The Bay Area Masquerade

Neeps are an interesting problem for BAM.

Back in the day, NEEPs were designed to slow down the advancement for characters with more XP. They were NOT XP, hence the name. They were not spent by anyone - staff included.
The whole point was to try to help level the playing field between a brand new character and a 3 year old character. It gave new characters a hope of catching up.

Somewhere along the line (possibly during the transition from SCM to BAM?) NEEPs became a thing where the Staff could spend on your behalf.

Then, it became something where some players basically demanded all their NEEPs be spent.

Since I have been on staff, and certainly since I have been HST, I have been intentionally cutting down on how often I spend people's NEEPs. I believe in the original purpose. I generally only spend them if I think your character has developed a trait that you have not yet put XP into. Perhaps you sort of learned a lore, but not completely and not really in an uptime scene. I might NEEP you that lore. I also often use the first few for starting characters to help round out the things they should have, like Drive and Subterfuge.

It is now common for players to have 10, 20, or more NEEPs on thier sheet. I think we have one or two players who have more than 50 unspent NEEPs. (Yeah, consider that for a second.)

I actually sort of like the system we are using today, except the part where players expect their NEEPs to be spent in a prompt manner. I like having a reserve of XP that we as staff can use to pay for things that happen in game.

In any case, I know some folks didn't really know or understand why I am not eager to spend NEEPs. I thought this POS would be a good place to explain and perhaps start a discussion about it.

-Ralph

I kinda hate NEEPs Maybe I'm just a control freak but I'd much rather just not earn those points if I won't be able to determine where and when they get spent. It seems like if they are put in as a check on experience earnings then we should just have a straight up, known XP cap on characters and let players choose if they want to play without earning new XP. But the NEEP system both as it seems to have originally been developed and even how it was when I first joined the game (in 2009) just irks me.

- Sam

I don't have a problem with the idea of Staff spending XP for me, but our current system seems to boil down to NEEPs never getting spent for players who use XP expenditures to reflect their role-playing experience, and being used as a stopgap in cases where players aren't reflecting their role-playing experience with XP. Which sounds pretty much exactly like giving Staff-guided XP rewards to less responsible players? Dislike.

I am pretty friendly to the idea of just having a hard cap on XP. I think there would be a slightly awkward transition period with current characters, but ultimately people would be forced to be pretty measured about their character growth, which isn't a bad thing, in my book.

Personally, I like NEEPs and I like spending NEEPs for people.

Usually, if someone spends a lot of stuff on fleshing out, I'll put it into standard adventuring things to prevent the kind of penalty Ari mentions. If someone neglects Drive and so on, I'll do those.

I'll also often put it into Specialties for people (checking with them first) because that adds color but is often not an optimal choice. Or Backgrounds that people seem to have earned. Or things. I've rarely had a problem spending 40 neeps on a character.

I wouldn't mind the idea of Neeps basically only being used at best for little things here and there. In general, I'm against the idea of a hard cap on xp, simply because well, I buy skills/disciplines as the character goes. Honestly, if need expendatures stop? I'd be fine with it. I like the idea of a bit of a slowdown once a character hits a certain experience level, if only because it can allow the newer characters to find a void in skills and exploit it much faster than everyone else. I like the idea though of using them basically for "Oh hey, you learned X/Y, but don't have the current eeps for that, we'll spend a neep" once or twice in a while, but all told? Using them as a way to slow down but not stop xp purchases I like.

Diverging a bit... if there is a need to slow down character growth once you hit a certain point, would the idea of say, after you've reached a 300* point character having all future expenditures cost double? It'd put the decision of what to buy still in the player's hands but also slow things down.

* I pulled this number completely out of my ass so don't read too much into it; I could have just as easily said 50 or 1000

- Sam

That would be functionally equivalent, since at that point half of your XP are NEEPs.

Just curious:

How do unspent NEEPs act if a player retires a character / that character dies - in regards to the new character? Do they turn into normal XP for a new character, are they gone as soon as they hit the NEEP box, or do they only vanish when/if staff spends them?

This alone could impact the system, as I would be great with a character hard cap, if the XP earned beyond that sat in a "next time...." pool. Not getting any chance for XP (especially RP awards) beyond the verbal kudos seems like it would start to fray nerves after a while.

(Edit: I think (top of my head) with the 1/3 XP from the old character system, it was 1/3 spent XP from one character sheet + all player (any character) unspent XP, not including NEEPS, but it didn't come into play for me, so really never had a reason to ask.)

Ralph wrote: Somewhere along the line (possibly during the transition from SCM to BAM?) NEEPs became a thing where the Staff could spend on your behalf.

