Experience option

[Alex Koponen]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Maouse" <maouse at FULTON-NET.COM>
> Alex,
>    I understand that they are limited by their native rolls, but fail to
> see how this is "helped" by making it so everyone can have maximum
> multipliers.  It simply means characters (like me?) will begin to put Int
> 5th on their list instead of 5-8th (if they are allowed to change
locations
> of rolled stats, which is typically how ours are done).  I prefer to think
> of it all this way;
> Now they adventure and get Experience (and a bit older if the GM pays
> attention).  But wait, in as little as two game years they are maxed out,
> having cleared a good section of the Elder mountains of Kototh Creatures.

And now they are legendary, having survived and triumphed over such dangers.
Indeed, they are equal in power to some major demons, maybe even thought of
as minor deities if they have been careful with their public relations.

> So now you would suppose that Indiana Jones should be allowed to make a
> sequal in which not only does he get to use his wip and pistol, but
> suddenly (presuming he can find a lair of 80 or so great apes) he can buff
> up to Swartzenager proportions?  NAY!  He is still the same old Indiana
> Jones.  Yeh, the sequal may have him use a wip a pistol and a knife, but
> it's still him.
>
It takes MEL15 or CEL 17 before one can even think of exceeding a maximum
(unless non-human and the GM allows modification of C or Ap). One is
incredibly powerful by this point. Some would want to be able to continue
improving their character, others (yourself included) wouldn't. Its an
OPTION, I am not forcing you or your group to use it.

> I fail to see how more experience can change you physically BEYOND your
> maximum.  Based on what you are saying everyone should be able to "ascend"
> simply because they can find enough badies to kill

Just how rigid are one's limits? If one puts enough effort into it can't one
improve past what one previously thought one was capable of?

> is whether they are easy to kill badies or not!).  2-20 creates such a
> better and more realistic variety of people when it has to get multiplied
> by 1.5 to 4.  think of it.  You are taking away one of the spices of the
> game.  This "rule" is saying "instead of 3-80, we only want 8-80", this is
> nearly a 10% decrease in varience.

Actually this rule creates more variation among people. From those with a
Native and Current Ability of 2 (or 1 in some attributes) to those who have
maxed out their attribute (presuming a native ability of 20) to 80 (if x4)
or even 100 (if x5), not to mention those with supernatural attributes.

Once again I point to OG.  He is a
> dimwit 3 Int.  Now he can become an 8.  Instead of not being able to cast
> magic, he now can cast magic at EL2 (because let's face it, he'll get to
> MEL2 soon enough, and he already knows every language available thanks to
> that giant spider he killed way back when he was CEL 16).  And I know that
> EL2 doesn't seem that high, but it's not even about that.  It's about the
> fact that we just turned a "no way in the land of the living dead" is he
> ever going to be a magician into a decent mage (he'd be able to kick 1/2
> the mages in the Darkland's BUTT!).  So you see, it IS a bad idea.
> IMHOOC (IMHO Of Course)
>
> -Marcel
>
OG could become a mage anyway. Even at I3 (btw minimum I for male human is
4) he could cast EL0 (EL1 w Supernatural Tongue) spells. Eventually he could
even work up to EL2 or even EL3 spells if he didn't kill himself with a
fumble first. Whether one calls this "decent" is subjective.
    Frankly with magic as powerful as it is in P&P I'm almost surprised that
not every peasant isn't also a mage.

Alex K.