|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because XP isn't the exciting thing when you take it out. The plot is. With XP players focus inwards at the end of the session they become reward focused ("So close to next level!" "That dragon was worth a big chunk of XP") without Xp players become Goal and Plot focused ("Good job talking that dragon out of a fight." "Jeez, do you think the deal we made with that devil will come back to bite us?").
Players focus on what we draw attention to, if you use XP but keep it secret then you don't need it. If you use it as the carrot (or stick) to motivate your players then it weakens the narrative part of the game. Make the game the reward and levelling up the consequence of accomplishing goals.
This works for sandboxes too. A sandbox needs goals or sub-plots or it isn't a game it's a toy.
Because XP isn't the exciting thing when you take it out. The plot is. With XP players focus inwards at the end of the session they become reward focused ("So close to next level!" "That dragon was worth a big chunk of XP") without Xp players become Goal and Plot focused ("Good job talking that dragon out of a fight." "Jeez, do you think the deal we made with that devil will come back to bite us?").
Why can't you have both? Are all groups the same?
This works for sandboxes too. A sandbox needs goals or sub-plots or it isn't a game it's a toy.
This is elitist. Not everyone plays the game the way you think it should be played.
Also, XP and story based leveling are not mutually exclusive (XP rewards for achieving goals anyone?).
Also, XP and story based leveling are not mutually exclusive (XP rewards for achieving goals anyone?).
Actually, they kind of are. If you are leveling based on story, then XP is irrelevant and giving XP rewards for achieving goals is literally pointless.
Besides, if you want to reward players, there is a literally limitless number of ways to do so without resorting to XP.
I've commented before that I have almost entirely abandoned the idea of individual rewards anyway. I've found that my group responds much better to rewarding the entire group when any one character does anything worth rewarding. It fosters teamwork, improves camaraderie and removes all claims of GM favoritism.
Actually, they kind of are. If you are leveling based on story, then XP is irrelevant and giving XP rewards for achieving goals is literally pointless.Besides, if you want to reward players, there is a literally limitless number of ways to do so without resorting to XP.
I've commented before that I have almost entirely abandoned the idea of individual rewards anyway. I've found that my group responds much better to rewarding the entire group when any one character does anything worth rewarding. It fosters teamwork, improves camaraderie and removes all claims of GM favoritism.
I'm not sure you know what "literally" means.
If the PCs are tasked with protecting a young maiden from bandits and they succeed, I would grant them XP for the bandits as a combat encounter and ad-hoc storyline experience.
If they kill the bandits, but the bandits killed the young maiden during the encounter I would only award combat experience.
How is this "literally" pointless?
Awarding XP for storyline, plot, or goal achievements does not exclude other types of rewards (advancing the plot, advancing a player goal, gear, etc.,)
I'm glad you have found that your group works that way. Not everyone group is like yours nor does every player enjoy the play style you are championing.
Actually, they kind of are. If you are leveling based on story, then XP is irrelevant and giving XP rewards for achieving goals is literally pointless.Besides, if you want to reward players, there is a literally limitless number of ways to do so without resorting to XP.
I've commented before that I have almost entirely abandoned the idea of individual rewards anyway. I've found that my group responds much better to rewarding the entire group when any one character does anything worth rewarding. It fosters teamwork, improves camaraderie and removes all claims of GM favoritism.
I'm not sure you know what "literally" means.
If the PCs are tasked with protecting a young maiden from bandits and they succeed, I would grant them XP for the bandits as a combat encounter and ad-hoc storyline experience.
If they kill the bandits, but the bandits killed the young maiden during the encounter I would only award combat experience.
How is this "literally" pointless?
Awarding XP for storyline, plot, or goal achievements does not exclude other types of rewards (advancing the plot, advancing a player goal, gear, etc.,)
I'm glad you have found that your group works that way. Not everyone group is like yours nor does every player enjoy the play style you are championing.
Well, someone has a problem with "literally" I suppose.
If you are leveling by story point, then the XP they have is irrelevant and therefore any XP "awards" they have received would be pointless.
If you are using XP to level your characters, then you aren't "leveling by story" you're "leveling by XP."
That's why they are mutually exclusive.
