|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Paizo, there you go! Clearly, a group of regular posters has spoken, and XP are a vestige of gaming long past, a desperate thread connecting us to a heritage we no longer need. I hope that the clamour of voices here will convince you to eliminate the whole, archaic concept of "xp" and simply let GM's tell the players to level up whenever it feels good and right. In fact, why have it be the GM who decides when players level? Let's toss out that old, patriarchal system and let the PLAYERS decide. I mean, they're the ones whose characters are facing the dangers, right? Let's see it in action!
GM: Okay, your party has had their ideas-exchange with the misunderstood Orc band and convinced them not to sacrifice the village's babies to their dark, evil, Goddess-denying Male idol. You all deserve a reward for your great play and exceptional teamwork! Let's go around the table and everyone can claim their xp...
Jimmy (playing his CG Paladin, as he refuses to be bound by the prevailing morality of the traditional Paladin, which is hidebound and stuck in the past): Whoa there, GM. Imma let you finish, but we don't use xp anymore. Didn't that TriOS College dude on the Paizo forums say they weren't necessary?
GM: Oh. I didn't know he had ruled on that! My bad. Everyone can level themselves up as they see fit - I certainly wouldn't want to engage in hierarchical behaviour!
Madeline (playing the human wizard): You know, I felt I grew during this campaign, you know? I felt like I really came into my own. My character should be level 5, I think. Yeah. I certainly didn't just choose that level so I can start tossing around fireballs!
Barry (playing the Rogue): And I sort of felt that my character grew as a person too, you know? I sort of felt good when I reallocated the unneeded wealth from those commoners and gave it to myself. I felt like, you know, I had really connected with my own needs for a change. I think he's level 6 now. Yeah.
Chris (playing the Cleric): I felt that I...
You did not read any of the mass of posts did you?
You simply came to some sort of hair-brained idea based on only what lies within your mind.
Nobody suggested anything at all like you described.
You just want to disregard others, and disagree with ideas that only came from your own imagination.
Cool troll post bro.
I still use XP. My players enjoy receiving it, and they also enjoy handing it out - we have a system of "roleplay reward XP" that I've used in the past, I haven't been using it in my current game because most of the players are new and I want them to get the basics down before I throw in new stuff - and I don't mind them being "ahead of the curve" expected by APs or whatever, as I redo/rebuild pretty much every encounter anyway.
I mentioned the "level up at story points" idea was common in Kingmaker games - as that's what I'm currently running - once, and the group seemed apathetic to opposed to it, so we're sticking with XP for now.
Well, Paizo, there you go! Clearly, a group of regular posters has spoken
Heh, I see your passion for sticking with XP, but I'm not sure you made a point in all of that sarcasm.
What many have argued in this thread is that XP is a game mechanic, game mechanics serve the over all Game Theory. If the over all Game Theory is served at least as well without a specific Game Mechanic, then apply Occam's Razor.
So now we can ask: What does one do in an RPG? If, in your view, the point of an RPG is to gain levels, then XP is probably very important to your being satisfied, and everything you do within the game is boiled down to the means and rate by which you gain XP. If creating memorable stories--the kind you reminisce over lunch with your old highschool pals 15 years after the fact--and to be challenged by the game mechanics, then XP can easily be tossed in favor of plot-based advancement. Decoupling in-session choices and actions from advancement, creates a gaming environment where the players think only about how best to resolve a conflict. It really does open players up to being clever and interesting in their choices.
I think the point you were trying to make is that the game is pointless without the limitation of standard XP-based advancement. Is that close?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your table likes conforming XP, it's fine I guess. But I personally feel like it robs regular players of the reward of actually playing through week to week and rewards players who don't bother showing up.
I just feel like if I have to 'pay' you XP to get you to show up every session, you aren't really interested in the game or the story, just in what you can get for your character. If the enjoyment you get from the game isn't enough to get you to come, there is already something wrong.
|
If your table likes conforming XP, it's fine I guess. But I personally feel like it robs regular players of the reward of actually playing through week to week and rewards players who don't bother showing up.I just feel like if I have to 'pay' you XP to get you to show up every session, you aren't really interested in the game or the story, just in what you can get for your character. If the enjoyment you get from the game isn't enough to get you to come, there is already something wrong.
You are focused on the person who doesn't show up, I am focused on the person who does.
If Bill shows up and Bob doesn't, Bill gets more XP than Bob because he actually showed up.
If Bill does something cool in game that deserves bonus XP, he gets it for being awesome. I am not punishing Bob. I'm rewarding Bill.
