GP = XP is the best single D&D rule. It's a perfect metric for rewarding players for being cunning bastards and for getting them to act like Swords & Sorcery characters.
However you don't necessarily want a S&S feel for every single campaign you run, in a lot of stories power and status are more important than raw gold. Encounter-based XP can go fuck off and die, but what would be some other good systems for handing out XP? Some ideas:
Cow = XP
Cows (and goats (//dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/08/and-goat-had-notable-horn-between-his.html)) are awesome. They taste good, they make great offerings to the gods, leather is useful for all kinds of things and you can push them off of cliffs onto ghouls.
Then there are the white cows of Apollo that Hermes stole and Number 19:1-8 and so many examples in history of large herds of cattle being status symbols.
The adventure hooks write themselves from cattle rustling to cattle drives to having your herd cursed.
So maybe 1 XP per cow per week? Have a high enough upkeep cost for PCs and enough bad stuff happening to their cows to keep them from sitting around and watching cows as the XP pour in.
Bling = XP
One that really strikes you when reading old heroic epics is how obsessed with showing off possessions everyone was (especially those gold arm rings, why was everyone so into them?). In the Dark Ages royal treasuries weren't composed of stacks of cash so much as special treasures that were kept around to display just how badass the kind was and that were never really intended to be used for buying things.
In D&D, no matter how much your blather on about the history of the crown the PCs just looted it's no different from a pile of coins worth the same amount of GP.
So how about instead of getting XP for looting gold you get XP for displaying your treasures. Looted treasure, heirlooms and gifts from high status NPCs would count but not store bought stuff (except for maybe at a heavily discounted rate).
In order to get the XP, the PCs would have to display their treasures prominently and let everyone know about them. That way a crown with no magical properties could be a prized possession instead of something to be pawned off at the first opportunity.
Things along the lines of trophies from rare dead monsters, books of lore and relics of saints would count as well. For low level PCs even things like fancy looted clothes would be a good source of XP (which would make them end up looking a good bit like historical pirates).
For the rules something along the lines of X% (5%? 10%?) of the value of your displayed treasure would be given to you as XP each month (with a limit on how many items of bling you can get XP for displaying, perhaps?).
Land = XP
Giving XP based on land lets land holdings be good gold sink while giving PCs a strong incentive to conquer land. I also really like "the king is the land and the land is the king" and I'd really like to see an RPG with rules for the connection between a ruler and their land. Getting XP simply for holding land could be a step in that direction.
If you give PCs 1 xp for each acre claimed about 15,000 XP for one six mile hex. Or you could give XP each month/year/whatever based on the value of the land or the number of subjects. With a ruler PC there'd certainly be enough events going on to keep them from sitting back and letting the XP roll in.
How do those sound?
Any other alternatives?
Discovery=XP
Encourages a globetrotting, Indiana Jones-esque game. Finding lost secrets, boldly going where no one has gone before, having unique experiences... all these are the things that makes a man a legend.
From what I understand Dwimmermount encourages something very similar.
Lives = XP
Each life that is saved by a PC results in experience (possibly a variable scale based on impact of the life - saving a king may be worth more than saving a beggar, if you think that's a good rule - or not!).
This would encourage players to save as many lives as possible, and respond to emergencies and existential threats.
Conversely...
Blood = XP
Blood is the measure of success. Every ounce of blood spilled is worth XP - the larger and more fearsome the creature killed, the more blood. Players would be incentivized to go from place to place, looking for things that appeared fearsome but actually posed no real risk to the party, and murdering them.
No real incentive would exist for players to act in any kind of "heroic" way, unless the GM goes out of his way to ensure that the most likely sources of blood also happen to be evil threats.
In a pinch, if a bit of XP was needed murdering some smaller, very helpless creatures would be incentivized as well.
Quote from: Daztur;780226Cow = XP
Cows (and goats (//dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2014/08/and-goat-had-notable-horn-between-his.html)) are awesome. They taste good, they make great offerings to the gods, leather is useful for all kinds of things and you can push them off of cliffs onto ghouls.
Then there are the white cows of Apollo that Hermes stole and Number 19:1-8 and so many examples in history of large herds of cattle being status symbols.
The adventure hooks write themselves from cattle rustling to cattle drives to having your herd cursed.
So maybe 1 XP per cow per week? Have a high enough upkeep cost for PCs and enough bad stuff happening to their cows to keep them from sitting around and watching cows as the XP pour in.
This system needs more cowbell.
Battle cattle!
Okay so... I sometimes award XP for observation of monsters (when we play b/x) rather than just killing them. This leads players to be sneakier but still interested in risky behaviors. A 1st level character could conceivably learn a lot about dragons from hiding and watching one in its lair or out hunting. That's an extreme example, but a fair one.
