Experience purchases done through role play

[薔薇語]

"My Milkshake Brings all the Boys to the Yard" : 

4d6 Mind Control: 1 continuing and recoverable charge with cumulative, area of effect 1 hex + megascale  & only verse boys, set command (come to the yard with the milkshake), OAF (Milkshake), gestures (mixing the milkshake). 

That should be more than strong enough to lure any standard "boy" to the yard. ^^ I hope that helps. 

 

Soar. 

[TheDarkness]

Problem solved!

[薔薇語]

For all of those out there who do not know what I am referencing:

 

 

Soar.  

[TheDarkness]

Here's the theatrical version:

 

[death tribble]

I disagree entirely.  Saving up 100 XP, and then increasing your Str, Dex, etc, doesn't require a radiation accident.  You can just build up those stats gradually without saving XP.  A radiation accident allows you to change from Professor X and become the Incredible Hulk.  Ditch those mental powers and get your rage strength.  It allows for a complete re-write.

 

 

 

I don't remember this "rule" at all.

Radically altering STR etc is a radiation accident particularly when you are altering several stats at once. Increasing STR or DEX when these are lower than others in the group is feasible if a person is being trained but it all depends on campaign norms and averages. So going from STR 10 to STR 20 following training is fair enough. But STR 20 to 30, or 30 to 40 is harder to justify. A 5 pt increase is easier to accept but as a player and a GM I would require a greater length of time after STR 20 for each 5 pt increase in STR.

A DEX increase would be much harder to justify. 1, 2 or 3 points at the most if there is training but concept and campaign average should limit the increase. DEX 23 and SPD 5 are usual in the older books for most characters but martial artists might have a DEX range of 26 to 35 and a SPD rating of 6 to 8. A speedster on the other hand might have a minimum of SPD 6 and DEX 30. Concept plays its part. The Fantastic Four's The Thing with a DEX of 35 and a SPD of 9 is hard to justify for example.

 

As for the Rule, my apologies. What I should have said is 'As a rule of thumb' or 'a rule for our campaign was'.

[massey]

I really don't understand the point of most of this stuff.  I don't see any of it being useful, particularly in a standard superhero campaign.  This is a solution in search of a problem.

 

Fiction is full of examples of inexperienced people gaining great powers quickly.  Luke Skywalker goes from a simple farmboy to a galactic hero who blew up the Death Star in about two days time.  So having a player want to take +2 OCV and Acrobatics when he's saved up some XP doesn't seem like a problem to me.  Now, the first Star Wars movie is basically Luke's origin story, but he still goes from a regular teenager to a hero without any kind of downtime.

 

People going outside the campaign limits is one thing.  Fiery Joe doesn't get to add +5D6 to his Lava Blast if that takes him beyond the limit where players are allowed to go.  Campaign limits exist for a lot of reasons, and they're a separate issue.  So we're really just talking about XP expenditures where the character remains within the campaign limits.  Now obviously, I'd rather a player have a good explanation for where a power came from, or a new skill, or some other significant change, rather than having a bad explanation.  If Fiery Joe suddenly gains the ability to breathe underwater and control sea life, I want some kind of reason why.  Something like that seems like a significant change in the character concept.  Now there might be a really good story behind it, and I just can't think of one at the moment.  But that seems like a big change that might require some story justification.

 

But adding +4 inches of Running, or raising your Strength from 15 to 25, those are easily handled.

 

It is rare, to me, for the passage of time in superhero stories to be wholly accounted for.  Between adventures, I rarely know how much time has passed.  And most characters do not spend 24 hours a day actively doing things.  You stop the bank robbery, arrest the villain, find a clue that will lead you somewhere else, etc.  And then next week, you pick up where you left off, with some amount of time having gone by.  I mean, the whole idea of a secret ID indicates that you're doing normal things, like going to the grocery store, working at a job, watching a baseball game, etc.  There's a lot of "downtime" in superhero stories.  It's not like a D&D dungeon crawl, where you go into the Evil Planar Temple of Despair at level 6, and when you come out the other side you're level 11.