I don't know why Bob didn't come. Maybe he had to work, maybe he is just flaky. But it isn't about punishing or paying Bob. It's about rewarding Bill.
If your table likes conforming XP, it's fine I guess. But I personally feel like it robs regular players of the reward of actually playing through week to week and rewards players who don't bother showing up.I just feel like if I have to 'pay' you XP to get you to show up every session, you aren't really interested in the game or the story, just in what you can get for your character. If the enjoyment you get from the game isn't enough to get you to come, there is already something wrong.
This is very true :) And now you've created an elite click of regulars whose characters are literally better than everyone elses, who then get the best gear, who get to make all the decisions, who--to the casual group member--feel more important.
I would also add that its not reasonable or fair to place pressure on players who can't make it to every session due to work/school/family/illness. A game is not equivalent to a real obligation. Besides, even the perception of being penalized (read Falling Behind) will not have a positive impact on a player's attendance, it will do more to drive him away entirely. In the least, he'll be so worried about XP that he'll steer the game toward what ever will get him the most exp out the session :P (refer to my previous posts)
When a player shows up, he should have such a kick ass time that he'll be back next week for sure, if he can.
They are better than everyone elses because they showed up and earned it. They are more invested, they did more, they deserve more.
Do you also make sure that players who missed get copies of the cool artifacts you found and bonus extra gold?
What are you a communist :)
An RPG isn't Capitalism, is it? :P Perhaps it is very easy for you to find and keep players. I wish I had the same luxury in my area. But if an RPG were Capitalism, then I would be the supplier filling a demand, and since there would be competition for players and their time, I would have to provide the best service for the lowest price (eg time and obligation). I'm also extremely altruistic, I want every player to be excited and happy, and leave feeling rewarded.
XP is not the best reward you can grant your regular players, is it? Again, by removing XP as the vehicle by which players advance, the Reward that each player earns are his choices that affect the story in a memorable way. And so your regular players have more great memories, by virtue of sitting through more great sessions. Besides that, I think TOZ said it best.
I could deal without XP, but I prefer it.
Levels by fiat has always seemed railroady and lazy to me and doesn't seem as though it is often used to reward player initiative, RP or player-driven goals. YMMV, of course.
Are there good arguments for it? Sure. It can save on (some) time for the DM and I suppose some people get scared off by feeling they need to balance the books on encounters and progression.
However, that said, I'm of the mind, that taking some time out in between sessions to look back, calc and project out on what encounters lay ahead is a good thing for a long term campaign.
|
|
Having a powerful character is very much something you earn.
You don't pour through the books looking for ways to improve your character? You don't send your PC on dangerous missions they may not return from to earn experience and find phat lootz?
You just said the occasional player will probably get less stuff. And they won't care as much as the person who is really invested in the game and comes every week.
I'm not saying you aquaman someone who doesn't come every week, but as someone who has had to play a level behind the group on occasions, you can and will still be a big damn hero and have a great time.
But yeah, the guy who played better and worked harder should have an easier time being awesome than the person who doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are better than everyone elses because they showed up and earned it. They are more invested, they did more, they deserve more.
Do you also make sure that players who missed get copies of the cool artifacts you found and bonus extra gold?
What are you a communist :)
This post represents a bizarre and alien concept to me.
The others in my group absolutely hate it if they have to miss a session. They're essentially missing an episode in their favourite weekly TV series that will never run again, can't be bought on DVD or downloaded. The experience of playing and sharing the adventure is the reward for turning up.
They all like doing cool stuff in character, thinking of awesome ideas etc. Because it's fun. Not because daddy gives them an icecream :)
So yeah, we don't need or use XP.
Edit: and turning up more often doesn't make you a better RPGer.
Maybe it just means you don't have as many other people/things that you want or need to spend time with/on.
I'd never stoop to rating my players as better or worse, and if I did, attendance wouldn't be high on the list of criteria.
XP only exists as the remnant of a poor design choice made four decades ago kept alive through sheer inappropriate respect for "tradition."
It also creates all sorts of metagaming issues and is a major cause of negative gaming group dynamics.
Throw away the chains of habit and embrace plot based leveling. You'll never regret it.
Paulcynic, blackbloodtroll, thejeff, I see that identifying the sarcasm in my post isn't your forte. That's cool! I clearly intended the post as a serious critique, and wasn't directing it in fun at the SERIOUS roleplayers here at all! Nope, serious business here in this thread...
Adamantine Dragon's post, and all the board vets chiming in that they were so very done with xp points, amused me and compelled me to make my little contribution.
