Experience Costs

by Nicole Bouchard Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:55 pm

The issue is a simple one. In the 3rd ['Revised'] era MtA [and in VtM, WtA etc], the Abilities XP costs went like this:

New Ability: 3
Ability: Current Rating x2

Which means, as we all know an Ability 1-5 would cost 23 XP if all bought with XP.

This was carried through to VtM and WtA 4th ['20th'] but *not*, MtA 4th. Instead, it reads:

New Ability: 3
Ability: 3

The total cost would be 15 XP, making a 'saving' of 8 XP when compared to the old system.

As this goes against the other 4th-Era costs, 3rd-Era Mage and the general WoD costing method, I have always regarded this as a typo and automatically corrected. However, Anja has asked me to throw this open to discussion first - whether the 'traditional' costs should be adhered to or to us 4th's instead.

I was a little surprised that this game has been running for two years and this hadn't been settled... then it hit me - am I the *only* player here using the 4th Edition Rulebook?

by Jeremy Silverstein Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:04 pm

I'm using 4th (20th anniversary) edition as well.

I always just assumed it was the whole Current Ratings x2 for ability dots same as all of the others WoD books. I remember seeing the flat 3 xp cost on the xp charts but assumed I was reading it wrong.

Although if it was the cheaper flat cost I remember reading in the book that mages learn mundane abilities faster than other people although that might just be flavor text rather than an explanation.

I'm ok using either system.

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:38 pm

For me it do not matter much either way as for me a rules system is just a way to avoid the pang, pang you are dead no I am not problem and to give an indication of what a character can do and their progression. However it might be that the way it is written in M20 is a typo in which case using the way it is done in the other 20 games might be a good idea.

by Warpmind Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:43 am

I don't have the 4th Ed... I've been using the x2 cost from the start (and I HAVE picked up ability points, though right now I don't quite recall with certainty whether I've bought up any 2nd+ dots in any abilities...).

by Adley Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:00 am

There are a couple typos in M20 (I assume that's what you're calling 4th Ed) -

-p 510 there's an error the quintessence weapon cost is not per HL - I assume that it defers to the previous incarnation of the spell, but I would have to look it up. I just made a note that came from disc on the FB page.

-p330 should read 'permanent WP is tracked in circles, temp in boxes, not the other way around

-XP costs for abilities read 'new ability: 3' and 'current rating x 2' on p336 and p253 in the experience cost charts, which is what you said was the same as revised and the other anniversary eds, correct? Or are you meaning the Freebie points chart? Let me know what pages you're looking at that might have with an error so I can add a sticky note. Thanks.

by Nicole Bouchard Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:56 am

White Wolf renamed the '20th Anniversary' series as '4th' ever since they decided to go in for a whole new series which will be '5th Edition'.

Didn't know about the first two; never had a quint weapon, nor actually used a Mage sheet [that is, the one they provide]. No, you are right; I am referring to the 'Experience Chart' on both pages; I have checked the following and they *all* list the costs as New: 3 / Current Rating x2...

Werewolf 4th
Vampire 4th
Mummy 2nd
Wraith 3rd
Demon 3rd

And as they're all the 'big' lines, makes me think even more that Mage is a typo and should be corrected. But then again, I am not the ST...

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:52 am

So are we going with new 3 points and then current rating times two?

I generally prefer not to see the 20 lines as that and not as a forth edition since they are Metaplot free and 5 edition will have a completely different setting, and I also tend not to care that much what Paradox decide to rename things but yes for most of the games the 20 lines are the forth edition technically speaking, third for Changeling and Wraith if we get that, second for the later lines if they make those.

by Nicole Bouchard Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:07 am

While it's your call, I think 'correcting' it to fit the other books is the consensus opinion. [Well, nobody has actually said flat-out 'no']

I think Paradox are merely attempting to tidy up and regularise things - that having a VtM 5th, CtD 3rd and HtR 2nd all come out at roughly the same time [for example] would be confusing to y'know, new players. By re-numbering the versions to fit the general 'era' it came out in [so all will be called '5th'] and then sticking with it afterwards makes sense if you've got vague plans that there's also going to be a 6th and perhaps more.

