XP When do you reward them and is it equal to all


Gamer Life General Discussion

Sovereign Court

So I have played with many DM's in my life. All where different when it came to handing out the parties XP.

One DM waited until the end of the adventure. So it could be many game sessions before you saw any. This was not my favorite

Another never handed it out just said OK your now level 2, your now level 3, your now level 4... etc. it just depended on how and when he wanted you to level. You never saw the numbers

Another DM every time the party rested for the night in game adventure you got your XP. granted it was 150 here, 300 there you got it every time your party rested.

Yet another it was after each game session

And lastly one that was running an AP and he would just decide in the adventure (much like the 2nd one listed) accept he gave XP and not some arbitrary level. When you should be at level 2 in the AP he gave out the XP to be level 2. When you where at a spot you should be 4 you got the XP to be level 4

Also does your DM give everyone the same XP. Do you get XP for RP, for Ideas, for input, for heroic actions. Do you get XP for extra stuff like journals and histories or pictures of your character etc...


In one play by post I am in you do not level up until after you have rested but then you gain xp. you still gain the xp after each encounter but you do not level until after you rest.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My group only plays about once a month for 7 hours so I award XP at the end of the session. If it is enough to level up, they do that between game sessions. The increased level is immediate in game, even if we are in the middle of a dungeon. With the low frequency of meeting, it is not practical to incorporate leveling up in character, unfortunately.

As far as equal XP. In general, I award equal XP to all party members. However, I will occasionally award a 10% bonus XP if someone helps me out with an obscure rule or comes up with something extremely cool in game.

Not all party members have the same XP anyway due to deaths, new characters, etc. I bring players in at the beginning of whatever level the rest of the party is.

Finally, FWIW I like actual experience points versus just levels. As a player, I like to see how my character is progressing instead of some arbitrary level up point.


I DM multiple different campaigns, each group of players meets weekly and plays 3-4 hours in a session... I track their XP gains during the session, and then total it and award it to the players at the end of each session.

Not having to pause the game and level up is a great benefit when we only have so little time to play each session.

I award XP for RP, ideas, player input, heroic actions, and anything else that a player might do that furthers everyone's enjoyment of the game - but I still give every player the same experience reward.

I have found that when I assigned XP to each player individually in the past that some players would focus too intently on getting more XP, including letting XP gains they thought they would get influence their choice of character actions, and that other players will begin to feel that those "XP hogs," are taking up too much of the game time and not giving them a chance to "catch up." It leads to attitudes of competition between the players that can detract from the game itself... so I switched.

In other games (Shadowrun, Vampire: the Masquerade, Exalted, etc.) experience can be rewarded individually with much less problems in my experience with the games - since the "next improvement" for one character might have a different amount of needed experience, instead of both needing the same bench-mark in order for something to improve (being a level ahead of your peers for a session or two is a huge difference, where having one more attribute point than your peers is not such a noticeable difference).

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I am awarding XP at the end of each session, but everyone in the party is even with their experience points even if they miss sessions.

What isn't even is action points, which are awarded for role playing and are used for all sorts of things in my campaign.


As for when to hand out: I used to hand it out right after the encounter. If you levelled up, you got new stuff right away, except new spell slots, which weren't filled yet/already expended.

Nowadays I hand-wave it and call the level-ups - I play APs and they have "advancement tracks" which are originally to tell you whether you're on the right track, but incidentally are great if you want to do away with XP.

Even when I still had XP, I had everyone on equal footing when it came to XP. I didn't do "roleplaying XP" or anything else to reward certain kinds of behaviour - you do this to have fun, so you do what is fun to you. If you don't like immersing yourself in a character, don't do it. I'm not giving out treats to dogs I'm training here.

Who's a good boy?


I have been gaming since the early 80's and I think every group I have ever been a part of did it the same way, at the end of each session, or by phone or email before the next session if there was no time to calculate it when the session ended. With newer game systems, people tend to earn the same amount of XP, or very close to it, but back in the days of each character class leveling up at a different amount of XP and the old 10% bonus XP with a high enough primary stat, it was rare for characters to have the same amount of XP. Plus, back in my earlier days, groups I was in tended to award only half XP to the characters of absent players, which happened to be the same amount an NPC traveling with the party earned.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

After the session, and it's more a party total than individual.

