|
Post by johandenerad on Apr 16, 2009 12:09:25 GMT
Might as well weigh in here:
I don't see any good reason why people should come back with more or less XP. I mostly agree with what LH said.
XP represents a bunch of stuff, but for me it represents how much you as a player, not a character, put into the game. This is then applied to the character you play. For example, combat characters who have fought a thousand battles before can gain more XP in 30 seconds than fledgling social characters who negotiate peace between nations, due to how we award three die stunts. That's not necessarily good or bad, but it shows that XP is player dependent, not character dependent.
If XP depends on how much a player brings, why should character death have any effect on XP at all?
On the whole disincentives thing, I agree with what's been said. No-one's looking to change characters on a whim, if they were, it wouldn't be much of a problem, and if it started detracting from everyone's fun, we could change it. So we don't need the XP drop as an disincentive.
On party balance, there's already a difference which we don't really care about and character death isn't a good balancing mechanism anyway.
BSR, you said lower XP makes new characters seem 'newer and more different'. How?
CS, you said that you gain an advantage from being able to tailor new characters to the current situation. Maybe in the short term, but situations change. The ST easily has the power to throw difficulties at your new, oh-so-useful character's weak spots.
I know we're not changing it now, but if you were considering it again BSR, I would strongly beg that you change it to your new character starts with exactly as much experience as your old one had when they died.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 16, 2009 12:52:26 GMT
As it happens, I'm not much into the idea of getting XP for "putting more into the game". IMO, the XP for three-dice stunts does not enhance the game - it detracts from it, especially considering that you already get rewarded for stunting with essence and willpower improvements. Getting more XP for attending more sessions is particularly arbitrary, as it is based on whether you happen to be required in character and/or your out of character availability. I think XP for write-ups is justifiable, because it encourages people to do something that they mightn't otherwise bother with, but I think that it is rightly kept at a fairly low level.
I feel that the benefits of people keeping at roughly the same power level very much outweigh the benefits of giving special rewards for individuals. But if we are going to have differing power levels then I don't see why we should suddenly balk at it for the particular case of character death, where I think there are game-balance reasons to keep it in. As you can probably tell from the above, the fairness-to-individuals argument doesn't hold that much water with me, but I think it's worth noting that allowing people to keep their full XP - or even the party average XP - means that some brand new characters will inevitably end up starting off with more XP than characters who have been in the party since the start, which seems just an "unfair" as losing a little XP when your character dies.
End of the day, the amount of XP given out to starting characters is exceptional. There isn't much to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by scarletharlot on Apr 16, 2009 14:07:04 GMT
Three dice stunts, the way I read the book, are meant to be rare, but they are there to recognize good roleplaying of the sort that has made the game for fun for everyone. I have my own issues with 3-die stunts (as kinda JD said above combat characters become insta xp machines and players like blackrat who often makes characters who try to plan longer-term goals don't get them), but anyway this probably isn't the thread to discuss them (ehem).
Whatever you feel about them I disagree with your point that getting xp from attending more sessions is 'arbitrary'. When you go to more sessions you have put more into the game. Whether you've prioritized your time to allow for it or other people are just busier, you have still put more time and presumably effort into playing your character and have been recognised accordingly. It's up to the ST to make sure that there isn't a whole series of mini-adventures your character isn't required for and (in Sids anyhow, since I can't be that sure about golden op) this has been monitored very well.
How is it unfair for your character to come back with the same amount of xp your previous one gained through your roleplaying? A brand new player to join the game might get the average or the lowest, but you aren't a new player and if you're not being punished then why should you lose out. How is any other way fairer? 75% just means that if you were behind anyway on xp and your character dies you could be ridiculously out of sync with the others. As far as the logic behind the 'party average' argument goes, then why give 3 dice stunts or anything else out at all, why not just give out 'party xp' so that everyone is the same.
Finally, BSR how does having less xp make your character shiny and new? Surely they'll be new because you're making them from scratch, different unless you want to play exactly the same character lay-out with a very similar background (in which case, why not unless the ST has a problem with that) and less xp isn't going to make you more excited about playing them. I could spend 100xp on my lunar and not be nearly where I want her to go, we're not going to run out of ideas and scope purely because we have 20+ more xp.
