On Giving "Bonus XP" in 3.X

[Amphetryon]

A comment I made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15872269&postcount=88) on the perils of giving out bonus XP for roleplaying, and the preceding and proceeding comments on this topic, indicate to me that this side conversation should move to its own thread. To be clear, my objections to giving out bonus XP don't extend merely to roleplay XP, but to any XP reward that is clearly given to some Players, and not to others, in a session.

Aside from the arguments already presented, the concept of roleplay XP can put Players into unfortunate circumstances. For example, if Pat wants to play Ragnar, a taciturn Barbarian of limited intellect who rarely speaks more than a couple of words, and Kelly wants to play Lulu, a Buomann Cleric, both are put into the unfortunate circumstance where declining to speak up keeps them from getting the roleplaying XP, putting them behind the others in the game, eventually by a level (which is significant), while choosing to be more extroverted in their RP could ALSO reasonably keep them from getting the roleplaying XP, because they're not being true to their Characters.

Add to the above the fact that (unless houseruled or in PF), crafting magic items of any kind costs XP, and now the quiet, bookish spellcaster is either falling still further behind the XP curve, or forced to abandon the idea of crafting scrolls, potions, or wondrous items for the good of the party.

In all of the above circumstances (and more, besides), the "bonus XP" serves as a fundamental metagame limiter, not only on the types of Players in your game, but on the types of Characters your Players will reasonably want to play. It is my strongly held belief the sum total of the above is punitive toward certain Players and playstyles.

Opinions?

[Fax Celestis]

I disagree. The DM is free to reward players as they see fit for things that are above and beyond what the CR system dictates.

"Roleplaying" is a broad category of things, and it doesn't always involve talking. Maybe the barbarian in your example decides he's going to focus on the orcs and half-orcs instead of the humans in a combat because his cultural prejudice dictates that he should. Maybe your crafting wizard described goes out of his way to craft things for his party members without asking if they desire them--giving them what they need rather than what they want, based upon his in-character observations. Both of these situations are in-character roleplay moments, and while they require an observant DM, they are very definitely measurable.

Long and short of it: there are ways to portray your character without needing to speak.

I will agree, however, that XP is not something that should be rewarded: it honestly shouldn't be used in crafting costs either. I vastly prefer awarding action points to awarding XP.

[Reogan]

In response to the claim that this system penalizes quiet/unspeaking characters, might I simply point out that roleplaying isn't entirely speech? The player of a Buomann can narrate some actions, and a hardly speaking Barbarian can be in character by his actions. Maybe a particular DM won't reward them, but that's not a problem of the system. The problem with 'quiet' characters lies in the possibility a particular DM may not reward them, but not in the system of roleplay xp itself.

[Zombimode]

A comment I made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15872269&postcount=88) on the perils of giving out bonus XP for roleplaying, and the preceding and proceeding comments on this topic, indicate to me that this side conversation should move to its own thread. To be clear, my objections to giving out bonus XP don't extend merely to roleplay XP, but to any XP reward that is clearly given to some Players, and not to others, in a session.

Aside from the arguments already presented, the concept of roleplay XP can put Players into unfortunate circumstances. For example, if Pat wants to play Ragnar, a taciturn Barbarian of limited intellect who rarely speaks more than a couple of words, and Kelly wants to play Lulu, a Buomann Cleric, both are put into the unfortunate circumstance where declining to speak up keeps them from getting the roleplaying XP, putting them behind the others in the game, eventually by a level (which is significant), while choosing to be more extroverted in their RP could ALSO reasonably keep them from getting the roleplaying XP, because they're not being true to their Characters.

Add to the above the fact that (unless houseruled or in PF), crafting magic items of any kind costs XP, and now the quiet, bookish spellcaster is either falling still further behind the XP curve, or forced to abandon the idea of crafting scrolls, potions, or wondrous items for the good of the party.

In all of the above circumstances (and more, besides), the "bonus XP" serves as a fundamental metagame limiter, not only on the types of Players in your game, but on the types of Characters your Players will reasonably want to play. It is my strongly held belief the sum total of the above is punitive toward certain Players and playstyles.

Opinions?

In addition, such tangible rewards for certain behavior could create pressure in some players. Obviously not everyone would feel that way, but there are player who would feel pressured to meet some arbitrary roleplaying standard (its the same beef I have with giving boni for "cool descriptions").

While I like intense in-game situations, I prefer the playing atmosphere to be rather relaxed. Thus, I try to avoid any artificial pressures.

Also, handing out roleplaying XP would put me (the DM) in a position where I have to judge other people. I really don't like doing that.

Actually, upon rethinking the matter, I realize that my lat critique stems from the assumption, that only one person, ie. the DM, is responsible for handing out the bonus XP. This could be easily averted by letting the players decide who get the XP.

But still, my first and Amphetryon's points still stand.

[Segev]

Yeah, if you're playing the quiet type, that doesn't mean you, the player, have to be quiet to the point of not participating. It means you choose your interjections carefully, and you contribute by describing what your character does. When he does speak up, you mention the thoughtful or timid or whatever way he does it, and you chime in with what your character is doing in not yet speaking to show your attention and participation. Not to the point of obnoxiousness, obviously, any more than the more bubbly and vociferous characters would be "obnoxious." Just speak up OOC to describe IC often enough to keep your character's feel contributing to the scene.

[Serpentine]

The trouble is, you have a far narrower definition of "roleplaying" to me.
As I mentioned, a major part of it is in decision making, not just on how much characters talk.
Pat could describe the way Ragnar stands too close to an NPC because he doesn't have a good concept of personal space, and choose to try and avoid hurting the goblin's worg mount because it reminds him of a puppy he had when he had as a child.
I had to go searching for Buomann... But Kelly could make notes on what sort of song Lulu is singing in response to certain situations, and describe her pleasure at good music and dismay at bad music - possibly including the lengths she'll go to add to her collection of instruments. Exactly how she does communicate with the rest of the party and how they respond in kind would also be a roleplaying exercise.
The quiet, bookish spellcaster might put herself into potential peril by getting too into a book and falling behind the party, or the player can describe the way she shies away from the Important Talks and play with the cat in the corner, instead.

Roleplaying does not only consist of grand speeches and talking. It consists of playing your role, having your character do what your character would do and telling me, your DM, as well as the other players what that involves, so that we can respond and interact with those things, and get to know what your character is really like.
...which is what everyone else ninjad me with. Bah.

As I said: the bonus experience was generally in fairly small increments, something like 50 for pretty good roleplaying, 100 for really good, and maybe as much as 200 for something really exceptional, like consciously putting yourself at what you know OOC to be a disadvantage because IC it's what your character would do. It's entirely possible for every single player to get that RPXP in a game, and indeed that's the ideal situation. But if they don't, they still get all the experience for encounters and problem solving.
I also often sought input from my players about who they thought were particularly involved in roleplaying in that game.

I'm not aware of it ever generating any particular "pressure". It was a nice bonus, that's all. And my players were mostly pretty into roleplaying anyway, this just reinforced that - for me - desirable behaviour.

I compare it to the extra XP given in some LARPS for turning up in costume. It's a thing storytellers want players to do, because it enhances the game for everyone, so it's just a little bit of added motivation and a reward for adding something extra positive to the game.

It also helps to foster the sort of atmosphere I prefer in my games: immersion in the world and real thought about the psyche of your character, and discouraging metagaming and the use of OOC knowledge.

[Jade_Tarem]

A comment I made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15872269&postcount=88) on the perils of giving out bonus XP for roleplaying, and the preceding and proceeding comments on this topic, indicate to me that this side conversation should move to its own thread. To be clear, my objections to giving out bonus XP don't extend merely to roleplay XP, but to any XP reward that is clearly given to some Players, and not to others, in a session.

Aside from the arguments already presented, the concept of roleplay XP can put Players into unfortunate circumstances. For example, if Pat wants to play Ragnar, a taciturn Barbarian of limited intellect who rarely speaks more than a couple of words, and Kelly wants to play Lulu, a Buomann Cleric, both are put into the unfortunate circumstance where declining to speak up keeps them from getting the roleplaying XP, putting them behind the others in the game, eventually by a level (which is significant), while choosing to be more extroverted in their RP could ALSO reasonably keep them from getting the roleplaying XP, because they're not being true to their Characters.

Add to the above the fact that (unless houseruled or in PF), crafting magic items of any kind costs XP, and now the quiet, bookish spellcaster is either falling still further behind the XP curve, or forced to abandon the idea of crafting scrolls, potions, or wondrous items for the good of the party.

In all of the above circumstances (and more, besides), the "bonus XP" serves as a fundamental metagame limiter, not only on the types of Players in your game, but on the types of Characters your Players will reasonably want to play. It is my strongly held belief the sum total of the above is punitive toward certain Players and playstyles.

Opinions?

It sounds like you're confusing "roleplaying" with "roleplaying an extroverted character." I've gotten bonus roleplaying xp in Pathfinder before while playing an emotionally deadened creepy-little-girl halfling witch (long story) who barely said anything, just for alternating between the aforementioned creepiness (not so much that it weirded out the players themselves, of course) and humor without breaking character.

Example: Witch attempted to hex a mouthy Chelaxian pirate captain (picture the French Guard from Monty Python's Holy Grail movie, but, well, a pirate captain). The hex failed when he made his Will Save.

Captain: "Oh-ho-ho! Your magic cannot 'arm me!"
Witch: *Draws Heavy Crossbow, pulls back lever*

In point of fact, I pantomimed that action while keeping a straight face, and the rest of the table cracked up. That wide-eyed, deadpan facade has been good for more than one laugh.

*Earlier*

Inquisitor: "A bat familiar? Does he have a name?"
Witch: "Nerf."

*Later*

Powerful Sorceress: "Surrender!" *Casts Greater Command*
*Whole Party Fails Save*
*Everyone makes terrified noises or vocal affirmations of surrender, Witch just holds up both hands, still deadpan.*

It also helps add impact the few times she does show an emotion, however mild.

Inquisitor: "Hex them, quickly!"
Witch: "Busy healing."
Inquisitor: "Why?" (Player was genuinely unaware of how badly I'd been hit)
Witch: "Because most of this blood is actually mine."

So yeah, you can get a lot of mileage out of a quiet character. It sounds to me like your issue isn't with roleplaying xp being handed out unevenly, but with roleplaying xp being handed out poorly.

[3WhiteFox3]

Yeah, if you're playing the quiet type, that doesn't mean you, the player, have to be quiet to the point of not participating. It means you choose your interjections carefully, and you contribute by describing what your character does. When he does speak up, you mention the thoughtful or timid or whatever way he does it, and you chime in with what your character is doing in not yet speaking to show your attention and participation. Not to the point of obnoxiousness, obviously, any more than the more bubbly and vociferous characters would be "obnoxious." Just speak up OOC to describe IC often enough to keep your character's feel contributing to the scene.
What about groups that discourage OOC behavior? Or that OOC has nothing to do with roleplaying a character, you can do OOC stuff with literally any character, roleplaying is about playing a role with a character. Also, some DMs will ignore those interjections not out of malice, but because they either don't see it as their definition of roleplaying, or because they are paying more attention to their friends who are more comfortable with being loud, obvious and obnoxious. I've seen that situation crop up in several groups, where roleplaying is really a code-word for I am more likely to be invested in the things my friends do (not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself but it fosters the idea that roleplaying is some sort of in-crowd only activity that shuns newcomers out).

In my opinion the primary problem with roleplaying xp is that roleplaying is by it's very nature subjective. What I think is good roleplaying may be a boring trite thing for another person. So a roleplaying xp can easily turn into 'I reward the types of behavior that I have decided is good roleplaying' which is probably going to end up with hurt feelings at some point. Also, many people do not have a good grasp of what roleplaying is, for some it's what makes other's laugh, or playing a stereotype, others claim that true roleplaying is only when you roll up no statistics better than a 12.

[Serpentine]

Nobody mentioned going into a frenzy. The part I was replying to suggested that the correct response to not enjoying roleplaying if the DM gives out XP is to quit entirely.I offer rewards for good roleplaying because that is something I really want to encourage and reward in my players, something I want to be a major part of the games I run. If you think that this is punishing you because it is so antithetical to your play style, then our preferences are probably simply incompatible. I will probably find your character a bit dull and uninteresting, and you will probably find my games the same. So why not quit entirely, if we're not going to be happy together? There's no fault, just difference.

[Reogan]

It's not xp based on the proportion of the spotlight you get; it's xp based on making your time in the spotlight worth it. I've played the party face, but his real roleplay xp was earned when he started investigating a pool of red acid in the corner of the room. He was a curious academic, and that earned him a reward. The fact that he had +23 diplomacy meant nothing, because that wasn't him being who he was. That was him doing what he did.

[137beth]

I prefer all my players to be the same level, barring unusual circumstances like someone died recently, so I don't give out roleplaying xp. I do, however, give other minor rewards--+2 to certain rolls for an encounter, +10 temporary hit-points, etc. It isn't a punishment, it is a reward for good roleplaying. Just like combat xp is a reward for good combat tactics, roleplaying xp is a reward for another kind of skill.

[3WhiteFox3]

It's not xp based on the proportion of the spotlight you get; it's xp based on making your time in the spotlight worth it. I've played the party face, but his real roleplay xp was earned when he started investigating a pool of red acid in the corner of the room. He was a curious academic, and that earned him a reward. The fact that he had +23 diplomacy meant nothing, because that wasn't him being who he was. That was him doing what he did.

That's assuming people actually get time in the spotlight, some groups give more spotlight to the extroverts or those who 'roleplay' better. Thus creating a vicious cycle where the newbie (or introvert) feels shunned because his personality and situation is being ignored.

[Serpentine]

What about groups that discourage OOC behavior? Or that OOC has nothing to do with roleplaying a character, you can do OOC stuff with literally any character, roleplaying is about playing a role with a character. Also, some DMs will ignore those interjections not out of malice, but because they either don't see it as their definition of roleplaying, or because they are paying more attention to their friends who are more comfortable with being loud, obvious and obnoxious. I've seen that situation crop up in several groups, where roleplaying is really a code-word for I am more likely to be invested in the things my friends do (not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself but it fosters the idea that roleplaying is some sort of in-crowd only activity that shuns newcomers out).There are groups that don't like people describing what their characters do? :smallconfused: I... can't say I've ever come across anything like that. Except maybe outside of a LARP, where you have to get up and physically act everything, but even then you can get things like "I draw my gun, which I totally have it's not just my fingers." But, well, I never said this houserule should be universally applied *shrug*

edit @^: That's a problem with players and communication, not with RPXP. For me, at least, there's a cap to the amount of RPXP a player can get - never more than a few hundred, as far as I can remember (I could check my docs, but eh...). I think if I were having a problem with spotlight hogs, I would consider starting to take that into account - such people might benefit from having incentives to reduce the amount of time they take the spotlight, and perhaps for instead engaging with and encouraging interactions from other characters. That's part of good roleplaying in an RPG too, after all.

