Author: spindles (---.239.253)
Date: 08-30-2000 09:12
Sorry about the essay... but I needed to rant!
Back in the early days of Dungeons and Dragons, when people gathered around at their mate’s houses armed with an arsenal of varying sided die to commence their onslaught against the goblinoid and orcish contingent of the high fantasy genre there was born a system for character development: xp. At the time this was an excellent way of showing how your character progresses and gets more adept with age and experience. It wasn’t long before there were hoards of 12th level fighter-mages taking on armies of Kobolds single-handedly without any possibility of injury to themselves as they were in possession of an armour class of –15 due to several magical items and a dex of 1800, and since Kobolds only possess a thac0 of 15 it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that they can only hit with a natural 20 whilst the fighter-mage wanders round decapitating them left, right and centre with his vorpal blade going snicker snack.
This concept was compounded when people decided to lay down their pencils and dice in favour of gaffa weapons and carry-mat armour. The idea of xp was translated to the field of LRP as tabletop characters were dutifully converted to live characters. Having been around when LRP was still a relatively new concept I have seen the progression over the years. What follows in this debate is all in my own humble opinion, but I hope it will provoke some response.
The argument for points:
A points system allows new characters a set amount of points to spend on their new character, so it means that all starting characters begin at roughly the same level (points flanging excluded) and with a clean slate upon which the player can then build and plan his character development upon. It gives the player a goal towards which they can move, knowing what they will spend their experience points on. A player will enter an event knowing that they need 5 experience points to get the skill or power that they have always wanted and will perform in accordance with that to ensure that they get those 5 points at the end of the event.
Points systems also allow character development to progress at a similar rate for all the players, so that, ideally, no player would develop at an exponentially faster rate than any other, thus providing a balanced gaming environment. It also makes for a more competitive environment in a game where people are both working together for group experience at the end of an event and working for themselves and being true to their characters to get the personal experience bonuses.
The argument against points:
Initial character creation is a difficult thing. When a person has a concept for a character and provides sufficient background to justify their skills and powers, it becomes an almost impossible task to squeeze those abilities into the points provided. Say, for example, a player wanted to be a thief of note, they would then have to spend all the points on their skills to allow them to be even competent at their chosen profession, and then have to spend points on a reputation, whereas, in a non-points-based system they can play whatever they want, and it is merely a case of informing the players that they have heard of this guy, and the character can rest easy in the knowledge that they are competent enough to allow them to perform the task of which they boast.
As a ref for LRP I know how difficult it is to keep tabs on what each player is doing at any point during a game, this makes it impossible for the refs to dole out experience points with any real amount of certainty as to what a player has actually been up to over the course of a game. This leads, as I’m sure you can guess, to animosity from the players who are not awarded with the xp they deserve because the refs have been too busy too actually see what they have been up to. Points systems also lead to an imbalance of characters, as an example, if a campaign has been running for a couple of years, and all the players started off as 50pt characters, but have progressed over the years. A new character joins in the fray as a 50pt character, how balanced is the party then, how could a party be balanced in power when you have so much difference in points. It opens up a lot of problems for monster encounters, what would be seen as a walk in the park goblin bash event for a 100pt character would be potentially fatal for the 50pt starting character.
In summary, because I want to avoid this turning into a slanging match about point-based systems, I believe that xp and points only lead to problems. It opens up all manner of difficulties in scenarios where power gamers take the fore because they can’t be hurt. A game is what the refs and writers make of it. You can have an absolutely stunning game with no combat, it is the plot which is the important thing. I guess it’s a case of each to his own, but for me, a game should be challenging both physically and mentally, allowing each player to progress at a rate set by themselves. When you insert the concept of points, people become far too competitive, and resting assured in the knowledge that they cannot be killed by the piffling little beastie the refs are throwing at them so as not to kill the new players on their first event. I personally think that the refs should be in ultimate control of both the game and the players, allowing characters and concepts which fit in with the overall ideology of the game, and disallowing that which they think is too powerful. At the end of the day, the refs can always think of something that is more powerful than the players, and it should not ultimately be their goal to try and kill the players, but to provide them with an exciting and engaging plotline. Personally if people are happy killing orcs for the xp and gold pieces, then fair play, but that ain’t for me, after all.... Combat does not an event make!
Cheers for listening!
Spindles
|
|