Quote from: Daztur;780226Cow = XP
Udderly awesome.
Immediately thought of the Masai.
I think a simple quests = XP model works best. Why count XP for each little thing? At the end of a quest just let the group level-up.
AD&D 2e DMG pretty much covers all the bases, especially if you consider the options in their abstract (i.e. quests of varying difficulty, roleplay uses of talents/resources, money/treasure in different forms, furthering ethos, etc.).
Oddly enough I just recommended the AD&D 2e DMG. Yeah, that just happened.
A nice variant of Gold = XP is Orgies = XP, where the XP don't roll in as you gain gold but as you spend it for your rock&roll lifestyle. Jeff Rients created a system for that a while back. (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2008/12/party-like-its-999.html)
Gold for XP may be great for many people, but I don't like it at all.
The ideal xp system for me is based on players achieving goals they set for their characters. As a group; not as individuals.
For example, if the characters choose to free or enslave a town, they get xp for the group effort.
Xp for finding a gold goblet; meh...doesn't work for me.
Quote from: Bill;780791Gold for XP may be great for many people, but I don't like it at all.
The ideal xp system for me is based on players achieving goals they set for their characters. As a group; not as individuals.
For example, if the characters choose to free or enslave a town, they get xp for the group effort.
Xp for finding a gold goblet; meh...doesn't work for me.
The thing for me is they're both *goal* oriented, vs. *process* oriented.
GP for XP works for me in a heavy dungeon-crawl game, but outside of that I think it starts showing a few cracks.
Quote from: robiswrong;780244Conversely...
Blood = XP
Blood is the measure of success. Every ounce of blood spilled is worth XP...
You could also switch this around and give XP for the PCs getting their own blood spilled. Each Hit Point of damage* a PC incurs translates to M * XP (where you adjust the modifier M based on how fast you want the PCs to level up). The amount of XP that PCs can afford to earn at one time increases as they increase in level. Also the system will tend to be biased towards making it easier for the front line fighting types to earn experience.
* Just pretend that in this case Hit Points correspond to blood loss without some long, pointless tangent about the exact meaning of hit points.
There's a certain coolness to it, but I've always preferred Adventure XP.
And a rather loose definition of adventure or goal.
'We went through and secured the treasure of Bilblin' ADVENTURE!
'We negotiated a treaty with the Xereen in anticipation of the upcoming war against the Deathblessed' ADVENTURE!
'Finally got that stupid ring tossed in that fucking volcano' ADVENTURE!
'Fought and fucked our way across Hiberia' ADVENTURE!
I don't bother with trying to dictate the in-game behavior of PCs. I use the following to award XP.
achieve a goal or milestone = 100 XP * character level * goal significance (1 to 5). A goal or milestone is defined on what the individuals characters and the group are trying to achieve. Multiple goals or milestones can happening at once.
Rolemaster or MERP had Xp for travel. Which I sort of always liked. You had to actually travel through the land not just fly over of teleport.
I personally almost always level as I see fit. My players trust me and it was at a progression that kept them happy and me as well.
Quote from: robiswrong;780793The thing for me is they're both *goal* oriented, vs. *process* oriented.
GP for XP works for me in a heavy dungeon-crawl game, but outside of that I think it starts showing a few cracks.
Technically if the characters only goal was to acquire gold, that would become the group goal system I prefer.
But the gold itself is boring to me; it's what you can do with it that I like.
Raise a army, build a temple to yourself, bribe a king, etc...
Quote from: Daztur;780226Cow = XP
I like this one. Very celtic and tribal.
Hellfrost (for Savage Worlds) has a cattle raid sub-system, so stealing the rival village's cattle has specific rules support. I always liked that. (But Savage Worlds uses a "chunky" xp system where every 5 xp gains you an Advance, so it doesn't lend itself to fine-grained xp award systems.)
And that reminds me of Hellfrost's "telling the tale" phase, where you can gain glory for boasting of your exploits. Certain glory thresholds give you benefits, but in the context you're talking about that's taking the long way around. You could go straight to
boasting of your exploits = XP. So its not stealing treasures that levels you up, or even slaying monsters, but actually letting people know you were the guy who did it. You might even get more xp if you can embellish the tale without getting caught out in a lie and disbelieved.
What else...
Crafting = XP? I'm not too committed to this one, but I can see it working for certain characters in, say, an L5R game for instance. Craftsmen and artists ought to be able to get better by practice to begin with, and being an artisan is one path to influence and insight in Rokugan.
Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;780819I personally almost always level as I see fit. My players trust me and it was at a progression that kept them happy and me as well.
For level based games, I always tell the group when to level up.
How about insanity = xp ?
I think this would work particularly well for D&D. The sane are powerless and only the mad thrive isn't far removed from your regular murder hobo game.
It'll certainly ensure that whenever everybody runs away from something, the PCs run straight to it.
Games where players are given XP to improve their characters create a strong incentive for players to only do decisions that bring more XP. For example if your system rewards kills from monsters every encounter becomes combat. Alternatively a system where you reward points for fulfilling the adventure goals makes it more advantageous to avoid combat encounters (that only waste gaming time) and concentrate on fulfilling the quest.
I have been thinking that rewarding players for coming to play (with fixed XP given at every session) would be best (with bonus for ending the adventure either successfully or even failing). All adventure styles and types and missions would be equal and thus players would have incentive to play role rather than a kick murder squad...
Yeah, after initially liking it, I now conclude that 3e's video game-like 'kill monsters for xp and loot' is a TERRIBLE idea.
Quote from: Sommerjon;780946For level based games, I always tell the group when to level up.
This is my preferred method in level based games.
Quote from: Will;780976Yeah, after initially liking it, I now conclude that 3e's video game-like 'kill monsters for xp and loot' is a TERRIBLE idea.
Yes it is. However, it all depends on what kind of game you want to achieve. D&D makers obviously want to put a lot of emphasis on combat system and most spells are geared towards combat. Thus making players incentives to do combat highlights the design emphasis of game. Being sociopath is natural in D&D.
However, if you gear your XP system to loot gained, the adventures would become essentially robberies. Then you'd see a lot of assassins and thieves and emphasis on guard alertness and route plotting in adventures. That would require emphasis on entirely different set of skills and mechanisms.
In the end it all boils down to what is the goal of players to do in game and how you reward them for doing those things. It is simple Game Design 101.
Quote from: Bill;780980This is my preferred method in level based games.
For level-based games where there's a presumption of party consistency, and especially if there's a "plot" that will be followed (regardless of how railroady/not railroady it is), yeah, I'd agree.
If you're doing an open-table, dungeon-centric game, I think "traditional" XP works fine.
Quote from: Nikita;781009Yes it is. However, it all depends on what kind of game you want to achieve. D&D makers obviously want to put a lot of emphasis on combat system and most spells are geared towards combat. Thus making players incentives to do combat highlights the design emphasis of game. Being sociopath is natural in D&D.
And it's worth noting that D&D switched from an exploration/'robbery' game to being a combat focused game (at least in how it was commonly played) somewhere between 1e and 2e. And it still shows a lot of cruft from that change.
I always have had a soft spot for Palladium's way of gaining XP - through doing heroic deeds and role playing. Killing stuff got you very little XP, and gold and shit didn't get you anything.
However, bookkeeping is a chore, as it is geared toward XP for individuals, rather than the group. So unlike DnD, you have to calculate each character's XP, instead of just dividing a lump sum evenly.
Quote from: everloss;781038I always have had a soft spot for Palladium's way of gaining XP - through doing heroic deeds and role playing. Killing stuff got you very little XP, and gold and shit didn't get you anything.
However, bookkeeping is a chore, as it is geared toward XP for individuals, rather than the group. So unlike DnD, you have to calculate each character's XP, instead of just dividing a lump sum evenly.
I used to think that giving out XP for role-playing was good idea until I started to think that there is no real way to evaluate what players do anyways in game. Now I think that giving players points for doing "bastardly deeds" that advance the plot towards solution of adventure is in my view a good incentive. It keeps adventure moving forwards and rewards progress.
After some soul searching in game design books I have now moved to camp of giving a sum of collected XP divided evenly to everyone participating in session. Its main advantages are psychological: Team succeeds and fails together. Thus failures have no one to blame directly and they are felt as a common and equal hardship to all. Similarly team success is higher when players work together and move towards adventure solution and this is rewarded as a team effort where everyone can feel they participated and did something together. Yes, I stress social aspect in role playing as a way of getting players to enjoy the game.
One reason I distrust most subjective evaluations for xp (like role play) is that it naturally sets up tension -- the player wants xp, the GM is judging the player as worthy, or not, of xp.
This may work fine in many cases, but it is likely to expand table drama.
Plus, it's a distraction -- if you don't like how involved someone is in the game, cowboy up and discuss it with them.
We're running an old school game, and I feel we more or less have to hand out XP's for loot and such. Otherwise, classes that progress quickly, like Rogues and Clerics, will lose a key advantage. That's my rational, anyway...