 

Ultimately, we as players and GMs all have our own preferences in a game, and our own experiences and history with games and game masters.  And truthfully, I don't have the time, or the inclination, or the patience, to draw out a diagram of how my gadget works.  That sort of thing reminds me of control freak GMs I played with in the past.  If the liked you, your stuff would always work.  If they didn't like you, you'd have to train extensively before you could use anything, because it "wasn't realistic for you to just be able to do that".  This was D&D, and you'd have wizards who were 7th and 8th level and were stuck using 2nd level spells because the GM made sure not to let them get any higher ones.  Gaining the XP/gaining a level was not enough for these guys.

 

Now, I am NOT saying that TheDarkness is that sort of GM.  What I AM saying is that when I hear about this style of GMing, that's what I think of.  I'm resistant to the idea because I've been burned by that kind of game before.  My bet is that a lot of people on this board have as well.

[massey]

Radically altering STR etc is a radiation accident particularly when you are altering several stats at once. Increasing STR or DEX when these are lower than others in the group is feasible if a person is being trained but it all depends on campaign norms and averages. So going from STR 10 to STR 20 following training is fair enough. But STR 20 to 30, or 30 to 40 is harder to justify. A 5 pt increase is easier to accept but as a player and a GM I would require a greater length of time after STR 20 for each 5 pt increase in STR.

A DEX increase would be much harder to justify. 1, 2 or 3 points at the most if there is training but concept and campaign average should limit the increase. DEX 23 and SPD 5 are usual in the older books for most characters but martial artists might have a DEX range of 26 to 35 and a SPD rating of 6 to 8. A speedster on the other hand might have a minimum of SPD 6 and DEX 30. Concept plays its part. The Fantastic Four's The Thing with a DEX of 35 and a SPD of 9 is hard to justify for example.

 

 

Well, maybe.  That all depends on character concept.  Obviously some character builds don't traditionally mesh well with certain concepts.  The Thing, or the X-Men villain The Blob, are hard to visualize with 35 Dex and 9 Spd.  These characters are pretty well defined, and we know that high Dex and high Spd aren't normally associated with them.  However, player characters can be different.  Just because a character is a big rock guy, that doesn't mean that the player is using a clone of Ben Grimm.  We had a guy playing a character who was described as "looks like Badrock, from Youngblood, but he can fly and he has enhanced senses, and he gets his powers from Earth's yellow sun".  The guy was a brick with a 7 Spd.  It was a high powered game, so he was well within campaign limits, but he wasn't a traditional "big rocky guy".

 

If you're playing as Daredevil, I don't know that I'd want to see any amount of training raise his Str up to 30.  That's not Daredevil.  But let's say you call yourself, I dunno, Moon Knight or something.  And your concept is that you're a street avenger like Daredevil, but you get really strong at night or something.  At that point you can probably justify raising your Str quite a bit.  Going from 20 to 30, or 30 to 40 (within campaign limits, of course) isn't such a stretch.

 

I think the point is, players get to determine the concepts and backgrounds of their characters, within the realm of what the GM is willing to put up with ("No, you can't play a Vulcan in my Fantasy Hero game").  Their characters shouldn't be assumed to be a carbon copy of someone else.  "But Xena can't fly."  "I told you, I'm not Xena.  I'm Lucy Lawless."  So a player who says "my powers are still developing" seems to have a free pass to advance however he wants.  But Champions also takes the position that you shouldn't give a benefit to one character over another purely based upon how their special effects are described.

 

 

 

 

As for the Rule, my apologies. What I should have said is 'As a rule of thumb' or 'a rule for our campaign was'.

 

No problem.  I thought you meant a published rule, and I was like "I don't remember that at all".

[Tasha]

The only limits I tend to put on PC's XP expendatures are:

 

Balance Related. Is this going to unbalance the game or team (ie will this make the PC way more powerful than the rest of the PCs)

 

Niche related. Is this going to make this PC too much like another PC's niche in the game (overlap of niches can work as long as the PC that was originally built for a particular niche isn't overshadowed by the person overlapping).

[bigbywolfe]

The comment was clearly a joke, we all enjoy spending experience, myself included.

It was not clearly a joke or I would not have responded to it seriously.  I'm also not sure how enjoying something equates to "greed".

 

I haven't argued with you about your methods.  They are way to draconian for my tastes, but if your group likes to play that way, more power to you.  But when you declare the reason for your methods as the universal problem of all players behaving in the same "greedy" fashion I'm going to call BS. 

[TheDarkness]

It was not clearly a joke or I would not have responded to it seriously.  I'm also not sure how enjoying something equates to "greed".

 

So, knowing it was meant as a joke now, the second comment is you doubling down on it being meant seriously?

 

 

 

But when you declare the reason for your methods as the universal problem of all players behaving in the same "greedy" fashion I'm going to call BS.

 

Or maybe, the sentence relates that my players seem to like the fun of using their experience the same as players in other games without the same framework for experience expenditures? Said facetiously using the word 'greedily', as is now readily apparent, despite your already having forgotten so for the sake of your argument? Given that I never once stated that this 'greed' was why I use the approach I do, as is, again, readily apparent now?

 

As for draconian, I think, when you actually examine what I said I do, you would find that to be a false assertion that people have only managed to try to assert is true based on straw man arguments that my previous posts and followup responses show I do not do.

[TheDarkness]

In response to Massey's good post, the Luke Skywalker example is a good one.

 

Take away the idea that he is strong with the force, and none of it makes sense.

 

Take away that he is a good flyer at the start, and none of it makes sense.

 

There is leeway, but there is also suspension of disbelief. Both are necessary and useful.

 

Back to milkshakes.

 

If the game everyone is playing is, for lack of a better word, serious in tone, and that has seemed to be the consensus, then I would probably not be encouraging that build. But, I might ask the players if they want to do a more humorous game, if so, then my response would depend on the current campaign. If it's not established, then I might just go with the humorous tone. If it's long established, then I might say, okay, we're going to play the versions of these characters on a more ridiculous Earth, make a second copy, mark it Earth:Toonacity, and let's go. This would actually be nice, because I can use all the stuff I already built for the main game.

 

If, after playing Earth: Toonacity for a while, they want to have their characters in the serious Earth have the powers they gained, then all they have to do is, and if they want or need my help to do so, explain how the armor became internalized, why this character can paint tunnels on a wall and make them real only for himself, etc.

 

In any case, if the character has a build idea that at first seems at odds with whatever the group narrative is, but, in discussion, is actually not, then no problems.

 

In this process, I DO NOT assume I have absolute knowledge of what the overall narrative from each viewpoint is.

 

I DO NOT assume a characters has a direction defined by me.

 

I DO NOT require them to work for weeks on explaining their expenditure.

 

I DO NOT even make them design the danger room stuff, I work my butt off coming up with fun danger room scenarios.

 

I DO NOT make them do long scenarios to spend the experience they have, I work my butt off to come up with fun role plays that put them in contact with the people or situations they need to make it all fit well in the story the way WE ALL can enjoy. This last one is especially rewarding, because it often means I have to flesh out my world further.

 

As for CIDs for gadgets, as I explained, this is so that the people with skills get to showcase them A LOT MORE than most games. I make the CIDs for KS: Area Supers Underworld, and if someone gets this skill, I give it to them, and they have, at their fingertips, info about a lot of people other players haven't met yet, and an awareness of what info isn't there yet. It makes skill rolls less "roll once and you fix it" and more "okay, I'm going to have to fix this and this to get the shields back up," which adds way more to the suspense, and makes them the star for that moment NOT for their combat skills.

 

I'm not telling anyone else to do this, but I DO find it useful.

[assault]

I blend my new nanotech virus with a high calcium substrate, and drink it.

[TheDarkness]

The only limits I tend to put on PC's XP expendatures are:

 

Balance Related. Is this going to unbalance the game or team (ie will this make the PC way more powerful than the rest of the PCs)

 

Niche related. Is this going to make this PC too much like another PC's niche in the game (overlap of niches can work as long as the PC that was originally built for a particular niche isn't overshadowed by the person overlapping).

For me, I don't worry about the niche related stuff so much, I focus on my responsibility to make the game for all the characters. So, if I have one character who is the skilled normal batmanesque character with detective skills, and another who is the skilled normal who is largely focused on hth, then I really need to make a lot of opportunities for the detective skills, the disguise work, etc. The CIDs mean more front end work for me, but in game play, and scenario design, they make it a lot easier to do this. Yes, the guy focused solely on hth will probably lead the Batmanesque character in hth, but the Batman gets a lot of opportunities to say, "Yes, Mr. Fisticuffs, we could try to charge in there and knock everyone out. If this wasn't Boss Salieri's base of operations. And there weren't more supers in there than we have out here. And we weren't here for information that we won't get if we are incinerated. Did I mention Atomic Fire? Don't know her? Hmm..."

 

Obviously I tend to put a lot of focus toward the narrative as me and the characters build it. I try to keep in mind that I do not have perfect knowledge of it, but I view it like genre, in a sense. If the build doesn't fit the genre, this is going to be a problem. If the build kills suspension of disbelief, this is going to be a problem. It is not my first response to kill the problem. I just voice my concern, so that I can hear out their thinking on it. Sometimes, they just didn't think about it. Sometimes, they did. Usually, we work to find a satisfying solution, which just as easily could be compromise, or me coming around to their way of thinking(and not after weeks, during the conversation), to them deciding it is problematic. Sometimes, they grin and admit they were just trying to do a cheesy build.

[TheDarkness]

Gaining skill in Traveler must make some people's heads explode. If I'm draconian, that's tyrannical.

 

I'm actually quite glad I played that game. It lets me know I have to let players be aware of time, of when they have downtime, etc.

 

Also, it helps me set up a game where the players feel free to tell me, "Our characters are going to take a training break at the next available opportunity." And where I ask.

 

And the advantage of having periodic events in the game where downtime is likely to be possible. When two powerful enemy groups are at odds for an extended period, and so those hunted bys are not an issue.

[Greywind]

I don't believe ANH covered a period of only 2 days...

[TheDarkness]

To further clarify:

 

Scenarios to have fun, develop stories and characters, and pick up experience.

 

Pick up games for role playing experience expenditure(if it wasn't already role played in the main campaign), if not necessary, pick up games to give me time to develop the campaign arc by implementing the changes the characters introduced to it through their own actions.

[massey]

Extensive training to gain a new skill is normally not a part of the superhero genre. It's an origin, but not something that often happens afterward.

[TheDarkness]

Extensive training to gain a new skill is normally not a part of the superhero genre. It's an origin, but not something that often happens afterward.

X-Men danger room was a frequent genre norm.

 

Daredevil has, a great number of times, been shown extensively training because of a weakness.

 

Batman's is largely in retconned back stories, definitely true.

 

There's a lot of examples to go either way on this one.

 

The danger of always defaulting to genre norms is one often becomes stuck trying to fulfill the genre norms and not the genre feel.

 

The other players get a tactile sense when one player's build imbalances the game, or when one expenditure is allowed, but is not given any means for using in actual play, so the medium is different in role play than the genre.

 

Generally, the campaign has an advantage that the comics do not have, it is largely run by the same group of people with similar goals, so there is way less need for retconning. Giving up this advantage to try to typify a weakness of the genre(on-going comics who are ongoing due to a business model supported by periodic inspired talent, and so have long periods of weak writing that must be explained through retconning) is often, IMO, not worth it.

[TheDarkness]

That said, if I were running a game in Earth: Retcon, the only builds I might contest would be the ones that weren't retconned enough.

[Hugh Neilson]

I don't believe ANH covered a period of only 2 days...

 

When did they sleep?

 

The CIDs were added FOR the gadgeteers as a means to make their related skills more useful and meaningful and frequently used in gametime, based on a thread here on the topic. The one player to make a gadgeteer loved making them and the idea for their use.

What I saw in your description was "the gadgeteer had good justification to spend xp any way he wanted, so I had to add something specifically to reign in his ability to do so. That's still all I see prior to this post. I can only read, and respond to, what you write.

 

The gadgeteer who is cautious and methodical would just test the item more.

Using actual game time, or behind the scenes?

[Hugh Neilson]

Where, exactly, did I say that I even had a substantial number of players who present problem builds?

All of your comments on the problems this is intended to solve suggest such problem builds. Why is this "solution" needed if there is no problem? I agree with the upthread comment that this seems like a solution searching for a problem.

[assault]

I don't believe ANH covered a period of only 2 days...

 

Day 1 ends after Luke acquires the droids and sees the message.

Day 2 starts with R2D2 running away. Ends after funeral of Luke's aunt and uncle?

Day 3 (Guessing) Arrival at Mos Eisley. Ends after escape from Death Star? Arrival at rebel base? (Not shown)

Day 4 (Guessing) Analysis of Death Star plans. Attack on Death Star.

Day 5+ Profit! Award ceremony in here somewhere.

 

I'd need to watch it again to check this. My memory isn't that sharp. In any case, a few days, if not quite 2.

[TheDarkness]

All of your comments on the problems this is intended to solve suggest such problem builds. Why is this "solution" needed if there is no problem? I agree with the upthread comment that this seems like a solution searching for a problem.

 

The comment was in relation to the ASSUMPTION that I had many players doing this, which was taken further by several to suggest that these imaginary players were railing under the dictatorial regime of my DMing.

 

In the context of that, I asked where I cited the frequency.

 

Most of my players don't munchkin. This does not mean that the rules in the Heroes book designed to work against this are unnecessary.

 

So, when you say "All of your comments on the problems this is intended to solve suggest such problem builds," which position do you wish me to argue, that my players, suffering under my dictatorial regime, are being denied valid builds weekly for no reason, or that there is no problem at all, or that there occasionally is a problem, and perhaps I find that this heads off the problem at the pass, but you wish to argue what frequency problems occur before rules are necessary in general?

 

The last one is based in fact, and gives a point to argue. My response is, if the build messes with role play or balance, it is easier to have a system in place and us all acting as a team for both purposes than to deal ad hoc with it. You may find other ways to your liking.

[Hugh Neilson]

A rare problem with a build? I find it best discussed openly between GM and player (or even GM and group if we need a consensus on how we want the game to operate). If the build messes with role play or balance, that is not solved by forcing the player to wait to bring it into play, so I see no reason to build a delaying tactic into the campaign structure.

[TheDarkness]

 

When did they sleep?

 

 

What I saw in your description was "the gadgeteer had good justification to spend xp any way he wanted, so I had to add something specifically to reign in his ability to do so. That's still all I see prior to this post. I can only read, and respond to, what you write.

 

 

Using actual game time, or behind the scenes?

First, your paraphrase includes an assumption, but I did not state that CIDs were added for that reason, but the error is natural given the topic and converstation. Given, however, that you HAVE certainly posed straw man's and ad hocs regarding my motivations that I have, for any reasonable person, demonstrated to be incorrect, you might want to keep in mind the limits of text in conveying intent.

 

CIDs were added to make skills more dynamically playable, the experience issue was just a minor side benefit that helped with the first goal.

 

Toward the last question: Using danger room scenarios designed to be fun for the players. Or, if the player wanted to play it safe, rebuilding parts that he felt the first build roll might have been borderline. The part from the first build might then become an emergency spare part.