Background Story Rewards

[Christopher]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

One: A background counter to the game is not likely to "improve the quality of the gaming experience" for anyone' date=' much less everyone.[/quote']

The specific GM (as opposed to an abstract GM) apperently determined that it does for his specific (as opposed to abstract) group.

 

That not all possible GM and all possible groups will agree is self-explanatory. That you disagree is something you expressed extensively in this thread and others.

 

Two: The reward for being present is participating in the game. As Sean pointed out, the reward for a good personality and background that ties to the game is enhanced participation in the game.

 

Three: What is the GM's reward for being present? If the intrinsic reward of running the game is sufficient for him, why is the intrinsic reward of playing in the game inadequate for the players? "Fun" is the reward. If the fun is there, character power bribes are not needed. If the fun is not there, character power bribes are not going to fix that.

Most games I know of also reward experience points (in addition to fun). Character progression in the limits of the XP-System is integral part of the Fun.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I am slowly trying to develop my own campaign, and as someone who is more interested in the story than the mechanics, I am wanting to offer bonuses for players who can come up with good, cohesive backgrounds and am willing to pony of the dough, as it were, to reward them for good backgrounds. I was thinking that if a player had a good background, but fell a little short of some points for making the character that I would spot a few points, and I have considered giving free bonuses to skills, contacts, favors, and reputation, also.

 

Does anyone else practice this way? If so, how well does it work, and what guidelines do you employ?

 

The specific GM (as opposed to an abstract GM) apperently determined that it does for his specific (as opposed to abstract) group.

 

Actually, he asked about others' experiences, how well it works and what guidelines are employed by others. That's how the thread started, as noted above. Different opinions are what make such a discussion relevant.

 

Most games I know of also reward experience points (in addition to fun). Character progression in the limits of the XP-System is integral part of the Fun.

 

I agree with Sean that they are not integral, but that's a different issue.

 

However, I also don't think variable xp between characters is remotely integral. Many games award equal experience points to all characters, while others make the xp reward a component of competition between players - the "best" players get more xp, and thus more powerful characters. Some gamers like that competitive aspect (the GM's role includes judging the players' role playing skills to allocate rewards in such games), and others prefer a more co-operative approach where characters advance at the same pace. "Advancement at the speed of plot" is making its way into some d20 products, where the GM simply levels up the characters at appropriate points of the scenario, with no attention paid to point by point xp accumulation. That would obviously not be a great fit for a group of competitive players measuring their success in their xp totals.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Absolutely. If your GM decides to go on a "tragedy porn" kick and rape and murder DNPCs a player absolutely has the right to say "hell no". If an issue hits to close to home (perhaps something related to abuse earlier in life, recent death of a friend/relative, et cetera) the player has every right to say "you know, I'm not comfortable role playing this topic".

 

 

 

I don't think anyone said that a player can (or should) simply refuse to deal with any development in the game world they don't like. That being said, the point of the game is for everyone to have fun and if there is a subject that makes someone truly uncomfortable the GM should at least consider alternate possibilities to his plans. Yes the player is "creating a character to interact with the GM and the world" but the GM is also creating a world for the players to have fun interacting with. Your attitude (condescending comments: "poor little player" "good grief") comes across very adversarial, GM vs PC, "if the player doesn't like it too bad, it's my world". That's not the sort world I want to play in or the sort of GM I want to play with.

 

Perhaps this kind of situation is best handled by the players providing the GM up front with a list of things they don't want to see in the game. Of course, the GMs should also be able to provide their players with a list of things they do not want to see. However, it was sounding like people wanted the GM to ask the player about anything that might involve their character before it happened. I don't want to do that as a GM and I don't want that as a player. I don't want to be asked if it's okay if the GM has my Hunted murder my DNPC, I want to experience it as it happens. Now, if I don't want things like that to happen, then I should let the GM know upfront when I join the campaign. Now, in my mind, the player can also say after the fact, "I didn't enjoy that. I would prefer it if you didn't do anything like that again." I'm just not big on spoiling future plot developments. And as a GM, I would rather not know what a player is planning to do until he does it.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

When the player has a problem with his characters DNCP's being brutally raped and murdered but the GM's story depends on it - then the GM plays a type of game the players simply does not.

When you start preparing your adventure, the FIRST step has to be to figure out if the Players are okay with the tone and the bad stuff that will happen (without any chance for them to prevent it).

 

Again, I don't say "nothing bad should ever happen". That would be dull gaming.

