|
Ah, this turned into a "xp=bad / GM decides level up=good" debate.Whaddya mean 'turned into'?
I never stated that an xp-less system was bad, nor did most posters who use some kind of xp system, but those who run their games without xp trackers are dumping on those who do.
That's what I mean by 'turned into'.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EXP systems aren't inherently bad. The point most people don't get is that they are simply progress trackers. Kinda like a program installation progress bar.
EXP isn't a reward. It's what you get for playing properly. The reward is spending a few hours with your friends playing pretend with dice. And enjoying it.
Non-attendance is punishment in on itself because the player does not get to enjoy having fun with friends that day. But yeah, sure, dump on him some more by being an ass and making his character weaker and less useful then the rest, I am sure that he will make sure not to miss another session. Even if someone important was in trouble or something.
Two of the reasons I did away with EXP are: I need to keep track of one less thing and also, I really find EXP in my games to be a useless hurdle. They level when the story needs them to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I award bonus experience points to players who tell me they think I'm pretty.
Azana finds you very pretty. Can I level up now?
I dislike docking people xp if they have a real reason not to be there. "Hey Bob, I know your wife and kids were wiped out by a freak accident involving a rabid hamster and a potatoe gun, but you've been gone six weeks. You're still level 1 while we've hit level 4. So expect to die horribly the moment we enter combat. Kinda sucks you were hoping to unwind from that soul crushing grief tonight, huh?"
I do games like this to relax, unwind and enjoy myself. But I have four kids. If one of them is ill, I'll skip a session. Or if my family members need help, I'll do that - my brother has a cancer that has already cost him half his bowels and recently returned. Hell, my knee and back are better described as being made of silly putty rather than real human bones - if I am so much pain that walking makes me want to pee myself, I'm not comming.
The simple truth is, in a system like this, a couple of levels make a big difference. A car accident shouldn't mean you essentially have to roll up a new character to be useful to the group. You could be forcing someone to throw away a character they care about in return for a new one they don't purely because of circumstances outside there control, and that just seems wrong to me.
Hell, even work doesn't go 'you missed a few days to illness - no money for you!' They might ask me to do some extra hours to cover the shifts I missed, or give me the chance to earn it on other shifts.
If you're using xp to motivate attendance, then you have to acknowledge that some things outside RPing are just more important. If you dock xp for not showing up, at least give them a chance to earn it some other way - a well written tale of what the character was doing while not slaying that dragon, for example. It only seems fair to acknowledge that your family and health is more important than a game, after all, and it's not too hard to do something to make up the difference.
|
The point most people don't get is that they are simply progress trackers. Kinda like a program installation progress bar.
EXP isn't a reward.
While this seems to have been the general way players have viewed experience points for a while now, from a purly RAW point of view, it is a new thing...
From the 3.5 DMG, under the heading of "Experience Awards" (emphasis mine):
Only characters who take part in an encounter should gain the commensurate awards. Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason, EARN NOTHING, even if raised or healed later on
Personally, this whole argument is part of the reason why I still play 2nd edition. Because characters of differing levels and earning experience points as a “reward” for good play are built-in features of the game.
YMMV and all of that...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with xp systems though, those that do more and do better should be better. Yes, maybe meritocracy in gaming is evil, but this LE dm is behind the tyranny!
If they don't want to be lowly, set a course to change that. Freebies are for the WEAK. lol
Perhaps we should just go back to AD&D 1e rules for experience, where hitting the next level's target didn't level you up until the DM had decided you were ready, and had done the relevant training (for a GP fee) as well, often requiring finding a tutor of the same class to perform said training :)
Sounds like a great idea!
|
Now, while I'm glad to hear you got out, I don't know that I like the idea of rage-quitting anything. We don't know the details, so I'm imagining everything from a civil separation masking internal anger (which is totally fine) to a straight up table flip and slam the door routine. Be mindful of your own reactions; someone being a terrible GM isn't an excuse for poor behavior.
Do they have a Stand Your Ground law in Texas?
Flipping a game table is likely to result in lead flying, and no, I don't mean the miniatures.
|
|
If you don't show, why should you get any experience? That makes no sense.
Because the experience points aren't accrued by players.
