Quote from: Dumarest;1008463Personally 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.

There you go, my opinion as well. Characters should not get experience for things the players do (roleplay, finish scenarios etc.) but rather as a product of time and energy put into developing their skills and abilities. Failing is often more of an impetus for personal development than success so 'rewarding' experience for many of the things common in RPGs doesnt make sense at all. Trying to track Xp per skill though is a nightmare and doesnt work in most systems so XP per time spent in relative activity is the logical way to handle it as far as Im concerned. Small amount for relative inactivity, more for increased activity and challenges. I award a certain number of XP per day based on the general challenges and skill use during that time. Its a small amount though so characters level in a matter of weeks typically.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1008637Nodding off, OK. What do you do if one player gets up to sleep on the couch? Knowing that it is late and they get tired earlier than others.

Hed be sent home, period. His character either handed off to another player or run by me as an NPC.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009144YMMV, though.  I'll turn that around to my LARPing experience.  I was in the LARP for fourteen years, and I was its second-oldest player the day I joined.  I reached the maximum number of spells the system would allow in 1994, at which point I was already 35 years old.  By the time I was 40, I was doing six hours of fighting practice a week just to keep my combat skills from deteriorating, fighting a lot of people half my age, and that was a battle that anyone who knows about athletics knows I was losing.  I was the leader of a major nation, the most powerful wizard in the game, no progress on those fronts either.  Somehow, I managed to have roleplaying fun without any character advancement at all, and none in prospect.  It was no less a game.

I agree that advancement is not a requirement to enjoy roleplaying. But I don't think your example counters Larsdangly's point. It sounds like you knew what it would have taken to advance, because you did that earlier in your LARPing experience. It wasn't a mystery or something decided by someone who was not you making a judgement call on how useful your six hours of fighting practice would be.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009149Hed be sent home, period. His character either handed off to another player or run by me as an NPC.

I'd add a note to his mom as well.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1008567If 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.

Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be. If a game is about looting dungeons to get rich, award XP for gold. If a game is about domain management and political intrigue, award XP for political/domain achievements. If a game is about saving the kingdom, award XP for overcoming encounters related to doing that. (Or award levels per adventure, as you say.)

I wish I knew this when I started gaming. I'm not sure whether my 2e AD&D DMG didn't explain this fact or if I just didn't take note of it, but I never thought about XP-for-gold in my teenage years. When 3e arrived I thought "This makes so much more sense, PCs should get XP for defeating monsters, why would they get experience points for looting gold?" Only years later after joining the online community and talking about topics like this -- and in part thanks to Gronan's presence on RPGnet -- did I realize that XP-for-defeats doesn't make all that much sense after all. In a for-gold-and-glory type game it incentivizes players to hack n' slash their way thru the dungeon rather than strictly getting the loot, and in a save-the-kingdom type game it incentives the same thing instead of saving the kingdom. XP-for-defeats only makes really good sense in a Diablo-style game.

...Which admittedly can be fun. But is not the intended default of many published games, I think.

Well there are also those of us who want increases in character ability to have some sort of in-world cause & effect. Great, you avoided risking your life by being clever and snagging the gold - have XP you can put into "cunning", but probably not into being better at fighting.

Quote from: Skarg;1009385Well there are also those of us who want increases in character ability to have some sort of in-world cause & effect. Great, you avoided risking your life by being clever and snagging the gold - have XP you can put into "cunning", but probably not into being better at fighting.

So, RuneQuest and other BRP games, isn't that?

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383I wish I knew this when I started gaming. I'm not sure whether my 2e AD&D DMG didn't explain this fact or if I just didn't take note of it, but I never thought about XP-for-gold in my teenage years. When 3e arrived I thought "This makes so much more sense, PCs should get XP for defeating monsters, why would they get experience points for looting gold?" Only years later after joining the online community and talking about topics like this -- and in part thanks to Gronan's presence on RPGnet -- did I realize that XP-for-defeats doesn't make all that much sense after all. In a for-gold-and-glory type game it incentivizes players to hack n' slash their way thru the dungeon rather than strictly getting the loot, and in a save-the-kingdom type game it incentives the same thing instead of saving the kingdom. XP-for-defeats only makes really good sense in a Diablo-style game.

