While working on my Sword & Sanity RPG I have been doing a lot of obsessive thinking about Dungeons & Dragons/Labyrinth Lord and why certain rules were designed the way they were. I have been going back and forth on whether or not I prefer a unified experience point table, or if I prefer having each class in the game have its own unique experience point table. I can find justification for both, and will probably include rules for each in the upcoming book. Or I may not. Time will tell.
I am curious to see what you guys think. I am only including a vote for one or the other, and not allowing a middle of the road choice on this particular poll. Please take a moment to cast your vote, and leave a comment if you feel strongly about your answer. Thanks!
23 comments:
I think a single unified table is just cleaner and easier for both the players and DM
I have been brought around to the idea of a single chart. And feel good about it, especially since I realized that Phil Barker did it in 1976 in the original Empire of the Petal Throne.
I was blogging about this not too long ago. http://lordgwydion.blogspot.com/2010/10/chasing-game-balance-chimera.html
I'm of the opposite opinion to LoneIslander. Different progressions are part of the 'game' in that they allow an important bit of decision in regards to what sort of character you want to play.
A unified chart leads to an assumption that every class should be equally viable in every situation, which kinda defeats the point of having distinct classes.
The claims to class "balance" using the different xp tables are just so transparently wrong that I think it's better to use the same for everyone and try to balance the classes on that basis.
This is going to be a close one. So far there are 27 votes, and the votes are split with the "unified XP table" loosing by 1.
@ Matthew - do you know if the XP table for EotPT is available online somewhere? I would love to see it.
@LoneIslander and Lord Gwydion - I can see the reasoning behind both of your comments. Thanks for taking the time to share your views.
Generally I prefer Multiple charts for the most parts. In play they don't get in the way much, and I think it's a great way to set limits on classes that would otherwise be to potent for regular play.
In my "Flint and Flame" ice age game I have a unified chart, but the classes aren't all that different from each other (you might call it a classless game in honesty.)
A unified chart makes perfect sense, but I find it dull and un-fun in play. I prefer the feel of different characters advancing at different rates, as it is more organic and less like we are all playing a game with everything being "balanced" for our improved and modern enjoyment. It just doesn't *Feel* right, and I have no nostalgia for old D&D to make me feel that way about it. It matches the game, and is way more fun at the table, that's my opinion.
Roger the GS, can you clarify? I guess they aren't transparently wrong enough, as I don't see it at all...
"A unified chart makes perfect sense, but I find it dull and un-fun in play..."
I think this is a great argument. Fun should always win out in the end. That is the reason we play these games in the first place, right?
@Shane - you can get the original game in pdf at DriveThru.
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=2060&it=1
I beleive every gamer of even semi-old school sensibilities owes it to himself to read the original EPT.
I blogged a bit about it at "Phil Was here First"
http://wheel-of-samsara.blogspot.com/2009/12/uniform-level-progression-phil-was-here.html
A unified table is just easier all around. RPGs should be around the role and the experience not about counting points.
I think it's a LOT to make every class perfectly balanced with the others than to just create different xp charts to to make up for imbalances.
How do you really balance a thief against a magic user? Especially at high levels. The only way to do it is to introduce super powers - then you might as well play 3E or 4E.
The only argument in favour of unified xp, as far as I can see, is that it makes multi-classing really easy.
Question... to Sean's comment. Is there a formula out there floating around that breaks down experience so that when designing new classes you can calculate just how many experience points a character needs to advanced based on the abilities they have? We all know that magic-users are bad asses at high levels, and the experience points needed to advance through those high levels is steep, but how were the experience point requirements determined in the first place? Is it really even possible to boil all this down to a formula of some kind, or is it really more of a guestimation?
There's the classic Building the Perfect Class: http://breeyark.org/files/perfect_class.pdf
It's amazingly persuasive in arguing that there is some kind of method to the madness. The one stand-out exception being MU's.
@the Fiendish Dr. Samsara - I have read this, but it has been a very long time ago. Thank you for the reminder and the link. I wonder if anyone recalculated the magic-user xp chart using this document?
I'm not sure that there is any formula for calculating experience tables. I think that one probably decides on one class as a 'baseline' then adjusts the experience tables from there on using estimation and interpolation. That's how I've been doing it for experience tables in my own game. I made up a lot of new classes in 3E and I find it much easier to adjust experience tables than fiddle and play test to balance classes against one another.
this is going to be a close one . . .
55 to 45 is not a landslide.
I often award experience when I GM by discretion:
("OK its been two sessions, everybody go up one level.")
The same approach is used by the other two GMs with whom I play. Alot easier then counting and deciding what constitutes experience points.
I prefer multiple tables. It's worldbuilding at a very basic and fundamental level.
If you want to re-balance the classes in mid-campaign, you can change the characters' abilities or change their XP requirements.
The two methods are probably equally unrealistic, but changing the XP requirements feels more acceptable to me.
Thus I voted for multiple tables.
I voted for differential tables, for no other reason than that is what just "feels right" to me in regards to D&D. The same feeling I have about THAC0 vs. Ascending AC - both work just fine mechanically, but I prefer THAC0 - because it's what I started with, & lies firmly within my "comfort zone."
One can certainly balance classes out with different methods utilizing the unified experience point approach, but for my personal tastes, differential tables are what work best.
As you say; the whole point is fun. Personally, I don't find the concept of different XP tables fun. It's book-keeping. It's accounting. That's fun? A unified XP table reduces (a small amount) the tediousness that sometimes accompanies the hobby. It's one less bit of math that I have to think much about.
For that matter, is XP really necessary? Unless there are things to *spend* XP on, like magic item creation or something like that, the XP per se aren't really necessary. Leveling can be done in a more abstract, or even arbitrary manner.
Looks like the poll closed at an almost neck and neck finish. Interesting.
Best option for your game is probably to include both options.
I tend to prefer a unified chart. I'm a sucker for clean mechanics and concise game manuals. However, I sympathize with the idea that uniformity is boring to many. Which gave me an idea that I just posted on my blog: random XPs :)
Post a Comment