Experience

1. Experience

   #1

   Seeing all those various tables created together for our game, and the speculations around them, I see a little problem or choice we have overlooked:
   
   If skills are paid for with experience, how much XP do we have to deal with?
   
   That's the question.
   
   Generally, there are two approaches:
   
   1. XP needed is GROWING linearly or exponentially (or however)
   
   To advance from Level 1 to Level 2 you need 500 XP, from Level 2 to Level 3 1000 XP, then 1500, then ...
   
   This sequence can be numbered in any number of ways. It is great for computer games, each monster is simply assigned some XP, and off you go killing them! The players have also the feeling they grow and grow and grow... but at some point the numbers grow beyond usable limits and get tiring.
   
   
   2. XP stays (almost) CONSTANT
   
   Means, that for any two similar adventures you get similar amounts of XP. We could make a 'price list' like this:
   
   Minor combat challenge 1 XP
   Major combat challenge 3 XP
   Good roleplaying 1-3 XP
   Achieving the objective of the adventure 2 XP
   Great ideas 1-3 XP
   Contributing to the campaign world 1-3 XP
   ...
   
   Of course, for a better played and more challenging adventure you get more XP. This option is good for both leveled and non-leveled systems. You can simply assign a number, say 30 or 50 or 100 XP to gain a level.
   
   One possible weak point is in recognising what is a 'minor challenge' or a major one. A dragon should be for any character a major challenge (or more), but if a munchkin knight walks in, immune to the flames, dodges with supernatural speed and chops off the poor beast's head with the first hit, he should get only 1 XP, or no XP at all!
   
   The second problem is in getting this into computer. Anyone seen this somewhere? If our game is run only with living, real GMs, I see no problem. But letting a computer award this XP sounds like problems...
   
   
   As for me, I vote for problems (Option 2.).
   
   What do you think?

2. Experience

   #2

   I'd have thought we'd be playing with live GMs, so you wouldn't need to worry about programming an XP-distributer. I'd also go for the second option: providing we could standardise the way all the GMs awarded XP, it'd be simpler.
   
   ephe!

3. Experience

   #3

   I dont know, the challenge of programmin an XP simulator sounds rather fun, I might try it even if you guys go Live DM's.

4. Experience

   #4

   I don't think it would be that hard if you'd already programmed in a combat system. Bear in mind that the munchkinism Manfred mentioned would be impossible in a well-designed computer system because there would be measures to stop things like that happening (e.g. the computer would detect an imbalance in player power and generate some random encounters targeted at the munchkin to wear him down a bit). So there wouldn't be that much subjectivity required in an XP distributer.
   
   However, points for good roleplaying would be impossible to assign since that is completely subjective and requires an understanding of what the player is saying and doing which a computer could not have. Therefore I think the idea of a live GM is a much simpler and more practical one (unless you want to write an AI which can parse the character's speech into something it understands, then forms an opinion on what it reads. This is unlikely to be possible).
   
   ephe!

5. Experience

   #5

   I'll agree w/ Sniper it sound so much more challenging...think about it expand the mind people creat the challenge for yourself...thats what this qhole damn thing iz about!!!!!!

6. Experience

   #6

   OK:
   
   Need some standards for the rewards ('price' list to be expanded).
   
   XP simulator, hmmm...
   Sounds interesting from a programmer point of view. Needs combat system first.
   
   
   "Detecting imbalance in player power." :)
   Can be Solved through:
   1. Random encounters
   2. 'Upgrading' some special monsters (quest beasts etc.) to fit the fighter.
   
   Both methods might be awkward after some time, so we better take care there be no munchkins.
   
   
   Challenging yourself? Sure, why not! Just don't make it a combat-only game, or maybe take care those with bloodlust have their fun-time too.
   
   
   All in all, we need a combat system. Or maybe a whole system! Just working at it. :twisted:

7. Experience

   #7

   We would need a combat and xp simulation both working together. The only real problem that arises (by real I mean unsolvable by todays standards), is the good roleplaying debate. Obviously, a computer cannot be subjective enough to give rewards for good roleplaying. However, in a purely computer based system, is a good roleplaying bonous even necessary. With the perameters set by the machine itself, its would be hard to stray from good roleplaying. Instead of a bonous for it, you will get penelized for not doing it by being wiped out by monsters early on. After all, the machine can detect player strengths and throw an appropriate monster at them, but if one character is being stupid, he will be weaker than others, and will be overrun were the monster can easily be defeated by others. So, in a sense we can just drop that aspect of the game as we switch to a computerized system!

8. Experience

   #8

   What if bonus XP was voted upon by the players. After every encounter, Successful or not, a list of awards is given: heroic act, best role playing, etc. One selection per catagory; one point per selection. This point total would be carried on, and would continue to accumulate until the completion of a campaign.
   
   At the end of a campaign, the player with the highest score receives an X amount of points. The scenarios, depending on their difficulty rating, would automaticly dish-out a set amount of points. All point totals would erase at the end of a campaign.
   
   To eliminate any cheating and hoarding, a player cannot vote for himself. Also, a character's point total would remain hidden until the end of a campaign.

9. Experience

   #9

   Having Characters vote on who gets XP bonouses would not only get annoying after a while, but it would just slow the game down far too much.
   
   If after every time you just fought the strongest monster you had seen so far and had actually beaten it, would you really want to have to sit down and analyze the fight afterwards? (hmmm, Brian got 3 hits so he should get X points) it just wouldn't work that well.
   
   As for having the scenarios automatically give a certain amount of points, it could work, but would they be equal for each player, or objective as to who did better. An objective system could be done, but the formula the machine would use to discover the correct amount would be incredibally complex.

