To add to to this, if the players decide to go on a sidequest no XP. You will stick to the script. He may make exceptions, but right now it does not appear that way. It is a very blatant railroad, and I know many DM's railroad, and many of us are railroaded as players, but we normally get some options along the way.I really don't follow why people have a problem with Lyrax's system other than the vague notion that it doesn't conform to some 'sacred text' in the rulebook. After all, it clearly works well for him and his group.Because at the time he was saying that he never gave any XP or treasure for anything but "boss fights" (or the equivalent non-battle climax), regardless of how much adversity the heroes had to overcome to get to the climax. He's since clarified that to say that he really didn't mean what he said earlier when he said that wandering monsters don't give XP or loot; the rewards are just delayed until the end.
That's marginally better, but it still makes everything the PCs do all-or-nothing. Don't beat that dragon at the top of the hill? Sorry, you get no reward at all for everything you were successful at on the way to the dragon.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.
I see what you both mean, but Lyrax has cleared up your concerns now. :)
Anyway, I think the XP-system has very little to do with railroading anyway - it is a function of other things. If anything, the fact that the DM is changing the rules would seem more likely to indicate that he is flexible and less prone to railroading than the reverse.
|
It's a bit hazier than that. If he tells his players ahead of time what the criteria for choosing a location of leveling are, the players agree to it, and he's simply adhering to it then it is not arbitrary as it was decided by law rather than by sole judgement.At that point, the DM is redesigning the game and choosing his own arbitrary level function.
Get it? Arbitrary.
As a DM and player, I've accepted Paizo's Pathfinder system (an arbitrary collection of rules.)
A rule that everyone agrees upon becomes a law or statute (even if unwritten). Arbitrary requires that only a single person's opinion matters for the decision. This is blatantly not true of any rules that the players agree to play by willingly.
DM level awarding is not transparent and it quite arbitrary."That word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
When I use "DM leveling", characters level at a time that is specifically chosen for a specific reason. This the opposite of arbitrary.
When you're being snarky, it pays to be correct about what you're being snarky about.
What you describe is literally the definition of arbitrary. YOU choose the time that they level instead of doing so via the rules; that is
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
Zurai's definition is correct, as is his statement that many people confuse arbitrary with random. I would also add to that that many people confuse arbitrary with bad, which is also not the case. It is true that there are many contexts where it's best to minimize arbitrariness, but in some contexts arbitrariness is actually very good, as it allows for flexibility and can be used to react to complex or unusual circumstances.
A rule that everyone agrees upon becomes a law or statute (even if unwritten). Arbitrary requires that only a single person's opinion matters for the decision. This is blatantly not true of any rules that the players agree to play by willingly.
Wait, aren't you a proponent of the DM is God school of thought? As such, you should be comfortable with arbitrary rulings, right? It shouldn't matter if your players agree, that's not an issue because your word is law.
DM level awarding is not transparent and it quite arbitrary."That word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
When I use "DM leveling", characters level at a time that is specifically chosen for a specific reason. This the opposite of arbitrary.
When you're being snarky, it pays to be correct about what you're being snarky about.
What you describe is literally the definition of arbitrary. YOU choose the time that they level instead of doing so via the rules; that is
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
Umm, no, sorry. I'm well acquainted with the difference between random and arbitrary. You, however, clearly don't understand the difference. You'll note the bolded portion.
A judge who chooses the winner of a case before him/her by flipping a coin is being "random".
The same judge who picks the winner on a case without regard to facts is being "arbitrary."
Deciding the case based on the facts presented with an eye towards the law and precedent is the opposite of arbitrary and random. Also referred to as, "exercising good judgement", or in the case of a DM, "doing your job."
In regards to PF:
A DM who rolled a die to decide when the party levels is being random.
A DM who levels the party whenever he/she feels like it is being arbitrary.
A DM who levels the party based on the needs of the campaign, the location, the setting, the time since last "level up", the pacing of the campaign, the threats about to be faced, etc., is being neither arbitrary nor random. He/she is doing what DMs are supposed to do: exercise good judgment.
