Are Experience Points outdated?

In a system where character power is measured by level and all the characters are expected to advance at the same time, yes. Leveling up after what feels to the DM like a sufficient amount of time or after a notable accomplishment is far superior. In a system where character power is measured in exp and level only determines when you get your new powers, then it's a bit of a necessity.

No.
But discrete, level-based progression is.

>This just sounds like you only played one classless system and called it a day.

RuneQuest is one damn system. Its not the norm. The norm is "spend points on one thing at a time to get higher points in that one thing," which far from being more advanced than class/levels, should be left to gather dust where it belongs, in the nineties at the latest.

What about a system where not only can you use XP for incremental advancements that broaden your abilities, but you can also use the same resource to: Gain temporary bonuses by elaborating on your backstory "I was raised next to a locksmith who made these self-same locks;" gain items of convenience such as money or a stronghold; gain a temporary ability or power, tell the GM to fuck himself on a minor detail, or to reroll?

There are other ways to progress characters aside from XP. "Milestones" are pretty popular, where you level up once you reach a particular part of an adventure. Motivates players to advance the plot without any tedious bookkeeping.

Not only do I not find anything to like about it, I can't even begin to imagine anything to like about it. "Oh boy, I have.. one more point on rolls for this specific thing."

In "pinpoint advancement systems" (lets call classless systems where you advance one thing at a time via XP, which is basically everything-but-Runequest), I have to compromise on EVERYTHING, as if I'm improving in one thing, its stealing progression from *everything else.* In addition, I'm ultimately paying out the nose for... one extra point on something.

The level of grey, generic sameyness fucking kills me, every time. Its hard to find a clearer indication that an RPG system isn't worth my time than pinpoint advancement.

Who is it good for? Its certainly not good for the GM, who, with increasing advancement, has less and less of a central point on which to balance challenges of any sort. Are all players so easily amused that the future of their character advancement being "plus one to this roll" enthuses them?

What's worse, the balance in those systems is absolutely atrocious. You will see stuff that has a tightly defined niche side by side with very general abilities. Computer/Hacking for example, in the same system that might have individual advancement systems for discrete methods of attacking in combat; say, Firearms, Archery, Martial Arts, Brawling, Melee, and Throwing. So you then have a system where something that is binary and pass/fail (does anyone have a Computer skill? Y/N) is balanced on the same axis as a ton of essentially interchangeable skills.

I can see, say, Brawling or MA for places you can't bring a weapon into, or maybe Melee or Throwing due to improvised, and Firearms/Archery for when you can bring a projectile weapon, but their purpose overlaps to an extreme extent and you generally aren't ever going to want to have all of them. Exalted had this problem with the Dawns. Likewise, each character that is good at combat makes the combat easier.

Level-based progression is typically what seperates roleplaying systems from pseudo-freeform "the rules get in the way of play so we largely ignore them" systems.

Not always, but it's the general trend.

And where things get REALLY bad is where you just plain have a skill for magic or something like that, and you wind up with one guy that is boosting his Computer skill (a largely binary, pass/fail affair), a number of guys boosting their combat skill and maybe some other professional skill, and then one guy's boosting his do-everything skill, reminding us that 3.x's problems aren't unique to it, or even to class/level systems.

If you fall too far behind in combat, you basically will probably wind up twiddling your thumbs while waiting for others to do their shit; but you will almost never regret not buying into the Computer skill alongside that other guy.

Hopefully you get the general impression.

Unfortunately, despite you using a lot of words, I'm still finding it kinda hard to get your point. Possibly because you're making a lot of assumptions which aren't actually true. Even in systems where you do raise things point by point, it isn't just a flat number increase, as you'll have opportunities to broaden your capabilities or do different things with them as your points rise. Take Exalted as an example. Sure, you'll spend a lot of XP levelling skills and stats, but doing so also gets you access to interesting new Charms that let you leverage those same skills and stats in different ways.

