Awarding XP

[Crothian]

Because of the way he role-played his character, he got 70% of what the others received. If he hadn't role-played his character, he would have got 100% of what the other received.

So: role-playing character = less XP.

There are two big rewards in D&D: XP and gold (ie. magic items). If one PC gets less XP for role-playing his character, how is that not penalizing him? (Maybe "penalizing" isn't the best word, but the point is still valid.)

The player created the character with this drawback. If the drawback never gets played, its pointless to have it. So what if the player got less XP in this situation? Its a situation that the player put himself in. And D&D is much more the XP and gold. I would call those two minor awards. The big reward is the fun of playing the game.

 

[LostSoul]

The player created the character with this drawback. If the drawback never gets played, its pointless to have it. So what if the player got less XP in this situation? Its a situation that the player put himself in. And D&D is much more the XP and gold. I would call those two minor awards. The big reward is the fun of playing the game.

Well, I for one get a lot of enjoyment out of levelling up/getting new magic items. If I never did, well, that wouldn't be as much fun. XP and GP are obviously D&D's major reward system.

All I'm saying is that D&D isn't very forgiving if you create a character with some sort of personality trait that will keep him out of battle. There's not much incentive to role-play that kind of character in D&D. Which is fine with me since the game is about adventurers, not office clerks.

I agree with the original poster's ruling. I'm just saying that he (or she) shouldn't be surprised if that player suddenly gets over his fear of water, or if it never comes up again. (Since there isn't as much reward for playing that type of character.) And characters who have issues like this (or any other that will keep them out of combat) won't be played as much.

Unless the player doesn't mind being a level or two behind the rest. Which could be the case, I don't know.

 

[Crothian]

Well, I for one get a lot of enjoyment out of levelling up/getting new magic items. If I never did, well, that wouldn't be as much fun. XP and GP are obviously D&D's major reward system.

All I'm saying is that D&D isn't very forgiving if you create a character with some sort of personality trait that will keep him out of battle. There's not much incentive to role-play that kind of character in D&D. Which is fine with me since the game is about adventurers, not office clerks.

He got more XP for role playing then everyone else did, souinds like that is a good incentive. While he might have gotten less XP over all this week if he keeps up the good role playing he can easily earn that back and even come out ahead of the other players through role playing rewards.

D&D might not be forgiving...but its a game and it has a DM. The DSM gets to trump the game, so its more about if the DM will give incentive for these types of characters. And the character flaw is not foreveryone.

Your last line though makes no sense. Adventures have flaws its not like office clierks are the only people in the world with flaws. And why can't an office clerk be an adventurer? A mild manner newspaper reporter is Superman.

 

[Bront]

Basicly, there are 2 different ways to deal with XP.

#1) Everyone gets the same, regardless of what people do. Makes some paperwork easier, but can penalize players who go the extra mile. This is good for a genneraly good group that you know everything will balance out eventualy.

#2) Everything seperate per person. Means everyone gets what they deserve, but this can be rough, if players are unable to be in combat they miss out on that, and RP XP can be subjective, and when it's not awarded people may wonder why.

 

[bodhi]

Because of the way he role-played his character, he got 70% of what the others received. If he hadn't role-played his character, he would have got 100% of what the other received.

Not necessarily. He would've gotten what the other PCs got for the combat, but could've gotten much less for roleplaying. Say he completely ignores this particular personality trait, doesn't RP it at all, and gets almost no RP XP, while the rest of the party does. He still might end up getting about 70% of what the others do.

So: role-playing character = less XP.

Roleplaying, in this case = less combat XP, but more roleplaying XP. I agree, the player, in the future, may stick with character concepts that don't risk him staying out of combat. But what happened was a result of the player's choice in character creation.

If a human's in a party with two dwarves and a half-orc, and they're in a cave, and the lights go out, the human shouldn't complain about being the only one not able to see.

 

[LostSoul]

He got more XP for role playing then everyone else did, souinds like that is a good incentive. While he might have gotten less XP over all this week if he keeps up the good role playing he can easily earn that back and even come out ahead of the other players through role playing rewards.

D&D might not be forgiving...but its a game and it has a DM. The DSM gets to trump the game, so its more about if the DM will give incentive for these types of characters. And the character flaw is not foreveryone.

The incentive is towards role-playing in general, since you get XP for role-playing. There is a disincentive towards role-playing certain character types (ie. those that might cause you to avoid a conflict) because you get less XP that way.

He could possibly come out ahead just via role-playing; but that assumes that he's getting RP awards that the others are not. What if the other people are get the same RP rewards as he does?

I don't think that the DM should change something as vital to the game as XP in the middle of a campaign. (Unless he talks with the whole group and they all agree.) At the beginning of the game is the best time to do it.

Although I'm not sure how you'd handle the problem, unless you gave XP to PCs who did not engage in combat equal to those who did strictly on the basis of role-playing. I'm not sure how that would affect the game.

Your last line though makes no sense. Adventures have flaws its not like office clierks are the only people in the world with flaws. And why can't an office clerk be an adventurer? A mild manner newspaper reporter is Superman.

It makes sense; perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. What I was getting at was that adventurers (PCs) should be people who are willing to get into fights. A PC (in D&D) who is a pacifist, avoids all conflict, etc. is a pretty lame PC. Might as well get a job in an office.

 

[LostSoul]

Not necessarily. He would've gotten what the other PCs got for the combat, but could've gotten much less for roleplaying. Say he completely ignores this particular personality trait, doesn't RP it at all, and gets almost no RP XP, while the rest of the party does. He still might end up getting about 70% of what the others do.

The way I'm seeing it, this means that his character has a trait that isn't working with D&D RAW. Either he goes along with his character, and gets less XP for missing out on the fight; or he joins the fight, and gets less XP for ignoring his character.

Either way, he's screwed!

That may or may not be the case, though.

Roleplaying, in this case = less combat XP, but more roleplaying XP. I agree, the player, in the future, may stick with character concepts that don't risk him staying out of combat. But what happened was a result of the player's choice in character creation.

This is pretty much what I was getting at. Let's I come to a game expecting a certain type of play. I decide to play a cowardly Rogue with low Str, moderate Dex, but high Int and Cha. My PC keeps out of all the combats, just making a token effort.

If I expect him to gain as much XP as the other PCs, and the DM doesn't agree, I could be pissed off - "I'm just playing my character!" Or, maybe I'm not pissed off, but I don't enjoy playing that type of game as much; so I start to show up late to sessions, have less to say in the game, talk about last night's episode of Lost, etc.

So I wanted to warn the original poster that the player could possibly see things that way.

 

[devilbat]

A PC (in D&D) who is a pacifist, avoids all conflict, etc. is a pretty lame PC. Might as well get a job in an office.

Hey Lost Soul.

Your brother played a pacifist in our last campaign, and his character was neither lame, nor an office clerk.

In combat, his character would help shield other party members from attacks, provide help to them without harming anyone, and acted as a concience for the group. She was included in combat xp, because she was part of the scenerio, and helped out in non violent ways.

 

[Crothian]

He could possibly come out ahead just via role-playing; but that assumes that he's getting RP awards that the others are not. What if the other people are get the same RP rewards as he does?

THe facts are he got more XP for role playing in this session, so its obvious he can do it in others. Besides its not about getting the most XP. I think you are too worried about the numbers.

It makes sense; perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. What I was getting at was that adventurers (PCs) should be people who are willing to get into fights. A PC (in D&D) who is a pacifist, avoids all conflict, etc. is a pretty lame PC. Might as well get a job in an office.

That's not what happened here though. One character was unwilling to go into the enviroment that fight took place in. It would be like a fight in the air but only 4 of the 5 players had ways to fly. Except is was a cool role playing moment theat the player finalkly got to see this flaw really come into action with. I've found that people that give characters flaws like to see them in action.

 

[LostSoul]

Hey Lost Soul.

Your brother played a pacifist in our last campaign, and his character was neither lame, nor an office clerk.

In combat, his character would help shield other party members from attacks, provide help to them without harming anyone, and acted as a concience for the group. She was included in combat xp, because she was part of the scenerio, and helped out in non violent ways.

That's because my brother is AWESOME!

The whole "office clerks" comment was not the best choice, I admit. Just trying to say that PCs who can help out in combat are rewarded more than those who don't. My brother's character was able to help out in combat, even if she avoided direct attacks.

So when we are talking about incentive to play a character, the system provides more incentive to play a character who can help out in combat in some way. And the other side to that is that there is less incentive to play a character who can't help out in combat.

Which is fine with me, since a large part of D&D is killing things.