Xp veusus experience checks

James McMurray · December 03, 2006, 12:33:53 AM

We always handwaved the practice thing as "this is what they're doing in downtime." Rolemaster has you decide what you're practicing for the next level, which is one of the things I always liked about it.

jcfiala · December 03, 2006, 01:29:25 AM

Both ways of doing experience seem to work in different ways - I'm not sure how you'ld manage rolling for skill advances in a level based system like D&D, for one... and any 'buy more points in a skill' system for CoC/BRP would seem to need a sort of exponential cost table to prevent people from maxing out library use and handgun with the skill points they're rewarded.

Personally, I like the way both work in the games they're used in.

Warthur · December 03, 2006, 08:11:06 AM

Personally, if I notice parties using the "let the weakest guy try picking the lock" gambit I tend to say "OK, you can let him try, but if he screws up he might wreck the lock's mechanism and make it even more difficult for the more skilled members of the party". Similarly, I tend to adopt a "too many cooks spoil the broth" rule for most situations where multiple individuals are trying to accomplish the same task, unless there's clearly no way that someone's poor performance can undermine someone else (like if all the characters are competing in a foot race, for example).

Knightsky · December 03, 2006, 02:22:44 PM

Quote from: droog1. The top player in RQ went from about 75% in his main weapon to about 400%.

How. The. FUCK???

Even with a high INT mod, after reaching 95% in a skill, the chance of making a successful skill increase is low enough that it's only going to succeed occassionally. How many THOUSANDS of gaming sessions would you have to play through to get a skill up to 400%?

James McMurray · December 03, 2006, 02:51:01 PM

He said he GMed the game for 15 years. Maybe it was one long campaign.

droog · December 03, 2006, 02:57:46 PM

QuoteHe said he GMed the game for 15 years. Maybe it was one long campaign.

Yes, it was. And in the early days, twelve-hour sessions weren't uncommon.

Just to elaborate on my point a bit more: the RQ rules say to roll for experience 'after the adventure'. So how you interpret that is going to be an important factor. The method I was using just before I quit running RQ was to have a round of experience rolls each season (so four per year). But a literal interpretation of the rules could see characters rolling once per week if they found enough action.

All up, I think it might be a little bit broken for the length of time I put it through, but I imagine most campaigns aren't going to show too much strain. Sucks to be the bottom guy, though.

jrients · December 04, 2006, 10:49:03 AM

I like scoring points by whacking monsters. Experience checks work fine for those crazy non-monster whacking games.

droog · December 04, 2006, 04:19:23 PM

Quote from: jrientsI like scoring points by whacking monsters. Experience checks work fine for those crazy non-monster whacking games.

Man, RQ is most definitely about whacking monsters. It just suits people who like a sort of gritty 'realism' in their monster-whacking.

jrients · December 04, 2006, 04:44:38 PM

Quote from: droogMan, RQ is most definitely about whacking monsters. It just suits people who like a sort of gritty 'realism' in their monster-whacking.

When I'm beating a two-headed troll with a sword that is on fire because of magic, neither gritty nor realistic are primary concerns of mine. I have heard, however, that there are such things as different strokes and that these strokes are for different folks.

James McMurray · December 04, 2006, 04:50:53 PM

Whatchu talkin' bout jrients?

jrients · December 04, 2006, 04:56:23 PM

Quote from: James McMurrayWhatchu talkin' bout jrients?

Dude, thank you so much.

James McMurray · December 04, 2006, 04:58:31 PM

No prob. That's what I'm here for.

droog · December 04, 2006, 05:04:08 PM

Quote from: jrientsWhen I'm beating a two-headed troll with a sword that is on fire because of magic, neither gritty nor realistic are primary concerns of mine. I have heard, however, that there are such things as different strokes and that these strokes are for different folks.

Yes, fine, but it seems vocabulary is failing. You can be attacking a two-headed dragonsnail with a spear that is on fire because of magic in RQ. So what we mean by 'gritty' and 'realistic' are clearly two different things.

jrients · December 04, 2006, 05:15:36 PM

Quote from: droogYes, fine, but it seems vocabulary is failing. You can be attacking a two-headed dragonsnail with a spear that is on fire because of magic in RQ. So what we mean by 'gritty' and 'realistic' are clearly two different things.

Yeah. This is one of the reasons RQ doesn't always compute with me. People tell me how much more 'realistic' it is than D&D, but D&D doesn't have anthropomorphic ducks. So go figure.

droog · December 04, 2006, 05:38:19 PM

That's why I put 'realistic' in quotes. Really what people mean is that combat is detailed (hit locations, separate parry rolls etc) and characters are vulnerable (fixed and relatively low HP). Some people like the feel that gives combat of a desperate and dangerous struggle. No matter how good you are, you might go down to a chance thrust.

Exp checks are another way of trying to push the agenda of the world as a harsh but neutral place. So you used your a sword a lot: you may or may not improve this time.

None of that gets in the way of the game being mainly about combat and magic. It's just a different way of approaching it.