Sweet20 Experience Rules Discussion.

In this thread, the Sweet20 Experience System was brought up, and being the curious individual I am, I checked it out. I invite you to do the same. It's pretty cool, says I.

I was hoping to start this thread as a place for the discussion that RangerWickett's thread has spawned on the topic, to let his thread get back on topic, and perhapse as a place to discuss creating new Keys or modifying the system to meet individual gamers' needs.

While I think the Key system is pretty cool, I don't think it's perfect. It seems to me that it's a way of encouraging players to always act a certain way, and it might cause people to feel like XP is owed to them for certain actions, when the GM disagrees. It's by no means perfect, but I'd like to see the system modified a little to make this less of an issue.

I would also like to point out that the game that the Key system of advancement is from (which can be found here) has slightly different rules than the rules seperated from the game. There is no way to lose XP in this system, for instance.

So what does everyone think? What new (and fair) Keys can we come up with? Will this system push character development, or push away from it? Is Advancement too fast with this system? How many XP should it take to level? How do you get new Keys if you've lost all of yours? There's a lot to discuss here.

- Kemrain the Interested.

Spiffy system. I think it would work well in PbP actually.

Depending upon how I wanted to pace the game, I'd probably set it at 26-39.

The keys remind me of the Nature & Demeanor used in the Whitewolf systems, but tied to XP rather than Willpower.

Ideas for other Keys without XP rewards figured out.

Key of the Silver Tongue: Your character enjoys manipulating others to do his bidding.

Key of the Caregiver: Your character finds great worth in caring for the mental and physical well-being of others.

Key of the Competitor: Your character enjoys competing because winning is a goal worth achieving.

Key of the Creator: Your character enjoys creating something functional, beautiful or some combination of both.

Some of the keys seem awfully easy to abuse. You can shoot up the level progression faster by choosing one key and slower by another. It all seems arbitrary to me, and that has it's flavor, but it also makes it hard to be equitable to different play styles. Seems like an interesting idea, but would be awfully hard to manage as GM.

I agree, and I'm thinking of ways to standardize or adjudicate the XP gain. I don't have much yet, but I'm wondering if splitting Keys into Major and Minor, major for the big ones that define the character and their story, and minor for the quirks that come up often but shouldn't give XP more than once or twice a session. I'm also wondering if having the GM pick (or at least suggest strongly) some of the character's keys, as ways to drive behavior and motivation. Then again, Key Scened do that, to a degree. I have nothing finite, but I'm thinking about the situation deeply.

DamionW said:

Some of the keys seem awfully easy to abuse. You can shoot up the level progression faster by choosing one key and slower by another. It all seems arbitrary to me, and that has it's flavor, but it also makes it hard to be equitable to different play styles. Seems like an interesting idea, but would be awfully hard to manage as GM.

Click to expand...

I think the key to using Keys (ha ha, I'm awesome) is to always use them. These are the things that the players want to see in the game - that's why they picked them.

So if one guy picks the Key of Bloodlust and another picks the Key of the Guardian, just make sure that combat scenes are as frequent as scenes with the guardian's ward.

What if two players pick opposing keys? For example, one PC picks Bloodlust and another picks the Coward. They will argue all the time about what to do. I can see this working as long as the players can get along (ie. not being stubbon jackasses and trying to maximize the fun of everyone at the table).

Actually, I can see this working really well, especially if the DM sets up scenes where one Key comes into direct conflict with another. If one character has a Mission Key to "Root out the cause of evil in the kingdom", and another character has the Guardian Key "Protect the princess", when it is finally revealed that the cause of evil in the kingdom is the princess... lots of conflict there.

And hey, look at that. Two totally generic Keys and already there is a metaplot that would be entirely player driven.

I gotta try this out.

I'll post what some of my players said of the key system:

Rob said:

Frankly I think the system sucks. It exemplifies everything that is wrong with the current XP system, i.e. "defeating" an encounter. The reason that a character should become better at swinging a sword, casting fireball or healing someone is by swinging a sword, casting fireball or healing someone. Just because a figher has a vow not to kill the defenseless does not make him a better fighter when he decides to not to kill defenseless people or a worse one when he does.

Click to expand...

Tom said:

Well, it’s certainly creative. The core XP system doesn’t make a lot of sense. But this thing just adds a horrific amount of book-keeping. For God’s sake, you’d need an accountant to figure out if you level or not.



Player 1: “I clearly level this time, as I made it with the barmaid, ran away from 3 combats, and found a clue relating to the disappearance of my cousin, Stilwell.”

DM: “True, but you were also cordial with the barkeep, clearly violating your Key of being an . In addition, you fought bravely in the final combat, defying your Naked Cowardice Key. Nice try, but you actually lose a level.”

