Recent Posts
Depends on the campaign, really. In James Jacobs' Sandpoint game, some players have missed several sessions, putting them significantly behind my character Vorn and Chris Carey's character Zandu--so much that while Vorn and Zandu just hit level 6 this week, we had some stragglers in the party who barely got to level 5 two sessions ago.
Actually, this brings up another important difference. The vast majority of D&D playing I do is on-line (either play-by-post or play-by-email). So there's no point in using XP as an incentive to show up at a certain time.
This is, of course, if you use the Fast Progression. If you use the Medium Progression, the number arises to 20 average encounters, and if you use the Slow Progression, the number becomes 30 average encounters.No.
Yes.
This is, of course, if you use the
The Medium progression is the one tuned to 13 (actually 13.3333... IIRC) average encounters.
That is wrong, and here's the proof:
Level 1: Required to level up 1300/2000/3000. XP for CR1: 400Xp, or 100 per person in the average 4 person party.
13 x 100 is 1300. 20 x 100 is 2000. 30 x 100 is 3000.
Level 10: Required to level up 34000/50000/75000. XP for CR10: 9600, or 2400 per character.
That's 14.17 for fast, 20,83 for medium, 31,25 for slow.
Close enough to 13/20/30, really far away from 8/13/something.
Making experience a currency was one of the dumbest things 3e has done. Getting rid of that was one of the best things Pathfinder has done.
It's important to remember that XP is a currency.Hehehe
Less of a currency and more like a measuring stick. Like when your mom would mark your height on the wall as a kid. :)
One problem I've always had with getting rid of XP awards and just telling people to level is that it tends to punish the good players and help the bad players.
Here's what I mean.
I have, in over 20 years of gaming, had both in my games. The good players roleplay (ROLE, not ROLL), stay in character, use their heads when they get into a situation, etc.
Bad players tend to ignore what is going on until it's their turn to hack the bad guy, often have to ask what just happened because they have their nose buried in a book trying to find a rule they can exploit in the current combat/roleplay situation, don't act in character, disrupt the game OOCly, or just run off and act like idiots because they like to make everyone rescue them or disrupt the game by making their 18th new character this year.
If everyone levels up at the same time, you are either holding the good ones back, or advancing the bad ones with the good ones. The good ones begin to think 'What's the use of trying, I'll get where I'm going regardless of effort' and the bad ones don't ever improve.
Additionally, when someone isn't at a game, they have two options. Someone can run their character for them, they get half-XP, and the person running their character get's a couple of hundred extra. Or, they can have their character 'black and whited' for the game session, no chance they die, but no xp at all. Doing it without handing out XP means no reward for running someone elses character and no penalty for not showing up so you can go to Archon. ;)
If everyone levels up at the same time, you are either holding the good ones back, or advancing the bad ones with the good ones. The good ones begin to think 'What's the use of trying, I'll get where I'm going regardless of effort' and the bad ones don't ever improve.
If it were up to me, I'd rather reward good players with something interesting like a cool bonus ability instead of boring, old XP. But then again, I don't really like splitting players into "good ones" and "bad ones" in the first place.
Additionally, when someone isn't at a game, they have two options. Someone can run their character for them, they get half-XP, and the person running their character get's a couple of hundred extra. Or, they can have their character 'black and whited' for the game session, no chance they die, but no xp at all. Doing it without handing out XP means no reward for running someone elses character and no penalty for not showing up so you can go to Archon. ;)
That's the one situation where I could legitimately see witholding XP. But as I noted above, I don't play in many face-to-face games, so poor attendance is usually a case of a player disappearing from the game entirely.
Bad players tend to ignore what is going on until it's their turn to hack the bad guy, often have to ask what just happened because they have their nose buried in a book trying to find a rule they can exploit in the current combat/roleplay situation, don't act in character, disrupt the game OOCly, or just run off and act like idiots because they like to make everyone rescue them or disrupt the game by making their 18th new character this year.
You are describing a specific person or three, I am pretty sure. These problems can't be solved by XP, they are social problems between player and GM. XP is actually a particularly bad medicine for this.
The fighter player in my group is pretty well focused on combat and not much else. I don't penalize this, it's what he enjoys about the game. He doesn't cause problems for anyone else, although if he did, I am pretty sure that punishing him via XP would hurt the situation, and clear interpersonal communication would help.
