Experience for RP

[scytale2]

As a GM, I normally give XP for roleplaying - I fact I split it into the following four categories:

1. Characterisation - this would be about including background stories for the players entertainment, or basically painting an colourful picture of your character
2. Creativity - this is about coming up with creative solutions to problems, based on the powers at your disposal. The ideas don't need to work, but they need to be interesting or clever.
3. Participation - I use this as a "hook" to give bonuses to people who do things in a session, rather than just hang back and watch. Even if what they do is ineffective, they would get something for trying.
4. Bonus experience (Basically Miscellaneous) - This would be for "one off" issues, such as an amazing critical kill or where a mage wiped out an entire tribe with one spell! The idea here is "would the player have gained any knowledge about their class by the activity that happened?"

My questions are, do other GMs do similar? And secondly, is there a facility for a GM to keep track of such (I use a tickbox system in face to face) in FG2? What you can't do is hand out this XP every few minutes, but you can add it up at the end of the session and hand it out individually per player.

I suppose the reason I do this is encourage individuality in players, but also to give merit, where merit is due. If a player is continually trying new things, then they will learn from their experience. If they sit back and laze, then they will still gain experience, but at a lower rate.

What do people think?

[Valarian]

1. Turning up - a few XP for being there
2. Roleplay - XP value for playing your character + bonus XP if the player plays the character to their own detriment
3. Problem solving - XP for coming up with a solution to a problem
4. Amusing the GM - XP based on how much I've enjoyed the game
5. Other stuff - adhoc XP for learning experiences

[John_Geeshu]

I have done this in the past, predominantly in PbP because combat is not an efficient vehicle for handing out XP, but in other formats, especially table top I don't give out XP for roleplaying. The whole point of, for example: D&D, is to enjoy yourself pretending to be someone else, somewhere else. Combat in of itself can be fun but its purpose in D&D is as the primary vehicle for driving up character power -- not character development. I also steer away from roleplaying rewards because some players are inherently "better" roleplayers. Rather than rewarding good roleplaying, you are penalizing the "poorer" roleplayers which I find to be wholly out of keeping with the whole idea of the game in the first place. Combat is the great equalizer because everyone has their part to play and always plays it to the best of their character's ability, and not their own ability as an actor.

[Valarian]

Not too much combat in my games - I play games where combat is deadly and to be avoided if at all possible. Thereby roleplay becomes far more important. Even my D&D games tend to stay clear of the typical hack and slay dungeon.

[scytale2]

I have done this in the past, predominantly in PbP because combat is not an efficient vehicle for handing out XP, but in other formats, especially table top I don't give out XP for roleplaying. The whole point of, for example: D&D, is to enjoy yourself pretending to be someone else, somewhere else. Combat in of itself can be fun but its purpose in D&D is as the primary vehicle for driving up character power -- not character development. I also steer away from roleplaying rewards because some players are inherently "better" roleplayers. Rather than rewarding good roleplaying, you are penalizing the "poorer" roleplayers which I find to be wholly out of keeping with the whole idea of the game in the first place. Combat is the great equalizer because everyone has their part to play and always plays it to the best of their character's ability, and not their own ability as an actor.

I guess I agree to some extent with an egalitarian approach, but then some players can focus their entire energies on maxing damage potential and ignoring the roleplaying aspect completely. For instance, if you give yourself an unusual feat or trait, then that gives you something more to work into your character storytelling.

On the egalitarian side, unless you're playing ludo or snakes and ladders, gaming is about skill and roleplaying is part of that skill element. I've never once had any players question why a player got more XP for roleplaying - basically they gained enjoyment out of it and wanted it rewarded as well. In last Tuesday's F2F session, the players demanded that one of the players were given extra XP for handling an encounter well (verbally).

I don't agree that combat is a great equalizer - if anything the opposite. Some characters are combat machines, while others steer toward roleplaying and knowledge-gaining with stats which often are useful at nothing other than talking or information-gathering. Also if you want a balanced party, which can explore the adventure in every aspect, not just combat, then players should be encouraged to use those skills and feats which allow this type of exploration.

And lastly on a realism side, why would I gain as much from a combat (or other type of encounter), which I contributed very little to?

[Tropico]

To throw another angle into the discussion... I've always liked goal-based XP rewards. Let players focus on whatever it is that they enjoy focusing on, let each person contribute to the degree that they enjoy contributing, and reward progress and discovery inside the adventure.

Like.. if there's the McGuffin inside the castle, and the party's objective is to get it.. They might go in all hacking and slashing, tearing guards and monsters apart. Or they might go in all stealth and shadows, avoiding everything. Or they might go in all diplomacy and bluff, using disguises and clever lies to get in. Or they might think of Something Completely Different.