It was a few years before that, I was in on it. Staff spending NEEPs was originally a compromise between keeping and ditching NEEPs altogether. Also it was a way to flesh out characters and deal with some issues of optimization vs. what made sense.

My other suggestion was "NEEPs go onto alt. character". [edit: pretty much what Glen just said] That way it lets new characters catch up, but you as a player are still earning.


PS. (At the risk of opening a whole other can of worms) I strongly feel the new (suggested) system would be much better for XP progression and new character not being left in the dust.

-Paul

Under most circumstances*, I despise Neeps. As someone who's had characters in the high-neep zones, I feel like I've run straight into the vice-grip of a magical learning disability without any real warning or in-game justification - and that deeply bothers me. Those things I find I need to learn in order to progress my character development or my plot interactions suddenly take much longer than they used to, and any incidental but necessary spends delay my planned purchases by weeks or even months. (("Wait, we don't want this person to learn this discipline they're working on? Quick, let's teach them a lore and a language, that'll slow them down for a while!" - this is a joke, as I don't expect players to actually do this)) At its worst, it takes a high-neep-level character multiple stories to pick up something that takes a month for someone without neeps, which I find intensely frustrating.

In many cases, I feel like the higher costs of certain things - disciplines, expert abilities, willpower, virtues, etc. - help to slow down the seriously big advancements by themselves. This goes double for the By Night system, where there are many fewer things to buy and all of the costs for everything scale up pretty dramatically; the system seems to compensate for this kind of thing on its own. I also feel that the By Night system has a much more level playing field between low- and high-XP characters in general, which makes the need to slow advancement less pressing. I am aware that not everyone shares these sentiments.

A large disparity between power levels is less of a concern for me personally, because I have watched a 7/5/3 character keep pace with very old characters - hell, I've -been- that 7/5/3. There are ways to level the playing field (though I understand that this is less so for new -players-, who do not usually know the system as well). I'd also be just as willing to give new players (or new characters) more starting XP, or give 'em double attendance XP for the first 50 XP or 100 XP. I like the idea of accelerating a new character more than what feels a little like punishing an old character for surviving.

I totally understand that I am probably in the minority here, and certainly accept that. I also certainly understand the arguments on the other side of these stances, and can see the merit there even if I disagree. I am not demanding any particular change.

In light of this topic appearing, though, I am suddenly hesitant about even politely asking if some neeps would like to be spent - let alone suggesting "hey, I've done some really neat stuff in roleplay and uptime/downtime that might justify a neep spend, would you be willing to consider it?". Ralph, are these things that you are still willing to hear, or would you prefer that players not bring it up at all?

-

* On the other hand, I have played characters where I haven't been in dire need of buying particular things (super duper rare), back when neeps were spent casually by staff, and I have been absolutely delighted when things that were appropriate to my character but not things I ever would have bought myself suddenly appeared on my sheet**.

** This goes double for amnesiacs, fugue-state characters, dominate victims and anyone else who might pick up a skill and have no idea why they know it suddenly. That is incredibly fun and squeeworthy, though it means that the neeps have to be spent to induce that kind of thing.

Eli Mitchell wrote:Just curious:

How do unspent NEEPs act if a player retires a character / that character dies - in regards to the new character? Do they turn into normal XP for a new character, are they gone as soon as they hit the NEEP box, or do they only vanish when/if staff spends them?

This alone could impact the system, as I would be great with a character hard cap, if the XP earned beyond that sat in a "next time...." pool. Not getting any chance for XP (especially RP awards) beyond the verbal kudos seems like it would start to fray nerves after a while.

(Edit: I think (top of my head) with the 1/3 XP from the old character system, it was 1/3 spent XP from one character sheet + all player (any character) unspent XP, not including NEEPS, but it didn't come into play for me, so really never had a reason to ask.)

Currently, what transfers to a new character is the greater of:
- all unspent exp (including neeps) or
- 30% of all exp (also including neeps)

From a new player perspective, it can sometimes feel like if I wasn't playing the game from the very beginning, there's absolutely no point in starting now because I will never, ever, ever catch up. No matter how awesome a character background I write, no matter how brilliant the RP, my character will never be able to go toe-to-toe with a "similar character", whose player has been playing much longer.

I generally solve this by playing young characters, or writing into the background reasons why my ancient character has only basic disciplines and can't read more than three languages. The background thing is a problem, though, because then how do you justify the character suddenly being able to learn this stuff, if they're so set in their ancient ways?

I think I like Justin's idea of giving new players / characters faster accrual, so they can at least start at a reasonable place; but it doesn't quite address the "never gonna catch up" dilemma (which I understand is not a dilemma for some, and is probably an unpopular opinion in an established game.)

