Quote from: tenbones;885604I guess it's because of the way I GM my sandboxes... I usually force time between "adventures" to be ate up with projects each character is working on. I also use the environment and seasons to help dictate this.

I was gonna add something similar. I assume down time between arcs, and simply throw it up the time passage. During the last, big, successful campaign I ran, there was a 5-year in-game gap between adventures. By the time the game wrapped up, with 9th level PCs, we'd seen something like 20 years of game time. Really added to the characterization of the survivors, going from neophytes to scarred and grizzled vets (with a great deal of baggage).

Good questions to ask oneself, Skarg.  My own answers:

1) To a limited degree, I apply periodic XP to certain NPCs.  NPCs that regularly travel with the group (as sidekicks, hired hands or Allies) gain half the XP of their associated PCs.  For NPCs generally, I don't worry about it.  The challenges are what the challenges are, and I've never seen a need for the PCs to have any clue -- beyond empirical observation -- about NPC stats or abilities.

2) This is eased by the relatively slow advancement of my PCs, and I believe by the GURPS system itself.  With level-based systems, you have a large, overriding metric that says Character A is plainly superior to Character B ... A is 6th level, B is 4th level!  QED!  Players often also are well aware that a percentage to hit of X or a trap disarming skill of Y means Z level.

With GURPS (and point-based systems generally), it's much tougher.  It's perfectly easy for a low-point character to have a single key, obvious skill at a high level, and easy for a high-point character to be a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, and all manner of combinations in-between.

As such, that PCs advance faster than others isn't as apparent and isn't as much of an issue.  I don't worry about it metaphysically; some people do rise faster and higher than others.

Quote from: AsenRG;885617And again, all of these questions have an evident in-universe answer if you go for the option where different tiers of ability are separated by life events. How many people could get the blessing of a dying dragon, steal a magic sword from an invisible demon guardian, become the best student of a warrior-witch, be the sons of cheating gods, or anything of the sort?

The answer is probably going to be obvious in the setting, and so will the consequences.

I agree those are pretty interesting ways to have characters advance, especially if the other abilities are all logical (from training, upbringing, etc), and the abilities make sense, and there are not big generic advances added at inflated rates just for showing up, because players like to have their characters advance.

Like, if you actually have to do something that really involves earning the blessing of a dragon, and the result is that you have a specific blessing effect and possible related consequences. And the magic sword is a magic sword that does what it does, not a +1 Level. And the warrior-witch teaches you specific skills.

I also think that remarkable experiences should give improvements to some character abilities, but I like it when they can have effects that are like experience, giving more intangible but important benefits rather than raw increases to power, or abilities that aren't really related to the nature of the experience.

Quote from: Ravenswing;885694...

2) This is eased by the relatively slow advancement of my PCs, and I believe by the GURPS system itself.  With level-based systems, you have a large, overriding metric that says Character A is plainly superior to Character B ... A is 6th level, B is 4th level!  QED!  Players often also are well aware that a percentage to hit of X or a trap disarming skill of Y means Z level.

With GURPS (and point-based systems generally), it's much tougher.  It's perfectly easy for a low-point character to have a single key, obvious skill at a high level, and easy for a high-point character to be a jack-of-all-trades and master of none, and all manner of combinations in-between.

As such, that PCs advance faster than others isn't as apparent and isn't as much of an issue.  I don't worry about it metaphysically; some people do rise faster and higher than others.

As a GURPS fan, I understand and largely agree. Each level advancement in a game like D&D is a significant overall increase in power. In GURPS, advances can be a small increase in a specific skill, like Axe Throwing or Gambling (Poker) or Hiking or Fast Talk. Also the combat systems keeps everyone mortal, there are generally no hitpoint-piles, and a 200-point non-fighter can be overpowered by a 30-point fighter, etc.

Though I have seen the same sort of problems in some GURPS games, depending on how the GM awards points for experience. For example, I played in a game where we started as 25-point peasants, which was pretty challenging and interesting. The GM however would give out several points per session, even when we just did good roleplaying but our characters weren't really doing anything particularly educational. We even had a fairly involved system where we were not allowed to use points without relating them to something we'd done, and we had to tally how many hours and times in play we used each skill. But in spite of that fairly cool limiting system, after the campaign had run for some years, the large number of points added up. It was too many points, and by the end the surviving characters had hundreds of points, fairly high attributes and broad and deep skills, so we were very competent in many things, and masters of several things too, and while the characters were still interesting and fun and had weaknesses, it transformed the nature of the challenges, and sometimes overpowered what would otherwise be significant obstacles or opponents. The GM had a D&D background and cinematic tastes, and seemed to be pseudo-rationalizing the power levels as divine favor and/or OK for heroic expectations. I'd run things differently, but it actually didn't break down as much as I might fear because we had to put points into things we used or studied, so even though our point totals were 300-400 points, it was nothing like you could build if you were going for power and able to just choose what to get.

Good questions, Skarg! Thinking about one's campaign, system, and their relation to setting is a good idea for consciously establishing conceits. Better to be conscious of your conceits than being unconsciously pulled by them.

Quote from: Skarg;885608Some things I try to keep in mind, which seem important to me, but many progression systems don't seem to say much about, are:

1) Who besides the PCs does the progression system apply to? Everyone? Only the PCs? Or only people with certain qualities? I ask this about both the rate of ability gain, and the maximum potential ability.

I always apply the progression system to everyone.

This does not prevent starting characters from being considerably better than their average NPC, as some games are built on that conceit (a la vampires, angels, or other beings more powerful than average humanity).

