|
To expound on this further, I am a huge fan of ditching rules that restrict me in how I should run my game...
+1...I routinely alter the abilities of creatures that the players are familiar with, but the characters have never encountered. This prevents them from having a preconceived idea about how tough a particular creature is. I love it when they say, "only four kobolds? I charge." Then the kobolds unfurl their tucked wings, fly 10 ft over their heads and breath overlapping cones of corrosive gas. the looks on the player's faces are classic. Of course, if the fighter would have waited a moment, the bard would have made his knowledge check and warned him about their abilities.
I don't presume to be TwilightKnight, but what if interspersing more encounters just to get the PCs to level would be inappropriate to the adventure/story/situation the PCs are in?
This is what I was referring to. If you are jumping between mods that have a slight separation in level range, you can "power" level the PC's at the end of the previous mod in preparation for the follow up. It works in reverse as well. If you need to retard their advancement, you can without having to remove or reduce any of the scripted encounters. If the players have some idea of how much XP is granted at each encounter, then they may have an issue with you gimping it. By establishing level gaining occurs at a milestone rather than a certain abstract number, I feel it puts more emphasis on completing the task and role-playing that rolling dice to kill, kill, kill.
Spoiler:This thread is about the differences between fixed XP systems and relative ones, specifically PF vs 3.5.There are many problems with fixed XP systems, problems that do not exist in relative XP systems.
Here they are in short:
"Boil an antbed, gain one level."
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.
And now to elaborate on these points.
"Boil an antbed, gain one level." - Most of you have probably seen this card. But facetious remarks aside, this is exactly the sort of behavior it encourages - slaying large numbers of non threatening enemies instead of picking on something your own size. While in most games taking on large numbers of anything more dangerous than the illustrious insects would be a poor decision, this is D&D. The game in which 10th level parties of 4 can defeat an army, all in a day's work. It's not even a thing.
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quality - 3.5 made it very clear that lower level enemies just weren't that dangerous to you, reflected by reduced XP. If they were 8 or more levels lower, you got 0 because you were assumed to be able to defeat an infinite number of level - 8 creatures without breaking a sweat. PF in no way changed what you were capable of but they did forget to tell you that. Just take a look around and see all the people spamming the party with meaningless mook fights as if they were making a convincing point about anything. It just leads to confusion and bad data.
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quantity - There is some obvious overlap here as encounters have an Inverse Law of Ninjitsu thing going on but it still deserves its own section. 3.5 also made it very clear if you had to use more than a dozen enemies to make an encounter that those enemies were not really a threat and were just filler. PF, with its fixed XP does not. So they still aren't a threat at all, the game just acts as if they are. Which in turn leads to more confusion and bad data.
Like most design elements, this affects everything its connected to. From new classes to feats to mechanics, with bad foundations comes bad data. This problem would go away if fixed XP were ditched, replaced with the relative XP system and it was made clear what is and is not a level appropriate encounter. It would also make the forums a lot less headache inducing.
I cannot agree with this at all. The 3E "relative experience" was far from perfect, and allowed characters to advance incredibly quickly for fighting encounters that really weren't that tough, and get less experience for encounters that were tough but composed primarily of under average CR individuals. It also added a bit more work when the GM hands out experience, as they have to check everyone's level and calculate XP individually and then divide by the number of party members.
Pathfinder's mechanics have been working fine for me thus far, and I'm very impressed. The XP budget style of encounter building has thus far proved very effective to me.
Likewise, you do not award experience points for exceptionally weak encounters (specifically 10 CRs lower than the APL). Also, based on the way the Pathfinder XP chart scales, killing every goblin you cross is a very poor (mechanics wise) method of gaining levels; comparable to killing the commoners in Baldur's Gate (1 XP out of like 550,000).
Likewise, I must disagree again. You say that 3.5 made it clear that encounters with large numbers of weak enemies were not a threat, when in fact I always experienced just the opposite. For their experience value, and ability to focus-fire, and action economy advantage, piles of mooks were often quite effective when tactics were used (such as NPC adepts casting bless, NPCs using equipment like potions, alchemist acid, and other NPC WBL stuff).