It's one reason I'm not remotely a RAW devotee.  I cringe at all the terrible decisions and choices I made, back in the first couple years I was GMing, because the Rules Said So or the Circumstances Dictated It.  One of my original players rolled up a boffo set of fighter numbers, and rather than let her switch them around to do the wizard she always played and always *wanted* to play, I talked her into the stickjock, and she walked in five sessions.  She might have been in my game for years if I'd been more inclined to listen to what she wanted instead of shoehorning her into what I thought the game demanded.  And I always did think good RP was cool, but damn, did it have to take me *four frigging years* and switching to TFT to start to give more RP XP than combat XP?

Better late than never, but however much my gaming circles celebrated me as a great GM, I look back and think "No, it wasn't because I was that good.  Just less mediocre than some of the others."

Quote from: Dumarest;1009389So, RuneQuest and other BRP games, isn't that?

I don't know. I do it with house rules and/or GM rulings, but if there are good detailed published systems for modelling improvements based on actual experience, I'd be interested to check them out.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009095In the respect of granting experience, skill-based games are so different from class-level games that they should almost be two different threads because they are really two different things.  Something like GURPS or Mythras, even a large difference in skill is not a perfect defense against a lower opponent like it would be in a level-based game.  There really are no de facto tiers.

True, but there are similarities, too. And while Dragon Warriors is level-based, you can be killed by an opponent 5 levels below you, so not all level systems are the same:).
Not all point-based systems are the same, either.

Quote from: Skarg;1009385Well there are also those of us who want increases in character ability to have some sort of in-world cause & effect. Great, you avoided risking your life by being clever and snagging the gold - have XP you can put into "cunning", but probably not into being better at fighting.

What if I use the gold to purchase fencing instruction;)?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009390It's one reason I'm not remotely a RAW devotee.  I cringe at all the terrible decisions and choices I made, back in the first couple years I was GMing, because the Rules Said So or the Circumstances Dictated It.  One of my original players rolled up a boffo set of fighter numbers, and rather than let her switch them around to do the wizard she always played and always *wanted* to play, I talked her into the stickjock, and she walked in five sessions.  She might have been in my game for years if I'd been more inclined to listen to what she wanted instead of shoehorning her into what I thought the game demanded.  And I always did think good RP was cool, but damn, did it have to take me *four frigging years* and switching to TFT to start to give more RP XP than combat XP?

Better late than never, but however much my gaming circles celebrated me as a great GM, I look back and think "No, it wasn't because I was that good.  Just less mediocre than some of the others."

"Less mediocre" is still "better", just with lower absolute values.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be.

Probably the worst "common wisdom" that exists in Roleplaying Games, period.

That statement is true only for games and players that never divorce themselves from a given level of meta-thinking.  It turns the game into a form of literary genre-emulation, which is one of the reasons most of the new games that come out these days are narrative shit shows (yes, I say that even about the ones I like and play).

For GMs and players who want to simply roleplay in a World in Motion, the GM has no business telling the players what the game or campaign will be about, the players will tell him - through their actions.

In such a campaign...
Killing gives XP? Sure.
Looting gives XP? Sure.
Building Reputation gives XP (or takes it away)? Sure.
Succeeding at their own goals (not the ones the GM mandates) gives XP? Sure.

There's no XP system on the planet that can't be exploited by players who act like (Gronan's phrase of the month) utter rampaging fuckmortons.  We all know that the way that makes the most sense is keep track of everything everyone does and give them proper XP for all of those actions.  We also know that's a Galactus-sized headache, except for a pure skill system like RQ, and even that is open to Rampaging Fuckmorton Abuse through Attempted Skill Spam.

Whatever system you use, it will be abstracted to a certain degree, and will be abusable or not be perfect somehow.

The answer is, don't play with dickweevils, and find a XP system that is abstract enough to not give you or anyone else a headache.

