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.
You'd give up your God-like control so easily, or do you just think you'd be putting an uppity player in their place?
The game is about having fun, for everyone at the table.
|
What? They also had access to the DMG and the MM, not to mention the UA that came later.
As I understand it the players were forbidden from reading the first two.
I know nothing about this system, what is it?
I can never find any information on it when I go looking either.
You'd give up your God-like control so easily, or do you just think you'd be putting an uppity player in their place?The game is about having fun, for everyone at the table.
He only has the control that the players allow him. And if DMing isn't fun for him in that situation, he can certainly say 'I would rather be a player.'
He only has the control that the players allow him. And if DMing isn't fun for him in that situation, he can certainly say 'I would rather be a player.'
Fair enough.
One thing I've noticed, the idea that the DM is God is alive and well on these boards. I've never understood that ideology and I find it to be more than a little offensive. For me, when I see people tossing out a perfectly good system for awarding XP, in favor of DM fiat, it raises red flags for me.
Yes, if a DM isn;t having fun, then he needs to stop playing the game and consider what to do from there.
Originally in the old days of gaming it was quite common for DM's to tell players that the only book they could reference at the table was the Player's Guide. Simplified things much it did.
I didn't spend much time in 1E, really cut my teeth on 2E.
I've always played in groups where everybody typically had the 3 core books and accessed them at will. I guess we just thought looking up a rule was easier with multiple people doing the searching. That's also a great way to learn the mechanics of the game as well.
|
He only has the control that the players allow him. And if DMing isn't fun for him in that situation, he can certainly say 'I would rather be a player.'Fair enough.
One thing I've noticed, the idea that the DM is God is alive and well on these boards. I've never understood that ideology and I find it to be more than a little offensive. For me, when I see people tossing out a perfectly good system for awarding XP, in favor of DM fiat, it raises red flags for me.
Yes, if a DM isn;t having fun, then he needs to stop playing the game and consider what to do from there.
But the DM IS God. Period. If the players come to the table thinking that they have the same power as the DM; that game is a joke. The DM is final arbiter, judge and jury.
I decide when my players level up; not them. It's not a democracy.
But they should KNOW that coming in. The DM does all the work outside the game; the payoff is that he gets to make the call in the game.
Now all the above is not to say that the players don't have any rights. They can complain if they think that they aren't getting a fair shake when it comes to xp rewards. But the DM reserves the right to say "You will get your level NEXT game, or the game after that, or the game after that." The DM knows the pace that his game needs to go at; he can compensate with more or less xp if he needs to speed up or slow down leveling progression.
|
|
Originally in the old days of gaming it was quite common for DM's to tell players that the only book they could reference at the table was the Player's Guide. Simplified things much it did.
From my experience it is still quite common. Not just in D&D, but in any RPG system. Part of running a game is deciding what material from which published sources will be available for use in that specific campaign.
Just because a feat/trait/spell/etc is printed in a sourcebook doesn't mean it is appropriate for every campaign.
|
|
Both as a player and as a DM, I like DM fiat. I like it a lot. But I try not to play with DM's I don't trust, and I work hard to earn and keep the trust of my players when I'm the DM. They know that I'm always going to give them a way out when they're in a bad place, but that I'll do my best to challenge them and give them opportunities to develop their characters' motivations.
I almost never use fixed XP, and I never award XP for killing monsters any more. Unless it was a monster that the PC's particularly cared about, it is worth 0 XP. Which turns random encounter fights into penalties, rather than part of a process. Perhaps I should elaborate on that.
If your goal is to slay the dragon at the top of the mountain, you get XP for that. Lots of it. But if you get stopped by a bunch of goblins and trolls on the way up there, you're better off finding a way around them than fighting them. They aren't your goal. Fighting them will delay you, use up resources, and possibly alert the dragon to your presence. Why would you earn XP for charging into that fight willingly? Why would you be rewarded XP for slaughtering a group of goblins that had nothing to do with your goal?
So my XP rewards are very task-oriented or goal-oriented. Not encounter-based.
|
|
I decide when my players level up; not them. It's not a democracy.
But they should KNOW that coming in. The DM does all the work outside the game; the payoff is that he gets to make the call in the game.
The game is a democracy. If the players do not like the methods/actions of their elected representative, he can be ousted. The DM only has the powers given to him by the players and the players can only have a DM if they are willing to compromise for him. And the work done outside the game is irrelevant if the players did not expect it of their DM. If you go above and beyond the call of duty, you are not automatically entitled to more.
