Does anyone know the rationale why each class had it's own XP progression?
(e.g. the Thief needs 1250 XP to get to second level, but the Mage needs 2500 XP.)
Ediit: Do you see this as a feature or a bug?
It's a balancing mechanism. Thieves are fairly weak, but level up quickly. It does have some weird interactions: low level magic users level slow because magic is difficult, but low level magic users are fairly weak.
Yeah, the idea was as a balancing mechanism. Thing is Gygax was no mathematician, so he didn't quite balance it that well (once you get around mid-level, wizards start leveling faster, of all things).
Quote from: Aglondir;1108823Does anyone know the rationale why each class had it's own XP progression?
(e.g. the Thief needs 1250 XP to get to second level, but the Mage needs 2500 XP.)
Ediit: Do you see this as a feature or a bug?
Feature. Definitely a feature. The rationale is simple: different people learn different skills at different rates.
My guess is that, as said, while it's something of a balancing mechanism, it was based on on Chainmail point values that said wizards were more valuable than fighters. In that, a hero was 20 points, a superhero 50 points. But a Seer, the lowest Wizard in Chainmail was worth 50 points (and the best was 100).
Personally, I think it was a mistake. The thief is just a weak class. Even as it levels, it's still weak. A better thief class in the first place would be more playable and you wouldn't have the problems with different xps messing up multi-classing.
OTOH, in OD&D, the Paladin used the fighter XP table, but was simply better. In AD&D, the Paladin was still better, but at least paid a price for it with slower advancement. But I think it would have been better served to just make the fighter better in the first place (which actually happened somewhat in UA for AD&D, when weapon specialization was introduced, allowing them (and rangers) to be much better in combat)
But beyond that, as Roger Moore illustrated back in the day in Dragon in a series of articles analyzing class power at various XP totals, the math is really broken.
I think it is a good idea, poorly executed. It's a pipe dream that every class is going to progress the same, and trying to make them that ways leads to some bad choices in class design. Yet, you don't need an oddball progression for every class either. I'd like to see someone try it with maybe three progressions. Calls them slow, medium, fast. Then pick one for each class, and design it to be roughly comparable to other classes in the same progression. Almost as if you took the original fighter, magic user, cleric progressions, cleaned up the math a bit, and then built other classes on that.
Nearest I can tell, in Arneson's Blackmoor, all classes had the same XP chart but earned XP by different methods. Fighters earned XP by killing monsters whereas Wizards earned XP by casting spells. So, even though the charts were the same, their advancement was totally independent. In the playtesting of OD&D, they experimented with XP penalties for more powerful classes or races. For example, a Dwarf character earned 10% less XP to "pay" for his dwarvish powers. Later, this translated into a 10% higher XP table in B/X. While I can understand baking percentage adjustments into the charts, they still had XP bonuses for ability scores so they would have to individually adjust XP awards anyway.
All that being said, I don't see any mechanical advantage of class specific XP tables as you have to adjust the power level of the class to counteract the various tables anyway. Does a Thief advance faster because it's a weak class or is it a weak class because it advances faster?
Overall, I prefer a single XP table as it greatly helps comparing the balance levels between all the classes. I also have used XP bonuses or penalties for races that might be slightly weaker or more powerful than humans.
Well, moving away from D&D a few steps, if I'm pinned down, what I really prefer is a better handling implementation of something similar to the Dragon Quest method. Different races have an XP multiple on costs. Since DQ is a hybrid class/skill system (though using different labels), the translation doesn't work exactly. For D&D, I'd want to reverse engineer it so that the easier classes get a low multiple (1) while the very hardest classes get a higher one. So same XP chart, but stacking multiples for class, race, and whatever else makes sense.
You are a human thief, +0 multiple. So x 1 for you. You are an elven thief. Elves get +0.5. So you are now x 1.5. Clerics also get +0.5. Elven Cleric is x 2.0. Same idea should work with older multi-classing, too, though you'd need escalating multiples to make the math work. Annoying to figure, but once you have your multiple, you are set.
Edit: Ugh, got interrupted mid typing and managed to make the example exactly backwards to my intent. It's not important enough to fix, since no one is ever going to do it that way, and I think you get the idea.
Variable XP tables guarantee everyone advances separately. The thief gets that 2nd HD and all those other perks from leveling, before the rest of the party, while the fighter lags a few sessions behind. It's about individual vs. group rewards; everyone gets their own moment to shine when they either catch up or pull ahead, instead of everyone doing so in lock-step.
Quote from: Aglondir;1108823Ediit: Do you see this as a feature or a bug?
Neither it just how it is. The only thing I did was to rationalize the progression in my take on the rules.
Clerics start out at 1,500 xp
My Rogue classes range from starting at 1,500 xp to 2,000 xp
My Fighter classes range form starting at 2,000 xp to 2,500 xp.
My Magic User classes range from starting at 2,250 xp to 3,000 xp (Thothian Mage).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3905[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3906[/ATTACH]
Excel Spreadsheet
[ATTACH]3904[/ATTACH]
IIRC, 2e DMG had an option where you could build your own class piecemeal, and the selections you made added up to determine the XP cost. If you wanted a bunch of awesome abilities, it cost a lot of XP. If you had few and/or weak abilities, you could advance quickly (assuming you survived). I don't recall how closely it matched up with the XP advancement of the mainstream classes.
