[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Alternate eeps/buying habits
I will have to say that Lyle's suggestion with 1/4 xp, has a lot of merit.
For one, how much one can raise a skill after one adventurer is based on the
skill's base cost. This means that easy skills gain ranks quickly. Using
the marine and swimming example, the marine will be able to go from rank 0
to rank 8. I can see someone becoming a competent swimmer over the course
of a month (which to mean is what rank 8 means). Additionally, it will take
a person three times longer to learn a skill that is not part of his
background.
Unfortunately, like Steve says, this rule will have the effects of cheesing
some people off. For instance, one of my adventurers has bludgeon (and is
not a auger). Let's see... To get the next rank, I need to spend roughly
4500 xp. Under the current system, I need to wait two adventures which is
something I don't like but tolerate. Under Lyle's proposal, it would take
me 6 weeks to get the next rank. This assumes an exceptional adventure six
weeks in a row. For this skill, I think I would have given up on this skill
long before this point. Another example would be that it will take two
weeks to acumulate enough xp to go from rank 1 to rank 2 in a base cost 600
spell group (I won't even mention the higer ranks).
I would like to give a couple of alternatives.
1) Let's use the 1/4 system but have it where the skill can be increased by
at least one rank a week. In other words, when the cost to gain the next
rank is greater than 750, the rule of one rank per week kicks in.
2) For this one, I will wear my fire resistant suit. In "Table"master
(Rolemaster), one is allowed to increase the rank in a certain skill or
ability a certain number of times when the character gains a level. While
AQ does not have an equivalent to a level (to me rate is a measurement of
experience points), maybe this can be adapted for use in this situation.
For instance, we can say that spell groups are base cost 300(1). This would
mean that an adventurer can only improve that spell group once every
adventure. This would give the result of someone having to take 6 weeks to
get lighting bolt (seems reasonable) and 12 weeks to get divine word (again
seems reasonable). Whereas, we can say that swimming has a base cost of
20(5). This means that one can buy the skill up five times after an
adventure.
Thanks,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
To: gmlist@ns1.cioe.com <gmlist@ns1.cioe.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 01, 1998 5:08 PM
Subject: Alternate eeps/buying habits
>
>Ummm... I think we lose cite of the goal (anyone know what it is?)
>The only people affected (really) by any of these changes is low
>rating people. Check the math. Your running into a problem that
>while AQ has a linear buying system it works on the diminishing
>returns concept (the next two graphs illustrate this):
>
>s 12 .
>k 11 .
>i 10 .
>l 9 .
>l 8 .
> 7 .
>r 6 .
>a 5 .
>n 4 .
>k 3 .
> 2 .
> 1.
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1
> 0 1 2
>
> cost/point (* base)
>
>s 12
>k 11
>i 10
>l 9
>l 8 .
> 7 .
>r 6 .
>a 5 .
>n 4 .
>k 3 .
> 2 .
> 1.
> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
>
> eeps spent (* base)
>
>Lowering the number of eeps/adventure only causes the same progression
>to take longer in weeks (want those charts?). This is most notable at
>midlevels. At higher levels you pretty much stop buying stuff, how
>fast eeps come in just determine when this motivational cap comes in.
>
>Saying that you have the eeps but limiting how they can be spent has
>pretty much the same affect as lowering the number of eeps except that
>you end up with (in lyle's proposal since it calls for 25%) a four
>legged adventurer who is capped at the same point (height wise) as
>the specialized adventurer getting a 625 eep base. (model it)
>
>And in the end, nothing gets accomplished except people get unhappy
>because there is stuff that they can no longer reach. Unhappy = bad.
>We _ARE_ here to have fun. I like modelling and rule pondering, its
>part of my fun. I don't like adventurers who are lower than about
>rate 14. They just aren't flexible enough. At rate 14 (current eep
>endowment) they have already started having to wait an adventure per
>point of skill (except DP, that hasn't capped yet). I don't find
>anything frightening about rating 300 adventurers because I understand
>that they deal with the above curve. At that level they really aren't
>much more than a rate 100. They've had to spend a hell of a lot of
>eeps for little gain.
>
>This is all pretty basic. You want people to become more diversified,
>lead them on adventures where this diversification will help them
>(or its lack will hurt them). Stop holding killerama's and hold a
>skill contest. Probably no one will show up... that gives an indication
>of player mentality. But really adventuring comes down to combat and
>bits of esoteric knowledge.
>
>Doh, I'm babbling again. I, like everyone else for years past, say
>that the best way to make this change is to start adventuring the
>way it should be. Have a lot of hack-n-slash, but also force a lot
>of roleplaying. Spit out actors and force conversations. If a player
>spends the whole night saying 'i do blah' they are not roleplaying.
>We, that is to say GMs, determine the flavor of the game. If it is
>not to our liking who do we blame? The rules are convenient, but they
>are only a crutch. Rules are the framework. We work within them to
>create our illusions. If we seep through the gaps in the framework
>to easily or often, then we fix the rules... at all other times we
>are in control.
>
>Hey speaking of control... am I the only one who finds it funny
>when a GM says he can't 'handle' high rating players? What the
>hell does that mean? Are you the GM or aren't you?
>
> -Steve
>