The thing that makes the most sense to me about d20

[Killer Cyborg]

Part of it is for game balance.
A Dragon, for example, is one heck of a lot more powerful than a Vagabond, but the price for that power is that dragons are less skilled, and they are slower to learn from their experience.

Palladium doesn't have an ECL system to balance certain races against human characters of the same level, so the staggered XP system does the job.

Also, Palladium doesn't have Prestige Classes.
A lot of the core classes (Glitterboys, Full Conversion Borgs, Juicer, Crazies, etc. etc. etc.) fill the same roll that Prestige classes do in D20.
But you don't have to wait until level 5 to take these classes or anything, so the downside/balancing factor is that you pay the XP price later.
You don't have to wait until 5th level, but by the time you are fifth level, other members of the party may well be higher than you.

[Killer Cyborg]

I totally get that Dragons and men are so much different as far as power levels but as far as game balance goes my point is about about "how" people play their characters rather than class power levels. A Dragon can level just as fast as a Vagabond given that the "player" playing the Dragon has great ideas and out thinks or out kills the the Vagabond for that matter for the extra 1,125 XP and be the same level as the Vagabond.

That's cool, because he's earned it.
If there's that big a difference between the players' skill levels, not much can be done about it, except to give the better player a handicap, like playing a dragon.
If these two hypothetical people are both playing Vagabonds, then the good player is going to level a LOT faster than the other guy anyway.

It just seems unfair to compare Dragons to men. Okay so maybe a "one experience level table" is not the way to go. Perhaps a three table system with Supernatural (Dragons etc.), Meta-being (Borgs, Juicers, Magic and Psi), and Human (City Rats, Vagabonds and Rogue Scholars) with "realy staggered XP table to balance the game out something upwards of 4 to 5k XP between each of the three class tables?

Something like that would be better, and it would cut down on the bajillion different XP tables that already exist.

The thing is, I'm not saying that having a "one experience level table" is NOT the way to go; there are certainly advantages in it.
In fact, if D20 hadn't already done it, such a system would have been perfect, if done as part of a system-wide revamp.
But D20 has done it, and Palladium hasn't done a system-wide revamp, so changing that one aspect now wouldn't work, not without making a bunch of other changes.

For example, you could serve some of the same purpose by having everybody use the same tables, but giving certain classes an XP penalty.
Only one table to keep track of, but dragons still level up slower than other classes.

[Spinachcat]

1) The unified XP table is not a D20 invention. It was created in 1975 by Ken St. Andre for Tunnels & Trolls.

2) I completely understand your XP concerns and the Palladium XP tables make much more sense if you are assigning individual, not group XP, but that runs into problems as well. The RS should get higher XP for facing up to the threats than the GB with his hundreds and hundreds MDC, but then the players will argue about who did more.

I suggest discussing how XP is rated at the beginning of the campaign. I also suggest looking at the Shadows of Yesterday RPG for their concept of Keys to earn XP. Essentially, each character chooses X number of ways that define how their characters advance and whenever they engage in that behavior, they earn XP. AKA, a RS would earn beaucoup XP when he does something scholarly. For him, saving books from a burning building would earn huge XP as if a GB blew away a major demon threat.

Then XP gain becomes the player's issue and become dependent on the PC's actions, not the GM handout.

[Killer Cyborg]

I suggest discussing how XP is rated at the beginning of the campaign. I also suggest looking at the Shadows of Yesterday RPG for their concept of Keys to earn XP. Essentially, each character chooses X number of ways that define how their characters advance and whenever they engage in that behavior, they earn XP. AKA, a RS would earn beaucoup XP when he does something scholarly. For him, saving books from a burning building would earn huge XP as if a GB blew away a major demon threat.

Then XP gain becomes the player's issue and become dependent on the PC's actions, not the GM handout.

So my Vagabond can earn big XP for eating beans out of a can or hitchiking?

[sHaka]

I suggest discussing how XP is rated at the beginning of the campaign. I also suggest looking at the Shadows of Yesterday RPG for their concept of Keys to earn XP. Essentially, each character chooses X number of ways that define how their characters advance and whenever they engage in that behavior, they earn XP. AKA, a RS would earn beaucoup XP when he does something scholarly. For him, saving books from a burning building would earn huge XP as if a GB blew away a major demon threat.

Then XP gain becomes the player's issue and become dependent on the PC's actions, not the GM handout.

So my Vagabond can earn big XP for eating beans out of a can or hitchiking?

