I have a couple of ideas I might pursue, one of them being the game design route, like a friend of mine is doing (he's writing up the rules, designing character sheets, and doing artwork for the theoretical book), after I take some relevant courses in the Spring. It's an attractive option because it's an end product that is directly marketable, as opposed to just a body of work that would look nice in my portfolio. Namely, I've started working on a game that would give me the sort of modern fantasy/psychic power roleplaying I always wanted but could never get the way I wanted.
Many people dislike the EXP mechanic, many people do. I, personally, do not. It's fairly easy to just remove from a game and instead grant levels based on attendance or at relevant moments in the story. How ever, for people that do like EXP mechanics, adding it to a game that didn't have it might be more complicated to do on your own. If I'm making a game, it seems at first to be a waste of time adding a rule that I would just throw out the window everytime I ran anyway, but the fact remains: EXP is popular. I don't think I've ever played a game that didn't come with an EXP mechanic, regardless of whether or not people used it.
My question to people who like EXP is: Would you buy a game that didn't include experience points? If yes, would you add such a system yourself, or is it just not a big deal, and you'd have just as much fun playing a game that didn't have EXP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd buy one, absolutely. In fact I have, I've got more than a few BRP-based games that increase skills based on usage during the session, for example.
I've stopped using experience in Pathfinder, and just level characters up at appropriate points now, so not only would I not add the mechanic in, I'm happily stripping it out.
It's always been nothing but a bookkeeping burden, with no real value to me. A lot of the time I'd fudge experience awards just to give people that extra thousand they needed to go up a level, where I needed them to be for the next adventure I had planned anyway.
If I were to write my own system from scratch, I'd probably avoid levels as well as experience, and work more with a BRP-style skill-based system that improves with use.
Never played Call of Cthulhu, huh?
Actually, I have, but come to think of it it has always only ever been one-shot horror stories, never an extended campaign (which i unfortunately don't have time for as a GM myself). So it never came up.
I'll admit, I don't have very extensive experience with variosu systems. The only game I've played outside of d20 OGL games are a handful of homebrew systems made by friends and one-shot of Cthulu (where, as mentioned, there was no advancement).
My question to people who like EXP is: Would you buy a game that didn't include experience points? If yes, would you add such a system yourself, or is it just not a big deal, and you'd have just as much fun playing a game that didn't have EXP?
I already don't use xp. I do like advancement still, but I've never been a fan of the book keeping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CoC and Traveller don't have xp OR levels. They assume that you're about as capable as you're going to be and allow for some small improvement of skills by spending time studying.
GURPS and Savage Worlds give you points with which you can buy more power, allocating it according to your tastes. You never really level up, you develop less dramatically but with more fine control.
D&D (and clones, including pathfinder) and many other games use levels. Levels are like cheese. The rat that successfully navigates the maze gets the cheese. I love D&D, and I love cheese (and levels) but it assumes that your character starts weak and becomes more and more powerful as the game progresses. This works well and is hugely satisfying, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.
I'd be careful of designing a game using levels without a mechanic for assigning levels, because players want levels. If levels are assigned at the GM's whim, they are also NOT assigned at the GM's whim. The GM is then instantly cast in the role of the guy who isn't giving out levels. What a jerk. XP are not necessarily the only mechanic for gaining levels, but they are the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
CoC and Traveller don't have xp OR levels. They assume that you're about as capable as you're going to be and allow for some small improvement of skills by spending time studying.
GURPS and Savage Worlds give you points with which you can buy more power, allocating it according to your tastes. You never really level up, you develop less dramatically but with more fine control.
D&D (and clones, including pathfinder) and many other games use levels. Levels are like cheese. The rat that successfully navigates the maze gets the cheese. I love D&D, and I love cheese (and levels) but it assumes that your character starts weak and becomes more and more powerful as the game progresses. This works well and is hugely satisfying, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.