Whereas 3.5's method of throwing around one or a few high CR enemies allowed the party more action advantages, and also proved more difficult to gauge, and also proved far shorter fights (since even strong enemies tended to go down quickly when outnumbered), and boosted experience (the monster was already worth a lot of XP relative to their level but then grants +25-50% more 'cause he was used as a boss).
A CR 10 encounter could be divided amongst 71 CR 1/3 NPC humanoids, which could easily destroy a CR 12 iron golem in one round with only a single vial of acid each, and can do much the same to a CR 10 player. Such an encounter would greatly provide use to spells like fireball which are underwhelming to the extreme against singular powerful foes (where debuffs and single-target doomsday spells are better in every way).
That's an extreme example, but let's go with it for a moment since such an extreme example would actually be in your favor (since you're talking extreme level/CR disparity and XP gains).
1) NPCs who are extremely out matched have to use tactics with minimize their disadvantages against their opponents. In other words, they have to think like PCs. Using touch-weapons like nets, alchemical weapons (such as acid), mild poisons, and similar weapons are a good method against higher level PCs.
2) Such NPCs should likely come in groups that compliment each other. A few adepts can bless their allies effectively adding +1 to their level for the purposes of hitting things.
3) Items like cheap potions (CL 1 enlarge person or oil of magic weapon) which are within their WBL are good methods of evening the fight a bit more if they must rely on hitting their opponent's ACs.
4) With so many enemies, tactics such as Aid Another become very viable, especially if you have opponents wielding reach weapons and spiked gauntlets or armor spikes since you can pile a large number of enemies onto a single target and get a lot of aids in (good for a surprise disarm or trip attempt).
5) Lose. No really. Even if the party manages to defeat or route them, they battle was likely more interesting than fighting a single CR 10 monster, probably took more of their resources (literally wasting spells on the enemies), and made the group feel pretty epic; but at 10th level you're supposed to be able to stand up to a battalion of enemies with little risk for total destruction.
Also, for the record, 71 vials of acid at only a 60% chance to hit with a touch attack tends to average out to around 149.1 direct + 71 points of splash damage without critical hits.
Say you have a group of 9th-level characters on the Medium track. They each have 75,000 XP. They need to get to 105,000 XP to level up.
Say they decide they want to stick to killing orcs. Maybe all of them have the "orcs killed my parents" background hook. So they go on a genocidal crusade to kill all the orcs in the world.
1,000 orcs later (whether singly, or in fireball-sized bunches), they've accrued approximately 1000x135 XP = 135,000 XP. That's 33,750 XP each for a party of 4, which puts them at 108,750 XP, or a little bit into 10th level. All that work for ONE level.
The PCs have gotten pretty junky loot compared to CR-appropriate monsters.
Their adventures have probably been generally unremarkable, repetitive, and easy.But... did the players have fun? If the answer is "yes," then my question is, "then who cares if the characters faced challenges that weren't risky?"
That's my take. I think everyone with common sense realizes that you could just beat up on a bunch of really crappy opponents relative to your and gain levels doing that (you could do it in 3.5 too). And if that's what you enjoy as a group of players and the GM is willing to run with it, so what?
Likewise, if a GM did something like throw gobs of crappy monsters relative to the PC's level at the players and he found that he didn't like how it turned out, then he can just decide not to do that anymore.
Or if the players decided that bullying wimps is boring and a waste of time, they could go looking for more appropriate challenges.
PF's system is better IMO. It's simpler to use and offers three advancement speeds to suit you.
|
Didn't read the whole thread, but I decided I would toss in what I do for exp: Nothing. The players don't get xp. They level when I tell them they can level.
Sounds like a dick move, but it keeps the players more interested in having fun that killing stuff (though they like doing that too) and puts less work on me. Both of these are good things.
Also, I love "filing the serial numbers" off of creatures by playing them with the same stats, but different appearance and slightly (or sometimes not at all) modified abilities. In my last session I had them fight the result of horrible experimentation. Its body pulsed with electricity and random intervals and it used this to attack the players. It looked human, but was missing its eyes and appeared to be in torment and lashing out.
What it actually was? A "shocker lizard" with a different appearance and size (small became medium).
LIVE TO WIN!
TILL YOU DIE!
YOU'VE GOT TO FIGHT TO STAY ALIVE!