[Firechanter]

I held back on the subject in the other thread, so thanks, I guess, for making a new one.

I am also _opposed_ to handing out "Bonus XP". Note that I did not always think this way. There was a time when I was an avid proponent of DM-controlled bonus XP and "rewarding" and "punishing" players. My stance on the matter, however, has completely reversed years ago.

First off, as a DM, it is not my job to educate the players. They are not my kids. If I wanted to educate someone, I would get kids or a dog, but I don't.

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that the playing field should be level. Different powerlevels within the party are a bad thing, _especially_ in a game like D&D. Heavens, in my groups it is custom to give _absent_ players the same XP as everyone else, so they don't lag behind when they return! They already missed the fun of gaming, why should they be further punished by crippling their character? In that light, it would totally defeat the purpose if you start giving out different XP between _present_ players.

Last not least, I dislike subjective and arbitrary decisions. That's why we have rules. And giving out XP for "roleplaying" _is_ always subjective and arbitrary.
Who am I to judge what "good roleplay" is? And for that matter, who is _anyone_ to judge?

The players should roleplay because they find roleplaying fun, not because they are hoping to get a biscuit if they jump hoops. And if players aren't so hot on it, then that's fine, too.

[Raineh Daze]

I offer rewards for good roleplaying because that is something I really want to encourage and reward in my players, something I want to be a major part of the games I run. If you think that this is punishing you because it is so antithetical to your play style, then our preferences are probably simply incompatible. I will probably find your character a bit dull and uninteresting, and you will probably find my games the same. So why not quit entirely, if we're not going to be happy together? There's no fault, just difference.

Please don't use second-person pronouns. I am a very bad example. I like roleplaying. I just don't like the XP. It's silliness on top of the silly XP system. :smalltongue:

[Emmerask]

That's assuming people actually get time in the spotlight, some groups give more spotlight to the extroverts or those who 'roleplay' better. Thus creating a vicious cycle where the newbie (or introvert) feels shunned because his personality and situation is being ignored.

That is true, however as a dm I always felt it was my duty to give at least try to give everyone a chance of the spotlight (preferably every session).
If the opportunity is not used then well no matter there will be another chance, if he/she doesnt do anything everytime its likely that I would speak to him/her what the issue is and come to some consensus with him/her



First off, as a DM, it is not my job to educate the players. They are not my kids. If I wanted to educate someone, I would get kids or a dog, but I don't.


True it is not, however as the dm you should enjoy the game as much as the other players. If you can nudge the players to create a more enjoyable environment with small bonus rewards then in the end everbody wins.
The players are happy because they got something extra, the dm is happy because its "their kind of game" which means the quality of the adventures will be better...etc... everybody wins and its in fact a winning cycle of awesome

[Serpentine]

Please don't use second-person pronouns. I am a very bad example. I like roleplaying. I just don't like the XP. It's silliness on top of the silly XP system. :smalltongue:Then your problem is with all XP-related systems, not just this one *shrug*

[137beth]

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that the playing field should be level. Different powerlevels within the party are a bad thing, _especially_ in a game like D&D. Heavens, in my groups it is custom to give _absent_ players the same XP as everyone else, so they don't lag behind when they return! They already missed the fun of gaming, why should they be further punished by crippling their character? In that light, it would totally defeat the purpose if you start giving out different XP between _present_ players.


Then your problem is with all XP-related systems, not just this one *shrug*
Yea, complaints about "unbalancing xp between players" are really just complaints against tracking xp individually. If you are (rightfully) concerned about some players leveling faster than others, just track a single xp total for the party. Or just eliminate xp entirely and have people level at the speed of the plot.

[Raineh Daze]

Then your problem is with all XP-related systems, not just this one *shrug*

My problem is with unstable equilibria and something that aggravates existing problems. Rather like house rules that buff casters or nerf the monk. :smallamused:

[3WhiteFox3]

I dislike subjective and arbitrary decisions. That's why we have rules. And giving out XP for "roleplaying" _is_ always subjective and arbitrary.
Who am I to judge what "good roleplay" is? And for that matter, who is _anyone_ to judge?

Exactly. Now, I'm not actually opposed to benefits for good roleplaying, I just don't like character advancement being tied to it. For example, I was playing in a Savage World of Solomon Kane campaign that gave out bennies for awesome moments and heroic actions, I find that better because, A - it's not directly tied to character advancement, B - everyone can do those sorts of things, and others in the group can have an easier time of advising others of how to do those things because it's about actions and not about some nebulous concept of 'good roleplay' and C - we tried to keep it as fair as possible and allow people to have as much awesome stuff as they wanted.

However, this still ended up with someone who just isn't as good as roleplaying, and he felt like he wasn't having as much fun. He recognized that it was because he didn't have a good grasp of the character, and he eventually decided to make a new one. But the only reason that even happened was because the people not some arbitrary rule tried to be as fair and to let people have fun. That's what I think the focus should be on, not good roleplaying but people enjoying the game.

EDIT: To be clear, I love roleplaying, but I'm not always in the mood for deep characters or silly jokes, sometimes I just want to have fun doing something different.

[Fax Celestis]

I held back on the subject in the other thread, so thanks, I guess, for making a new one.

I am also _opposed_ to handing out "Bonus XP". Note that I did not always think this way. There was a time when I was an avid proponent of DM-controlled bonus XP and "rewarding" and "punishing" players. My stance on the matter, however, has completely reversed years ago.

First off, as a DM, it is not my job to educate the players. They are not my kids. If I wanted to educate someone, I would get kids or a dog, but I don't.

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that the playing field should be level. Different powerlevels within the party are a bad thing, _especially_ in a game like D&D. Heavens, in my groups it is custom to give _absent_ players the same XP as everyone else, so they don't lag behind when they return! They already missed the fun of gaming, why should they be further punished by crippling their character? In that light, it would totally defeat the purpose if you start giving out different XP between _present_ players.

Last not least, I dislike subjective and arbitrary decisions. That's why we have rules. And giving out XP for "roleplaying" _is_ always subjective and arbitrary.
Who am I to judge what "good roleplay" is? And for that matter, who is _anyone_ to judge?

The players should roleplay because they find roleplaying fun, not because they are hoping to get a biscuit if they jump hoops. And if players aren't so hot on it, then that's fine, too.

Curious on your feelings on something like this:

I ask the players at the end of each session to name something another player did during the course of the game that they thought was awesome: the named player gains an action point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm). Multiple players cannot name the same player for the same thing, and we've altered action points somewhat: if you want to bend the rules a little bit ("I'm falling off a cliff: can I use Tumble to slow my fall enough so I don't die/convert one of my spells to feather fall?" "Yes, if you spend an action point.") or automatically confirm a critical, you spend an AP.

[Serpentine]

First, I tend to play longer sessions, like 7-10 hours.
So do I, when I can.

Second, these problems build up over a full campaign.You weren't talking about "over a full campaign", you were talking about one single session. I have never had more than one level-up in a game (I also only level them up between sessions, if that's a difference).

Third, players with high system mastery play quickly, and with mid-to-high OP characters, you tend to fight things over your CR, sometimes by a fair bit. I have seen, just from resurrections and absences people drift to being levels 13-17. You know what playing as a level 13 in a group with 17s is like? You might as well be a summoned monster. In fact, an well Oped summon is better than you.Yep, it's a problem, caused by various issues - in my games, usually death and newbies. One you can help solve in various ways - including by giving falling-behind characters ways to earn some extra XP to catch up. Like, say, encouraging them to dive into roleplaying for RPXP...

If I'm doing the math correctly, if you give 25% bonus XP for RPing, the player who gets all of it, can be stable 2 whole levels ahead of the player who gets none. If you give at least 42% bonus XP, 3 levels, 60% 4, and so on.I don't do it that way.

If you go small enough (under 12.5%) the characters will settle down to being small enough it doesn't really matter that you're giving out XP, which begs the question of why do it?Treats don't really contribute to a dog's nutritional needs, so why bother giving them? The psychological effect of a "treat" can be - probably should be, really, for all the reasons of potential imbalance mentioned - more substantial than the actual benefit.

In terms of your little rant at the end there, about how this might be the wrong game,Rant? :smallconfused:

look above for my discussion of the Loony Bard and Quiet Ranger, both players who may in fact be in the right game, and having fun, while still ruining your game based on this system.See above for my response to that.

And say it again, you can reward with things other than XP.Yep, you can. I've encouraged other behaviours through other means. And you can also do it with XP. Which is the way I choose to do it.

[Eldan]

I like to keep roleplaying and rules a bit separate from each other. Doing things with the rules, i.e. what 3E calls a challenge, gives XP. Doing things outside the rules, mostly talking IC, but also describing things, gives roleplay rewards.

Honestly, if I was offered roleplaying XP as a player, I would feel very uncomfortable about it. As if I was only roleplaying for a reward, instead of because I like doing it. (I would still take them. XP are XP.)

[NichG]

Well the point of a bonus anything system is to encourage some forms of behavior and discourage other forms of behavior. This can extend to encouraging people to play some archetypes and not to play others. Its all a function of the result you're trying to achieve by doing it.

If, as a DM, I'm sick of people going out of their way to kill everything in a dungeon because its worth XP, then it makes sense for me to discourage the behavior by not making it grant a reward. Yes this will change how the players play the game - if it didn't, there wouldn't be a point to doing it. If I want people to spend hours of the game doing things that grant no intrinsic mechanical benefit (dealing with their families, etc) then one tool I have in my arsenal is to create an intrinsic mechanical benefit for doing so.

The question I think should be, are you actually encouraging what you think you're encouraging when you give bonus XP to people? And are you doing it in a way that doesn't create other problems?

The biggest problem with a bonus XP system is that it can create feelings of favoritism. If you just happen to like player A's jokes or RP, then player B, who is trying very hard to please you but is hitting the wrong notes and isn't getting any bonus XP, will feel marginalized. Its pretty hard to get away from this in spot rewards, and I'd say this alone is enough of a reason to not do a spot reward type of bonus XP system.

On the other hand, you could reward bonus XP for things that will help the player play the game in the way you want them to. For example, a reward of +5% xp gain if your character has a detailed, written backstory - good or bad. A reward of +5% xp gain if you make a list of your character's priorities in life. Things that anyone can do and which will not be judged, and where its very straightforward to go and get the xp. I think that kind of system can work just fine, though its not as direct.

[killem2]

If the RP is because of a flaw, or the rp is because of a character ability, I toss some out. I never tell them why.

We use a 3rd party book for flaws that has a lot of flaws that are dependent on the player actually doing stuff.

[Talderas]

Curious on your feelings on something like this:

It's a terrible idea. It's terrible because it's subjective. It's terrible because it encourages backroom deals (if you name one of my things I'll name one of yours). It's only viable if everyone is both entirely objective, which is impossible, and secret deals aren't entered so that everyone get an AP anyway. Or you end up with the "new guy" that doesn't know the deal and gets screwed because he's not part of the deal.

[3WhiteFox3]

Well the point of a bonus anything system is to encourage some forms of behavior and discourage other forms of behavior. This can extend to encouraging people to play some archetypes and not to play others. Its all a function of the result you're trying to achieve by doing it.

If, as a DM, I'm sick of people going out of their way to kill everything in a dungeon because its worth XP, then it makes sense for me to discourage the behavior by not making it grant a reward. Yes this will change how the players play the game - if it didn't, there wouldn't be a point to doing it. If I want people to spend hours of the game doing things that grant no intrinsic mechanical benefit (dealing with their families, etc) then one tool I have in my arsenal is to create an intrinsic mechanical benefit for doing so.

The question I think should be, are you actually encouraging what you think you're encouraging when you give bonus XP to people? And are you doing it in a way that doesn't create other problems?

The biggest problem with a bonus XP system is that it can create feelings of favoritism. If you just happen to like player A's jokes or RP, then player B, who is trying very hard to please you but is hitting the wrong notes and isn't getting any bonus XP, will feel marginalized. Its pretty hard to get away from this in spot rewards, and I'd say this alone is enough of a reason to not do a spot reward type of bonus XP system.

On the other hand, you could reward bonus XP for things that will help the player play the game in the way you want them to. For example, a reward of +5% xp gain if your character has a detailed, written backstory - good or bad. A reward of +5% xp gain if you make a list of your character's priorities in life. Things that anyone can do and which will not be judged, and where its very straightforward to go and get the xp. I think that kind of system can work just fine, though its not as direct.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I think that if you want a game where combat is not the main source of advancement, D&D may not be your system.
Fate Core, The Window and Marvel Heroic are just a few examples of systems that reward story and character driven play; they are some of my favorite systems for that exact reason.

That said, I agree with most of your observations in the post, though I am definitely wary of xp percentage bonuses. But, because it's not as subjective and can be done somewhat objectively I'd be willing to try it.

[Serpentine]

I like to keep roleplaying and rules a bit separate from each other. Doing things with the rules, i.e. what 3E calls a challenge, gives XP. Doing things outside the rules, mostly talking IC, but also describing things, gives roleplay rewards.I guess the main reason I don't go along with that is because, for me, roleplaying is exactly as an intrinsic a part of the game as killing things, as responsible for character growth and development, as important, and therefore as deserving of rewarding in-game.

Honestly, if I was offered roleplaying XP as a player, I would feel very uncomfortable about it. As if I was only roleplaying for a reward, instead of because I like doing it. (I would still take them. XP are XP.)Only you could know if that were so. But why not see it more as "I killed the dragon, and then I wooed the princess but got caught by her fiancee and had to run out of the castle in my underwear, nicking a sheet of a line as I went to hide my shame (the blue sheet, not the white one; it goes better with my eyes). They were both important and entertaining parts of the game, and I deserve to be rewarded for it."
...and now I realise I could have just asked, do you feel like you're only fighting things because you get XP for it?

[Roguenewb]

Before I say anything, I just want to point out that when people say their system gives a 100 XP a session, or 5% extra or whatever, its not even worth discussing. It's trivial window dressing, 5% variance in XP never matters. This comment is more about things where people are giving XP in the 10%+ range. Please don't argue any of this post with "well I don't give very much". If you don't give very much, well then it isn't very much, is it?!

I.....want to copy all the game-theory (as opposed to intuition and some sort of "RP" stormwind-ish fetish based thinking) based stuff I so laborously typed out in the other thread.