This also does not mean I am spending ages recalculating NPC XP for everyone in a sort of massive clockwork setting.

Quote from: Skarg;8856082) What does the answer to 1) mean in terms of the game universe? If the PCs, or people with certain qualities advance faster and/or have more potential for ability than everyone else, what causes that? Is it divine favor? Is it because we just want them to be powerful heroes? Do they each have some explanation why they are special this way? What holds other people back, and is it possible for others to gain superior learning or potential, and how?

Since my answer is the PCs are not special statistically from everyone else — the only special advantage they have is my GM attention — all those other questions wash irrelevantly away...

That means each NPC gains an equal share of XP of any shared task. Some players balk at this and try to then lowball assistance, risking death for greater XP rewards. However since using Session XP Maximums, and alternate XP rewards (including individual XP ones), the onus to rank up levels ASAP tends to get sidelined.

For players the pressure to power level their PCs gives way to just being present and making their own meaning in the fictive world.

Also for NPCs that means you never know exactly who you are dealing with. Oh you can make assumptions about greater tier management meaning likely greater relevant experience, but there are no guarantees. Obvious social status grants organizational cooperation benefits, which is often a power far greater than mere character sheet widgets.

Quote from: Skarg;8856083) Based on 1) and 2), how many NPCs will be at what levels in each place or group in the campaign world?

Power tiers will for the most part be present, so greater experience confers greater minion followers. However setting is as equal, if not greater, force of power. So NPC cooperation from organizations can often be far greater, yet still be managed by lower "system level" characters.

A captain of the guard will likely have higher Skill ranks, more widgets, or higher level, due to the experience needed to stay in the field and rise up the ranks.

However, a captain of the guard could be appointed beyond their capacity due to setting pressures. That means the NPC will have less system widgets on their side. But!, that does not mean he or she is no longer a threat, as social organization confers power projection, and there is no guarantee underlings will be less competent.


-- This makes my worlds far harder to metagame through game systems and forces players to focus on knowledge gleaned through setting. --

Quote from: Skarg;885754I agree those are pretty interesting ways to have characters advance, especially if the other abilities are all logical (from training, upbringing, etc), and the abilities make sense, and there are not big generic advances added at inflated rates just for showing up, because players like to have their characters advance.

Like, if you actually have to do something that really involves earning the blessing of a dragon, and the result is that you have a specific blessing effect and possible related consequences. And the magic sword is a magic sword that does what it does, not a +1 Level. And the warrior-witch teaches you specific skills.

I also think that remarkable experiences should give improvements to some character abilities, but I like it when they can have effects that are like experience, giving more intangible but important benefits rather than raw increases to power, or abilities that aren't really related to the nature of the experience.

Yeah, that's more or less what I'm thinking about:). In the right campaign, it can even replace XP.

Or in a level-based campaign, it can be used instead of "required training times". Only after you've achieved this kind of things can you get to the next power tier, and then such things become your new default that you have to beat again to progress to the next tier:D!

Quote from: Skarg;885763As a GURPS fan, I understand and largely agree. Each level advancement in a game like D&D is a significant overall increase in power. In GURPS, advances can be a small increase in a specific skill, like Axe Throwing or Gambling (Poker) or Hiking or Fast Talk. Also the combat systems keeps everyone mortal, there are generally no hitpoint-piles, and a 200-point non-fighter can be overpowered by a 30-point fighter, etc.

Though I have seen the same sort of problems in some GURPS games, depending on how the GM awards points for experience. For example, I played in a game where we started as 25-point peasants, which was pretty challenging and interesting. The GM however would give out several points per session, even when we just did good roleplaying but our characters weren't really doing anything particularly educational. We even had a fairly involved system where we were not allowed to use points without relating them to something we'd done, and we had to tally how many hours and times in play we used each skill. But in spite of that fairly cool limiting system, after the campaign had run for some years, the large number of points added up. It was too many points, and by the end the surviving characters had hundreds of points, fairly high attributes and broad and deep skills, so we were very competent in many things, and masters of several things too, and while the characters were still interesting and fun and had weaknesses, it transformed the nature of the challenges, and sometimes overpowered what would otherwise be significant obstacles or opponents. The GM had a D&D background and cinematic tastes, and seemed to be pseudo-rationalizing the power levels as divine favor and/or OK for heroic expectations. I'd run things differently, but it actually didn't break down as much as I might fear because we had to put points into things we used or studied, so even though our point totals were 300-400 points, it was nothing like you could build if you were going for power and able to just choose what to get.

Well, a campaign running for some years is probably still in the same tier. You're just moving to the top of it;).

(nods to Skarg)  Oh, sure.  No system's immune to Monty Haul GMs: it sure isn't the fault of the D&D system that the DM Spinachcat mentioned handed out an absurd 1st-to-10th in a month advancement.  It's not that GURPS is any better at controlling Monty Haulism if the GM's determined to ignore the suggested XP/session guidelines.

Don't skip along in time, and you end up with players who become powerful very fast for apparently no reason.  Skip ahead in time and you have the problem of why there's so much downtime (not a problem in some campaigns, a problem in others).  Make skipping ahead in time obligatory to level gain and you get the problem of PCs either never having a spare moment to level up, or wanting to stop in mid-quest for three months to be able to level up (sometimes having no alternative to do so if they want to survive Mt.Doom or wherever the quest is leading them to).

So, why not cut the Gordian knot and just give less XP, until the rate of advancement fits what you actually want from your game?