If XP doesn't have to be earned in your games, why not just do away with it all together?
Because it's a good guideline for the sort of progression that's to be expected based on the challenges the party has overcome.
I think it's safe to say, however, that the traditional experience point system leaves some things to be desired vis a vis a measure of character advancement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If XP doesn't have to be earned in your games, why not just do away with it all together? If you just give it away for doing nothing, why even bother having it at all?
Yeah, I do. Totally. XP sucks. It's a terrible system that does more to hurt the game than help it. It only exists because it was the way D&D started and people have a need to hang onto things for "traditions" sake. This is supposed to be a "cooperative game". The last thing it needs is something that encourages players to compete against each other to advance their own characters faster.
If XP doesn't have to be earned in your games, why not just do away with it all together? If you just give it away for doing nothing, why even bother having it at all?Yeah, I do. Totally. XP sucks. It's a terrible system that does more to hurt the game than help it. It only exists because it was the way D&D started and people have a need to hang onto things for "traditions" sake. This is supposed to be a "cooperative game". The last thing it needs is something that encourages players to compete against each other to advance their own characters faster.
Look at that! Common ground!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If XP doesn't have to be earned in your games, why not just do away with it all together? If you just give it away for doing nothing, why even bother having it at all?
It works as a good guideline.
I've shifted to a semi-plot based leveling system where I tally up all the EXP between one point and the next, then divide it by 4 and level the players somewhere around that area.
Works great for more linear campaigns, and isn't too badly hurt by sandboxes (since you can do a sort of standard "Exp per Quest" sort of deal to make it even easier on you).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I flag everybody for f+!+ing this thread up with your political s&m session guys, would you address the question...
My advice....
Absent players get xp, their characters are run by other players and can be reduced to negative HP but not death. They get last choice in the loot.
No bonus xp but people bringing snacks get a free hero point.
I can be bribed chocolate or beer also earns you a free hero point.
Before I flag everybody for f*@$ing this thread up with your political s&m session guys, would you address the question...
My advice....
Absent players get xp, their characters are run by other players and can be reduced to negative HP but not death. They get last choice in the loot.
No bonus xp but people bringing snacks get a free hero point.
I can be bribed chocolate or beer also earns you a free hero point.
I need to figure out a good hero-point-esque system for my own games, because I really like the idea of being bribed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I have had that policy for 30 years of gaming, and I won't be changing it anytime soon.
Plus, in the dozens of campaigns I've played in, pretty much the same policy was in effect.
I think that's probably a function of what you were exposed to early on. It sounded like a good idea back when the game was first finding its legs. As the years have worn on, the idea of attendance-based XP has lost its naive charm.
For example, I missed a crucial encounter with a dragon's hoard last year due to food poisoning.
So you had to deal with illness, and missing out on an opportunity to hang out with your friends, and you think it's appropriate that, on top of all of that, you will lose out on experience as well?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. I did nothing to kill the dragon. Why should I,get anything?
Because experience points aren't a personal reward for your effort as a player.
To be more clear, the only reward for your "effort" as a player is that you get to enjoy a game with your friends.
They are a reward for the effort of your character. If your character didn't do anything, why be rewarded?
Your GM has the magical power to say, "Your character was totally doing stuff, so he gets to level with the rest of the group."
And, fair warning, if you counter with, "But that's not realistic," I will counter with a) it's a game, and b) it's not any less realistic than the idea that your character decided to take a nap halfway through the dungeon and the rest of the party traipsed off to slay the dragon without him.
|
I have four games I run, each using XP differently.
1 - an adventure path, where not being an appropriate level will kill the party. I went through each section determined the encounter level, worked out what progression would leave the boss encounter at Hard and then worked to set party character level gains at dramatically appropriate times, including extra treasure drops. This can be good and bad, all characters are the same level, but no one feels the need to side quest unless some treasure is involved.
2 - a dungeon crawl. All characters start at 0 xp, gain xp for being at a session, and gain the following XP as if they are a single character facing a challenge of the average party level: First Session, Below average party level, surviving the session. What this means is that low level characters can level quickly, and that new characters are not unbalancing the game with magical items not obtained in game. Players find it a pain, but just watch their smile when they are told they just gained 5 levels. With the XP boost, missing a session just means you might qualify for extra XP, and that characters even out their levels.