Now, if you allow your characters to use XP to do other things, like purchase feats or spells or whatever, then XP awards are no longer pointless, but if you aren't using XP to level, then spending XP this way has no real impact and could be replaced with any arbitrary "coin" to the same effect.
You definitely can run sandbox without XP. You could level after a set number of sessions, when you achieve those character set goals (or milestones towards them), when everyone gets bored with the current level, whatever. About the only style of game where it doesn't work well is when the player's only goals are to gain levels.
The goal is to match form and function. If you are trying to great a sense of advancement and to encourage the PCs to accomplish things, XP makes a lot of sense for a sandbox game. Arbitrary level ups in sandbox feel... well, arbitrary. In an AP they tend to make sense as part of the general advancement of the plot.
Of course, this is merely a personal preference. However, D20 style games are geared towards a sense of character advancement; a great deal of the rules focus around this (all those goodies you get as you level in the form of feats, gear, and abilities).
There are games much better suited to playstyles which eschew the sense of character advancement.
|
|
I'm not saying every group is the same, but in my 10 years of GMing multiple groups, this is what I've observed. XP rewards killing things reliably, and everything else arbitrarily. Thus players are trained to kill things for reliable growth, and be pleasantly surprised by XP awards for diplomacy or stealth or cleverness.
With goal based growth (Map the Ruin, Make the Road Safe From Bandits or Slay the Dragon), players are rewarded for NOT murdering their way to the end of adventures (encounters avoided save resources).
XP is a vestigial mechanic at best. It interacts with no other part of the game besides levelling. Worse, it is a tyrant of pacing. For example I love the low levels, like the mid levels and really don't like high level play. With XP I am forced as a GM to run the levels in roughly equal distribution (15-20 encounters per level). Without XP we can meander through the best levels and race through the high levels.
I might be wrong, there might be some groups who won't play without a bar being arbitrarily filled at the end of each session. I don't think that's why people play RPGs though, I think RPGs are about exercising choice (from the tactical to the moral to the intellectual). XP rewards one type of play style. Goal based levelling rewards you just for playing.
Actually, they kind of are. If you are leveling based on story, then XP is irrelevant and giving XP rewards for achieving goals is literally pointless.Besides, if you want to reward players, there is a literally limitless number of ways to do so without resorting to XP.
I've commented before that I have almost entirely abandoned the idea of individual rewards anyway. I've found that my group responds much better to rewarding the entire group when any one character does anything worth rewarding. It fosters teamwork, improves camaraderie and removes all claims of GM favoritism.
I'm not sure you know what "literally" means.
If the PCs are tasked with protecting a young maiden from bandits and they succeed, I would grant them XP for the bandits as a combat encounter and ad-hoc storyline experience.
If they kill the bandits, but the bandits killed the young maiden during the encounter I would only award combat experience.
How is this "literally" pointless?
Awarding XP for storyline, plot, or goal achievements does not exclude other types of rewards (advancing the plot, advancing a player goal, gear, etc.,)
I'm glad you have found that your group works that way. Not everyone group is like yours nor does every player enjoy the play style you are championing.
Well, someone has a problem with "literally" I suppose.
If you are leveling by story point, then the XP they have is irrelevant and therefore any XP "awards" they have received would be pointless.
If you are using XP to level your characters, then you aren't "leveling by story" you're "leveling by XP."
That's why they are mutually exclusive.
Now, if you allow your characters to use XP to do other things, like purchase feats or spells or whatever, then XP awards are no longer pointless, but if you aren't using XP to level, then spending XP this way has no real impact and could be replaced with any arbitrary "coin" to the same effect.
You can give XP for the PCs achieving goals in addition to combat. I don't know how you (literally) didn't understand my example.
Your suggestions for spending XP to purchase things is (in my opinion) terrible house rule territory.
This works for sandboxes too. A sandbox needs goals or sub-plots or it isn't a game it's a toy.
Games are toys. Both exist for one purpose: To entertain.
You can make a message, certainly, and make some thought provoking scenarios, but if they are not entertaining you have failed as a designer.
That sounded better in my head. More clearly:
Your sandbox has a weak plot, but is amusing to the players and entertains them well. You have succeeded as a game designer, but not as a storyteller.
Your sandbox game has a strong plot, which you use to prop up the fact that it is not entertaining to play. You have succeeded as a storyteller, but failed as a game designer.