One of my favorite things about Tabletop gaming is that you don't have to do things like plow through a forest of boars if you don't want to. I know some folks will literally shoot fish in a barrel, but when I GM I skip the parts of the game that don't provide a real challenge.
I think just applying the human brain can fix most of the niche problems that seem to crop up at the edges of the rules.
PS Every once in a while, that old man insulting you on the side of the road is a old gold dragon testing your humility.
EDIT StabbityDoom- I do similar things. For a while I was on a kick of creating evil versions of the various good monsters. Or throwing templates on things but not specifically identifying them as half-whatevers.
Didn't read the whole thread, but I decided I would toss in what I do for exp: Nothing. The players don't get xp. They level when I tell them they can level.
Sounds like a dick move, but it keeps the players more interested in having fun that killing stuff (though they like doing that too) and puts less work on me. Both of these are good things.
Also, I love "filing the serial numbers" off of creatures by playing them with the same stats, but different appearance and slightly (or sometimes not at all) modified abilities. In my last session I had them fight the result of horrible experimentation. Its body pulsed with electricity and random intervals and it used this to attack the players. It looked human, but was missing its eyes and appeared to be in torment and lashing out.
What it actually was? A "shocker lizard" with a different appearance and size (small became medium).
Sure as hell better than how Rolemaster did exp.
LIVE TO WIN!
TILL YOU DIE!
YOU'VE GOT TO FIGHT TO STAY ALIVE!One of my favorite things about Tabletop gaming is that you don't have to do things like plow through a forest of boars if you don't want to. I know some folks will literally shoot fish in a barrel, but when I GM I skip the parts of the game that don't provide a real challenge.
I think just applying the human brain can fix most of the niche problems that seem to crop up at the edges of the rules.
PS Every once in a while, that old man insulting you on the side of the road is a old gold dragon testing your humility.
Or an old red dragon who is just a D*CK.
Didn't read the whole thread, but I decided I would toss in what I do for exp: Nothing. The players don't get xp. They level when I tell them they can level.
I simply can't agree with this style of play. Total rubbish, it is. :)
|
|
The real problem with XP, and game rewards in general, is people using it to reinforce behavior they don't want reinforced. If you say you want to see more role-play but only give XP for winning combats, your players are not going to role-play more.
This is actually part of the theory behind me making XP session based (in other words, you advance if you show up and participate). Since the only thing being "reinforced" is playing the game, people are just going to do whatever is fun. At least, that's the theory :)
The real problem with XP, and game rewards in general, is people using it to reinforce behavior they don't want reinforced. If you say you want to see more role-play but only give XP for winning combats, your players are not going to role-play more.
I'm not seeing this real problem that you're talking about. XP is the primary tool for character advancement. I just don't see how it is fair to the players to throw it out in favor of DM fiat. If you think your party is advancing to quickly, move to the slow column on the Advancement Table and maybe cut out a combat or two.
I didn't read anything much beyond the original post, so I could be repeating stuff that was already said:
First, one very important observation: This is no computer game!
I'll repeat, and in caps and bold, for emphasis
THIS IS NO COMPUTER GAME!
To elaborate: While it might, in theory, be possible for the characters to go kill every rabbit and puppy dog they find for the XP and so on, there's still a living, breathing human at the table who oversees things. Pathfinder calls that person Game Master (GM).
The GM's mind, unlike a computer, is not bound to precise rules and patterns. He can ignore all this and just say "You guys will not waste your - and my - time by finding thousands of mooks to kill just so you can level up." He can take steps. In fact, the GM can take any steps he deems necessary, from just saying "no, your characters don't do that" over "you don't get any XP for this, this was no encounter, the victim was no threat at all", over "The god of deception, tricks and cheating things your laughable attempt to gain power gives him a bad name, so he manifests an avatar in front of you who kills you all to death. The End".
I'm not saying the GM should arbitrarily kill off characters, but neither should he sit there and be made a fool of. He's the absolute ruler of rules. While you can trick a computer by dropping an item and then disconnecting without saving, thus duplicating the item, the GM can just say "no".
And frankly, I have never experienced the Boil An Anthill phenomenon. And I have some power-happy players. It's not that. But they simply wouldn't subject themselves to the tedium of fighting hundreds of completely trivial and pointless battles to get an easy up.