Of course monster slaying gives XP: You can't take 10 when something is trying to kill you. You must attack and defend to get XP, and the chance of getting XP is the same as failure, and that chance goes up with bigger monsters. Sure, it relies on statistical averages, but you never said it had to hold for every *individual* fight :PWell, yes, but it kind of violates the part "assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP". This would, of course, be easy to do with a relative-XP system, but with a fixed-XP system it seems hard to shrink the gaps without opening significant abuse possibilities.
Anyway, here is a challenge for you guys: Create a viable fixed XP system for Pathfinder where the experience gap between level 19 and level 20 is not nearly as much wider as the experience gap between level 10 and level 11. At the moment, of course, the former (1,050,000 XP) is 21 times greater than the latter (50,000 XP). This is easy to do with a relative XP system, of course, but try doing so with a fixed XP system. It is hard to do, at least assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP.Simple. Each level requires the same amount of xp as the last. You gain exactly X experience for every failed roll on which you could not take 10, and for each time an enemy succeeds on a roll against you against which they could not take 10.
Extremely open to abuse, but works :P
Well, what about the "notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP"? :P
Of course, it might not even be possible to have an XP system like that (not without some weird workaround tricks anyway).
|
Wait, aren't you a proponent of the DM is God school of thought? As such, you should be comfortable with arbitrary rulings, right? It shouldn't matter if your players agree, that's not an issue because your word is law.
You shouldn't assume so much about someone. After all, which school do you think I subscribe to? :)
It's a bit hazier than that. If he tells his players ahead of time what the criteria for choosing a location of leveling are, the players agree to it, and he's simply adhering to it then it is not arbitrary as it was decided by law rather than by sole judgement.At that point, the DM is redesigning the game and choosing his own arbitrary level function.
Get it? Arbitrary.
As a DM and player, I've accepted Paizo's Pathfinder system (an arbitrary collection of rules.)
Again, no, sorry. PF rules were, presumably, chosen for a reason. They are neither random nor arbitrary, but deliberate. At least I hope so. I very seriously doubt that the rules were assembled "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction." Again, at least I hope not.
|
|
A rule that everyone agrees upon becomes a law or statute (even if unwritten). Arbitrary requires that only a single person's opinion matters for the decision. This is blatantly not true of any rules that the players agree to play by willingly.Wait, aren't you a proponent of the DM is God school of thought? As such, you should be comfortable with arbitrary rulings, right? It shouldn't matter if your players agree, that's not an issue because your word is law.
I do not believe that DM is above reproach, but do believe that beyond group-agreed limitations he is god because he is omnipotent in "his" world. See: Definition of god.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
Since the DM is the creator and ruler of the universe he is, by definition, the god of that world.
That said, players don't have to play in that world, so despite the fact that the DM is god of his world he must limit himself if he wants players to participate in his world. This is where the group-agreed rules come in. You agree that you wish to play Pathfinder. You agree to certain character creation rules. You agree to what kind of campaign you want to play. You agree to what XP system you're going to use. The list goes on, but the DM is playing by a set of rules that the players (rightfully) will get indignant about if broken.TL;DR - The DM is God of the world, but the players are other gods that must be appeased through their interaction with the world, limiting the DM's power.
Again, no, sorry. PF rules were, presumably, chosen for a reason. They are neither random nor arbitrary, but deliberate. At least I hope so. I very seriously doubt that the rules were assembled "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction." Again, at least I hope not.
Are you really not getting this, or are you just being obtuse?
Go and look at the XP progression charts; what do you see? They're a collection of numbers, starting in the thousands. Paizo could have elected to go with hundreds, or even ten thousands. But they they didn't. They arbitrarily choose thousands.
That's just one example, AC and HP would be others.
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quality.Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quantity.
Hate to break this to you, but that's a problem with the Challenge Rating system, which has been in use since 3.0. CR is massively arbitrary, and is at best a close guess.
I'm not saying that there's anything better than CR - it's like that old addage about Democracy (that it's the worst system of government except for all the other ones).
Anyway, my point is that the above argument has nothing to do with Flat Exp and everything to do with the CR system.
