Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5484302" data-attributes="member: 1165">But that's not what was in the post.Some players enjoy combat. If those aren't the type of players you want, you should ditch them instead of giving them no XP for that.Personally I would find &quot;treasure hunting&quot; tedious, and one of the least interesting parts of the game. It's the same reason some players don't like puzzles, or intricate tracking of their progress through a dungeon, etc.(It's one reason I run an inherent bonus campaign; to get away from &quot;twirling towards loot&quot;, as one of my players put it.)2e is probably not a good example. I don't even know if 2e actually had story goal XPs (and is that any different from quest awards in 4e) but to me, &quot;true to their concept&quot; sounds remarkably like &quot;inability to grow or change&quot;. (In 2e, you could lose XP from going from NG to LG, and IIRC -- years since I read that -- the DM didn't even warn the player before dinging them XP.)IIRC not only did 1e and 2e also give XP for killing monsters, but in 1e your XP award actually depended on the hit points of the monster killed (a figure might be 75 XP plus 1 per hit point, or something like that). Again, been a long time.So the example is kind of ... odd.And is even that such a big deal? It's all the rage in fiction today <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (That and mental illness in thrillers. Is every thriller hero suicidal?) One could argue that being selfishly neutral is more enlightened than being &quot;lawful stupid&quot; or suffering from <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChronicHeroSyndrome" target="_blank">Chronic Hero Syndrome</a>.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="(Psi)SeveredHead, post: 5484302, member: 1165"] But that's not what was in the post. Some players enjoy combat. If those aren't the type of players you want, you should ditch them instead of giving them no XP for that. Personally I would find "treasure hunting" tedious, and one of the least interesting parts of the game. It's the same reason some players don't like puzzles, or intricate tracking of their progress through a dungeon, etc. (It's one reason I run an inherent bonus campaign; to get away from "twirling towards loot", as one of my players put it.) 2e is probably not a good example. I don't even know if 2e actually had story goal XPs (and is that any different from quest awards in 4e) but to me, "true to their concept" sounds remarkably like "inability to grow or change". (In 2e, you could lose XP from going from NG to LG, and IIRC -- years since I read that -- the DM didn't even warn the player before dinging them XP.) IIRC not only did 1e and 2e also give XP for killing monsters, but in 1e your XP award actually depended on the hit points of the monster killed (a figure might be 75 XP plus 1 per hit point, or something like that). Again, been a long time. So the example is kind of ... odd. And is even that such a big deal? It's all the rage in fiction today :) (That and mental illness in thrillers. Is every thriller hero suicidal?) One could argue that being selfishly neutral is more enlightened than being "lawful stupid" or suffering from [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChronicHeroSyndrome]Chronic Hero Syndrome[/url]. [/QUOTE]

Verification