They belong to the characters.
If the character was present, and contributing, then why should it matter if they were being controlled by the creating player, proxied by another player, or run as an NPC by the GM?
Or do people actually rule that PCs disappear 'POOF!' in a puff of smoke, when the creating player isn't present?
That's nuts.
What if the last session ended mid-encounter?
"Sorry, Jim, but you look round and see that Rampaging Rothgar is no longer defending that doorway. The ghouls rush in and eat ArcaneAlex's brains.
Sorry, man. But that's what happens when Bob isn't here."
"****ing Bob! He's screwed me over again! I hope you dock him xp for this!"
|
|
GM: "Well, let's get started. Looks like this is all who's going to show, so since Jim isn't here, we'll have to assume ArcaneAlex wandered off to do some shopping or something."
Bob: "We're in a flaming plain of fire and lava. Where in the hell is he going to go?
Fred: "No, we're not in Hell, we're in the Abyss."
Bob: "Thank you smart arse, but I'll ask again "Where can he go?". Why would he go? He's a wizard with 50hp, in the Abyss!"
Fred: "We're the ones who'll get beaten up, then he'll come sauntering back next session, without a scratch."
Bob: "Why can't we go where he went, since it's so comfy and safe?"
|
My understanding is that XP is handed out for a character participating in an encounter that awards XP. So if a player misses and his character is played by someone else, the character gets XP. It sounds like a house rule to me to simply give XP out to a character that didn't complete an encounter that awards XP. No problem with that house rule, but the debate here seems to revolve around that the rules as written are wrong.
I'm curious how the rest of the game is kept fair if XP by character by encounter is unfair. What happens when a character rolls lower ability scores? Or the players rolls crappy all night and his character gets hurt really bad (level drain or loss of consumables). Or if hit points get rolled low.
I have my own way of dealing with each of these challenges and looking at the rules as written I am a little surprised the game designers have not addressed most of them somewhere in the GM rules section.
Really anything bad can happen to one character and not another. How do GMs who do away with XP per character per encounter deal with the other inequities?
|
|
I feel that as long as the rules for how XP is earned are stated at the beginning of the campaign there isn't any problem. My core group knows that if they don't show up, they don't get paid (so to speak). As a player, I go along with whatever rules the DM follows.
I honestly haven't been in a campaign were you get the same as everybody else whether you show up or not.
Is this a recent thing? How old are you guys, if you don't mind me asking.
42; been playing since 1980 (Moldvay Red Box B/X).
We've had a variety of xp systems over the years, and if there's one thing to be drawn from all of them, it's that whatever the system in use, some players will game that system.
Every time the GM tinkered with the wording, to try ensure PCs got xp for 'contributing', new PCs were built to leverage that wording.
"XP for everyone still standing at the end of the encounter." - PCs ensure they have the ability to self heal, keep themselves in the fight, and let allies drop and stay down if they believe the fight is still in the bag.
"Yeah, Rothgar, we know you held the horde at that doorway all by yourself, while the rest of us shot past you. Thanks for doing most of the work, and taking all the damage that we would otherwise have taken. But if you want any xp, **** you."
Next session, Rothgar retires, replaced by an archer. Party has no front line. Wizard screams for help. 'Rothgar 2' gives wizard the finger.
etcetera
|
|
"XP for any creature you personally deal damage to" - Party encounters 4 ogres. Four PCs rush forward to engage one ogre each.
Wizard and archer fire arrows and magic missiles, splitting fire ineffectually between all four ogres.
At the end of the fight, the 2 PCs who meleed and rolled well each get the xp for one third of an ogre.
The PCs who meleed and rolled poorly, or got KOed, get nothing.
The two PCs who risked nothing, and made deliberately poor tactical targetting choices, which contributed to prolonging the fight and endangering their supposed allies?
They share the xp for three and one third ogres.
Even the wizard who cast one magic missile, split it four ways, then walked away.
|
|
I have not read the entire thread so apologies if this has already been said...
In regards to the characters of players who can't make a session not getting XP, I am happy with this if it is in return for the agreement that such a character is not at risk or death, permanent ability or level loss, loss or destruction of equipment (including consumables like potions etc).