Why should any of these get any preferential treatment? What matters is that everyone is there, they're working together, they're solving problems, doing stuff, accomplishing stuff. I would reward them for that stuff. And if they're observant, smart or clever and accomplish even more incidental or optional stuff along the way, then reward them even more.

For example, I would break such a scenario down like this:

(Say the party needs like 2500 XP to level up)

Showing up: 400 XP
Getting into the Castle: 150 XP
Getting into the McGuffin room without tripping the alarm: 200 XP
Getting the McGuffin safely out of the castle: 1000 XP
If caught, breaking out of their cells: 200 XP
Discovering the 3 secret rooms in the castle: 100 XP / room
Breaking into the sealed Treasury Room: 300 XP
Discovering the Dark Lord altar behind the throne: 200 XP
Destroying said altar: 300 XP
Getting out of the castle with no PC deaths: 200 XP
Having a cool castle adventure: priceless (sorry I had to do it!!)

...and so on... I would insert as many 'goals' as I want to make the adventure as 'filled up' as I need it to be, and if the players come up with something I never expected but is cool, I would just add in another 300 XP for that. The 'main load' of XP comes from accomplishing the task they know is theirs, but through extra exploration and going out of their way they can increase that substantially.

Of all the factors in an RPG I think XP-awarding is the one that most ultimately falls into personal preference.. there's just too many ways to do it, none of them being the 'right one'. It also depends too much on the style of game you're running in the first place.

[John_Geeshu]

Scy, I agree with what you are saying but I think you are using the wrong system for the type of game you want to run. D&D is a combat-focused roleplaying game. The classes are balanced not towards the roleplaying element but towards the combat element. That's why I say that combat is the great equalizer. If I want to encourage and reward creative roleplaying I use another system.

[NymTevlyn]

You'd hate the way I run games then. I award for task completion and roleplaying. I don't award xp for pure combat. It helps take players out of the must kill everything mindset. Instead of brute force, they actually look for other ways of completing the tasks set for them.

[John_Geeshu]

Think about it this way. When a GM awards XP for roleplaying they are doing what? Rewarding behavior they want to enforce right? So, they are reinforcing what they consider to be good roleplaying and therefore encouraging more of it. Presumably this is their goal. Players naturally seek XP. (My goal is for roleplaying to be a reward unto itself).

XP is a function of character power, not character development.

One could say (I don't) that granting XP rewards for "good" roleplaying encourages the worst kind of meta gaming, that is, it encourages players to think in terms of "what kind of clever roleplaying will net me the greatest reward?" (Personally I think the evils of meta gaming are overrated. Aren't we all just taking our make believe a little too seriously?). Now that's debatable and ancillary to the larger issue, but my point about character power versus character development is, I think, a good one.

A character can be very powerful but have little in the way of development, and a good example of this is the oft-frowned upon proverbial power gamer (whose evils are also overrated), and just as likely a character can be not at all powerful but be highly developed -- I have several examples of these types of PCs in my main campaign at the moment.

The reason that (in D&D, note I am talking exclusively about D&D here) XP rewards for combat work is because every PC Class, including the Prestige Classes, is balanced for combat.

So the question then becomes (at least in my mind), if I am using D&D and I want to encourage my players to hit upon creative solutions that do not always involve "smash it!", how is it done?

The answer might be to provide challenges that cannot be overcome with swordplay, and that do not require a DC of 20+ from any particular skill. A good example -- but certainly not the best -- of this is the monster whose CR is clearly well above what the party can manage on their best days.

But then again it might not.

[Azrael Nightstar]

I really have to disagree, John; D&D is balanced overall, not for combat. Rogue skills like sneak attack or even stealth could be considered combat-oriented, but it's pretty hard to say that picking locks or pockets is in any way a "combat skill". Divine casters might have plenty of summons, heals and buffs for combat, but speaking with a plant or creating food and water are hardly things you can do in the midst of melee. And a wizard may be very effective hurling fireballs around, but there's also a reason he can figure out what that strange old relic does, search his information-crammed mind for the name of the successor to the Pirate King, or shift the party to another plane of existence. On the other hand, Barbarians and Fighters don't have a whole lot to offer outside combat; where some classes have great combat skills, others don't, but have other skills valuable to the party in other situations.

That's why generally XP is a reward for accomplishing things in general, which is how I like to use it. Crossing swords with the enemy is a learning experience, especially for the fighter, and by the same token breaking into the dungeon, rescuing the hostages, attending to their bruised bodies and broken spirits, and figuring out the villain's next move all are as well, each a bit more relevant for some of the PCs than others.