Metagame mechanics AND stuff that fucks you over by trading permanent advancement for temporary convenience? Sounds rancidly bad.

RPGs with metagame mechanics are really their own animal. Chances are you like them or you don't. There can be no peace between metagamers and roleplayers.

>Implying they're two distinct and separate things

This always amuses me.

Although the Dawn caste instance was so (to illustrate the inherent problem of "why the fuck would I advance four or more weapon/unarmed skills when I can only use one at a time?"), as Exalted has race, class, subclass and an overarching "Essence" stat, it doesn't strike me as pertinent to the conversation.

My players level up when it feels right for them to have leveled up, after a big fight or segment of adventure usually. Sometimes I do track XP at the really early levels though

Generally some people come to the gametable to roleplay (to think from the perspective of the character), some to metagame (to stay in their own perspective). They're fundamentally irreconcilable viewpoints.

Except that seems like a ridiculous false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to remain aware of the general state of the game, OOC, while still thinking as your character IC. Honestly, the ability to do both has always struck me as a vital skill for any roleplayer. If you can't get into your characters head you're not fun to roleplay with, but if you can't keep the OOC situation in mind then you turn into one of those 'But it's what my character would do!' That Guy's, who uses that to justify any amount of disruptive or unhelpful behaviour.

This is exactly what the Cypher System does.

This is also the system where ranged weapons are objectively better than melee weapons at the same cost, and are more accurate in melee than real melee weapons.

This is also the system where jumping a dozen feet the mundane way is arduously difficult, yet a starting adept-type can use a magical power to jump 100 feet in any direction and safely land... for free, with Intellect Edge 2 from customization.

>This is also the system where ranged weapons are objectively better than melee weapons at the same cost, and are more accurate in melee than real melee weapons.
Source the rule?

Sounds like you're full of shit.

>but if you can't keep the OOC situation in mind then you turn into one of those 'But it's what my character would do!' That Guy's, who uses that to justify any amount of disruptive or unhelpful behaviour.

Now who's engaging in ridiculous false dichotomies? That line of argument could only apply to a narrow band of characters, namely disruptive and unhelpful ones. Just don't make Coldsteel the Hedgehog.

It can apply to any character who is a well rounded and thought out person. If you have a PC who would absolutely never prove an issue if you didn't consider the OOC situation, then they're probably two dimensional and boring.

Your point is correct, so don't use bad comparisons to try and rebut him, was also my first thought.

Here you go.

archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/46322799/

archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/46672143/

Funny thing is, I have never heard of Cypher before, but I engage in a "once a month RPG challenge" where I read at least one new RPG every month and I'm amazed at how many Babby's First RPGs have the same goddamn flaws and patterns.

There are probably (conservatively) dozens of RPGs this pattern of failings repeats in.

This thread pretty much proves that Veeky Forums doesn't play the games they masturbate about.

"Normal" PCs generally have issues they absolutely wouldn't cave on, although you know perfectly well that amoral mercenaries and craven connivers are just as good characters as any other type.

What's your point? Sounds far more to me that if a remotely "normal" character runs into something he won't cave into on, then its perfectly reasonable to be "disruptive" about it. The most obvious example is treating prisoners honorably, etc.

>point out bullshit Veeky Forums exaggeration that is obvious on sight
>i dun have prove, here you find and proof for mee

Thanks!

Yeah, the point blank shit reminds me EXACTLY of owod (a whopping -2 to target number for fairly close foes). It was ameliorated by the fact that aggravated damage was mostly brawling in nature, though.

It's exactly situations like those where the ability to compromise based on the OOC situation, IMO, is necessary. It's part of good communication as a group, being able to discuss it with the other players and the GM, to figure out a way you can move forward in line with the characters beliefs, without being overly disruptive to the game.

Okay

He did provide proof, though.

