| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, gonna have to side with empathy on this one.
Life can be tough. Why put the screws to those that are dealing with more than enough already?
I'm not sure what you mean by "the screws". Look, if a player can only attend a game 1 out of 4 games, are you seriously saying their character is going to have the same impact on the development of the story as the characters of the players that are there every session? No, that is ridiculous.
Even if you gave the person an equal level character with equal wealth and everything, the character still is not going to be as relevant to the story as the characters that are in the mud week in and week out. Nor, I would think, would the player expect it to be.
No, I'm not expecting to be able to contribute to the story as much as the others. That's a sad inevitability. However, wealth and XP are just mechanical means of keeping parity, and can be adjusted easily.
I may be near the more disastrous side of things, but I don't draw a line. If you are in one of my games and can't show up, you get full XP. I don't care why you're not there. If you wanted to stay home and play Call of Duty, that's fine. Full XP.
The real punishment is missing out on the roleplaying game.
|
How TOZ Handles Absent Players.
If Martin had to cancel, or Jon had not worked out his Easter plans enough to be able to make it, we would have been counting on you being there to have enough players. Shanna and I can at least hang out at Jon's if we need to cancel, but to have Brandin drive all the way down just to be told 'sorry, we don't have enough players for a session' could really mess with his finances as a lower enlisted solider, not to mention his free time.
This isn't to say we couldn't have just had a nice time visiting Joe and Lila, but these are the times we set aside for gaming, and if it falls through, we're already short on game time as it is.
I just ask that you try to let me know by Saturday morning at the latest, Friday night preferrably. Shanna and I felt a little disrespected, first by asking if the television could be on, and next by telling me 'this game is too good for me to leave'. I know Jon and Lila do the laptop thing, and I'm not really happy with it either. But to basically call me up and say you can't make it nearly at game time makes me feel you're not interested or committed to the campaign.
I just wanted to share my thoughts on it with you so you know how I feel. This is not a problem, just a concern.
My deepest apologies, man. Next time I'll do my best to get the word out sooner. Thanks for the understanding and being upfront with how y'all are feeling. You're a great DM and I'm loving the campaign. Again, so sorry to skip out on such short notice.
Hope the night went well!
Sounds good TOZ, glad it worked out!
|
No, I'm not expecting to be able to contribute to the story as much as the others. That's a sad inevitability. However, wealth and XP are just mechanical means of keeping parity, and can be adjusted easily.
...
The real punishment is missing out on the roleplaying game.
That. Especially the last statement.
How TOZ Handles Absent Players.
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
Flagged for being too reasonable and mature.
No, I'm not expecting to be able to contribute to the story as much as the others. That's a sad inevitability. However, wealth and XP are just mechanical means of keeping parity, and can be adjusted easily.
I agree. Wealth is rarely in issue in my games because the party doesn't sell things every session. Usually goods go to who can use them best right then and the rest goes into a pot to be sold of or divided later. So if a player misses a session, big deal, most likely if the party got something that the character might be able to use they ask if the character wants it the next time the player is there. Gone the session they sell a bunch of stuff, usually I'll right a note on the game board and say, "Hey, last week they sold a bunch of stuff, everyone got 12,000 gp. Let me know if you want to buy anything before we get started or we can do it later."
As for xp, again, missing a session or two here or there isn't going to be that big of deal. In the game I'm running right now, the character with the most xp is a 6th level goliath monk (monk 5/LA +1), the guy with the lowest xp is a 6th level orc barbarian. This is with orc's player being gone the last two sessions. Now next session the goliath is probably going to level to 7th at the end, and the orc will take an additional session to level, but really it will not make a big difference during that one session.
I understand why people don't bother with xp. It doesn't make a big deal, either way. I still use xp for other uses, so I am not going to eliminate it anytime soon.
I may be near the more disastrous side of things, but I don't draw a line. If you are in one of my games and can't show up, you get full XP. I don't care why you're not there. If you wanted to stay home and play Call of Duty, that's fine. Full XP.
We are not that different, it is just that I give 0 xp no matter the reason.
The real punishment is missing out on the roleplaying game.
I agree, missing a few xp isn't going to keep anyone from missing a game they like.
@ Umbral Reaver, I totally sympathize. I have diabetes and cystic fibrosis, and I’m sure that some day I’ll be where you are now. I wouldn’t play a permanent side-kick in anyone’s game either, no matter how great the DM might otherwise be. I play D&D to be an awesome hero.