Quote from: Nikita;781044I used to think that giving out XP for role-playing was good idea until I started to think that there is no real way to evaluate what players do anyways in game. Now I think that giving players points for doing "bastardly deeds" that advance the plot towards solution of adventure is in my view a good incentive. It keeps adventure moving forwards and rewards progress.
I like all of your points, and agree. I think I mis-typed when I mentioned "role playing," as in that particular system, you get XP for "coming up with a good idea that helps the team," and "potentially sacrificing your life for the team or a group of people," and "playing in character."
Playing in Character is only a 50 or 100 point bonus (I don't remember off the top of my head), but self sacrifice is 1000 (the highest amount of XP available by any single action). Defeating a minor menace is 25, by comparison, and defeating a major menace is 150.
It always struck me funny that Rifts is treated as a munchkin kill-everything-that-moves game, but the experience system is completely the opposite of that mentality.
I've been long considering using that system for LotFP, but dividing it evenly among the PCs. That way, like you said, the team as a whole is encouraged to do more stuff. I haven't tried it out yet though. I've never liked the whole, "this creature is worth X amount of experience" or experience = gold systems. I understand the logic behind them and the ease on the GM, but I just don't care for them.
I have explained how I do XP a few times.
It emerged as a combination of setting objectives for staff at work, trying to set XP awards that I felt were useful, avoided gold is all that matters, and kill stuff is all we care about, and AMBER. In Amber its hard for the GM to set PC goals becuase the PC are much more likely to fuck off and invent their own plots than they are to follow the GM's and you actually want to encourage that.
So ... this is how it works.
Each PC has 3 personal objectives. An Objective must include overcoming a challenge. So learning the flute , as commendable as it might be is not a challenge, become the best flautist in town by winning the Annual flute challenge... is a challenge.
The GM sets an award for sucessful completion of the challenge. The award depends on the difficulty and the risk. PCs are better off splitting an objective into bite sized chunks. So .... Avenge my father's death, is an epic objective but might be better if you start with "Find out who killed my father", "trace the current whearabouts of Count Olaf", "Kill Count Olaf". These are not just xp awards they are adventure hooks and they pull the party into the game world.
As a PC compeltes an objective they get a new one. If they drop an objective before its complete (note this is different from spliting it into stages) they loose some XP
In addition to these there are "adventure" based objectives but you need to be careful here. As adventure hooks often only reward the behaviour the GM wants to see so can be railroady. If you have an adventure Hook of Rescue the Princess you are in effect precluding there being any benefit in capturing the princess and ransoming her off, or eating her heart to gian control over her ghost or whatever.
So I keep adventure rewards Neutral where possible.
In a Typical "rescue the Princess adventure" with risks suitable for a begining party I might include the following adventure rewards (which are split across each PC that participates in this element).
Discover how the Princess was kidnapped - 300xp
Identify the person in the royal house who betrayed the princess - 500 xp
Identify the kings dark secret - 1000 xp
Discover the Princesses current location - 500 xp
etc
A Player in this setting might then give themselves an objective of become the King's visir and achiet it through blackmail etc
My future ideal RPG (which I am occasionally writing) is supposed to use following system:
I do not use XP. Instead the rewards are in-game social such as recognition within communities, organizations and individuals creating better standing when one succeeds and poor standing when one fails. Other rewards are money and equipment. My adventures are thus mostly patron initiated. This also means that adventures that come from players actions are not "rewarded" per se with money but do have effect on recognition. Good example of recognition mechanics is missions and agents in EVE online MMORPG.
I also made a decision that each character makes about 1 to 2 adventures per year and vast majority of her time is spent in her career (doing desk job or whatever). Thus every game year character gets effect of her career as skills and money. This delinks adventures from character advancement (other than that boyish adventures do affect your career promotions and thus income). My career system got its inspiration from MegaTraveller's Advanced Career system.
I use this system as I have long dreamed of playing a dynastic game where Player collects her family's fortunes over long time playing different family members. Good example is Great Pendragon Adventure where player collects Glory that knight's family has collected in its career during life of King Arthur.
This allows GM do any kind of adventures on steady pace which do affect characters lives and thus give players incentive to succeed and thus promoting team work. Dynastic nature also forces players to think at longer range and have "spare family members". This means that marriage mechanism works well when character has a good standing in society so they have incentive to play good members of society.
Quote from: Nikita;781104My future ideal RPG (which I am occasionally writing) is supposed to use following system:
I do not use XP. Instead the rewards are in-game social such as recognition within communities, organizations and individuals creating better standing when one succeeds and poor standing when one fails. Other rewards are money and equipment. My adventures are thus mostly patron initiated. This also means that adventures that come from players actions are not "rewarded" per se with money but do have effect on recognition. Good example of recognition mechanics is missions and agents in EVE online MMORPG.
