Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the_bruiser" data-source="post: 1485063" data-attributes="member: 6126">I'm curious how many people pay close attention to ELs of opponents, averageparty level, and number of characters when it's time to give experience.Our group never has, and it seems like it would be a pain - further, itwould seem to undervalue the sessions where there is little or no combat.  Icertainly don't want my players to think, "Gosh, that was fun, but I want tokill something or my character will never get better!"  Obviously you canget around this with storyline or individual EXP bonuses for goodroleplaying, but our group does it a little bit differently.  Here's our system:  On average, I have arbitrarily determined that the average party member willgo up a level *on average*, *over time*, approximately once per three gamesessions.  Every session gets marked with either a "1," a "2," or a "3,"with me (the DM) trying to keep an average close to 2.  A great combat,great role-playing initiatives from the party, crucial campaign moments,etc., merit a 3.  The sessions where it takes longer to get started, playersare less involved or distracted, and little significant combat occurs aregranted a 1.  'Normal' nights get a 2. Then, each character present gets an amount of EXP equal to:  averagecharacter level * 1000 * X/6, where X is the quality and excitement of thatnight's play.  As long as X averages close to 2 over time, then they'lladvance roughly one level every three sessions.  Note that we might havefive consecutive '1's and have no advancement, or two consecutive '3's for aquicker level.  This gets us to a pace I like, and allows me to make a more holistic,top-level judgement regarding not just combat results, but also playerinvolvement and role-playing quality.  And, to my players, they know thattheir EXP will be (to some extent!) by the *nature* of the session, and moreby things under their own control.  And yes, I do give individual awards forpreparation of background material, quality role-playing, etc., so thatquality individual accomplishments are also rewarded, though I don't do asgood a job of this as I would like.  One might argue that this method kind of hurts the party's ability toadvance super-quickly through great action over time, since they'll neverexceed or fall behind +1 level / 3 sessions over the long term.  To someextent this is true regarding level advancement, but I should note that I dogive significant in-game rewards (such as treasure, reputation, followers)from which they do benefit should they consistently outperform, so it's notlike they're shackled and their performance becomes meaningless.  Anyway, just curious as to other people's thoughts, both on this system andregarding what they do.  I'm pretty good at intuitively balancing foes forour party, so for me CL is almost a non-factor entirely.  PS - If anybody in Charlotte, NC is looking to join a game, let me know - wecurrently have four players plus me, but one of those players is moving awaythis summer and we really like having a group of five.</blockquote>

Verification