Please tell me what I'm having to track extra.

Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything.

Didn't you say earlier in the thread that you made use of a spreadsheet to ensure that the PCs got the appropriate refund when they did take a specialization that made those non-career skills into career skills? Under most definitions of the word, that falls under "tracking."

Also, I'm really not interested in getting into a pissing match with over this, with you or anyone else. You play the game your way, we'll play it our way. It's pretty **** clear that nobody else really agrees with your house rule, so you're probably better off just letting it go instead of trying to convince people that it's the best idea ever when they've made it clear they don't like your particular house rule.

Frankly, you might just be better off scrapping the whole "non-career" XP cost entirely, since it has the same end result as your method, with the added perk of it not mattering when or how the characters purchased their skill ranks.

As to your other point: I suppose you missed the whole part of the analysis where with the discount house rule, people who go skills first do get the benefit of skills earlier, but people who buy the specs first have the benefit of buying talents earlier. Talents can be very big deals. In some cases much more so than a single skill upgrade (which you will notice is the most Besh was ever really behind Aurek in my example post). Both approaches with the house rule have advantages.

On the other side, without the house rule, there is VERY LITTLE advantage of buying skills in a specialization you are interested in before the specialization. Yes, you get the advantage of a few upgraded dice a session or two early, but compare in my example how little time it takes Besh to catch up on the skills, all while getting a key talent earlier.

I do not see why so many people have an aversion to multiple paths to the same destination requiring the same amount of total XP.

Look at it in stages, not at the end result.

Player A spends 20XP getting a rank two new non-career skills.
Player B spends 20XP unlocking a new specialization.

Player A gets an immediate benefit. The next game, he will get to roll those skills better. Player B gains no immediate benefit. All his ranks and die rolls are identical to the last session but Player A now has more options and higher chances at success. Now both players get 20XP and go back to the buy phase.

Player A spends 20XP to unlock the specialization he bought non-career skills in.
Player B spends 20XP on two new skill ranks and a talent in his new specialization.

Player A, under your trackless system, got 10XP back. He spends that on a new talent. This means Player A played an entire session (possibly more if they didn't buy like this immediately after their next session) with additional skills and better dice pools than Player B. But now they are both on equal footing. At the end of two sessions, player A and B both have two new ranks, one new talent and one new non-career specialization. But after one session, Player A got bonus dice.

You have given Player A 10 additional experience points allowing him to reach equal footing with player B because player B went for his specialization first. Your logic about this method keeping your players from not min/maxing won't hold up as soon as they realize its better for them to buy as many non-career ranks as possible then get refunds by buying the specialization after. They get all the benefits over how many games they play without the tax of getting them early.

You have to see how this plays out in favor of Player A, thereby penalizing Player B.

"Blah blah blah, inane rant at people on the internet, I track stuff but pretend I don't..."

That's some intense rage at people you don't know, buddy. You have spent way too much time angry about people about tracking crap. It doesn't make much sense. Have you been accused of this before and its a sore point? This thread is equal parts unpleasant and amusing - unpleasant because these are good forums for people who love the game to share ideas, and amusing because you're coming apart at the seams with every post you make.

I think maybe you might want to step away for a while because this can't be healthy for your blood pressure. If you do nothing but argue and disagree with people on this thread, then why are you here? The only reason I can come up with is that you enjoy being angry and arguing and that's not a healthy mindset. Trust me, I know.

I agree with most other folks that it sounds like too much work tracking things for too little benefit, but if he's happy with the work involved and the group likes it, more power to them.

Please tell me what I'm having to track extra.

I've made huge points about this already. If there is added tracking, list ONE situation with added tracking. ONE. All it takes for you to be right is to actually have ONE case.

I'm getting irritated in this thread because everyone keeps saying "you will have to do x" over and over and over again, and providing ZERO examples of why I would have to do x. I'm tired of restating the same thing 80 times.

Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything.

