|
|
|
and Minimeister
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
| [Inspired by the thread in Logistics] So, given that it has been established, If and Only If you feel the need for XP in games, that: 1) Time based XP is probably the best way to do it, but that it isn't readily possible for small systems. 2) That XP points are the best way to deal with this and that you shouldn't conflate rewards for work in game with work out of game. However, this leaves the problem of rewarding monsters. It has been suggested that you should: 1) Require "training" periods for characters, where they "train" (i.e. monster) before they can spend XP on new skills. 2) Reward Monsters with _more_ XP than players. Thoughts?
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:15 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,155
|
|
1) Time based XP is probably the best way to do it, but that it isn't readily possible for small systems.
Why is this probably the best way to do it and why isn't it possible for small systems?
DUTT (weekly interactive and adventure system) used to have a certain minimum XP income instituted on reasonable grounds (takes the pressure off people to grab for character places and allows characters less likely to adventure/survive adventures to advance) but it turned out to be a colossal mistake (lots of people rolling up to max XP, character death fell through the ground, system stagnation, people would die then move on to their other max-level character who had occasionally been played ...).
2) That XP points are the best way to deal with this and that you shouldn't conflate rewards for work in game with work out of game.
Specifically, I'd say risk - reward must be commensurate with (IC) risk (on average) to keep an adventuring system going. Again, I'm not too bothered about XP rewards for monstering so long as it remains small enough to be dominated by IC risk. In effect, the XP reward for monstering was used to replace the time-based XP (if everyone is monstering at some decent average rate, then they are receiving time-based XP - if they are monstering at some semi-constant ratio to their charactering then they are receiveing time-based XP relative to time attending (in addition to what they get through other means).
1) Require "training" periods for characters, where they "train" (i.e. monster)before they can spend XP on new skills.
I suppose it's quite gentle but it's runs up against contradictions if you have a downtime system (I can do all these things during this week, but I can't train using the facilities I've got hold of at the moment).
I don't think it really gets round the "Argh! IC bonus for OOC activity" it just means that people can only spend it post monstering and now have the gentle incentive of being able to advance gradually to spur them to monster.
2) Reward Monsters with _more_ XP than players.
Pointless (unless you're running a very odd system).
I don't think there's much profit in considering XP rewards for monsters as a prime motivator. Once people have already turned up to monster they might appreciate some gift XP, but I don't think anyone who wasn't going to make it will because of XP. Also, XP handouts are like tax cuts - within a year, they'll be taken for granted and any goodwill bonus will have disappeared. But if you try to take them away!
There's more value in considering what it is that actually gets people turning out to monster and whether it can be sustained (and whether you want to sustain it, if you're a uni larp). At DUTT, I came to wonder whether one adventure a week was too much, whether we wouldn't be better off with one every fortnight (would we get better turnouts/better adventure prep - or would it be exactly the same but simply less often?).
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2008 11:39 PM
Posts: 1,141,
Visits: 3,626
|
|
| I disagree with rewarding monsters with IC rewards in general. Or, rather, I disagree with rewarding them XP which can then be spent on their characters. There is so much opportunity for abuse there it is untrue. It is so easy to simply crew lots and then let your main player character accrue lots of XP without the risks However, giving crew xp is possible without the above. The way you do it is to give each crew member one or more characters which they play as NPCs and which develop in the same way and at the same rate as the players. i.e. if the players get 4xp an event then any NPCs present should also get those 4xp. Its a good incentive for them to both crew for you (cool, I get to play that character again, the one I really like) and to play the characters properly - after all, they have an investment in that character as if they were a PC. In an ideal world, of course, the chance to crew is reward in and of itself. Or am I alone in actually preferring crewing to playing? 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God... Ruins of Empire 1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:15 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,155
|
|
Or, rather, I disagree with rewarding them XP which can then be spent on their characters.
It's ok to give them XP so long as they can't spend it on their characters?
There is so much opportunity for abuse there it is untrue.
If that was the system then it would use, not abuse.
It is so easy to simply crew lots and then let your main player character accrue lots of XP without the risks
Rather depends how much XP it is. If you get 1/10 the XP for monstering an adventure as you do for charactering it then that doesn't hold.
However, giving crew xp is possible without the above. The way you do it is to give each crew member one or more characters which they play as NPCs and which develop in the same way and at the same rate as the players. i.e. if the players get 4xp an event then any NPCs present should also get those 4xp. Its a good incentive for them to both crew for you (cool, I get to play that character again, the one I really like) and to play the characters properly - after all, they have an investment in that character as if they were a PC.
Depends on setup, really, but I can't see why you wouldn't just leave them as PCs. Converting (no status/no special info) NPCs to PCs isn't a problem for interactive tavern nights, but they cease to be crew. For linears, you can't generally afford to sacrifice members from the monster party for a significant part of the adventure (although, again, no/low-status NPCs could convert).
I don't see what the advantage to sustained in-between roles (sort of crew, sort of a character) is.
In an ideal world, of course, the chance to crew is reward in and of itself. Or am I alone in actually preferring crewing to playing?
Depends on mood and who is running the event. One of the main advantages to monstering is not having to plan - you turn up on the day and get thrown something. Laziness and disorganisation has lead to me monstering 10-20 times for every time I've charactered.
Marios
|
|
|
|