Can you earn experience points for your comrades?

[Tallifer]

So, yes, a PC can earn experience points for his comrades, but experience shouldn't have anything to do with which class you choose, or whether or not you participate?

1. I run a system in which all classes use the same experience chart. (If on the other hand, I ran AD&D, I could probably grant each player a certain equal % toward his next level.)
2. Participation has its own rewards in enjoyment, treasure and story.

 

[Sunseeker]

My worry is that any system that allows characters to earn xp for events/actions/things they didn't actually do promotes "passenger" play. By "passengers" I mean the character(s) who do all the planning etc. but don't actually take any risk, preferring to leave the dangerous bits to others but who are quite happy to share in the xp reward - and the loot, for all that.

I don't understand the problem. Bob makes the plans, Joe kills the mobs. If Bob makes a bad plan he may live, but Joe will die. If Joe dies, aside from having to do it all over, Joe needs to have a new character, and Bob will get no loot. So it's in Bob's interest to make a good plan so that Joe lives and Joe brings home the loot.

In the system proposed in the OP: if I'm the party Thief all I need to do is teach my fellow adventurers how to steal, help them plan their thefts and maybe even do a little zero-risk scouting for them, and then just let the xp roll in as they go out and steal stuff (and maybe get caught or even die in the process) while I sit in the pub. Provided I've a good source of new recruits to replace the dead or captured, I can keep this going for ages.

Sure, I guess if everyone is slave to your will and does whatever you want them to whenever you want and the players don't mind making more characters to serve you....but then that sounds more like you're the GM, not a player. Your silly hypothetical relies on too many improbable variables, what's to stop the party from kicking you out? Nothing...other than its a group game. If your plans are good, they may have no objection to doing this kind of legwork for you. I mean, it gets them XP too, and loot and maybe even some stuff your character doesn't know about. For all you know, they're barely making it back alive with half the treasure, when in reality they're each taking a small slice of your share before turning it back in.

And believe me, I've played with characters (and players) who would quite happily do just this if given the opportunity.

What's the problem then? If the rest of the group enjoys it, and they enjoy it, why not?

What I do is just the opposite: if you're not involved and-or not at risk then no xp for you. If you're only peripherially involved e.g. hiding up a tree "keeping watch" while the battle rages below or you arrive on the scene just in time for the last foe to topple then you'll probably get half xp. Xp are earned either by exposure to risk or by taking steps to mitigate or negate it - the 1e idea of giving the same xp for a foe whether the foe was defeated, intentionally avoided by stealth, rendered non-threatening via other means e.g. persuasion, and so on.

Lanefan

This sounds highly like a system where the DM gives his "friends" XP for playing the way he likes, and doesn't give people who are unfamiliar with how the DM wants them to play (likely something the DM doesn't bother to explain) and makes judgement calls over every crit and missed roll.

This is the sort of thing that leads to power-building and making characters who can "do everything" and don't need a party, since each of them are constantly being judged individually instead of on what they were able to accomplish thanks to the group effort; there's no incentive for them to support the "group". Which sounds awfully counterproductive to a group-based game.

 

[5ekyu]

Easy answer: most players (and characters) when given options will, all else being equal, trend toward the path of least resistance. Here, that path is to sit back and let others take the risk.


The character who rarely if ever joins in the derring-do is, by law of averages, going to outlive the rest of her party (and probably their replacements as well) by a wide margin; all the while slowly but surely accreting wealth and xp the others don't have.

Eventually one hopes the passengers will realize why they're falling behind and join in more often.

What I've seen happen in the past goes roughly like this. This is an abbreviated version where things happen quickly, to show my point; but imagine this spinning out slowly over a 20-adventure campaign:

Party forms with 6 characters A-B-C-D-E-F, let's say character A is the passenger. They go out in the field and after their first adventure their status is:

A - alive, full share of xp and loot*
B - alive, full share of xp and loot*
C - alive, full share of xp and loot*
D - alive, full share of xp and loot*
E - dead
F - dead (this, IME, would be my guy)

* - loot includes possessions of dead companions E and F, along with what the adventure gave.