The simple version: there are a number of different situations in which RP XP gets divyed up differently, causes deltas in power between players. Power deltas between players are a major problem in multiplayer games (just as WoW). They create unhappy time for the players, and makes them feel inferior, which should be literally the last thing a game strives to do. I also pointed out that it isn't just "this is the wrong type of campaign for you". Go read it if you care.

For stuff based on this thread: people have mentioned what to do for tactiturn characters, and even a bit for spot-lighty characters. What do you do tactiturn and spotlighty players?

There are humans who don't like to talk. Some are not confident (inconfident? unconfident? Cookie to whoever reminds me of the negative for confident), some are very sensitive to interrupting others or being interrupted, others hate causing tension or disagreement. Top notch, grade-A, theater school reject RPing requires all of these things (I disagree that this is the essence of RP, but whatever).

Those people can still love D&D, for a number of reasons. 1.) The amount of RP they do do is perfect for them. 2.) They enjoy the creative aspects of the game, other than exclusively RP. 3.) They like hanging out with their friends and watching. 4.) Combat is still fun. 5.) The letter D repeated gets them all hot and bothered.

This system tells them, based on the game theory presented elsewhere/summarized above, "You're bad at this game. You're less cool than your friends. You lost D&D". That is Feel Bad from here to Albuquereueureuegruathjasdhff (misspelling Albuquerque is fun). Watching their friend get famous for staring down the Duke of Somewhere, with great RP, has none of these problems. Watching the Wizard describe his incredibly taxing researching of Fireball, and and get to sell the learnings for 5% WBL also has none of these problems. Watching the bard develop a halting, loving relationship with the barmaid he was tortured with by the BBEG, also doesn't suck. Watching the barbarian get a level up for describing how grizzled his muscles are and grunting through the combat, that sucks.

Oooooonnn the opposite side: players who are willing to LARP in your D&D session. These people are also not bad people, and have a fully legitimate right to be in your game and enjoy it. With them, you have a different problem. First off, everything they RP tends to end up with a CHA of around 16, no matter what it says on the sheet. Secondly, they do a ton of the little things that are being described as key to RP. They'll tell you what color their left sock's inner patch is. They've named everyone in their backstory home town. They have 7 lines of text for "I full attack". If you gave 1 XP per thing they did, pretty soon they are gaining non trivial XP. If a normal encounter with 5 foes/out of combat adversaries takes a 5 player party 5 checks each. That player can easily have 10 things to say, RP wise. If they get to react to other players interactions...oh god, 125 XP points for the fight, at one point each. I think someone mentioned 100 XP as a small reward. Even if all 125 bits of RP aren't sufficient (and god help us if the player gets 12,500 XP per fight), even if just 10 percent are, thats greater than the XP to go from 1 to 2 every fight/social encounter. And these players create more social encounters for themselves. So MORE points. You're gonna get level discrepancies.

If you instead just give a maximum to anyone who RPs enough, you are encouraging a very specific level of RPing, not RPing in general.

I did acknowledge in the other thread, and will discuss briefly here, the idea that giving a non-trivial XP boost per session for everyone who crossed a certain lowish threshold of minimum RPing. This ACTUALLY seems like it might be workable. If you know the XP boost, and its like 1 or 2 encounters of EL per session, you can control it, and the players who are overdoing it will get less and less. If you make the threshold low enough that players only miss it by really, clearly, not role playing, then it might be a reasonable idea. For example: anyone who shows up with a basic backstory, a fundamental personality concept, doesn't violate the general personality of character more than twice and gives at least partial narration for at least 25% of their actions/dialogue gets 2 EL appropriate encounters of XP per session. That could be functional. I'd still wanna playtest.

[Serpentine]

It's a terrible idea. It's terrible because it's subjective. It's terrible because it encourages backroom deals (if you name one of my things I'll name one of yours). It's only viable if everyone is both entirely objective, which is impossible, and secret deals aren't entered so that everyone get an AP anyway. Or you end up with the "new guy" that doesn't know the deal and gets screwed because he's not part of the deal.I probably wouldn't play with people who would abuse the system like that, and my groups in the past have definitely not been the sorts who would, so it's a moot point for me *shrug*

[Talderas]

I guess the main reason I don't go along with that is because, for me, roleplaying is exactly as an intrinsic a part of the game as killing things, as responsible for character growth and development, as important, and therefore as deserving of rewarding in-game.

You're rewarding the character for the actions of the player. Character advancement, rewards, or growth in any metric should never be tied to out of character behavior.

[Fax Celestis]

I probably wouldn't play with people who would abuse the system like that, and my groups in the past have definitely not been the sorts who would, so it's a moot point for me *shrug*

Seriously.

[Eldan]

It's hard to say. The last time I got to actually play in a campaign was, oh, six, seven years ago? I've always tried since then, but I always end up DMing.

That said, fighting doesn't give XP. At least not in D&D, perhaps in other systems it does. You get XP for solving problems. Running away from the angry fiance is a problem. So is killing the dragon. Both give XP.

How interestingly you describe things? That's not covered by the rules, that's player creativity. It's also rewarded, but I don't like rewarding it with XP. Because that's not the character doing things, that's the player doing things.

And really, your main reward is a more enjoyable game. If someone doesn't like roleplaying in a similar manner to how Ido it, chances are I won't even have them in my group.

[Firechanter]

Curious on your feelings on something like this:

<snip>

Yeah, something like that is fine.
1. it is a player-driven reward, not something arbitrarily decided by the DM. (This concept comes from the Indie gaming scene and is commonly known as "Fanmail")
2. it is a metagame benefit, yes, but not a permanent effect that will sooner or later unbalance the party.

I also used to play Savage Worlds and Conan D20, so I am accustomed to the concept of "rubber points", whether they are called Bennies, Action Points, Fate Points, whatever they are called. It's a good element.

[Reogan]

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I think that if you want a game where combat is not the main source of advancement, D&D may not be your system.



3whitefox3, I don't believe anyone has claimed that roleplay xp (or anything non-encounter based) ought to be the main source of xp. The question seems to me to be if the incentivization of roleplaying (though the definition of roleplaying is periodically being contested) is beneficial or detrimental to the game in most situations.

Also, combat isn't necessarily the main form of advancement. It's surpassing encounters, be it by disarming the trap or diplomancing the orcs away. Or murdering their faces.

[Emmerask]

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I think that if you want a game where combat is not the main source of advancement, D&D may not be your system.

Uhm there are tons of groups that have zero advancement for combat.
Mostly with those groups advancement is done after completing a quest, or when the dm feels its the right time for another level etc...

We had such a thread some time ago and afaik only about half the people answered with xp/encounter ;)

[137beth]

You're rewarding the character for the actions of the player. Character advancement, rewards, or growth in any metric should never be tied to out of character behavior.

Character development is something the character does.

[Zombimode]

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I think that if you want a game where combat is not the main source of advancement, D&D may not be your system.
Fate Core, The Window and Marvel Heroic are just a few examples of systems that reward story and character driven play; they are some of my favorite systems for that exact reason.

I think you may have misread his post. He was just making an example, as his language suggests (emphasis added):

If, as a DM, I'm sick of people going out of their way to kill everything in a dungeon because its worth XP, then it makes sense for me to discourage the behavior by not making it grant a reward.

[Deophaun]

I don't want to sound dismissive, but I think that if you want a game where combat is not the main source of advancement, D&D may not be your system.
D&D works just fine if you base rewards on obstacles overcome rather than monsters killed. So, I completely disagree.

On the topic: I figure roleplay is its own reward, so why do you need to reward it further?

[Roguenewb]

Before today, I really had no idea there was anyone honestly on the side of non-trivial RP XP in 3.X. I thought most people were like Rich Burlew in the comic, where he uses the idea for comedy.

[Eldan]

I guess the main reason I don't go along with that is because, for me, roleplaying is exactly as an intrinsic a part of the game as killing things, as responsible for character growth and development, as important, and therefore as deserving of rewarding in-game.

You're making assumptions here. Fighting is rarely ever a part of the game for me. I'm currently thinking back to the last four sessions (the last two weeks). Out of those four sessions, only one had any combat. There were plenty of challenges, though.
Of course roleplaying is an intrinsic part of the game. I don't think anyone is debating that. But you seem to assume that people who don't give roleplaying XP value combat more than roleplaying. I can't speak for the others, but at least for me, that's not the case.
In fact, I can easily turn that argument around. With my group, roleplaying is so present that I don't feel the need to reward it. It just happens.

[Emmerask]

D&D works just fine if you base rewards on obstacles overcome rather than monsters killed. So, I completely disagree.

On the topic: I figure roleplay is its own reward, so why do you need to reward it further?

The general goal is so that more players in the group adopt it, so that the dm enjoys the gm more (presumably he/she is into roleplaying if he/she gives rp xp^^)

1)Put it differently if you as the dm have no fun because of the current playstyle there are limited options for you:

2)you can tell them that their playstyle is not to your liking and ask them to maybe change, this might be interpreted as offensive by some (ie you are playing wrong)

3)you can hand out small bonuses so that they might roleplay more

4)you can just dm a game that is no fun to you (players will realize it soon because the quality will suck)

5)you can just stop the game

1 and 2 are really the only good options outside of just not playing with these guys anymore ^^

[3WhiteFox3]

Uhm there are tons of groups that have zero advancement for combat.
Mostly with those groups advancement is done after completing a quest, or when the dm feels its the right time for another level etc...

We had such a thread some time ago and afaik only about half the people answered with xp/encounter ;)

That's fine (I've played in groups like that), however, I've found that D&D still tends to reward advancement based on your character doing stuff. Combat was probably a bad way of phrasing it. Besides, I will still say that I think that D&D is primary focused on things like fighting, trapfinding, spellcasting, etc... The best story-driven game's I've played have happened in other systems. That's all my opinion, but there it is.

[Eldan]

My approach is to tell players that playing things out makes the game more enjoyable for everyone. If they don't get that, they are in the wrong group.

[Segev]

You're rewarding the character for the actions of the player. Character advancement, rewards, or growth in any metric should never be tied to out of character behavior.

Um. By definition, role-playing relates directly to IC behavior.

[Emmerask]

That's fine (I've played in groups like that), however, I've found that D&D still tends to reward advancement based on your character doing stuff. Combat was probably a bad way of phrasing it. Besides, I will still say that I think that D&D is primary focused on things like fighting, trapfinding, spellcasting, etc... The best story-driven game's I've played have happened in other systems. That's all my opinion, but there it is.

And I agree completely, there are better systems for none combat heavy campaigns out there, however (sadly) d&d is the lowest common denominator, and the system mot likely to be played ^^

[Serpentine]

Before I say anything, I just want to point out that when people say their system gives a 100 XP a session, or 5% extra or whatever, its not even worth discussing. It's trivial window dressing, 5% variance in XP never matters. This comment is more about things where people are giving XP in the 10%+ range. Please don't argue any of this post with "well I don't give very much". If you don't give very much, well then it isn't very much, is it?!Nope. But as I said, the psychological effect is still significant.


I.....want to copy all the game-theory (as opposed to intuition and some sort of "RP" stormwind-ish fetish based thinking) based stuff I so laborously typed out in the other thread.

[QUOTE=Roguenewb;15873988]There are humans who don't like to talk. Some are not confident (inconfident? unconfident? Cookie to whoever reminds me of the negative for confident), some are very sensitive to interrupting others or being interrupted, others hate causing tension or disagreement. Top notch, grade-A, theater school reject RPing requires all of these things (I disagree that this is the essence of RP, but whatever).

Those people can still love D&D, for a number of reasons. 1.) The amount of RP they do do is perfect for them. 2.) They enjoy the creative aspects of the game, other than exclusively RP. 3.) They like hanging out with their friends and watching. 4.) Combat is still fun. 5.) The letter D repeated gets them all hot and bothered.

This system tells them, based on the game theory presented elsewhere/summarized above, "You're bad at this game. You're less cool than your friends. You lost D&D". That is Feel Bad from here to Albuquereueureuegruathjasdhff (misspelling Albuquerque is fun). Watching their friend get famous for staring down the Duke of Somewhere, with great RP, has none of these problems. Watching the Wizard describe his incredibly taxing researching of Fireball, and and get to sell the learnings for 5% WBL also has none of these problems. Watching the bard develop a halting, loving relationship with the barmaid he was tortured with by the BBEG, also doesn't suck. Watching the barbarian get a level up for describing how grizzled his muscles are and grunting through the combat, that sucks.D&D is a social game. These players are going to have to at least describe what their character does to me at some point, they will have to make decisions for their character. There is plenty of room for roleplaying in that. And if the promise of a little extra reward encourages them to come out of their shell a bit, great! This is the sort of player this system is aimed at.
If they just don't want to get into that, fine, they still get all the other rewards for killing things and taking their stuff, for creative use of skills and abilities, for cooperation, and so on.

Oooooonnn the opposite side: players who are willing to LARP in your D&D session. These people are also not bad people, and have a fully legitimate right to be in your game and enjoy it. With them, you have a different problem. First off, everything they RP tends to end up with a CHA of around 16, no matter what it says on the sheet. Secondly, they do a ton of the little things that are being described as key to RP. They'll tell you what color their left sock's inner patch is. They've named everyone in their backstory home town. They have 7 lines of text for "I full attack". If you gave 1 XP per thing they did, pretty soon they are gaining non trivial XP. If a normal encounter with 5 foes/out of combat adversaries takes a 5 player party 5 checks each. That player can easily have 10 things to say, RP wise. If they get to react to other players interactions...oh god, 125 XP points for the fight, at one point each. I think someone mentioned 100 XP as a small reward. Even if all 125 bits of RP aren't sufficient (and god help us if the player gets 12,500 XP per fight), even if just 10 percent are, thats greater than the XP to go from 1 to 2 every fight/social encounter. And these players create more social encounters for themselves. So MORE points. You're gonna get level discrepancies.I certainly wouldn't have them get more rewards for every single bit of roleplaying they do in the whole thing - not least because I couldn't possibly remember that for everyone at the end of the game. It's an overall judgement: "did this person role play excellently, very well, well, or not at all this game?" So your "system" simply does not exist, at least not the way I play.
And this is a dynamic player. This is the sort of behaviour I want to encourage. So yeah, I'm fine with them getting a little extra bit. Now, of course, if they were too far in that direction, and they were actively preventing other people from having any time in the spotlight, then I could consider employing RPXP to try to help curb that, as well: give them a reward for helping other people to roleplay, whether that means getting their character to interact with theirs, or having them prompt the other player OOC with things like "so what is your character doing now? How does she react?", or simply backing out of the spotlight occasionally. I've never had a problem player like that (well, one, but I'm not using RPXP for that because it's level-as-you-go), so I haven't tried it, but it could be an option.