Scarab Sages

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
With newer game systems, people tend to earn the same amount of XP, or very close to it, but back in the days of each character class leveling up at a different amount of XP and the old 10% bonus XP with a high enough primary stat, it was rare for characters to have the same amount of XP. Plus, back in my earlier days, groups I was in tended to award only half XP to the characters of absent players, which happened to be the same amount an NPC traveling with the party earned.

When Thieves needed 1200 xp to level, while his mage buddy needed 2500; and the Thief had far more opportunities to practice his skills than the mage with his one spell per day, it was common for the Thief to be level 3 before the mage had left level 1.

While that probably sounds awful to today's players, that was considered a feature of the system, not a bug. A hazing period for the mage, to justify why so few people took up the path to ultimate power.

We tended to houserule away the +10% bonus, for having a high stat, on the basis that high stats were their own reward, and having one already allowed you to gain xp faster.
While we didn't have point-buy, back then, there was the option to cannibalise a stat to raise another, on a 2:1 rate, and IMO, players didn't need another reason to build lopsided freaks, than they had already.

Dark Archive

KaeYoss wrote:

Even when I still had XP, I had everyone on equal footing when it came to XP. I didn't do "roleplaying XP" or anything else to reward certain kinds of behaviour - you do this to have fun, so you do what is fun to you. If you don't like immersing yourself in a character, don't do it. I'm not giving out treats to dogs I'm training here.

Who's a good boy?

Can I have their treats?

I'll roll over and let you tickle my tummy.


In my home games I give xp at the end of each session. Everyone of the same level gets the same xp, lower level PCs get slightly more, higher level PCs get slightly less (as per the 3.5 rules). Players who were not present don't usually get xp, though if the party "uses" their character frequently during the session (say the rogue is gone and they have him check for/disable traps or open locks) then they may get a lesser amount of xp.

I like the different xp based on level, because it helps to fix the situation where people are of different levels, higher level PCs slow down on their level gain, while lower ones speed up. It is rare for them to ever true catch one another, but usually this keeps the spread to about 1 level ultimately.

As others pointed out, I don't want to make game time a competition as to who can get the most stage time. If the rogue sneaks a head and takes out a guard, everyone is rewarded since they are voluntarily giving of some of their game time to allow that to occur. By everyone getting a share it means the rogue isn't motivated to sneak ahead to just farm xp, and everyone has a stake in his success when he does go off.


Malevolent Blob wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

Even when I still had XP, I had everyone on equal footing when it came to XP. I didn't do "roleplaying XP" or anything else to reward certain kinds of behaviour - you do this to have fun, so you do what is fun to you. If you don't like immersing yourself in a character, don't do it. I'm not giving out treats to dogs I'm training here.

Who's a good boy?

Can I have their treats?

I'll roll over and let you tickle my tummy.

I don't have any more treats - my players ate them all - and if you want someone to "tickle your tummy", or anything else, you're at the wrong place with me. I tell you the same thing as I told the guy who seemed to go exploring the Stolen Lands with the intention of revelling in debauchery: You need religious succour. Go to a temple of Calistria and tell them I sent you.


Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
With newer game systems, people tend to earn the same amount of XP, or very close to it

What systems do you mean, exactly? I get the impression you're talking about 3e and Pathfinder especially.

I admit that I don't know or play too many systems, but most systems move away, or have moved away, from classes and levels. There, you only get a handful of XP and use them to directly increase your abilities. In those systems, you can't help to get (nearly) the same XP ;-P.

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:


, but back in the days of each character class leveling up at a different amount of XP and the old 10% bonus XP with a high enough primary stat, it was rare for characters to have the same amount of XP.

Now I'm all but sure you speak of AD&D 2e. I'd say that system was a mess, but that would be an understatement. It's a whole herd of messes all rolled into one.

Also, note that in that system, being several levels apart wasn't as bad as it is now.

Unfortunately, many GMs running 3e or PF are still locked in that mindset, not realising that here, it can and will lead to problems.