I tend to reward characters for performing well and accomplishing goals, or at least coming up with good ideas on how to accomplish their goals, and give bonuses in each character's areas of strength, similar to how 2nd edition D&D handled things: Everyone gets XP for combat, but fighters get a bit more. Rogues get XP for using their skills in useful or creative ways, and the same with the spells of a spellcaster. I think this rewards the players for not only working together and being creative, but also on playing their chosen roles. It also gives the players some of the same goals as their characters: the cleric wants to do good deeds because he's so inclined, the thief wants to find the treasure, the fighter relishes the big battle, and each one's player knows they'll be rewarded with XP for making sure their character gets what's important to them, at least some of the time.

[SirJoe]

This is a really interesting thread and well worth talking about. As always, there are as many different ways to GM as there are gamers. For me, I tend to consider carefully the *real* goals of each player and to some extend match the gaming experience to their wants. After all, I am there to give people a fun (but not easy) time.

Recenlty I gave my son (a budding GM himself) a copy of the Guide to Good Game Mastering (exact title may be different) by Steve Jackson Games. It covers this idea really well.

But back the XP issue. I tend to find that many players like quick, in-game rewards. The method I use is to have a collection of glass counters with me. Whenever a player does something that drive the plot forward, is highly creative or clever, is very much in keeping with their character (especially when not in their best interests!), makes us all laugh, or is really well described (I love good language in gaming) then I pass them over one to three counters. Players may collect up to three counters (more if playing a high-level game) and may use them to modify their die rolls by 1.

This basically gives people a very quick and immediate reward feeling and quickly gets players *really* playing. Yeah, I know its very pavlovian, but it works for me.

Cheers,
JS

[scytale2]

This is a really interesting thread and well worth talking about. As always, there are as many different ways to GM as there are gamers. For me, I tend to consider carefully the *real* goals of each player and to some extend match the gaming experience to their wants. After all, I am there to give people a fun (but not easy) time.

Recenlty I gave my son (a budding GM himself) a copy of the Guide to Good Game Mastering (exact title may be different) by Steve Jackson Games. It covers this idea really well.

But back the XP issue. I tend to find that many players like quick, in-game rewards. The method I use is to have a collection of glass counters with me. Whenever a player does something that drive the plot forward, is highly creative or clever, is very much in keeping with their character (especially when not in their best interests!), makes us all laugh, or is really well described (I love good language in gaming) then I pass them over one to three counters. Players may collect up to three counters (more if playing a high-level game) and may use them to modify their die rolls by 1.

This basically gives people a very quick and immediate reward feeling and quickly gets players *really* playing. Yeah, I know its very pavlovian, but it works for me.

Cheers,
JS

That's a nice idea, Joe - sort of Karma points...

I just wanted to come back on point point from Azrael, hinting that fighters have little to offer outside of combat. This is clearly true in gameplay terms, but the point that I was trying to make in my arguments is that every character has roleplay to offer, as long as you can think through how your character might act in a situation.

My level 1 half orc barbarian is very capable at nothing other than fighting, (jumping and running), in gameplay terms, but he is equally capable to every other character I have to bringing in some humour or character background, for everyone's enjoyment.

At the end of the day, I have always felt that XP is important for character development, as John says, simply so your character will not have the same limitations for ever, but what is most important is the story and the exploits, that you can relate back for many months/years later...

[Valarian]

XP is a function of character power, not character development.

So speaks a power gamer, not someone who would enjoy playing in my gaming group.


One could say (I don't) that granting XP rewards for "good" roleplaying encourages the worst kind of meta gaming, that is, it encourages players to think in terms of "what kind of clever roleplaying will net me the greatest reward?" (Personally I think the evils of meta gaming are overrated. Aren't we all just taking our make believe a little too seriously?). Now that's debatable and ancillary to the larger issue, but my point about character power versus character development is, I think, a good one.

I will only award the XP reward for roleplaying if the player is playing the character as written. If the character is a bloodthirsty barbarian who'd rather kill you than look at you, I want this to be played out in the game. The barbarian shouldn't pass up an insult to his honour because the player thinks that killing the city official may get the party in to trouble.


A character can be very powerful but have little in the way of development, and a good example of this is the oft-frowned upon proverbial power gamer (whose evils are also overrated), and just as likely a character can be not at all powerful but be highly developed -- I have several examples of these types of PCs in my main campaign at the moment.

I find that power gamers spoil the enjoyment of the roleplaying. Their only interest is to make the character as strong as possible. They aren't interested in exploring the depths of the character and having the character grow.

For example, the above barbarian, as he progresses may learn to curb his violent instincts as he gets more used to urban life. He still may not have a high opinion of city dwellers, but at least the watch aren't trying to hang him. The player could announce this intention to the GM and explore this over several adventures, the GM would award roleplaying that highlights the struggle of the barbarian (with a few Will rolls thrown in).


