Troll Lord Games

I'm looking at the xp tables progression, and I notice that for some class levelling i.e. from 11th to 12th level require lesser xp than levelling from 10th to 11th level.

Some example:

assassin
from 8th to 9th: 60000xp

from 9th to 10th: 50000xp

barbarian
from 9th to 10th: 240000xp

from 10th to 11th: 200000xp

illusionist:
from 10th to 11th: 250000xp

from 11th to 12th: 150000xp

This odd aspect don't seems related to special abilities gained at this or that specific level.

In 1e and 2e it doesn't happen.

So, does anyone know the reason behind this game design decision?

What printing do you have?

That may help clear this up. Have you looked in the errata?

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

I have the 2nd printing.

I have the .pdf errata, and it do not correct the xp tables (only add progression for levels higher than 12th, but this has been fixed in the 2nd printing).

Those are the same in the 3rd printing as well. It's just how the table goes I suppose. Since this issue was brought up during multiple reviews of the printings, I guess it's safe to assume that the Lords of Trollness have deemed it so.

Weird, yes. But what else would you expect?
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Dangit! Just spotted a misplaced comma in the assassin chart. *wangs book across the room....mutter piss moan swear....*
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

There are other misplaced commas if you hadn't known already. So where the hell is the 4th printing already?!
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Omote wrote:
There are other misplaced commas if you hadn't known already. So where the hell is the 4th printing already?!
-O

I told ya, go out and help sell out the 3rd, and there will be a fourth. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Cleveland Ohio can only buy sooooo many C&C PHBs... *faints*

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

If someone could help me not to think that the xp tables are broken, I could help to sell out the 3rd printing

mrjam wrote:
So, does anyone know the reason behind this game design decision?

Far as I can recall, its a combination of two factors. 1) The change in BTH at various levels and 2) 'paying' for class special abilities across various levels. This is determined by some formula only known to Davis Chenault.

There is a reason for it, even if folks don't always agree on the reason.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

There might also be a clearer picture when the CKG comes out and advancement progresses up to 24th level... and maybe even method to this madness!
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Mmh, I'll searching for some possible algorithm, but really sometimes the advancement seems not make sense, i.e.:

Ranger:

8th level: 150000

9th level: 250000

10th level: 500000

Why only 100000 xp for levelling from 8th to 9th (minor than a x2 progession), and than 250000 (a x2 progression) for levelling from 9th to 10th? The ranger don't gain any special ability at these levels, and the BtH gets the same +1 bonus.

Back in the day, Serleran had a neat break down of the class abilities in the C&C game, that as far as he has ever said was his own interpreataion of the ability break down. Building classes from this method, I seem to recall there being some of the same quirks in XP progression.

Serleran did say his breakdowns weren't perfect, and as gideon_thorne mentioned, only Davis knows the actual ability costs.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

While it is interesting to note that the XP progression charts for all the editions of AD&D and D&D all had the same general progression (think of a bell curve and you get the idea how progression went), Castles & Crusades doesn't necessarily work in the same vein. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but to me at least, the "quirky" progression in the PHB is a non-issue.

Besides, given how adaptable the game actually is, the standard response to this kind of thing is "change it". I know that this line has been overused to the point that people want to take axes to my head ala Lizzie Borden (whose house happens to be a five minute drive from mine), but seriously, MAKE THE GAME YOUR OWN.

Why is it that people (in general folks. Not singling out anyone here) seem to like being tied down by rules? Are they into bondage or something?
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Traveller wrote:
Why is it that people (in general folks. Not singling out anyone here) seem to like being tied down by rules? Are they into bondage or something?

No, it is the concern that these aren't rules that can be tweaked, but just plain errors in product. And it isn't "being tied down by rules," it is "being able to play a game AS WRITTEN and have an experience that in enjoyable because it is consistent and understandable.
_________________
http://strangequests.wordpress.com/

Then try playing OD&D as written. I have, and I didn't find it fun. I had to rewrite it to suit me.

Look, C&C as written is enjoyable, consistent, and understandable. From my POV, it's yet another complaint because the rules aren't like OD&D, though admittedly this is a minor (though valid) complaint compared to "this game isn't AD&D reprinted so it sucks" or "your art sucks because your artist is gay" (Pete is actually quite a happy guy, so that kills that insult).

I see people again and again seemingly hamstrung by the idea that the rules are master, when they are the frickin' servant! It's something that I'm honestly tired of seeing. If you don't like something in the rules, change the rules. It's your game, and you should be able to tinker with it as desired, and fill in the gaps if there are any. Gary, Rob, and anyone associated with OD&D when it first came out understood this concept. Their game had a lot of gaps. ALL games do, because no game can define every parameter of its universe. Though as we know, some games try really damn hard and as a result, are not fun to play.

P.S. The OP has a valid concern about the game, but a valid reason for why things are the way they are has been given (a formula for class creation was devised, and that formula generates these valleys in the level progression). I apologize to the OP if as a result of my posts his thread has become sidetracked. I just am one of those that works to understand the creator's intent in a particular game. OD&D and C&C are two games for which understanding the creator's intent are important, at least to me.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Hey... I do agree with what Traveller is trying to say. I also understand the many questions that pop up regarding the game. But either game play philosophy is fine for a variety of reasons and will suit different types of gamers.

A clearer and very detailed rule set will minimize the role of a GM in a given game. One that provides a base rule set that demands greater judgment calls may place a greater responsibility on the shoulders of a GM. Neither of these will necessarily make one a 'good' GM.

Personally, I don't mind tinkering with something to make it work better. The easiest fix for this is do determine the base for each class and just do the standard 'doubling up' for EPP. I haven't bothered doing this though since the EPP as-is hasn't created a problem for me. However, I would like to see the reasoning behind the little differences mentioned in this thread but that has more to do with my love of the game and general game design. One day, either in the CKG or a possible 'Adventurer's Backpack' that might actually happen!
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

mrjam wrote:
So, does anyone know the reason behind this game design decision?

That is wierd. We have an illusionist and a barbarian in our team. Both at level ten. I know in basic D&D the xp progression ramped up until name level then it increased in set increments. Those levels where the wierdness starts are pretty close to name level. That may have something (or nothing at all) to do with it.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Quote:
No, it is the concern that these aren't rules that can be tweaked, but just plain errors in product. And it isn't "being tied down by rules," it is "being able to play a game AS WRITTEN and have an experience that in enjoyable because it is consistent and understandable.

Exactly. Just make something up is not an adequate answer in all cases.

make your own house rules is fine for some people but, if I wanted to make up my own rpg I would have.

We just want a complete game without some designer making a smart aleck post in responce.

The potential for this game is huge. But when trying to recruit newbies that ARE used to a balanced and complete game these issues become huge to overlook.
Regardless of what tried and true C&C fans and designers may think, it is not an unreasonable request to have items like experience written in a balanced & cohesive manner.

Tinkering is one thing. Redesigning an entire experience system is something different.

Generally speaking, if a level has an increase in cost, some special ability was gained for that level. You must look at the preceding level to verify it however. For example, if a chart is something like:

2000

4400

8000

then you can surmise that, at the 4400 level something was obtained, and that something has a relative value of 400, because, without it, the level would have cost a mere 4000. The difference between the 4400 and the 8000 is that nothing extra was added at the 8k mark, and, its the traditional double-double (it should, actually, cost 8800 to be more accurate). The charts are not perfectly mathematical in this respect (or, are, using a sliding scale that decreases the value of certain abilities as one advances in level, sort of like a cantrip becoming less and less useful as you near casting 9th level spells.)

I did do a complete deconstruction, but I cannot discuss the specifics, nor give it to anyone (so don't ask, please; I hate to say no.) But, it was not "perfect" as there is only one man who knows the exactness of it all, and that is not me (though, I think I got damn close.)

Joe wrote:
Exactly. Just make something up is not an adequate answer in all cases.

It is in this case, especially as the XP system as written is enjoyable, consistent, and understandable. Just because you believe it doesn't fall into those parameters doesn't make it so.

Joe wrote:
make your own house rules is fine for some people but, if I wanted to make up my own rpg I would have.

Then do it already. I figure that it will take you, working by yourself, over a year actually writing it, then several months of proofreading and playtesting. Then there is making it available to the public, soliciting feedback, and correcting the inevitable mistakes that will crop up in the book. That will be at least another year, if not two. That's how long it's taken me, and I had the 1974 OD&D rules to start off with. Castles & Crusades is a literary masterpiece compared to 1974 OD&D.

Joe wrote:
We just want a complete game without some designer making a smart aleck post in responce.

I hope you're not referring to me. I'm not a game designer, just an errata monkey. However, the game is complete. As pointed out by me earlier, all games have gaps in them because there simply is no room in them to detail every last nuance of the universe. So if you're looking for a rule in Castles & Crusades on how to take a dump while wearing armor, then Castles & Crusades probably is not the game for you.

Joe wrote:
The potential for this game is huge. But when trying to recruit newbies that ARE used to a balanced and complete game these issues become huge to overlook.

In my experience, people generally do not notice nor do they care. They focus on the role playing, not the numbers. Also, since this game is routinely rated as one of the top ten games in the industry, I would say that the game is in fact exceeding its potential.

Joe wrote:
Regardless of what tried and true C&C fans and designers may think, it is not an unreasonable request to have items like experience written in a balanced & cohesive manner.

It is balanced and cohesive. Unless the balance you desire is for the classes to be balanced against each other. We've already seen where that leads.

Joe wrote:
Tinkering is one thing. Redesigning an entire experience system is something different.

Who is talking about redesigning an entire experience system? With thirty-odd YEARS worth of game material out there with the name Dungeons & Dragons on it, I'm sure that instead of having to redesign an entire game system, you can simply plug the numbers from one edition of that game into C&C and have a viable game. The ability to change the rules like that and use a rule from a different game system is the SINGLE biggest strength of Castles & Crusades. That is not a redesign of the experience system.

But, since you seem to have it in your head that the only acceptable option is to redesign the experience system, then go for it. I'd like to see your work, as it's likely to be far more extensive than my porting the Macho Women With Guns encumbrance system over to Castles & Crusades and incorporating said system into my house rules.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Looks to me like when they had to regularize the xp needed from 10th to 12th , so we all could see a basic pattern over the last few levels to progress to levels thirteen plus, it created this oddity as it veered from the merit-based xp progression at or below level ten.

Like Serl mentioned this is a merit-based xp progression. Some of it is straight ramping up (or 'double double'), but some of it is based on class features.

But the levels ten through twelve needed to be regular to offer projections for XP tables beyond level twelve. In order to do this it built up a kink on the number chain. You could have extended out the amount needed for the last levels on the chart and the anomaly would have not appeared altogether. That would make those levels take really long though.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

serleran wrote:
Generally speaking, if a level has an increase in cost, some special ability was gained for that level. You must look at the preceding level to verify it however. For example, if a chart is something like:

2000

4400

8000

Yes, I see it until 8th or 9th level. But after that it seems to me that something weird happens. Take my previous ranger example:

Ranger:

8th level: 150000

9th level: 250000

10th level: 500000

Why 8th to 9th is not "double" and 9th to 10th is? No special abilities gain at these levels. Could you help me to justify this progression?

Traveller wrote:
I hope you're not referring to me. I'm not a game designer, just an errata monkey. However, the game is complete. As pointed out by me earlier, all games have gaps in them because there simply is no room in them to detail every last nuance of the universe. So if you're looking for a rule in Castles & Crusades on how to take a dump while wearing armor, then Castles & Crusades probably is not the game for you.

How does this comment not make you that guy? Okay, you're not a designer, but (and I'm saying this as someone who does like playing this game) there is this whole ethos on this board that when someone raises what they feel to be a legitimate question about game mechanics, people jump all over them accusing them of being a) unimaginative by not changing the rules, or b) some sort of rules-masochist, as you've done right here. And I'm not even touching the whole "you're not down with the retro feel" subtext that happens sometimes.

