XP Rollover

Bennie

Mind, this does not mean I would suggest 100% xp rollover. But I do like that its easy to drop a character and pick up a new one without wondering if I'll retain interest/stay alive/whatever long enough to make starting from scratch worth it.

Related to Rollover is my larger, broader question: What do you do about the revolving door players? Is there a weird equilibrium to be maintained between "This is what you are allowed to have" and people who skirt your policies and house rules to maintain their revolving door of ideas?

You end up with Damascus@TR and Nessa@TR - although obviously I've seen the same behavior on games before TR - and that Oo Shiny behavior where people become cyclical: new character, freeze, unfreeze old character, freeze, new character, freeze, unfreeze old character, freeze, new character, freeze, new character.

Being creative is great, and in always seems any policy of XP Rollover will support these more free spirit-oriented folks. But at what point should it be acknowledged the behavior is a drain on your staffing? Should policies and HRs shift when someone starts to squeeze the system for every iota of it's worth towards bopping around the game? Should we have an alt policy that supports single-handedly peopling every possible sphere and every possible organization?

Miss Demeanor

Personally? If it bothers you that much and just talking to the players that are doing it doesn't work, just post a clearly written rule that states a player can only freeze and thaw any one character a set number of times in a year. Might be seen as kind of a 'dick move'... but save your sanity first. Burned out staffers just lead to dead spheres and complaints about 'lack of staff activity'.

Thenomain

There are many ways to reduce staff overhead. If people switching up characters is too much, what is your alt limit policy? What is your game-line alt policy? What is your code for freezing and unfreezing? What is your attitude toward @Cobaltasaurus?

(Kidding! Kidding. Mostly.)

But is that what rollover comes down to? Administration work? If new character creation is this much of a drain, then you really should focus there first; XP Rollover is an enabling factor for another administration issue, not a drain on administration itself.

Good lord, I feel like I should be stabbing myself in the leg with a broken pencil for talking about the administration overhead of games. And yet, here we are.

HelloRaptor

In games with a level system -- they get to come in one level lower than the rest of the party/players.

We did this for a good long while, but in tabletop it ultimately just seemed kind of pointless. Sorry, new guy, there are certainly people in the world as powerful as the PCs, and you're totally playing in a group with them, but despite your last character having sacrificed his life to save this very party after six years of play, we just can't let you come in as cool as the other PCs.

Coin

See, like I said, I make leeway for people whose characters die from plot, or who sacrifice themselves for the party, and in tabletop, I am totally in agreement that coming in at the same level as the rest of the party is fine.

But MUs are not tabletop, so half-xp or whatever other system that puts them ahead of newbies but not as high as they were is fine by me.

I also think that all of this is somewhat superfluous because if the game is good, the players won't care. I do however agree that this can be something that affects the players´s decision to try the game or not.

Thenomain

@HelloRaptor said:

In games with a level system -- they get to come in one level lower than the rest of the party/players.

We did this for a good long while, but in tabletop it ultimately just seemed kind of pointless. Sorry, new guy, there are certainly people in the world as powerful as the PCs, and you're totally playing in a group with them, but despite your last character having sacrificed his life to save this very party after six years of play, we just can't let you come in as cool as the other PCs.

We Enjoyed the challenge, and I rarely felt that I wasn't as "cool" as the other PCs, and if I did the GM would do something kind of cool centered around my character.

Tangent as this is, it sounds like our players and out GM were cooler than yours.

Not that this matters for tabletop, as you play the game you want. Where it's important to this discussion is that you play the game staff wants, no matter how slighted you feel for not being "cool" enough because you don't have the same number of "cool points" as other characters.

@Coin,

On HM, when my character died I was permitted to recreate without having to go back into the wait queue, thereby skipping the quota requirements for the game. That was really the kind of reward I appreciated.

Arkandel

@Thenomain said:

On HM, when my character died I was permitted to recreate without having to go back into the wait queue, thereby skipping the quota requirements for the game. That was really the kind of reward I appreciated.

But shouldn't that be a given? I mean, unless a player is causing issues in their sphere, I'd consider it a pretty douche move to not allow them to skip quota requirements for the sphere if their character dies, not to mention it'd be yet another reason people would resist facing the IC consequences of their PCs' actions.

IC death following meaningful RP should be rewarded, not penalized.

Thenomain

@Arkandel said:

@Thenomain said:

On HM, when my character died I was permitted to recreate without having to go back into the wait queue, thereby skipping the quota requirements for the game. That was really the kind of reward I appreciated.