If you instead just give a maximum to anyone who RPs enough, you are encouraging a very specific level of RPing, not RPing in general.I would be okay with that *shrug* And it's not as though your average player is going to go "Okay, I have had 2 conversations, made a major decision, and exercised a quirk. I've reached the maximum amount of roleplaying required for the highest RPXP reward. Now to be completely silent and do nothing but hit things!"

I did acknowledge in the other thread, and will discuss briefly here, the idea that giving a non-trivial XP boost per session for everyone who crossed a certain lowish threshold of minimum RPing. This ACTUALLY seems like it might be workable. If you know the XP boost, and its like 1 or 2 encounters of EL per session, you can control it, and the players who are overdoing it will get less and less. If you make the threshold low enough that players only miss it by really, clearly, not role playing, then it might be a reasonable idea. For example: anyone who shows up with a basic backstory, a fundamental personality concept, doesn't violate the general personality of character more than twice and gives at least partial narration for at least 25% of their actions/dialogue gets 2 EL appropriate encounters of XP per session. That could be functional. I'd still wanna playtest.I'd be alright with that, although it feels a bit more restricted than my tastes.

[Talderas]

Character development is something the character does.


Um. By definition, role-playing relates directly to IC behavior.

It relates to the quality of how well or thoroughly the player describes the actions the character is committing. Role playing is not a character action or activity. It is a player action and activity.

"Ogar Shieldbasher swings his mighty greatsword in a horizontal arc trying to cleave the disturbing smelling troll in half." and "I attack the troll." are identical in character actions. Yet the former is role-playing while the latter is not. The only difference is in how the player decided to portray it.

[137beth]

It relates to the quality of how well or thoroughly the player describes the actions the character is committing. Role playing is not a character action or activity. It is a player action and activity.

"Ogar Shieldbasher swings his mighty greatsword in a horizontal arc trying to cleave the disturbing smelling troll in half." and "I attack the troll." are identical in character actions. Yet the former is role-playing while the latter is not. The only difference is in how the player decided to portray it.

*shrug*. The strategy you use to win a combat could be passed off as IC-tactical-savvyness, but ultimately it requires the players to come up with a strategy. Yet you don't seem to have any issue with awarding them xp for that.

[Talderas]

*shrug*. The strategy you use to win a combat could be passed off as IC-tactical-savvyness, but ultimately it requires the players to come up with a strategy. Yet you don't seem to have any issue with awarding them xp for that.

Because xp from challenges is not rewarded based on how you overcame the challenge but only on whether the challenges was overcome. You could defeat a CR8 creature by beating down it's HP or you could beat it by luring it over a trap door. One might be considered better than the other and one may be faster than the other but no matter what the party will be rewarded xp based on beating a CR8 creature.

To look at it another way.

Should the character Lisbeth Salander have earned more experience because Noomi Rapace portrayed her much better than Rooney Mara?

[Segev]

It relates to the quality of how well or thoroughly the player describes the actions the character is committing. Role playing is not a character action or activity. It is a player action and activity.

"Ogar Shieldbasher swings his mighty greatsword in a horizontal arc trying to cleave the disturbing smelling troll in half." and "I attack the troll." are identical in character actions. Yet the former is role-playing while the latter is not. The only difference is in how the player decided to portray it.

See, that's not a difference in "role playing." That's a difference in stunting.

A difference in role-playing is determining if Ogar Shieldbasher is going to attack the troll in a direct and up-front fashion, or is going to approach this with tactics and guile. Whether either is good role-playing depends on the personality of the character as established in chargen and prior RP, and on his stats (to a limited degree).

Essentially, "good RP" exp tend to be rewarded to people who contribute to the enjoyment of the game to others, particularly the DM, through their efforts to portray their character as a character, rather than a convenient pile of stats on a page to be used to get more stats by defeating numerically and probabilstically another pile of stats.

Good descriptions - stunts - can help! But they're not the sum total of "role playing." Role playing is about portraying your character, however it is you do that. It is about providing a character that is believable and interesting for others in the game.

[Raineh Daze]

*shrug*. The strategy you use to win a combat could be passed off as IC-tactical-savvyness, but ultimately it requires the players to come up with a strategy. Yet you don't seem to have any issue with awarding them xp for that.

Because IC, the characters have overcome a challenge.

IC, a character is always acting like themselves. Therefore, they would obtain infinite roleplaying XP.

[nedz]

I dislike this idea for three main reasons.

Firstly it's very hard to avoid favouritism, even when that's not your intention. Most groups contain players with a variety of play-styles. It is likely that the DM will reward players who match their own play-style more than the others.


You're rewarding the character for the actions of the player. Character advancement, rewards, or growth in any metric should never be tied to out of character behaviour.

And this. You are giving an IC reward for OOC behaviour.

Thirdly: this smells of largess. These XP are a gift from the DM to the player. This looks like a bribe of sorts. Is the DM trying to buy favour/popularity ? Is the DM insecure ? I don't if this is true, but it's what it could look like.

[Fitz10019]

Awarding individual XP for RP to spotlighters can draw resentment from shier, spotlight-dodger-type players.

I suggest, when awarding XP for roleplaying, but give it to everyone, just like you give combat XP to everyone.

Shy players won't resent the RP show-offs, and still have incentive to try their hands at the spotlight.

[Roguenewb]

D&D is a social game. These players are going to have to at least describe what their character does to me at some point, they will have to make decisions for their character. There is plenty of room for roleplaying in that. And if the promise of a little extra reward encourages them to come out of their shell a bit, great! This is the sort of player this system is aimed at..

A million introverts just cried out in fear and were silenced. Most of the people I'm talking about don't consider it a weakness. They consider it fine and are happy with it. They don't wanna "come out of their shell". But thats neither here nor there.

If "I tell the mayor we need help" and "I attack the monster who hurt my friend" count as rolepaying and decision making for XP....then, well it seems like you're essentially giving bonus XP to anyone who shows up at the end of session so leveling goes faster.


On a general note: it seems like every defense of this practice is "but I make sure it doesn't have a big impact" or "I make it so everyone gets it". If that's the case...does it really matter?

[Segev]

I dislike this idea for three main reasons.

Firstly it's very hard to avoid favouritism, even when that's not your intention. Most groups contain players with a variety of play-styles. It is likely that the DM will reward players who match their own play-style more than the others.There are two criteria in subjective systems: first is, of course, making sure you reward the behavior you like as consistently as possible (and make it clear why it was rewarded); second is keeping track of your bonus awards - or better, just plain exp totals - and being a little tighter with rewards if somebody is pulling too hard ahead, and a little more generous with (or encourage ways to earn more of) them when somebody is falling too far behind.

Rubber-banding is a perfectly valid tactic to take. If somebody is falling behind, rewarding even things that barely qualify will at least give them a hint as to where to do "more like that." If somebody is getting too far ahead, they probably are already doing what you need them to. Be honest, too, about why: you ARE encouraging that kind of behavior, but you also don't want it to wreck the game or to be unfair.




And this. You are giving an IC reward for OOC behaviour.Er...

No. You are giving an IC reward for playing the character well, rather than for not playing the character well. Unless you mean "all things the character does are OOC behaviors because the player makes decisions OOC to have them happen," in which case your statement makes no sense at all. Exp, by that definition, is an OOC reward, as are levels, because all advancement is done OOC with pencil and paper!


Thirdly: this smells of largess. These XP are a gift from the DM to the player. This looks like a bribe of sorts. Is the DM trying to buy favour/popularity ? Is the DM insecure ? I don't if this is true, but it's what it could look like.
That's silly. That logic, taken to its natural conclusion, means that a DM shouldn't give out stuff at all, because exp and gp and loot and such are all "largesse."

[137beth]

Because xp from challenges is not rewarded based on how you overcame the challenge but only on whether the challenges was overcome. You could defeat a CR8 creature by beating down it's HP or you could beat it by luring it over a trap door. One might be considered better than the other and one may be faster than the other but no matter what the party will be rewarded xp based on beating a CR8 creature.

To look at it another way.

Should the character Lisbeth Salander have earned more experience because Noomi Rapace portrayed her much better than Rooney Mara?

Huh, well IMO, if you can overcome an encounter without coming up with a creative strategy, then it isn't a "challenging" encounter--it's an easy one. If the players are just using their built-in mechanical abilities in the blandest possible way, are not making use of terrain or monster weaknesses, and are still winning, then the encounter was too easy and you should send something harder next time. After all, it's not a "challenge" if the only way to lose is to get really really unlucky.

[Segev]

Should the character Lisbeth Salander have earned more experience because Noomi Rapace portrayed her much better than Rooney Mara?

Should the movie in which Noomi Rapace did a better job make more money than the one in which Rooney Mara played? Especially if said money is likely to contribute to a bigger-budget sequel?

The rewards aren't exactly parallel, but neither are the situations.

Actors who put more effort into stellar performances should be rewarded, yes. Typically, they're rewarded with real-world money, but they also can be rewarded by having more screen-time for their character, or even having their break-out hit character become the centerpiece of his own new show.

Yes, you can use that to reward people in game, too, but it's harder to make it obvious, and that can really lead to resentment from other players who feel that the game has become "the [so-and-so] show." Especially since, unlike simply giving a bit of an edge in combat through letting them level a little early (which actually, by D&D's rules for exp earning, will have a self-braking function), giving them more and more spotlight means that they have more and more chance to shine, until the "less RP" players are unable to FIND room to stand out.

So yes, EXP can be perfectly valid for this. Yes, like with any reward, you have to be careful. No, the straw men thrown about to demonstrate why this leads to marginalization are not accurate unless the DM is incompetent, or there are other, deeper problems.

[NichG]

On a general note: it seems like every defense of this practice is "but I make sure it doesn't have a big impact" or "I make it so everyone gets it". If that's the case...does it really matter?

Well as people keep saying, its the psychology of it. I mean, are you arguing 'people will not behave differently because its a small reward/shared reward'? In my experience, thats simply not the case.

I was in a campaign where there's something called a 'Fury Duel'. The way it works is, a person spends a limited resource and declares a duel against their (solo) enemy. If the enemy accepts, then the two of them fight it out. Nothing mechanically prevents other people from interfering with the duel, but if no one interferes with the duel then everyone in the party gets the same amount of bonus XP at the end of the session - usually a fairly big chunk, like +50% on top of what the session normally would give, if the duel was against a meaningful and significant foe.

The system got used all the time, and the players loved it whenever anyone did a fury duel, whereas normally they might be resentful that the person is taking up so much spotlight time. It was an elegant way to bring that particular trope into the game without making the spotlight focus too obnoxious.

At the end of the day, it didn't create any difference in power levels between characters, but people still appreciated having the extra XP to spend (I should say, this was a system with a lot of point-buy type things rather than only having a level-up system).

[Jade_Tarem]

This system tells them, based on the game theory presented elsewhere/summarized above, "You're bad at this game. You're less cool than your friends. You lost D&D".

No. You have chosen to interpret it that way, perhaps while mentally picturing a DM wearing a top hat and monocle sadistically twirling his mustache before capering off into the red sunset, arm in arm with your evil stepmother who always said you'd never amount to anything.

Having some of the players be a level apart for a session or two is not the end of the world. Our group has had it happen a couple of times, and the universe didn't implode. For balance reasons, players should probably not be more than a level apart for long.


That is Feel Bad from here to Albuquereueureuegruathjasdhff (misspelling Albuquerque is fun). Watching their friend get famous for staring down the Duke of Somewhere, with great RP, has none of these problems. Watching the Wizard describe his incredibly taxing researching of Fireball, and and get to sell the learnings for 5% WBL also has none of these problems. Watching the bard develop a halting, loving relationship with the barmaid he was tortured with by the BBEG, also doesn't suck. Watching the barbarian get a level up for describing how grizzled his muscles are and grunting through the combat, that sucks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the party is a group of friends cooperating toward a goal, yes? If seeing their barbarian friend get rewarded makes someone unhappy... they may need to examine whether they're playing the game because they want to have fun, or because they want to be better than everyone. See, a player can (usually) have fun even if they aren't the most powerful party member. If that wasn't the case, everyone would play a full caster in 3.5 DnD, without exception.


Oooooonnn the opposite side: players who are willing to LARP in your D&D session. These people are also not bad people, and have a fully legitimate right to be in your game and enjoy it. With them, you have a different problem. First off, everything they RP tends to end up with a CHA of around 16, no matter what it says on the sheet. Secondly, they do a ton of the little things that are being described as key to RP. They'll tell you what color their left sock's inner patch is. They've named everyone in their backstory home town. They have 7 lines of text for "I full attack". If you gave 1 XP per thing they did, pretty soon they are gaining non trivial XP. If a normal encounter with 5 foes/out of combat adversaries takes a 5 player party 5 checks each. That player can easily have 10 things to say, RP wise. If they get to react to other players interactions...oh god, 125 XP points for the fight, at one point each. I think someone mentioned 100 XP as a small reward. Even if all 125 bits of RP aren't sufficient (and god help us if the player gets 12,500 XP per fight), even if just 10 percent are, thats greater than the XP to go from 1 to 2 every fight/social encounter. And these players create more social encounters for themselves. So MORE points. You're gonna get level discrepancies.

If you instead just give a maximum to anyone who RPs enough, you are encouraging a very specific level of RPing, not RPing in general.

I did acknowledge in the other thread, and will discuss briefly here, the idea that giving a non-trivial XP boost per session for everyone who crossed a certain lowish threshold of minimum RPing. This ACTUALLY seems like it might be workable. If you know the XP boost, and its like 1 or 2 encounters of EL per session, you can control it, and the players who are overdoing it will get less and less. If you make the threshold low enough that players only miss it by really, clearly, not role playing, then it might be a reasonable idea. For example: anyone who shows up with a basic backstory, a fundamental personality concept, doesn't violate the general personality of character more than twice and gives at least partial narration for at least 25% of their actions/dialogue gets 2 EL appropriate encounters of XP per session. That could be functional. I'd still wanna playtest.

See, all of this is coming from a position that RP XP is a highly abusive system, that everyone will abuse until no one is having fun anymore, no exceptions, no matter what. Then we turn around and say that it's a subjective system, with the DM in full control.

Which is it? The players can't force more XP out of the DM while the DM has full control.

The truth is that what you're describing is a very extreme and silly case, with a game run by an incompetent and easily manipulated DM. Moderation is required from the DM - and you know, I'm pretty sure that the DM is supposed to moderate the game anyway, since the entire game is ultimately subjective, and even what's written in the rulebooks can be abused. Funny how that works out.