10. Experience

    #10

    Who's Brian? :)
    
    I like the original idea, complete with Live GMs. I think that the time required for programming such an XP Distributor might be prohibitive. Generally, I think that as long as we have GMs in place observing the whole thing, the problem of munchkinism might not be a problem. (That is unless Dimense was one of the GMs. :wink: )

11. Experience

    #11

    Lol Captain! Yes, the idea of having a live GM is much easier, but it too poses a few problems. First, there is availability. If you have an actual human running the games, it is restricted to activity only when that one person feels like playing.
    
    Second, you run into the same problems you hit on games like D&D. The person may be entirely unfair, bringing up creatures far too advanced for the players.
    
    Also, (no real offense to Dimense meant) as you said, you can get people who have no idea what they are doing.

12. Experience

    #12

    I'm sorry, is Lol some sort of chatspeak? Because we have that agreement...

13. Experience

    #13

    I know that lol is there, but most people have still used it. Perhaps we can have this discussion somewhere other than this thread?

14. Experience

    #14

    Yes. We can.
    
    Anyway, yes, humans are fallible. And if the GMs go over the line, I'm sure that the other GMs jump all over them.

15. Experience

    #15

    Ok, so exactly how many GM's are we going to need in a game? 1 obviously wont work, for reasons stated above, but 2 is not much of an improvement. Where do we draw the line between mistakes and arguement (as will happen when too many are used, because they are bound to disagree on several issues)

16. Experience

    #16

    You present an interesting point...
    
    Anybody?

17. Experience

    #17

    I don't think evil GMs would be a problem if we picked people we know we can trust, as judged by their performance in the rest of the site. That means that Dimens is right out. But anyway. That still wouldn't solve the problem of time, unless they played on a set schedule. That might take a little of the fun out of it, but it would make things easier.
    A related thing: The Freeform threads suffer from players who vanish or who join in late, or just pop in, say something, and are never seen again. We're gonna have to control this, no matter what we do, unless it was a single player game. I really should do a better job in the forums. Anyway.

18. Experience

    #18

    Easier is not our greatest factor here. The entire object of this project is to create a "fun" environment in the game. If this is not established, the rest of the games aspects are worthless, as no one will play long enough to discover anyways. After we get people to play, then the next subject to adress is the ease in which we do this.
    
    After all, if we make it too difficult on ourselves, we will never finish at all, which can be considered worse than creating a boring game.

19. Experience

    #19

    I agree wholeheartedly.
    
    Who else thinks "wholeheartedly" is a funny word?

20. Experience

    #20

    I am still wondering about the number of GM's needed, is there any solution to that problem?

21. Experience

    #21

    This question was answered at the outset. Divide the total number of players into groups of 4 or 5. Each group needs a GM. Multiple GMs for a single group is not a necessary (or indeed viable) precaution:
    
    1. Any GMs used would be sufficiently experienced to act fairly and objectively. There's no problem having one GM in an ordinary game situation: why should that change online?
    
    2. Have you any idea how complicated it could get having 2 GMs? Which would have jurisdiction in the case of a dispute?
    
    Also the point you made about "only being able to play when the GM felt like it" is not valid: as it stands we can only play when the players feel like it, so this problem could opnly be eliminated by automating the players as well (which rather defeats the whole purpose of the enterprise).
    
    ephe!

22. Experience

    #22

    the problem with the GM is, even if a player doesn't want to play, the others can continue. Without a GM to controle them however, the players would be lost, and the game could not continue until the GM returned.
    
    Also, having different GM's for each group of 4-5 players could be bad. Some groups will complain they are not doing as well because their GM is worse than the others, or he is on less often. I still think an automated GM which is on 24/7 (obviously) is much easier than real GM's and can be more enjoyable if made correctly.

23. Experience

    #23

    Accuse me of Ludditism if you will, but I don't think a virtual GM can replace a human one.
    
    In the organisation of the tournament you'd have to prearrange dates and times for the groups to meet, and the GMs (as well as the players) would be making a commitment to those times when they took on the job. There would be no problem with missing GMs.
    
    The issue of variable quality GMs is indeed a cogent one, but I think it's unavoidable. The GMs would need a separate forum in which to convene and discuss and review their respective games. This would lead to an evening out of the variability as the GMs could modify their strategies based on those suggested by others.
    
    ephe!

24. Experience

    #24

    That could be so.
    
    Wait, I have an idea.
    
    We could create a system of rules, that must be followed by each GM in order to make them as equal as possible. These will explain exactly what kind of monsters they can throw at a party at each strength level, and govern other aspects of the game as well. In this case, GM's may differ, but the difficulty and such remains the same, so it all evens out in the end. I have no idea how to create these rules so someone else will have to take over.

25. Experience

    #25

    In this particular case, I don't think Luditeism is a bad thing. The computerized GM simply doesn't have the versatility, the creativity, and the imagination of the human GM.
    
    A separate forum for the GMs would be ultimately necessary, because conversation otherwise would be very difficult. If not a separate forum, PMs could be used.

26. Experience

    #26

    The rules could be written out as a thread; and edited by one: strolen, ephe, etc. There also would be a tips section to describe rules used in scenarios by all the DMs. These rules would give other DMs ideas on handling certain situations not covered in the rules, and may permit the writer of the rules thread to add a tip as an actual rule; or simply add a star next to the tip to show preference for a specific. Bad ideas could be given a skull, or simply erased.
    
    The tips would be listed under headings like: geographical, racial, skills, problems, etc. This would permit the flow ideas from all DMs, and assist in the maturation of the system.

The Labyrinth · All categories · Guildhall