A Chance to Advance!

[O Senhor Leetz]

I had a thought once, which are rare things in my case, that in life, experience comes not from success, but from failure. If this is also the case in any setting, it would make sense that more experience would result from failing than from achieving something. If you hit someone with a sword, great job, but you really wouldn't learn as much as if you had missed him and then gotten stabbed.

also, on Vreegs post, I've always liked the option in DnD where you roll your abilities in order, then get to switch two and re-roll one. It's always fun to have a wizard with 16 strength or a fighter with 17 charisma. It forces characters to deal with what they get, which, is much more like life. I would love to look like Brad Pitt, but alas, I don't, and have had to adapt accordingly.

[LordVreeg]

I had a thought once, which are rare things in my case, that in life, experience comes not from success, but from failure. If this is also the case in any setting, it would make sense that more experience would result from failing than from achieving something. If you hit someone with a sword, great job, but you really wouldn't learn as much as if you had missed him and then gotten stabbed.

yeah.  T&T 4th edition had that, and I have always given 'consolation' experience for missed skill rolls.  echanically, in GS, it makes sense, becasue it allows a character with nearly no ability to get to first and second level in that skill.
Also because I like that same feel of learning from failure.  Maybe you still don't know how to make that exact circumstance worek with your skills; but you learned what NOT to do...
I also give some of the highest EXP totals out for getting hit.  You mainly get experience in HP by getting hit...I think Weave can speak to this recently...

[Weave]

I also give some of the highest EXP totals out for getting hit.  You mainly get experience in HP by getting hit...I think Weave can speak to this recently...

This is my primary mode of advancing as a character in GS!

[Kalontas]

I had a thought once, which are rare things in my case, that in life, experience comes not from success, but from failure. If this is also the case in any setting, it would make sense that more experience would result from failing than from achieving something. If you hit someone with a sword, great job, but you really wouldn't learn as much as if you had missed him and then gotten stabbed.

I don't think that'd be a good idea for a game. It would actually encourage the players to fail - because if they're rewarded for failing, why bother succeeding? Sure, they could be persuaded back away with treasure and gold only if they succeed, but it's a dangerous tactic. My players were never particularly powergaming, but even they would find a niche like that.

[LordVreeg]

I had a thought once, which are rare things in my case, that in life, experience comes not from success, but from failure. If this is also the case in any setting, it would make sense that more experience would result from failing than from achieving something. If you hit someone with a sword, great job, but you really wouldn't learn as much as if you had missed him and then gotten stabbed.

I don't think that'd be a good idea for a game. It would actually encourage the players to fail - because if they're rewarded for failing, why bother succeeding? Sure, they could be persuaded back away with treasure and gold only if they succeed, but it's a dangerous tactic. My players were never particularly powergaming, but even they would find a niche like that.

Yeah, you have to make sure succeeding is a LOT more attractive.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

And a game isn't necessarily supposed to simulate life--we have real lives for that. You have to look at what makes the most fun mechanic, because, speaking for myself, I play games for fun only.

A certain degree of verisimilitude makes an RPG more fun because it enhances immersion. An excessive degree diminishes the fun.

[LordVreeg]

And a game isn't necessarily supposed to simulate life--we have real lives for that. You have to look at what makes the most fun mechanic, because, speaking for myself, I play games for fun only.

A certain degree of verisimilitude makes an RPG more fun because it enhances immersion. An excessive degree diminishes the fun.

I could not day that better myself.

The thing is, every group is different.  Ever play Aftermath?  Combat makes Guildschool look simple.  The ratio of how much simulation makes it fun can be very different.

[O Senhor Leetz]

I had a thought once, which are rare things in my case, that in life, experience comes not from success, but from failure. If this is also the case in any setting, it would make sense that more experience would result from failing than from achieving something. If you hit someone with a sword, great job, but you really wouldn't learn as much as if you had missed him and then gotten stabbed.

I don't think that'd be a good idea for a game. It would actually encourage the players to fail - because if they're rewarded for failing, why bother succeeding? Sure, they could be persuaded back away with treasure and gold only if they succeed, but it's a dangerous tactic. My players were never particularly powergaming, but even they would find a niche like that.

what about player death? Especially in a setting where characters can't come back

But I see where you are coming from. What if players received the same XP no matter what? success or failure? Or if you wanted to get fancy, divide experience into Fail and Succede, which each pool advancing different things.

[SDragon]

what about player death? Especially in a setting where characters can't come back

Ask Vreeg about this one.

[SA]

This thread has a good title. We need more threads with titles like this.

[Kalontas]

I don't think that'd be a good idea for a game. It would actually encourage the players to fail - because if they're rewarded for failing, why bother succeeding? Sure, they could be persuaded back away with treasure and gold only if they succeed, but it's a dangerous tactic. My players were never particularly powergaming, but even they would find a niche like that.

what about player death? Especially in a setting where characters can't come back

But I see where you are coming from. What if players received the same XP no matter what? success or failure? Or if you wanted to get fancy, divide experience into Fail and Succede, which each pool advancing different things.

If they get experience no matter what, they would just not care if they win - because they're getting the reward anyway. You know how to tweak that? Make them get some small bit of experience in case of failure, but make the victory much more rewarding. This way you can still address "learning from your mistakes", and keep them from being rewarded for being dolts.

About character's death, sure, that's a big detriment, but if they die every time they fail, what is the point in giving them experience for it anyway? They either get xp for failure and survive, and learn failing is actually beneficial, or they die, and the xp didn't matter anyway.

[LordVreeg]

I have always given 'consolation' experience for missed skill rolls. echanically, in GS, it makes sense, because it allows a character with nearly no ability to get to first and second level in that skill.
Also because I like that same feel of learning from failure. Maybe you still don't know how to make that exact circumstance work with your skills; but you learned what NOT to do...

what about player death? Especially in a setting where characters can't come back[/quote]
Well, this thread is more about advancement, but one side-effect of advancement in many games is the speed that said advancement allows the PC to ignore more mundane issues, and a certain resistance to death in general.

Speed and method of advancement can be looked at as a growth curve.  Mundane folks, moderate NPCs and such can also be plotted on this graph.  And in most games, there is a decrease in the % of PC demise that can also be plotted based on the amount of threats that can kill the character decreasing in that setting (normally).  

Player death and the chance of coming back from death alos somewhat changes the risk/reward.  It is not that coming back from the dead is impossible in Celtricia, but it is very difficult to do, costs a small fortune, and it helps when a green dragon does not fly away with your body.    

[Matt Larkin (author)]

what about player death? Especially in a setting where characters can't come back

I think Leetz meant death is a motivator to not fail.

And while in theory an advanced character is harder to kill, in practice, many games such as D&D follow the paradigm of always throwing bigger and bigger challenges at PCs as they advance. At best this means they're liable to remain on similar ground. However, at worst, it can make death more likely as outliers become more threatening. HP advance, but of course, at some point even a high HP character can be at 5 HP. A level 1 guy at 5 HP is probably not going to be reduced to -10 HP (assuming 3.X) in one hit from a level 1 threat. A level 10 guy could easily be reduced to -10 HP from a level 10 threat. One could argue that the level 10 guy was reckless to allow himself to be at 5 HP, which may or may not be true, depending on the circumstances, players, GM, etc.

My point is, if I had one, was only that it's been my experience that death becomes more frequent in high-level D&D games, not less frequent, despite the fact that high level characters are theoretically harder to kill.