Other ways of handling XP

[Crothian]

Many of the ideas discussed here, while sound, have one fatal flaw: they reward the do-nothing character just as often and as well as the character that sticks its neck out. So where's the in-game benefit of taking a risk?

I don't worry about that since I don't have that type of player. I find that works best

 

[SteveC]

Many of the ideas discussed here, while sound, have one fatal flaw: they reward the do-nothing character just as often and as well as the character that sticks its neck out. So where's the in-game benefit of taking a risk?

Keeping the party all the same level regardless of any other factors just isn't that important...if a few characters have, in the long run, done more and-or survived longer, they *should* be higher level than their less-involved and-or newer replacements. And there's a fairness factor to consider: if Joe's played in your game since Day 1 and has run his character from raw 1st all the way to 12th, why should I as a new player expect to be able to bring my PC in also at 12th, without having done all the work to get there? (now, if once I come in, my PC does enough to eventually catch and pass Joe, that's different...)

That said, there's some good ideas here about what ExP should be given out *for*, other than straight combat...I might swipe one or two...

Lanefan

I am going to agree with you here. I had just this attitude in several campaigns I ran, and they all eventually imploded over issues of fairness and leveling. That's why I shifted to the system I'm currently using. What you're saying makes perfect sense, but I found that as soon as character started to be at different levels, and someone wanted to switch out one character for another it caused a huge amount of trouble. That's why I shifted and simplified things. If a group doesn't mind, I think it's a good idea to differentiate XP such that characters that do more and risk more are rewarded more...but as soon as it leads to in game (or out of game) problems, it just isn't worth the risk.

--Steve

 

[Stone Dog]

Many of the ideas discussed here, while sound, have one fatal flaw: they reward the do-nothing character just as often and as well as the character that sticks its neck out. So where's the in-game benefit of taking a risk?

There are more ways to reward a player than just to level him up faster. Getting more stuff like action Points, reputation bonuses, awards, prestige, contacts, treasure, gifts and such is one way. Characters who stick their necks out and take risks get excelent benifits while the characters who do nothing but roll dice and mark time just make do with the same salary as everybody else..

 

[Dracorat]

A person who doesnt attend one of my sessions doesnt get exp.

Otherwise, yes, the all get exp no matter who the person who successfully completes the task. I find that spotlighting a class skill with exp promotes dissatisfaction, it does not quell dissatisfaction.

 

[Acid_crash]

I'm thinking I'll try something like this:

First I will think on how I want their overall rate of levelling up will be. Once per session is just too often for my tastes, but every two to four sessions, depending on what happens and their in game choices is more acceptable.

Second I will come up with a system that rewards story goals and personal character achievements than just defeating monsters and gaining treasure (I'm a stingy GM as it is, everything they get they have to earn). I am hoping that this will inspire them to come up with personal character goals, both short term and long term, and by accomplishing them they will earn bonus xp.

Third I am thinking of having a questionaire at the end of each session, asking each player a couple questions on the session, maybe two for the character and one for the player himself. These questions could be related to what monster did they fight, or what way did they use a skill in a more unique way, or what did they learn about the game world that session, things like that. I might type up a questionaire for each person individually so no two get the same questions, and depending on how responsive they are and how well they pay attention they can get some xp.

Four also in the questionaire I will ask them to vote on some things, like a rating thing... on things like - combat, npcs, story achievements, game pacing, and at the end, vote for the coolest aspect of the game session and also who they think was the best character of the session and who played their character the best for what they are aspiring for... of course they can't vote for themselves, and all this would be done quietly so no one would know who said what about whom. Some ways to get xp.

And... I'm not the nicest GM as far as players missing sessions. If they don't show up then I don't think they should get the same number of xp as those who put forth the effort and showed up.

And... I probably won't give more than 20% for a combat that just randomly occurs if one of the players suddenly gets bored and decides to start killing people just cuz, ya know. Probably 0% is more like it, and I will tell them all this before the games begin.

What do you think?