So, a couple of recruits G and H come in to replace E and F and off this meery crew goes. After their second adventure they look like:

A - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now has 2 total shares of each)
B - dead
C - alive, full share of xp and loot (so also 2 of each)
D - alive but missed half the trip, so half share of xp and loot (thus 1.5. total of each)
G - alive, full share of xp and loot (1 total of each)
H - alive, full share of xp and loot (1 total of each) (my replacement for F - made it through an adventure, yippee!)

And they're all richer by sharing out B's stuff.

So now character I comes in to replace B, and off we go on adventure 3. Results afterward:

A - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 3 and 3 overall)
C - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 3 and 3 overall) - but at this point C retires, having had her fill of all this.
D - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 2.5 and 2.5 overall)
G - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 2 and 2 overall)
H - dead (I lose another one...)
I - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 1 and 1 overall)

And a fourth adventure includng new recruits J and K is all we need to make my point clear - off they go, back they come:

A - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 4 and 4 overall)
D - dead
G - alive, full share of loot and xp (so now 3 and 3 overall)
I - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 2 and 2 overall)
J - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 1 and 1 overall)
K - alive, full share of xp and loot (so now 1 and 1 overall) (my third try at this...)

Character A, by simply being a passenger while the rest of the party took the risk, is now both the wealthiest and the highest-level character in the group; with wealth even further enhanced by sharing in the loot from her dead companions. Assuming each adventure produced a vaguely-equal treasury, A might be 4 times as wealthy as J and K after the 4th adventure. Yet A has achieved this by intentionally sitting back and letting others take the risks, sometimes to their demise.

The level difference can be mitigated by the DM allowing new characters to come in at a particular level relative to the party average or whatever...but the wealth aspect cannot, as treasury division is almost universally a player-driven element. The DM can introduce new characters with some possessions, sure, but has to be wary about those possessions simply adding to the wealth of others when the new recruit dies.

The passenger player might be enjoying it but the rest of the crew might very well end up feeling resentful, particularly if my example above starts coming out real.

Lanefan

Hmmm... some specific responses...

first bold - in my experience the players' characters tend to take the path of most fun and sitting there at the other table while the players go into the mission is not usually that. But if that one character wants to "sit at the inn" or "hold the horses" and the player is fine with that and the player's are fine with that, why should i give them less advancement - why is my game better?


second bold - i assume that if you have told them how xp is given and they are sentient they realized the result before they went that way - knew it from the start - and if its fun why would they stop? How important are levels to the guy sitting back at the inn?

As for the bit about law of averages and accruing wealth - seems to me the ones going out are accruing the wealth and XP as well. The guy sitting back does not accrue any wealth if the others dont come back out with success.

As for your own particular chain of dead guys sequence, a lot of that depends on the way death and replacement is handled and especially the frequency. i would suggest to you that it is *not8 the passenger syndrome that is causing whatever it is that you are seeing as the problem but the death rate and replacement rules and gear sequence combining to make it a non-satisfying event.

Now, obviously one could also point out that had the extra character actually gone in, the odds of success go up even more, the death rate goes down and he winds up even more well off.

See, the trade-off for the passenger is that he stays home and safe but he gains less loot overall as the team fails more often. this can be even more relevant once they get to the point where dead equals expensive raising and cutting into profits.

But, as to how resentful this and that... honestly there are a lot of things you can gain Xp for that can be equally "resent producing" behavior. i would think that once the group of more outgoing get tired of this, they will change the deal rather than just keep going along with it.

again, not the fault of the Xp award per se.

Foe me, for longer than i care to remember, i have not linked advancement to things like specific Xp goals or tasks so whenever i hear how Xp is needed to avoid folks doing abc... i think back to "is this what they do in games where XP is not given that way" and i typically find the answer to be "nope."

The "nero wolfe" you describe - there are lots of games without xp tied to actions etc or even xp based advancement at all and yet we just dont see that as some massively common trope.

primarily because, **IMO and IMX**, players show up to play not watch others play while they wait to get paid so they can do more inventory.

But, if advancement was not linked to Xp, if replacement characters came in with comparable gear and loot, etc then there would not be this "richest guy is Nero wolfe" thing going on.

Would your game be better if "nero wolfe" were levels behind the others because you choose to cut back or cut out their XP?"

if not and its really just you wanting to punish them for not "getting on board" with the playstyle you want to impose... why not just be upfront and say "nah, not going to allow that" at session zero?