I do particularily appreciate Blackbloodtroll's feedback though. With only 13000 posts on these boards, you clearly only respond when absolutely necessary. I am truly honoured, bro!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But yeah, the guy who played better and worked harder should have an easier time being awesome than the person who doesn't.
And when I have a player that plays better and works harder, I reward him as such. But having been the guy that showed up every session because I had nothing else conflicting, I can say that just showing up isn't a good measure of that.
Oh boy, here we go again....
Having powerful character isn't something you earn.
This part I disagree with. Too many players seem to have a sense of entitlement about progression. Not only do they think they're going to level every 2-3 sessions (or whatever), they expect it because they feel it's their "due".
For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.
I've never thought of rewarding good play as a "bribe" and it seems, to me at least, a rather strange notion to view it as such. To each his own, I guess.
Make the hurting stop...
|
|
Life happens. Girlfriends, kids, work...life happens.
In our group the rule is no one can fall more than 2 level behind, and we use the old XP system where you get more XP for fighting the same enemy at a lower level, which allows players to catch up.
No one who missed a session (or a bunch of sessions) has ever felt "punished" in our group. After all the wives and girlfriends came into the group, it was actually getting unwieldy to have everyone show up anyway, so there were regular one offs with people who couldn't make it to the main show or were left out because the table was to full on a given night.
But all of the XP was earned. We all had different numbers, we all leveled at different times. It has never caused any problems or conflict, and it has always been a point of pride to have all your XP be "real" rather than bumped.
The longest running campaign we had only had one player make it from level 1 to epic with actual XP (We started with 4, 1 died and decided to switch characters, 1 switched to being the GM, 1 switched characters around 5th). He was actually behind some in the group for awhile due to missed sessions, but he loves that he "earned" all his XP, while the rest of us had to get the bump (I was there from level 1, but I missed 6 months of the campaign due to personal stuff) or changed characters.
If it works for you, fine. But there is a benefit to the XP system for the rest of us.
For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.
It's always bizarre to me to read about things like this happening, as not a single one of my gaming groups ever did things like this. About the same for 90% of the complaints on these forums, really. Makes me just kind of sit back and think, "Really? There are people who really behave like this?"
|
|
For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.It's always bizarre to me to read about things like this happening, as not a single one of my gaming groups ever did things like this. About the same for 90% of the complaints on these forums, really. Makes me just kind of sit back and think, "Really? There are people who really behave like this?"
When I missed 6 months and came back, if I had been given equal footing to everyone else in the group, I think it would have created some resentment and I certainly would have felt like I didn't earn it.
I am pretty much on equal footing with the rest of the group (a level ahead of some, a level behind others) and it was never an issue of jealousy because we all earned where we were, and because we all could still contribute just fine.
For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.It's always bizarre to me to read about things like this happening, as not a single one of my gaming groups ever did things like this. About the same for 90% of the complaints on these forums, really. Makes me just kind of sit back and think, "Really? There are people who really behave like this?"
It happens because players stop thinking about the here and now of the game and are instead looking at that feat they're going to get at the next level instead of deciding if they should go stop the marauding dragon or instead rescue the princess from the evil sorcerer because, either way, that feat is coming in 2-3 sessions regardless. There needs to be a reason for players to consider the decisions they're making.
Unless the decision is so absurdly bad that it TPK's the group there really aren't any bad decisons. It's hard to be invested in a decision or course of action when there's no relevance to it. I prefer there to be more of a gradient to player/group decisons: stupid, bad, mediocre, good, excellent and reward appropriately rather than just having every 3rd session (or whatever) be the "level-up" session.
All teasing aside, I don't think that using the XP system as written is going to be a fit for all circumstances. In PbP, for example, leveling up via fiat can keep both interest and plot going.
For myself, I've used both and will continue to do so. Having said that, I prefer the relative transparency of the XP system. I like being able to track and balance encounters via the CR system (yes, I still use it) and being able to budget XP to the players as an incremental reward. The leveling via fiat leaves the players out of the process, in a way, and leaves too much purely in the hands of the GM.
Of course, I remember the days where leveling up was not simply a case of XP, but of money (which varied depending on how "good" a role player you were, which was determined by the DM!) and finding a trainer who would facilitate elevation to the next level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.It's always bizarre to me to read about things like this happening, as not a single one of my gaming groups ever did things like this. About the same for 90% of the complaints on these forums, really. Makes me just kind of sit back and think, "Really? There are people who really behave like this?"
What Orthos said.
I think I may just be really spoilt by the regular group I play with, who are all awesome.
