The Illusion of XP

[Bonedagger]

There is a thing that bother me about the xp system in 3E. I realise that not everybody here use that system (myself included) but it is the filosofy about it that is my problem and would like to hear if I have missed genius in it.

I don't see the reason to reward xp per encounter. If somebody is not present at the game, fine, no xp but I don't think that actively working on expanding the powergap between the players is a good thing. The powergap decreases the teamplay in tactical combat and those with munchkin tendensies tend to ignore in-character logic when they are aware of potential high xp reward - Like trying to do certain things solo. that is a waste of the other players time (I'm not talking about the wacky players who always ignore in-character logic hate that kind. They are like comedians who don't know when to throw of their punchlines).

If I don't want the party to rise a level I don't reward the xp needed. My players trust that I can make a fun encounter to match their powerlevel. Everything is relative including the players power and I need full control of the xp because I define the world around the players and will not accept ruining a good idea because of a set xp-value of an encounter.

Conclusion: The xp-concept is an illusion since I decide what that power should be measured against and the players know this. The present system rewards the tactician and I want my players to be roleplayers first and tacticians second (Yes. I'm not saying that being a tactician is bad). I reward equally amount of xp at the end of the session.

So what do you think?

 

[Darkness]

Not all encounters should be balanced against the party's power. Especially status quo encounters (see DMG) seldom are.

 

[Crothian]

How does the current system award the tactician? Unles syour having the equilvilent of minature battles with your combat, it should be role played out. We state what the chareacters are doing but with extra emphasis on the what and how. We detail out the type of attacks and we role play lillle banter with the bad guys. It's not all about tactics and dice.

And no matter how the game is run, the DM's job is to provide balanced encounters. Some might be real easy, or real hard and not all will be won by the dice. And the DM can add XP when ever he weants. He can give out less then full or greater then full XP for an encounter.

I think I totally missed the point you tried to amke, ccause I don't see how what you are doing is any different then what it should be.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Only Combat Provides XP

Honestly, I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions about 3e. You get XP in 3e by _overcoming_ challanges.

1. Is killing the giant terrorizing the village overcoming it? Yes.

2. Is convincing the giant the villagers have a right to be there and showing him the error of his ways overcoming it? Yes.

3. Is tricking the giant into moving somewhere else so he won't bother anyone overcoming it? Yes.

All of these overcome the problem of the giant terrorizing the village and all should recieve the full amount of XP. The fact that most adventurers tend to take option 1 doesn't mean 2 and 3 aren't viable.

As for everyday encounters, if there was no threat and no challenge, there should be the corresponding amount of XP (none).

As for distributing XP amongst everyone, present for the encounter or not, that's up to you. I'd rather not do it that way, but you're the DM. How you do it is entirely up to you.

 

[Bonedagger]

Re: Re: The Illusion of XP

Not all encounters should be balanced against the party's power. Especially status quo encounters (see DMG) seldom are.

True. And mine seldom are . It's more a criticism of the xp system in general. In that case the problem is the same since according to DMGs xp-tabel you just adjust the xp given accordingly.

It was more meant in a way that my players don't doubt my DM-skills and will want to keep control by counting xp if it happens that an encounter doesn't appear to match their level... I hope. It's is the kind of micro managment of fairness I don't need. Because it's an illusion and only means more work for me.

 

[Bonedagger]

I think I totally missed the point you tried to amke, ccause I don't see how what you are doing is any different then what it should be.

Well I'm glad to hear that.

My point is: I don't mind having an idea on how powerfull a monster is compared to the party. I just find the DMGs idea of rewarding XP per encount stupid... I don't understand why they have gone through so much trouble making such a useless rule. In other words: I like table 4-1 but find table 7-1 a waste of time.

Edited: Ok. It's pretty obviously that I don't like it. I was just wondering why other people use it. Maybe I'm missing out on some fun?

 

[2WS-Steve]

There are probably more than a few bits in the DMG more geared towards beginning gamemasters than experienced ones. Those kinds of guidelines can be pretty helpful when you're starting out and trying to make a fun scenario. I think experienced gamers might forget what that was like.

Also, how would all those computer versions of D&D determine xp without it?

 

[Darkness]

... those with munchkin tendensies tend to ignore in-character logic when they are aware of potential high xp reward - Like trying to do certain things solo. that is a waste of the other players time (I'm not talking about the wacky players who always ignore in-character logic hate that kind. They are like comedians who don't know when to throw of their punchlines).

Question: Do you generally object to characters doing "certain things" on their own, or just when they have "munchkin tendencies" or are "wacky?"

Further, for what exactly should the PCs get XP for, in your opinion?

 

[Umbran]

Why use the XP system as given in the core books? Well, there are a number of reasons.

Here's a simple one - magic item creation and spells that cost XP to cast. If you give out XP on a completely subjective basis, you are balancing an advantage of reasonbly objective, quantifiable value with a subjective resource. That's askign for trouble. It is far easier to keep the power gained balanced with the protential spent when you're working with an objective system, rather than a subjective one.

In the end, every XP or advancement system is arbitrary. You do a thing, and you advance a bit. There's no heresy in using one approach instead of another. However, there's some things to consider...

The DM is fallible. When you sit down and consider XP, you can forget events, or fail to give them the proper consideration, emphasis, or interpretation. 3E's per-encounter system forces you to sit down and recall exactly what got done, and gives a DM a semi-objective handle on how tough the adventure was, even if he's calculating XP weeks afterwards and cannot really recall all the details of what happened.

By using the system, you gain a level of consistency that is hard to duplicate with more DM-arbitrary methods. DM moods can throw subjective systems askew. Players can get cheesed off when, by DM-whim, it seems they've gone through a lot of effort for nothing. Using the core rules XP system, the PCs are more assured of getting reasonable compensation for their risks.

Lastly, the game was designed and playtested as a whole. While you are free to throw any bits away that you please, the bits were designed to interlock nicely. Even if you don't see how parts interrelate at the moment, those interrelations have probably been implicitly or explicitly considered in the design and playtesting. Given that, what's wiser - to use the tool designed for the job (when they already give you several guidelines of how to tailor the tool to your own wishes), or to ignore the tool and set out on your own? Why do it all yourself when they've done many of the hard parts for you?

 

[Bonedagger]

Question: Do you generally object to characters doing "certain things" on their own, or just when they have "munchkin tendencies" or are "wacky?"

Further, for what exactly should the PCs get XP for, in your opinion?

I normally don't object on players doing things on their own. I did mind in two cases. The "wacky" kind was when it was a soloshow that was just a waste of the other players time (It doesn't have to be wacky to do that but the wacky ones I feel it's justified to prevent... Wackyness is a lot of fun at the right time and place). The second one, and the relevant one in my rant , was the one where it is done out of greed for xp. If somebody want to play a sologame then don't waste the others time.

The players get XP for being present at the game. It may be different from session to session but pressent players always get the same amount. I assume people are there to roleplay so the game itself should be motivation for that (My funny job)... not the xp. I wish the game to be as much theirs as mine so I will not constantly judge their actions with xp.