Equalizing Character Progression

[shit-piss-love]

@Roz said in Equalizing Character Progression:

That is: everyone has the same amount of XP at all times. If you join a game a year after it’s opened, you get the XP you would have earned if you’d been there day one.

Yeah, this in particular is the effect I’m very curious about.

[Taika]

@Roz Isn’t that sort of how you ended up with 500+ xp upon completion of cgen on Fallcoast?

[Roz]

@Taika said in Equalizing Character Progression:

@Roz Isn’t that sort of how you ended up with 500+ xp upon completion of cgen on Fallcoast?

I mean, idk Fallcoast at all, and there are probably gonna be other considerations as a game’s lifespan continues, like possibly just capping the total XP. But – I mean, if there are PCs on the game who have put 500xp into their sheets, then yeah, tbh.

[mietze]

I really have enjoyed the passive XP/catchup XP on games. While there was a lot that was irritating about The Reach/Fallcoast, I actually really liked that newbs could come out of CG with enough XP on reserve that they could build the kind of PC that they wanted/that fit in with what RP they got drawn into.

This may be an effect of WoD the system, to be honest, but even with that it doesn’t solve the equity issue. For one thing, the biggest imbalancer in WoD IMO is people who are system/mechanics savvy and those that aren’t. The right build including when to buy things and when to not can have HUGE impact on +sheet and mechanics power on a WoD game. But that doesn’t just involve XP/+sheet building, it’s also about some people being able to convince staffers that aren’t equally knowledgable about the 4,529 individual splats and their unique rules that they should be able to have a thing/no really that power works that way, ect.

It doesn’t help with people gatekeeping or excluding or all that, but it makes building a sheet pretty fun!

The one lingering negative that I saw was that WHEN that style of game was very popular, and people got used to throwing tons of dice around and being maxed out in everything they tried–was that it was really hard to deal with when they came to other low-powered games and then threw a fit/pityparty or refused to do anything on that game because “well i’m not good so why bother”. I mean I get it in the sense that i did kind of have a little anxiety when I was used to an effective dice pool of like 20+ on some things to a place where the roll was more like…1. And even though EVERYONE on the low powered game was in the same boat, there were always people who just couldn’t deal and also couldn’t help commenting all the time about how horrible they were and why are they even there, nobody would want them when they just couldn’t be the best/guaranteed at everything–and that can be super awkward and taxing on the other people in the scene. Or like when people literally wouldn’t go do anything except sit on the channel complaining about how they didn’t get to do anything but no they’re not going to sign up for anything until they get enough dice to do something (something = near guarantee of smashing it) but they don’t get to dooooooo anything. Some people just handle the transition better than others.

[mietze]

That being said, I really like the idea of on a roster game, that if staff has the time to review rosters and the like once they’re turned in that they give an XP award when someone takes it that can only be spent on THAT PC (not transferred out to another). However, bookkeeping that in code really sounds like a nightmare.

[Birdie]

I like @Roz 's idea of catch-up and time XP. Does t have to be tons of XP but something of incentive for existing within reason. Being active in a way that you’re not just logging in/logging out. Firan would give you a birthday bonus if you happened to roll well on your birthday.

[Roadspike]

@shit-piss-love Time-based XP is the default in FS3. I wasn’t quite sure what to think of it at first, because “there wasn’t any reward for activity” (even though you get Luck based on your activity), but I’ve totally gotten used to it. I like that as someone who doesn’t have a ton of time to play, I don’t get left behind.

The idea of catch-up XP is an interesting one, on TSS, I believe we actually tweaked the roster characters a couple of times to keep them more in line with how characters were being created, but considering that FS3 has a relatively-flat progression, we didn’t worry too much about catch-up XP.

On a system that has a sharper curve, I think that regular tweaking of roster characters would be a good idea. I know from my experience on Arx that it can be a very jarring experience to take up a roster character and have their sheet not come anywhere near their BG.

[Roz]

@Roadspike said in Equalizing Character Progression:

On a system that has a sharper curve, I think that regular tweaking of roster characters would be a good idea. I know from my experience on Arx that it can be a very jarring experience to take up a roster character and have their sheet not come anywhere near their BG.

FWIW, I think you were on Arx really early, as I recall? So if you popped back in you might find some of the updates they made to that interesting. They calculate an overall average XP spent on sheets across all PCs and give characters free XP to catch up to that average, basically. It’s definitely helped a lot with what you mentioned, which I also have known the pain of in the past.

[Faraday]

FS3 has a flat character progression. Everyone gets 1XP per week. XP is a reflection of IC progress, not OOC contributions. Luck points are the OOC currency.

Why doesn’t the system give catchup points? It’s philosophical. Chargen represents your life up to the point you start the game; XP represents what you learn after chargen. So awarding a pack of XP right out of the gate runs counter to the whole reason XP exists.

But what about “fairness”? FS3 is not designed to balance characters in the first place, so leveling out XP is not a goal.

