Well, anther poll has closed and this one was very close. I was curious to see if most folks playing classic Dungeons & Dragons/Labyrinth Lord/Swords & Wizardry play the game as written, and use a different experience point progression table for each class, or do they use a single experience point chart that everyone uses? Turns out that the answer is almost split, with multiple tables winning out by only four votes. The comments that were left for this one were interesting, and there are some compelling arguments for both styles of play.
I am not sure where I truly stand on this one. I have played the game both ways, and honestly there is not a whole lot of difference in the end. A single chart is much easier to keep up with, but it also detracts from any kind of strategy a player might enjoy when deciding which class to play. Thieves have the lowest experience point requirements, and in my opinion Clerics get the most bang for their "experience buck". This kind of thing should matter when deciding what class to play, and maybe even adds a kind of game within a game for some players. In the end I believe it is a matter of wanting some variation and texture in the system over having the elegance of unity.
2 comments:
I am more capricious in how I deal with experience. I do not keep track of XP . At the end of each game session, each surviving character receives an experience throw (d6 for PC or d4 for NPC):
Experience Table
1) +1 Skill/
2) +1 Ability Score/ determine randomly
3) +1 Level if primary ability score >
thrice current level; +1 to ability score
4) +1 Level iff preferred vocation*
5) CHOICE
6) GMs choice **
* Too bad, no experience bonus this game session unless character belongs to the class preferred to his race such as dwarf fighter, halfling thief, orc barbarian, etc..
* * Either add a level, feat, skill or a spell-like attribute; however, the GM may choose to grant NO experience. This may seem harsh, but granting no experience at the end of a game session serves as a check or warning to players who are disruptive, obstinate or rude.
Clovis has an interesting idea. I think you need a very granular game for it to work over the course of more than a year of play with the same campaign. But that may just reflect how fast I think character progression should be.
On one hand I like a unified XP table, because it's one less thing to think about and it's not really necessary to have different ones.
On the other hand I really love the 1E AD&D tables with level titles and individual quirks in the XP tables. For example, did you noticed that M-Us have a weird sprint around level 5 or so, where they suddenly catch up to everyone for a couple levels? Or how Druids really rock at low levels but ass-out once they reach name level? Anyway, the level titles at least are pretty awesome and if I ran a B/X game I'd HAVE to write level titles for each racial class.
Post a Comment