I also made a decision that each character makes about 1 to 2 adventures per year and vast majority of her time is spent in her career (doing desk job or whatever). Thus every game year character gets effect of her career as skills and money. This delinks adventures from character advancement (other than that boyish adventures do affect your career promotions and thus income). My career system got its inspiration from MegaTraveller's Advanced Career system.
I use this system as I have long dreamed of playing a dynastic game where Player collects her family's fortunes over long time playing different family members. Good example is Great Pendragon Adventure where player collects Glory that knight's family has collected in its career during life of King Arthur.
This allows GM do any kind of adventures on steady pace which do affect characters lives and thus give players incentive to succeed and thus promoting team work. Dynastic nature also forces players to think at longer range and have "spare family members". This means that marriage mechanism works well when character has a good standing in society so they have incentive to play good members of society.
Does sound like Traveller. Hard to see how it would be used to distribute XP though. You decouple adventures frm character advancement how do you handle advancement. Traveller kind of just removes it.
So the question is in a game with XP how woudl you use this system to give PCs XP that lead to their skills increasing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;781107Does sound like Traveller. Hard to see how it would be used to distribute XP though. You decouple adventures frm character advancement how do you handle advancement. Traveller kind of just removes it.
So the question is in a game with XP how woudl you use this system to give PCs XP that lead to their skills increasing.
In my concept the adventures give you extra social and monetary rewards but skills come from your day job (much like career skills like in MegaTraveller's character building annually).
Simply give players fixed XP for every session they participate and give them bonus for formally ending the mission (less for failing and more from succeeding). Notice that thinking of the relationship between these two sources is crucial to your game. If mission bonus is low the players have no urgency to "go forwards" but if it is very high, you can have very focused "adventures only" attitude.
Quote from: Nikita;781109In my concept the adventures give you extra social and monetary rewards but skills come from your day job (much like career skills like in MegaTraveller's character building annually).
Simply give players fixed XP for every session they participate and give them bonus for formally ending the mission (less for failing and more from succeeding). Notice that thinking of the relationship between these two sources is crucial to your game. If mission bonus is low the players have no urgency to "go forwards" but if it is very high, you can have very focused "adventures only" attitude.
So what you are actually doing then is replacing a Xp=GP or XP=Blood model with XP= adventure goals.That isn't terrible original infact its been a standard for years.
My problem with that as I stated above is that what is the PCs subvert the mission. Rather than capturing the rebel leader and bringing him to justice they join him and then destroy the empires capital? how does that play with an XP = adventure goals?
Quote from: jibbajibba;781117So what you are actually doing then is replacing a Xp=GP or XP=Blood model with XP= adventure goals.That isn't terrible original infact its been a standard for years.
Not at all. What I have been suggesting above is for you to use: XP=Mission Goals *AND* XP=Participation. The balance between them is up to you but I'd suggest you try 50/50 for starters and see what your players like about it.
Quote from: jibbajibba;781117My problem with that as I stated above is that what is the PCs subvert the mission. Rather than capturing the rebel leader and bringing him to justice they join him and then destroy the empires capital? how does that play with an XP = adventure goals?
You are right. That is a thorny question. Putting my theory hat on every adventure is effectively a conflict that is presented to players. Players either solve it or not. Players can always fail in adventure and in this case they failed when they decided to drop the quest and join rebel leader. Thus they get some XP but not as much as when they had fulfilled it.
I prefer to stick to a pretty standart model of mostly combat xp with bonus xp rewarded for special cases.
It just makes the greatest amount of sense to me (which doesn't mean much). Advancement is mostly geared towards getting better in combat, so you progress best by getting combat experience.
Under this asumption, I also award xp for lost fights, provided the PCs survive.
I just trust my players to not start fights and kill everything in view for xp and it works well enough.
I never award xp for out of game matters, including good roleplaying. Just as I don't hand out gold and magic items for such things. Meta behavior is rewarded, if it's rewarded, by meta resources.
I like tracking xp individually and possible having PCs of varying levels. Players are free to track their xp, but I don't trust them to do it, not because they cheat, but because I've had to many who are horrible at it. For the sake of leveling, my counting takes precedent.
Quote from: robiswrong;781013For level-based games where there's a presumption of party consistency, and especially if there's a "plot" that will be followed (regardless of how railroady/not railroady it is), yeah, I'd agree.
If you're doing an open-table, dungeon-centric game, I think "traditional" XP works fine.
Don't know about Bill, but for me it's about people getting together and playing pretend. There is already enough dick-measuring things for them in game to get their rock off on.