By the way, you've just discouraged someone from playing a game on a board paid for by a company that wants people to play the game, and how is that good for either the game, the company, or the industry as a whole?
_________________
http://strangequests.wordpress.com/

Quote:
Why 8th to 9th is not "double" and 9th to 10th is? No special abilities gain at these levels. Could you help me to justify this progression?

That is the progression into "named" level, making it slightly easier, once one has gotten to the point, but harder afterwards. Also, as explained before by CharlieRock, the charts needed to level out (heh) so expected advancement rates could be figured for levels not listed on the charts. For many of the classes "9th level" represents the pinnacle of the class, the general assumption that campaigns begin to peter out at that point, and, also, when the classes typically gain their final HD - sure, some classes gain more stuff after (monks, especially) but 9th level is "special" and does not abide by the "XP rules." This is part of the sliding scale I mentioned before... it is not purely linear.

mrjam wrote:
Could you help me to justify this progression?

*smiles* Probably not. But, as has been explained already, the creation of the XP tables are part systematic and part subjective fudging on the part of the designer. So the 'logic' is entirely Davis's own and is not likely going to resonate at all times with all people.

I'm sure more 'logical' progressions can be made. But is it going to be changed in the core books at this point? I tend to doubt it, personally. But who knows?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

mrjam wrote:
Yes, I see it until 8th or 9th level. But after that it seems to me that something weird happens. Take my previous ranger example:

Ranger:

8th level: 150000

9th level: 250000

10th level: 500000

Why 8th to 9th is not "double" and 9th to 10th is? No special abilities gain at these levels. Could you help me to justify this progression?

This one is not so odd. 10th level looks like it is the new 'name' level, in that it is the last one with rolled hit points. It is the zenith or plateau level. So somebody figured 250k was a good amount to get there but too much for the progression beyond twelve.

You could kind of look at it as the ranger gets a 25k XP boost to hit every level after the 'new name' (or tenth) level.

Edit: If that just confused you more, I could try again. This all supposes the premise of the "name level" being the plateau level for advancement.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Witterquick wrote:
How does this comment not make you that guy? Okay, you're not a designer, but (and I'm saying this as someone who does like playing this game) there is this whole ethos on this board that when someone raises what they feel to be a legitimate question about game mechanics, people jump all over them accusing them of being a) unimaginative by not changing the rules, or b) some sort of rules-masochist, as you've done right here. And I'm not even touching the whole "you're not down with the retro feel" subtext that happens sometimes.

By the way, you've just discouraged someone from playing a game on a board paid for by a company that wants people to play the game, and how is that good for either the game, the company, or the industry as a whole?

Beware fanboy crossing

I too was about to look for some other system, but I have invested too much time and money in CnC too just toss it in the corner. Its just a shame you have to wade through the BS to get to the beef. Some here look down from their self elevated positions and cant be bothered to give a helpful answer but will give a smart assed retort just boost their post count.

I too would like to know the intent of a rule before I make something up, just to know if my thinking is off base. The most likely answer that you get is only the Trolls know How helpful.

Just the way I feel: Realmsbard

PS; Nice site Witterquick
_________________
Listen to the song. For in the tale there may be truth.

Typically, I rather like to think that the people and relevant posts are more helpful on these boards than not.

Generally, I also like to understand the reasons behind a rule or how it balances with other rules before changing it. Aside from just a commentary, I do try to provide a possible solution on how one *could* handle the situation.

C&C is designed the way it is, and aside from errata, is not looking to expand into a new and different edition. One reason for that was the belief that one could take the game and make it their own with house rules and variants as one saw fit.

In that sense, I do agree with what Traveller was initially trying to say. However I also completely agree with Witterquick in terms of desire for clarification.

If tempers are starting to flare because of certain things being said in this thread, please... take a step back and relax. We're all here on the boards because of our love for the game and to help each other out when the situation arises.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Well since the actual game designer does not get on these boards very often, and chooses not to answer these questions we're left with what we have. The response over and over has been "that's the way it is." What else is suppose to be said?

Personally, I see why people want to know how such a thing was developed, because these things have been talked about with RPGs ad nauseum for two+ decades.

Personally, *shrugs* I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society