Oh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to, go cornhole yourself with a Morningstar then take a salt bath while drinking a can of Drano.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504Oh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to...

I'm more into constructing the XP system, then observing what effects it has on play - individual XP for gold has certainly had an interesting effect compared to xp for kills.

Quote from: AsenRG;1009478What if I use the gold to purchase fencing instruction;)?

That'd make all the difference to me, except of course that's not XP for gold, that's spending the gold on a trainer that exists in the world, taking the time to train, etc.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504Probably the worst "common wisdom" that exists in Roleplaying Games, period.

That statement is true only for games and players that never divorce themselves from a given level of meta-thinking.  It turns the game into a form of literary genre-emulation, which is one of the reasons most of the new games that come out these days are narrative shit shows (yes, I say that even about the ones I like and play).

It's funny how everything you don't like turns any game into the thing you hate most, a narrative game. The statement is true for early role-playing games, and specifically OD&D. D&D modified its XP system between the original books and Greyhawk, apparently to make hunting wandering monsters even less attractive, but either system leads to the same result. XP for adventuring, basically, whether gold or killing things, and leading to basic dungeon crawling in a game where you could do anything. The XP for a dragon's hoard of treasure made characters appropriately greedy for dragon treasure; level draining attacks made them appropriately fearful of undead.

QuoteFor GMs and players who want to simply roleplay in a World in Motion, the GM has no business telling the players what the game or campaign will be about, the players will tell him - through their actions.

Well, it's the game designer explaining the objectives of the game through a scoring mechanism; essentially victory points from wargames translated into a more open-ended game. It is probably better for the game just to explain what typical sessions look like rather than indirectly incentivizing it.

QuoteIn such a campaign...
Killing gives XP? Sure.
Looting gives XP? Sure.
Building Reputation gives XP (or takes it away)? Sure.
Succeeding at their own goals (not the ones the GM mandates) gives XP? Sure.

So either the GM is making judgements about the quality of the characters' goals or the degree of success at them, or the GM is implementing the "fixed amount of XP per hour spent in a gaming session" system of XP, where the characters can just binge watch TV and advance the same as the more ambitious PCs.

QuoteThere's no XP system on the planet that can't be exploited by players who act like (Gronan's phrase of the month) utter rampaging fuckmortons.  We all know that the way that makes the most sense is keep track of everything everyone does and give them proper XP for all of those actions.  We also know that's a Galactus-sized headache, except for a pure skill system like RQ, and even that is open to Rampaging Fuckmorton Abuse through Attempted Skill Spam.

Whatever system you use, it will be abstracted to a certain degree, and will be abusable or not be perfect somehow.

The answer is, don't play with dickweevils, and find a XP system that is abstract enough to not give you or anyone else a headache.

The answer is to make the game engaging enough that players don't care whether what they chose to do is worth 3% more or less XP than something else, because they're doing something that makes for an enjoyable experience. Ultimately, the salad is a metaphor for life, even if it's just the life of an RPG character.

QuoteOh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to, go cornhole yourself with a Morningstar then take a salt bath while drinking a can of Drano.

:confused: Is it Channel Crüesader Week again? Where does the time fly?

Quote from: Skarg;1009415I don't know. I do it with house rules and/or GM rulings, but if there are good detailed published systems for modelling improvements based on actual experience, I'd be interested to check them out.

Runequest and BRP are reasonably detailed and reasonably good at doing exactly that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504There's no XP system on the planet that can't be exploited by players who act like (Gronan's phrase of the month) utter rampaging fuckmortons.  We all know that the way that makes the most sense is keep track of everything everyone does and give them proper XP for all of those actions.  We also know that's a Galactus-sized headache, except for a pure skill system like RQ, and even that is open to Rampaging Fuckmorton Abuse through Attempted Skill Spam.

It also requires a GM who can't say no. And a GM who can't ever say no is a problem in every RPG system ever created.

Quote from: Bren;1009573Runequest and BRP are reasonably detailed and reasonably good at doing exactly that.

Thanks.