ThirdWizard
First Post
KenM said:
If a player of mine said that, it would make me sad.
Why punish a player if they can't come to the game?
- Thread starter Arravis
- Start date
If a player of mine said that, it would make me sad.
ThirdWizard
First Post
rgard said:
You really havn't. I've listened to others oppinions and grown to understand your oppinion of XP much more than you have understood mine. Listening is the first step to making a point. My discussion with Demmero was so successful because we both tried to understand the others' side. You would make your point much better if you tried to understand how the people you're talking to think.
It doesn't phase me. Different people enjoy different aspects of the game.ThirdWizard said:
The whole not-so-grand experiment with my current campaign has been to run a game that can accomodate (and offer something) to players with different styles and expectations. While still being something I enjoying playing.
So far, so good.
rgard
Adventurer
Mallus said:
Had that happen back in 1E, 1979. One of the players had a 7th level cleric in one campaign and a 1st level assassin in a different campaign. The player didn't play the cleric well at all, but his assassin was brutally well played.
Several of us players wondered in game or out of game why his cleric didn't cast this spell or that spell or he would fumble through the PHB looking for what cure moderate wounds did. While in the low level campaign he played the assassin cleverly.
Eventually, after many game sessions, he was able to play his cleric well and to the same degree expertise that he played the assassin.
After one session the player admitted to me the cleric was rolled up as a 7th level character so that he could play in the higher level campaign. It was his first D&D character.
My reaction was mixed. On one hand, there was deception involved...he never told anybody at the start that the character was made up from whole cloth (could have lived with that if I had known at inception) and was also annoyed as most of the rest of the players in the campaign had several characters die once or twice, lose levels to wights and wraiths, and other calamities that the DM inflicted on us just trying to get to 7th level.
On the other hand, the player and I became good friends through gaming. We may not have ended up being friends if we had only played in the higher level campaign that met less frequently.
So, anecdote aside, it depends on the needs of the gaming group. If the player of the mid level cleric moves to Russia and your group no longer has as a character to fill that critical niche, you need to consider bringing somebody in to run a recently rolled up mid level cleric. Would be better for running a smooth session if the new player has actually played a mid level cleric in the past.
If the player wasn't joining the group to fill a need and wanted to play a mid level anything, I would say no to joining if the player was new to the game and would steer him or her to a low level campaign.
Thanks,
Rich
Wow! A great discussion. A lot of issues. Here's a set of observations about the posts so far:
1. The RAW
It's pretty clear that the rules as written see experience points as a reward to the player rather than the character. In our culture's stories, people who come back from the dead tend not to come back less powerful. Gandalf, Obi-Wan-Kenobi, Jesus, etc. are more powerful when they return from the dead. And yet, when a character dies, there is an XP loss. This seems to model the game punishing a player for letting the character die.
Furthermore, the things that can be purchased with XP often don't appear to be linked to what one would normally see as arising from experience. People can use XP to buy magic items and other things that add to their CR like Awakened creatures, bound creatures and Allies. Similarly, when leveling XP buys knowledge of hitherto unknown languages, skills, feats and spells. A wizard who never casts a spell and hits things with a quarterstaff learns the same number of spells as one who lives entirely by magic.
Then there are suggested methods of awarding non-CR-based or bonus XP. It is suggested that a GM might reward a player for playing in character or otherwise roleplaying highly effectively. Clearly this doesn't model any game-world event. It's just the character being him/herself.
So, it appears that the PHB sees XP as going to players to spend on their characters not as a character attribute in and of itself. After all, XP can purchase attribute increases (at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20).
I'm with Grimstaff that if you give out XP for missed sessions, you really should houserule away XP loss for undead attacks and death and XP gain for roleplaying.
2. Playing With Friends
My last three gaming groups have been happy and good-natured for the most part. We're mostly professionals or graduate students in our early 30s. We typically meet every second week. However, some members of the group are more committed than others. Some will skip a game rather than postpone or reschedule a date or plan a holiday long weekend trip that conflicts with the game. Others cut holidays short and reschedule (or don't go on) dates in order to make games.
Now, I could treat both groups the same and give both the same experiece points. But, I find that things actually go better when those who are not getting fulfilment from other priorities in their life get to feel they're getting more out of the game. And it's not like those with more diverse priorities fall indefinitely behind. In fact, the XP system, over the course of the 20 levels allows players who attend 75-80% of the sessions to stay about two levels behind those who attend every one. And, as others have mentioned, most published modules are designed for such groups.