IMX, having players play their characters as part of the collaborative effort works fine without an XP cudgel to shackle their options.

 

[5ekyu]

"This feels very much like a subjective experience. You may feel like the player in question is sitting back and letting others get involved, but they may feel that they're playing a valuable support role and managing risk sensibly whilst you keep taking suicidal risks with your characters."

"Either way, this is a player issue, and player issues are rarely resolved effectively using in-game solutions."

the above from two different posters...

agree.

one of the advantages to the ones going out and about and derring the doos is the various level of heroic and renown that can come from various acts. (stepping beyond the narrow confines of the heist plot) can certainly cut both ways.

but of course, like most of these kind of things it can be very campaign specific and very group of players specific.

one of my fave campaigns was like a wizard, rogue, cleric-rogue and i think the fourth was also a rogue and we handle many of our missions relying on stealth and trickery and speed. a Gm deciding to base Xp on kills would have ruined that campaign for us. had the cleric been a more stalwart heavy cleric version, we might well have went with the "you buff us up and hang back and we will retreat back to you if caught" approach - which on many occasions might well have been much like the "nero wolfe" some seem to want to shaft out of Xp.

Would that campaign have been more fun if instead we chose either:
1 - OK lets just slug it out cuz thats where we get Xp"
2 - "No, i am taking my cleric in, armor and all cuz if not i wont get Xp and you need me leveling to keep you healing back up."

Not to my way of thinking but certain GMs may have been happier if we played the way they preferred.

Either way, it was a very fun game.

i do wonder if there is a relation or tie between "as Gm i expect a PC to die most adventures" and "nope, gotta smack the "nero wolfe" guy"?


EDIT TO ADD: i don't remember the game system but i do remember the Gm who taold us"The system awards your character Xp for just surviving an encounter. that means it requires me to kill your PCs and do so frequently. So, don't get attached to any character and have backups ready to go, at least two for a session." --- i also remember me saying "thanks but not the game for me" and leaving.

 

[GMMichael]

The only problem I have with generic things like "class goals" is that they imply certain things. That there is a universality to common elements of the game. Does that mean there are "race goals"? What do characters who are uninterested in these universal goals do? Are they punished for not seeking them out?

Ideally, a player would have some sort of character in mind to play, and choose a class goal that he agrees with. So there's no punishment involved - the class goal is something the player sees his character doing in any event.

No, there would be no race goals, because being a race is not something that you improve (although it's possible).

. . .Fundamentally, it hinges on player greed as a motivating factor to succeed.
. . . Greed is a motivator for some, but makes role-playing non-greedy characters difficult. If every character is out there to step on the others just to get their extra helping of XP, you're going to end up with a very disfunctional party. And what of the guy who just wants to be a generally good-natured helpful sort? That guy for whom greed and more time in the spotlight does nothing for? Do they just get nothing while Greedy Joe steps on everyone else to get ahead?

This is the kind of situation where class goals would help. Greedy Joe has only one class goal, and presumably gets XP from one type of accomplishment. So he can't hog the rest of the helpful party's XP if his class goal wouldn't help in a given situation. Under the OP proposal, he might earn some XP for the party member whose class goal would best resolve a situation, or he might make the situation worse by pursuing his class goal although it's not suited for the situation.

Well, see, back in the day when classed systems had nobackground or skills and so basically race, class, alignment were about all the tools at your disposal, class did to a very substantial amount equate to playstyle and goals... And some, perhaps many, me included found that less satifying and migrated away to other more flexible systems which let the player choose the playstyle.

If you decouple class from playstyle, you run into the problem that D&D now has: you need a type of XP award that rewards fighters for thieving and wizards for scouting, basically, a generic XP. Which results in the murderhobo.

Do GMs frequently have a problem of players not wanting to be outstanding, not being part of the mix and action? . . .

Is your game more fun for the others when their "thief" or "cleric" is not only not playing "right, as defined by the GM" but is also a couple levels down?

I doubt that GMs have that problem. Player parties, however, do. If you're low on hit points, you can still get your XPs by letting the other PCs risk their butts in battle for a while. If you're trying to convince a troll that the next town down is tastier than yours, you can still get your XPs by letting the party schmoozer do all the talking.

