|
I see your point, however with medium advancement a 10th level character will have at least 105,000exps. If the characters were half way to 11th level when the character died the majority of the party will have 130,000exps.
A starting 9th level character will have 75,000exps. There will always be a gap of 55,000exps with a fixed exp system...
|
Looking over this conversation all I can think of is The Incredibles (slightly modified for our current topic):
Complaints I can handle. What I *can't* handle is your customers' inexplicable knowledge of the XP system's inner workings! They're experts! EXPERTS, Bob! Exploiting every loophole, dodging every obstacle! They're penetrating the bureaucracy!
ow ow owowowow...
hot earl gray snarf...
very funny comment, btw.
|
My main argument for the fixed EXP system would simply be that it's easier to calculate and ends up with about the same result.
My argument for XP-less system is that it requires no calculation and ends up with about the same results :P
Anyway, I've played under nearly any combination of rules and had at least some fun, so play on!
My main argument for the fixed EXP system would simply be that it's easier to calculate and ends up with about the same result.
My argument for XP-less system is that it requires no calculation and ends up with about the same results :P
Anyway, I've played under nearly any combination of rules and had at least some fun, so play on!
I like fixed xp style systems; especially ones that offer opportunities that go beyond one method of obtaining them (like just killing monsters).
However, I have no problem with GM's who don't use xp at all. And the reason why is, as a player in a friend's campaign a while back in 3.5, he calculated xp to a tee and handed them out after each session. He tried as much as possible to do encounters by-the-book 3.5 rules. He had a personal goal to get in x number of encounters each session. The result? We ended up leveling after an average of every three sessions. Sometimes it would be after two, but overall, it was very consistent.
|
|
My main argument for the fixed EXP system would simply be that it's easier to calculate and ends up with about the same result.
My argument for XP-less system is that it requires no calculation and ends up with about the same results :P
Anyway, I've played under nearly any combination of rules and had at least some fun, so play on!
I like fixed xp style systems; especially ones that offer opportunities that go beyond one method of obtaining them (like just killing monsters).
However, I have no problem with GM's who don't use xp at all. And the reason why is, as a player in a friend's campaign a while back in 3.5, he calculated xp to a tee and handed them out after each session. He tried as much as possible to do encounters by-the-book 3.5 rules. He had a personal goal to get in x number of encounters each session. The result? We ended up leveling after an average of every three sessions. Sometimes it would be after two, but overall, it was very consistent.
Yeah, I used to be pretty precise about XP too, but when I realized that it (almost) always ended up "you level every X sessions" I decided I may as well do away with the middle-man.
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.
That is the one thing I find I miss about the 3.5 way of doing it.
Although there are problems to it. In one game I was in I made it all the way to epic level (level 23 at the time of this incident). It didn't take as long as it might have as the game was frequently 1 on 1 and the GM would throw encounters of my CR or highter at me. I lived.
Well one of the players brought in a character he rolled up the year I was born. This was back before they added the A to AD&D. Eventually this character got a shot at becoming a god and I joined in one fight to help out. That fight was against Tiamat, who had been beefed up from the one in the Dieties & Demi-gods book. She weight in at around CR 68 or something about that. My share of the xp was enough to hit level 150.
There was also a time when I was running and a character got a 4th level fighter from a deck of many things. At this point the party was level 16+. They gave him a crossbow and he shot bolts at a creature for one encounter. Even giving only half of the xp a player would have gotten put him at level 12 in one fight.
|
I had a level 28 Monk in our Epic game, and when the regular DM was late, we ran a brief encounter for the hell of it. Epic God-Dragon from the Everquest Monsters of Norrath book.
There was pretty much nothing we could do to harm it. It was CR 50-60 or so, had resistances and immunities left and right.
Only thing my VoP Monk could do was Touch of Golden Ice every round.
This is where I found its weakness. A 7 Dex.
A natural one on his Fort save later, my Monk was level 32.
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.
They weren't supposed to.
As this book is the exclusive province of the DM, you must view any non-DM player posessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. Peeping players there will undoubtedly be, but they are simply lessening their own enjoyment of the game by taking away some of the sense of wonder that otherwise arises from a game which has rules hidden from its participants. it is in your interests, and in theirs, to discourage possession of this book by players. If any of your participants do read herein, it is suggested you assess them a heavy fee for consulting "sages" and other sources of information not normally attainable by the inhabitants of your milieu. If they express knowledge which could only be garnered by consulting these pages, a magic item or two can be taken as payment — insufficient, but perhaps it will tend to discourage such actions.
