Troll Lord Games

Has anyone ever used an alternate EPP per level table for the character classes?

The tables in the EPP depress my players - and I agree, the amount of XP required to achieve 8, 9, 10th level is insane. I also know that these tables share their progression with the original AD&D ones, but that was a system where the DM handed out XP for magic items and gold pieces. But does anyone do that anymore? Has anyone ran a C&C campaign where a character went from 1st to 10th level legitimately, earning every XP point through combat, magic items, and gold?

I ask all these questions with a smile, because it's more humorous to me than troubling. Just curious.

-Ieuane

Ieuane wrote: I also know that these tables share their progression with the original AD&D ones, but that was a system where the DM handed out XP for magic items and gold pieces. But does anyone do that anymore?

That's the RAW for C&C...

I advanced a PC from 1st level to 7th level using the rules as written. Our CK was extremely focuses on handing out XP by the book. Our characters received XP pretty much exactly by the book as far as I know. To go from 1st to 7th level as a fighter took about 2 years of game play where we played 2-3 weeks out of every month.

Is that painfully slow? That questions all depends on the campaign being played. Out campaign was pretty good so it was hard to notice. But I did have dreams of getting to 10th level and having that 2nd attack... It probably would have taken another 1-2 years at that pace.

Personally, when I'm running my games I have that pace about doubled. However, I give out story awards XP and XP based on how it is mentioned to give out XP in the C&C PHB. But, I never give out XP for magic items unless the wizard or cleric creates them. And in the latter case, the amount of XP earned is pretty little comparitively speaking.

~O

I know you drew from 1st Edition, Ieuane, but I look at 2nd Edition more when comparing XP. My memory is a little fuzzy, but I believe they got rid of XP for coin in 2e (they kept XP for magic, IIRC). But they replaced the coin XP with Individual XP awards. I thought this was much better than the coin. I think that makes much more sense than XP for money. As far as XP for magic items go, I can't say I really used it in 2e (I didn't play 1e long enough to matter - maybe a year and a half - but I did use it then) and our games moved quite slowly. But we liked that. And I was on the spot with individual XP awards, so those and monster XP usually did the trick.

In C&C I think the XP is a little better over 1e monsters, and more in line with their 2e iterations. I don't know if that's fact, but that's the feel I get. My game made it to about 7th level or so before it stopped, but they did fine with monster XP and individual XP awards (à la 2e). Those and an XP award for finishing a major story and XP for a character back story and the players did okay.

Arduin wrote:

Ieuane wrote: I also know that these tables share their progression with the original AD&D ones, but that was a system where the DM handed out XP for magic items and gold pieces. But does anyone do that anymore?

That's the RAW for C&C...

Not to be argumenative, Arduin, but the RAW is that it's up to the CK whether or not to give XP for money, for Base/Story awards, or for roleplaying. At least the verbiage of those three sections in M&T suggests that they are optional (the roleplaying and base/story sections outright say it's optional, while the coin section says, "Although not all Castle Keepers do so..."). Magic items and monsters (obviously) are more definite awards, according to the RAW. Granted, I only have access to my 2nd print M&T at the moment so things may have changed in the most recent printing.

I would say that as long as leveling is at a pace that is acceptable to the CK go ahead and give XP for any or all of the different ways (monster, magic, money, RP, or whatnot). I think that's why most of them are optional - to give the CK control of how fast/slow he wants the party to progress.

Lord Dynel wrote: Not to be argumenative, Arduin, but the RAW is that it's up to the CK whether or not to give XP for money...

True. By that same token, it is up to the CK to use or not use ANY rule...

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Not to be argumenative, Arduin, but the RAW is that it's up to the CK whether or not to give XP for money...

True. By that same token, it is up to the CK to use or not use ANY rule...

Hmmm...I'm getting an idea for the ULTIMATE PocketMod RPG.

Entirely Blank, the RPG of pure imagination. NO rules. No text. NO dice! The GM decides everything! Only $79.95!

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Not to be argumenative, Arduin, but the RAW is that it's up to the CK whether or not to give XP for money...

True. By that same token, it is up to the CK to use or not use ANY rule...