It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP. The group I'm running for now I do highly individual experience. Two people (of 6) just hit second level.


cranewings wrote:
It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP.

So you pretend that doing individual XP is more mature?


My group has three DMs:

One grants XP as per the AP he's running. The AP assumes five PCs and our group has fluctuated between four and six PCs, so he gets a bit stressed about us getting the XP and levels that the AP assumes.

The second DM and I both grant levels at the end of each major adventure. Personally, I can't be bothered with XP anymore.


"Individual XP" tends to be more trouble than it's worth. Players can get sidetracked by quarreling over "fairness" or how much XP is deserved, or just by the bookkeeping itself. Small amounts can boost desired behavior (like keeping an in-character journal between sessions, or being on time to games) but shouldn't result in some players leveling significantly faster than others (like multiple session lag between corresponding level-ups). Even if it feels more equitable it can easily create accusations of favortism and feelings of unfairness. (Generally, players that demonstrate a high degree of contribution through RP, ideas, and input will reap their own intangible rewards with most GMs- their characters will be more involved and they will have a richer game experience, simply because they've interacted more with the GM and given him more material to work with. Time invested pays off, and this is an equal-opportunity resource- if the other players put in the same time/effort, they would reap the same rewards. You don't need XP to balance this situation.)

If a GM is not using XP this should be clearly stated upfront. (This is what it sounds like your "now you're level 2, now you're level 3" GM was doing.) That way the players at least know what to expect. Some players (and GMs) really like XP because it feels rewarding and represents steady progress towards a goal. Others find the bookkeeping tedious. Given your concern over this I would guess you're in the former category.

The end of the adventure, imo, is too long to wait if you are using the XP system. An adventure can span weeks to months real-time. People typically don't like to go that long without seeing any character advancement. End of the session, however, I think is acceptable. It doesn't interrupt the flow of the game, doesn't sidetrack a session with people leveling up, and can be given in one lump, which constrains the bookkeeping to an acceptable level. I am also personally not a fan of people getting XP for the session when they were not present* so this easily enables XP to be distributed on those grounds. (I have no problem with the guy who bails two sessions out of three ending up way behind the rest of the group in levels.) If the players badly want to see the actual XP rewards for each enemy defeated, I suppose that can be arranged, but I guess I don't really see the point unless you don't trust your GM.

Fairness, simplicity, and ease of use should be the goal of awarding XP. It should also be a system everyone at the table is comfortable with using. Once those goals are achieved, the nuts and bolts don't really matter.

*Obviously, special circumstances apply. If a player has a legitimate reason to be frequently absent and the rest of the group desires their continued presence, accommodations can be made. Similarly I would not "punish" a player for a genuine emergency. But people who decide they just don't feel like playing that night, or can't keep their own schedule straight, thus inconveniencing everyone else involved? I can't stand that.


I've given up calculating XP and just level my players up when I feel the story line justifies it.


Lilivati wrote:
The end of the adventure, imo, is too long to wait if you are using the XP system. An adventure can span weeks to months real-time.

It depends on what one considers to be an adventure. How long is an adventure? When does it end?

If it's adventure as in "one Pathfinder Adventure Path book", it certainly is too long - not only because of the lack of progress in character development, but also because not levelling up will simply kill you. A written adventure assumes you level up during the adventure. Try to play one of those while staying on the same level the whole time. You start on level 1, stay on level 1, and then face a level 6 enemy who would have been quite a challenge for the level 3 party but will simply eradicate you.

Not that your chances of getting that far are that high....

And in general, I also prefer a new level after, say, 3 sessions at the most. Especially when we're talking about average levelling speed, as things tend to slow down the higher you get.


My group tends to do one of the following:

1. XP is awarded sometime before the next session. It usually depends on when the GM gets around to sending the XP email. We get group XP divided equally among the PCs with individual awards determined by vote or GM.

2. You level up when the GM says so.

3. XP is awarded after encounters. This usually only happens after large encounters or when a majority of the group is close to leveling.


When to hand out XP can become a pretty contentious issue. Even at the same table, different players will have very different ideas of what constitutes an XP-worthy encounter or event, and when to give it out.

Back in the old days, most DMs/GMs I knew (including myself) tended to reward at the end of every session. I think that's pretty standard.