I'd be careful of designing a game using levels without a mechanic for assigning levels, because players want levels. If levels are assigned at the GM's whim, they are also NOT assigned at the GM's whim. The GM is then instantly cast in the role of the guy who isn't giving out levels. What a jerk. XP are not necessarily the only mechanic for gaining levels, but they are the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
I have actually given a fair amount of thought about it. Everything is still up in the air of course, but like the idea of characters beginning as only slightly-extraordinary people who gain in power as they go through trials. It fits the way I view narrative, and, if I'm being honest, it's really the only thing I know.
I like the simplicity of levels in that things like your health, various powers, and skill progress simultaneously as opposed to you getting points that you have to decide on how to split up. I don't have to choose between improving my acrobatic ability and saving up points to get a fireball attacks because i just get both.
|
Some people would like to be able to skew their learning toward one focus or another, an example being 2nd Edition D&D, were Thieves went from having a standard progression table for all their skills, to being able to spend points/level how they wished.
This let them pick a specialism, such as being the locksmith/saferaker, the backstabbing sneak, the rooftop acrobat, and reach a respectable level of expertise in a few levels, rather than the 1st Edition way of progressing in every skill at a slow rate.
|
|
If you're going down the route of having a game with levels, some thought should be given to how dramatic a change in level should be.
This will then affect the speed at which levelling should take place, and how important it is (or not) that PCs earn xp at the same rate, to remain similar level to each other.
Alternity (TSR/WotC) was a level-based sci-fi system, but the benefits of levelling were minor, and mostly invisible. No-one went up a level, and felt they had suddenly unlocked ULTIMATE POWERRRRR!, the way they do in D&D/PF.
I can't remember what level we reached in that game, but it must have been significant, because of some of the abilities I recall being unlocked. Possibly 9th/10th?
At each level, the PC got a budget of points to spend on improvements, most of which we spent on skills, initiative, skill-related feats (rerolls, reduced penalties for working under pressure, etc). While it was possible to improve a PC's damage-soaking potential, it was expensive to do so, and could be the only thing you did that level, so was rare.
Because of this, while there was definitely a sense of improvement, with every level, no-one was able to throw themselves in the path of a bullet, or make a jump from orbit, like a D&D character would do.
A lower level character could have fit in without us even being aware of the difference, and it made running side missions for a split party much less of a chore for the GM, since he didn't have to deal with issues if one half of the party had been more proactive than the other.
|
I dont like XP myself but I am glad that D&D is designed with it in mind. This helps give me a baseline of how strong a fight should be and how many the party should face between levels. I think the best way is to design a game with XP but do not tie XP to mechanics so its easily ignored or house-ruled by those using the system.
To answer the question, yes I have several systems that do not use XP mechanics and would buy one if it lacked XP. However, XP doesnt bother me unless its heavily tied to mechanics and difficult to work around.
I would have to be very impressed with a system, or have some other compelling reason (such as a tie in to something like a show/movie I enjoy) to get a system with absolutely no XP system.
Advancement based on whim, or worse no advancement at all, doesn't work well for me.
That's not to say that levels are a must. The custom incremental advancement of the storyteller system (White Wolf, particularly oWoD) works well in games I've run. It still uses XP though.
I would have to be very impressed with a system, or have some other compelling reason (such as a tie in to something like a show/movie I enjoy) to get a system with absolutely no XP system.
Advancement based on whim, or worse no advancement at all, doesn't work well for me.
That's not to say that levels are a must. The custom incremental advancement of the storyteller system (White Wolf, particularly oWoD) works well in games I've run. It still uses XP though.
Since you're the first person to post a contrary opinion, I have to ask more of you:
At what point do you draw the line between granting levels "on a whim" and using EXP? The way I see it, gaining levels by completing X encounters or at the end of every "story chapter" is not that iNHERENTLY different from EXP. It's merely a matter of numbers in my view: EXP uses high numbers that vary a lot, while I use low "numbers" (attended session, enemies/encounters defeated, goals reached) that vary little between characters.
My question to people who like EXP is: Would you buy a game that didn't include experience points? If yes, would you add such a system yourself, or is it just not a big deal, and you'd have just as much fun playing a game that didn't have EXP?
You need to further define experience points.
