Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cor_Malek" data-source="post: 5335426" data-attributes="member: 91608">Regardless of whether I was DM or a player - only players that were present were given experience. On top of that, RP/quests/circumstantial/tactical decisions were always rewarded with more points than killing stuff (but than again I don't think I ever gamed with people who started out with DnD - it was always either Rolemaster/MERP or Warhammer).So in the end there was always disparity between power of various characters, and it made for a lot of fun interactions. For example when I left a couple of early sessions and came back to see not only our party's weakest character improve - but player leading it as well. Of the top of my head I can remember only one player openly displeased about it - he was DM-ing a lot as well + was into optimization, so we could tell that &quot;He'd make a different call as DM&quot;. But his character was well built, and in the end it seemed he had a lot of fun when it was obvious how much more powerful his druid was - even if he was behind some of us (level-wise). It could seem that lower CL would hurt a caster - but not if he's a summoner.I like building a character and having at least illusion of being relevant to his development. With fixed xp I can do whatever I want, and still get my share of experience, which kinda kills my buzz.That's practice. As far as theory goes, I plan to completely exclude kill-xp from my games, something I've seen work miracles for the RPG experience if done right (it's not easy to find like-minded groups). And don't get me wrong - it's not to eliminate combat for sake of storytelling. I just want fighting to be associated mostly with loss of resources, and thus making other options viable - which puts strategy and tactics on a whole another level. And makes it possible to actually make more believable, not level appropriate, worlds.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cor_Malek, post: 5335426, member: 91608"] Regardless of whether I was DM or a player - only players that were present were given experience. On top of that, RP/quests/circumstantial/tactical decisions were always rewarded with more points than killing stuff (but than again I don't think I ever gamed with people who started out with DnD - it was always either Rolemaster/MERP or Warhammer). So in the end there was always disparity between power of various characters, and it made for a [I]lot[/I] of fun interactions. For example when I left a couple of early sessions and came back to see not only our party's weakest character improve - but player leading it as well. Of the top of my head I can remember only one player openly displeased about it - he was DM-ing a lot as well + was into optimization, so we could tell that "He'd make a different call as DM". But his character was well built, and in the end it seemed he had a lot of fun when it was obvious how much more powerful his druid was - even if he was behind some of us (level-wise). It could seem that lower CL would hurt a caster - but not if he's a summoner. I like building a character and having at least illusion of being relevant to his development. With fixed xp I can do whatever I want, and still get my share of experience, which kinda kills my buzz. That's practice. As far as theory goes, I plan to completely exclude kill-xp from my games, something I've seen work miracles for the RPG experience if done right (it's not easy to find like-minded groups). And don't get me wrong - it's not to eliminate combat for sake of storytelling. I just want fighting to be associated mostly with [I]loss[/I] of resources, and thus making other options viable - which puts strategy and tactics on a whole another level. And makes it possible to actually make more believable, not level appropriate, worlds. [/QUOTE]

Verification