The reason that (in D&D, note I am talking exclusively about D&D here) XP rewards for combat work is because every PC Class, including the Prestige Classes, is balanced for combat.

I disagree that D&D is combat oriented. Combat is certainly part of the game. The worlds in D&D are generally pretty dangerous. But it's not the be all and end all of the game.


So the question then becomes (at least in my mind), if I am using D&D and I want to encourage my players to hit upon creative solutions that do not always involve "smash it!", how is it done?

The answer might be to provide challenges that cannot be overcome with swordplay, and that do not require a DC of 20+ from any particular skill. A good example -- but certainly not the best -- of this is the monster whose CR is clearly well above what the party can manage on their best days.

But then again it might not.

Have them slaughter a party of Orcs in a cavern, then find the Orclings and females that the males were protecting in the next chamber. Have them cower from the party in fear. If the players start killing them, have them scream and run. Make it clear that they (the party) are the bad guys here.

The above barbarian could decapitate the city official then find himself on trial for murder (big XP bonus here for playing the character to the player's disadvantage). The other party members would have to find a way to break him out of the city gaol and escape the city.

[Kalan]

This same debate is why many systems, including some d20, have a system in place to reward RP's, along the lines of what Joe is on about. In WoW RPG its called Hero Points, in Serenity its Plot Points, Savage Worlds uses Bennies, 7th Sea uses Drama Dice.

These are all rewards for roleplaying, and roleplaying alone, but carry a lot of in game benefit. You can use them to save your bacon in a fight, recover from that life threatening wound, alter the plot in some small way to benefit things. But they are also designed to be used sparingly...

I myself don't hand out XP for roleplaying, but use these same systems in their stead. Like Joe, the players love using these things, and spending them...and offers real concrete rewards for good RP.

[NymTevlyn]

Power gaming, number crunching morons can all go jump off a cliff for all I care. They've ruined any chance of having a good online MMORPG and have turned every MMO out there into a glorified e-peen waving contest.

Computers are able to perform all the bits and pieces of conflict resolution, regardless if it's in combat or someone haggling with a merchant over the price of bread, yet all these stupid arsed game devs keep putting in more and more numbers for the players to screw around with.

If I could automate 90% of the numbers for D&D, I'd do it in a heartbeat and find players that don't need to see stats to enjoy playing a character. That's one of the reasons I award xp for completing various goals instead of just for combat. Survival and advancement in such a game focuses more on the characters overall abilities rather than just how good they are in combat.

It guides players away from being munchkins.

[SirJoe]

Power gaming, number crunching morons can all go jump off a cliff for all I care. They've ruined any chance of having a good online MMORPG and have turned every MMO out there into a glorified e-peen waving contest.
.


LOL! I personally prefer rules-lite story-telling games over combat oriented games. However, I am not adverse to the powergamers having a time of it too. The hardest thing is manage as a GM is when you have one rules-lawyer power-gamer who maxes up a killing machine, and four artsy role-players (sorry Vampire fans <g>). Trying to manage that situation without a PC killing bloodbath is like walking on glass.

However... that is our duty as a GM. Out here in Australia the gaming community so so small we can't afford to lose anyone, even if they do make life a tad difficult at times. What I try and do is run a range of games to keep everyone happy, or better still, put in enough variety in a game to keep everyone's ego happy. A good tool for this is to pre-gen all characters prior to the game with an eye to giving players the feeling that they are getting what they want. My group's main power-gamer gets his mutant-god-like-blood-churning-killing-machine, but with a level and limitation of MY choosing. The other players get the magic, sneaky, etc. characters they want.

On another topic... I've seen a lot of chat here about Savage Worlds but have not given the system a serious look. I'd be interested in a game. Is it available on FG2 yet? Can I use FG2 to play it with a GM running on FG1?


Cheers,
JS

[Kalan]

On another topic... I've seen a lot of chat here about Savage Worlds but have not given the system a serious look. I'd be interested in a game. Is it available on FG2 yet? Can I use FG2 to play it with a GM running on FG1?


Cheers,
JS
Its not available as yet for FGII, but soon, if all goes well :) We're hard at work in finishin the conversion from FGI, and its proceeding pretty well I think :)

When its done, we'll let everyone know...in the meantime, check out the Test Drive rules Here (https://www.peginc.com/Games/Savage%20Worlds/Downloads/SW%20Rev/TestDrive4.pdf) for a rough idea of the rules.

