Experience Points & Level Advancement Rate

[CleanCutRogue]

The one significant consequence of a system that rewards individual xp (as opposed to group xp), is that it (IMO) necessitates smaller jumps in power each level than a group system does. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, just something to keep in mind, as I don't think there's room for a variety of options if you decide to design the system via the opposite route (large leaps in power every level).

Individual xp doesn't work if characters with disparate levels can't be reasonably expected to adventure together (and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that they have a good DM who can work around the problem). I don't want to see level 1 characters in a level 5 party hanging back and effectively doing nothing because they're 5 points of BA behind the rest of the party and have a quarter of their hp.

I expect they'll want to accommodate groups that wish to use individual xp, so I expect we'll see relatively slow power progression from levels.

I understand your point of view but in reality it works pretty well. In one session one player might get one more point than another player, but in the next session it balances out. As I said I've used this system for years AD&D 1st and 2nd editions and with Basic. I even adapted it to use for Star Frontiers lol... Every once in a blue moon it results in a few members gaining a level and the others not having enough to (by 1 or 2 points) but that was simply because of how it went.

However, my players tend to be a bit more mature about such things. If the game is designed to reach out to younger players that could be a problem, and a party-based-award system might make more sense. The system presented in the original post could, with VERY minimal modification, be used to award a group XP value. In fact, the only one that would need to be modified is "Personal Stake" -- would have to be changed to "+1 XP for each party member if the session included background story development for one or more characters" and the "Role-Playing" award which would have to say something like "+1 XP if the party role-played well, especially if one or more of the players made choices that resulted in complications or losses for their character(s) just to stay in character."

I might modify the wording of it and give it a playtest over the next few sessions of gaming.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I understand your point of view but in reality it works pretty well. In one session one player might get one more point than another player, but in the next session it balances out. As I said I've used this system for years AD&D 1st and 2nd editions and with Basic. I even adapted it to use for Star Frontiers lol... Every once in a blue moon it results in a few members gaining a level and the others not having enough to (by 1 or 2 points) but that was simply because of how it went.

However, my players tend to be a bit more mature about such things. If the game is designed to reach out to younger players that could be a problem, and a party-based-award system might make more sense. The system presented in the original post could, with VERY minimal modification, be used to award a group XP value. In fact, the only one that would need to be modified is "Personal Stake" -- would have to be changed to "+1 XP for each party member if the session included background story development for one or more characters" and the "Role-Playing" award which would have to say something like "+1 XP if the party role-played well, especially if one or more of the players made choices that resulted in complications or losses for their character(s) just to stay in character."

I might modify the wording of it and give it a playtest over the next few sessions of gaming.

IME, players will get upset if they regularly get less xp than someone else. These are mature adults I'm talking about, not children. However, it can get frustrating if one guy tries his best but always gets Cs, while the rest of the players get As and Bs. Not everyone is equally talented at all things.

Perhaps you try to balance out these rewards over time, or your players all possess relatively similar levels of "skill". I've never played with you so I can't say one way or the other.

I think in any sort of individual xp situation, you have to account for a lot more variables than group xp. You might have one player who is genius renaissance man, while the rest of the group are more normal. Is it really fair that the genius gets 10 xp regularly, while the other guys have to work hard to get 5? Or you might have the guy who can only make every other game because of work or family. Is it really fair to him when he ends up 4 levels behind everyone else and therefore feels like he can't contribute (which potentially results in his earning even less xp when he is there)?

I honestly believe that while any individual xp system can work for an individual group (because you can account for situational factors, or if someone can't show game is canceled), if you're going to create a system for mass consumption that includes individual xp, you have to shorten the power gap between levels. That, or include a disclaimer explaining that a player who misses several games will end up being nigh useless. The former seems more useful than the latter though.