CLSWiki: TheKremlin/MonsterXP

OK, Monster XP.

When it was introduced, the society was tiny compared to now, and linears were often not that fun to monster (apparently). Therefore, an incentive was thought of to get people to monster.

This incentive was monster XP.

Skip to modern day. Linears get loads of monsters (usually) and they are motivated by the fun not the XP. So, we don't need any incentive anymore.

Also; the current rate of XP gain is, frankly, too fast. Characters are growing in power far too quickly; especially notable is that characters above 240/360xp can still grow bloody fast as monster xp is not changed with level.

So: I propose the following:

Remove Monster XP. Job Done.

Thoughts?

: I think XP remains an important part of the motivation to monster, and have monstered many linears which were no fun at all. I am happy with the current rate of XP gain - it's nice that one can become a powerful character within a year's play, it makes those 300XP characters hanging around a bit less daunting, and makes it less annoying to lose a character. I think this is fundamentally not broken. --Lmm

: I didn't vote in favour of monster XP when it came in. I continue not to think it's needed. Linears are, to be fair, rather more fun for the monsters than they were back then though, although I think this is mostly becaues there's more of them which means more briefing time rather than running frantically between the encounters, which encourages roleplaying in the monster crew. --Pufferfish

: I'd still monster all the linears. -Joey

: For me, the motivation for monstering, and indeed LARPing at all, is the roleplay and the fun had therein. The loss of Monster XP would be no proverbial skin off my nose whatsoever. --Lupie

: For what it's worth, I don't enjoy monstering all that much - it involves a lot of walking, waiting and carrying per unit LARPing - and if monster XP were removed I might not do it as often. --Jacob

: I have to point out that monstering is only fun when there are enough monsters, because otherwise you end up sprinting up the meadows with two bags of kit and then have to fight while outnumbered two to one. I'd like to make sure there's still an incentive to monster. I think the far-too-rapid gain in XP can be dealt with via a simple ruling: A character with more than 150XP can't gain more than 6XP per week (including monster XP and interactive XP), unless they charactered the linear. This falls to 5XP and later 4XP as your character levels up (I can't remember the exact values). This keeps the XP increase rate exactly as it was before the introduction of monster XP while giving people who monster the linears an additional 3XP to spend on secondary charactrs. This encourages people to play more than one character and makes sure secondaries don't fall too far behind primary characters in terms of XP. Note that people with only one character lose out, but a lot of these people are new players and therefore started on 90, so they're not hit by the 6XP-per-week cap anyway. I'm not sure I've explained this as clearly as I'd hoped... please, ask questions and throw criticism my way, I do come up with stupid ideas sometimes and I don't know if this is one of them. --Valtiel

: I don't actually dislike this idea at all. -TheKremlin

: I can't play secondaries, and see no need to encourage them, therefore I dislike this. --Lmm

: I agree with Lmm, this seems to hugly encourage secondaries, which I'm not sure we want to do. Personally I see no actual problem with monster XP as is. Then again I'm not to bothered either way. --Taxellor

: I likewise dislike this, as it penalises people who only play one PC; I think monster XP is, in the immortal words of Sellars and Yeatman, A Good Thing. --Jacob

: Until I succeed in my quest to switch to an xp-less system, I'd rather have more of it about, so that lack of it doesn't stifle interesting character concepts. By the by, the society has grown by maybe a third since monster xp came in - and the experience of monstering a linear hasn't changed much. I don't care much from a personal point of view, but I do prefer the difference between charactering and monstering to be less than 15xp... --I

: I am strongly in favour of monster XP; I think that anything that increases competition to character linears is a bad thing. I think that if we feel that too much XP is being awarded we should cut the XP for charactering linears, not for monstering them. --Jacob

I think I agree with Jacob in that giving xp out for monstering seems less bad given the huge amounts of xp given out for charactering linears - it's this that I see as the biggest problem. This would be less of a problem if linears came with significant risks of death, but as it is, if we're willing to tone down encounters when PCs seem to be getting mullered, I would argue that significant risk really isn't present. Particularly given that IC rewards are often large for linears which feature little risk, I see no reason to be also awarding huge amounts of xp. Until we work out a decent mechanism for character death, that allows for (at least fairly brutal) PvP? as well as letting monsters feel free to go all out against PCs, I'd be tempted to reduce xp for linears. Coming to character growth... Characters certainly grow at a pretty fast (Though fast compared to what? Faster than before we had monster xp?) rate. Getting 150 or 200xp in a year is entirely possible if you attend pretty much every interactive and monster/character every linear. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Well, possibly if death or 3ygbing is the only way to get rid of characters sitting around on 480xp, hording all the power, yes. On the other hand, at least for me, my characters have goals (admittedly quite lofty ones). After I have achieved everything I want to do with them, I see no reason not to retire them (possibly coming back once evernow and again for drinks with friends) and start playing another character. What do people feel about character retirement? Should refs offer more characters a chance to achieve big goals they're aiming for and then retire, *without* having to go on a 3ygb? Would people actually retire their characters if given opportunities to? Is this even a situation we want to encourage? I have to say, I don't worry about the rate of character growth. On the other hand I *do* worry about the bar being filled with 400+xp characters. -- Flying_O