 

[brainstorm]

A level a session

I have tried many variations of handling XP and all were cumbersome, time-consuming efforts that ultimately had little effect on the game. I gave up on XP distribution and implemented a level-per-session advancement scheme. XPs, as rewards for role-playing or risk taking or whatever, never really worked well in my group. Some players like to role-play, others just like to play. Rewarding just the role-players didn't seem fair if the point of playing is to have fun. As long as everyone is having a good time and making an effort to participate, then I have no problem rewarding all equally.

Selfishly, I also went into this mode to enable me to run a full campaign in a reasonable number of sessions. Since my group can only get together to play D&D about 12 times a year, then running a campaign from 1st - 20th level seemed unrealistic at the normal advancement rate of 1 level per 4 sessions that we were averaging under the old system. With a level-per-session, I can fit an entire campaign into 20 sessions. Players don't get bored with their characters because they get new abilities every session. I get to run all of those cool, high CR monsters that I previously never got to when a campaign fizzled out at 7th level.

As far as handling XP for character uses, the characters are assumed to have an XP total equal to the minimum needed for their current level. Should a player use XP for a spell or to create an item or whatever, they go down a level or more (depending on how much XP they spend).

I'm very happy with this system and will never go back to tracking XP.

 

[der_kluge]

My system is like Eric's. Or, maybe Eric's is like mine.

No XP here. I level everyone up when I feel like they've sort of run the course of their current level, or have sufficiently propelled the plot forward, or where they are headed in the module is going to kick their ass unless they are a level higher.

I give out Action Points for good role-playing or good problem-solving, or maybe for just tackling a difficult combat situation. I don't give out a set # per level, although sometimes I do. I don't have a hard/fast rule about it. Whatever suits my fancy ATM.

 

[Nyaricus]

Yeah, when I looked at True20, the "you level when the GM says so" approach floored me. Mainly 'cause half of my brain yelled "Blasphemy!" and the other half yelled "That's brilliant!" -- saves a lot of figuring when trying to run a Adventure Path, for sure.

Thotas, I went through the same thing you're saying here, in almost the same manner. I was holding two ideas which were completely at odds with each other, and saying "yes!" to both.

In the end, however, I decided that the PCs leveling up when I say so is the way to go - and I'm fair about it. We've gone through ~5 sessions in my current FR campaign, and I'm thinking another 3-5 might net them a level

As for Lanefan's well-put comment:

Many of the ideas discussed here, while sound, have one fatal flaw: they reward the do-nothing character just as often and as well as the character that sticks its neck out. So where's the in-game benefit of taking a risk?

Keeping the party all the same level regardless of any other factors just isn't that important...if a few characters have, in the long run, done more and-or survived longer, they *should* be higher level than their less-involved and-or newer replacements. And there's a fairness factor to consider: if Joe's played in your game since Day 1 and has run his character from raw 1st all the way to 12th, why should I as a new player expect to be able to bring my PC in also at 12th, without having done all the work to get there? (now, if once I come in, my PC does enough to eventually catch and pass Joe, that's different...)

Here's what I do:

Characters gain levels when I say so, as usual. If you die (or a new player comes into the campaign) then he or she is one level lower than the highest level character in the party. This means that (s)he'll be dealing with slightly more difficult tasks, since (s)he;s lower level than the rest. This also means that if there is someone who is, for whatever reason, way below in levels, then if they die they will not be at such a disadvantage as before. Also, since over time the levels will even out and plateau, I'd likely level up the lower-level character(s) first, and then the rest a level again soon thereafter. Eventually, I can simply say "okay, everyone levels now".

For crafting and XP-eating stuff, I just wing it Works for me and works for my group, in the end.

In any case, if that makes sense, I hope it helps your game

 

[airwalkrr]

I use the UA fixed XP system. Feels like 1e, but it isn't. And it's wicked simple.

 

[PieAndDragon]

For my last campaign, I just told the PCs when they levelled, without calculating the XP. All worked fine and never kept any PC more than one level ahead of another. Meant they levelled at a pace I was happy with and at convenient times for the campaign.