But if the player expresses that he is not comfortable with the direction the adventure takes, then the GM has just to accept that and go on without that part. No mater how much the GM loves his scenario and how much work he put into it, his fun should never come at the expense of one player.

 

How exactly did we go from "So the GM should give up future developments because poor little player might not like it?" (rjcurrie) to DNPCs being raped and murdered?

 

I appreciate that exaggeration is an acceptable part of argument, but let's not be silly. I'm certainly not arguing for that sort of thing, nor the 'tragedy porn' thing that bigbywolf spoke of, and I'm pretty sure no one else is either. If a player is not comfortable with a direction the game is taking, fine, they express it and the GM, being, hopefully, a decent and normal human being, will either do something about it or discuss it with the player until they reach some sort of agreement. Or the player can decide not to play in that game if differences really can not be resolved.

 

The thing is though that it is the GM running the game, it is the GM writing the scenario. If it is at the expense of ONE player then either the GM is picking on the player (which is clearly bad GMing and bad human being), or everyone else playing is OK with the direction of the game and that one player should not be there as they clearly do not fit in. I repeat: the player can always not play. If everyone stops playing, the GM won't be playing anyway, but, again, that seems like such an extreme situation. These are role playing games we are involving ourselves in. Part of that - the major part to my mind - is exploring roles that you might not be entirely comfortable with.

 

I'm just about to start playing a DnD game and I'm pretty sure my character, who is ostensibly 'good', will be killing a lot of opponents, or assisting in killing them. That is not something I would do, that is alien to my psyche, but I can role play it fine. It is expected of the character, pretty much a fundamental of the game. Can I complain if a GM orc hunts down and attacks members of my family after I've slaughtered my way through his family?

 

Well, I can complain, but I'd be a hypocrite.

 

Hero is a bit different because if a GM removes DNPCs without consent or really good reason, he is messing with the character creation itself which IS part of the Player's demesne. OTOH the player is getting points for the character by putting up his DNPCs for involvement - sometimes violent involvement - in the story.

 

Now don't go suggesting I'm advocating a 'GM is always right' policy, this is a cooperative game, but if you create DNPCs, they are there for a reason. You might think it is so that you can have a story to tell, but the game thinks that it is because you are giving the GM, in exchange for creation points, the right to mess with them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I've known players who are never happier than when they are assailed from all sides by tragedy, and I've known players who are really just there because they like wargaming. I'm happy to accommodate both and it is easy enough to do so. I'm not convinced I should be rewarding the first player and not the second. The first one probably does not care that much about the mechanical build, the second one probably does, so I'd make more people happier by giving the points to the wargamer and shooting the first one's character's girlfriend.

 

Quite simply if the players are creating backgrounds for points, well it is clearly the points they are interested in, and if they are creating backgrounds anyway, they won't need a reward to do so.

[Christopher]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

However' date=' I also don't think variable xp between characters is remotely integral. Many games award equal experience points to all characters, while others make the xp reward a component of competition between players - the "best" players get more xp, and thus more powerful characters. Some gamers like that competitive aspect (the GM's role includes judging the players' role playing skills to allocate rewards in such games), and others prefer a more co-operative approach where characters advance at the same pace.[/quote']

Now I wonder where you stand.

At first it sounds like your "players are so mature they don't need XP". Now it sounds like your "players are so competitive, I could not pull that off without bad blood".

 

Quite simply if the players are creating backgrounds for points' date=' well it is clearly the points they are interested in, and if they are creating backgrounds anyway, they won't need a reward to do so.[/quote']

And again I ask: How is that different from awarding XP for being there to play?

Is the chance that someone plays mostly to get XP for his character so much higher than the chance that somebody writes a background only to get XP for his character?

Or is it somehow inherently better to recieve XP for play over XP for Background?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

....

 

 

And again I ask: How is that different from awarding XP for being there to play?

Is the chance that someone plays mostly to get XP for his character so much higher than the chance that somebody writes a background only to get XP for his character?

Or is it somehow inherently better to recieve XP for play over XP for Background?

 

You must be confusing me with someone else because I've never suggested awarding XP for turning up. In fact I have argued against it.

[Christopher]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

You must be confusing me with someone else because I've never suggested awarding XP for turning up. In fact I have argued against it.

So you don't use XP systems at all or a flat gain system (unrelated to activity)?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

So you don't use XP systems at all or a flat gain system (unrelated to activity)?

 

I usually start with characters at the same points level and then, if the story needs it, redesign them at a different point level if it makes sense to do so.