So, why continue to use it? We use xp as a measure of the personal growth of the character. If one week we have 5 PCs and the next week we have 3 PCs, and each time they faced roughly the same difficulties, then those that were present both times are going to grow more during the time there were less PCs. How do I measure that if everyone gets the same xp? Also, how can your character experience personal growth when they didn’t personally grow?
Okay wait, what happens to PCs of absent players? Because depending on how you handle them, I can see this making in-game sense. (If PCs stay home or just *poof* when their players are absent, for example.)
As to your game, where you don’t use xp at all, it depends on how you run it. Does everyone get the exact same rewards in character, regardless of participation? If so, I’d probably get annoyed if someone was looking up from their nintendo every couple of hours to get the latest bauble. Which means I’d probably quit shortly.Kinda makes me wonder what they’d do in my game, where we don’t even track XP at all.
While everyone in my game is the same level, I reward player interest in the game. Players who like rp and story get NPCs and adventures built just for them. Players who like puzzles and problem solving get puzzles and problems to solve. You get the idea.
But more importantly, I don’t tolerate certain behavior. For example there’s no Nintendo playing or net surfing at my table. If you’re really not interested in what’s happening in game at the moment, you can sit quietly or you can take a bathroom break. Players who drag everyone down don’t remain at my table for long; earlier this year I kicked out a disruptive player despite knowing that we would also lose his cool older sister.
And that raises a question: If you don’t track XP and you level everyone at the same time, how do you deal with level loss from raise dead or resurrection? Do you just ignore it?
I DM 4e and I go by RAW when it comes to PC death; so raised PCs get a -1 to d20 rolls for a few encounters in addition to paying the spell’s cost. For a game, I think that’s sufficient consequence for death.
That’s a pretty heavy-handed assumption. It’s not about one-upping other party members at all. It’s about putting time into the hobby and seeing your character progress for it. Just because some of us track XP doesn’t mean we are trying to out-do the other players, maybe we just like keeping marks for things accomplished, like a personal high-score.What’s clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.
Clearly you folks aren’t thinking of XP as a competition, but that’s what it is. If you’re doing it as a personal high-score thing, like Monica’s Thanksgiving self-competition*, that’s fine too. But it’s competition all the same, and I’m not sure it’s any cooler than the one-upsmanship kind.
Anyway, some of the comments on this thread have convinced me that it is about one-upsmanship for some players. I mean c’mon, 3.5L commented that “D&D isn’t a welfare state, you have to earn XP” and mdt says “if you’re going to play then man up and play”! Those comments make no sense -- welfare and manliness have nothing to do with D&D. (Well maybe the latter quality has an inverse relationship with D&D, but I digress.) I’m sure people on this thread don’t have screaming matches or fist fights over XP, but these are the kind of totally irrational claims that the really competitive sports players and fans use to justify their desire for competition.
You yourself talk about putting time, effort and investment in the game as if playing requires some kind of work ethic. As if playing the game isn’t its own reward. I’m sure your game is a lot of fun, but these kind of comments make it sound like work.
*XP for anyone who saw that Friends episode!
Really, go with the party dynamic. So many absolutionist extreme opinions in this thread for what’s nothing more than an issue to be handled individually by the gaming group. It’s really nobody else’s business if you track XP or not, and looking down your nose at people just because they play differently is not helping.
Anyway, agreed. If I’ve come off as judgmental, I apologize. I’ve played games with varying XP, and it’s not the end of the world...of D&D. More XP if you got that reference. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While everyone in my game is the same level, I reward player interest in the game. Players who like rp and story get NPCs and adventures built just for them. Players who like puzzles and problem solving get puzzles and problems to solve. You get the idea.
Then I'd be ok in your games I think, although not if they are 4E (not starting an edition war, I just really hate the system). My biggest complaint really is people who don't contribute but want all the goodies that everyone else who contributes gets, be that xp, in game advancement, or whatever. And when I say 'Man Up', I mean it in the sense of 'live up to your commitments'. You could say 'Woman Up' for a woman, or 'It Up' for a martian hermaphrodite (if you had one in your game, I don't suggest it, that whole mind reading thing really makes it hard to plot out puzzles).