Over time, however, as our adventures became campaigns and our campaigns became really detailed and story-rich, we evolved into handing out XP every few sessions.

The reason why is that most in the group felt it was not worth the trouble of keeping track of it every single session because they simply were not leveling up every single session. They liked it better if they got a big lump sum that would actually take them to the next level or very close to it. That's the way we still do it.

As to how I reward it, that has changed a few times as well. You want to be careful rewarding for "deeds" (as one of my players calls them) when you know you have a disruptive player or overt showoff in the group. When such a person knows he may earn more than the next guy by doing unusual things, the game can quickly devolve into one person trying to one-up everyone, and disrupting everything to the point where it all comes screaming to a halt.

For instance, one DM way back indicated that he would give the XP for each kill to the character who actually dealt the final blow. The showoff in the group immediately began a campaign of rushing in after the rest of us had weakened a foe, to try to steal the kill. In particular, he stole many a kill from his brother who was playing with us, and the sibling rivalry brought the game to a full stop many, many times.

Typically, I split all XP among everybody who was at the table at the time it was earned. I don't do XP for "deeds" anymore. But we've got a new campaign coming up, and we'll see how maturely they can act this time.


KaeYoss wrote:
Lilivati wrote:
The end of the adventure, imo, is too long to wait if you are using the XP system. An adventure can span weeks to months real-time.

It depends on what one considers to be an adventure. How long is an adventure? When does it end?

If it's adventure as in "one Pathfinder Adventure Path book", it certainly is too long - not only because of the lack of progress in character development, but also because not levelling up will simply kill you. A written adventure assumes you level up during the adventure. Try to play one of those while staying on the same level the whole time. You start on level 1, stay on level 1, and then face a level 6 enemy who would have been quite a challenge for the level 3 party but will simply eradicate you.

Not that your chances of getting that far are that high....

And in general, I also prefer a new level after, say, 3 sessions at the most. Especially when we're talking about average levelling speed, as things tend to slow down the higher you get.

Yeah, that's why I left the definition broad. A relatively quick adventure might be 2-3 sessions, which for most groups equals 2-3 weeks real time. Some (like an adventure path book) stretch considerably longer. And that assumes a weekly game; with one of my two current groups we are lucky to meet twice a month a lot of the time. Handling feelings of stagnation in long periodicity groups however is a totally different topic.

Obviously if you are talking about a group that meets more frequently (or does marathon sessions) you can likely get through more time without leveling before people begin to feel the lack of character progression. I've never played in a group that met more than once a week for actual playtime, though, so I can't comment much more on that.

Mostly this is a psychology thing. Most players like to see their characters advancing steadily. You can technically run interesting, level-appropriate content indefinitely without the PCs ever leveling up, but it frustrates people. A frustrated table is not going to be fun to sit at or to GM.


KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:
It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP.
So you pretend that doing individual XP is more mature?

Yeah. I think it takes maturity to get graded on individual merit. Some people don't like losing. Group XP glosses over the idea that some people have better ideas or try harder.


cranewings wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:
It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP.
So you pretend that doing individual XP is more mature?
Yeah. I think it takes maturity to get graded on individual merit. Some people don't like losing. Group XP glosses over the idea that some people have better ideas or try harder.

I almost have to agree with cranewings here; Getting graded on your personal performance in comparison to others and not taking it personally does require maturity.

However, mature players can still easily be an "experience hog" sort of player where they are doing things in character with no motivation other than the XP value their perceive the action to hold, and can unconsciously try to take up more than their fair share of at-the-table time because of it... while other mature players wait patiently for their turn and end up with less XP, unless you are also grading their performance in the patience area as well as their actual participation in the game.

To summarize: yes, mature players can handle having their performance graded. No, that doesn't make individual XP the "mature way," or even a very smart way of handing out XP.


I am currently playing in two regular games and a pick up game.

The general consensus amongst all the DM's is that exp is given out at significant points in the adventure when it will benefit the players the most.
For example in mid adventure when the party camps for the night after a major encounter or two but not every night the party rests. that way we can get much needed HP or new spells etc without having to wait until we get back to town.