[Griogre]

I think XP is the way you cutomize your campaign. Players want XP and most will try to do the things that grant it. If you give XP for Roleplaying or backstabbin other characters, players will try to do that. If you give XP only for combat - well, players will try to do that as much as possible also.

In my straight dungeon crawl campaign I only give XP for combat and goals.

In my more balanced campaign I give it for cleverness, roleplaying, completing goals/quests and combat.

The tone of those campaigns are quite different and a good part of it is the way I give out XP, the other part is the type of player in each campaign. It should not be a surprise that players tend to play in the style of campaign they enjoy. I think part of attracting the type of player you want in your campaign is explaining exactly how you give out XP.

[Oberoten]

This is a really interesting thread and well worth talking about. As always, there are as many different ways to GM as there are gamers. For me, I tend to consider carefully the *real* goals of each player and to some extend match the gaming experience to their wants. After all, I am there to give people a fun (but not easy) time.

Recenlty I gave my son (a budding GM himself) a copy of the Guide to Good Game Mastering (exact title may be different) by Steve Jackson Games. It covers this idea really well.

But back the XP issue. I tend to find that many players like quick, in-game rewards. The method I use is to have a collection of glass counters with me. Whenever a player does something that drive the plot forward, is highly creative or clever, is very much in keeping with their character (especially when not in their best interests!), makes us all laugh, or is really well described (I love good language in gaming) then I pass them over one to three counters. Players may collect up to three counters (more if playing a high-level game) and may use them to modify their die rolls by 1.

This basically gives people a very quick and immediate reward feeling and quickly gets players *really* playing. Yeah, I know its very pavlovian, but it works for me.

Cheers,
JS

Ah. We do something similar. We just record them as "StylePoints" on the charactersheet.

Basically, the GM can reward as many as he/she wants, and every player around the table can give out two points/session as well.

They give +1 to a roll... or can add flair to a ´sucess.

Aka the old "You kick the door in" or "You kick the door in and look GOOD doing it" :)

Finally "Style Points" can be exchanged for XP. Amount depends on the system in use.

- Obe

[calvinNhobbes]

I don't usually give XP for roleplaying in my games even though roleplaying is highly encouraged and in many cases necessary. The reason is that roleplaying gives options. The options for better quests and rewards, the option for prestige classes and feats, the option for spell research and magical crafting. I have no problem with powergaming, but you need to roleplay to enable it.

[Oberoten]

*hmm* Have been thinking about this for a while... and realized that I tend to go the other way.

I don't give XP for combat.

[John_Geeshu]

Vewy stwange. But if it works for you... *Meh*

[Oberoten]

I expect it has something to do with not playing much AD&D or in fact any level based system. ( Knock an Englishman over the head, learn English? Nope... learning a language in those systems aren't usually even that logical.)

If you have to go to combat mode for Call of Cthulhu.... you are in deep trouble and will likely not be in a shape to GET any XP anyway.

[scytale2]

When are you DMing something Oberoten? - it would be interesting to see your system in action. I'm sure John G would test it out too! (and probably everyone else contributing to this thread.)

[Oberoten]

When are you DMing something Oberoten? - it would be interesting to see your system in action. I'm sure John G would test it out too! (and probably everyone else contributing to this thread.)

The sad thing really is how rarely I can GM anymore. I am on a 3 shift schedule leaving me working mostly between 13:00 and 23:00 (one hour driving-time either way, and actual work 14:00 to 22:00 GMT+1 times.)

I have tried revving up and doing a few campaigns but as soon as it goes over 3 players I have found it almost impossible to get working times for everyone.

That said, if there is interest I would be happy to demonstrate either the modded Arm stuff I have or ... well just about any skill-based system. ;)

[Oberoten]

The sad thing really is how rarely I can GM anymore. I am on a 3 shift schedule leaving me working mostly between 13:00 and 23:00 (one hour driving-time either way, and actual work 14:00 to 22:00 GMT+1 times.)

I have tried revving up and doing a few campaigns but as soon as it goes over 3 players I have found it almost impossible to get working times for everyone.

That said, if there is interest I would be happy to demonstrate either the modded Arm stuff I have or ... well just about any skill-based system. ;)


Current offers for campaigns would be :

All under FG 1.5

X-com - Help exterminate the alien threat, do research, find weaknesses, develop new technology... armsrace.

Ars Magica - Modern, Classic or more historic. (I have a few ideas for a Japanese campaign too...)

Star Wars - ... Don't really know what to call this one since it is a bastard offspring of D6.

[scytale2]

I would be up for either of the first 2...
XCom sounds a lot of fun...is there an RPG out for it. There should be if there isn't

[mcgarnagle]

I don't reward XP in my D&D campaigns. When the time comes and it is appropriate for the game, I just tell my players that they can level up. I think this is partly the reason why I have the players that I have in my game. They are more concerned with the role playing, the story, and the fun of the game rather than trying to milk XP rewards for doing different things.