Out of curiousity, is it unrealistic for ranged weapons to be easier to hit with at close range? A bow or crossbow or gun fired right next to someone is going to do terrifying damage with much more ease of aim.

I'm assuming it offends our collective DND-mind?

XP? No.
Levels? Yes.

Nope, he just linked to a repository containing the game.

Proof actually backs up your statements.

"Hey gaiz, I promise it's in their somewhere ;)"

The first link contains the proof for the point blank thing.

Try actually reading.

>It's exactly situations like those where the ability to compromise based on the OOC situation, IMO, is necessary.

See, I find this utterly unsympathetic. Roleplaying isn't all sunshine and roses. Bitter arguments and disputes where different personalities clash can be as entertaining and memorable as any climactic battle.

I have yet to see an OOC dispute on what to do that wouldn't have been better served as an IC one, with the sole exceptions of naggering details of the rules and the mind's eye etc ("can I, in fact, make this shot without taking cover penalties" would typically be a dry IC conversation at best).

Closequarters fighting with guns is pretty bad. I'd imagine its even worse for a crossbow or bow.

No proof, OP posts the same thing, but it's not actually substantiated. A person could get +3 to a single roll but have to throw away their knife? So fucking what.

It even uses a different stat pool that has disadvantages if you focus on it.

If you read that thread you can find multiple rebuttals.

If you had a sword against someone with a drawn longbow, I think you'd feel really shitty next to them...

It's the same for guns, why would you think otherwise?

I played in a game that used XP once. Never trying that again. So much useless bookkeeping for a mechanic that ends up being strictly worse than progression by story milestones.

>Out of curiousity, is it unrealistic for ranged weapons to be easier to hit with at close range?

Considering that its the *only* range at which someone's melee/unarmed capabilities can impact whether the weapon hits, yes, its full retard.

>A bow or crossbow or gun fired right next to someone is going to do terrifying damage with much more ease of aim.

Which is why the preferred weapon of melee combat through history has been the longbow.

>I'm assuming it offends our collective DND-mind?

Not even slightly, its taking a big fat greasy cock to our versimilitude, and rubbing it in our faces that its a turn based game with the other characters frozen in time during yours.

"Backpedal and shoot" tactics are the height of video game nonsense.

Did I imply that it should be all sunshine and roses? I agree that climactic conflicts and disputes between PCs can be amazing parts of an RPG. But they're also things which can derail plotlines and steal the focus from other things. As such, it's best to be pragmatic about it, and to be open to holding off until a lull in the action, for example. It's just basic common sense.

What if I had a sword and shield?

user, no offense but it sounds like you're basing your opinions on your 3.5 experience over real life.

Ammo and multiple opponents is a primary factor, but you are showing a serious failure to grasp ranged weapons in close combat.

Just stick to balance and not try and force reality.

Then you'd completely nullify the ranged bonus in cypher system and no longer be able to use the term objectively better which wasn't correct in the first place.

>If you read that thread you can find multiple rebuttals.

All of which have been counter-rebutted.

>It even uses a different stat pool that has disadvantages if you focus on it.

Ahahahahahahahaha... no. Just no. Speed is pretty much 100% better than Might in Cypher, not only because you need to conserve Might in order to NOT DIE in combat, but because Speed covers so much more than Might ever will, because Monte Cook hates those damn jocks.

"Plotlines" aren't a limited resource. If you "spoil the plot" by not sticking to the rails, never fear, there will be another plot after that. Its not a book, video game, or story, and thank God.

In fact, if you don't bother to provide a plot, a plot will magically spring up out of nowhere.

>Wrongly thinks that he can counter-rebut actually-intelligent people.
You are sure proud of your threads.

Using a melee weapon in Cypher is a good way to get yourself killed.

In Cypher, if you want to move more than a few feet and attack, you need to either:

- Succeed on a somewhat difficult roll, or else flop and lose your attempt
- Have a special ability that lets you do this

But can't you see how it could be an issue? If you're all enjoying escalating connected events, suddenly dragging everything sideways on a tangent purely because of your character is a dick move. Hence why discussion with your group is a necessary part of it.

