the_bruiser
First Post
I'm curious how many people pay close attention to ELs of opponents, average
party level, and number of characters when it's time to give experience.
Our group never has, and it seems like it would be a pain - further, it
would seem to undervalue the sessions where there is little or no combat. I
certainly don't want my players to think, "Gosh, that was fun, but I want to
kill something or my character will never get better!" Obviously you can
get around this with storyline or individual EXP bonuses for good
roleplaying, but our group does it a little bit differently.
Here's our system:
On average, I have arbitrarily determined that the average party member will
go up a level *on average*, *over time*, approximately once per three game
sessions. Every session gets marked with either a "1," a "2," or a "3,"
with me (the DM) trying to keep an average close to 2. A great combat,
great role-playing initiatives from the party, crucial campaign moments,
etc., merit a 3. The sessions where it takes longer to get started, players
are less involved or distracted, and little significant combat occurs are
granted a 1. 'Normal' nights get a 2.
Then, each character present gets an amount of EXP equal to: average
character level * 1000 * X/6, where X is the quality and excitement of that
night's play. As long as X averages close to 2 over time, then they'll
advance roughly one level every three sessions. Note that we might have
five consecutive '1's and have no advancement, or two consecutive '3's for a
quicker level.
This gets us to a pace I like, and allows me to make a more holistic,
top-level judgement regarding not just combat results, but also player
involvement and role-playing quality. And, to my players, they know that
their EXP will be (to some extent!) by the *nature* of the session, and more
by things under their own control. And yes, I do give individual awards for
preparation of background material, quality role-playing, etc., so that
quality individual accomplishments are also rewarded, though I don't do as
good a job of this as I would like.
One might argue that this method kind of hurts the party's ability to
advance super-quickly through great action over time, since they'll never
exceed or fall behind +1 level / 3 sessions over the long term. To some
extent this is true regarding level advancement, but I should note that I do
give significant in-game rewards (such as treasure, reputation, followers)
from which they do benefit should they consistently outperform, so it's not
like they're shackled and their performance becomes meaningless.
Anyway, just curious as to other people's thoughts, both on this system and
regarding what they do. I'm pretty good at intuitively balancing foes for
our party, so for me CL is almost a non-factor entirely.
PS - If anybody in Charlotte, NC is looking to join a game, let me know - we
currently have four players plus me, but one of those players is moving away
this summer and we really like having a group of five.
party level, and number of characters when it's time to give experience.
Our group never has, and it seems like it would be a pain - further, it
would seem to undervalue the sessions where there is little or no combat. I
certainly don't want my players to think, "Gosh, that was fun, but I want to
kill something or my character will never get better!" Obviously you can
get around this with storyline or individual EXP bonuses for good
roleplaying, but our group does it a little bit differently.
Here's our system:
On average, I have arbitrarily determined that the average party member will
go up a level *on average*, *over time*, approximately once per three game
sessions. Every session gets marked with either a "1," a "2," or a "3,"
with me (the DM) trying to keep an average close to 2. A great combat,
great role-playing initiatives from the party, crucial campaign moments,
etc., merit a 3. The sessions where it takes longer to get started, players
are less involved or distracted, and little significant combat occurs are
granted a 1. 'Normal' nights get a 2.
Then, each character present gets an amount of EXP equal to: average
character level * 1000 * X/6, where X is the quality and excitement of that
night's play. As long as X averages close to 2 over time, then they'll
advance roughly one level every three sessions. Note that we might have
five consecutive '1's and have no advancement, or two consecutive '3's for a
quicker level.
This gets us to a pace I like, and allows me to make a more holistic,
top-level judgement regarding not just combat results, but also player
involvement and role-playing quality. And, to my players, they know that
their EXP will be (to some extent!) by the *nature* of the session, and more
by things under their own control. And yes, I do give individual awards for
preparation of background material, quality role-playing, etc., so that
quality individual accomplishments are also rewarded, though I don't do as
good a job of this as I would like.
One might argue that this method kind of hurts the party's ability to
advance super-quickly through great action over time, since they'll never
exceed or fall behind +1 level / 3 sessions over the long term. To some
extent this is true regarding level advancement, but I should note that I do
give significant in-game rewards (such as treasure, reputation, followers)
from which they do benefit should they consistently outperform, so it's not
like they're shackled and their performance becomes meaningless.
Anyway, just curious as to other people's thoughts, both on this system and
regarding what they do. I'm pretty good at intuitively balancing foes for
our party, so for me CL is almost a non-factor entirely.
PS - If anybody in Charlotte, NC is looking to join a game, let me know - we
currently have four players plus me, but one of those players is moving away
this summer and we really like having a group of five.