Doling Experience

[Lt. Dade]

Hi all,

I've been lurking for a while, but I'm soon to be running a mini-series of Lord of the Rings adventures (which I'll post afterwards, perhaps) and am curious to see how the rest of you have been doling out experience. I know I'm planning on doing it much, much faster than usual (since the campaign's so short), but am curious all the same. I've seen reference in other sites on the internet of wildly different approaches to experience-giving and thought it might be a fine subject for discussion.

The accelerated method I'm planning to use breaks the adventures down into discreet chapters (a collection of scenes) and assigns each of them a goal worth 100-500 experience (rather like the episode and scene goals described in the book). Then, of course, the awards for particular and important skill checks. Finally, success awards for the story's inherent goals (as the scenic and episodic goals in the book, again, but more like mission objectives in that these goals can, presumably, be failed, whereas participation alone qualifies for a scenic award in this model).

I love the ability to award experience based on key skill checks and TNs, though. It creates such a nice relationship between the characters actions and their potential for advancement. Good stuff.

So: Crossing the Bridge Scene (200 pts), plus an extended test to cross a crumbling Dwarven bridge in the Misty Mountains (TN 80) would give each of the four participating characters 50 experience (200 divided by 4) plus 80 (since, presumably, they'll each have to reach the aggregate TN eventually), for 130 experience points for the scene, for each character. Arguably, I could continue to award half the experience for every other character (as in the book) which adds another 40 to the total and reaches 170 experience points. This is actually very close to the method in the book, and could easily earn an Advancement or two in each episode (every 5.8 scenes, at this rate). This appeals to me because it gives that sense that the characters are changing and growing over the course of their journeys, rather than between them. The manner in which Sam, Merri, and Pippin become better fighters and such between Bree and Amon Hen is something I want to capture.

Thoughts?

word,
Will

[Ineti]

I run story arcs in 4-5 session chunks. PCs get experience at the end of the arc, but invariably what it really means is that they get an advancement after every arc.

For my games, I feel tracking XP is for d20.

[Lt. Dade]

That's interesting, Ineti. I feel the opposite. I give out experience at the end of a d20 session, and it's pretty broadly applied. I mean, what the characters choose to do just determines whether or not they get the XP for a given monster.

In Coda, characters get higher rewards for solving problems in the manner that best suits their character. That is, your character's best skills reach higher TNs, which earn you more experience. I think that's great. It gets players asking "Is there a way I can get around this obstacle other than using the obvious skill?"

Besides that, the linear progression of character advancement in Coda makes advancements feel a little smaller. Smaller, to me, suggests more often. Not only that, but it makes the value of any given experience point a constant over the life of the character. 100 XP isn't work much to d20 characters after a while, but to a Coda character 100 XP is alwasy 10% closer to the next advancement.

For this little miniseries I'm running, I'm handing out lots of experience so the players can have a lot of control over the changes their characters go through in the short amount of time we have to play. I'm handing it out often to simulate the episodic nature of Tolkien's chapters (especially in "the Hobbit"); experience suggests the crossing of a threshold or a milestone, and the travel-based tales of Tolkien (I sound like Stan Lee) are all about milestones.

Coda has a great capacity to be an interesting game on top of being a great storytelling tool. I frankly find the notion that tracking experience is somehow out of place in a Coda/LotR game mildly offensive (though I know that's not how you meant it).

word,
Will

[ben hur]

Now, I'm not sure how much weight my opinion carries in this matter, as we haven't keep an ongoing game so far... either I underprepare and it folds or I overprepare and though we get one really awesome session in we just don't have another adventure ready, heh.

I'm also torn on the issue anyway, so I'm not sure if anything I'm going to say is worthwhile. Half of me says "Take the easy route, just give an advancement each session", the other half of me says "Use the system presented in the Core Book since it's the official system" and the third half of me () says "Use one of the fancy versions that others more worthy than yourself have created".

Each has it's particular lures for me.

Just giving an advancement every session is extremely easy and simple, but after a long time players might get not only bored with so many advancements but it's also fun to calculate how many advancement points you are getting and knowing that how you roleplay your character is affecting how he advances.

