D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Lanefan]

Some people just play games because the playing of the game is fun.

Fair enough, which then raises the question of whether xp and-or class levels are a player reward or a character reward.

For me, they're an in-character reward all the way, based on what the character does (or, now and then, tries to do even if the attempt results in failure) in the fiction. Character did nothing? Then no xp for you. Player brought extra snacks? That's great, but it doesn't get your character any bonus xp.

Which means if the players are having fun role-playing their characters' telling of war stories around the fire, that's excellent - but the characters ain't gonna get any xp or in-game advancement out of it.

 

[Umbran]

Time-based, be it in-game time or real-world time, in fact does allow the PCs to sit on their hands and still advance in level; which IMO is ludicrous.

Really?
Time spent actively adventuring.
You know, as if we weren't dumb as a box of rocks.
Sheesh.

 

[Lanefan]

I've seen you do this a bunch of times and people explain it to you many times. Most players we know have zero interest in sitting around town doing nothing. They want to play the game and go on adventures.

I want my character to survive and prosper. Prosperity might require adventuring, sure; but survival doesn't - and if I can gain levels by sitting around on the farm then it's clearly in my better interest (both as player and character) to do exactly that.

Assuming that players want to play the game and actively do heroic stuff (whether given XP or milestone leveling) is a near-universal expectation to the extent that your assumptions on this particular area of player motivation are clearly more the exception than the rule.

I personally like XP, but I didn't change my behavior in a friend's Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign just because he was running milestone leveling, and as far as I could observe, neither did anyone else. To some extent milestone leveling could be argued to better support verisimilitude, because the group focused on our objectives and character interests, and weren't motived by trying to take on extraneous encounters or clear out rooms just because they'd be worth more xp.

Again, as noted about re Curse of Strahd, Rime of the Frostmaiden is a hard-line adventure path with a clear sequence of events that are intended to occur (even if not necessarily in an exact sequence) and to which milestone levelling can be fairly easily mapped if not already noted right in the module. Further, if the campaign is set up as "We're playing this adventure path" then all have tacitly agreed to doing so when signing up for the game.

But - and I keep having to say this - not all campaigns are single adventure paths, which means when signing on for the game all you're committing to is playing your character and showing up for the games. There's no other inherent restrictions or expectations other than those you bring yourself.

And fi the system is going to leave such a wide-open loophole where I can game it so as to advance my character while doing nothing, I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of that. Solution: close the damn loophole and use a character-action-based reward system, preferably individual-character rather than group-based.

 

[KYRON45]

Fair enough, which then raises the question of whether xp and-or class levels are a player reward or a character reward.

For me, they're an in-character reward all the way, based on what the character does (or, now and then, tries to do even if the attempt results in failure) in the fiction. Character did nothing? Then no xp for you. Player brought extra snacks? That's great, but it doesn't get your character any bonus xp.

Which means if the players are having fun role-playing their characters' telling of war stories around the fire, that's excellent - but the characters ain't gonna get any xp or in-game advancement out of it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Accomplish something get rewarded. Fail an attempt to accomplish something....honorable mention.

I've never played with a group that wanted to do nothing. Ever.

If the party says...hey we haven't leveled in a while i might ask them to regale me with tails of their achievements. Makes for a good recap. Also lets me know if we are both understanding things the same way and keeps me informed of hooks they may have missed.

For me, D&D is a group effort. I expect my players to contribute as much as they expect me to contribute. When they succeed i find this rewarding....when i reward them....they find that rewarding.

Back in the before times of XP my DM used to reward/threaten us based on our actions. Brought his favorite candy +...annoyed him -.....map/take notes +. It was all in good fun.

 

[KYRON45]

I want my character to survive and prosper. Prosperity might require adventuring, sure; but survival doesn't - and if I can gain levels by sitting around on the farm then it's clearly in my better interest (both as player and character) to do exactly that.

Again, as noted about re Curse of Strahd, Rime of the Frostmaiden is a hard-line adventure path with a clear sequence of events that are intended to occur (even if not necessarily in an exact sequence) and to which milestone levelling can be fairly easily mapped if not already noted right in the module. Further, if the campaign is set up as "We're playing this adventure path" then all have tacitly agreed to doing so when signing up for the game.

But - and I keep having to say this - not all campaigns are single adventure paths, which means when signing on for the game all you're committing to is playing your character and showing up for the games. There's no other inherent restrictions or expectations other than those you bring yourself.

And fi the system is going to leave such a wide-open loophole where I can game it so as to advance my character while doing nothing, I'd be an idiot not to take advantage of that. Solution: close the damn loophole and use a character-action-based reward system, preferably individual-character rather than group-based.

I've never heard of a party that was ok with just sitting around regardless of how their XP was metered out.
Game your own game my friend.

 

[Lanefan]

Wouldn't "time based" imply : Time spent being productive?
My employment is time based.....in so far as while the time is passing i'm doing things conducive to getting things done.

That's an implication you're adding yourself.

Time-based is time-based. You get paid the same at work whether you work like a dog for 8 hours or take it relatively easy for 8 hours; your pay is based on your being there.

Same as a session-based advancement system. The players could spend two sessions in hard-core adventuring or they could spend two sessions carousing in town; and yet they'd get the same reward. If they didn't, then suddenly it's not a time-based system any more.

 

[Thomas Shey]

For D&D style games they are necessary abstractions. It's a level-based system.

You at least now properly qualified it.

 

[KYRON45]

That's an implication you're adding yourself.

Time-based is time-based. You get paid the same at work whether you work like a dog for 8 hours or take it relatively easy for 8 hours; your pay is based on your being there.

Same as a session-based advancement system. The players could spend two sessions in hard-core adventuring or they could spend two sessions carousing in town; and yet they'd get the same reward. If they didn't, then suddenly it's not a time-based system any more.

My boss says that if i don't accomplish what they are paying me for that i should not come back the next day.
Where do you work and are they hiring?

 

[Lanefan]

Hypothetical player: "I gain a level after one session, right? So what if I say my PC just stays back in town while everyone else goes to check out the goblin raids?"

DM: "Then that guy never becomes an adventurer. He was called but found his courage lacking, and settles down in town with a safer job. Want to roll up a new character, or would you prefer to figure a motivation for this one to actually be part of the game?"

Hypothetical* player: "I gain a level after one session, right; and so does everyone else? So guys, why don't we all just stay in town for tonight's session, level up, and we'll be better able to take on the goblins next session?"

DM: > smoke rises from ears <

* - or maybe not so hypothetical, as I could easily see myself saying exactly this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've seen you do this a bunch of times and people explain it to you many times. Most players we know have zero interest in sitting around town doing nothing. They want to play the game and go on adventures.

Assuming that players want to play the game and actively do heroic stuff (whether given XP or milestone leveling) is a near-universal expectation to the extent that your assumptions on this particular area of player motivation are clearly more the exception than the rule.

I personally like XP, but I didn't change my behavior in a friend's Rime of the Frostmaiden campaign just because he was running milestone leveling, and as far as I could observe, neither did anyone else. To some extent milestone leveling could be argued to better support verisimilitude, because the group focused on our objectives and character interests, and weren't motived by trying to take on extraneous encounters or clear out rooms just because they'd be worth more xp.

I think there can be cases where the experience motivation has some functional purpose. Even among people who are there to play the game you can get some people who run to the minimalist-effort approach, where they'll avoid all the options with greater effort or risk because they've got a kind of strange internal cycle about playing-and-levelling if not nudged out of that.

I do agree most people aren't going to just sit around however; it'd be like I pointed out to one player in an RQ game once that his bizarre fixation with improving skills he never actually had a need to use in game was kind of a fetish. Which means they do exist, but I'm not sold in enough numbers that something as basic as "Doing actual adventuring things" needs a carrot.