Now the two are not mutually exclusive, but you should always focus on entertainment BEFORE story. If I enjoy the story but hate the gameplay, why wouldn't I just steal your notes and read the plot (which is the interesting part)?
What does this have to do with anything? Iunno.
Still let's see if I can salvage this: Plot based leveling and Experience based leveling both have their merits. But, if your sole purpose for switching to Plot leveling over EXP leveling is that your players were focused on the EXP and having fun from anticipating a level-up and searching out new challenges solely for reward, and you want them to focus more on the plot: You have failed to make the game itself interesting, and are now depriving them of even the gratification of the Challenge/Reward scenario.
Now if you switched to Plot based leveling because it is more convenient, less to keep track of, etc. I can understand that, but all of this "My players are too focused on EXP and I want them to focus on my story instead of the game" talk is ridiculous.
I'm not saying every group is the same, but in my 10 years of GMing multiple groups, this is what I've observed. XP rewards killing things reliably, and everything else arbitrarily. Thus players are trained to kill things for reliable growth, and be pleasantly surprised by XP awards for diplomacy or stealth or cleverness.
Yes. One must remember the game pathfinder is descended from. First a skirmish game and then a hack 'n' slash dungeon romp that made no sense.
With goal based growth (Map the Ruin, Make the Road Safe From Bandits or Slay the Dragon), players are rewarded for NOT murdering their way to the end of adventures (encounters avoided save resources).
Yeah, this is why such goals are generally a good idea.
XP is a vestigial mechanic at best. It interacts with no other part of the game besides levelling. Worse, it is a tyrant of pacing. For example I love the low levels, like the mid levels and really don't like high level play. With XP I am forced as a GM to run the levels in roughly equal distribution (15-20 encounters per level). Without XP we can meander through the best levels and race through the high levels.
Two things. First, d20 feels the weight of the games that came before it. It is very different from 'modern' RPGs which get rid of a lot of the sorts of mechanics that are central to DnD (HP springs to mind). Rehauling all this stuff and still claiming the DnD pedigree doesn't make much sense.
Second, as the DM you aren't forced to do anything. You could make your own XP chart that increases XP requirements much faster than any of the default choices in order to keep your players at lower levels for longer. I don't see a problem with this.
You can give XP for the PCs achieving goals in addition to combat. I don't know how you (literally) didn't understand my example.
Whale_Cancer. The context of your original comment was about how story leveling and XP leveling were not mutually exclusive.
They are. Literally.
If you are doing ONE, then you are not doing THE OTHER. That's what "mutually exclusive" means.
So if you are awarding XP for ANYTHING, but leveling by story, then the XP you are awarding is, again, literally meaningless. Because if you are leveling by STORY then when it is time to level, the character will level regardless of their XP.
But if you are using XP to level, then you are not leveling by STORY.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this.
You can give XP for the PCs achieving goals in addition to combat. I don't know how you (literally) didn't understand my example.Whale_Cancer. The context of your original comment was about how story leveling and XP leveling were not mutually exclusive.
They are. Literally.
If you are doing ONE, then you are not doing THE OTHER. That's what "mutually exclusive" means.
So if you are awarding XP for ANYTHING, but leveling by story, then the XP you are awarding is, again, literally meaningless. Because if you are leveling by STORY then when it is time to level, the character will level regardless of their XP.
But if you are using XP to level, then you are not leveling by STORY.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this.
My example clearly shows I am talking about giving XP rewards for achieving goals or advancing the plot.
I show how you can combine storyline based leveling and XP.
My example shows how the two schools of thought are reconciled.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this (and thus will literally refrain from any further posts on this subject).
Not arguing with anyone's opinion, just entering the discussion:
If you are using the storyline to determine when your PC's gain a level, how do you determine that they have had enough actual experience to learn anything new? Do you require an in character, story-relevant reasoning to have gained new class knowledge (i.e. leveled up)? Do you not rob your players of some of the challenge and verisimilitude of the world setting by always giving them enough "power" to face every encounter?
|
|
If I make up a table or give out goal XP or bonus XP then I'm just using arbitrary numbers to represent what I could just do by levelling at goal points. The numbers have no inherent value if there are no consistent ways of increasing them.