Again, no, sorry. PF rules were, presumably, chosen for a reason. They are neither random nor arbitrary, but deliberate. At least I hope so. I very seriously doubt that the rules were assembled "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction." Again, at least I hope not.Are you really not getting this, or are you just being obtuse?
Go and look at the XP progression charts; what do you see? They're a collection of numbers, starting in the thousands. Paizo could have elected to go with hundreds, or even ten thousands. But they they didn't. They arbitrarily choose thousands.
That's just one example, AC and HP would be others.
No, I am not being obtuse.
While neither of us can know why the most Holy Game Designers (Blessed Be Their D20's) choose to use thousands instead of some other number, I am reasonably sure that the choice was not, in fact, arbitrary. I suspect that they had any number of reasons to choose the numbers that they did. Primarily, I believe that they choose those numbers in order to not violate the OGL while still meeting common expectations and providing a guideline for frequency of leveling. Tradition, as well, almost certainly played a part. None of that equals "arbitrary" or "random."
Despite what Zurai asserts, you are both misusing the word "arbitrary." Or, in other words, "That word, it still doesn't mean what you think it means."
One thing to consider when comparing relative xp to fixed xp, is as was mentioned relative xp can allow those that fall behind to catch up some (personally I have never seen it catch anyone up totally). But remember in 3.5, xp was used up for a lot more things than what is used in PF, thus there is less game reasons for players to fall behind and really just social reasons for the most part. Personally, I like the relative xp even if just for those reasons.
|
|
Zurai's definition is correct, as is his statement that many people confuse arbitrary with random. I would also add to that that many people confuse arbitrary with bad, which is also not the case. It is true that there are many contexts where it's best to minimize arbitrariness, but in some contexts arbitrariness is actually very good, as it allows for flexibility and can be used to react to complex or unusual circumstances.
I think this comment did not receive the attention it should have. It's a very good comment and I agree with it a lot. Arbitrary isn't bad if you have a good arbiter. I believe a good arbiter is one who is:
A) TrustedB) Trutworthy
C) Of sound judgement
D) Decisive
E) Consistent
and
F) Fair
Deliberately is not the opposite of arbitrarily. You can describe some actions with both adverbs. Arbitrary is not "for no reason" or "completely without any reason". It's "decided by a person".
Mynameisjake - I'm done arguing with your ignorance. Have a nice night. :)
EDIT: Dammit, wraithstrike! Just as soon as I was about to explain myself, you had to go and understand the thing I was trying to say!
It happens to the best of us. :)
He/she is doing what DMs are supposed to do: exercise good judgment.
You can exercise good judgment and still be arbitrary. You are presenting a false dichotomy. There's no restriction on the definition, official or common, of "arbitrary", that it has to be a negative word signifying a judgment that is illogical or makes no sense. You can have perfectly logical, reasonable, good rules that are arbitrary. In fact, the word "arbitrary" comes from the exact same source as "arbiter", which is a word for a person who judges the merit of a case and decides on it based on those merits.
I've just told my players that "you will gain a level every 4th session, from now to eternity" and they go with that. They plan ahead and know when they will advance and it allows them to ignore things like worrying about if they've gotten enough encounters in or if they wasted too much time roleplaying in town talking to commoners about selling loot etc. This way they just play naturally, without concern for meta elements like worrying if they've killed enough bad things to advance or not.
Works for me.
Either your players fly through encounters very quickly, or these players find themselves becoming 20th-level before they even get to their 3rd encounter. In 4 sessions, my players either just finished a combat encounter and have finally progressed the quest to an RP encounter, or they're in the middle of a 2nd combat encounter.
I also give xp for my players obtaining their goals.
It just happens their goals tend to be things like, "I wish to survive and overcome the current encounter." By overcoming each individual encounter they eventually obtain even larger broad goals. But the broad goal is generally not measured (often being too vague for true measure of success or failure), so it is the individual encounters and their goals that are measured in my game.
Mynameisjake - I'm done arguing with your ignorance. Have a nice night. :)
Thanks. You, too. Hopefully, you learned something.
