XP Unhappiness

[Mark CMG]

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

You do seem to be having trouble with their flexibility, judging by the traditional descripitions you feel they are locked into being used as. For instance, and building off of just your one example but understanding it is in no way limited to this, within the particular campaign a warrior might have an event that requires he defeat (not necessarily kill) his nemesis in actual physical combat while a wizard might need to recover a tome being held by that same nemesis who is threatening to destroy it even as an acolyte's concern is with making sure some prisoners being held by said nemesis, and any number of other concerns. Of course leveling up is not guaranteed since a number of "Events" might need completing before that happens. But, again, if the acolyte. for instance, is building a character based on group unity and preservation, perhaps rather than focusing on releasing the prisoners his Event is tied to making sure all of the party members survive.

And remember, in my own particular system (perhaps you recall reading this elsewhere), completion of an Event allows the player to choose a new Facet (similar to a feature/feat/skill/etc.) for the character that is tied to the Event, in that what the character does informs how that character grows. A character doesn't simply get a pile of predetermined level-up-stuff dumped on them at milestones dictated by XP accumulation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

a warrior might have an event that requires he defeat (not necessarily kill) his nemesis in actual physical combat while a wizard might need to recover a tome being held by that same nemesis who is threatening to destroy it

So, Quest XP?

"Accomplish a goal, you get XP"

completion of an Event allows the player to choose a new Facet (similar to a feature/feat/skill/etc.)

So, piecemeal leveling?

"+1 attack bonus is worth n XP!"

Mokay. Still not convinced that it's any inherently better than "Kobolds are worth 25 XP," or necessarily incompatible with it, either, but if it floats yer boat.

 

[Mark CMG]

So, Quest XP?

"Accomplish a goal, you get XP"

"Quest" might be too specific a word, since it has implications that pigeonhole the types of things that a group might decide define Events, but that's one way of looking at it (and using it).

So, piecemeal leveling?

"+1 attack bonus is worth n XP!"

Mokay. Still not convinced that it's any inherently better than "Kobolds are worth 25 XP," or necessarily incompatible with it, either, but if it floats yer boat.

The incremental way of using Events allows for players to more closely relate the lives of their PCs to the actual growth, and to take advantage of the lessons learned in a more timely fashion, but certainly the system can also hold off adding the individual Facets to times when the group wishes to allow players to reflect longer before making Facet choices (such as between game sessions, at the beginning of the next session, etc.). nothing would stop a group from piling them up but it has been my experience that doing things incrementally has the benefit of allowing the player to more closely connect with the character and that character's growth.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think most gaming groups need or want to use XP, but I don't think the game really needs complicated rules for calculating how many XP to hand out.

For monsters, it is probably easier to just have fixed XP, but this can be done only if it fits with the level progression rules... In 3ed you need to have scaling XP instead of fixed so that the same monster would be more worth at a lower PC level, but this may not be needed with another progression rule. OTOH a tricky question for combat XP is: should 2 identical monsters encountered together be worth the same XP as when encountered separately? If the designers think that with the current ruleset the individual XPs just shouldn't add up, then it can lead to an XP calculation system that's more complicated than its worth for a large number of DMs.

I think that XP for non-combat situations deserves guidelines in the DMG but it is much more complicated to be codified into good rules, because while the outcome of combat depends mostly on how well the players play (and marginally about dice rolls), in a non-combat scenario the outcome is more variable.

Take the trap case for example: how much does it depend on the players playing well? The players' influence on the outcome is mostly confined in the phase before the trap encounter, such as telling the DM what precautions is the party taking, where you are actively looking/searching... some gaming groups then like handling traps with detailed descriptions so that the player is told how the mechanism looks like and then can make decisions on how to bypass/disarm it, but for most gaming groups a trap is just a bunch of rolls (one to detect, then one to disarm or a saving throw) with limited player input that can grant some bonus or advantage on those rolls. How much XP is a challenge worth if it's almost only a matter of dice?

So maybe for non-combat situations the XP should better be tied to quests rather than "encounters" unless such encounters are complex enough to require the players to provide good ideas. If the encounters are a bunch of stealth check to get past the guards + a bunch of climb checks to climb the garden walls + a bunch of saving throws to avoid some automatic traps... then it's better that the XP is rather granted for the entire sub-quest of "getting into the castle" which at least required the players to actually decide to get past the guards, climb the wall and pick the trapped route.

 

[ferratus]

My deepest, dirtiest RPG secret is that I wish there was class-specific XP. Fighters would get XP from killing monsters, Wizards would get XP for accumulating new spells and magical lore, Clerics would get XP for conversions and destroying places of evil, and Thieves would get XP for amassing gold. Multi-class characters would earn half (or divided by the # of classes they have) XP than single class characters.

There are some immediately recognizable problems with this system. The DM has to include the proper treasure/spells/etc. to ensure that everyone to get XP which could play havok with certain campaign settings/playstyles. While these goals should make it profitable for PC's to work together, they won't work together as well as everyone simply sharing XP for murdering everything.

But oh, I like the idea of people actually pursuing goals related to their class, rather than class advancement simply being something that happens. With a system like this, the fghter will be warlike, the thief greedy, the cleric zealous and the wizard power-hungry. I would like that very much.

 

[Stormonu]

My deepest, dirtiest RPG secret is that I wish there was class-specific XP. Fighters would get XP from killing monsters, Wizards would get XP for accumulating new spells and magical lore, Clerics would get XP for conversions and destroying places of evil, and Thieves would get XP for amassing gold. Multi-class characters would earn half (or divided by the # of classes they have) XP than single class characters.

There are some immediately recognizable problems with this system. The DM has to include the proper treasure/spells/etc. to ensure that everyone to get XP which could play havok with certain campaign settings/playstyles. While these goals should make it profitable for PC's to work together, they won't work together as well as everyone simply sharing XP for murdering everything.

But oh, I like the idea of people actually pursuing goals related to their class, rather than class advancement simply being something that happens. With a system like this, the fghter will be warlike, the thief greedy, the cleric zealous and the wizard power-hungry. I would like that very much.

Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:

E - Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S- Superior, deviations minimal but noted =2
F - Fair performance, more norm than deviations =3
P- Poor showing with aberrant behavior =4

Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity, fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead, magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight - these are all clear examples of a POOR rating.

Award experience points normally. When each character is given his or her total, also give them an alphabetic rating - E, S, F, or P. When a character's total experience points indicate eligibility for an advancement in level, use the alphabetic assessment to assign equal weight to the behavior of the character during each separate adventure - regardless of how many or how few experience points were gained in each. The resulting total is then divided by the number of entries (adventures) to come up with some number from 1 to 4. This number indicates the number of WEEKS the character must spend in study and/or training before he or she actually gains the benefits of the new level.

Personally, I don't like the stringent implications of how I should play my character that bolded passage seems to profess, but thought you might find it interesting.

The 2E DMG had (Optional) Class-based awards (DMG Table 34; p48). For example, the fighter got +10 XP/HD defeated; the rogue got 2 XP per gp obtained, the wizard got 50 XP/spell level used to overcome a problem and the priest got 100 XP/spell level for using spells that furthered the cleric's ethos (There were other rewards, the table doesn't copy well from the PDF). I liked this approach better, it didn't feel as heavy handed.