Thoughts about the EXP system

[martynq]

What if we isolated aging checks from SPR checks on the SPP chart? Say aging occurred every 10 SPPs instead of when a skill is gained? That would solve the problem of aging at the same time as geting a skill (although it could sometimes overlap, depending on how many SPPs a player got in a game.) If it happens to turn out too often, it could start at 30 SPPs or something. Aging checks would still increase based on the number of skills you have.

A couple of questions/observations...

Presumably the sequence continues forever - every 10 SPPs (or whatever was finally decided) would still continue to occur after a 7th skill was obtained. This has the advantage that you can no longer produce that 7 skill player who is now impervious to any further aging as you can in the LRB system.

I personally like the idea of it not staring till 30SPPs - this gives you a chance to actually get the player going down the skill front. I do remember, however, that Chet was pretty vocal about a player with two or three skills needing to have had a chance to age.

Also what happens when you hit 30, 40, 50,... SPPs. Presumably you roll dice and see if you roll under a particular number? Any suggestions as to what these numbers will be?

The suggested table seems quite good. Might need tweaking but looks promising.

Martyn

[martynq]

Returning back to the EXP system, I still really believe that the simplest way to make the system a tiny bit less harsh is just to remove the MNG results from the aging table.

So my proposal would be:
(1) Generate EXP points by the same system as currently
(2) Once you have 6EXP or more, roll a d6 after each match. If the roll is 1, roll on the SI table.
(3) Ignore the MNG part of the SI table result (so some results will have no effect) but do give the player a Niggling Injury or a stat reduction if that comes up.

This will have the effect that some players will get worse, but will not necessarily cause you to be players down.

IMO, it fits the fluff - a player who ages is worse at playing the game, but it doesn't make sense that they are unavailable.

(Alternatively, you could use a table like the LRB aging table or Milo's proposed table.)

Note that it is only in the EXP system that failing an aging roll also causes you to miss the next match - and it is precisely this bit that I think needs to be changed.

Martyn

[Milo]

Hey! That was my idea (2nd post of 2nd page). w00t!! I got an idea that Milo likes!!

Yep. Hey, what can I say? You guys are a great resource. You might be surprised at how many ideas that supposedly come from the BBRC are actually sparked by something we've heard from someone else. Sometimes we'll use a great idea wholesale (Sigurd's) and give credit, sometimes not, but you guys definitely influence the process.

Milo

[Milo]

Aging checks would still increase based on the number of skills you have.

A couple of questions/observations...

Presumably the sequence continues forever - every 10 SPPs (or whatever was finally decided) would still continue to occur after a 7th skill was obtained. This has the advantage that you can no longer produce that 7 skill player who is now impervious to any further aging as you can in the LRB system.

I personally like the idea of it not staring till 30SPPs - this gives you a chance to actually get the player going down the skill front. I do remember, however, that Chet was pretty vocal about a player with two or three skills needing to have had a chance to age.

How about starting at 20? That way, you'd have at least two skills before you could start aging. Note that this will also age you harder later, since to go from 5 skills to 6, you'll need to make FIVE aging rolls.

Also what happens when you hit 30, 40, 50,... SPPs. Presumably you roll dice and see if you roll under a particular number? Any suggestions as to what these numbers will be?

I think the same as the current table: 1 skill = 3+, 2 skills = 4+, etc.

Thanks for the feedback.

Milo

[martynq]

I think the same as the current table: 1 skill = 3+, 2 skills = 4+, etc.

So the rolls needed would be:
At 10SPPs: 3+
20 SPPs: 4+
30 SPPs: 4+
40 SPPs: 5+
50 SPPs: 5+
60 SPPs: 6+
70 SPPs: 6+
etc.?

(And, of course, if we were to only begin at 20 as suggested, the 3+ roll would never happen.)

My gut feeling is this is a reasonable system which has the advantage of being a bit less harsh than LRB aging at first, but considerably more harsh later on.

The former is certainly a plus, whether the latter is a plus or a minus is debatable.

Martyn

[Milo]

Martyn,

You've got the idea. Playtesting could tell us whether 3+ should start for one skill or if it should start at 3+ for the FIRST aging roll, whenever that would happen. Having more rolls would allow us to reduce the chance for each individual roll -- the chances would not significantly decrease, with so many extra checks for the player to make.

Milo

[Grumbledook]

your still going to get players moaning that 10 is too early a time to start

[Milo]

Grumble --

Most recently, I suggested starting at 20. That would mean you'd have two skills and some room before you'd have to make your first aging check.

Milo

[Zombie]

No matter what "fun" results you want, you should never give a skill or trait. If you do, you'll have to say what happens when the player already has it (i guess nothing happens) and people might stop giving their players those skills just in case they might get them for free. Better not go that way.

[Balrog]

So the rolls needed would be:
At 10SPPs: 3+
20 SPPs: 4+
30 SPPs: 4+
40 SPPs: 5+
50 SPPs: 5+
60 SPPs: 6+
70 SPPs: 6+
etc.?

(And, of course, if we were to only begin at 20 as suggested, the 3+ roll would never happen.)

I like this table. 3+ on two dice at 10 SPPs is reasonable.

-Balrog

[martynq]

In terms of aging actually occurring, this system is considerably more harsh than LRB aging at least once you get to 30SPPs. It is, a little more lenient below 30SPPs (you roll at 10/20 SPPs, rather than at 6/16).

Mind you, in making that comment, I am not taking into account that Milo's new aging table is somewhat more lenient than the LRB one.

Martyn

[Mestari]

No matter what "fun" results you want, you should never give a skill or trait. If you do, you'll have to say what happens when the player already has it (i guess nothing happens) and people might stop giving their players those skills just in case they might get them for free. Better not go that way.

You got a point there. But if they are bundled with negative traits, it shouldn't be a problem, IMO.

I'm not going to too seriously suggest the following, as I am almost 100% sure it has no chances of making it, but here's an idea I've been playing with:

The fun result table is dependent on what skill categories you can take, and each table includes a number of new/old negative traits (perhaps with a bonus skill/trait) that suits the skill tables in question. So no goblins with Wild Animal and Frenzy, no matter how hilarious it may be.
I'll try to devise a rough sketch of the tables some day, and post it to the House rules forum.
The idea would be to make aging seem less like a balancing game mechanic (which it naturally is) and more like a part of personalising your team and giving it more rpg feel.

[Ghost of Pariah]

Threads like this will continue until somebody in charge finally recognizes that a large majority don't like the EXP system. Look at the poll. It has a very small minority support which, in my best guess, is probably the creator and a certain BBRC member,

Playtesting it is a waste of time no matter how effective it is.

[wesleytj]

Come on Pariah, "Try it, you'll like it"

*runs and hides in bomb shelter*