Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="irdeggman" data-source="post: 2328362" data-attributes="member: 16285">The problem I have with the table and preceipt is that it equates exp with time. It does however insert something akin to CR by using normal and exciting years so it does make an attempt at &quot;normalizing&quot; the exp process.I do have difficulty with the assumption that the more you do soemthig the more exp you gain.&nbsp; While on the surface this makes sense, a deeper look has it fail.&nbsp; What I mean is that the more you do something the more mundane it becomes and the less attention to what you are doing occurs, the more complacency inserts its ugly head into the situation.If on the other hand the assumption is that new things are tried (a new challenge) then something is definitely learned, even from failure in the long run.A commoner who spends 5 years doing nothing but loafing while his brother has spent his time looking for new ways to irrigate the fields has really accomplished nothing and learned no appreciable skills, at least not to compare with the brother whowas actually doing something.This type of time equates to exp systems fails when applied to the not everyone does things the same, at the same rate or with the same zeal reality of life.It is better, IMO to just insert levels for commoners as deemed fitting based on the history of the world,village, etc.&nbsp; How many natural disasters have occured in the past years? Has there been alot of brigandage in the area? How about wild animals? All of these play into the art of world building where a table reduces these things to supplemental at best when in fact they should be of primary concern.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="irdeggman, post: 2328362, member: 16285"] The problem I have with the table and preceipt is that it equates exp with time. It does however insert something akin to CR by using normal and exciting years so it does make an attempt at "normalizing" the exp process. I do have difficulty with the assumption that the more you do soemthig the more exp you gain. While on the surface this makes sense, a deeper look has it fail. What I mean is that the more you do something the more mundane it becomes and the less attention to what you are doing occurs, the more complacency inserts its ugly head into the situation. If on the other hand the assumption is that new things are tried (a new challenge) then something is definitely learned, even from failure in the long run. A commoner who spends 5 years doing nothing but loafing while his brother has spent his time looking for new ways to irrigate the fields has really accomplished nothing and learned no appreciable skills, at least not to compare with the brother whowas actually doing something. This type of time equates to exp systems fails when applied to the not everyone does things the same, at the same rate or with the same zeal reality of life. It is better, IMO to just insert levels for commoners as deemed fitting based on the history of the world,village, etc. How many natural disasters have occured in the past years? Has there been alot of brigandage in the area? How about wild animals? All of these play into the art of world building where a table reduces these things to supplemental at best when in fact they should be of primary concern. [/QUOTE]

Verification