SWADE Quarterly Awards

[Koshnek]

With the upcoming migration to SWADE (restrains self), I feel it would be appropriate to update our quarterly awards system to fall in line with SWADE.

Instead of awarding 1-3 XP plus a benny (plus EP) for player participation, would it be acceptable to change to this format?

Original

0.99 or lower = Failure! Up your game.
1.0 post rate = Success! You met the target number.
1.01-1.49 post rate = Success with a raise! Receive 1 EP + 1 XP
1.5 - 1.99 post rate = Success with two raises! Receive 2 EP + 2 XP
2.00+ post rate = Holy crap! Receive 3 EP +2 XP and a bonus benny for the quarter.

0.99 or lower = Failure! Up your game.
1.0-1.49 post rate = Success! Receive one Advance and 1 EP
1.5 - 1.99 post rate = Success with a raise! Receive one Advance, one Benny for the quarter, and 2 EP
2.00+ post rate = Success with two raises! Receive one Advance, a bonus Benny for the quarter, a <Fancy Name for New "Benny">, and 3 EP.

The new "benny" would be something in line with Conviction from SWADE page 136.

Conviction can be spent to add a d6 to a final Trait or damage total. This die can Ace, and its result is added to the final total.
Conviction tokens aren’t Bennies and can’t be used as such. They are kept between sessions, but a player can never have more than one at a time.

I suggest the following for this special "Benny":
1) You can only ever have one of these "Bennies" per character. They do carry across quarters, but if one of your characters earns a second one before spending one already gained, the new one is not awarded to that character.
2) They cannot be purchased through EP. These are solely a reward and a pat on the back for player contribution!
3) They can add 1d6 to any trait or damage total.
4) They can be used to reduce the effects of a critical failure to a standard failure.
5) Elan and similar edges do not apply to this "Benny" because, as with Conviction, it's not actually a Benny.

[Pursuit]

Can we just call it/make it a conviction token and not have to re-invent anything?

[Koshnek]

I didn't want to literally make it conviction because that could potentially interfere with games which might use that setting rule. I also thought that adding in the ability to negate a critical failure (which is not an option in (m)any of our games on this site) is a really handy reward. Also, negating a critical failure in this manner can only be done once a quarter at most, so it's not a game breaking addition but worth the effort of a 2.0 post rate.

[John Smith]

Hm. Kinda with Pursuit on this one. Call it Conviction (or "Red Conviction" or something if people still want to use the normal conviction seperately). Complexity is a real issue with house rules, so I like keeping it simple.

Messing with critical failures is a big gain, and considering that half the time I see a critical failure in Rifts it otherwise wouldnt be a failure, I think its worth leaving it untouchable (I mean, there is still the EP option but eh, a battle for another day).

My two cents, but I feel like I could be swayed.

[Koshnek]

Note: I said that it would reduce a critical to a failure, not reroll it. As to the name; I don't care what its called.

Also, while many players do hit 2.0+, not all do and definitely not every quarter. Look through the post rate report threads. Based upon previous quarters this wouldn't lead to a flood of critical failure immune characters. But, if it did, well, that's the point, isn't it? Geting folks (even more) excited about posting to earn those sweet Advances, EPs and Bennies can't be a bad result .

And really, I'm fine with whatever it does. If it's just a stock Conviction then that's cool. My suggestion seemed like a fun but not game breaking pat on the back for people really getting into the game and posting a lot.

If you break it down, it's not that complicated.

You can at most have one conviction per quarter.
You may use it to add 1d6 to any trait or damage roll.
You may instead use it to reroll a critical failure.

It's stock Conviction with one extra mechanic.

[Freemage]

I don't see just making it vanilla conviction causing interference--if anything, it'll mean players know to spend their existing conviction if their post count is going to earn them another one for the next quarter.

[Koshnek]

That's true, too. I didn't consider that. And then the naysayers get to keep their critical failures! I'm fine with stock Conviction too.

[Koshnek]

So, this could be Option B, moving Option B and C to C and D Respectively:

0.99 or lower = Failure! Up your game.
1.0-1.49 post rate = Success! Receive one Advance and 1 EP
1.5 - 1.99 post rate = Success with a raise! Receive one Advance, one Benny for the quarter, and 2 EP
2.00+ post rate = Success with two raises! Receive one Advance, a bonus Benny for the quarter, a Conviction, and 3 EP.

Edit: This is now officially option B

[Tribe of One]

I voted for option B. For 2.0+, just say they start the quarter with Conviction, as long as the GM allows Conviction in that game. I don't think the "get out of a Crit Fail free" option is needed. It's basically the only way anyone ever fails in SR, and there's still the EP option.

[Pender Lumkiss]

Conviction is an easy way out. This is fucking rifts. Option D, get yourself to 2.00 post rate and get all the above plus a point of burn. You are welcome and lets get some!

[Stoic]

Honestly, I don't see any reason to switch over to the new version of experience. I think the current system we use for SWD is more than fair as far as rewarding those who post more frequently than others.

[Pender Lumkiss]

Honestly, I don't see any reason to switch over to the new version of experience. I think the current system we use for SWD is more than fair as far as rewarding those who post more frequently than others.

Truth!

[Pursuit]

@Stoic No way, man. We've got to drop XP entirely when we switch to SWADE: it's just not a part of that rule set. That would be the equivalent of keeping the current Shaken rules instead of the new states in SWADE, or something similar.

I could take or leave the Conviction token (though I think it's a clever idea) and just give EP and Bennies, if that's what you mean? I read this as keeping XP, though, and that seems like it would be more confusing, not less.

[Ndreare]

I like the idea of abandoning the XP system.

As it is I adjust new characters to my games to have close top the same amount of XP because I don't like deltas more than 1 rank worth.

[Stoic]

I just don't see anything that needs to be improved from the current system. I'm really indifferent on this though, just my two cents.

[High Command]

I will say that I would like experience to be an option a GM can use or not as they choose. Or use SWADE style advance after a quarter. Best of both worlds. GM agency preserved, just make sure it's explicitly stated. I'm pretty sure XP was an optional rule when I read it.

[Ndreare]

@Venatus Vinco
Would be nice to get this finalized and posted.

I now have 3 games running SWADE

Want to seal it in?

[Venatus Vinco]

@RFT

Option B it is.

Go for it.

VV

[Venatus Vinco]

This is settled and becomes the new quarterly award system.

VV

[High Command]

I'm not a fan of not granting an advance at all. I have no issue with EP, but you can earn XP and not EP under the old rules. If you want to set some lower bar for no advance that's fine, but I do not want to deny a player an advance because they missed one blasted post. that's just lame.

Not that it's going to change anything, just putting myself on the record.

[Venatus Vinco]

I'm not a fan of not granting an advance at all. I have no issue with EP, but you can earn XP and not EP under the old rules. If you want to set some lower bar for no advance that's fine, but I do not want to deny a player an advance because they missed one blasted post. that's just lame.

Not that it's going to change anything, just putting myself on the record.

Agreed. I said in hangout the GM can always award an Advance like they did with XP.

However, I don't mind making that discretionary if the player is below 1.0

VV

[Ndreare]

@High Command ,
I have been advancing everyone at the same pace for a while. Before i was using a 20 point maximum spread, but even that gets old and tiresome to keep track of.

It is easy to get the players to agree, and if some player feels cheated because I gave the guy with 9 post an advance i am more than willing to listen to their complaints, before dismissing them. But so far I have not heard one.