@ Umbral Reaver, I totally sympathize. I have diabetes and cystic fibrosis, and I’m sure that some day I’ll be where you are now. I wouldn’t play a permanent side-kick in anyone’s game either, no matter how great the DM might otherwise be. I play D&D to be an awesome hero.
To be clear, I sympathize as well. I would never ban someone from my table for not being able to play regularly. How to handle the amount of missed games is open to debate, but not the treatment of the player themselves. I've heard horror stories on boards like this one from GMs that would dump any player that dared to miss a game. That kind of thinking is beyond my ken.
So, why continue to use it? We use xp as a measure of the personal growth of the character. If one week we have 5 PCs and the next week we have 3 PCs, and each time they faced roughly the same difficulties, then those that were present both times are going to grow more during the time there were less PCs. How do I measure that if everyone gets the same xp? Also, how can your character experience personal growth when they didn’t personally grow?Okay wait, what happens to PCs of absent players? Because depending on how you handle them, I can see this making in-game sense. (If PCs stay home or just *poof* when their players are absent, for example.)
You sometimes have to get creative. ;) But usually it is easy enough to have them "hang back to watch the exit" or "stay with the villagers and help them start rebuilding what was destroyed" or "scout ahead (and gets lost for a time)". Next session they are there and their character runs up, "I heard some noise and thought you might need my help". You rarely end a session in the middle of combat, so it really isn't that big of a deal.
That’s a pretty heavy-handed assumption. It’s not about one-upping other party members at all. It’s about putting time into the hobby and seeing your character progress for it. Just because some of us track XP doesn’t mean we are trying to out-do the other players, maybe we just like keeping marks for things accomplished, like a personal high-score.What’s clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.
Clearly you folks aren’t thinking of XP as a competition, but that’s what it is. If you’re doing it as a personal high-score thing, like Monica’s Thanksgiving self-competition*, that’s fine too. But it’s competition all the same, and I’m not sure it’s any cooler than the one-upsmanship kind.
Anyway, some of the comments on this thread have convinced me that it is about one-upsmanship for some players. I mean c’mon, 3.5L commented that “D&D isn’t a welfare state, you have to earn XP” and mdt says “if you’re going to play then man up and play”! Those comments make no sense -- welfare and manliness have nothing to do with D&D. (Well maybe the latter quality has an inverse relationship with D&D, but I digress.) I’m sure people on this thread don’t have screaming matches or fist fights over XP, but these are the kind of totally irrational claims that the really competitive sports players and fans use to justify their desire for competition.
You yourself talk about putting time, effort and investment in the game as if playing requires some kind of work ethic. As if playing the game isn’t its own reward. I’m sure your game is a lot of fun, but these kind of comments make it sound like work.
*XP for anyone who saw that Friends episode!
...
Really, go with the party dynamic. So many
You seem really against some competition. Is it the big bad now? Well you might want to get rid of opposed rolling or skill checks, because that can lead to competition and character's flexing their skills and abilities and competing with one another.
What is the villain, what is the big bad seems to rear its head in this thread, there is the attempt to say a style of play really is morally wrong. In regards to competition, I've seen players compete to do the most damage and effect in combat, and that can be quite a good thing, a motivator to action. The heroes side by side strike down their foes and are in competition (because not all competition has to involve tears). Another situation I quite liked is, two players making their social checks and trying to influence npcs in different directions. Philosophical debates (strangely common in my games, where alignment and belief often seems to come up) can be great little side-games. Okay you saved the village, that is good, but turning them away from the LE hell-knight doctrine to something different is another challenge to succeed at, and a time for character to shine.
The back and forth between umbral and pres man above was interesting to read. Umbral wanting their character to be equal, and thinking this is just when they can only be there some of the time, due to disabilities. This also connects to what wraithstrike, thejeff and pres man have said, so for a bit of tie-in.
"I will give a different perspective from mdt. If you are only able there part of the time, then you should expect that your character is not going to be a main character in the story of the game. Yes, your character is going to be a supporting cast character. There is no shame in being a supporting cast character, who doesn't love Scotty or Sulu? But it isn't reasonable for the game to treat your character as a central figure if each week it may be that you will be there or you won't."
Umbral you didn't like this. You think that it is targeting you unfairly because of your condition. It actually isn't (or wouldn't be if you were in this situation with pres man as your dm) because this position isn't biased or prejudiced. Rules that apply to all are not rules that are only applying to one. If any other player missed the game, they too would fall behind, it is the rules of the house. You could call it unjust, you could call it unfair, but while a player is absent:
1) They are not there to push that hero forward.
