Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7226657" data-attributes="member: 29398">I don't award xp to characters who stay home in town while some others go adventuring.&nbsp; Dead characters don't get any either, for things they miss while dead.The question is only what to do with the xp for the specific encounter or combat in which the character died, and good arguments can be made (and were made, 35+ years ago) for full xp or no xp...which is why we split the difference and went with half.Er...no.&nbsp; It's very much a valid question, and one which - as I kind of suspected - the RAW don't seem to answer very well.&nbsp; If you replace &quot;RAW&quot; with &quot;in my game&quot; in your quote above then what you say makes perfect sense.If all you do is run away, or sit and watch but don't help, you don't get xp.&nbsp; Same as if you're not there at all, or off exploring on your own somewhere else (which may or may not produce its own xp reward which only you would get).Why do I do it this way?&nbsp; Because if a character's going to get the same reward for doing nothing than for getting involved, what's the incentive to take any risks?&nbsp; Particularly in larger parties, I've seen this happen - the risk-takers get on with it and (sooner or later) die while the passengers sit back and do just enough to ensure their own survival.&nbsp; When the battle's over, the passengers then get to loot both the monsters and their dead comrades, and come home rich.&nbsp; It's just piling on to give them xp as well.Er.....OK.&nbsp; The NPC should be getting the xp for what it does, right?I see xp as a character reward rather than a player reward, thus your idea of giving one character xp for what another character - in this case the NPC - does is an absolute non-starter for me. Lanefan</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7226657, member: 29398"] I don't award xp to characters who stay home in town while some others go adventuring. Dead characters don't get any either, for things they miss while dead. The question is only what to do with the xp for the specific encounter or combat in which the character died, and good arguments can be made (and were made, 35+ years ago) for full xp or no xp...which is why we split the difference and went with half. Er...no. It's very much a valid question, and one which - as I kind of suspected - the RAW don't seem to answer very well. If you replace "RAW" with "in my game" in your quote above then what you say makes perfect sense. If all you do is run away, or sit and watch but don't help, you don't get xp. Same as if you're not there at all, or off exploring on your own somewhere else (which may or may not produce its own xp reward which only you would get). Why do I do it this way? Because if a character's going to get the same reward for doing nothing than for getting involved, what's the incentive to take any risks? Particularly in larger parties, I've seen this happen - the risk-takers get on with it and (sooner or later) die while the passengers sit back and do just enough to ensure their own survival. When the battle's over, the passengers then get to loot both the monsters and their dead comrades, and come home rich. It's just piling on to give them xp as well. Er.....OK. The NPC should be getting the xp for what it does, right? I see xp as a character reward rather than a player reward, thus your idea of giving one character xp for what another character - in this case the NPC - does is an absolute non-starter for me. Lanefan [/QUOTE]

Verification