For the most part, I personally don't hold with too many house rules, I like playing with the rules as are (with tweaks being made in-game, on the fly), so that's what makes me attracted to just using the system for experience as is.

And of course there are the really complicated ones like Olorwe's in his 43 page reference/errata/house-rule document. That system of experience is cool in that it seems to cover anything everything in a perfectly balanced way. However... as I said, I don't like too many house rules, especially the more complicated ones, and that's definitely a complicated system!

So I don't know... my brothers and I just played through the Barahir's Ring adventure that I made and we used the normal system presented, and it worked perfectly fine, with them each receiving just under one advancement. We'll of course have to see how it is in the long run (by the way, Barahir's Ring ran incredibly smooth, months of preparation and help from you awesome guys really, really paid off).

In conclusion... well, that's just my two cents! Not worth much, but at least I got it out of my mind and into a public place where it can be fixed.

[Lt. Dade]

Hi ben hur,

Thanks for weighing in. I hope it'll encourage others to do so, too.

It occurs to me that there's probably a happy middle for you in between the Advancement/Session method and the book's experience system. Rather than assigning experience for scenes or goals as the book suggests, assign a flat number per session. This number should be shy of 1,000, but not too low. Perhaps 500 or 750 experience per character. Then, give out roleplaying awards, TN awards, or whatever else you like to bridge the gap. This way, there's a fair chance that characters will advance every session, but it's not a sure thing. That adds some real tension to the adventure, when there's an advancement genuinely at stake.

For example: The players know that they've got 750 experience points coming to them at the end of the session, but they need 1,000 to advance. If they rescue the hobbit from the wolf's heads near the Greenway, they can expect another 300 experience. If they don't manage to do it tonight, this session, then they'll have to face the retaliation of the bandits without that advancement under their belts.

I need a method of experience based partially on simple participation and partially on action. I've had campaigns where a whole evening was spent on one scene, which certainly isn't worth an Advancement. Likewise, if I have a session wherein, somehow, the players manage to identify the problem, find it, devise a solution, act it out, and succeed all in one evening of play, I want that to be worth more than the usual. So, I like to have the range of experience available to me between Advancements. It's good for gameplay.

In most of the game systems I've run, I've also utilized a method of player nominations, whereby the players have a sum of experience to award at the end of the session for roleplaying, ingenuity, or anything else. My groups generally agree that no player can be nominated more than once and that no player can nominate himself or herself. So, this sum of experience is sure to be gained by everyone, but they'll enjoy hearing what they did that delighted their fellow players. (E.g., "I nominate Edgar for trying to disarm that troll. That was terrific, man.") Thus, the roleplaying awards seem a little less arbitrary and the players get to closely associate their awards with their actions. (Hint: Players will eventually nominate multiple players even though they have only one award to give. This is a good thing. It spreads the love.)

word,
Will

[ben hur]

Wow, thanks for the ideas, Lieutenant. That gives me a lot to think on. This is my first RPG, so it's nice to hear about the experiences of old-timers.

[JeffTidball]

Originally posted by Lt. Dade
In most of the game systems I've run, I've also utilized a method of player nominations, whereby the players have a sum of experience to award at the end of the session for roleplaying, ingenuity, or anything else.

That's awesome, and I intend to appropriate it in my game at home. I've always liked the way convention tournaments frequently make use of player rankings to (at least partially) determine who advances. I also like individual awards to particular players for ingenious ideas, good roleplaying, and so forth, but I always feel vaguely arbitrary when just handing them out on my own, as Narrator. Giving the players the responsibility allows more perspectives in the process, and also has the potential to incorporate incidents of good roleplayings between PCs that you may have noticed because you were busy running something mechanical with a third player.

[Ineti]

My earlier post was written in the middle of a busy work day. Allow me to elaborate.

I give XP awards out the wazoo for all kinds of stuff. Good role-playing, bringing appropriate props, in-game writing, innovative ideas, helping with campaign logistics (like taking notes, etc.), and the usual stuff listed in the book (goal achievement, etc.).

I award PCs XP after every session, but I don't tell the players what their totals are. The absolute last thing I want my players to do is to be thinking "I'm 500 XP away from next advancement," etc. IMO, that's metagaming, and in the past it has detracted from the game we're playing.

