Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 988189" data-attributes="member: 4937">Talk about the ultimate meta-gaming rule.I can see how this makes things easier for some people running campaigns on fixed schedules (for example running a published module without modification), but for me, no thanks.This may or may not be 'fixing' a problem, but it is philosophically completely inelegant and repulsive to me as a game master.  The ammount of XP given is supposed to be rated to the challenge, but in this case as the challenge gets easier (more help) the total ammount of XP given _goes up_?!?!?  And not only that, what makes this 'cohort' fellow so special that he is treated different than both PC's and NPC's for purposes of calculating XP?  Isn't he basically just another NPC, albiet one that happens to be quite loyal to another character (PC or NPC)?  Is there some special cohort aura that causes him to be an exception in the normal rules of the universe?  If Bob the Grunt shows up to help the PC's fight (or other NPC's for that matter), does he also not dip into 'party XP'?  If one hundred 1st level archers show up, do they each get half shares of party XP while the PC's still get the full ammount?  If not, why not?   One of the basic rules of fairness in DMing is NPC's and PC's are basically the same, and as a DM you should rule consistantly between them.  Anything that you as a DM allow your NPC's to do you should be prepared to allow your PC's to do.  This encourages DM's not to ego trip whilst running a favorite NPC.  Likewise, anything that the PC's do, they should be prepared to accept the same rules applying to the NPC's.  This encourages PC's not to rules lawyer in order to gain advantages since they know that they will also be the victim of any broken ruling that they demand.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Finally, this doesn't stop the problem of PC's metagaming thier XP.  It just creates new rules for that meta game ("Oh boy, free XP for item creation!").  IF PC's are basing thier actions around maximizing thier XP in a particular encounter, something is fundamentally wrong with the campaign that mere rule lawyering won't solve.  It's either too easy (PC's should welcome help in a dangerous campaign), or death carries to little penalty (PC's aren't making avoidance of death thier primary goal), or too meta-gamed (PC's aren't role playing), or the DM is meta-gaming himself (punishing players for having cohorts by upping the difficulty level), or something.  My personal preference is to give shares according to character level and involvement.   Major actors in a story (generally speaking the PC's) get full shares, but if a party relies too heavily on an NPC - cohort or otherwise - he gets a full share according to his level.  Lesser actors get half shares (or less) depending on the degree of contribution.  If the cohort is pulling 1/5th of the weight in a party combat in terms of damage dealt and suffered, he's a full fledged member of the party.  Most RPer's I've dealt with have cohorts for RP purposes, and typically see the cohort as a fall back PC in case they lose thier own or wish to retire thier first PC because they want to change thier 'outlook' for a while.  While I can't imagine any player complaining to much about recieving free XP, I can't imagine any of them complaining about the normal state of affairs (share and share alike) either and I have to wonder somewhat about the state of the campaigns that inspired this sort of change.Some times I think 3.5 is more worried about compatibility with Neverwinter Nights II than with fixing actual problems in the system.</blockquote>

Verification