megaplayboy
Apr 12th, '03, 11:36 PM
Just curious, has anyone ever tried scaling experience awards to the campaign point level?
For example, in an old survey, most respondents said they awarded about 2.5 xp per session--this for a 250 point type campaign. Technically, that's about 1 percent growth per session.
But for a 150 point Fantasy or SuperAgent game, that would be about 1.5 percent. For the new standard, 350, it's about .625 percent growth. And for the upcoming Galactic Champions campaign, rumored to be up to 1000 points, 2.5 xp would work out to .25 percent--it would take 400 sessions for characters to double their point totals. That's 8 years of weekly gaming, folks.
But in the 250 point campaign, it takes 100 sessions to double starting level. That's 2 years of weekly gaming, or four years at twice a month.
IN the 150 point game, it takes 60 sessions to the doubling point, 300 points. If you choose to do a low-end 100 point game, it only takes 40 sessions to double starting level.
So should 100 point and 1000 point characters earn experience at the same rates?
From a "realism" standpoint, the answer might be yes, but from a "playablity/enjoyability/genre feel" standpoint, the answer is probably no.
My suggestion:
take the campaign point level, divide it by 250, and multiply xp awards by that amount to get the adjusted xp award(round up in the players' favor)
This maintains the integrity of the existing experience system, but gives a proportional growth rate for any campaign.
For example, in an old survey, most respondents said they awarded about 2.5 xp per session--this for a 250 point type campaign. Technically, that's about 1 percent growth per session.
But for a 150 point Fantasy or SuperAgent game, that would be about 1.5 percent. For the new standard, 350, it's about .625 percent growth. And for the upcoming Galactic Champions campaign, rumored to be up to 1000 points, 2.5 xp would work out to .25 percent--it would take 400 sessions for characters to double their point totals. That's 8 years of weekly gaming, folks.
But in the 250 point campaign, it takes 100 sessions to double starting level. That's 2 years of weekly gaming, or four years at twice a month.
IN the 150 point game, it takes 60 sessions to the doubling point, 300 points. If you choose to do a low-end 100 point game, it only takes 40 sessions to double starting level.
So should 100 point and 1000 point characters earn experience at the same rates?
From a "realism" standpoint, the answer might be yes, but from a "playablity/enjoyability/genre feel" standpoint, the answer is probably no.
My suggestion:
take the campaign point level, divide it by 250, and multiply xp awards by that amount to get the adjusted xp award(round up in the players' favor)
This maintains the integrity of the existing experience system, but gives a proportional growth rate for any campaign.