The only thing you would have to absolutely keep track of is doubling up of starting career/specialization/species points that let you start with 2 in a skill before spending any XP, as that can effect your total xp spent. (also on the off chance that you've spent more extra xp in noncareer skill ranks in a specialization than would be required to buy the specialization, but I think that is much rarer than people think. 4 ranks would be required for your FIRST secondary specialization, even if it was in the same career, and its 2 additional ranks per each one after, plus 2 more ranks if its out of career.)

There.

Didn't you say earlier in the thread that you made use of a spreadsheet to ensure that the PCs got the appropriate refund when they did take a specialization that made those non-career skills into career skills? Under most definitions of the word, that falls under "tracking."

No, that is not what I said. I do track things. I track things by RAW as well. That has zero to do with the house rule. I stated that because I track things by total XP spent, the house rule had a side effect of actually making it easier for me to track. Actually read my posts. There is no situation where tracking is ACTUALLY required if you follow the house rule I wrote. It just has the SIDE EFFECT of making the tracking I ALREADY DO easier.

And its really a pissing match to ask someone to provide an actual example? If you think it creates more tracking, provide a single situation where it does. ONE SINGLE SITUATION. If you are telling someone they are wrong, don't be surprised if they ask you to show how they are wrong.

Once again: If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard. It takes one situation for me to be wrong. ONE.

And every time I've asked someone to provide that situation, they can't. What does that tell you?

I'm not trying to convince everyone its the best idea ever. Notice how when HappyDaze actually discussed an impact that was real I ADDRESSED IT. I directly addressed the question he had about it, and explained why I didn't think it was an issue for my table.

But just saying "IT MAKES YOU HAVE TO DO TRACKING" over and over and over again when it doesn't, I've shown that it doesn't, and not a single person can show a single situation where I'm wrong, you expect me to not get irritated?

I'm being repeatedly treated like I am an idiot by people who can't even back up their own claims. I'm apparently supposed to just lay back and take it because boy asking people to back something up is apparently a pissing match.

I agree with most other folks that it sounds like too much work tracking things for too little benefit, but if he's happy with the work involved and the group likes it, more power to them.

Please tell me what I'm having to track extra.

I've made huge points about this already. If there is added tracking, list ONE situation with added tracking. ONE. All it takes for you to be right is to actually have ONE case.

I'm getting irritated in this thread because everyone keeps saying "you will have to do x" over and over and over again, and providing ZERO examples of why I would have to do x. I'm tired of restating the same thing 80 times.

Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything.

The only thing you would have to absolutely keep track of is doubling up of starting career/specialization/species points that let you start with 2 in a skill before spending any XP, as that can effect your total xp spent. (also on the off chance that you've spent more extra xp in noncareer skill ranks in a specialization than would be required to buy the specialization, but I think that is much rarer than people think. 4 ranks would be required for your FIRST secondary specialization, even if it was in the same career, and its 2 additional ranks per each one after, plus 2 more ranks if its out of career.)

There.

And I've explained like 5 times now, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSE RULE. That was a discussion that that is the only thing you have to track IF YOU WANTED TO TRACK TOTAL XP SPENT. Normally if you want to track total XP spent, you have to track two things, double up stuff form starting character and when you bought specializations. The house rule eliminates the need to track the second one.

That has NOTHING to do with the house rule adding any tracking. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Can you please READ WHAT I'M WRITING.

I agree with most other folks that it sounds like too much work tracking things for too little benefit, but if he's happy with the work involved and the group likes it, more power to them.

Please tell me what I'm having to track extra.

I've made huge points about this already. If there is added tracking, list ONE situation with added tracking. ONE. All it takes for you to be right is to actually have ONE case.

I'm getting irritated in this thread because everyone keeps saying "you will have to do x" over and over and over again, and providing ZERO examples of why I would have to do x. I'm tired of restating the same thing 80 times.

Provide ONE example of a situation where I would have to track anything.