>user, no offense but it sounds like you're basing your opinions on your 3.5 experience over real life.

user used ad hominem! It wasn't very effective...

>but you are showing a serious failure to grasp ranged weapons in close combat.

Do you have *any* basis to think that stringing arrows and shooting people in melee is going to be effective or practical? And I don't mean shooting people as they charge *into* melee.

>Just stick to balance and not try and force reality.

Realism is also a good reason.

What's the most common flaw-patterns?

Wait, so Jumping is almost exactly comparable to real life for most rolls, but a character in a role-playing game can use one of their supernatural abilities that they picked over other actually useful abilities to jump farther? And it takes up their entire turn?

So? Do you whine about Barbarians rage getting them free damage when rage in real life doesn't?

Cypher is extremely anti-melee. Not only do ranged weapons get a nice bonus for point blank shots, but melee characters closing in require either high-difficulty rolls or a special ability to close the gap.

ACTION: MOVE

As a part of another action, a character can adjust his position—stepping back a few feet while using an ability, sliding over in combat to take on a different opponent to help his friend, pushing through a door he just opened, and so on. This is considered an immediate distance, and a character can move this far as part of another action.

In a combat situation, if a character is in a large melee, he’s usually considered to be next to most other combatants, unless the GM rules that he’s farther away because the melee is especially large or the situation dictates it.

If he’s not in melee but still nearby, he is considered to be a short distance away—usually less than 50 feet (15 m). If he’s farther away than that but still involved in the combat, he is considered to be a long distance away, usually 50 to 100 feet (15 to 30 m). Beyond that distance, only special circumstances, actions, or abilities will allow a character to be involved in an encounter.

In a round, as an action, a character can make a short move. In this case, he is doing nothing but moving up to about 50 feet (15 m). Some terrain or situations will change the distance a character can move, but generally, making a short move is considered to be a difficulty 0 action. No roll is needed; he just gets where he’s going as his action.

>But can't you see how it could be an issue?

I can see how playing a character who is a retarded asshat could be an issue.

I can't see how it could be an issue for a well adjusted and reasonably practical character, as if your character is well adjusted and practical, and runs into something they absolutely won't cave on, then chances are they have a damn good reason.

At this point your perspective sounds to me more like a mysterious riddle. "What will a reasonable person unreasonably fail to compromise on?" Hmmm. What indeed? And why would I want him to compromise on it?

When is a good reason a bad reason? Why is metagaming suddenly the necessary antidote?

Metagaming strikes me as more necessary when you have a purely unreasonable character that doesn't sound too fun to me to begin with (ie. WtA chars, 40k chars, etc).

A character can try to make a long move—up to 100 feet (30 m) or so—in one round. This is a Speed task with a difficulty of 4. As with any action, he can use skills, assets, or Effort to decrease the difficulty. Terrain, obstacles, or other circumstances can increase the difficulty. A successful roll means the character moved the distance safely. Failure means that at some point during the move, he stops or stumbles (the GM determines where this happens).

A character can also try to make a short move and take another (relatively simple) physical action, like make an attack. As with the attempt to make a long move, this is a Speed task with a difficulty of 4, and failure means that the character stops at some point, slipping or stumbling or otherwise getting held up.

For the same ability slot of Far Leap (which can be completely free at character creation with Intellect Edge customization), a character can lower the difficulty of jumping and climbing tasks by 1.

And it still takes up basically their entire turn or more to close the distance because of these exact rules I just posted.

>A character can lower the difficulty of jumping and climbing tasks by 1.
>A character being a different class
>Also being able to always use it, for no points, even when not using full turn on it.
>Ignores all the other available options

Request that you try harder when being deceptive?