 

Sometimes I will start characters at 50 points under the expected campaign level and then award a flat 5 or 10 points per session, to portray the genre trope of a steep initial learning curve. Again all characters will progress at the same rate, because I can see no merit in doing otherwise.

 

The point is that changes in creation points are something that is story based. This is not a competition.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Now I wonder where you stand.

At first it sounds like your "players are so mature they don't need XP". Now it sounds like your "players are so competitive, I could not pull that off without bad blood".

 

I'm not sure where you see a link between maturity and xp at all. A player can be immature whether or not they're getting xp. I don't think you can "make" a player more mature through awarding or denying xp.

 

Some gamers like the competitive aspect (the GM's role includes judging the players' role playing skills to allocate rewards in such games), and others prefer a more co-operative approach where characters advance at the same pace. Two different styles. Neither is inherently superior, just different.

 

And again I ask: How is that different from awarding XP for being there to play?

Is the chance that someone plays mostly to get XP for his character so much higher than the chance that somebody writes a background only to get XP for his character?

 

Do you really think a player who doesn't want to play is going to show up because you offer him extra xp? I think players play because they enjoy the game. They don't WANT to miss the session. Now, by docking him xp for missing the session, I'd say you just make a bad situation worse. if he's competitive, now he's behind because, due to circumstances, he was unable to attend a session. So now he's "losing". Does that make him likely to blow off his boss or his family and come to the game next time, or just stop showing up at all? I don't know. I do know it doesn't seem like either makes the game more fun.

 

Or is it somehow inherently better to recieve XP for play over XP for Background?

 

Are we here to play or here to write backgrounds? I'll turn that around. If you're giving xp for a background, why not xp for writing stories about what your character does between gaming sessions? What do we get from a background that we don't get for filling in those between-games blanks?

[The Main Man]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I suppose in my case that it's less about rewarding a player for writing a background and more about me wanting backgrounds from them and so I create an incentive for it. That said, different groups can be differently motivated. Some need a carrot, others don't.As for XP from gameplay, I think players like character development in more than just their storytelling. People can learn new things in real life, so why not characters? A GM doesn't need XP because they are mere degrees from omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence - they control everything except the PCs - so they have nothing to personally gain when their every word shapes the world.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Look at this from the POV of a player who does not really want to produce a background: they don't and they loose out on free points, they do and they have been coerced into doing something they do not want to.

 

Look at this from the POV of a player who does want to produce a background: they are getting free points for something they would have done anyway.

 

This is more about what the GM wants the players to do, isn't it? If you (as GM) want to put pressure on players to produce a background, well, accept that you are doing that and go for it. As a regular GM I can not see the merit in that approach.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Does DnD have a Height stat now?

 

Thought I put in 3 for strength-whoops

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Look at this from the POV of a player who does not really want to produce a background: they don't and they loose out on free points, they do and they have been coerced into doing something they do not want to.

QUOTE]

 

This may be true but have you ever know someone to take less disadvantages (complications), and thereby less points because he doesn't want to deal with the hassle of coming up with more disadvantages. And I write this, the thought does occur to me isn't in a sense we are giving points for background through complictions? In fact what is the difference? I hate coming up with a long list of disadvantges yet I did it for the points. Whereas I know of some people that would still gladly create characters with flaws and such in other games where you get no points for having a disadvantage.

[The Main Man]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I think this raises a question: what can players demand of their GM? Furthermore, can the GM demand anything in return?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Look at this from the POV of a player who does not really want to produce a background: they don't and they loose out on free points, they do and they have been coerced into doing something they do not want to.

 

This may be true but have you ever know someone to take less disadvantages (complications)' date=' and thereby less points because he doesn't want to deal with the hassle of coming up with more disadvantages. And I write this, the thought does occur to me isn't in a sense we [b']are [/b]giving points for background through complictions? In fact what is the difference? I hate coming up with a long list of disadvantges yet I did it for the points. Whereas I know of some people that would still gladly create characters with flaws and such in other games where you get no points for having a disadvantage.

 

That is a good point: we do do that, don't we? That leads onto another issue entirely though - Hero character creation is balanced mainly for combat, and a lot of complications are quite combat nasty - vulnerabilities and susceptibilities - whereas many are not - things like unusual looks and whatnot. Given that we always do take maximum complications (well, I always have and I do not know anyone who doesn't), there is an inbuilt expectation of horse trading. I'll have a think about that; it is something that is so ingrained I had not really given it due consideration.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I think this raises a question: what can players demand of their GM? Furthermore' date=' can the GM demand anything in return?[/quote']

 

Beer?

