DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears

[Ace32]

Originally Posted by Keifer113
As an aside, to me a mainstream player is someone who would be upset after spending 2+hours making a character, then painting a mini, or finding a pic, or some other cool character fluff, only to see his character die in the first encounter on the first d20 roll.

In my opinion, as valid as that may or may not be, I wouldn't consider it mainstream for a player to go into that much depth. Mainstream generally refers to the average players, which likely don't paint minis, find pictures, and generate more fluff than required by the DM. They generally want to play, goof off with friends, and act out escapist fantasies. Not that the purist isn't a legitimate player type - I just would not go as far as to classify it as 'mainstream'.

With this in mind, it still sucks when you lose a character you've grown attached to. The concept of death should definitely be agreed on by players and DMs prior to gaming. The biggest DM schtick (speaking as a DM-only, have played through 2 D&D sessions as a player in my life) is the issue of miscommunication. Any DM who doesn't listen to his players' constructive criticism should get into novel writing - not group storytelling.

 

[GQuail]

Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.

The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points. It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.

I've often ran a game with minimal XP info for the players: either I keep track of it myself or I just kinda fudge it. I didn't realise until I read some posts on this forum that for a lot of people that's a major problem.

I guess for some people, it sorta takes the clear progression out of their control, and if you combine that with other GM problems which break down trust it can be a source of friction. My current group seem fine with the vague way I do it: but I've played it with totally by the book version as well, and I suppose if my players told me it was a problem I'd switch.

I've mostly GMed rather than played, so I dunno if I've got a huge amount to add to the topic at hand. Mostly, I have complaints at my own failings, some of which have already been mentioned on this thread.

 

[shilsen]

Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.

The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points. It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.

On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.

IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. That works out to about as many sessions to make the next level as your current level. PCs get the XP if the entire session was spent without a single die being rolled, if they had three fights or killed a huge dragon, if the player was absent from the game and I NPCed him, etc. Hence, I don't usually tell players how much XP their PCs have, though I do have a running total at all times, so I can let them know if asked. I generally just say, "Okay, you guys level up," and we go with that, and sometimes let them know a couple sessions in advance. It's worked very well for the group and I frankly don't think I'll ever use any other method of progression. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I have people crafting items and doing other things that cost XP in the game, I would have dropped XP altogether.

So, how much would that bug you?

 

[Numion]

So, how much would that bug you?

A little. I mean, I don't see any upside to this.

And in a way I like to get xp from killing things

 

[Umbran]

On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.

IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with.
...snip...
So, how much would that bug you?

A bit. In my hindbrain, there is just something fundamentally wrong with gaining in power and ability for doing absolutely nothing. You don't become a great and powerful wizard by sitting in the tavern eating stew and playing canasta.

I don't feel you need to roll dice, or kill monsters, but in the end the characters have to do something relevant and/or interesting before I'll give them XP. It can be action, it can be roleplay, just so long as the result isn't something I'd want to skip over if I were reading a novel.

 

[Agent Oracle]

So, how much would that bug you?

Just a little, I mean, it sounds better than "You get a whole 'nother level!" At least you can see the progression towards your eventual leveling. The GM I was griping about once leveld us up, had us go through a fight, and then leveled us up all over again. If that encounter alone provided 12,000 EXP, I think it might have been a little out of our range.

Plus, I enjoy gettign the odd numbers.

GM: "you gain 376 exp"

Player: "Sweet! That takes me to level 2, and I have 39 XP towards level 3! I could scribe a scroll!"

 

[Mallus]

A bit. In my hindbrain, there is just something fundamentally wrong with gaining in power and ability for doing absolutely nothing. You don't become a great and powerful wizard by sitting in the tavern eating stew and playing canasta.

All shil is doing is averaging out the XP gain, and the gain itself is a given under the standard D&D model.

Hypothetically speaking, his PC's might do nothing one session, and then do great and heroic things the next. It all balances out. One assumes a D&D party will do more than just engage in polite conversion.

The XP system is already terribly abstract, and relevant experience isn't part of it at all. A fighter doesn't need to kill anything in a session to gain XP. A wizard doesn't need to overcome something with a spell. Heck, a wizard doesn't need to study, or find ancient lore in some dusty tomb... PC's just get better over time.

Shil's system merely streamlines this a little more.

BTW, its completely possible to become a powerful wizard by eating stew and playing canasta in my campaign... depending on who you're playing canasta with. There's one canasta player in particular who's as dangerous as a swarm of giants.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, how much would that bug you?

Depends on the game.

Although I know that the XP system is abstract, I do like the feel of getting XP for having done something. OTOH, what you describe is pretty much the RAW for Star Wars D20, and I think that works great for making the game seem like the movies. If it was part & parcel of a game I was enjoying (shrug) I don't argue with good DMs.


RC

 

[lukelightning]

One thing that bugs me is when DMs hand out extra "roleplaying xp" to the players who just happened to talk a lot in the game. Fine, they are roleplaying. But please don't overlook the fact that many players have "silent/moody/mysterious/unobtrusive" character concepts. Shouldn't they get bonus xp for roleplaying a character who isn't blabbing all the time?

 

[LostSoul]

On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.

So, how much would that bug you?

Yeah, I'm like Raven Crowking here - I think it would depend on the game.

But for the most part, I wouldn't like it. For one thing, it takes away that decision you have to make when you face up against what you know is a tough opponent. "Do I want to fight him and get the XPs, although I might lose my PC? Or just play it safe, clear out the weaker rooms, and come back when we've levelled up?" And the rush when you've killed something big and you know you'll get a boatload of XP.