The only thing you would have to absolutely keep track of is doubling up of starting career/specialization/species points that let you start with 2 in a skill before spending any XP, as that can effect your total xp spent. (also on the off chance that you've spent more extra xp in noncareer skill ranks in a specialization than would be required to buy the specialization, but I think that is much rarer than people think. 4 ranks would be required for your FIRST secondary specialization, even if it was in the same career, and its 2 additional ranks per each one after, plus 2 more ranks if its out of career.)

There.

And I've explained like 5 times now, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HOUSE RULE. That was a discussion that that is the only thing you have to track IF YOU WANTED TO TRACK TOTAL XP SPENT. Normally if you want to track total XP spent, you have to track two things, double up stuff form starting character and when you bought specializations. The house rule eliminates the need to track the second one.

That has NOTHING to do with the house rule adding any tracking. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Can you please READ WHAT I'M WRITING.

I'm having trouble tracking all the posts you're not responding to. Is it because you can't refute them?

Maybe I should get an excel spreadsheet....

I'm having trouble tracking all the posts you're not responding to. Is it because you can't refute them?

Maybe I should get an excel spreadsheet....

I'm just waiting for his head to explode from all the stress and aggravation he's inflicting on himself from all the contradictions he's making. Probably too many for him to keep track of.

I'm still baffled at how few people have pointed out that just doing away with career skills and non-career skills lead to the same result with no work at all as giving a refund or making specs cheaper.

Also, if I may interject, there are only like 30 skills, and many are superficial to some characters. For example, if you plan to use mostly range light then range heavy and gunner are not needed for you, likewise either brawl or melee are exclusive to most people, they only want one or the other. Also, most people don't pick up skills that other PC's have other than one rank, maybe. So at most the average character is only intrested in what? 12-18 skills? You start with something like 9-12 skills (of which all but one are probably career) with your first career and spec and any race bonus, so if all you care about are skills then most players will get access to the skills they want as career skills in one, maybe two specs?

Talents are what really set apart the specs, not skills.

I'm having trouble tracking all the posts you're not responding to. Is it because you can't refute them?

Maybe I should get an excel spreadsheet....

I'm just waiting for his head to explode from all the stress and aggravation he's inflicting on himself from all the contradictions he's making. Probably too many for him to keep track of.

If I'm contradicting myself, show one bit of tracking necessary using the house rule.

One.

Name ONE situation where I would have to track anything.

I strongly suspect that you can't.

You say I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not, I haven't since the beginning. There are exactly zero contradictions in my posts. If there is a contradiction, surely you can point it out.

Surely you can point out the one situation where tracking is required using the house rule.

You all seem so sure I'm wrong, but you can't show me where I am. If you are so sure, why not show me? It takes ONE situation that requires tracking for me to be wrong. ONE. If you know I'm wrong, you would have to know what that situation was. So why keep making posts saying I'm wrong without that situation.

I ask again: rather than just saying NUHUH NUHUH NUHUH: Name one situation where anyone would have to track anything with the following house rule:

Specialization cost = 10 * total specializations after taken - (5 * total ranks in currently non-career skills inside specialization) + 10 if outside of career, this can result in a net gain of XP.

Name one situation. You obviously can, otherwise why would you spend so much time mocking me and treating me like an idiot? Surely, you wouldn't mock someone so thoroughly without proof that you are right? That sure would make you a giant *******.

I'm having trouble tracking all the posts you're not responding to. Is it because you can't refute them?

Maybe I should get an excel spreadsheet....

Which post did I not respond to that actually pertains to me having to track anything?

Also, why are you ignoring the question if you are so sure I'm right? You spend time responding to me, but don't even bother trying to answer the actual question. Why?

(I see one post by you that I didn't directly respond to. There is a reason. The things you talk about are much more heavily a matter of opinion. I'm trying to get people to stop saying the same thing over and over that is AN OBJECTIVELY WRONG FACT, that this requires more tracking when it doesn't. I'm working on refuting this one thing right now because it is VERY BLACK AND WHITE. It either does or it doesn't. And to prove it does, all they have to do is show one situation where it does. I wouldn't mind addressing the whole cost and benefit type analysis, if people would stop saying the same thing over and over that is objectively WRONG.)