[Christopher]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I'm not sure where you see a link between maturity and xp at all. A player can be immature whether or not they're getting xp. I don't think you can "make" a player more mature through awarding or denying xp.

 

Some gamers like the competitive aspect (the GM's role includes judging the players' role playing skills to allocate rewards in such games), and others prefer a more co-operative approach where characters advance at the same pace. Two different styles. Neither is inherently superior, just different.

You didn't answer the question, but let's re-formualte it:

What type of XP-System do you use?

Personalised/Activity based system (the default in most gamesysytems)

Flat Amount, regardless of activity

Story driven Development

 

Do you really think a player who doesn't want to play is going to show up because you offer him extra xp?

No. I think there are players that are more intersed in "leveling up" than the Roleplay. Mind you, the don't have to be "Hack'nSlash, kill everything that moves and looks like XP". If the game awards XP for roleplaying, then he could be perfectly well with that.

You seem to asume that everyone that plays does it or should do it "because the fun to play", that every other motivation is "flawed".

I say that a Wargamer and a Roleplayer can perfectly play together and have fun, as long as neither side steps on the othpers toes.

 

And about the "palyer can't be there so he get's no XP-Situation:

Doesn't the ability to have extra chances of participation (Background, Stories) allow a player to actually catch up in XP and roleplay more at the same time?

 

Are we here to play or here to write backgrounds? I'll turn that around. If you're giving xp for a background' date=' why not xp for writing stories about what your character does between gaming sessions? What do we get from a background that we don't get for filling in those between-games blanks?[/quote']

Take a look at post Nr. 3 in this thread:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/89941-Background-Story-Rewards?p=2338459#post2338459

 

This may be true but have you ever know someone to take less disadvantages (complications)' date=' and thereby less points because he doesn't want to deal with the hassle of coming up with more disadvantages. And I write this, the thought does occur to me isn't in a sense we [b']are [/b]giving points for background through complictions? In fact what is the difference? I hate coming up with a long list of disadvantges yet I did it for the points. Whereas I know of some people that would still gladly create characters with flaws and such in other games where you get no points for having a disadvantage.

I personally find the high amount of "required" Complications one of the main issues with 5E. There is only so much I want to be in there.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

You didn't answer the question, but let's re-formualte it:

What type of XP-System do you use?

 

Whatever type strikes my fancy for the specific game, and player group, in question.

 

I don't believe I've ever played in a pure "eat what you kill" game (eg. xp awarded for striking the killing blow, or allocated based on who did the damage).

 

I've certainly played in games where XP was divided amongst the players, following which bonuses or penalties were applied for "good role playing", missed sessions, etc. (not directly related, but older D&D editions gave a bonus for high stats). Most of those were D&D games, where required xp doubled every level, so even if you only got half the xp award (which is the floor in most games I recall, as it was the level for NPC's), you never fell more than a level behind. This was the default in Hero (base award for scenario, +1 for good role playing).

 

Over time, our group gravitated to "xp is equal" on the basis that the characters grew at the same pace (and xp attributes to characters, not players). I'd say 3rd Ed D&D was a tipping point in that regard, with all characters now gaining a level at the same xp totals. I've certainly played a lot of games like that.

 

We're currently playing an AP which provides specifically that advancement is at the speed of plot, so much less experience there. However, in a discussion our players had about that, we noted that, especially with the 3e shift, we've been much less prone to see the GM provide xp numbers every session, and much more prone to have the GM track the xp and tell us when we gained a level, so how would we know if we had shifted to advancement at the speed of plot?

 

In fact, a fairly recent discussion involved the GM of another game commenting that, when we recently gained a level, it was surprising how close we were to the next one. The unsolicited feedback was "well, just advance us when it suits the upcoming adventures - playing at this level for a while is fine". There was general agreement, and no expressed disagreement, with that sentiment.

 

I don't think anyone has disagreed with keeping xp equal, and the characters at equal level (or xp in a Hero setting), whether based on formulaic xp awards or speed of plot advancement.

 

I don't believe I've ever played a "no xp/character advancement" game, although I have played in systems (such as Star Wars d6 and Basic Role Playing based games) where advancement was not directly linked to an xp tracking mechanism. I certainly have characters who would play just fine for years with no change in their abilities, and who don't change very fast under the Hero xp system.

 

I don't believe I've ever played a game where advancement was based on training outside the adventures, but there have been some over the years. Was it Golden Heroes that tracked character improvement based on "DUP"'s available for training, and cautioned the GM against allowing characters of absent players extra DUP's for training on the basis they had time while the others were on the adventure?

