proposal: adjustment to time XP

evilbob · Sep 15, 2010

Since this has passed in L4W I thought I'd give it a whirl over here. I propose this:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-4th-edition/291325-proposal-adjustments-time-experience.html

for basically all the same reasons.

For those who don't cross over much, I'm suggesting 1) double time XP and 2) you don't have to wait for a month to be up to give time XP (you can give part of a month).

Discuss!

Edit: proposal updated in post 45.

renau1g · Sep 15, 2010

Minor thing, we don't have time xp in LEB, it's RP's. Essentially then it would double the value of RP's? Or would it be 2 RP's/month of adventure, 4 for DM's?

I'm less enthusiastic about the partial RP's here in LEB as it's very easy in L4W because the XP is set, but here some people could have 2.3 RP's. A bit more cumbersome IMO.

evilbob · Sep 15, 2010

Sorry, yes: double the value of RPs. Double whatever it is we get so that time rewards help move everyone along better to make up for slow games. And yes, this would double treasure rewards from time as well.

I have no issue with 2.3 RPs, personally. That just means next time I earn 1.7 I'll have 4 (instead of 3 if we rounded down).

If the decimal (or comma if you're in some areas of the world) is the problem, maybe the solution is allowing people to round up? Which is worse?

stonegod · Sep 15, 2010

With the current setup:
- XP awards are double. It takes 5 standard encounters to level.
- 1 RP = 1 monster of your level. It takes 10 RP to level.

Doubling the XP awarded for RP would make it take 5 RP to level (and gain a treasure parcel I'm assuming). This enforces 1 level every 5 months. This is also very close to the recently passed "earned 4 RP to level" rule. I'd suggest changing that to 5 RP just to keep this consistent.

I would not, however, go with any decimal RP. If you are concerned, just change the wording from "per full month" to "per full month and part thereof".

Still deciding on whether I would vote for this, but the above is what I would vote for if I did.

KarinsDad · Sep 15, 2010

I think this is a matter between the DM and players.

The reason WotC has 10 encounters between levels is that it takes multiple encounters for players to not only get accustomed to new abilities of their own PCs, but it also takes a while for players to get accustomed to new abilities of the other PCs at each level.

Doubling the RP doesn't mitigate the issue between fast and slow games.

If a slow game is 2 levels per year and a fast game is 5 levels per year, doubling RP will take the slow game to 3 levels per year and the fast game to 6 levels per year. At the same time, the players in the slow game have even less time to get accustomed to their PC's and the other PCs' abilities (because the game is slow, those abilities are not being used).

If the game is going slow, the players should talk to the DM (and vice versa). At the moment, all 3 of my games here are dragging and it's pretty disappointing, but I don't think that leveling PCs faster is the answer to that.

Since the fix doesn't seem to address the problem, I'm leaning towards voting no.

evilbob · Sep 15, 2010

stonegod said:
Doubling the XP awarded for RP would make it take 5 RP to level (and gain a treasure parcel I'm assuming). This enforces 1 level every 5 months. This is also very close to the recently passed "earned 4 RP to level" rule. I'd suggest changing that to 5 RP just to keep this consistent.

I would not, however, go with any decimal RP. If you are concerned, just change the wording from "per full month" to "per full month and part thereof".

I'm unfamiliar with what you mean by "earned 4 RP to level" rule - what does that mean?

Also, I'm totally good with "per full month and part thereof". Basically, the idea is that the poor guy 27 days into a month just doesn't end up missing out.

evilbob · Sep 15, 2010

KarinsDad said:
Doubling the RP doesn't mitigate the issue between fast and slow games.

Well, I believe the exact opposite of this statement. I think it does exactly that: it helps give the slow games more XP so they can level faster. The fast games get less time XP but more actual XP. (Why do we have time XP in the first place?)

KarinsDad said:
I think this is a matter between the DM and players.

I also completely disagree. First, no amount of PMing will change how fast some people's lives work. If I have 15 mins a day, that's all I have. It doesn't matter who says what: time doesn't change. Second, I dislike encouraging confrontation between DM and player when it's possible to solve the issue with a rules change. Some people just aren't going to complain no matter how bad it gets - but they might just leave. Not everyone is up for confronting their DM and complaining about the speed of the game. So why force it? Better to solve the problem globally rather than depend on people complaining to fix it.

renau1g · Sep 15, 2010

evilbob said:
I'm unfamiliar with what you mean by "earned 4 RP to level" rule - what does that mean?

Also, I'm totally good with "per full month and part thereof". Basically, the idea is that the poor guy 27 days into a month just doesn't end up missing out.

I believe sg was referring to the vote to allow someone a second PC once they received 4 RP's, rather than the previous level your PC.

If someone was at 27 days, I would certainly bump them up to the next RP anyways.

KarinsDad · Sep 16, 2010

evilbob said:
Well, I believe the exact opposite of this statement. I think it does exactly that: it helps give the slow games more XP so they can level faster. The fast games get less time XP but more actual XP. (Why do we have time XP in the first place?)

I don't understand what you are claiming here. How is my statement "If a slow game is 2 levels per year and a fast game is 5 levels per year, doubling RP will take the slow game to 3 levels per year and the fast game to 6 levels per year." not valid?

Maybe instead of posting a link to a different system, maybe you could post your actual proposal along with examples of how it would help the slow group without speeding up the fast group as well.

evilbob said:
I also completely disagree. First, no amount of PMing will change how fast some people's lives work. If I have 15 mins a day, that's all I have. It doesn't matter who says what: time doesn't change. Second, I dislike encouraging confrontation between DM and player when it's possible to solve the issue with a rules change. Some people just aren't going to complain no matter how bad it gets - but they might just leave. Not everyone is up for confronting their DM and complaining about the speed of the game. So why force it? Better to solve the problem globally rather than depend on people complaining to fix it.

I wasn't proposing a confrontation between the players and the DM. I was proposing a discussion between them. I do think that nearly all players (DMs included) can be more due diligent in posting frequency. It's usually a matter of self motivation and desire. Most people have the ability to check and post more than once every three days on the boards, but not everyone does it even as often as once per day.

With regard to games with few encounters vs. games with many encounters, presumably players who think their adventure has too few encounters can again talk with the DM. If they cannot compromise, the player is always free to leave that game and move on to another one if the player wants a more action filled adventure.

I don't see how your rules change helps any of this, so please tell us how it does so. All your rules change appears to do is have everyone level faster.

What might help is for people to commit to a certain posting frequency and then live up to that commitment (shy of emergencies, vacations, etc.).

renau1g · Sep 16, 2010

It won't help out one group over the other, but it will help the slow group. Not to the detriment of the faster group, but at least it's something.

re: posting commitments. I've had people commit before to min. 1/day. Everyone's onboard, the adventure is rolling smoothly, then things slow down. The DM can always NPC those who fail at meeting the commitments or ask them to leave if it is frequent, but then you have poor feelings, breaks in continuity, and that's hard to recover from.