I guess, if you’re awarding XP for macro-level decisions like that, instead of for more granular things like encounters and objectives, that might influence the decision process. Of course, the way XP is typically awarded, you wouldn’t easily be able to discern which path is worth more XP. The XP should come from the challenges you face during the adventure, and influence moment-to-moment decisions like whether to try and slay the dragon or steal its treasure and leave without it noticing. And, yes, that is an additional factor influencing your decision process, but again, it shouldn’t produce different outcomes unless you’ve made the decision to play a character who would otherwise reject the sort of activity the campaign is focused on - which is generally considered bad form.
Your response doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so maybe I've misunderstood what you are arguing in favor of. To clarify, I was under the impression that you were arguing in favor of using encounter-based XP because you want players to be able to make choices that prioritize character advancement. To me that implies you want players to be able to choose between encounters based on which ones provide more XP. Other than for somewhat-unusual tactical situations, isn't the choice of which encounters to face a macro-level strategic decision of which quests to undertake or which plot hooks to follow?
I know you'd agree that choosing between quests and plot hooks isn't ever bad form, so my impression of what you're arguing must be wrong. So you could clarify what kind of in-character decisions you want to be able to make (or you want your players to be able to make) with XP-maximization in mind?
They shouldn’t be. To paraphrase the EGGman, you are making believe you are the character.
Why would I only make believe I am a character whose emotional state happens to always match my own? That's really limiting on the range of characters one can play.
I get the impression that you are holding in your mind some kind of ideal “pure” form of roleplaying, wherein decisions made are based exclusively on the fictional character’s experiences, emotions, and perspective (though you do seem to allow leeway for what would make the more enjoyable gaming experience for the other players at the table). Personally, I don’t favor this over a decision process that incorporates the player’s experiences, emotions, and perspective. On the contrary, I think it is both impossible to remove the player from the equation and misguided to attempt to do so. Because the player is making believe they are the character, whatever the player decides to do is what the character “would do,” and I favor mechanics that encourage the player to align their own thinking with that of a character in the fictional world, rather than try to compartmentalize the two.
There are definitely multiple ways to roleplay, and all of them are legitimate. Personally, my preferred style is an immersive approach where I'm empathizing with the character and trying to think and feel like they would (while still considering necessary OOC factors like table fun-maximization). Since characters aren't aware of the concept of XP, trying to make IC decisions with XP-maximization in mind would get in the way of my preferred style of roleplaying (and unlike table fun-maximization, I don't see optimizing the rate of XP gain as a critical concern). I don't think there is anything misguided about my preferred style.
I'm not sure I completely follow how the details of your preferred style of roleplaying works, but if per-encounter XP makes it easier for you to roleplay in your preferred style, cool!
The entire reason I originally responded to you was to point out that while you see letting the characters make XP-maximizing IC choices as a benefit to your preferred style of RP, it's a drawback to mine.
I fundamentally and emphatically disagree. I think your goals and your characters goals can easily be in concert, and should be as often as possible.
Sure, but those are meta-game goals. What you want for your character and what your character wants for themselves should be in concert: to complete the quest, to find the McGuffin, to rescue the villagers, to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women... (ok, you probably shouldn’t want that last one, but I couldn’t resist the reference.)
If the game rewards you for doing those things, it aligns your goals with your character’s goals. A good thing in my view.
I think we're talking past each other again. Or maybe we're agreeing but just using different language to express the same point of view.
I create IC goals and priorities for my character that align with the theme of the campaign. (Which could be a narrow theme if the campaign is a single epic quest, or quite broad if the campaign is a wide-open sandbox.) If character creation is being done jointly, I'll also make sure my character's goals and priorities are either in harmony with the other characters' goals, or (with the other players' agreement) entertainingly in conflict.
"What I want for my character", as you put it, is a story that I and the other players will find satisfying, based on our own preferences and idiosyncrasies. That doesn't necessarily mean I want my character to succeed at all their goals. A character can have goals and priorities that are in tension with each other, so succeeding at all of their goals while keeping true to their priorities is unlikely in the extreme. Other characters have long-term goals that are outside the scope of a campaign (so long as short-term pursuit of that goal is within scope). Other characters might be doomed, in the sense that some of their goals are implausible (or even impossible) to meet. In the course of a campaign, one or more characters might end up failing at their goals, and that's ok! Heroic sacrifices, defiant last stands, and pyrrhic victories can all make for great stories. So long as the end result is satisfying for everyone, I don't really care if my character succeeds or fails at their goals.
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think it's desirable for my OOC goals to exactly match my character's IC goals. To me the very ideas are entirely orthogonal to one another. Also, players are going to fail at their goals all the time (e.g. an untimely demise). If the player's OOC goals and the character's IC goals are (somehow) identical, doesn't that imply that a failure on the part of the character is a failure on the part of the player? How would that be fun?
