Nope your right i wasn't and when no one is there after a while you DM experience will be solo.
*you're*
My right is not your right, but who you are is your destiny. When you're ready you will know.
Yep between grammer lessons and the zen i think i'll go back to ranting about adamantine.
The badass barbarian should get a nice xp bonus, and level a bit quicker. Badassery is a justified reason for levelling at a faster rate.Yeah...we don't think it is.
It is not punishment. You didn't earn it, you weren't there.If your decision as a DM to give one PC less experience than the others by virtue of the fact that his player wasn't present leads that player to enjoy the game less than your other players because he feels marginalized, then yes, it's a punishment, and you should feel bad for it.
I do not feel bad at all, for using the rules that make sense, and reward those who play the most, and play their best.
Yep between grammer lessons and the zen i think i'll go back to ranting about adamantine.
XP is a lot like a vein of adamantine. You've got to put in the time and dig hard to get it out. It's hard stuff, it has a lot of uses, but you've got to earn it. :D
Don't rock up to the mine (the party), you ain't getting any adamantine. A Dwarf would understand this well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not feel bad at all, for using the rules that make sense, and reward those who play the most, and play their best.
Why does it "making sense" matter? It's a game. What matters is having fun. If something "makes sense" but makes the game less fun, throw it out. The only things that actually make sense are the things that are good for your game.
See that is one unacknowledged side. You are siding with the person who is not there, I am siding with the players who are.
Extra xp sure is fun for the players that earn it. You know, the active players who show up.
Did something cool or great, have more xp. It tops the situation off like a nice dessert topping.
Extra xp sure is fun for the players that earn it. You know, the active players who show up.
Those players are having plenty of fun. They don't need you to make them feel better at their already-missing-out fellow players' expense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Late in the thread, but can we hash out some terms?
To me "docking xp" means, you just fought the orc/dragon/whatever, but you're receiving 50% experience as a meta-game punishment for missing last weeks play session/being a horrible person.
To the other camp "docking xp" means not getting parallel xp gain with the characers who played encounters you didn't, right? I'm not being a wise-ass asking such a simple question, I really want to settle the term.
If we are arguing about the second definition, I don't think that is docking xp; I think it's asking for xps you didn't earn alongside the rest of your gaming group. If that's where the divide falls, I'd suggest finding a gaming group that agrees with you and playing with them, no insult.
We don't believe that players need to 'earn' anything.
Bingo.
Ha ha, good one.
The alchemist player and I teamed up last game, because three didn't show (Yuletide). Now the dm tries to keep xp the same, but us two, we said, **** this, we aren't baby sitting them. We can do this by ourselves.
And off we went to adventure, party of two to slay ghouls, a Catoblepas, find an ancient ritual circle in a lake, sunken magic items (seal skin vests of water breathing, how non-Peta). And we got a nice chunk of xp and levelled. As it should be.
We left the others to heal at a shack. Now if the dm levels them from that, it's fine, truly. I will just laugh at him. I will laugh and temporarily lose control.
Extra xp sure is fun for the players that earn it. You know, the active players who show up.Those players are having plenty of fun. They don't need you to make them feel better at their already-missing-out fellow players' expense.
Hey, my players want some xp. I am just giving them what they want, with added bonuses.
Late in the thread, but can we hash out some terms?
To me "docking xp" means, you just fought the orc/dragon/whatever, but you're receiving 50% experience as a meta-game punishment for missing last weeks play session/being a horrible person.
To the other camp "docking xp" means not getting parallel xp gain with the characers who played encounters you didn't, right? I'm not being a wise-ass asking such a simple question, I really want to settle the term.
If we are arguing about the second definition, I don't think that is docking xp; I think it's asking for xps you didn't earn alongside the rest of your gaming group. If that's where the divide falls, I'd suggest finding a gaming group that agrees with you and playing with them, no insult.
Naa, I don't do docking. Scott tried to present me like some evil villain, and that I should feel bad, but for me it isn't about punishment. You earn it or you don't, moving on. If a dm really wants to punish a player, there are plenty of ways, if that is your thing.
Bulettes are cool though. Did you check out the paizo variants?
Your point?...
And we got a nice chunk of xp and levelled. As it should be.