We get exp at the end of the adventure so that during downtime we have exp to craft items or possibly level if we have enough.
Sometimes the DM will give us exp at the end of the gaming session if some players aren't going to make it next session but most of the time t equates to exp = party resting, party ends adventure or players end session and group make up will change during next session.

So far it works out very well.


thenobledrake wrote:
cranewings wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:
It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP.
So you pretend that doing individual XP is more mature?
Yeah. I think it takes maturity to get graded on individual merit. Some people don't like losing. Group XP glosses over the idea that some people have better ideas or try harder.

I almost have to agree with cranewings here; Getting graded on your personal performance in comparison to others and not taking it personally does require maturity.

However, mature players can still easily be an "experience hog" sort of player where they are doing things in character with no motivation other than the XP value their perceive the action to hold, and can unconsciously try to take up more than their fair share of at-the-table time because of it... while other mature players wait patiently for their turn and end up with less XP, unless you are also grading their performance in the patience area as well as their actual participation in the game.

To summarize: yes, mature players can handle having their performance graded. No, that doesn't make individual XP the "mature way," or even a very smart way of handing out XP.

I keep coming back to my thought that these actions- having more RP, better ideas, being more helpful, what-have-you- typically reap natural rewards at the table. The player who hands their GM five pages of background usually ends up with more character involvement than the player who came up with two sentences. The player who comes up with the best ideas sees those ideas implemented more often. The player who spends the time to help their GM climb out of the plot hole they worked themselves into wins their gratitude. It's not favoritism in a game any more than it is in the real world, where people who put the most time and effort into an endeavor, at times aided by skill or talent, tend to see more rewarding personal outcomes. Any player can spend more time or put in more effort if they want similar results.

Whether or not it is the "mature route" to award individual XP, I keep coming back to why anyone would -need- to do this. The reward is implicit to the system without invoking an artificial prize.

I do agree it takes maturity to handle individual effort being rewarded. This applies no matter what kind of natural or artificial reward system is being used. Some people are not able to see it as "fair" whether a player gets an XP bonus for that two-page journal entry she wrote between games, or whether the GM simply ties her character into the storyline more deeply than others because he was given greater insight into her character's thoughts and motivations in the game.

I guess my question to the people who award individual XP is why? Are your players typically so poorly motivated to put forth effort in the game that they need the tangible reward? Or is it just a way of further encouraging the level of participation and the kinds of behavior you like to see?


In the Jade Regent game I'm running, I'm doing group XP for everything but the friendship EXPs. Those I'm doing individually, but I figure that will balance out eventually over everyone in the party.


cranewings wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:
It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP.
So you pretend that doing individual XP is more mature?
Yeah. I think it takes maturity to get graded on individual merit. Some people don't like losing. Group XP glosses over the idea that some people have better ideas or try harder.

So the guy who has optimised better will get more XP? And the more damage you deal/enemies you fell, the more XP you get?


The reason why I like individual XP isn't BECAUSE I think it is more mature. I just said I think it takes mature players to deal with it.

The reason why I like it is because I enjoy a little friendly competition. Group XP rewards too much logical, group centered altruistic behavior. Settling problems by sitting out is too easy.

"Let him talk, I don't have diplomacy."

"I'm not going to scout, I'm not the best at stealth."

If people think they will get a reward, only if they stay involved, then they will naturally act less like logical directors and more like adventurers.

Of course, YMMV some people are different, individuals don't need motivation, roll playing vs. role playing, blah blah blah.


Lilivati wrote:


Whether or not it is the "mature route" to award individual XP, I keep coming back to why anyone would -need- to do this. The reward is implicit to the system without invoking an artificial prize.

Exactly. This need to be patted on the head constantly is not necessarily mature. Neither is behaving in a certain way just because it will be rewarded in a direct way.

It reminds me of getting monetary rewards for good grades in school. This is usually done with younger children because the older ones are mature enough to understand that the good grades are for their own benefit, as they mean you actually learn something.

Lilivati wrote:


I guess my question to the people who award individual XP is why? Are your players typically so poorly motivated to put forth effort in the game that they need the tangible reward? Or is it just a way of further encouraging the level of participation and the kinds of behavior you like to see?