My campaigns tend to be geared toward role playing more than combat (even though I do enjoy the combat part from time to time). I don't know if this style of game makes it easier to work my non-XP system or maybe it's just the type of players I've got in my games, but I've never had any issues with this method.

[Oberoten]

I would be up for either of the first 2...
XCom sounds a lot of fun...is there an RPG out for it. There should be if there isn't

Well, I am actually running with a modernized ArsMagica system for it... Somehow the whole "research & lab" part of Arm was pretty easy to modify to accept hi-tech instead of magic.

[Griogre]

You shouldn't be running modern you should be running "Mad Science" with that game. Most of the mages are crazy anyway.

Free plug to the Girl Genius (https://www.girlgeniusonline.com/index.php) Mad Science web comic written by the guy who use to write What's Up with Phil and Dixie. :)

[Oberoten]

*grins* You forgot "Buck Godot" (https://www.studiofoglio.com/buck.html) :)

*hurrr* And we allready have done that Pen and Paper... Just don't have a good ruleset for it yet. :)

- Obe

*edited to add the last line... which I clumsily forgot bah*

[DNH]

To open up an old thread once more ...

A while back, the DMs in our group (both of us) were discussing XP award systems and it occurred to us that, depending on what you are doing, it really doesn't matter. That is, say you are running something big like ToEE or an Adventure Path. Those adventures are mini-campaigns in their own right and - here's the key - they expect the party to be of a certain level at certain points. It really boils down to the style of play - the whole GNS thing (Gamism, Simulationism, Narrativism). My campaigns, both as a player AND a DM, tend to be more narrative than anything, certainly the ones I enjoy the most.

So, we implemented a quick and simple system where we didn't award XP at all, but instead created these "story points" at which we said the characters had all gone up a level. It seemed to work, although we only used it briefly and have now returned to a more traditional approach. The reason for this is that we have moved back to 2e AD&D with its disparate XP requirements for character classes and we didn't think it would work the same.

As a side-issue, I would be interested to hear how GMs handle awarding XP within FG2. Do you create a note and hand that to individual players? Award the same to everyone, publishing it in the chat window? Do it yourself perhaps?

[richvalle]

I'm running the Worlds Largest Dungeon as a campaign. As you say, the campaign assumes the characters are at X level at various portions of the dungeon.

At the beginning I just bumped them up to the next levels when they just entered a new region, when they were about half way though and when they were close to the end (each region was built for 3 levels).

As the characters started to move around more I just started to bump them up after a suitable period of time.

I'm in a bit of a quandary now. They are starting to get to spells that can cost XP to cast and monsters that can drain levels. I came up with a quick dirty way to try and keep track of this: figure 14 encounters per level and I just tick off the number of encounters they hit. If one is harder I'll tick off two and an easy one is 1/2. If someone casts an XP spell (hasn't happened yet) I could figure out how much exp per encounter it should be and just dock that character that many encounters.

Its worked so far but mainly, I think, because I haven't really had to use it. I'm getting to the point (characters just hit 14th level) where I think it might be easier to just keep track of the exp myself.

I keep track of the number of encounters on a white board built into my computer desk.

rv

[Ghoti]

I can't resist offering my two $lowest_currency_denomination on this issue..

As an avid player and DM/GM/Storyteller/Marshall/Whatever for many years (albeit new to FG), I definitely see the merits of both of the predominant viewpoints in this thread thus far.. It's all a function of what kind of group you have and what kind of game or story you're running.

By 'kind of game', I mean less what system (D&D vs. Deadlands vs. Exalted) than I do what the 'goal' of each session is (slay the Evil Foo, discover the Plot Point, retrieve the aforementioned McGuffin).

If you and your players are slogging through a stereotypical dungeon crawl (or series thereof) where there isn't much of a story to speak of, there is not much opportunity for RPing (outside of intra-player interaction). On the other hand, if they're working to perform some corporate espionage by some combination of sneaking into the Corporate Megaplex Industries corporate HQ and somehow or another retrieving the plans for the Widget of Destiny, they may not have to kill a metaphorical fly. XP should be awarded in either case- if your players are Getting Things Done, they should be rewarded.

Speaking (or typing, as it were) to the point of as-hoc, on-the-fly rewards, it depends on the system and, again, the players. Some systems have wired-in mechanisms for rewarding good roleplaying (see: Fate Chips in Deadlands (I haven't seen Reloaded or SW yet, but I hope that mechanism is still in there); Stunts in Exalted). Additionally, our group had a system we sort of developed over time wherein players could, during the XP award phase(s) of our sessions, nominate other players for an additional reward for something they thought was particularly well-played, well described, well-conceived, or well-whatever. I'm also a strong believer that anything that a player (or character) does (other than, say, rolling a natural 20) that makes the GM or other players spontaneously say "Wow!" (for example) should merit a reward.

