This is an interesting thread, and something I've spent some time considering for my own campaign.
Awarding XP has always been a challenge for me. The main group I run consists of nine players: three fighters, two rangers, a paladin, two rogues, and a wizard who hardly ever shows up. That leaves the group melee strong, but woefully inadequate from a magic perspective. I know according to the rules I'm supposed to essentially add two to the average party level since there's about twice the typical number of PC's. The problem is that since they're so lopsided, sometimes they defeat EL 15 encounters (they're average lvl9 right now), and struggle against EL 8 stuff. Using the rules in the book, there was one very challenging session where 3 PC's died, and they gained about 400 XP each. In another session that went smoothly (some challenging stuff, but there was never much chance of PC death), the book had them earning 5000 XP for combat alone. That's not right.
So, what I've done is taken to trying to advance them one level approximately every four sessions. Since they're ninth level, I aim to award them about 2250 XP per session. Tougher sessions or sessions where they do particulary well with non combat stuff, they get more, and some sessions they get less, but it averages out to a new level every four sessions.
My question is, is this bad? I've asked the players, and they're all fine with the way I do things, but are we missing out on anything doing XP this way? For the people that use alternative systems (like Arcady's interesting system), do you feel that enhances play in some way? Would giving XP for skill checks as Sigil suggests just get people to look for more opportunities to roll the dice, and would it favour classes like Rogues too much?
I've got one player who said "D&D is like porn. They should skip the story and go straight to the action." She hardly participates outside of combat, but should she be penalized XP-wise for that? In people's experience, would that be more likely to A) get her to participate more outside combat, or B) get her to leave the game (which I don't want)? What about another one of my players who wants to fast forward through all combats and get back to the story. Should he get less XP for combat and more for non-combat stuff? He generally just tries to stay out of the way in combat, looking for occasional opportunities to do a sneak attack, but generally he's mostly focused on survival, assuming the others will handle the combat in due time.
Awarding XP has always been a challenge for me. The main group I run consists of nine players: three fighters, two rangers, a paladin, two rogues, and a wizard who hardly ever shows up. That leaves the group melee strong, but woefully inadequate from a magic perspective. I know according to the rules I'm supposed to essentially add two to the average party level since there's about twice the typical number of PC's. The problem is that since they're so lopsided, sometimes they defeat EL 15 encounters (they're average lvl9 right now), and struggle against EL 8 stuff. Using the rules in the book, there was one very challenging session where 3 PC's died, and they gained about 400 XP each. In another session that went smoothly (some challenging stuff, but there was never much chance of PC death), the book had them earning 5000 XP for combat alone. That's not right.
So, what I've done is taken to trying to advance them one level approximately every four sessions. Since they're ninth level, I aim to award them about 2250 XP per session. Tougher sessions or sessions where they do particulary well with non combat stuff, they get more, and some sessions they get less, but it averages out to a new level every four sessions.
My question is, is this bad? I've asked the players, and they're all fine with the way I do things, but are we missing out on anything doing XP this way? For the people that use alternative systems (like Arcady's interesting system), do you feel that enhances play in some way? Would giving XP for skill checks as Sigil suggests just get people to look for more opportunities to roll the dice, and would it favour classes like Rogues too much?
I've got one player who said "D&D is like porn. They should skip the story and go straight to the action." She hardly participates outside of combat, but should she be penalized XP-wise for that? In people's experience, would that be more likely to A) get her to participate more outside combat, or B) get her to leave the game (which I don't want)? What about another one of my players who wants to fast forward through all combats and get back to the story. Should he get less XP for combat and more for non-combat stuff? He generally just tries to stay out of the way in combat, looking for occasional opportunities to do a sneak attack, but generally he's mostly focused on survival, assuming the others will handle the combat in due time.