I'm not seeing this real problem that you're talking about. XP is the primary tool for character advancement. I just don't see how it is fair to the players to throw it out in favor of DM fiat. If you think your party is advancing to quickly, move to the slow column on the Advancement Table and maybe cut out a combat or two.
I don't see that much of a difference. If you're going to set the number of encounters or switch XP tables in order to get the pacing you want anyway, how is that fairer to the PCs than just telling them that it's level-up time?
|
|
I don't see that much of a difference. If you're going to set the number of encounters or switch XP tables in order to get the pacing you want anyway, how is that fairer to the PCs than just telling them that it's level-up time?
I'm not seeing this real problem that you're talking about. XP is the primary tool for character advancement. I just don't see how it is fair to the players to throw it out in favor of DM fiat. If you think your party is advancing to quickly, move to the slow column on the Advancement Table and maybe cut out a combat or two.
This is my thought as well. Stories often require pacing of leveling curve, which is an art in and of itself. It may be a cheap trick, but removing XP gives you direct control over this pace. This means I can design a CR10 BBEG for the level 7 party and know that they'll actually be level 7 when they get there, not level 8 and make the carefully crafted BBEG look like a wet noodle. Or conversely, they hit the BBEG at level 6 and nearly TPK (or sometimes actually TPK) because they didn't kill creature X in the previous dungeon that you intended them to kill.
On top of this, it means I don't feel like I have to throw a certain number of monsters in a dungeon to make it interesting, not do I have to worry about what CR adjustment I might throw onto a strange environmental effect I threw in that either benefits or harms the players more.The list of simplifications goes on, but suffice it to say it cuts my prep time in half.
I don't see that much of a difference. If you're going to set the number of encounters or switch XP tables in order to get the pacing you want anyway, how is that fairer to the PCs than just telling them that it's level-up time?
Oh, I don't know, maybe it is because they can crack open the core rulebook and do some reading on their own? Yeah, there is definitely that. Players have expectations.
Player - Uh, we've completed X encounters over the last few sessions, we should have X experience, where is it?
DM - I never told you that could access that information. You'll level when I say so, and right now you're disturbing MY Story Hour!
I wouldn't sit at that table for long...
In my group, we award XP at the end of every session and we level accordingly. It's just that simple. No problems in 2.5 years of play with the same people.
For the record, we've played the Slow column and the Fast column. Second Darkness was fast, Kingmaker suggests going Slow so that's what we're doing.
Stories often require pacing of leveling curve, which is an art in and of itself.
Maybe you need to work on perfecting the art a little more, rather than taking the easy way out?
It may be a cheap trick, but removing XP gives you direct control over this pace.
Like I said, it appears to be a problem for you. DMing isn't easy, sometimes you have to adjust a few things. Falling on DM fiat is not a good thing.
This means I can design a CR10 BBEG for the level 7 party and know that they'll actually be level 7 when they get there, not level 8 and make the carefully crafted BBEG look like a wet noodle.
One level and your entire encounter just goes out the door? No way you can correct it, total wreck? I have a hard time believing that.
|
|
I don't see that much of a difference. If you're going to set the number of encounters or switch XP tables in order to get the pacing you want anyway, how is that fairer to the PCs than just telling them that it's level-up time?Oh, I don't know, maybe it is because they can crack open the core rulebook and do some reading on their own? Yeah, there is definitely that. Players have expectations.
Player - We've completed X encounters, we should have X experience, where is it?
DM - I never told you that could access that information. You'll level when I say so, and right now you're disturbing MY Story Hour!I wouldn't sit at that table for long...
In my group, we award XP at the end of every session and we level accordingly. It's just that simple. No problems in 2.5 years of play with the same people.
For the record, we've played the Slow column and the Fast column. Second Darkness was fast, Kingmaker suggests going Slow so that's what we're doing.
That is the OPPOSITE of what my players did.
They said "okay.." and gave it a shot. The first session they spent half the time having fun role-playing through round 1 of a trial to become an apprentice to a powerful mage, and the dinner that followed (which included all of the would-be apprentices, not just those that passed).The session ended without the PCs doing any combat, yet everyone seemed to have a good time. The next session we played, they did some more role-playing, did 3 fights total and ended up level 2.
