Why in PF would one even need to keep track of XP. I understand it tells you when you lv, but that is all it is for. In 3.5 it fulled spells and magic item creation but now it is only used as a track for the next lv. In most of the games I have played/GMed in PF it was almost just as easy for GM to tell the players to take a lv than to do extra math to give out Xp. any thoughts?
|
I droped XP a while back. My groups tend to be pretty happy just plugging along on adventures for whatever level they happen to be, and since most APs are pretty good about ensuring that you gain the requisite XP to gain the level(s) for the next chapter, I felt it a burden that was best left droped, except in the case of our Drow cleric who has died twice...
Differing playstyles. Since xp isn't a resource that can be spent anymore, and I run Pathfinder AP's, I don't bother with xp anymore. Council of Theives in particular is very clear on it's advancement track.
If I were running my own games, I'd go back to xp awards so the players still get to level up appropriately.
I droped XP a while back. My groups tend to be pretty happy just plugging along on adventures for whatever level they happen to be, and since most APs are pretty good about ensuring that you gain the requisite XP to gain the level(s) for the next chapter, I felt it a burden that was best left droped, except in the case of our Drow cleric who has died twice...
Cool, forgot about PC death. I had kinda done away with the need to keep track of Xp c hange due to PC death in 3.5 (always kinda confused me)
|
|
I droped XP a while back. My groups tend to be pretty happy just plugging along on adventures for whatever level they happen to be, and since most APs are pretty good about ensuring that you gain the requisite XP to gain the level(s) for the next chapter, I felt it a burden that was best left droped, except in the case of our Drow cleric who has died twice...Cool, forgot about PC death. I had kinda done away with the need to keep track of Xp c hange due to PC death in 3.5 (always kinda confused me)
I've contlemplated droping the level loss, and instead drop the returned to life PCs Con by 2 instead. When they hit 10 they got no more 'lives' left. I might try it out in the next campaign and decide if it works or not.
Dying doesn't actually make you lose a level, though. You gain a negative level, which means -1 to attacks, skill checks and saves, and -5 max hit points. The negative level persist until the next time you advance in level or (far more likely) you get rid of it with a restoration spell.
If you're running an AP, basically, there's no reason to track XP.
Unless your GM really likes thankless paperwork.
Thanks for the input! Was just wondering if anyone else had noticed this or if I was missing something. I kinda miss Xp costs for crafting but mostly as a GM, but that is another post...
I stopped using XP before Pathfinder even came out except for a short period of time after writing an XP Calculator program which made it easy. The only penalty for not being there is you don't get treasure that night.
You keep track of XP because it gives players a solid sense of advancement and periodic reward. There have been scientific studies that show that people respond better to being given a small reward frequently (xp per fight/session) compared to a small number of much larger rewards (a level every several sessions), even if the total reward value ends up being identical.
People like to have frequent affirmations of success. They like to be told "you're doing a good job, keep it up" every Friday with a $100 check rather than "good job this year" on Dec 31st with a $5200 check.
Other than Rich asking at the end of every session "Did we make a level?" no one really cares. My response is no, except every now and then I say yes. It has become a running joke in my campaigns. No one will ask and they all look at Rich if he forgets... lol
-- david
Papa.DRB
You keep track of XP because it gives players a solid sense of advancement and periodic reward. There have been scientific studies that show that people respond better to being given a small reward frequently (xp per fight/session) compared to a small number of much larger rewards (a level every several sessions), even if the total reward value ends up being identical.
People like to have frequent affirmations of success. They like to be told "you're doing a good job, keep it up" every Friday with a $100 check rather than "good job this year" on Dec 31st with a $5200 check.
I have to say, having been on both sides of the screen, I much prefer gaining XP. As a GM, it lets me know how close I am to having the PCs become more effective, and actually its more fun for me to throw an extra encounter at the PCs to make sure they are the "right" level at the right time than it is to just tell them to level up.
From the player side of things, I honestly don't like going several sessions wondering if I'm going to gain a level any time soon. There is nothing I can really do about it, but I would much rather know how much I get.