As to the part of the quote that I bolded, your description is one of a terrible roleplayer. Mountains of minutiae and spotlight-hogging is not roleplaying, it's a failed assignment from Descriptive Prose 101 as delivered by a prima donna. That player would earn zero roleplaying xp from any decent DM, even those who love handing out bonus rp xp.


You're rewarding the character for the actions of the player. Character advancement, rewards, or growth in any metric should never be tied to out of character behavior.

The character's actions are chosen by the player. The two are, for the purposes of advancement, inseparable. Roleplaying, by definition, is in-character behavior or closely related to it.

************************************************** ****

General response: I can't find a criticism in this thread of the RP XP reward system that doesn't revolve around the DM being really, really bad at it.

[Deophaun]

The general goal is so that more players in the group adopt it, so that the dm enjoys the gm more (presumably he/she is into roleplaying if he/she gives rp xp^^)
So, what's the player's alternative if they do not like to RP? What do you suggest they do to discourage the DM from introducing RP elements?

Sauce, Goose, Gander and all that.

[Segev]

So, what's the player's alternative if they do not like to RP? What do you suggest they do to discourage the DM from introducing RP elements?

Sauce, Goose, Gander and all that.

Well, what game are they looking to play that doesn't include RP?

Perhaps an RPG is not the game they should be playing? I know that I don't play Trivial Pursuit because I don't like it. I don't play it and then tell people how much I wish they'd make it into Chess. And I certainly don't complain that the game rewards people for knowing trivia!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Serpentine
I offer rewards for good roleplaying because that is something I really want to encourage and reward in my players, something I want to be a major part of the games I run. If you think that this is punishing you because it is so antithetical to your play style, then our preferences are probably simply incompatible.

I think this distills the essence of the issue very nicely. I certainly have a hard time seeing how rewarding a bit of extra effort is somehow a punishment for those who don't make an extra effort. "Extra" is the key concept here.

For my part, I'm happy awarding small snippets of XP for an especially clever bit of character dialogue, or an excellent insight, or simply good RP in general. Usually this sort of thing balances out across the course of several sessions.

Clearly different groups have very different practices; I call this local variation in playstyle. Bonus XP was one feature of a broader gaming landscape when I started with 3.5, so I've been comfortable with it all along, as a player and a DM. Never had a player who complained.


Originally Posted by Serpentine
...for me, roleplaying is exactly as an intrinsic a part of the game as killing things, as responsible for character growth and development, as important, and therefore as deserving of rewarding in-game.

Absolutely so. I've run long sessions where the focus was on the nuances of situation, personality and philosophy, and the well-played character interactions that resulted were some of the highlights of the campaign. Does this deserve XP? Gorram straight it does.


Originally Posted by Jade_Tarem
Moderation is required from the DM - and you know, I'm pretty sure that the DM is supposed to moderate the game anyway, since the entire game is ultimately subjective....

Pretty much what I've been thinking as I went through the rest of the thread.

:smallamused:

.

[Raineh Daze]

Well, what game are they looking to play that doesn't include RP?

Perhaps an RPG is not the game they should be playing? I know that I don't play Trivial Pursuit because I don't like it. I don't play it and then tell people how much I wish they'd make it into Chess. And I certainly don't complain that the game rewards people for knowing trivia!

Please look at how much is in the core rules alone. Add on every first-party splatbook. Setting-specific info. Potentially everything relevant in Dragon.

There is a huge volume of game-oriented stuff. Not liking roleplaying may not stop someone from liking the system. There is a lot of system to play with and/or like.

Gets worse when you pool PF and 3.5 stuff. And drag in the non-updated 3.0 things.

[TheStranger]

No. You are giving an IC reward for playing the character well, rather than for not playing the character well. Unless you mean "all things the character does are OOC behaviors because the player makes decisions OOC to have them happen," in which case your statement makes no sense at all. Exp, by that definition, is an OOC reward, as are levels, because all advancement is done OOC with pencil and paper!
I think the point is that roleplaying is a player skill, rather than a character skill. For instance, let's say I'm playing the party face. As it happens, I'm kind of an introverted guy, and I'm not good at getting into character (I can barely be myself consistently, let alone somebody else). So if I decide that I'm going to strike up a conversation with the bartender and get a feel for what's going on in town (which would be completely in-character), I'm probably going to do it awkwardly.

Whereas somebody who's more of a natural extrovert, and maybe has some acting experience, might do the same thing, with the same character, but it's going to go much more smoothly.

So, in this example, both people have made the same IC and OOC choices and attempted to play their character in exactly the same way. They're probably going to make the same dice rolls, if any, to determine the in-game outcome. But 90% of DMs would give the second person more roleplaying XP than the first person (assuming that the DM would give roleplaying XP in this situation), and that's 100% because of a skill that one player has and one does not. It's almost like giving combat bonuses to somebody because they know how to fight in real life.

I'm aware that social interactions aren't the only form of roleplaying, but sometimes introverted people want to play extroverted characters.

[Emmerask]

So, what's the player's alternative if they do not like to RP? What do you suggest they do to discourage the DM from introducing RP elements?

Sauce, Goose, Gander and all that.

If the players dont like to roleplay at all then I am the wrong dm for that group there is little purpose in continuing the game if we have such a big rift in expectations.

[Segev]

Please look at how much is in the core rules alone. Add on every first-party splatbook. Setting-specific info. Potentially everything relevant in Dragon.

There is a huge volume of game-oriented stuff. Not liking roleplaying may not stop someone from liking the system. There is a lot of system to play with and/or like.

Gets worse when you pool PF and 3.5 stuff. And drag in the non-updated 3.0 things.

That doesn't answer my question. What, precisely, is all that "game" designed to let you do, other than to role-play?

It's not entirely a rhetorical question. What game are you looking to play? A pure kick-in-the-door hack-and-slash take-the-loot game? Do you not want any RP beyond the role your mechanics let you play in the tactics and gameplay?

If so, and the DM is one who wants to emphasize role-play that focuses more on in-character decisions that don't treat the PCs like being emotionless pawns of players who aren't worried about what the PCs might want other than optimal decisions for optimal rewards...perhaps that's not the game for you.

I'm not even saying a hack-and-slash kick-in-the-door game is the "wrong way to play." I am saying that insisting that the DM not encourage the play he likes to see is dumb, because the DM will shape the game more than any other single player. If you honestly cannot or do not want to play towards what makes the game fun for the DM, then find a different game, because even without these rules, you will not be happy in the one that DM is running.

[3WhiteFox3]

I think the point is that roleplaying is a player skill, rather than a character skill. For instance, let's say I'm playing the party face. As it happens, I'm kind of an introverted guy, and I'm not good at getting into character (I can barely be myself consistently, let alone somebody else). So if I decide that I'm going to strike up a conversation with the bartender and get a feel for what's going on in town (which would be completely in-character), I'm probably going to do it awkwardly.

Whereas somebody who's more of a natural extrovert, and maybe has some acting experience, might do the same thing, with the same character, but it's going to go much more smoothly.

So, in this example, both people have made the same IC and OOC choices and attempted to play their character in exactly the same way. They're probably going to make the same dice rolls, if any, to determine the in-game outcome. But 90% of DMs would give the second person more roleplaying XP than the first person (assuming that the DM would give roleplaying XP in this situation), and that's 100% because of a skill that one player has and one does not. It's almost like giving combat bonuses to somebody because they know how to fight in real life.

I'm aware that social interactions aren't the only form of roleplaying, but sometimes introverted people want to play extroverted characters.
This. Especially the bold part here. I'm a roleplayer, I enjoy roleplaying, but depending on my mood, feelings, atmosphere, who the other people are and how the GM is encouraging my roleplaying, I can get shy or have a hard time expressing who my character is. Essentially, I think that RPXP tends to put pressure on people to perform, and for me, I'd rather be encouraged by either meta-rewards such as the aforementioned rubber points, or rewards that are entirely roleplaying based like friends or contacts within the game.

[Deophaun]

If the players dont like to roleplay at all then I am the wrong dm for that group there is little purpose in continuing the game if we have such a big rift in expectations.
If they like to roleplay, then why do you feel the need to issue rewards to encourage it?

I find your reasoning deeply conflicted.

[Karoht]

If the character does something noteworthy, that really feels 'in-character' or saves the day, or otherwise feels like rewarding, I use the following formula.
100x character level. 2x if particularly amazing, 3x if it requires me to take 5 to rethink a few things, as well as get the laughs out, or mull over just how awesome the player did.

If one is automatically distributing XP for party members (some DM's do that to make less bookwork), give everyone else 1/4 of whatever you just awarded.

Why it scales with level: As we increase in levels, it becomes much easier to lean on the system and either cast a spell or roll a skill check to solve a problem, so the reward should be greater. Also, easy math. So I can award it on the spot quickly and easily.

[Eldan]

I just don't see the connection between RPing well and the character's personal power. Where is the justification for this in the fluff? Why does a character's power grow stronger than anothers for no reason that's obvious in the game?

It feels like things are getting mixed that should not be mixed.

Roleplaying gets roleplay rewards. You gain respect. Reputation. Honour. People will treat you differently. Those are rewards.

But I see no reason at all why your magic should get better because of it. Or why you should be able to swing your sword faster.

It feels nicely symetrical. You overcome challenges, you get better at overcoming challenges. You act out your character, you get rewards that help with acting out your character.

Plus, if your players so much prefer good roleplaying over combat, shouldn't that be the better reward for them anyway? After all, levels primarily make you stronger at overcoming challenges while not changing your roleplay much at all.

[Raineh Daze]

That doesn't answer my question. What, precisely, is all that "game" designed to let you do, other than to role-play?

It's not entirely a rhetorical question. What game are you looking to play? A pure kick-in-the-door hack-and-slash take-the-loot game? Do you not want any RP beyond the role your mechanics let you play in the tactics and gameplay?

If so, and the DM is one who wants to emphasize role-play that focuses more on in-character decisions that don't treat the PCs like being emotionless pawns of players who aren't worried about what the PCs might want other than optimal decisions for optimal rewards...perhaps that's not the game for you.

I'm not even saying a hack-and-slash kick-in-the-door game is the "wrong way to play." I am saying that insisting that the DM not encourage the play he likes to see is dumb, because the DM will shape the game more than any other single player. If you honestly cannot or do not want to play towards what makes the game fun for the DM, then find a different game, because even without these rules, you will not be happy in the one that DM is running.

Maybe the person just doesn't want to go through that? You can play a character IC without roleplaying. Shyness, for instance, would be a huge obstacle. Simply being bad at coming up with this stuff would discourage it.

'Encouraging the play you want to see' should really be done with more finesse than arbitrarily assigning actions XP. Try treating people like people and talking to them rather than going for a Pavlovian response. People are smarter than dogs. Do not try and train them as such. :smallsigh:

[Amphetryon]

I think this distills the essence of the issue very nicely. I certainly have a hard time seeing how rewarding a bit of extra effort is somehow a punishment for those who don't make an extra effort. "Extra" is the key concept here.Did you see Office Space? Specifically, do you remember the scene where Jennifer Aniston's character was taken to task by the supervisor for not wearing more than the required amount of flair, and her argument that he was in essence stating there was a higher minimum than she'd been led to believe?

[Emmerask]

If they like to roleplay, then why do you feel the need to issue rewards to encourage it?

I find your reasoning deeply conflicted.

The bonus xp is to encourage roleplaying by those who have not tried it before or are not rpg veterans with 200+ sessions experience, its not going to convince an " I hate roleplaying" type player.
Also roleplaying is a lot harder then just saying "I hit" or "thats 17 diplomacy" so having some incentive to go the "extra mile" is helpful.

ie in general you do not have a binary there is roleplaying and there is no roleplaying, you will have something in the middle ground, having the bonus however might tip it more and more in the is roleplaying direction :smallwink:

[Jade_Tarem]

I think the point is that roleplaying is a player skill, rather than a character skill. For instance, let's say I'm playing the party face. As it happens, I'm kind of an introverted guy, and I'm not good at getting into character (I can barely be myself consistently, let alone somebody else). So if I decide that I'm going to strike up a conversation with the bartender and get a feel for what's going on in town (which would be completely in-character), I'm probably going to do it awkwardly.

Whereas somebody who's more of a natural extrovert, and maybe has some acting experience, might do the same thing, with the same character, but it's going to go much more smoothly.

So, in this example, both people have made the same IC and OOC choices and attempted to play their character in exactly the same way. They're probably going to make the same dice rolls, if any, to determine the in-game outcome. But 90% of DMs would give the second person more roleplaying XP than the first person (assuming that the DM would give roleplaying XP in this situation), and that's 100% because of a skill that one player has and one does not. It's almost like giving combat bonuses to somebody because they know how to fight in real life.

I'm aware that social interactions aren't the only form of roleplaying, but sometimes introverted people want to play extroverted characters.

And 103% of players would respond by getting up on the table and doing all the moves to 'Thriller.' I can make up statistics too! :smalltongue:

But in all seriousness, that's why "roleplaying" means more than "being a great talker." You don't have to be an extrovert to declare that your cleric spends some of his free time making a donation at the temple and healing people. Actually burning gold and spell slots/channel attempts on it would be pretty impressive. Neither of these things requires a player to be a social butterfly, but both are definitely noteworthy roleplaying.

A DM who is good at this will mostly reward players for making the attempt, and giving out a slightly bigger reward if it was really impressive. Make no mistake - roleplaying and figuring out how much in the way of goods is a skill, and everyone gets better at it the more of it they do. As the players get more comfortable with it, they get a better sense of timing and how to share the spotlight, and the whole experience becomes much more rewarding overall. The exception, of course, is if a player is just genuinely uncomfortable with it, in which case they need to talk to their DM. For real - that's how you should be solving all of your OOC problems in this game. If a player really, truly doesn't like the system no matter how well its run then the DM should work out something else they should do. But as has been mentioned before, if you hate role playing you probably should be playing something other than a role playing game.

[Segev]

Maybe the person just doesn't want to go through that? You can play a character IC without roleplaying. Shyness, for instance, would be a huge obstacle. Simply being bad at coming up with this stuff would discourage it.How so? Again, not rhetorical. I don't see how "play[ing] a character IC" can be done "without roleplaying."

The two seem synonymous, to me.


'Encouraging the play you want to see' should really be done with more finesse than arbitrarily assigning actions XP. Try treating people like people and talking to them rather than going for a Pavlovian response. People are smarter than dogs. Do not try and train them as such. :smallsigh:Or, perhaps, you treat people like people and talk to them AND you give them rewards. Pavlovian responses are not inherently evil. Or should we not reward kids for doing well in school, either?

You can talk about "finesse" all you like; as long as you're taking care to help those who might be falling behind, the rewards are "feel goods" rather than "feel bads" for the unrewarded. Unless you are the sort to feel punished each time you see somebody get a reward for something they do.


