Artificially Slowing Character Growth
-
Alright, so this is a topic that we've touched on a couple of times before, but I wanted to open a formal thread on it so that we can engage in a discussion -- self-servingly because I'm thinking about this stuff for a game and want some opinions.
We all know that in a game where xp is given out based on things you do versus just being there, someone is going to try to game that system to its maximum effect, just going full-bore all-the-time with scene-running and whatnot.
That isn't necessarily a bad thing. That kind of energy and enthusiam tend to fill in great big holes where the game staff can't meet the needs of demand for plot or whatever. But it can have some negative consequences in that one-or-a-group-of players can easily just balloon out of proportion, power-wise, to the rest of the game. Additionally, some players will just buy the most beneficial thing over-and-over again, stat-wise, and just RP that they have all the other things that they should be buying, if they can freely buy whatever.
So sometimes it's necessary to put some brakes on that.
What do you think the preferred method of slowing character growth is? (Whether or not is should be is another topic entirely -- consider this a pick-your-poison topic.)
Do you think you should have weekly/overall xp caps?
Do you think that certain stats should only be able to be raised in given time intervals (the classic "you can only buy X every ninety days.")
Do you think that the buying of stats should be justified by actual plot activity that supports those buys (i.e. the 'show me the logs / justification' approach.)Out of the methods that you've tried before, what do you think is the best?
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@Derp Given the whole theme of my whole "Are MUs a tabletop game with writing or creative writing with some minor rpg elements?" thing, I think this applies to my answer.
In tabletop RPGs, EVERYONE in the game gets XP at the same rate, same time. You play maybe 1-4 times per week maximum, so as a GM and player you give/gain xp as a group as you go. XP growth speed is a common topic in tabletop RPGs, as is the concept of gaining experience itself. XP/sheets is 100% a "tabletop RPG" element.
However, in terms of MUs, everyone is on at different times. Some people are on ALLLLL of the fuckin time. So you could have 2 players join at the same time but "PlayerA" may have a day job and 3 nights a week availability, "PlayerB" has no day job or need for sleep and is hound-dogging XP for everything, and the next time PlayerA and PlayerB meet...they look like the Rock and Kevin Hart standing next to each other. What the "mega xp asap" players in tabletop RPGs often don't understand is that there IS something detrimental to rushing to fill out all the dots on that character sheet.
Because of this, I 100% believe that MUs should be capping xp expenditures to a maximum weekly spend. You can't punish active players for being active, but you CAN try to ensure that "ultra-active" players don't use that as a way to eclipse the rest of the game in terms of sheet capability.
I think FS3 (@faraday ) handled this very well. Even with the biggest difference in stats, it was still ultimately Fudge so having better stats may have gained you extra dice, but didn't ensure godlike capability over your peers.
- Limit weekly sheet changes to a maximum cap
- Focus on trying to ensure the game has a sort of "capability range" in plots so that newer characters aren't always being eclipsed by older characters and older characters aren't being slowed too much by newer ones
- Understand that existing RPG systems (World of Darkness, D&D, Star Wars) are "level-based" in terms of how filled out the character sheets are, and that some players will ALWAYS rush to get xp/min max
And most importantly
- If you don't want your game having an XP imbalance (or if +rolls aren't that important) then either ensure your MU doesn't have an existing RPG system as a base, uses a more free-form type system, or maybe even no XP system at all
-
@Derp I really like needing some sort of justification for XP spends. That's how I generally try to spend XP anyway. But I don't know if logs are the only way to do it. My character is doing stuff during all the hours I'm not playing.
Something like Modern Nights' Downtime system might offer some solutions there. For example, if my character is out there actively practicing how to be a better driver but I can't have a scene around that because...that's not necessarily going to be a great scene for anyone else...well, perhaps I could spend my Downtime to buy that Drive stat.
Though admittedly...that is a lot of dadgum paperwork and so @Ghost might be right...just having an "You may only raise this stat again in X days" system hardcoded right in might be the only sensible answer.
He/Him
-
First personally and in experience I've had I don't think players being at different rates matter much unless it comes to PvP.
However, I think mechanical systems could be put in place. It works like a XP cap, but think of it this way. A cool down on growth should be implemented. Some ttrpgs already have this built into their system but I can see it being adjusted to match MU play.
Keeping the analogy of Player A and Player B starting at the same time. Player A rush and raises Attribute X (or skill) to level 5 (arbitrary number). Level 1 to 2 takes 2 days. 2 to 3 takes 4 days, 3 to 4 takes 8 days, 4 to 5 takes 16 days. As Player B grows he can marginally catch up during these cool down days. I don't see them every fully catching up.
The fact is, with 99% of game it really comes down to a "play-to-win". And I think the dedication of those players should have some rewards.
I also believe those players should be the examples and not overly complicate, but you cant control behavior or force people to do this.
"Shiny. Let's be bad guys." - Jayne Cobb
-
Possibilities (these aren't necessarily linked):
Earn XP as desired by designer. Limit XP spending by RL time.