It happens because players stop thinking about the here and now of the game and are instead looking at that feat they're going to get at the next level instead of deciding if they should go stop the marauding dragon or instead rescue the princess from the evil sorcerer because, either way, that feat is coming in 2-3 sessions regardless. There needs to be a reason for players to consider the decisions they're making.For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.It's always bizarre to me to read about things like this happening, as not a single one of my gaming groups ever did things like this. About the same for 90% of the complaints on these forums, really. Makes me just kind of sit back and think, "Really? There are people who really behave like this?"
Guess I've just had the good fortune to never have to deal with a group that thought this way.
For me, that's always created disinterest in players rather than fostering interest. Decisions become meaningless because those levels are going to come regardless (so they typically choose the path of least resistance) and the lazy player who only shows up half the time and only plays half-heartedly gets the same rewards as the full-tilt, gung-ho, never misses a session player does. That creates player antagonism and tends to bring the whole group down to the lowest denominator of play style.It's always bizarre to me to read about things like this happening, as not a single one of my gaming groups ever did things like this. About the same for 90% of the complaints on these forums, really. Makes me just kind of sit back and think, "Really? There are people who really behave like this?"What Orthos said.
I think I may just be really spoilt by the regular group I play with, who are all awesome.
Same. I have/had complaints about one or two of my players, but generally it's minor, and it's never things like "they don't show up for sessions without warning" or "they ignore the story/plot/NPC interactions/whatever and just want to run off and get XP/loot".
But when you've been leveling the players every three sessions then, at some point, they're going to start expecting it.
It isn't so much about chasing the loot as it about you're going to get the loot regardless of what decisions you make. Stay in town and deal with the corrupt mayor or ride north to fight the bandits or explore the swamp to the south? Doesn't matter because it's level and loot in 3 sessions regardless. As a player or a GM, I don't find that very entertaining. For me, player decisions need to have more importance than just, did they survive the three sessions to level?
Of course, I remember the days where leveling up was not simply a case of XP, but of money (which varied depending on how "good" a role player you were, which was determined by the DM!) and finding a trainer who would facilitate elevation to the next level.
And characters didn't advance at the same rates anyways.
What does xp reward have to do with deciding between stopping the marauding dragon or rescuing the princess? Is one of those supposed to be the "path of least resistance" and the other the "high reward"?
Seems to me there would be good in character reasons to do either. Should those be overridden because one has a better xp reward?
The players wouldn't know the XP rewards which should, IMO, be based on how well and/or cleverly they dealt with it anyways. There are better and worse choices in dealing with any challenge and the reward should be adjusted accordingly, IMO.
If they're going to be rewarded every 3 sessions regardless what difference does it make how they handle the challenge as long as it doesn't result in a TPK?
Characters are going to have a wide variety of motivations and reasons for doing things. You're not going to have every challenge perfectly mesh with every players in character reasons. And if by some means you manage it then there's no reason to even bother offering the other challenge as an option.
It's far more entertaining, for me, to give and receive rewards based on what the characters do and how they do it rather than just, "It's been three sessions and you all lived so level up."
It happens because players stop thinking about the here and now of the game and are instead looking at that feat they're going to get at the next level instead of deciding if they should go stop the marauding dragon or instead rescue the princess from the evil sorcerer because, either way, that feat is coming in 2-3 sessions regardless. There needs to be a reason for players to consider the decisions they're making.
What does xp reward have to do with deciding between stopping the marauding dragon or rescuing the princess? Is one of those supposed to be the "path of least resistance" and the other the "high reward"?
Seems to me there would be good in character reasons to do either. Should those be overridden because one has a better xp reward?I'm seeing a divide between those who play for Story, where combat is part of story making, and those who play for power-ups, where in-character choices are made to optimize advancement. Some of us did not enjoy the distraction of XP as a Carrot. Some did.
I will prod and say that we have all played with XP advancement, but not all of us have played with Plot-based :P Might be something to try out for a few sessions.
And I agree with thejeff, that example makes no sense unless the players are meta-gaming all to hell :P "Jacobus, we can't save the process because the Dragon is worth more XP!" "Ah, Medigascar the Wise, you are wise (and not roleplaying)."
What does xp reward have to do with deciding between stopping the marauding dragon or rescuing the princess? Is one of those supposed to be the "path of least resistance" and the other the "high reward"?
Seems to me there would be good in character reasons to do either. Should those be overridden because one has a better xp reward?The players wouldn't know the XP rewards which should, IMO, be based on how well and/or cleverly they dealt with it anyways. There are better and worse choices in dealing with any challenge and the reward should be adjusted accordingly, IMO.