Skills rated on the same axis without accounting for versatility and synergy, as per the prior example of how you generally only need one character to pass/fail computer hacking rolls or whatever and tend to not take place in structured time, while, for example, combat does take place in structured time, combat characters complement each other, being shit at combat means you'd better grab a snickers, and combat skills tend to be better or worse than each other rather than better or worse for specific situations. And finally above them tends to be fairly omni-skills like magic.

Pinpoint advancement systems almost always commit this sin, of thinking all skills are created equal.

>Wait, so Jumping is almost exactly comparable to real life for most rolls

Difficulty 7: Formidable (impossible without skills or great effort)
Difficulty 8: Heroic (a task worthy of tales told for years afterward)
Difficulty 9: Immortal (a task worthy of legends that last lifetimes)
Difficulty 10: Impossible (a task that normal humans couldn't consider, but one that doesn't break the laws of physics)

Do you know how Cypher difficulties work?

Difficulty 7 means you need to roll a 21 on a d20.

If you happen to be trained in the task, lower the difficulty by 1. If you are trained, lower the difficulty by 2 instead.

If you spend 3 points from a relevant pool, lower the difficulty by another 1. This is the highest a starting character can go.

So a starting character trained and specialized in jumping, who spends 3 dice points from a pool, lowers a difficulty 7 jump to a difficulty 4 jump... and still needs to roll 12 on a d20 to succeed.

This is for a jump 24 feet long... which requires a 50 foot start... that has to be spread out over two turns.

Sure is a lot of investment for basically nothing.

An adept has Intellect Edge 1.

Customization can make that Intellect Edge 2.

Far Step costs 2 points of Intellect. With Intellect Edge 2, that becomes completely free. Jump 100 feet as an action and land safely.

Everyone else needs to jump through hoops even with skill specialization for the same thing.

Yes and no.

XP is useful when you've got a 'drop in' sort of game, where any number of players can just show up and play- I structured a game like that, what with all the player characters part of a guild doing missions, that kind of thing.

But on a standard game, with a party that travels through adventures, it's a lot better to level the players via milestones.

That's a lot of text about movement, could you explain how this disadvantages melee? It looks as if ranged will get a single shot off, then be in melee. The 4plebs thread above was pretty clear that melee-based abilities tended to be stronger so I'm not fully grasping your point.

The issue is that "reasonable" and "unreasonable" are totally subjective. Whether or not something is reasonable in a given game is up to the group. Therefore: ask them. Yeah, it's "meta" to say "I want to play my character like this, but it's gonna sidetrack the game for a while, is everyone cool with that?" but it's also polite and sensible.

24 feet is an insanely long long-jump for a normal human being.

It is telling that you keep pointing to only the upper three difficulties instead of the accuracy of the lower ones.

Interesting, thank you.

See
The point you can't grasp is the part where a person sacrified other aspects to enhance their magical and imaginary character.

Do you scream when an adept spends their first level on an ability that creates light better than someone with years in torch training?

>The 4plebs thread above was pretty clear that melee-based abilities tended to be stronger so I'm not fully grasping your point.

False.

These are both available to a starting Warrior:

>Pierce (1 Speed point): This is a well-aimed, penetrating ranged attack. You make an attack and inflict 1 additional point of damage if your weapon has a sharp point. Action.

>Thrust (1 Might point): This is a powerful melee stab. You make an attack and inflict 1 additional point of damage if your weapon has a sharp edge or point. Action.

Tier 2 warriors have some nice melee abilities, but they also have this, which is better than all of them, and has a ranged option:

>Skill With Attacks: Choose one type of attack in which you are not already trained: light bashing, light bladed, light ranged, medium bashing, medium bladed, medium ranged, heavy bashing, heavy bladed, or heavy ranged. You are trained in attacks using that type of weapon. You can select this ability multiple times. Each time you select it, you must choose a different type of attack. Enabler.

By tier 3, we go back to mirrored melee vs. ranged equivalents.

