Revising the Experience System

After playing with the 3rd edition experience system predicated on Challenge Rating for several years now, I am more than a little dissatisfied with the system. Are there any popular house rule systems that are in vogue? I am presently using a system for a 5 person group that incorporates the standard challenge rating system for combat and traps, but at only half the normal value. The other half of the experience comes from four factors.

1) Attendance: This is valued at 50 xp x character level

2) Roleplaying: This is voted on by all the players and the DM at the end of each session by secret ballot. Players using a 1 to 5 ranking system to evaluate the roleplaying of the other players. The DM uses a 1 to 6 ranking scale to evaluate the players. No numeral can be assigned twice, and players cannot vote for themselves. The votes are tallied and an average score compiled. For example ,if a player receives from his four coplayers and his DM votes of 5, 4, 5, 4, and 5, the average score would be 4.6 (23/5=4.6). This average score would then be multiplied by the character level x 10. Thus, a 2nd level player would receive a score of 4.6 (2 x 10) = 98 xp for roleplaying.

3) Character Value: This is voted on in an identical fashion to roleplaying. Character Value may vary markedly session to session depending on the circumstances. For example rogues do well in urban setting where skill use is more prevalent than combat, invokers and fighters do well in dungeon crawls, and rangers do well in outdoor campaigns. Character value should not be confused with the next category.

4) Player Value: This is voted on in an identical fashion to roleplaying. This measures many factors, such as leadership in a group setting, maintaing the focus of the players on in game objectives, aiding the DM in mapping, note taking, running initiative cards. It involves may extragame factors that are difficult to reward with the standard rules.


Rate of advancement is comparable to the standard system, and with the system's built in recognition of these other factors, it is more popular with my players. While no system is perfect, this seems more balanced than the official system.

I welcome any constructive thoughts on how to improve or modify this system.

Whatever floats your boat, but I personally dislike XP systems are are pretty much up to fiat. Roleplaying is so subjective and not everyone has the same idea on what makes up good roleplaying. Unless everyone is on the same page on what constitutes good RP, you take the chance of overly unbalancing the XP between the party members and not to mention causing unrest among the players.

The best XP systems have set qualifiers, IMO. Whether it's by killing monsters or completing goals. That's not to say that there is no room for subjective awards, but putting it to a vote is not really the best idea. Plus, find a way to spread the wealth. If one player is a much better roleplayer than the rest of the group, don't just give him the awards every time. Just because one guy doesn't roleplay a lot doesn't mean that he's missing the point. He may just be shy or uncomfortable roleplaying the way the rest of the group RP's.

Kane

I don't like the character value one. If you like pitching them against spell-immune monsters, then casters will get less XP, etc. This has nothing to do with what they do, but rather what you do.

I don't like votes, and find fusing over XP redundant. My current preferred methods are:
1) Just level up when the DM says to. When I think my players have done enough, when it fits the storyline, I raise them a level.
2) At level X, it takes X sessions to raise a level. If you are not attending a session, the other players will play your character and you won't get to count that session for leveling.

Neither method works if you actually need XP outside of levels, for magic items or spell components or whatever. In this case, I have no choice and go with
3) Get the average party level, and calculate how much XP it takes to raise it. Determine how much of the adventure they have done so far, and allocate XP so that when they finish an adventure they will rise by one level.
For example, for a party of average level 1 they would get, say, 300 XP each after the first session in which they did little, and 700 XP each after the second session where they completed the adventure (or at least reached the point I think they should level at).

Hee hee, on a tengent, does anyone miss getting XP for treasure discovered and GP value? THAT would be an interesting thing to bring back. As if levelling wasn't quick enough already!

While I think good roleplaying and clever ideas should be awarded it is difficult to make a system that is good game balance wise.

I'm tinkering with a system where I calculate the total sum of the xp divide it by x+2 (where x = number of characters) and each get a share. Then the remaining "2 shares" are divided into y (the number of instances of good roleplaying or clever ideas) and each player gets his number of those shares depending on his "quality of play".

E.g.: A group of 5 1st-level characters have braved it through some caves, fighting 6 goblins, a wolf, and 2 small spiders (for a total of 1200 xp) + surviving a few simple traps (for a total of 600 xp). That gives each player approx. 260 xp, with 515 xp in the "pool". Let's assume that all players save one made good roleplaying and one player (not the one who didn't roleplay well) had a clever idea -> 515/5 = 103.
1 player gets no extra xp (having just sat staring most of the evening perhaps), 3 players get 103 extra, and the last (having played in character AND come up with a clever idea) gets 206 extra.

I don't know if it would work, but I think it could. Yes, one player almost gets twice the xp of one other, but if all you do is rolling dice and hugging along, then you don't really contribute to the game...

You might even add a "share" for map drawing and another for taking notes/writing a journal.

The system also has the added benefit of keeping the "total party xp" close to where it should be, which means they are probably not going to be under or over equiped.