 

So I pretty much use whatever xp system is favoured by the group. If it was a problem, I'd raise it and it would hopefully be discussed and resolved. I've never seen one that incented a significant change in player behaviour, nor one providing a disincentive to remain in the game, both of which would be pretty extreme. I suspect the xp system in such cases would more reflect an underlying group attitude which provided the incentive/disincentive than the xp system alone being the incentive.

 

Personalised/Activity based system (the default in most gamesysytems)

 

I disagree with your conclusion. I think far more games have a formula for xp received by the group than xp received by each character. However, I would agree most games start with the premise the character receives xp for those adventures the character participates in. Here, another group dynamic question comes into play - does the absence of the player equal absence of the character? I've never played a game where the missing player's character is suddenly encased in crystal and not involved when the player is absent. Rather, another player or the GM assumes running that character as an NPC and the game continues. As such, the character remains a participant and xp is awarded as normal. To the extent bonuses/penalties apply for individual role playing, those opportunities aren't available to an absent player, and I have run games where less xp (but not no xp) is awarded for periods of absence.

 

Flat Amount' date=' regardless of activity[/quote']

 

I've certainly played in games where all the characters gained xp at the same rate, but not where only some characters participated in each adventure. However, to toss the question back, how many gamers start all new characters at 0 xp? That is, the 8th level party (or 100 - 150 xp Hero characters) add a new recruit with no xp whatsoever when a new player joins, or a player changes his character? In my experience, the new characters are given xp at, or close to, that of the existing characters. That seems like a flat amount, regardless of activity.

 

I've seen other approaches - the newbie character starts at no xp, and the next several adventures consist of the higher level characters protecting him so he can gain xp (typically at a more rapid rate, based on an xp system that awards higher xp for higher challenges, and an equal match for more powerful characters thus gives more xp to the outmatched lower power character - despite the fact that character has little to no impact on resolving the challenges). I prefer the "equivalent characters" approach.

 

Another aside - I had someone comment on the 3e D&D charge of xp for building magic items. He noted this could be gamed so the creator gained xp faster. When the group goes up, burn enough xp to stay - barely - at the previous level. The xp formula gives that lower level character more xp for the same encounters, so he can pass the other characters when xp is next awarded.

 

Story driven Development

 

As noted, we're currently playing an adventure path where the characters gain a level when the module says they do. No issue with that, at least so far. I suspect we'd gain levels at more or less the same pace anyway.

 

Shouldn't the game be driven by the story? I like to keep a list of where my characters' xp will be going so I can plan that and, where relevant, insert training in the game.

 

No. I think there are players that are more intersed in "leveling up" than the Roleplay. Mind you' date=' the don't have to be "Hack'nSlash, kill everything that moves and looks like XP". If the game awards XP for roleplaying, then he could be perfectly well with that.[/quote']

 

Sure. Should we always be chasing xp? If that's what the group finds fun, sure. If you cut through the crap, though, what difference does it make? L1 characters face goblins and orcs that are challenging, but winnable. L12 characters face dragons and demons that are challenging, but winnable. The power of the opposition moves to track that of the characters.

 

If you take an existing Hero team, add 2 SPD, 3 OCV, 3 DCV, 3 Damage Classes and 10 defenses to each one, will the next scenario feature similar adversaries as in the prior session, or will the power of the opposition (whether individual power, or numbers, or whatever other balancing factor you choose) be adjusted to match the team's new norm? I find problems in balance much more likely to arise if one member of the team spent all those points on broadening his skills out of combat, such that a threat to the others is now a death sentence to him, or only one bought up their combat abilities, so now anything capable of threatening him is unbeatable by the rest of the team. We deal with that by capping those various abilities, and often raising the caps as the game progresses - which is, in itself, an "advancement at the speed of plot" model. You can only move from 5 SPD, OCV 10, DCV 10, 12 DC's and 25 defenses to 6 SPD, OCV/DCV 11, 14 DC's and 30 Defenses when the GM allows, which is presumably when future challenges are designed for that increased power level.

 

You seem to asume that everyone that plays does it or should do it "because the fun to play"' date=' that every other motivation is "flawed".[/quote']

 

For once, I think you have nailed it. Yes, I assume that everyone participating in a hobby activity does so, or should do so, because they derive enjoyment from that participation. If they do not enjoy it, they should devote their time to something they do, in fact, enjoy.