But the DM IS God. Period.
You can't do any better than that?
The DM does all the work outside the game; the payoff is that he gets to make the call in the game.
So you never talk to the rest of the group, outside of a game session? How would you know what everyone else wants to do, or what direction they'd like to go in?
Now all the above is not to say that the players don't have any rights.
Apparently they have only the rights your Godship deigns to grant them...
The DM knows the pace that his game needs to go at
It's not your game alone, rather the game belongs to everyone at the table.
But the DM IS God. Period.
No, he isn't. He's the arbiter of the rules and the one who lays out plot points. He's not the all-knowing, all-powerful ruler of the universe who can dictate the very existence of every and anything. In my experience, DMs who have a God complex tend to run the shittiest games -- full of railroading, "because I said so", "I don't care what the rules say", and other related bullshit. DMs who realize that it's a collective game, not a play where they're the author and director, tend to be much more fun for the entire group.
Lyrax - what if they want to take on the Goblins? What if that's what they're characters would do? It might not be your goal, but if the players want to take on X challenge, why would you stop them?
But if you get stopped by a bunch of goblins and trolls on the way up there, you're better off finding a way around them than fighting them. They aren't your goal. Fighting them will delay you, use up resources, and possibly alert the dragon to your presence. Why would you earn XP for charging into that fight willingly? Why would you be rewarded XP for slaughtering a group of goblins that had nothing to do with your goal?
This is why I hate it when DMs start getting God complexes.
It's a monstrously stupid tactical move to leave a group of hostiles behind you. Sure, maybe you can sneak around them this time, but what about after the dragon has beaten you to within an inch of your lives and you have to run away or die? Now all of a sudden you don't have the time or the choice to bypass the goblins, and the DM has punished you TWICE for encountering them, with no recourse on your end.
|
|
The game is a democracy. If the players do not like the methods/actions of their elected representative, he can be ousted. The DM only has the powers given to him by the players and the players can only have a DM if they are willing to compromise for him. And the work done outside the game is irrelevant if the players did not expect it of their DM. If you go above and beyond the call of duty, you are not automatically entitled to more.I decide when my players level up; not them. It's not a democracy.
But they should KNOW that coming in. The DM does all the work outside the game; the payoff is that he gets to make the call in the game.
Obviously Players have the ultimate vote as far as whether they keep playing or not. Beyond that however, I choose the house rules, I choose the character creation system that we use for any particular campaign, I choose the xp rewards for the game (usually using the book based on CR, but I reserve the right to change that when necessary). So in that respect, I am the god of the game.
I've been DMing for over 30 years; haven't had any complaints yet. In fact, at least 60% of the folks who have played in my games, cite me as the best DM they have ever played under. So I'm not too worried that I am doing it wrong.
|
|
But the DM IS God. Period.No, he isn't. He's the arbiter of the rules and the one who lays out plot points. He's not the all-knowing, all-powerful ruler of the universe who can dictate the very existence of every and anything. In my experience, DMs who have a God complex tend to run the s%@*tiest games -- full of railroading, "because I said so", "I don't care what the rules say", and other related b%~&&!%~. DMs who realize that it's a collective game, not a play where they're the author and director, tend to be much more fun for the entire group.
I haven't had any complaints about my DMing style from anyone who plays in my games.
Sure, I've had folks quit because they wanted more hack-n-slash or less hack-n-slash. Because the conversation at my gaming table sometimes gets NC-17. But not because I am unfair. Or because I have a "god complex".
But hey, to each their own.
But I've also yet to play in a game where it was a true democracy either. Usually, the DM is the Prime Mover in his domain. Maybe I am too old school???
|
|
The DM does all the work outside the game; the payoff is that he gets to make the call in the game.So you never talk to the rest of the group, outside of a game session? How would you know what everyone else wants to do, or what direction they'd like to go in?
The "call" of which I refer to here; is as far as how much xp I choose to reward for an encounter.
Even using fixed xp; I'm not going to give a 10th level party full xp for killing a bunch of CR 2 critters. I might give them 50% xp, or give them a 1000xp bundle for the lot of em.
For the record, dmchucky, I'm not saying your games in specific are bad or whatnot. Just that I've met my share of "The DM is GOD" DMs, and they've overwhelmingly been the highest proportion of terrible D&D games I've played in. There've also been bad not-God DMs, although usually those are for different reasons.