However, if that player will allow the GM or another player to control their PC for the session and undertake all the risk that entails (probably increased risks because the GM or player won't have full knowledge of the PC's abilities and equipment, or the full attention to give to it) then that character should IMHO get a fair share of the XP.
Personally I would rather miss out on some XP and know my character will be there when I return, than come back to potentially be told my character is dead because he was pushed off a cliff, especially if I knew my character had a ring of feather fall but the player didn't see it listed in the equipment and the GM is not going to retcon the death as it would mean retconning most of the session.
So yeah, for me giving up on some XP is actually in return for something.
Also in 3.5, but perhaps not in PF, if you fall a level behind you can naturally catch up due to the same CR opponents being worth more XP to a lower level PC than a higher level PC.
* * *
In terms of awarding bonus XP for "good" roleplaying, I don't mind this much as long as the size of the bonus isn't massive, no more than 10% of the session XP at most and likely around 5%.
As for XP for cooking and bringing snacks etc, I don't go for that to be honest, as it is getting too close to "buying" XP.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attendance an issue? Give bonus XP for being there each session on time and ready to go. Problem fixed.
It doesn't fix anything.
You should be taking into account the reasons why a player isn't attending, and responding appropriately.If a player has genuine reasons why they can't attend, such as health problems, carer responsibilities, or being on emergency call, their attendance is not going to suddenly increase, because there's some bonus xp on offer.
"Man, cleaning up this vomit, urine and faeces is a drag. Ah **** it, it can be someone else's problem. They can lay in it till I get back. I'm not missing out on that bonus xp."
Would you actually want that person looking after one of your relatives?
If you are telling players that there's a bonus for them if they turn up, you're implying that the reasons they give for not attending are bogus, and that they've been selfishly goofing off, finding other fun things to do.
If you're wrong, and they've been away for serious issues, then then that kind of dismissal is rather insulting.
If you're right, and they really are just loafing round at home feeding their face, boozing, playing XBox, ignoring your texts and answerphone messages, because they have hardly any interest in the game..."Yo dude, I'll get there when I feel like it, sheesh!"
Then why would you ever WANT such a person in your group?
In my experience, DMs who practice the “I level the characters in my games when it is appropriate to the story” methodology have a false sense of control and over estimate the role of their story in the play of the game.
My favorite thing about D&D, as a DM, is the lack of control I really have over everything.
I see your point, but it depends entirely on the style of game being played. The Star Wars game where our GM does this, has a pretty solid story going on. Not necessarily a railroad(we choose where to go and/or how to go about obstacles), but he is very good about fleshing out areas with planet-appropriate things, everywhere we go.
In a sandbox game, xp per encounter would likely work better.
I'm not against xp, I just feel the group should be kept equal.
The point most people don't get is that they are simply progress trackers. Kinda like a program installation progress bar.
EXP isn't a reward.While this seems to have been the general way players have viewed experience points for a while now, from a purly RAW point of view, it is a new thing...
From the 3.5 DMG, under the heading of "Experience Awards" (emphasis mine):
Only characters who take part in an encounter should gain the commensurate awards. Characters who died before the encounter took place, or did not participate for some other reason, EARN NOTHING, even if raised or healed later onPersonally, this whole argument is part of the reason why I still play 2nd edition. Because characters of differing levels and earning experience points as a “reward” for good play are built-in features of the game.
YMMV and all of that...
...Which brings us back to Rule Zero. *taps 2 blue mana*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk about awarding XP when players can't make a game makes me wonder, am I in the only group that schedules our games around the players' lives instead of making the players' schedule their lives around the games?
For reference, my group consists of three married couples all in our thirties with professional, familial, and social obligations that go beyond Pathfinder; so we play when we can all get together. If someone can't make it one weekend, we simmply don't game. Maybe the other player's (since we are friends and all) get together to watch a Hogs game (yes we all follow college football), play board games, or something else--but we don't play our primary Pathfinder game because it wouldn't be as fun without everyone there.
Yes, that means we don't get to play as often as we would like, especially when things get busy around the holidays, but that's okay with me. It also means that we don't have these types of petty arguements about how to handle a character because the player has other legitimate obligations or interests that keep them away from the table.