That's what I meant with the treats for training pets. The mature way is to find a style of playing that is fun for everyone and then do that, without dangling carrots in front of people.

You can start with that sort of thing with newbies you want to get out of their shell, but an experienced roleplayer will have found his style.


KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:
It depends on the maturity of the group. If I think there are players that will have hurt feelings getting less, then I do group XP.
So you pretend that doing individual XP is more mature?
Yeah. I think it takes maturity to get graded on individual merit. Some people don't like losing. Group XP glosses over the idea that some people have better ideas or try harder.
So the guy who has optimised better will get more XP? And the more damage you deal/enemies you fell, the more XP you get?

Not exactly. I split XP evenly to everyone that contributes to a fight. So if a fighter deals 30 damage to a troll, and the sorcerer does 10 with magic missile, they get the same XP.

On the other hand, if one guy does all the talking, uses his stealth, disarms all the traps, and then fights by himself, I'll give him a ton of XP. There is a big reward for going at things alone because you can end up with more experience than people that don't help.

I run a sandbox and use CR that is way out of whack with the APL, so going at things alone is also a fast track for death. Usually people choose to stay together.

Once the players figured out I award XP for handling problems through talking, suddenly the guys with 8 CHA and no Diplomacy are talking to people.


cranewings wrote:


"Let him talk, I don't have diplomacy."

"I'm not going to scout, I'm not the best at stealth."

This is good behaviour, actually. I've seen the opposite. Spotlight hogs who can't shut up in conversations even though their character has Cha 8 and not a single rank in diplomacy, while another character is (supposed to be) the party diplomat and bad impressions can have bad consequences for the party. Or others who insist on coming along on the scouting mission and then messing it up because they couldn't sneak past a deaf blind guy in a coma.


KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:


"Let him talk, I don't have diplomacy."

"I'm not going to scout, I'm not the best at stealth."

This is good behaviour, actually. I've seen the opposite. Spotlight hogs who can't shut up in conversations even though their character has Cha 8 and not a single rank in diplomacy, while another character is (supposed to be) the party diplomat and bad impressions can have bad consequences for the party. Or others who insist on coming along on the scouting mission and then messing it up because they couldn't sneak past a deaf blind guy in a coma.

Different tastes then. I find the logical way of playing tasteless. RPing trumps diplomacy ranks for me. All adventurers should have an implied ability to sneak through the woods or pier through doors unseen.

I think having one talking guy, one sneaking guy, and everyone else is clumsy, loud, or abrasive is three color cartoon cheesiness.


cranewings wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
cranewings wrote:


"Let him talk, I don't have diplomacy."

"I'm not going to scout, I'm not the best at stealth."

This is good behaviour, actually. I've seen the opposite. Spotlight hogs who can't shut up in conversations even though their character has Cha 8 and not a single rank in diplomacy, while another character is (supposed to be) the party diplomat and bad impressions can have bad consequences for the party. Or others who insist on coming along on the scouting mission and then messing it up because they couldn't sneak past a deaf blind guy in a coma.
Different tastes then. I find the logical way of playing tasteless.

I find any illogical way tasteless. And illogical, which is, of course, a far more damning insult.

cranewings wrote:
RPing trumps diplomacy ranks for me.

So Cha is there just so you can sink a dump stat into? What about everything else? Strength check? Go outside and lift that bolder! Attack roll with bow? Follow me to the shooting range!

I had too many munchkins ignore half the system and then claim to "roleplay" everything, just to focus more on the "game-winning" rules to be okay with that.

cranewings wrote:
All adventurers should have an implied ability to sneak through the woods or pier through doors unseen.

That is terribly limiting. I hate to tell people that their "dashing knight" concept is crap just because heavy armour will make it hard to sneak around.

cranewings wrote:


I think having one talking guy, one sneaking guy, and everyone else is clumsy, loud, or abrasive is three color cartoon cheesiness.

The problem of course is that your idea - everyone talking all the time - is exactly that: A low-charisma character who can't shut up is loud and abrasive.