But shouldn't that be a given?

Should it? Should anything be a given? If you're implying that the morality of each game must include "if I die I get a character back right away", then I have to disagree. If you're not, then I don't know what your point is.

IC death following meaningful RP should be rewarded, not penalized.

Who is going to decide what "meaningful RP" is? If you say that it's staff, then you're supporting my point. If it's the player, then enjoy The Reach.

Moreover, who is to say that having to wait in line for another turn on the slide is "punishment"? You are coloring your response with a deep shade of opinion.

3543thrh67

@Thenomain said:

@Arkandel said:

@Thenomain said:

On HM, when my character died I was permitted to recreate without having to go back into the wait queue, thereby skipping the quota requirements for the game. That was really the kind of reward I appreciated.

But shouldn't that be a given?

Should it? Should anything be a given? If you're implying that the morality of each game must include "if I die I get a character back right away", then I have to disagree. If you're not, then I don't know what your point is.

IC death following meaningful RP should be rewarded, not penalized.

Who is going to decide what "meaningful RP" is? If you say that it's staff, then you're supporting my point. If it's the player, then enjoy The Reach.

Moreover, who is to say that having to wait in line for another turn on the slide is "punishment"? You are coloring your response with a deep shade of opinion.

Wouldn't 'meaningful' be subjective by staff too? Like StaffA could think PlayerA throwing a very successful party, where PlayerA made all sorts of connections to further his or her goals, to be meaningful while StaffB could think otherwise but think think PlayerB's battle against some big bad is meaningful but StaffA could simply think it is something far to common on the game, thus, not hugely meaningful.

Thenomain

@icanbeyourmuse said:

Wouldn't 'meaningful' be subjective by staff too?

Yes, but only one group of people decides what the game is about. This is the only meaningful group every Mu* has. When there is a meaningful group that can be called "the players", then the former group better shut up and listen.

Otherwise, the former group has an order and process to it that allows it to move slower and therefore give more stable forms of subjectiveness that we tend to call "culture". Staff culture informs the average outcome of your situation.

Arkandel

@Thenomain

In this context 'meaningful' meant simply 'not clearly intending to circumvent other rules'.

Obviously it depends on the game in question, but a lot of drama happen as it is as a result of threats to PCs. I don't see a reason to add another factor on the wrong side of the scale by removing the player as well as the character from their sphere.

Someone trying to remove players they don't like by killing their PC, the targets trying to hold onto their OOC friends by not getting effectively booted, those in the queue encouraging conflict just to get the doors opened...there's little upside in comparison.

Bobotron

Not specifically for 'revolving door players' but, has any MU* ever put in an XP floor? We do this in a LARP I am involved in, and it works out fairly well. The two systems for 'new character XP' the LARP uses, specifically, are an XP Floor and Longevity.

XP Floor
Upon creation of a new characterr, they gain an amount of XP for each month that the game has been open. The LARP I'm in has a 10XP per month cap, with an average of 8 per month, and the XP floor is 2, and has been open for 18 months. New characters gain the base XP from the book we use (30) plus 36 for the XP floor (as of January 2015), for a total of 66. This is roughly 25% of the max XP in the game from Earned XP. So not a total screwed noob Vampire, and it has worked out well.

The XP floor also applies to any characters who earned no XP or less than the floor per month. They automatically get the 2 if they missed both games or only submitted one downtime.

Longevity
Longevity is an expansion of the XP floor, and is a reward for players who lose characters in play, continuing to play on the game. This Longevity is 5XP per month that the character has been in play, and replaces the starting XP, unless starting XP would be higher (so a character who has been in play for 12 months has 60 XP, with XP floor added; a character who dies after 2 months in play gets the base 30, as the longevity is 10, which is less).

We've found that these work pretty well and don't have that 'total noob' syndrome which can be a big turnoff in Vampire; they're still lower on the XP totem pole than the older characters who haven't died, but they aren't so far behind that all they have is starting dots.

We also have some additional XP benefits, like a Development Document (can net 5-10 XP depending if a player fills out the 'dark secrets known by PCs/NPCs' section), and offer 10 XP if you purchase a copy of the core book. So far we have had no complaints, and this is with about 5 new people joining over the last month.

Thenomain

DarkWater had an xp floor that was updated monthly. Reach altered the idea by making the initial xp a more gradual thing. Well, more gradual at first., before the xp catchup felt more like a rocket escaping the gravitational well.