The way to play the thief or cleric character is determined by the player. The way to play the thief or cleric class would be determined by that class, not defined by the GM. If your character is a couple levels down, then you have some incentive to persuade the party to pursue your class goal, no?

My worry is that any system that allows characters to earn xp for events/actions/things they didn't actually do promotes "passenger" play. By "passengers" I mean the character(s) who do all the planning etc. but don't actually take any risk, preferring to leave the dangerous bits to others but who are quite happy to share in the xp reward - and the loot, for all that.

In the system proposed in the OP: if I'm the party Thief all I need to do is teach my fellow adventurers how to steal, help them plan their thefts and maybe even do a little zero-risk scouting for them, and then just let the xp roll in as they go out and steal stuff (and maybe get caught or even die in the process) while I sit in the pub. Provided I've a good source of new recruits to replace the dead or captured, I can keep this going for ages.

I'd say that planning and teaching are worth XP. How better to put a value on it than to award XP when it pays off? Now if the main issue is that the PC is happy to drink at the inn while the rest of the party goes adventuring, then isn't everyone happy? No problem there...until the party goes off the rails and stops earning XP for the passenger player...

 

[5ekyu]

"If you decouple class from playstyle, you run into the problem that D&D now has: you need a type of XP award that rewards fighters for thieving and wizards for scouting, basically, a generic XP. Which results in the murderhobo."

Murderhobo is a "problem" of linking xp to specific action/goal types and specifically to one specific action/goal type with exacting precision and leaving all the other action/goal types either out completely *or* giving them very vague less specific sub-systems.

Throw in a GM choice of setting/plot which makes that thing even more reliable than the others and viola...you get what you pay for.

But, nothing in murderhobo says "problem needing to make classes into more pre-defined "who is this guy" locks based on the GM preferences."

Let me put it this way, lets assume you come up with the required "12 universally glorious ways to earn xp so that you only ever need these for all characters ever" you would want for your 12 classes (or 30+ if you break it to sub-classes.) Lets say each are as rewardingly detailed and fun to achieve as xp for kills in your rich setting.

Great job. Kudos.

Now, what is gained by linking them and chaining themto "class" rather than say "background"?

What is gained by shackling them to your preference for sneak attack combat over multi-attack combat (rogue v fighter) over say not linking them to a game element at all and allowing a player to choose them as "character goals"??? Maybe allowing each character to choose a main goal and a hobby from them (must be separate - hobby yields 50%) so that maybe my multi-attack fighter guy likes to make his way thru mugging and cons and spends appropriate to be good at those too and gets xp out of them?

In my experience, there are a lot more answers to "who is this guy and what drives him" in every setting than there are classes and sub-classes in any rpg so trying to chain advancement to class/sub-class GM defined goals is very strongly inserting "GM wants you to play this character the way he wants" straightjackets into a system with little benefit beyond "better for GM who wants it."

But let me ask more directly, how is this class-goal-GM -xp better for the players emjoyment than just giving them xp for the same kind of acvomplishments without class-chained?

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] This feels very much like a subjective experience. You may feel like the player in question is sitting back and letting others get involved, but they may feel that they're playing a valuable support role and managing risk sensibly whilst you keep taking suicidal risks with your characters.

Either way, this is a player issue, and player issues are rarely resolved effectively using in-game solutions.

In any typical adventure, no matter what a party does, there's going to be a certain amount of risk that has to be taken.

All I'd like to see is that risk being shared at least vaguely equally - I'll take the hit this time if you take the next one, and so on.

But when one or more players are either or both of a) not paying attention and letting things go on without their input, or b) intentionally playing in risk-averse mode while expecting others to take the hits, it becomes annoying. And I've played with - and DMed - both.

Sure, I guess if everyone is slave to your will and does whatever you want them to whenever you want and the players don't mind making more characters to serve you....but then that sounds more like you're the GM, not a player. Your silly hypothetical relies on too many improbable variables, what's to stop the party from kicking you out? Nothing...other than its a group game.

What stops the party from kicking you out is that by the time this becomes apparent you're probably one of the senior party members; meaning you've become a large part of the deciding factor around who stays and who goes, should it ever get to that point.

If your plans are good, they may have no objection to doing this kind of legwork for you. I mean, it gets them XP too, and loot and maybe even some stuff your character doesn't know about. For all you know, they're barely making it back alive with half the treasure, when in reality they're each taking a small slice of your share before turning it back in.

