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: 5840797" data-attributes="member: 6681948"><p>To me, at least, xp is not an in-character reward. Wealth is - the character can see, touch, count and spend all that gold. Do you find, in the source material, that heroic characters tend to be less skilled? And what of those Evil villains who are motivated by power, rather than wealth? "Neutral" and "evil" doesn't automatically equate to "money". Perhaps the Evil warlord is prepared to rescue the princess provided he gets her hand in marriage - is there a monetary value for that? Or perhaps he is simply currying favour for the king (if I get in close, I can assassinate him, in which case the Reagent, a secret follower of my evil deity, will take power). Are these heroic, self-sacrificing acts, or do they simply reflect devotion to something other than gold?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So let's say that we place 150% of the treasure needed to reach the expected level of the next scenario, with the expectation Our Heroes will miss about 1/3 of it. They play exceptionally well, so when they're heading into the fourth level scenario, they are 6th level. Do we just keep going with cakewalk encounters because the heroes are ahead of the curve? </p><p></p><p>Let's say, instead, that they are heroic, so they don't focus on looting, and they only get about 1/3 of the loot and only go up half as fast as the scenarios were to rise. So, when they enter that 5th level scenario at only 3rd level, they get wiped out. That style of play equates Good to Stupid/suicidal - the GM has chosen a play style that favours the mercenary over the hero, and should expect character choices accordingly.</p><p></p><p>To not allow the mercenaries their extra power, or to allow those low powered characters not focused on looting to perish because they didn't gain enough xp to face these challenges. renders their decisions meaningless, right? However, it also means the players must choose between mercenary characters and dismal failure - will most players choose to play characters who will not be competitive, or have their choices been rendered just as meaningless in that only one choice can lead to survival, much less success?</p><p></p><p>And we're back to Square 1. When the questing heroes stumble across those tracks in the woods, they probably ignore the owlbear (they have pretty poor treasure), but you can bet they're distracted by a passing Dragon - he's probably got an horde, and we want it! So we're back to choices being dictated by xp considerations (we need that horde to keep pace with increasing challenges).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The fact that PC's run into encounters appropriate for their level, and maintain the appropriate wealth for their level based on those guidelines, is also sort of metagame, isn't it? How do the players determine whether those owlbear tracks are a critical side mission or a useless distraction? If their success or failure boils down to whether they make a lucky guess as to your mindset, that would mean, to me, that their decisions are ultimately meaningless. May as well just pull levers that grant xp or death and see who gets lucky.</p><p></p><p>Certainly, if they go out of their way to ignore the actual adventure, they won't succeed at that adventure. But maybe they don't care. Why would mercenary characters care that the Keep gets overrun by vicious undead. Tell you what, Dark Priest - pay us some cash (cash is WAY less important than your Dark Lords, right?) and we'll just walk away - you can HAVE the Keep!</p><p></p><p>Where's the verisimilitude in the party taking on whatever adventure hook is dangled their way? Money motivated adventurers are easy to GM - they take the cash bait. But they're also pretty dull, having no real intrinsic motivation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Certainly another gaming mindset, for which certain xp approaches will work better than others. So what if your character, the mercenary, wants to gather all the gold, but other characters, more heroic, don't? Should your character, whose efforts were aimed at getting the loot, get more xp than their characters, whose efforts went towards achieving the mission? Of course, good role playing will suggest this party splits - why would the mercenaries and the heroes not seek more like-minded teammates, especially in a world where adventurers abound? The PC Aura is one of the worst violators of verisimilitude, IMO.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, ultimately, their choice was meaningless, wasn't it? Regardless of whether they managed to locate and retrieve every last copper of value, and get more xp than would reasonably be expected, or failed dismally, leaving virtually all the treasure behind and barely even having enough cash to replenish food and arrows, the next adventure will be an appropriate challenge for characters of their experience and wealth.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Assuming, when the L5 adventurers die, they get to roll up new 5th level characters with appropriate wealth levels. But then, if failure means characters of equal level and more wealth and gear, what is the reward for success? It seems, once again, the character and player choices are rendered meaningless.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Don't they get xp for the dead adventurers' loot being retrieved?