Not worrying about the numbers allows my players to focus more on the story and their roleplaying, and I think our games are the better for it.

Sometimes the PCs get an advancement before the story arc is done, sometimes not. They plan ahead ("Next advancement I'm doing XYZ"), but they don't dwell on the numbers and are usually happy when I say, "Okeydoke. Good session, all. You've all earned an advancement."

Different strokes, I guess.

I do like the idea of player nominations and such. I used to co-GM a Trek game, and all our experience awards were determined by the two of us getting together and talking about the players and their role-playing. We'd come to a concensus on the awards and dole them out appropriately.

[Taliesin]

<b>The Problem with Advancements--And a Proposed Solution</b>

The Experience and Advancements system is one of the most troublesome aspects of the LotR game, an opinion held by myself and shared by many others. For starters, the experience points guidelines are far too generous. Following them by the book typically yielded an Advancement every session for players in my campaign! Too, the concept of "levels" is a dated one that imposes artificial and unrealistic constraints on character development that don't stand up to much critical scrutiny. Why should I have to wait until I accumulate 1000 XP for a sudden advancement binge? Next, the cost for advancements is the same whether you're a novice with lots to learn, or a master who is so advanced that further improvement is a rare event. Shouldn't it be more difficult to advance the more accomplished you become? Also, Attributes don't count for anything under the current system; a dullard advances just as quickly as a wizard. Finally, there's too much bookkeeping involved, especially in keeping track of skills tests and their TN levels. These are the systems major problems in a nutshell; others probably exist.

What follows is my attempt to provide an alternative system designed to eliminate or lessen these objections. My system uses the concept of Improvement Checks seen in other game systems, yet also retains the concept of purchasing advancements for those character elements that are harder to manage with Improvement Checks, namely Edges, Order Abilities, Health and New Orders. Overall bookkeeping is reduced since one no longer has to tally XP for each and every test one completes. Instead one merely makes a note of all the Challenging (or better) tests completed during the session, and the degree of success for each.

I have not playtested the system yet, but will begin doing so this week. I have no illusions that the rules are ready for prime time. I just thought I'd offer it up now for constructive criticism, so your feedback is appreciated.


<b>LEVEL-LESS ADVANCEMENT RULES</b>

<b>Skills (Order, Non-Order, and Racial)</b>
Characters do not earn experience points for successful tests. Instead, a player may roll 2d6 to make an Improvement Check for each skill which he used successfully at the Challenging difficulty (TN 15) level or greater. Any number of skills can be checked in this manner, but each skill can be checked only once per session. A skill can only be improved once per chapter. There is no distinction made between Order Skills and Non-Order skills; Non-Order skills will be harder to improve by virtue of the fact that players will be starting with few to no ranks in them, thus completing a Challenging test will be more difficult from the outset. Untrained skills can be developed as other skills. Trained skills follow the same restrictions outlined on CB, p 117.

The Improvement Check's TN is equal to the character's current number of ranks in the skill (up to a maximum of 12). If the modified Improvement roll is greater than the current skill rank, the skill is increased by one rank. The roll is modified by degree of success as follows:

Marginal Success: -1
Complete Success: 0
Superior Success: +1
Extraordinary Success: +2

Courage can not be used to modify Improvement Checks.

<i>Example:</i> During the session, Finglas of Mirkwood successfully uses his Ranged Combat: Bow (Shortbow) 10, Climb 3, Track 7, and Observe (Spot) 8 skills. He has an Extraordinary Success with his bow (rolled 27 vs TN 15), Climbed a tree (rolled 12 on TN 10), was Completely Successful tracking some Orcs under Difficult conditions (rolled 24 vs TN 20), and Spotted an ambush that was Virtually Impossible to detect (rolled 25 vs TN 25).

Finglas earns improvement checks in Bow, Track and Observe, but not Climb, since the difficulty level was Routine. He rolls 2d6 for each of the three skills, modifies the roll for his level of success, and compares the result to his current rank:

Ranged Combat: Bow (Short bow) 10: Rolls 4 + 2 (Extraordinary Success bonus) = 6. Finglas does not increase his bow this session, but he's eligible for another try next session.