Well, that is true but I was referring to the optional rules that are, you know, optional.

In all seriousness, it seems to me that - by the verbiage used - that the Trolls intent (and far be it from me to ever know the Trolls true intent) was to have monster XP and magic item XP form the basis and the other sources of XP (money, base/story, roleplaying) be options for the CK to use or not.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, I think as long as the CK can find the right levelling pace then use what methods you see fit. I used monster XP and individual rewards and my players leveled at a decent pace.

Lord Dynel wrote: At risk of sounding like a broken record, I think as long as the CK can find the right levelling pace then use what methods you see fit. I used monster XP and individual rewards and my players leveled at a decent pace.

Yep. Also, if one wants to progress twice as fast as "normal" just 2X the X.P. for everything. Easier than reworking EPP tables IMO.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: At risk of sounding like a broken record, I think as long as the CK can find the right levelling pace then use what methods you see fit. I used monster XP and individual rewards and my players leveled at a decent pace.

Yep. Also, if one wants to progress twice as fast as "normal" just 2X the X.P. for everything. Easier than reworking EPP tables IMO.

Indeed.

I recently started a game and did not give out XP for treasure at first. (I'm from the new school, I didn't even know that was a thing!) After a whole session, I had handed out about 90 xp (one fight) and that was split between to PCs and a hireling. That was depressing, like the OP said, so I looked again and then calculated the XP for the treasure I'd rolled up and that made players a little happier.

After reading somewhere (the old-school primer?) that the xp for rule treasure encourages common sense in adventurers, I'm glad I've implemented that rule. I've yet to see if that keeps the leveling pace high enough.

Ieuane wrote: But does anyone do that anymore? Has anyone ran a C&C campaign where a character went from 1st to 10th level legitimately, earning every XP point through combat, magic items, and gold?

I ask all these questions with a smile, because it's more humorous to me than troubling. Just curious.

-Ieuane

Never stopped. I've been handing out XP for gold, magic items, spell use, ability use, combat and pretty much the whole kitchen with sink since the 80's. The logic about gold equating to xp is that its nominally supposed to pay for 'training' to the next level.

I tend to look at leveling in terms of adventures. So, if the adventure is to slay a dragon then who ever survives would gain a level. Although I do calculate XP to "check my math" so to speak. The adventures I write usually take 8-12 sessions to complete. I don't think counting XP like a score in a video game is all that much fun. Also, if you level to quickly it devalues the game in my opinion. It's supposed to be hard.

I'm sure when we all started we just accepted RAW as RAW. Later on I found that my campaigns had more "events" than killing and collecting treasure. From there I did a hybrid. I got away from any kind of $=xp. Still awarded xp for kills, but then my xp became subjective and revolved around good role-playing. (Not saying that kill/treasure centric games don't have good role-playing.) Player NPC interaction, discovery, thwarting, puzzle solving etc. Not giving xp for $ kind of liberated my players in that they didn't have to worry about how much treasure they collected. This included not giving xp for magic items. The magic items are inherently a bonus for what they do or are good, both negatively and positively, as plot hooks.

Sir Ironside wrote:I'm sure when we all started we just accepted RAW as RAW. Later on I found that my campaigns had more "events" than killing and collecting treasure. From there I did a hybrid. I got away from any kind of $=xp. Still awarded xp for kills, but then my xp became subjective and revolved around good role-playing. (Not saying that kill/treasure centric games don't have good role-playing.) Player NPC interaction, discovery, thwarting, puzzle solving etc. Not giving xp for $ kind of liberated my players in that they didn't have to worry about how much treasure they collected. This included not giving xp for magic items. The magic items are inherently a bonus for what they do or are good, both negatively and positively, as plot hooks.

Well said, Sir! This, more-or-less, describes my situation as well. I think it definitely took the treasure-collecting burden off the players. As my games moved away from the "slay monsters, take treasure" kind of game, the basis for which my players earned XP changed as well.

I was looking at the Knight's EPP table - he needs 300,000 xp between 9th and 10th level, which is the same amount he needed to reach 9th level. 10th to 11th only takes 125,000 xp. The big boon at 10th is the mighty "Call to Arms," plus d10 hp, and another +1 BTH.