It seems to me that it's not too late to change this ruling, because no dead/remade characters have played yet using this rule (or that's my understanding)... I'm struggling with it as a rule. Cardinalsin's arguments make sense, but they don't seem to follow the way we've been using xp. Golden Op has so many players that xp parity doesn't seem to be the most important thing. Unless the lunars are going to have a lot of successive sessions we're solidly behind you guys and we're about to meld. I can't see any other arguments for it and I still feel that it punishes a player for their character dying, even if it's not meant to.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 16, 2009 14:35:17 GMT
Whatever you feel about them I disagree with your point that getting xp from attending more sessions is 'arbitrary'. When you go to more sessions you have put more into the game. Whether you've prioritized your time to allow for it or other people are just busier, you have still put more time and presumably effort into playing your character and have been recognised accordingly. I would have thought the reward of having an entertaining afternoon's roleplaying would be enough! That's certainly what motivates me to turn up. For me it seems less like getting XP for attending is a reward, and more like not getting it on the occasions I'm on holiday or whatever is a punishment. I actually think this is a fair point - to the extent that there is anyone who is already behind by much. I would tend to suggest that there should be an absolute limit in how far behind you should be able to fall. That is my preferred approach, though I recognise it isn't the one we're going with, and I have no wish to make a fuss over it. If it isn't important, then why is it such a big deal in this particular case? We are? This is news to me. Should be interesting... I imagine (without having read the rules on Lunars) that the differing strengths and weaknesses of the two types will compensate for any XP gap, but I must admit I can imagine it being a problem for balancing combats etc.
|
|
|
Post by scarletharlot on Apr 16, 2009 17:12:55 GMT
I don't know how to quote you, *sniff*, but I don't think from what BSR said earlier that in golden op xp parity is a big deal. My point was that considering xp parity is not a big deal in this game (partly because of generous three dice-stunts, a big range between players who've attended different sessions, often a floating xp at the end) then it doesn't make sense that it should be the argument brought in at character death. So I am still with the JD opinion that the most logical approach is to remake with exactly the same amount of xp.
It sounds to me CS (do you have an abbreviation?) like you basically prefer an equal xp game where xp is a party thing and people are closely balanced, whereas golden op has so many players that BSR has taken the approach that they have whatever xp they accrue through their dedication to the game. Because there isn't one single party, but rather a group who appear to do a lot of splitting to meet special quests, xp parity is less relevant.
It sounds to me more like you're arguing for LH's midway option - for average xp or some such thing when a player dies so that they start on a level with as many of the others as possible, not just a loss of xp. This way some people would gain xp, but in your opinion that would be better because of the advantages to having characters of relatively equal power?
If that basically is your view then what are the arguments for a set 25% drop? I know Exalted's an STocracy and the decision has maybe already been concluded, but I think this is a decision that would really affect my game enjoyment so i'd like to understand why it should be a certain way.
|
|
|
Post by Learned Hand on Apr 16, 2009 17:46:43 GMT
I was trying hard not to post on this thread again, but I can't help myself. I love this kind of discussion! That said, I think that postponing the decision isn't good. Once some people have lost xp from their character dying, then it's goign to be very weird if others don't. The decision we make now is probably going to stick.
It seems that there are a few conflicting, legitimate desires.
One, call it 'reward' reflects the idea that you should be rewarded for giving time to the campaign.
One, call it 'parity' reflects the idea that everybody being at the same xp-level is basically a good thing. This also seems to be motivated by the fair point that 3-dice stunts creating a wide difference in xp levels isn't always the best. It means two people who have spent just as much time in sessions could have a big difference because one has all the atheletics charms and another doesn't, and that doesn't seem quite right.
The final one, call it 'disincentive' reflects the idea that a character dying should have a bad effect. It may also reflect the idea that, let's be honest, as far as GO creation rules go we're all ridiculously powerful anyway. The bonus charms we start with, on their own, are worth between 120xp and 150xp.
I think the best way to deal with these 3 desires is option (b). Basically, you keep the same xp unless you are either way ahead or way behind the pack, in which case you can just go to the same level as the pack.
This respects fairness because most people will keep their xp. Those who have put in more or less time will still be rewarded, because they will still have the most or least xp, albeit jointly.
This respects parity because, let's be fair, we don't care about the 2 xp difference between Grey Wolf and Raiden - we're more concerned about people zooming ahead or falling behind. This simply targets those people. It's also worth pointing out that in GO the person zooming ahead (me) has no problem with this idea.
It only provides a disincentive to that person who's far ahead, but then I don't think disincentive is a very good desire in the first place. It certainly hasn't been articulated very well.