Bad players tend to ignore what is going on until it's their turn to hack the bad guy, often have to ask what just happened because they have their nose buried in a book trying to find a rule they can exploit in the current combat/roleplay situation, don't act in character, disrupt the game OOCly, or just run off and act like idiots because they like to make everyone rescue them or disrupt the game by making their 18th new character this year.
So you talk to the guy. Tell him to pay attention. If he doesn't, apologise for wasting his valuable time and insist that he won't waste any more of it by sitting at your table being bored and instead go and do something he likes.
In other words: Bad players don't get XP penalties, bad players get kicked out of the group.
If everyone levels up at the same time, you are either holding the good ones back, or advancing the bad ones with the good ones. The good ones begin to think 'What's the use of trying, I'll get where I'm going regardless of effort'
Nah. The slightly less bad ones think so.
The good ones do it for the sheer fun, not just for XP.
Additionally, when someone isn't at a game, they have two options. Someone can run their character for them, they get half-XP, and the person running their character get's a couple of hundred extra.
So he still has to fall behind even though he has to put his character's life in the hands of someone else?
no penalty for not showing up so you can go to Archon. ;)
Again, if you just kick out those who only come to the game if they feel like it, you'll only have players that miss a game because of something important.
I don't like being punished because I was sick and thought it would be nasty to infect the other players.
You are describing a specific person or three, I am pretty sure. These problems can't be solved by XP, they are social problems between player and GM. XP is actually a particularly bad medicine for this.The fighter player in my group is pretty well focused on combat and not much else. I don't penalize this, it's what he enjoys about the game. He doesn't cause problems for anyone else, although if he did, I am pretty sure that punishing him via XP would hurt the situation, and clear interpersonal communication would help.
Actually, over the years, I'm describing about 33% (one in 3, not 3 specific people). And while XP does not in and of itself offer all of the solution, it is a tangible thing that the person notices every game. Be it Character Points in Champions, Experience in Shadowrun, or XP in D&D/PF.
I also talk to them, and give rewards to those who go out of their way. I never said XP was the only part of the solution, but a good GM has a nice little toolkit and tossing XP out of the toolkit is a bad one to toss. Mainly because it's a very very very concrete way to show them they are missing out on part of the game.
Bad players tend to ignore what is going on until it's their turn to hack the bad guy, often have to ask what just happened because they have their nose buried in a book trying to find a rule they can exploit in the current combat/roleplay situation, don't act in character, disrupt the game OOCly, or just run off and act like idiots because they like to make everyone rescue them or disrupt the game by making their 18th new character this year.
So you talk to the guy. Tell him to pay attention. If he doesn't, apologise for wasting his valuable time and insist that he won't waste any more of it by sitting at your table being bored and instead go and do something he likes.
In other words: Bad players don't get XP penalties, bad players get kicked out of the group.
As I said above, XP is just one tool. It's my first response. If it works, great, if it doesn't, I use that and talk to the guy. If that doesn't work, I eventually remove him from the game. But, I don't just toss people out on their ear the first time I don't like the way they act in my game. That's a bit too much of being an a**hat for me.
If everyone levels up at the same time, you are either holding the good ones back, or advancing the bad ones with the good ones. The good ones begin to think 'What's the use of trying, I'll get where I'm going regardless of effort'
Nah. The slightly less bad ones think so.
The good ones do it for the sheer fun, not just for XP.
Actually, I've had the good ones come to me and tell me they were frustrated because they felt like the 'bad ones' were making their efforts worthless. One reason I started using XP as a mild hammer to knock some sense into them.
Additionally, when someone isn't at a game, they have two options. Someone can run their character for them, they get half-XP, and the person running their character get's a couple of hundred extra.So he still has to fall behind even though he has to put his character's life in the hands of someone else?
Yes, and it's a valid ruling, I've never had anyone complain about it. The other option is 'No show up no xp'. And, the reason it's half is that people NEVER take chances with other peoples characters they would take with their own. So no, they aren't taking the same chance on death they normally would. I've seen people rescue the character they were running with their own character (and get killed in the process) to keep the character they are running for a friend from dieing.
no penalty for not showing up so you can go to Archon. ;)
Again, if you just kick out those who only come to the game if they feel like it, you'll only have players that miss a game because of something important.
I don't like being punished because I was sick and thought it would be nasty to infect the other players.
Actually, I honestly rarely have people miss the game for non-important stuff anymore, but mostly because of this rule. I would rather work with someone and help them be a better player (and person IMNSHO) rather than just kick them to the curb. And, there is a big difference between 'I couldn't make it because I wanted to go to Archon' and 'I couldn't make it because I had surgery Tuesday and chemo on Friday). I rarely penalize people for huge things like that (other than taking off a % and giving it to the person that ran their character for them, which I think is fair).