</p><p></p><p>Comparing the xp chart to wealth by level, it looks like they will have too much wealth unless they expend a lot on consumables.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But doesn't adding specific monsters to mitigate PC success or failure also ultimately render their choices less meaningful ("less meaningful" should probably be read wherever "meaningless" is indicated - it's not a binary switch, but a continuum).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I thought their heroic self-sacrifice was supposed to mean they got less xp. Now we seem to be coming around to giving them xp for the loot they passed up, making their choice less meaningful. In fact, it seems like we've just decided to apply an arbitrary xp award for mission completion.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, so we are getting back to "good = stupid", as they are foolish to deal with a threat to the locals unless they are getting paid for it.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, it comes down to play style. You're not losing players, from your comments, so this approach appears to be consistent with your group's play style. Not every player, or every group, would have a similar style. But I will note your game would appear to penalize any aspect of a character which is sub-optimal, be that placing some skill points and/or feats in a flavourful skill rather than one that better enhances character power, or failing to choose class, spells, etc. to achieve maximum power, or simply designing a character who is not a cipher geared at always selecting the best possible tactical choices. As such, expect a lot of ciphers built for maximum power whose "personalities" are designed to avoid anything which might prevent them taking the most efficient, effective tactical choices possible. "My paladin applies the torch to the prisoner's groin again, BA - <em>I'll ask one more time - where is the Princess?</em> He's LAWFUL good - the princess's safety is more important than the brief suffering of some miscreant."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Back to verisimilitude. At 6th level, a character is killed. Does he start back in with a 6th level character? He hasn't EARNED those levels, or that wealth, has he? Or does he start back in with a neophyte wet behind the ears L1 character who, for some reason, all the 6th level hardened mercenaries in the PC group take a shine to, and protect so he can gradually grow to their power level, rather than recruit a teammate with experience and skills more in keeping with their own? Again, different groups with different objectives and values will choose different playstyles.</p><p></p><p>It seems like your players are happy with your playstyle, which is great. If they prefer a different playstyle, I hope they will be able to find one more consistent with their own play goals, rather than assuming that your playstyle is the only playstyle and dropping the hobby entirely.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 5840797, member: 6681948"] To me, at least, xp is not an in-character reward. Wealth is - the character can see, touch, count and spend all that gold. Do you find, in the source material, that heroic characters tend to be less skilled? And what of those Evil villains who are motivated by power, rather than wealth? "Neutral" and "evil" doesn't automatically equate to "money". Perhaps the Evil warlord is prepared to rescue the princess provided he gets her hand in marriage - is there a monetary value for that? Or perhaps he is simply currying favour for the king (if I get in close, I can assassinate him, in which case the Reagent, a secret follower of my evil deity, will take power). Are these heroic, self-sacrificing acts, or do they simply reflect devotion to something other than gold? So let's say that we place 150% of the treasure needed to reach the expected level of the next scenario, with the expectation Our Heroes will miss about 1/3 of it. They play exceptionally well, so when they're heading into the fourth level scenario, they are 6th level. Do we just keep going with cakewalk encounters because the heroes are ahead of the curve? Let's say, instead, that they are heroic, so they don't focus on looting, and they only get about 1/3 of the loot and only go up half as fast as the scenarios were to rise. So, when they enter that 5th level scenario at only 3rd level, they get wiped out. That style of play equates Good to Stupid/suicidal - the GM has chosen a play style that favours the mercenary over the hero, and should expect character choices accordingly. To not allow the mercenaries their extra power, or to allow those low powered characters not focused on looting to perish because they didn't gain enough xp to face these challenges. renders their decisions meaningless, right? However, it also means the players must choose between mercenary characters and dismal failure - will most players choose to play characters who will not be competitive, or have their choices been rendered just as meaningless in that only one choice can lead to survival, much less success? And we're back to Square 1. When the questing heroes stumble across those tracks in the woods, they probably ignore the owlbear (they have pretty poor treasure), but you can bet they're distracted by a passing Dragon - he's probably got an horde, and we want it! So we're