Then again, I *did* note that this would be the path when we were about to start rolling new characters so that people knew that combat awesomeness was only going to be for survival, not for final judgement.
|
|
I'm not seeing this real problem that you're talking about. XP is the primary tool for character advancement. I just don't see how it is fair to the players to throw it out in favor of DM fiat. If you think your party is advancing to quickly, move to the slow column on the Advancement Table and maybe cut out a combat or two.
I don't see how it is unfair. 'Hey, I don't want to track XP in this game. So we'll just set up a different way for you guys to level. You rescue the princess, you gain a level. You find the McGuffin, you gain a level. You beat the villian, you gain a level.'
I can see it being unfair if you aren't upfront about it and only hand out enough XP every session to keep the party on your level up schedule, but that isn't what I am advocating.
I don't see that much of a difference. If you're going to set the number of encounters or switch XP tables in order to get the pacing you want anyway, how is that fairer to the PCs than just telling them that it's level-up time?Oh, I don't know, maybe it is because they can crack open the core rulebook and do some reading on their own? Yeah, there is definitely that. Players have expectations.
But since, as DM, you can control the number of encounter, their difficulty, how much they're worth, and are suggesting switching between tables, you're still the one controlling the pace of advancement regardless of player expectations. So I still don't think you're advocating that much of a difference.
I *did* note that this [no XP awards] would be the path when we were about to start rolling new characters so that people knew that combat awesomeness was only going to be for survival, not for final judgement.
I applaud you for that. If your players said okay, then that is really all that matters.
|
|
Stories often require pacing of leveling curve, which is an art in and of itself.Maybe you need to work on perfecting the art a little more, rather than taking the easy way out?
It may be a cheap trick, but removing XP gives you direct control over this pace.Like I said, it appears to be a problem for you. DMing isn't easy, sometimes you have to adjust a few things. Falling on DM fiat is not a good thing.
This means I can design a CR10 BBEG for the level 7 party and know that they'll actually be level 7 when they get there, not level 8 and make the carefully crafted BBEG look like a wet noodle.One level and your entire encounter just goes out the door? No way you can correct it, total wreck? I have a hard time believing that.
I didn't say I couldn't compensate. My point is, why should I have to?
Why have a system for which the entire point is to pace the characters' advancement take up all my time when I can just say "this seems like a good time" and be done with it?
Kingmaker suggests going Slow so that's what we're doing.Where?
All adventure paths are done under medium if I am correct. I am currently dming kingmaker under medium and the party seems on track.
|
All adventure paths are done under medium if I am correct. I am currently dming kingmaker under medium and the party seems on track.Kingmaker suggests going Slow so that's what we're doing.Where?
I was going to wait to see if he had spotted something I missed before citing that, but yes that was my understanding too.
|
I don't see that much of a difference. If you're going to set the number of encounters or switch XP tables in order to get the pacing you want anyway, how is that fairer to the PCs than just telling them that it's level-up time?Oh, I don't know, maybe it is because they can crack open the core rulebook and do some reading on their own? Yeah, there is definitely that. Players have expectations.
Player - We've completed X encounters, we should have X experience, where is it?
DM - I never told you that could access that information. You'll level when I say so, and right now you're disturbing MY Story Hour!I wouldn't sit at that table for long...
In my group, we award XP at the end of every session and we level accordingly. It's just that simple. No problems in 2.5 years of play with the same people.
For the record, we've played the Slow column and the Fast column. Second Darkness was fast, Kingmaker suggests going Slow so that's what we're doing.
GMs have expectations too. If I ran with a group of players that basically demanded a static experience with no dialog (We "should", I "expect", etc.) then I wouldn't be running at that table very long. And that isn't a fiat issue that is a setting mutual expectations issue.
Your example paints a stark black/white relationship to a gray problem: Games based on a hybrid of mechanical systems and narrative (arguably "intuitive") pacing can be challenging to find harmony in. If a GM offers a game or a group commits to a game it certainly shifts the dynamic but in most cases a game should start with a common set of understandings (ie. we care more about simulation or more about narrative or more about whatever) and wouldn't that then dictate the appropriate response to problem?
