Talk:Racial Modifiers
Please see article page or Guild_Meeting_September_2007.
From the email list
Clarifications of the proposal have been moved to the article page --Errol 12:10, 24 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Effect of Different Costs
Just looking at the effects of going higher or lower than the proposed 200k per point.
- XP Lost to EM before it is reduced for a range of 'costs'
Cost 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1.5 50,000 66,667 83,333 100,000 133,333 166,667 200,000 233,333 266,667 1.4 42,857 57,143 71,429 85,714 114,286 142,857 171,429 200,000 228,571 1.3 34,615 46,154 57,692 69,231 92,308 115,385 138,462 161,538 184,615 1.2 25,000 33,333 41,667 50,000 66,667 83,333 100,000 116,667 133,333 1.1 13,636 18,182 22,727 27,273 36,364 45,455 54,545 63,636 72,727
- Same table, but showing cumulative cost to get to a racial mod of 1.0
Cost 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1.5 166,108 221,479 276,848 332,218 442,958 553,697 664,436 775,174 885,913 1.4 116,108 154,812 193,515 232,218 309,625 387,030 464,436 541,841 619,246 1.3 73,251 97,669 122,086 146,504 195,339 244,173 293,007 341,841 390,675 1.2 38,636 51,515 64,394 77,273 103,031 128,788 154,545 180,303 206,060 1.1 13,636 18,182 22,727 27,273 36,364 45,455 54,545 63,636 72,727
Alternate version where the cost to reduce EM is based on XP lost to the EM instead of the total earned.
- XP that must be earned before the EM is reduced for a range of costs.
Cost 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1.5 60,000 90,000 120,000 150,000 180,000 210,000 240,000 270,000 300,000 1.4 70,000 105,000 140,000 175,000 210,000 245,000 280,000 315,000 350,000 1.3 86,667 130,000 173,333 216,667 260,000 303,333 346,667 390,000 433,333 1.2 120,000 180,000 240,000 300,000 360,000 420,000 480,000 540,000 600,000 1.1 220,000 330,000 440,000 550,000 660,000 770,000 880,000 990,000 1,100,000
Comments
Michael Young
How can this be a discussion if all the discussion gets removed? Has it been moved elsewhere and the link is broken?
- The first bits of 'discussion' clarified or expanded what the proposal is. I updated the proposal to reflect the questions and answers, and linked to it. The tables were also added here. Then Mandos made a comment, and deleted it himself the following day. --Errol 11:05, 26 Aug 2007 (NZST)
- My first thoughts on the proposal were reactionary rather than thought out so I removed them. Thought out comments below. --Mandos 08:53, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
For the record I am totally opposed to the rule change in its current form. While I think it's possible to argue a case for the EM of Giants and maybe Shape-changers to be lowered, the other races EM's are fine the way they are.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think is happening that, as the proposal is refined, the discussion leading up to that refinement has been deleted so that discussion is only seen on the refined proposal itself to avoid confusion. It is possible to see the earlier comments by working your way down the change log under the 'History' tag but, I agree with MTB, in that I believe that those earlier comments should still be visible, both as a record of what has been said, and because some of them may well still be relevant to the current discussion. In other words, they should be easily accessable even if they are moved to a different section. Thay would also help anyone who is new to the discussion so they can see what has been already decided.
Only when the proposal has been voted on, then, and only then, should the discussions be deleted.
--Keith 07:47, 26 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Oh, as for the proposal itself, I see no problem with it at the moment. The maths looks fairly basic as well. I'm assuming the EP gained has to be 'raw' EP, i.e. before racial modifications are applied. I'd just add up all the awarded EP, see if it passes any of the breakpoints then apply the EM multiplier given by the last breakpoint passed.
--Keith 07:52, 26 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Thoughts
Some random thoughts in regards to the proposal.
1. Why? What is the driver for the change?
- Are we in a situation where characters are unplayable because of the EM? Is there an actual problem that this change is going to fix?