If they're going to be rewarded every 3 sessions regardless what difference does it make how they handle the challenge as long as it doesn't result in a TPK?
Characters are going to have a wide variety of motivations and reasons for doing things. You're not going to have every challenge perfectly mesh with every players in character reasons. And if by some means you manage it then there's no reason to even bother offering the other challenge as an option.
It's far more entertaining, for me, to give and receive rewards based on what the characters do and how they do it rather than just, "It's been three sessions and you all lived so level up."
If groups played several times a week, I would agree with this. At best, most groups meet 4-5 hours once a week, and many are only 2-3 times a month, and many still are 1 session every now and then. Players have a fading relationship with the games that they are playing, and the more you arbitrarily place between them and a great time, the more likely they are to lose interest entirely. How many groups make it past level 7? How much real time has passed since the start of the campaign up to the point where players lose interest? Reading all of Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series back to back probably doesn't take as much time as reaching level 7 in a table top rpg. But the adventure is epic, the characters in his stories go through tons of interesting situations and "level up" considerably. As far as time is concerned, reading a giant fantasy series is more rewarding (and faster paced). And really, even if you're using XP to advance, they're still leveling up about every 3 sessions, 2 being a bit fast, and 4 being aggravatingly slow.
I do not level up my players every 3 sessions, because when I level them up its for an entirely new thread in the AP. As I posted above, I level them up in blocks of about 4 per book. We spend 2-3 months playing each book in the AP. This allows them to build optimal characters for each book because they gain LOTS of power to which they can apply to their ideal build. And so they're not anxious that they're only level 2, but their character concept doesn't really take off until level 4, and damnit that's a long ways away and all of this is tedious, because we could be killing a Dragon right now who is worth more XP than saving this stupid princess. That, and by having the players sit at one level, I can spend all of my energy tailoring both combat and any rewards, where everything I provide is guaranteed to be relevant and useful for the entire AP thread. This has positively affected the group, as when they play, the most valuable reward is the session itself. My players only concern is how best to engage the story.
My Take: My players took advantage of a political enemy's weakness, she had sent assassins against them as a warning that they'd stepped on a hornets nest when they advised the governor against her proposal. But they weren't there to kill the players, only to make a point. Nobody died, but the lines were clearly drawn. Now, her husband and two daughters were taken by a mutual political rival, one whose power was growing well enough to depose the sitting governor, thus destroying all current political alliances. This would lead to chaos, and definitely cause a civil war. My players would be interested in how best to extract advantage over their rival, as well as how to seal an alliance with the other political houses so that the BBeG doesn't assume control.
Your Take: Well guys, killing her assassins is worth 300xp each, there are four of them. They try to escape, but you intervene and fight them to the death. Your rival is quite upset at having lost trusted vassles. Your relationship with her is irreparable, but you did gain a good chunk of XP. Great job. Later, when the BBeG plots his take over, you can fight your way into his compound. What's that? You're almost to the next level. Ok, lets see, there are bugbears in the next hex that are worth about 800 xp if you slaughter them all, or would you like to try your luck on the Dragon? He's worth an S-ton of XP and should have some really great random loot. Bugbears? Ok, that should wrap up the session...
My hyperbole is probably too strong in your example, but that's how I remember XP affecting the narrative. In my limited experience, better stories are told when leveling up is a matter of Plot, rather than a constant issue affecting all choices.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Estimate the total number of real life years you'd like to spend running the campaign. (RLY)
Approximate the number of times your gaming group will meet per month. (GPM)
Identify the level the PCs should be by the time the campaign comes to a close. (LVL)
Then level the PCs every (X) gaming sessions, where
(X) = 12*(GPM)*(RLY) / (LVL)
I haven't used XP in 20 years, so yes it's OK.
1) Calculating XP is a waste of the GMs time (and players) imo, it could be spent doing so many other more important and fun things.
This was confirmed by playing PFS, where you gain 1 XP most sessions (4-5 hours), and you need only 3 XP for each level. And it works great.
2) APs lend themselves well to leveling everyone up to the level that's needed for the AP. Simplicity = good.
Also, if anyone missed sessions and is lagging, I still feel it's actually better leveling them up than leaving them permanently -1 to -3 levels behind everyone else.
I'm always amazed at the utopian gaming environment some of you claim to maintain. I wish I knew where, these players of divinely enlightened maturity your games comprise of, where coming from.
For 20 years I've not had a group with at least one unruly or combative player.