Unless you go with them and hang in the background.

But even half a share every time is going to add up rather nicely.

Lanefan

 

[5ekyu]

"What stops the party from kicking you out is that by the time this becomes apparent you're probably one of the senior party members" post= meaning you've become a large part of the deciding factor around who stays and who goes, should it ever get to that point."

Huh? Seems to me Billy Bob is sitting at the inn while we bleed" would be apparant as soon as they get to the "give him his share of the loot" stage.

What you seem to be setying up as your case to point is somehow one player jpins the game, cons the others to work in a way that somehow is against their interest (not sure of that actually if his plans work well) and that after a while they change their minds about whether they like it or not?

Well, i betcha, you can take that exact same "premise" and apply it to most any group decision making and arrive at the same "its a problem."

I mean, what if instead the player went with the party but his ongoing exploit of their gullability was to keep directing them along quests that more favored his objectives, gave him greater control, etc? What if he kept them rich off quests that relied on his contacts, his expanding networks and away from the ex-soldier old military or the clerics church or the mage's former school and even at times weakening those?

Would that be a problem too even thought it has nothing to do with risk sharing and XP?

 

[Lanefan]

No, there would be no race goals, because being a race is not something that you improve (although it's possible).

Player #1: "I'm going to be the Dwarfiest Dwarf ever!"
Player #2: "How can you be Dwarfier than any other Dwarf?"
Player #1: "No idea, but I'm gonna do it - just watch me!"

This is the kind of situation where class goals would help. Greedy Joe has only one class goal, and presumably gets XP from one type of accomplishment. So he can't hog the rest of the helpful party's XP if his class goal wouldn't help in a given situation. Under the OP proposal, he might earn some XP for the party member whose class goal would best resolve a situation, or he might make the situation worse by pursuing his class goal although it's not suited for the situation.

This is one factor that may make my own experiences different from some: our games practically run on greed.

If you decouple class from playstyle, you run into the problem that D&D now has: you need a type of XP award that rewards fighters for thieving and wizards for scouting, basically, a generic XP. Which results in the murderhobo.

I don't see the connection you're making here where generic xp leads to murderhobo - can you elaborate?

I doubt that GMs have that problem. Player parties, however, do. If you're low on hit points, you can still get your XPs by letting the other PCs risk their butts in battle for a while. If you're trying to convince a troll that the next town down is tastier than yours, you can still get your XPs by letting the party schmoozer do all the talking.

The problem for the DM arises in the long term, when the wealth gets unmanageably out of balance between long-standing characters and others; or between lucky and unlucky.

I'd say that planning and teaching are worth XP. How better to put a value on it than to award XP when it pays off? Now if the main issue is that the PC is happy to drink at the inn while the rest of the party goes adventuring, then isn't everyone happy? No problem there...until the party goes off the rails and stops earning XP for the passenger player...

The way I see it as DM, the planning and execution are all part and parcel of the same event or encounter or whatever you want to call it. Thus someone only involved in the planning but not the execution might get partial xp, while someone involved in both would get full.

As both player and DM I've seen too many occasions where there's a known risk to be undertaken*, the usual risk-takers decide it's someone else's turn to take a hit, and the party grinds to a halt...usually accompanied by an argument.

* - a simple example might be a vital-to-pass door known or assumed to be trapped, all attempts at disarming it have failed, and the party have no means of summoning anything to set it off or opening the door remotely meaning a PC has to do it.

Lanefan

 

[5ekyu]

"As both player and DM I've seen too many occasions where there's a known risk to be undertaken*, the usual risk-takers decide it's someone else's turn to take a hit, and the party grinds to a halt...usually accompanied by an argument.

* - a simple example might be a vital-to-pass door known or assumed to be trapped, all attempts at disarming it have failed, and the party have no means of summoning anything to set it off or opening the door remotely meaning a PC has to do it." So players and GM have created a situation where there is only one option, "vital" removing the go do other stuff, to what they can now do and are arguing over who does this "one true thing that must be done" and somehow a different XP system is the key to preventing this?

What happened to "dont put one way only" as a vital thing as an option?

How many of your party key decisions or impasses in character do you want chosen by out of character player side "this way gives more xp"?