 

Now, if we start employing paid players or GM's, the money could certainly motivate them (although some may love their job so much they would do it for free), but that's not an issue until we have paid gaming, and I doubt that's coming any time soon. Perhaps Calvin's Dad would make him play a game he hated since "being miserable builds character", but most people choose not to engage in voluntary activities they take no pleasure in. Certainly, many of us partake in (or refrain from) activities for health reasons (perhaps running a mile despite not enjoying it), but I'm unaware of any health concerns that are addressed by gaming.

 

I say that a Wargamer and a Roleplayer can perfectly play together and have fun' date=' as long as neither side steps on the othpers toes.[/quote']

 

Sure - both are enjoying the game. if we make the game a pure wargame, such that the roleplayer derives no enjoyment, or an amateur acting festival, such that the wargamer has no fun, we probably lose one of them, and rightly so.

 

To return to the original premise, if the only way to get "bonus xp" is backgrounds, story writing and role playing, such that the wargamer's character consistently falls behind on the power curve, will he enjoy the game? If not, how has incenting him with 5 xp to write a background made the game better for him. Hey, wargamer - go and do something you hate because, in this case, it will literally build your character!

 

And about the "palyer can't be there so he get's no XP-Situation:

Doesn't the ability to have extra chances of participation (Background, Stories) allow a player to actually catch up in XP and roleplay more at the same time?

 

Sure. Let's turn that around - what is motivated if he can earn MORE xp by staying home writing character fiction than actually attending the game? Does that somehow make the game better?

 

Take a look at post Nr. 3 in this thread:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/89941-Background-Story-Rewards?p=2338459#post2338459

 

OK. I see

 

In either case it should not be too much (not more than 5-10% of total points) and one player should always able to get if he doesn't has something at adventure start.

 

So, if it's good and adds to the fun of the game, why cap it at 5% to 10%?

 

I personally find the high amount of "required" Complications one of the main issues with 5E. There is only so much I want to be in there.

 

Except they are not required. They aren't in 6e either. Now, I don't mean that in the sense of "you can take less by having a less powerful character", but that the gaming group can define the level of complications appropriate (ie most fun) to their style of gaming.

 

Again, I will throw this back. You are willing to write a character background for 10 xp, but not to define another 10 points of complications. I am willing to take an extra 10 points of complications, but chafe at being asked to write a background. Why are you more entitled to an extra 10 points than I am? Assume we both have the maximum complications for the game in question - ie I am adding a complication for no reward, and you are writing a background. If the reward is because there are adventure hooks in that background, you are either getting a double reward (if those hooks are also in your complications) or getting around the complications cap (if these are additional story hooks).

 

In shifting from 5e to 6e complications, I've found that a lot of quasi-complications fell by the wayside. We don't try to squeeze out two or three Psych's from the same personality trait. We no longer have two or three Hunted's, most defined by the GM by linking our backgrounds to his game (yes, our players always write backgrounds/personality sketches/rationales for that mechanical build on the character sheet, and no, no one gets any points for it). And we don't have minor items on the character sheet, although we may still reflect them as story hooks, role play those personality traits, etc.

 

Personally, I never found the 5e level overly problematic, but we take a different tack with 6e, and each item comes to a higher level of prominence (despite often being at a lower level of incidence as higher frequency isn't needed to hit the limit). Now, I find myself cutting complications - but there's nothing wrong with having 100 points worth and cutting some down, or out, if they are not adding to the enjoyment of the game.

 

Funny - even with far less Hunteds, we still have adversaries, and even with fewer DNPC's, there remain bystanders to save.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Point: in Hero, a skill level can make a big difference to combat because of the bell curve. Small differences in XP can make a big difference in game.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Has anyone considered background skills? What I'm going to suggest that perhaps if someone has a decent background then maybe adjust the background skills to reflect his story? In my mind, it all works out-however trying to form it into words is something else entirely. Some things I would suggest are perhaps perks that cost 1 pt, such as blackbelt and license to practice a job could be given in background instead of out of character points. And also the PS-current occupation should also be given from this. Of course at the 2pt/11- level, and any higher would be straight character points. Maybe instead of having acting as a given the player would opt to switch it to streetwise do to his background. Something along those lines.

[The Main Man]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

As I said earlier, one of the rewards I give is CP strictly for Background Skills and Perks. They can be comforting as they are never points spent in vain.

[Christopher]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

I've certainly played in games where all the characters gained xp at the same rate, but not where only some characters participated in each adventure. However, to toss the question back, how many gamers start all new characters at 0 xp? That is, the 8th level party (or 100 - 150 xp Hero characters) add a new recruit with no xp whatsoever when a new player joins, or a player changes his character? In my experience, the new characters are given xp at, or close to, that of the existing characters. That seems like a flat amount, regardless of activity.