I don't feel like my game is somehow less friendly because my players aren't all of an identical power level. Weekly poker games do just fine with financial and skill imbalances; I don't see allowing those more into the game to get more out of it as any more or less sociable than giving everyone the same XP.
3. Consequences
I'm really committed to the idea of losing XP for dying. Most other things causing XP disparity I am less committed to. But I like the idea that my choices as a player have real consequences for my character. Unless your world prohibits ressurrection of characters, XP loss is the only way to make the death have any consequences at all. BY the same token, I don't want my character gettign XP when I'm not around to take those risks.
Furthermore, when I run a game as a GM, characters whose players are not there are not really part of the narrative. They're off fighting other creatures off-frame in combat; they don't have anything to say in NPC dialogue. Often they're not there at all but instead shopping or guarding or whatever. As they're not risking death in these situations, even if you buy the idea the characters are getting the experience and not the players, why should the characters get it -- they're not in life-threatening situations.
4. Realistic XP
If you want an experience system that takes a shopt at modeling reality, use Runequest or some other game. In Runequest, your skills only rise when you use them. You can't fireball a land-shark and, as a result, gain an understanding of ring forging, the orcish tongue or how to tumble through crowds. Fireballing a land shark gets you better at fire-balling land sharks.
So, I just don't buy XP is designed to model character experience; it's designed to model player experience.
5. Extended Absences
Sometimes people have to be away for a long time. This is inconvenient in that their character, at some level, drops out of the story. In my view, the best way to respond to this is to reintroduce them with a new character at a level at or close to the party's.
If the extended absence has been due to a loss of interest in the game, it often helps to rejuvenate it by giving the player new opportunities and challenges. If the extended absence has been due to some other, more serious issue, I'd recommend the person generate a new character for much the same reason but if they insisted, I probably would make an exception and top up their old character's XP.
1. The RAW
It's pretty clear that the rules as written see experience points as a reward to the player rather than the character. In our culture's stories, people who come back from the dead tend not to come back less powerful. Gandalf, Obi-Wan-Kenobi, Jesus, etc. are more powerful when they return from the dead. And yet, when a character dies, there is an XP loss. This seems to model the game punishing a player for letting the character die.
Furthermore, the things that can be purchased with XP often don't appear to be linked to what one would normally see as arising from experience. People can use XP to buy magic items and other things that add to their CR like Awakened creatures, bound creatures and Allies. Similarly, when leveling XP buys knowledge of hitherto unknown languages, skills, feats and spells. A wizard who never casts a spell and hits things with a quarterstaff learns the same number of spells as one who lives entirely by magic.
Then there are suggested methods of awarding non-CR-based or bonus XP. It is suggested that a GM might reward a player for playing in character or otherwise roleplaying highly effectively. Clearly this doesn't model any game-world event. It's just the character being him/herself.
So, it appears that the PHB sees XP as going to players to spend on their characters not as a character attribute in and of itself. After all, XP can purchase attribute increases (at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 20).
I'm with Grimstaff that if you give out XP for missed sessions, you really should houserule away XP loss for undead attacks and death and XP gain for roleplaying.
2. Playing With Friends
My last three gaming groups have been happy and good-natured for the most part. We're mostly professionals or graduate students in our early 30s. We typically meet every second week. However, some members of the group are more committed than others. Some will skip a game rather than postpone or reschedule a date or plan a holiday long weekend trip that conflicts with the game. Others cut holidays short and reschedule (or don't go on) dates in order to make games.
Now, I could treat both groups the same and give both the same experiece points. But, I find that things actually go better when those who are not getting fulfilment from other priorities in their life get to feel they're getting more out of the game. And it's not like those with more diverse priorities fall indefinitely behind. In fact, the XP system, over the course of the 20 levels allows players who attend 75-80% of the sessions to stay about two levels behind those who attend every one. And, as others have mentioned, most published modules are designed for such groups.
I don't feel like my game is somehow less friendly because my players aren't all of an identical power level. Weekly poker games do just fine with financial and skill imbalances; I don't see allowing those more into the game to get more out of it as any more or less sociable than giving everyone the same XP.
3. Consequences
I'm really committed to the idea of losing XP for dying. Most other things causing XP disparity I am less committed to. But I like the idea that my choices as a player have real consequences for my character. Unless your world prohibits ressurrection of characters, XP loss is the only way to make the death have any consequences at all. BY the same token, I don't want my character gettign XP when I'm not around to take those risks.
Furthermore, when I run a game as a GM, characters whose players are not there are not really part of the narrative. They're off fighting other creatures off-frame in combat; they don't have anything to say in NPC dialogue. Often they're not there at all but instead shopping or guarding or whatever. As they're not risking death in these situations, even if you buy the idea the characters are getting the experience and not the players, why should the characters get it -- they're not in life-threatening situations.
