What would you do - xp award

[Anguish]

As an illustration, think about basically any trap. You think that maybe there's a trap in a room, so everyone gets clear, except the rogue, who searches. He finds a trap, having succeeded at the first challenge to him; he could have set it off accidentally with a flubbed Search. Now he takes the second challenge and tries to Disable Device.

The risk is the rogue's only. So does he get solo XP for the CR of the trap?

The answer is obvious: no. If we played this way, trap-heavy adventures would result in rogues either a} dead or b} higher-level than anyone else for all their solo work.

Sometimes it's the fighter's turn to bear the weight of the overall mission. Sometimes it's the cleric, turning the undead so everyone else can survive. Sometimes it's the arcanist, blasting the hell out of a horde of orcs that would otherwise swamp the party. Everyone has a part, and just because one particular portion of the adventure calls for someone to not participate directly doesn't mean they should be penalized.

You don't subdivide a multi-opponent encounter and award XP by CR for what a given character dealt with. "Well, the barbarian was the only one who touched the hobgoblin, but the cleric and the rogue both took out the goblin spellcaster, while the wizard buffed himself. Okay, barb gets big XP, cleric and rogue get half of less, and the wizard didn't get around to helping out, so... nothing for you, buddy."

As for the few people who are saying the fundamental of the encounter was "bad", they're off as well. Variety is the spice of life, and sometimes there SHOULD be encounters where a given subset of the party shine. Even to the point of excluding others. The paladin doesn't take the CN tiefling rogue that she herself has serious reservations about in to negotiate with the clergy. The druid shapeshifts to fly and scout ahead, braving dragons and other airborne predators all alone. That's the way it goes, and that's the way it should go. Limiting yourself to "inclusive" encounters only needlessly reduces the richness of the gaming experience.

 

[Dross]

There are a couple of things to remember IMHO.

If the group are happy with the way XP is handed out, then you don't have a problem.

You need to be consistent with the method is all. If you give the scouts XP only, then you need to have situations for the 3rd PC to be the "only" combatant. Award RP if you need to so things roughly balance out.

Personally as a DM and a player I like that getting XP is not the be all and end all of what PCs do.

 

[Will]

Re:
'Giving it out equally encourages players not to take risks.'

What, are the players children?

If someone is being a putz and not putting in risks because they don't get the cookie, punch them in the head and tell them to stop being a wanker.


I like XP as game pacing, and as a spice to encourage people to be interested in what's going on, and feel like the group has accomplished something.

 

[Squeaky Bill]

I would give all the characters full experience points. The opposing force had supeior numbers. Splitting the party was a brave way to gain a temporary tactical advantage. Everyone shared this increased risk equally.

Participation in the encounter was either active or passive, but this was determined by dice rolls for skill checks and wandering monsters. I try to reward the players' decisions more than the outcomes of the game's mechanics.

 

[billd91]

As someone else pointed out, however, this only encourages people *not* to take risks...the reward (at least in terms of ExP) will be there whether you take the risk or someone else does, so...let the someone else do it. I've had players like this, who - if they knew they'd get the ExP regardless - *would* intentionally hold their characters back and let others perhaps get killed, and only come in if-when it was safe. Once they learned that hanging your party out to dry does not earn you any ExP, things changed...at least somewhat.

With the risk comes the reward.

Personally, I don't think risk should even be relevant for primary XP awards over the course of the campaign. You get XP for playing your character whatever the events happen to be. Substantial individual rewards, I think, are asking for unnecessary complications.
I give all PCs equal XP for all encounters the party overcomes.
If you want to reward individual PC situations, tack on a small bonus - maybe 10% of the encounter's value.

 

[Lanefan]

As an illustration, think about basically any trap. You think that maybe there's a trap in a room, so everyone gets clear, except the rogue, who searches. He finds a trap, having succeeded at the first challenge to him; he could have set it off accidentally with a flubbed Search. Now he takes the second challenge and tries to Disable Device.

The risk is the rogue's only. So does he get solo XP for the CR of the trap?

The answer is obvious: no. If we played this way, trap-heavy adventures would result in rogues either a} dead or b} higher-level than anyone else for all their solo work.

Yep. (see below)

Sometimes it's the fighter's turn to bear the weight of the overall mission. Sometimes it's the cleric, turning the undead so everyone else can survive. Sometimes it's the arcanist, blasting the hell out of a horde of orcs that would otherwise swamp the party.

Yep. Which is why one thing needs to happen (the DM over the long haul needs to make sure to run different types of adventures that suit different character types), and ultimately why one thing will happen (over the long haul, it'll roughly balance out assuming the PCs do their jobs).

As for the few people who are saying the fundamental of the encounter was "bad", they're off as well. Variety is the spice of life, and sometimes there SHOULD be encounters where a given subset of the party shine. Even to the point of excluding others.

Absolutely. And those that shine get the ExP, this time, as they should; and next time maybe it'll be someone else who shines.

The paladin doesn't take the CN tiefling rogue that she herself has serious reservations about in to negotiate with the clergy. The druid shapeshifts to fly and scout ahead, braving dragons and other airborne predators all alone. That's the way it goes, and that's the way it should go. Limiting yourself to "inclusive" encounters only needlessly reduces the richness of the gaming experience.

If all you're saying here is that not all the party should necessarily be involved in every encounter, I agree completely. However, a PC should only get ExP for those encounters it *is* involved in; and I think that's where we differ.

Lanefan

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I would not, repeat not, penalise the 3rd player any more than you're already doing.

If scouting means being the centre of attention, then scouting is actually having fun. The 3rd player is losing out of fun time as it is.

Here's the deal with xp. Xp primarily awards the player - not the character.

I urge you to award xp to all 3 characters, and furthermore divert the action so that all 3 players have their fair share in the limelight. Ok, 2 guys go scouting (again), well action comes to the camp guard.

I suspect continuing the preferred methods will see the 3rd player change to a rogue or start to lose interest...

 

[robberbaron]

I wouldn't give the 3rd player XPs for defeating the patrol. Wasn't there, doesn't get paid.
Same as if the party do some adventuring before a player or two turn up.

I would have given XPs for successfully camouflaging the camp, but I might have setup a smaller encounter for the 3rd player while the others were away, perhaps, a wandering boar or a couple of army scouts. That way, the other two get to sit on their hands while the 3rd player gets the spotlight. Depends on how good the camouflage was: good job = XP for doing it, bad job = XP for the encounter with the boar/scouts who saw through the disguise.

 

[hagor]

This turns out to be an interesting discussion so far.

I would give every PC some XP, but the ones in the fight somewhat more. Since I don't know the rules about XP and CR, I would just wing it.

However, for a more rules consistent approach, I prefer the method suggested in the very first answer:

Hey Quasqueton, hope things are going well. You make good points, why not just say something simple like: Well, the combat for the two PCs was a CR X, but the care that they took to conceal the camp helped them avoid (read overcome) a CR Y. That allows you to use the regular XP system without making up any numbers. Then the challenge is to decide whether X > Y, X = Y, or X < Y. I would go with X < Y, give experience to everyone for encounter Y (since they all helped hide the camp) and only to the two PCs for encounter X.

That should give everyone XP while giving the two who risked their necks just a slight bump.

A nice and simple solution IMO

Hagor

 

[Telsar]

I just give a flat amount of XP to all PCs. Then players have their characters do things that make sense for their characters, not to "gain a reward". The guy left behind already didn't get to participate in a fun encounter. And now he doesn't get to level as soon as the others either? Ugh.