016 21:17:38 GMT -5
Do you want everyone to reach rank 5 or do you want it to be a tough choice? At 10 XP per session everyone hits rank 5 and some will hit 6 or even 7. At 7 XP everyone can hit rank 5 but you have to build for it (someone check my math on this; it's been a long day and I'm getting stupid).
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 20, 2016 21:20:11 GMT -5
Hrm. Everyone should be able to reach 5, but anything above that you should have to build for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Resler ST on Jun 20, 2016 21:52:32 GMT -5
Here is where something I have been debating about really comes to light. For the new system I really want to throw out the skill cap restrictions of the antiquated LARP system (one skill at 8 and two at 6). We are playing 4th ED, let's act like it. If we throw those out and let people increase skills as high as they want then 10xp a session isn't too far of a stretch because it will encourage players to flavor build more than just straight optimization. If you want to pull things back, I would recommend 8xp a session at a minimum. 8xp would give a player 96xp a year which is basically equivalent to 4 full ring increases to 3. 10xp would give the players 120xp a year which would give you 5 full ring increases to 3. The question to ask is how fast do you want this progression to be? I can sit down and build three characters (Bushi, Courtier, Shugenja) with a 5 year progression and see what to expect at the end, especially with an optimized character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles ST on Jun 20, 2016 22:13:16 GMT -5
By the end of year 4, most people should be approaching rank 5. That's about a rank and 1 quarter per year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex ST on Jun 20, 2016 22:36:41 GMT -5
It doesn't quite work out that way. Due to the logarithmic cost of insight, plus the fact you start closer to rank 2 than rank 1, getting to rank 3 tends to go pretty quickly* and then things slow down considerably.
* Many people didn't see this in EH and HoR. Because more XP was given to low-insight characters in EH, and many mods HoR mods were limited to low-rank characters, many people intentionally hoarded XP or spent it in ways to avoid raising their insight rank. The phenomenon is more observable in table top and other games that award flat XP.
|
|
|
|
Post by travislerol on Jun 21, 2016 10:49:08 GMT -5
I agree. The math on that doesn't quite work out. I definitely engaged in creative xp shenanigans to maximize XP, I assumed other people did as well...so you ended up with people building up one half of a stat, leaving courtier and etiquette at 2, etc. Then, a breakout strategy later, with a horde of rank 1 skill buys, etc. This existing is probably not ideal, which biases me slightly towards flat xp awards(maybe with a portion being awarded for costume or whatever, but essentially flat).
10/game, with a 5 year goal, gives everyone a path to rank 5, even if they miss a couple of games because life gets in the way or something. I think 9 would also be reasonable.
I would like to have more clearly defined rank 6+ paths. For instance, a set number of Actions taken for downtime/checkin to train something qualifying, with potential breaks for RP*, whatever. I think it should entail some cost beyond merely spending xp on it, but I would rather that it not center on justifications to GMs, which I think is a lot of side work that does comparatively little for the game.
*Maybe building a dojo or something grants some benefit for associated skill learning. Faster with a proper trainer, etc. Various ways for map actions to impact the individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by timcoltharp on Jul 5, 2016 21:41:24 GMT -5
I don't want to but into this discussion too much, because this feels like the territory of other STs. But one thing I would like to see is that PCs start out stronger than the standard default to emphasize that the PCs are better equipped to deal with the problems we throw at them the rank and file samurai they have at their disposal.
I have no dog in the fight for how high they go and how quickly. From an ST point of view that is moot point to me. The challenges will ultimately scale up with them in order to create drama whether they are rank 1 or rank 10 samurai. In my mind what is important is what kind of gamestyle we want to explore or we will think will be more fun. If we want to emphasize mortal affairs, armies, contacts, resources, and planning then be stingy with the XP. If you want a fantastical heroic Exalt-esque game, then be liberal with the XP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex ST on Jul 6, 2016 9:37:14 GMT -5
The main opinion from Charles' survey is that players wanted a lower powered game. Considering it's going to be a new system I'd also encourage starting at low levels and letting people learn and explore the system before sinking lots of XP into builds that may not actually work that well. Personally I'd prefer higher starting level, or even varied starting levels, but that's a minority opinion among players.
|
|
