One of my players sent out an email to our group for the purpose of discussing our fledgling Kingmaker campaign and how the group's desire to role-play seems to curb the rate at which their PCs acquire XP. They certainly don't shy away from adventuring activities, but they also enjoy in-character discussions and role-playing extensively with NPCs. She was wondering if this is a common issue and how other RPG groups deal with the situation. She's given me permission to post some of her comments and questions here to illicit feedback.
"I was thinking about the game, and I find myself wondering about how it's going to play out over the long term with regards to XP rewards."
"...as a group, we have a tendency to spend entire games on RP alone, like we did last game. We like to agonize over choices instead of just charging toward the next fight. We don't tend to 'skip ahead'. What is the "ideal", target advancement rate for Pathfinder, anyway? 4-6 games a level? I'm honestly not sure as I haven't looked into the GM side of the system. I recognize that a module is built with particular rewards in mind. If we change those rates, we risk trivializing the challenges. I don't want to do that. But I have to admit, a big part of my enjoyment of gaming is advancement. If our advancement rate is slowed down by 50% for a couple of years worth of gaming, then... I submit that we'll all start to feel it as time goes by."
"Given the limits of adjusting a premade module versus our group's rather... deliberate approach to things, does anyone have any thoughts on this for long-term fun factor? Are we going to have to be a bit more decisive in order to adapt to module-style play? A better question might be, has this issue ever been floated on the Paizo boards with regards to modules? We can't be the only gaming group that tends to turn around a dozen times before lying down."
Thoughts?
Award XP for roleplay? Kingmaker in particular seems well suited to heavy NPC interaction to advance your own goals, so as long as it is helping the party accomplish AP worthy goals, give'm XP.
But if they do just tend to do a lot of navel gazing, "I dunno, what do you want to do?" kind of stuff, when they'd really rather be killing monsters and taking stuff, use the random encounter tables to keep stuff moving. Overall session pace is up to the DM, and then the players.
Finally, if everyone else is having fun, maybe this one player is not right for the group? or is it a long standing group/relationship, and its just this AP that is bogging down?
|
Hmm...I can definately see the conundrum. If this were homebrew, I know that I could suggest giving bonus XP to groups that tend to lean toward inter-character interaction more than buldozing their way through encounters and plots. Modules, though, are a different beast. They are generally written with the approximation of what level the characters should be at within x sessions of y encounter, etc. If you are not worried about aligning with this preconceived level expectation, I can tell you what I do for my homebrew. Hope it helps.
Experience Breakdown (5-hour session)
--------------------------------------
Overall Session XP - 10-20% of required xp to level up
-This is so that if NOTHING else was done during the course of the next 5-10 sessions, they will still level up regardless.
RolePlaying XP - 100-200xp for every 1-hour intercharacter RolePlay.
-This is situational, as keeping track of exact times is a pain. It's just a general rule-of-thumb to assist in making RP a viable centrifugal force in the game.
Story XP - Bonus XP added (per DM whim) when a "chapter" or "major goal" of the campaign is overcome.
Kudos - XP bonuses granted to the group for awesome and death-defying feats. Cool cinematic moments in combat, good dramatic flair in NPC interaction, a hilarious prank pulled on an NPC or overall humorous moment, and best of all - bringing food and booze to the gametable :P
Some DM's like to grant individual XP awards...I like to award the Kudos portion of XP to the entire group. That way, players that are less of a face and more along for the ride will still benefit from the other players' desire to set the scene, as it were. This also gives the entire group an incentive for making the game more interesting, and makes the DM's job a little easier in managing XP and balancing the party.
What it really boils down to, is you want to develop a standard that your players level up every 3-4 session on a fast progression, 5-7 on a medium, and so on. It really depends on the group, but I hope this give you at least a better idea.
That...and it makes your players actually want to buy the booze :P
|
Answer: No.
+1
What it seems to be is a player not getting rewarded for what they do. 'Roleplay is its own reward' yes, but if the player enjoys character advancement, what achieves that reward is what they will focus on. It sounds like they don't want to focus on killing for advancement, so instead rewarding roleplay should solve that problem.
