Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Single Thing Would You Eliminate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8238174" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8238174, member: 6802765"] 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? 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. 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 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Single Thing Would You Eliminate
Top