Incorporating an OETP rule

[Zulgyan]

Ok, so I used this thread title to prevent possible irritations. ;D

OETP uses unified XP progression. This is 1975, so, even though d20 uses unified XP progression, and it has become a symbol of "new-school", I don't think that's right, because back in 1975, a close OD&D off-spring was using it.

So...

Do you think it would work in OD&D?? Or would it deter to much it's spirit??

Some thoughts:

1. The cleric class advances too fast IMO, because it does look stronger than fighting-men, as a class. This may be arguable thought. Also, he has more HPs than the fighter, specially at lower levels, due to his fast advancement, and that kinda bugs me. (By the way C&C made the cleric advance at a base of 2250, instead of 1500)

2. The Wizard starts out slow, but then his progression speeds up to the point he is the fastest advancing class. This makes him MUCH more than simply overpowered. I like wizards being the best. But maybe this is too much.



Ok, please don't hang me, I'm just trying to make positive analysis of the game, and of course, I'm looking forward to your feedback, in order to re-analyze these ideas, and possibly, discard them completely.

[James Maliszewski]

zulgyan said:

Do you think it would work in OD&D?? Or would it deter to much it's spirit??

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the notion of a unified XP chart and, with some tweaking of the classes, you could probably make it work.

My main objection to it is that it introduces the notion of "balance" between the classes that I think is the source of much mischief. Once it takes as many XP for a Fighting Man to reach a new level as it does a Magic-User to reach the same level, there will always be players who point out that it's so much easier to do this with a Fighting Man or that a Magic-User gets more power per level than a Fighting Man, etc. Therein lies madness, or at least could. I think that kind of emphasis is alien to OD&D.

All that said, with the right players and with some forethought, a unified XP chart might work just fine. I'm wary of it, though.

[Zulgyan]

My main objection to it is that it introduces the notion of "balance" between the classes that I think is the source of much mischief.

Yeah, that's the major gripe. It certainly is. It's opening a dirty and ugly can of worms.

But just to make things more complicated. Compare the advancement of the Fighert and the M-U:
To reach level 10, the M-U need less than half the XP!!!

Not only he's the best. He's the fastest advancer in the long term.

The real reason for me thinking about this, is that I'm writing an OD&D supplement, and a unified XP progression seems to make class creation easier.

But I may be wrong.

[James Maliszewski]

zulgyan said:

The real reason for me thinking about this, is that I'm writing an OD&D supplement, and a unified XP progression seems to make class creation easier.

But I may be wrong.

I think there's value in examining the XP charts with an eye toward finding out the logic behind them. I'm skeptical that there's actually anything formulaic behind them; I suspect they're just ballpark figures based on Gygax/Arneson's sense of what "felt right" to them.

All that said, I think this is a potentially fruitful avenue of exploration. I'll be curious to see if you come to any conclusions.

[Zulgyan]

I suspect they're just ballpark figures based on Gygax/Arneson's sense of what "felt right" to them.

Yes, I agree with that. And I think it's a total valid design method. I'm not obsessed with game balance at all.

Anyway, with a unified XP progression (let's start using UXP for short), you still have to design with the "I feel this is right" method. It is impossible not do it, unless the game is purely mathematical, and it certainly isn't.

So in the end, the "I think this is right" is really the ONLY method for class design, or any design. I don't believe those who say otherwise.

The great question is: which is easier to work with? UXP or no UXP?

[James Maliszewski]

zulgyan said:

The great question is: which is easier to work with? UXP or no UXP?

For OD&D I've only ever used no UXP and I've never actually played EPT, so I couldn't say. UXP is certainly easier to remember but probably only barely. Honestly, I don't imagine there's a huge difference between them in actual play, especially if you don't have players who'll use UXP as the thin end of a wedge to start worrying about class balance.

[Zulgyan]

That's the main problem. To give an incentive to start worrying about class balance.

[casey777]

Keep in mind that EPT turns down the XP awards the higher the level. So a higher level PC will only get a % of the same XP a lower level PC would get for defeating the same challenge.

IIRC the goal was to keep PCs out of desk jobs such as higher ritual priests or clerk managers that have no room for dungeoncrawling.

I'm not that sure this was a good thing, leveling up is slow enough in OD&D and if levels are used it's a good reward mechanic. That and I see no reason why a more powerful Tekumel character shouldn't still have adventures and intrigue, even if it's not dungeoncrawl all the time.