Most games offer some sort of advancements for your character to become better. Some games "package" these advancements in levels, but some other games offer advancements à la carte. Although they are not called XP, most of these games somehow codify the way such advancements can be acquired. Also, EXP are not always handed by the hundreds. There are games where 50 XPs is a lot, and others where 1 or 2 EXP per game is the average.
So my question is, are you asking if I would buy a game without EXP in the traditional D&D sense, or a game without any sort of codification for character advancements (or a game without advancements whatsoever)?
My question to people who like EXP is: Would you buy a game that didn't include experience points? If yes, would you add such a system yourself, or is it just not a big deal, and you'd have just as much fun playing a game that didn't have EXP?You need to further define experience points.
Most games offer some sort of advancements for your character to become better. Some games "package" these advancements in levels, but some other games offer advancements à la carte. Although they are not called XP, most of these games somehow codify the way such advancements can be acquired. Also, EXP are not always handed by the hundreds. There are games where 50 XPs is a lot, and others where 1 or 2 EXP per game is the average.
So my question is, are you asking if I would buy a game without EXP in the traditional D&D sense, or a game without any sort of codification for character advancements (or a game without advancements whatsoever)?
Perhaps I should have been more specific.
I like levels. I think it's a great abstraction to represent character development/improvement in an orderly way. What I don't like is the added book=keeping of EXP. Either awarding EXP becomes arbitrary and hard to figure out (you killed that monster in a really cool way, so... 50 bonus xp?) or everyone gets the same EXP anyhow, and it's moot.
I grant levels based on either attendance or defeating a story-significant challenge, depending on the needs at the time, rather than based on experience totals. If I work on creating my own d20 system, it would be with that in mind, unless people seem to want EXP so much that I need to figure out that math (even though i will never used it).
I like the Dungeon World XP mechanic. Award XP on failure, learn from your mistakes.
I wouldn't purchase a game without an *advancement* mechanic, but that's not really what you are asking. What you are asking seems to be "Would you buy a level-based game without XP rules?"
For me, that would be no. Even if I as a gm eventually throw it out, and use story-based leveling, I think it is important to have an idea of the expected progression that the system is designed for.
I'd also be leery of a system where the leveling mechanic is based on 'sessions'. How long is a game session? In college, it could be upwards of 12 hours at times, or as little as 3. For an awfully long time, 4 hours was the best I could fit into my schedule. Now, I game about once a month for 9-10 hours, but a piece of that time is taken up with socializing, dinner, etc....how do you place a 'session mechanic' on that? If you start counting hours, then you are in worse shape that dealing with XP.
I might *play* in such a system, assuming I was comfortable with the GM, but I wouldn't be likely to spend money on it.
Well, I'm designing a game myself that doesn't strictly use XP, but rather a budget of points given out and subsequently spent by the players between sessions whenever they could afford the advancement they would like. I found that with the design I was going for a system for advancing based on usage made things much more complicated than they needed to be, and I just made the conclusion that players will want to power up in a way that would be useful, so they'd likely pick what they use most anyway.
I put a lot of trust in my players, but there is an easy way to audit a sheet like that.
The way I see it, gaining levels by completing X encounters or at the end of every "story chapter" is not that iNHERENTLY different from EXP. It's merely a matter of numbers in my view: EXP uses high numbers that vary a lot, while I use low "numbers" (attended session, enemies/encounters defeated, goals reached) that vary little between characters.
Agreed. I think you're talking about a less granular version of XP than in D&D/Pathfinder rather than tossing out XP altogether, but what you call it isn't terribly important.
Savage Worlds (I love this system) suggests 1-3 XP per session. It defines a session as 4-6 hours of gaming, and offers this guideline for awarding XP.
1 - The group accomplished very little or had a very short session.
2 - The group had more successes than failures.
3 - The group succeeded greatly, and their adventure had a significant impact on the overall story.
Every 5 xp you advance. In SW, advancing isn't leveling, but whatever - you could apply it as easily to levels as to their system of advances.