I am not shackled to older editions of the game, I run games and tailor them to my tables. Which to my experience benefit either from shared XP (a numerical representation of arbitrary pacing) or no XP (pacing determined at the speed of the player's goal chasing).
@The Crusader: We already do this, with XP. Now look at any sandbox. A well designed sandbox either places high level dangers geographically distant from the PCs starting location or in well hidden locations nearby. If the players encounter something beyond their level they either run or die. With Goal Based levels players who are outgunned just choose a different goal to accomplish. Better, players are rewarded for avoiding more dangerous encounters because they don't spend resources (the risk is too high against the reward). I don't need in-game reasons for class knowledge any more or less than XP based levelling does (why is fighter suddenly multiclassed as a wizard?)
I understand that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness to either system, and I have played under DM's that have used both. The obvious corollary of your argument, is that with story determined leveling, there's less motivation for the PC's to explore and engage the world beyond their most immediate objective. Depending on how your games run, this may or may not be a problem, of course.
The benefit of the XP system (including story XP), is that it requires the PC's to engage n amount of the world to attain the power needed to face the arch-villain, vs. merely having to get within a certain proximity of the arch-villain.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are using the storyline to determine when your PC's gain a level, how do you determine that they have had enough actual experience to learn anything new? Do you require an in character, story-relevant reasoning to have gained new class knowledge (i.e. leveled up)? Do you not rob your players of some of the challenge and verisimilitude of the world setting by always giving them enough "power" to face every encounter?
I generally set plot goals for leveling. These are campaign milestones and/or achievements. Literally, reach milestone, earn level.
An example literally taken from last Friday's RothRL-AE session:
It's literally that easy.
-Skeld, literally.
|
|
I understand that there is a certain amount of arbitrariness to either system, and I have played under DM's that have used both. The obvious corollary of your argument, is that with story determined leveling, there's less motivation for the PC's to explore and engage the world beyond their most immediate objective. Depending on how your games run, this may or may not be a problem, of course.
The benefit of the XP system (including story XP), is that it requires the PC's to engage n amount of the world to attain the power needed to face the arch-villain, vs. merely having to get within a certain proximity of the arch-villain.
There is no reason to down-level the arch villain with goal based XP. Say the PCs stumble across the Bandit King's Fortress (Bandit King is CR 6 + about 20 CR 1-3 Minions) at level 1. They can try to take it on right away, get butts handed or maybe get lucky. If butts were handed the players know they need to accomplish more to defeat the Bandit King (perhaps defeat other Bandit camps, or find some magic weapons, or gather allies as a distraction whatever the players and GM decide to make the next goals). Narratively much more interesting than; "Lets wonder the countryside murdering monsters until we are suddenly skilled enough to defeat the bandit king".
If the players got lucky and defeat the Bandit King at level one then DING goal accomplished. Players gain a level for their awesome feat and the immediate reward improves their characters.|
|
The benefit of the XP system (including story XP), is that it requires the PC's to engage n amount of the world to attain the power needed to face the arch-villain, vs. merely having to get within a certain proximity of the arch-villain.
The detriment of the XP system is that it requires you to engage n amount of the game world even when the story at hand only requires you to engage n-1 amount of the game world.
I don't like rule subsystems that arbitrarily dictate how much math is needed to tell the story. I prefer leveling to grow organically from PCs discovery of the storyline. For the same reason, I don't use random encounters, preferring instead that all encounters that the PCs engage in have a purpose.
-Skeld
DM and Skeld: Doesn't the story based level make the situation more arbitrary? It becomes DM decision whether the CR 6 Bandit King is a challenging encounter, an APL equal encounter, or a throw-away speed-bump in the story?
It's all arbitrary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all arbitrary.
Literally.
|
You can give XP for the PCs achieving goals in addition to combat. I don't know how you (literally) didn't understand my example.Whale_Cancer. The context of your original comment was about how story leveling and XP leveling were not mutually exclusive.
They are. Literally.
If you are doing ONE, then you are not doing THE OTHER. That's what "mutually exclusive" means.
So if you are awarding XP for ANYTHING, but leveling by story, then the XP you are awarding is, again, literally meaningless. Because if you are leveling by STORY then when it is time to level, the character will level regardless of their XP.