Overall, I think it's a nice compromise between a complete levelling process, and one that leaves people with what they've got. It may sometimes need to be applied sensibly (for instance, in S:PI, 2 characte's are accelerating ahead, so it may be that either one of them is levelled down with everyone else) but I think that deaths are rare enough that it shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by scarletharlot on Apr 17, 2009 0:24:35 GMT
I like everything LH's said.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 17, 2009 8:52:00 GMT
My first, last and most important point is that the GM has gone to the trouble of writing the game, so they get to decide the rules. So whatever my views, they aren't intended as a complaint or criticism of how BSR does things, nor do I especially expect him to respond to them.
I am firmly in the camp that values parity over the other aspects LH has mentioned. For me the sole purpose of XP is to allow people to develop their characters, not as some kind of reward for taking part (it seems to me that taking part is it's own reward). For a range of reasons I think that having individuals who get way ahead or behind the pack is a bad idea. However, I'm not living in my ideal world where everyone gets the same XP, and my view on XP after death is based on the game as it is, not the game as I'd like it to be.
With that in mind, I think that having abandoned the idea of parity, it's hard to see why losing some XP when you die is a big deal. People seem quite happy to be given extra XP, but less happy to have XP taken away. I don't really see why one should be in favour of one and not the other, except out of a general desire to have nice things happen in the game and not nasty things. I think it seems just as "unfair" for a brand new character to enter the game with more XP than an established one as it is for a player whose character has died to get one that is a bit less powerful.
Regards option (b) - I don't support it, but I do think that setting a limit on how low your XP can go if you die, would be wise. Otherwise you could have one character die, then the new character get killed on the first outing, and you end up being way behind everyone else. Maybe the level of the person in the party with the lowest XP would make sense as a mimum starting XP, though even that seems a bit unfair on that person.
But to reiterate (because I have to, in order to make it true), my first, last and most important point is that the GM, quite rightly, gets to decide the rules. I've got plenty of ideas about how I would run GO if I was given the chance, but I don't really see why BSR should do it my way, given that he's the one who is actually putting the work in to run it.[/li][li]
[/li][li] Even if he does forget to name his NPCs most of the time.
|
|
|
Post by johandenerad on Apr 17, 2009 11:09:35 GMT
For me the sole purpose of XP is to allow people to develop their characters, not as some kind of reward for taking part (it seems to me that taking part is it's own reward). The sole purpose of XP is to allow people to develop their characters. The sole mechanism for gaining XP in Exalted is by your contribution, as a player, to the game. Its not the monsters you kill or the kingdoms you save, its how you as a player describe it, and how everyone else receives it. There is a baseline for showing up, assuming you contributed that way, but everything else is based on how much you make others find the fun. This, in the Exalted Core and how we've always played it, is how it is. Your character dying, in itself, has no impact to how much you contribute or have contributed. Therefore, your XP shouldn't change. I think that having abandoned the idea of parity, it's hard to see why losing some XP when you die is a big deal. People seem quite happy to be given extra XP, but less happy to have XP taken away. I don't really see why one should be in favour of one and not the other, except out of a general desire to have nice things happen in the game and not nasty things. I think it seems just as "unfair" for a brand new character to enter the game with more XP than an established one as it is for a player whose character has died to get one that is a bit less powerful. Its a big deal because some of your legitimate contribution to the game is taken from you. We have implicity abandoned the idea of parity by saying "we're playing Exalted, so people get XP for cool stuff". If we want to bring parity in, I can deal: but I prefer people get XP for cool stuff. There has been a suggestion on a cap on how much XP you can get for three die stunts in a session for O's Sids game - this may be a good compromise. The bad thing when your character dies is your character dying, if you have any emotional investment in them at all. There don't need to be more bad. Its not "wanting there to be no bad", its "I want my contribution to not change based on circumstances which don't effect my contribution". Someone who considers the new character of an established, fun player being as powerful as their character "unfair" I don't really understand.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 17, 2009 11:36:18 GMT
The sole mechanism for gaining XP in Exalted is by your contribution, as a player, to the game. Yes, as I say, I'm talking about how I think things should be rather than how they are. I happen to think that the mechanism you describe takes XP beyond it's sole purpose of allowing characters to develop - it creates competitiveness, and resulting ill-feeling; it takes away from the parity thing, which means that you'll either have some characters who find encounters too hard or some who find it too easy, and generally leads to some characters being literally better than others, either by virtue of having more power or simply a wider range of abilities, and it generally takes away from the idea that you contribute to the game because you enjoy doing so. But this is really a separate debate to the one about character death, and I think if we want to discuss it we should probably create a new thread. That's the reason I have to mention my philosophy of XP. If it wasn't for the fact that I disagree with you about the purpose of XP, my disagreeing with you wouldn't make sense. But I do, so it does. I also don't think that the system rewarding your contribution generally necessarily means it has to continue to do so after character death; in fact if you pursued that logic far enough it would mean that all new players had to start with the same XP as the others had at campaign start, because they haven't contributed at all yet. The GM can pick and choose what rules he likes and what works in each area of the game - it isn't necessary to have a perfect, logical system. I think we're at cross-purposes. I'm saying I think it's important for people to have roughly equal XP. By supporting the existing system, you're saying that you don't mind if this does not happen. But one of the arguments made (by SH as I recall) was that losing XP upon death might cause you to fall behind. That was why I mentioned parity - because I don't see how you can avail yourself of that argument without supporting parity more generally. I'm less worried about that. It's more the idea that they would actually be better. But actually, even if they were only equal in XP terms, they would almost certainly be better in power terms, because the player hasn't had to pick up random skills in response to random challenges thrown up in-game, and has had the chance to fully tailor their developed combination of skills and charms rather than worry about making them work during the early stages when they have less XP to work with. In response to your general argument - I think it's coherent, I just disagree with it. I also think that if you get special XP for doing stuff in session, you should be pleased that you got it and enjoy the benefits while you have them, not get p!ssed off because you might lose them at some later date.