(edit: should look over EPT after finishing OD&D)

[Zulgyan]

Yeah, I saw the rule. You insight of it is good.

But the dilemma right now is whether to use or not use an unified XP progression for all classes.

[Finarvyn]

I'm sure I've posted this elsewhere, but I don't use XP at all anymore. I think that's the ultimate in "unified tables". :-)

What I do is to simply advance the entire party by a level at some point in between adventures, or at a convenient resting point during a long-term mega-adventure.

My group doesn't worry about balance, becasue the party works together. When you're all on the same side it doesn't matter if one person is Frodo while another is Gandalf because each brings unique abilities to the group. As a DM, part of my job is to try to provide special things for each class to do so that eveyone feels special and can do something interesting along the way.

[casey777]

zulgyan said:

But the dilemma right now is whether to use or not use an unified XP progression for all classes.

I brought it up because IMO XP doesn't matter as much in EPT, so a unified XP chart isn't as massive an impact. Far more gold pieces are also awarded in EPT.

(edit: ok I looked at EPT) The Magic Users chart differs for levels VIII & IX. By that point XP is awarded at 10% though.

Back to the main point, coming from Traveller balance is a nebulous thing. I prefer a mix of lethality and intrigue that hits on multiple levels of experience, types of proficiency and styles of play. So I'm personally not too concerned if 1000s of XP later one class is a level or two higher in power. If it was a sticking issue and/or makes the process a bit easier on my players I'd likely be ok with it.

[Deleted]

zulgyan said:

OETP uses unified XP progression. This is 1975, so, even though d20 uses unified XP progression, and it has become a symbol of "new-school", I don't think that's right, because back in 1975, a close OD&D off-spring was using it.

So...

Do you think it would work in OD&D?? Or would it deter to much it's spirit??

No, I think that this would work out well. The ODandD rules are supposed to be a guide, so if you want to change the XP progression go for it. I think that the thief gets ripped off because their XP are so low comparred to other classes, so you need to beef it up. (But I see that you have been re-doing the thief in another thread anyways! ;D )

[casey777]

keltset said:

[I think that the thief gets ripped off because their XP are so low comparred to other classes, so you need to beef it up. (But I see that you have been re-doing the thief in another thread anyways! ;D )

Another note for those who don't have EPT. IIRC EPT predates Supp I, in conception if not publication and in any case there is no thief class nor does the concept fit per se in EPT's setting.

I'm looking at the revamped thief class with interest, for this thread here and other reasons.

[Falconer]

This might be one instance where AD&D really did do it better than OD&D. At least in AD&D the classes are never more than one level apart (with the same XP), are they? Being one level apart doesn’t really matter. Besides, level 9 is "name level" for a Fighting-Man where as level 11 is "name level" for a Magic-User, so they're reaching their goals at about the same time. Regards.

Level	OD&D Fighting-Men	OD&D Magic-Users	OD&D Clerics
1	0	0	0
2	2000	2500	1500
3	4000	5000	3000
4	8000	10000	6000
5	16000	20000	12000
6	32000	35000	25000
7	64000	50000	50000
8	120000	75000	100000
9	240000	100000
10		200000
11		300000
Level	AD&D Fighters	AD&D Magic-Users	AD&D Clerics
1	0	0	0
2	2000	2500	1500
3	4000	5000	3000
4	8000	10000	6000
5	18000	22500	13000
6	35000	40000	27500
7	70000	60000	55000
8	125000	90000	110000
9	250000	135000	225000
10	500000	250000	450000
11	750000	375000	675000
12	1000000	750000	900000
13		1125000
14		1500000
15		1875000
16		2250000
17		2625000
18		3000000
19		3375000

[grodog]

Check out Moore's "Charting the Classes" article in Dragon 69: he does a good analysis of the XP progressions of the AD&D classes, and argues that the Druid and Monk need to be fixed, in particular, due to their fast and slow level advancements relative to other classes power levels.

I haven't compared XP values for monsters/treasures from OD&D to AD&D: is AD&D relatively inflated vs. OD&D??

[James Maliszewski]

grodog said:

I haven't compared XP values for monsters/treasures from OD&D to AD&D: is AD&D relatively inflated vs. OD&D??