If everyone levels up at the same time, you are either holding the good ones back, or advancing the bad ones with the good ones. The good ones begin to think 'What's the use of trying, I'll get where I'm going regardless of effort' and the bad ones don't ever improve.If it were up to me, I'd rather reward good players with something interesting like a cool bonus ability instead of boring, old XP. But then again, I don't really like splitting players into "good ones" and "bad ones" in the first place.
As an example of a 'bad player', I had a player that cheated on his dice rolls, constantly disrupted the game, ignored what everyone else was doing, etc, in and out of character. He was a good years long friend of everyone else in the game, and had been playing with them for years before I met them.
After about a year of playing in my game, I had people coming to me complaining about this person, because they had seen what a good fair game was like, and they didn't like that he was cheating and disrupting it. He was eased out of the game, a 'bad player' but only after I did all I could to rehabilitate him.
Two years later, he has returned to the table and straightened his act up. No more cheating, he plays like a team player, he pays attention. He's gone from being a 'bad player' to a 'decent player'. It seems that I was the last GM who'd been willing to have him at a game, and he went 2 years without a game. A lot of soul searching seems to have worked.
More to the original post, I wanted to also point out that you can now build an encounter with an encounter budget, and modify encounters measured against that budget, which I enjoy greatly, and reinforces me using XP.
Its been a lot easier to say "okay, the party average is +1 to what this adventure assumes, so I need something worth X number of xp to fill the gap."
As I said above, XP is just one tool. It's my first response. If it works, great, if it doesn't, I use that and talk to the guy.
Personally, I'd first talk to the person. I have found that starting with a "penalty" will often annoy people, and I'd rather deal with trouble on the table then escalate it (i.e. he annoys me by not paying attention, I annoy him back by giving him less XP, so now both are annoyed, and the talk, when it comes, will not be as relaxed as it could have been).
If that doesn't work, I eventually remove him from the game. But, I don't just toss people out on their ear the first time I don't like the way they act in my game. That's a bit too much of being an a**hat for me.
That's what's the talking part is for.
When it's mild annoyances, I'll first try to talk to persons. If mild annoyances persist, I start with mild disadvantages to show that every choice has a consequence in the game world.
If it's major annoyances, I'll still first talk, but if it cannot be talked away, I tend to kick the person out of the group (happens very rarely - I can think of one incident that was on that level, and he chose to leave after I made a policy that all characters need to be adventurers)
If it's someone who really pisses me off, there might not be a talk. Had that one time. Brought a player in on another player's request. The guy used outdated rules (well, I only ever learned about cases where the older rules were to his advantage and were later changed because they were broken), and whenever I found out and told him the new rules, he became aggressive. Whenever he didn't like a house-rule or convention, he went all in my face, too, like I didn't just use rules he didn't like but also made it just to call him a tosser or something.
He was told not to come back.
Actually, I honestly rarely have people miss the game for non-important stuff anymore, but mostly because of this rule.
Similar thing here, but my rule was that if you only play when you feel like it and/or cannot be bothered to tell us ahead of time, you are out. I usually give warnings, but nobody gets to sabotage the game by being absent without notice twice without being kicked out.
I would rather work with someone and help them be a better player (and person IMNSHO) rather than just kick them to the curb.
Depends on the person. That's why I use warnings and talk first. When I think things can work out, I'll spend energy on it. Bug if I feel that someone is a lost cause, I won't bother. I'm not a charity and my spare time is limited.
I rarely penalize people for huge things like that (other than taking off a % and giving it to the person that ran their character for them, which I think is fair).
That's where I disagree. I don't think people who were missing for a good reason should have to give up any XP.
We usually don't run characters for absent players, either, because it just doesn't feel right.
More to the original post, I wanted to also point out that you can now build an encounter with an encounter budget, and modify encounters measured against that budget, which I enjoy greatly, and reinforces me using XP.
Its been a lot easier to say "okay, the party average is +1 to what this adventure assumes, so I need something worth X number of xp to fill the gap."
Agreed, the new way of determining encounter levels is great.
That was weird, try this:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf
Anyone use this alternative to XP system by Sean Reynolds recently? I'm interested to hear how it was received by players. "Steps" sound interesting in that benefits from a higher level accrue gradually.