Scarlet wrote: I'd also be just as willing to give new players (or new characters) more starting XP, or give 'em double attendance XP for the first 50 XP or 100 XP. I like the idea of accelerating a new character more than what feels a little like punishing an old character for surviving.

And while I'm in no way advocating a game reset, this is one of the reasons why games with an expiration date can be attractive - because everyone is back on even footing every couple-three years.

So, Grue initially came in as a hacker, just that. He eventually got specced out into being just a pure hacker. The thing though, is that he's spent more time in the past couple years convincing people not to use him as a hacker than as a hacker. What I feel weird about is, well, Grue's had not much in the way of open competition. I honestly LOVE open competition of skills.

Let's look at another example: I brought Kieth in to be a car guy. He had car mod and I knew that another player had that. Rather than try to just go and compare myself mechanically to them, I differentiated myself by making Kieth slightly crazy when it came to cars. He developed his own sense of style and really, if you went to him, he focused on a different front. How I looked at it was less a mechanical "I have x skill dots, you have y" but more of a roleplay reason to choose Kieth over the other players.

Back to the Grue example, since I'm thinking it: Grue is absolutely jealous of all the new nos in the domain for one reason. Grue stands out because of his skills. Yes, that means he can charge more, but it also means he can't just sit around and be invisible anymore. His early days were full of lowballing people in the hopes that the boons would appreciate in value, and being ignored but picking up conversations anyways. Now that he's gotten his skills and rep, it's a good and bad thing. Yes, people can rush to him for info, but he works best when he's got nothing to do. It's why he's been wanting competition in the hacking community. Competition creates drama on its own. Not only that, but let's say someone wants something done that Grue can do, but doesn't want to go through Grue for any number of seriously valid reasons. The options can be: Go through an NPC (which tends to be simple, but more work for staff), or more inclusive: back someone who has the potential.

One of the core ideas behind the Cam to me, lore wise, is that the young are there for the exploitation of the old. That means that if character A has all sorts of skills, that's nice, but too many people depending on them means that it becomes harder to exploit them. Thus, it makes sense to have character B in your pocket.

Really, it's kind of rambly, but I guess what I'm saying is: to me, mechanically, it doesn't matter if A is better than B due to xp. What matters the most is how it comes down to RP. That someone with all those skills, yes, has a high demand, but by that point, they also tend to be their own person. I know that once I establish myself, I often times try my best to actively shovel plot/in game work onto other characters, because by then, I'm having more fun on the internals of my character.

How I see neeps as being used: The early xp points allow you to spread them around and try things for your character. Once the Neeps start getting put in, though, your character should have an idea where they focus in.

Justin's comments make me realize I forgot to talk about a core thing when it comes to NEEPs.

In BAM we have a very flat economy of XP. What I mean by that is most dots are INCREDIBLY cheap, and there is not cost difference between the first and the 5th dot of anything, except disciplines.

It is all the more reason NEEPs are important.

In other systems (Original MET, Sitdown, BNS, etc) there is an economy of competence. So dodge 5 costs significantly more than dodge 1. NEEPs are less necessary there (but they are still nice) because there is a built in slowdown as you get more and more specialized.

With that sort of system you tend to get more generalists and fewer specialists. But those folks who do decide to specialize? Watch out - they are really good.

Also:

Scarlet wrote: In light of this topic appearing, though, I am suddenly hesitant about even politely asking if some neeps would like to be spent - let alone suggesting "hey, I've done some really neat stuff in roleplay and uptime/downtime that might justify a neep spend, would you be willing to consider it?". Ralph, are these things that you are still willing to hear, or would you prefer that players not bring it up at all?

Absolutely! I am always interested in hearing what folks have to say about how their characters have grown. It is very valuable to me, not just in deciding your NEEP spends, but also in knowing what stories grabbed your attention and what didn't.

However, I wanted to post something to help explain why I often will still NOT spend neeps. Sometimes I am just letting you build up a bit of a back log to slow things down somewhat - and I figured I should give a broad explanation of why.

Putting all other issues of the current system aside (i.e. disciplines fail on average of 1 in 3 times, etc.), I support NEEPS -only- as a tool to flesh out characters (and frankly, I thought that was the only reason they were there). Attempting to somehow slide-rule the game into some semblance of 'balance' is not only inflicting mediocrity on people who have spent time and effort on their characters but giving people -less- incentive to have older characters. I am tired of rules that seem to exist for the express purpose of suppressing the player base as a whole in order to tame a minority who abuse the system. If you are playing a more powerful character, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE GAME to make sure that less powerful characters have something to do, and to (novel concept) positively metagame and make sure they have room for growth. A LARP is a group effort, for pity's sake.