In general, the rate of advancement in AD&D is slightly slower than in OD&D but only slightly.

[Gynsburghe]

At first glance, I admit, this thread had me seriously thinking about dropping the XP charts in favor of one universal one... and maybe, in a way, I still am...

But, in a way, I think that individual advancement structures are one of the (many) things I enjoy about the pre-modern D&D games. Is it a little broken? Yeah, maybe... ummm probably.

It's interesting when looking at the OD&D/AD&D comparison, how absolutely similar the first 5 or so levels are. It's sad that I've really never sat down and analyzed the advancement tables, even in AD&D - especially not realizing the disparity in higher levels. AD&D does seem to balance this to "within a level" at most places, at first glance.

I would think that there would have been an increase in what MUs needed to gain in comparison at higher levels, when they become the "powerhouses". What also amazes me is that fighters get an increase in the number of XP needed a higher levels?? Wow, this may have been the subconscious reason that so few of the folks I grew up with played them

Did any early SR/Dragon articles address this issue, as I'd be curious what was done in the pre-AD&D days... Jeez, I need to get a copy of that CD Rom set...

Gynsburghe

[robertsconley]

My comment how could this come about? Think about it, Gygax, Arneson, and crew weren't just doing random stuff. Why would it would seem reasonable that M-Us need half of the xp?

I haven't played a full OD&D from start to finish so I am not sure about this but my guess would be that melee ability was the prized ability. This would make sense in light of the wargame roots of OD&D. M-U and Clerics sacrifice melee abilities in favor of spells. The cleric less so.

So what do the spell get you? It a 10th level wizards overpowering compared to a 10th level fighter. It is overpowering over the course of a dungeon crawl versus a single combat. It looks like sustained effort was also a consideration.

Also how to magic items change the perception that M-Us need less xp.

[Deleted]

Actually,Gygax et al. were kind of just spitballing. Rules were tacked on after a deficiency was felt rather than as a result of well thought out plan. The quirky nature appeals to some of us masochists. As enjoyable as D&D is, it is not balanced very well and MUs are a prime example. Weak and high xp requirements at the start are "balanced" by cheap godlike power at the end.
I like a single xp table for simplicity and clarity. Some people don't care about balance but I do. This is a multiplayer game not a novel. Gandalf is a demigod not a pc and no one wants to play Conan's likely to die sidekick. To much imbalances means some people get to play and others are on the bench.

[Zulgyan]

To much imbalances means some people get to play and others are on the bench.

Not my experience.

First, OD&D is not as unbalanced as many people say. A party of a F-M and a M-U does better than a party of 2 M-U. When comparing one against the other, the M-U may seem more powerful, but in order to adventure more succesfully, a F-M is needed to have a constant backbone of the party. And in the F-M vs. M-U duel, a F-M who knows how to be tricky, resourceful and take advantage from situacions can beat a M-U in no time.

Second, I don't believe that power = protagonisim at the game table. My experience is that protagonisim is gained because of the player's personality, intelligence and ability to make others have fun. Not really the power of their characters. Sometimes even the player with the most power is the lamest at the table. YMMV.

[bert]

I would also suggest that how XP works in your games depends on what exactly you award XP for; getting gold, getting magic items and/or killing beasties are the classic routes; and whether you award the same XP to everyone equally or allow different awards for different PCs depending on what they have done in the adventure.

As a bendable rule, I dish out no XP for magic items or gold - these are their own reward in upping the power of the PC. I do give out XP for topping monsters, but allow all participants in a scrap to get equal shares, unless something especially dramatic or heroic has gone on, such as a warrior taking on a major enemy in single combat, a wizard blasting a horde of demonic things to bits before the warriors have unsheathed their swords and so on.

I do award XPs for 'missions accomplished' and good roleplay. If the aim of the adventure has been to slay a dragon, then everyone who has been a participant in such a deed gets a bonus of 1000XP or so just for being in on the famous mission to destroy the infamous beast, notwithstanding how much loot they came away with.

If a thief has been notably sneaky and indirect in his dealing with said beast he gets some extra. If a barbarian has been suitably brutal and reckless he gets a bonus, if the barbarian ran way and cried like a little girl he gets no bonus; if the honourable noble type let his minions do the dirty work while he hung back, no bonus; if the villainous mastermind type let his minions do the dirty work while he hung back and told them what to do, he gets a bonus.