4. Realistic XP
If you want an experience system that takes a shopt at modeling reality, use Runequest or some other game. In Runequest, your skills only rise when you use them. You can't fireball a land-shark and, as a result, gain an understanding of ring forging, the orcish tongue or how to tumble through crowds. Fireballing a land shark gets you better at fire-balling land sharks.
So, I just don't buy XP is designed to model character experience; it's designed to model player experience.
5. Extended Absences
Sometimes people have to be away for a long time. This is inconvenient in that their character, at some level, drops out of the story. In my view, the best way to respond to this is to reintroduce them with a new character at a level at or close to the party's.
If the extended absence has been due to a loss of interest in the game, it often helps to rejuvenate it by giving the player new opportunities and challenges. If the extended absence has been due to some other, more serious issue, I'd recommend the person generate a new character for much the same reason but if they insisted, I probably would make an exception and top up their old character's XP.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Hmm... Looks like this one got played out. I think I got my own point of view across even if it wasn't always understood.
Perhaps someone who doesn't believe in the need for experience points could explain how they encourage players to become better?
Is there no game related structure for that at all?
Maybe you use some kind of deterrent for poor players who show every session, but add little?
Is player improvement even a part of your game?
Perhaps someone who doesn't believe in the need for experience points could explain how they encourage players to become better?
Is there no game related structure for that at all?
Maybe you use some kind of deterrent for poor players who show every session, but add little?
Is player improvement even a part of your game?
DonTadow
First Post
Player improvement (as you're talkinga bout it) is very important to me.howandwhy99 said:
I use XP, but I don't rely on soley that to make my players better players. Honestly half of them don't even keep track of their xp I do, but the other half keep feverish details.
Outside of XP, which brings natural leveling, I allow characters a forum to speak and converse outside of game on the game website. Even if a player cant be there it allows them to "be" apart of the group while not there. Everything they do on the forum they earn points for to buy things such as feats, skills, xp and bonus's. There are limits on all of this of course to keep it balanced. However, I don't just give them the items, they have to tell me how they went about aquiring them, whether they broke apart and hunted or read books on the ship. I think that has helped out a few weith their roleplaying as they have gotten more of a feel for the character. I'm a big proponent on if you only do things once a week, you will grow slowly at it, but if you have the opportunity ot practice throughout the week, you'll get better.
I think also listening to the players and allowing their ideas to seep into the campaign is always good for emercing the players more into the game.
Positive reinforcement is always the best motivator. I always make sure to comment on all the journals of my players whether its verbal or written . I read an extrodinarily good journal the other day by a player and she responded that my little bit of priase went a long way with her because im thedm.
I know its a lot more than some do for their game, but I think thats what makes me Iron DM Dreads
.[/QUOTE]
Their goal is to show up and play and have fun. making them count up experience points doesn't add to that at all. having them watch me add up experience points is rarely entertaining.
As for "what rewards do they get for making "better" decisions in game, using "smarter tactics" and such?" if that was your notion, they get better results in game. however, sometimes its perfectly "in character" to not learn better tactics and to make mistakes.
yeah, usually my players improve, but thats a natural aspect of group play, and not something I foster by smacking players around for their mistakes and "punishing" them.
Now, surely, for some punishment is entertainment... a look at the many SnM websites and reality tv show popularity to see that, but thats not the focus of my games.
Better in what sense?howandwhy99 said:
Their goal is to show up and play and have fun. making them count up experience points doesn't add to that at all. having them watch me add up experience points is rarely entertaining.
As for "what rewards do they get for making "better" decisions in game, using "smarter tactics" and such?" if that was your notion, they get better results in game. however, sometimes its perfectly "in character" to not learn better tactics and to make mistakes.
No, i do not have a mechanic for ranking my players numerically from best to worst.howandwhy99 said:
Well, i don't usually have poor players, but if one needs help, i work with him/her. i script more to their strengths and gradually nudge them to expand. They are here to have fun and while their weaknesses will show in play from time to time and cost them, i don't think they enjoy the sessions more if ON TOP OF THAT I also hit them with a "punishment".howandwhy99 said:
howandwhy99 said:
yeah, usually my players improve, but thats a natural aspect of group play, and not something I foster by smacking players around for their mistakes and "punishing" them.
Now, surely, for some punishment is entertainment... a look at the many SnM websites and reality tv show popularity to see that, but thats not the focus of my games.
Similar Threads