I did the math last night and a 18HD red dragon with full hp would be worth 10,000 to 11,000 xp. Maybe more. Interesting.

Something about the varying EPP tables among the classes has always seemed a hold over from 1st ed, but without the other 1st ed race and class requirements (min/max attributes, max. levels for certain races, all that stuff) to balance it out, *IF* they even balanced anything. Also, 1st ed had separate saving throw tables for each class, with wildly varying values among them.

Anyway, this is all ancient system design issues, so it's all water way, way under the bridge and out to sea.

gideon_thorne wrote:

Ieuane wrote: But does anyone do that anymore? Has anyone ran a C&C campaign where a character went from 1st to 10th level legitimately, earning every XP point through combat, magic items, and gold?

I ask all these questions with a smile, because it's more humorous to me than troubling. Just curious.

-Ieuane

Never stopped. I've been handing out XP for gold, magic items, spell use, ability use, combat and pretty much the whole kitchen with sink since the 80's. The logic about gold equating to xp is that its nominally supposed to pay for 'training' to the next level.

Wow. That takes me way back. Training between levels. How about the one minute combat round?

I give out a certain amount of EPP per hour, based on the characters' level. I've calculated the average EPP needed for next level for all the the C&C classes for this purpose. This way I know that 10 hours of playing will take the characters from level 4 to level 5 (depending on their class of course).

This way a half hour hunting trip gives out just as much EPP as a half hour dungeon crawl. I like this method since it makes players think less about getting to the dungeon, killing the monsters and bringing home the loot (not that this is nescesserily a bad thing).

I am playing giving xp for gp and magic items. I don't see any problem with that.

and I give extra xp for critical hit or critical success in ability check, for critical failure (after a succesfull wisdom check, to check if the PC has learned something or not), for every hour of investigative play (eg in a city). The last session, I have begun to allocate the MVP prize (some xp) but my gf is totally against it because she said it may provoke unhappiness in some players. perhaps I'll drop that rules.

I pretty much used EXP as RAW: xp for monsters and gold (but not magic items), but I gave 200-500 xp story awards after each session (the larger for completion of goals). After 19 sessions (4 hours apiece usually, a total of 11 months), most characters were in the 4-5th level range.

When I ran my C&C Conan, I just gave 1 level per session for 1-6th lvl, 1 level for every 2 sessions for 7-9th, and 1 level for every 5 sessions for 10th-12th. But that game was episodic, not campaign driven. Plus, as a 'filler' game, we didn't play it regulary, so our goals were different.

I have actually abandoned the notion of XP as a reward, excepting for the purchase of abilities, opting for a goal-driven level advancement mechanism as I have mentioned on these boards before. It seems to work well and I like that it encourages players to think of things they "want" which can be "kill stuff and loot their homes" but it can also turn into some really interesting stuff.

Thanks for everyone's input. It seems everyone has a method for dealing with character advancement outside, or at least without strict regard, to the EPP tables. Maybe future printings should look into why this is, if any sense of standard progression among players is important.

A related issue that also goes back to 1st ed days, and therefore to CnC, is that a character's level was half of the power status mix. The main part of the mix was all the magic items he had managed to obtain. If you were playing a fighter for instance, you didn't just want Full Plate, you wanted a +3 set of Full Plate and a +2 shield, a ring of protection, and could not survive without a magical weapon. The level to level xp grind was off-set with the magic items you picked up that made you more powerful.

Anyone who played 1st ed when that was it knows magic items were the the cheese on the cheeseburger--without them, your days were numbered. And the lure of finding more of them was usually why you went into the dungeon in the first place.

I've never felt that same mentality among CnC players, or anyone into the old school systems nowadays, where everything is low-key, bare bones, Survivor Finale night. "You open the chest and find a rusty spoon."

Ieuane wrote:Thanks for everyone's input. It seems everyone has a method for dealing with character advancement outside, or at least without strict regard, to the EPP tables. Maybe future printings should look into why this is, if any sense of standard progression among players is important.

It's been this way in every version I've played. Up through 3.x.

Arduin wrote: It's been this way in every version I've played. Up through 3.x.

