Which is better? Is one of them badwrongfun?

Over the past years I've mostly run adventure path type games where PCs are expected to be a particular level, and I've seen claims for those games that XP is not a reward mechanic, it's just for pacing (I've even seen claims that not giving XP to PCs whose players miss a session is punishing the player). Such games encourage things like fiat leveling, all PCs the same level etc. I've always given XP but sometimes I resorted to just giving a 'pacing award', eg with Mentzer D&D he recommends ca 20-25,000 XP per session, and I often just took to handing that out without calculating.

Recently though I'm running tabletop sandbox megadungeon game where all PCs start at 1st level & you get XP for the gold your PC has gained at the end of the session. I'm still getting my head around this a bit, the players seem happy enough.

If you use XP/Levels, do you have a preference? How do you do it? Do you vary it by campaign style?

I use XP as a reward for successful play, whether that means that the Players achieved their goals or not, but did try to plan and execute those plans. I've never just given out a set amount of XP per session while GMing, but have played in games where the GM does so. The games where a set XP reward is given out per session regardless just seemed somewhat hollow, all we had to do was show up to play and we really didn't have to achieve anything or sometimes even try to get the XP.

I don't really think either is badwrongfun, but I prefer earned XP. It comes down to the reaction at the end of a session. When the GM reveals the earned XP for a session, it is exciting. Maybe the amount is higher or lower than you expected, you might level when you didn't expect to or vice versa.

With flat XP, it's a also a flat moment. You know what you are getting. You know which sessions will end with leveling which won't. It is still nice to get XP, but there is no drama or uncertainty connected to it.

I don't know if I would even consider flat XP to be a pacing element. When I think of pacing a session, I think of varying the speed in a game. You have the fast, exciting moments and more careful deliberations and talky scenes. A sense of pacing requires variance. Having flat XP is a lack of pacing. It is just a uniform progression. I think earned XP provides more a sense of pacing because it changes from session to session.

I'm not utterly opposed to flat XP. It's a less work for the GM. Calculating XP can be a hassle. It also avoids players acting on weird meta motivations to harvest XP. It just isn't particularly exciting.

I'm of two minds on this.

Left brain likes XP as reward/progression. Earning a few levels every couple years of play. Sometimes a flat amount for each character, sometimes a base amount + individual accomplishments for each character (as debuted in AD&D 2nd-ED).

Right brain likes how Shadow of the Demon Lord does it. After every *successful* adventure, you gain a level. That's it. Bonk, new level. Cuts down on everyone's bookkeeping (and I haven't always had players I'd trust to keep their own XP tally - fortunately those were given the boot a long time ago).

Depends on how I feel like setting up the game, I suppose.

Quote from: S'mon;1008425Which is better? Is one of them badwrongfun?

If you use XP/Levels, do you have a preference? How do you do it? Do you vary it by campaign style?

I'm sure it varies by campaign style. I don't think there's badwrongfun involved.

It's never occurred to me to use it as a pacing mechanism (which seems to be a port over from Wow?)

What I think is valuable about XP for treasure (which is how I run my Lamentations of the Flame Princess game, which is cloned off of B/X D&D) is that that it keeps the game cleanly focused. As long as there are rumors of where the treasure is, the PCs have motivation to go. They then decide whether the risks that pile up are worth confronting, or whether they've gotten enough treasure to retreat and call it a day.

I've enjoyed this structure of XP so much I wrote a post about it.

As for the pacing preference... I have to admit, when I read the title of the thread I didn't understand at first what it was. As it is, I now understand that there are modules/campaigns/adventure paths that work like this. But I also don't quite understand "get it" as in -- "Why do it that way?"

Quote from: S'mon;1008425(I've even seen claims that not giving XP to PCs whose players miss a session is punishing the player).

I've seen that. That guy is the definition of badwrongfun. Yeah him.

Experience is a reward for playing the game and doing well as well as other things that increase the fun @ the table (like, bring me beer=XP, a common enough house rule). Not playing is a non starter.

Personally I don't award experience points just for turning up, and especially don't award them if you didn't turn up. I award experience points for experience.

