Howdy N'raac.
I just want to share with you a few of my thoughts.
Good stuff - a discussion like this is the best reason to participate in threads like this, so thanks for elaborating.
First off... My post didn't include everything you've attributed to me. I'm going to assume that your post got a bit mixed up and only address the points from my post.
I copy & paste the quote section quite a bit - sorry to you and anyone who actually posted the comments I responded to.
Second, we can endlessly argue back and forth about specific applications of general policy--I don't think that I (or anyone else, for that matter) needs to come up with an exhaustive list of possible situations in order to make some broad decisions. We can play devil's advocate ad nauseam with odd corner cases or exceptions to general policies, so can we agree to hit the high points?
Kind of defeats the purpose of the internet, doesn't it?
But you'll never find a blanket policy that will work with every set of gamers, or in every situation - some judgement is always required.
Third... I'm currently playing with Pathfinder rules, so I'm going to cite specific examples from that. But play style/skill isn't tied to a specific system, so I feel that the points remain valid.
Agreed. The xp system is basically a reward system. Most people like to feel rewarded, so the xp system can encourage certain gaming behaviours, or it can encourage certain players to stay and others to leave because their preferred play style is rewarded/punished.
"Participation" is a spectrum, not an absolute. People's interest and attention naturally wax and wane over the course of a session, adventure, and campaign. If one player gets really bored with wilderness treks and the other players love them to death, I'm not going to expect them to get gung-ho about several trips through the wilderness. I also agree with you that some players should just get a new hobby, I don't understand why some players show up to the game and start catching up on their email. That sends me the signal that they don't really want to be there, but if the other players don't seem to mind and the player in question is fine with his level of participation... So be it.
Still, a player that participates half-heartedly can drag the group down. If the player isn't paying attention during a combat round and has to have the entire last round explained to him every time their turn comes up, that's something to talk to them about. If they don't want to keep up with a situation and rely on other players to coach them through a session, then it's basically putting the onus of playing that character on other players. They might as well take Leadership and let the disengaged person free up a chair at the table.
Absolutely. But to me, the answer isn't to penalize xp (or, more to the point, only to penalize xp). That actually gives the player justification to say "leave me alone - I'm sucking up my reduced xp penalty, so no one has any further right to criticize my play style". If the rest of the group is OK with Mr. Email, no real problem - so why let him drag behind and become a character that needs protection by the rest of the group?
If his disengagement is hurting the game, then the other players also need to say something. "Hey, your slow play is dragging the game down - how about keeping up or getting out - check your email some other time".
"Drag to a miserable crawl" regarding traps is an issue with play style.
Sure - as is combat perceived as dragged down because Email Guy needs the flow of combat re-explained every round, or because a new player needs to be reminded of which die to roll.
There are many, many ways for a GM to use traps, make the rogue feel useful for having the trapfinder class feature, and not roll a Perception check for each 5-foot square in a dungeon. Walking down an unremarkable corridor in an abandoned temple? The rogue probably doesn't need to check for traps as long as they are prodding ahead with a staff or something.
Isn't that a form of checking for traps? Why not let the rogue press on ahead and check for traps every five feet? Now, my simple answer is that he's not getting any extra xp for it, and my group will happily accept that the rogue is checking for traps, and that slows the progress down for the party (maybe a character WILL have an issue with that, but that's a separate matter), but I'll roll, or call for a roll, when it becomes relevant, so the same amount of game time is spent on that 150' corridor whether the team runs top speed down it, or carefully checks for traps and secret doors every step of the way.
But if I reward the rogue's skill use only when he rolls, I'd expect the rogue to want to roll.
Walking down a corridor to the abbot's hidden treasure vault? That rogue had damned well better check for traps, and bluntly, I feel that they get what they deserve if they choose to not check. There's also the trap spotter rogue talent, which allows the GM to take responsibility for checking for traps entirely, if desired. If it's slowing your game down, it shouldn't be. There are plenty of ways to keep the game moving even when party members are doing their thing.