My beef is with the attitude, not the poster.
|
|
The DM knows the pace that his game needs to go atIt's not your game alone, rather the game belongs to everyone at the table.
Once again; here I am talking about xp rewards, not the overall game. Think about the context of what we are talking about here. We are discussing the merits and shortcomings of fixed xp; not an overall discourse on the game environment.
Yes, I give the Players in my games the ultimate control in most things. But when it comes to procedure, rules and the "mechanics" of the game. I am God. Period.
|
|
For the record, dmchucky, I'm not saying your games in specific are bad or whatnot. Just that I've met my share of "The DM is GOD" DMs, and they've overwhelmingly been the highest proportion of terrible D&D games I've played in. There've also been bad not-God DMs, although usually those are for different reasons.
My beef is with the attitude, not the poster.
No problem. And no offense taken. Just trying to make the point in what way I meant that my games aren't a "democracy".
|
|
This is why I hate it when DMs start getting God complexes.
It's a monstrously stupid tactical move to leave a group of hostiles behind you. Sure, maybe you can sneak around them this time, but what about after the dragon has beaten you to within an inch of your lives and you have to run away or die? Now all of a sudden you don't have the time or the choice to bypass the goblins, and the DM has punished you TWICE for encountering them, with no recourse on your end.
There is no reason for you to be hostile with me.
My campaigns are not usually linear. So if you need to run away from a dragon, and there are goblins in one direction, there's another direction to go.
It also sounds like your dragons are very different from mine. In my games, it is a monstrously stupid tactical move to do anything that could in any possibility compromise your element of surprise against the dragon.
The Order of the Stick learned a similar lesson, the hard way. Only dragons are much smarter than most other creatures, so any GM of any kind is well within his limits to have them prepare cunning devices to slaughter the PC's if it knows they are coming. If you must fight one, do it when you are fresh, and when the dragon is unaware of you.
Besides, slaughtering the goblins does not guarantee that the retreat path will be open anyways. What happens if a bunch of manticores start scavenging the dead bodies? There are a lot of very dangerous scavengers in this game.
Not slaughtering them does not guarantee they will be in your way when you try to leave. They might just be wandering around in the area, or maybe they flee when they hear loud noises coming from the cave where they know a dragon lives.
Obviously Players have the ultimate vote as far as whether they keep playing or not. Beyond that however, I choose the house rules, I choose the character creation system that we use for any particular campaign
Would it kill you to ask? Hey, guys, do y'all want to roll this time, or just do a point-buy? Would that be giving up too much control? And with house rules, that's crap too. What if everyone just wants to use the rules in the book?
I've been DMing for over 30 years; haven't had any complaints yet.
Then I guess you play with like-minded folks. That doesn't change the fact that the DM is not God.
It also sounds like your dragons are very different from mine. In my games, it is a monstrously stupid tactical move to do anything that could in any possibility compromise your element of surprise against the dragon.
Obviously, because it's pretty much impossible to surprise a dragon in its own lair in my games. Alarm is only a first level spell (which can be made permanent for older dragons, but lasts 2 hours/level even for the younger ones), and dragons trap their lairs up the wazoo. I also use WotC stuff, so my dragons tend to have anticipate teleportation active at all times. Sneaking up on a dragon in my games is virtually impossible. The only way to get a drop on them is to ambush them when they're outside their lairs.
Of course, all of that is beside the point: you're punishing your players for making a good tactical decision. What's the point in that, other than to be all high and mighty on Mount DMlympus?
One thing I'd say re the awarding of xp it often depends on the style of campaign. If you're running an AP there really isn't much point in doing the xp accounting thing. When I ran Savage Tide and later CoCT I quickly jettisoned it as it was easier to do. The players agreed it made sense and we went on.
I've also ran some more open, less linear campaigns where tracking xp made more sense as we didn't have the whole you must be this level to begin the dungeon thing going on.
Anyways like most things there is no one true answer. Different groups, different style, different game. Calling some other group's style as wrong well it just seems ... ah unproductive.
Once again; here I am talking about xp rewards, not the overall game.
The thread was about fixed XP, yes. But then you chimed in with support of the DM God complex.
Think about the context of what we are talking about here. We are discussing the merits and shortcomings of fixed xp; not an overall discourse on the game environment.
Any shortcomings that a fixed XP system has can be adjusted, there is no need to toss it out entirely. Certainly there is no need to do so in favor of arbitrary DM rulings.