Only be significantly concerned with higher level abilities, in Wod/CoD terms, dots 4-5 (expert) for sure, perhaps 3 (professional). Either give people more XP to buy lower level skills etc to be who they want to be at start, or let them earn and spend on these as much as they like.
Expert and above require approval.
Limit expert dots.
Give players a set number of xps. Thats where they can get to.
Remove all subjective skills, especially ones players have a hard time limiting themselves with.
Only have character change at the end of X, a year, a television/streaming season, campaign arc.
Exceptions: maybe allow some level 1 ability adds, or just limit a change of more than 1, or require any mid-season change to have a strongly (I define this strong as impactful to the character, and involving either players not in the character's immediate circle, staffer moderation, a permanantly lost cost, etc) presented scene or three.Players lay out desired/potential character arcs, and gain changes only by that means. These arcs can change via PC or ST events, but it should happen where the story can be consumed publicly.
While many RPGs and western fiction pay a lot of attention to the fast growth phase, that phase doesn't have to extend forever. Fiction is often about change of character, not massive fast changes in skill sets. This could be done via some sort of ranking of personality traits that can change (see Pendragon virtues, Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel, all your traits in Masks, Humanity/Empathy in cyberpunk, Madness Meters in Unknown Armies, etc) but MU* players are like most RPG players and don't want to be held to a standard of IC presentation (see social skills vs writing).
-
@Devrex said in Artificially Slowing Character Growth:
"You may only raise this stat again in X days" system hardcoded right in might be the only sensible answer.
Admittedly this is my preferred option, though I tend to like playing the long game when it comes to MU rather than racing to the top. I also understand that I am in a tiny, tiny minority of people where this is true.
@Tirit said in Artificially Slowing Character Growth:
Keeping the analogy of Player A and Player B starting at the same time. Player A rush and raises Attribute X (or skill) to level 5 (arbitrary number). Level 1 to 2 takes 2 days. 2 to 3 takes 4 days, 3 to 4 takes 8 days, 4 to 5 takes 16 days. As Player B grows he can marginally catch up during these cool down days. I don't see them every fully catching up.
Yeah, that's always the downside. How do you keep players from feeling like they're being punished for being active while still keeping them from just buying up all the stuff to steamroller all over everyone? Some of the best ways I've seen to do this include having what you mentioned, cooldown timers. If that xp spend cost <X>, then you have to wait <X> * <interval> before you can raise it again, but it doesn't stop you from buying anything else in the meantime.
@Misadventure said in Artificially Slowing Character Growth:
Give players a set number of xps. Thats where they can get to.
Fate's Harvest did this, and it actually worked surprisingly well (while I was there, anyway, I don't know what became of it after or whether they even still do this.) It even had an interesting way of rewarding "extra" activity via the Tix system.
-
@Tirit said in Artificially Slowing Character Growth:
First personally and in experience I've had I don't think players being at different rates matter much unless it comes to PvP.
I kind of disagree with this, just in that characters in fiction and RP are always defined to significant degrees by their capabilities, and since 99% of interactions are between PCs, capabilities are always going to be experienced in terms of how they relate to other PCs.
That is, if I want to play a character who is "Good At Swords" or "Good At Books," being "Good" is only going to be perceived as "Good" relative to other PCs on the game. If I'm rolling in a baby PC who's supposed to be good at swords but the extant "Good At Books" PCs have racked up enough CP that they're incidentally as good or better at swords than I am, my PC actually sucks shit at swords no matter how they compare to theoretical nameless faceless background NPCs.
Personally, I've come to be a bit less enamored of the whole "character advancement" as an inherent part of RPGs in general. I get that it's baked in deep, but I think that a lot of games (especially MU games where the PCs represent a much broader swathe of the population) you don't need to have every character at the start of a bildungsroman.
I don't want to ignore either the game dev opportunity of "CP for doing what we want people doing" carrot or the "number go up" fun for players, but I do sometimes think that at least some games would work better with "start with enough CP to make the character you want and stay right around there" design philosophy in general.
-
What is the point of XP?
Until you answer that question, which is going to be different for each game, you can't answer detailed question about how much XP should be awarded / required to progress.
Some games (D20, MMOs) treat character growth like a carrot on a stick. Players expect constant rewards to motivate them to keep playing. ("Gotta make it to level 60!")
Some games are more story-driven, where there is no XP. If you need to adjust your stats due to IC character growth or learning, you submit a request and justification.
Some games use XP as OOC rewards for doing things that the game runners value, like helping newbies or running plots.
Some games use XP to reflect IC character learning. Since people don't learn things overnight, this tends to necessitate a slow-burn progression. (FS3 subscribes to this model.)
There's no right or wrong answer, but there are pros and cons to various options. Carrot-on-stick works best when players start out low. OOC rewards leads to the dino effect, where new players suck compared to veterans. etc. You have to figure out what kind of game you want.
-
@Tirit said in Artificially Slowing Character Growth:
First personally and in experience I've had I don't think players being at different rates matter much unless it comes to PvP.
It matters a little. If I go into a scene with someone who is XP maxed and I'm there as a near-starting character I start to feel some serious "why am I here, then?" I hate feeling pointless or useless in scenes or groups.
