Goal-Based Level Ups

[Emerikol]

You could also reward players partial XP for helping each other complete personal goals. That’s something Worlds Without Number suggests for goals-based XP, which I want to try if our upcoming one-shot turns into a full campaign (along with the consensus-based approach described above). It won’t help someone who never accomplishes any of their goals, but that strikes as a completely different problem.

Interesting idea. What if the group gets "paid" for all the personal goals achieved. Maybe you make that the rule for all rewards. So the group has a vested interest in helping each other achieve their goals.

 

[kenada]

Interesting idea. What if the group gets "paid" for all the personal goals achieved. Maybe you make that the rule for all rewards. So the group has a vested interest in helping each other achieve their goals.

I can see a few issued with combining the awards for everyone. It equally rewards people regardless of participation (not necessarily a bad thing), and it means XP per session will vary depending on the size of the party (e.g., due to attendance). The approach I suggested (with partial XP) also has the latter problem, but it seems like it would be more pronounced with the goals aggregated and awarded at the group level. Again, they may not be a bad thing either. It might encourage players to attend as many sessions as they can (though it won’t help when the reason is a scheduling conflict rather than apathy).

Edit: To clarify an assumption, I am assuming that players don’t consistently help everyone out with every goal, so they on average get only a subset of possible partial XP. Also, thinking about it some more, I’m not sure there is much of a difference in impact due to attendance, so I struck that part out.

 

[GMMichael]

This may lead to a secondary problem where one PC gets too far ahead of the other PCs. . . So I'd be nervous about personal goals being too easily attained. It's a nice carrot I suppose to get the shy player to come out of his shell. Maybe have the personal goals get harder each time they are achieved. Or maybe provide some other reward for personal goals.

The character goal intent isn't "how do you want to get an XP today?" That's the session goal. The character goal is what drives the character, or what guides his decisions. It can be short term, yeah, but it's more descriptive of the character if it's broad, thematic, etc. The problem of PCs using character goals to get ahead is somewhat mitigated by the GM's ability to award XP to other players for sub-character goals.

I’ve used goal-based XP before and played in games that used them. Something I did that I’ve seen no other GM do is use group consensus to decide whether players accomplished their goals. That is, the players decide collectively whether they achieved their goals. I had no say on the matter. . .

You could also reward players partial XP for helping each other complete personal goals.

Consensus for XPs seems to open the possibility of resentment between PCs. On the other hand, resentment toward the GM is fine - it happens every time she assigns damage, anyway!

I've thought about rewards for helping other PCs with their goals. It could work. But it's also pretty easy to decide that your Session Goal is helping another PC.

Interesting idea. What if the group gets "paid" for all the personal goals achieved. . . So the group has a vested interest in helping each other achieve their goals.

Then the group fell silent, as they each began to doubt the other's loyalty. . .

 

[kenada]

Consensus for XPs seems to open the possibility of resentment between PCs. On the other hand, resentment toward the GM is fine - it happens every time she assigns damage, anyway!

I can see how it might not be for every group, but I’m not sure I follow. Is it that one player could screw another out of XP they deserved? It’s not voting for who gets the XP. The point of requiring consensus is that everyone has to agree with the result. No one should have to feel bad about that.

I also expect there shouldn’t be resentment towards the GM just for doing one’s job, but that’s an entirely different discussion.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . I’m not sure I follow. Is it that one player could screw another out of XP they deserved? It’s not voting for who gets the XP. The point of requiring consensus is that everyone has to agree with the result.

It wouldn't necessarily be screwing another player, but all one player has to do is say, "you know, yeah, no, I don't think you accomplished that goal," and another player doesn't get her XP. No argument needed - just a lack of consensus. Even if there is a reason, "I know, you killed the vampire, but you didn't cut off its head and bury it with garlic," the player who didn't get XP might feel left out or resentful if other PCs level up after that game.

Looking back, I read @Emerikol's idea as "PCs get individual XP for helping each other," instead of "the party gets a greater group award for helping each other." Individual versus party XP is fodder for another thread, although the Party and Story Goals are basically party XP, so my proposed XP module seems to use both individual and party XP.

 

[kenada]

It wouldn't necessarily be screwing another player, but all one player has to do is say, "you know, yeah, no, I don't think you accomplished that goal," and another player doesn't get her XP. No argument needed - just a lack of consensus. Even if there is a reason, "I know, you killed the vampire, but you didn't cut off its head and bury it with garlic," the player who didn't get XP might feel left out or resentful if other PCs level up after that game.

Someone can’t veto an award just by disagreeing. In that case, the group needs to talk it out and reach a consensus. Consensus is required. The way I’ve seen this scenario play out is someone disagrees, and they talk about it. It’s gone both ways. Sometimes the first person admits it may be tenuous and forgoes the XP. Sometimes the other person is persuaded that it should count. The important part is that everyone agrees with the conclusion.

Like I said in my response, it’s not for every group. Some groups may not be able to reach a consensus. They would not be a good fit for this approach. Since I prefer it, I’d use it as a litmus test to decide whether I’d want to run for that group or have those players at my table (but most likely not).

 

[Rob Kuntz]

You get the xp if you neutralize it as a threat, be that by killing it, charming it, recruiting it, convincing it to forever leave the area, or whatever.

One of the very first changes I ever made to any monster way back in the day was to make Dragons immune to their own breath-weapon mode. Otherwise a fire-breathing Dragon would burn out its own throat every time, which makes no sense at all.

You are too logical. Go to the back of the class!

As per the OP's Q: Yes some of it this would work. Sure would like to see a play session example, though. Some of it has been added to games over the past but a codification of tiers would be a nice starting point.

 

[Umbran]

What's missing here is any real sense of risk-reward correlation at either the individual or group level.

Presumably, your goals are not "get up and make breakfast". They are things that you'll take risks to reach.

 

[Umbran]

My question would be how is this significantly different from milestone levelling?

 

[Lanefan]

Presumably, your goals are not "get up and make breakfast". They are things that you'll take risks to reach.

True. I'd rather see the taking-of-risks in itself be what's rewarded, though, whether the goal is achieved or not.