(Hi, by the way; first post here :) )

[richvalle]

Nice first post! :)

BTW, I should mention (if I didn't further upstream... its an older thread) that I give levels to everyone at the same time, no matter how much they played.

So if a player has played every game for the last 2 and a half years goes up to 14th level, so does the guy that has only played twice in that same time. If the later player shows up to the next game he'll be 14th level as well.

Then what is the advantage of showing up? Well, hopefully actually playing in the game is advantage enough. :) Plus the players that show up tend to get the loot.

This is from me being in a campaign a few years ago. As someone who is married with 3 kids I wasn't able to play in as many games as my friends without such a life style. The result was that my character(s) falling further and further behind. Cumulating in my cleric being 4th level and 50 exp away from 5th while the party was 7th and 8th levels... and then getting hit by a wight and losing a level down to 3rd. :( That was the end of that character and, pretty much, me from that campaign.

rv

[scytale2]

I think having a spread of levels within the party adds a roleplaying dynamic, where the higher levels are perhaps more protective of the lower. Certainly the spread should not be too much and I would simply boost a character up to the lowest level of the others, if they were falling too far behind.

On the "story point" system, I enjoy my current FTF game, but what is most annoying is that everyone goes up a level at the same time. To me it takes the "inter-party competitive" aspect out and so the ones who contribute the least have no incentive to do any more than they currently are and the ones who contribute the most feel a bit cheesed off. It's a sort of DM cop-out method, if you ask me.

[Answulf]

I gave up giving out XP many years ago and have never looked back. I just increase the player's levels when appropriate. My players have always enjoyed this system as well.

[Ghoti]

I gave up giving out XP many years ago and have never looked back. I just increase the player's levels when appropriate. My players have always enjoyed this system as well.

That brings to mind one reason the groups I play with ended up moving on for the most part from D&D and its discrete levels to a other systems like Deadlands (before they went D20) and White Wolf's Exalted, where there is no such thing as a Level 12 Disco Bandit (https://www.kingdomofloathing.com) or a Level 9 Sauceror, but rather the power levels of the characters is more fluid. Each system has its perks, and each group will naturally have its preference, but I definitely like being able to hand out an at least somewhat tangible reward for not only good role playing, but also quick (or lateral) thinking or unique ideas; anything that inspires the aforementioned 'Wow'.

Don't get me wrong about D&D though; I still have my annotated, dog-eared, post-it-laden second edition PHB and DMG. :)

[Xorn]

My last session did not have a single attack roll.

It's actually never happened to me--a four hour game with no attack rolls, not one combat. They got a whole lot of stuff done, but outside of one or two Sense Motive checks and one Diplomacy check (which I used to determine how forgiving I am with their rhetoric when influencing a duke), there weren't even any dice rolls.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition

Up until then I never really considered awarding XP differently; I've always tallied up the combat XP, tossed on the story/goal advancement awards, added roleplay awards for those that roleplayed above and beyond (especially if their character acted in-character versus meta-gaming). Basically just read the Rewards section of the 3.5 DMG. That's how I rewarded, with no variants.

But after this session--I think I'm going to move to event/story awards. When you complete certain goals you get XP. Especially since I'm running an event-based adventure this go around. Ultimately when I build an adventure, and I want them to gain a whole level, then I plan the encounters to basically award a level of XP based on what I think they'll do.

Now I think I'll go with the 14 encounters for a level idea. The amount of XP I'll award is going to be based on the percentage needed to advance, really.

On the topic of combat machines versus roleplayers... well one of my best roleplayers in the current session happens to be one heck of a combat-monster, too. One of my guys with a great story who wants to roleplay a lot, just metagames like crazy and labels it playing smart. He can't separate what he knows from what his character knows, and at times I wish he would just play a combat monster. You meet all kinds, but I'm pretty sure D&D has nothing to do with how he plays is all I'm getting at.

I used to LARP, and for every massively roleplay entrenched Toreador mega socialite you met, there was a munchkined out number crunching power gaming Brujah waiting to rock-paper-bomb him into submission and call it, "Angst against the Man."

If you were lucky, your game had a couple old school Malkavians that loved to roleplay and leaked their Dementia abilities at the Country Kitchen, so the brujah munchkins would be kept in check by their own metagaming. (Heh, that was me--the malkavian everyone was too scared to mess with. I didn't even have Domination at the time, let alone Dementia. Gotta love meta-gamers.)

