Can you earn experience points for your comrades?

[MarkB]

What is shared XP? Each encounter is worth N XP, and that amount gets divided evenly amongst PCs?

Effectively, yes. However XPs are earned, all characters in the group always have the same amount of XPs as each other.

The effect I'm going after is that PCs get XP for accomplishing class goals, but because other party members can earn you XP for accomplishing your class goals, you have an incentive to help them be better at it.


You're right about the judgment calls, so a sturdy framework would be needed for determining what is and what isn't worth a point. But now you have me thinking that PCs could distribute their own XP to others...

I'm struggling to see how one could come up with a really robust framework for such a system, precisely because it is so reliant upon judgement calls. You'd effectively have to go back over the entire group's activities for a session on a play-by-play basis, deciding whose skillset each and every one of their successful actions falls within.

The XP-from-comrades feature might mitigate the problems that the lowest-level character might have. If you (somehow) suck at the one thing you're supposed to do well, then you have even more reason to get the rest of the party involved, helping you out.

Sure, the MVP could be better, mathematically, than the FNG. But it's not a problem if they have different class goals.

For example, Mister-Victory-Person is the party paladin. Paladins earn XP for protecting the weak. Fairy-Nighting-Gale is the party bard, who earns XP for entertaining/drawing attention. Since MVP is good at everything, he can save the orphans by drawing the dragon's attention away from them, and possibly get better dice-results than FNG. But this earns him primary XPs for saving the orphans, and zero XPs for drawing the dragon's attention, since it's not his class goal. FNG gets secondary XPs for MVP's attention-drawing based on the idea (or fact) that he suggested the diversion to MVP, lent direct help to MVP to make him more distracting, or in some other way helped him to get the dragon's attention.

So even if the FNG can't survive a dragon diversion, because he's the lowest level character, he still gets XP if the hardier party members pursue his class goal. Which...helps him to catch up?

But isn't it more likely that, since the party's bard is lower level and less capable than the rest of them, they'll simply avoid distraction or deception based plans altogether, and instead play to the party's strengths? Or else, they'll try the distraction plan in an attempt to help the bard catch up, but then fail because they're not good at it, and still won't earn any XPs for it.

 

[iserith]

What is shared XP? Each encounter is worth N XP, and that amount gets divided evenly amongst PCs?

The effect I'm going after is that PCs get XP for accomplishing class goals, but because other party members can earn you XP for accomplishing your class goals, you have an incentive to help them be better at it.

Each challenge is worth XP. In my current campaign, that's combat challenges and social interaction challenges. (Exploration challenges typically result in other rewards, often treasure.) The party engages with the challenge and split the XP. This automatically incentivizes helping each other since it's shared. It also incentivizes talking to and making contacts out of NPCs/monsters rather than just always killing them.

I'm genuinely curious how your players play now where you're wanting to change over to standard XP. Do they not already help each other accomplish goals? Your current method awards levels at the end of an act, which incentivizes players to hurry up and get to the end of the act. Are they not helping each other do that now?

 

[Jacob Lewis]

So I could earn a degree online in computer science for my wife, does it mean she'll know how to program a computer? I guess it depends on the context of what experience points represent in your games. Is it a reward for playing a certain way, or merely participating? Does it represent the actual knowledge and experience learned by the individual? Or is it simply a game mechanism used to gauge the players' progress and/or a measurable level of strength or power to better balance their challenges and rewards?

 

[5ekyu]

So I could earn a degree online in computer science for my wife, does it mean she'll know how to program a computer? I guess it depends on the context of what experience points represent in your games. Is it a reward for playing a certain way, or merely participating? Does it represent the actual knowledge and experience learned by the individual? Or is it simply a game mechanism used to gauge the players' progress and/or a measurable level of strength or power to better balance their challenges and rewards?

With classed systems i long ago gave up pretending the specific actions are related to the specific gains in any sense of study-to-effect linkage. There are just way too many different occurances of "at this new level the feature gained is" which put a lie to that concept.

Consider a rogue at 2nd. When they reach 3rd they plan to go arcane trickster. What activities in play in action are they supposed to be taking at 2nd that say "see was working to cast spells"? If they spent most of sessions doing thieving work but the gains were extra sneak dmg, should the sneak dmg be held back if they did not sneak attack once?

Trying to tie progression and specific gains to specific actions that support "learnin' the new stuff" is just not a concept that works out often enough without clashes to be worthwhile.

Hech even in point buy, it rarely works.

There have been systems where skills and features advance *specifically by use* but those were typically classless by intent and purpose.

As for the rest, i cringe every time i see anything like *class goals* as i am a firm believer in having classes not be defining of goals but merely of "tools". I am an advocate of *character goals" instead and have at times awarded xp for those. Usualky now i award non'xp gains for goals - such as 5e inspiration would do.

As fir advancement, i use basically an alternate version of session advancement where (short form) at tier 2 we advance a level after 8 sessions which is about 2 months. At tier 3 it will likely go to 12/3.

I am giving strong consideration next campaign to the same thing but only advancing odd to odd. So at 5th level, after 16 sessions over 4 months you jump to 7th. At 12th level after 24 sessions and 6 months you advance to 15th.

My players like to have time to live-in and get comfortable with new abilities before the next new thing.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm struggling to see how one could come up with a really robust framework for such a system, precisely because it is so reliant upon judgement calls. You'd effectively have to go back over the entire group's activities for a session on a play-by-play basis, deciding whose skillset each and every one of their successful actions falls within.

Or just have a check-sheet that you tick off after each encounter.  Let me worry about the framework

But isn't it more likely that, since the party's bard is lower level and less capable than the rest of them, they'll simply avoid distraction or deception based plans altogether, and instead play to the party's strengths? Or else, they'll try the distraction plan in an attempt to help the bard catch up, but then fail because they're not good at it, and still won't earn any XPs for it.

Depends on the encounter.  This can put GM planning into play, tailoring encounters for a certain expected response, but it could fall flat if the game is structured so that one PC can always trump the others.  So it seems there's a GM incentive in this XP plan as well - design games so that each player has a chance to shine.  I suppose the sandboxers won't like this plan too much.

I'm genuinely curious how your players play now where you're wanting to change over to standard XP. Do they not already help each other accomplish goals? Your current method awards levels at the end of an act, which incentivizes players to hurry up and get to the end of the act. Are they not helping each other do that now?

Not just get to the end of the act, but to do so with some measure of favorable outcome.  If the end of the act is, "PCs all landed in the dungeon, locked up and listening to the prince's coronation from beneath ground level," that's not really level-worthy.

I've had pretty good success with offering in-game rewards as carrots.  Levels just sort of sweeten the deal.

With classed systems i long ago gave up pretending the specific actions are related to the specific gains in any sense of study-to-effect linkage. There are just way too many different occurances of "at this new level the feature gained is" which put a lie to that concept.

That's probably the best way to go.  Although "training time" could be used for the newer class features.  Indeed, back in a D&D3 campaign, I would award the more subtle features of a level-up right away, and require either some down time or a story-based reason for gaining the more elaborate class feautres.

As for the rest, i cringe every time i see anything like *class goals* as i am a firm believer in having classes not be defining of goals but merely of "tools". I am an advocate of *character goals" instead and have at times awarded xp for those. Usualky now i award non'xp gains for goals - such as 5e inspiration would do.

Why wouldn't classes define goals?  Does the fighter not fight?  The thief not thieve?  The wizard not...

 

[iserith]

Not just get to the end of the act, but to do so with some measure of favorable outcome.  If the end of the act is, "PCs all landed in the dungeon, locked up and listening to the prince's coronation from beneath ground level," that's not really level-worthy.

I've had pretty good success with offering in-game rewards as carrots.  Levels just sort of sweeten the deal.

Is what is required to achieve the level transparent? In other words, do the players know what they need to do to level up?

 

[MarkB]

Depends on the encounter.  This can put GM planning into play, tailoring encounters for a certain expected response, but it could fall flat if the game is structured so that one PC can always trump the others.  So it seems there's a GM incentive in this XP plan as well - design games so that each player has a chance to shine.  I suppose the sandboxers won't like this plan too much.

But then, if you're putting in checks and balances in an attempt to ensure even progress across the group, why not just divide XPs evenly across the group? At this point you're upping the complexity yet again, and reducing player choice by designing encounters around a specific preferred approach.

If you want to encourage players to help the party play to their strengths, but don't want that to result in uneven progression, then maybe XP isn't the carrot you should be using. As suggested by [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], Inspiration would be a good reward for such behaviour, or maybe an RP award such as progression towards some in-game goal, such as membership and rank within an organisation, or owning and upgrading a base or vehicle.

Why wouldn't classes define goals?  Does the fighter not fight?  The thief not thieve?  The wizard not...

Classes are the tools your character has at their disposal. They're the means to accomplish a goal. They are not the goal itself.

 

[5ekyu]

"Why wouldn't classes define goals?  Does the fighter not fight?  The thief not thieve?  The wizard not..."

This basically IMO leans into a view of classes that came out of early classed RPGs where class was basicalky more or less synonymous with character. It worked well enough back then and for certain styles of play.

For my groups, thru various systems, we have developed fondness for more robust and less limiting options as far as mechanical construction goes. DnD 5e seems to do a fairly strong representation of that with their less rigid link between class and character. You can build rogues who do not steal at all, but who play scouts, faces, even major combat types - "fighters" by another technique.

You can take a variety of the sorcer or warlicks and create mystic warriors, not so much spell casters.

Wizards can be alk over the place.

Possibky the most robust are the clerics that can use race, domain and background to be as thiefy as the thieves or definitely grade a melee smackdown types.

The "character" and their history and "goals" should (in our POV) drive the selection of the building blocks of class, race, background as welk as the play and choices going forward, not the reverse.

But more to the point, i myself really dislike the idea of the GM defining player character goals by his interpretation of "what a fighter is" and hard coding that into the game mechanics. That, to me, crosses over a line between what things GMs should be defining and what the players should be defining.

If a GM told me picking rogue class would hinge my rate of advancement to stealing... I would be very worried and strongly review what was discussed at session zero or have questions for session zero ready.

Thats one of the reasons i prefer to separate "goals" from advancement and let "goals" get more actual in-game rewards than tie them to advancement. Lets the player not be hemmed in by *my* view of what their character ought to be.

 

[Tallifer]

I run a campaign in which all experience points are group points: every player earns the same amount, even if they are absent, even if they join the game anew.

Moreover, (frequent) bonus experience points for art, journals, ideas, maps and other cool stuff accrue to the whole group.

This way no one feels left out, and everyone feels the altruistic energy of being part of group helping each other even in Out-of-Character ways.

 

[GMMichael]

But then, if you're putting in checks and balances in an attempt to ensure even progress across the group, why not just divide XPs evenly across the group? At this point you're upping the complexity yet again, and reducing player choice by designing encounters around a specific preferred approach.

1) Encounter/session design isn't a check&balance, it's just good GMing.
2) If you remove individual effort from the XP equation, then you remove an incentive to be outstanding. Each PC just needs to do the bare minimum to get their share of the pot.

If you want to encourage players to help the party play to their strengths, but don't want that to result in uneven progression, then maybe XP isn't the carrot you should be using. As suggested by @5ekyu, Inspiration would be a good reward for such behaviour, or maybe an RP award such as progression towards some in-game goal, such as membership and rank within an organisation, or owning and upgrading a base or vehicle.

The inspiration for the party-assist XP idea comes from wanting XP to be more interesting than "you killed all the monsters, here's your share of the XP pot." By tying it to class goals, it adds to a player's feel of a class, but ends up with a difficult situation like this - balancing the amount of XPs that each PC gets.

Inspiration, or what I call hero points, is a good carrot. But if PCs don't get XP for doing what their class does, what would earn them XP? And if you don't get XP for encouraging and bolstering the party in your specialty, what's another way to tie class goals to party XP (the latter, hopefully, promoting teamwork)?