Some stuff on stuff

[Scott Adams]

At 09:27 PM 4/1/02 +0000, you wrote:
>>>
>"As a slightly related question: does anyone use the rule that if several
>persons hit an opponent in the phase that he is killed, they are all
>awarded experience and expertise for the killing blow (Combat experience
>section of Book I, page 54 in the v2/v3 PDF version. I don't have the
>original books handy, so don't know the original ref.) "
>>>
>
>  I dropped the whole "hp:xp" thing. From my experience, the stronger
>characters got stronger, and the weaker characters got weaker. The system
>basically penalized someone for making a non-combat monster character. If
>you wanted to play a young city waif, who lives by her wits and her deft
>hands...well, you'd basically never get anywhere. You'd get less
>characteristic points and less CEP. Even if you were just as useful during
>the battle/adventure. NOTE: I still use the CDF:ExperTISE rules as is.

I dunno its possible for a character to never fight in a single campaign.
I've
had scholars do that in games they went adventuring in.  They were there
to serve as party brains basically and it was fun to try NOT to have combat 
at times :)

>
>  What I did was "collapse" the whole xp value of the creature. That is, a
>creature with 20hp who had a CDF of 3 would be worth a flat 60CEP. After the
>battle, I'd divy this up equaly, most of the time, among the PC's. If one PC
>didn't do much of anything, he'd get less XP than the others. If one PC did
>most of the work and risked more, he'd get more XP. This does two things:
>first, it keeps the bookkeeping down (something that is always a good thing
>in P&P! ;) ), and second, it encourages group actions. I suppose it also
>encourages players to create interesting and unique characters over the "big
>hulking fighter" types. A "big hulking fighter" or two in the group is
>fine...I just think that the "quick street waif" character should be equally
>as viable as a character concept.

Interesting but the equal thing seems unfair and fair in some ways i guess.
But i could see both ways of it.


>
>  I also added GEP ("General Experience Points"). These are basically XP
>that are given out for cleaver thinking, good role-playing, or even out of
>game stuff like buying pizza for the group or drawing character portraits
>for everyone. This encourages players to think in terms that aren't simple
>"how do we kill the most goblins?". Now they think "how do we get rid of
>these goblins?". Two different things entierly. GEP's also help "glue the
>group" together; in real life and through the game personas. RPG's are about
>having a bunch of friends together, rolling some dice, and creating a group
>'daydream' of fantastic adventure...all in the name of FUN. :) I figured it
>was only appropriate to encourage the "FUN factor" through any means
>neccissary. GEP seems to do the trick! :)

Yeah I've done that in tons of game systems including P&P.  
Its a good generic catch all system that works alot of times to encourage
quiet folks.

Longshot - ZC of AdventureNet International Echomail Network
Fringe BBS - EWOG II - 904-733-1721
Telegard / Allfix Beta Site
Website: http://users.cybermax.net/~longshot
ICQ: 24436933