Bennie

@Thenomain I sometimes wonder if they had just put in a cap each year if the rocketship wouldn't have felt so stratospheric.

Bobotron

@Thenomain Yeah, the 'rocketship' analogy is why I like the concept of a monthly XP floor, and maybe a 'flat award' at some point, like on a yearly or something, everyone gets <X>. I tried to app TR a couple months ago and someone told me 'You'll get 800 XP after a little bit' and I went '... I have no idea where I would SPEND that much XP, why?'

It feels a little 'artificial difficulty,' because at that point you can't make scaled challenges very easily with that much XP, and I like challenges that everyone can get into, but also challenges that are geared towards certain tiers of PC. Rank Neonates wouldn't be fighting a Master Elder Sabbat Tzimisce attacker and his schlatka, and an Elder Gangrel wouldn't give a second look to a shovelhead Pander (other than to one-shot it) when faced with said Tzimisce.
'

ThatOneDude

@Bobotron said:

@Thenomain Yeah, the 'rocketship' analogy is why I like the concept of a monthly XP floor, and maybe a 'flat award' at some point, like on a yearly or something, everyone gets <X>. I tried to app TR a couple months ago and someone told me 'You'll get 800 XP after a little bit' and I went '... I have no idea where I would SPEND that much XP, why?'

It feels a little 'artificial difficulty,' because at that point you can't make scaled challenges very easily with that much XP, and I like challenges that everyone can get into, but also challenges that are geared towards certain tiers of PC. Rank Neonates wouldn't be fighting a Master Elder Sabbat Tzimisce attacker and his schlatka, and an Elder Gangrel wouldn't give a second look to a shovelhead Pander (other than to one-shot it) when faced with said Tzimisce.
'

I'm curious about what's being said here as a problem. In theory if everyone gets 800 xp at some point everyone is the same so, no worry about never catching up to the old guys, or, less worry about that.

In WoD there is always more XP needed, and to say you wouldn't know what to do with 800 is cool, until you have the chance and then go, well, I could do more...

But honestly, it sounds like from the talks there just needs to be a sort of ranking system for PCs so events and the like can be "Power lvl X - X only please". I know that's difficult but, if you think about it... It could work right?

Bobotron

@ThatOneDude I think I didn't articulate it well. I don't find it to be a problem, per se, just a difference in design philosophy in my head, and my personal preference. Not saying it's wrong, just not my ideal. Stratification is an aspect of roleplaying and, I understand many people feel that 'being unable to catch up to the old guys' is a bad thing. So it's a fine line to toe, and I advocate for everyone to 'do what works best for them'. The chunk works best for TR; the XP floor and scaling, with bonuses, works best for our LARP, and 'everyone gets the same XP, whether you attend or not' works for another LARP here in town.

The ranking system, I think would work if people didn't get crazy about it and being denied to a scene because they're overpowered for that scene; we know people don't like to be excluded, even for balance and logic reasons. Anecdotal example from my TF and Megaman days, when we had FCs that were stronger than OCs, we'd do similar things, but a lot of attempts to 'balance' after a fashion came from, say, appropriate numbers. When I was Rock on M3 and iX/Return X on MMX, and Optimus Prime on Genesis, there was always like 2-on-1 and 3-on-1 fights when it was FC vs. OC a lot of times, just because statistically it caused it to be fairer. Which would work in the Elder vs. Neonate example in vampire (and is to canon and expected theme for Vampire or other WoD games, lessers ganging up on those more powerful).

mietze

I think one problem that I still see MUSH side is this idea that people who lose a characters should have the expectation that they'll be able to spring back similarly influential in IC. Maybe it's not intentional but that is a little of what I hear when I hear people say "but I don't want to do the grind to the top." Except, if you bring in a new PC to the area, why shouldn't you expect that you will not be immediately on the top of the heap? In most cases that's not an IC or thematic expectation.

While that makes sense in a tabletop setting and perhaps in a LARP, on a MUSH I think what pragmatically happens when you have the expectation of absolutely no loss of power level from old PC to new PC, is that there is also stagnation of players that get leadership roles. Some of that comes from one's network and people thinking "Oh, that player knows/is connected to this staff person and that group of old timey PCs" and gravitating towards that. But it also has the effect of keeping new people out of leadership roles even when they are clearly able to participate (and sometimes, being less jaded/busy/needing to bust their butts to build the connections, they're actually showing more initiative and activity than the dinosaurs too).