back to choices being dictated by xp considerations (we need that horde to keep pace with increasing challenges). The fact that PC's run into encounters appropriate for their level, and maintain the appropriate wealth for their level based on those guidelines, is also sort of metagame, isn't it? How do the players determine whether those owlbear tracks are a critical side mission or a useless distraction? If their success or failure boils down to whether they make a lucky guess as to your mindset, that would mean, to me, that their decisions are ultimately meaningless. May as well just pull levers that grant xp or death and see who gets lucky. Certainly, if they go out of their way to ignore the actual adventure, they won't succeed at that adventure. But maybe they don't care. Why would mercenary characters care that the Keep gets overrun by vicious undead. Tell you what, Dark Priest - pay us some cash (cash is WAY less important than your Dark Lords, right?) and we'll just walk away - you can HAVE the Keep! Where's the verisimilitude in the party taking on whatever adventure hook is dangled their way? Money motivated adventurers are easy to GM - they take the cash bait. But they're also pretty dull, having no real intrinsic motivation. Certainly another gaming mindset, for which certain xp approaches will work better than others. So what if your character, the mercenary, wants to gather all the gold, but other characters, more heroic, don't? Should your character, whose efforts were aimed at getting the loot, get more xp than their characters, whose efforts went towards achieving the mission? Of course, good role playing will suggest this party splits - why would the mercenaries and the heroes not seek more like-minded teammates, especially in a world where adventurers abound? The PC Aura is one of the worst violators of verisimilitude, IMO. So, ultimately, their choice was meaningless, wasn't it? Regardless of whether they managed to locate and retrieve every last copper of value, and get more xp than would reasonably be expected, or failed dismally, leaving virtually all the treasure behind and barely even having enough cash to replenish food and arrows, the next adventure will be an appropriate challenge for characters of their experience and wealth. Assuming, when the L5 adventurers die, they get to roll up new 5th level characters with appropriate wealth levels. But then, if failure means characters of equal level and more wealth and gear, what is the reward for success? It seems, once again, the character and player choices are rendered meaningless. Don't they get xp for the dead adventurers' loot being retrieved? Comparing the xp chart to wealth by level, it looks like they will have too much wealth unless they expend a lot on consumables. But doesn't adding specific monsters to mitigate PC success or failure also ultimately render their choices less meaningful ("less meaningful" should probably be read wherever "meaningless" is indicated - it's not a binary switch, but a continuum). I thought their heroic self-sacrifice was supposed to mean they got less xp. Now we seem to be coming around to giving them xp for the loot they passed up, making their choice less meaningful. In fact, it seems like we've just decided to apply an arbitrary xp award for mission completion. OK, so we are getting back to "good = stupid", as they are foolish to deal with a threat to the locals unless they are getting paid for it. Again, it comes down to play style. You're not losing players, from your comments, so this approach appears to be consistent with your group's play style. Not every player, or every group, would have a similar style. But I will note your game would appear to penalize any aspect of a character which is sub-optimal, be that placing some skill points and/or feats in a flavourful skill rather than one that better enhances character power, or failing to choose class, spells, etc. to achieve maximum power, or simply designing a character who is not a cipher geared at always selecting the best possible tactical choices. As such, expect a lot of ciphers built for maximum power whose "personalities" are designed to avoid anything which might prevent them taking the most efficient, effective tactical choices possible. "My paladin applies the torch to the prisoner's groin again, BA - [I]I'll ask one more time - where is the Princess?[/I] He's LAWFUL good - the princess's safety is more important than the brief suffering of some miscreant." Back to verisimilitude. At 6th level, a character is killed. Does he start back in with a 6th level character? He hasn't EARNED those levels, or that wealth, has he? Or does he start back in with a neophyte wet behind the ears L1 character who, for some reason, all the 6th level hardened mercenaries in the PC group take a shine to, and protect so he can gradually grow to their power level, rather than recruit a teammate with experience and skills more in keeping with their own? Again, different groups with different objectives and values will choose different playstyles. It seems like your players are happy with your playstyle, which is great. If they prefer a different playstyle, I hope they will be able to find one more consistent with their own play goals, rather than assuming that your playstyle is the only playstyle and dropping the hobby entirely. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Morrus on ... XP
Top