Announcing the ALFA XP bank

[Wild Wombat]

There are ways of retaining the same character and reducing or freezing xp to make them more compatible with lower levels.

Can always ask a friendly dm to remove xp every once in a while if you reach a level you (and others) are happy with.

Physics demands that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of Energy / Matter, what have you.

To prevent ALFA and all of its PCs from being destroyed in some Newtonian cataclysm, I propose that these "removed" xp do not simply vanish, but are donated to the needy amongst us. Need could be based on some criteria like, say, low level PCs belonging to ALFAns that have returned after prolonged absences.

I'd be willing to do my part for the good of ALFA. I'm just that sort of person, always sacrificing for the greater good.

So, what say you all?

[Galadorn]

NAh, i'll just bank my own for future use!

bah humbug wombatzzz!!

[orangetree]

Do we get interest on the loaning of xp? If the character borrowing the xp dies, will it be covered by xp insurance?

[Veilan]

Hah!

I actually discussed a similiar idea a long while ago, problem is for a serious implementation, there's just too many wormcans.

We'd really be faring better with a scheme like the diminishing returns / low player xp gain boost, but that's complicated. Still, from a certain viewpoint, the proposed *1/level scheme also helps achieve the goal of this.

Cheers,

[t-ice]

My next PC shall be a XP banker / dealer / futures trader / consultant!
After he has made a handful of deals with different PCs, he will be so entangled all over the XP flows of the playerbase that if he dies the HDM will be forced to declare him too big to fall and grant him a free rez! The gold for the diamond will of course be levied from the PC base at large by raising prices at all stores. Merchants will be forced to put a share of their earnings to a vat that will be placed next to each shopcounter.

[I-KP]

It’s crap the way that the higher one’s PC’s level becomes the harder it is to find a game of any sort to join in with without causing significant DM consternation. Back in the day with many more players bumping around it probably wasn’t a problem, but it is now. Personally, I’m taking measures to prevent any further levelling of my current PC - at least until the average catches up (leaving aside discussion on whether such a thing is statistically likely). Apparently I need a DM to remove XP back down to the start of the level I’m at now, resetting the counter as it were, or I just politely refuse XP awards from here on in. (Same net effect sans any sort of XP banking shenanigans.)

If there was an XP banking system then I’d entertain taking advantage of that (leaving aside discussion on how such a thing would function). Let’s be honest, it’s pretty weird to start refusing XP. (I need my Skinner box!) That seems to run against the grain of everything that makes a level based system work, but needs must when the devil drives. The XP Tam gets is earned in my view, through DM plottage and time invested (not from grinding), so if there was a way to keep that XP but not level up then that might suit me.

EDIT: Excuse my on-topic off-topicness.

[Galadorn]

Yer cracked. Levels are fun.

[t-ice]

Apparently I need a DM to remove XP back down to the start of the level I’m at now, resetting the counter as it were, or I just politely refuse XP awards from here on in. (Same net effect sans any sort of XP banking shenanigans.)

EDIT: Excuse my on-topic off-topicness.

And because of ALFA's xp-to-gp ration rules, you will then also come to find that Tam must give away her old items, one way or another, so that she could be viable to get new plot-a-riffic stuffs.

If we allow players to opt out of levels, but to keep on the wealth their earned xp according to our current rules equates to, then essentially we have a E[N] system on a voluenteer basis. It would even be very easy to do: Just give the PC non-droppable -1000gp -tokens that do nothing else. I would actually support it, however the details fall.

(Damn, now you turned (what I thought) a good joke to something almost serious)

[I-KP]

Apparently I need a DM to remove XP back down to the start of the level I’m at now, resetting the counter as it were, or I just politely refuse XP awards from here on in. (Same net effect sans any sort of XP banking shenanigans.)

EDIT: Excuse my on-topic off-topicness.

And because of ALFA's xp-to-gp ration rules, you will then also come to find that Tam must give away her old items, one way or another, so that she could be viable to get new plot-a-riffic stuffs.