Maybe allow more negotiation encounters and the like that allow them to roleplay out the resolution of problems. Otherwise the player may start trying to produce more combats in order to get the reward they want. While it may not fit with the AP progression, having a level up every 4 or 5 sessions regardless of what happens would take the worry of 'when are we getting the next level' off the players mind.
Me, I just level them at AP directed points, which rewards advancing the plot. It may not work with your group since they will never know when that level is coming. Keeping an XP tally that you arbitrarily increase after each session may mask that approach from the players.
It's not solely an issue of combat-only experience rewards. Many of Kingmaker's encounters reward players for overcoming obstacles through role-playing and also grants various story awards.
The larger issue is that the Pathfinder experience point system revolves around overcoming challenges and achieving goals. I'm not saying that that's poor design; it makes sense and works fairly well in a sense. The issue lies in players taking an interest in the plot and the NPCs sufficiently to want to role-play conversations with each other and said NPCs; some of it tied to the plot and some simply because its fun. Certainly it's laudable behaviour and could be easily rewarded with xp, but that'd mean that once the PCs do return to the field to face the A.P.'s challenges, they may very well have levelled sufficiently through role-playing to outclass those challenges.
Similarly, as GM I could dispense with the xp system entirely and simply have the characters level at appropriate times to coincide with the challenges of the A.P., but it wouldn't really do anything to address the pace of their advancement if the players are taking their time in facing those challenges to spend time roleplaying.
This is the dichotomy I'm trying to convey; if players are role-playing between themselves for large periods of every session, then that's time spent in which they aren't directly overcoming the A.P.'s challenges or achieving goals.
It sounds less like they are "roleplaying", and more like they are "dicking around" in character. Maybe an AP is not the best way to go with this group? It does require a level of buy in that may not be present.
FWIW, I have never used XP in 3.X/PF. It annoys the players who want to KNOW when they will get their next level, but I prefer to keep that info to myself. Just my style, YMMV, etc.
I'm not sure if there's a problem or not. I wouldn't particularly like a game where we spent four sessions without even seeing an antagonist; that would be too slow for me, but some people would consider that to be awesome. Whether that kind of protracted internal discussion led to an increase in power level or not would be mostly irrelevant to my enjoyment, although I might find it odd if I went from level 1 to 12 without any fighting at all.
Is there a certain timeline you are wanting them to be on?
I do not recall them being given the "mission" with a deadline...
The mission is mapping (surveying) and getting rid o BBEGs, and making friends.......
So with the "sandbox" design it is a little less rescue so and so before they die, or destroy such and so before this happens, or even retrieve so-and-so (or such-and-such) to save this-or-that before the smurf moon.......
In Kingmaker in particular, there is lots of XP that seems to just be there for them to get for free. The first month of kingdom building got my PCs like 1000xp. If I were you, I would reduce these types of story rewards and give them as RP rewards. That way, you know how much XP you can give out to keep the players in line with the chalenges of the AP.
Personally, I have definetely noticed this, and different players react to it differently. I havve 1 player who just wants the decisions made and to get onto the next kill. I have 2 other players who are almost ready to start PVP because of non-combat interactions, and this has resulted in some awesome scenes in the game. I would rather reward the player for getting everyone together and giving an awesome speach about how they need to set up laws as opposed to just giving them what the book says they should get for founding the nation. It may be the same reward, but 1 emphasizes acomplishing a goal allong the plot and the other emphasizes the players doing something awesome in character.
It's not solely an issue of combat-only experience rewards. Many of Kingmaker's encounters reward players for overcoming obstacles through role-playing and also grants various story awards.
The larger issue is that the Pathfinder experience point system revolves around overcoming challenges and achieving goals. I'm not saying that that's poor design; it makes sense and works fairly well in a sense. The issue lies in players taking an interest in the plot and the NPCs sufficiently to want to role-play conversations with each other and said NPCs; some of it tied to the plot and some simply because its fun. Certainly it's laudable behaviour and could be easily rewarded with xp, but that'd mean that once the PCs do return to the field to face the A.P.'s challenges, they may very well have levelled sufficiently through role-playing to outclass those challenges.
Similarly, as GM I could dispense with the xp system entirely and simply have the characters level at appropriate times to coincide with the challenges of the A.P., but it wouldn't really do anything to address the pace of their advancement if the players are taking their time in facing those challenges to spend time roleplaying.
