Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
That argument is that certain RP requires mechanical growth, which I've previously described as "advancement." My response to that is: no form of role-playing requires mechanical growth. It's true, PCs evolve and change; thus, I support changing a PC's stats based on what's happened in RP by re-spec, but am adverse to a full-out re-spec, which is where a player simply re-arranges their +sheet for reasons other than misunderstanding rules out of CGen or rule changes made during play.
This is not a "wrongfun" argument; this is a "I do not agree with your presumption/premise/implicit argument" argument.
They are just referring to different games. I've played completely stat-less MU* and they were fine - I had a blast. But that's because you can grow the character, organically and at will based on your judgment of how far he/she has gone as opposed to a systemic numeric advancement.
What I object to is hybrids which control PCs' growth then, once they no longer allow it, the implication is the character has reached their peak. That's not conductive to activity in my most humble opinion.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
@Lithium said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
I also find it somewhat amusing that anyone, anywhere, is telling people that they're doing pretendy fun times /wrong/ when they are having fun. Some people enjoy increasing the size of their character sheet.
I feel the need to clarify my previous comments. My argument is aimed at an implicit argument in this statement:
@ThatGuyThere said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
In short I enjoy RP very much, but the type of rp I enjoy is the type that pretty much requires mechanical growth to go with it, adventuring, discovering new shit, etc.
That argument is that certain RP requires mechanical growth, which I've previously described as "advancement." My response to that is: no form of role-playing requires mechanical growth.
Sorry even though we are in the constructive section I will call Bullshit right there. In some systems there are advancements that require mechanical advancement WoD for example if my character learns a language. That requires depending on old or new spending on either Linguistics knowledge or a skill. If I play my character as knowing Mandarin and Mandarin is not on his sheet that is cheating regardless of me rping him learning it, even if I have a dozen logs of scene with him leaning from folks, struggling with learning how to draw the characters, whatever unless the dot is in the right place on his sheet he does not know the language.
Or if my character learns that vamps or werewolves or whatever other beasties exist or bits of real info about him, that is either an OWoD lore or covered in NWoD occult. If I cannot buy that then something has to happen like a head injury to explain why he would forget what he just learned because there is a term for role playing out skills not represented on the sheet that term is again cheating.I personally do not like respecs at all too much like ret-cons for my tastes. It is fine that the re-spec option exists for those that like it but if that is the option versus a hard cap to me they are the same things.
-
CoD does have that problem and weakness, sure. I would argue that you should toss Languages into "Academics," as Supernatural Lore gets tossed into "Occult," but I digress.
I did not explain what I meant by "mechanical growth." By that, I mean "an increase in total XP spent on the PC." I omitted that when I jumped to my argument that there should be mechanisms for "mechanical change," such as a re-spec. So, in response to your bullshit claim, I'd amend my statement to: no form of role-playing requires an increase in total XP spent on the PC.
Of all of my previous reasons for wanting to cap growth, I strongly lean on the idea that PCs should not be able to effectively eliminate all of their weaknesses, which is what unlimited growth permits. If a PC at the limit learns a new language, then they should be able to shift their expenditures to permit that change. Of course, the change means that the PC sacrifices some other ability or merit, but that's not unreasonable, e.g., I probably used to have Athletics 2, but, thanks to age and lack of practice, that's probably down to a 1.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
CoD does have that problem and weakness, sure. I would argue that you should toss Languages into "Academics," as Supernatural Lore gets tossed into "Occult," but I digress.
I would love to see this. Sadly White Wolf and Onyx path are both made up of Americans who seemingly do not realize how prevalent having more then one language is in lots of the world.
I did not explain what I meant by "mechanical growth." By that, I mean "an increase in total XP spent on the PC." I omitted that when I jumped to my argument that there should be mechanisms for "mechanical change," such as a re-spec. So, in response to your bullshit claim, I'd amend my statement to: no form of role-playing requires an increase in total XP spent on the PC.
That I can agree with. It is not to my tastes but I can accept that as true.
Of all of my previous reasons for wanting to cap growth, I strongly lean on the idea that PCs should not be able to effectively eliminate all of their weaknesses, which is what unlimited growth permits. If a PC at the limit learns a new language, then they should be able to shift their expenditures to permit that change. Of course, the change means that the PC sacrifices some other ability or merit, but that's not unreasonable, e.g., I probably used to have Athletics 2, but, thanks to age and lack of practice, that's probably down to a 1.