Not really. I'm not talking about dropping Levels, I'm intending to not advance any further beyond the current Level. It’s not as if I’m currently required to stack levels in order to pay for an egregious amount of wealth that the wee Hin carts around. Sticking at Level 8 also means sticking within the bounds of her current wealth table point. (Tam used to be horribly under wealth but now sits somewhere within the ‘green’ zone AFAIK.) Stacking unspent XP means nothing other than potentially slipping down the wealth table (assuming the table works by XP total integer and not Level integer). If players were allowed to voluntarily and actively drop levels then wealth table considerations become a concern.

Yes, this is a pseudo-E8 approach. A voluntary Level hard cap. It doesn’t hurt anyone; it doesn’t give me any material advantages (aside from not gradually writing Tam out of the game); I’m not demanding that all PCs of higher levels be pulled down to mortal realms; I’m not even going to make a case for ALFA adopting E8. No harm done.

[Wild Wombat]

Yes, it was a joke, but there is no rule about taking something in Off Topic and turning it on its head and twisting it into something at least somewhat serious.

On that serious note, the thing that comes to my mind about what "Highbies" might want to do instead of gaining XP or more uber items is to move up socially. You are accumulating power. Whether it manifests in above board circles and the PC starts hob-knobbing with kings and queens or becoming a power in a church or actually being a banker (i.e. merchant) OR it is unseen, like becoming a boss in a mafia like guild (meaning somebody else is doing the dirty work allowing the PC to be more untouchable). These are not the typical rewards of playing, but they are advancement. In fact, to dredge up ancient history, just before Croaker in ALFA/NWN1 died due to my stupidity, he was Lord of a small town and was sponsoring player based housing and stores. I too was trying to come to grips with what to do with a PC that was getting a bit too uber.

And T-Ice, I suggest that you name your XP Banker PC Zach S Goldman.

[Veilan]

Stop blaming the jews.

...that's my job.

[Wild Wombat]

Uh, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_Sachs

[t-ice]

Stacking unspent XP means nothing other than potentially slipping down the wealth table (assuming the table works by XP total integer and not Level integer). If players were allowed to voluntarily and actively drop levels then wealth table considerations become a concern.

The table is written per level. I think the current Zelk's DM tool that calculates PC wealth automatically is based on xp, however, because it linearly interpolates between levels. (Dunnoo what happens if it turns to extrapolate instead, probably you're just missing out on the geometric wealth curve and sticking on the line?) I don't think people have really considered decouping levels and xp before. For good reason imo. You can do it by simply refusing to ever press the "level up" button. Which for one leads to an annoying "ding!" on every single AT you make. And I understood it was also frowned upon because the prime use case is metagaming by banking levelups until a prc is granted. Dunno if people have got smacked for that, but it is supremely "build before rp" -silly. (though sort of the exact opposite of this)

If we choose to support "voluntary staying at this here level", then we need to do it smoother than people refusing to press levelup. And yes it can break "dnd as intended", the class balance people for some unfathomable reason think dnd has, if we have a lvl8 with item wealth of a lvl11. But "dnd as intended" is far less broken by a lvl6 PC grouping with an overwealth lvl8 than an intended-wealth lvl11. That level mismatch (and worse) seems to be the norm.

[Zelknolf]

The table is written per level. I think the current Zelk's DM tool that calculates PC wealth automatically is based on xp, however, because it linearly interpolates between levels. (Dunnoo what happens if it turns to extrapolate instead, probably you're just missing out on the geometric wealth curve and sticking on the line?)

It goes by the levels you've earned, not the levels you've taken (up to 20. If anyone makes it to 20, the counter will just stop at our target wealth levels for a level 20 for that characer, even as they acquire more XP), and progresses linearly between those levels. So that hypothetical level 6 who's sitting on four levels... debates about whether they should be required to take those levels completely aside... will be reported on as a level 10. If that character is halfway to 11, it will report at 50% between the markers for 10 and 11.

[I-KP]

In that case polite refusal to accept XP from a DM would be the way forward. (Annoying 'Level Up' AT ding would drive me mental, not to mention everyone else. Everyone Else: "Just level up already. Sheesh." Me: "Shan't.") Timed XP would still contribute in its meagre form, broadly inconsequential given the XP gap between 8 and 9. Combat XP would still count but would be similarly inconsequential. Static XP wouldn't factor in at all.