My main argument for the fixed EXP system would simply be that it's easier to calculate and ends up with about the same result.
My argument for XP-less system is that it requires no calculation and ends up with about the same results :P
Anyway, I've played under nearly any combination of rules and had at least some fun, so play on!
This. It saves a good amount of time and tedious calculation for me not to have to deal with XP, CRs, encounter levels, etc. The additional flexibility is also a plus, though technically the same flexibility could be achieved in an XP system.
Ultimately, the relative XP system and the fixed XP system achieve approximately the same results, the latter saving time and work. The XP-less system has somewhat more variable results, but requires basically no work at all on DM's part, thus saving time that can be spent on more exciting parts of adventure/campaign/setting design.
Overall, I am very happy without the XP system, but there are some things that could persuade me to come back to XP. One example would be if I felt the need to differentiate the rate of advancement among players (e.g. by rewarding good roleplaying with extra XP or something like that - [though there can, of course, be other ways to reward that...]).
Anyway, here is a challenge for you guys: Create a viable fixed XP system for Pathfinder where the experience gap between level 19 and level 20 is not nearly as much wider as the experience gap between level 10 and level 11. At the moment, of course, the former (1,050,000 XP) is 21 times greater than the latter (50,000 XP). This is easy to do with a relative XP system, of course, but try doing so with a fixed XP system. It is hard to do, at least assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP.
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.
All you are doing is telling them how to play the game. If I did not take the path that does not have other enemies on it then it is probably because it is more dangerous than the one with goblins. Hoping to find a secondary escape path while running away is a bad idea.
From a metagame point of view: If I knew the monsters may kill me, but I get no XP I would start looking for that other path before I fought the dragon.
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?
I have never heard of such metagaming as to start a fight, just to level up. It is normally easy to tell if the players are metagaming or not. If they are the type to metagame then just don't put the encounter on the map. It makes more sense than putting it there, and then saying you won't let them benefit from it.
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.
Maybe, but what it sounds like is "Do it my way or else".
edit:Lyrax still has me confused. If I get the goblin XP by defeating the dragon then there is no issue, but if not then he should leave them off the map.
|
|
Anyway, here is a challenge for you guys: Create a viable fixed XP system for Pathfinder where the experience gap between level 19 and level 20 is not nearly as much wider as the experience gap between level 10 and level 11. At the moment, of course, the former (1,050,000 XP) is 21 times greater than the latter (50,000 XP). This is easy to do with a relative XP system, of course, but try doing so with a fixed XP system. It is hard to do, at least assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP.
Simple. Each level requires the same amount of xp as the last. You gain exactly X experience for every failed roll on which you could not take 10, and for each time an enemy succeeds on a roll against you against which they could not take 10.
Extremely open to abuse, but works :P
The biggest problem is : relative XP is not OGL...
Actually that is probably the smallest problem, given that no xp is OGL.
Ah, I understand people like you. You make these ridiculous statements that have no basis in fact because you don't have a real argument or point to make, but are attempting to deflect the discussion to hide your inadequacies.
-- david
Papa.DRB
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.
Ah, I understand people like you. You make these ridiculous statements that have no basis in fact because you don't have a real argument or point to make, but are attempting to deflect the discussion to hide your inadequacies.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Pot, kettle, etc etc.
|
|
All you are doing is telling them how to play the game.
Perhaps. But some people on these boards are telling me how to play the game, too. The difference is, I'm a part of my players' game. My style does and should influence the game as a whole. I make sure to talk to my players ahead of time, and if they're not okay with my style, we can usually work something out. By now my group knows what they are getting when they ask me to GM. They know that I don't award XP just because they killed something. They have to accomplish something of story significance to the characters.
If I did not take the path that does not have other enemies on it then it is probably because it is more dangerous than the one with goblins. Hoping to find a secondary escape path while running away is a bad idea.
Yes, well, attacking a dragon in the first place is usually a bad idea, too. But killing goblins on your way up to the dragon will not guarantee a safe path on the way down. Dead goblin bodies attract scavengers (many of whom are dangerous in this game) and pyres are signals to every intelligent foe for miles. If safe passage was all you really wanted, maybe you should have bribed the goblin chief to protect you instead of slaughtering a quarter of his horde.