Longest running characters are at 11th level, new characters are at 6, 8 and 9th level with average party level being 8.
3 - a shadowrun game where I gave everyone 4 karma for every game session, no matter when they joined. Lead to people bringing in new experience characters, trying new concepts, and less paperwork. Trialing giving Karma based on adventures, but not as much fun to run.
4 - a star wars d6 game with 5 character points for their character being in a session. If they can get another player to run their character they still get the experience, but if it dies it dies. This also works well, except when players don't care about killing off other players characters.
Each game has the experience method planned and written down before players join, and the agree upon for that campaign. But as it is a game and not a dictatorship, I negotiate with the players for the things I want to happen in the game, and how I want to run it, with what they want in the game and how they want it run. This does not always work, but it is a good starting point :)
Are you suggesting that one sort of ideology would automatically make for a superior GM?But rage-quitting multiple times? For any reason? Claiming that a GM is somehow a worse GM due to geography or political ideology?You really think it's not possible that one's personal belief system just maybe might influence how they run their D&D games?
That's not what he said. He asked if it isn't POSSIBLE that a personal belief system might influence how a GM runs his game.
I feel that as long as the rules for how XP is earned are stated at the beginning of the campaign there isn't any problem. My core group knows that if they don't show up, they don't get paid (so to speak). As a player, I go along with whatever rules the DM follows.
I honestly haven't been in a campaign were you get the same as everybody else whether you show up or not.
Is this a recent thing? How old are you guys, if you don't mind me asking.
28. I think it's definitely a more modern approach to XP that sort of evolved as a solution to problems people started to see with the XP system as originally implemented.
LOL, let's be generous TOZ and assume the OP isn't addicted to the boards and is probably out to see a movie or watching a football game or something. Give him time...
Clearly, a GM's ideology is going to be superior to the player who agrees with it. It's going to be inferior to a player who disagrees with it.
This is just another "know your players/GM" argument.
Personally, I think there are ideologies that, by their rigidity, are apt to run a game aground. That's because I believe amongst a GM's best tools is flexibility. My best experiences have been with progressive players and GMs. That's my experience.
I'm not saying I haven't had a bit of fun with conservative players. But my observation is that their ideology DID creep into the game, in every session in which I played with them. Something I try to avoid as a GM, myself, except in meta conversation.
|
As of last weekend, I have rage-quit another tabletop gaming group. I've had to leave gaming groups for multiple reasons: moving out of town, time constraints, problems with players, just not enjoying the setting. However, the ones I actually rage-quit from all had one feature in common: the game masters (GM's from here on out) had truly f&&~ed up notions of what makes for a fair and fun gaming experience; to date, I've rage-quit four such groups. Hmm, come to think of it, there are two other common features: they've all been in the Houston area, and the offending GM's have all been staunchly conservative. Rather than go over what was wrong with each GM, I'll just deal with the primary offense with the pair of GMs in my latest group.It sounds like you had a string of pretty lackluster GMs who believed that a game played with friends should operate under the same set of rules that they believe real life ought to operate. So not only do they have a deeply flawed set of personal beliefs, they then chose to apply those beliefs to a game and actually thought that was for the best.
Now, while I'm glad to hear you got out, I don't know that I like the idea of rage-quitting anything. We don't know the details, so I'm imagining everything from a civil separation masking internal anger (which is totally fine) to a straight up table flip and slam the door routine. Be mindful of your own reactions; someone being a terrible GM isn't an excuse for poor behavior.
Basically the rage-quitting has consisted of pointed emails to the involved parties telling them I am quitting and why.
All I am saying is that I suspect they applied their political philosophy to the game, where it doesn't necessarily work.As of last weekend, I have rage-quit another tabletop gaming group. I've had to leave gaming groups for multiple reasons: moving out of town, time constraints, problems with players, just not enjoying the setting. However, the ones I actually rage-quit from all had one feature in common: the game masters (GM's from here on out) had truly f&&~ed up notions of what makes for a fair and fun gaming experience; to date, I've rage-quit four such groups. Hmm, come to think of it, there are two other common features: they've all been in the Houston area, and the offending GM's have all been staunchly conservative. Rather than go over what was wrong with each GM, I'll just deal with the primary offense with the pair of GMs in my latest group.It sounds like you had a string of pretty lackluster GMs who believed that a game played with friends should operate under the same set of rules that they believe real life ought to operate. So not only do they have a deeply flawed set of personal beliefs, they then chose to apply those beliefs to a game and actually thought that was for the best.
