Keeping a party at the same xp level

[Kershek]

This is a question about the merits and problems of giving individual XP awards in a standardized D&D that we call D&D 3E.

In 3E, they've "standardized" a lot of things, including the progression for all character classes. It appears that the designers want to see everyone at the same level or very close in level to each other, because in the game balance they are all similar in abilities and can be better matched up with creatures that use a CR rating (which, in itself, is an abstract standardization).

In a game I'm running with 7th level characters, I've tried to keep away from individual experience gains. What's good for one is good for the group and they all benefit. For instance, a rogue removes a trap but doesn't get all the XP for it. The barbarian might get the most kills, etc. We're playing in the FR and I'm using XP distribution from that book so that those raised from the dead and spellcasters who get behind in levels from item making will eventually catch up.

I've stated in the game that people can't get individual experience points (from soloing between adventures, etc.) because that will undermine the penalty of lost xp from item creation and the penalty that death sets you back. This has not been a real issue up to this point.

However, there was an incident where some bad guys were following the group and the rogue went off to go meet up with her guild on her own. The baddies followed her and attacked while the others were in a different part of town. She barely succeeded in killing them. I gave 262 experience to the party and no one complained (not even the rogue).

Now, if I had awarded her experience solo, it would have been 1048 - much greater! And then she would have been ahead of the group. However, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to short change her by spreading the wealth and giving xp to characters who weren't even involved.

As a rogue, she has more opportunity to go and get into trouble like this and rack up more experience. Then the wizard player could complain that he's the one behind and needs the experience and wants some solo play (undermining his magic item xp loss). Then the cleric could complain that his death has set him back and needs xp as well. You see where this is going. Instead of acting like a team, everyone starts putting "me first."

Then let's say the wizard dies (like he just did last session). When he comes back, he's the furthest behind due to the death and item creation. Now he doesn't want to create any more items for other characters since he feels he'll never "catch up" to the group and always be one hit away from death because of his low hit points. If he died again, he would probably quit.

How do you deal with this? Just keep spreading out xp like I've been doing with a grimace? Allow side quests only if you're more than a level behind so that you're not a dependent in the group? Give out individual xp if the situation arises but tell people they can't solo and then artificially ensure they get singled out by some contrived plot device (yeah, like they won't notice that one)?

This is a tough one. I would be grateful for any opinions.

 

[alsih2o]

This is a question about the merits and problems of giving individual XP awards in a standardized D&D that we call D&D 3E.



This is a tough one. I would be grateful for any opinions.

depends, if looked at from a group perspective, it seems they all WOULD get credit for the rogues kill, and even other solo jaunts.

did the rogue use a magic item, weapon or armor that was collected as part of the group? then everyone should get part of the credit(imho)

would the rogue have been sufficient lvl to eliminate the baddies if it wasn't for the others watching his/her back when she was out getting those xp?

if you can look past the other odd mechanics and fantasy scapes and monsters, i think it can easily be seen that the group is a GROUP. just as hp and skills reflect(to a cetain extent) divine favor, i think it is within the bounds of the game that the group is treated as such 'by the fates', and therefore, the xp gets spread evenly.

 

[Darkness]

Unless PC levels vary extremely (say, more than 4 levels difference between the highest- and lowest-level character), I don't worry too much about the PCs being equal in experience (or even level).

In your example with the rogue, I wouldn't have given any of the other PCs any of the xp unless they had been of at least *some* assistance to her (e.g., lending her a some equipment or buffing her up with a spell or two before she went out alone).

 

[Inez Hull]

I've found in my games that differences in Xp and level generally work themself out over time.

If a PC dies in our game they come back with a new PC with 2/3 the Xp of the Party average. If the party are up a few levels this can result in the new PC begining few levels lower than the rest of the party. However if the PC can survive (I generally do not lower the difficulty of encounters to compensate for the less powerful PC) they usually catch up with the rest of the party within a level or two.

This means that you can allow the PC's to gain different levels of Xp or suffer Xp penalties without too many concerns as things will usually balance themselves out over time. Note, this balancing will happen more quickly the less often Xp is given out.

 

[Kershek]

So how do you console a player who feels that, if his wizard is two levels behind, he is hopelessly behind because he couldn't possibly stand up to the types of threats that would be facing the rest of the party? And he would be even more behind if he kept making items.