It sounds roughly like what you're aiming at. It's still XP, but it's far less complex than PF/D&D, and it's not tied to a thousand variables, but to overall success. You gain a little power every 2-5 sessions (assuming all average sessions, 2.5) and you don't have to worry about all the fiddly bits.
I grant levels based on either attendance or defeating a story-significant challenge, depending on the needs at the time, rather than based on experience totals. If I work on creating my own d20 system, it would be with that in mind, unless people seem to want EXP so much that I need to figure out that math (even though i will never used it).
I like EXP, because you can track your progress. As a player, its satisfying. As a DM, it's a flexible award that I can grant without saying "you guys did well, but not enough to deserve a level".
If you tell your player "you level after 3 games, sometimes faster when you complete story elements", you are effectively giving EXP except that you're not showing the numbers. Basically, you grant 1/3 level worth of EXP per game, with bonuses based on action that are no less arbitrary than your example above.
Both methods ultimately come to the same result (player level-up), but there's more transparency with an established EXP system. Note that transparency isn't always desirable; see the old debate between "leaving the dice where they fall" and "fudging the results".
Now in my experience, the problem isn't so much EXP themselves, but what grants EXP by RaW. D&D and Pathfinder are big on granting EXP based on defeated monsters, but that hardly the only model there is on the market.
Well, I'm designing a game myself that doesn't strictly use XP, but rather a budget of points given out and subsequently spent by the players between sessions whenever they could afford the advancement they would like. I found that with the design I was going for a system for advancing based on usage made things much more complicated than they needed to be, and I just made the conclusion that players will want to power up in a way that would be useful, so they'd likely pick what they use most anyway.
I put a lot of trust in my players, but there is an easy way to audit a sheet like that.
The problem I've found with the usage system in CoC & BRP is that everyone tends to get really good at the most commonly used skills, regardless of whether they were built to focus on them or not. Things like Listen and Spot Hidden get rolled by most characters in most adventures. Combat skills get used often.
Your character's actual specialities or focuses may not come up as often, though they're likely to more important when they do.
That's a good observation. I hope that what I've come up with will alleviate issues like this.
I have an excellent playtest team, with skills in "system mastery" all over the map, from new gamer to video gamer to cheese master. I've not yet tested the whole game with them yet, but it is pretty exciting for me.
No.
No.
Why?
Now in my experience, the problem isn't so much EXP themselves, but what grants EXP by RaW. D&D and Pathfinder are big on granting EXP based on defeated monsters, but that hardly the only model there is on the market.
The APs do well in this regard by specifying other things that grant the party XP, but sometimes they might not go far enough, in amount and variety of things that grant XP.
Bottom line is that the method of choice, so reliable as it is, is fighting. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the players follow the lead of the design.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D (and clones, including pathfinder) and many other games use levels. Levels are like cheese. The rat that successfully navigates the maze gets the cheese. I love D&D, and I love cheese (and levels) but it assumes that your character starts weak and becomes more and more powerful as the game progresses. This works well and is hugely satisfying, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.
So true, but most of the players I play with are on a permanent power trip, so it has to be Pathfinder.
In fact, levels are totally ludicrous. Yes, I've said it. It's just a way to fool yourself into thinking your character actually got stronger. You see, what actually happens is that the monsters become stronger as well. Your chance to hit doesn't change, nor does the number of hits it takes to kill an opponent.So basically you're adding a lot of work just to get that sense of fulfillment.
|
|
The problem I've found with the usage system in CoC & BRP is that everyone tends to get really good at the most commonly used skills, regardless of whether they were built to focus on them or not. Things like Listen and Spot Hidden get rolled by most characters in most adventures. Combat skills get used often.
Your character's actual specialities or focuses may not come up as often, though they're likely to more important when they do.
Is that a problem, though?
It seems the CoC/Runequest method is more realistic; these are the things you did, therefore these are the things you would improve at.
What if there were a compromise?
Keep the official system, of 'you practice it on-screen, you can improve it', but also assume that PCs are self-improving in their off-screen down-time as well?
Allow them four or five improvement rolls for whatever skills they like?