I'm always amazed at the utopian gaming environment some of you claim to maintain. I wish I knew where, these players of divinely enlightened maturity your games comprise of, where coming from.
For 20 years I've not had a group with at least one unruly or combative player.
My first group met in Tempe, Arizona. I wouldn't say there was NEVER any issues - there were personality conflicts, mostly minor, and more often than not were cleared up quickly by a conversation between the disgruntled parties. But we never had a player throw a fit, never had someone interrupt a game, rarely had issues with players not showing up at the arranged times, and only a few times had suspicion of cheating. The highly-antagonistic stories I see on the forums boggle my mind because I can't imagine any person - gamer or not - who isn't a teenager or unruly child behaving in such a way, and the rest of their group not telling them to stop acting like they're twelve and going on with the game.
The biggest complaint in that group was a "that one guy", and while he was the worst of our bunch (and for various reasons instigated OUT OF GAME, rather than stuff done during or respective to a campaign/session, we won't ever be playing with him again) most of his crimes were pretty tame compared to a lot of things I see complained about here.
My current group is scattered across the country, plus one guy in Canada; we play over Skype and MapTool. The biggest complaint we have is that one guy is also part of a live gaming group that meets on different days than the Skype group does, and his style - which he got from his offline group, since he learned to play with them - doesn't mesh as well with the rest of us, causing some conflicts of expectations and methods for games, especially when he GMs. But again, that's an extremely minor complaint, doubly so when compared to some of the hissy fits and drag-out fights I've heard reported about on the forums.
Paulcynic: If I'm playing a Plot-based game (the way you describe it), I'm not playing PF at all. Nor any game that uses a level-based mechanic. Level-based systems are already arbitrary abstractions. XP is no moreso than the levels themselves. Using levels without using the method that defines them seems backwards to the point of having a level system at all. If that's the kind of thing that negatively affects our narrative, then I'm going to switch to a more freeform point-based system and remove the stricture of levels entirely.
I should point out that, going back to OD&D to today, we don't let players calculate or track their own XP. When it was time to level the DM would say so. In the older editions characters advanced at different rates anyway so it didn't stand out as much.
With XP, the player(s) were/are rewarded (even if the didn't know how much) for making good decisions. Without it, as long as no one dies, it doesn't matter what kind of decisions player(s) make as the rewards are the same either way. To me, that's a more negative impact on the narrative than what you describe XP as doing since it seems, to me, to trivialize decision making outside of your build . As a GM, I want the players to consider whether the the decisions they're making are good ones or not and as a player, I want to have to consider that.
The way you describe "Plot-based" sounds like exactly how I want a non level-based game to run. But with levels, you're already adding in arbitrary plateaus of power. I don't see how removing XP makes arbitrary levels of power less arbitrary. If there's an arbitrary detractor here it's the levels, not the XP (especially when the classes aren't all balanced against each other--and, in PF, they aren't). And if levels aren't part of what the players are striving for, then why use them?
|
Xp as a bribe to make players show up doesn't work. Here are perfectly valid reasons not to show up to a game:
"I'm sick."
"My child has a recital."
"I can't get out of work that day."
"It's my anniversary."
Etc.
Those players are punished twice for not being able to attend: once for not getting to play with their friends and again for being behind on xp.
If a player is flaking for no reason then the best way to deal with that is to discuss the reasons why like adults.
I either use group XP (party has one shared XP pool) or no XP (party levels at important points in the story). My players show up every week because it's more fun than not showing up. That's it. If a player flakes I call them on it and the behaviour changes and if it doesn't I don't play with that player no more. That is that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paulcynic: If I'm playing a Plot-based game (the way you describe it), I'm not playing PF at all. Nor any game that uses a level-based mechanic. Level-based systems are already arbitrary abstractions. XP is no moreso than the levels themselves. Using levels without using the method that defines them seems backwards to the point of having a level system at all. If that's the kind of thing that negatively affects our narrative, then I'm going to switch to a more freeform point-based system and remove the stricture of levels entirely.
I should point out that, going back to OD&D to today, we don't let players calculate or track their own XP. When it was time to level the DM would say so. In the older editions characters advanced at different rates anyway so it didn't stand out as much.
With XP, the player(s) were/are rewarded (even if the didn't know how much) for making good decisions. Without it, as long as no one dies, it doesn't matter what kind of decisions player(s) make as the rewards are the same either way. To me, that's a more negative impact on the narrative than what you describe XP as doing since it seems, to me, to trivialize decision making outside of your build . As a GM, I want the players to consider whether the the decisions they're making are good ones or not and as a player, I want to have to consider that.
