Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Morrus on ... XP
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 5840010" data-attributes="member: 6681948"><p>Good stuff - a discussion like this is the best reason to participate in threads like this, so thanks for elaborating.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I copy & paste the quote section quite a bit - sorry to you and anyone who actually posted the comments I responded to. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Kind of defeats the purpose of the internet, doesn't it? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But if I reward the rogue's skill use only when he rolls, I'd expect the rogue to want to roll.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>(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.</p><p></p><p>(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! </p><p></p><p>(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? </p><p></p><p>(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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 5840010, member: 6681948"] Good stuff - a discussion like this is the best reason to participate in threads like this, so thanks for elaborating. I copy & paste the quote section quite a bit - sorry to you and anyone who actually posted the comments I responded to. Kind of defeats the purpose of the internet, doesn't it? :eek: 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. 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. 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". 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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!). 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? 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Morrus on ... XP
Top