This may be less of a concern for smaller MUSHes with staff who keep that in mind than larger ones too, I think. And maybe it's not a solvable problem (or only I think it's a problem--I admit that I do like at least there to be a solid chance of new blood getting a chance for some of the top tier spots in leadership).

Bennie

@Bobotron catching up with the old characters isn't the issue, or at least not the most obvious one. The old characters being so entrenched as to never cycle back into noobs is the perceived problem imo. That they're invincible, or can't be fought, or can 1-shot you, or any of a laundry list of other 'those guys sux' arguments.

A lot of these aren't the XP. They're "Staff protects those guys" arguments. They're "Those guys cheat and will say my attempt is broken/incorrect/not approved" arguments. They're "going to never put themselves in danger and hoard the power and not do anything with it" arguments. There's just this massive list of complaints people seem to have over anyone who has more XP.

But the issue isn't the XP. The issue is, is only noobs recycling into new noobs, or is there any kind of chance for the entrenched minority to lose their place and start over too?

And even that isn't really what we're talking about, which is rollover.

You have to break it down:

What do I get when I have to start a new character? Nothing? Something? Something more for having had unspent XP previously? A portion of my previously spent XP?
Does everyone get the same opportunity? Is the opportunity selective to only people who have been PK'd? Only available when you die in a plot? Do people who have a stale character get the same benefit, or are they the odd man out?
Does the game have limits? Is there a limit to the amount of unspent XP you can have? Is there a limit to the amount of spent XP you can have? Is unspent XP a part of you, as a player? Is unspent XP smoke that disappears when you change characters?
Is the game's difficulty such that someone starting new (or over) would be behind? Are you in jeopardy in the most basic storytelling component of the game until a certain amount of XP is reached? Does everyone have to go through this learning curve each time they make an alt?
Is your playgroup varied? Will playing with your friends be made difficult because your XP is not on the level of their XP? Will you be forced to find new friends? Are your friendships being detrimentally impacted with changes in PCs?

Bobotron

@mietze said:

I think one problem that I still see MUSH side is this idea that people who lose a characters should have the expectation that they'll be able to spring back similarly influential in IC. Maybe it's not intentional but that is a little of what I hear when I hear people say "but I don't want to do the grind to the top." Except, if you bring in a new PC to the area, why shouldn't you expect that you will not be immediately on the top of the heap? In most cases that's not an IC or thematic expectation.

I agree. Now, that said, I think there are ways to mitigate this if 1) staff is willing and 2) players are not immediately throwing things screaming FAVORITISM. One of these things is Tiers, which feature typically harsher app strictures than a gen-and-go starting PC. One thing I was considering at one point for a game was the idea of Feature Slots, which would be blank and open, appable as a PC, but with a higher app stricture. In exchange, they get to app in as someone with higher XP, more status, and a larger inroad and prior connections than a new person might have.

While that makes sense in a tabletop setting and perhaps in a LARP, on a MUSH I think what pragmatically happens when you have the expectation of absolutely no loss of power level from old PC to new PC, is that there is also stagnation of players that get leadership roles. Some of that comes from one's network and people thinking "Oh, that player knows/is connected to this staff person and that group of old timey PCs" and gravitating towards that. But it also has the effect of keeping new people out of leadership roles even when they are clearly able to participate (and sometimes, being less jaded/busy/needing to bust their butts to build the connections, they're actually showing more initiative and activity than the dinosaurs too).

Once more, I agree. I guess I'm used to watching for those things, and being able to do so in a more manageable group (I couldn't on something the side of TR, for example). Besides, if people are making the connections and having the initiative to do so, this should reflect in the IC outcomes; someone who outmaneuvers the Prince and gains the IC loyalty of the Primogen Council and a couple of major elders, AND has their fingers in the Mayor, City Council and local hospitals deserves to get the spot that they try for (if they succeed in ousting the Prince that way, anyway).

This may be less of a concern for smaller MUSHes with staff who keep that in mind than larger ones too, I think. And maybe it's not a solvable problem (or only I think it's a problem--I admit that I do like at least there to be a solid chance of new blood getting a chance for some of the top tier spots in leadership).

Once more, we agree on this. Stagnant leadership leads to a desire not to play and the inability to push and lead the group effectively. It's just something people have to be willing to put the time into on both the staff and player side, and staff has to be willing (as do players) to let things ride without outside interference, and recognize that these changes should happen organically.