This is the dichotomy I'm trying to convey; if players are role-playing between themselves for large periods of every session, then that's time spent in which they aren't directly overcoming the A.P.'s challenges or achieving goals.
I do think if your players spend alot of table time in general roleplay (as opposed to roleplay that overcomes a challenge like talking an enemy out of fighting) then you will be slow in terms of sessions in advancing your characters.
How much work are you willing to do to get around this problem? You could award XP for roleplay, and then spend time advancing challenges in the AP the party is going to face. This will have something of a spiraling effect as those harder challenges will again grant more xp, so you wont be anywhere near the pace the AP expects, but if you are willing you can modify the challenges to match wherever your party is when you expect them to be encountered.
I cant see getting xp for a player role playing buying a drink at the bar and getting a room for the night. To get xp you have to over come a challenge. I could justify getting it for using diplomacy to get past the gaurds instead of the standard " get out of my way , im a PC and I will cut you ".
My group has one person that like roleplaying alot of things and just talk things out. A few guys that want to make a choice and move on and me. Im more of the type that lets others do the talking and then when that fails I get to split thier heads open. The last time we went with out combat for a extended period of time I got alittle antsy and hacked up a gnome.
Edit - Little expanation on the gnome. We hadn't fought for what seemed like forever ( little over a session ) and we where not gaining xp , I was broke and not having very much fun. Enter gnome. We need a map he has on him but he wont give it up. He wants us to go get him some stupid rare flower for a girl he likes for it. We talk...and talk but he wont budge. So I had enough of no loot , no xp and uptight gnomes so mid monolog I crit on a over hand chop and split him in two ( power attack + vital strike + over hand chop + crit ). I pick up the map with everyone looking at me with the wtf look. Then my ever appropriate friend says "....well.. dibs on his shoes."
re: Gnome- Eh, you'll have this, from time to time.
:)
|
Hey, I'm in agreement with TOZ and CoDzilla. Somebody check the temperature in hell, please ?
RPG is a Role-playing (meaning you get to act some idea out) game (which means you are competing against something). Competing needs rules, and that's where we are.
I know that there are schools of RPG-ing that throw the rules part out of the window and go with narrative freeform which is fine and well (and I like to do that once in a while), but the sound of dice hitting the table and the satisfaction of the numbers on your character sheet going up is what floats my boat just as much as getting to play out something completely impossible in Real Life (tm).
Hey, I'm in agreement with TOZ and CoDzilla. Somebody check the temperature in hell, please ?
RPG is a Role-playing (meaning you get to act some idea out) game (which means you are competing against something). Competing needs rules, and that's where we are.
I know that there are schools of RPG-ing that throw the rules part out of the window and go with narrative freeform which is fine and well (and I like to do that once in a while), but the sound of dice hitting the table and the satisfaction of the numbers on your character sheet going up is what floats my boat just as much as getting to play out something completely impossible in Real Life (tm).
Honestly, I can't disagree with you more. My favorite parts of the game are usually when no rolls are being made for hours at a time.
|
Similarly, as GM I could dispense with the xp system entirely and simply have the characters level at appropriate times to coincide with the challenges of the A.P., but it wouldn't really do anything to address the pace of their advancement if the players are taking their time in facing those challenges to spend time roleplaying.
I think you answer your own question somewhat. As another poster also said, level 'when it's right'. Divorce the idea that 'levels' exist at all - of course they do. What I mean is an actual person, if characters were real, wouldn't have a light above there head and a ding sound when they level. Currently it feels like that now I know, and has since 1e with it's training costs and time. Make leveling organic and as you say tied to the challenges you know they will face. If you group is so much into roleplaying then the mechanics of leveling doesn't really matter. In terms of the Pathfinder AP leveling is a requirement to not getting murdered in a combat encounter. In a roleplaying sense if the characters never get past level 1 you could still run an extended roleplaying campaign where the World is a strange and deadly place.
I like the sound of your group, the purpose for me of PF or any RPG is NOT to level but to be involved in a story.
Cheers,
S.