I know nothing about this system, what is it?
I can never find any information on it when I go looking either.
Regarding Amber...my GF has the two books published for it, but I've never personally played it. But if you're curious, here's a couple of links I hunted down that give a bit of a feel for it.
Wow, this has nothing to do with the question of 'is fixed XP a bad thing' now that I think about it.
Well, having a problem with fixed XP, could easily be a symptom of the DM God complex. Or not. There, I said it.
|
|
Lyrax - what if they want to take on the Goblins? What if that's what they're characters would do? It might not be your goal, but if the players want to take on X challenge, why would you stop them?
If they set out with the stated goal of "let's destroy the goblins that threaten this land" then it'll probably be a different 'wandering' encounter they face. Perhaps some wild owlbears or at best a roving scout patrol with horns to alert the horde. If they set out to slay a dragon, and then see a bunch of goblins and say "I know we want to save our lands from the horrible dragon, but let's just kill these goblins instead" then I don't think I'd be comfortable playing with that group of people.
Wandering encounters serve a purpose. They are obstacles. Obstacles with:
- Little to no treasure. The monsters are out wandering, after all, not carrying their life savings with them.
- Little or no XP.
- Some viable threat to the characters, or at least to their expendable resources and/or to foiling their stated goal.
- Usually little or no direct involvement with the previously stated goal of the party. They're not the BBEG's henchmen, they're the police who want to make sure nobody's breaking into the BBEG's house.
It's not BAD to fight wandering encounters. But it's a challenge to the players to see how they can get around the encounter with the smallest expenditure of resources as possible. Fighting is usually the "brute-force" method and rarely the most efficient solution.
|
|
Of course, all of that is beside the point: you're punishing your players for making a good tactical decision. What's the point in that, other than to be all high and mighty on Mount DMlympus?
I'm not punishing my players. Don't be so snippy. How do you feel that I'm being punitive here? I'm not certain I understand your complaint.
A similar such problem is having a problem with the DM God complex possibly being a symptom of the Player Entitlement complex. Or not. :)
Touche!
Of course, all of that is beside the point: you're punishing your players for making a good tactical decision. What's the point in that, other than to be all high and mighty on Mount DMlympus?I'm not punishing my players. Don't be so snippy. How do you feel that I'm being punitive here? I'm not certain I understand your complaint.
Well, let's see, you're setting your PCs up with, by your own words, challenging encounters and, again by your own words, not rewarding them for overcoming the challenge.
There's this concept called "risk-reward". You clearly don't subscribe to it. All risk and no reward simply is not fun.
|
|
Well, let's see, you're setting your PCs up with, by your own words, challenging encounters and, again by your own words, not rewarding them for overcoming the challenge.
There's this concept called "risk-reward". You clearly don't subscribe to it. All risk and no reward simply is not fun.
I reward characters with XP for accomplishing the goals they set. I impose challenges and obstacles along the way, true. When the characters succeed, they get full XP. When they fail, they may get partial XP, or they might just have to try again. They usually end up succeeding, on all or at least some accounts.
I don't reward characters for overcoming any kind of challenge at all. I don't want players to start making more work for their characters just to eke more XP out of the system. If you want to kill the dragon at the top of the mountain, climbing the mountain is not worth XP. It's a challenge you need to overcome in order to get the XP, but it is not, of itself, the worthy task. I reward them for completing quests, achieving goals and accomplishing tasks. I am very up-front about this, and it encourages the kind of game play that I and my players very much enjoy.
Incidentally, this allows me to award XP in large sums rather than calculate out the XP for each of a half-dozen different encounters.
Is it possible for characters to be beaten by the wandering or random encounters, and not get any XP? Yes, if they fail completely to obtain their goal at all. This concept is known as "risk-reward". You don't get rewarded for braving any kind of risk; you take risks. Sometimes, when you engage in risky behavior, you fail. If failure nets as much (or nearly as much) XP as success... where's the risk?
There are wildly different play styles and all of them are legitimate. Certainly groups that wish to play by RAW are entitled to do so. In my games, however, that doesn't happen, as I implement extensive sets of house-rules. Believe me if you want to play exclusively by RAW, my ditching of the entire XP system would be the least of your concerns in my games...