Even in games where there isn't an XP progression, like Savage Worlds, you get something at the end of the session that allows you to feel as if you have "earned" something development wise for your character. I personally like that better.
Thanks for the input! Was just wondering if anyone else had noticed this or if I was missing something. I kinda miss Xp costs for crafting but mostly as a GM, but that is another post...
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.
For one thing, it makes it easy to do away with XP and just say "you level NOW" without worrying about whether the wizard with all his self-made items and XP-eating spells should lag behind a bit.
I still use XP, mainly because I tied character wealth to it. If you gain XP, you also gain GP. It's an abstraction, sure, but it speeds up game. No loot lists you need to keep, no colossal "I'll go and sell all of this, give me half an hour to check up on prices and add it all up" (or, even worse: ask the GM 100 times whether they can sell something and for how much).
As I recall, Jason based the level system on a certain number of encounters per level. It was either 6 or 8, I don't remember.
The numbers are basically the same as in 3.5: You level after roughly 13 average encounters (average meaning the EL is equal to your average party level).
And that's why you cannot just say "it takes X encounters to level", because not all encounters are equally difficult. You might go with "CR+1 means 1.5 encounters, CR+2 meanx 2 encounters or something like that, but then you might as well go back to XP.
|
|
For one thing, it makes it easy to do away with XP and just say "you level NOW" without worrying about whether the wizard with all his self-made items and XP-eating spells should lag behind a bit.
I hated this, it pretty much ensures that the high level arcanist, with his wishes and item creation is going to fall behind at some point. What I wound up house ruling in 3.5 was that those spells that had xp cost instead dealt temporary Con damage. So when Miss Corystan Pike burned her wish spell it still taxed her, making it something she wouldn't do willy nilly, it didn't cause her to become the party's b*tch by burning off xp the rest of them didn't have to worry about.
Thanks for the input! Was just wondering if anyone else had noticed this or if I was missing something. I kinda miss Xp costs for crafting but mostly as a GM, but that is another post...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.
For one thing, it makes it easy to do away with XP and just say "you level NOW" without worrying about whether the wizard with all his self-made items and XP-eating spells should lag behind a bit.
I still use XP, mainly because I tied character wealth to it. If you gain XP, you also gain GP. It's an abstraction, sure, but it speeds up game. No loot lists you need to keep, no colossal "I'll go and sell all of this, give me half an hour to check up on prices and add it all up" (or, even worse: ask the GM 100 times whether they can sell something and for how much).
As I recall, Jason based the level system on a certain number of encounters per level. It was either 6 or 8, I don't remember.
The numbers are basically the same as in 3.5: You level after roughly 13 average encounters (average meaning the EL is equal to your average party level).
And that's why you cannot just say "it takes X encounters to level", because not all encounters are equally difficult. You might go with "CR+1 means 1.5 encounters, CR+2 meanx 2 encounters or something like that, but then you might as well go back to XP.
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.
So, XP are still necessary to keep an exact track of the progression of the characters; now, telling the players how much XP they gained from a single encounter is not necessary anymore (since they do not spend XP for Item Creation, for example), but as Zurai and KnigthErrantJr said above, players often rejoice when they actually can see a constant improvement on their characters ('Cool, we only need 500 XP to level up ! Come on guys, we are almost there !'), and this can effectively be a good motivating factor.
YMMV, of course.
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. The Medium progression is the one tuned to 13 (actually 13.3333... IIRC) average encounters. Fast is tuned to either 8 or 10 (I forget) and I just plain don't remember what the number for Slow is.
I dropped XP when I started running RotRL(now entering last chapter). It seems to be working fine, just leveling them up at appropriate intervals.