2. More EP?
- A few years ago, changes were made to the EP system to balance it up, define it and put fair and equitable rules around it. As a result EP went up by about 10-15%. Now there is a proposal to remove EM's which in turn boosts EP again. Is it really required?
3. Openness.
- The costs to be a non-human are there and obvious to all. They are a fundamental part of the game and realistically people choose their race knowing that they will pay this 'tax' for the rest of the characters life and yet I do not see a lack of meta-humans characters. If this issue was so amazingly critical surely people would be creating human characters in much larger numbers than the other races. I don't see that.
4. Retroactively applying the rule.
- I am sure I am not the only one to have lost a folder over the years. Missing records, missing EP that GM's never handed out seems like a recipe for a nightmare of calculations. Then assuming the calculations are sorted out and the values arrived to, the amounts of EP characters will get are pretty extreme back payments could be over 100,000 for a number of characters. Thats a lot of EP to suddenly drop onto an already high level character and will doing that to a large number of characters in the Guild change the game in a good way?
I can see the reasoning behind the change, people would like equality for there EP, and getting more EP always seems like a good thing as a Player I will certainly not turn down an extra 100K of EP for a character. As a GM however I do not believe that this change is good for the campaign, particularly not it it is applied retroactively.
--Mandos 08:53, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Some thoughts on 3. Openess...
- It is true that the costs for a non-human are there for all to see. However, there is no context against the longevity of the game there. As someone who has played an elf for nigh on 20 years, I certainly initially did not have any context of the fact that I would still be paying 2-4K Experience per adventure, 40 adventures later (my second character, in my first year of playing). Now that I do 'know' this, I tend to play humans, unless I have a very strong character reason to change. I see people rolling up Elves and Dwarves as they have strong character background ideas (case in point Michelle's two characters, and the dwarven family in general). Do they realise they are tying themselves to a constant EP sink for the next 20+ years?
- There is no question that there should be penalties assigned for taking the benefits of a non-human race, but with the longevity of the game in mind, I think a cap is appropriate.
--Dean Ellis 11:42, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
It depends on whether it is a race to gather as much EP as possible. If it is a race to get to the top of the heap and be the biggest meanest toughest character around then I agree this is an issue (See point 1). But if instead EP is simply a mechanic to allow a GM to tell you how well you are roleplaying and a methodology for allowing your character to develop there is no reason to remove the EM as long as the character can still develop.(if it cannot, then I would recommend seeing a GM to get the problem rectified). --Mandos 11:56, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
- Spending XP to develop my characters abilities is fun! (It is for me anyway) No matter how much I rationalise it, there is always an emotional let down when applying the elven EM. The 'woohoo my subtle but superlative role-playing has been recognised in the 20k XP I just received!' turns into 'oh, no, it's only 17k because I'm an Elf. :('
- It's not about winning some imagined race to the top, it's about the fun of your character getting better and gaining new options, the EM is a small buzz-killer.
- Yes there should be a cost for the non-human bonuses; Yes it should be at least equal to their value, preferably more as our campaign is supposed to be a human dominated world. But it would be nice to know that one day when I'm a real grown-up adventurer that I'll be free of this burdensome tax.
- For me the EM is the reason why I only have one non-human, the Elf was for specific character-vision reasons, ever since I have altered my character-visions to include being human because I find it dissatisfying to automatically lose a chunk of XP every adventure.
- -- Stephen 13:02, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Crunching the numbers....
- a 1 Million XP Giant would have just finished paying off the last point of multiplier. A retroactive 'fix' would refund just under 112K of the 333K they have spent on the Giant racial multiplier
- a 1 Million XP Elf would get a refund of 33K on buying down the second point of multiplier, and then a further 100K from the extra 600K earned, total of 133K
I doubt there are many, if any, characters that fit into the above categories. The retroactive fit numbers will be far less than 400K, and lucky to top 100K. I know this is still a large number, but did not like the 100K-400K range added to 'Against'
--Dean Ellis 14:30, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
- Out of interest I estimated the raw xp earned for my older characters: Braegon ~650k over 15 years, Thaeuss ~400k over 14 years, Aryan 350k over 12 years. The characters are similarly aged, but the XP variation is proportionate to how much they are played and what level adventures they go on.