I think the simulationist vs gamist vs narrativist spectrum does help to account for these differences in play styles. Obviously, we all have a bit of each in us, but most of us do lean in some direction. Personally, I lean both in the simulationist and the narrativist directions and this accounts for the types of games I like to run - for me rules are tools to help simulate my world and allow me and the group to create a cooperative story with emergent properties. If the rules hinder this or if I feel different rules would do a better job, I toss out the old ones and introduce the new ones, which is facilitated/enhanced by the fact that I love tinkering with the rules and game design in general and these are fundamental to my enjoying of DMing. I generally DM, but when I am the player, I also enjoy it when the DM tinkers with stuff so that it suits the flavor of his world, rather than running it by RAW.
Obviously, if somebody leans heavily towards the gamist play style, this would not work for them. That's great - I am sure they have fun with their play style too. Problems would only occur if there are different play style expectations at the same table. In this regard, the extensive house rules can actually act as a filter - attracting players that have a similar play style and filtering out those with incompatible play styles.
I reward characters with XP for accomplishing the goals they set. I impose challenges and obstacles along the way, true.
If you set the table, so to speak, with challenges that specifically include a dragon, living atop a goblin infested mountain, then why wouldn't you be prepared to reward full XP for goblin removal? You put 'em there, the PCs found 'em, what were you thinking was going to happen?
I agree, you're being unfair to your players. You're the DM, you designed the encounter. Give 'em credit for defeating the pieces to the puzzle. It's how the game is meant to be played after all.
|
The bonus of relative exps that has not been picked up so far as I can see is the fact it allows lower level characters to catch up with higher level characters.
This is fine unless you are the higher level character getting less exps... In our campaign in 3.5 one of the oldest surviving characters was two levels higher than some of the characters. He was getting half the exps they were from the same fight.
The bonus of relative exps that has not been picked up so far as I can see is the fact it allows lower level characters to catch up with higher level characters.
It's not talked about probably because it happens with fixed XP too. Let's say you have a 10th level party and one of them dies and starts over with a 1st level character (which is bad, but that's a different thread). By the time the surviving characters make it to 11th level, the new character will be 1,000 xp short of 9th level. The new character will catch up to their level before they reach 15th level.
|
|
The bonus of relative exps that has not been picked up so far as I can see is the fact it allows lower level characters to catch up with higher level characters.
This is fine unless you are the higher level character getting less exps... In our campaign in 3.5 one of the oldest surviving characters was two levels higher than some of the characters. He was getting half the exps they were from the same fight.
The thing that fixed XP does to correct that is have higher levels take more XP to acheive. So while you might be one level behind for awhile, you will eventually catch up because you end up in the same XP band as everyone else.
Simplest example, 1st level character vs. 2nd level character, both at minimum XP on the Medium track. 0 XP and 2000 XP respectively. Add 2000 XP, 2000 XP and 4000 XP. Both characters are 2nd level.
Rachet it up. 2nd level character and a 5th level character. 2000 XP and 15000 XP. Add 13000, end up with 15000 and 28000. Characters are 5th and 6th level respectively. Add 8000 and both characters are 6th level.
I need to type faster.
|
|
I think people are misunderstanding Lyrax here.
He isn't saying that the fact goblins exist in the area doesn't end up netting them XP, he's saying that the total difficulty of the task culminates in a single sum of XP you only receive if you complete the task properly. If there are goblins and trolls in the mountains, it's probably included in the task's total difficulty whether or not you end up fighting them, because you still have to deal with that threat with stealth and/or planning in some manner.
This *does* result in a risk vs. reward scenario because, as he said, if you cannot fail to receive your reward, then there is no risk.
Either way, it's just a simplified XP system in order to provide more targeted rewards and reduce accounting. As long as the players find it fun, who cares.
Why are you all arguing over style-of-play?
If two groups play the game completely differently, but both have fun, where is the problem?
|
|
Unless the characters were at the start of level when the 9th level character arrived they would probably not level when the others hit 11th. If the characters were half way to 11th, they would advance to 11th long before the new character hit 10th level.
In 3.5, with relative exps the 9th level character would get 1012exps for a CR10 monster (assuming a party of 4), the 10th level characters would get 750exps.
Depending upon how frequently exps were calculated they could catch up pretty rapidly. Under fixed exps, they will always have the same gap they started with.
He isn't saying that the fact goblins exist in the area doesn't end up netting them XP, he's saying that the total difficulty of the task culminates in a single sum of XP you only receive if you complete the task properly.