That and creative use of soap.

[rat_bastard]

I suggest discussing how XP is rated at the beginning of the campaign. I also suggest looking at the Shadows of Yesterday RPG for their concept of Keys to earn XP. Essentially, each character chooses X number of ways that define how their characters advance and whenever they engage in that behavior, they earn XP. AKA, a RS would earn beaucoup XP when he does something scholarly. For him, saving books from a burning building would earn huge XP as if a GB blew away a major demon threat.

Then XP gain becomes the player's issue and become dependent on the PC's actions, not the GM handout.

So my Vagabond can earn big XP for eating beans out of a can or hitchiking?

If he does it in a meaningful manner to his character, of course.

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut

[Spinachcat]

So my Vagabond can earn big XP for eating beans out of a can or hitchiking?

A vagabond is a scavenger and a survivor.

Each time he survives to live another day at the bottom of the food chain is worth XP.

Every time he scavenges (for better or worse), he should earn XP.

Every time he interacts with the invisible background common folk as one of their own kind instead of Big Hero, he should earn XP.

But personally, I hate XP. I hate the slow progression and the tracking of numbers. I like saying "you have been on 3 adventures, take a level" and moving on. Keep it clean and simple is my idea of fun.

[NMI]

moved to a more appropriate forum

[glitterboy2098]

I suggest discussing how XP is rated at the beginning of the campaign. I also suggest looking at the Shadows of Yesterday RPG for their concept of Keys to earn XP. Essentially, each character chooses X number of ways that define how their characters advance and whenever they engage in that behavior, they earn XP. AKA, a RS would earn beaucoup XP when he does something scholarly. For him, saving books from a burning building would earn huge XP as if a GB blew away a major demon threat.

Then XP gain becomes the player's issue and become dependent on the PC's actions, not the GM handout.

So my Vagabond can earn big XP for eating beans out of a can or hitchiking?

If he does it in a meaningful manner to his character, of course.

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut

exactly. you'll notice that awards for exceptional roleplay are higher than for killing things. you want ot roleplay in palladium.

which btw, is the main reason many people don't understand palladium. they look at RIFTS power levels and think "thats absurd compared to D20", without seeing that because you get more XP for roleplay than killing, the gamepaly is different. D20 is a hack and slash game. RIFTS is theatrical.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

I suggest discussing how XP is rated at the beginning of the campaign. I also suggest looking at the Shadows of Yesterday RPG for their concept of Keys to earn XP. Essentially, each character chooses X number of ways that define how their characters advance and whenever they engage in that behavior, they earn XP. AKA, a RS would earn beaucoup XP when he does something scholarly. For him, saving books from a burning building would earn huge XP as if a GB blew away a major demon threat.

Then XP gain becomes the player's issue and become dependent on the PC's actions, not the GM handout.

So my Vagabond can earn big XP for eating beans out of a can or hitchiking?

If he does it in a meaningful manner to his character, of course.

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand." - Kurt Vonnegut

exactly. you'll notice that awards for exceptional roleplay are higher than for killing things. you want ot roleplay in palladium.

which btw, is the main reason many people don't understand palladium. they look at RIFTS power levels and think "thats absurd compared to D20", without seeing that because you get more XP for roleplay than killing, the gamepaly is different. D20 is a hack and slash game. RIFTS is theatrical.

SURVEY SAYS.....*annoying buzzer* I'm sorry the answer we were looking for is. A roleplaying game is what you and your group make it

[Shorty Lickens]

As much as I like d20 I have to disagree with the OP.
No one character really gains levels faster than another.
The PLAYER who role-plays well gets his character leveled faster, and thats it. It doesnt matter if you gain a level every 500 XP, if you suck at role-playing it will take you forever. If you play a dragon and put some serious effort into genuine role-playing you will level faster than anyone.

For pen-and-paper convenience the d20 XP tables are easier, but they are both RPG's and it seems like the Palladium system rewards actual role-playing more.

EDIT: I examined this thead closer and realized I pretty much repeated verbatim what everyone else said.
Sorry.

[rat_bastard]

EDIT: I examined this thead closer and realized I pretty much repeated verbatim what everyone else said.
Sorry.

It's better than just "Ditto."

Your mom is better than just "Ditto"!

Purvis!

[devillin]

exactly. you'll notice that awards for exceptional roleplay are higher than for killing things. you want ot roleplay in palladium.

