What does advancement in a MU* mean to you?
-
@ThatGuyThere said in What does advancement in a MU* mean to you?:
New Prospect had an interesting idea for xp in WoD. Instead of doing it as xp and spending it, it was time based you had a number of slots you could be actively learning things with and then when enough time passed it was added to your sheet. I don't remember hearing a lot of complaints about the system but the game did not last long due to other dramaz.
New Prospect still exists, but lack Mummy, so poo on them.
As to the original topic... I dunno? Dinosaurs are bad, static growth is bad... I absolutely HATED the NYC nWoD game around the time of HM and Saint Petersburg and TR's beginnings, because it capped out at 1.5 xp per day, IF you were IC in another room with a PC and had a semi-low idle time, and/or could be supplemented by noms (but still capped at 1.5 xp).
I like SR Denver's method, to a degree. The record there is something like earning 800 karma in a year, or a year and a half? Kassandra was crazy, but when you have a circle of 8 players who can run plots for each other daily so no one gets burned out, wonderful things can happen.
Return on investment, I guess, is a good explanation. Give newbies a chance to, if not catch up to the dinos, at least close the gap with some effort.
But that's all XP.
Advancement, itself, is tricksier. Get better at things... more SWAG. A clever idea is to lower TNs based on skill level, rather than adding dice, but I just pulled that out of my ass, so I don't know any of the long-term implications of it.
-
It's also important to make in-game carrots achievable, whatever means of advancement you choose. It is however essential to make anything really neat that's achievable to be universally so, even if the bar is high.
What does that mean?
-
If you're running a game like Mage with certain 'end-game' spells requiring Mastery in one Arcanum and even with high skill (sometimes Mastery as well) in a second one they get some extra oomph to them, at least make that achievable. It sucks to never be able get your build's 'ultimate' ability.
-
If at any time... at any time, say during alpha, you let a couple of players get a nice power and then during play you decide it's too much, or you raise the requirements very considerable, you are a monster. Don't grandfather shit like that. Either take them out from their original holders with some sort of compensation or leave them open to everyone.
Note I'm not saying to make it easy or fast. But doable, and not just 'doable if you play every day for three years and staff decides to approve your application at that point'.
-
-
@Arkandel
I agree for the most part but with one caveat, using the mage thing for example, I have no problem if someone running a game decides hey I am running a low power level (for mage) game so capping spheres at 4.
I don't think any game should necessarily make make the ultimate, in your words, powers available but I do thing games should communicate when they are not going to use the full scope of the system.
Another example would be if you were using a MUSH using the D+D system there is nothing wrong with capping PC level at 12, or any other number, but you should communicate that to your perspective players clearly and directly both to so they can decide if that changes their desire to play and so that they can make build decisions based on that endpoint. If class x has the most awesome 13th level ability you know from the jump that the ability won't come into play so while you can still play class x there is no surprise aww crap I can never get that ability. -
@ThatGuyThere said in What does advancement in a MU* mean to you?:
I agree for the most part but with one caveat, using the mage thing for example, I have no problem if someone running a game decides hey I am running a low power level (for mage) game so capping spheres at 4.
For starters yes, you are right - if a game outright says "we're gonna be going low-power for this one" then it's no longer something to hold them accountable for. It's their choice, and I get to also decide whether it's a good for for me or not.
I must say I'm not fond of this approach for two reasons:
-
I dislike low-level caps. Either you don't progress fast enough for carrots to exist so it all sort of feels... futile, as there's no improvement, or you hit your limit and then what?
-
The approach favors early blooming 'builds'.
But to each their own, absolutely.
-
-
For me it depends on the game, Mage I absolutely want muck around in the high level stuff, D+D and most fantasy settings I tend to lose interest in the early mid-level stages. (Basically when the numbers break down to the point where your character has nothing to worry from standard soldier types, so in d+d usually around 8th level. )
As far as favoring certain builds that to me is a non-issue as long as said builds are open to all and the conditions that lead to favoring them are publicly known.