Again while this is not to my tastes it becomes more of a taste issue. The logic and modeling of reality behind it is sound and using the language example I seem to fall back on too much' in RL I used to speak German well, as in able to converse with natives without real hindrance well, then due to not having had cause to do so in nearly a decade I cannot really anymore. Yes I can still understand it some and read it slowly but if I tried to talk to someone I would sound like a slow third grader at best.
From a taste perspective I will likely never be on the side of caps. From a gamer perspective my question would be how to you prevent the game with a cap from becoming a bunch of folks with near identical builds? I know if I was on a game with a cap the temptation to say screw what my character would be motivated to learn ICly these points are a limited resource I need to use them for maximum effect.
-
@ThatGuyThere said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
From a taste perspective I will likely never be on the side of caps. From a gamer perspective my question would be how to you prevent the game with a cap from becoming a bunch of folks with near identical builds? I know if I was on a game with a cap the temptation to say screw what my character would be motivated to learn ICly these points are a limited resource I need to use them for maximum effect.
I cannot think of a single instance where this has ever happened.
That said, staff can prevent identical builds by providing a variety of effective methods for achieving goals. It has long been lamented that PCs gravitate towards combat builds because MU* RP tends to devolve into attempts to kill.
Regarding WoD games, this is mostly due to the absence of enforced social maneuvering systems or effective mental contest systems. CoD has attempted to change all of that, but I'm not convinced their systems would work well for a MU*.
Other games, like D&D, make identical builds sort of impossible, unless within the same class.
But you can prevent it. You just have to plan a game carefully, devise systems that would work for the MU* environment, and then get a team to work with you to get it done.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
I'd amend my statement to: no form of role-playing requires an increase in total XP spent on the PC.
I disagree strongly there. Just because I go to dance classes and get a dot in dancing or take some introductory German... why in the world does that mean I lose a dot in something else? That's just nonsensical from an IC perspective IMHO.
Skills atrophy if not used, absolutely. I haven't done martial arts in almost 10 years, so I certainly suck now compared to what I used to be able to do. But I don't buy into any system that asserts that they atrophy just because you learned something new.
-
@faraday said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Skills atrophy if not used, absolutely. I haven't done martial arts in almost 10 years, so I certainly suck now compared to what I used to be able to do. But I don't buy into any system that asserts that they atrophy just because you learned something new.
If we can agree that skills atrophy when not actively used, it is not unreasonable for a system to mandate atrophy in the event that a player wants his PC to pick up something new. The shift represents a focus on learning the desired skill over the maintenance of the prior skill level.
Still, this only occurs once you get to a limit. So there's no inherent atrophy, but, rather an atrophy when you get to maximum potential.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Still, this only occurs once you get to a limit. So there's no inherent atrophy, but, rather an atrophy when you get to maximum potential.
Except that it's quite possible for me to be "actively using" all of the skills on my character sheet (which rarely represents every single thing your character knows). Your ability to practice is largely limited by your free time, which is highly individualized.
Should someone be able to reach level mastery in every skill and maintain it? No. I agree, that's silly. But should someone lose a dot from a modest professional-level rated skill they use all the time just because they picked up a new hobby and are at some artificial cap? That's also silly IMHO.
But I will take a step back and admit this is just a pet peeve. As I stated earlier, there is no right or wrong way to model XP. If your goals with the XP system are balance/fairness or OOC rewards, then "it's non-sensical from an IC perspective" is completely irrelevant.
What I was most objecting to was the assertion that 'no form of RPing requires X'. My form does
-
@faraday said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
Should someone be able to reach level mastery in every skill and maintain it? No. I agree, that's silly. But should someone lose a dot from a modest professional-level rated skill they use all the time just because they picked up a new hobby and are at some artificial cap? That's also silly IMHO.
System-wise, then, you didn't reach your maximum potential. At least, that's how I'd explain it.
In the end, it doesn't really matter. My vociferous defense is in response, mostly, to people who claim that my idea won't work. The particular reasons for justifying it aren't as important to me as mechanical aspects, such as when, on a CoD, you should cap XP spending.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
I cannot think of a single instance where this has ever happened.
You've never been more wrong!
One of the main problems with the nWoD is how similarly built most physical characters of a certain type are. The only difference is the weapon of choice (brawl vs melee vs firearms), if applicable the fighting style used and then the powers which boost that weapon (if you're going with Brawl and you're Gangrel you have the merit for aggravated damage and Potence, for instance). There're definite builds which are either followed or you're gimping your PC's potential. For example in the nWoD 1.0 if you had a character with a multi-attack fighting style and one without it the difference in firepower was enormous.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
In the end, it doesn't really matter. My vociferous defense is in response, mostly, to people who claim that my idea won't work.