You can exercise good judgment and still be arbitrary. You are presenting a false dichotomy. There's no restriction on the definition, official or common, of "arbitrary", that it has to be a negative word signifying a judgment that is illogical or makes no sense. You can have perfectly logical, reasonable, good rules that are arbitrary. In fact, the word "arbitrary" comes from the exact same source as "arbiter", which is a word for a person who judges the merit of a case and decides on it based on those merits.He/she is doing what DMs are supposed to do: exercise good judgment.
Merriam-Webster would beg to differ with you:
Definition of ARBITRARY
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government>
b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee>
b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>
Examples of ARBITRARY
1. An arbitrary number has been assigned to each district.
2. I don't know why I chose that one; it was a completely arbitrary decision.
3. Although arbitrary arrests are illegal, they continue to occur in many parts of the country.
Of the 5 possible uses only one comes anywhere close to how you are using it. And that's a usage in the legal system, not a common usage. Of the examples given, none are anywhere near the definition you insist on. Which, on reflection, should come as no great surprise, given the amount of rules lawyering you insist on.
Need more?
arbitrary
adj
1. founded on or subject to personal whims, prejudices, etc.; capricious
2. having only relative application or relevance; not absolute
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (of a government, ruler, etc.) despotic or dictatorial
4. (Mathematics) Maths not representing any specific value, i.e., an arbitrary constant
5. (Law) Law (esp of a penalty or punishment) not laid down by statute; within the court's discretion
[from Latin arbitr rius arranged through arbitration, uncertain]
Back to M-W:
Synonyms: dictatorial, high-handed, imperious, peremptory, willful (or wilful)
Antonyms: methodical (also methodic), nonrandom, orderly, organized, regular, systematic, systematized
A DM who uses the "DM levels" option at well thought out points in his/her campaign is being methodical, nonrandom, orderly, organized, regular, and systematic. In other words, the opposite of arbitrary.
I've lead you to the water, now drink if you want. Or you can continue to twist the English language to suit your whims.
Either way, good luck with your game. 'Night.
Hi everybody! I already mentioned above that this is a style of play issue, and therefore the entire "argument" is moot. But since we're all having such fun, I thought I'd return with a point or two of my own.
I play the game in the exact manner that Mr. Ioaba is against. As a GM, my players level up arbitrarily, and sometimes 2 or 3 levels behind the AP I am running. I didn't ask them for permission in this, I just went ahead and did it. I play the game the wrong way.
Why isn't this destroying my game? Why is everyone still excited to play it after two years of this treatment?
Is Mr. Ioaba's style the wrong way? Should he be forced to play my way simply because the game hasn't self-destructed, and therefore I am doing something right?
Nope. Here's why, and this is important, so I will pretty it up:
The OP and subsequent posters are all focused on one consequence of that abstraction which suits their needs and their style of play. If you change any part of XP, you solve problems and create others. There is no perfect XP system, you just find the system that maximizes your play style and minimizes its flaws.
For example, I find that leveling occurs WAY TOO FAST in comparison to the plot. Characters going from 1-10th level in a month. Now, that to me is the "Real Problem With Fixed XP." So I have my own system that fixes that problem, and creates a bunch of problems for Ioaba. It's a good thing he's not in my group, because it sounds like he would have a bad reaction to such a rule. (not meant as an insult, just seems like a fact)
I announce to my party at the beginning of a new level what their "leveling condition" is. That's the part of the story where they level. I could be "reclaim the fort from the ogres" or "stop the giants from invading Varisia". It is always an important goal and always ambiguous enough to stop metagaming.
In the case of my party, each of the players prefers to emphasize the story over combat, but they love the combat. You would think that a story-goal-driven leveling system would cause them to bypass combats or whatever, but no. They've got a kick-in-the-door style of play even so. They just happen to prefer killing things in service to a greater goal, not getting rewards for killing things in a vacuum (besides loot, of course).
If you fix one problem with XP, you create another. You need to find the version that solves problems you can't live with and creates problems you can live with.
Now, you're all gonna keep bickering anyway, I hope you at least realize how much you're enjoying it.
Didn't I shoot you? :)
Evil has regenerative properties.
Also, you're not Evil John Wilkes Booth.
