One reason i do long like EXP. Just consent, give it for fighting, no give it for Role Playing, no give it for Good Ideas, etc etc.
What i prefer is the "If you show up to play this game session you get a Point"
1 Point for showing up and playing
Advancement:
Cost 2 points to get to 2nd level
Cost +3 more points to get to 3rd level
Cost +4 more points to get to 4th level
Cost +5 more points to get to 5th level
etc etc etc
Like the system, because at low levels, you advance quickly, and it really slows down when you have to spend 15 game session to gain 15 level. Strangely this works out story wise, for epic adventures.
People who show up regular, are rewarded for it.
|
Actually the problem described in the original post is exactly Sessions per Level. You may not care if it takes 1 session or 100 sessions for your character to go up a level, but some players get frustrated if their characters do not level on a regular basis.What you are talking about is pacing.
What the OP is talking about is also pacing. That isn't a reflection of the adventure, or if you use XP or not. Pacing is about reading your players as DM and keeping things moving. Part of the job of the DM is to find that balance of pace. Some players like 2 'real' hours of haggling over the price of the jar, some just want the jar to be a given because it doesn't advance the adventure or their PC. Why DMing isn't all fun & games.
S.
|
|
Simply letting them level from the RP could 'over-level' for the upcoming challenges, so I suggested a compromise.
Oops sorry about that, wasn't meaning to seem antagonistic. Apologies.
I agree that just moving XP from combat encounters to RP encounters is a good compromise. Would then be interesting that some combats were XP-less. Not a bad thing in my mind, would give a sense of 'mindless violence'.
Cheer ears,
S.
So the problem is that they do things unrelated to the adventure and don't gain XP from that? How is this an issue? When they get around to playing the module again they'll be where it expects them to be.
|
|
Role play may or may not result in advancement, and can in some cases actively delay advancement. A DM may have to shut down role play in order to get the party advancing the adventure.
Agreed, but this can be completely independent of leveling. I define 'advancement' as furthering the story/adventure. I see leveling as a consequence of adventuring not the reason for it, perhaps a DM's view.
The job of a DM is to entertain numerous people with different goals with respect to RPing. I think it would be better for the DM to spend more time thinking up more silly accents for NPC's and ways to gets the PC's moving long, than trying to work out some complicated mathematically sound system for handing out XP based on RP and combat however.
Remind me why any of use DM again?
:)
|
|
The DM really needs to keep the players moving along the adventure, especially when running a pre-written adventure where encounters of a given level are predetermined as to when in the adventure they occur.
+1 and very true.
Whether that's by XP or direct level awards, at least with my DM hat on, seems of little difference to me.
Off-topic.
I'm in a RPG drought area so my games are few and far between. Posters such is Kyrt and Freesword make me really miss not playing weekly. Darn you both for seeming the type of people I would enjoy RPing with.
And Houston Derek, you ever run a 1e game save me a spot.
<sigh>
Returning you now to your regular program...
|
|
The DM really needs to keep the players moving along the adventure, especially when running a pre-written adventure where encounters of a given level are predetermined as to when in the adventure they occur.+1 and very true.
Whether that's by XP or direct level awards, at least with my DM hat on, seems of little difference to me.
Off-topic.
I'm in a RPG drought area so my games are few and far between. Posters such is Kyrt and Freesword make me really miss not playing weekly. Darn you both for seeming the type of people I would enjoy RPing with.
And Houston Derek, you ever run a 1e game save me a spot.
<sigh>
Returning you now to your regular program...
You know you're pretty much on the top of the list if I ever dust the old 1e books off.
Back on topic.
I dispensed with XP early on as well (around '85) so I could dispense with mechanical advancement all together. My favorite 1e group was role play heavy (lots of political intrigue and whatnot) with combat and adventuring being secondary to what they wanted to play. My first 3x group was the same way, more or less. I just leveled the group up when it "felt right". In 1e this was a linger process than in 3x, since the sheet was less important. In 3x, I usually leveled the group when they started getting a bit bored with their talents and wanted to try out the next level's goodies. Usually eight to ten sessions.
To push roleplaying to the forefront, you kind of need to ignore that the game in any edition is a combat simulator first and foremost, particularly after 3.5 and 4e placed an emphasis on minis and tactical map representations. D&D/Pathfinder isn't WoD, mechanically or in focus. It still has a lot of connection to its pulp roots, and a lot of pulp was action driven.
Our group hasn't used XP since before Pathfinder launched. When we are running APs, we just are leveled by GM fiat at an appropriate rate.
That rate is very slow. We're at 5th level and are a year into the campaign. I've interleaved six other modules into it, but by one measure we just finished the very first chapter of Second Darkness.