>Deadly Aim (3 Speed points): For the next minute, all ranged attacks you make inflict 2 additional points of damage. Action to initiate.

>Fury (3 Might points): For the next minute, all melee attacks you make inflict 2 additional points of damage. Action to initiate.

Ranged is just better in Cypher.

>The issue is that "reasonable" and "unreasonable" are totally subjective.

If I can't figure out what is reasonable, I can't figure out what is reasonable. Can't really do anything about it.

>"I want to play my character like this, but it's gonna sidetrack the game for a while, is everyone cool with that?"

Not going to lie, I would lose respect for anyone who asked that. It strikes me as spineless to ask permission, spineless to cave on behalf of others, and tops it off with the cherry of them setting too extreme of behavior for their character in the first place.

>pleasebegirlpleasebegirlpleasebegirl...

Jesus fucking christ, I hope I never play with a stupid fucker like you. It's a goddamn game. It's meant to be fun. Doublechecking with someone to make sure shit stays fun isn't spineless, you insane freak, it's polite.

Try again.

>Far Step (2 Intellect points): You leap through the air and land some distance away. You can jump up, down, or across to anywhere you choose within long range (100 feet) if you have a clear and unobstructed path to that location. You land safely. Action.

>Physical Skills: You are trained in two skills in which you are not already trained. Choose two of the following: balancing, climbing, jumping, running, or swimming. You can select this ability multiple times. Each time you select it, you must choose two different skills. Enabler.

Both of these are tier 1 abilities. Both are actually available to an adept with skills and knowledge flavor. They cost the exact same slot!

Now why would that adept bother with doing things the mundane way when they could pick up Intellect Edge 2 and Far Leap the much better, magical way that does NOT require a 50 foot running start (which takes up your turn, so the jump has to resolve on your next turn)?

>It is telling that you keep pointing to only the upper three difficulties instead of the accuracy of the lower ones.

Here, have the full jumping table.

Remember the high level difficulty benchmarks.

Difficulty 7: Formidable (impossible without skills or great effort)
Difficulty 8: Heroic (a task worthy of tales told for years afterward)
Difficulty 9: Immortal (a task worthy of legends that last lifetimes)
Difficulty 10: Impossible (a task that normal humans couldn't consider, but one that doesn't break the laws of physics)

Olympic long jump record (for men) is 8.9m, so it would be somewhere between difficulty 9 and 10 on that table. The math they're using is borked.

>Jesus fucking christ, I hope I never play with a stupid fucker like you.

The hurt feelings of a metagamer are delicious nectar.

>It's a goddamn game. It's meant to be fun.

Yes. I find roleplaying games to be fun.

>Doublechecking with someone to make sure shit stays fun isn't spineless

If you have to cave in on a rare central element of your character's personality, and you have a typical, modest set of character personality traits (nothing klingonish, nothing capeshitty, nothing 40kish, etc.), what was the fucking point of having a personality to begin with and how fun is it to invalidate your character?

As you can't even think of a single situation where
your convoluted scenario would apply, I regret to inform you that your riddles have ceased to amuse.

Huh, a difficulty 3 lines up with the average college goer for long jumps.

What is difficulty 3? The average untrained person can do this about 50% of the time?

It looks pretty accurate up until about 7, no wonder you keep pointing that out. Well, any full-retard you want to go, you go.

tl;dr you're an antisocial fuckwit, we get it.

Hey, fuckface, if you can't tell via the differing vernacular, I'm someone new calling you an utter faggot.

Like, seriously. Talking to people isn't. Fucking. Spineless. You dribbling. Retard.

>Why would that adept bother
See

No, you.

So FFG Star Wars, where this is not just a mechanic but the most critical mechanic to playing the game.

Difficulty 3:
>Demanding: Requires full attention; most people have a 50/50 chance to succeed.

So, if you happen to be trained and specialized in jumping and spend 3 points of Might (minus Might Edge), you go down to difficulty 0.