[richvalle]

One campaign that our DM ran for us he based XP off what our goal for that night was. We would get xp for beasties defeated but also a story/goal based amount on top of that.

One mission was a pure treasure hunt so, for the first and only time, we got 1 xp per gold piece found. :)

rv

[Xorn]

One campaign that our DM ran for us he based XP off what our goal for that night was. We would get xp for beasties defeated but also a story/goal based amount on top of that.

One mission was a pure treasure hunt so, for the first and only time, we got 1 xp per gold piece found. :)

rv

Purely going on memory from 23 years ago, but didn't you get 1 xp per gp back in BECMI?

[Ghoti]

My memory for alphabet soup must be failing me, because I can't place BECMI, but I do seem to recall in either D&D or AD&D 1st ed. that thieves (or rogues?) got XP based on gold obtained.

[Oberoten]

A good-times that. :) 2nd Ed gave that, and I remember playing a merchant. Who rather quickly out-leveled EVERYONE else.

[Xorn]

My memory for alphabet soup must be failing me, because I can't place BECMI, but I do seem to recall in either D&D or AD&D 1st ed. that thieves (or rogues?) got XP based on gold obtained.

Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal, it's a term thrown around RPG.Net forums a lot. Sometimes called OD&D (original D&D, despite the original being before that) or red-box D&D, since the Mentzer red-box Basic Set is to this day the best presentation of D&D to date (in my opinion).

Anyway BECMI basically refers to what is now contained in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia that came out in the late 80s early 90s. Back when elves were all fighter/magic-users and The Isle of Dread was the greatest adventure ever printed.

Okay, Ilse of Dread is still the greatest adventure ever printed. Oh! And I found it:


While the players are dividing treasure, you may spend the time calculating the Experience Points earned during the adventure. An electronic pocket calculator is
helpful.
You should have records of all the creatures defeated by the party on an adventure Record Sheet. If not, take a few minutes to remember the creatures encountered. If necessary, ask the players to remind you - and remember to keep a record next time.
In each monster description, an “XP value” is given. This is the number of
Experience Points to be awarded for each monster of that type. Multiply the XP value by the number of monsters defeated to find the total XP award for that encounter. Note that a captured monster is counted as “conquered” for XP awards, even if released. This does not occur often; the monster must usually surrender (as the result of a morale check) or be magically caught (by a Hold Person or Web spell, for example) for this situation to arise. Monsters
that run away are not counted unless they are caught or defeated later.
Add all the XP awards for all the encounters to find the total XP for the adventure. Find the number of shares in the party. NPC retainers count as 1/2 share for XP division; each character counts as a full share. Finally, divide the total XP by the number of shares to find the XP per share, and announce that total. A retainer will get 1/2 the amount you announce.
Remind the players to adjust that award for high or low Prime Requisites (+5%, +1O%, or a penalty). They may ask you to help calculate it. You should also remind them that they get 1 XP for each 1 gp of treasure. As treasure is divided by the party, without your interference, they must make such calculations themselves. Their bonus or penalty (for high or low PR score) also applies.

Did I just date myself pretty clearly?

[richvalle]

Yes, that was the rule but we never (or only a few times) played that way. We are very keen on tossing rules we don't like and adding on ones we do.

I don't remember what version we were playing, but I think it had to be 2nd Ed or 3.0. Mid to Late 1980's I'm guessing the time was.
rv

[Xorn]

Heh, surely the gold to XP rule didn't make it into AD&D did it? Not even 1st edition I would think. That was the original D&D I was quoting, before Gygax and his buddy split ways and BECMI vs AD&D sprouted. I was in 4th grade when I got the Basic red box set, and I didn't even realize they were two separate rulesets for a couple years.

I've still got my 1st Ed. AD&D books in a closet somewhere, I'll have to look at that because I'm actually curious now. :) I always thought the gold = xp rule was only in print during BECMI. (I did look in my OD&D Rules Cyclopedia though, it was listed there, too. :P)

Anyway, this has been a great thread!

[Oberoten]

2nd ed had it as an optional rule. Rogues got 1xp / GP earned.

[richvalle]

2nd ed had it as an optional rule. Rogues got 1xp / GP earned.

Hah! I had forgotten about that rule.

It wasn't a rule per say, but something he did because that was our goal for the adventure. The presedent had been set with the rules way back when and he used it for that one adventure.

I denfinatly remember getting 0 exp for an adventure or two where we failed in our goal.

rv

[Griogre]

AD&D did have the rule you got 1 XP per GP of treasure. It was widely ignored in my experience, but it was the only way to level characters in a hurry after the low levels.