What would you do - xp award

[Mercule]

Early on in 3E (Sunless Citadel), I learned that awarding XP to only those who were there can be a bad idea. It's just asking for inequality in the group. IMO, even those not immediately involved in the action should get a share of XP. The PC who didn't scout wasn't necessarily slacking, he was penalized enough by not getting to participate in the fun.

If you want to reward the PCs who did the actual fighting, though, modify the split only slightly. Say, set aside 5% (tops) per XP-receiving characters (depends on how you track NPCs). Split the remainder evenly between all PCs. Then split the 5%/PC reserve between those who we actually in the fight. In a party of four XP-receivers, that split is (roughly) 20/27/27/27 for one PC sitting out, and that 7% will end up being more significant than it sounds, especially if your forward guard does that a lot. If two PCs sit out, that's 20/20/30/30, which is even more significant.

I should highlight that I don't actually recommend the latter. An even award is best. If you're dead set on there being a variance, though, that's the absolute maximum that I'd find reasonable and it's a workable system.

 

[darthkilmor]

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.

I would have to whole-heartedly disagree and say the answer isn't obvious at all. If the rogue is scouting ahead of the party and searching for traps, finds one, and disables it, what has the rest of the party done ? "Risked" standing around? The rogue should get the XP. If the party subsequently was attacked while the rogue was away, then the rogue wouldn't get any XP.

In your example, if there's a trap in the room and everyone went into the room, then shouldnt everyone have risked triggering the trap? If you've risked setting the trap off, then you get some XP. If you're 3 rooms over memorizing your spells for the day, then No, no xp for you.

If your party NEVER splits up except for the rogue scouting ahead, then yeah, you'll get some drift. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No! If the rogue is a level higher than everyone, when Everyone(inc rogue) gets in a fight, he'll get less experience. Thus it'll work itself out, it all balances out in the end.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As an aside issue, awarding xp correctly can be such a chore as is.

Why is the poor overworked dm even contemplating to increase their workload?

So much bother for such little gain, nevermind the grounds for contention.

 

[robberbaron]

I can understand some DMs wanting their party to get equal XPs whether they actively participated or not. Makes encounter setting much easier if they are all the same level.

But what do you do if a player doesn't turn up for a couple of sessions (holiday, illness, away with work or whatever)? Give them the XPs anyway?

My players all have different levels of XP (from 12th to 15th level) and it has NEVER been an issue of contention. They appreciate that, if they contribute more to a game, they get more XPs. Everybody gets some, but the more productive characters (the rogue in a trap-heavy situation, the ranger in a woodland setting, the mages when magical stuff is required) get more. Then again, I've always given XP bonuses for 'playing in character' and good ideas so someone can boost their total without necessarily being at the front of the group.

IMO giving more-or-less equal XPs for everyone, regardless of the part played in the game, could send the wrong message - it doesn't matter if your character stands around with his thumb up his bum, you'll get the same XP for it. I don't think that encourages roleplaying and that is something I want to encourage.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But what do you do if a player doesn't turn up for a couple of sessions (holiday, illness, away with work or whatever)? Give them the XPs anyway?

Yes.

My players feel very strongly that everyone should be the same level because otherwise there is too much of a power imbalance. I've even houseruled raise dead so there's no level loss.

Everyone contributes equally in our game. Everyone is a team player. A couple of years ago we had two players that were not. We solved the problem by kicking them out the group.

 

[shilsen]

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.

Same here. And I've divorced the XP awarded from what PCs do in the game. I award enough XP to keep PCs advancing at a speed I want. Players, as you say, can just have their characters do what they think the character should, without ever wondering if they're shortchanging themselves because they're not doing the "right things".

As an aside issue, awarding xp correctly can be such a chore as is.

Why is the poor overworked dm even contemplating to increase their workload?

So much bother for such little gain, nevermind the grounds for contention.

Absolutely. A big benefit of my method is that I don't need to spend time looking up XP tables and CR and the like.

can understand some DMs wanting their party to get equal XPs whether they actively participated or not. Makes encounter setting much easier if they are all the same level.

But what do you do if a player doesn't turn up for a couple of sessions (holiday, illness, away with work or whatever)? Give them the XPs anyway?

Absolutely. Firstly, the PC was there even if the player wasn't. And secondly, the player's already missed the best part of the game, which is ... well, playing the game. For him to miss that and to be penalized XP would be really mean of me, IMNSHO.

Of course, even if the PC isn't present it doesn't matter, since the XP award (as noted above) isn't tied to what PCs do in game. As far as I'm concerned, XP and level advancement exist for mainly metagame reasons: levels exist because it's fun to have PC abilities develop and grow, and XP exists to calculate the speed of that advance. So I don't see any advantage to tying it into IC actions.

IMO giving more-or-less equal XPs for everyone, regardless of the part played in the game, could send the wrong message - it doesn't matter if your character stands around with his thumb up his bum, you'll get the same XP for it. I don't think that encourages roleplaying and that is something I want to encourage.

I'd rather deal with the kind of above issue in-game. If the PC doesn't help the other PCs in-game, then presumably the other PCs will address that in-game and tell you to either shape up or ship out. I want in-game actions and choices to have in-game consequences, rather than tying them to a mostly metagame construct like XP. Tying XP to PC actions is too much like grading for me, and I do more than enough as a teacher.

 

[roguerouge]

Your Tank PC successfully guarded the equipment and transportation. They were a good role-player by not interfering. They made the scouting possible with their decision-making.

Give 'em the XP.

Give 'em a half share if you can't decide.

Give 'em no xp if you want the Tank to find a reason to go on every scouting mission from here on out or if you want to promise a solo adventure for the Tank.

 

[delericho]

I always award everyone the same XP, on the grounds that these things all balance out in the end. So, I wouldn't have this particular problem.

However, since you have the policy of only awarding XP to the characters involved in the encounter, I say you should do that. The DM should be consistent in his rulings. I would advise, however, dropping in an opportunity for the 'missing' PC to shine later in the adventure, and thus make up the difference.

 

[pallandrome]

I'd give the tank full XP. Punishing the tank for not being an idiot is kinda silly.

 

[Telsar]

But what do you do if a player doesn't turn up for a couple of sessions (holiday, illness, away with work or whatever)? Give them the XPs anyway?

Yep, from me too. Look at this way; Imagine you have a group where everyone attended every session, and now they're 10th level. You get a new player, what level should he start at? Whatever level you think that is, now imagine your original group had one guy who only shows up for half the games. That guy might be, say 7th level from lack of gaining XP. Then the new guy comes in, now what level does the new guy get? Does he start even lower because an original player missed so much?

XP just doesn't work as a reward. I don't want people playing a certain way just to get more power. Make the rewards be in-game things, not metagame things. In the original example, the scouts did get an award for going off on their own; they got info on the enemy. They whittled down on the enemy forces a bit. If those enemies had some coin on them, it's reasonable only those who killed them share in it. But XP? That's just there to advance the level at a rate everyone will enjoy.