Now, while I'm glad to hear you got out, I don't know that I like the idea of rage-quitting anything. We don't know the details, so I'm imagining everything from a civil separation masking internal anger (which is totally fine) to a straight up table flip and slam the door routine. Be mindful of your own reactions; someone being a terrible GM isn't an excuse for poor behavior.
Is this a brand new group or have they been at it for awhile? If it had been going on for awhile, then maybe it ain't "broke", its just a playstyle they are used to or have accepted. If they having fun before u came along, then maybe u was the outta place cog or piece that wouldn't fit. I by no means mean that as a bad thing, they was playing a way that might've been right for them but wrong for u. So ir seeing it broke while everyone is seeing it running fine.
And tbh, that's one of the beautys of this game, is that it can be ran sooo many different ways and as long as the majority and the dm are having fun, then they doing it "right". Not every way is gonna be fun or smooth for everybody, but because the game is so adaptable, u can easily step up and dm the way YOU want to play and what YOU consider fun.There's no wrong way to play as long as you are having fun, and if u ain't having fun u are simply in the wrong group.
Secondly, whether a personal belief system might influence how a GM runs a game does not resolve the question of, even if it does influence their GM style, which ideology, if any, would be superior.
No, it doesn't. Obviously I have beliefs based on my own ideology, but I'd be very happy to have a discussion over which ideological viewpoint contributes to a play experience which is, on balance, stronger.
Deciding that YOUR OWN ideology automatically would be superior is where the conceit comes in. Assuming that stereotypical parodies of a different ideology would drive specific, predictable individual behavior is where the misconceptions come in.
I don't think there were any stereotypical parodies being thrown around, at all. I think that each instance of pointing out an example of conservative thought influencing GMing practice was a summary that most conservatives would agree with.
All I am saying is that I suspect they applied their political philosophy to the game, where it doesn't necessarily work.As of last weekend, I have rage-quit another tabletop gaming group. I've had to leave gaming groups for multiple reasons: moving out of town, time constraints, problems with players, just not enjoying the setting. However, the ones I actually rage-quit from all had one feature in common: the game masters (GM's from here on out) had truly f&&~ed up notions of what makes for a fair and fun gaming experience; to date, I've rage-quit four such groups. Hmm, come to think of it, there are two other common features: they've all been in the Houston area, and the offending GM's have all been staunchly conservative. Rather than go over what was wrong with each GM, I'll just deal with the primary offense with the pair of GMs in my latest group.It sounds like you had a string of pretty lackluster GMs who believed that a game played with friends should operate under the same set of rules that they believe real life ought to operate. So not only do they have a deeply flawed set of personal beliefs, they then chose to apply those beliefs to a game and actually thought that was for the best.
Now, while I'm glad to hear you got out, I don't know that I like the idea of rage-quitting anything. We don't know the details, so I'm imagining everything from a civil separation masking internal anger (which is totally fine) to a straight up table flip and slam the door routine. Be mindful of your own reactions; someone being a terrible GM isn't an excuse for poor behavior.
And I agree with you, assuming that what you have told us about them is accurate. It seems like their political beliefs and GMing practices are natural extensions of one another. That's not really that surprising, if you think about it.
Basically the rage-quitting has consisted of pointed emails to the involved parties telling them I am quitting and why.
I wouldn't personally term that rage-quitting, then, unless the emails were particularly hostile. That just seems like a decent way to handle the situation.
Sorry for the multiple aliases; my message board kung fu is weak.
Let's see, the first group I quit had a GM who insisted we roll 3d6, place where you like, no re-rolls. When the characters all turned out to be weak, the GM added NPCs to the party who were all better then our PCs.
The second group I quit involved a situation where I was playing a race and a class the GM didn't like. I agreed to compromise and swap out characters with one with an acceptable race, and doing so as an in-game passing of the torch, and the GM wanted to dock me a level because some other player was fickle and kept killing off his characters so he could get new ones.
The third time I quit was because the GM actually manipulated me into giving my best friend grief over a character which wasn't working out, but was the GM's idea in the first place.
So, yeah. I'm considering either quitting the hobby, or running a game myself and seeing if I can at least do better than the GMs I've mentioned.