Forums of the Megaverse®

the experience/EXP for fighting is limited
I State you should get EXP for every attack
it cost 1 or 2 skill selection to get hand to hand
combat "skills"
therefor skill EXP

No.

Exp for every attack.... makes sense (I know of one computer game that does it that way), but, it's a little cumbersome to actually keep track of, aint it (which is why computer games can do it, but no RPG does).

Some things are simply too much work to do, despite whether they can be defended logically.

Nah, not hard at all, just have a container of chips/beads/coins/anything. Everytime you just reach in and grab one and put it in your own container, add it up latter.

Strangely I've been considering an automatic strategic reward for tactical moves myself. Experience is a strategic reward, it pays off in the long term. I like the idea of some being given for each and every short term/tactical move, like making an attack.

So someone wildly flailing around like Peewee Herman having an epileptic attack gets experience, even if they can't fight worth a wooden nickle?

Uhh... no.

There is already XP for overcoming threats and plans/actions. If you use 1 attack = 5 XP, what's to stop the PC's from fighting each other non-lethally to buck up their skills. Say, fight each day for 2 years and leave 15th level. Or just attacking boxes, telephone poles, boulders, shrubs, etc?

Then the GM doesn't call for a roll - no XP.

The GM either says yes, you fight and get what you wanted, or its a roll and XP.

Just cause you attack something doesn't mean anyone has to roll.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No.

agreed.

Killer Cyborg wrote:No.

Agreed....again.

Bob, I don't know you - your word alone carries about zero credibility to me. You've got as much cred as you have provided supporting arguements - ie, none.

Your spamming when you post stuff that only a person who knows you would listen to.

I dunno, I would say that exp/swing would be something like 5 exp/swing or somwthing like that, Is it really time valuable to be giving exp's in increments of 5?

And Ideally it should average out to about the same as the 'per menace' entry on the chart.

The PB experience system is cumbersome anyway, does it need to be moreso?

A mix respones so here my brake down
boxing, wesling and H2H any cost skills
so in combat the 25 points covers the whole
fight!
even though the PC has 4 action and learn/gain EXP nothing!
but gains 25 EXP for minor manice
now you can't backflip to a new level or level 15!
if the PC is 25 EXP form the new level, a backflip will do
and lastly if you let your PC shadow box thier way to new levels
so be it
i just want to get EXP for all my skill

It only applies to rolls. No roll = no XP.

What, just because you try to do a backflip, does the GM HAVE to say 'make a roll for that'? No, he doesn't, he can just say you passed.

Wouldn't this promote a more hack n' slash response with just about anything?

King Chopper wrote:Wouldn't this promote a more hack n' slash response with just about anything?

Well, it'd promote whatever the game is. If this were a game with just investigation and library use skills, it'd promote what that game is.

If what the game is happens to be hack and slash, then trying to play it any other way would be incorrect* regardless of how much you dislike hack and slash.

In short, it promoting hack and slash is only an issue if the game at its core IS hack and slash. And if that's what the game is, then it's not actually an issue for it emphasize what it's about.

* like using a wrench as a hammer is incorrect. Not impossible to do and the nails might still get hammered - but it's still incorrect use.

one time I had a GM that tried giving 25 exp for combat rolls like with skill, It was beyond bad you could go up every 2 or 3 games.. these was no character development it was all put dating the character because you took down a thug and went up 2 levels but he's player were power gamers so it worked for them

bob the desolate one wrote:

dragon_blaze_99 wrote:one time I had a GM that tried giving 25 exp for combat rolls like with skill, It was beyond bad you could go up every 2 or 3 games.. these was no character development it was all put dating the character because you took down a thug and went up 2 levels but he's player were power gamers so it worked for them

i agree if there going for a hack 'n' slash power gamer fun fest go for it just not my cup of tea i reward my players for using there brains not their dice

High Power gaming is just as thought intensive as the other alternatives. if it isn't, your GM isn't handling it right. That is all.

Marrowlight wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:

dragon_blaze_99 wrote:one time I had a GM that tried giving 25 exp for combat rolls like with skill, It was beyond bad you could go up every 2 or 3 games.. these was no character development it was all put dating the character because you took down a thug and went up 2 levels but he's player were power gamers so it worked for them

i agree if there going for a hack 'n' slash power gamer fun fest go for it just not my cup of tea i reward my players for using there brains not their dice

High Power gaming is just as thought intensive as the other alternatives. if it isn't, your GM isn't handling it right. That is all.

yeah i agree, with hack n' slash power games the GM has to be alot more creative to keep up with the players, if not he'll just get over run and the game will die pretty quick.