|
|
bravesirrobin
Geek of Geeks
Post-Whore
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by bravesirrobin on Apr 17, 2009 12:17:31 GMT
Wow, many things said here.
i favour a flat rate for returning dead characters. parity is something I worry about. And whilst we do have quite different XP levels because of my rulings, it does worry me. death seems like a fantastic opportunity to address this issue. i also have to consider the issue of new characters coming in and how much XP they get as well - which complicates matters.
i think what i would like to do is make a new ruling. new or replacement characters come back with the same amount of XP as the lowest (non-dead) party member. however if this is the case i would have to rule they don't get XP for a background.
seperately i would like to add that i think solars and lunars should be treated seperately as the two character types aren't balanced against each other.
whilst i love XP, and have set up GO so that it is earnt pretty quickly, not to mention the character creation rules which make people way more high powered anyway. i would hope that it is not the central point of the game. and i don't want it to matter too much quite frankly.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 17, 2009 12:28:23 GMT
however if this is the case i would have to rule they don't get XP for a background. Maybe say that they don't get any XP that was given to the lowest character for background? So they can then earn it for writing their own? Maybe that's what you meant anyway. In general, I think the new ruling sounds quite sensible.
|
|
|
Post by johandenerad on Apr 17, 2009 16:05:59 GMT
But this is really a separate debate to the one about character death, and I think if we want to discuss it we should probably create a new thread. Happy to, but as you say, this is about the system as is. If it wasn't for the fact that I disagree with you about the purpose of XP, my disagreeing with you wouldn't make sense. But I do, so it does. Yes, but it doesn't matter, because XP in this game works the way I described. Your philosophy of XP makes sense but isn't the one we're using; I'm talking about how character death should be dealt with given the system we have, not the system you want. That would, again, be a matter for another thread. I also don't think that the system rewarding your contribution generally necessarily means it has to continue to do so after character death; in fact if you pursued that logic far enough it would mean that all new players had to start with the same XP as the others had at campaign start, because they haven't contributed at all yet. Following the fun is obviously the cardinal rule, and taking player contribution to its logical extreme could create problems in the fun, I agree. The same could be said of taking exact character parity to its logical extreme. Assuming we respect the fun, player contribution is the only factor in determining XP in this game. If character death is independent of player contribution, then character death is independent of XP. Therefore, character death shouldn't change XP. I also think that if you get special XP for doing stuff in session, you should be pleased that you got it and enjoy the benefits while you have them, not get p!ssed off because you might lose them at some later date. I don't think painting me as some kind of reactionary pessimist is fair (not based on this debate, anyway). When I get stuff, I like to enjoy it; does that mean I can't talk about why I don't want it taken from me when people discuss taking it from me? Personally, I'd rather show up early at the agora, with a shotgun. Hmm. That sounded somewhat reactionary and pessimistic. BSR has made a ruling, so I will shut up now. I would, however, like to talk about reward vs. parity in a different thread.
|
|
|
Post by cardinalsin on Apr 17, 2009 17:56:19 GMT
I don't think painting me as some kind of reactionary pessimist is fair (not based on this debate, anyway). Whoa, there, hoss! That totally wasn't what I was trying to do there. Okely.
|
|