Am I really alone on this one?
|
|
All this talk about awarding XP when players can't make a game makes me wonder, am I in the only group that schedules our games around the players' lives instead of making the players' schedule their lives around the games?
For reference, my group consists of three married couples all in our thirties with professional, familial, and social obligations that go beyond Pathfinder; so we play when we can all get together. If someone can't make it one weekend, we simmply don't game. Maybe the other player's (since we are friends and all) get together to watch a Hogs game (yes we all follow college football), play board games, or something else--but we don't play our primary Pathfinder game because it wouldn't be as fun without everyone there.
Yes, that means we don't get to play as often as we would like, especially when things get busy around the holidays, but that's okay with me. It also means that we don't have these types of petty arguements about how to handle a character because the player has other legitimate obligations or interests that keep them away from the table.
Am I really alone on this one?
No, you're not alone.
Last night our regular game was cancelled (my call) because one of my players couldn't make it. No reason given, he just told his brother (one of my other players) that he wasn't going to be able to show for our regular Wed night game. So we went to FLGS and played a game of Arkham Horror and we are playing our RPG next Wed.I could have still ran the game (wasn't PF) but I chose not to because it's a heavy investigation/RP horror game and missing one session would do more damage than good. Had we decided to play and his character was still involved (taking same risks, but sort of hanging in the background) he would get baseline session xp, but no exceptional xp since he probably wouldn't do anything exceptional (being a background NPC).
That is of course, if that game used xp per encounter/session, which it doesn't.
Sometimes if a player calls out (in advance) we just cancel the whole session and I say at home and get caught up on my writing or get some trigger time on the PC.
|
|
Next time one of my characters fails a critical save and dies, I'm going to try the line, 'its unfair because the only reason Scott Bett's character didn't die is because he's not here! His character should die too.'.
Why wouldn't his character be there?
<ring, ring>
"Hello Mrs Betts. What's that? Scott can't come to the game? Never mind. Thanks for letting us know."
"Right, so where were we? Oh yeah, Scott's character was about to try on the Head of Vecna..."
I predict that in most groups where a PC's presence is not dictated by the presence of the owning player, the PCs of absent players tend to do more than their fair share, since they get renamed 'Trap Bait' for the duration.
Maybe they should get more xp than the PCs whose players are present, chuckling over the daft things they have the hapless chump do.
"What's that? A carving of a green devil face?"
"STICK HIS HEAD IN!"
All this talk about awarding XP when players can't make a game makes me wonder, am I in the only group that schedules our games around the players' lives instead of making the players' schedule their lives around the games?
The games I play in have regular schedules which, I find, makes them easier to plan for than ad hoc schedules. Yes, a player may miss from time to time, but it's reasonably easy to make time for gaming when there's a regular schedule to work around. We treat it much like a regular rec sports league night like bowling, softball, or volleyball night.
We have 2 married couples, 2 other married people (spouses not participating), and one single for the Thursday night game. And 2 married couples and one other married person (spouse not participating) in the Sunday afternoon game. I think we manage to meet more often because of the regular schedule than we would trying to compare schedules to find the next compatible slot. It's an active part of our routine schedules rather than a special event, easily overlooked or forgotten.
Attendance an issue? Give bonus XP for being there each session on time and ready to go. Problem fixed.
It doesn't fix anything.
You should be taking into account the reasons why a player isn't attending, and responding appropriately.If a player has genuine reasons why they can't attend, such as health problems, carer responsibilities, or being on emergency call, their attendance is not going to suddenly increase, because there's some bonus xp on offer.
"Man, cleaning up this vomit, urine and faeces is a drag. Ah **** it, it can be someone else's problem. They can lay in it till I get back. I'm not missing out on that bonus xp."
Would you actually want that person looking after one of your relatives?
If you are telling players that there's a bonus for them if they turn up, you're implying that the reasons they give for not attending are bogus, and that they've been selfishly goofing off, finding other fun things to do.
If you're wrong, and they've been away for serious issues, then then that kind of dismissal is rather insulting.