Track (Orcs) 7: Rolls 8 + 0 (Complete Success bonus). Finglas increases his Track by one rank and will not be eligible for another Improvement Check until next chapter.

Observe (Spot) 8: Rolls 9 - 1 (Marginal Success bonus) = 8. Finglas' roll does not exceed his current Observe ranks, so he does not improve. However, he is eligible to check again next session, assuming he successfully uses the skill at the Challenging level or higher.

<b>Specialties</b>
Specialties are picked up by scoring a Complete Success or better on a Challenging (TN 15) task or better with the proposed specialty.

<i>Example:</i> Finglas is gifted with a fine longbow from his friends in Lothlorien. During the session, he encounters a cave troll (modified TN of 16). He rolls 6 + 10 (Ranged Combat ranks) , +2 (NIM modifier) = 18. Finglas gains the Longbow specialty!

Specialties cannot be picked up without actually having practical experience with them. In the above example, Finglas needs a longbow to earn the specialty. A Loremaster cannot simply declare a new language specialty without first studying a book or spending time among native speakers of the tongue in question.

<b>Edges</b>
Edges are purchased at the cost of 400 Experience points. Edges should not be picked arbitrarily, but should be inspired by actual game events.

<b>Renown</b>
Renown is awarded by the Narrator based on game events, as per Table 11.3, CB, p. 280.

<b>Reactions</b>
Reactions are increased using Improvement Checks, much like skills. Roll 2d6: If the result is greater than the character's current reaction score, the reaction is increased by one point. Non-favoured reactions suffer a -3 to the Improvement roll. A character is eligible for an Improvement Check if he successfully completes a Challenging (TN 15) Reaction Test or better. Furthermore, the Narrator may rule that a character is only eligible for the Improvement check if his use of the reaction is instrumental to the accomplishment of the current Chapter Objectives. In this case, subtract 1 from the roll if the use of the reaction is key to the accomplishment of a Secondary Objective only. A -2 penalty is imposed if the reaction's use only accomplishes a Scene Goal. Unlike skills, which can be checked for once per session, reactions may only be checked once per chapter, at the end of the chapter. If following the Three Act Model (CB, p 268), the Narrator may limit reaction improvements to one point per Act.

<b>Order Abilities</b>
Order abilities may be purchased for 600 experience points.

<b>Courage</b>
Courage are also increased using Improvement Checks. Roll 2d6: If the result is greater than the character's current Courage score, Courage is increased by one point. However, a character is only eligible for the Improvement check if his use of Courage is instrumental to the accomplishment of the current Chapter Objectives. Subtract 1 from the roll if the use of Courage is key to the accomplishment of only the Secondary Objective. A -2 penalty is imposed if the use of Courage only accomplished a Scene Goal. Courage may only be increased once per chapter. Unlike skills, which can be checked for once per session, Courage may only be checked once per chapter, at the end of the chapter. If following the Three Act Model (CB, p 268), the Narrator may allow only one Courage increase per Act.

<b>Attributes</b>
Attributes also use Improvement Checks for advancement. Roll 2d6: If the result is greater than the character's current ATT score, the attribute is increased by one point. Non-favoured attributes suffer a -3 to the Improvement roll. A character is only eligible for an Improvement Check if; 1) he successfully completes a Challenging (TN 15) Attribute Test or better, and 2) the use of the attribute is instrumental to the accomplishment of the current Chapter Objectives. Subtract 1 from the Improvement roll if the use of the attribute is key to the accomplishment of a Secondary Objective only. A -2 penalty is imposed if the attribute's use only accomplishes a Scene Goal. Attributes may only be checked once per chapter, at the end of the chapter. If following the Three Act Model (CB, p 268), the Narrator may allow only one attribute increase per Act.

<b>Health</b>
Additional Health may be purchased for 1000 experience points per point.

<b>New Order</b>
A new Order may be purchased for 1000 experience points. A character must accumulate a total of 6000 experience points in a single Order before joining any other Orders.