It doesn't play quite as swingy as it reads. The thief and cleric will advance first, of course - which is to everyone's benefit really - but since AD&D awards magic item XP to the character claiming the item that means most fighters will get the first round of magic weapons and the voluminous scrolls most often go to the magic-users.
So in play fighters and magic-users also gain a bit more XP in the early going than clerics and thieves. But then thieves normally get the 2nd round of magical swords, etc., so they're still advancing to level 3 first 9 times out of 10, and actually lead the party in hit points for a while (unless they roll poorly for new HP).
Of course if DMs get philosophically bothered by not everyone getting the same XP for the same activity, and put their thumbs on the scale to award equal XP to everyone, they're distorting the intended effect in the cause of their personal preferences.
I'd go with bug. If you're trying to balance the classes in terms of combat ability by having some with smaller hit dice than others, it doesn't make sense to then give that smaller HD more levels. If Fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting, you shouldn't have a point where a Thief is a better fighter at the same amount of XP.
Given a choice between balancing the XP charts and trying to balance XP totals, I'd opt for balancing the XP charts. Knowing that everyone is progressing at the same speed lets you set class abilities to represent the strengths and weaknesses you intend for each class to have more consistently.
Quote from: EOTB;1108972It doesn't play quite as swingy as it reads. The thief and cleric will advance first, of course - which is to everyone's benefit really - but since AD&D awards magic item XP to the character claiming the item that means most fighters will get the first round of magic weapons and the voluminous scrolls most often go to the magic-users.
We've usually played it BTB which is to divide the treasure into piles of relatively equal value. So, while a Fighter might pick a magic sword, the other characters will be compensated by getting an extra amount of jewels and cash. Effectively making all characters advance at the same rate. (PHB pg 122 option #1)
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1108997We've usually played it BTB which is to divide the treasure into piles of relatively equal value. So, while a Fighter might pick a magic sword, the other characters will be compensated by getting an extra amount of jewels and cash. Effectively making all characters advance at the same rate. (PHB pg 122 option #1)
Sure, players can choose to even it out. I go by the DMG advice to leave treasure division (and associated XP) solely in the purview of the players. IME training requirements mean money-treasure can't be weighted too far in any direction without taking up intra-party loans and such, but if the players want to bookkeep that amongst themselves, I'm OK with that too.
My point was more towards DMs who divide magic item XP equally as a house rule.
Quote from: EOTB;1108972Of course if DMs get philosophically bothered by not everyone getting the same XP for the same activity, and put their thumbs on the scale to award equal XP to everyone, they're distorting the intended effect in the cause of their personal preferences.
What's being forgotten here is two things.
The first is that in AD&D1e, once you hit the xp required to reach the next level, you can't earn any more xp, and must take out several weeks and spend thousands of GP to level up. In practice the party will usually level up together, and stay about the same level.
In a generous campaign, everyone hits their XP cap quickly, and everyone levels up together. The thief gets 2,000GP of treasure and 600xp from monster killing, thus 2,600xp - but only gets to keep 1,250 of that xp. Meanwhile the magic-user with the same share has just enough to level up.
In a stingy campaign, those needing less XP will level up first - provided the others are willing to wait around for them to do so. But maybe they don't want to wait, and while the thief's spending a month levelling up, the fighter and magic-user go off on another adventure - after which they're ready to level up. Will the thief go out alone? Less likely. So in practice they level up together.
The second is that the party works as a
team. A 1st level magic-user on their own will really struggle compared to a 3rd level magic-user - but a 1st level magic-user hanging out with a 3rd level fighter can do pretty well. This is why NPCs become henchmen, their opportunities of advancement while working with other higher-level characters are greater than on their own. So even if among PCs there are some level differences it doesn't matter much.
I know this second one well since it's always been my practice that any new player at my open game table comes in with a 1st level character, and any player who's been away comes back with the same character even as the others have advanced. This last week I've been on the player side of that; we were all at 3rd level, I was away for a month and came back to find the other two players at 5th, but my 3rd level character was fine. We worked as a team, more or less.
Thus, this is yet another example of how things which look like issues when reading the rules and crunching numbers are not actually issues in play. And that is why AD&D1e is the best game ever.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108979I'd go with bug. If you're trying to balance the classes in terms of combat ability by having some with smaller hit dice than others, it doesn't make sense to then give that smaller HD more levels. If Fighters are supposed to be the best at fighting, you shouldn't have a point where a Thief is a better fighter at the same amount of XP.
.
I really don't think such a point exists in 2e.
Per a conversation I had with Kyle, this is a better distillation of my thoughts on differing XP charts:
Another point people forget or look over or whatever, even if they are thinking in terms of teamwork, hell, especially in terms of teamwork, is that different people are going to take different lessons away from the same situation. Put together an electrical engineer, a computer programmer, an information security specialist and a PC hardware guy and ask them to fix a computer. They all can assist but the takeaway for each of them is going to be completely different and applied completely differently. When the fighter, the magic-user, the cleric and the thief attack the dragon, the magic-user hits the dragon with a lightning bolt, the fighter slashes with his sword, the cleric blesses everyone and heals those he can, the thief goes all sneaky and tries to backstab the beast: everyone will apply the knowledge they learned on how to defeat a dragon in the future, differently. Saying the magic-user and the fighter both advance a level because they both got 2000 XP makes no sense.