And saying that dex cannot be a dump stat might be nice for Alpha Protocol or Deus Ex (not really, even there you can go Rambo), but not for a fantasy RPG.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I find calculating XP, individually or as a group, a pretty pointless math exercise on the whole. I very much prefer a very simple system, such as 'you get 1 point per session, after X points you level'.


Kae, I don't have the problems with min maxing and dumpy players that you have so I can do individual XP without a bunch of problem. Maybe I'd have a change of heart about it if I had the extreme versions of the problems you are bringing up.

I guess that is another kind of maturity you need to deal with individual XP.


Good Roleplaying = ignoring the actual abilities and skills of the character and instead substituting the player's abilities and skills in its place

I love the idea that you can be in full plate and have a horrible dex and say, "I move as silently as a cat along with the rogue. Nobody can hear us sneaking up on them." Toss out all those pesky rules and let's do some "roleplaying".


pres man wrote:

Good Roleplaying = ignoring the actual abilities and skills of the character and instead substituting the player's abilities and skills in its place

I love the idea that you can be in full plate and have a horrible dex and say, "I move as silently as a cat along with the rogue. Nobody can hear us sneaking up on them." Toss out all those pesky rules and let's do some "roleplaying".

I have an idea for better roleplaying after an encounter in the middle of the night and yawn after being woken up without getting much sleep.


Sometimes individual exp awards simply make sense.

If my cleric made the spot check to realize that "little Timmy" was trapped in the burning building and he ran inside taking damage because of burning debris and so forth, rescued the child using his magic, and then got him to safety that type of above and beyond heroism deserves a little extra exp.
The rest of the party as well as my cleric got standard exp because of the two huge fire elementals which the cleric did participate by dismissing one of them and then healing the party as they fought the other but the cleric took the AoO and etc etc to save an innocent life so it stands to reason he gets a touch more exp.

Other examples include my cleric making a spot check to save a baby after it's mother left it to fall from a balcony(she failed against an umber hulks gaze)

that type of role play is what the DM is trying to encourage and so he awards like maybe 40 or 50 extra points for heroes doing heroic actions. The rest of the party are neutral at best and even the two "good" pc's don't do anything good.
that's why bonus exp makes sense as long as it doesn't get outta hand.


pres man wrote:

Good Roleplaying = ignoring the actual abilities and skills of the character and instead substituting the player's abilities and skills in its place

I love the idea that you can be in full plate and have a horrible dex and say, "I move as silently as a cat along with the rogue. Nobody can hear us sneaking up on them." Toss out all those pesky rules and let's do some "roleplaying".

That isn't what I said. I said that adventurers should have some ability to use stealth, and characters with low charisma should still be able to accomplish things by talking.

People are self motivated. Your ability to sneak has less to do with your own sneakiness and more to do with the motivation of the people looking for you. A guy in full plate can sneak through a castle if there is some ambient noise, his equipment is strapped on tight, and especially if no one is trying to find him.

Same thing with talking. Your average paizo forum goon has a Charisma of 7-8 but can probably still go to the bank and get a loan without being screwed. Having someone else do your talking isn't always the best idea.


cranewings wrote:
pres man wrote:

Good Roleplaying = ignoring the actual abilities and skills of the character and instead substituting the player's abilities and skills in its place

I love the idea that you can be in full plate and have a horrible dex and say, "I move as silently as a cat along with the rogue. Nobody can hear us sneaking up on them." Toss out all those pesky rules and let's do some "roleplaying".

That isn't what I said. I said that adventurers should have some ability to use stealth, and characters with low charisma should still be able to accomplish things by talking.

People are self motivated. Your ability to sneak has less to do with your own sneakiness and more to do with the motivation of the people looking for you. A guy in full plate can sneak through a castle if there is some ambient noise, his equipment is strapped on tight, and especially if no one is trying to find him.

Same thing with talking. Your average paizo forum goon has a Charisma of 7-8 but can probably still go to the bank and get a loan without being screwed. Having someone else do your talking isn't always the best idea.

It also doesn't always make sense. NPCs may resent it. They may have reasons for wanting to talk to someone other than the appointed spokesman or may be annoyed by the "Question", "response", "muttered consultation among the PCs", "next question" charade that usually goes on. You can avoid that by making the face the actual leader and actually letting him make the deals without input from the rest of the group, but I've rarely seen it work that way.