If you're right, and they really are just loafing round at home feeding their face, boozing, playing XBox, ignoring your texts and answerphone messages, because they have hardly any interest in the game..."Yo dude, I'll get there when I feel like it, sheesh!"
Then why would you ever WANT such a person in your group?
So... let me get this straight. All people who have attendance issues are desperately needed medical personnel who make NO EFFORT to let the group know what hours he will not be available due to work?! Yes OBVIOUSLY it makes more sense in your eyes to give this person full XP and game WITHOUT him than to do the common courtesy of moving the game time to accommodate him (which is what I would do).
99% of the time when people have long term attendance issues it is because they have a habit of taking friends for granted. They probably don't even know this is inconvenient for others. A simple XP nudge is often more diplomatic than "Sorry Pete, show up or we will give your seat to someone else."
Hama, there is nothing dishonest about an XP bonus for showing up on time and ready to play. It should be fairly straight forward to everyone that you are trying to prevent tardy or absent players. And if it gives an otherwise good player a way to save face by becoming punctual "for the XP" then great.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our group prefers to get the XP they earn, with a rule that no one can be more than 2 levels apart. If you are, you automatically get the minimum XP for two levels back.
Does this "punish" people who don't come?
Yes.
We have a table cap of 6. We have lots of people who could have filled the spot you didn't fill when you didn't come. You took that spot away from them. If you can't commit, don't sit. No harm no foul, but you not being there generally means someone else who we would have invited didn't get to play because you said you were going to come.
Most GM's I play with will do side quests with players who miss sessions if they want to that can bring them up. I certainly do, and I really enjoy them. But if you commit to come, and you don't it causes problems for everyone else at the table.
And causing problems for other people at the table is bad form.
Now if you don't do this in your group, that is great. Be happy, god bless. But keeping a coherent story involves everyone showing up. Things happen, we all miss sessions. I have certainly had a lagging character or two because life happened and I couldn't make a few sessions. No one is kicking you out, but having consequences for not showing up isn't being mean.
It's how life is.
|
I think the question of whether or not to include an absent player's character depends on the situation. If the party is in town between adventures, then yeah, I'd say that Grunthras the Flatulent just didn't come with them on that adventure. However, if they start the session where they left off last time, in the middle of a dungeon, it's a lot harder to justify Grunthras suddenly not being there anymore.
|
No, it's not. Give them all 333 XP, and then when the missing player returns give him enough XP to bring him up to the same value as the rest of the party.Here is why it is unfair:
1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, RPed, risked their characters, used consumables such as potions and wand charges. They earn 333 XP each for their effort.
Versus
1000 XP is earned. Three people showed up, one didn't. His character is on auto pilot and did nothing to help because they left him at the inn. They now earn 250 XP each instead to support the free loader.
That is unfair.
I absolutely agree with this Scott and his PC wasn't there for the session so he only gets basically leftover treasure which to me is more than enough punishment. Life is sometimes hard, mean, unfair, and extremely stressful, the game doesn't have to be unless someone wants to make it that way. I game to enjoy and relax for the evening. If my GM acts like my boss or treats me like the idiot on the highway that couldn't care less about me then I don't want to game with him. I want to relax, slay a few monsters, meet interesting people in strange locations and take their loot, not worry about how I become a drain on the party because my wife had a work thing and I need to watch the kids so I miss that session.
|
|
Hama, there is nothing dishonest about an XP bonus for showing up on time and ready to play. It should be fairly straight forward to everyone that you are trying to prevent tardy or absent players. And if it gives an otherwise good player a way to save face by becoming punctual "for the XP" then great.
I didn't mean it like that. I meant the Sorry Pete part. I would outright say something.
So... let me get this straight. All people who have attendance issues are desperately needed medical personnel who make NO EFFORT to let the group know what hours he will not be available due to work?! Yes OBVIOUSLY it makes more sense in your eyes to give this person full XP and game WITHOUT him than to do the common courtesy of moving the game time to accommodate him (which is what I would do).
99% of the time when people have long term attendance issues it is because they have a habit of taking friends for granted. They probably don't even know this is inconvenient for others. A simple XP nudge is often more diplomatic than "Sorry Pete, show up or we will give your seat to someone else."
You're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence.