 

I've seen other approaches - the newbie character starts at no xp, and the next several adventures consist of the higher level characters protecting him so he can gain xp (typically at a more rapid rate, based on an xp system that awards higher xp for higher challenges, and an equal match for more powerful characters thus gives more xp to the outmatched lower power character - despite the fact that character has little to no impact on resolving the challenges). I prefer the "equivalent characters" approach.

That is a different problem. The "how to let everyone participate in equal, meaningfull fashion?" problem.

This one is seperate from the "how is Character Improvement Handeled" question and can arise with any Improvement System but "no Improvement".

 

Another aside - I had someone comment on the 3e D&D charge of xp for building magic items. He noted this could be gamed so the creator gained xp faster. When the group goes up' date=' burn enough xp to stay - barely - at the previous level. The xp formula gives that lower level character more xp for the same encounters, so he can pass the other characters when xp is next awarded.[/quote']

That sound like he is more abusing the way how XP is given/Levelups happen than the XP system itself. If XP/Levelup would happen instantaniously, there would be no way that trick works.

Also that PC is also more vulnerably during that time.

 

 

 

I find problems in balance much more likely to arise if one member of the team spent all those points on broadening his skills out of combat' date=' such that a threat to the others is now a death sentence to him, or only one bought up their combat abilities, so now anything capable of threatening him is unbeatable by the rest of the team. We deal with that by capping those various abilities, and often raising the caps as the game progresses - which is, in itself, an "advancement at the speed of plot" model. You can only move from 5 SPD, OCV 10, DCV 10, 12 DC's and 25 defenses to 6 SPD, OCV/DCV 11, 14 DC's and 30 Defenses when the GM allows, which is presumably when future challenges are designed for that increased power level.[/quote']

That a gain is the "how to let everyone participate in equal, meaningfull fashion?" problem, wich is seperate from how Advancement is made.

 

 

 

Sure - both are enjoying the game. if we make the game a pure wargame, such that the roleplayer derives no enjoyment, or an amateur acting festival, such that the wargamer has no fun, we probably lose one of them, and rightly so.

 

To return to the original premise, if the only way to get "bonus xp" is backgrounds, story writing and role playing, such that the wargamer's character consistently falls behind on the power curve, will he enjoy the game? If not, how has incenting him with 5 xp to write a background made the game better for him. Hey, wargamer - go and do something you hate because, in this case, it will literally build your character!

You seem to be very certain that he has to fall behind. If he doesn't, there is no problem.

If he does, we are at the "how to let everyone participate in equal, meaningfull fashion?" problem

 

 

So' date=' if it's good and adds to the fun of the game, why cap it at 5% to 10%?[/quote']

You answered that one yourself:

Sure. Let's turn that around - what is motivated if he can earn MORE xp by staying home writing character fiction than actually attending the game? Does that somehow make the game better?

 

 

Except they are not required. They aren't in 6e either. Now, I don't mean that in the sense of "you can take less by having a less powerful character", but that the gaming group can define the level of complications appropriate (ie most fun) to their style of gaming.

 

Again, I will throw this back. You are willing to write a character background for 10 xp, but not to define another 10 points of complications. I am willing to take an extra 10 points of complications, but chafe at being asked to write a background. Why are you more entitled to an extra 10 points than I am? Assume we both have the maximum complications for the game in question - ie I am adding a complication for no reward, and you are writing a background. If the reward is because there are adventure hooks in that background, you are either getting a double reward (if those hooks are also in your complications) or getting around the complications cap (if these are additional story hooks).

 

In shifting from 5e to 6e complications, I've found that a lot of quasi-complications fell by the wayside. We don't try to squeeze out two or three Psych's from the same personality trait. We no longer have two or three Hunted's, most defined by the GM by linking our backgrounds to his game (yes, our players always write backgrounds/personality sketches/rationales for that mechanical build on the character sheet, and no, no one gets any points for it). And we don't have minor items on the character sheet, although we may still reflect them as story hooks, role play those personality traits, etc.

 

Personally, I never found the 5e level overly problematic, but we take a different tack with 6e, and each item comes to a higher level of prominence (despite often being at a lower level of incidence as higher frequency isn't needed to hit the limit). Now, I find myself cutting complications - but there's nothing wrong with having 100 points worth and cutting some down, or out, if they are not adding to the enjoyment of the game.