Quote from: Sommerjon;781258Don't know about Bill, but for me it's about people getting together and playing pretend. There is already enough dick-measuring things for them in game to get their rock off on.
Where did that even come from?
If you're doing a dungeon-centric game, treasure as an objective can work, because it's something that's pretty universal to hunt for in a dungeon.
If you're doing an open-table game where it's not always the same characters, leveling "the party" when the GM decides is appropriate is weird because there's no single "the party".
I mean, shit, when I do "the party, doing a story" games I often use Fate, which doesn't have the idea of "xp" at all, and the entire party just gains stuff when the GM says so. Because that model *works* in that game style.
Never had any issues with leveling everyone who plays at the same time. What's the harm if Simon is only able to play every other week and levels at the same rate as the ones who play every week?
Quote from: Sommerjon;781402Never had any issues with leveling everyone who plays at the same time. What's the harm if Simon is only able to play every other week and levels at the same rate as the ones who play every week?
Simon is obviously not a good person because he has a busy schedule.
But more seriously,
No harm that I have seen in over 25 years of group xp/same level campaigns.
I used xp in my early years but stopped when I realized the classic xp systems just don't work for me.
Some game systems kind of force individual rewards to some extent, so I deal with that as best I can.
Its really just personal preference; some people adore doling out xp.
Quote from: Sommerjon;781402Never had any issues with leveling everyone who plays at the same time. What's the harm if Simon is only able to play every other week and levels at the same rate as the ones who play every week?
Nah, that's still a regular party, just one where Simon's not as regular.
What I mean by open-table is this:
1) There's more players than show up on a weekly basis by a significant margin
2) Each player will likely have more than one character, especially if they're more "regular" players
3) There's no "plot" or single stream of events
4) The "game" is whoever happens to show up, playing whatever characters they decide to, and doing whatever seems like a good idea.
It's not a common style of game any more (and hasn't been for decades), but at one point it was kind of hte presumed style of play (that's where all the PC-levelled bartenders in FR come from, frex).
The strength of this style is in its flexibility - the longest-running campaign of this style that I was involved in went on for *decades*. It can easily handle player churn, etc., and characters reaching "max level" is kind of irrelevant, because then you just play different characters (actually, you just play other characters *more* since you probably already had them).
So one week, you might have the following:
Alice plays Allia
Bob players Buthor
Cathy plays Candice
Next week, you might have:
Alice plays Allia
Bob plays Buthor
Derek plays Delak
The week after that, you might have:
Alice plays Asha
Cathy plays Corinne
Erin plays Elfstar
For this style of gameplay, individually tracked XP works well, and XP for GP works well. For a "here's the Big Damn Heroes on their Big Damn Quest" (which I do not mean pejoratively) style of game, even if one of the players isn't there every session, yeah, I totally agree that just leveling the party together works well, in almost every way better than actually tracking XP.
Interestingly, I found a highly limited episodic game can also work easily.
I was running Delta Green, where you are all covert members of DG and had day jobs as government agents.
What I found was that it was REALLY easy to start up a mission fast, because the party got the mission pretty much handed to them.
It was easy for someone to leave early or not show up for a session, because their day job interfered.
It was easy to drop in new agents, because hey, secret secret agents, or regular members just got off the drug raid and is available, or whatever.
Now, I LIKE 'do whatever you want,' but find it interesting that both extremes can work. ;)
(With 'do whatever you want,' though, I prefer systems that have some mechanical handles for DOING whatever you want)
Quote from: robiswrong;781516Nah, that's still a regular party, just one where Simon's not as regular.
What I mean by open-table is this:
I realized what you meant.
However I would still level up *every character* at the same time.
Quote from: Sommerjon;781569I realized what you meant.
However I would still level up *every character* at the same time.
That ruins the fun for those of us that like running characters at different levels (since they all end up the same level all the time). And it causes some difficulties if you have multiple characters since it makes it difficult to learn the rules for an infrequently run character as they are leveling up 3 times as fast (and possibly skipping entire levels) as your more frequently run character.
Quote from: Bren;781661That ruins the fun for those of us that like running characters at different levels (since they all end up the same level all the time). And it causes some difficulties if you have multiple characters since it makes it difficult to learn the rules for an infrequently run character as they are leveling up 3 times as fast (and possibly skipping entire levels) as your more frequently run character.
Multiple characters by the same player would be a special case for me.
The vast majority of the games I have run in or played in, nearly all have had one pc per player.
I may have done a dark sun game with multiple pc's years ago, hard to recall.