These could be rerolls for existing improvement checks, or skills that never got a tick during the session, but could reasonably be assumed to be something the PC is working toward.
That would let a player start off a new untrained skill from a base of 0% since the improvement roll (which is to roll higher than current %age) would be an auto-success. And it would remove the perceived need (which my players always did) of sticking at least 1% into every skill, just so it wasn't artificially capped, and could theoretically be improved.
|
|
In fact, levels are totally ludicrous. Yes, I've said it. It's just a way to fool yourself into thinking your character actually got stronger. You see, what actually happens is that the monsters become stronger as well. Your chance to hit doesn't change, nor does the number of hits it takes to kill an opponent.
So basically you're adding a lot of work just to get that sense of fulfillment.
One of my players (Dazylar) told me a while back that he was so pleased with how his character had finally hit the sweet spot, where the skills, feats, abilities finally came together to do what the character concept was supposed to do, that he no longer cared if he levelled or not.
"I'd be happy to play him as is, for as long as possible. I know that won't happen, because the others want to level up. And we're playing an AP, which assumes we'll level up each chapter. But if it weren't for that, I could play in a sandbox setting at this level indefinitely."
And I understand what he meant.
I think the 3.5/PF baseline advancement rate is far too fast.
I'm not saying that as an evil GM, wanting to punish his players, because I feel that way as a player.
So many times I've picked a feat, ability or spell, that I really think would be characterful and look forward to using it in game, and then am told that we levelled up, without me having used it. And I have to pick another feat, ability or spell, which I again do not get to use before being told I've levelled again. How can we have levelled, when we haven't done anything to deserve it?
I want to have conversations with NPCs, in character. I want to design a house/business/stronghold. I want to have relationships that grow naturally. I want this character to have an existence in the world.
But I can't. Because I'm being hustled and rushed through levelling up, until the character is spat out the other end as a level 20 PC, and the campaign is over, everyone retires, thank you for your efforts and goodnight.
I think the D&D/PF rules would be much improved if the baseline level advancement expectations were slower.
Before I get lynched, yes I know some people prefer the fast advancement rate, but this wouldn't affect them. They could still play with a fast advancement rate, either by reducing the xp required, or by the GM giving generous 'story xp' to increase the speed.
It is easier for GMs to give something extra, than to be viewed as taking something away.
I want to have conversations with NPCs, in character. I want to design a house/business/stronghold. I want to have relationships that grow naturally. I want this character to have an existence in the world.
But I can't. Because I'm being hustled and rushed through levelling up, until the character is spat out the other end as a level 20 PC, and the campaign is over, everyone retires, thank you for your efforts and goodnight.
I'm 100% with you on this, it feels like the World of Warcraft model of getting to max level ASAP but without the endgame content.
Not that I feel endgame content is the solution here, I feel we need a way to hang around longer during the journey. Sure, using a slower XP path can solve it - but then you're stuck having to rework written APs as, say, covering levels 1-4 (or 5-8, or 9-10, etc.) instead of 1-16.
I want characters to have 20-30 year careers in-game, possibly even up to their declining years where their knowledge is greater but their physical abilities are waning, and finally after maybe 2-3 years of playing in real-time move onto their descendants.
Meh, maybe I'm just too old and need to stop talking before I start complaining about young people wanting instant gratification nowadays :)
I'm 100% with you on this, it feels like the World of Warcraft model of getting to max level ASAP but without the endgame content.I want to have conversations with NPCs, in character. I want to design a house/business/stronghold. I want to have relationships that grow naturally. I want this character to have an existence in the world.
But I can't. Because I'm being hustled and rushed through levelling up, until the character is spat out the other end as a level 20 PC, and the campaign is over, everyone retires, thank you for your efforts and goodnight.
I don't see it that way. I think its about getting to where a character can do what you want him too. You have to wait some time for certain abilities in pathfinder to come online. For instance level 3 for dervish dance, 5 for Crane Wing, and critical feats are 11ish. Those first few levels without that thing you want just suck, but once you get them you always have progression and new things to look forward to! Its something inherent with a level system where things don't become available until later. If I really want baleful polymorph to be my thing for instance, I have to wait until level 9, way late into the game! In another system you might have it from level one, and it only grows more powerful as your transmutation skill increases.
