From: swann@acsu.buffalo.edu (Stephen Swann)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Experience points for roleplaying
Date: 16 Aug 92 21:29:37 GMT
Organization: UB

In article <4817@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>	So are mine. But, since you're talking about *D&D here, unless you
>do some pretty heavy variants, experience points determine a lot of how
>WELL you can use your experiences.

Right.  But as you'll see below, I basically make it possible for
people to learn anything other than character-class-based skills
without having it dependant upon their XP totals.

[ powergaming vs. munchkinism ]
>	Depends on what you call powergaming. I call powergaming literally
>what it sounds like: gaming with power. Same amount of challenge as at
>lower levels, same or more complexity, but you're operating on the high
>end; heroic. Munchkinism is basically a board game like monopoly; whoever
>has the highest total wins.

Well, I guess that I think of "powergaming" as being synonymous with
min/maxing, i.e. gearing everything about your character towards
making him the most efficient possible killing machine.  Unless a
player specifies that his character is some sort of psycho killer or
is vendetta-driven, or something similar that could equally explain
his single minded obsession with power, then I wouldn't want him doing
it in my campaign.  In fact, I probably wouldn't anyway - that kind of
thing just isn't my style, and I doubt the player would be satisfied
with the results any more than I would.

However if all you mean (and I think I finally get the picture, here)
is that you like to play high level characters and take part in
earth-shattering evnts, then I don't see a problem with that.  I mean,
you wouldn't enjoy my campaign much, because I just don't have too
many earth-shattering events.  I mean, the earth would get shattered,
and then where would everybody live?  :-) But more seriously, I tend
to deal more with "trouble on the borderlands", "a spy in the palace",
"murder in the abbey", "hunting the pirates of the coast", and
"searching for the lost city" types of plots, rather than "save the
universe from certain destruction" type of plots.  I just don't like
those Really Big things, they're too disruptive, and they make me
re-draw my terrain maps.  :-)  The biggest events I usually deal
with are wars between kingdoms, although the holy war between
the followers of 2 powerful gods has become something of a pivotal
point in my campaign, as well.

>>See, what XP's mainly do for you is make you better in combat.  To me
>
>	Depends on how you play it. If, according to The Rules (all
>bow in the direction of the mighty TSR)

And don't forget the traditional Thumbing of the Nose at the
Great God Gygax.

>, you can't learn to do ANYTHING
>well unless you can get a proficiency in it... and you don't GET 
>proficiencies unless you go up levels.
>
>	Now, if you allow people to just acquire skills through training
>and experience (the life, not game, sort) that entirely changes the nature
>of the game. It becomes more like a skill-based game, wherein the characters
>don't have to reach some kind of break point in order to improve.

I allow people to acquire skills (which are not combat-related)
through other means.  Combat skills can only be honed through combat,
and since character class skills are largely combat related, I
(usually) make them actually kill things to go up levels in their
character class (exceptions to this would be things like taking time
to study under a truly exceptional master, or something like that).

I am currently trying to devise a less off-the-cuff approach to
skills, as opposed to the "well, you've been practicing pretty hard
for a long time, you're a pretty good tightrope walker now".  :-)

>	If THAT was the case, I'd have no trouble about going up levels only
>once a year or two years, because I wouldn't be frozen in place.

Well, like I said, "going up levels" hasn't really been a big concern
to my players.  I don't give out experience points for captured gold
of magic items (unless the item was somehow put to use against the
party when they captured it).  My group agreed a long time ago that
the value of having gold and magic itmes was sufficient reward,
without adding XP for it as well.  Now, even though everyone had
agreed to that, I offered at one point, as compensation for the fact
that they were getting less XP that way, to simply double the XP value
of everything that they earned through combat.  They told me not to do
that - they thought they were just doing Just Fine, and didn't want me
to "artificially" accelerate the process that we had all agreed to.

You know, I bet if I could clone these players, I could make loads of
cash, selling them to frustrated DM's.  :-)

>	The reason people tend to gain levels fast in my game is to reflect
>their fast learning curve (especially under pressure). They want those
>proficiencies. Personally I'm tempted to dispense with levels entirely, 
>but I've got enough kludges on the system as it is.

Oh, hell, I've been kludging the system so much that about a year ago
I decided to invent a totally new one.  It's "in the works".  :-)

-- 
Steve Swann                 |    Speak to me in many voices; make
swann@acsu.buffalo.edu      |      them all sound like one...  -BOC
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd