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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="harpy" data-source="post: 5061628" data-attributes="member: 85243">Lots of great responses!Random things:In terms of the difference between MERP and D&D, the crits in MERP were quite lethal and even the lowliest creature could make an amazing roll and deliver a death dealing crit in one hit.  So in that regard there was definitely an incentive to shut down encounters as fast as possible and the players responded in that way.In D&D, with its comfortable ablative armor of hit points you don't have as much urgency and so simply adpoting what MERP did wouldn't work.Still, I think there is wiggle room.  Xps for hit points taken isn't really a whole lot if it is just a 1 for 1 value.  But if you increase the value of hit points taken when critted, say hit points x 5, then that helps to reward the nasty blows at a level that is worthwhile to pay attention to as a player.  Other types of weighting of values could be done so that the risk/reward is emphasized.While it worked for MERP to do things individually, in D&D it makes far more sense that a system like this was done where the total xp earned is pooled and then divided among the players.  It's very true that if you used this kind of system and doled things out individually then there would be lots of problems with characters getting wildly different values.As for players gaming the system... maybe its just coming out of old school gaming, but the DM filter always seemed to work fine here.  People doing silly things like fireballing the party, or tossing themselves deliberately out of trees would just result in players getting hurt.Of course, DMs might not want to put up with using a filter all the time.  I weeded out crazed rules lawyers and abusive players starting when I was a teen back in the 80's, so I've avoided a lot of the nonsense that others might not be able to deal with or confront with problem players.  Some of the responses are interesting, because it helps to show off my own biases.  I'm straining to think of a time when players actively tried to avoid combat, unless the plot was hitting them over the head saying "this is the sneak encounter" so the idea of people coming up with good ideas to avoid combat is almost completely alien to me.  Players have always wanted to induce encounters because that is the main way xp are handed out.  Sure you get xp for completing quests or other fluffy stuff, but the real haul comes from the fights.  As for xp for roleplaying?  I've spent 30 years playing with gamists-at-heart and only can think of a handful of times when people truly roleplayed.  We're pretty much a bunch of roll-players.I guess the central point of trying some kind of system where risk is rewarded is that it tries to goad players away from shutting down encounters easily.  If you are optimizing to the point where you cream the encounter before it got even interesting then the drama is fizziling out.  I can acknowledge as a player that I enjoy doing that.  The feeling of rationally breaking down the situation and then applying an plan that takes out the BBEG is satisfying, but when you have a table full of people doing that it tends to bleed a lot of drama out of the game.I think the suggestion for a hybrid form between MERP and D&D style experience would work well.  You get a flat amount based on CR, but you also get an amount depending on the amount of resources players spent or how close they succumbed to death.  I'm sure the numbers could be mapped out so that the numbers aren't too far off from how they roll out now.  It's more of the psychological factor of giving players bonus points because they failed that will save, got critted or went to -9 xp.  Those xp reflect them learning something, say, to duck better.  There are plenty of psychological studies out there now that show that some of the most potent learning comes from when people learn from mistakes, and not from when they succeed.As for things like skill checks, it just comes down to risk/reward.  If you cross a narrow ledge over a lava pit then you'd get a good chunk of xp.  If you jump over a stream to avoid 1d6 damage from a twisted ankle then not so much.As for brilliant strategies.  These things have always been part of the DM filter evaluation.  A player who has an obnoxious character build who can walk in and cheesily shut down an encounter isn't going to get rewarded.  But if you can think of a way to have that pillar topple on top of the dragon as it comes out of the entrance, then sure that should be rewarded.  I haven't really seen any systematic way of rewarding good ideas though.  It's always just been one of those catch all categories that the rules give to the DM.Lets see... the last thing is death.  I don't think it was in MERP, but in Rolemaster there was probably at the very least an optional rule where if you died and were resurrected you gained XP.  D&D hurts you for this, but with Rolemaster it was more like you coming back as Gandalf the White in a certain way.  You've died and now you come back all the wiser.</blockquote>

Verification