I like the sound of your group, the purpose for me of PF or any RPG is NOT to level but to be involved in a story.
But that's just it -- one (or more?) of the players is dissatisfied becuase they're not leveling fast enough for her liking.
|
|
I like the sound of your group, the purpose for me of PF or any RPG is NOT to level but to be involved in a story.But that's just it -- one (or more?) of the players is dissatisfied becuase they're not leveling fast enough for her liking.
So level them. As long as the levels don't out strip the challenges then what does it matter? If the levels would out strip the challenges then have an out of game chat with the players saying that they are at the right level for the dice-rolling parts to be any sort of well challenge :)
S.
So level them. As long as the levels don't out strip the challenges then what does it matter? If the levels would out strip the challenges then have an out of game chat with the players saying that they are at the right level for the dice-rolling parts to be any sort of well challenge :)
S.
There's nothing wrong with that. As I noted above however, I'd find it odd if a wizard went from casting 1st level spells to casting 7th level spells after an in-game week of discussing what to do (for instance), no matter how many out-of-game sessions that took up.
I like the sound of your group, the purpose for me of PF or any RPG is NOT to level but to be involved in a story.But that's just it -- one (or more?) of the players is dissatisfied becuase they're not leveling fast enough for her liking.
No, they are disatisfied because the parts of the game that are being actively rewarded are not the parts of the game that are more fun (to them). Thus there is a dicotomy between going for the combat rewards of XP and gear and going for the emotional rewards of roleplaying. These 2 forces fight eachother, and everyone comes to a different conclusion about where the proper ballance is. Some people want almost all combat, and so they don't mind when they get no real quest or roleplaying xp. Others, like the poster, can go game sessions without a single fight, but then the players do not recieve any tangible bennifits in game. The poster, to me, seems to want to stress the non-combat more. But if you reward it then the ballance of the APs gets out of whack as they get more xp than is expected.
OP: Annother solution is to give them non-XP rewards for their actions in game and their roleplaying. It works really well in Kingmaker, since you can give them boosts to the kingdom stats (permanent or temporary) and you wont really be hurting what naturally happens, where the stat get overinflated anyway.
I like the sound of your group, the purpose for me of PF or any RPG is NOT to level but to be involved in a story.But that's just it -- one (or more?) of the players is dissatisfied becuase they're not leveling fast enough for her liking.So level them. As long as the levels don't out strip the challenges then what does it matter? If the levels would out strip the challenges then have an out of game chat with the players saying that they are at the right level for the dice-rolling parts to be any sort of well challenge :)
S.
In a homebrew this works fine, since you can just up the challenge. In an AP, this causes them to outstrip the challenges, which makes those parts boring.
Similarly, as GM I could dispense with the xp system entirely and simply have the characters level at appropriate times to coincide with the challenges of the A.P., but it wouldn't really do anything to address the pace of their advancement if the players are taking their time in facing those challenges to spend time roleplaying.I think you answer your own question somewhat. As another poster also said, level 'when it's right'. Divorce the idea that 'levels' exist at all - of course they do. What I mean is an actual person, if characters were real, wouldn't have a light above there head and a ding sound when they level. Currently it feels like that now I know, and has since 1e with it's training costs and time. Make leveling organic and as you say tied to the challenges you know they will face. If you group is so much into roleplaying then the mechanics of leveling doesn't really matter. In terms of the Pathfinder AP leveling is a requirement to not getting murdered in a combat encounter. In a roleplaying sense if the characters never get past level 1 you could still run an extended roleplaying campaign where the World is a strange and deadly place.
I like the sound of your group, the purpose for me of PF or any RPG is NOT to level but to be involved in a story.
Cheers,
S.
Sorry but I just cant rap my head around leveling up just because. If they spend the first half of the book just relaxing and rping with 6ish npc and they get to a part in the book where they cant avoid combat and are supose to be level 3 , then it doesnt make since for them to just level up.
" Ok jimmy I know you just spent the last 7 session using the preform skill and talking to npc but you suddenly gain two levels." I think if they arent overcoming a challenge they shouldnt get xp. This game is about role playing but it is also about CRs and xp.
|
Honestly, I can't disagree with you more. My favorite parts of the game are usually when no rolls are being made for hours at a time.Hey, I'm in agreement with TOZ and CoDzilla. Somebody check the temperature in hell, please ?