I agree every GM has his own method to award some xp, and wants to keep a hand on the rate of character level advancement. I don't think these methods made previous advancement tables optional, or a problem to overcome (or ignore.)

My point was pretty subtle anyway--that certain game-play factors were present in the 1st ed era that are not present as much now, and it makes the EPP tables anachronistic, extremely slow, uneven among classes, and therefore most CKs have found a way to work around them.

Also, 3.x didn't have varying experience tables for each class, and this is not a plug for 3.x, but the designers did work hard at making CRs, advancement, and all that fairly standard and manageable.

Ieuane wrote:

Arduin wrote:

My point was pretty subtle anyway--that certain game-play factors were present in the 1st ed era that are not present as much now, and it makes the EPP tables anachronistic, extremely slow, uneven among classes, and therefore most CKs have found a way to work around them.

Also, 3.x didn't have varying experience tables for each class, and this is not a plug for 3.x, but the designers did work hard at making CRs, advancement, and all that fairly standard and manageable.

Since 1st Ed GM's have been "working around the tables." This continued into 3.x in an attempt to slow the rate for the more powerful classes vs. the weaker ones (the most obvious insanity of the 3.x EPP tables). My point is that this hasn't changed since ~'78.

Arduin wrote:

Since 1st Ed GM's have been "working around the tables." This continued into 3.x in an attempt to slow the rate for the more powerful classes vs. the weaker ones (the most obvious insanity of the 3.x EPP tables). My point is that this hasn't changed since ~'78.

I don't remember too much "working around the tables" from any DM of mine. I do remember when a visiting player sat for a session, or at Con, comparing characters, with your highest character's level being viewed as a rather objective achievement. Consequently, anyone who bragged about a 20th level this or that received the appropriate derision.

Looking at the CKG, p.223 under "Example," they have a good paragraph on this phenomenon, with advice on how they worked around the tables they designed.

Ieuane wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Since 1st Ed GM's have been "working around the tables." This continued into 3.x in an attempt to slow the rate for the more powerful classes vs. the weaker ones (the most obvious insanity of the 3.x EPP tables). My point is that this hasn't changed since ~'78.

I don't remember too much "working around the tables" from any DM of mine. I do remember when a visiting player sat for a session, or at Con, comparing characters, with your highest character's level being viewed as a rather objective achievement. Consequently, anyone who bragged about a 20th level this or that received the appropriate derision.

Looking at the CKG, p.223 under "Example," they have a good paragraph on this phenomenon, with advice on how they worked around the tables they designed.

I don't recall any working around the XP chart, either. My games, or ones I played in, were pretty much by-the-book as far as XP went.

Lord Dynel wrote: I don't recall any working around the XP chart, either. My games, or ones I played in, were pretty much by-the-book as far as XP went.

Happened in quite a few campaigns I played in. DM's trying to "balance". The 1st Ed tables are pretty similar to the C&C tables now.

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: I don't recall any working around the XP chart, either. My games, or ones I played in, were pretty much by-the-book as far as XP went.

Happened in quite a few campaigns I played in. DM's trying to "balance". The 1st Ed tables are pretty similar to the C&C tables now.

I actually compared them (what a nerd, right), and the CnC tables are actually worse (higher amounts). OSRIC, S&W were spot on, I think.

I never really paid any attention to them until my current players started to groan, and they had a collective WTF moment - and that started me thinking (always dangerous).

Funny, most rules (any system) focus on what a character should justly receive for doing x, y, or z -- but the DM's concern, as well as the player's, is the game time to advancement ratio.

Ieuane wrote: I actually compared them (what a nerd, right), and the CnC tables are actually worse (higher amounts). OSRIC, S&W were spot on, I think.

The fighter is exactly the same. The wizard in 1st took 1/2 the EX of a fighter to reach 10th in 1st Ed (pretty insane considering the power difference) and has been fixed in C&C. The rogue is only 15k ex difference at 10th level (not significant difference).

So, C&C took the fighter as the base class and re-balanced from 1st edition. This was long overdue and totally botched in 3.x. Don't know about OSRIC as I haven't played it and you didn't give data to compare with your opinion.