But if you are using XP to level, then you are not leveling by STORY.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this.
My example clearly shows I am talking about giving XP rewards for achieving goals or advancing the plot.
I show how you can combine storyline based leveling and XP.
My example shows how the two schools of thought are reconciled.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this (and thus will literally refrain from any further posts on this subject).
Leveling by story means that the party levels when they achieve milestones in the plot of the campaign.
Leveling by XP means that each character levels as they accrue more XP.
If your group uses the leveling by story approach, awarding them XP on top of that is meaningless. If they gain a level when they rescue the helpless dragon from the evil princess, then it doesn't matter if you award them bonus XP before that or not. A character who earnes millions of bonus XP doesn't level any faster than a character who doesn't earn any bonus XP...they both level at the same time (when the dragon is rescued).
Not sure why this concept eludes you.
there are plenty of ways to reward 'good roleplayers' without resorting to XP.
such things can include social titles and fluff power. good roleplay should not mean "Diplomacy Check" nor should it be a substitute or a theater session. it should be about staying in character. you needn't be forced to come up with fancy voices.
and roleplay need not mean suboptimal choices either.
player has been silent? assume their character is shy or something.
character is a Tsundere? expect a reward for stuttering and rapid mood swings. especially around the same other character.
character is learning conversational manners to impress someone? give them a reward for acting out the struggle
your bard is a sickly noble lady? expect a consistency reward for pretending to cough or faking the occasional collapse or other illness symptom.
just because a character isn't giving a theatrical monologue about his dead parents in a whiny scottish accent doesn't mean the character isn't doing a good job roleplaying
custom traits can also be a reward.
This is a rather oddly framed debate. I could totally see playing a game where you literally did not give out experience. In the sense that whatever is on your sheet when you first make your character, that's as good as you're going to get, live with your limits.
What people are arguing for here though is that you still level up at a reasonably steady and predictable rate, you just don't bother to keep track of things numerically, and just sort of intuit the math.
In theory, this is no better or worse than just tracking the numbers. Either way, you should be sitting down and going "OK, I'd like to see the party level up after hitting this point in the adventure I have planned for them" and then you plan out some level appropriate content to get them to that point. Hopefully, you're paying attention to CRs for any combat you're planning to have along the way, so you don't accidentally wipe the party out with something they can't handle, or toss out something so wimpy they get bored.
If you're tracking experience, when you look up those CRs, you get XP values with them, which can very easily be totaled up to give you a handle on whether you're providing a decent number of these encounters before you hit the level up point. There's 3 different experience tracks to use depending on what you consider "a decent number" (and if you don't like any of them, it's easy enough to just pull out a calculator and multiply either the level goals or each monster's experience value by 1.5 or whatever) and, this is the important part, it's usually pretty easy to come to a group consensus on which XP speed to use before starting a campaign.
If you aren't tracking experience, either you have a really good innate sense of how much combat to space your levels out with, in which case, hey, save yourself that tiny bit of math I guess and more power to you, or you're just arbitrarily announcing level-ups here and there, off the cuff, without any real consideration for how much combat-time has been spent at that level.
In my experience, most people who do that off the cuff thing hand levels out way way too often. After every fight, or every fight that isn't a speedbump, or every X number of sessions regardless of how much, if any, combat they contain.
The reason I keep harping on this combat frequency thing is, really, that's what leveling up primarily effects. If you're de-emphasizing combat and focusing on story, there's no need to ever level everyone up. You're just giving them access to more and more spells that can potentially completely trivialize whatever you had in mind. Mainly, you're getting new combat abilities, and unless you are in the very strange situation of having a group where everyone always plays the same classes, and plays them in the same way, everyone needs to get their feet wet now and then to see how their characters' abilities and group dynamic work, along with getting a handle on what poses an appropriate challenge to them.
So... tl;dr version: Experience points are a tool GMs use to make sure everyone has a chance to feel out their newest powers before piling on more.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM and Skeld: Doesn't the story based level make the situation more arbitrary? It becomes DM decision whether the CR 6 Bandit King is a challenging encounter, an APL equal encounter, or a throw-away speed-bump in the story?
The Bandit King is CR 6 no matter when you encounter him, he serves a function in the plot the bandit king is disrupting trade or whatever. The players need to complete smaller goals (and level) to defeat him. It's the same with xp based games except there's one sub-mission Grind on Monsters, other objectives are incidental.
@Googleshng: I've been running Kingmaker about fortnightly for 3 years now. We have added entire modules, we run multiple characters, and I throw in extra material of my own. Players are just now hitting level 11. No xp, is that too fast?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I GM, I prefer no xp, for a number of reasons, but primarily because I find players play differently with and without xp. I like my players to focus on their characters and their in-game motivations. Past experience has taught my that xp detracts from that, if only because instead of focusing 100% on story/character, the players are 80% focused on story/character, and 20% on xp/levelling.
Having said that, I've never forced this on anyone - if anyone wants xp, I'm happy to give them xp, even if they're the only one that doesn't want to plot-level (I've found that even my most "gamist" players prefer non-xp now though, after having given it a shot).
However, I'd be more than happy to play in a more gamist game that used xp, or even run one if that was what my players really wanted. I've played games where xp and level ups were the focus of the game, and it was still a heap of fun. It's just my experience that xp games tend to be more action-oriented, whereas non-xp games tend to be more character/story driven.
(Note I said "tend".)
I find both kinds of games fun to play - but if I'm putting all that effort in to run it, I'd prefer the latter.
If my players really wanted xp, I'd not force plot-based levelling on them. Fortunately, their preference is the same as mine now they've tried both.
|
|
DM and Skeld: Doesn't the story based level make the situation more arbitrary? It becomes DM decision whether the CR 6 Bandit King is a challenging encounter, an APL equal encounter, or a throw-away speed-bump in the story?
Along the lines of Adamantine Dragon's comment, "It's all arbitrary."
Not all CR6 Bandit Kings are the same (different builds equal different power levels). For an example of this, look at all the CR6 monsters in the Bestiary (Pathfinder took some good steps in tightening up the CR system, but it's still based on the D&D3e CR system). Also, not all party's are the same; some have more than 4 players, some are optimized, almost all have different builds, some have different WBL. Heck, the encounters are even subject to the whims of fate in the form of rolling dice. Roll good, easy encounter; roll bad, difficult encounter.
The point is that adding math to an already arbitrary system doesn't make the system less arbitrary, it just gives the illusion that it's more analytical that it really is.
-Skeld
Sure thing, but why not have even more stuff to be excited about if its so simple to implement?
Your characters are not excited about XP, they are excited about what XP leads to which is leveling, so let's bypass the leveling. Again, this is why i say XP is one of those rules that just makes adults act like adults and I like for adults to act like adults without needing rules for it. I akin XP to riding in the car with children who ask are we there yet. When I ride in the car with other adults they don't ask that question, cause they enjoy the ride and know we'll get there when we get there.
XP means nothing in the game, it literally is one of the few statistics that has no true bearing on your character. Is there an XP system out there that does make sense, yes. There's already ingame rewards that do make sense such as treasure, land, glory and the sting of defeat.
One of the reasons why its hard for me to deal with the Paizo Campaign Paths its its heavy reliance on this nonscientific XP system to regulate its modules. Zeitgeist, by Enworld, has it right. When you reach particular points in the story you level. This allows me as a DM to have any side adventure, crazy plot rewrite or deal with any off the map quests my pcs want to go on without worrying about them derailing the main story cause they've accumlated enough levels to outpass the arc.
|
|
If you aren't tracking experience, either you have a really good innate sense of how much combat to space your levels out with, in which case, hey, save yourself that tiny bit of math I guess and more power to you, or you're just arbitrarily announcing level-ups here and there, off the cuff, without any real consideration for how much combat-time has been spent at that level.
In my experience, most people who do that off the cuff thing hand levels out way way too often. After every fight, or every fight that isn't a speedbump, or every X number of sessions regardless of how much, if any, combat they contain.
Again, story based leveling shouldn't be arbitrary, it should be based on the PCs achieving story-related milestones of some sort (IMHO). It's hardly off the cuff. As a matter of fact, at least in my case, it's planned out well in advance.
The amount of combat between levels is completely arbitrary. There are 3 different advancement tracks available to players/GMs in the core rulebook. Each was has a different amount of combat required to go from one level to the next based on how quickly (or slowly) you want your characters to gain power.
[Also, it's worth noting that combat isn't the only type of encounter. You can also have social encounters, traps, etc. Combat just happens to be the most common. Most Paizo published adventures I've used also contain story award XP, which is just an arbitrary number of XP given out for achieving some story-related goal, such as freeing the princess.]
-Skeld
funny thing is i am using this thread to determine if i should just dump xp and use hero point rewards or something. i just didn't know people felt so strongly about it.
funny thing is i am using this thread to determine if i should just dump xp and use hero point rewards or something. i just didn't know people felt so strongly about it.
LOL, this is the interwebz man. People will type their fingers bloody about which brand of bagel is best.
funny thing is i am using this thread to determine if i should just dump xp and use hero point rewards or something. i just didn't know people felt so strongly about it.LOL, this is the interwebz man. People will type their fingers bloody about which brand of bagel is best.
why everyone knows it's cinnamon raisin ;)
A whole bunch of game pro's have commented that XP is the one 'treat' a GM can hand out every session without fear.;-)
|
|
You mean the Paizo APs which include a section at the start of each module saying what point PCs should be leveling at?
Too be fair, I think the recommended level sidebars are a relatively new thing. I don't have my books with me, but it seems like RotRL-AE might be the first time those were placed into each chapter of an AP.
But I agree with you; all that information is right there for the GM to use, ignore, or modify.
-Skeld
You mean the Paizo APs which include a section at the start of each module saying what point PCs should be leveling at?Too be fair, I think the recommended level sidebars are a relatively new thing. I don't have my books with me, but it seems like RotRL-AE might be the first time those were placed into each chapter of an AP.
But I agree with you; all that information is right there for the GM to use, ignore, or modify.
-Skeld
Sorry, my bad, the old ones didnt have it. Still, the statblocks include xp, of which I am glad to see no xp blocks in the Enworld stuff.
But, I do love this debate. It's age old, its not going no where.
The needing a treat thing is rampant in tabletops, video games and other formats of rpgs. It has ruined the meaning of story advancement. With the increase in mmos, i expect the opinion of "no xp" to fade to us old dnd hats who keep the light on. Whereas killing the dragon once meant saving the town it now only means 2400 xp.
Or, you know, it means BOTH, because not everyone who uses XP is a dirty dirty gamist who doesn't ever care about story.
|
|
You mean the Paizo APs which include a section at the start of each module saying what point PCs should be leveling at?Too be fair, I think the recommended level sidebars are a relatively new thing. I don't have my books with me, but it seems like RotRL-AE might be the first time those were placed into each chapter of an AP.
But I agree with you; all that information is right there for the GM to use, ignore, or modify.
-Skeld
Every AP has the expected levels side-bar usually on the first or second page of the adventure chapter. Skull & Shackles started making a double page spread giving the GM an idea of expected levels for each section of an AP's chapters.
I use that to plan out side-quests and tangents the players leap on or bonus adventures without fearing all the extra XP from such side-quests will over-level the characters for the challenge level of the main story.
Back in older times it was those different xp ranges that made many dms just simply say you level "insert here" and 3e came out with standardized leveling which felt very optional. The newer system highlighted xp higher in the statblocks which matched the trend in video games of imputing "rpg elements" which realy just meant xp and leveling.
I"m not calling anyone a gamist, i'm saying that the need for XP has trumped storytelling because of the push of MMOs. and and this mentality is trickling down into Tabletops. I can't tell u how many players who come from 4e constnatly ask me "when do we get xp, how do i know if i'm doing good, when do i get xp, can i have a treat daddy". Whereas the old school thought pattern was, oh xp cool, did we do this. Even treasure wasn't as emphasized. Everyone liked nice and shinies but the adventure, the story was what you whent home and talked about.
|
|
Personal experiences are anecdotal, but your experiences with "older times" doesn't match mine. With separate XP charts, tracking XP was even more important in the old days. Thieves even gained XP based on treasure, so treasure became important too as an XP tool. During 3e, XP became a commodity in the sense that it had to be "spent" to craft magic items. At least for me and my group, going XP-less is a relatively new concept.