<b>Experience Awards</b>
Under the level-less advancement system, experience points are no longer awarded for successful tests. However, points are awarded for fulfilling Story Objectives as described on CB p. 278, with the following modifications:

The Primary Objective: 200 XP
The Secondary Objective: 100 XP
Scene Goals: 50 XP

Exceptional Roleplaying: 25-100 XP per session
Noteworthy Accomplishments: 50-200 XP per session
Journal Keeping: 100 XP per session


Points are used to purchase Edges, Order Abilities, Health and New Orders. Such improvements should be chosen based on game events.

My next Experience-related project is to work out an Improvement by Study system.

[Meneltin]

This is a very interesting system! I must admit I have no experience in actually narrating a Lotr game (I did put a lot energie in inventing chronicles) but I have experience as a player.

I have a couple of comments/questions though:
If I understand your system well enough, the player loses control over which skills and attributes he wants to improve, he only chooses which skills he wants to TRY to improve. The only option would be to use that skill more often.
This could lead to strange situations:
for example a player wants to play a skilled fighter, let's say he uses Armed Combat and Observe skills a lot, but (un)lucky on the improvement tests he improves his Observe a lot, but his Armed Combat doesn't improve much at all. The character ends up as being very perceptive, but not as skilled a warrior he wants to be.
Doesn't this conflicts with how the player imagines his character should be?

Furthermore you mention it takes a lot of bookkeeping to keep track of all the skill tests and the associeted ecperience points, but keeping track of everytime a player can improve a skill, attribute or reactions seems like just as much work (but you have the advantage of more Narrator's playing experience here, no doubt).

These are a few first impressions, if I think of anything more I'll post it.

[Ineti]

I once played a long-term FUDGE game where the GM has a great idea for experience. The first time you used a skill or attribute in a session, you'd get a check mark for that skill or attribute.

Each attribute and skill had a rank, and each rank had X number of checks needed to improve. So, if you wanted your character's Sing to improve, you needed to make an effort every game session to have the character sing. Same with combat skills, observe skills, etc.

This was a really nice way to represent people getting better at things with practice and experience.

[Lt. Dade]

Call of Cthulhu uses a skill-specific, use-dependent advancement system, too. It's nice, and a good alternative to have, but not what necessarily appeals to me personally for a fantasy adventure game.

The obstacles that occur to me in the well-thought-out system above are:

1. This method does not result in less book-keeping, necessarily. Tallying experience points (which you're doing anyway for Edges and Order Abilities) doesn't require more bookkeeping than recording each skill check and its associated modifier for the Improvement Check throughout the course of the game.
2. Advancement is randomized. Advancement is the ultimate reward system of the game and bad rolls can now potentially rob the player of his right to advance his character. Thus, player groups no longer progress in relative equality. All of this might be good simulation, but it's bad fun. I would hate to be the player who sees all of his companions get better while he rolls three 2s on his Improvement Checks and stays the same.
3. Characters progress deeper into their niches contrary to the choices the player may have. From a gamer's perspective, this means that characters stay narrow while they excel and limits a player's ability to strategize when designing his character. From a roleplayer's perspective, this means that the primary tool the player has when authoring his character's arc (that is, advancement) is dulled or even broken. The player has little to no say as to how his character will advance or when.

The traditional method, yes, encourages characters to use the skills they're good at in place of those skills that might be best-suited for the job. (For the record, I think that's great, but that's an essay for another day.) However, the advancement picks (a great, discreet unit of measure for player narrative authority over their avatar) they get can be spent anywhere, allowing their characters to grow and legitimately improve. That is, the character gets good at different things. In a fantasy adventure game, where dangers presumably become more threatening and challenging over time, having the same few skills get better isn't improvement, it's keeping pace.

Coda System characters are somewhat unusual in regards to other RPGs in that they can excel right out of the gate. What happens to Lord of the Rings and Star Trek characters over time, then, is that they grow horizontally rather than vertically, if you will. Their abilities broaden rather than heighten. This is a good thing, in my opinion. It means that Sam is more than a great gardener when he returns to the Shire.
I can understand the desire to avoid a level-based system, but I don't fear or dislike them anymore. The usefulness they serve in communicating a character's power level and total experience isn't something I want to give up. Like a lot of gamers, I find it pleasant and satisfying to glance at Gimli's stat-block and see how many Advancements he has.
Still, there's this happy alternative that's been presented on many different lists and boards: Divide the advancement picks down into their 200 XP component parts and assign those one at a time. It's now a player's responsibility to save and budget their advancement picks as they see fit. It is easier for a character to splurge or waste advancement picks this way, though, which can also interfere with fun.