And if you were able to find a completely safe way up, avoiding all goblin encounters instead of fighting them? Bravo, I say.
But if it turns out that killing all the goblins really is the best tactical decision? Or the players think it's the best? That's still fine. Sometimes, fighting really is your best option. Of course, you must now face the dragon at less than full strength, and you must go quickly lest he prepare, but if you are cunning the fight should still be quite winnable.
Lyrax still has me confused. If I get the goblin XP by defeating the dragon then there is no issue, but if not then he should leave them off the map.
I don't bother with calculating the exact amount of additional experience mook encounters (such as the goblins) provide, or would provide. But I do add a ballpark amount to the main boss. And it is understood that this isn't "extra XP for killing things" it's "extra XP for completing the quest in spite of additional dangers or challenges". Which may seem like a silly distinction to some, but it's important to me. If you skip an encounter completely through cleverness and cunning, I do not give any less XP; the challenges were still present and you defeated them just as surely.
If you skip an encounter completely through cleverness and cunning, I do not give any less XP; the challenges were still present and you defeated them just as surely.
Well, that's nice of you, seeing as that's what the rules tell you to do.
Anyway, here is a challenge for you guys: Create a viable fixed XP system for Pathfinder where the experience gap between level 19 and level 20 is not nearly as much wider as the experience gap between level 10 and level 11. At the moment, of course, the former (1,050,000 XP) is 21 times greater than the latter (50,000 XP). This is easy to do with a relative XP system, of course, but try doing so with a fixed XP system. It is hard to do, at least assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP.Simple. Each level requires the same amount of xp as the last. You gain exactly X experience for every failed roll on which you could not take 10, and for each time an enemy succeeds on a roll against you against which they could not take 10.
Extremely open to abuse, but works :P
Well, yes, but it kind of violates the part "assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP". This would, of course, be easy to do with a relative-XP system, but with a fixed-XP system it seems hard to shrink the gaps without opening significant abuse possibilities.
I really don't follow why people have a problem with Lyrax's system other than the vague notion that it doesn't conform to some 'sacred text' in the rulebook. After all, it clearly works well for him and his group.
It's not as if there is no risk-reward involved either. After all, there is risk even in doing nothing/ignoring all fights. For example, the risk in ignoring the schemes of the BBEG is that he will succeed.
In fact, in my current campaign, I tend to give my players hooks for several possible adventures that overlap in time and the ones they don't pick... well, the BBEGs might just succeed... :) (though not always - the players are not the only heroes or the only ones capable of resisting BBEGs after all and if they don't take too long on some adventures, they may have time to intervene in other BBEG schemes anyway). :)
I really don't follow why people have a problem with Lyrax's system other than the vague notion that it doesn't conform to some 'sacred text' in the rulebook. After all, it clearly works well for him and his group.
Because at the time he was saying that he never gave any XP or treasure for anything but "boss fights" (or the equivalent non-battle climax), regardless of how much adversity the heroes had to overcome to get to the climax. He's since clarified that to say that he really didn't mean what he said earlier when he said that wandering monsters don't give XP or loot; the rewards are just delayed until the end.
That's marginally better, but it still makes everything the PCs do all-or-nothing. Don't beat that dragon at the top of the hill? Sorry, you get no reward at all for everything you were successful at on the way to the dragon.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.
They know that I don't award XP just because they killed something.
Thing is, that's how you gain power in D&D. You kill things and take their stuff. You profit from it via wealth and XP.
Yes, well, attacking a dragon in the first place is usually a bad idea, too.
Yet that is exactly the path that will garner them XP. Y'know, I bet you'd even sic the Goblins on the party, after they failed with the dragon. That would be the same Goblins that they wouldn't have gotten XP for in the first place.
|
|
Well, yes, but it kind of violates the part "assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP". This would, of course, be easy to do with a relative-XP system, but with a fixed-XP system it seems hard to shrink the gaps without opening significant abuse possibilities.