2) They miss out on more single character focused gaming moments, quests for that character, time to shine.
3) Two is mentioned above as a source of annoyance, stress and destabilisation to a game. Absent players can bring it down, waste other people's time and slow the start of a game (if they are not clear they wont be there) or the campaign progress.
4) They are piloted as an npc which is sometimes under their control, and sometimes not (when you are at the table). This can be jarring.
5) They can break from the group and the main story for extended periods. This can be initiated by the dm, or players. The pcs in the last game I attended, ditched those non-attending. The dm clearly had his hands full.
There is an important difference to see, between a situation:
a) That isn't beneficial for a player (your xp remains static and doesn't increase when you are not there).
b) A situation which is punishing towards the player (the removal of xp, levels, abilities for not attending).
c) And a situation which is constantly rewarding to the player (being being levelled up while missing games to remain at the same level as the rest of the attending party).
So that is how I see it. It is a state of confusion. Of confusing and seeing no benefit being given (of letting you play the character at the level you were at and were at last game), as a punishment, because you have not been rewarded in your absence. Umbral I am not entirely without sympathy, but this seems to be what is happening. Where the positions on this level issue lie.
When seeking our own advantage and wanting it, if this advantage is not gained, it is seen as unjust. Even if the character is not altered--negatively or positively. For some dms, advantage and advancement only comes with play.
Is English not your first language, 3.5 Loyalist?
Nice, real nice.
Yeah deflect. Let's not get to the issues behind the opinions, and identify where people are coming from.
No, really. I don't want to read what you're saying the wrong way, but the structure of what you're saying makes it hard.
The answer is easy, academic. Piece by piece, take a close read, it'll make sense. It isn't as hard as Foucault.
Falling behind is seen as a negative, as a punishment, as unjust; even when the non-attending player has actually only remained static. They have not been punished.
That's not true. It's not even subjective. Staying the same is not the same thing as being static. The game moves on. The baseline is raised by the progress of the party. Taking that as the measuring point, not progressing is the same thing as being pushed back.
If you measured all the numbers as 'game challenge rating plus or minus x', then anyone not gaining levels actually decreases in their numbers as challenge rating goes up. The mechanics remain exactly the same but it allows you to see what's going on. The party does not exist in a vacuum. Characters exist relative to the game world and what's in it.
If you are level five, and stuck there for a while, there will still be opponents at level five CR or below. Unless they are removed from the fantasy world.
This actually brings up a good problem with level based systems. The players get tougher, the opponents get tougher, new monsters emerge to keep the challenge. Unless you are playing a more LOTR type game, where the common foe, the orc, pretty much stays the same (except Uruk-hai) so that as you level, you can kill more, and it gets easier. Dnd usually goes the other way, the number of opponents stays the same or similar, but their challenge goes up, their stat block numbers increase.
So of course the character some levels back feels weaker, and is challenged more by what they face. They actually have not changed at all, in the negative or the positive, only when considered alongside the party. I don't have a problem with this, because of my previous points made, but also because a dm should be mindful of where the party is at. If it is 8s and a 6, don't keep throwing 9s and 10s at them. Throw some lower Crs as well, things more in the 6s league to take.
Of course if the character continues to miss sessions, the balancing and the steady increase of their level relative to the party can't be initiated. The player stays where they are. If the player does finally come back and demand, I want some levels. Then they can seem really entitled to some dms, and to the other players too. "Hey we earned this level buddy, and almost died a few times because your support wasn't here, you took your character sheet with you." These are opinions I've come across; but there are no villains here. The DM isn't even doing anything incorrectly here, by the rules.
Then I’d be ok in your games I think, although not if they are 4E (not starting an edition war, I just really hate the system). My biggest complaint really is people who don’t contribute but want all the goodies that everyone else who contributes gets, be that xp, in game advancement, or whatever. And when I say ‘Man Up’, I mean it in the sense of ‘live up to your commitments’. You could say ‘Woman Up’ for a woman, or ‘It Up’ for a martian hermaphrodite (if you had one in your game, I don’t suggest it, that whole mind reading thing really makes it hard to plot out puzzles).
While everyone in my game is the same level, I reward player interest in the game. Players who like rp and story get NPCs and adventures built just for them. Players who like puzzles and problem solving get puzzles and problems to solve. You get the idea.