Followers/Cohorts/Hirelings/Henchmen/etc...I either make lower level than the group or same level if they are not going to outshine the pc's themselves.
Quote from: robiswrong;781516Nah, that's still a regular party, just one where Simon's not as regular.
What I mean by open-table is this:
Yup, that's what I'm trying to set up to run through Caverns of Thracia with S&W. Not having to concern myself with player churn is so nice and this way I can run Google+ and face to face groups in parallel.
Really looking forward to people finding a horribly trashed room where other PCs had already been and standing around wondering WTF happened here.
This kind of system is really the only one I'd consider using a mega-dungeon for since you don't have to worry about the logistics of PCs meeting up: each sessions starts and ends at town.
Quote from: Bren;781661That ruins the fun for those of us that like running characters at different levels (since they all end up the same level all the time). And it causes some difficulties if you have multiple characters since it makes it difficult to learn the rules for an infrequently run character as they are leveling up 3 times as fast (and possibly skipping entire levels) as your more frequently run character.
Like Bill said "Multiple characters by the same player would be a special case for me."
There is always that ulterior motive in what players are doing. Whether it's gold=xp or creature=xp doesn't really matter. It influences people's decision making.
My enjoyment of RPGing is not that, it's getting together and playing pretend.
I'm upfront about it.
Quote from: Bill;781837Multiple characters by the same player would be a special case for me.
Quote from: Sommerjon;781896Like Bill said "Multiple characters by the same player would be a special case for me."
Everybody getting exactly the same experience, especially getting experience for characters who aren't even present in a session would be a special case in for me. Whereas, over the past 40 years people having more than one character has been the default in multiple game systems in various groups and locations when I've played or GMed. Which just goes to show, people do or like different things when they play RPGs.
Quote from: Sommerjon;781896There is always that ulterior motive in what players are doing.
I don't think find it productive to speculate about the ulterior motives behind why people want group experience. It invariable sounds like an attack on the character of those folks who want to play their games in a certain way. So I won't do that. Similarly, I think speculating about ulterior motives behind why people might what separate experience is equally hostile and unproductive.
Quote from: Bren;782129Everybody getting exactly the same experience, especially getting experience for characters who aren't even present in a session would be a special case in for me. Whereas, over the past 40 years people having more than one character has been the default in multiple game systems in various groups and locations when I've played or GMed. Which just goes to show, people do or like different things when they play RPGs.
Never said otherwise.
I even stipulated that in a level based game I don't use xp, however in a skill based game I do.
Quote from: Bren;782129I don't think find it productive to speculate about the ulterior motives behind why people want group experience. It invariable sounds like an attack on the character of those folks who want to play their games in a certain way. So I won't do that. Similarly, I think speculating about ulterior motives behind why people might what separate experience is equally hostile and unproductive.
I find no enjoyment from games that reward certain actions and not others. If you feel that is me attacking, being hostile or unproductive, you go girl.
Quote from: Sommerjon;782206I find no enjoyment from games that reward certain actions and not others.
You could have just said that without also suggesting people who play a different way have "ulterior motives" rather than different preferences.
Quote from: Bren;782220You could have just said that without also suggesting people who play a different way have "ulterior motives" rather than different preferences.
It is ulterior motives. You may not like the bluntness, but you'll get over it eventually.
Quote from: Sommerjon;782238It is ulterior motives. You may not like the bluntness, but you'll get over it eventually.
Cupcake, I don't think you know what the phrase "ulterior motives" even means.
Gold, platinum, goat, princess: It's all the same principle. Only in Advanced was it stipulated that everything not specie must be converted to it to score points, which to me is silly. If there's an adventure in securing real wealth, then all the better I say! What did Fafhrd and Mouser take from their tryst with the Sea King's girls, or many another feat of derring-do?
Leveling-up everyone on a schedule is obviously not going to cut it in the old game form, any more than giving every batter so many bases just for being on the roster would in baseball. The interaction of skill and luck in scoring points is part of the game, part of the fun. Without the chance of lesser outcomes, there simply are no noteworthy successes!
That doesn't need to be where the game is for everyone, and some people prefer something that's not really a challenge at all but simply an entertainment.
Quote from: Bren;782239Cupcake, I don't think you know what the phrase "ulterior motives" even means.
I don't. I thought it sounded sophisticated. Please tell me what it means.
Quote from: Phillip;782269Leveling-up everyone on a schedule is obviously not going to cut it in the old game form, any more than giving every batter so many bases just for being on the roster would in baseball. The interaction of skill and luck in scoring points is part of the game, part of the fun. Without the chance of lesser outcomes, there simply are no noteworthy successes!
That doesn't need to be where the game is for everyone, and some people prefer something that's not really a challenge at all but simply an entertainment.