To each their own, of course. The level-less system certainly has its advantages, those just aren't what I've wasted your time writing about just now. I'm very glad to know that I have lots of alternative methods to play with in the future (that's why I started this thread!), but I'm also as interested in the whys as the hows right now.

Please, keep the experience and advancement ideas coming!

word,
Will

[Lt. Dade]

Originally posted by JeffTidball
That's awesome, and I intend to appropriate it in my game at home.

Yay!

I'll go so far as to recommend an associated practice, then. Give the players something physical they can handle to represent the nominations (a notecard to write on, a tootsie roll, a special die), or else they'll spend half an hour at the end of the session saying "There was something the hobbit did that was great but, now, I can't remember what it was. Whatever. Have some XP." Mnemonics leads to experience awards in the middle of a session sometimes ("That was great, take my nomination die."), but that's not so bad, in my experience. They can't spend it 'til later anyway and it really lights up a player's face.

word,
Will

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Lt. Dade
Call of Cthulhu uses a skill-specific, use-dependent advancement system, too. It's nice, and a good alternative to have, but not what necessarily appeals to me personally for a fantasy adventure game.

Yeah, I was inspiredby the <i>Runequest/Cthulhu/Pendragon/Elric!</i> system.

The obstacles that occur to me in the well-thought-out system above are:

1. This method does not result in less book-keeping, necessarily. Tallying experience points (which you're doing anyway for Edges and Order Abilities) doesn't require more bookkeeping than recording each skill check and its associated modifier for the Improvement Check throughout the course of the game.

Thanks for the feedback. I really appreciate it. I don't mind batting this around a bit, of you don't!

I understand your point, but I can honestly say, I've done CODA experience "by the book"and it requires much more bookkeeping than my system, believe me! For starters, in my system, players need only record skills they used at the Challenging or better, not every single use as per CODA. Once you've accomplished a skill at the Challenging level, you're done tracking that skill (unless you later record a higher degree of success with the same skill). The CODA system requires a record of <i>every</i> successful use of a skill. This gets mighty tedious. In my system, ten rounds of combat may result in one record kept, or two or three (in the case of higher successes later in the session). In CODA, ten rounds of combat may require ten records kept, or more, if the character takes multiple actions per round! Finally, in my system, more of the bookkeeping burden is shifted to the player, instead of the Narrator. In my game, I've got so much to keep up with, any relief is welcome!

2. Advancement is randomized. Advancement is the ultimate reward system of the game and bad rolls can now potentially rob the player of his right to advance his character. Thus, player groups no longer progress in relative equality. All of this might be good simulation, but it's bad fun. I would hate to be the player who sees all of his companions get better while he rolls three 2s on his Improvement Checks and stays the same.

On the other hand, you advance more quickly at low levels, and it gets tougher the better you get. This helps contain meteroric rises to 12 Ranks, in only three advancements. Otherwise, every Elf in Middle-earth would surely be a 12 in every skill appropriate to his order.

3. Characters progress deeper into their niches contrary to the choices the player may have. From a gamer's perspective, this means that characters stay narrow while they excel and limits a player's ability to strategize when designing his character. From a roleplayer's perspective, this means that the primary tool the player has when authoring his character's arc (that is, advancement) is dulled or even broken. The player has little to no say as to how his character will advance or when.

The traditional method, yes, encourages characters to use the skills they're good at in place of those skills that might be best-suited for the job. (For the record, I think that's great, but that's an essay for another day.) However, the advancement picks (a great, discreet unit of measure for player narrative authority over their avatar) they get can be spent anywhere, allowing their characters to grow and legitimately improve. That is, the character gets good at different things. In a fantasy adventure game, where dangers presumably become more threatening and challenging over time, having the same few skills get better isn't improvement, it's keeping pace.

