POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme

[Arkandel]

@zombiegenesis If it adds up to being the same I don't see any issues with that, sure.

But what you ultimately want to ask yourself is what are XPs there for? The answer to me is to incentivize certain kinds of behaviors that you want from your players, and that gets harder to do if someone already has them, you know?

Interestingly enough that's the same issue as characters who have too much. Basically - IMHO - you always want the progression carrot there, you always want to dangle a hot commodity in front of your players' hungry eyes. Make them dance!

[ZombieGenesis]

That is true. I guess my worry would be the people who would just be like "Well, 10XP is not enough so I guess I'm just not gonna play there." I'm also a fan of options but I do get what you're saying and, for the most part, I agree entirely.

[Coin]

@arkandel said in POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme:

@zombiegenesis said in POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme:

I honestly think most games give WAY too much XP to beginning characters. I think none to start but incentives in c-gen to get up to 10 would be reasonable.

I prefer the opposite of what @surreality is suggesting; start low in CGen, but allow a cap that gets people excited about playing.

There's nothing worse for me in regards to XP than feeling my character's +sheet is already pretty damn ready right off the bat. I want to feel eager to grab some dots, to go out there and earn stuff, participate in PrPs, buy gear, improve.

The only reason this could be an issue is if you feel XP burns a hole in your pants or something, because you can just not spend the XP at first and spend it slowly as you progress at your own pace.

[surreality]

I honestly think daily/weekly is a bad idea in 2E. I would get rid of it entirely.

Stick with CG XP -- can be done in tiers, especially if you allow alts (one can start with 25 as your 'elder', the rest start with 10, or whatever) -- and then for the rest, stick with activity. Ideally, uncapped activity from direct participation in doing and running things.

[Deleted]

@surreality I second this motion. Those of us with jobs/lives should definitely be forced to fall behind those who MU* all day.

Edit: Sorry, I did not mean to imply people without jobs do not have lives. That was inconsiderate of me. Let me rephrase in a non-sardonic form.

I disagree with your comment because my life-situation prevents me from MU*ing as much as some and it would lead to my PC (and others like me) to fall behind drastically.

[deadculture]

@zombiegenesis Yeah, I don't think 10 XP isn't enough for me to build someone well-rounded so I probably wouldn't play. I like the 30-35 range fine, with that said. Even if it's 25+10 as incentive.

[Arkandel]

@zombiegenesis Another way to tackle this is to try and make some sample sheets out yourself. Not complete, with a lot of room to grow and leaving the players wanting more, but enough to be a concrete startup template.

Then look at how many XPs on average that took, and award that much.

[ZombieGenesis]

That's a good idea. I've just found that XP goes a long ways in 2E. 35-40XP just seems like a lot. I do like the idea of trying out some sample characters to see what feels good for starting XP.

[Tempest]

35-40 XP is a fair bit in 2E. It lets you build a complete character though.

The problem with WoD is 'starting' characters are never complete. So unless everybody in the game is a babyvamp, it feels weird.

I like 40xp. But I also like zero further XP gain after that. You get 40xp. Make your character. The end.

My preference is not popular though.

On a different note, please don't ever let people go past 100xp.

100+ xp in 2E is just off to la la land.

[ZombieGenesis]

I see what you're saying. Hmmm. A lot to think about. I like the ideas though.

[Arkandel]

@zombiegenesis If all else fails award a random number between X and Y and don't let players see what they got until they're out of CGen. One character per player per month. HAVE FUN!

[ZombieGenesis]

Heh, I don't know about that but I do potentially like the idea of tiered XP levels. We shall see.

[Ganymede]

@tempest said in POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme:

I like 40xp. But I also like zero further XP gain after that. You get 40xp. Make your character. The end.

My preference is not popular though.

I like 40 as well, to be honest. It's a good level to work at.

What needs to happen, in conjunction, is laying out what is available and then capping things. It's sort of unfair to set things at 40 XP, and then later approve a whole bunch of new stuff that I cannot get without sacrificing substantially.

[ZombieGenesis]

So one of the things I'm seeing here is weekly XP vs participation XP. Some like weekly XP because they just don't have time to spend playing non-stop to keep up with the, well we'll call them the hardcore gamers.

What about capped participation XP? Like you can earn up to 2 XP a week or something by participating in scenes?

[Arkandel]

@zombiegenesis Consider the issue with dinosaurs, for example. You run your game for 6 months when I come in; at that point everyone is 6 months ahead of me in terms of power - and there are no diminishing returns in nWoD 2.0 either; the fifth dot costs as much as the third dot does. In six months they will still be six months ahead of me, and I can never catch up. Are there catchup mechanisms? Is this situation acceptable? It might well be, but you need to plan in advance for it.

Or alternatively think of the power curve. We both start playing the game, but I just happen to have way more time than you, or have more OOC friends allowing me to participate in more PrPs or any combination of such factors, so I accumulate XPs a lot faster. How much more powerful ought my PC be than yours? That's a question you need to have an answer for.

The third scenario (which was popular on TR) - people created XP containers. They'd make say, a Mage they didn't plan to play at the time and keep them there for a rainy day, since they'd gather XP just by existing. Is that okay? Isn't it? Same question.

Just some food for thought.

[surreality]

@zombiegenesis That kills participation fast, and ultimately has STs running things for people with no reward.

This is especially troubling if staff is slow to process something, and one week's XP isn't processed until the next, potentially screwing people over double.

Reno1 tried this. It failed horribly for many reasons, all of which pointed toward an activity cap, especially a low activity cap, being an astonishingly bad idea.

ETA: Capping at 2XP/week is exactly what Reno1 tried that didn't work on any level at all.

[Ganymede]

@surreality said in POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme:

Capping at 2XP/week is exactly what Reno1 tried that didn't work on any level at all.

Hard-capping at Fallen World wasn't what caused its activity to slow down, from my perspective. The absence of any tangible activity reward also did not slow BSG:U or Fifth Kingdom.

[Sparks]

@ganymede said in POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme:

The absence of any tangible activity reward also did not slow BSG:U or Fifth Kingdom.

Never played Fifth Kingdom, but I'd argue BSGU has activity rewards. They're just in the form of Ace status and other IC awards you can earn for actions in combat.

[Tempest]

@ganymede said in POLL: Vampire Requiem 2E Settings/Theme:

The absence of any tangible activity reward also did not slow BSG:U or Fifth Kingdom.

Or every Comic MU ever.

I've never understood the dire need for 'growth' on WoD games.

[surreality]

@ganymede I saw this actively from the staff side over a period of six months. It was a real problem.

People would hit the cap and stop running things or going IC, this was observed and openly discussed as the reason for it.

People would wait until the rollover.

If staff didn't process things quickly -- and in this case, the two staffers actively running things couldn't be the ones doing it -- it relied on the one lazy fuck who did nothing but whine about their bloodline's conversion on the staff channel and ignore +jobs for weeks at a time to get people's awards out, which screwed people over more because it interfered with when things processed before/after rollover, etc.

There are real, tangible problems with that system that caused Reno1 to abandon it as the worst idea on the game. A higher cap could be arguably reasonable, but that? That objectively did not work.