That depends whether you always keep the party as one body. If you want to reward individual accomplishments, good ideas, penalize acting against alignment etc, you may want to keep the track individually.
|
Our home group eliminated XP's quite a while ago and it's worked out fine. For us, two of the biggest issues with XP was the record keeping by the GM, including the abstract methodology of bonuses for good role-playing, and inconsistant level gains. We have a few full time players who attend nearly every session and some who are half-timers. After a few levels (and months of play) the part-timers started looking more like cohorts than PC's. Essentially, we started using group leveling. All PC's level at the same time to keep the gaming fair. Part-timers are still at a disadvantage for found items as it is largely a first come first serve process. Level losses due to returning from the dead or energy drain do not cause a level loss, but do create a conditional penalty equal to a level loss (-1 to hit, etc.) and can be recovered using the normal means.
Group leveling has also allowed us to largely eliminate meaningless random encounters just for the sake of getting those last few XP's to level. Our combat and skill challenges are more pertinent to the storyline and allow more time to role-play encounters. It also allows the PC's to diversify their skills more and eliminates the fight between the two party diplomats who both want to be the voice of the party for those bonus XP's.
I'm currently running Runelords with PFRPG rules and told my players I wasn't going to bother with XP and would just tell them when to level up. Secretly, though I've still been calculating it anyway just to see how it worked out, and usually am having them level up at the same time they would've, thought there has been one or two times that I adjusted the timing slightly to better fit the pacing of the campaign.
I kicked XP nearly three years ago when we began my current campaign. I wrote up my adventures to be on-par with the ECL of the party and did my math behind the scenes such that most worked out that the party leveled at the same time after a given number of encounters. If they derailed and took on extra combat encounters, those who did earned extra loot but no extra XP. Ditto goes for excellent role-playing; those players were rewarded with significant items or features related to that situation.
Right now, I'm looking into expanding some options on PF traits, such that they can be doled out as rewards for good role-playing. Frex, in the torture example, characters who acted it out exceedingly well and refused to cave might walk away with a trait along the lines of "Silence Under Torture", a +1 Will boost to resist coercion when being pumped for information. I like this myself because it tailors the the reward to the experience; a generic 100/500/1000 XP boost because s/he endured more is kind of...meh. But, a reward tied directly to the experience makes it more personal.
All total, my group likes it a bit more. We can wrap an adventure, if they level I let them know they can take a new level and be ready when we get together to game again at the higher level. Doing this transfers all of the book work to down time, not at the table where they might have actually leveled at the table and wanting to take that level.
In our games the DM keeps the exp to himself. It's a tradition or something. I don't blame him, it's an awkward fiddly thing to do, and easier to do it all at once, rather than each session. Xp also rewards individual effort more appropriately.
Only problem is, our resident paladin got himself into a whole series of solo fights, and ended up almost two levels in front of the rest of us.
Now, I'm trying my best to make up the shortfall, as are the others (although they appear to be not quite so bothered), but he's the main damage dealer, he's the only guy that do the solo combats without committing suicide, and non-combat exp just isn't cutting it.
So, xp is causing me a whole lot of consternation. And I'm not even the DM. Life without xp would be a lot easier.
Sorry Snorter - I think you're just as much a victim of this as we are...
I`m also in favour of ditching XP, although it`s useful to tell the players how close they are to the next level every once in a while.
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. The Medium progression is the one tuned to 13 (actually 13.3333... IIRC) average encounters. Fast is tuned to either 8 or 10 (I forget) and I just plain don't remember what the number for Slow is.
No, The Wraith is right and you`re wrong. A CR 1 encounter is 100 xp, and to get to level 2 requires 1300 xp (fast), 2000 xp (medium), or 3000 xp (slow).
Creative Director
|
Any GM who wants to dump giving out XP should first play in a campaign as a player.
I've played in a game where the GM simply told us when to level up; no XP at all. It was actually pretty frustrating and unfufilling.
It's important to remember that XP is a currency. It's a quantifiable element you can measure as proof that you accomplished something during a game. After the game, you can look at your character and see that his/her XP total increased. It doesn't matter that you don't spend XP... it's a really fun way to track your progress through a level. And in a game like Pathfinder where you aren't guaranteed to gain such indisputable proof of advancement in a session (you can play through without leveling up or gaining any new gear quite easily), I actually think it's quite important to retain some element of "you played for 5 hours, and here are some XP to prove it."
