Experience
For the last week there has been a weird thread in the general forum. (
Why punish a player if they can't come to the game?) Basically the premise is that not awarding exp to PCs of absent players is somehow punishing the player just because they missed the game.
I have always been of the opinion that exp is an earned reward. People that are at the game and adding to the game world, story and development tend to get more rewards from me. See, I like to encourage that. I have a very strong framework for what I envision for the gameworld, but I love input that adds to it. Characters that seem 'real' in that they have motivations and personalities that other people can relate to are a lot of fun. I also like people to be involved around the table rather than just waiting around for the next combat. If the combat is all that is important to the game, then there is no need for the RP part of RPG.
The experience matrix we are currently using is geared toward rewarding you for paying attention to the game, helping breath life into your character, using your skills & spells to help the group, and reward the PCs that are willing to act as the first line of defense/offense because they accept greater risks. I love the fact that we can go through an entire session without a combat and you don't need to feel like you have to kill something to improve your characters. That's why I 'broke' the skill system the way I did. If you want to have the diplomatic, linguistic fighter, that's great. I want creative characters that interact and change the world, not min-maxed, kick-in-the-door dungeonbash characters. So I thought I would gear the experience point rewards to reflect that.
But some people seem to feel that each character should advance at the same rate. Each character should receive an equal portion of exp all the time. It shouldn't matter if you show up, it shouldn't matter if you participate, not showing up and having fun should be enough 'penalty' for the missing player.
There is a certain amount of logic to this. It just runs counter to my default presumption that experience is a reward.
But I want to know what everyone else thinks. Even our newer players. Should we just baseline it so every character is the same level? Let's say 7th level. You will basically go up at the same time and you will always have the same amount of exp.
It's funny to note that this is similar to what I planned for the Agents characters. Fixed exp/session. That's one of the reasons why I am very picky about those characters. I have several stories that will emerge from that little campaign and it is important to me that they are told through the perspective of the PCs/Players. The choices of missions are extremely limited in that game, so it is important that the PCs drive as much of the characterization as possible. These are characters that will have the potential to change the world. These are characters that have the potential to assume roles akin to archangels. By the end of that campaign, these are characters that should be well known throughout the multiverse. There is no 'settle down' for these characters. There is no annonymity. They will either be known for the scale of their success, or their failure for trying to do something that is impossible. So I am looking for characters that are ambitious, self-assured and immersive enough that you will enjoy playing them in their roles without any other motivation than simple enjoyment of playing an angel type character standing between the mortals and the hordes of evil. If you don't enjoy playing that type of character, then you won't enjoy the campaign.
So what does everyone else think about exp? Should the primaries be equaled out and advance at the same rate? It certainly would be easier for me on the bookeeping and balancing side of things.