...
Now if the dm levels them from that, it's fine, truly. I will just laugh at him. I will laugh and temporarily lose control.
My point, it that what happened in game is what should have happened. To the victors go the spoils. If the players who didn't struggle get a free level, it will be ridiculous, and I will laugh. Got it?
Okay, fine "earn" in the third paragraph was a bad choice of words.
But my question stands; there's at least one system out there I can think of that has dropped the xp advancement scheme and gone for a more story driven, advance at the GM's discretion after accomplishing plot point x,y or z type progression.
Let me say, that's fine; it's a perfectly valid way to play, and I'm not accusing anyone of doing it wrong.
However, that's not how D&D/pathfinder rules are written; they use xp advancement and at some basic level of function that's just how it is.
In short: I think this whole thing is a tastes-great-vs.-less-filling type argument and we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)
Clearly you took some diplomacy hitdice.
The rules are pretty clear in how it goes, and in some of the additional rules that can be used for xp. Some people dispense with this, which I find a bit strange. They are happy with it.
If I recall correctly, TOZ, you have given me some grief over not using all the rules properly and not being correct in my rules interpretations in other posts, so this is one of those funny examples that prove, not everyone is as orthodox as they think they are.
Listening to this at the moment, thought I'd share it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRTPf0g4h9s&feature=related
I would also give an xp bonus to any player that knocks a camel out with one unarmed strike. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was number of standard action spells per round based on BAB.
Yep, in the games I run, and another dm who also comes from similar (heretical) groups:
Wizards can cast more spells per round, as they level and get more effective at combat tasks (as their bab goes up, so fighter wizards are quicker on the cast etc).
Rogues only sneak attack once per round. We found it is balanced, and such an interpretation was used to prevent wrought (the two weapon fighting hasted rogues doing many loads of d6s in a round).
XP is run by the 3.5 standard, with additional rewards possible for each player, according to what they do/contribute/accomplish.
After we consulted the material, you may remember I agreed with you chaps, but refused to go back because of the merits. I recently played a pathfinder game where as a 15th level spellcaster I could cast one spell a round... and a found it ridiculous. Even the dm acknowledged it didn't exactly make much sense.
But here, Toz and Scott, no, the rules don't back you. There is a considerably concern with not causing offence by giving bonus xp to those that deserve more, and always ensuring even the absent get rewarded. Rewarded for what? Rewarded so that they don't complain or leave the game I suspect. There are other ways of dealing with those who would complain about xp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X4d3D8SncM
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where have I claimed the rules back me in this thread?
Rewarded for what? My players are rewarded with a fun game. XP plays no part in it.
In fact, I have made no judgement of your playstyle in this thread as far as I can tell. Meanwhile, you go on about 'wrought' and 'ridiculous' ideas, and make links to youtube videos.
(For those watching at home, 'wrought' is 3.5L's word for 'cheese' or 'overpowered' options.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still do believe that some kind of Official 3.5 Player Society should send 3.5L a cease & desist letter regarding how his nickname sits with his views on 3.5 RAW.
It won't happen here, but I sure do hope there's some alternate reality where it happens.
Also: TOZ, Scott Betts and me on one page. If any of you guys is in defrosting business, Asmodeus has a quick job regarding the current situation at his home.
yeah it is scary evil bag man
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 36 of the 3.5 DMG has this to say about what it calls "Experience Awards" (i.e. Experience Points)...
Only characters who take part in an encounter should gain the commensurate awards. Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason, earn nothing, even if they are raised or healed later on.
Page 40 of the 3.5 DMG has rules on story awards (in the form of XP) for individual characters based solely on role-play. Page 41 talks about using XP as a reward for certain behaviors (again, for individual characters)...
This is not to mention that there are XP penalties for casting certain spells or making magical items...
So it seems to me that with all of these things in the RAW, that a few levels of "level disparity" is bound to happen...
It obviously just boils down to play style (and/or the edition of the game used)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Page 39 of my version of the 3.5 DMG has the ad hoc xp awards section, and more on story awards, goals and rp awards on page 40.
Disparity happens and is ultimately inevitable unless the dm moves against it.
