Those other two pillars

[pemerton]

While I don't much like "session XP" as a concept, I keep the 'major quest XP/standard
encounter XP/one tenth of XP to level' number in mind as a guide to minimum XP to award for a
session where the PCs have been active (no turtling) but it's not that clear what they've accomplished.

DMG2 has advice on this: 1 on-level standard creature's worth of XP per 15 minutes of non-encounter-resolving play. (They call it "driving the game forward" or something similar - I think that's pretty close to synonymous with "non-turtling".) I use this rule just because it fits in generally with the approximation of 1 encounter's worth of XP per hour or so of play, and so keeps level progression going at a steady rate.

If I were to start a new 4e campaign, I probably would not bother with XP for levelling purposes and just go with levels per X hours/sessions of play, given that is how the rules generally work out anyway. Unless the players were very keen to stick with tradition.

 

[S'mon]

DMG2 has advice on this: 1 on-level standard creature's worth of XP per 15 minutes of non-encounter-resolving play. (They call it "driving the game forward" or something similar - I think that's pretty close to synonymous with "non-turtling".) I use this rule just because it fits in generally with the approximation of 1 encounter's worth of XP per hour or so of play, and so keeps level progression going at a steady rate.

If I were to start a new 4e campaign, I probably would not bother with XP for levelling purposes and just go with levels per X hours/sessions of play, given that is how the rules generally work out anyway. Unless the players were very keen to stick with tradition.

Yeah, I use that occasionally, eg where we spent the whole session at the Midsummer Ball. I had 7 players and I awarded XP for the 3 hours' play. AFAICR worked out at 12 creatures' worth divided by 7 PCs or 12/7 of a standard award.
Normally though I'll not award so much, typically for a noncombat session the PCs might
only get 1 standard monster XP award each for the session, that being 1 major quest award.. The group usually levels up about every 4 sessions, or 12-15 hours of play.

 

[mflayermonk]

One problem I have with the interaction pillar is it tends to be one PC talking to a DM. Does anyone have any advice for minimizing the DM-PC talk time and maximizing the PC-PC talk time?

 

[miniaturehoarder]

That said, some of the players get bored if they go too many sessions without a fight.

My group gets testy if more than a hour goes by without a fight.

 

[SirAntoine]

One problem I have with the interaction pillar is it tends to be one PC talking to a DM. Does anyone have any advice for minimizing the DM-PC talk time and maximizing the PC-PC talk time?

You can involve the other players in a number of ways. You can ask for volunteers to speak for NPC's, introduce "charms" and other effects, and ask the players to exercise getting into character with each other by asking them things like "Okay, what do you guys talk to each other about tonight as you're sitting around the campfire?"

 

[Schmoe]

I would have thought it was trivially easy to see how exploration could result in treasure acquisition, in any edition.

But, yes, I agree that the game could do more to reward exploration and interaction with XP - even if only by explicitly stating "if the PCs discover this room, award them 100 XP".

Most old school dungeons have a lot of hidden secrets that reward exploration. From secret magical shrines, to unusual gardens of fungus, to hidden caches of loot, exploration has always been a big part of the game, especially in older adventures. Less has been done to explicitly reward interaction, as that has traditionally been left in the hands of a DM. I don't think the same traditional XP/gold rewards make as much sense for interaction rewards anyway. It seems more appropriate for interaction to give increased influence over a story, and that type of thing is hard to completely define in an adventure. Hence, a lot is left in the DM's hands.

 

[pemerton]

One problem I have with the interaction pillar is it tends to be one PC talking to a DM. Does anyone have any advice for minimizing the DM-PC talk time and maximizing the PC-PC talk time?

Be more pro-active in your encounter design and GMing of it.

If most of your combats were formal duels or jousts, you'd have the same problem. But I'm guessing that they're not. Rather, you have ways of putting pressure on the mage (and his/her player) as much as the fighter (and his/her player) to get involved. There are two main ways: multiple opponents confronting the PCs, some of whom attack the mage; or an opponent that the mage doesn't want to let the fighter deal with on his/her own (eg because it is too tough for the fighter).

You can do the same for social encounters. If you have multiple NPCs/monsters, who are interested in talking to (and perhaps want different things from) the PCs, you can generate a relatively dynamic social encounter. Here is a link to one example of the sort of thing I have in mind.

Even if you only have one NPC/monster, you can still get multiple players involved in the same way you do in a combat: make the other players have an interest in bringing their PCs into the situation. One way of doing that is by having the NPC/monster interested in things that the main negotiator can't resolve on his/her own (eg because s/he lacks the authority - say if a bribe is wanted out of party funds, the whole party have to get involved to make a decision and negotiate the terms; or because s/he lacks the knowledge - say if the NPC/monster is wanting to talk about some point of historical or religious detail, another PC or PCs may be the ones who have the relevant information; etc). Here is a link to one example of the sort of thing I have in mind.

Another way of doing this is by having the NPC/monster push things in a direction that not all the PCs agree upon. So then the PCs (and hence the players) have to resolve a disagreement or difference of opinion among themselves. Here is a link to one example of the sort of thing I have in mind.

 

[Schmoe]

You can do the same for social encounters. If you have multiple NPCs/monsters, who are interested in talking to (and perhaps want different things from) the PCs, you can generate a relatively dynamic social encounter. Here is a link to one example of the sort of thing I have in mind.

That was an interesting play example. One point in particular stuck out:

I've found that when I've been less clear on exactly what the stakes are in a social challenge, both in my own mind and in framing the challenge with the players, then interpreting the pass/fail outcome has been harder. (In a physical challenge I haven't found the same issue, because I think the stakes in these sorts of challenge are much more obvious, and the description of the PC's progress towards them is more straightforward. It's the NPC dynamic in social challenges that makes them harder to run, I think.)

And that's something that I've noticed as well. I like more free-form social interactions, and I generally find rolling lots of skills to be unsatisfying in an interactive scene, but at the same time it is sometimes hard to define a point of conflict that requires resolution while in the middle of such a scene. It sounds like the skill challenge structure forced clarity, at least in your own mind, on what those intermediate conflicts were, and that in turn helped progress the scene to a logical and satisfying conclusion. I think that sort of discipline in defining goals can really help social interactions.

I'll have to think about it, as it is something I might want to start incorporating into my games. It's not something that needs to be applicable all the time, and I've had plenty of all-RP evenings that didn't need or wouldn't benefit from any sort of conflict resolution, but this opens the door to more meaningful social challenges, and I think that's the point. Many of my RP scenes are typically just social interactions that help progress the story, increase immersion and involvement in the story, and provide exposition. The social challenges often reduce to just a simple "He wants this, you want that, make a roll." This gives an interesting approach to enhancing those social challenges.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like the skill challenge structure forced clarity, at least in your own mind, on what those intermediate conflicts were, and that in turn helped progress the scene to a logical and satisfying conclusion. I think that sort of discipline in defining goals can really help social interactions.

<snip>

I've had plenty of all-RP evenings that didn't need or wouldn't benefit from any sort of conflict resolution, but this opens the door to more meaningful social challenges, and I think that's the point.

I agree with al this!