Let me toss out another possibility - the rogue wants to check for traps, but the devil-may-care impatient low WIS swashbuckler wants to run up the corridor and get the treasure. He doesn't want to stand around waiting for the rogue to check for traps. Should that player be punished with a dead character for role playing his character, rather than always agreeing to the most solid tactical choice? Some groups would say no, we should allow for a broad spectrum of character personalities. Others would say let the dice fall where they may - you chose to take a character with no likelihood of survival. Some might even say the player should never have been allowed to bring such a stupid character in - why didn't the DM rule against a suicidal character?
It's all about play style. Last night, we had several characters take actions they knew would cause attacks of opportunity. Some were good tactical choices. Others were foolish viewed objectively, but most definitely in character. I'd rather have players that will make foolish, but in character, tactical decisions than a group of characters played like game tokens rather than living beings with flaws and foibles. That's my play style. Others prefer a style where making sub-optimal choices is punished by in-game failure.
I don't give the x.p. strictly for performing class functions as advocated by older versions of the game. I'm rewarding participation and engagement, not specific actions.
One problem with these threads, which I could have mentioned at the start, is that a group's full play style can't come across in a single paragraph. Telling your players "The GM rewards participation, engagement and use of character abilities" probably works a lot better than writing that in the xp section of the book. Guaranteed, the players will all have their own interpretation of how to interpret "participation, engagement and use of character abilities" just like any other subjective statement gets argued for interpretation.
As far as "sometimes gets x.p.," there's a world of difference between someone having other obligations or life situations and someone that's just not bothering to show up. A few years ago, I had a player call out the day before a game because they had a heart attack and were in the hospital. Of course that player got x.p. In that same group, we had a player that stayed out late drinking the night before the game every weekend. He'd no-show on us and we'd play without him, and I'd get text messages an hour or two after we started asking if we were playing that day. Clearly not a priority for him. He didn't get x.p. for missed sessions. I suppose it could be viewed as a form of favoritism, but it's something that I can live with. I just don't see why someone that plays one session out of every four or so should get the same amount of x.p. as the players that are there every session.
I'd say it is a form of favourtism - no question. But I would not say that's a bad thing - it is intended to encourage a certain behaviour (showing up for the game or at least providing advance notice if you have to miss the game). Calling from the hospital is above and beyond any reasonable expectation in that regard, but just not showing up is simply disrespectful of the rest of the group. However, I'd have to ask why Mr. No Show is invited back if he repeatedly bails without warning, rather than just being penalized xp. Why should the other 7th level characters have to defend his Level 3 butt, instead of decruiting that character and hiring someone whose competency is consistent with the rest of the group and the challenges they face?
As you say, they should have the courtesy to bow out. If they don't, maybe they need to have some courtesy enforced on them.
I think that out-of-character things shouldn't skew the experience progression because they reflect general coolness on the part of the player, not because they are necessarily playing the game well. A big reason for this is because most groups have a few people who are just more committed than the others, and I want this to be rewarded separately from smart play. In a sense, I view a character's x.p. total as their "score," I feel that it should reflect play rather than commitment or "heart." Besides which, a free reroll seems to be a great motivator. Many players love a reroll when they fail saves and all that.
But isn't the guy whose lack of commitment is such that he misses the sessions being penalized in character for actions out of character? Or, viewed another way, those who do show up are rewarded for this OOC behaviour with more xp.
As for gaining levels in a new class, it's the same amount of explanation, not more. It's got to make contextual sense. A player might want to pick up a level of cleric for their fighter character. The explanation should be grounded in the narrative, not just, "'cuz I wanna self-heal and the Strength domain is sweet."
I'm a fan of having things make sense in the game. But then, how is it that a L2 Fighter who now grabs a level of Cleric doesn't need the years of training the Cleric needed to become L1? That Fighter may well be younger than the cleric's starting age, and he's learned two classes. The tradeoff between playability and verisimilitude is a subjective one, and different groups will view it differently.
Not entirely, because rescuing the princess would most likely entail a sizable cash reward from the grateful king, plus prestige and fame that could certainly be translated into much greater rewards over the long run. As for abandoning the wounded comrade, certainly players always have this option but then they have to endure the complaining of the offended player, so that's a con they have to weigh carefully!
So do we rescue the princess first, or negotiate the cash price with the King beforehand rather than rely on his gratitude afterwards? My point is simply that xp based on loot can motivate behaviour that is just as unreasonable as xp based on combat.