Well I will agree at least that it can work. I personally wouldn't like it, but I can understand situations where you might want it.
-
@Arkandel said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
One of the main problems with the nWoD is how similarly built most physical characters of a certain type are.
Is this due to any sort of XP capping? If not, your example is distinguishable.
To clarify: I have no knowledge of any game on which there were caps and a lot of players with near identical builds. I concede that there are ways to build a PC in CoD to maximize certain benefits, but I think that's true with all systems.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
@Arkandel said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
One of the main problems with the nWoD is how similarly built most physical characters of a certain type are.
Is this due to any sort of XP capping? If not, your example is distinguishable.
To clarify: I have no knowledge of any game on which there were caps and a lot of players with near identical builds. I concede that there are ways to build a PC in CoD to maximize certain benefits, but I think that's true with all systems.
I'll go over nWoD 1.0 because I had better knowledge of what was going on (being staff on games like TR/HM, as opposed to resorting to anecdotal information through chats with friends).
Pre-GMC if fighting styles were in place that was basically what your combat build had to revolve around. If you failed to do so your character would be ridiculously underpowered compared to having it; so for instance if you were going to use guns then CM5 was basically a given. Then once you had that a lot of the build went toward buffing the fighting style's effectiveness - if you had a way to buff dexterity for instance you did, if you could give rote to the action you did, etc. For non-Mage splats there was always a rather finite number of ways that was possible so that's what most people bought, often overnight (in the case of TR).
Mages...were more flexible. But that's just how it played out.
Note that when I say 'identical builds' I'm referring specifically to combat, and only to the part of the +sheet that deal with physical combat. Obviously a brawl-y Gangrel could have any other number of skills and merits as their concept warranted and XP could afford.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
So, you're basically saying that if you wanted to be a combat-oriented PC, you had to take advantage of merits that augmented your combat abilities. If this is the case, I thought it a truism.
But the game didn't force you to be combat-oriented, yes? Or socially-oriented? Mentally or magically? That's what I'm getting at; putting XP caps in place do not force you to take a certain build or concept, and, if so, that was likely due to the nature of the game in question.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@Ganymede What XP caps do though, is force you to minmax if you want to be really GOOD at something. When you have a cap of XP total earned you must plan everything down to the last point if you want to have an optimized build.
Does every character require an optimized build? Absolutely not.
James Bond (just as an example) however /does/.
As does any reasonable special forces type character, or thousand year old viking vampire...
The thing that is sticking here is that people are attempting to find a one size fits all answer to a problem that doesn't /have/ a one size fits all answer. This is what I was trying to point out to @Thenomain that unfortunately got lost in translation somewhere. I wasn't trying to attack anyone, I was just trying to say that there are different strokes for different folks, and different game systems.
The age old answer of XP, character growth, etc, is going to be the same as anything else when it comes to this hobby: It depends on the person. Just like there's no one true game system that everyone believes is perfect or even the best, there's no one way to model character growth that will satisfy everyone.
Hello! Long time listener, first time caller...
-
To use D&D as a an example, the game is actually built with a cap with no advancement. 20th level, bro. Can't go past it. But you're free to keep playing past hitting it.
-
@ShelBeast said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
To use D&D as a an example, the game is actually built with a cap with no advancement. 20th level, bro. Can't go past it. But you're free to keep playing past hitting it.
Untrue. At least, in some editions. There is an entire book on characters past 20th level.
-
@ShelBeast said in Alternate CoD/WoD Character Growth / XP Systems:
To use D&D as a an example, the game is actually built with a cap with no advancement. 20th level, bro. Can't go past it. But you're free to keep playing past hitting it.
As Derp said there was a whole book about it, in regular old fist edition it was the Immortal Rules set. Basic was 1 to 3, Expert from 4 to 8, not sure on the other sets for the other level.
In the D20 edition it was the Epic Level Handbook.
There is not one yet for 5th edition but one never knows. -
So, after several pages, I think so far we've agreed on -- some people like xp caps, some people like timed spends, and between both of those, never the twain shall meet.
So, there are two alternatives there. I think Ark may have mentioned doing away with auto-xp and making people work for beats and whatever, but then you get into situations were those folks who can live on the game end up with all the shinies forever -- not necessarily a great thing.
Someone mentioned skill points or growth points instead of xp.
Do we have other options? Are there mergers of those things in there somewhere that could be considered?
-
I hate the idea of working for your beats.
It's much like dancing for your bees.
