Do You Use XP

[Rel]

In 4e, this is the sort of stuff that can earn quest and drama XP. I had a similar sort of session that I posted about here, including how I handled XP for it.

Yep. It certainly can. But at that point I feel that the basis on which I'm giving out XP is so subjective that I don't see much difference between that and "Just say everybody got a level when it feels right."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But I also kept some things, of which by far the most important is this: if a PC did nothing in a given situation to earn experience then he doesn't get any for that situation. Period. And this is my beef with "level 'em when it suits" DMs: you're rewarding those who do nothing just as much as those who stick their necks out. Having played with players who would take shameless advantage of this were it possible, I'll never support it.

I have, literally, never run into anyone like this.

If you aren't going to actually play the game, why are you showing up to play the game?

Are you there just to hang out with your friends?

If so, great - hang out with your friends. But I suspect that having a level 6 character when everyone else has a level 7 character isn't going to make you any more invested, since you're just there to hang out, anyway. So, why make the other people there drag your underleveled arse through the dungeon, making you less effective when you do decide to engage?

And, what about the people who can't make it to the game? They get no experience for anything that happened while they were gone? Sorry, in my book, missing the gaming session itself is its own punishment. You miss out on the stories, the hanging out, and the dice rolling. And now you get to be "punished" by losing XP compared to the people who could make it.

Sorry, we're all friends, and when someone can't make a game it's because something more important, and usually nonoptional, came up (and its usually work). Docking them XP to ... encourage better participation ... is jerk thing to do.

But, again, I've never seen anyone actually sit at a table and not actually play at all. And doing so to somehow game this system and get "free XPs" is, well ... It is completely outside of my experience envelope.

 

[Mentat55]

When I DMed 3.x, I just had the group level up are irregular intervals, usually corresponding to story events, or just the desire to have them face bigger and badder challenges.

In 4e, I use the XP system to roughly balance encounters, but otherwise I stick to a "level when the story demands" approach as well.

 

[Mallus]

Then again, our games tend to kill characters real good and dead - it's right there in the initial write-up everyone (in theory) reads when they join. But some just don't get the memo...

Heh... I've found that the more lethal a campaign becomes, the less danger-averse I get. If my PC is probably going to die a rapid, if not random, death, I don't care enough about them to lend them a sense of self-preservation. They're simply one of an infinite number of "continues?" (FYI, I haven't gamed like this in quite a while).

 

[Dice4Hire]

I try prety hard not to see xp as a reward in my games. It is more of a background thing that jsut happens, an the characters advance in power and ability. I do not want it to get toteh front of the game, in a place where it has an effect on game play.

So mostly, I level as I want to, and ignore xp.

 

[Lanefan]

I have, literally, never run into anyone like this.

If you aren't going to actually play the game, why are you showing up to play the game?

But they are playing the game: interacting, rp-ing, and so forth; only in such a way as to make sure other characters take all the actual serious risks.

I suspect that having a level 6 character when everyone else has a level 7 character isn't going to make you any more invested ...

Sure it is, because your level 6 character is alive and stinking rich having just looted the bodies of the level 7's who got on with it, stuck their necks out and got unlucky. And now you'll go back to town and recruit a party of level 5's, as new characters come in a level below party average and will ya look at that, you're the party average. And senior party member to boot.

And, what about the people who can't make it to the game? They get no experience for anything that happened while they were gone?

Of course they - or at least their characters - get experience. 'Round here, missing a session just means your character is at the mercy of the rest of the players; it's still part of the party and it's gonna get played as such, though if you're kind enough to provide instructions they'll usually be followed whenever practical.

Sorry, we're all friends, and when someone can't make a game it's because something more important, and usually nonoptional, came up (and its usually work). Docking them XP to ... encourage better participation ... is jerk thing to do.

You're mis-reading something somewhere.

Experience is based on what the *character* does, regardless of whether or not there happens to be a player attached at the time.

I suspect you're automatically assuming that when a player misses a game their character(s) fade into the background and-or leave the party for a while. Not true; and nor should it be.

Lan-"characters without players are still characters, only unchaperoned"-efan

 

[Barastrondo]

But they are playing the game: interacting, rp-ing, and so forth; only in such a way as to make sure other characters take all the actual serious risks.

Out of curiosity, in a game that features a high lethality rate, wouldn't this be construed as player skill? Much as avoiding traps by sending in henchmen or livestock first was/is considered the mark of a skilled player? I'm assuming not around your table, since you don't seem to care for that mode of play, but overall it seems like just as logical a reaction to "the dungeon is dangerous and you should play smart if you want to survive" as any, if not moreso.

 

[Balesir]

Just as an example, our last session was kind of on the short side. We had time for a combat near the beginning that wasn't terribly challenging. And then the rest of the session was spent with the party learning a lot of new information about some ideas they've been pursuing for a while. There were a few skill rolls involved but a lot of it was just hearing some explanations of things and asking questions of NPC's more knowledgeable than they were.

In D&D they'd have gotten very few XP for this under pretty much any edition I've played. But yet I felt like it was a pretty important session in terms of them planning where to go and what to do next. Even though the session was short, I had no qualms about advancing them one more session toward the next time they gain a "level". And everybody had a good time.

This sounds like a pretty setting-exploration focussed game - for which I would personally not use an xp/level system at all. The acquisition of information in such a game can be its own reward, and linking that to 'level' seems somewhat odd, to me. I could pick a system with mechanisms for character change, but without the necessity that the characters get mechanically "bigger" that is normally predicated by xp and/or levels. Character levels generally means "getting more powerful", whereas character change can mean ageing, changes due to experience (both in terms of skills and in terms of personality) and training to better fit oneself for an intended goal as well as atrophy of skills neglected in pursuit of other things.

This post touches on what I find interesting about 4e XP - it presents itself as a focus-driving mechanics, but when you look at it in detail, you see that it is not really about that at all (especially post-DMG2, with drama awards). It's just about regulating the rate of mechanical character development relative to real time played.

And as has frequently been noted, mechanical character development doesn't lead to "winning" the game, because of the assumptions in the system about scaling challenges.

For D&D4E, specifically, I run xp divided accross the party for challenges overcome. The "drama" award suggestions I quite honestly see as unhelpful, for 4E, since their inclusion does not fit with the rest of the game. With (the original) challenge awards, the drive - and the link to teamwork and progression - is clear. Sure, it kind-of amounts to "X successes = level up"*, but by giving players choices over which challenge to face when and giving xp after each encounter, the structure of the game for the players is clearer and the "buzz" for beating a tough challenge more palpable.

* This is not quite true, as there should be easier and tougher challenges mixed in, with some variation between the number of encounters needed to level up each time.

 

[Keith Robinson]

I do xp by the rules. I have no problems with the idea of doing ad-hoc awards or just levelling when needed, but the players just seem to prefer the xp method. It's like crack. They just can't seem to get enough!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Specific gains for specific achievements. Makes sense to me, it works, and personally I wouldn't have it any other way for D&D-style fantasy. It would lose something fundamental to the experience, IMO.