Note the number of people who are saying "Dropping XP is a mistake, don't do it" vs. "I (or my GM) have dropped XP and we are much happier, do it!"
Can we all agree that this works really well for some groups and play styles, but not for others? What's with all the absolute statements here?
I maintain that it is worth considering dropping XP if it is giving you problems — or if your players don't prioritize it as much as some. But I also accept that in a different campaign, especially a non-adventure-path campaign, I would definitely use XP again.
---
@SKR's step system: I use something like it if the pace of a given AP chapter forces my hand. I really like to have a few weeks of downtime at least between levels where the PCs can "train" and I dislike having a sudden jump in competence mid-adventure. One great virtue of SKR's system is that when you know there's a level coming with no downtime, you can space that level out and it is less narratively jarring.
*tips his stovepipe hat to Mr. Reynolds*
I play a lot of online games, and I don't think we have XP in any of them, although two are BESM.
We haven't really seen the neccesity for it. Overall, we simply don't need the points at the end of the night as a number of "I was here," and we typically aren't foaming at the mouth to get into the next level.
Maybe we're just naturally chill people ;p
As for missing games, it happens. Last week I had to miss a game because I had a big meeting for a potential job that I desperately need. Honestly, I think withholding XP from someone who misses because of something like that is a bit of a dick move.
My last campaign the GM would just decide when to level us and never told us how much experience we had. I remember at one point he said we wouldn't level again until we went into the big bad evil castle and no amount of side quests would level us. So the group decided to just drop all the side quests and went straight to the castle. When a GM dangles large carrots like that, people tend to go for them. I would have preferred xp in that we still would have felt like we were accomplishing tasks without having to search for the "sweet spot", aka the predetermined leveling spot.
My last campaign the GM would just decide when to level us and never told us how much experience we had. I remember at one point he said we wouldn't level again until we went into the big bad evil castle and no amount of side quests would level us.
That's a serious case of railroading right there. If the groups 'only' motivation is the XP/Levels, then I'd say the GM is doing something wrong.
But if you guys had fun, that's what matters in the end though.
My last campaign the GM would just decide when to level us and never told us how much experience we had. I remember at one point he said we wouldn't level again until we went into the big bad evil castle and no amount of side quests would level us. So the group decided to just drop all the side quests and went straight to the castle. When a GM dangles large carrots like that, people tend to go for them. I would have preferred xp in that we still would have felt like we were accomplishing tasks without having to search for the "sweet spot", aka the predetermined leveling spot.
That brings up a question though... How would you as players have felt, if the DM let you still go on those side quests, but their CR would have been seriously under your ECL?
My last campaign the GM would just decide when to level us and never told us how much experience we had. I remember at one point he said we wouldn't level again until we went into the big bad evil castle and no amount of side quests would level us. So the group decided to just drop all the side quests and went straight to the castle. When a GM dangles large carrots like that, people tend to go for them. I would have preferred xp in that we still would have felt like we were accomplishing tasks without having to search for the "sweet spot", aka the predetermined leveling spot.That brings up a question though... How would you as players have felt, if the DM let you still go on those side quests, but their CR would have been seriously under your ECL?
Its funny after reading this post, I got a tap on the shoulder from one of my PCs and he was like "yo where's the xp its been like two sessions." We tend to do our XP offline, I go home at the end of each session and either do it that night or the next morning "before work." *cough* I then post it to our gaming groups website, and usually follow up with a "GG, XP's Posted." In this case, I didn't not give XP I just failed to report the giving of XP, and as our last two gaming sessions were wind down and then wind up sessions as we moved from one module in the AP to the next there were less obvious XP opportunities (most players can guesstimate killing X monsters = Y XP but have a hard time guessing the inscrutable GMs doling out of RP XP.)
So I think the moral is that players (or at least my group) expect/relish/thrive off XP, and because of the way I do it, don't necessarily see tangible progression, because all they have is a number "current xp" they don't necessarily see the progression over time.
I'm now playing around with how can I make a chart on our group website that shows the progression over time, with tantalizing horizontal bars for "next level."
But am also toying with the recommendation of doling out XP at the end of each combat. The only concern here is 1) I remove my ability to GM fiat the players over the level instead of leaving them 1-2 xp away from leveling up (I know I know I'm a softy) and 2) I slow down our sessions with number crunching and players leveling.
That being said I'm mulling of SKR's alternative progression PDF he posted above, it strikes me as rather interesting, but not actually mutually exclusive from an XP mechanic. Instead of rewarding steps in 1 step increments, you could easily say that each steps occurs at 25, 50 and 75% of the required XP for the level.