The way you describe "Plot-based" sounds like exactly how I want a non level-based game to run. But with levels, you're already adding in arbitrary plateaus of power. I don't see how removing XP makes arbitrary levels of power less arbitrary. If there's an arbitrary detractor here it's the levels, not the XP (especially when the classes aren't all balanced against each other--and, in PF, they aren't). And if levels aren't part of what the players are striving for, then why use them?
See, my players still love levelling up, they're just happy to do it after major victories. Levelling is cool because stuff changes, in the same way that a character's personality changes through a campaign.
And they don't seem to need the xp carrot to make good decisions. Who wants to make bad decisions?
And seriously, if your players don't know their XP totals, or when you award stuff and what for, you don't actually need to track it, as far as they're concerned :) How would they know whether or not you were just levelling them by fiat or not?
I guess it's just a play style thing. But I've tried both, and as a GM I won't go back. I'd be happy to be a player in another GM's xp-using game though, if that was their thing.
If you haven't tried not using xp, how would you know if it's better or worse? "I've not tasted raspberry flavour, but I know that chocolate's better" :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eventually the game dropped the GP for XP rule. (I'm fuzzy on the history here, it was either during AD&D 2nd Edition, or D&D 3rd Edition). Unfortunately, the designers at the time didn't adjust the amount of XP required for each level to compensate for this change. As such, XP values have been arbitrarily large for many years now.
Personally, I think experience points are important to a game. But I...
Casting Spells used to give you XP
Opening Locks used to give you XPLots of things used to give you XP
Lots of things used to Cost XP as well.
They don't anymore.
What's the RAW XP for 2nd Level?
The Answer is, It Depends. 1,300 for Fast, 2,000 for Medium, 3,000 for Slow.
In a Campaign "Without XP", some levels might go fast, some Medium, some Slow. Its not that big of a deal. You still accumulate "XP" and "Gain Levels". You just don't gain XP per Encounter (that's too MMO-ish for me....always has been). You gain "XP" when you gain the Level.
If you don't give out per encounter, and just do it at intervals, you're kinda doing the "No XP" thing anyway. Instead of once a level, it might be once a session. So you'll know you hit the 1/4 of a level point. Oh boy.
Back in 1st & 2nd Ed we had running jokes of the guy 2 XP Shy of leveling looking for a Cat or something to kill to level.
Not using the RAW numbers of XP, helps smooth things out. The groups I play in, don't want to play Accountants & Auditors (ok, I do....but I get looked at funny when I want to make sure we're making a profit as a group....), and couldn't be bothered to keep track of XP on their own.
I will say, it seems to be an age issue, because the groups I was in in college (and before) worried about Individual Rewards more than Post College (guy in the group staying level with us is More Beneficial to the group). That's just my experience though.
Have I seen people ask, Do we level? Of course. We have a player who has asked that at the end of a session when we leveled in the middle of it. But for the most part, we don't have a problem with the rate we level without "XP".
But I also don't think the GM should concern themselves with the game's story.
Not gonna lie... I had a small WTF moment with that...
Also you wouldn't happen to be LS from Papers & Pencils would you?
That said I think the Story Line Level Up is best if you are Role-Playing/Story Focused.
For every other type of campaign/group I think XP should be around in some form. At least as an Option.
& with ZugZug's comment I can't help but think of Order of the Stick strip where Belkar asks about a Rat or something to try and level up.
My Take: My players took advantage of a political enemy's weakness, she had sent assassins against them as a warning that they'd stepped on a hornets nest when they advised the governor against her proposal. But they weren't there to kill the players, only to make a point. Nobody died, but the lines were clearly drawn. Now, her husband and two daughters were taken by a mutual political rival, one whose power was growing well enough to depose the sitting governor, thus destroying all current political alliances. This would lead to chaos, and definitely cause a civil war. My players would be interested in how best to extract advantage over their rival, as well as how to seal an alliance with the other political houses so that the BBeG doesn't assume control.
That's cool.
Your Take: Well guys, killing her assassins is worth 300xp each, there are four of them. They try to escape, but you intervene and fight them to the death. Your rival is quite upset at having lost trusted vassles. Your relationship with her is irreparable, but you did gain a good chunk of XP. Great job. Later, when the BBeG plots his take over, you can fight your way into his compound. What's that? You're almost to the next level. Ok, lets see, there are bugbears in the next hex that are worth about 800 xp if you slaughter them all, or would you like to try your luck on the Dragon? He's worth an S-ton of XP and should have some really great random loot. Bugbears? Ok, that should wrap up the session...
