Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dbm" data-source="post: 7084988" data-attributes="member: 8014">I guess the main implied difference is that a level in most games is a pre-packaged set of abilities, though there may be some customisation. Pure points implies the freedom to spend those points on pretty much what ever you like. Also, if level is a thing then it can be an artificial limit ('you must be this tall to ride') whereas pure-points systems lack this mechanism. That could be good or bad, but it is a thing. As an example, we played a GURPS campaign a while back where one of my players was saving up to increase his stats, and this would take 20 character points. Contrast that to buying new skills (can be done for as little as 1 CP) or increasing existing skills that might cost between 2-4CP. He chose to progress more slowly but then get a 'bigger' benefit as the stat increase would improve many things at once. But it was his choice.One of the things I like about the 'little and often' route is it allows you to adapt to the flow of a campaign. If you find yourself on an adventure where social skills are paramount you might invest a little in Savoir Faire. Or if stealth is important you might put a couple of points in that skill. By responding this way you end up with a more rounded and varied character; this fits my personal preferences but I recognise other people will feel differently.ETA: I also used to like RoleMaster's way of handling levels, where each level gave you a bunch of points to spend within certain parameters (e.g. typically you can only buy one or maybe two levels in a skill for each level-up). But it still had the 'small number of large increments' challenge for me.</blockquote>

Verification