And I'm starting to doubt the assertion that this is some grand place to discuss the game. Its a place where mocking and derision is accepted towards anyone who doesn't play a specific way, its a place where being right seems way more important than actually examining a situation. If I'm wrong, I'll feel like an idiot, but no one has shown me where I'm wrong:

Once again: I can't prove every case in existence. Proving a negative is very very very very difficult. If it requires tracking, it only has to require tracking in ONE instance for them to be right. All they have to do is show ONE instance. If they are so sure they are right: Why aren't they providing it?

I'm still baffled at how few people have pointed out that just doing away with career skills and non-career skills lead to the same result with no work at all as giving a refund or making specs cheaper.

...

Talents are what really set apart the specs, not skills.

I actually agree with the last sentence you said (I cut the middle paragraph as its basically just supporting evidence for your last sentence, so I didn't see the reason to duplicate it just to say I agree with that assessment.)

Anyway, on the first paragraph, I disagree that it leads to the same thing. Not everyone will have specializations or their career covering every skill they might want. There are tons of reasons not to take a specialization, most of which boil down to: even with the discount in 99% of cases it will do nothing but cost you XP if you aren't buying talents in it. Also, by doing it the non-career discount way, it still slows down the buying of skills up until the character grabs the specialization.

I don't know though, I just don't consider subtracting a number * 5 much work. Which is really all the house rule does.

As an aside: Notice how I can operate perfectly calm and communicate 100% rationally when I'm not having to defend against the same accusation 80 times in a row with no evidence to back it up. Yes I'm angry. I'm angry at being mocked for getting irritated over something that not a single person can prove is true, but has instead been repeated over and over and accepted as gospel without a SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Which post did I not respond to that actually pertains to me having to track anything?

At this point, I couldn't care less. You're painting a massive target on your back with this tracking crap and its getting in the way of the actual discussion - whether or not your house rule is equitable or not. Maybe that's your plan - get the focus off of your rule, which has been proven to be skewed toward the player who purchases non-skill ranks before purchasing the specialization, and hope people get flustered enough to just go away before you have to admit your house rule is unfair.

(I see one post by you that I didn't directly respond to. There is a reason. The things you talk about are much more heavily a matter of opinion.)

Look at it in stages, not at the end result.

Player A spends 20XP getting a rank two new non-career skills.

Player B spends 20XP unlocking a new specialization.

Player A gets an immediate benefit. The next game, he will get to roll those skills better. Player B gains no immediate benefit. All his ranks and die rolls are identical to the last session but Player A now has more options and higher chances at success. Now both players get 20XP and go back to the buy phase.

Player A spends 20XP to unlock the specialization he bought non-career skills in.

Player B spends 20XP on two new skill ranks and a talent in his new specialization.

Player A, under your trackless system, got 10XP back. He spends that on a new talent. This means Player A played an entire session (possibly more if they didn't buy like this immediately after their next session) with additional skills and better dice pools than Player B. But now they are both on equal footing. At the end of two sessions, player A and B both have two new ranks, one new talent and one new non-career specialization. But after one session, Player A got bonus dice.

You have given Player A 10 additional experience points allowing him to reach equal footing with player B because player B went for his specialization first. Your logic about this method keeping your players from not min/maxing won't hold up as soon as they realize its better for them to buy as many non-career ranks as possible then get refunds by buying the specialization after. They get all the benefits over how many games they play without the tax of getting them early.

You have to see how this plays out in favor of Player A, thereby penalizing Player B.

This isn't remotely a matter of opinion. The fact of the situation is that Player A has an advantage in one or more games over Player B. Player B is being penalized in those games because he chose to buy into the specialization before buying ranks in the skills. This is encouraging power gaming and min/maxing. If you can't see this, you're being intentionally obtuse.