It’s not that “man up” is a sexist statement or anything; it’s that “live up to your commitments” doesn’t mean anything because we don’t all need XP to be committed to the game. It’s a purely emotive statement used to justify your gaming preferences. Honestly, you don’t need to justify your preferences; you’re the DM and you make the rules. Although I do like to think that if a better gamer (than the one who made you quit) ever requested equal XP, you wouldn’t perfunctorily dismiss them as a whiny entitled brat.
PS: No hard feelings, edition-wise. I have similar feelings about 3.x. I’ll play it, but I won’t DM it anymore.
You sometimes have to get creative. ;) But usually it is easy enough to have them “hang back to watch the exit” or “stay with the villagers and help them start rebuilding what was destroyed” or “scout ahead (and gets lost for a time)”. Next session they are there and their character runs up, “I heard some noise and thought you might need my help”. You rarely end a session in the middle of combat, so it really isn’t that big of a deal.
Well I can’t say I’m a fan of this practice, but it does make a certain amount of in-game sense. And not a deal-breaker either -- barring permanent side-kick status due to health problems outside of my control, at least.
You seem really against some competition. Is it the big bad now? Well you might want to get rid of opposed rolling or skill checks, because that can lead to competition and character’s flexing their skills and abilities and competing with one another.
Strawman. I stopped reading right here because you’re attributing judgments to me that I haven’t made.
How you run your game is your own business, but I do hope that if you ever have a similar discussion in real life you don’t resort to inflammatory political one-liners to justify your preferences.
"But it’s competition all the same, and I’m not sure it’s any cooler than the one-upsmanship kind."
There is competition in dnd games all the time, and it isn't necessarily a negative. A player of an alchemist and I through my scout compete all the time to see who can make the highest skill checks, because we have some similar skills. No one dies or cries. The camaraderie of the group is supported by competition.
You sometimes have to get creative. ;) But usually it is easy enough to have them “hang back to watch the exit” or “stay with the villagers and help them start rebuilding what was destroyed” or “scout ahead (and gets lost for a time)”. Next session they are there and their character runs up, “I heard some noise and thought you might need my help”. You rarely end a session in the middle of combat, so it really isn’t that big of a deal.Well I can’t say I’m a fan of this practice, but it does make a certain amount of in-game sense. And not a deal-breaker either -- barring permanent side-kick status due to health problems outside of my control, at least.
Well, I'd much rather not have to mess with it and have everyone present each game session. For my group it just happens to be the best of the bad choices.
XP indeed isn't always perfect, I sometimes give out additional rewards when I could instead just give a massive amount of xp. Give the rewards some flavour.
A great link pres man, I really liked it.
So much vitriol over personal preferences; whether your group tracks xp or not, all that matters is if it works for your group. I appreciate comments on both sides of the fence, and there is always room for extenuating circumstances, but it's no good bickering about who's better.
And Tequila Sunrise, seriously, I don't know how else to say it, my group's tracking xp is NOT about one-upping anyone else in the group. It's not a competition. All it is to us is a measure of character advancement, and tells us how soon til we level up again. That's it. We have players who join up for a while and take breaks, everyone at the table are good friends who just enjoy the game. There is no competition. I really don't know how else to say it, or why you keep looking for things that are not there.
And Tequila Sunrise, seriously, I don't know how else to say it, my group's tracking xp is NOT about one-upping anyone else in the group. It's not a competition. All it is to us is a measure of character advancement, and tells us how soon til we level up again. That's it. We have players who join up for a while and take breaks, everyone at the table are good friends who just enjoy the game. There is no competition. I really don't know how else to say it, or why you keep looking for things that are not there.
You say that, but I've probably got more XP than you :P
Seriously though, one of my points throughout this whole thing (4 day internet debate about D&D during the holidays? Yes, that is on my sadness scavenger hunt) has been that I don't think advancing through plot point/DM fiat is wrong, I just think changing the XP award system in order to do so is silly.
Personally, I prefer encounter based xp awards, but I prefer anchovies on my pizza, and lord knows I won't convince anyone about that...