For those of us that still use 3.5 rules for making magic items, there is an xp cost, but pathfinder moved away from that if I recall.
I do not feel bad at all, for using the rules that make sense, and reward those who play the most, and play their best.Why does it "making sense" matter? It's a game. What matters is having fun. If something "makes sense" but makes the game less fun, throw it out. The only things that actually make sense are the things that are good for your game.
Well. As pointed out, the difference is where the perspective lies. SOme view it as docking xp, others feel its xp not earned. I'll highlight an example from a survival sargava game run not so long ago. I introduced a bard into the starting adventure. Everyone started at something like level 2. Early on in the game, I realized it was a badly made character so I decided to introduce a new character. I brought in a low charisma ninja (3.5 version). I started one level lower than the rest of the party. There were couple of sessions I couldn't attend and alot happened during those sessions. My ninja ended up being two levels below everyone else which I didn't have a problem with. During the course of the adventure, I relly pushed for the chaotic good ninja character to be heroic. Got so bloody and injured in the process. But lo and behold, ended up being the same level as everyone in the party. Later on, even pulled slightly ahead of everyone except for the drunken master in the party. We were the two characters who really pushed it. The other ranged rogue did the funny thing of sometimes he'd contribute to the combat while other times he wouldn't. The warlock ended up running away afew times before he'd even let off an eldritch blast or invocation. Top it off with running away from monsters before they've injured you during the first round of combat and a discrepancy in xp handed out appears. I could have chucked a huge fuss about being behimd when the game started but all you have to do is earn it. Regardless of whether its a combat encounter or social encounter, there is xp to be attained, bonds of loyalty forged with npcs and becoming actual heroes of the realm as opposed to being part-time heroes. What does surface is players who become afraid of a challenge. This manifests in so many different ways. Quite amusing to see it actually despite the character having the best con and strength in the party. Quite funny indeed.
Yeah, you are mentioning the giant Galten fighter aren't you. Who came in later with all the nifty magic items, who was a coward, scared of dangerous foes (especially rust monsters) and as a result, Haru the small Tian fellow looked like a real badass. Beating enemies to death with a broken falchion.
Strange game that, some pcs seemed to have awful morale (despite their will or fort if you want to represent grit), but the little Tian guy, he was fearless!
In this game, if the group broke into smaller groups, xp was calculated accordingly.
Why is it that every thread 3.5 Loyalist posts in turns into an 'Every sane man and woman vs 3.5 Loyalist' thread?
Why is it that every thread 3.5 Loyalist posts in turns into an 'Every sane man and woman vs 3.5 Loyalist' thread?
Lol.
Sane?
We have one side that is actually going against the rules of dnd on xp, some of which, whom are arguing that all should be equal in xp, even when all aren't equal in what they do. How they contribute, how they play their characters, advance the game, etc etc.
Half the party goes to sell loot and upgrade their magic items while the other half takes on a dungeon crawl with all manner of monstrosities. Thye convene 3 days later to all attain the same amount of xp. That supposedly makes sense and the DM is insane. Got it. Hmmmm..........
No no! A couple want to rest a couple of days, recover all spells, heal to full, and some others say no! They want to get back out there, jump into the tombs, fight evil--and they go out and do so.
All should be the same xp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No no! A couple want to rest a couple of days, recover all spells, heal to full, and some others say no! They want to get back out there, jump into the tombs, fight evil--and they go out and do so.
All should be the same xp.
I don't have a problem with people running their games like that. But the idea that missing a reward is a punishment is the problem I have with the arguments against giving XP based on actual playtime accomplishments. The idea of it being a punishment reeks of entitlement issues like the worst of the wealth by level arguments. Absence of a benefit isn't presence of a punishment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't part of the fun of playing is getting to see your character overcome challenges and advance through their efforts? Would some see it as a bit of a punishment to be forced to jump a character level or two merely because the rest of the group had the opportunity to play and you didn't? Would some people prefer to actually play through those levels, even if only through an accelerated rate, then to have to skip over them entirely?
Why is it necessary for everyone to be the same level in order to have fun? Does everyone have to also be the same class, with all the same skill/feat/etc choices, to have fun? Is it possible to be using a less powerful character and still have fun playing in a group?
|
|
Why is it that every thread 3.5 Loyalist posts in turns into an 'Every sane man and woman vs 3.5 Loyalist' thread?