I understand it completely. He's saying that if you deal with the goblins, and not the dragon, I won't give you XP because you were supposed to deal with the dragon. If you do deal with the dragon, but not the goblins, I will give you XP.
That's crap.
The goblins are an independent encounter, and as such, XP should be awarded if said encounter is defeated.
|
|
If you set the table, so to speak, with challenges that specifically include a dragon, living atop a goblin infested mountain, then why wouldn't you be prepared to reward full XP for goblin removal? You put 'em there, the PCs found 'em, what were you thinking was going to happen?I agree, you're being unfair to your players. You're the DM, you designed the encounter. Give 'em credit for defeating the pieces to the puzzle. It's how the game is meant to be played after all.
I'd really rather just increase the XP value of defeating the dragon. I don't want players to go around looking for meaningless, unrelated challenges just to force more XP out of me.
Perhaps there's a point I'm not clear on. I don't give standard XP for the dragon. If there's a goblin horde in the way, obviously the dragon is worth more XP than a dragon alone. But rather than meticulously calculate the XP for each and every time they encounter goblins, I just bump up the XP for that goal and they encounter the goblins as many times as the dice say they should. Or as many times as seems challenging.
They end up getting plenty of XP, and they know that there's no XP incentive to killing additional goblins ahead of time. I'm not deceiving any of them. If they end up killing goblins, that's fine, we might not get to the dragon until next session. But it raises the stakes for that dragon fight.
But goblin removal isn't the point, it's not what they set out to do. They're never going to level up just because they stabbed a nameless goblin in the eye - they're going to level up because they defeated Sharad-Waador, the ancient and terrible chromatic dragon of doom that has terrified their poor country for many years, and threatens to make an alliance with blue, green, and red dragons around the globe! And even if all they do is delay his plans for now, that might be enough to level them up.
Does that make sense? I don't like the idea of "you level 'cause you killed something". You leveled up because you did something.
If there's a horde of goblins in the way of the dragon, then when they defeat the dragon they basically get XP for the dragon AND the horde of goblins. But I don't award them separately, and I don't adjust XP based on the manner in which the goblins were bypassed (unless they did something particularly clever or especially effective). I don't calculate out a whole bunch of fights individually, I just grant an amount of XP larger than the amount they'd get from a dragon alone.
I'm giving the players credit for each piece of the puzzle. But if the puzzle is only half-done, they don't get any credit yet. I delay all credit until the puzzle is completed. What I don't do is I don't give extra credit to the players for killing more goblins, nor do I penalize them for finding non-violent or creative solutions to those pieces.
And if the characters start looking for relatively meaningless challenges to gain XP, well that's exactly the kind of behavior I want to avoid. If a character suddenly jumps off a bridge that the party wants to cross and survives (entirely possible after level 2-3), we'd all agree that was a challenge. And a risk. But I would never, not in a million years of gaming, award XP for it.
StabbityDoom: Thank you.
EvilLincoln: I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative.
|
|
Unless the characters were at the start of level when the 9th level character arrived they would probably not level when the others hit 11th. If the characters were half way to 11th, they would advance to 11th long before the new character hit 10th level.
In 3.5, with relative exps the 9th level character would get 1012exps for a CR10 monster (assuming a party of 4), the 10th level characters would get 750exps.
Depending upon how frequently exps were calculated they could catch up pretty rapidly. Under fixed exps, they will always have the same gap they started with.
Yes, but under relative XP the gap between levels grew very slowly, in fixed XP it's exponential. Roughly sqrt(2)^level.
Because of this the amount of XP to go from level 10 to 12 is about the same as the amount to go from 1 to 10, even though the quantities are fixed.Sure, you'll always have that gap, but the gap's meaning withers to insignificance within a half-dozen levels. Then once the cap of level 20 is hit, it closes quickly.
|
|
Depending upon how frequently exps were calculated they could catch up pretty rapidly. Under fixed exps, they will always have the same gap they started with.
Which as I demonstrated, doesn't matter once you reach a certain point. Where that point falls depends on the size of the gap. Once you reach that point, the character will only ever be one level behind at most, and only until he acheives the next level.
On thing I noticed about fixed xp is that the less dangerous monsters tend to be overrated when it comes to xp. When totalling the xp after a session, the bulk of xp often comes from defeating many low-CR monsters, even though the more dangerous monsters have posed a more significant challenge.
It's not a big issue, since it usually evens out in the end, but I'm curious if anyone else has the same experience.