RPG is a Role-playing (meaning you get to act some idea out) game (which means you are competing against something). Competing needs rules, and that's where we are.
I know that there are schools of RPG-ing that throw the rules part out of the window and go with narrative freeform which is fine and well (and I like to do that once in a while), but the sound of dice hitting the table and the satisfaction of the numbers on your character sheet going up is what floats my boat just as much as getting to play out something completely impossible in Real Life (tm).
I agree with Caineach here.
As for the OP, I think the answer is yes and no. The xp is awarded for overcoming challenges. Which can be anything. But what is a challenge? Does RPing and not rolling dice with a merchant to come with supplies to sell more often count? I mean more supplies makes growing the kingdom easier early on or should. So should that net xp? I think you would have different opinions on the topic. Which is why I think the answer is yes and no, cause it really comes down to what the GM decides is a challenge.
As for the above me, I wouldn't award xp then, but would give a bonus xp later at the kingdom building stage because of it.
Ok, I have to ask. What makes you think that? Just because people get into character and play as their character, instead of as some gamer looking for the next 'quest' doesn't mean their 'dicking around.'A character is more than a vehicle to use to adventure. It's a living, breathing, thinking fictional entity created by the player's mind that allows them to experience the game world in all it's facets.
I get that, I do. You're talking to THE frustrated role player in my group of hack and slash fiends :) BUT When you are playing an AP, there is a Story Railroad you agree to board. If the party is no longer interested in where the railroad is going, they could be just killing time (in a fun way) waiting for the DM to introduce something interesting (to them) to do. And obviously, not everyone in the group is happy with how that is going down, or it wouldn't be an issue. So how does the DM balance the "want to fondle all teh butterflies" players with the "Huh, I'd like to see where this AP goes" players? Both groups can be roleplayers, but both do not share the same goals in game. Claro? (and all IMO, of course)
My favorite parts of the game are usually when no rolls are being made for hours at a time.
When I GM it's much the same. I rather enjoy getting into an NPC's skin and trying to flesh out a distinctive personality for them. When I'm a player though, I usually prefer a little more action than that. ;)
OP: Annother solution is to give them non-XP rewards for their actions in game and their roleplaying. It works really well in Kingmaker, since you can give them boosts to the kingdom stats (permanent or temporary) and you wont really be hurting what naturally happens, where the stat get overinflated anyway.
I have been giving them Plot Twist Cards as role-playing rewards thus far; though I guess it just seems a poor substitute for seeing one's character gaining new abilities. Since the campaign just started, we're not yet at the kingdom building stage. Good suggestion though; I'll keep it in mind.
This game is about role playing but it is also about CRs and xp.
Exactly right. Hence the roleplaying vs experience reward dichotomy.
|
|
My suggestion: Give them non-standard rewards for role-playing.
Instead of giving them magic items or (extra) XP, give them land, allies, people who owe them favors, access to interesting lore, etc. People who role-play will likely find these things much more rewarding than combat-based rewards anyway. Luckily Kingmaker is basically designed for these kinds of rewards to be both common and easiliy handled (got a new ally? +1 to stability, loyalty or economy).
This way, when they do have to resort to combat, their abilities therein reflect their actual amount of experience in combat rather than their ability to talk well. They should be able to do social things well enough with very few levels just by spending a feat or two (or having good charisma, or just being really smart about how they do things).
Yes. It is.
Every hour you spend RPing is an hour you're not springing traps killing badguys and completing missions. There's a few solutions.
Longer sessions so you can rp and kill things (not always possible with peoples schedules i know)
If you're not already, move onto the fast experience/adventure track
If you are, up every 3-4 sessions , and keep an eye on WBL. You'll probably have to treasure bath the party when they do finally kill something. This is the solution i had to go with for my dark matter campaign, which was more investigative followed by one big fight at the end (usually)
If RP only involves one person, try to do it on instant message or email. that goes double for shopping/item creation/purchasing.