Again, I understand your point, but it keeps people from making silly choices when trying to go lateral. If my characters are trekking through Mirkwood, why should they be able to arbitrarily advance in any skills that don't pertain to their current situation? Swimmable waterways are extremely rare in Mirkwood, for example. Should Mirkwood characters be allowed to put ranks into Swim upon advancement in the interest of creative control of the character? Using my system, they'll probably advance "automatically" in some skills (Ranged Combat, Armed Combat, Survival Forest, Stealth). But during game play they can look for creative ways to engage in skills and thus earn ranks (Jump, Climb, Acrobatics, possibly even Swim). As a narrator, I'll look for story-driven ways to give them these opportunities to expand their skillset beyond a narrow vertical.

Coda System characters are somewhat unusual in regards to other RPGs in that they can excel right out of the gate. What happens to Lord of the Rings and Star Trek characters over time, then, is that they grow horizontally rather than vertically, if you will. Their abilities broaden rather than heighten. This is a good thing, in my opinion. It means that Sam is more than a great gardener when he returns to the Shire.

In my experience thus far, the level-less system I'm proposing in no way stymies the kind of horizontal growth your describing--especially when characters can buy Edges, Order Abilities, Health and even New Orders. It just makes said growth less arbitrary, and more organic.

I can understand the desire to avoid a level-based system, but I don't fear or dislike them anymore. The usefulness they serve in communicating a character's power level and total experience isn't something I want to give up. Like a lot of gamers, I find it pleasant and satisfying to glance at Gimli's stat-block and see how many Advancements he has.

Ah, but you've got to watch that! I've demonstrated in another thread that this kind of "eyeballing" is pretty much useless as an accurate measure in CODA, because Decipher doesn't use a baseline when calculating Advancements for official "named" characters. In effect, they assume the Random method of character creation. Ineti and I had an engaging discussion a while back wherin I demonstrated Legolas was either a 25 Level character OR a 50 Level character, depending on if the Pick or Random method was chosen. Since all my players use the Pick method, I cannot compare them to Gimli, Legolas or any of the other characters who get their outrageously high stats for free! High ATTs make a <i>huge</i> difference in the relative power of characters. The closest thing we have to a" level playing field" is using the Pick method for all characters and making them pay for everything, including Renown.

To each their own, of course. The level-less system certainly has its advantages, those just aren't what I've wasted your time writing about just now. I'm very glad to know that I have lots of alternative methods to play with in the future (that's why I started this thread!), but I'm also as interested in the whys as the hows right now.

Please, keep the experience and advancement ideas coming!

By all means. Very interesting discussion. Thanks!

T.

[Lt. Dade]

Originally posted by Taliesin
I don't mind batting this around a bit, of you don't!

Not at all. I enjoy this stuff, too!

For starters, in my system, players need only record skills they used at the Challenging or better, not every single use as per CODA.

I'll have to go and check the language in the book (and see how much I'm inferring or drawing from Star Trek), but I was under the impression that the book only encourages specific skill awards for the key rolls in a given combat or encounter, much like yours. In other words, the killing blow against the troll or the mightiest stroke, depending. Regardless, in a strictly experience-based system, it's all subject to Narrator fiat anyway.

The division of book-keeping is certainly applaudable.

[QUOTE]On the other hand, you advance more quickly at low levels, and it gets tougher the better you get. This helps contain meteroric rises to 12 Ranks, in only three advancements./QUOTE]

Your system seems to assume not only that characters will desire a meteoric rise to 12 Ranks (NPCs, who presumably lead ordinary lives in the game world, should have few advancements and, honestly, plenty of ranks in Craft, Games, and other such skills) but that the Narrator has no other tools to dissuade this practice. Since the Narrator not only determined which skills will ultimately be of use in a given session but should have a respectable amount of sway over the campaign's tone, I think it's fair to presume that players who are concerned about the meteoric rise will avoid it. Those who are not concerned about it should be allowed to play the game the way they like.

Again, I understand your point, but it keeps people from making silly choices when trying to go lateral. If my characters are trekking through Mirkwood, why should they be able to arbitrarily advance in any skills that don't pertain to their current situation? Swimmable waterways are extremely rare in Mirkwood, for example. Should Mirkwood characters be allowed to put ranks into Swim upon advancement in the interest of creative control of the character?