Because he holds his position and ignores anything he doesn't have an answer for? At least it seems that way to me. But if he's got nothing else to say, that's fine too.
Why is it necessary for everyone to be the same level in order to have fun? Does everyone have to also be the same class, with all the same skill/feat/etc choices, to have fun? Is it possible to be using a less powerful character and still have fun playing in a group?
I had fun playing in my old DM's game, where the 1st Level Warlock fried because the 5th Level Wizard forgot the Warlock was next to the enemy when the Wizard threw his fireball. I also had fun playing a Cloistered Cleric with a 6 Con and seeing how long I could survive in the same group.
I just don't run games like that.
I had fun playing in my old DM's game, where the 1st Level Warlock fried because the 5th Level Wizard forgot the Warlock was next to the enemy when the Wizard threw his fireball. I also had fun playing a Cloistered Cleric with a 6 Con and seeing how long I could survive in the same group.
I just don't run games like that.
As a GM, you don't allow your players to have fun like that?
EDIT: Also, the fact that the warlock was 1st level might have made the death more likely but even if he had been 5th level, he still could have been killed in that situation. Same level doesn't guarantee another player isn't going to do a poor decision and get your character killed.
|
|
Okay, so the way I deal with this depends on how far behind a character is. If they have missed like one session and are only somewhere between 50 and 100 XP behind everyone else, then I let them level with the group. Anywhere beyond that and they can level when they have received the requisite XP. D&D may be a hobby, but like any hobby you don't receive the reward until you make the effort.
I guess I'm middle of the road again.
If someone doesn't show up because they'd rather be doing something else (party, play, whatever), then their character get's run by someone else, who get's bonus XP for running a second character, and their character get's half xp for the session.
If someone can't make it because of a serious illness or other reason (IE: Not I am choosing to do something else I enjoy instead, but I just can't do it, such as a friend who had stage 4 cancer) then their character get's run by someone else, who get's a boost for running two characters, and the absent player's character get's full EXP for any combats.
Naa, I don't do docking. Scott tried to present me like some evil villain, and that I should feel bad, but for me it isn't about punishment.
I don't care what it is for you. The players you're marginalizing will feel like it's punishment, no matter what you think it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards can cast more spells per round, as they level and get more effective at combat tasks (as their bab goes up, so fighter wizards are quicker on the cast etc).
Rogues only sneak attack once per round. We found it is balanced, and such an interpretation was used to prevent wrought (the two weapon fighting hasted rogues doing many loads of d6s in a round).
Holy crap.
I think we're done here.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The players you're marginalizing will feel like it's punishment, no matter what you think it is.
It's clear that from your experience, the majority of the players that you've met feel like you do...
Conversely, believe it or not, the majority of players that I've met do not share your sentiments on the matter...
It is not a universal feeling that players feel marginalized, and I think it would be extremely arrogant of somebody to claim that the majority of gamers (in general) feel that way on the matter. I know that am not going to be so arrogant as to believe that the gamers that I've met that feel the same way I do represent the majority of gamers in general (and I've met a heck of a lot of gamers in the last 30 years)...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In our group the players have a choice if they can't make the game. Leave their PC or make sure another player or GM has it. Then it gets run like a NPC, controlled by one of the other players. They then earn xp but run the risk of dieing. Or choose not to let their PC by ran like a NPC in which case they don't earn xp.Neither of these options is good. They both suck. You either run the risk of losing a character you're invested in without any narrative control, or you end up lagging behind the party.
Why offer these choices?
Why not just give them the experience and move on with your game? No one's going to complain. And if they complain, they're awful people who would rather feel superior to their friends than allow their friends to feel like as much a part of the group as everyone else at every available opportunity.
Worse case if they choose option two is they end up a level or two behind the main group and that was with a guy that missed a lot. Like DG said even if you earn half the xp that is still roughly only 2 levels behind, with how XP works.For many, many groups (those that play at level 7 or below), 2 levels is the difference between a hero and a cohort.