Quote from: Doom;1109006I really don't think such a point exists in 2e.
Or 1e, at all, really.
Another aspect is that in any rules system, the finest level of abstraction is absurd, the question is whether when you step back things make sense in play.
In the old board game Fortress Europa, as best I recall, the smallest unit was generally a division, and the division had only three states: okay, damaged and destroyed (removed from the map). In fact entire divisions are rarely destroyed down to the last man, even if captured en masse, well the victor has to deal with the PWs slowing them down and taking up food and water and shelter, and so on. At the finest level of abstraction the game made no sense.
But when you played it out, you ended up with a France-wide war map which made sense, with front lines going back and forth and looking very much like a real war. So even though the finest level of abstraction was nonsensical, when you stepped back and looked at it all in play, it worked.
In AD&D1e these fine abstractions are things like xp and hit points. Looked at closely they make no sense at all; in play, they work and give reasonable results. Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109010Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.
QFT.
"I don't just want it to be fun, I want it perfectly aligned with my abstract sensibilities" is the person joining the jeep club but never making it out to the wilderness because they're tinkering with the sound system in their garage every weekend.
Quote from: JeremyR;1108848My guess is that, as said, while it's something of a balancing mechanism, it was based on on Chainmail point values that said wizards were more valuable than fighters. In that, a hero was 20 points, a superhero 50 points. But a Seer, the lowest Wizard in Chainmail was worth 50 points (and the best was 100).
Personally, I think it was a mistake. The thief is just a weak class. Even as it levels, it's still weak. A better thief class in the first place would be more playable and you wouldn't have the problems with different xps messing up multi-classing.
The thief was fixed with the Caltech version of D&D,
Warlock, which included additional tables for thief skills and special abilities... One of my favorite early edition supplements, and will allow Thieves as well as point-based Spellcaster from this, into any D&D Campaign.
Thievish Abilities
FIRST LEVEL ABILITIES
=================
Detect Evil
Detect Good
Detect Magic
Evaluate Treasure
Jimmy Portals
Pick Most Locks 2/3
Dagger +2
Short Sword +2
Sling +2
Sure Strike Dagger (x3)
Jam Portals
Move Silently +1/6
Detect Noise +1/6
Spot Hidden Items +1/6
Cheat at a Game of Skill
Sleight of Hand 80%
Pilfer from backpacks Saddlebags 50%
Lie Convincingly
Map Deciphering
Read 1 Extra Language
Start Fires
Tie Up with Ropes
SECOND LEVEL ABILITIES
===================
Note Poison Locks 90%
Pick All Locks 90%
Parry Bonus
Sure Strike Dagger (x4)
Throw Dagger +2
Throw Short Sword
Bump of Direction 50%
Disguise (Basic)
Move More Silently +1/3
See in Dark 50% Bonus
Spot Hidden Item +1/3
Tracking 50%
Game of Skill +1
Mechanical Trap Setting
Secret Panel Design
Sleight of Hand 90%
Ventrilqiusm 80%
Con
Escape from Ropes
Estimate Range +/- 10%
Estimate Volume +/- 20%
Map Memorization 75%
Pickpocket 2/3
Speak 1 Extra Language
THIRD LEVEL ABILITIES
=================
Circumvent Traps 50%
Find Likely Treasures
Note Secret Panels in Chests 90%
Note Traps in Chest 90%
Dagger +4
Extra Arrow (-4)
Short Sword +4
Sling +4
Sure Strike Dagger (x5)
Throw Short Sword +2
Hide in Shadows 90%
Spot Hidden Items +2/3
Cheat at Game of Skill +2
Jump & Run
Poison Trap Setting
Use Sleep Drugs
Ventriliquism 90%
Climb Rope
Con +1
Detect Slope 50%
Estimate Range +/- 5%
Estimate Volume +/- 10%
Pilfer from Backpacks/Saddlebags 90%
Tie up with ropes +1
...and so on. These thievish abilities may be learned more than once with the second and third times adding 1/2 of the listed bonus to any ability...
Spot Thievish Activity - This ability gives a thief a 50% chance of spotting thievish activity by a thief of his own level or the results of such activity.
Antidote to Poison
Alchemy
Double Dagger Throw...
Mimic Movement - This ability allows a thief to imitate the walk and physical gestures of anyone he has had a chance to observe, with a 90% chance that a normal observer will believe he is really the person being imitated.
There is plenty more. makes for great thieves!
Quote from: JeremyR;1108848But beyond that, as Roger Moore illustrated back in the day in Dragon in a series of articles analyzing class power at various XP totals, the math is really broken.
Wow, that takes me back. I know that exact article. I recall seeing it in Dragon magazine at the model train store. But I hated anything that even looked like math back then, so I skipped it.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109010Another aspect is that in any rules system, the finest level of abstraction is absurd, the question is whether when you step back things make sense in play.
In the old board game Fortress Europa, as best I recall, the smallest unit was generally a division, and the division had only three states: okay, damaged and destroyed (removed from the map). In fact entire divisions are rarely destroyed down to the last man, even if captured en masse, well the victor has to deal with the PWs slowing them down and taking up food and water and shelter, and so on. At the finest level of abstraction the game made no sense.