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:32 am

Then we go with the consensus opinion as I said it do not matter much one way or another to me so we will go with what the majority want in this.

Well there will be new editions for as long as they earn money on it, then again saying something is the forth edition of a game which have had only one edition before is a bit odd to me. In either case I think the 20 books should stand on their own, among other things because they do not follow the damned metaplot, can you tell I am not a fan of metaplots in roleplaying games. Razz

by Warpmind Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:27 am

3 and CurrentX2 sounds like a consensus, then.

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:54 am

Then we have a conclusion to the conundrum then. Smile

by Nicole Bouchard Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:50 pm

Well, White Wolf can say [for example] that the new 'Kindred of the East' is called '5th' because it's come out in the 5th Edition of World of Darkness, not that it is the 5th Edition of Kindred of the East. It can also get very confusing with the smaller lines linked to the larger games; such as Fera. Is the Corax book '1st' [first book] or '3rd' [date and similar to Werewolf 3rd?]

And if you don't like the metaplot... then ditch it. I have taken the advice of the old ST's guide to heart; it's your game dammit!

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:13 pm

Well Kindred of the East was never it's own game but was tucked on Vampire but yes I do see your point but the games have always been individual games with quite a bit of difference in mood and often cosmology and metaphysics who are tied together in a somewhat shared world. I would say that supplements are the edition of the game they are tied to.

I use a few elements of the metaplot here and there, what I did not like was that when a player got Vampire 3 edition for example and they attended a con five months later the setting could be completely different from the game they had bought with things that had happened in the metaplot meaning it forced players to keep buying books and that I do not like. I also think that a RPG should be about the stories the players create not a set storyline.

by Nicole Bouchard Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:20 pm

Which is why MtA 4th Core has a series of 'what happened with X?' bits where it gives the options to use it with updated 2nd metaplot [which we are here], updated 3rd or somewhere in between.

Talking of metaplots, have you read VtR's 'Chronicler's Guide'? It's got a whole section of fleshed-out metaplots which are very different from each other.

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:25 pm

VtR a in Vampire the Requiem? I do not think I have read the book you are talking about yet no.

Yes I like that about M20 that you can put it in the setting you desire, 1 and 2 edition which share a setting, the Revised setting or a post Revised setting where you have new more politically correct Traditions.

by Nicole Bouchard Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:15 pm

MtA 4th's 'choose your setting' bits owes much to nWoD; from what I can tell they do this strongly for *all* the games. Naturally, you can do this for WoD too, but it's not spelt out so explicitly.

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Tue Dec 12, 2017 9:54 am

I am not so sure I agree new WoD might not have a metaplot but it certainly do have a setting and a mood that is the standard for the games. Well two settings really one for first edition and one for second.

You have always been able to choose another setting off course I have turn first and second edition of mage for high fantasy and Revised for more street level games for a long tie but with M20 the books produce information for all of the settings though the post Revised far more PC setting are clearly favored by the authors.

by Nicole Bouchard Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:48 pm

Each is a product of it's age; WoD is very 90s, with it's grand conspiracies and huge scope [Restore the Triat! Defeat the Union! etc] - which is distinctly unfashionable now. All media is generally showing this; bringing the stories down to 'human level', taking much more time and effort in individual goals and dilemmas, rather than the plot itself [Generally. As ever, there's exceptions].

I think I saw this clearly in the TV adaptation of the novel SS-GB [written in the 80's, I think] on recently; it's a grand conspiracy which the adaptors felt lots of character development had to be shoved in to increase the appeal to 2016 audiences. Result: I know viewers who understood the individual characters well, but only had a vague clue on what the conspiracy actually was, and no idea on *why*.

by **Anja Rebekka Schultze** Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:36 pm

Yes White Wolf have changed the mood of their games with the times but that is not really one game getting this from new World of Darkness, the early editions of old World of Darkness where allot more punk that Revised and third edition which where published in the late 90's where the lone person willing to die for a cause and stick it to the man where starting to go out of fashion. The setting of New World od Darkness where more fitted to the 2000's and later the 20 line is a celebration of these games and they do not fit with one particular setting but give options for all of them. This have little to do with whatever or not to have a metaplot tough.

by Sponsored content

Experience Costs

Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs

Re: Experience Costs