How i play my campaign is not with fighting and gaining experience and trudging through ranks over countless meetings.

The way i have my alcolytes advance in skill and talent is through roleplaying.

If they play very well and for a few sessions if i deem them worthy i allow them one rank (this doesnt mean that each meeting someone goes up a rank itd be every 5-10 meetings before they moved up) and once the move up i dont have them get experience in that rank and get stuff they want i allow them to choose all the skills and talents they wish to have because it help furthers them as roleplayers. i really dont believe in experience because theres no "right" amount either you give out so little an amount that it takes ten sessions to get one skill or you give out so much they are rank 5 in 5 meetings.

What do you think of my system? comments and advice are appreciated.

The problem i always have with this is how do you determin that the players are 'playing very well'?

personal opinion really theres no rule to it

if they play to their characters likes and dislikes and or do something amazing in game i consider that well

it takes a lot for it anyways i cant really give them a rank a meeting

I dont really like that system. (Im not a big fan of the rank as it is anyway). I also am the kind of player who likes to play the games pretty close to how they are written. Sure I give out elite advances like they are candy and I use my own system of "detailed" background (as found on Unearthed Apocrypha) but I play the game quite close to the bone.

The reason is simple, all the rules, stats, books, adventures and other supplemental information and products are built to go with the game as is, so I try to keep the balance of the design intact where possible. Of course it isnt always possible and I do feel the need to "flex" the system from time to time, but I find it even more unrealistic and arbitrary to reward players advanced ranks becasue of "good role playing". Good role playing or not isnt what gets you promoted or advanced. If I was going to go that route I would just force them to wait for in game/in story advances. "Bob we noticed you've been working hard, and with Larry being eaten by that mutant Grox last week we have an opening in Armsman. What do you say Bob? Would you like the job?"

So instead I go with XP predetermined based on the the adventure and encounters with some bonus for role playing and what not. That way when I sit down to write the next adventure, or run the next adventure from a book, I know apporximately the power level of my players.

Though I may be inclined to do things like "you get 200 bonus XP, the catch is, it doesnt count toward rank advancement."

Personally Im still holding out for a decent PDF that turns the game into a careerless/rankless (and therefore classless/leveless) system.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I have to say, I do like that idea of a GM handing out some experience that doesn't actually count towards the rank advancement. Mostly because I'm still heavily into the Warhammer Fantasy way of doing things (Take as many careers as you can get xp for), but I prefer an actual progression, like Dark hersey has (rather then an ad-hoc find your own way, like a non Wizard or Priest has). That and the career xp cap is somewhat of a bugger. (Who's to say that one character can only earn so much xp, there amy be a very advanced character that never wanted to go up high in the totem pole of responsibility.) This way one can still work on their character without worrying about rank too much. Should be standard perhaps.

Don't know if I want a careerless system just yet, but the rankless system is basically like Warhammer Fantasy roleplay? I reckon that take could be adapted for Dark Hersey, as one would simply dissasemble the trees and put each as seperate careers, with say the first of each one being a 'basic' career, and the others the advanced versions. That way the skill/talent lists could be mixed and matched, and attribute increases could be done in the carrer itself like WFRP. Heaps of bookworking though to convert.

my main problem is how do you handle characteristic advancements? What would earn a character extra toughness, or wounds, and would this be the same for all careers? Keeping this balanced is a challenge, and the game designers did a lot of work (and a very good job), balancing the game.

gaining skills and talents, particularly things like Peer, Lores, and languages, should be role played or granted as a reward for good roleplay, but the exp costs helps balance out advancement. What I do is allow for these to be purchased as elite advancements as a reward, or reduce there exp cost if already available.

Lastly, some advancement should be a part of downtime. For me I only allow certain advances to be taken durring downtime (mainly skill that would take a long time to learn), but if you want to remove exp you might consider allowing your players to state what they are doing during downtime and give advances accordingly.

ThenDoctor said:

I don't think it's a system at all. You don't handle characteristic advancements, and you apparently place no limits on what the players select when they advance a rank.

10 sessions to earn one skill, or 1 sessions to earn a full rank? Do you honestly believe that there isn't a middle ground here? You are talking about earning between 10 xp and 1000 xp in a single session! Don't you think the guideline of about 200-300 xp per session is worth taking into account?

Here's my comment: You are a lazy GM. This isn't necessarilly a bad thing. You just don't like book-keeping to get in the way of the game. I don't really keep track of each individual encounter or obstacle the PC's overcome either. I still hand out xp, though.