Anyway, here is a challenge for you guys: Create a viable fixed XP system for Pathfinder where the experience gap between level 19 and level 20 is not nearly as much wider as the experience gap between level 10 and level 11. At the moment, of course, the former (1,050,000 XP) is 21 times greater than the latter (50,000 XP). This is easy to do with a relative XP system, of course, but try doing so with a fixed XP system. It is hard to do, at least assuming one wants to preserve the system that monster-slaying yields XP and the notion that more powerful monsters yield more XP.Simple. Each level requires the same amount of xp as the last. You gain exactly X experience for every failed roll on which you could not take 10, and for each time an enemy succeeds on a roll against you against which they could not take 10.
Extremely open to abuse, but works :P
Of course monster slaying gives XP: You can't take 10 when something is trying to kill you. You must attack and defend to get XP, and the chance of getting XP is the same as failure, and that chance goes up with bigger monsters. Sure, it relies on statistical averages, but you never said it had to hold for every *individual* fight :P
All you are doing is telling them how to play the game.Perhaps. But some people on these boards are telling me how to play the game, too. The difference is, I'm a part of my players' game. My style does and should influence the game as a whole. I make sure to talk to my players ahead of time, and if they're not okay with my style, we can usually work something out. By now my group knows what they are getting when they ask me to GM. They know that I don't award XP just because they killed something. They have to accomplish something of story significance to the characters.
If the players want to make bad decisions according to your view of what is logical then that is their right. Railroading them to play your way kind of takes away player choice. That is what our issue is. If you had another reason for not giving out XP we would not be questioning you, depending on the reason of course.
If I did not take the path that does not have other enemies on it then it is probably because it is more dangerous than the one with goblins. Hoping to find a secondary escape path while running away is a bad idea.
Yes, well, attacking a dragon in the first place is usually a bad idea, too. But killing goblins on your way up to the dragon will not guarantee a safe path on the way down. Dead goblin bodies attract scavengers (many of whom are dangerous in this game) and pyres are signals to every intelligent foe for miles. If safe passage was all you really wanted, maybe you should have bribed the goblin chief to protect you instead of slaughtering a quarter of his horde.
Most PC's don't attack dragons unless they have too anyway. If you(any PC) decides to tackle a dragon just because you want to then you deserve whatever you get, good or bad. It is just not a good idea.
I don't trust goblins in most settings. Now in Eberron they have been humanized, but in most other settings your payment and protection would soon disappear unless you run them differently.
And if you were able to find a completely safe way up, avoiding all goblin encounters instead of fighting them? Bravo, I say.
But if it turns out that killing all the goblins really is the best tactical decision? Or the players think it's the best? That's still fine. Sometimes, fighting really is your best option. Of course, you must now face the dragon at less than full strength, and you must go quickly lest he prepare, but if you are cunning the fight should still be quite winnable.
Many times players don't fight BBEG's at full strength. I know I have never done so, and my players rarely do. The BBEG should have things set up so nobody can get to him at full strength.
I really don't follow why people have a problem with Lyrax's system other than the vague notion that it doesn't conform to some 'sacred text' in the rulebook. After all, it clearly works well for him and his group.Because at the time he was saying that he never gave any XP or treasure for anything but "boss fights" (or the equivalent non-battle climax), regardless of how much adversity the heroes had to overcome to get to the climax. He's since clarified that to say that he really didn't mean what he said earlier when he said that wandering monsters don't give XP or loot; the rewards are just delayed until the end.
That's marginally better, but it still makes everything the PCs do all-or-nothing. Don't beat that dragon at the top of the hill? Sorry, you get no reward at all for everything you were successful at on the way to the dragon.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.
To add to to this, if the players decide to go on a sidequest no XP. You will stick to the script. He may make exceptions, but right now it does not appear that way. It is a very blatant railroad, and I know many DM's railroad, and many of us are railroaded as players, but we normally get some options along the way.
|
|
To add to to this, if the players decide to go on a sidequest no XP. You will stick to the script. He may make exceptions, but right now it does not appear that way. It is a very blatant railroad, and I know many DM's railroad, and many of us are railroaded as players, but we normally get some options along the way.I really don't follow why people have a problem with Lyrax's system other than the vague notion that it doesn't conform to some 'sacred text' in the rulebook. After all, it clearly works well for him and his group.Because at the time he was saying that he never gave any XP or treasure for anything but "boss fights" (or the equivalent non-battle climax), regardless of how much adversity the heroes had to overcome to get to the climax. He's since clarified that to say that he really didn't mean what he said earlier when he said that wandering monsters don't give XP or loot; the rewards are just delayed until the end.