Furthermore, as Adam rightly points out, there are many, many ways to compete in a LARP that have nothing to do with the numbers on your sheet. Now, if I'm missing some extremely important facet of this topic that does not boil down to 'people with powerful characters will oppress me and I can never be as good as they are', please, somebody point it out.

If you want to adjust the XP for slower progression, then increase costs for higher levels. Don't literally prevent us from spending XP. If I have XP on my sheet, I'd like to be able to spend it, or at least have it spent for me. The swift advancement for new characters isn't a bad idea either.

Incidentally, regarding the business of swift advancement, sure, we get XP faster, but aside from Disciplines or Willpower, it actually doesn't mean all that much because there's no such thing as degree of success in anything but (apparently) downtimes, and we should not focus on downtimes. Dice pools exist only to act as tiebreakers.

On the plus side, good for people who need to 'catch up' their starting characters from the feeble 7/5/3 competence level. On the minus side, everybody is Mozart.

Lastly, hello, this is a Vampire game. We're supposed to have power disparities. If you don't want power disparities in the player base, enforce a rule saying all characters must be 1-5 year old vampires, bump up the starting pool of points to establish competence (because really, who wants to embrace somebody who can't brush their teeth?), and move on. With the character turnover in this game, it probably wouldn't take long.

On the plus side, good for people who need to 'catch up' their starting characters from the feeble 7/5/3 competence level. On the minus side, everybody is Mozart.

This.

That said, I don't like the idea of accelerated starting XP--I feel that we get too much XP too fast anyway, and I'd rather see costs change than compound the problem by giving everyone a leg up to be ULTRA MOZART.

I *like* seeing different power levels and dynamics in game, but I also come from a place of studiously avoiding system interaction--I can see how it might be much more frustrating for anyone with a more system-dependent play style to be stuck in the relatively low power new player zone, and I think people can end up feeling stuck there for a long time. It limits concepts, which limits stories. And I think it's relevant that thus far, the comments suggesting that the imbalance isn't a big deal are coming from very long-term players. There's a fine line between offering helpful advice to new players and telling them that their complaints just plain aren't valid, and I feel like we're kind of walking it.

I'm all for there being more and less powerful characters, but I suspect that there are better, fairer ways of implementing that, ways that might better accommodate a variety of play styles.

New character perspective:

I'm not really all that bothered by "people with powerful characters will oppress me and I can never be as good as they are". Then again, with this character, I'd be just fine most games with soft rping and throwing chops only during downtime.

It has been mentioned: the challenge resultion system is very swingy and makes it so any underdog has a bit more of a fighting chance. This seems to be true with the exception of disciplines that don't need throws and just negate things/do things without a challenge: Pavis and Fortitude.

Paraphrase Adam/Monte: "rp is as important as the dots on the sheet." -yup. Absolutely, that's a huge balancing factor.

re: competition from higher XP character. I don't know the make-up of the game all that well (so correct me if I'm wrong), but I would imagine there's plenty of influences or expert abilities that aren't really touched on by regular attending players.

There's clearly a gap. I could see how some new characters/players would be bothered. It's not as bad as some other games. I believe the By Night system would be an improvement in this area.



I was a little bothered by; How little 7/5/3 characters start with. Not from a mechanical "I want to win all the challenges" perspective, but from a narrative "I want to not HAVE to be an average neonate" perspective. It doesn't feel like you can really build a complete character with the points provided.

Your tertiary attributes have 3 "ones" or 'below average' in them, for example. (And at least one 'one' in your secondary).
5 points of backgrounds never seems enough.
(This was drastically cushioned by background/ lits xp. Now I feel I have a complete character).


To sum up: newer characters could use some more points to work with.

-Paul

One side note: There is a major (inherent) system imbalance for how many XP it takes to be power-competitive in each clan. (Leaving the RP aside for a moment). I think this will influence how a players perceives the system.

Each clan has a variety of "required" stats and the disciplines go from "all mental" to "spread across mental/physical/social". In my opinion, Thaumaturgists and Brujah are the worst at thie (via disciplines), going from weak to powerful suddenly as the last few XP click into place.

Concepts that require expert abilities, or massive amounts of lore, or other big XP sinks also really smack into this XP-need wall. Some do not hit it at all and are viable immediately, or never viable enough for the player to be comfortable.

This is why I tend to think of XP as a player-earned thing, as I did the same thought process myself, with a recent character who was conceptually very low XP (and would be changed in significant, unwanted ways if I had to spend more XP on the sheet).