I've run a game without XP for over a year and there hasn't been a single problem. Its that simple.
I've also run the most accounting ridden, carried remainder, decimal tracking nit picking type of experience math bonanza that I could generate without a math degree and that was fun for that group too.
AS always, YMMV
My 2 cp.
Edit. Mega Ninja'ed. Ouch.
Interesting. After reading the thread, it appears the real problem with fixed XP is the OP ignoring the parts of the XP system that mitigate if not entirely eliminate the alleged problem. I'm suddenly reminded of Emily Litella.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
|
Interesting. After reading the thread, it appears the real problem with fixed XP is the OP ignoring the parts of the XP system that mitigate if not entirely eliminate the alleged problem. I'm suddenly reminded of Emily Litella.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
I think this is the issue with a lot of arguments not in just Pathfinder but RPGs in many cases:
Completely removing rule 0 many of the mechanics are flexible; Hell the fact that there are three tracks of experience in PF illustrates that there are options to deal with various issues and in my opinion an implicit acknowledgment that there is no single way that things must work.
Where? (repeated for super-curious emphasis)Kingmaker suggests going Slow so that's what we're doing.Where?
My bad - clearly says Medium progression (and that's what we're doing.) It just seems slow! Especially compared to Second Darkness (Fast, lots of leveling.)
Wouldn't a more abusive way to do this is get 5 fire energy resistance on a permanent level one burning hands trap and stand on it for 400 xp each round. One that does 1d4 each round. </sarcasm>
Any sane dm would ban this. There is a point to the game other than leveling up.
Wouldn't a more abusive way to do this is get 5 fire energy resistance on a permanent level one burning hands trap and stand on it for 400 xp each round. One that does 1d4 each round. </sarcasm>
Uh, no? You don't get xp for being hit in combat. You get xp for overcoming challenges. Once you've overcome the challenge, it is no longer a challenge, and thus cannot be overcome again. You'd get the experience for that trap once, and that'd be that.
I didn't say I couldn't compensate. My point is, why should I have to?
Because the game has an XP system that the players are aware of and have a reasonable expectation to enjoy. You're the DM, lots of hard work on that side of the table.
Why have a system for which the entire point is to pace the characters' advancement take up all my time when I can just say "this seems like a good time" and be done with it?
Because what if you're idea of "now" isn't the same as the player's idea of "now"? Use the XP system that is in place, everybody knows what to expect (within reason.)
|
|
I didn't say I couldn't compensate. My point is, why should I have to?Because the game has an XP system that the players are aware of and have a reasonable expectation to enjoy. You're the DM, lots of hard work on that side of the table.
Why have a system for which the entire point is to pace the characters' advancement take up all my time when I can just say "this seems like a good time" and be done with it?Because what if you're idea of "now" isn't the same as the player's idea of "now"? Use the XP system that is in place, everybody knows what to expect (within reason.)
But my players *do* know what to expect. They expect that every couple of sessions of play, they get a level. The XP system exists solely as a tool to manage advancement. I prefer to use a different tool for this task. If I wish to reward them for being an awesome player, I can just throw an item or something their way or give them a small bonus feat or something like that.
In short: We all use different tools to achieve fun, I'm just saying that XP isn't necessarily one of them.
I suppose it boils down to this; some folks like to approximate when it is appropriate to level, while others like to know exactly when it is appropriate to level.
I'm definitely of the latter frame of mind; it promotes a level of transparency at the table.
DM - you're at X level, you've gained X additional XP for these combats (tasks, quests etc), on this night.
Player - okay, oh, wait... what about those Shocker Lizards?
DM - the ones that almost caused a TPK? Forgot about them, good call.
See, people make mistakes and forget things, even DMs.
|
|
I suppose it boils down to this; some folks like to approximate when it is appropriate to level, while others like to know exactly when it is appropriate to level.
I'm definitely of the latter frame of mind; it promotes a level of transparency at the table.
DM - you're at X level, you've gained X additional XP for these combats(tasks, quests etc), on this night.