You can get yourself a 50 foot start (takes up basically your entire turn), then on your next turn, automatically jump... 16 feet.

This is for someone trained and specialized in jumping and getting a 50 foot running start. Takes two whole turns.

Meanwhile, the starting adept with Intellect Edge 2 and Far Leap activates that for no cost and automatically jumps 100 feet, landing safely.

>Like, seriously. Talking to people isn't. Fucking. Spineless.

*Asking permission* for you to *roleplay your character* is, indeed, spineless. If someone had to ask for permission to *roleplay his character* I would lose respect for him, and then ask him why he bothered giving his character that personality trait in the first place.

Strawman, fuckface. Not wanting the game to ground to a halt, and talking things over OOC isn't spineless. The other guy is right, you're the sort of game disrupting shitter that'll hide behind "BUT IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!" then run to Veeky Forums and throw a 'tism tantrum when the group turns you out on your ass.

Go suck off a shotgun, faggot.

What I have a problem with is that it heavily depends on the system and type of campaign.

In games like WoD or 40krpgs, having so to spend is a part of it like it is in shadowrun.

Then cases like 3.5 where xp is a resource to use on crafting.

Then you have systems like the new star wars one where, technically, you could organize it where players told the gm what they focused on that arc and he give you what he thinks you deserve. In this case though, the xp reward would just be quicker and have players justify weird skill/talent pick ups.

At the tail ends you have rollmaster, which is a total piece of shit and requires you to hand out xp from things happening in combat as it happens like some shitty mmo.

>AUUGH YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN REAL LIFE
>AUUGH IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IIIIIII CAN'T DO THAT IN REAL LIFE IT'S MAGIC OKAY
Don't shitpost on company time, Jason Bulhman.

from what I understand you'd be asking permission (and the blessing) to change the direction or focus of a campaign, recognizing that you're sharing this campaign (and thus their time and attention) with several others. You're also asking if anybody will be upset at having certain elements in their game.

Not to 'just' 'roleplay your character.'

Or did I miss something?

Exp is a way to fractionalize a level or another abstraction of avatar strength. Such as dark souls using points to level other points. In this way they can be thought of as a funnel converting effort, time and risk into power to confront adversaries in a tense fashion.

Standard exp-to-level systems just treat exp as fractions of levels which are static and riskless. Ultimately this removes tension from adversary confrontation because you're "along for the ride" so to speak. The lack of risk of losing it means players trust that they always move forward at a gradual pace. The tension of not knowing if you're powerful enough to survive from now on is lost.

These are obviously general cases but it helps to break things down to basics.

Hey user, why are you ignoring that melee gains abilities to attack multiple people and to attack multiple times?

Isn't that at least as good and probably better than ranged?

Olympians who train their whole life and even have a genetic advantage ARE heroic, do you even know the source word for Olympics?

Whoops, meant to reply to

>Strawman, fuckface.

I have repeatedly asked for *anyone* to present a scenario where an ordinary, well adjusted, modest character would be even placed into a situation like that, let alone how it would be "fun" for him to go with the flow on that.

So yeah... you can't even think of a situation where it would begin to apply.

>"BUT IT'S WHAT MY CHARACTER WOULD DO!"

20+ years of roleplaying, never have been in a situation even *remotely* close to that. And since nobody can even begin to think of a situation where it'd apply... yeah.

>Go suck off a shotgun, faggot.

Your tears are a fine wine to me.

So like, something along the lines of, "Is it alright if I have my character join the antagonist camp and get personalized adventures" kind of thing? Yeah, I could see that, especially since it may require hours of work for the ST.

Oh, I see.

Kill yourself, Virt.

You're misinterpreting the rules, the jump is part of the movement and takes one turn.

And that 16 feet is them not even having to roll.

And you still haven't read Please read it and stop being retarded. (In the non-Veeky Forums way)