In article <1169492747.309957.246840@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Will in New Haven <bill.reich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>If that had happened, I would have switched to equal EXP. This is
>especially true since everyone seems to get a turn to be the big EXP
>gainer, when it isn't equal anyway, and it all evens out.
Ah. I think there are some dynamics in (most) multi-player games which
push toward sharing the spotlight and thus the EXP awards more evenly.
These are less apparent in single-player, and I don't think I'd expect
the awards to even out at all.
One of the besetting problems in single-player, multiple-character games
is the vicious circle caused by lack of spotlight time on a particular
PC. The player has, say, six PCs in his head. One of them is not very
effective for some reason, so the others are "in the spotlight" more
often. They tend to develop stronger personalities and the player
tends to become more tactically proficient with their abilities. This
makes it likely that the ineffective PC will be ignored even more,
and become even more ineffective; for example, the player may fail to
think of a tactic that would use that PC's strengths, because he's just
not thinking of that PC at all.
After a few months you have a couple of well-developed PCs and one or
more pieces of cardboard.
We know this is a problem, so if one PC is lagging we tend to push for
op****tunities to give them stuff. If I were going to give differential
EXP I'd tend to give it to the *least* effective PC, because maybe if
they go up a level and the others don't, they'll get more spotlight.
We don't do this, though: we look for ways to give them NPC contacts,
items, abilities, followers, and adventure hooks particularly suited to
their abilities. We also try to play out their actions, and abstract
actions of the most spotlighted PCs. And we look for any op****tunity to
see the disadvantaged PC on his own, away from the others, so he can have
the player's full attention.
We had a live example of this in SCAP. The rogue, Tillie, was very
discouraging in the early scenarios because all of the lock target numbers
were much too hard for her. (Apparently a design decision, as it's nearly
impossible for a rogue of her level to be much better than she was.) She
was also fairly useless in combat: not strong enough to be a melee
fighter,
and without the feats and weapon choice to be a good missile specialist.
And everything we were up against seemed to be better at Hide and Move
Silently than she was.
Tillie had an intrinsically strong personality and didn't disappear
completely, but she ended up being a voice in party strategic arguments
and not much else. By the time they were 5th level I had quit looking
for ways for Tillie to use her abilities, and she was (even though much
more capable now) not doing any more than she had at 2nd. The party
then got its butt kicked due to inadequate advance information: the GM
said, "Why didn't you scout?" and I replied immediately "We don't
have anyone who can." And stopped and thought about it, and went out and
bought Tillie a bunch of sup****t stuff, switched her to a different
missile
weapon, and picked up an archery feat for her. The GM kicked in a
powerful magic bow (taken off a dead enemy) and suddenly, rather than a
useless appendage in combat, Tillie was actually, in a fight that
suited her, frighteningly capable. And she could scout, and started to
do so, leading to some nice ambushes.
I had thought my characterization of her was okay--she had strong
opinions already--but it got a lot better when she wasn't sitting around
useless during every tactical scene.
If the GM had given differential EXP based on contribution, Tillie would
be 1-2 levels lower than the other PCs, I think, and even the steps we
took would probably not have helped. It would have been better to go the
other way, making her 1-2 levels *higher* than the other PCs.
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