That said, ever since cataclysm WoW is much more frontloaded, but also much easier to level in than in the vanilla WoW I remember where it took forever to level. So its a weird example.
The problem I've found with the usage system in CoC & BRP is that everyone tends to get really good at the most commonly used skills, regardless of whether they were built to focus on them or not. Things like Listen and Spot Hidden get rolled by most characters in most adventures. Combat skills get used often.
Your character's actual specialities or focuses may not come up as often, though they're likely to more important when they do.
Is that a problem, though?
It seems the CoC/Runequest method is more realistic; these are the things you did, therefore these are the things you would improve at.
What if there were a compromise?
Keep the official system, of 'you practice it on-screen, you can improve it', but also assume that PCs are self-improving in their off-screen down-time as well?
Allow them four or five improvement rolls for whatever skills they like?
These could be rerolls for existing improvement checks, or skills that never got a tick during the session, but could reasonably be assumed to be something the PC is working toward.That would let a player start off a new untrained skill from a base of 0% since the improvement roll (which is to roll higher than current %age) would be an auto-success. And it would remove the perceived need (which my players always did) of sticking at least 1% into every skill, just so it wasn't artificially capped, and could theoretically be improved.
I think usage based progression can float a line between being more realistic and very unrealistic.
Rolling Perception (or whatever the equivalent in such a game) to casually notice a secret button isn't the same as actively training your sense to be better at noticing things. Despite doing a lot of noticing/not noticing things during the past few year, I do not find that I am any better at it, while I'm definitely better at drawing than I was one year ago, despite the fact that I generally look at/notice things much more frequently.
D&D (and clones, including pathfinder) and many other games use levels. Levels are like cheese. The rat that successfully navigates the maze gets the cheese. I love D&D, and I love cheese (and levels) but it assumes that your character starts weak and becomes more and more powerful as the game progresses. This works well and is hugely satisfying, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.So true, but most of the players I play with are on a permanent power trip, so it has to be Pathfinder.
In fact, levels are totally ludicrous. Yes, I've said it. It's just a way to fool yourself into thinking your character actually got stronger. You see, what actually happens is that the monsters become stronger as well. Your chance to hit doesn't change, nor does the number of hits it takes to kill an opponent.
So basically you're adding a lot of work just to get that sense of fulfillment.
SSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
It's supposed to be a secret! The real advantage of leveling is that you get to spend 2 hours of real time working out what happens in 6 seconds of game time.
|
One thing I like about the BRP skill system is that while it's easy to improve at the skills you aren't that great at (provided you manage to succeed at using it during the adventure), but it becomes increasingly hard to improve them as the character gets better at them.
Also, at least in newer versions, most skills give a minimum 1%.
One thing I like about the BRP skill system is that while it's easy to improve at the skills you aren't that great at, but it becomes increasingly hard to improve them as the character gets better at them.
What does BRP stand for?
D&D (and clones, including pathfinder) and many other games use levels. Levels are like cheese. The rat that successfully navigates the maze gets the cheese. I love D&D, and I love cheese (and levels) but it assumes that your character starts weak and becomes more and more powerful as the game progresses. This works well and is hugely satisfying, but it's certainly not the only way to do it.So true, but most of the players I play with are on a permanent power trip, so it has to be Pathfinder.
In fact, levels are totally ludicrous. Yes, I've said it. It's just a way to fool yourself into thinking your character actually got stronger. You see, what actually happens is that the monsters become stronger as well. Your chance to hit doesn't change, nor does the number of hits it takes to kill an opponent.
So basically you're adding a lot of work just to get that sense of fulfillment.
I have to partially disagree, for two reasons:
1) You still gain more abilities/options with levels as well as increases in power. A druid doesn't just get higher BAB, more HP, damage, and +1s on his spells when he goes from 3rd to 4th level, he also gains Wild Shape, which is an option he never had before.
