Dice Tales: Keeping Up With the Joneses

Roman twenty-sided die(This is the thirty-first installment of Dice Tales, an ongoing series of posts about RPGs as storytelling.)


In the LARP rules for Vampire: The Masquerade, there’s a supplemental book called Dark Epics that talks about how to run a bigger campaign: more people, longer duration, or both. These pose particular challenges which the book seeks to address, and one of those is the accumulation of experience points.

You see, one of the howling flaws of the Mind’s Eye Theatre LARP system is that unlike almost every other game system out there, it doesn’t impose an escalating price on most of your stats. A high-level magic power costs more than a low-level one, but your tenth Physical Trait costs a whopping one XP. So does your fifth level of an ability. As a result, it’s very easy to max out the obvious things on your sheet, and find yourself wondering what to do with all the XP you’re still earning.

Dark Epics has an answer for this, which is to limit the XP. They suggest that as a character gets more experienced, the GM should impose a cap on how rapidly they can earn points, until eventually they reach a point where they stop gaining XP entirely. After all, even an immortal vampire can only be an expert at so many things, right? They recommend a scale where a ten-year chronicle (yes, LARPs can run that long and longer) wraps up with its oldest and most experienced characters having about 300 XP on their sheet.

Yyyyyyyeah. I have a friend who capped her Vampire character’s XP at 666 just for the hell of it. In that particular organization, there are PCs wandering around with more than a thousand points on their sheets.

(What do they spend it on? Generally on janky, obscure magical powers the game designers never intended that type of character to have. Yes, I may be prejudiced. Everyone and their cousin should not have Obtenebration, let alone Temporis.)

As I talked about last week, this can be a major issue for LARPs, because anybody bringing in a new character is so wildly outclassed by the multi-year whales that the GMs have to struggle to generate suitable plots. Villains that can challenge those thousand-point characters will obliterate newbies in the first thirty seconds; newbie-sized plots can be crushed in a heartbeat if somebody with all the skills and powers decides to get involved. But it’s also a problem for tabletop campaigns, not because of imbalance between the PCs, but simply because the GM has to figure out: how do you keep challenging the PCs as the game goes along?

I’ve had particular trouble with this because I tend to run arc-plot campaigns, with a central story whose general premise I know from the start. When you’re running a D&D campaign that’s just the ongoing adventures of our intrepid band of heroes, you can justify why the PCs only take on enemies their size; geography or the vagaries of the jobs they get offered mean they don’t wind up encountering an ancient red dragon when they’re only level four. But if there’s an evil conspiracy afoot, one the PCs are on a collision course with . . . why doesn’t the conspiracy bring its more powerful resources to bear when the PCs are still weak enough to be disposed of?

I noticed some time ago that this is close cousin to the narrative problem Joss Whedon continually deal with on the TV show Buffy: The Vampire Slayer. Each season had a Big Bad; each season had to figure out a way to delay the confrontation with the Big Bad so that Buffy a) didn’t wipe it out three episodes in or b) get squished before she was ready for it. The seven seasons of that show demonstrate a variety of different methods for resolving this conundrum, some of which I’ve used myself when running games.

Even without the difficulties imposed by an arc plot, though, you still have to deal with the escalating power level of a long-term campaign, on every level from enemies down to dice. Early on in an L5R game, your PCs might struggle to succeed at a roll whose difficulty is 20. Two years later, they’re making dissatisfied faces at their dice because they rolled like crap and only got a 43. Do you increase the difficulty of the tasks they’ve been doing all along, just to keep the feeling of challenge? Do you skip the rolls for three-quarters of the stuff they do, on the grounds that they’ll succeed anyway? Do you engineer the plot such that the PCs will constantly be in situations that are innately harder? That latter is generally the best approach, from a fairness-and-challenge standpoint . . . but then you have to justify why every random schmoe they fight now is a master swordsman.

I like to look for ways to throw them curveballs. I do this as an author, too: when I wound up writing about a protagonist who had both superior physical abilities and magic, I decided her next challenge would involve riding herd on a bunch of adolescent girls. (Ain’t no magic can save you from that one.) If my PCs can crush any combat, then I set up a fight where winning might have some bad political fallout, and they have to either take steps to mitigate that or deal with the consequences. If they can talk anybody into anything, I make it difficult for them to sit down with the person they need to convince. The challenge becomes the contextual stuff, the things around what would have been the challenge in the early days.