Player 2: “It’s been 6 adventures since you’ve remembered to include anything remotely related to my Key – beating up hapless Kobolds. We’ve traveled for a fortnight without spotting a single kobold!”

Player 3: “You picked a crappy Key dude. You should have taken a travelers Key – 1 XP for every league we go westward. It’s only going suck when we turn around to go home. I’ll lose a crapload of XP if we head east.”

DM: “Hey, why are you 3 levels higher than everyone else.”

Player 4: “What, I told you about the key from that 3rd party reference, where I get XP for speaking in character and having improbably high stats. What’s the problem?”

Click to expand...

Ted said:

I like it. The one thing I'd change (to make sure more assertive players don't exclude others in the group) is that I'd never allow any player to gain a new level until everyone else has reached at least that players current level.

For example, Neil, myself, Tom and Dave are in a game with you as DM. We know that Tom and I are going to gain XP faster than Neil, just because Neil will picka key that rarely pays out, but does so in greater amounts. We also know, that while Dave might claim everything he did fit his key, he'd be wrong, and would likely progress slower than any of us. So Tom and I reach lvl2, and gain enough experience to get lvl3, but rather than being 2 levels ahead of Neil and Dave, before we progress to lvl3, we have to look out for Neil and Dave, and ensure that they make it to lvl2.

Click to expand...

Obviously we can see some very different play styles here.

LostSoul said:

I think the key to using Keys (ha ha, I'm awesome) is to always use them. These are the things that the players want to see in the game - that's why they picked them.
...And hey, look at that. Two totally generic Keys and already there is a metaplot that would be entirely player driven.

Click to expand...

Darn it, you figured it out. Yes, reward systems heavily influence play, so a reward system that's player-driven leads to player-driven play. That's absolutely what Clinton (the author) was going for. The Shadow of Yesterday uses that system, and there the players are expected to call for scenes related to their Keys. That's pretty much how the plot gets constructed.

If you want to make sure everyone levels evenly, I don't think you need to complicate the Key system to do so. For instance, notice that some keys might come up less often, but when they do it's easier to get the bigger reward from them. (And the ones that come up really frequently don't ever pay off at 5 xp.)

I also think you can use it as a measuring stick to guide player expectations, which is what reward systems do. (People spend a lot of attention on defeating enemies in standard D&D, right?) Let's say, for example, you expect PCs to level up every three sessions. That's saying that you'd like each player to have a scene relevant to their keys four times a session. (Or three times, but one's a big one, etc.) Whether you initiate those scenes or they do, that's a pretty handy way of measuring how much screen time the players get. Equal screen time, equal leveling.

Finally, yes there's the possibility that someone could end up with no Keys and not enough XP to buy a new one. (You'd have to do that on purpose, though; you never have to buy off a Key.) You can solve that problem simply, by just saying people can go into debt enough to buy one Key. Also, it's really unlikely to happen once you have more than one Key.

Or you could try something really out there, and say if you put your character into that situation, you're voluntarily retiring them from play or making them an NPC. Picture this: A PC's got the Key of Fraternity for their one true love, and is so single-minded that they have no other Keys. Their lover betrays them, and they decide to sell off the Key and don't buy another one. In play, they stand on the edge of a lonely cliff, throw their lover's keepsake off the edge, and turn and walk away. Fade to black.

(Hey, I kinda want to try that now. Killing a character off from a broken heart is way more interested than "And then an orc with a greataxe got lucky." )

RangerWickett said:

I'll post what some of my players said of the key system:
...Obviously we can see some very different play styles here.

Click to expand...

That's really interesting. The first one's pretty straightforward; yes, advancement through thematically charged conflicts isn't realistic. It's pretty darn common in fiction of all kinds, though.

The other two are fascinating! What they've said is basically this: "It wouldn't work, because the players would say, 'Hey, these are things I'm really interested in seeing in this game' ... and then the GM would totally ignore that input."

My response is, "Well, uh, what game would work if you did that?"

Seriously, the only way this system leads to unequal advancement is (a) unequal spotlight time, or (b) the GM or players ignoring the things that they've said they want to be featured. Wow, now that I think about it, that's pretty cool -- it means that if XP isn't roughly equal (across a sample of two or three sessions), then there's a problem in the game you need to fix. How do you fix it (even things out)? You give the shorted player more spotlight time and zero in on situations and conflicts relevant to them.

There is one more way you can easily break the system -- have a bunch of PCs doing some adventure that they really don't care about, they're just doing it because they have to or because it pays well or something. (Although I guess they could just take Bloodlust and Greed, or something.)

My response to the players:

Ryan said:

At The Forge, which is an indie RPG site (I think it's actually www.indie-rpgs.com), they talk about three styles of gaming.

Gamists want the game to be fun. Whatever makes for an interesting game play experience is good, and it's okay to sacrifice having a great story or a realistic system if the game is fun. Soul Calibur and most fighting games are clearly Gamist games. If you screw up, the game lets you start over and try again.