If you want people to stop picking on you about the tracking stuff then stick to the original topic and ignore the rest.

Maybe just let this guy run the game how he wants?

Personally I just run the game as it's written in the book, but is it worth the effort to argue this point?

I disagree with refunding purely from a story stand point. XP, to me, represents the time and effort you have spent attaining the desired level of mastery with a skill or talent you're about to gain. This is what it represents to me.

Say I had a diplomat. He's charismatic as they come, but he lacks any medical training - but every now and then, he's forced to provide some emergency aid (or a helping hand to someone else who is), justifying him buying into Medicine for a rank. He hasn't learned much, but experience and repetition of known drills has given him some level of confidence. Over time, he discovers that this field of expertise is both useful and interesting - and maybe he studies long and hard under someone with a medical background: not just emergency aid, but all aspects of the field. This would be the player buying into the Doctor specialisation. With a greater understanding of the workings of the human - or alien - body, learning how best to tend to someone's ailments is far easier than it was before - explaining the lower cost of raising the now-career-skill Medicine.

He understands better now, and is better suited to learn more - but that doesn't change the fact that it was harder and slower going for him to learn the basics back when he wasn't a 'Doctor'. He still spent the same amount of time and effort learning those foundations of the skill despite his newly-attained proficiency, so I don't refund the currency that, to me and my group, represents the time and effort spent on such an endeavour.

Of course, this is not me arguing the validity of anyone else's preferred methods or thoughts - merely me explaining how I handle the issue at my table.

This isn't remotely a matter of opinion. The fact of the situation is that Player A has an advantage in one or more games over Player B. Player B is being penalized in those games because he chose to buy into the specialization before buying ranks in the skills. This is encouraging power gaming and min/maxing. If you can't see this, you're being intentionally obtuse.

If you want people to stop picking on you about the tracking stuff then stick to the original topic and ignore the rest.

You specifically pulled a nonstandard number of xp per session (20), and cut the person back from spending on skills at the perfect time to create one of the few situations where Player B would never have an advantage. If buying more skill ranks is always the optimal choice, why did he stop at 2, why not buy all 4 and go for the full discount?

Probably because doing that would have shown what I showed earlier with my Aurek and Besh example. Player B would have access to Talents faster than a Player who used a bunch of noncareer skill discounts to pick up the specialization.

And as if the RAW doesn't currently have a Min/Max choice: Always buy specializations first if you are going to buy it. Period. Penalizing yourself 5 xp per rank of the skill PERMANENTLY is no where near worth the price of having a couple of skill ranks for 1 or 2 sessions. And the longer a campaign goes, the more stark it becomes. Playing a 10 session campaign? You really think that having one or two ranks extra for 1 session is worth being behind for NINE?

The only situation where buying non-career skill ranks makes ANY sense by RAW is if you never plan on taking a relevant Specialization or if its going to be a very very short campaign. The rules as RAW support minmaxing and powergaming from my perspective.

Adjusting it to the discount allows people to buy the Spec first to get Talents earlier, or get Skills first to work into the Spec. It gives two options that both are attractive depending on which one you feel you need first. Even with the discount: every rank 1 skill you buy is a 5 XP delay on talents, every rank 2 skill you buy is a 10 XP delay on talents, etc.

The only reason you hit the talent at the same time with both characters was because you were giving huge chunks of XP at a time (20, higher than standard), the low cost on the specialization (the lowest possible, 20), and Player A buying the exact number of skills first to hit the same spot over two sessions. Look at my earlier example to show how this isn't the case in a longer example.

I disagree with refunding purely from a story stand point. XP, to me, represents the time and effort you have spent attaining the desired level of mastery with a skill or talent you're about to gain. This is what it represents to me.

I'm not going to say you are wrong, I'm just going to explain the reasoning I have, because it isn't as different as what you are saying. Its just a different point of view.