-
Personally, I've come to be a bit less enamored of the whole "character advancement" as an inherent part of RPGs in general. I get that it's baked in deep, but I think that a lot of games (especially MU games where the PCs represent a much broader swathe of the population) you don't need to have every character at the start of a bildungsroman.
Might be on to something here. @Derp maybe starting characters at a higher level, and then combine it with "you can advance your character once a year with a set amount of XP" or something to combine it with the character arc idea. Would be an interesting experiment to run.
-
I set a max XP cap for all characters when I run XP-based games. Everyone who creates a character starts with that amount of experience, then I give guidelines for "newbie", "experienced", and "advanced" characters. This way, they can create the character they want and immediately get into the RP they want.
If someone wants to play a younger/less experienced character that evolves, they can do so at their own pace. If they want to jump right in with a more experienced character who will change less over time, they have that option too.
Some things might be put behind "plot locks," requiring a player to bank XP and then go through a plot or something to get.
I don't like experience to feel like a punishment to new players and a weapon for more established characters.
-
In my old age, I like FS3’s slow, static advancement best.
I cannot keep up with whippersnappers and their free time. And when I get more of my own, I don’t want to be so far behind as to feel pointless.
-
XP caps are great. But MU*s should have alternate systems for rewarding players besides just giving XP. I get that that's all players really want so that can go to the moon with XP, but we've all seen what the XP bloats do to games.
There was a theory (I don't know that it ever came into play) of adding a secondary kind of currency that you could spend to do other things besides give your character MOAR POWAH. It was spent on things like unique equipment, territory, territory upkeep, and other side benefits that make your character a bit cooler, but is just side benefits. So much stuff is given away by staff for free or just handwaved that could easily be controlled and used as a reward for contributions to the game. Like grid space.
If you want to be a little more restrictive you can do stat caps that are opened with the secondary currency. Like all stats capped at 4. But you can buy level 5 for 10 "MU* points" in addition to the normal XP.
Contribution to games shouldn't be taken for granted. Those are so important. And not just running scenes. There are lots of ways (probably) to contribute to a game. But contributions also shouldn't imbalance the characters in that game.
P.S. The 'show me the logs method' just forces (some) people to do shitty RP to get the stuff. I want my character to have Academics. I DON'T want to RP studying for five scenes to justify it. There is a good reason that some some stuff is skipped over in the stories that we tell. They are boring and no one enjoys them. I want to spend my time on fun RP stuff, not forced subject material. Its a horrific idea, especially if there's no standard to what qualifies as 'good enough' for an acceptable log, which is a nightmare to try to qualify and judge. Overall, just don't.
-
I like FS3's slow steady as well. It seems fair and does not further disadvantage those who play less.
I don't like caps, because I feel that advancing one's character is an important (but not fully necessary) part of the fun.
I don't like time intervals/wait periods, because supposedly the time it takes to earn the XP represents that.
I don't like 'justification' because it leaves a lot of room for unfairness or feelings of unfairness. It also makes some things hard to advance, since watercolour painting and the like are seldom on-camera activities.
What I'd like to see is a sliding scale. (Or rather, MUs doubling up on the sliding scale, since RPG systems invariably have a deal where higher levels take more XP to reach.) Say you have earned XP and spendable XP. For the first twenty points (or whatever the game-runners decide) it's one-to-one. After that, an earned XP is worth only a portion of a spendable XP. The next twenty EXP are only worth ten SXP or whatever. And so on, so by the time you're getting close to where the gamerunners think an overall cap would be appropriate, it takes you half a year to earn enough EXP to have the SXP required to advance.
"... you'll find the story doesn’t end how you think, and the most important characters aren’t who you expect.” - Penny 40 to Derek, The Magicians S04E07 ‘The Side Effect’
-
@il-volpe wouldnt that be the same thing, more or less, as saying xp are rewarded at a diminishing rate? EG lets say +votes are still used. 1-20 are worth 20xp, 21-40 are woth .5 xp, 41-60 are worth .25 xp (feel free to replace with any set of decreasing actual xp values).
Or are you think that something would slowly transform earned xp into spendable (like time passing)?
You could base that decreasing rate on what the average xp are on the game, but that gets weird as that value typically weill just grow, but could drop significantly when groups or long time characters cease play.
I have a waggish sense of humor.
-
Yep. It'd amount to the same thing as 'XP is awarded at a diminishing rate' or as 'Advancement costs in XP increase with the total number of XP you have earned'.
I just think it'd be easier on people to frame it as this two types of points thing. You wouldn't have to figure out how much a stat increase is for you, the table would stay the same. If +votes are still used, you wouldn't want them to decrease in, eh, visible value. Because they're also a measure (not a great one, but hey) of how much fun you're creating for other players, and you might go 'fuck, what am I doing wrong?' if you can't see how many +votes you got (and it's a reasonable call to hide that info, as some games do) and your XP earnings drop.
I don't mean any slow transformation.
I'd base the rate on the individual character's XP total, but that's 'cause I'm thinking of slowing advancement, not about trying to keep all the PCs closer in power level. I don't think I want to do that, but I don't think it'd be a bad thing to do.