That's marginally better, but it still makes everything the PCs do all-or-nothing. Don't beat that dragon at the top of the hill? Sorry, you get no reward at all for everything you were successful at on the way to the dragon.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.
I did not get the impression that the players could not set their own goals, just that the XP only comes from the goals rather than the monsters.
But then again, I'm no mind-reader.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.
Which I'm pretty sure is referred to as "being focused on saving the world" instead of xp farming. In fact, being concerned about whether this side quest will "level" your character is about the opposite of role playing. Decisions like that should be based "in character", not on mechanics.
Relative xp, fixed xp, no xp, all end up in the same place, a level every 3 or 4 sessions, so what, exactly, is the big deal?
Relative xp, fixed xp, no xp, all end up in the same place, a level every 3 or 4 sessions, so what, exactly, is the big deal?
Fixed XP (relative as well) is a transparent game mechanic. There is nothing to hide and it's not terribly hard to keep track of or compute.
DM level awarding is not transparent and it quite arbitrary.
Currently, in our Kingmaker campaign, we've gone 3-4 sessions without leveling. That's not a bad thing. XP is calculated at the end of every session. It's quite exciting, really.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.Which I'm pretty sure is referred to as "being focused on saving the world" instead of xp farming. In fact, being concerned about whether this side quest will "level" your character is about the opposite of role playing. Decisions like that should be based "in character", not on mechanics.
Relative xp, fixed xp, no xp, all end up in the same place, a level every 3 or 4 sessions, so what, exactly, is the big deal?
I think it persuades players to go "this way" as opposed to any other way.
So is the rule 'You will level up every fourth session.'
Because fixed XP is a transparent game mechanic. There is nothing to hide and it's not terribly hard to keep track of or compute.
What about those really cool times when you level in a single session? What about those nail-biting times when you haven't leveled in the last 6 sessions? Will this be the time?
It's a lot of fun just letting the XP come and playing the game.
To add to to this, if the players decide to go on a sidequest no XP. You will stick to the script. He may make exceptions, but right now it does not appear that way. It is a very blatant railroad, and I know many DM's railroad, and many of us are railroaded as players, but we normally get some options along the way.I really don't follow why people have a problem with Lyrax's system other than the vague notion that it doesn't conform to some 'sacred text' in the rulebook. After all, it clearly works well for him and his group.Because at the time he was saying that he never gave any XP or treasure for anything but "boss fights" (or the equivalent non-battle climax), regardless of how much adversity the heroes had to overcome to get to the climax. He's since clarified that to say that he really didn't mean what he said earlier when he said that wandering monsters don't give XP or loot; the rewards are just delayed until the end.
That's marginally better, but it still makes everything the PCs do all-or-nothing. Don't beat that dragon at the top of the hill? Sorry, you get no reward at all for everything you were successful at on the way to the dragon.
It also leads for very linear gameplay. The PCs know that the only way they can get any rewards is for completing some pre-determined objective, so there's an actual disincentive to do anything that doesn't directly increase their odds of completing that pre-determined objective.
I did not get the impression that the players could not set their own goals, just that the XP only comes from the goals rather than the monsters.
But then again, I'm no mind-reader.
Maybe you are right. I am beginning to think he is as bad as getting his point across as I am sometimes. Maybe the side quest counts as a goal now so XP will be gained for that.
|
|
I don't understand how my style is equated with railroading. At all. Allow me, please, to illustrate what my ideal game looks like, up to the point we have discussed:
- I create a world and NPC's to interact with.
- Players create their characters. Preferably together, and with me present.
- I examine the motivations of each character and flesh out my NPC's more.
- We decide how the characters all know each other from before, in backstory. I hate running first meetings. At this point, I often introduce one or two important NPC's.
- The PC's meet the NPC's, explore the world, and form ideas about what they really want to do. There's typically some GM-induced emergency or hired quest in here that forces the PC's to work together in some way, so they feel a sense of camaraderie.
- The PC's make goals.
- The PC's make progress towards these goals, perhaps accomplishing them. This is the stage at which XP is awarded.
If this is railroading, then you and I are working with different definitions of what that word means. So I'll say in different words what I have stated several times: Characters get XP for accomplishing their quests and goals. These goals can be GM-assisted or completely player-stated. But nobody has ever, in my history of GMing, seriously suggested a character who decided he wanted to kill as many living creatures as possible. And frankly, I think such a player might creep me out a bit.