There is no refund. There is a discount. This is a huge distinction. You aren't getting the XP back that you spent on those non-career skills, you are getting the Specialization for cheaper. Because you've spent so much time working on things that aren't core to you, you have an easier time picking up the new specialization that covers those things.

Both make sense from the point of view of the story and depending on how you look at it. This isn't just a numbers game for me, I think that working towards the goal of being a Doctor makes a lot more sense then spending a huge chunk of XP and suddenly I have access to Doctor talents even without having a single bit of skill in the profession.

Ah, that makes a little more sense. But knowing myself and my group, following RAW is always preferable.

Ah, that makes a little more sense. But knowing myself and my group, following RAW is always preferable.

If it works for you, it works for you. Thank you for taking the time to read my post though.

This is encouraging power gaming and min/maxing. If you can't see this, you're being intentionally obtuse.

I think you are throwing those terms around without really knowing what they mean.

Having to plan out character progression isn't power gaming. You can have a perfectly developed character that you roleplay to the hilt and also have charted out progression.

Furthermore, while you may not like that behavior at your table (which is fine), it's just as legitimate a play-style for others. There's a whole world of gaming out there, and no one way is superior to another. As long as everyone is having fun, it's good gaming.

I understand the issue of differing XP for similar results (I brought it up during beta), but the core of it isn't people having bad-wrong-fun.

I won't pretend to fully follow the maths back and forth in this ongoing debate/argument but a thought did occur to me regarding the usefulness of tracking total xp earned. That is, when a player cannot attend every session. If such a player only earns xp for sessions when they are present they will soon drop significantly behind others in character improvement.

Traditional class-based xp systems such as Saga can manage this by having everyone at the same xp value. With incremental point spend systems, such as L5R and this game a track needs to be kept so that a unfun disparity doesn't build up.

After all, not all roleplayers work traditional, easily planned around jobs.

Thoughts?

... That is, when a player cannot attend every session. If such a player only earns xp for sessions when they are present they will soon drop significantly behind others in character improvement.

...

After all, not all roleplayers work traditional, easily planned around jobs.

Thoughts?

I'm considering just letting them keep pace with the group's XP and occasionally run a side session with those characters' mini adventures to justify it.

If the character is present but the player is not (the GM or Players team up to run the absent player's character) then I'd have the PC earn XP at the same rate as the others.

If the Player isn't present so their character sits out the adventure, then if it were me I'd probably have them not earn experience, or perhaps earn 5xp for the sessions their player isn't there?

I, as a GM, don’t give much attention to minor gaps in XP between the players. I don’t think that a 10-15 XP difference between characters is important to the storytelling aspect of the game.

Take for example Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. In the first movie, Han is obviously much more experienced both story wise and XP wise but during the course of the trilogy, Luke gains more XP per “session” and becomes a much more “effective” character than Han and yet, I don’t think that the virtual XP amount gained makes Han a less fun character to play.

And, He gets the girl…

Well, Luke's subsequent XP allocation eventually ran in a rather differently-specialized direction, while there was a months-long where Han was *ahem* "indisposed" and unable to gain XP...

Ok, I think I've read enough... and the question I haven't seen asked yet is where in the Rules As Written does it say that you do not get back the extra XP? and no, a fan podcast is not RAW.

The rules as written state that 'These skills now count as career skills for the character (although he does not gain any free advances in them, as he did with his first specialization) Page 93, 2nd paragraph under Acquiring New Specializations... and that's all I've found in the rules as written.

I happen to agree with Emperor Norton in all aspects expect one... it is not a discount... it is xp earned with blood sweat and tears and should be spendable by the player as they see fit...

If they have earned a total of 193xp over time then they should be able to spend 193xp... it's not game breaking in the slightest and there is ZERO tracking... Oh wait... here is the tracking... I buy a new spec, I look to see if any of the 4 skills are a) already not class skills, and b) have I bought any ranks in them... give 5 xp for every rank in them... problem solved.

It's how I will be running my game... and any of you are welcome to join it.