And that's fine with us. I find leveling too fast is pointless - people never get the chance to 'settle in' to a level and really feel at home there. I've seen a lot more innovation with first level spells using this system :-) And going from "farmboy" to "kill crazy uber badass" in two weeks of game time stretches credulity (try mapping level vs in world time for many APs - it's a shockingly meteoric rise).
Now having said that, there's no problem with keeping to XP and if groups want to progress through an adventure more slowly, great, let them. If they want to go faster, they will. Even though I strongly promote role-playing, I don't like XP for RP per se. Hobnobbing is great and fun but it doesn't power-level you. "I fought one guy, then emoted, now suddenly FIREBALL!" doesn't do it for me.
Kingmaker is a tricksy AP.
Now that we're getting into the mass combat side of things, I almost hate this game. I built a diplomat, healer and conjurer. I have NO place in the War of the River Kings other than a faint glimmer of hope found in some solo RP to maybe get Irovetti to back down a tad. Luckily my character is pregnant, so I just might have her sit out all the silly crap I'm not interested in to take care of herself and her baby and let her cohort, the much better suited paladin of Sarenrae take over. But the remainder of the group is totally psyched to watch large amounts of people die on the battlefield, and I guess that's all that really matters.
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.
Last but one game I played in(as opposed to ran), would almost certainly have meet the criteria you seem to be using to label this groups actions as 'dicking around'.
Our characters woke up in a darkened room, and it took us half an hour just to find the light switch, it took us almost the entire session just to explore the house that we had awoken in, and the only physical conflict occurred in the lest twenty or so minutes of the session.
And it was one of the most rewarding roleplaying experiences I have had since university. It worked for a number of reasons, a, the entire group bought into it, we all knew what we had signed up for, b, we had characters for whom it was appropreate to take time learning about our enviroment and which gave use some real roleplaying meat to bite into, c, it was entirely within the themes of the game we where playing.
You see we where playing Promethean, a game that is specifically about the search for humanity by cursed half living creatures. We where playing the game in a certain way, and we got a lot out of it.
There is a part of me that really would love to see my players get as deep into character in Kingmaker as they did in that Promethean game, and there have been moments, but largely it has been more action oriented, because that is what they expect out of Pathfinder/DnD.
If the OPs group enjoy deep character exploration, development and interaction, then really it isn't 'dicking around' but rather them playing as they wish to play.
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.
Huh? How is cutting out 70% (or whatever) of the encounters in the module a lot of work?
I guess there's something I'm missing: If the party is used to going up a level after five encounters (and a lot of side discussions), say, why would you suddenly start requiring twenty encounters before going up a level just because you're using a module? And if you do start requiring twenty encounters before going up a level, why would anyone be surprised that it's four times slower than usual?
I added a spoiler tag.
I tend to treat RPing moments with NPC's as encounters, and give out XP accordingly, depending on how well the scene was played.
PC's playing amongst themselves gets roughly the same judgement, albeit with a lower overall rate of XP if only to keep the system from being abused.
Generally, if PC's are RPing rather then fighting, then they're proportionately spending less time on combat, and so treating their roleplaying moments as encounters causes the granted XP to come out even, in the end.
I do not, however, have a table for this, other then using the recommended XP for encounter levels as a general guideline.
I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but XP for roleplaying is written into the rules:
"Pure roleplaying encounters generally have a CR equal to the average level of the party (although particularly easy or difficult roleplaying encounters might be one higher or lower). ...
...more...
Story Awards: Feel free to award Story Awards when players conclude a major storyline or make an important accomplishment. These awards should be worth double the amount of experience points for a CR equal to the APL. Particularly long or difficult story arcs might award even more, at your discretion as GM."
So, yeah, it IS a part of the game.
When I GM, I ditched XP because it became a pain to track, and penalized players who missed games because their kids were sick, or other real life reasons that should not carry into the game. Anyway, the rules are there to make the game work for you, not the other way around, so do what works for your game.
|
As the DM, you are the director of the movie, so to speak. It's up to you to have the final edit and keep the narrative moving at an appropriate pace. Players need to have their time in the spotlight, sure. But I think that part of running a game is to keep that spotlight moving around.
One of your players is complaining, so that means he or she isn't getting what they want out of the game. It sounds like the drama might be compelling (I also enjoy watching my players get involved enough to argue, dither, or pontificate), but the story is moving too slowly to maintain the energy of the game for one of your players. As a DM, my suggestion would be to put on the pressure.
Add some kind of urgency to the challenges that need overcoming in the current chapter of the AP. Introduce new NPCs who are desperate to goad the PCs to action. Add some kind of a time element, even if there isn't one in the adventure as written. Put someone or something in jeopardy, preferably something the PCs care about.