Yeah, my co-GMs and I are having this very discussion now. My point of view is that one of the players got majorly shafted in exp during one of the last adventures that they ran. The player had walked into a room and saw a bunch of unarmed civilians getting attacked by some beasts. He got the idea that since he could see out the windows on the space station, he could Phase Teleport a bunch of the beasts out into the area of deep space he could see. My point of view is that he should have gotten exp for Idea+Perform Skill+Avoiding Violence+Kill Major Menace exp for each beast he sent into space. They argued that he would only get exp for killing the beasts, and that because of that, the exp system needs to be revamped so you get more exp for killing things. My point of view is the same as pretty much everyone else, you get experience for the things you do, not the things you kill.
Bringing this back to the original post, the reason why most non-combat occs require more exp to level is because they have an easier time of racking up exp from skill usage, making plans, and coming up with ideas. Where a GB can just blast something, the scholar has to have an idea, make a plan, and then use skills to put it in action. All exp items that send non-combat occs rocketing in levels.

[Natasha]

I have a column with each player's name.
I write points under the names.
At the end I add them up.

Easy breezy if you ask me.

[Natasha]

I have a column with each player's name.
I write points under the names.
At the end I add them up.

Easy breezy if you ask me.

I'm way too lazy for that.

At the end you just pluck a number out of the sky?

[Natasha]

Well as long as you're consistent about the numbers, I guess.

[Xar]

I just finished a 22 month 3.5 D&D campaign. I never did so much math for assigning xp in all my life. We'd get done with the session, and everybody would sit there while I figured out who got what.

"Ok, after cross-referencing the ELs to each character level..." If you're 5th level, you get 1850, if you're 6th level, you get 1600 and if you're 7th level you get 1375." Oy!

However, using the XP chart made me feel like I was playing 1st edition AD&D again. In Palladium, I use little tickmarks on Mike's xp sheet, or a set of columns like Natasha mentions.

[bigbobsr6000]

I give experience loosely based on the rules plus game play bonuses and minuses. After I look at the rules award I adjust them as I see fit for the session. Then for some randomness I roll 1d100 and add that to the Players final XP.

I give the player's their XP at begining of next session on folded paper.

Big Bob...................

[Longrifle]

Well I am all for changes to a system if things are not so refined especially if it's a small thing like attributes or skills. But the one thing I admire about the d20 system the most is the "one table experience level system." I believe role-playing systems should reward role-playing more than kill power/weakness level. It seems that the Rogue Scholar is about 100 xp of from being on par with a Borg or Glittterboy as far as levels go. Does anyone else find this strange?

Nothing strange, dude. The Palladium system is a mess.

[bigbobsr6000]

Well I am all for changes to a system if things are not so refined especially if it's a small thing like attributes or skills. But the one thing I admire about the d20 system the most is the "one table experience level system." I believe role-playing systems should reward role-playing more than kill power/weakness level. It seems that the Rogue Scholar is about 100 xp of from being on par with a Borg or Glittterboy as far as levels go. Does anyone else find this strange?

Nothing strange, dude. The Palladium system is a mess.

I have never found the Palladium system "a mess". I think it is just great and better than d20 system. Always have. And I have GM'd/played and/or have RPG books of almost all of the RPGs out there over past 35+ years. ALL RPGs have some issues. Palladium system is not "a mess".

I respect your oppinion, but I disagree.

[mobuttu]

I found Rifts XP system a blast!

Do you have more skills to use (and use it), so more XP for you.
Do you play in-character, so more XP for you.
Do you avoid a combat in a cleverly way, so more XP for you.
Etc.

In think this is far better, than "you kill this monster you get XP"...

For keeping track of the XP awards, just let the players do it, then as a GM aprove/assign XP at the end of the session.

Just my two cents.

[bigbobsr6000]

I found Rifts XP system a blast!

Do you have more skills to use (and use it), so more XP for you.
Do you play in-character, so more XP for you.
Do you avoid a combat in a cleverly way, so more XP for you.
Etc.

In think this is far better, than "you kill this monster you get XP"...

For keeping track of the XP awards, just let the players do it, then as a GM aprove/assign XP at the end of the session.

Just my two cents.

So, I can chip my two cents to agree with you. Now we have......um.....er.....let's see...1...2...5...."Three sir!"....3.....4....four cents? Four cents is my final answer and I am locking it in.

[Shorty Lickens]

Some conversations are pointless to get into.

Thats why we let it die over a year ago.