But I'm the DM! I can kill you whenever I want! *pouts* You're totally playing it wrong.
There is a principal in Confucianism called the Mandate of Heaven. I think it applies to your statement.
You mean....I'm NOT DM by Divine Right? *faints (as a move action)*
Nope. At any time, your players may depose you by enacting the will of the cosmos. Good luck with that.
Didn't I shoot you? :)Evil has regenerative properties.
Also, you're not Evil John Wilkes Booth.
Wouldn't that have to be Good John Wilkes Booth?
Shocking that, the idea that players have power over the world! Up is down, forward is backward! The planes have shifted!
Well no, since Evil Booth has DR/good, he can overcome Evil Lincolns DR/Good. I think. I may have to check the Book.
Wouldn't that have to be Good John Wilkes Booth?
Yes, but Good Booth treats any weapon he wields as a good weapon, thus by passing the damage reduction.
Shocking that, the idea that players have power over the world! Up is down, forward is backward! The planes have shifted!
Look more closely.
The righteous GM has power over the players. He may, in fact, do things the players dislike, or despise, if it pleases Tian (in this case, I guess that means the game is fun).
But if the GM aims to please himself and not the game, if he is not righteous, then the game will use the players to destroy his authority. It is not the will of the players, they are merely the agent of balance.
This is actually kind of important to the function of a violent RPG like Pathfinder, where the GM is really the sadist in a weird masochist session of make-believe. The GM must do things that hurt the players, in psychically meaningful ways, but only in service to the game.
Players can't cry "No fair" or "He didn't hit me" like in some playground game. The GM's authority is real and it comes from the game. The players don't have authority over the GM, but they retain a nuclear option (the right to revolt) in the event that the GM becomes intolerable. That's an intentional balance.
Heh. Well, it's true, sort of.
PS — Evil Booth has the mirror-world goatee, that's what makes it work.
PS — Evil Booth has the mirror-world goatee, that's what makes it work.
Yes, but just like mirror-universe Cartman was actually a nice guy, mirror-world Booth would be a good guy not evil.
|
|
Look more closely.
*presses face to glass*
PS — Evil Booth has the mirror-world goatee, that's what makes it work.
Ohhhhhh. Got it. DR/Goatee.
Yes, but just like mirror-world Cartman was actually a nice guy, mirror-world Booth would be a good guy not evil.
Unless Real World Booth was Good! *DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN*
I suppose it would be confusing to note here that my avatar is not in fact an extra-dimensional Evil version of Lincoln, but a malfunctioning holographic simulation. The rules governing that scenario are quite different, I assure you.
Another important metaphysical consideration:
If you have a goatee in the real world, is your mirror-world counterpart clean-shaven? Double goateed? Mutton-chopped?
Mulleted?
Hey, they're the source of all power in Bleach.
What of the rare species of men who wears both mullet AND goatee?
M.A.G.M.'s? I don't think they exist.
It's in Stephen Hawking's new book, I think. Mullet + Goatee = God is Irrelevant.
You should be proud of me. I resisted the troll urge. ;)
I am SO proud. So, very, lovingly proud. I love you.
Look,
I would shoot him but it seems like there may be a more non-violent method to deal with our issues. All I'm sayin...
See Good John Wilkes Booth is too much of a pansy to deal with the issue. What we really need is Chaotic Neutral John Wilks Booth. After all since CN will supposedly do anything we just have to wait until the random thought strikes him to finish off Evil Lincoln.
No I'll "deal" with him...
Lemmee see, ideas, ideas...
I will write a sternly worded letter!
Maybe hire a mediator so we can discuss our differences!
If he gets too agitated I will get sanctions approved against him so he can't buy big shoes or tall hats or something...
See? I can take care of business!
And this explains why it would require Evil John Wilkes Booth to get the job done.
And this explains why it would require Evil John Wilkes Booth to get the job done.
Why that's just...mean!
You know a GOOD Lincoln might get a lot more done around here than you...
See?
I can be biting and sarcastic. *Ggrrrrr*
Admit it, I'm wearing you down.
Now back to my petition writing campaign!