There's a trick in screenwriting called "leading the elephant down the alley". I know that sounds like railroading, and it is - but it's the good kind of railroading. Don't deprive your PCs of the choice of whether to move on or not - but absolutely DO provide motivation for the PCs to get moving on to the next challenge. Somebody's in danger, or somebody's offering a reward, or somebody's about to start a war, or even all three at once. And if they still won't budge, make the mountain come to mohammed: re-jigger things so the threats come to them.
There are bad guys out there to fight (or subvert, or convert, or however they want to tackle the challenge - that's another way to lead the elephant without railroading... err... seem to have crashed my metaphors there. Sorry.)
Make sure the PCs are keenly aware of where the threats are and if they don't act fast enough then turn those threats into pressing emergencies.
Which just goes to show that players will always do what the system encourages them to, and good systems reward the things they are supposed to reward. In this case, that means mechanical rewards for roleplaying.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.
It is a rare day that i find myself agreeing with you CoDzilla, but on this you have a point. The way in which a system is built, will affect the way people approach playing it, and mechanical rewards will alter player behaviour.
|
|
The way in which a system is built, will affect the way people approach playing it, and mechanical rewards will alter player behaviour.Which just goes to show that players will always do what the system encourages them to, and good systems reward the things they are supposed to reward. In this case, that means mechanical rewards for roleplaying.
+1.
That's why the simple answer is to drop the mechanic, i.e. XP, that promotes that style of the play. If the players feel their characters will evolve under the guidance of the DM to meet and maintain a level challenge over the course of the adventure I can't see the problem.
S.
|
|
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.Huh? How is cutting out 70% (or whatever) of the encounters in the module a lot of work?
I guess there's something I'm missing: If the party is used to going up a level after five encounters
Deciding which encounters can be filtered without damaging the context of the story as a whole. That seems a lot of work.
I find the fault with the mentality that "I've had 5 encounters, now I want a level". Character will level to keep pace with the adventure, full stop. How this is accomplished seems of little relevance. XP seems an overly complicated method to achieve the obvious. I as a DM wouldn't want my group to have to go slay a calculated 14.5 wolves so they can level to meet the requirements of the next part of the adventure. That seems silly.
S.
Removing the reward entirely will not change anything, as no behavior is being encouraged. And that's what you're doing. If an adventure is 1-3, you hit 2 at the halfway point. Doesn't change the fact that if you spend four hours goofing off at the tavern, that's four hours not getting to the halfway point. There's no number to quantify your progress, but it's still not there.The way in which a system is built, will affect the way people approach playing it, and mechanical rewards will alter player behaviour.Which just goes to show that players will always do what the system encourages them to, and good systems reward the things they are supposed to reward. In this case, that means mechanical rewards for roleplaying.
+1.
That's why the simple answer is to drop the mechanic, i.e. XP, that promotes that style of the play. If the players feel their characters will evolve under the guidance of the DM to meet and maintain a level challenge over the course of the adventure I can't see the problem.
S.
I would suggest not removing rewards completely, but change the type of award.
Players can feel rewarded by any number of things; gaining XP and character levels is but one thing (but, to be fair, a pretty big deal to a lot of players).
They can also be rewarded when their characters gain loot, information, and allies--let alone of course some kind of story advancement, be it the advancement of the adventure of the whole or perhaps just a character's personal development ("You mean the guy who's been sending assassins after us is my long lost half-brother?"). Not to mention---if the players are having fun, that should be its own reward as well.
Some kind of problem exists if the only time a player feels rewarded is when her character gains a level. The reasons for this may be complex---it could be that the rest of the game is boring, so that's the only time she feels like she's accomplished anything, or it could be that she needs to play Munchkin or something instead--at least something less complex story wise and with more concrete, frequently gained mechanical goals (just because the game doesn't grant XP often doesn't mean there is a problem with the game; it just means that the game may not be every player's cup of tea, and THAT'S OKAY). And anywhere in between.
As to the OP's dilemma---I have to say, were I in the frustrated player's shoes, I might not be annoyed that our players aren't leveling, but I will be annoyed if we're not DOING anything. The people I play with do sometimes get into cyclic conversations of planning (I recall an hour long planning session once that ended with, "Okay, let's do the first thing we thought of after all" and was ready to smack everyone). If it's fulfilling roleplay, where things are, in fact, happening--characters are developing, NPCs are being swayed toward the PCs' cause, information is being found, PCs are bonding with each other which is so, so very important---that's great. And provides all kinds of rewards (including XP if the GM is paying attention, but that should be the least of the rewards in this case). But if it's sitting around arguing for four hours, that IS unfulfilling. And I can see maybe why the player in this case is thinking, "God, I just want to feel like I got something DONE." And leveling is a very easy, quick way of getting that sensation. But it may not in fact be the solution to what seems more of a problem in play style.
This TL;dr brought to you by DQ who did not get enough sleep last night.