So, second session of Wilderlands today with xp for gp. The catfolk Rogue 'Bright Star of the East' truly became a Thief today, after the party had killed the kobold's 'dragon' (a ginormous gecko) she nicked the 1100gp ruby & gold circlet, the only big piece of loot in the whole session, then she talked the two dwarf Cleric PCs who had spotted her into each taking a 300gp cut to stay silent & screw the other 4 PCs out of their shares...  I thought the rest of the table took it quite stoically, considering that meant they also lost out on half the XP for the session - they got 0 for the circlet while the Rogue got 500 (leveling up in consequence) & the dwarves 300 each.

It's a far cry from the same player's selfless behaviour in my XP-for-kills Paizo Runelords game!

Quote from: jeff37923;1008427I use XP as a reward for successful play, whether that means that the Players achieved their goals or not, but did try to plan and execute those plans.

This is how I do it as well.

XP is for closers.

It's a reward either way.

If you hand out XP to people just for showing up, then you've incentivized showing up.

Unless of course you're one of those people who award XP to people that don't show up just to maintain the game's "pace"...

If you use XP, then give XP based on the theme of the campaign.

AKA, if your theme is about looting dungeons, then Gold = XP kicks ass, but Gold = XP doesn't work for a campaign about heroes questing for their king.

Personally, I find XP too fiddly to give a shit about tracking. For me, if you survive the adventure, you get a level. Boom. Done. My games are deadly enough to make survival a notable achievement enough.

This whole DM rewarding the players thing.  I don't think I like it.  If you have a specific type of game in mind say so.

If some one comes and falls asleep during the session either wake him up or let him sleep.  No need to punish him by withholding.  He clearly needs the sleep, and its not like he's depriving others of their chance to shine.  

If someone doesn't come at all don't give them experence unless ypu need them to be above a certain level to hang with the rest og the party.

A couple thoughts.

Like most of you, I've no use for the notion of awarding identical XP to everyone, even whether people show up or not.  (One wag, in a similar discussion on TBP where the majority went very much the other way, claimed that he'd been running a D&D game for years where no one had ever shown up to play, and all their characters were 11th level.)  I agree that XP is for achievement, not a participation badge; it's not that someone who gets less XP is being "punished," it's that those who get more are being rewarded.

But that being said, something that crops up in these discussions -- whether or not people buy into doing so -- is the premise that parties somehow need to be on an equal playing field, and that they broadly have to be about the same level.  This is a gaming folk belief far more often stated than examined, never mind demonstrated.

Who says, after all?  Alright, I play GURPS, not D&D, but.  Playing a campaign where for most of my GMing career I had multiple groups, people joining extant ones, old players wanting to bring their favorite characters back, and the usual "I'd like to try something new" tradeouts, the largest gap between most experienced/least experienced characters -- according to my records -- was 125 points.  

(I say "was," because due to a fresh tradeout, starting with the upcoming session, one player's trading out for a rookie.  The highest point character will be a whopping 161 points more.)

That's pretty huge; that's a couple years worth of XP.  And still they get to contribute and do their bits.

Is it so much different in D&D?  I don't think so; c'mon, what's the difference between a 3rd and a 5th level character?  A few more hit points, a slightly better chance of hitting, a few more spell slots.  Does that really make the lesser character a speed bump in any adventure the higher one takes on, or the higher one a buzzsaw that'd destroy any challenge the lower one could meet?

Doubt it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1008581Is it so much different in D&D?  I don't think so; c'mon, what's the difference between a 3rd and a 5th level character?  A few more hit points, a slightly better chance of hitting, a few more spell slots.  Does that really make the lesser character a speed bump in any adventure the higher one takes on, or the higher one a buzzsaw that'd destroy any challenge the lower one could meet?

Well 5e is designed so that PCs roughly double in power from 4th to 5th - fighter types go from 1 attack to 2, wizards get fireball, clerics get spirit guardians - massive damage area-effect powers - clerics can raise the dead (revivify), wizards can fly, both can do sending long-distance comms etc. There's a very definite tier break built in there.