And in the end, even if the GM wants to completely control what level his players are, he can STILL do this with XP by just giving out an arbitrary amount calculated to let the PCs level up when the GM wants. Same end effect for the GM, and the players get to keep track of their progress in a way that's fun and rewarding.
I`m also in favour of ditching XP, although it`s useful to tell the players how close they are to the next level every once in a while.
I actually tell them how many "pages" they have left until next level. When I say pages, I mean literally the number of pages in the adventure Path chapter. This gives them a fairly consistent but arbitrary indication of progress, and it feels very "narrative".
With an AP, you want the players to follow the tack of the plot instead of killing boars until they level enough to beat the bad guy. Since I ultimately control the pace of XP anyway, I just cut the math out and told them they will level at pre-ordained goals in the plot. For example:
Pathfinder #3 Spoiler:
There, it was no mystery to the PCs whether or not their actions in a given session brought them closer to a level.
I would still use XP for a more freeform campaign, but definitely ditch them for adventure paths. In the end, giving them a Plot Goal that they should aim for is a better motivator than abstract points which I assign arbitrarily.
Any GM who wants to dump giving out XP should first play in a campaign as a player.
I have done so many times. In fact, even in games where the DM is giving out XP, I generally let him do the accounting. I'd much rather have one person keep track of the various numbers rather than having each player try to add (generally) the same numbers up and get a different answer.
Likewise with GP; I like to have one party accountant so that some PCs don't get mysteriously richer or poorer over time.
Our group stopped keeping track of xp sometime around the first edition of whitewoof's vampire.
I quit doing it out of laziness. I am not sure why the others quit doing it.
I am currently running RoTL. I have started giving out xp at the end of every game session for the prior weeks game. I give bonus awards for showing up on time, being prepared, and keeping a journal ( not the same thing as a log of what has transpired ) Everyone of my players has told me how much they like having xp given out like this. It also seems that they will be doing the same again.
I like it because even though I have been a dm/player for over twentyfive years, anything I can use as a stick or carrot to control my players is a boon :) I also like it for the few game sessions that happen with only RP and no real encounters. Heck some nights they do not make it out of the Inn they are in such heated IC discussions.
I realize that both options have followings, but for our group it seems that xp points has been given a ressurection. I look forward to seeing how the next campaign dm deals with the number crunching
wasgreg
I understand that some players want a record to track how they are doing but other than that there is no reason to keep Xp. In the previous editions the use of Xp, espically in crafting, was a means of balance in the game. Making things at half price, for only the cost of a feat, seems overpowered to me. Who would not want to craft their own items at half the cost? Twice the power for half the price. When XP was used to craft magical items yes your wizard/cleric/soc ect... would be behind the party but they also had better items than a party without a crafter. As far as keeping track of a level a GM could just as easly say you are now 1/2 way to the next level and that would tell the PCs just as well as if you said you got 3500 xp today and it lessens the work on the GM by not having to figure out what the monsters CR is then finding the XP chart totaling it dividing it by the number of players finding when they are going to level again by adding the XP gained for each encounter and adjusting their story accordingly. Not to mention random encounters. I have had GMs who dont hand out XP for certain events because it would place us above the ECL for the story he has written so we tended not to do any thing that was not part of the story because of the lack of reward for thinking outside the box because he had already accounted for the ECL of the adventure and anything else would throw off his numbers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've stopped using XP while I was running RotRL. We'll be going back to using XP for pretty much the same reasons James Jacobs mentioned above.
|
I'm running Shattered City; and it tells you what level people should be at the start of each chapter. I just level them to there; if a chapter crosses 2 levels, I find a place that seems appropriate and do a mid-chapter leveling. Lot easier than tracking XP, and PCs seem to be fine with it. Also stops arguments over improv XP etc etc and lets people focus on the game.
I've been in both XP and non-XP based campaigns, and XP has never really added something for me personally. Heck, even PFS mostly eliminated it... basically you just level up every 3 modules you play.