Doesn't mean there isn't a role for the "face", just that everyone else is going to have to do some of the talking to.


In our group, XPs have become a thing of the past. In d20-based games, leveling is a matter of a number of game sessions -- three or four, or even five, depending on the GM.

In point-based games like Hero or the Unisystem, we do give out points, but one of our GMs has started what might become a trend; he simply tells us to upgrade our characters in certain areas based on what we've been doing. ("You've been doing a lot of sneaking around; add a point to your Crime score.")

It would be very nice to have awards based on individual character actions, but that tends to discriminate against less imaginative or less active players, regardless of what kind of people their characters are.

And one of our players always has his characters out doing things in the community during downtime, regardless of the kind of game it is. He's always been the community service type -- and I don't mean by court order! :)

So how would you ajudicate that kind of activity? It does provide a service to the players, in the sense that it gives the party some cachet with the local village or town, or neighborhood, but it isn't something that happens in game time, and involves no real effort on the part of the player, since it's just a matter of saying "This is the kind of person my character is."


I like group xp for one singular reason.

Combat Xp is always awarded on a group basis. i have never had a dm who did not give everyone an equal share of xp even if one person fled at the start of combat.

That said low skill classes like fighters and barbarians will do what they are meant to do. They will tank the damage and dish out a considerable amount themselves. They will then receive the same xp as the bard who does very little in combat.

Then out of combat the bard gets a considerable amount of skill points per level. they now get tons of roleplay xp from their incredibly high social and knowledge checks. as a result they outlevel all low skill tanking classes simply by virtue of the fact that the job the tanking classes do rewards everyone with the same amount of xp.

Sovereign Court

So to reply on my own thread

I have two different ways that I award XP.

In the AP's I do the XP after every game session. I award equal XP to those who participated in the fights and adventure... to a point. If someone decided they want to stay back at the inn while the other 4 or more group decides to investigate the goblins in the sewers and gets in a fight, those who where involved in the fight get the XP. The one staying back at the inn because they did not want to get all mucky gets zip.

NOW if the person at the inn decides that they will go to someplace to gather info, I will award them XP based on what they decided to go and do and try to make it equal.

I DO however award a little extra XP to people who will post good detailed backgrounds on their PC and for RP outside of the game. Everyone is ware that they can gain the "bonus" XP if they want to. if they chose not to they have no complaint when Mandolf the wizard has 200 more XP over 8 game sessions than Lodo the halfling rogue who just wants to play and do more.

In my own world None AP and my adventures, party members will get equal XP for the fight. But I do award a bonus if someone is cleaver or someone that RP's. the person that says I attack the Ogre with my sword and rolls the dice and that is that, will not get the XP that the fighter who tries to use a little tactics and thought into fighting the ogre. Players that create a personality and stick with it are reward over someone who is cookie cutter and once again everyone is aware of it in the game.

It is not unusual that we have a 3rd level at the cusp of being 4th, 3 4th levels and 2 5th levels that are 100 or more XP ahead of the other. But in the RL not everyone is equal and not all enemies are either.


Our group of 8 has trouble getting everyone together all the time. We aim to play fortnightly for 5 hours or so.
I've set up my campaign so that it is very easy to drop a player and add a player between sessions.

We simply level up every three sessions or so. I don't want to punish players for not being able to make it because of work or sick kids etc. I also don't want to track xp myself. I will use xp sometimes to make sure my encounters are as challenging as I imagined.

Scarab Sages

One thing remains a constant; no matter what system you pick, once the players find out, they'll game the hell out of it.

Shadow Lodge

So the best method is no system at all!


TOZ wrote:
So the best method is no system at all!

The only winning movie is ...

Shadow Lodge

My advice on XP....scrap the entire concept. Characters should level up when the GM feels they should. If they're doing stand-alone modules and stuff, that might be as often as once per session, or it might be dozens and dozens of games between gaining a new level. If they're doing a campaign akin to an AP, level them up as the campaign progresses to be of a sufficient level to deal with whatever's coming next.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / XP When do you reward them and is it equal to all All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion