Bad idea, for the same reasons as in previous posts - the PC in question will forever be less involved in the game than the rest of the group. Fortuntely, there are always restoration spells.
The same is true of permanent ability drain for the same reasons, of course.
Well, that's a whole bunch of posts in quick succession. Someone disagree with me, before I move on to another idea :-)
Thursday, 26 June 2003
XP and Absent Players
Following on from my previous post, there is a question of what should happen to PCs who have their player absent for a week, or PCs who enter the game late, or replacement PCs for those who die.
Since the goal is for everyone to enjoy the game, and since it's difficult to introduce a means for PCs to 'catch up' in XP, the solution is actually quite simple:
PCs of absent players should always gain a full share of the XP, even if the character was in no danger. New and replacement PCs should always enter the game with the same XP total as the rest of the group (that's the total award, ignoring any expenditures that spell-casters might have made for spells and magic items).
The reason for this is that doing otherwise will permanently leave an affected PC behind the rest of the group. Such a character won't ever be able to take on the more powerful foes, won't ever have a chance to be as involved in the game, and the player is not likely to ever be fully involved, or to enjoy the game as much.
Of course, you can add a mechanism whereby characters can catch up. However, calibrating the system so that it doesn't allow spellcasters to catch up for the XP they spent to make magic items is tricky at best. (And it should be noted that a character who makes that expenditure gains from the power of the item, so should suffer a slightly lower XP total. It's a trade-off.)
Since the goal is for everyone to enjoy the game, and since it's difficult to introduce a means for PCs to 'catch up' in XP, the solution is actually quite simple:
PCs of absent players should always gain a full share of the XP, even if the character was in no danger. New and replacement PCs should always enter the game with the same XP total as the rest of the group (that's the total award, ignoring any expenditures that spell-casters might have made for spells and magic items).
The reason for this is that doing otherwise will permanently leave an affected PC behind the rest of the group. Such a character won't ever be able to take on the more powerful foes, won't ever have a chance to be as involved in the game, and the player is not likely to ever be fully involved, or to enjoy the game as much.
Of course, you can add a mechanism whereby characters can catch up. However, calibrating the system so that it doesn't allow spellcasters to catch up for the XP they spent to make magic items is tricky at best. (And it should be noted that a character who makes that expenditure gains from the power of the item, so should suffer a slightly lower XP total. It's a trade-off.)
Individual Experience Points in d20
Basically, don't do it.
In d20, experience points are simply the measure of how powerful a character has become. Since a reasonable DM will want his PC group to remain on a par, he should ensure that all PCs get the same XP awards. (Of course, the group spellcasters might want to spend their XP on spells and magic items, but that's their choice, and their gain in other areas.)
There are reasons why a DM might want to give out extra XP to one or more of the PCs:
1) Favouritism
The most obvious, and one that needs no explanation for why it's a bad thing.
2) Additional Damger Faced
If one PC faced a whole bunch of challenges that the other members of the group, it is reasonable to think that PC would become more powerful more quickly. However, it hides another, underlying problem.
On one hand, you might find that such awards equalise amongst the group. So, the rogue might gain extra XP one week, the cleric the next, and so on. However, if these awards are equalling out reasonably quickly, why bother to track them individually? Simplify things, and just assume the awards are going to balance out, so give out the same awards to all.
On the other hand, if one PC is consistently getting bigger awards, this must be because the character is facing bigger challenges. This can either be because they're hogging the spotlight unfairly, or it can be that the DM is providing tailored encounters, and providing bigger ones to this character. Either way, it's a flaw in the game, and should be addressed. It's no fun for the rest of the group if one PC is hogging the spotlight. (And, I'll freely admit that this is a significant problem with my own DMing.)
If this problem is not fixed, the consequence will be that one PC will move ahead of the rest of the group, so will hog more attention, face even tougher challenges, and so get bigger awards in future, and thus move even further ahead, which only magnifies the problem.
3) Exceptional Role-playing
This should be its own reward. Frankly, I don't think PCs should get XP at all if the role-playing's terrible. However, if one player is outshining the rest of the group, it should be considered whether this player is again monopolising the game. After all, good role-playing cannot occur in a vacuum, so either the other players must be contributing, or the DM is accomodating this one player over the rest. So, something's not right.
4) One-on-one play
It may be that the DM and this player are filling in time running sessions one-on-one. Perhaps they're running through a prequel featuring the PC, or doing background stuff, or whatever. While such things are fine, the rewards from such should not be in the form of XP, nor should they significantly improve the power of the PC. To do otherwise is to shift the balance of the game in favour of one PC.
There is a danger with one-on-one play that the PC gets significant monetary or magic rewards from their efforts. Such things are as dangerous as XP awards, and should be tightly controlled.
Consequences
The problem with allowing solo play, or giving individual XP awards is that one player becomes significantly more powerful than the rest. This sucks for the rest of the group, at least in d20 games (there are games built with a hero/assistant form, such as Buffy, but d20 isn't amongst them).
More powerful characters can do more things in d20, and so have a larger slice of the action. This leads to the players of the more powerful characters being more involved in the game, and the rest of the group enjoying the game less. Which is a big problem.
That is where the balance in D&D is important. It doesn't really matter what opponents the PCs face, and whether they can beat them or not. It doesn't matter if the group has hardly any magic or enough to destroy the planet, and survive. But the mambers of the group must be balanced against each other. If they're not, the players of the weaker PCs won't enjoy the game as much as they can, and the game is in danger of collapse.
As with everything else, though, there are exceptions, and a competent DM can do what he wants and get away with it.
In d20, experience points are simply the measure of how powerful a character has become. Since a reasonable DM will want his PC group to remain on a par, he should ensure that all PCs get the same XP awards. (Of course, the group spellcasters might want to spend their XP on spells and magic items, but that's their choice, and their gain in other areas.)
There are reasons why a DM might want to give out extra XP to one or more of the PCs:
1) Favouritism
The most obvious, and one that needs no explanation for why it's a bad thing.
2) Additional Damger Faced
If one PC faced a whole bunch of challenges that the other members of the group, it is reasonable to think that PC would become more powerful more quickly. However, it hides another, underlying problem.
On one hand, you might find that such awards equalise amongst the group. So, the rogue might gain extra XP one week, the cleric the next, and so on. However, if these awards are equalling out reasonably quickly, why bother to track them individually? Simplify things, and just assume the awards are going to balance out, so give out the same awards to all.
On the other hand, if one PC is consistently getting bigger awards, this must be because the character is facing bigger challenges. This can either be because they're hogging the spotlight unfairly, or it can be that the DM is providing tailored encounters, and providing bigger ones to this character. Either way, it's a flaw in the game, and should be addressed. It's no fun for the rest of the group if one PC is hogging the spotlight. (And, I'll freely admit that this is a significant problem with my own DMing.)
If this problem is not fixed, the consequence will be that one PC will move ahead of the rest of the group, so will hog more attention, face even tougher challenges, and so get bigger awards in future, and thus move even further ahead, which only magnifies the problem.
3) Exceptional Role-playing
This should be its own reward. Frankly, I don't think PCs should get XP at all if the role-playing's terrible. However, if one player is outshining the rest of the group, it should be considered whether this player is again monopolising the game. After all, good role-playing cannot occur in a vacuum, so either the other players must be contributing, or the DM is accomodating this one player over the rest. So, something's not right.
4) One-on-one play
It may be that the DM and this player are filling in time running sessions one-on-one. Perhaps they're running through a prequel featuring the PC, or doing background stuff, or whatever. While such things are fine, the rewards from such should not be in the form of XP, nor should they significantly improve the power of the PC. To do otherwise is to shift the balance of the game in favour of one PC.
There is a danger with one-on-one play that the PC gets significant monetary or magic rewards from their efforts. Such things are as dangerous as XP awards, and should be tightly controlled.
Consequences
The problem with allowing solo play, or giving individual XP awards is that one player becomes significantly more powerful than the rest. This sucks for the rest of the group, at least in d20 games (there are games built with a hero/assistant form, such as Buffy, but d20 isn't amongst them).
More powerful characters can do more things in d20, and so have a larger slice of the action. This leads to the players of the more powerful characters being more involved in the game, and the rest of the group enjoying the game less. Which is a big problem.
That is where the balance in D&D is important. It doesn't really matter what opponents the PCs face, and whether they can beat them or not. It doesn't matter if the group has hardly any magic or enough to destroy the planet, and survive. But the mambers of the group must be balanced against each other. If they're not, the players of the weaker PCs won't enjoy the game as much as they can, and the game is in danger of collapse.
As with everything else, though, there are exceptions, and a competent DM can do what he wants and get away with it.
Level in d20
In previous editions of D&D, high level characters were something to be treasured, having been built up over lots of time. Most of the DM'ing advice that was seen was that characters should start at 1st (occasionally 3rd) level and be built up from there. There was a feeling that if you started at higher level, you were somehow cheating. Moreover, high level characters became something for DMs to fear, as they were so capable.
In 3rd Edition, and in other expressions of d20 (particularly d20 Modern), this is no longer the case. The game is not perfect, but it is now playable across a much wider range of levels. And, high level characters are no longer something to be feared.
This expresses itself most clearly in NPC design. In 2nd Edition, 95% of the populace were thought to be 0-level humans. Even 1st level characters were supposed to be quite rare, and 5th level characters were unheard-of, except for the retired 12th level Fighter behind the bar, of course.
In 3rd Edition, there's a tendency to slip into the same thinking. Virtually all NPCs remain 1st level commoners, with squads of higher level guards distinctly unusual. Thus, even mid-level PCs become unstoppable, since DMs remain unwilling to have the king's elite guards be high level, when they most likely are in a 'realistic' setting.
Of course, this doesn't make the 20th level Commoner any less ridiculous, nor the fact that tending farm will necessarily improve your ability to fight.
In 3rd Edition, and in other expressions of d20 (particularly d20 Modern), this is no longer the case. The game is not perfect, but it is now playable across a much wider range of levels. And, high level characters are no longer something to be feared.
This expresses itself most clearly in NPC design. In 2nd Edition, 95% of the populace were thought to be 0-level humans. Even 1st level characters were supposed to be quite rare, and 5th level characters were unheard-of, except for the retired 12th level Fighter behind the bar, of course.
In 3rd Edition, there's a tendency to slip into the same thinking. Virtually all NPCs remain 1st level commoners, with squads of higher level guards distinctly unusual. Thus, even mid-level PCs become unstoppable, since DMs remain unwilling to have the king's elite guards be high level, when they most likely are in a 'realistic' setting.
Of course, this doesn't make the 20th level Commoner any less ridiculous, nor the fact that tending farm will necessarily improve your ability to fight.
The d20 Modern Ninja
So, the big criticism of d20 Modern that I've seen is that you can't create a Ninja character in it. Or, rather, that you can't begin play as a Ninja. Those making the accusation have a list of characteristics that a Ninja character would have to have, and have clearly shown that a 1st level character cannot fulfil all of them.
This is absolutely true. You can't create a 1st level character who is credible as a Ninja.
Then again, one has to ask whether you should be able to create such a character. The Ninja that those people want is an elite warrior, the sort of character who would be played by Jet Li in the film. The thing is, these elite characters also have one more characteristic not found in 1st level characters - they aren't first level.
As the group recently discovered, 1st level d20 Modern characters suck. They are about half as powerful as 1st level D&D characters. It's not until higher levels that they become somewhat competent. Indeed, the average competent adult is thought to be about 4th level or so.
Once you get to higher levels, building a competent Ninja is clearly possible. And starting with such a character is also possible, provided you can persuade your GM to start at higher than 1st level.
This is absolutely true. You can't create a 1st level character who is credible as a Ninja.