Then again, my method of handing out such rewards tends to be on-the-spot rather than at-the-end-of-the-night, unless there was something really awesome somebody did that needs recognition specifically after session.

[Roguenewb]

@Jade: If it just comes down to the DM making decisions based on what the party make up looks like, its not a game system. It's Fiat. Plain and simple. You know why we play D&D instead of LARPing or make-believe? Because we believe in rules, and like rules. Don't tell me the way to make my game hobby better is to remove some of the "game" aspects. We obviously want different things out of the game.

And being levels apart is a very bad thing, especially if any difficult combats happen during those times. Imagine Boss Fight Delta, at level 12. The dragon comes down, savages everybody and it takes true heroism, grit and most of the party resources, but the foul monster is slain! Except for the introvert. His character was a level done because he didn't wanna act out going to the masquerade last week. The fight that should have reduced him to single digit HP, straight out killed him. Now, the party gained enough XP to finish off 12, and go to 13. Mr. introvert gets raised, and gosh, now he's at 11. The next challenging encounter that comes along? Unless he was multiple tiers ahead of party level before the problem started, he is basically irrelevant. Power doubles every 2 levels. Being two levels behind is being half the power. If the next encounter is a combat...well crap. Theres a good chance he'll die again. That's three levels. Every event in this scenario is fairly reasonable. The end result, the game is ruined for one player.

The stormwind people are gonna tell me all about how their adventures don't have that much combat, and its more about more pure roleplaying. That's not D&D 3.5. That's people who want to roleplay and act, and don't know the right system to use, or don't wanna drift from the name brand. Combat is a key part of 3.5, not 100%, but overcoming mechanical challenges through the use of mechanical capabilities is easily 75% of the game. Party level differences ruins this concept.

In regards to the other claim, that its not that big a deal to watch your friends succeed, and its still fun. I want you to do an honest thought experiment. Did you go to college? Are you old enough for that? Do you remember applying to schools and waiting to get letters back? Imagine you and four friends are applying to schools, and one day you all meet and the other four tell you they all got in to Harvard! You only got in to your local state school. They say "Oh, our letters all said they were really impressed with our essays and awesome transcripts!". Honestly, hand to god/allah/flying spaghetti monster, tell me that doesn't hurt at all. Tell me all you feel is happy for your friends. Its okay to admit, this is the internet, no one can see you talk to your computer. Thats the "my DM liked my roleplaying so I got level up XP!" scenario.

The other scenario is better: still at school applications (so our younger readers can relate), everyone gets in to state school. All four of your friends got letters saying they'd gotten special titles. Bob got to be "Honors Agricultural Student" because of his work on all the farms he did during the summer. Steve is a "leadership trainee" because of his eagle scout award, and so on and so forth. These hurt way less, in fact, its likely they don't hurt at all, and you can feel pure happiness for your friends. You know why? Because you are all getting the same fundamental experience (instead of them getting harvard), and the rewards are clearly linked to their efforts. Fake crying when the wizard dies has no logical connection to learning how to swing a sword better, and psychologically, that makes the inequalities hurt more.

Finally, D&D is an escapist hobby. One of the things people escape is inequity, this ruling reinforces inequity if they don't role play through some hidden criteria. If you must do this RP XP thing, at least, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make it key off a vote from the other players. Something that doesn't smack of fiat.

[Talderas]

No. You are giving an IC reward for playing the character well, rather than for not playing the character well. Unless you mean "all things the character does are OOC behaviors because the player makes decisions OOC to have them happen," in which case your statement makes no sense at all. Exp, by that definition, is an OOC reward, as are levels, because all advancement is done OOC with pencil and paper!

You can't eat your cake and have it too. That's what you're attempting to do. You're trrying to separate narrating from role-playing yet the narrative is what is going to create the strong impressions not roleplaying. I can accurately "role-play" as you have defined it by matter of factly stating the actions the character takes. So and so does this, this, and that. As long as it's within the character's personality, which only I can truly know, it's role-playing yet I am very reasonably certain that this would never quality for role playing experience because the delivery is de facto, matter of fact, and otherwise devoid of emotion.

It's the performance piece, or stunting as you call it, which is going to create the most memorable moments. Have you ever gone to see a play or musical performed live on stage? Everything the actors do is exagerated. It needs to be because otherwise it would be a very dull performance. If you look at some of the most famous characters from shows. The ones that often times get more applause than the leading roles? They're the most absurd. They're the most exagerated. The Thernadiers from Les Miserables. Ms Hannigan, Rooster, and Lily St Regis from Annie. Those characters are exagerated, excessively and thus they are the most popular because the exageration lends to making those characters more memorable.

--


Should the movie in which Noomi Rapace did a better job make more money than the one in which Rooney Mara played? Especially if said money is likely to contribute to a bigger-budget sequel?

The rewards aren't exactly parallel, but neither are the situations.

Yeah not even close in situation, why bring it up?


Actors who put more effort into stellar performances should be rewarded, yes. Typically, they're rewarded with real-world money, but they also can be rewarded by having more screen-time for their character, or even having their break-out hit character become the centerpiece of his own new show.

You're choosing your analogies very poorly. A character who gets more screentime because the actor is very good and/or funny is getting more spotlight time. There's no "growth" to the character because of extra screentime. And extra screentime to a character because an actor is especially good? It rarely happens. Way more footage than can be used is shot for any given film. That footage has to fit into a certain time frame and it has to still convey the narrative of the film. More screentime for a character isn't going to be done unless it adds to the narrative unless there's nothing more to add to the narrative.


So yes, EXP can be perfectly valid for this. Yes, like with any reward, you have to be careful. No, the straw men thrown about to demonstrate why this leads to marginalization are not accurate unless the DM is incompetent, or there are other, deeper problems.

Except that the primary argument I'm making is that the reward is a function of player ability and not of character ability. As such it is granting IC growth for OOC reasons. Because of that it's bad form.

--


The character's actions are chosen by the player. The two are, for the purposes of advancement, inseparable. Roleplaying, by definition, is in-character behavior or closely related to it.

It's related yes. The rewards, however, are always described as being distributed due to presentation of roleplaying and not roleplaying itself.


General response: I can't find a criticism in this thread of the RP XP reward system that doesn't revolve around the DM being really, really bad at it.

You mean aside from the criticism that it's rewarding IC growth for OOC behavior which is completely independent of

Edit: Edited for grammatical/spelling errors.

[Raineh Daze]

How so? Again, not rhetorical. I don't see how "play[ing] a character IC" can be done "without roleplaying."

The two seem synonymous, to me.

Reporting actions, which are perfectly IC, but not describing them. 'I greet the guard', for instance.


Or, perhaps, you treat people like people and talk to them AND you give them rewards. Pavlovian responses are not inherently evil. Or should we not reward kids for doing well in school, either?

Pavlovian responses, in a leisure activity, because you want someone to do something that you like but they don't? No. Never. Talk to them about it, then let them do whatever. If they're still enjoying themselves, and they're the only person not roleplaying, leave it be.

If everyone's not roleplaying, then it's your problem, not theirs.

[Segev]

Roguenewb, your entire post is a giant strawman. The only people who have talked about "levels apart" due to these rewards are those who oppose the idea. Those who support it have repeatedly talked about how steps are to be taken to prevent this kind of gap opening up.

That you go on to try to prove that being "levels apart" is awful illustrates the depth of your grasp at those straws in the man's chest; nobody is arguing that being "levels apart" is good. This isn't "stormwind falacy." Nobody is saying "making bad mechanical decisions in your build is automatically good role playing," not its converse.

However, if somebody DOES make sub-optimal choices for RP reasons - and they're legitimate reasons rather than an exercise in the Stormwind Fallacy - extraneous EXP rewards can actually close the gap a little.



Tangentially related: AD&D had different exp charts for wizards than for fighters, and this was part of the balance. If the characters are not equal in effectiveness despite being at the same level, perhaps unbalancing their levels until the under-optimized PC "catches up" can help. If RP-EXP can help with that, is that a problem? (Note: this would be something to do in rare cases of genuine cool character concepts that just don't work well mechanically, and should only be attempted by highly-skilled DMs.)

[Karoht]

Did you see Office Space? Specifically, do you remember the scene where Jennifer Aniston's character was taken to task by the supervisor for not wearing more than the required amount of flair, and her argument that he was in essence stating there was a higher minimum than she'd been led to believe?I recall that scene. It is an excellent example.

However, how many DM's are going to penalize their players for not getting the bonus XP?
There will occasionally be someone at the table who is there to roll dice and have fun. And that is perfectly fine. As long as their isn't a massive disparity between those getting the RP XP and those who are not, then there really isn't a problem.
If the gap gets too big, give the non RP XP guy a solo sidequest and catch that person up. Give them a bit more spotlight, who knows, maybe they'll RP their way out rather than just rolling some hit and damage and save rolls?

Granted, RP XP sort of feels like a solution in search of a problem. At least most descriptions I have read give me that impression. I'm sure that my suggestion for it even falls into that category. Depends on the group really.

[Emmerask]

@Jade: If it just comes down to the DM making decisions based on what the party make up looks like, its not a game system. It's Fiat. Plain and simple. You know why we play D&D instead of LARPing or make-believe?a Because we believe in rules, and like rules. Don't tell me the way to make my game hobby better is to remove some of the "game" aspects. We obviously want different things out of the game.

And being levels apart is a very bad thing, especially if any difficult combats happen during those times. Imagine Boss Fight Delta, at level 12. The dragon comes down, savages everybody and it takes true heroism, grit and most of the party resources, but the foul monster is slain! Except for the introvert. His character was a level done because he didn't wanna act out going to the masquerade last week. The fight that should have reduced him to single digit HP, straight out killed him. Now, the party gained enough XP to finish off 12, and go to 13. Mr. introvert gets raised, and gosh, now he's at 11. The next challenging encounter that comes along? Unless he was multiple tiers ahead of party level before the problem started, he is basically irrelevant. Power doubles every 2 levels. Being two levels behind is being half the power. If the next encounter is a combat...well crap. Theres a good chance he'll die again. That's three levels. Every event in this scenario is fairly reasonable. The end result, the game is ruined for one player.

The stormwind people are gonna tell me all about how their adventures don't have that much combat, and its more about more pure roleplaying. That's not D&D 3.5. That's people who want to roleplay and act, and don't know the right system to use, or don't wanna drift from the name brand. Combat is a key part of 3.5, not 100%, but overcoming mechanical challenges through the use of mechanical capabilities is easily 75% of the game. Party level differences ruins this concept.

In regards to the other claim, that its not that big a deal to watch your friends succeed, and its still fun. I want you to do an honest thought experiment. Did you go to college? Are you old enough for that? Do you remember applying to schools and waiting to get letters back? Imagine you and four friends are applying to schools, and one day you all meet and the other four tell you they all got in to Harvard! You only got in to your local state school. They say "Oh, our letters all said they were really impressed with our essays and awesome transcripts!". Honestly, hand to god/allah/flying spaghetti monster, tell me that doesn't hurt at all. Tell me all you feel is happy for your friends. Its okay to admit, this is the internet, no one can see you talk to your computer. Thats the "my DM liked my roleplaying so I got level up XP!" scenario.

The other scenario is better: still at school applications (so our younger readers can relate), everyone gets in to state school. All four of your friends got letters saying they'd gotten special titles. Bob got to be "Honors Agricultural Student" because of his work on all the farms he did during the summer. Steve is a "leadership trainee" because of his eagle scout award, and so on and so forth. These hurt way less, in fact, its likely they don't hurt at all, and you can feel pure happiness for your friends. You know why? Because you are all getting the same fundamental experience (instead of them getting harvard), and the rewards are clearly linked to their efforts. Fake crying when the wizard dies has no logical connection to learning how to swing a sword better, and psychologically, that makes the inequalities hurt more.

Finally, D&D is an escapist hobby. One of the things people escape is inequity, this ruling reinforces inequity if they don't role play through some hidden criteria. If you must do this RP XP thing, at least, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make it key off a vote from the other players. Something that doesn't smack of fiat.



You are still under the false impression that the rp xp reward has to be huge... it does not.
As I said in the other thread I had a 17 level (from level 3) campaign that went on for over a year... never in that campaign where the characters more then 1 level apart and that only for 1 session (due to the other players having 1000xp less which exactly was the requirement for the level).

[137beth]

I think the point is that roleplaying is a player skill, rather than a character skill. For instance, let's say I'm playing the party face. As it happens, I'm kind of an introverted guy, and I'm not good at getting into character (I can barely be myself consistently, let alone somebody else). So if I decide that I'm going to strike up a conversation with the bartender and get a feel for what's going on in town (which would be completely in-character), I'm probably going to do it awkwardly.

Whereas somebody who's more of a natural extrovert, and maybe has some acting experience, might do the same thing, with the same character, but it's going to go much more smoothly.

So, in this example, both people have made the same IC and OOC choices and attempted to play their character in exactly the same way. They're probably going to make the same dice rolls, if any, to determine the in-game outcome. But 90% of DMs would give the second person more roleplaying XP than the first person (assuming that the DM would give roleplaying XP in this situation), and that's 100% because of a skill that one player has and one does not. It's almost like giving combat bonuses to somebody because they know how to fight in real life.

I'm aware that social interactions aren't the only form of roleplaying, but sometimes introverted people want to play extroverted characters.

You missed the discussion on the previous page about combat strategy. A really hard fight may only be winnable if the PCs use a creative strategy. That requires the players to come up with a strategy--player skill. But at the end of the fight, most DMs (who use xp) would award xp for overcoming a challenging encounter. As I said on the previous page:

If the PCs are just using their built-in mechanical abilities in the blandest possible way, are not making use of terrain or monster weaknesses, and are still winning, then the encounter was too easy and you should send something harder next time. After all, it's not a "challenge" if the only way to lose is to get really really unlucky.
But if the PCs win a "challenging" encounter due to good strategy, then that is player skill. Would you still award xp for such an encounter?

[Eldan]

Question. If the XP are not enough to make a level difference, why do they even matter? XP are to determine when you level. If the amount you hand out isn't enough to make some people level earlier, why hand them out at all?