Or you could use the already built in rules for granting XP for avoiding conflict or resolving it diplomatically, out of combat instead of making up some random scenario where having XP means the players don't care about the story at all.
My hyperbole is probably too strong in your example, but that's how I remember XP affecting the narrative. In my limited experience, better stories are told when leveling up is a matter of Plot, rather than a constant issue affecting all choices.
I'd change that "probably" to a "definitely".
But I also don't think the GM should concern themselves with the game's story.Not gonna lie... I had a small WTF moment with that...
Also you wouldn't happen to be LS from Papers & Pencils would you?
That said I think the Story Line Level Up is best if you are Role-Playing/Story Focused.
For every other type of campaign/group I think XP should be around in some form. At least as an Option.
& with ZugZug's comment I can't help but think of Order of the Stick strip where Belkar asks about a Rat or something to try and level up.
Yeah, I had the same moment!
But that's probably a very good analysis. My group tends to think of the game as emulating a TV series where we all get to contribute creatively. While at the same time beating the crap out of antagonists that can't be reasoned with. So that's probably why my players don't care about xp.
They certainly do care about levelling up though :)
They certainly do care about leveling up though :)
Yeah, my players love the big level up, I let them revamp too so that they get to switch up how their character will play for the next couple of months. In addition to having a complete build concept for the entire AP thread, they get to try out new things. And again, this gives me so much positive control over how I can reward the players, because all gear that I choose to include in the stash will be immune to obsolescence during that entire AP thread.
If I'm playing a Plot-based game (the way you describe it), I'm not playing PF at all. Nor any game that uses a level-based mechanic.
I'm not sure you've qualified that statement. Genuinely, please elaborate :)
Level-based systems are already arbitrary abstractions.
So are the words that you are using, the order in which you use them, and means by which you connect them. This is a non-point, and you are not recognizing the established logic that is vital to their effective communication. The same is not true of XP, its completely arbitrary and its purpose is to focus players on attaining it. It serves no other purpose but to occupy the player's attention, and tends (read May Not Be Your Experience) to encourage a selfishness within your tables gaming culture.
XP is no moreso than the levels themselves. Using levels without using the method that defines them seems backwards to the point of having a level system at all.
Not to pick on you, but this is nonsense :P Acquiring levels provides a meaningful increase in relative power. Acquiring XP does absolutely nothing for your character in and of itself. Its an empty game mechanic which the game designers have forced upon various other parts of the game system, such as being a cost in certain spells, and its placebo-reward effect, tricking players into believing that they'll be able to level faster than the GM wants them to :P
I should point out that, going back to OD&D to today, we don't let players calculate or track their own XP. When it was time to level the DM would say so. In the older editions characters advanced at different rates anyway so it didn't stand out as much.
Cool :)
With XP, the player(s) were/are rewarded (even if the didn't know how much) for making good decisions. Without it, as long as no one dies, it doesn't matter what kind of decisions player(s) make as the rewards are the same either way.
Please don't feel that I am trying to aggravate you on this point. I think we have a simple difference of experience, which is now causing us to talk past each other. If I were to boil everything that I've posted so far on this point down to one simple sentence, it would be: "RP is the Reward." XP can have No Impact on a player's RP decisions, or it can have a Negative RP Impact on a player's decisions, but it cannot have a Positive RP Impact on a player's decisions. This is because the existence of an XP reward as a consequence to doing X versus Y will steer players toward doing the one with greater XP reward. There are many examples described in previous posts.
To me, that's a more negative impact on the narrative than what you describe XP as doing since it seems, to me, to trivialize decision making outside of your build . As a GM, I want the players to consider whether the the decisions they're making are good ones or not and as a player, I want to have to consider that.
In the interest of understanding what you mean here, please give an example.
The way you describe "Plot-based" sounds like exactly how I want a non level-based game to run. But with levels, you're already adding in arbitrary plateaus of power.
Since each book in an Adventure Path raises the numerical difficulty of each encounter, thus increasing the cost in time, risk, and capital; there is nothing arbitrary about leveling up the players to be on par with these encounters. Do you really believe what you wrote there?
I don't see how removing XP makes arbitrary levels of power less arbitrary. If there's an arbitrary detractor here it's the levels, not the XP (especially when the classes aren't all balanced against each other--and, in PF, they aren't). And if levels aren't part of what the players are striving for, then why use them?
This entire passage is nonsense. I emphasized the bit that convinces me that you are not being serious, perhaps even trolling. :P Anyone got an Ascii Troll macro?