XP Unhappiness

[Mark CMG]

I'd rather it be a bit more fine-tuned than that, in that I often give out half-XP or even quarter-XP for a given encounter to characters whose participation was peripheral at best, and none at all to those who did nothing and-or were off elsewhere.

Giving XP to the whole group as SOP just over-rewards those players who have their characters hang back all the time and let others take the risk.

Lanefan

And it can be fine-tuned, as you say, by the individual GM/group to account for your personal tastes. A GM can, for instance, tie events to individuals and have PCs of the same group all receive one completed Event for a particular battle (or half an Event if so desired) while gaining another (or another half) for personal RPing goals related to a particular encounter. A bard might need to also gain some important historical info, a priest some artifact being held by those encountered, while a warrior might gain by making sure the group takes less than a particular threshold of losses. Much more flexibility and easily allows for RPing goals and combat goals to be integrated simultaneously.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I use what I call an "Event System"

I don't really understand how that's different than a DM saying: "You all level up whenever I decide you all level up."

Which is fine, but DM Fiat XP hardly requires a system overhaul.

 

[Mark CMG]

I don't really understand how that's different than a DM saying: "You all level up whenever I decide you all level up."


Which is fine, but DM Fiat XP hardly requires a system overhaul.

Well, obviously, it's not GM fiat, since it is fueled by the actions of the PCs (and their players). So, too, the playstyle, pacing, and structure of the campaign is determined as much by the players as it is the GM. It actualy builds upon the players playstyles (which can be united or varied at the same game table) and helps bake what some refer to as the social contract right into advancement.

 

[Kabluey]

I'm one of those who just tell the players when they level, but for other DM's who want a finer level of control, I wonder if adopting the Marvel Heroic Roleplaying xp system might not work. You have what is called a Milestone set, that is, a set of three milestones that give increasing levels of xp based on likelihood of it occurring. The lowest level gives the least xp (1), but it can happen as often as possible. The next level gives 3 xp, and it can only occur once per encounter. And the final is 10 xp and it's meant to occur no more than once per session. And a player has two of these sets. The Milestone sets can be adventure specific or player specific, and it's meant to reward a player playing a character in a particular way.

Adjusted for D&D, I could see something like the lowest level (with xp numbers adjusted for the party's level, of course) granting xp for overcoming creatures, the next one for, say, aiding another party member, and the final one for hitting the adventure goal. And you can have a second Milestone set more specifically directed at the player's role in the group. XP for the rogue for detecting/removing traps, the fighter for protecting another party member, the cleric for healing, whatever. And since the milestones change from adventure to adventure, they can be adjusted for what's coming. A lot of exploring and little combat? Just build in heavier exploration rewards.

Just a thought.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

There may be some misinterpretation going on here. This is how I see what they're doing (there is some reading between the lines here, but I've got a pretty good accuracy record doing it):

- XP will have options for different ways to award it. This will include role-playing, combat, exploration, quests, etc.
- There will be more than one system.
- One example system would be one that assigns XP values to events from all three pillars.
- Another example system might be an old-school version that bases it solely on treasure acquired.
- A quest/achievement based and/or free-form system is certain.
- A system based purely on monsters and traps is a possibility.
- There may be guidelines for going XP-less.
- XP budget is a guideline for DMs who want to use it to estimate balance. The option to use random encounters is clear evidence they aren't going to enforce XP budgets on everyone's game.
- For those who are interested in clear balancing rules, XP budget is going to be able to provide (in theory) equal balance with 4e.

So pretty much everyone ought to have what they want/need. Unless the existence of an XP budget, or random encounters, or treasure-only XP module in the book offends you. In which case, you're going to be very offended by the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, obviously, it's not GM fiat, since it is fueled by the actions of the PCs (and their players).

That statement confuses me a little. All game play is fueled by the actions of the PC's. Without the PC's performing actions, there is no game. So the fact that the PC's will perform actions in a game is a given. The players, playing the characters, make choices and drive the action.

So your proposal seems almost exactly like the DM saying, based on their own preference, "You did this thing I wanted you to do, so have a level."

XP can be a method of positive feedback for having your character (or even a player) perform a specific action. Allowing the DM to dictate what the actions are that reward XP seems like the kind of thing people have been doing since OD&D, without needing a systemic overhaul.

 

[Stormonu]

I don't know why, but I feel the DM simply leveling PCs on his say so somehow bothers me. I know its a playstyle thing, but somehow it ruffles my feathers.

Doling out XP tells me "this action progressed you X closer to your goal", whereas just being told to level give me/my players no sense of how they earned their advancement.

I guess its kinda of like getting a detailed annual evaluation at work versus just getting an annual pay incease with no job review (the fact you still have your job indicates your soing a good job).

 

[Mark CMG]

So your proposal seems almost exactly like the DM saying, based on their own preference, "You did this thing I wanted you to do, so have a level."

Sounds more like you are describing the XP system as it currently exists. The current system suggests there are concrete ways to get specific amounts of XP while other ways are by DM fiat. The Event system allows PCs to choose what to do and how to proceed while ensuring that milestones don't favor or steer toward particular methodologies.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't mind the way XP works in BECM, where each class used a different experience table and you got XP for treasure. And I don't mind the way it works in 3.X either, where every class uses the same experience table and you don't get XP for treasure. They are all good in their own ways.

I would like to see some guidelines for DMs who want to handle it differently, though, or for those who do not wish to use XP at all. Even if it is just a couple of paragraphs...just something that the DM can point to when the players start asking questions.

That would make me very happy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For my part, I use what I call an "Event System" wherein each GM/group can consider what is important to the campaign they are playing.

The Event system allows PCs to choose what to do and how to proceed while ensuring that milestones don't favor or steer toward particular methodologies.

DM Using "Events": "Hey, guys, this big fight with the BBEG is an Event and completing it will level you up!"

DM Using DM-fiat XP: "Hey, guys, this fight with the BBEG is a big story event! Completing it will level you up!"

Alternately:

DM Using "Events": "Nice job forging an alliance with the Rickman clan! That was an event that gives you a level!"

DM Using DM-Fiat XP: "Nice job forging an alliance with the Rickman clan! Here's enough XP to gain a level!"

...perhaps my confusion lies in the vagueness of "events"?