Death to XP
I get that, I do. You're talking to THE frustrated role player in my group of hack and slash fiends :) BUT When you are playing an AP, there is a Story Railroad you agree to board. If the party is no longer interested in where the railroad is going, they could be just killing time (in a fun way) waiting for the DM to introduce something interesting (to them) to do. And obviously, not everyone in the group is happy with how that is going down, or it wouldn't be an issue. So how does the DM balance the "want to fondle all teh butterflies" players with the "Huh, I'd like to see where this AP goes" players? Both groups can be roleplayers, but both do not share the same goals in game. Claro? (and all IMO, of course)
Ok, I have to ask. What makes you think that? Just because people get into character and play as their character, instead of as some gamer looking for the next 'quest' doesn't mean their 'dicking around.'A character is more than a vehicle to use to adventure. It's a living, breathing, thinking fictional entity created by the player's mind that allows them to experience the game world in all it's facets.
Or the players are spending the entire time with things involved in the adventure path. I know more than half of one of my sessions was taken up by a debate on what to do with the prisoners they have, how they should be interrogated, fallout from downtime PC actions, and finally what to do about the information they finally got. A couple of diplomacy checks, some sense motive and intimidation, but only a handful of rolls in 3 hours. I would have had more, but time restrains forced me as the GM to fast forward through the next diplomatic encounter so we would have time for the major confrontation they were preparing for. I thought the diplomatic part was much more fun than the fight personally. In the end, that roleplaying was rewarded by having what should have been an extremely difficult encounter be a cakewalk, and thus low risk with high xp reward, but if the result was different I would have wanted to reward them with something else.
|
|
Sorry but I just cant rap my head around leveling up just because.This game is about role playing but it is also about CRs and xp.
Is that any harder to believe than the fact I can leave home a 1st level Fighter, bash some things on the head and then end up a 1st Level Fighter / 1st Level Wizard. What was I bashing the monsters with? The spellbook I was studying? In game time we are only talking days for this transformation to occur?!
XP and leveling is artefact no matter how you look at it. You have tied leveling with XP, but there is no real reason it has to be that way. You can still have CR & Levels, and require them for an AP, but XP not so much. True20 has the "level when the DM says so approach" and the game works fine. Games like Traveller have you never level once you character is made, again, excellent RPG.
OP: Annother solution is to give them non-XP rewards for their actions in game and their roleplaying. It works really well in Kingmaker, since you can give them boosts to the kingdom stats (permanent or temporary) and you wont really be hurting what naturally happens, where the stat get overinflated anyway.I have been giving them Plot Twist Cards as role-playing rewards thus far; though I guess it just seems a poor substitute for seeing one's character gaining new abilities. Since the campaign just started, we're not yet at the kingdom building stage. Good suggestion though; I'll keep it in mind.
Annother thing I did prior to the kingdom building is give them future abilities that will work in kingdom building. For instance, the person who was to become queen made an awesome 10 minute speach to inspire the populous and tell them that they need to set up laws, then rolled a 25 on the dip check. I am giving him the single use ability to re-roll 1 loyalty check.
+ 1 Ambrus and Stephan :)
Doing something that advances the story/campaign = XP
If that is making laws, bargaining with merchants to secure supplies or killing monsters does not matter.
Thanks to the CR system the level the PCs need to be is relatively easy to calculate:)
Sorry but I just cant rap my head around leveling up just because.This game is about role playing but it is also about CRs and xp.
Is that any harder to believe than the fact I can leave home a 1st level Fighter, bash some things on the head and then end up a 1st Level Fighter / 1st Level Wizard. What was I bashing the monsters with? The spellbook I was studying? In game time we are only talking days for this transformation to occur?!
XP and leveling is artefact no matter how you look at it. You have tied leveling with XP, but there is no real reason it has to be that way. You can still have CR & Levels, and require them for an AP, but XP not so much. True20 has the "level when the DM says so approach" and the game works fine. Games like Traveller have you never level once you character is made, again, excellent RPG.
Mechwarrior has a gain 1 point for each different skill you used, plus a base determined by the GM. You spend points to upgrade skills you used, and the mechanic works well, though creates some wierd things like going out of your way to use different weapons in combat since each weapon type is a different skill. Character growth is extremely slow.
Many other point buy systems assign it per session, or at GM's discression.
