Best Method of Dividing XP?

[Cheiromancer]

It's interesting, considering the popularity of Grim Tales and Upper Krust's work (on which GT is based), that no-one is voting for principle used by the GT system.

I voted for GT even before reading the thread. IMO, the option for GT is a bit misleading to those who don't understand exactly the way it works. IMO again, the GT option could have been more accurately labled "XP in proportion to power".

Still, GT has only got 2 votes as of the time of this post. If my wording were the sole cause of that, I should be in advertising!

Originally Posted by Orius
Shouldn't that be four hobbits

Drat! I always forget about Sam.

 

[Crothian]

I perfer to give out XP indivdually so that each earns a different amount based on their actions and activity and not so much on their levels.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It sucks to not be able to contribute. It sucks to manage a D&D group when some cannot contribute.

Therefore the best system to me is the one where the low characters catch up ASAP.

So - I work out XP based on each characters level, divided by the group size. ie - for a 9th level character and 3 8th level characters, I look up the 9th level award and divide it by 4, and award that to the 9th level character. Then I look up the 8th level award and divide it by 4 and award it to the 8th level character.

Also - this means that spellcasters who craft items for the other characters in the group don't get punished for doing so: They'll eventually hit a point where the missing XP means they're a level behind when XP comes around and they'll catch up.

 

[Blue]

Mixed

I give 3.5 XP for encounters (more for lower), and flat XP for RP & story awards.

Lots of discussion above about 3.5 XP. Regardless of if you think that it "makes the most logical sense", I find that the way I run is best if those behind have a way to catch up.

Story awards and RP award (which are over half the total XP) have nothign to do with character level.

RP awards are fairly simple - during the session, I and the players give out chips for good RP. After the session, I assign a pool of RP XP based on the amount, quality, and importance. Each chip is worth a share from the pool as a small set amount. (The small set amount helps keep players giving out chips. Otherwise a greedy player wouldn't give out chips because it would reduce his own share of the pool. But since everyone getting 5 chips vs. everyone getting 3 chips is the same amount of the pool plus a little more and everyone benefits, it's all good.)

I don't recommend this in general - I don't think it would work at all for one fo the groups I play in, but both I and my players like it.

Cheers,
=Blue

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Still, GT has only got 2 votes as of the time of this post. If my wording were the sole cause of that, I should be in advertising!

Or in politics!

Well, I often vote quickly when my gut feels right and I was about to vote for something different than GT because it just feels "unjust" (in the distributive justice sense) to give the "better off" a greater chunk of the reward than others. Had I not known in just what way, and how, GT factors XP so that "higher levels" get just what reward is given out I probably would have that look.

Plus, at least in the Gamermastering PDF, 3rd level characters with a +3LA or ECL bonus don't count as equal characters to a 6th level character. Now, a 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, and a 6th level character in GT will get the same XP. But a 3rd, 3rd, 3rd and a 3rd with a +3 LA don't get the same, the three 3rd levels will, but the 3rd with +3 LA will end up getting much LESS not more XP than the 3rd level characters!

However, in GT's Gamemastering pdf a party of a 6th, 6th, 6th and a 3rd with +3 LA, the 6th level characters get the same, while the 3rd with +3 LA gets much less XP again. So, in GT's Gamemastering pdf, it seems that the only time a character gets LESS XP than other party members is when that character has a LA (or +CR according to GT's Creature Creation). Unless I'm somehow using the spreadsheet that comes with it all wrong...

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

It sucks to not be able to contribute. It sucks to manage a D&D group when some cannot contribute.

Therefore the best system to me is the one where the low characters catch up ASAP.

Isn't the quickest way for characters to catch up the one where they start out at the same level as the rest of the party?

 

[Campbell]

When running games that resemble D&D I prefer the variant of the Chi/Rho System that models the 3.5 methodology, given the number of game elements with an experience point cost. Otherwise, my players tend to let their aversions of xp costs get the better of them. Additionally, with the vast amount of save or die abilities that get thrown around at higher levels, the 3.5 method helps higher level D&D remain playable at the campaign level, espicially if I want to encourage the use of item creation feats.

However, when I run other d20 games, I use the experience guidelines outlined in Grim Tales. On principle, I prefer the Grim Tales version. While I have considering altering item creation rules and the D&D spells which incur experience costs, by and large, the 3.5 method has worked the best for D&D.

 

[Darmanicus]

I use a modified 3.5 method. *EVERYONE* in the party, PCs, NPCs, cohorts and followers, special mounts, special companions and special improved familiars *all* count towards the number to award xp to.

Please forgive but that's just damned STUPID!

Mounts, companions and familiars do not level in the normal sense, they are class abilities or feats, (unless your talking about some rules set I'm not familiar with), therefore counting them as characters when adjdicating XP is just bone and entirely unfair.

 

[der_kluge]

As a concept, XP does not exist in my game. I removed every reference to it, and fixed all the spells/game mechanics that require it into versions that do not. It's not as hard as it sounds. I just level everyone up when I feel it is appropriate.

 

[Crothian]

Please forgive but that's just damned STUPID!

Mounts, companions and familiars do not level in the normal sense, they are class abilities or feats, (unless your talking about some rules set I'm not familiar with), therefore counting them as characters when adjdicating XP is just bone and entirely unfair.

Ya, that is the best way I've heard to make sure no one evertakes Leadership gets and animal companion, special mount or familar!!