Because that's what the group decided and what they thinks is fair and fun. My group personally find things handed to them with out working for it to be boring.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to see and run my game along the lines of an ensemble cast on a TV show. Geordi may have been in engineering the whole episode (player missed the game) while Riker, Data, and Dr. Crusher went planet-side (players who did make it). Geordi doesn't fall behind the other characters just because he was on a different assignment.
It is the play that is the reward! Loot, contacts, and the gameplay are the important parts! The players get to say, "Aw man, you missed it!" Letting the PC fall behind is salting the player's wound.
Similar to a tv show where a viewer falls behind and decides to stop watching because they don't want to be lost, players will stop if they get behind as well. It is wasteful. If you game with your friends why do you feel like you have to deprive them?
Now if you have a group that thrives on being competitive and likes one-upmanship, no problem. (Been there, done that, got the t-shirt and the novelty photo) Be clear to players that's the kinds of game being run. That the game is a grind where the strong are rewarded and the weak left behind. Not just a game, but A GAME! A GAME that brooks no absences! A GAME that is more important than any RL issues you may have! A GAME to END ALL GAMES!!!! If YOU can't handle that, GO FIND A SEWING CIRCLE WHERE SOMEONE WILL TAKE UP YOUR SLACK WHEN YOU'RE NOT THERE!!!!! BECAUSE WE ARE HARD CORE!!!!
*TRASHES COMMENT BOX, PULLS DOOR OFF HINGES, SPINS AWAY SHOUTING LIKE THE TAZMANIAN DEVIL* :)
|
Now, in my home campaigns, and most every other campaign I've run, I keep levelling the same.
But some recent experiences with online games have led me to see the merits of a reward system that varies xp, and, if you want, punishment heirarchy for missed play.
This is the system I'm using for my upcoming game:
Level Advancement
“Slow” XP chart, and creatures encountered will be considered CR-1 for xp rewards, based on the higher stats and double equipment value of the PCs.
Bonux XP will be rewarded as follows:
On Time Arrival/Departure 250xp per session: The player arrives in the room ready to play at the designated time or before. The player doesn’t suddenly leave in the middle of the session.
Efficiency/Attention 250 xp per session: The player doesn’t make the gm and other players wait when his/her initiative comes up in combat. The player responds when the DM asks a question or for a roll.
Roleplay: 250 to 2500 xp per session. The player actively participates in role-play with npcs and the other PCs. 250 xp rewarded during primarily combat sessions, higher amounts when the focus is on roleplay so that you continue to grow without having to be all combat sessions.
Failure to show for a session
With prior notice will result in combat only XP and only for combats your character was puppeted in.
Without notice prior to the game will result in no xp for the session- your character will still be puppeted in fairness to the other players.
All XP rewards will be emailed on an individual basis before the next session. Yes, characters will progress at different paces.
Essentially it comes down to the difference between online play and face-to-face play. I don't want my time and the time of considerate attententive players wasted. I've been in some very interesting online games with totally spacey players and it detracts from everyone's fun. Mostly, I'm hoping advanced posting of these rules will thin out or eliminate these people from even applying.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now if you have a group that thrives on being competitive and likes one-upmanship, no problem.
Here's the thing, you see games with characters with different amounts of XP and other rewards as showing an inter-player competitiveness. I don't. I can accept when someone's PC has done well (or been played more) and gotten rewarded more than my PC has. He was there, he got the benefit of being there. No problem. I can be happy for him.
I see problems with disparity as stemming from a certain degree of competitiveness... one that can't handle jealousy issues. It's been an element in online RPG discussions for some time now and I'm not fond of it. It's the implication if a player isn't having the same fun as that other player is at the same time, there's something wrong with the game. The game is bad, broken, DM is bad, whatever. It's like nobody can stomach watching someone else have fun for a little bit without needing to participate in it.
I recognize there may be a problem in handling groups if players are blocked from participation for long stretches. There are plenty of horror stories of players traveling to distant games only to be stiffed on the side by a DM not willing to accommodate an early entrance. But the trend has been for everybody to have their hands in everything all the time because nobody seems to be willing to be happy for anybody else getting spotlight time without them. There's a middle ground here in which we don't have to sweat differences in rewards, XPs, short term differences in spotlight time, or fun.