I would definitely retire a powerful character and intend to do so with Lucie at Christmas time (assuming she's alive)- with her fading into the background but still existing, doing her job, etc. The refs have always stated this is an option, though perhaps not loudly enough. I would never character a 3ygb because a weekend of Epic Heroism just isn't my thing, and I enjoy them so much from the "other side" that I wouldn't want to give that up. At the same time though, I think certain people are rather unwilling to let a character go who has reached the end of their natural story (for want of a better word). Um. I'm rambling a bit. But I do think retirement should be made a more obviously available and accepted option. --Pufferfish

: I'm thinking seriously about retiring Sir George - the argument for is primarily that he's getting sufficiently powerful that I think he's beginning to cause problems for other people, especially on linears; the argument against being that it would take me of the order of a term to get a new PC to the point where I'd enjoy playing them (at least as much as I enjoy playing him), and if I pick the wrong concept and find I'm not enjoying that PC then I'd have wasted a term. --Jacob

I don't want to get rid of something that encourages people to monster, because running a linear with only six monsters is no fun for the refs or the monster crew, and isn't likely to be particularly good for the players either. I don't know if giving out monster XP actually increases the number of monsters or not, though, so I'd like to poll the entire society as to whether monster XP is actually an incentive. --Valtiel

: It makes me go "shiny", I'll admit, but I'd always have made every linear I didn't have a death certificate to get me out of anyway. -TheKremlin

: Monster XP isn't what motivates me to go along and monster linears, but it does make me happier. Therefore I say keep it. --Tristan

: I actually like the idea of reducing character xp for linears against monster xp. This has the side-effect of allowing non-linearing characters to progress relatively faster; I've no idea if this is a good thing or not. -TheKremlin

It has been suggested on channel to have a flat rate for character xp (eg. 10) with the option for the refs to advertise some linears as 'high risk, high reward' with slightly more xp.

: A lot of people, including me, seemed to like 8. And I really like this idea. -TheKremlin
: I dislike the possible higher XP ones, since linears are often plot-related and have enough OC considerations about who characters them as it is. --Lmm
: Not every linear has to be plot; in fact, I argue that enough of them should not be to make the life of a mercenary type interesting. And, well... you're signing up for a character-death-risking linear. Not that many people will want to do that, or so it seems. Count me in if I have IC reason, however :) -TheKremlin
: See LinearPhilosophy. --Valtiel

If you ask a group of LARPers a question that is basically "would you like more XP?" it's fairly predictable what the answer will be. That aside, this appears to be turning into a very different discussion from what it was originally. I've moved the other discussion to ExperienceCurve
But anyway: I want an incentive to monster, because linears without enough monsters are more work than fun. Monster XP is a good incentive. I agree that characters can grow in power very quickly (too quickly?) even if they're already high level, and I think that the reason for this is that monster XP doesn't scale with level like interactive XP does. My solution would be to count monster XP and interactive XP as part of the same pool, which is capped. We can decide what the cap is later, but an example would be:

90-150: No cap, plus bonus XP. (I think the bonus XP is four)
150-240: No cap, ie. nine (currently no cap)
240-360: Cap at six (currently eight, which has increased from five when we introduced monster XP)
360+: Cap at four (currently seven, increased from four when we introduced monster XP)

These are, of course, sample values rather than an attempt at balanced values. An alternative and slightly more complicated version is to cap monster XP and interactive XP seperately, but I can't think of a way to make that workable. These values can be adjusted depending on whether or not we want to change rate of XP gain, alter the curve, or avoid encouraging people to play multiple characters.
The other compromise idea that I've heard is to reduce linearing XP. An average of 8 seems sensible to me, because this makes your rate of level gain if you monster every linear slightly higher than if you character as often as possible but never monster.

Is it considered acceptable to just turn up to every third linear and character them? I had the impression it was not. --Lmm

: I wouldn't want to encourage it, so I can't exactly say 'yes, it is acceptable'... if we started having people do this kind of thing en masse we'd probably try and keep better track, but currently I think linear charactering rights (when it's an issue because more people want to character than the monsters present can support, and nobody graciously backs down) are mostly based on 'can the people present remember you charactering lots of linears recently'. But from a social contract point of view, 'monstering is a Good Deed' and people should just generally do as much as possible (although I do remember the rare occasion when we've had to drum up a character party by press-gang) --ChessyPig

If we don't like any of the compromise ideas and it comes down to a) take it or b) leave it, I'd rather take the monster XP and put up with the high-level PCs.
I'd like to point out that I don't think XP caps actually disadvantage people who play only one character. If your only character is gaining less than nine XP per week due to level caps, that character wouldn't actually benefit from you starting another one - you'd just have a secondary whose level advancement wasn't hindered by the existance of the primary. The primary's rate of XP gain stays the same. The amount of power you can bring to bear in uptime isn't changed because your PCs can't cooperate. --Valtiel

It reduces your long-term average power - someone who always starts a secondary and gives them just the XP above the cap will then "start" with significantly more XP for their new primary when their current one dies or otherwise leaves. --Lmm

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. --Valtiel

: That's why I think if we have people doing this, people should be able to 'bank' XP for their next character. But apparently starting characters on more than 150XP is Bad and Wrong. --ChessyPig