| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember back when I was a much younger GM and my group played 3.0, we sometimes had the slow wizard problem.
Between item crafting, unique spells, and missing a few sessions, our wizard was permanently behind others. It got annoying and I pretty much ended up working up one of my first houserules just to avoid having that problem again (we handwaved him up a few hundred xp out of common agreement).
When Pathfinder removed xp costs, I rejoyced.
Three months later, when I didn’t do xp calculations in advance and players asked how much they got, I hesitated and said “you know what... I’ll just keep track myself. It’s easier on you guys.”
It was my best lie so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been lucky to have a group that is extremely good about meeting up regularly each Saturday night, and this is a group where four of the five people are married and three have children. The few times when we couldn't all meet (due to schooling, holidays, etc.) we just skipped playing that week. Skipping sessions doesn't cause a problem as everyone seems to like having a free Saturday night every once in a while.
What I think I'll do in the future is offer to get the group together minus the player who cannot make it and introduce them to some of my favorite board games. I will also see if they're interested in playing in a Starfinder one-shot as none of us have ever played.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be very much for tracking XP and though I still believe it has value as a way to gauge when the PCs should level for homebrew games or more sandbox style play I now mostly use and or modify Paizo's adventure paths and have since turned to the milestone system. I have to say its been really nice and liberating and probably the method ill stick with from here on out.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with Zaister et al. - I can't think of any industry professional who ever expressed their intense approval of docking xps for the players who couldn't make it.
I work in an office full of industry professionals, and generally in the games I've played everyone just levels up together (unless it's a Society game played for credit, in which case you get the credit for the scenarios you actually play). The last time I played in a game outside of the organized play environment where the party were at different levels was probably 7 years ago, and I'm pretty certain that the disparity in character levels that evolved between PCs for reasons the players often didn't have any control over was the main reason that game crashed and burned. Once there's a level or more of space between characters it can be really frustrating to be the character who's never going to catch up. Generally the reward of being the first ones to claim a share of the loot is plenty of incentive for the players who make the game, without making every subsequent session more difficult (and for many people, less fun) by pushing the player's progression back.
That being said, if a system works for you and your group, use that. Dynamics are different for every group of players and what may be generally applicable as common "wisdom" should not override proven practices that your group enjoys and is comfortable with.
PFS will always see mixed level tables, so there will be SOME form of guidance there, I'm certain.
There definitely will.
Level spreads will be a thing in PFS2 and will be more challenging to deal with, though. But that's a topic for a different thread, IMO.
The org play team is on top of this and has a variety of measures in place to make the org play experience the best it can possibly be. Part of the solution lies in shifting the level Tiers for scenarios from 5 level spreads to 4 level spreads, following the Starfinder model so there's no more than a 1 level variance in a given Subtier. The other pieces will largely be covered by the PFS-specific instructions for scaling an encounter and the core encounter scaling rules.
My concern is, how do I make this work for a mixed level party.
If you're designing your adventures/campaign with an eye towards enabling mixed levels, then I think you've got some options. If you've ended up with a party of mixed levels through a twist of fate, then that's another matter.
For many years I ran a PF1 game at a University club where your level was determined by your academic year. Freshman = 6th, Sophomore = 7th, Junior = 8th, Senior (or Grad Student) = 9th. To make it work I had to exert more control over magic item bonuses, basically limited to +1. I also had to keep an eye on monster ACs. It worked out pretty well and the game was popular. The range of values between characters was basically a swing of around 6. Setup challenges for roughly level 7. Folks were generally cool with Freshman having to work a little harder and Seniors having it a bit easier.
A cooperative PF1 game in which I am still active as both a player and DM has a very large cast of characters from levels 1 through 21 and circumstances can arrange for impromptu mixed-level parties. This takes some care on the part of the DM to leave an avenue for characters that are completely outclassed by the situation. They either need an option to get out of the way, some bite-sized opponents, some object to manipulate, or the player can choose to risk it all and wade in over their head -- and that happens with sometimes tragic results, and sometimes they surprise you.
I've not faced either situation in the PF2 Playtest nor in post-playtest play. The only game I'm involved with that might migrate to PF2 is unlikely run into this, but from what I've seen I think a level difference of around 2 would work in PF2.
Like most games, not all high level PF2 characters are equal. You can make a worthless high level character if you want. It's harder to do, but quite possible. Limiting access to magic weapons/items would be the key. If you're willing to house-rule the +1 per level part then you'll have a wider range of viable levels.
I dislike having my levels handed to me by the GM. Earning my XPs is a source of satisfaction for me and I have to feel that I EARNED each and every one of them:-)
We never let anyone lag behind the rest of the group by more than one level. Works for us - but then again, we ARE old farts. Our sons play the same way, but that's probably due to them being influenced by us ...
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first read about ditching xp I thought: "Outrageous! Never in my life!"
But when I tried going without them, I realized that is doesn't only reduce bookkeeping and the risk of in-party unbalances: the real boon is that the game becomes much less focused on encounters, and much more goal-oriented.
What do PCs want? To get their mission done and to get out alive, possibly with some treasure. Even when they are just exploring and looking for shiny things, they (usually) don't want to hunt down every single dangerous thing they can find in the dungeon.
Having xp, which mostly come from encounters, gives the players a different goal, and that's bad. I had my good share of players who asked: "How much xp is that worth?" about almost every living (and unliving) thing they met. I didn't do that when I was playing, but it was mostly because I already knew how much xp most things were worth, and that subconsciously influenced my decisions! :)
Now, it's like fresh air. My dear xp, I was in love with you, I really was... but I got over you, forever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only time I can see a gap in EXP earned make sense is in a game system like Ars Magica, World of Darkness, or Hero, where EXP doesn't go to overall character level, but to a given stat or skill's level. Otherwise it just "Feels bad man" for everyone not at the highest end of the leveling spectrum. Milestone EXP is also easier on the GM I find, where you don't have to math out the encounter EXP, you just need to set a specific goal for the party to fulfill and then BAM! next level
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, goal oriented XP rewards are much preferable to encounter awards. However, I don't think having an incentive to completely explore a dungeon is necessarily a bad thing. It seems a shame to have a bunch of content that just gets ignored because it happens to not be on the shortest possible route to completing your quest. But treasure can also be used as an incentive, and it makes more sense in narrative.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first read about ditching xp I thought: "Outrageous! Never in my life!"
But when I tried going without them, I realized that is doesn't only reduce bookkeeping and the risk of in-party unbalances: the real boon is that the game becomes much less focused on encounters, and much more goal-oriented.
What do PCs want? To get their mission done and to get out alive, possibly with some treasure. Even when they are just exploring and looking for shiny things, they (usually) don't want to hunt down every single dangerous thing they can find in the dungeon.
Having xp, which mostly come from encounters, gives the players a different goal, and that's bad. I had my good share of players who asked: "How much xp is that worth?" about almost every living (and unliving) thing they met. I didn't do that when I was playing, but it was mostly because I already knew how much xp most things were worth, and that subconsciously influenced my decisions! :)Now, it's like fresh air. My dear xp, I was in love with you, I really was... but I got over you, forever.
Another advantage of milestone leveling is, if you're running a published adventure, you can add in side quests without being concerned that it's going to completely throw off the level the PCs are supposed to be at. I run APs, and I always add extra content to them (personal quests for PCs, things that make the story fit together better, extra stuff prompted by something the PCs did). If I tracked xp, I'd have to be very careful doing that or they'd end up super over-leveled for the next part of the campaign. Milestone leveling means I can add bonus content with impunity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This conversation has made me realize why I really cared about XP values in high school/college. The GM I played with was incredibly toxic and manipulative and XP was a way for me to make sure I wasn't being "cheated". Since cutting that group of people out of my life and embracing more indie-ish RPGs, hard XP counters just mean so much less to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our game is much more sandboxy, with a pool of characters that can come and go each week. Multiple GMs may run for the same characters. Keeping track of Exp helps to meet our needs as a party.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like my fundamental problem with XP is that it is a lot of bookkeeping for very little benefit. When I run games where "milestones" aren't a reasonable way to do advancement, I try to at least reduce the bookkeeping by making the XP awarded for various things like "1" or "5" and making the number of XP needed for level up more like "20" or "50".
I'm fine with "you get nothing for beating up really weak enemies if that buys me tractable granularity.