But when you played it out, you ended up with a France-wide war map which made sense, with front lines going back and forth and looking very much like a real war. So even though the finest level of abstraction was nonsensical, when you stepped back and looked at it all in play, it worked.
In AD&D1e these fine abstractions are things like xp and hit points. Looked at closely they make no sense at all; in play, they work and give reasonable results. Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.
Howard Johnson is right!
And another mistake people make is discarding subsystems in AD&D without considering the consequences. Then when things break they say "Oh this system doesn't work at all". Well, what did you expect, you yanked out something that made those other systems work. It's fine to rework rules into something that works better for you. Consider it like this: "any" car part from "any" car
can be made to work on another car even if it isn't considered a universal part (having grown up the son of an occasional shadetree mechanic, I know this to be true) but you have to be willing to modify it to get it to do so, or make modifications to other parts if you're going to omit that one entirely. The same applies to RPGs.
Just because you threw the carburetor away and now your car doesn't run, doesn't mean that internal combustion engines are stupid and should be done away with.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109010In AD&D1e these fine abstractions are things like xp and hit points. Looked at closely they make no sense at all; in play, they work and give reasonable results. Much drama and many bad house rules and worse game systems have come about through people not understanding this, and fussing over these fine abstractions.
Perhaps but my changes resulted from feedback from several players in different groups. There nothing in my reading of the origins of D&D and AD&D to suggest any particular reason for the progression for the original tables to be what they are other than it was an arbitrary decision. However there were ample anecdotes on why the classes had different rates of progression. So I was comfortable in rationalized the progression within each table as something that would not alter the fundamental nature of classic D&D. Furthermore I had a reason to work out additional xp progression because I designed additional classes to reflect how the Majestic Wilderlands worked using classic D&D. It wasn't a case where I thought classic D&D got it wrong.
I don't have an issue even with radical alteration of the rules as long as they are reasoned from the type of setting the referee wants to use. And tested and tweaked through cycles of actual play. It how OD&D itself was developed. Because of the number of groups and hobbyist playing it before it was published OD&D had a trial by fire that make the core concept far more robust then it does on first reading. And now because of the work done in researching the origins of the hobby, we have a better understanding of what the various mechanics represent. Which it useful when altering the system to suit one's setting.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1109034Just because you threw the carburetor away and now your car doesn't run, doesn't mean that internal combustion engines are stupid and should be done away with.
But there are different carburetors that can work with a given engine each with their own tradeoff. What I found in the last ten year of writing material and trying them out in campaigns is that some changes are D&Dish and fit well with the system. While other are not. It somewhat subjective but it is there.
For example in Adventures in Middle Earth all the changes make it a very different experience than the core books of D&D 5e, however all the changes are quite 5Eish in that they fit well with the idea in the core book. That was the kind of change I was aiming for with my Majestic Wilderlands supplements and subsquent work. For example I long felt that giving fighter increased number of attacks as they level like AD&D does is not OD&Dish. Although several time players had pressured me to go beyond the NA = level versus 1 HD foes. The reason I feel it not OD&D is that it shift balence noticably as OD&D has low number of hit points even at higher level.
I am not talking about number crunching but things I noticed at the table while playing various editions of classic D&D.
What I am mulling over is possibly a damage reroll rule at higher levels for fighters. For example at 6h level you get to reroll damage every other round and take the higher and at 9th level you can reroll damage every round.
QuoteBut there are different carburetors that can work with a given engine each with their own tradeoff. What I found in the last ten year of writing material and trying them out in campaigns is that some changes are D&Dish and fit well with the system. While other are not. It somewhat subjective but it is there.
Which is exactly what I said.
Quote from: Aglondir;1109028Wow, that takes me back. I know that exact article. I recall seeing it in Dragon magazine at the model train store. But I hated anything that even looked like math back then, so I skipped it.
It's still a good article: "Charting the Classes" in Dragon #69. I use it regularly to create XP-balanced PCs for pregens for convention games.
Allan.
Quote from: estar;1109038What I am mulling over is possibly a damage reroll rule at higher levels for fighters. For example at 6h level you get to reroll damage every other round and take the higher and at 9th level you can reroll damage every round.
Thus what Bill said. You change one bit because "this doesn't work!" and end up having to change half a dozen other things.
And then maybe you start to wonder if it was alright to begin with.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109045Thus what Bill said. You change one bit because "this doesn't work!" and end up having to change half a dozen other things.
And then maybe you start to wonder if it was alright to begin with.
My criteria does this mechanics fit with how my setting works. Secondary does this fit with the rest of the system?
Te problem areas I found in tinkering with this stuff are changes that cause you to have to touch every item in the various list of "stuff" that make up a system. In D&D's case the list of spells, magic items, monsters, etc. That where it can spiral out of control as it is problematic to test that many changes especially if you doing this solely for fun as your hobby.
I also found that various editions of classic D&D are not delicate little flowers that fall apart once you start poking at them. The core concepts are quite solid and there is a lot one can do to make it fit a particular setting and still have the system be recognizably classic D&D. Still able to readily use material made for the unmodified system.
Not all changes are equal in terms of figuring out their impact. One change I made that proved to work out well is that fighter get their to-hit bonus to their initiative die. Likely monsters get 1/2 of HD rounded down to their initiative. If you don't use ascending AC then the to-hit bonus is the difference between what you need to-hit AC 9 or 10 at level 1 and what you need to hit AC 9 or 10 at your current level.
This change was simple, made sense in light of how I described fighters, and was well-received by the players. Where it wouldn't work if you don't use individual initiative. It would be also problematic to implements with AD&D initiative system (both interpretations).
I avoided for the most part wholesale changes to monster descriptions and spell lists. I did however added to the existing spell system a bonus effect to each spell because in the Majestic Wilderlands the ability to cast magic spells (not magic itself) is dependent on the nine chromatic crystals which focus and distributes the ambient mana in a form concentrated enough for spells. Each crystal imparts a "flavor" to mana that makes more useful for certain spells. Study of each individual crystal is considered on of the ten arts of magic. Tenth being the study of the original ambient mana.
This is an aspect of my setting that persisted across many campaigns and many rule systems. At first I figured that I would implement this in Swords & Wizardry by just giving a +1 caster level for certain spells magic users who focus on a specific art. Unfortunately unlike AD&D or 5th edition there are not many spells in Swords & Wizardry (or OD&D) that are effected by the caster level. So when it came time to write up my own take for my Majestic Fantasy rules, I added a bonus effects to each spell. Either a small increase in duration, area, or effect equivalent to adding +1d6 or +2d6 to a fireball.
OD&D is not broke because it didn't have this. This is me implementing OD&D for my setting which has it own take on fantasy. My experience is that if you have a consistent view of how your setting works, then the rules themselves will be consistent especially if you try them on several groups of players over several campaigns. And that you can do it in such a way that material made for the unmodified base RPG can still be useful and vice versa. But it not something everybody wants to do in the time they have for a hobby.
The key is to play your changes and play them often with different groups of players. Then be honest about the feedback.
I never liked XP. Yes, I totally understand it's purpose, origin, blah blah, etc. So fucking what? Still don't like it.
When I had the chance to play with Dave Arneson at a convention one shot, one of the players asked how much XP we got as a joke and Dave said if you survive an adventure, you gain a level. I nearly hit the floor.
And I've been really happy doing that ever since. I have zero idea if Dave did that back in the day, or whether that was a later idea of his, but it really works for my style of high danger, frequent PC death DMing.
I like XP as we originally ran it. I think it's pointless how we run it now, and how I assume most other groups do. Now, we just pass equal XP out to everyone at the end of the session and characters (in modern D&D) all level at exactly the same time. It's pointless. We might as well just declare when characters level, and in fact od that.
In Ye Olden Days of Yore, I did a few things with XP. First, the MU advancement system in OD&D and AD&D was daft. The B/X one is much better. (Aside: pretty much everything in B/X is better than OD&D IMO. Amazing, I never saw it until the 2010's!) Anyhow, here's how I ran XP back in the OD&D days: monster XP is split evenly between everyone at the end of the session. I just track it and divide it evenly.
Of course, monster XP is pretty small. It's treasure XP that's the big deal. I grant XP for treasure based on cuts of treasure at the end of the session, so splitting the loot is very much a micro game that's more about XP than tracking gold in the bank. To make it more interesting, XP is based on what everyone walks away with. It's easy to split 1000 gp equally between 6 characters. However, if that is a piece of jewelry worth 1000 gp, then the players have an interesting dilemma. One character can take that item and get 1000 XP for it, or the party can go sell it to the local merchant for 800 gp (for example) and then split the gold 6 ways and split 800 XP 6 ways. Magic treasure has no XP value: the value is in it's utility, though if someone sells it off immediately without using it they can have the XP for the final price.
This usually ends up with some interesting tactical choices by the players. The first adventure, they may get back to toward the a potion and 1800 gp worth of treasure. It's common for them to gift 1500 gp worth of loot directly to the cleric's god via the cleric's character, so they push the cleric right up to level 2 and that precious healing magic. Someone takes the potion, and the others all split the remaining 300 gp evenly.
I find that interesting and fun in OD&D. I just declare when the party levels in 5e.
Quote from: RMS;1109177This usually ends up with some interesting tactical choices by the players. The first adventure, they may get back to toward the a potion and 1800 gp worth of treasure. It's common for them to gift 1500 gp worth of loot directly to the cleric's god via the cleric's character, so they push the cleric right up to level 2 and that precious healing magic. Someone takes the potion, and the others all split the remaining 300 gp evenly.
Rigging the division of XP among players seems very weird to me. But so does awarding XP for different things based on class. There's enough things to motivate any amount of discord among players without rigging the XP system to get more.
The differing XP tables by class and the odd spell progression of clerics and the differing saving throw tables and the limits on non-humans except for thief were just the way things were when I started. I imagined at first that all of the arbitrary choices made in OD&D were motivated by deep understanding and analysis to get the best possible choice - e.g., balancing the classes; that wishful thinking was punctured quickly - within 6 months, I'd guess.
The idea that a game must be perfectly balanced between players and foes, and between players, is an odd one. It doesn't represent real teams of soldiers or sportspeople or IT professionals or whatever, nor even fantasy fiction.
In reality and in fiction, each contributes their own particular skill, however great or small.
Well, some of this dynamic now is a chicken or the egg thing. I'm not sure which came first in early D&D. Was different advancement rates there and that supported characters of different power levels adventuring together? Or the different power levels adventuring together was already there, so that the advancement rates were no big deal? I'd guess the latter.
Point being, however it came about, the idea of henchman and big groups of NPCs was gradually replaced by each player running only their character as "the party, the whole party, and nothing but the party." It didn't help any that 3E doubled down on this trend as a "feature". 3E doesn't need separate advancement charts because it barely works at all when characters in the party get more than about 2 to 3 levels apart.
5E has reserved the trend, for the first time since 1E, but I'm not sure it has made it all the way back to 2E territory yet. (Would depend on the particular 2E slant, I suspect.) That is, 5E has taken a step back in tone, but not all the mechanics have caught up to the reversal.
I see experience discrepancies to be incentives to play less favorable classes and disincentives to play others, which is often informed by setting and play style. Having to make a cleric because you're the last one in the group to make your character and the party needs a healer was a meme until in modern rpgs they turned clerics into superheroes or just made 10 other support class\subclass options. The thief class was generally frowned upon especially with regards to how it was played in the past, but it was also pretty essential to get past save versus death traps, even if it was usually the thief who suffered from those traps first. The emphasis for my own games back then was mostly dungeon crawling and well, we needed a thief. The idea of playing a magic user is cool, but i believe their high XP progression says much about how rare they should be in the world. A few times I've consciously opted to not play a magic user because of the harsh situation they begin in but also because of the experience required to level.
I believe there's a misconception about varying experience requirements to level, which is why I think balance had little to do with it. When you stand back and look at the math, the way each level doubled the amount of xp you needed until the next level generally meant no one was ever more than 1 level behind. All it meant was that players leveled up at different times, probably better that way, everyone gets to feel special for a moment.
And even if you died at level 5, and had to make a new level 1 character (if your referee made you re-roll level 1 characters), your new character would gain quite a few levels, usually level 4 or 5, before the others reached level 6.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109222The idea that a game must be perfectly balanced between players and foes, and between players, is an odd one. It doesn't represent real teams of soldiers or sportspeople or IT professionals or whatever, nor even fantasy fiction.
In reality and in fiction, each contributes their own particular skill, however great or small.
In a game, players are looking for opportunities to contribute. In a novel, the minor character can be content to remain a minor character, but a player is sitting around a table. If they have to spend 7 1/2 hours waiting for their moment to shine, even if their one contribution is significant, we'd expect the player to get bored. They may not even be paying attention when they CAN contribute.
To make the game more enjoyable
for everyone, it's broadly accepted that people should be able to make contributions
most of the time. It doesn't really matter if someone's contribution is bigger or smaller in one scene (especially if it's reversed in another), but it definitely does matter if one (or more!!!) characters have nothing to do at all for long stretches of game time.
Balance doesn't have to be 'perfect' to consider how a variety of players can contribute.
Finding a way to contribute is up to the player. That's part of player skill. Same as any team event or sport. If you choose to stand in a corner of the field picking your nose that's up to you.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109627Finding a way to contribute is up to the player. That's part of player skill. Same as any team event or sport. If you choose to stand in a corner of the field picking your nose that's up to you.
No, look, if we're playing basketball and I'm a 60% shooter and you're a 25% shooter, we should both still get an equal number of shot opportunities to make everything equitable. I shouldn't expect you to maybe play shutdown defense or anything like that because scoring points is exciting and defense is boring.
Quote from: Brad;1109631No, look, if we're playing basketball and I'm a 60% shooter and you're a 25% shooter, we should both still get an equal number of shot opportunities to make everything equitable. I shouldn't expect you to maybe play shutdown defense or anything like that because scoring points is exciting and defense is boring.
No, for equity, you just need to look at the score afterwards. If it's not a perfect tie, it's unfair.
Quote from: Aglondir;1108823Does anyone know the rationale why each class had it's own XP progression?
(e.g. the Thief needs 1250 XP to get to second level, but the Mage needs 2500 XP.)
Ediit: Do you see this as a feature or a bug?
One difference I've observed between authentic old school design and modern game design is modern game design seems to put rules first. By which I mean, there is obsession over the rules. There is desire for the rules to look tidy and neat and elegant. And for there to be balance and symmetry. And for them to be simplified. It's almost like the ideal is to have mechanics that make you say "Gosh, that's clever. I'm going to houserule something like that for my campaign." Old school puts the play first. By which I mean, when it comes to writing rules, the foremost question is always "Is this reasonable?" Look at the 1E bend bars/lift gates percentiles. No pattern to them at all. It's what I'd expect to see if you just played a whole lot of D&D and players kept wanting to bend bars like Conan did in Conan the Destroyer, and you'd just make up a probability on the spot based on the character's Strength and over a long period of time came up with this set of numbers that seemed most reasonable in most circumstances.
So that goes a long way to answering your question, and I suppose even most questions about old school rules. Old school XP tables? 'Cuz that's what seemed reasonable when you just played a ton, all things considered. And so, yeah, this is a rationale in itself. And yeah, automatically a feature. It takes a whole lot of intent to do things that way, and nobody is intending to break the game. And notice how every fix to it, or every insinuation that it's wrong or is somehow flawed sneaks in the assumption of mathematical sleekness somehow being automatically more correct. The mystery of why magic-users advancement seems to speed up at those mid-levels is solved if you imagine that it was just played a bunch of times and those numbers were what worked.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109627Finding a way to contribute is up to the player. That's part of player skill. Same as any team event or sport. If you choose to stand in a corner of the field picking your nose that's up to you.
Developing ways for characters to contribute
is up to the game designer. If you create a major game system (like Decking in Shadowrun) that only one character can participate in, and that's the
only place they can really make a difference in, you have a setup where 5 guys are standing around with their thumbs up their butt while one player is playing the game, or you have a situation where the one player doesn't get to contribute.
I've been playing video games since well before Nintendo, but I know that playing Super Mario Bros. two players isn't much fun. You're each taking turns and never playing together at the same time. Don't tell me it's Luigi's player's job to figure out how to contribute while Mario is on-screen. That's bullshit and you know it.
All you've demonstrated is that video games are inferior to tabletop games, because even the dumbest DM is smarter than a computer. In tabletop games, there is no Three Foot Wall of Doom, nor will NPCs endlessly repeat the same lines for all eternity until the heat death of the universe. In computer games, the rules - the programming - are complete, because anything outside the rules you simply can't do. Even a rather dull DM will allow you to step a small way outside that.
And so, to clarify for the slow kids in class: finding a way to contribute is up to the player, and it's up to the DM and other players to encourage them.
It doesn't matter what the rules are if Timmy is too busy fucking about on his mobile phone to pay attention to what's happening, nor does it matter if Joanne is paying close attention and comes up with something entertaining, creative and smart which the rules don't cover. Timmy's in trouble either way, and Joanne will do fine either way.
In a boxing match, you have to be good at boxing. In a running race, you have to be good at running. In soccer, at kicking the ball. And in a social creative hobby like roleplaying games, you have to be social and... creative. It's not the job of the rules of rpgs to make up for players' lack of social ability and lack of creativity any more than it's the job of the rules of football to make up for players' lack of ball skills and athleticism.
In order of importance to the success of a game session: people, snacks, setting and system. The rules come last. Always.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109674Developing ways for characters to contribute is up to the game designer.
The problem with that is that tabletop roleplaying center around campaigns being run by referees. A game designer can provide tools to make this easier especially if they directly the genre or setting the referee opted to use.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109674If you create a major game system (like Decking in Shadowrun) that only one character can participate in, and that's the only place they can really make a difference in, you have a setup where 5 guys are standing around with their thumbs up their butt while one player is playing the game, or you have a situation where the one player doesn't get to contribute.
However it reflects the reality of shadowrun setting and the cyberpunk genre. No amount of rules is going to paper over the issue that in cyberpunk, hacking is portrayed as a solitary activity. It also requires a specialized skill set. However there have been film and tv protraying the use of hacking as part of a team effort. I would look to those to as inspiration to provide some guidance on how to integrate it in a group with a mixed set of character types.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109674I've been playing video games since well before Nintendo, but I know that playing Super Mario Bros. two players isn't much fun. You're each taking turns and never playing together at the same time. Don't tell me it's Luigi's player's job to figure out how to contribute while Mario is on-screen. That's bullshit and you know it.
Of course if you are good enough you can decompile the binaries or if lucky have access to the code and alter the scenario. However luckily with tabletop RPGs that capability is not only there but an intrinsic part of how it works due to the presence of the human referee.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109720In order of importance to the success of a game session: people, snacks, setting and system. The rules come last. Always.
You pretty much ignored the Shadowrun example. For another example, social interaction where characters from lower social classes get thrown in prison and the noble characters get to argue the party's case. You can say, "well, they just need to think of something relevant" but that's no help when their situation is rigged to allow for nothing relevant, the rules can pretty much force such situations. Locks, traps, arcane symbols, one-on-one duels and navigating hostile terrain are other situations where rules often sideline most of the characters.
I'd rank the four elements as people, system, setting, snacks. You can fix each of these on its own if the preceding elements are good; there may be no choice that works if the preceding elements are not all good. I might add genre between people and system; the high level view of setting that doesn't depend on system.
Quote from: rawma;1109747You pretty much ignored the Shadowrun example.
The netrunner may need someone to splice a cable. The noble doing the talking may benefit from that lower class PC hovering around obviously their servant, or bringing in an urgent message to make them look more important, or...
Think of something.
Maybe in your game world, netrunners can take people with them. Maybe in your game world, the lengthy resolution process becomes 1-2 quick rolls. "But the rules say -"
Fuck the rules. You're the game master, you master the rules, the rules do not master you! Who's running the game,
you, or 500 glossy pages of amateurish art, badly-edited charts and tables and horrendous overwrought flavour fiction?
It's not my job to flesh out the many and various possible solutions to the many and various possible scenarios in the many and various possible games out there. The DM and players should
think of something. Not me for you. The DM and players at the table should think of something. That's what roleplaying is about.
It doesn't matter what I say, a DM could say, "no, that won't work" and stifle me, or "interesting, roll the dice," and let it happen. And that's why
people come first. Not only do the people need some social and creative skills, but the DM needs to make the setting and system lower priorities than the people at the game table. If it sounds fun or interesting -
make a house rule. Contrary to the afterword of the AD&D1e DMG, the rules come dead fucking last.
So is the argument now devolving to where any activity in-game that singles out one character is bad? Haven't you ever played a D&D campaign where the DM took players aside for a while to do some secret stuff, or ran a combat in a gladiatorial pit with the other characters watching, or a wizard's duel, or a thief slinking around trying to assassinate a king, or whatever?