So, basically, everyone else in the group was PENALIZED for acting intelligently. Ever since that point we went with leveling up after a set number of weeks, until recently when we decided that it was better to level after an appropriately dramatic encounter.
Wow, that was needlessly harsh ruling from the GM.
I use XP and don't think I'll drop it anytime soon. My players get XP after every fight, keeps them happy, and when someone does something extraordinary or roleplays something really really well, I give bonus XP to the entire group. Not just those who pulled it off.
That was weird, try this:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf
That was weird, try this:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf
You keep track of XP because it gives players a solid sense of advancement and periodic reward. There have been scientific studies that show that people respond better to being given a small reward frequently (xp per fight/session) compared to a small number of much larger rewards (a level every several sessions), even if the total reward value ends up being identical.
People like to have frequent affirmations of success. They like to be told "you're doing a good job, keep it up" every Friday with a $100 check rather than "good job this year" on Dec 31st with a $5200 check.
+1. I like to know how close I am to leveling as a player, and as a DM it helps me to know when they should be given a level, or if the number of monsters is off in an AP.
So while default Xp will drag forward even the laziest characters, those who contribute to the flow of the story, are usually one level or more before the rest.
I think you have a good point here. Unless the PCs have experience totals that are substantially different from each other, then there's not much point in having more than one person (i.e. the DM) keeping track of experience. I honestly couldn't care less if my PC has 100 xp more than another PC -- "Wow! For five minutes, I was level 6 and you were level 5! Isn't that neat?"
Note: For some games it makes sense to track XP because you can actually buy stuff with XP (e.g. Champions/HERO).
I tried playing with no xp advancement in 3.X and it was hard to deal with because of the number of things in the game that had XP costs written in (magic item creation being the biggie).
How that PF has done away with that, I have thought about pulling out my copy of the Sweet20 XP rules, and using them instead. They seem pretty simple to use, and let the individual players have a say in what kinds of activities help their PC advance (which also gives the DM a nudge as to what kinda stuff the players want to see in adventures, never a bad thing).
I originally found this at Sweet20XP for anyone else who is interested in checking the idea out.
I think you have a good point here. Unless the PCs have experience totals that are substantially different from each other, then there's not much point in having more than one person (i.e. the DM) keeping track of experience. I honestly couldn't care less if my PC has 100 xp more than another PC -- "Wow! For five minutes, I was level 6 and you were level 5! Isn't that neat?"
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.
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.
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.
|
You keep track of XP because it gives players a solid sense of advancement and periodic reward. There have been scientific studies that show that people respond better to being given a small reward frequently (xp per fight/session) compared to a small number of much larger rewards (a level every several sessions), even if the total reward value ends up being identical.
People like to have frequent affirmations of success. They like to be told "you're doing a good job, keep it up" every Friday with a $100 check rather than "good job this year" on Dec 31st with a $5200 check.
The current Pathfinder campaign that I’m playing in, the GM has done away with XP, instead just letting us know at the end of a session if we level (based on where it suits the story I think).
We also get very little loot, and few monetary (or other) rewards in this campaign. Nine sessions in (we are fourth level) we have found loot three times (once in the first session and twice in about the fifth session) and have received about 2000gp in monetary rewards all up between our party of six (so yes, my fourth level character has the gear of a second level character).
Years ago, this approach might have frustrated me, but you know what, the lack of experience rewards and treasure hasn’t bothered me at all so far. In fact, this is one of the best games I have played in for a long time. It sounds cheesy, but playing in a well run, exciting and challenging game with a good GM and good fellow players is reward enough.
The campaign features a lot of social encounters, a lot of investigation, a lot of character to character roleplaying, a few challenge type encounters that aren’t combats and very few combats (in fact, probably almost half the sessions we’ve played haven’t featured a traditional combat at all). So the XP-less approach certainly works for this style of game. Perhaps it wouldn’t work so well for me (as a player) or the GM in a more traditional combat oriented game.