2) That idea also assumes that players never get the opportunity to exert their higher level of power over weaker opponents they could overcome as easily before, which can happen, but it's poor game design IMO, and doesn't represent a stable world. Not every merchant and palace guard will be leveling up at the same rate as hearty adventurers.
EDIT: Also I don't know what everyone's talking about, it only takes my players a few minutes to level, unless they're playing spellcaster and need some time to mull over a spell choice, but most already have that planned out in advance.
|
|
One thing I like about the BRP skill system is that while it's easy to improve at the skills you aren't that great at, but it becomes increasingly hard to improve them as the character gets better at them.What does BRP stand for?
Basic Roleplaying. It's the system used in Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, and a bunch of other games.
EDIT: Also I don't know what everyone's talking about, it only takes my players a few minutes to level, unless they're playing spellcaster and need some time to mull over a spell choice, but most already have that planned out in advance.Note: Planned out in advance.
They can level in a few minutes, because they've done the work ahead of time.
One of the things I dislike about PF/3.x: You really need to plan builds out at least a few levels in advance, to be sure to get prerequisite feats and have stats high enough for feats you want, etc, etc.I like a more organic development, where I might actually choose things based on the character's experiences.
"Planned out in advance" being nothing more than periodically flipping through and being acquainted with the game's content, like I expect players to in any game. Levelling up is seriously just adding a few numbers and copying some names out of a book.
You are allowed to prefer point-based systems/organic development of course but I'm really not getting the "so much work" comments unless one considers reading to be work.
I would have to be very impressed with a system, or have some other compelling reason (such as a tie in to something like a show/movie I enjoy) to get a system with absolutely no XP system.
Advancement based on whim, or worse no advancement at all, doesn't work well for me.
That's not to say that levels are a must. The custom incremental advancement of the storyteller system (White Wolf, particularly oWoD) works well in games I've run. It still uses XP though.
Since you're the first person to post a contrary opinion, I have to ask more of you:
At what point do you draw the line between granting levels "on a whim" and using EXP? The way I see it, gaining levels by completing X encounters or at the end of every "story chapter" is not that iNHERENTLY different from EXP. It's merely a matter of numbers in my view: EXP uses high numbers that vary a lot, while I use low "numbers" (attended session, enemies/encounters defeated, goals reached) that vary little between characters.
If there are set goals to advancement, it's not "on a whim". I use that phrase to represent models that I've seen expressed where DMs level the party when they feel it's appropriate for story reasons. I much prefer set goals, or numbers, to someone deciding it's time because it feels like the right time.
My very first 3.0 game, the DM would just decide after a session "okay, level your characters before the next game". It felt disconnected and random, therefore meaningless. Sure XP has it's flaws, but it ties action to advancement and has firm guidelines rather than nebulous ones.
|
I would buy (and have bought):
Games with character advancement but no XP
Games with no character advancement at all (mechanical character development is nice to have though)
A game must however give me something none of my other games do.
Fate (not sure about Fate Core yet) doesn't use XP but does allow character advancement, e.g. End of Session add a Skill Point, End of Story Add a Stunt, Add an Aspect or Increase Fate Point Refresh. Even without those, character development is allowed by swapping around skills, aspects and stunts on a session by session basis.
Don't Rest Your Head doesn't really have character advancement at all, the closest thing is "Scars", experiences and lessons learnt that are recorded and can be "recalled" to allow a re-roll. E.g. "I couldn’t find my daughter in District Thirteen" could be recalled to get a re-roll on a crucial roll to get some new evidence of her whereabouts later on in the game.
They can level in a few minutes, because they've done the work ahead of time.
True; that's one of my main concern with Pathfinder, although it is better than it was by the end of 3.5.
Selecting feats can go fast once you know every feat by heart.
If you have to read through the whole catalogue every time, leveling-up can take a long time, or you find out that you can do "X" because you should have taken feat "Y" 3 levels ago.
(...)or you find out that you can do "X" because you should have taken feat "Y" 3 levels ago.
Oups, please read "or you find out that you cannot do "X" because you should have taken feat "Y" 3 levels ago".