In practice, progression after chargen is so slow that there isn’t much difference between a brand new char and one who’s been playing for a few years anyway (assuming equivalent chargen spends).

[Roadspike]

@Roz Pretty early. I think I was the… second… Gabriel Bisland? For about a month? I didn’t mention it to be a knock on Arx, I figured they’d probably figure out a solution (I got a little bit of catch-up XP on Gabriel when I started I think, although he was a starting character sheet-wise). I just mentioned it as a supporting fact for the idea that roster characters falling behind on a big XP game can be a shock. Especially if the roster characters have a big reputation ICly.

[Roz]

@Roadspike said in Equalizing Character Progression:

@Roz Pretty early. I think I was the… second… Gabriel Bisland? For about a month? I didn’t mention it to be a knock on Arx, I figured they’d probably figure out a solution (I got a little bit of catch-up XP on Gabriel when I started I think, although he was a starting character sheet-wise). I just mentioned it as a supporting fact for the idea that roster characters falling behind on a big XP game can be a shock. Especially if the roster characters have a big reputation ICly.

Yeah, I remember you being a really early Gabriel! But I didn’t actually read your post as being a knock, nor was mine meant to be a defense. I was just agreeing how it totally IS an issue and sharing some of the stuff they’ve explored to help mitigate it in the time since you were there.

[Jennkryst]

A thing I played around with when I staffed on Shadowrun Denver like… a decade ago (which everyone hated for different reasons which proves it is the best idea) was skill retention times!

Denver, being 3rd edition, has training times for raises… but also has time management for damn near everything. Time is a resource. And Denver (at the time) was super into being mega simulationist. More than Shadowrun 3e is by default.

So what do I mean retention times? Well, since raising skills was linked to spending time to raise it… maintaining skills at a certain level should also take time. Olympic athletes spend damn near all of their time rising to - and staying at - that level. If you don’t, say… allocate time to go to the gym or the gun range, maybe you don’t maintain that Athletics or Firearms skill?

Of course, if you do spend all your time I’m the gym or the gun range, maybe you don’t have time to keep your sweet tuba-playing or marching band/dancing skillz that got you a silver medal in world class competition.

… not that I’m bitter or anything.

I mean, look. We all took basic high school math, right? Do you remember any of it? Probably not a lot. Because it’s been years since you were actively doing it every day. Or if you were bad at math, replace it with the thing you were good at, but has fallen to the wayside because some capitalist jerk told you it wasn’t going to make you any money so why bother.

I forgot exactly where I was going with this, here have some Christmas in July: https://youtu.be/Zsxkj1gu-6o

[Pyrephox]

In the FS3 games I’ve played, both flat XP progression and XP caps on everything but background skills work out fine. People don’t obsess as much about ‘catching up’ or XP farming, and most characters seem perfectly competent.

Mind you - there’s not a lot to spend XP //on// in most of the FS3 games I’ve played, so there’s not a whole bunch of FOMO. No one’s really flashing cool powers and abilities that you can’t…quite…afford, and they’ve tended to be very easy going and unlikely to push character death, so there’s not a lot of fear of ‘I must be X mechanically competent or I won’t survive combat’.

[Faraday]

@Jennkryst said in Equalizing Character Progression:

So what do I mean retention times? Well, since raising skills was linked to spending time to raise it… maintaining skills at a certain level should also take time.

FS3 has the same basic concept baked in, but in a less-simulationist way that doesn’t require you to actively manage it. It just assumes that you’re going to maintain your skills at the current levels, and that’s why there’s a cap on how many high skills you can have. Nobody has the time to be a world class boxer AND musician AND physicist all at the same time.

[glitch]

@mietze One of the big problems with The Reach’s catchup mechanism came about from early projections of a 2-3 year life for the game and the max possible XP gain per week supposedly a known quantity

I was overly tickled with myself at the time, but when 6-month catchup became even 30xp per week, it became silly. Let alone what it would become years later. It was definitely a learning experience though.

I am a big fan of @Roz’ approach. It gives people XP to play with each week and things to look at to spend, but when a new person comes in, they don’t, for example, start at gnosis 1 and hit gnosis 5 in 6 months. It also allows them to build a mostly comparable character if they’d like to, with XP to use how they want if they want to bank some. A complete character from CG at an XP pool equivalent to the rest of the game makes for better IC continuity than every newb being a zero-to-hero in a few months.

A set XP per week with an understood common pool also allows game runners to manage their game progression since the only thing they have to account for is a roughly equivalent power level that they can slow down or speed up as necessary.

[Polk]

I think this is a complicated subject, that doesn’t have one correct answer.

The smaller a game, the more you can run it like a pure, classic tabletop, where you really want the party roughly equalized. In scenarios like that Roz’s time-based idea is a good one.