[TheStranger]

A DM who is good at this will mostly reward players for making the attempt, and giving out a slightly bigger reward if it was really impressive. Make no mistake - roleplaying and figuring out how much in the way of goods is a skill, and everyone gets better at it the more of it they do. As the players get more comfortable with it, they get a better sense of timing and how to share the spotlight, and the whole experience becomes much more rewarding overall. The exception, of course, is if a player is just genuinely uncomfortable with it, in which case they need to talk to their DM. For real - that's how you should be solving all of your OOC problems in this game. If a player really, truly doesn't like the system no matter how well its run then the DM should work out something else they should do. But as has been mentioned before, if you hate role playing you probably should be playing something other than a role playing game.
If I honestly thought that a DM was going to give the same (or comparable) XP regardless of the execution, based solely on the intent and the attempt, I would have absolutely no problem with roleplaying XP. But in defending roleplaying XP, you can't ignore the fact that, for some people, "roleplaying" means social interaction, and "good roleplaying" means acting that social interaction out with some level of competence. I think there are quite a few people in that camp - maybe I'm wrong. None of us can speak beyond our own gaming experience, which is a pretty small sample size.

If roleplaying XP is divorced from player skill, I have no problem with it. To the extent that player skill has a mechanical impact, I'm opposed to it.

I don't hate roleplaying, and there are lots of reasons I play RPGs. I like making decisions in character. I like interacting with the plot and the setting. I like cracking jokes, both IC and OOC. I like hanging out with my friends, eating pizza, and killing some imaginary orcs. Sometimes I like to have a conversation with an NPC. But I'm kind of awkward in the spotlight, and I don't think that there should be any mechanical consequences (the giving or withholding of an award is a consequence) to that.

[Raineh Daze]

YBut if the PCs win a "challenging" encounter due to good strategy, then that is player skill. Would you still award xp for such an encounter?

Consider the following:

Player A roleplays a grandiose speech, then rolls a diplomacy check to get into the palace.

Player B says she makes a grandiose speech, rolls said check.

Both have gotten into the palace, correct? Both characters, IC, did exactly the same thing, yes? Now, why would Player A be the only one to be rewarded for it?

If, OOC, a player comes up with a cunning strategem, that means the character that put it into play must have as well. If, OOC, a player simply states an action rather than a several-sentence description of it, one of them would get roleplaying XP, but the character would be doing the exact same thing.

[Reogan]

Question. If the XP are not enough to make a level difference, why do they even matter? XP are to determine when you level. If the amount you hand out isn't enough to make some people level earlier, why hand them out at all?

Because then the roleplayers of the group, who likely find fun in and pride themselves on their roleplaying, receive recognition for it in the same way the rollplayers receive recognition for smashing things, or what have you. It's validating without changing anything. It's a treat, not a payment.

[Segev]

Did you see Office Space? Specifically, do you remember the scene where Jennifer Aniston's character was taken to task by the supervisor for not wearing more than the required amount of flair, and her argument that he was in essence stating there was a higher minimum than she'd been led to believe?

You'll note that it is only those who are saying bonus XP are awful that are equating this to "taking [her] to task" for "not wearing more than the required amount of flair."

The minimum is established: show up, have your character ready, participate, etc.

There is an openly stated reward for going above and beyond. If the fictional boss in Office Space had offered bonus perks - perhaps better tables or hours, or perhaps an actual dollars-per-hour bonus pay - related to "wearing more flair" - and Ms. Aniston's character was still happy to wear the minimum required and deal with the pay given and the tables awarded for it, there wouldn't be a problem. The policy is set, she knows what she could do to get "more," and she is happy or comfortable not doing so.

It would be good of her boss to talk to her about it, make sure she knows how she could get more perks, and offer suggestions. AT that point, if she says, "No, I am content with this as it is," he could back off.

This would be much more analogous to the situation of offering bonus EXP for role-playing well. As long as the player isn't disruptive or obviously miserable that he's "falling behind," the DM should make sure he's not quietly suffering and knows how he could get the bonus...and if the guy's okay with things as they are, the DM can leave them be. At that point, it's not punishment; the guy is having fun playing what he wants to play.

Only you are talking about it as if the DM is taking this player to task for not meeting some unspoken standard.

You are, again, building a straw man. Those whose position you claim to be arguing against are not talking about berating people for not doing enough. They're talking about rewarding people for doing more, and helping those who express interest in those rewards to figure out how to earn them, themselves.

[Jade_Tarem]

@Jade: If it just comes down to the DM making decisions based on what the party make up looks like, its not a game system. It's Fiat. Plain and simple. You know why we play D&D instead of LARPing or make-believe? Because we believe in rules, and like rules. Don't tell me the way to make my game hobby better is to remove some of the "game" aspects. We obviously want different things out of the game.

One of those rules is that the DM can run the game however he wants. Rule 0, that rule which trumps all others. You can't remove the DM's direct input from the game. The monsters selected for the encounter are DM Fiat, or at least the selection of which table he rolled them from is. Whether or not the Paladin falls for making that one compromise with darkness too many is DM Fiat. The final decision on loot or loot tables is GM Fiat. How the NPCs behave is GM Fiat. It's integral to the game.


And being levels apart is a very bad thing, especially if any difficult combats happen during those times. Imagine Boss Fight Delta, at level 12. The dragon comes down, savages everybody and it takes true heroism, grit and most of the party resources, but the foul monster is slain! Except for the introvert. His character was a level done because he didn't wanna act out going to the masquerade last week. The fight that should have reduced him to single digit HP, straight out killed him. Now, the party gained enough XP to finish off 12, and go to 13. Mr. introvert gets raised, and gosh, now he's at 11. The next challenging encounter that comes along? Unless he was multiple tiers ahead of party level before the problem started, he is basically irrelevant. Power doubles every 2 levels. Being two levels behind is being half the power. If the next encounter is a combat...well crap. Theres a good chance he'll die again. That's three levels. Every event in this scenario is fairly reasonable. The end result, the game is ruined for one player.

Yes, I can do math, thank you. Your scenario is literally exactly what I said should be avoided, and once again relies on the DM being incompetent. Also note that it has nothing to do with roleplaying - you propose a system in which a petty, stupid DM kills the same player over and over again while providing no way for the player to catch up. That's terrible DMing.


In regards to the other claim, that its not that big a deal to watch your friends succeed, and its still fun. I want you to do an honest thought experiment. Did you go to college? Are you old enough for that? Do you remember applying to schools and waiting to get letters back? Imagine you and four friends are applying to schools, and one day you all meet and the other four tell you they all got in to Harvard! You only got in to your local state school. They say "Oh, our letters all said they were really impressed with our essays and awesome transcripts!". Honestly, hand to god/allah/flying spaghetti monster, tell me that doesn't hurt at all. Tell me all you feel is happy for your friends. Its okay to admit, this is the internet, no one can see you talk to your computer. Thats the "my DM liked my roleplaying so I got level up XP!" scenario.

I've actually finished my Master's Degree and gotten a job, thanks for asking. The truth is that I was accepted, with scholarships, to every school I applied to, so perhaps I didn't experience the burning shame that would enlighten me to why this is such serious business. I apologize for failing to recognize that missing out on a session's worth of roleplaying xp was a trauma on par with having one's hopes and dreams crushed while all those around him move on. Probably because that's not the case. If you feel horrified and ashamed and infuriated because you missed a little xp... you might have forgotten that this is a game.


Fake crying when the wizard dies has no logical connection to learning how to swing a sword better.

And swinging a sword has no connection to casting spells, but I can still take a level of wizard after adventuring as a fighter all my life, using the xp I gained from stabbing things. This can be done even if I haven't been within shouting distance of an actual wizard in all that time. That's 100% within the rules. To stop me from doing that, you'd have to... DM Fiat. n_n


Finally, D&D is an escapist hobby. One of the things people escape is inequity, this ruling reinforces inequity if they don't role play through some hidden criteria. If you must do this RP XP thing, at least, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make it key off a vote from the other players. Something that doesn't smack of fiat.

Once again, the assumption of the vain, petty, nasty DM. I don't force anything whatsoever on players. Most of these posters who are promoting rp xp probably don't either. As mentioned above, your post is a giant honking strawman.

[137beth]

Consider the following:

Player A roleplays a grandiose speech, then rolls a diplomacy check to get into the palace.

Player B says she makes a grandiose speech, rolls said check.

Both have gotten into the palace, correct? Both characters, IC, did exactly the same thing, yes? Now, why would Player A be the only one to be rewarded for it?

If, OOC, a player comes up with a cunning strategem, that means the character that put it into play must have as well. If, OOC, a player simply states an action rather than a several-sentence description of it, one of them would get roleplaying XP, but the character would be doing the exact same thing.
How is that any different from one player coming up with a strategy, then using it, while another player says their character comes up with a strategy, and then expects to win the fight because of it? In the first case, you are assuming (fairly) that the character may have better diplomacy skills than the player. In the second case, you just assumed that the character comes up with whatever strategy the player does, which sets player skill as a cap on the character's in-combat skills.

[TheStranger]

You missed the discussion on the previous page about combat strategy. A really hard fight may only be winnable if the PCs use a creative strategy. That requires the players to come up with a strategy--player skill. But at the end of the fight, most DMs (who use xp) would award xp for overcoming a challenging encounter. As I said on the previous page:

But if the PCs win a "challenging" encounter due to good strategy, then that is player skill. Would you still award xp for such an encounter?

I did miss that discussion. My response is that what you're talking about is an exercise in problem-solving - using the rules and the situation to achieve success. But ultimately, only the characters are acting - the players are just deciding what actions to take. That's different from the aspect of roleplaying that I'm talking about (again, I know there are other types of roleplaying). In my example, the DM is measuring whether the player is good at the action the character is attempting.

[Amphetryon]

Roguenewb, your entire post is a giant strawman. The only people who have talked about "levels apart" due to these rewards are those who oppose the idea. Those who support it have repeatedly talked about how steps are to be taken to prevent this kind of gap opening up.

That you go on to try to prove that being "levels apart" is awful illustrates the depth of your grasp at those straws in the man's chest; nobody is arguing that being "levels apart" is good. This isn't "stormwind falacy." Nobody is saying "making bad mechanical decisions in your build is automatically good role playing," not its converse.

However, if somebody DOES make sub-optimal choices for RP reasons - and they're legitimate reasons rather than an exercise in the Stormwind Fallacy - extraneous EXP rewards can actually close the gap a little.

It's not a strawman if it happens, and assuming the same Players are the extroverts every week, and the same Players are the introverts (a reasonable assumption), means that the extroverts leveling faster will happen in an ongoing campaign, all else being equal, because math.

Ah, but then the PCs that are down a level should get a 10% bonus to help them level faster, according to the rules! Right, except the extroverts are already getting that 10%, so the introverts had to fall a level behind in order to gain the same amount of XP per session as the extroverts. This will not help them catch up to the extroverts in total XP.

Ah, but they'll only be down by a level for about a session, at most, assuming XP is doled out at the end of every session! Right, and if that session happens to be one where the party faces a dangerous adversary - like Roguenewb's example Dragon. . . .

[Raineh Daze]

How is that any different from one player coming up with a strategy, then using it, while another player says their character comes up with a strategy, and then expects to win the fight because of it? In the first case, you are assuming (fairly) that the character may have better diplomacy skills than the player. In the second case, you just assumed that the character comes up with whatever strategy the player does, which sets player skill as a cap on the character's in-combat skills.

This, I'm afraid, is an insurmountable barrier based on the sheer depth given over to combat and its options over all other possibilities. Player strategy is the cap for character strategy, because fights are played out in enormous detail.

Should just as well declare any mental ability score above 19 unplayable because that's beyond human maximum, and ban people from creating characters with it.

[Eldan]

Because then the roleplayers of the group, who likely find fun in and pride themselves on their roleplaying, receive recognition for it in the same way the rollplayers receive recognition for smashing things, or what have you. It's validating without changing anything. It's a treat, not a payment.

So, just saying "Good Job" would have the exact same effect, wouldn't it?

[Talderas]

So, just saying "Good Job" would have the exact same effect, wouldn't it?

When I used to perform in plays, musicals, and improv, I did it for the applause, laughter, and most importantly the knowledge that we somehow managed to pull the whole damn thing off despite all the setbacks.

[Eldan]

Exactly. So, if the rest of the group applauded you, wouldn't that be just as significant as getting an increase to a number, which has a meaning in the rules? Especially if that increase is so small, it doesn't even change anything?

[Amphetryon]

So, just saying "Good Job" would have the exact same effect, wouldn't it?

The same effect, unless - for example - the PC could use the extra XP to create a Wondrous Item for herself without spending any more than the "bonus" XP (plus GP, but you all knew that).

[NichG]

Pavlovian responses, in a leisure activity, because you want someone to do something that you like but they don't? No. Never.

Seems like this is really where the interesting discussion is, the question of how much manipulation is okay.

I'd actually argue that most of good GMing is, at its core, a form of psychological manipulation. Its inducing just the right amounts of stress and tension so that the experience is enjoyable rather than unpleasant (going for the 'wow that was tough I can't believe we won' instead of the 'this game is too hard for me'). Its doing certain things to make some NPCs likeable and other things to make other NPCs despised, in order to try and basically induce fun, or in a broader sense, to construct memorable and meaningful experiences.

This same kind of manipulation happens in almost all of our entertainment media. Games, movies, books, and art all seek to provoke certain responses in those who engage in them.

So where is the line? I'm going to re-quote from above:


because you want someone to do something that you like but they don't?

This is key I think. If you do it right, giving some sort of benefit to encourage behavior should be positively reinforcing, not negatively reinforcing. By incentivizing something just a bit beyond their default behavior, you're trying to give them a reason to learn to like something that they're on the fence about. It should never be about forcing someone to do what they inherently dislike doing, but there's a lot of space between that and encouraging someone to do something that had not previously considered doing.

In this vein, there are far worse things that bonus XP that at the same time we consider fairly commonplace. For example, I think its a pretty bad 'sin' of this sort to constantly throw hard fights at a group of players that includes someone who hates the intricacies of tactical combat, optimizing, etc - basically someone who really doesn't want to do what is necessary to be on the same power level as the rest of the party. You're giving an ultimatum 'adapt or I will keep killing your character and making you even weaker' in that case.

[Emmerask]

So, just saying "Good Job" would have the exact same effect, wouldn't it?


Exactly. So, if the rest of the group applauded you, wouldn't that be just as significant as getting an increase to a number, which has a meaning in the rules? Especially if that increase is so small, it doesn't even change anything?

Humans are weird :smallwink:

Having something """tangible""" like 10 xp :smallbiggrin: just has a completely different effect then a mere thank you.

Applause from an entire audience of strangers is something completely different then a good job from a friend...

as I said humans are extremely weird :smallwink:


Seems like this is really where the interesting discussion is, the question of how much manipulation is okay.

I'd actually argue that most of good GMing is, at its core, a form of psychological manipulation. Its inducing just the right amounts of stress and tension so that the experience is enjoyable rather than unpleasant (going for the 'wow that was tough I can't believe we won' instead of the 'this game is too hard for me'). Its doing certain things to make some NPCs likeable and other things to make other NPCs despised, in order to try and basically induce fun, or in a broader sense, to construct memorable and meaningful experiences.