Marrowlight wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:

dragon_blaze_99 wrote:one time I had a GM that tried giving 25 exp for combat rolls like with skill, It was beyond bad you could go up every 2 or 3 games.. these was no character development it was all put dating the character because you took down a thug and went up 2 levels but he's player were power gamers so it worked for them

i agree if there going for a hack 'n' slash power gamer fun fest go for it just not my cup of tea i reward my players for using there brains not their dice

High Power gaming is just as thought intensive as the other alternatives. if it isn't, your GM isn't handling it right. That is all.

the worst part was in 1 melee you parry 2 attack and attack 4 times 150 exp
the average battle is say 10 melee thats 1500 exp it was dumb IMO and pointless the player didn't have to think once, and because of that bad experience my style of gming is the total opposite theres 1 or 2 battles every 3 or 4 sessions.

dragon_blaze_99 wrote:

Marrowlight wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:

dragon_blaze_99 wrote:one time I had a GM that tried giving 25 exp for combat rolls like with skill, It was beyond bad you could go up every 2 or 3 games.. these was no character development it was all put dating the character because you took down a thug and went up 2 levels but he's player were power gamers so it worked for them

i agree if there going for a hack 'n' slash power gamer fun fest go for it just not my cup of tea i reward my players for using there brains not their dice

High Power gaming is just as thought intensive as the other alternatives. if it isn't, your GM isn't handling it right. That is all.

the worst part was in 1 melee you parry 2 attack and attack 4 times 150 exp
the average battle is say 10 melee thats 1500 exp it was dumb IMO and pointless the player didn't have to think once, and because of that bad experience my style of gming is the total opposite theres 1 or 2 battles every 3 or 4 sessions.

I once ran a session of Robotech where the dice were only used maybe 3 times the entire night -- and that was with a party of 7 or 8 players. Other nights games would be pure free for alls, where over half of the part would die in combat. The trick to high powered gaming is to take steps to not be in combat non stop. If you're a god among men, go get some minions, a city or country to control, a wife or five, and occupy yourself with all the trappings of wealth and power. Your GM should be keeping you on your toes, but owning Rune Glitter Boy armor of the Gods doesn't mean your life has to be all combat. Stretch out those gaps inbetween.

bob the desolate one wrote:

Eryk Stormbright wrote:

Marrowlight wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:

dragon_blaze_99 wrote:one time I had a GM that tried giving 25 exp for combat rolls like with skill, It was beyond bad you could go up every 2 or 3 games.. these was no character development it was all put dating the character because you took down a thug and went up 2 levels but he's player were power gamers so it worked for them

i agree if there going for a hack 'n' slash power gamer fun fest go for it just not my cup of tea i reward my players for using there brains not their dice

High Power gaming is just as thought intensive as the other alternatives. if it isn't, your GM isn't handling it right. That is all.

yeah i agree, with hack n' slash power games the GM has to be alot more creative to keep up with the players, if not he'll just get over run and the game will die pretty quick.

oh don't get me wrong i have ran campaign with Cosmo knights and godlings saving the universe i just don't think rewarding your player for dice rolls and strikes will promote anything but hack and slash and with little to no thought involved

*nods* i know what yeah meen, when i run games i like to make my players think about what's going on, what they are doing and why. that's not to say that i don't like a good amount of combat in my games.

My thinking was that the skill system for Palladium was so unusable, that they HAD to put an exp reward for using a skill, or else no one would use them at all.

The combat system is workable, so doesn't need that sort of impetus for people to get into fights.

bob the desolate one wrote:

DocS wrote:My thinking was that the skill system for Palladium was so unusable, that they HAD to put an exp reward for using a skill, or else no one would use them at all.

The combat system is workable, so doesn't need that sort of impetus for people to get into fights.

Yeah, that just sounds like bittereness and/or a lack of knowledge of history.
When they came out with it, the Palladium skill system was better than pretty much anything else out there; most systems didn't really have skill systems at all, or had extremely limited ones.
When they came out with it, the Palladium XP system was better than pretty much anything else out there; most systems existing at the time ONLY gave xp for combat.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

bob the desolate one wrote:

DocS wrote:My thinking was that the skill system for Palladium was so unusable, that they HAD to put an exp reward for using a skill, or else no one would use them at all.

The combat system is workable, so doesn't need that sort of impetus for people to get into fights.