And Tequila Sunrise, seriously, I don't know how else to say it, my group's tracking xp is NOT about one-upping anyone else in the group. It's not a competition. All it is to us is a measure of character advancement, and tells us how soon til we level up again. That's it. We have players who join up for a while and take breaks, everyone at the table are good friends who just enjoy the game. There is no competition. I really don't know how else to say it, or why you keep looking for things that are not there.You say that, but I've probably got more XP than you :P
Seriously though, one of my points throughout this whole thing (4 day internet debate about D&D during the holidays? Yes, that is on my sadness scavenger hunt) has been that I don't think advancing through plot point/DM fiat is wrong, I just think changing the XP award system in order to do so is silly.
Personally, I prefer encounter based xp awards, but I prefer anchovies on my pizza, and lord knows I won't convince anyone about that...
I like M&M's on my pizza.
In 2e going into 3.5 I ran a game where if you didn't show you got no XP. That worked fine with that group. Your character "disappeared into a pocket dimension" for the duration of the game, was the tongue-in-cheek meta-game explanation. Two players got far enough behind the party that they were in danger of becoming second-stringers. I ran a side-adventure for those two players and it was a blast, one of the most fun gaming sessions I ever GM'ed.
I ran a game for years where I didn't track XP at all. When I figured they'd played about a dozen or so encounters (be it combat, social, or puzzle/trap) I would tell the party they could advance a level. In D&D, and as it later turned into, Pathfinder, that works well because it's a level-based system where every ability you have advanced at the same time. In a character-point system, it wouldn't work as well.
That game actually started out where I DID track XP and gave them out at the end of the session or over email after the game. After giving an exact count, one player said "Just tell me when I level." Another made jokes about the exactness of the number of XP I handed out, since I totaled the XP and divided by 7 (the number of players), and got a number that wasn't a multiple of 50, or whatever he had expected. I had also played another game with a different player and knew he'd probably lose his character sheet at least twice per level. So I didn't give XP at the next game, until one player asked. I said "If you want it, it's ___." The next game no one asked, and I never mentioned XP again. We played up to 12th level in that game.
I started a new campaign in the Pathfinder rules. Different group. I asked how they wanted to handle absences. I said I didn't want people to get too far behind, so I proposed half XP for people who don't make it, and their character doesn't run the risk of being killed in his absence, but their unique character's resources and individual skills may be used by the party. So if the party needs healing but the cleric player has to take care of a sick baby, his character can throw around a few heals and go back to quiet meditation and contemplation at the back of the party. That seems to be working out well enough, too.
In other words, it depends entirely on the group you're running with, and different groups may have different ideas of what's fun about the game. I feel that you should be open-minded enough as a player and as a GM to adapt and not be bonded so firmly to one paradigm or the other.
Mushrooms, Onions, Black Olives, Green Onions, and Chicken.
Or Greek, or Taco pizza.
Jerry: XP is just as metagame as levels. Realistic is 'the skill you're using improves' regardless of being a class skill or what. Having to wait for a set number of experience to accrue before any improvement shows is unrealistic.
Almost as realistic as possibly being born with dragon blood, and using bat guano to create 40' diameter balls of fire. Also, flying and stuff.
Everybody has a different level of realism when it comes to fantasy gaming. We all admit to needing at least a little bit so that things in the game world can make some kind of sense, but there's no real definitive line outside of game mechanics and house rules. Expecting someone else's boundaries of imagination to coincide with yours on an internet message board is pretty fantastical in and of itself, so no need to argue other than compare.
EDIT: I'm calling you both silly. Now where's my M&M's...
We're going to need separate pizzas mdt. :)
Jerry: XP is just as metagame as levels. Realistic is 'the skill you're using improves' regardless of being a class skill or what. Having to wait for a set number of experience to accrue before any improvement shows is unrealistic.
TOZ, have you ever played classic Traveller? All the level-advancement-ish (completely skill based game) stuff was front loaded into character generation, so you'd end up playing either a feeble old geezer who was god-level powerful at stuff, or a super strong 25 year old who wasn't well trained enough to shoot straight. As for character advancement, there just sorta wasn't any; you could study for months and months of game time to gain one skill point but that was it.
Full disclosure, i haven't played since Megatraveller was published (late 80s i wanna say), but I loved the system; any game with a roll to survive character generation is just awesome!
:D
Point taken. Realism should not be expected in a FRPG of any kind. But we were geeks then, and we're geeks now.
We even argue about whether or not Superman catching Lois Lane after a distant fall would kill her.
It did kill Gwen Stacy; saddest issue of spiderman ever.