Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4710807" data-attributes="member: 40177">Definition:&nbsp; Experience points, by my definition, are points awarded for character or player actions in a game environment.&nbsp; These points are either used passively (such as when a character hits a certain number and &quot;levels up&quot;) or actively (such as the spending of &quot;karma&quot; in Shadowrun) to improve your character in various ways.&nbsp; The Good:*&nbsp;&nbsp; Experience points are a quick and easy way to reward character behaviour.&nbsp; They reward characters for DOING stuff in the game, since that is how they improve.*&nbsp;&nbsp; Experience points help give a gauge of how powerful your character is;&nbsp; this is especially useful when a GM wants to run a prepublished adventure.*&nbsp;&nbsp; They are easily conceptualized;&nbsp; almost every player can figure out how they work in a basic system (&quot;Once I get three hundred more, I level!&quot;), and even in complex systems, they're usually pretty easy (&quot;If I want to improve my strength by one point, I need twelve karma&quot;).&nbsp; The Bad:*&nbsp;&nbsp; Experience points are rewarded only for certain actions in game.&nbsp; this reinforces a certain play type.&nbsp; In earlier editions of D&amp;D, for example, you didn't get XP for social interactions (unless the GM made a house rule, which isn't the point of this thread). &nbsp;*&nbsp; The actual spending of Experience points (or levelling up, in many cases) interrupts game play.&nbsp; Many players can do this away from the table, but I know many tables - including my own - that do it at either the start or ending of a session.&nbsp; I've even had players do it in the middle of the session!&nbsp; Basically, time spent improving is not time spent playing.*&nbsp; Some settings are really not served by experience points.&nbsp; In a world war 2 setting, for example, characters should be encouraged to do as little as possible if they wanted to stay &quot;in character&quot; - while XP is rewarded for accomplishing things.&nbsp; The Ugly:*&nbsp; As the game progresses (or sometimes, even at the start), the number of experience points awarded increases.&nbsp; This can mean players have to keep track of XP totals in the hundred thousands (or more!) while receiving awards in the thousands.&nbsp; It can be easy for some, but a real pain in the butt for others.&nbsp; *&nbsp; in a game where XP are spent to improve your character, the costs are never really balanced, which will favour certain builds over others.&nbsp; Even in a game where &quot;levels&quot; are used, those levels are never truly balanced against each other.&nbsp; One could say that a system that uses a form of Experience Points is fundamentally imbalanced.&nbsp; (Yeah, 4e is a pretty balanced system, but it's not perfect)So, points of view?&nbsp; Disagreements?&nbsp; Additions?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 4710807, member: 40177"] [b]Definition:[/b] Experience points, by my definition, are points awarded for character or player actions in a game environment. These points are either used passively (such as when a character hits a certain number and "levels up") or actively (such as the spending of "karma" in Shadowrun) to improve your character in various ways. [b]The Good:[/b] * Experience points are a quick and easy way to reward character behaviour. They reward characters for DOING stuff in the game, since that is how they improve. * Experience points help give a gauge of how powerful your character is; this is especially useful when a GM wants to run a prepublished adventure. * They are easily conceptualized; almost every player can figure out how they work in a basic system ("Once I get three hundred more, I level!"), and even in complex systems, they're usually pretty easy ("If I want to improve my strength by one point, I need twelve karma"). [b]The Bad:[/b] * Experience points are rewarded only for certain actions in game. this reinforces a certain play type. In earlier editions of D&D, for example, you didn't get XP for social interactions (unless the GM made a house rule, which isn't the point of this thread). * The actual spending of Experience points (or levelling up, in many cases) interrupts game play. Many players can do this away from the table, but I know many tables - including my own - that do it at either the start or ending of a session. I've even had players do it in the middle of the session! Basically, time spent improving is not time spent playing. * Some settings are really not served by experience points. In a world war 2 setting, for example, characters should be encouraged to do as little as possible if they wanted to stay "in character" - while XP is rewarded for accomplishing things. [b]The Ugly:[/b] * As the game progresses (or sometimes, even at the start), the number of experience points awarded increases. This can mean players have to keep track of XP totals in the hundred thousands (or more!) while receiving awards in the thousands. It can be easy for some, but a real pain in the butt for others. * in a game where XP are spent to improve your character, the costs are never really balanced, which will favour certain builds over others. Even in a game where "levels" are used, those levels are never truly balanced against each other. One could say that a system that uses a form of Experience Points is fundamentally imbalanced. (Yeah, 4e is a pretty balanced system, but it's not perfect) So, points of view? Disagreements? Additions? [/QUOTE]

Verification