-Skeld
Back in older times it was those different xp ranges that made many dms just simply say you level "insert here" and 3e came out with standardized leveling which felt very optional. The newer system highlighted xp higher in the statblocks which matched the trend in video games of imputing "rpg elements" which realy just meant xp and leveling.
I"m not calling anyone a gamist, i'm saying that the need for XP has trumped storytelling because of the push of MMOs. and and this mentality is trickling down into Tabletops. I can't tell u how many players who come from 4e constnatly ask me "when do we get xp, how do i know if i'm doing good, when do i get xp, can i have a treat daddy". Whereas the old school thought pattern was, oh xp cool, did we do this. Even treasure wasn't as emphasized. Everyone liked nice and shinies but the adventure, the story was what you whent home and talked about.
I think its a matter of experience then (no pun intended).
I know only one out of fourteen people i used to or still do regularly game with who ever asks about XP. Everyone else really only acknowledges them when they are actually being awarded by the GM.
Back in older times it was those different xp ranges that made many dms just simply say you level "insert here" and 3e came out with standardized leveling which felt very optional. The newer system highlighted xp higher in the statblocks which matched the trend in video games of imputing "rpg elements" which realy just meant xp and leveling.
I"m not calling anyone a gamist, i'm saying that the need for XP has trumped storytelling because of the push of MMOs. and and this mentality is trickling down into Tabletops. I can't tell u how many players who come from 4e constnatly ask me "when do we get xp, how do i know if i'm doing good, when do i get xp, can i have a treat daddy". Whereas the old school thought pattern was, oh xp cool, did we do this. Even treasure wasn't as emphasized. Everyone liked nice and shinies but the adventure, the story was what you whent home and talked about.
I think its a matter of experience then (no pun intended).
I know only one out of fourteen people i used to or still do regularly game with who ever asks about XP. Everyone else really only acknowledges them when they are actually being awarded by the GM.
The question is, is it out of habit or is it because they really want it/need it. I've had players ask once at my game when do they get xp and i explain we don't do xp players level at certain points and its never brought up again. Someone said it best. People will focus on what the dm is focused on. IF the dm is xp/treasure focused that will be what they do, if the dm is story focused the players follow suit. NOthings right nothigns wrong just different styles. I wish games would get back to story focused narratives but with xp getting being apart of every game rpg and non rpg, its a pipe dream.
The funnything is, if they made xp an actual in game thing, it would hold more weight. IE I once had a friend who used xp in a game, but xp was used to buy "stores" and "items" to rebult a town ala dark cloud 2. Another friend used xp as a wealth system. The more welath you collected the higher you got and he coolated the xp chart with the optimal wealth chart.
Those are cool uses. Both lead back to the story and still give players carrots.
The funnything is, if they made xp an actual in game thing, it would hold more weight. IE I once had a friend who used xp in a game, but xp was used to buy "stores" and "items" to rebult a town ala dark cloud 2....
When we "got rid of XP" in 3e, we replaced it with a Bag of Poker Chips. Each Chip was worth a set number of XP, or could be used for other things, like Re-Rolls and the like. With Magical Item Creation, you could use your chips to pay the XP Cost, and there were a number of spells you could use it on as well, and non casters could spend their chips on it as well.
You got a (Random) Chip at the beginning of each session you showed up to, and then if you did something that the group felt deserved an additional reward (Witty Comment, Great Plan....).
The question i ask both sides is this, what would happen if we separated XP from leveling and simply used it for bonus rewards, such as bonus feats and some-such?
|
|
The question i ask both sides is this, what would happen if we separated XP from leveling and simply used it for bonus rewards, such as bonus feats and some-such?
If you want to reward your players with bonus feats, why not skip the intermediate step of awarding points (of any kind) and just say, "here, have a bonus feat"?
My point is, there's nothing you can do with XP that you can't just do without it.
-Skeld
The question i ask both sides is this, what would happen if we separated XP from leveling and simply used it for bonus rewards, such as bonus feats and some-such?If you want to reward your players with bonus feats, why not skip the intermediate step of awarding points (of any kind) and just say, "here, have a bonus feat"?
My point is, there's nothing you can do with XP that you can't just do without it.
-Skeld
i was thinking of more rewards than just bonus feats, for example things such as stat boost replacing component cost for spells etc. it would be sort of a "shop anywhere" currency system.