Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7309121" data-attributes="member: 6919838">For your discussion about whether or not level disparity is as big a problem here than there and between games and so on...You have a catch-22 in the argument it seems.  *IF* level disparity is not a significant enough problem, then its use as a carrot/stick is also diminished., right? Sure, as i said, some players may be motivated by having a bigger integer in their XP box even with no level - level difference being a case of the most extreme Xp penalty/bonus hitting. But, IMX, not all that many players are really hung up on that number after even a short time role-playing. That number means nothing in play, barring a house rule allowing you to burn Xp. IF as you suggest even level disparity is not significant either, then that makes the Xp carrot/stick even more hollow as a tool.That is the key for the XP carrot/stick that works its way across the systems - and i have seen it in multiple systems before and after switching to milestone -  its either significant hit that affects the whole team or its an insignificant hit that isn't worth its trouble. i have not seen any system yet that manages to make character advancement a targeted at the player not affecting the group issue - and 5e and its rather traditional advancement system did not have any ohhh ahhhn wonderfully new way of handling it that broke that pattern. Slapping new numbers on editions does not mean one needs to throw away all one's experience with RPGs because they dont apply - usually quite the opposite..And in response to your repackaging of my position, i chose to continue to use what 5e would characterize as "milestone Xp" because it has served me well in RPGs of various systems for many many years and there was nothing in the DND5e Xp advancement system that made me think it would serve me better. the fact that they came to see what they call milestone as an alternative worth putting into rule doesn't make me rethink that decision either.As for your last graph about a playstyle where a player may have to choose "strategies" between how to advance quickly and how to "succeed more" when it comes to whether ot not to play his character in ways that fit his character traits or not... that is 1005 not what i would ever want to have happen in my games. That would be to me to be a fairly damning statement about a system. that certainly may be a fine set of "playstyle preferences" for your game or for other folks at other tables, but if i ever felt i put a system in place where "roleplaying your character" is at odds with "rate of advancement" or where "success at tasks in character" is at odds with "rate of advancement" i would feel as a GM that i had failed to deliver a reasonable system.This would hit my "stupid rule" and die quickly. i would feel incredibly stupid ever trying to tell a player that they should be weighing roleplaying vs success with rate of advancement hanging in the balance because that is the system i built/chose and what it was built/chosen to do.others may not but hey, thats what it is.Obviously at times roleplaying your character may indeed run counter to in-game odds of success and that is nothing exceptional in my experience - it happens at a fairly decent rate in complex situations - but adding advancement rate into that mix has never IMX helped make things better. I would hate for the approach a player chose for his character to deal with an in-game situation/task to be made based on "am i close to levelling up" and the XP consequences. i thought that kind of thing (systems promoting players choosing in game character actions based on XP to be gained) was outdated when systems (even DND) began to award points for "overcoming monsters/encounters" whether it was by stealth or trickery instead of just "you get Xp if you kill the monster". But i guess no idea ever goes away completely.</blockquote>

Verification