 

[Kibo]

Egalitarianism Is Over Rated.

That's why I do individual exp. If a group cooperates on something, they get a share of the pie. But if anyone has a brilliant idea that aids in that, the brilliant idea gets a bonus. Sure this could be a giant book keeping headache. But it's not really. See, the players know in advance to keep track of every remarkable or interesting thing there characters do, sure they *could* rely on my memory, but that's a risky proposition. This also has that most excellent side effect that when you've come to a good break point, if not conclusion of an adventure or campaign, everyone sits around collectively retelling it. And if it was a good adventure, that is reason enough for me to do things this way despite whatever advantages other alternatives have.

On time I tried exp on the fly, but that didn't really work out too well. It broke the pace of the story.

So I make little notes, the players make notes for themselves, and at the end we compare these notes, and enjoy the story we've told.

The levels might get a little bit of seperation, but the cooperation on bigger elements tends to even things out somewhat. To say nothing of exp being the domain of acumulated widsom, rather than notches in a scabbard. If your PC's infuriate you by avoiding a whip fight with a guy and his scimitar, or choose to go around, as opposed to through, some obsticle, reward them for their inventiveness, and diabolically plot a way to punish them for it later.

In the case of the beleaguered spell caster. All he has to do is play the role. There are limits to friendship, and one of those putting your life, if not immortal soul , at risk for a bobble, even one that glows. All he must do is react as his character, who has suffered serious setbacks of late, would when someone insensitively asks for him to give what he cannot afford to give. If my friends got me killed (even indirectly while taking the same risks), then ressurected me only to have them start pestering me for favors, I would not be feeling particularly friendly. Hell, if I come back from vacation, they are pretty likely to give me a little time before they ask me for a ride to the airport or to help them move. For your part you might want to offer the other players a part if having "their" items created. Through a combination and adventure and house rules you might allow the other players the opportunity to give of themselves and aid the wizard in the creation of *very* personal items. Personally I think item creation should be a very major event, certainly cause for meditation, reflection, a large amount of preperation by all involved, and possibly for celebration as well. For a benchmark, I would say it should be taken at least a seriously as the master sword makers took making a katana.

 

[alsih2o]

So how do you console a player who feels that, if his wizard is two levels behind, he is hopelessly behind because he couldn't possibly stand up to the types of threats that would be facing the rest of the party? And he would be even more behind if he kept making items.

show him the xp chart, 2 lvls behind at 5th is a minute difference at 12-14, and realize that it is roleplaying! and hope that next game that player is a little more careful with his characters neck

 

[hong]

So how do you console a player who feels that, if his wizard is two levels behind, he is hopelessly behind because he couldn't possibly stand up to the types of threats that would be facing the rest of the party? And he would be even more behind if he kept making items.

Use the FRCS method of awarding XP.

 

[Umbran]

The idea, simply, is to keep track of such things, and make sure you are even-handed. If one person solos today, either make sure that the rest of the party is also doing something while the solo happens, or make sure that everyone else gets an equivalent chance later on. It's not hard to make sure everythign evens out in the long run.

Similarly, you can give out bonuses for individual play and ideas, so long as you're even handed about it. Yes, if you have lots of traps, the party fighter may not get many "clever trap avoidance" awards. But if you give him odd tactical situations, he may shine more. You can also give such XP awards by measuring each player against his own ability, rather than the other players - award a player from doing better than his own usual level of ingenuity, so the player is only competing with him or herself.

Lastly - the XP divergence due to death and item creation are intentional, and I don't work specifically to correct them. The former is a bit of an inducement to be smart and not die. The later is part of game balance. If the party has more item-power than usual, they don't need the spell power as much anyway. The creator may be behind in levels, but he also gets to think "The fighter would have died if not for the cloak I made him." In making items he serves the party ahead of time. Not as dramatic, I suppose, but just as effective in the long haul.

 

[Fenes 2]

We use in our two campaigns a simple method to keep the PCs at the same level - no XP awards, just regular level ups, roughly every two to three months, or whenever the players/DM feel like it.

So far no one has used item creation feats - which would be severyl restricted anyway - and dieing has not been seen either - I don't kill off PCs if I can help it, and If I did ressurecting would cause no penalty anyway.

Works out pretty well if you have no players that think they need to "fairly beat" the opposition "the real challenge of threatening PC death".