First of all, it's the player's right to determine what is and is not a silly choice for their character. Restricting their freedom of choice turns advancement into an automated exercise, rather than a reward. It's their hand to play as they see fit, I say.

That said, should a character be allowed to place ranks in a skill that their character has had no in-game experience with? Yes, sometimes. Not only shoul that be up to the individual Narrator to encourage or dissuade as necessary for that play group, but there are several factors related to player enjoyment that also say "Yes."

A player has only so many points to spend during character creation with which to define their character. I think it's fair to allow them some leeway to expand the definitions of their character even if the Narrator hasn't given them the go-ahead in an adventure to do it. The tools used to expand those definitions are advancement picks, earned through play. Players, in other words, earn advancement picks instead of characters, because the player should get his say.

As far as easier advancement at lower levels, that's true to a point. Some player, though, is going to have trouble escaping the gravity of his character's skill ranks and so be prevented from developing the character he wants. That is, if I can't ever manage to get a damn TN 15 Swim check down (remembering environmental modifiers), then I'm going to keep getting screwed until I get lucky. That feels like a punishment for playing, rather than a reward. All games should reward play. I don't think the level-less spectrum of advancement is worth the player frustration, even if it's rare.

Using my system, they'll probably advance "automatically" in some skills (Ranged Combat, Armed Combat, Survival Forest, Stealth). But during game play they can look for creative ways to engage in skills and thus earn ranks (Jump, Climb, Acrobatics, possibly even Swim). As a narrator, I'll look for story-driven ways to give them these opportunities to expand their skillset beyond a narrow vertical.

Story-driven ways to encourage players to make particular choices are great. Giving players opportunities and automatically raising some skills still undermines the player's participation in the game. Since their character is the avatar in the game and the story, that restriction will eventually spill over into their ability to participate in the story, too. The existing system, while imperfect, encourages creative ways to engage in skills by encouraging players to play up their character's strengths rather than their weaknesses.

Your system specifically encourages characters to do the things they're bad at. That's counter-intuitive and doesn't sound like much fun.

In my experience thus far, the level-less system I'm proposing in no way stymies the kind of horizontal growth your describing--especially when characters can buy Edges, Order Abilities, Health and even New Orders.

It certainly does. If I want ranks in a skill, I have a barrier to entry which I must surpass as a player before I get to have my way with my own character. I can't put ranks in my Games skill until I get lucky on a die roll during the game (with my +1 modifier) and beat a chess master, in your system. Horizontal character growth not only includes skills, it's made up mostly of skills.

Your system also suggests that there is nothing to be learned from failure, I should point out. Chaosium's house system does cover that sort of thing, I think.

Your system is arguably more organic, but I can't yet agree that organic is necessarily better. There's a very real place for an arbitrary system, even in Middle-earth. I say it's exactly right for a player to be the arbiter of his own character. I say that the great thing about Coda character advancement is that it extends the character creation (or definition) process throughout the whole of a campaign, giving the player the power to tweak, color, and detail his character for as long as that character is alive.

Ah, but you've got to watch that! I've demonstrated in another thread that this kind of "eyeballing" is pretty much useless as an accurate measure in CODA, because Decipher doesn't use a baseline when calculating Advancements for official "named" characters.

The specific method that Decipher has used might be statistically unsound. The notion of a levelling mechanic is not. Further, all of the characters within my campaign use a single method, so I can use it to gauge their power level to some extent. I used Gimli as an example because if I said Sheriff Cotton, it wouldn't have meant anything. I'd think that the flexibility of the levelling system Coda uses (which could also be seen as intangibility or fogginess) would appeal more to level-less fans, but I guess I was wrong about that.

I've got to reinforce, here, that I don't think your system is unplayable or devoid of fun and use for you or your players (or a thousand other players who might be lurking right now). I just don't think your method fixes anything. I think it's weaknesses lay exactly where the Coda system's don't, and vice versa. It's a step sideways, not a step up, in my opinion. In that way, your method is exactly right for those folks who don't like the Coda system. I don't concede, though, that this reveals the Coda method of advancement as inherently "problematic."

I also think I've just written the same three sentences like nine times each, so I'm going to stop rambling your ear now!

word,
Will