Quote from: Brad;1109835So is the argument now devolving to where any activity in-game that singles out one character is bad? Haven't you ever played a D&D campaign where the DM took players aside for a while to do some secret stuff, or ran a combat in a gladiatorial pit with the other characters watching, or a wizard's duel, or a thief slinking around trying to assassinate a king, or whatever?
No.
The discussion is about whether when you create a game you should consider how different characters ought to be able to contribute in a variety of different situations
or not. Kyle Aaron's argument appears to boil down to 'a good GM doesn't need rules' putting all the onus on the player to be creative (and of course, for the GM not to be a dick). For a cooperative game, that doesn't work for me.
If you provide options that are generally useful in a bunch of situations, players should be able to think outside the box. Maybe the
web spell isn't just useful for combat - maybe it can help you get across the chasm quickly - that's player creativity. But if you're creating a game and you only give people abilities that are useful in a single situation (like combat), you shouldn't be surprised when they direct the game into that area, rather than, say, Diplomacy.
Even if characters have a broad range of abilities, there are going to be situations where one player/character will end up with the spotlight. When we're fighting a horde of undead and the cleric turns a bunch of them to ash, the fighter doesn't get butt hurt that he didn't cleave them; the next fight might be a horde of goblins and the fighter will shine and the cleric won't have as much to do.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109845No.
Yes:
QuoteKyle Aaron's argument appears to boil down to 'a good GM doesn't need rules' putting all the onus on the player to be creative (and of course, for the GM not to be a dick). For a cooperative game, that doesn't work for me.
Stick with video games then.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109758The DM and players at the table should think of something.
Yes, any problem in the rules can be fixed if the entire table decides not to play by those rules. The game designer should think about what portions of their game are likely to be thrown out for any reason, including this one. Duh.
When the Fellowship came to the doors of Moria, while Gandalf worked on the door with magical arts none of the others posessed, what should his companions have done? At the table I would expect Gandalf's Arcana check to resolve quickly; then all the players could have tried to solve the puzzle, or debated going another way. Things that exclude most of the table should resolve quickly, so that the whole table can work on solving the puzzle, if that's what it is.
Quote from: Brad;1109835So is the argument now devolving to where any activity in-game that singles out one character is bad? Haven't you ever played a D&D campaign where the DM took players aside for a while to do some secret stuff, or ran a combat in a gladiatorial pit with the other characters watching, or a wizard's duel, or a thief slinking around trying to assassinate a king, or whatever?
All the way back in 1977. Worst was the arena in Valhalla in one dungeon, because each player character had to fight a combat alone, and no other player character could observe it. Scratch any chance of doing something else while you waited, with no DM to describe or resolve anything. (For the characters, all of the duels took place simultaneously; long wait for each player when it wasn't their turn.) Ever since, I've looked at how rules are likely to leave out some players, and fixed those rules if it seemed worthwhile but more often avoided them.
Quote from: rawma;1110065Things that exclude most of the table should resolve quickly, so that the whole table can work on solving the puzzle, if that's what it is.
Nice. That should go into the Book of Universal GM Advice. If such a thing exists.
I remember the mismatched XP tables. In play they worked all right actually. And I believe the purpose was as a balancing factor. Not a good balancing factor, imo, but it was one, nonetheless. Every now and then the thief would be a level ahead, or the MU a level behind (at least in early levels, which we mostly played in). I prefer even xp quotas, and balancing the classes against each other more directly.
If you're always involved in what's happening right now regardless of your specialty, that's not real roleplaying.
Quote from: EOTB;1110130If you're always involved in what's happening right now regardless of your specialty, that's not real roleplaying.
True. However, the player is at the table as both roleplayer and audience. Which is why over time I've moved more and more to the idea that not every character is involved in everything, but every player sees everything when at all possible. That is, it is part of roleplaying to know what is going on as an audience member, but not let that influence your character too much when it shouldn't. On those rare occasions when I split players up and/or hide things from part of them, I want it to be because that creates suspense and other interesting outcomes, not merely because I must to cover for someone's inability to separate their character from what they know as an audience member.
They weren't perfectly tuned or anything, but I loved the concept and I thought they worked reasonably well in actual practice.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1110146True. However, the player is at the table as both roleplayer and audience. Which is why over time I've moved more and more to the idea that not every character is involved in everything, but every player sees everything when at all possible. That is, it is part of roleplaying to know what is going on as an audience member, but not let that influence your character too much when it shouldn't. On those rare occasions when I split players up and/or hide things from part of them, I want it to be because that creates suspense and other interesting outcomes, not merely because I must to cover for someone's inability to separate their character from what they know as an audience member.
You post isn't exactly my sentiments, but similar in some ways. I should have used a [sarcasm][\sarcasm] tag.
Point being, the argument for putting the play experience first is often expressed by people who otherwise insist that it's not a real roleplaying game unless there's ample opportunity for all the rest of the table to sit around bored watching someone contrive reasons to roleplay out their skill in herbal knowledge with an NPC, or whatever, in a way that has bupkis to do the task at hand just because it's on their character sheet.
But that's just grrrrreat!, while taking a backseat temporarily for a truly role-related reason is supposedly no-fun. I think it's more about demanding an audience often times while never being the audience for any material length of time.