Best Method of Dividing XP?

[Coredump]

I asked it somewhere else but what's a GURP? examples would help

GURPS is role playing system put out by Steve Jackson Games. It is based off of advantages/disadvantage for building your character. (similar to Hero system) It doesn't have levels, so it doesn't have XP.

Generic Universal Role Playing system

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/

 

[Cheiromancer]

Coredump and Tatsukun's examples illustrate the flaws of the alternatives to the Grim Tale's method. The GT method guarantees that everyone levels up at the same rate; high level characters thus get a proportionate (larger) share of xp.

If you are using Grim Tales and want lower level characters to catch up, you have to give them bonus xp.

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.

 

[orsal]

I think the reverse is quite logical. Let me see if I can explain.

I think part of the problem is that XP have two totally different functions. They serve as both experience points, a measure of how much a character has learned, and as achievement points, a measure of how much (s)he has accomplished. We call them experience points, and we don't call them achievement points, but we use them both ways -- players often get excited about their XP awards because, in a game without a defined objective, they serve as an acknowledgement of success, as well as mileposts on the road to nifty new abilities.

As experience points, more for lower-level characters makes sense. As achievement points, more for higher-level characters makes sense.

 

[fafhrd]

In the final analysis, D&D is a game. While its subsystems may differ from RL experience, IMO all such considerations pale in comparison to the gaming utility of the 3.5 method. There are more realistic ways to model damage, encumberance and fluency as well, but the 3.5 methods seem to offer a sufficient compromise between usefulness, realism and ease.

 

[Seonaid]

I voted "more for lower, less for higher" with the intent of commenting as follows:

As mentioned, this doesn't always work, but it seems to make me happy and seems sensible.

After reading the whole thread and thinking it through a bit more, though, I would change my vote to "equal for all" becaue of the curve (lower levels go up with less XP) and because I do have a problem with the idea that even though the 20th-level did much more than the 1st-levels (theoretically), s/he is penalized (sort of). However, giving the higher level more XP would only make sense if, as mentioned, there was some reason for the level differential. I like the idea that cohorts, etc., would strike out on their own once reaching one or two levels of the PCs. It makes sense.

 

[Agamon]

I think the reverse is quite logical. Let me see if I can explain.

However, D&D obviously assumes the same level of achievement potential accross the board. Comparing a 2nd level PC and 20th level PC to a high school drop out and a PhD is apples and oranges. The guy that doesn't understand math will be of no help, whereas, the low-level PC has some competence, just not of the level of the higher level PCs.

But I understand your point. It really depends on how one views XP. If you see it as a reward system, where one that does more should get more, then higher level PCs should get more than lower level ones. If it's an abstract system to show how much the PC's learned over the course of his adventuring career, then giving more to lower levels makes sense.

Obviously, this debate breaks down the more disperity there is between levels. AFAIC, 2nd level PCs should not be adventuring in an 11th level group. He's basically got to just stay out of the way so as not to die. Not only is that nto much fun, but you're not helping the group, but hindering it.

 

[Orius]

IMC, I add up the CRs, then give out XP to each character based on the individual's character's level, rather than the average level of the entire party. As a result, lower level PCs usually get more XP, so I picked that option (although it might not be the standard 3.5 method).

 

[Orius]

an extreme case might be a 20th level ranger accompanied by three 1st level hobbits. They encounter numerous wraiths;

Shouldn't that be four hobbits?

 

[The Shaman]

I use equal experience for everyone - I also use story awards, so the result is based less on individual contribution and more on team success.

I think that equal experience already provides enough of a benefit for lower-than-party-average characters, for the reasons well-discussed already, and while more experience for higher level characters might make intutive sense, I don't see that it adds much to the game to make the rich richer.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

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".