Anyways just some thoughts the time and this thread dovetailed together.
Its funny after reading this post, I got a tap on the shoulder from one of my PCs and he was like "yo where's the xp its been like two sessions." We tend to do our XP offline, I go home at the end of each session and either do it that night or the next morning "before work." *cough* ...
*Guilty look, intense interest in own shoes...*
Maybe it seems that the xp wasn't progressing `cuz there's very little CR in scrubbing pots and shovelling dung. :) Also, I think that the mid-high levels the progression slows to a crawl compared to the lower levels.
Can't complain too bitterly because of the precious crafting time gleaned as a trade off. Plus, finally some action!
My Players like xps.
They like the "I've only got to get 500xps to go up!" feeling.
Fixed that for you. Let's stop making absolute statements, friends.
When you tell me what my players want, and it directly contradicts what works with my players, I am tempted to call you wrong. I am not challenging that XP works for your party, but it does not work for all parties.
My Players like xps.
They like the "I've only got to get 500xps to go up!" feeling.Fixed that for you. Let's stop making absolute statements, friends.
When you tell me what my players want, and it directly contradicts what works with my players, I am tempted to call you wrong. I am not challenging that XP works for your party, but it does not work for all parties.
Fair point. Typing too fast for my brain!
There is value in incremental XP awards--however, they don't have the granularity where 10 XP is a significant difference. It reminds me of the 1E campaigns I played in high school; making a particularly funny, insightful, or helpful comment might earn 10 XP from the DM... which is trivial to the 300 XP the characters earned by killing orcs that night.Ah, yes, the cookie! When I dropped xp, I was careful to have another flavor of cookie around. In my case it is "Luck Points", which are something akin to "action points" from Eberron only a thousand times simpler and more fun.
A well designed cookie is actually a good deal better than XP as a small reward actually.
My current group uses "Chips" (even pass out poker chips), they are worth about 10% of a level in xp. You can get them by good RP or pretty much anything that makes the gaming session more fun (aka, bringing food to game to share, mini's, etc..) , it is up to the DM. You can also use the chips for a +1 on any roll, and they can be passed between characters. So, if you know that your rogue is going to die from a bad trap check, and you have a chip, pass it over to them for that extra +1!
I really like to have a few weeks of downtime at least between levels where the PCs can "train"
I always maintain that getting out there and doing something is the best training you can have.
Like driving: People go to driving school, are given driving lessons, are tested and are given a driving licence. And THEN they learn how to really drive.
The other way around can make sense, too, but I prefer it this way, because it means I can have the plot advance quickly without depriving the party of their level-ups.
and I dislike having a sudden jump in competence mid-adventure.
Necessary evil for an abstract, level-based system. The characters themselves get better whenever they gain XP, because they gain experience at that point. But unless you want to track actual game effects in that detail (BAB +5 would become +500 or even +5000, and you'd need d100s or d1000s or bigger to have a big enough variable to make rolling worthwhile), you cannot reflect every improvement.
All that means that when the characters reach some arbitrary threshold, the game effects increase by a big, measurable amount.
As a player who has played with many different groups, I can safely say that all players like xp, or at least the idea behind it. Whatever the individual's reason, seeing a character you have created and invested time in develop and grow in power is a major driving force behind people play the game in the first place.
As for the actual xp mechanic, I've found that for most of the groups I've been in, a constant battle by battle update of xp gain really isn't that important. Having the DM say at some point after finishing one session and before starting the next "You're now x% away from leveling" or something along those lines is plenty enough to give most players a sense of where they are without getting bogged down in numbers. I think the key, for me at least, isn't the exact xp value as much as knowing roughly where I stand developmentally, and feeling like I'm making at least some kind of developmental progress.
Knowing where I stand relative to the next level also helps me as a player know if I need to work up an updated character sheet along with the current one to the next session, so that if we level during the next session, I can just pull it out, roll hit dice, and have everything else ready to go. This is especially helpful if I am playing a caster and the next level adds a level of available spells; having some idea of when I need to have the spell list updated makes running a spell caster much easier.
All in all, I like the xp system since it lets me know when I am getting to a point I need to start thinking about what I am going to do when I level, thus allowing me to do most of the hard thinking and decision making outside of the game instead of taking up precious game time. There may be other ways of similar measuring sticks, but as a whole, I have to say that the xp mechanic does it just fine.