- I know there are a lot of high characters who have been around longer and have played more at a high level. I would expect between 10 and 30 active and semi-active characters that have earned close to or over 1M xp. Probably half of them are non-human. So I would estimate 10 characters getting in excess of 100k. And of those at least 2 would be a pain to work out because their EM has been changed or removed already. I'm guessing 50-100 characters would get a lesser refund and would introduce 2 or 3 times as many oddities in their history which would make the calculations a pain.
- While it seems fair and nice to do on the surface, I'm against refunding XP based on this change because it strikes me as a huge can of worms that should get dropped into the too-hard basket.
- -- Stephen 15:45, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
1. Why? Because I do not see the current RM structure as fun.
2. More EP? Fix the award system if you feel this is true (which I don't).
3. Openness. Dean summed it up clearly.
4. Retroactively applying the rule. Sure we can do this. Anyone with Exp chits, the player can calculate it and a GM sign it off. It will be simple. For most characters in the Guild it will not result in a large amount. If needed we can place a maximum Exp refund cap of X.
--Jono Bean 14:46, 27 Aug 2007 (NZST)
1. Why because by the stage we are talking about removing the RM most of the benifits and advantages of being any race other than Human have been lost. If your going to take the optional discounted skills you probably have, and GM gifted talents have usually started to alter the Humans.
2. More EP? They won't be getting more ep, they will only be getting the full sum the GM has awarded as per the current system, same as the Human charaters do.
3.Openness. See Dean and Stephen they have said it all.
4.Retroactively applying the rule. To this I say no.
Other than the nightmare of calculations to do so; whats done is done, loosing the RM should /would be enough for most.
All the RM does is slow character development in non humans, intially this allows the Humans to develope quicker in compensation for the advantages of vision, discounted skills, and varied stats.
By the time a character has earned the levels of ep we are talking about, most of the advantages over humans have gone and yet the characters developement is still being retarded by the loss of earned and awarded ep.
Influanced by this knowledge I never considered making my new characters anything but Human.
And for those collecting ep stats, Thorn (human) has ~446,000 ep after 14 yrs, and Rowan (elf)~243,000 ep before RM after 8 yrs.
--Helen 09:36, 28 Aug 2007 (NZST)
I have changed my mind on Retroactively refunding EP. Lets not - it could be too hard. The retroactive EP refund is not a core requirement of the proposed change but more an interpretation of implementation of the rule change, so at this point I see no need to change the voting issue as it stands.
--Jono Bean 13:17, 28 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Numbers
Just as an aside on Stephens comment about the fact that the amount should be paid off should be around the value of the benefits, how would people value 26 Agility? My thoughts around this one are along the lines that it is an ability you get to use constantly and generally more often at higher levels, how would people value it, and conversely 26MA or higher than Max MD etc? --Mandos 17:17, 29 Aug 2007 (NZST)
Arguments for Reducing/Removing the EM
For
- Over the long term the cost in XP far outweighs the benefits.
- Applying the EM and 'losing' XP is not fun!
- Removes additional calculations from EP. Making ranking simpler.
- Removes some resistance to playing a character concept.
Against
- It was a known cost and choice made when choosing to be non-human.
- Racial stat max's are always there, potentially giving a bonus through the life of the character.
As are Racial talents (night vision etc.). - There will be a range of EM's with no easy way for GM's to confirm what the EM should be.
Arguments for Applying Retroactively
For
- It is the most fair way for old and new characters, otherwise old characters are effectively penalised.
- It may for most non-human characters in the guild give them between 10,000 exp to 50,000 exp.
Against
- It will generate a large chunk of XP (100-400K) for several old and already high level characters.
- Most prior changes that affect XP earned or spent were not applied retroactively.
- It may for most non-human characters in the guild give them between 10,000 exp to 50,000 exp, which I think is too little to warry about, so don't do it.
