trading backstory for some xp?

[krupintupple]

What it does is penalize those who have busy Real Life work loads and rewards those with a lot of time on their hands.

It really isn't a matter of creativity but time.

OP here. i'm trying to remain bias-free, but I should point out that, as the DM of the campaign, I too have real life commitments, but I still manage to devote a few solid hours a week into handling the 90% of the game that the PCs don't. i wouldn't be asking for a journal or anything, but basically just a quick sketch-up that would help me plan for the future, such as likes and dislikes, and where they hope to be in a year, or even ten.

 

[Tilenas]

I'm mastering a star wars campaign (revised core book) and thought to implement xp-awards for good roleplaying, backstory, etc.
The problem is that in star wars, any difference in experience doesn't disappear with time, but increases, causing the players to be of different levels a fair deal of the time.
Furthermore, promoting a certain player for his roleplaying efforts will (in my experience) annoy the others, or (worse still) cause them to enter some sort of competition at the table. Yet for me, D&D is about co-operation between players and not struggle. I do not want to compare the players abilities.
The way I went is instead of giving xp, I award force points more often than suggested. I try to give them whenever something meets the requirements (e.g. a clever idea that propels the story forward or helps the party to achieve in accordance with their moral outlook) and not giving them to whoever does something best. That means that either you get a force point, or you don't. No varying amount as often the case with xp-awards.
Force points seem better suited for this kind of reward because they are an expendable resource and players spend them at varying rates. So you're not slapped in the face after each session by the fact that you still have the least xp of all players. In addition, if someone spends a force point, it is usually to save his ass, something that benefits the group as much as himself. Having more force points doesn't make one character superior to another the way a different level count does.
Seeing that 3.x D&D doesn't have action points, I'd shift the benefit for background creation and roleplaying to the equipment side, as already mentioned by some, awarding masterwork or minor wondrous items. Maybe you make friends with a wandering merchant and he gives you a talisman to protect you on your journeys, etc. While this technically gives someone the edge other someone else who doesn't have that item, it aids him only in one or two categories, often improving something he is already specialized in and where there is no competition over who gets to do something.

 

[irdeggman]

OP here. i'm trying to remain bias-free, but I should point out that, as the DM of the campaign, I too have real life commitments, but I still manage to devote a few solid hours a week into handling the 90% of the game that the PCs don't. i wouldn't be asking for a journal or anything, but basically just a quick sketch-up that would help me plan for the future, such as likes and dislikes, and where they hope to be in a year, or even ten.

I agree with a backstory.

I disagree with an ongoing journal.

Two entirely different things IMO.

For those who think it is fine to work on journal and not much of an impact try this one -

Rotating GMS - so while I am trying to prep for the game in the upcoming week that I need to run (GMs need to do a lot more work than players no matter what) am I supposed to put aside that prep time in order to work on maintaining a journal? So the players (who do not rotate GM duties and subsequently have "more" time) can reap benefits by keeping up a journal.

It may be fine for some groups to use a journal but not for all. It really depends on the Real Life make up of the players (and GM).

 

[Runestar]

At the end of the day, I think it is also about knowing what your players want/dislike and catering to them (as much as the DM will allow, at any rate). If they really don't like the idea of having to flesh out a detailed backstory, no sense trying to force this rule down their throats. Just go with whatever is more fun for them and take it from there.

 

[TessarrianDM]

I've been doing something like this since 1990 or so.

The reward is usually in the form of an item linked to the PC's background, and once or twice, its been a valuable NPC contact- I rarely give a generic XP boost anymore.

What surprises me is how few gamers actually take advantage of the freebie! Historically, I'm running right around 60%.

I always insist that the background be written- that way I can mine it for plot hooks at my convenience.

And I don't care at all who writes them. If one guy wants to write up everyone's backgrounds, so be it. Who knows, maybe he'll supply a reason why the party is adventuring together, like basing them all on The Five Chinese Brothers. Or they're all escapees from some Illithid thrall-pits. Or whatever.

If its good, I'll accept it.

I have do the same thing for about the same time period, with a much lower lack of participation (10%, maybe). I even offered XP bonuses to anyone who wants to flesh out part of the campaign, be it an NPC or a country. So far, one player partly detailed a small town, for which I gave his 6th level character 500 xp. That has been the extent of it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Just for the record, I'm even willing to sit down with a player and help them draft it...and I still award the PC with extras.

It helps everyone get into the campaign, and lets face it, everyone likes having a new shiny thing to play with.

 

[S'mon]

In my current campaign I've been giving XP to everyone who turns in a detailed background. 2 1st level PCs got 70 XP, just enough to get them to level 2, a level 2 PC got 110 XP for background & sketch. If you want a formula, 50 XP per PC level seems about right.

Edit: I had told the 4 players of the 1st level PCs at session's end: "Hmm, you have 931 XP, just short of 2nd. Do a good backstory and I'll give you 70 XP so you can level before next session." 2 did, 1 didn't, 1 quit the campaign (unrelated, it was more because I'd actually enforced the Animal Handling rules on his Druid's animal companion!).

 

[Delta]

i was thinking of implementing a new policy where, if a PC wanted, they could write or jot up a quick sketch of background info and i might reward them somehow, like a one-time xp boost, or maybe an item or something that would suit their background.

I'm old-school, I don't like this, and I avoid games where this kind of thing is established.
(a) I want new players to feel invited, get into the game as easily as possible, and not feel like work.
(b) I want the characters to take shape in-game, and not be locked into particular static personalities through pre-established backgrounds.

 

[Edheldur]

I tried to do that in the past, but really never paid off. Now, with my new gaming group, I tried something different -Ryan Stoughton's idea on this thread- and it has worked like a charm. Basically, during the first session after character creation I asked the players to create 3 drives for their characters -1 of them had to relate to another PC-, 3 allies, 3 contacts and 3 enemies. That's it.

After the first session, not only did I had a general idea of where the campaign was going, but since the players themselves created some NPCs they already cared about what happened to them. Now I can use some or all of the character's motivations for our gaming sessions and hold their interest, and basically offer them a more enjoyable experience. So far, it's made my job as a DM easier, and they are having a blast -with no XP involved in the process-.

 

[Elethiomel]

I'm old-school, I don't like this, and I avoid games where this kind of thing is established.
(a) I want new players to feel invited, get into the game as easily as possible, and not feel like work.

It's easy to get into a game if you have a prior connection to the other characters. This is made easy by having NPCs referred to in characters' bagcground be common contacts, for instance. If one of the players feels a connection to this NPC because they spent effort writing a story that included them, this will be more than "we know the same guy. He's, uh, I don't know. A wizard or something."
And you don't have to write a background if you don't want to.

(b) I want the characters to take shape in-game, and not be locked into particular static personalities through pre-established backgrounds.

It's not like players are writing 5-volume series thoroughly exploring a character and all the ways in which the character can change. I find that the better an idea I have of what my character looks like at the start of a game, the more I can explore how the in-game events change the character.

I think that if you insist on not playing games with people who develop their characters through different means than you do, you are detrimentally limiting the breadth of your roleplaying experience.