Single parents in my gaming groups have needed to miss, on short notice, because their kids got sick. All of us who work in games have had to miss at some time or another because of emergency meetings that went until after midnight, or crunch time unexpected weekend hours. I get migraines. I can't predict when they're going to happen, and I can't drive with them because I get intense visual distortion (nor can I really focus enough to play a game when I'm in that much pain). I also can't drive after I've taken medication for them, but often times by the time I know if the medication is working enough that I'd be able to play, it's too late to carpool.
99% of the time it's because we're "taking friends for granted," and we're not even aware it's inconvenient for others?
A lot of assumptions there.
Thanks, Terquem. :-) The medication usually works pretty well! (Just leaves me too dizzy to drive.)
I'm actually thinking of experimenting with a BRP-style percentile skill system (it isn't d20? so sue me) that sits outside of the experience mechanics, and just got to realizing this could work out nicely because of the issues brought up in this thread.
I can grant levels at defined points in the campaign, independent of attendance.
Skills, on the other hand, will be increased at the end of each session using a percentile roll for each skill that got brought into play that session - if the roll beats the current skill value, they gain a point.
Now combat stats will level up together, allowing the group to function as a group and not have to constantly protect the guy who missed a couple of sessions and fell behind, while individual characters gain out-of-combat skills at different rates. Best of both worlds?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use the storm in a teacup xp system. It goes wrong and destroys games every time I use it, but we continue to make use of it.
|
|
I predict that in most groups where a PC's presence is not dictated by the presence of the owning player, the PCs of absent players tend to do more than their fair share, since they get renamed 'Trap Bait' for the duration.
Maybe they should get more xp than the PCs whose players are present, chuckling over the daft things they have the hapless chump do."What's that? A carving of a green devil face?"
"STICK HIS HEAD IN!"
And presumably you would be happy then if your PC died whilst you as the player were absent because the other players were using your character as "Trap Bait"?
If that is the sort of behaviour I could expect from my fellow players (and for some reason I was still willing to play with them) then I would definitely give up an XP for a session I as a player miss in return for being guaranteed that my PC would not be killed, permanently injured or deprived of gear.
I once played in a game where the spread between characters became so severe that there was a level 11 adventuring alongside some levels 4-6.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was it LOTR themed?
For one of my groups, if we only gamed when everyone could make it, we'd game 4 times a year max. We do our best to make sure everyone can make it to the once monthy game, and then if one or two cant make it, we power on.
Under such conditions, every one gets EXP, because it would be a d-move to disadvantage a character base upon the unavoidable pressures of real life. So long as everyone in the group continues to be happy with the approach, it is the approach we'll continue to use.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I predict that in most groups where a PC's presence is not dictated by the presence of the owning player, the PCs of absent players tend to do more than their fair share, since they get renamed 'Trap Bait' for the duration.
And presumably you would be happy then if your PC died whilst you as the player were absent because the other players were using your character as "Trap Bait"?
If that is the sort of behaviour I could expect from my fellow players (and for some reason I was still willing to play with them) then I would definitely give up an XP for a session I as a player miss in return for being guaranteed that my PC would not be killed, permanently injured or deprived of gear.
Well, I was actually attempting to use humour to defuse the mood, but that didn't seem to work.
We don't currently play like that in my group. The players look out for each other, reschedule games if required, play boardgames if two players can't make it, and no-one uses absent players' PCs for suicide missions*. Party loot gets allocated based on principles of utility and need, shoring up the whole party to best achieve mission objectives for the Greater Good, with no regard to who last got what, or WBL.
However, I have been in groups where missing a game meant you came back to find you'd 'donated' all your consumables to other PCs, and taken point through the entire dungeon. Because the players were casual players, teens blowing off steam, and more than a few were carrying out payback from the last time it was done to them.
I bow out of groups like that, because I don't want to waste my time.
It is a thing, and it obviously happens often enough for it to be a meme that gets lampooned in RPG magazine cartoons since day one.
Dork Tower, KoDT, Dragonmirth have all done it, and they do it because everyone can relate.
*Though that could be because the most likely player to be absent is testing some of Kirth's class options, and as GM, I'm the only other person who knows how his PC works.