Simulationists want to create a convincing facsimile of the real world (or of a fantasy world). They often feel that by making the game as realistic as possible, the challenge increases, which makes it more impressive when a character in the game does well or tells a great story. Of course, the point is not to tell a story, but to explore an alternative reality. The Sims is obviously a simulationist game, as is Fable. You play the game to achieve your own goals, and it's quite easy to end up in a quandry, because the game allows you to screw up.

Narrativists want to tell an entertaining story, and want to make sure the players and the game master work together (sometimes collaboratively, sometimes in interesting positions of opposition) to encourage the creation of entertaining stories. The tale and its drama is more important than trying to win a particular encounter or to have the world be completely reliable. It's far better to have a few plot twists and to fudge things as you go along. There aren't many game I can think of that are highly narrativist, since a key element of a narrativist game is that you /can't/ easily fail. Everything that happens contributes to the story, so a defeat is merely a plot twist or a racheting of the tension.


Narrativist GMs can quite often 'railroad' their players, by which I mean that the game master decides he's the one in charge, and the story becomes more gamist because you simply have to defeat the challenges the GM places before you, and you lose control. On the other hand, a Narrativist GM who gives the players too much freedom can end up with a simulationist game, where the game feels like it has no point.

Likewise, Gamist games encourage you to improve your character so you can compete better. A gamist game that has rules for leveling based on character personality and emotional strife can become more narrativist, while those that micromanage what things allow you to advance what skills can become more simulationist.

Similarly, a Simulationist game that encourages characters to have realistic motivations can become narrativist if, as the characters struggle to fulfill their goals, the game master does not remain impartial. And if the Simulationist game becomes too dangerous, it can quickly become gamist as the players struggle to get every advantage they can against the hostile environment.


So, what sorts of gamers are we all? Where do we each feel the ideal game lies in this triangular opposition of gaming styles? Me, I personally favor low-simulationist, with a medium emphasis on gamist and a very high emphasis on narrativist.

Click to expand...

Oof. Dude, I wouldn't phrase this in terms of GNS theory. That's a total quagmire that you really don't want to get into, trust me. I've seen tons of flame wars where people got up in arms about "being labeled" or something. Also, GNS isn't a predictive taxonomy (in that no game or player ever fits into just one, all the time), and it's really easy for it to be read that way.

There's a really, really good summary of GNS at http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#3 . I think it's a lot more digestible.

Also, I apologize in advance for seeming pedantic, but you've got Narrativist totally wrong. Let me take a shot at it.

"Narrativism" was a poorly chosen name, I think, because it's referring to a very specific definition of "narrative" -- not just a story, but a series of events in which characters make decisions that address a Premise. It really should have been called "Themeism" or something.

A Premise is basically a theme. Lots of fiction has a theme, whether it's love, responsibility to family, upholding an ideal, whatever. If Theme is an statement (like, "Family is more important than duty"), then Premise is a question (like "Is family more important than duty?"). You answer those questions by seeing what the characters do in situations where they have to choose. That's the core of it.

That's very different from "tell an entertaining story", especially because you absolutely kill address of Premise if you railroad. Players have to be free to make their characters take in-game actions that are relevant to Premise. Otherwise, you've got the GM imposing a theme, which is almost the opposite thing. (For example, that bit about the game going Narrativist if the GM isn't impartial as they pursue their goals is backwards. You have to remain impartial, so the choice is in their hands. Otherwise it's Sim with a GM-injected theme.)

(Now if by "railroading" you mean "aggressive scene framing", that's different. I totally have put characters into situations where they had to, say, choose between duty and family. But once they were there, I stepped back and let them decide what to do.)

Or to put it another way: See those Keys that Sweet20 has? If the group makes characters and assigns them Keys, and the scenes that happen in the game relate to those Keys (which they should, or else you're not using the system), then play is about stuff like "Damn, John's in a situation where either he pursues the Key of the Vow and breaks the Key of Fraternity, or vice versa. What the hell is he gonna do?" That's Narrativism, basically. (And if you fudge the dice during that scene? The player was robbed, because you answered for him.)

Again, just trying to be helpful. I'd consider just talking about gaming styles without jargon. Like, "Keys would only really work in certain types of games, where you want play to focus around the stuff you've chosen as Keys. I'd use them to help decide what kinds of scenes happen in game, so it'd be my responsibility to make sure leveling up is fair, same as in regular D20. But if we don't want to play that kind of game, then we wouldn't want to use them."

The thing is, certain kinds of rules will encourage or support certain kinds of play. (That's very different from "neutral" rules like "How much can I lift" or "How far can I jump".) Those rules won't help you if you don't want to play in a style they support -- in which case you just wouldn't adopt them.