Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4697566" data-attributes="member: 467">Forked from: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showpost.php?postid=4697388" target="_blank"> DM'ing is a skill, not an art. </a>Although I certainly won't argue with Fenes about what makes the game fun for he and his group, I personally feel that calculating XP and awarding it based on what happens in game is very important. XP is a prime motivator in play, and how and for what it is awarded has a powerful impact on what happens at the table.I'll start with a personal situation: I play in a 4E campaign that schedules about once a month for 5 hours or so, about an hour and a half away from my home.  Having a couple kids and such, I don't always make it.  The DM, a good friend of mine, started out awarding XP to players who made it, for the challenges overcome and quests completed in play.  Even though I was slipping behind some of the other players -- due to a combination of a few missed sessions and regular character demise -- I preferred it that way.  My paladin bought the farm the last session I attended, and my new character is a dwarf fighter. The DM put me at 3rd level to be on par with the other PCs, and as I was using the character builder to make him, I realized I didn't have any investment at all in the character. He was third level because the DM wants him to be 3rd level for ease of play reasons. He wasn't third level because my previous characters had earned enough XP to get me there and the XP was just tranferring over.  It's kind of empty.  And when he says "You all gain a level" after two sessions, regardless of how much XP we've collected in play so that the campaign keeps pace with where he wants it to be, level wise, it will be equally empty.(Don't get me wrong -- I like the game and my friends.)XP is both a player and a character reward. Tying it to what happens at the table ties the player to the table and makes the characters' choices and actions more important. Choosing to give XP for certain types of behavior promotes those behaviors and de-emphasizes other kinds of behaviors.  Giving full XP for killing things in combat and only half for sneaking around the enemy, for example, would promote wanton slaughter. Giving bonus XP for creating and/or using PC backgrounds emphasizes role-playing. Awarding XP for smokes, beer and pizza has an altogether different effect. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Perhaps it is my tendency toward "sandbox" play, where the players drive much of the action. By awarding XP for what they actually do, it motivates them to, well, actually do something. By not awarding XP for no-shows (or half XP for an absent player who allows his character to be run by the other players) it promotes making an effort to make time for the game.  Of course, I understand stuff happens, what with real life and all, and that's okay.  Just because you're a bit behind the rest of the party doesn't mean you're "losing" and shouldn't have a major adverse impact on your enjoyment of the game. (As an aside: being behind XP total wise had a lower impact in AD&D, since the XP requirements per level were much greater and the level curve was shallower.)</blockquote>

Verification