You're right. I am in this hobby for entertainment reasons. I've never found D&D to be much of a 'challenge', perhaps it's challenging for you.
Quote from: Phillip;782269Leveling-up everyone on a schedule is obviously not going to cut it in the old game form, any more than giving every batter so many bases just for being on the roster would in baseball. The interaction of skill and luck in scoring points is part of the game, part of the fun. Without the chance of lesser outcomes, there simply are no noteworthy successes!
That doesn't need to be where the game is for everyone, and some people prefer something that's not really a challenge at all but simply an entertainment.
Scoring points? Not sure what you mean, can you clarify?
Quote from: Bill;782526Scoring points? Not sure what you mean, can you clarify?
Treasure as XP exists pretty much just as a means of keeping score.
How much treasure is acquired is a way of keeping score to determine successful adventures vs not so successful ones. If your party suffers the least casualties while obtaining the best amount of loot then you are "winning". :)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;782533Treasure as XP exists pretty much just as a means of keeping score.
How much treasure is acquired is a way of keeping score to determine successful adventures vs not so successful ones. If your party suffers the least casualties while obtaining the best amount of loot then you are "winning". :)
Similarly, if my PC suffers the least loss for the most gain (XP, gold, magic, levels, power) than with respect to the other players, I have the higher score.
I just roleplay; I must be slacking at keeping score.
Quote from: Bill;782561I just roleplay; I must be slacking at keeping score.
Probably. You could try using a spreadsheet to help you keep track. ;)
Which, unsarcastically, is what I actually do to keep track of the long term Advancement Point awards for all the PCs in my Honor+Intrigue game.
As an aside, I remember four hours of playing one Civilization board game.
By the end of it I just wanted it to BE OVER.
And it was, finally... what, now we have to determine score?? Fuck it, I lose. No, stahp, I DON'T CARE.
Ok, 15-20 minutes of tabulating the score, I'm 3 out of 4, woopdefuckingdoo.
Quote from: Will;782588As an aside, I remember four hours of playing one Civilization board game.
By the end of it I just wanted it to BE OVER.
And it was, finally... what, now we have to determine score?? Fuck it, I lose. No, stahp, I DON'T CARE.
Ok, 15-20 minutes of tabulating the score, I'm 3 out of 4, woopdefuckingdoo.
Heh. Victory points.
I am a Horrible 'Twilight Imperium' player. That boardgame takes 6-12 hours, and the way you win is to earn victory points. If you don't chase the points, you WILL lose.
However, when I play that game, I do what is fun for me; usually building a huge fleet, and battling anyone that provokes my wrath. I rarely initiate a war, but love counterattacking.
Thing is, I will never, ever Win that game. Because you generally don't get victory points for a fleet or winning a battle.
But I have fun, and the way I play makes the game experience interesting for other players.
But I will literally never win that game.
Quote from: Will;782588As an aside, I remember four hours of playing one Civilization board game.
By the end of it I just wanted it to BE OVER.
And it was, finally... what, now we have to determine score?? Fuck it, I lose. No, stahp, I DON'T CARE.
Ok, 15-20 minutes of tabulating the score, I'm 3 out of 4, woopdefuckingdoo.
only 4 hours :) You probably missed the grain hording / famine phase (where everyone stores grain rather than training or cashing it in to avoid famine but then the famine cards just comes round more and more often as there are no grain cards in the deck. ... That phase alone can last 4 hours :)
Our record was a 48 hour game of Warrior Knights (to be fair 6 hour break for sleep all on the floor of the flat). That was a game that could just run and run.
Just had another idea for an alternative XP system.
Fame = XP
Set up a few categories of deeds that can win PCs fame, what these categories are depends on the campaign but some categories could include: slay a beast, recover a treasure, experience great tragedy, discover a forgotten location. For another campaign they could be winning a duel, protecting a lady's honor, having an important lover, etc. etc. whatever fits the campaign.
In order to get XP you have to convince the general population that you did one of these things. Usually having direct evidence will be enough, for example carrying a freshly hacked-off dragon head out of the mountains is generally going to convince people that you killed a dragon but naked self-promotion, trickery, etc. will work as well.
In order to get additional XP you have to top your previous best in that category. For example if you get XP for winning a duel, to get XP for winning a duel again you have to top your previous victory, either by fighting a greater opponent or by fighting with a handicap or what have you.
If it makes the whole party act like Baron Munchausen then so much the better.
Could make up a little subsystem based on convincing people that you did what you claimed to do based on actual physical evidence, getting important people to sign on to your story, paying bards to spread tales of your glory, etc. etc.