But even then . . . there comes a point when they’re the thousand-point whales of their world, where even their weak points are strong enough to deal with most of the difficulties they might plausibly face.

When that happens, you basically have three choices. You can throw even! bigger! threats! at them, just to keep things challenging. (This is how PCs wind up defeating gods.) You can shrug and stop caring about whether anything is difficult. (This is how campaigns turn into pure, RP-driven soap operas.) Or . . .

Or you end the campaign.

It’s hard to do. The players love their PCs; they love the story. Nobody wants it to end. But there’s a point at which nothing can be a challenge anymore, or the only remaining challenges are so over the top that it’s impossible to really believe in them. And as much fun as it can be to curb-stomp a problem with your enormous sheet you’ve spent years building, it’s important to remember the fun that comes with being a low-level character just coming into their own. Bring the story to an end — and then start a new one.



Dice Tales: Keeping Up With the Joneses — 9 Comments

  1. I just had a mini heart attack, followed by a soft, wailed ‘nooooooooooo’

  2. The LARP that I’ve played in for the longest (although I will note that it was brought to an end a couple of years ago) adopted the system that the maximum power level of any PC was limited only by which game session it was (i.e. there were N XP available in the first session of the game, adding 3 per session thereafter). A character could be built with fewer points, but not more, and how long a character had been involved in the campaign had no impact on character power level. It also allowed players to move between multiple characters easily (whether on a game-by-game or scene-by-scene basis), because multiple characters would also be built to the same power level.

    This contrasts with a game which (may) still be ongoing, in which not only were XP tied to how long you’d been in the campaign, but XP could not be spent on in-game skills unless you could find an in-game player who had the skill and was willing to train you. With the long-term characters at a much higher power level, and tending to form a clique, this meant that in practice for your first several sessions you would be unable to learn skills, because no one who had them was willing to invest time in you until it was worth their while. There is, I suppose, a reason that it is not the LARP I spent the most time with.

    • That first LARP sounds smart. That second one sounds like hell. Although it gave me an idea I need to chew on, which is to reverse what they did with the training. That is, the only way to learn a new skill past a certain level would be to teach it to someone else. That would force more established players (with a tendency to cliquishness) to interact with newcomers, and it models the whole “you don’t really know a thing until you have to teach it to someone else” approach. That being said, any sort of requirement like that needs to be considered and tested, because players love breaking neat ideas.

      • I could swear I’ve seen the “you must teach someone else to advance” mechanic in a game somewhere, but assuming I’m not imagining that, I can’t think of where it was.

        Certainly a lot of martial arts have a setup where you don’t get the higher ranks of black belt unless and until you start teaching others.

      • As has already been mentioned, the teach-to-learn idea seems familiar somehow, but I have no idea of where I might have run across it. Or it could just be an idea that’s really obvious in retrospect. Either way, I’d love to see how it turns out, and will probably steal it if I’m ever in a position to.

    • Oh, man — that first LARP sounds fascinating! I like that you could choose to build with fewer points, because sometimes you don’t want your PC to be a ten-ton gorilla. And it’s especially helpful for newer players, because it can be difficult, taking on a high-lever character when you don’t know the system well yet. I’m sure that approach would rub some people’s sense of “fairness” the wrong way, because new players haven’t “earned” that XP . . . but I think the benefits outweigh that.

      The second LARP — jeebus. How did anybody ever learn skills that weren’t in the game at char-gen?

      • I tend to agree that the benefits outweigh the costs. In addition, people who didn’t want to be incredibly powerful in-game, but had a behind-the-scenes power concept could take skills that specifically allowed them to make effective large-scale actions between game sessions (e.g. “I would like to spend my between-game time working on building a coalition against amongst . I have , the recordings of atrocities that we found during the last game, and the covert agent we rescued from captivity during the last game”).

        I don’t know how people first learned skills. It may be that learning in-game was a recent development (but still greatly pre-dating my involvement).

  3. Pingback: All the news that's fit to print - Swan Tower