Is it possible to engage in risky behavior and not get XP for it? Sure. Jumping off a bridge is an extreme example, but danger isn't a good justification for XP to me.
Players usually come up with the best goals and quests. I'd be foolish to categorically disallow them.
EDIT: Dammit, wraithstrike! Just as soon as I was about to explain myself, you had to go and understand the thing I was trying to say!
|
|
What about those really cool times when you level in a single session? What about those nail-biting times when you haven't leveled in the last 6 sessions? Will this be the time?
It's a lot of fun just letting the XP come and playing the game.
What about them? Are you saying I can't make exceptions to my rule? Or that I must use math to justify those situations?
What about them? Are you saying I can't make exceptions to my rule? Or that I must use math to justify those situations?
If you enjoy it, and your players enjoy it, ignore everyone else.
What about them? Are you saying I can't make exceptions to my rule? Or that I must use math to justify those situations?What about those really cool times when you level in a single session? What about those nail-biting times when you haven't leveled in the last 6 sessions? Will this be the time?
It's a lot of fun just letting the XP come and playing the game.
I'm saying your rule is unnecessary.
Hey, let me argue in peace, man! :P
No problem! Go to town! :)
Which is precisely my opinion of the XP rules. Can we agree they are both unnecessary?
Nope. :)
It is unnecessary to alter the fixed XP rules as they appear in Core Rules book, certainly not in favor of an arbitrary house rule like you propose.
In order for the risks of combat to mean anything, there needs to be a reward. Greater risks carry potential for greater rewards. The games current XP system handle that quite well.
Did the party have 3 really hard fights this session? Is that normal? None of that matters if you just give XP accordingly at the end of any given session.
DM level awarding is not transparent and it quite arbitrary.
"That word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
When I use "DM leveling", characters level at a time that is specifically chosen for a specific reason. This the opposite of arbitrary.
It's a lot of fun just letting the XP come and playing the game.
And it's even more fun to just play the game.
When I use "DM leveling", characters level at a time that is specifically chosen for a specific reason. This the opposite of arbitrary.
Specifically chosen by you, presumably without regard for how much, or how little, XP the party might have accrued if you had just been giving out XP all along.
And it's even more fun to just play the game.
Yep, especially when you use transparent rules, just like the ones that are in the book. :)
DM level awarding is not transparent and it quite arbitrary."That word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
When I use "DM leveling", characters level at a time that is specifically chosen for a specific reason. This the opposite of arbitrary.
When you're being snarky, it pays to be correct about what you're being snarky about.
What you describe is literally the definition of arbitrary. YOU choose the time that they level instead of doing so via the rules; that is
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
Zurai - well hell, you made that look easy. :)
It's a common mistake. Many people equate the words "arbitrary" and "random", both in using them and in reading them. In truth, they're pretty much antonyms, not synonyms.
|
|
DM level awarding is not transparent and it quite arbitrary."That word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
When I use "DM leveling", characters level at a time that is specifically chosen for a specific reason. This the opposite of arbitrary.
When you're being snarky, it pays to be correct about what you're being snarky about.
What you describe is literally the definition of arbitrary. YOU choose the time that they level instead of doing so via the rules; that is
1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
It's a bit hazier than that. If he tells his players ahead of time what the criteria for choosing a location of leveling are, the players agree to it, and he's simply adhering to it then it is not arbitrary as it was decided by law rather than by sole judgement.
It's a bit hazier than that. If he tells his players ahead of time what the criteria for choosing a location of leveling are, the players agree to it, and he's simply adhering to it then it is not arbitrary as it was decided by law rather than by sole judgement.
At that point, the DM is redesigning the game and choosing his own arbitrary level function.
Get it? Arbitrary.
As a DM and player, I've accepted Paizo's Pathfinder system (an arbitrary collection of rules.)
|
|
Nope. :)It is unnecessary to alter the fixed XP rules as they appear in Core Rules book, certainly not in favor of an arbitrary house rule like you propose.
In order for the risks of combat to mean anything, there needs to be a reward. Greater risks carry potential for greater rewards. The games current XP system handle that quite well.
Did the party have 3 really hard fights this session? Is that normal? None of that matters if you just give XP accordingly at the end of any given session.
Alright, fair enough. I see your point. I will have to see how my campaign plays out with my rule and if it turns out worse than I thought.