We just finished a scenario last night. Part of that scenario involved visiting an old pirate cave, which connected with a much older ruin of an ancient civilization, because we needed a McGuiffin. Our explorations of the pirate cave didn't locate the pirate treasure, as we found the ancient ruin entrance first. Our characters didn't waste time searching the rest of the caverns for this rumoured pirate treasure, but returned with the McGuffin ASAP.
Now, I as a player know that the Baddies who had "just completed" their plan as we reached the climactic encounter would have "just completed" their plan if we had taken another week in the pirate caves. But the characters don't know that their lives are dictated by the module script, and not their own timeliness, so searching the old pirate caves wouldn't really be in character. But, under your model, it imposes a serious xp cost (and we noticed yesterday that our wealth is a bit off from missing that loot, too - treasure buys gear that enhances power, so making it also drive level gains makes it doubly important!).
My concern is based on the Sid Meier's quote: "A good game is a series of interesting choices". Giving players experience specifically for killing monsters or surviving traps in and of themselves removes the more interesting choice of simply avoiding those monsters in order to pursue a greater long term goal.
Above, I noted varying interpretations of the same rule. I've typically interpreted xp as a reward for "defeating" the opponent. An Owlbear is just as defeated if we kill it, drive it off, befriend it, bribe it or slip past it, so why would the xp differ? In all cases, we have defeated the monster - achieved our objectives to the detriment of its own. Now, not following its tracks means we don't encounter it, so we don't defeat it. But why are the tracks there in the first place? If the author of the tale includes the discovery of those tracks, wouldn't the story have some purpose for those tracks? Shouldn't the bold heroes wish to ensure this magical beast is no longer a threat to innocent travellers? If an encounter with the Owlbear serves no purpose to the story, why throw its tracks in the adventurers' path?
Giving players experience for virtually everything they do removes the interest in the player's decision making; they will get rewarded no matter what, so long as they live I guess, so what are the stakes of their decision? Just awarding levels to the players when the DM feels it's appropriate, based on the difficulty of the adventure, removes a lot of the satisfaction players get from the decisions they make because it removes a lot of the illusion of control that players have over their character's destiny. Players want to feel that there are consequences, good or bad, to their decisions, otherwise their decisions are meaningless and thus uninteresting. Players, I think, want to feel that there are better and worse ways to get the treasure out of the dungeon or rescue the princess or whatever the goal may be; that's where the 'game' part of 'role playing game' comes in.
The balance between the "game" part and the "role playing" part is a very subjective preference, and causes a lot of disagreements over "the best" way to play, including the most appropriate means of handing out xp. Gamists want the ability to get more xp than their teammates (the other oplayers are a form of competition), but narrativists may be quite happy to have everyone advance at the same pace.
Let's take an example. You placed enough treasure in this scenario to allow the characters to level up twice. However, due to their choices, bad luck or what have you, they missed most of the treasure, or left it behind, and as a result they did not level up at all. What's your next step:
(a) tell the players they missed all that loot and let them go back and haul it out (with no further encounters - they dealt with all of those)? same thing as sending them back if they missed a bunch of kills - all the same options exist if you didn't get enough combat-based xp, with a bit of fine tuning to provide for extra combat rather than cash.
(b) carry on with the next planned adventure, which would have been appropriately challenging for characters two levels higher - they made their choices and now they have to live with them!
(c) insert one or more buffer adventures (whether new encounters at the old scenario location as they retrieve that loot, or some other approach) to get them up to the appropriate level to challenge them appropriately in the planned adventure?
(d) override the xp count and arbitrarily level them up? Perhaps the beneficiaries of the PC's actions are retroactively much more grateful and/or wealthy than previously planned and reward them up to that next level or two. A Story Award, perhaps?
I suggest (b) probably means the party gets wiped out, but (a), (c) and (d) all mean their choices ultimately didn't matter much. Is there an approach I am not considering that satisfies both the goal of making their decisions matter and that of keeping the challenge level appropriate and the game enjoyable?
I do see one major advantage to "treasure as xp", thinking on it. It makes it much easier to ensure the "wealth per level" guidelines will be maintained, since you only level up by retrieving a level of wealth which, after expenses and consumable items, should leave the appropriate wealth by level.