The larger a game, the more you’re going to have inherent disparities, and the more you have to find a way to DEAL with that. Not all PCs can be at the same point in their arcs in a big enough game.

One clever way I’ve seen that handled this is a hard retirement cap, but resolved with an epic sendoff. You’re not just booted from the grid, you get to be the star of a grand finale and exit with style. Your story gets a conclusion. That prevents “dinos.”

But it cuts off stories arbitrarily and ends characters people might really be attached to.

Another idea the concept of diminishing returns. So you still get XP as time goes on, so you still have motivation to get out and get XP, and you can still buy stuff. But over time you won’t end up with 3000 XP dinos, so effectively people can catch up.

[Roz]

@Faraday said in Equalizing Character Progression:

In practice, progression after chargen is so slow that there isn’t much difference between a brand new char and one who’s been playing for a few years anyway (assuming equivalent chargen spends).

@Pyrephox said in Equalizing Character Progression:

Mind you - there’s not a lot to spend XP //on// in most of the FS3 games I’ve played, so there’s not a whole bunch of FOMO. No one’s really flashing cool powers and abilities that you can’t…quite…afford, and they’ve tended to be very easy going and unlikely to push character death, so there’s not a lot of fear of ‘I must be X mechanically competent or I won’t survive combat’.

Yeah, I’ll admit that in a number of FS3 games I’ve played, it may not have been a huge difference. Some games expand what XP can be spent on, though, like Spirit Lake, where XP was used to purchase spells. And while I know they did eventually start giving some free spells to new characters, and it didn’t necessarily make a PC any less able to participate in plot to not have the same breadth of spells – it can feel less fun to just not have as many fun options to play with purely because you started a game later. This isn’t intended to be a knock on Spirit Lake, who I know put thought and effort into the best way to solve or alleviate that issue, but they’re just – an example that tends to stick in my mind. XP, in that scenario, really does become a currency for your character getting to feel cool and fun in that regards. Of course, this is a super custom usage of FS3 XP!

@Polk said in Equalizing Character Progression:

The larger a game, the more you’re going to have inherent disparities, and the more you have to find a way to DEAL with that. Not all PCs can be at the same point in their arcs in a big enough game.

Why tho?

That may sound kind of flippant, but I actually mean it kind of seriously. I feel like there’s this lingering sentiment in a lot of corners of “well, you have to OOCly earn your right to be super cool/as powerful as others who have been on the game longer,” and that’s kind of at the heart of the approach I don’t like. I think that, if anything, XP should be locked more to IC age (in addition to IC time). (And, if you want to dig deeper into IC age, then you can also start to cap or degrade certain stats or skills at certain ages so you can’t just be super old but still an Olympic-level athlete.)

Arx is a real big game, and although it doesn’t have time-based XP, and it hasn’t sought to make XP totally equal across all PCs, it did calculate a baseline average of PC sheets in order to give those falling below average catchup XP, and it helped alleviate some (some!!) of the frustration people had in that arena. In that regard, it didn’t really matter where PCs were in their on-cam stories; they were all adults who had similar amounts of IC time to cultivate their skills.

That said, I do understand that a big genre people are going to be talking from the perspective of here is WoD, of which my experience is EXTREMELY limited.

[Pavel]

I think a key part, in my view, of equalising character progression but still allowing meaningful progression is having some nature of character age limit, XP limit, or other encourager to prompt people to retire characters.

The main comparison when it comes to progression is between fresh new characters and years-old dinosaurs. So. Eradicate the dinosaurs. Either, have an XP cap (or skill cap, as in FS3), or have a retirement age “characters can last six months, that’s it.”

[Third Eye]

I think there’s an inherant tension between opening up progression tracks that feel satisfying and putting the PCs on as equal footing as possible and, while I generally agree with the idea of catch-up XP, I think it’s more complicated than that and I’m not sure how to resolve it. I think if everyone is getting roughly equivalent XP you shift the stuff that requires time/grinding to other things, and thereby shift the dino problem. Maybe to arenas where it’s less visible particularly to newbs, but it’s still present. On some games I’ve been on, IC items/gear have become a big thing, or alternative XP sinks, or customizable stuff, and so on. I don’t think this is bad, I think progression is an intangible but important OOC motivator and I do get bored when I ‘top out.’ I just don’t think this question should begin or end with XP.

Like one thing I’m trying to think about right now for a maybe-new thing is alternative progression sinks when PCs are starting on more equal footing and have similar roles, but inspiration hasn’t struck yet.

[sao]

My PCs on fs3 games consistently get behind others because my adhd interferes with my ability to deal. On SL, my inability to stay on top of this so that Dominica was consistently behind others who started around the same time contributed directly to my drifting on a character I loved. There were definitely other factors but it was right up there as one more thing for my broken ass brain to fail at. Why is this dedicated and competent woman not succeeding at what she’s setting her mind to? Idk, her player sucks. There’s no IC justification, it’s a 100% OOC problem. Feels bad, man.