Player - okay
I could agree to that assessment. Having a BS in math one might assume that I would be in the exactly crowd, but I'm not specifically because I know that all the math I do to support it is not really worth it. Others at my table are also quite good at math (one with a masters, IIRC) and if I'm off a little on a calculation I get called on it. I needed to establish a feeling of "Look, the calculation is just there for fun, the point of it is X" by removing the calculation entirely. It's possible I may reintroduce xp for other campaigns and try to hit more of a middle ground, but I found it necessary to hit the opposite extreme first to jolt the players out of the "I am supposed to have leveled by now, how come I haven't?!" mindset.
I've played RP-heavy campaigns (where entire sessions might go by without meaningful combat) and I've played combat-heavy campaigns (where entire sessions might go by without any RP). Both can be fun as long as you enjoy them for what they are, rather than for numbers that represent them.
Semi-Related Quote: "A single death is a tragedy; A million deaths is a statistic."
So how do you handle it when you've accounted for every last bit and the player is still 6 XP short?
Never happened, really. We're either over or under, never within single digits.
But that's a good question and my first inclination would be to fudge the 6 points.
Maybe you do, I try to leave my hands off my party as much as I can.
They tend to press charges? Happens to me all the time.
|
|
Maybe you do, I try to leave my hands off my party as much as I can.They tend to press charges? Happens to me all the time.
Heh, I'm the youngest and smallest of my group for the most part, so they'd be more likely to laugh. :)
I'm glad we can agree on the fudging point. Some people around here find any such deviance from the rules immoral.
I've played RP-heavy campaigns (where entire sessions might go by without meaningful combat)
That's where we are in Kingmaker right now. We're building a nation and it is freaking awesome. Luckily we have lots of exploring to do, so we do get some action (just not ALL the time.) We're having a great time with it.
Huh, I didn't realize PF used fixed xp. Haven't run it yet, since I'm on indefinite hiatus right now, so I have just been reading up on the rules to try to catch the differences. I think fixed xp is a mistake, and I wouldn't use it when (if) I run. Of course, I do tend to be somewhat arbitrary, and add/subtract xp as needed when I think the fight was too hard or too easy.
Interesting. After reading the thread, it appears the real problem with fixed XP is the OP ignoring the parts of the XP system that mitigate if not entirely eliminate the alleged problem. I'm suddenly reminded of Emily Litella.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
OMG... I soooo loved her. I do so still miss Gilda. :o(
|
|
I wouldn't call it rubbish---it's very popular among narrativists and a few gamists who really hate xp accounting. However, I don't go for it myself. One of the key draws of the simulationist style is that the players can largely decide what their risk-reward tradeoff is going to be. They can pick on weaker foes, perhaps for roleplaying reasons---e.g., the grand crusade against the orcs who are taking all our elven lebensraum, or perhaps because their characters just aren't all that optimized and going after even CR's is suicidal. As the GM...I don't care what choice they want to make (although I do insist that they either outline their basic goals to me in advance or select between areas or objectives where I have adequate preparation on hand, it is NOT kosher to attempt to outrun the GM's preparation :-) If the pick low risk, they'll generally get low-reward, and they'll level considerably slower. If they go high risk, the chances of characters dying, being imprisoned and/or held for ransom or a TPK goes way up. In a simulationist game, it's your call. Needless to say, this approach doesn't go well with non-calculated XP :-)Didn't read the whole thread, but I decided I would toss in what I do for exp: Nothing. The players don't get xp. They level when I tell them they can level.I simply can't agree with this style of play. Total rubbish, it is. :)
It seems to be a little known fact that high CR creatures have high CR loot. Greed (or needing the right tool for another job) are great motivators. At least, that's what I plan on using for motivation :)
My response to this comment by a player would be:
DM (looking to the rest of the table): Do the rest of you agree with this?
Other Players: Yes
DM: You all level. Player B, you are now DM. Lets switch places at the table, please.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Player B - Uh, we've completed X encounters over the last few sessions, we should have X experience, where is it?
I see it as a problem of culture. 1st edition AD+D had the players with access to ONE book, the Player's manual.
What? They also had access to the DMG and the MM, not to mention the UA that came later.
Amber Diceless had one book and frequently the players did not even have, nor needed that.
I know nothing about this system, what is it?
3.X started the tradition of players bringing more books to the table than the DM
Not true, 2nd Edition is where the proliferation of splat books began. Thank you, TSR.