 

Funny - even with far less Hunteds, we still have adversaries, and even with fewer DNPC's, there remain bystanders to save.

Complications (hunteds) are one approach for the background/participation problem.

Complications are the codified background. What is written here will be a problem repeatedly. That is why they all have a Frequencey Rating.

 

Background stories and Off-time storie provide a different kind of plothook. They don't have to be repetitive (so they don't need to be built repetitive). They can be worked out in much more detail.

If it were a comicbook and not p&p RPG world, you could picture that the moment a storyhook from them pops up there is a "Flashback" scene.

 

As for "how many complciations", "how manny points for a background/off-screen story" and "how do these XP have to be spent", those can be highly different between groups.

 

 

One important thing regarding Motiviation to write a Background/Off-time stories/taking mandatory complciations:

This isn't a binary thing (doing it for XP or doing it for Fun). It is more likely that the player is almost willing to do it "just for fun", but the XP reward offers the final incentive. So he does it for fun and XP, not for either alone.

 

Has anyone considered background skills? What I'm going to suggest that perhaps if someone has a decent background then maybe adjust the background skills to reflect his story? In my mind' date=' it all works out-however trying to form it into words is something else entirely. Some things I would suggest are perhaps perks that cost 1 pt, such as blackbelt and license to practice a job could be given in background instead of out of character points. And also the PS-current occupation should also be given from this. Of course at the 2pt/11- level, and any higher would be straight character points. Maybe instead of having acting as a given the player would opt to switch it to streetwise do to his background. Something along those lines.[/quote']

Here is something that I would call a good system for these kind of activity:

http://www.herocentral.net/readCampaignMessage.htm?messageId=961483&campaignId=741922

 

It can include things like the background, but also "off screen stories".

[Sean Waters]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Before Hero had a skill system worth calling a skill system, characters had skills anyway, we just did not pay for them, and, largely, did not roll for them. The problem with having a point balanced system though is that putting skills in backgrounds, or anything non-combat, takes points away from the actual slamdown aspect of the character. I usually deal with this by requiring 20 - 30 CPs to be spent on non-combat stuff, including some favours and contacts. I find that most people do not do this completely randomly - it makes them think about why they are buying THOSE skills and that tends to suggest at least some backstory for the character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Background Story Rewards

 

Has anyone considered background skills? What I'm going to suggest that perhaps if someone has a decent background then maybe adjust the background skills to reflect his story? In my mind' date=' it all works out-however trying to form it into words is something else entirely. Some things I would suggest are perhaps perks that cost 1 pt, such as blackbelt and license to practice a job could be given in background instead of out of character points. And also the PS-current occupation should also be given from this. Of course at the 2pt/11- level, and any higher would be straight character points. Maybe instead of having acting as a given the player would opt to switch it to streetwise do to his background. Something along those lines.[/quote']

 

As I said earlier' date=' one of the rewards I give is CP strictly for Background Skills and Perks. They can be comforting as they are never points spent in vain.[/quote']

 

Providing extra points for background abilities, or reassigning everyman abilities, or some combination thereof, can work pretty well. The players tend to chafe less since they didn`t lose the points they would use to make their character more powerful.

 

That is a different problem. The "how to let everyone participate in equal, meaningfull fashion?" problem.

This one is seperate from the "how is Character Improvement Handeled" question and can arise with any Improvement System but "no Improvement".

*************************************************************************************************************************

That a gain is the "how to let everyone participate in equal, meaningfull fashion?" problem, wich is seperate from how Advancement is made.

 

The ability of characters to participate in many scenes is often largely dependent on character points. With, say, 10 more points from writing a background, I can create a character exactly identical to yours, plus one overall level. Anything you can do, I can do better. So advancing faster does, in the real world, influence ability to participate meaningfully. I could make your character, but also with some detective skills, or also with some interaction skills. Those exra points allow me to be a superior participant.

 

If the points are NOT meaningful, then the reward is also not meaningful, so it would logically motivate nothing. Either it IS a big deal and will motivate desired behaviour, or it IS NOT a big deal and will consequently not be a valuable motivator.

 

That sound like he is more abusing the way how XP is given/Levelups happen than the XP system itself. If XP/Levelup would happen instantaniously, there would be no way that trick works.

 

Sure does. Or it sounds like judicisously applying the rules, just like spending my cp and xp to achieve a desired result - say, buying a level with HTH combat rather than a 1d6 Blast for my martial artist.

 

You answered that one yourself:

 

So what makes 5% to 10% the magic number, or the background more valuable than the between scenarios fanfic