Oh okay. I still haven't gotten an invite into the Guild, though I'm sure that Gencon has something to do with that.

Brendan, I would have to agree with what Sage and Tael are saying. It seems to me that what you want is a hybrid of three games (Lady Blackbird, AW, and D&D). And what are you asking for from the experience system is not a simple change, but instead a major overhaul to the system as a whole.

 The reason why the keys in Lady Blackbird works so well for that game, is specifically because all the characters are pre-gen. They have abilities and backstories (vague though they may be) that are already decided and provide a very specific sort of experience within the game. Tying experience to the highlighted stats and alignment is a proven system (as it is done in AW). And as far as changing the amount of Xp needed for lvling, it follows the progression of 3.5 and oldschool D&D. As it is, in my last game I don't believe that there was a character within the party that did not get 2nd level and then some in the first session (which was a 3.5 hour session). If you want better XP gains within your game I would suggest talking to your DM and explaining what it is that you are looking for (in the case of a fighter that would more likely than not be chances to whack people with your weapon of choice).

If you want custom moves that would allow you to change which stat you are using, in order to accomplish a goal by alternate means, I'd talk with my GM about it. Roleplaying in general has a long tradition of house-ruling and rules-drifting to cover for eventualities like the ones you are talking about. And as Sage says, it's hard to attach stats that come from D&D to some moves. I see this as an opportunity for the DM to exercise his right to interpret fiction and make a judgement call. However, as Tael says, if you are playing for a high XP total at the end of the session, you are not immersing yourself in the fiction. Act as your character would, and if you get more XP, awesome.


 I'm not entirely sure what you are asking for with Gladiator is something that is immediately necessary. It seems to me what you are wanting is an ability which gives you a combat advantage that I'm not sure is needed. Looking at Gladiator the way you are seems to be a rather narrow interpretation of the ability. If you can take the +1 to your damage and you wanted to loosely interpret the wording, then any time you are fighting and someone is watching the fight rather than joining in, you've got the bonus (so long as your DM agrees). Like you yourself said, the Gladiator ability it seems revolves around the fiction more than being bonus-centric.

And in response to your last question, I don't necessarily believe that you are playing the wrong game, but from what I understand of the system for TSoY they are built to do different things. In my experience at least, the DW system gave my group a rules light oldschool D&D-esque that was fairly fiction-centric. But please take my comments and opinions with a grain of salt, as they are based off of my own experience with this system and gaming in general.

This may be slightly off topic but it is a response to one of the questions that was posed in the course of the conversation.

As a writer, it really can be difficult to get your readers to care about villains. One technique that I have seen used quite often, when we (readers) are actually given any information about why it is that the villain is doing anything, is to give the villain a goal which is noble. Darth Vader, and the Sith as a whole, are a great example of this. They are attempting to bring peace and stability to the galaxy as a whole. Then once they have a noble goal, give then a really messed up way to go about doing it. The Sith want to bring order and peace to the galaxy, but they are doing it through the oppression of billions, the subjugation of dozens of species, and the murder of an entire class (the jedi).

This will bring people (readers and/or players) behind their cause, because it is a good one, but they will grind their teeth at the methods that are used. At a writer you can then turn the knife and justify the methods of baddie with a liberal sprinkling of "good guys" who force the hand of the baddie to the extremes that they (readers/players) are objecting to. 

These however, are tools that a writer has at their disposal, it can get much stickier when players are thrown into the mix. And this is really just an example of what John was saying. An interesting character is much easier to care about or be a fan of than a flat character.

Also, like it says in the book, give your characters hard choices. If you give your little totalitarian a choice that puts him in a position where either he has to go against his own policies or something potentially seriously bad could happen, he will have to make a hard choice. And at least then something interesting will happen, either way.