Yeah, that just sounds like bittereness and/or a lack of knowledge of history.
When they came out with it, the Palladium skill system was better than pretty much anything else out there; most systems didn't really have skill systems at all, or had extremely limited ones.
When they came out with it, the Palladium XP system was better than pretty much anything else out there; most systems existing at the time ONLY gave xp for combat.

Don't forget for getting EXP's for finding gold!

Yeah, in 1982, the skill system was indeed visionary and unusual... but it's 2007, the skill system is, by modern standards, well, um, yeah. And until they tell me exactly what 'Cooking 84%' means, I'll continue to bash the PB skill system. Poke it, prod it, lambast it, these days, it's more fun to mock than it is to use. Luckily, my love for Giant Robots lessens my hostility somewhat.

DocS wrote:Don't forget for getting EXP's for finding gold!

How could I?
That, plus the adventure Latham's Gold, is how I got to be Immortal.

Yeah, in 1982, the skill system was indeed visionary and unusual... but it's 2007, the skill system is, by modern standards, well, um, yeah. And until they tell me exactly what 'Cooking 84%' means, I'll continue to bash the PB skill system. Poke it, prod it, lambast it, these days, it's more fun to mock than it is to use. Luckily, my love for Giant Robots lessens my hostility somewhat.

I have no problem with any of that, actually.
Just bach, poke, and prod it accurately.

Ahh, DocS is DamonS. Should've pieced that together.

DocS wrote:And until they tell me exactly what 'Cooking 84%' means, I'll continue to bash the PB skill system.

For when I do "target numbers" in a PB game, I simply have them convert the % rating on a 5% points = +1, and make them roll a die against the target number.

So, 84% = +17 bonus to cooking, and if your opponent in the Iron Chef of Chi-Town competition has a 54%, he only has a +11, and the two of you roll off with d20's, higher number wins.

Ta-dah!

T-Willard wrote:

DocS wrote:And until they tell me exactly what 'Cooking 84%' means, I'll continue to bash the PB skill system.

For when I do "target numbers" in a PB game, I simply have them convert the % rating on a 5% points = +1, and make them roll a die against the target number.

So, 84% = +17 bonus to cooking, and if your opponent in the Iron Chef of Chi-Town competition has a 54%, he only has a +11, and the two of you roll off with d20's, higher number wins.

Ta-dah!

I'd be kinda afraid of the Iron Chef Chi-Town competition secret ingredients.

T-Willard wrote:

DocS wrote:And until they tell me exactly what 'Cooking 84%' means, I'll continue to bash the PB skill system.

For when I do "target numbers" in a PB game, I simply have them convert the % rating on a 5% points = +1, and make them roll a die against the target number.

So, 84% = +17 bonus to cooking, and if your opponent in the Iron Chef of Chi-Town competition has a 54%, he only has a +11, and the two of you roll off with d20's, higher number wins.

Ta-dah!

i have never really been a fan of target numbers....i prefer just asigning negatives to the atempt
yes i know its pretty much the same thing...but...for some reason it seems easier for me to factor up the negatives faster than it is to come up with a target number...
does that make any kind of sense?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

T-Willard wrote:

DocS wrote:And until they tell me exactly what 'Cooking 84%' means, I'll continue to bash the PB skill system.

For when I do "target numbers" in a PB game, I simply have them convert the % rating on a 5% points = +1, and make them roll a die against the target number.

So, 84% = +17 bonus to cooking, and if your opponent in the Iron Chef of Chi-Town competition has a 54%, he only has a +11, and the two of you roll off with d20's, higher number wins.

Ta-dah!

i have never really been a fan of target numbers....i prefer just asigning negatives to the atempt
yes i know its pretty much the same thing...but...for some reason it seems easier for me to factor up the negatives faster than it is to come up with a target number...
does that make any kind of sense?

In the campaign I plan to run next, opposed skill rolls will be handled in a way similar to other games, roll against skill, highest successful actual roll wins.

General_Sarkoff wrote:Might I point out that the proposed system actually rewards players for doing LESS damage per hit since that means they will needs more hits to kill the bad guy and consequently gain more XP for doing so. Once the players figure that out I'd expect a lot of heavily armored dager wielders to appear.

hahaha reminds me of when i was playing through fable on xbox...if you use a stick as a weapon (weakest weapon) you can rack up ridiculous combos for bonus xp.

on topic though, i give the players xp for doing stuff in fights other than "attack nearest opponent with strongest weapon". i also find that combat and non-combat sections of gameplay (in our games anyway) usually add up to being equal in xp, which is how i like it.