Ars Magica has a system where the GM rewards players with downtime, and they spend downtime to increase skills.
There are lots of other systems you can model if you don't like how d&d does it. Its hard to run AP on them though.
+ 1 Ambrus and Stephan :)
Doing something that advances the story/campaign = XP
If that is making laws, bargaining with merchants to secure supplies or killing monsters does not matter.
Thanks to the CR system the level the PCs need to be is relatively easy to calculate:)
So does killing that random encounter of 1d6 wolves grant xp? The story does not really advance any.
|
|
So does killing that random encounter of 1d6 wolves grant xp? The story does not really advance any.+ 1 Ambrus and Stephan :)
Doing something that advances the story/campaign = XP
If that is making laws, bargaining with merchants to secure supplies or killing monsters does not matter.
Thanks to the CR system the level the PCs need to be is relatively easy to calculate:)
Depends. Is 'the heros survive a pack of wolves' of note in their story? Did they learn or gain anything from it? Or was it just 'omg wolves kill em'.
Or the players are spending the entire time with things involved in the adventure path. I know more than half of one of my sessions was taken up by a debate on what to do with the prisoners they have, how they should be interrogated, fallout from downtime PC actions, and finally what to do about the information they finally got.
Which is exactly what occurred our last session. Being 1st level PCs with a simple rural background, the players' characters aren't accustomed to fighting for their lives or killing sentient beings. They were roleplaying through this sudden shift in world view after they'd fought off a group of bandits. After that they were debating what do to with their two prisoners (and any future prisoners) seeing as how they're in a lawless wilderness with no judiciary authority to which they could entrust prisoners. The paladin (who isn't yet aware of his own paladinhood) eventually decided to execute the apparently duplicitous and unhelpful prisoner and to keep the other alive in hopes of redeeming him.
|
|
Depends. Is 'the heros survive a pack of wolves' of note in their story? Did they learn or gain anything from it? Or was it just 'omg wolves kill em'.
Hey, my turn to agree with TOZ. Cool. If we remove the "points" part we end up with... "experience". So did the players experience something? Did they have fun? Did something funny happen? Questions that only a DM can answer in terms of character advancement. Why we still need DM's to make calls and not just paraphrase or quote the DMG.
S.
Depends. Is 'the heros survive a pack of wolves' of note in their story? Did they learn or gain anything from it? Or was it just 'omg wolves kill em'.So does killing that random encounter of 1d6 wolves grant xp? The story does not really advance any.+ 1 Ambrus and Stephan :)
Doing something that advances the story/campaign = XP
If that is making laws, bargaining with merchants to secure supplies or killing monsters does not matter.
Thanks to the CR system the level the PCs need to be is relatively easy to calculate:)
Reading the thread and agreeing with Triomega and Stephan who said it better.
|
|
Handing out more XP or leveling every n sessions won't work because then the party ends up above the expected level for the encounters.
I think you are seeing this a little too binary. It's not about XP per Level, or Sessions per Level, or Hours per Level etc. It's about the DM knowing the adventure and having leveling happen at an appropriate moment. No formulas, no rules, just a DM doing the job of a DM and not being a slave to parts of the 'rules' that really, really don't matter.
S.
|
|
The fact is that whether the party takes 2 sessions to get from page 1 to page 12 or takes 20 sessions to do so they still have to be only 2nd level at page 12 when they encounter the bandits because that's what level they are expected to be.
If you don't want to deal with the trouble of changing the encounter to reflect the new level, yes.
|
|
Have you considered streaming through the AP and filtering out some unnecessary encounters?
Seems a lot of work for the same result as just leveling as determined by the DM and the AP. The encounters in the AP are such that if completed (whatever that means) the PC's get XP and because of that will be level X or Y by page whatever in the AP, it's the level that is important here, not the XP itself. Cut out the middleman completely, work on the fact that if the players are on page Z they must be at or close to some level. This ensures the PC's are neither too low or too high for the encounters they will face. Gaining XP is just stamp collecting and box ticking, all that matters is PC Level vs CR - XP is irrelevant.
XP in a homebrew/sandbox game I can see as needed, in an AP, I don't see the need. Paizo tells you what level characters should be if they survived to a current part of the adventure.
S.