Then again, one has to ask whether you should be able to create such a character. The Ninja that those people want is an elite warrior, the sort of character who would be played by Jet Li in the film. The thing is, these elite characters also have one more characteristic not found in 1st level characters - they aren't first level.
As the group recently discovered, 1st level d20 Modern characters suck. They are about half as powerful as 1st level D&D characters. It's not until higher levels that they become somewhat competent. Indeed, the average competent adult is thought to be about 4th level or so.
Once you get to higher levels, building a competent Ninja is clearly possible. And starting with such a character is also possible, provided you can persuade your GM to start at higher than 1st level.
Tuesday, 17 June 2003
d20 Modern
So, at the weekend I got my first taste of d20 Modern in actual use. Thus far, I'm pretty happy with it, except perhaps for the difficulty in getting away from the "D&D mentality" with it. (Oddly, that propblem doesn't exist with Star Wars d20. Probably because Star Wars is so much bigger than D&D)
There are a couple of problems with the system. Firstly, the classes are dull. I think I would have preferred some sort of classless system be used to allow people more flexibility (However, refitting the system to do this would be too hard, although you lose the ability to use Advanced Classes, which Wizards and the third-party companies like, since they sell books).
Hopefully, in the next few weeks we'll get a chance to see how the firearms rules work in detail, and particularly things like autofire. Also, the Mecha combat rules represent more or less how I feel the Star Wars starship combat rules should work, so we'll see how those are as well.
Finally, I should say that it was very amusing to see people choosing exactly the right combination of equipment and firearms for their characters. Partly my fault - I did say you could pretty much have whatever you wanted. However, it was amusing to see the poring over the Ultramodern Firearms, with its lists of hundreds of nearly-identical guns, in order to get precisely the one that is most powerful.
Also amusingly, Roger and Gary have created almost exactly the same character. Even going so far as choosing almost exactly the same set of firearms. I just found that funny.
There are a couple of problems with the system. Firstly, the classes are dull. I think I would have preferred some sort of classless system be used to allow people more flexibility (However, refitting the system to do this would be too hard, although you lose the ability to use Advanced Classes, which Wizards and the third-party companies like, since they sell books).
Hopefully, in the next few weeks we'll get a chance to see how the firearms rules work in detail, and particularly things like autofire. Also, the Mecha combat rules represent more or less how I feel the Star Wars starship combat rules should work, so we'll see how those are as well.
Finally, I should say that it was very amusing to see people choosing exactly the right combination of equipment and firearms for their characters. Partly my fault - I did say you could pretty much have whatever you wanted. However, it was amusing to see the poring over the Ultramodern Firearms, with its lists of hundreds of nearly-identical guns, in order to get precisely the one that is most powerful.
Also amusingly, Roger and Gary have created almost exactly the same character. Even going so far as choosing almost exactly the same set of firearms. I just found that funny.
Thursday, 5 June 2003
Nobilis
Archiving a thread started by Mort...
I've started a small Nobilis game for GUGS on Tuesdays, and I had the first session this week. It went very well, and a good time was had by all. However, as you might or might not know Nobilis is a diceless system, where everything is decided by the GM (or hollyhock god as Nobilis calls it), and there is no dice anywhere on the table. This is all good, and makes for interesting problem solving, but sometimes I just want to randomize something, do any of you have any good ideas what to use as a random generator besides dice?
Obviously coins can be used, but that has a flat binary outcome, I would like to be able to give it a more chaotic result than that. Maybe I will have to bring atleast one dice with me?
I've started a small Nobilis game for GUGS on Tuesdays, and I had the first session this week. It went very well, and a good time was had by all. However, as you might or might not know Nobilis is a diceless system, where everything is decided by the GM (or hollyhock god as Nobilis calls it), and there is no dice anywhere on the table. This is all good, and makes for interesting problem solving, but sometimes I just want to randomize something, do any of you have any good ideas what to use as a random generator besides dice?
Obviously coins can be used, but that has a flat binary outcome, I would like to be able to give it a more chaotic result than that. Maybe I will have to bring atleast one dice with me?