This same kind of manipulation happens in almost all of our entertainment media. Games, movies, books, and art all seek to provoke certain responses in those who engage in them.

So where is the line? I'm going to re-quote from above:



This is key I think. If you do it right, giving some sort of benefit to encourage behavior should be positively reinforcing, not negatively reinforcing. By incentivizing something just a bit beyond their default behavior, you're trying to give them a reason to learn to like something that they're on the fence about. It should never be about forcing someone to do what they inherently dislike doing, but there's a lot of space between that and encouraging someone to do something that had not previously considered doing.

In this vein, there are far worse things that bonus XP that at the same time we consider fairly commonplace. For example, I think its a pretty bad 'sin' of this sort to constantly throw hard fights at a group of players that includes someone who hates the intricacies of tactical combat, optimizing, etc - basically someone who really doesn't want to do what is necessary to be on the same power level as the rest of the party. You're giving an ultimatum 'adapt or I will keep killing your character and making you even weaker' in that case.

very well explained, here take these 10 xp for a job well done /bow :smallsmile:

[Jade_Tarem]

Exactly. So, if the rest of the group applauded you, wouldn't that be just as significant as getting an increase to a number, which has a meaning in the rules? Especially if that increase is so small, it doesn't even change anything?

I'd like to redirect you to some of my posts. Once again, the party occasionally being split by a level, temporarily, does not mean that everyone dies screaming - especially since the fight would be geared toward the lower level characters. It's bonus xp, remember?

There are also other ways to award bonus xp besides roleplaying, which people who don't like roleplaying can do to catch up - perhaps by doing more of what they enjoyed doing to begin with!

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that those who are strongly against the concept of roleplaying experience are those who don't trust their DM to be fair about it or moderate if a strange situation comes up that's unfairly screwing a player over, or don't trust that it could be part of a system of bonuses that enriches the game in multiple ways. These assertions that it can't possibly be done meaningfully or in a way that the players enjoy are provably false by counterexample - I've seen it work.

[137beth]

I did miss that discussion. My response is that what you're talking about is an exercise in problem-solving - using the rules and the situation to achieve success. But ultimately, only the characters are acting - the players are just deciding what actions to take. That's different from the aspect of roleplaying that I'm talking about (again, I know there are other types of roleplaying). In my example, the DM is measuring whether the player is good at the action the character is attempting.


This, I'm afraid, is an insurmountable barrier based on the sheer depth given over to combat and its options over all other possibilities. Player strategy is the cap for character strategy, because fights are played out in enormous detail.

Should just as well declare any mental ability score above 19 unplayable because that's beyond human maximum, and ban people from creating characters with it.
Yes, my point is that every single way xp is awarded in 3.5 involves player skill in some way. If you are going to dismiss a particular method of gaining xp as "player skill", you have to dismiss them all, since there is no way in 3.5 to gain xp without some player skill.
Most methods of awarding xp also involve character skill. A good strategy in a combat requires player skill, but it also requires the character to have sufficient power to win.
Now, in the situation Raineh Daze described, Player A had player skill (the dramatic speech), and character skill (diplomacy check), and got rewarded. Player B only used character skill, and got a smaller reward.
There use to be an article on this site in the "gaming" section (not written by Rich Burlew...) about alternative uses for knowledge skills, including getting competence bonuses to attack or damage rolls and such. That is one way of rewarding in-character skill in combat. You still need player skill, as you do with everything else in D&D. If you are concerned with xp-gain involving a combination of IC and OOC abilities, you should probably pick a different game, since that's a built-in feature of 3.5.

So, just saying "Good Job" would have the exact same effect, wouldn't it?
Would you object if combat did not give xp, or any other in-game reward, except for a "Good Job"?

[Raineh Daze]

So where is the line? I'm going to re-quote from above:

When you start intentionally doing it to make someone like something that they don't.


This is key I think. If you do it right, giving some sort of benefit to encourage behavior should be positively reinforcing, not negatively reinforcing. By incentivizing something just a bit beyond their default behavior, you're trying to give them a reason to learn to like something that they're on the fence about. It should never be about forcing someone to do what they inherently dislike doing, but there's a lot of space between that and encouraging someone to do something that had not previously considered doing.

And I think that's called being a manipulative jerk rather than letting someone decide whether they like it or not on its own merits.

Let them like or dislike roleplaying based on the roleplaying itself. Don't introduce ridiculous, frivolous, arbitrary, and unreliable roleplaying XP to try and influence the decision. Just don't.


In this vein, there are far worse things that bonus XP that at the same time we consider fairly commonplace. For example, I think its a pretty bad 'sin' of this sort to constantly throw hard fights at a group of players that includes someone who hates the intricacies of tactical combat, optimizing, etc - basically someone who really doesn't want to do what is necessary to be on the same power level as the rest of the party. You're giving an ultimatum 'adapt or I will keep killing your character and making you even weaker' in that case.

If you're constantly throwing hard fights at people, that would fall under 'bad DMing'. :/

[TheStranger]

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that those who are strongly against the concept of roleplaying experience are those who don't trust their DM to be fair about it or moderate if a strange situation comes up that's unfairly screwing a player over, or don't trust that it could be part of a system of bonuses that enriches the game in multiple ways. These assertions that it can't possibly be done meaningfully or in a way that the players enjoy are provably false by counterexample - I've seen it work.
I disagree. I've seen roleplaying XP work, and I'm against it. I played in a campaign where the DM gave small XP awards on what I feel was a very fair basis. Despite my social awkwardness, I got some awards for various interactions and character goals, and the DM was good about acknowledging what I was trying to do. I don't know how my awards compared to other players because roleplaying XP was done privately, but nobody got ahead or behind anybody else on the basis of roleplaying XP. But I still didn't enjoy it as a game element. It made me feel like I was being judged every time I was talking to an NPC. It didn't make me do any more or less roleplaying than I would have anyway, but it made it feel like a chore, and it made me more self-conscious about how well I was doing it.

[Talderas]

Exactly. So, if the rest of the group applauded you, wouldn't that be just as significant as getting an increase to a number, which has a meaning in the rules? Especially if that increase is so small, it doesn't even change anything?

There's no such thing as an increase that is so small that it doesn't change anything. XP is a currency in D&D. The primary usage of it is to level up but there are other usages such as casting spells and creating items which tend to have rather small xp costs such that a few or even one small XP reward can permit those options.

If you consider that such xp would be reserved and allocated strictly for item crafting, then the reward becomes a lot more drastic as the character is able to obtain magic items for significant discount in GP cost thanks to that little bit of RP XP.

There's some trends I've noticed among the people that are proclaiming the virtues of rp xp.

There's a lack of system mastery understanding of how a little bit can make a huge difference.
The definition of role-playing is poorly defined. It's taking actions in character but taking actions in character isn't roleplaying.
There's a general resistance to acknowledge that performance/presentation play an important part of role-playing since anyone can give a laundry list of actions all in character.


--


If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that those who are strongly against the concept of roleplaying experience are those who don't trust their DM to be fair about it or moderate if a strange situation comes up that's unfairly screwing a player over, or don't trust that it could be part of a system of bonuses that enriches the game in multiple ways. These assertions that it can't possibly be done meaningfully or in a way that the players enjoy are provably false by counterexample - I've seen it work.

You guess wrong. My objection is over providing IC rewards for OOC actions. Because strictly speaking, and nothing anyone has suggested would speak otherwise, whether or not it is rewarded is a function of performance and not of roleplaying. The separation of OOC from IC is and should be one of the paramount aspects of any RPG that all players should strive towards. This reward system blatantly breaks that.

When presented with a situation "I make a diplomacy check to motivate the king." versus "I give a rousing speech to the King saying that Dawn is about to break let us not die in this dark hall but instead ride forth and charge our enemy head first and die in glory!" If a player consistently keeps actions within the same character but uses the first method and another uses the second method. It's very clear to me that many of the people in support of RP XP would not award it to the first player. There's a refusal by that side to acknowledge that performance, or presentation, is a part of role-playing.

[3WhiteFox3]

XP for beating challenges is given fairly unto all participants of a encounter simply for the sake of surviving same with quest xp or the like, however, roleplaying xp is only for certain characters. If you want to reward roleplayers, make roleplaying encounters and give everyone the xp, the roleplayers will have fun and get to perform where they do best and the problem-solvers will have fun when their type of challenge occurs and that way no one is losing anything when it comes to character advancement.

[Raineh Daze]

Yes, my point is that every single way xp is awarded in 3.5 involves player skill in some way. If you are going to dismiss a particular method of gaining xp as "player skill", you have to dismiss them all, since there is no way in 3.5 to gain xp without some player skill.
Most methods of awarding xp also involve character skill. A good strategy in a combat requires player skill, but it also requires the character to have sufficient power to win.
Now, in the situation Raineh Daze described, Player A had player skill (the dramatic speech), and character skill (diplomacy check), and got rewarded. Player B only used character skill, and got a smaller reward.
There use to be an article on this site in the "gaming" section (not written by Rich Burlew...) about alternative uses for knowledge skills, including getting competence bonuses to attack or damage rolls and such. That is one way of rewarding in-character skill in combat. You still need player skill, as you do with everything else in D&D. If you are concerned with xp-gain involving a combination of IC and OOC abilities, you should probably pick a different game, since that's a built-in feature of 3.5.

Rewarding or punishing people based on a feature of their personality and claiming it's because every IC action requires player skill? Er, no. That's just back to assigning arbitrary bonuses because someone pleases you more. Hey, favouritism.

[Talderas]

I disagree. I've seen roleplaying XP work, and I'm against it. I played in a campaign where the DM gave small XP awards on what I feel was a very fair basis. Despite my social awkwardness, I got some awards for various interactions and character goals, and the DM was good about acknowledging what I was trying to do. I don't know how my awards compared to other players because roleplaying XP was done privately, but nobody got ahead or behind anybody else on the basis of roleplaying XP. But I still didn't enjoy it as a game element. It made me feel like I was being judged every time I was talking to an NPC. It didn't make me do any more or less roleplaying than I would have anyway, but it made it feel like a chore, and it made me more self-conscious about how well I was doing it.

I actually understand this. Table top RPGs, and this may sound a bit weird at first, have an appeal to introverts, shy people, and individuals who suffer from social anxiety. Those types of people don't often like to feel judged about how they're expressing themselves or out they're appearing. I could certainly agree that such a system could be quite insenstive without people realizing it.

[TheStranger]

Yes, my point is that every single way xp is awarded in 3.5 involves player skill in some way. If you are going to dismiss a particular method of gaining xp as "player skill", you have to dismiss them all, since there is no way in 3.5 to gain xp without some player skill.
Most methods of awarding xp also involve character skill. A good strategy in a combat requires player skill, but it also requires the character to have sufficient power to win.
Now, in the situation Raineh Daze described, Player A had player skill (the dramatic speech), and character skill (diplomacy check), and got rewarded. Player B only used character skill, and got a smaller reward.
There use to be an article on this site in the "gaming" section (not written by Rich Burlew...) about alternative uses for knowledge skills, including getting competence bonuses to attack or damage rolls and such. That is one way of rewarding in-character skill in combat. You still need player skill, as you do with everything else in D&D. If you are concerned with xp-gain involving a combination of IC and OOC abilities, you should probably pick a different game, since that's a built-in feature of 3.5.
We're not talking about the same thing when we talk about player skill. System mastery is absolutely a player skill - knowing how to use your character skills to maximum effect. Strategy is a player skill, but again, the key is using character ability to maximum effect. Same thing with your knowledge example. In no case is the player being asked to attempt the same action as the character.

When I make a Jump check, it doesn't matter how high I can jump in real life.
When I make a Diplomacy check, it shouldn't matter how diplomatic I am in real life.

I have no problem with roleplaying out a social interaction - that's part of the game. I do have a problem with the outcome or reward being tied to how well I do it.

[Eldan]

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that those who are strongly against the concept of roleplaying experience are those who don't trust their DM to be fair about it or moderate if a strange situation comes up that's unfairly screwing a player over, or don't trust that it could be part of a system of bonuses that enriches the game in multiple ways. These assertions that it can't possibly be done meaningfully or in a way that the players enjoy are provably false by counterexample - I've seen it work.

It's not that I don't think DMs can be fair about it.

It's that it feels.... I don't know. There's two reasons.

One the one hand, there's aforementioned asymetry. I like to give roleplay rewards for roleplay achievements and rule rewards for rule achievements.

On the other hand... this one is more difficult to put into words. It's close to condescending, really. Why does the DM think I need a reward to roleplay? Does he really think I have to be bribed in order to put in some effort to get into character? I think part of me would be a little offended.
And from the other side: Why should I have to reward my players in additional ways for good roleplay? Isn't the atmosphere at a table already reward enough?

[Dark.Revenant]

I have a long-running policy that all members of the party have the same XP. The one exception is buying off level adjustment. There is no level drain and there are no XP costs for items, etc.

I award bonus XP for roleplay and it goes to the whole group. If one member of the group is being such an ass that they shouldn't have as much XP as everyone else, or is so flakey that they would normally be way behind in levels, then they are kicked out.

[Eldan]

Would you object if combat did not give xp, or any other in-game reward, except for a "Good Job"?

Again, different metrics.
If your character overcomes challenges, they become better at overcoming challenges, i.e. XP, so they can level.

But for roleplaying? Why? Why does the character become more powerful than that? Reward the player, sure. But why reward the character for something that has no tangible reality ingame? What cosmic force looked upon the character and decided they should grow stronger?

It makes no sense within the game reality. That's the main thing that annoys me. There are so many other ways to reward the player.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Amphetryon
Did you see Office Space?

No, so your point is entirely lost on me. Give me a Firefly metaphor and I'm there. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by Roguenewb
I thought most people were like Rich Burlew in the comic, where he uses the idea for comedy.

Also, there are those of us who appreciate the forums but don't read the comic, so this one also goes right by.




Originally Posted by TheStranger
I think the point is that roleplaying is a player skill, rather than a character skill.


Originally Posted by Eldan
I just don't see the connection between RPing well and the character's personal power. Where is the justification for this in the fluff? Why does a character's power grow stronger than anothers for no reason that's obvious in the game?

These are very good points, on their own merits; but this is also a system where, after a couple weeks putting down an incursion of orcs, you can become better at calligraphy. Your character mechanically improves in a completely different area for no obvious in-game reason.

This point by itself doesn't necessarily address the discrepancy that Eldan and TheStranger are highlighting--but it does, I think, remind us of the rather oddball context involved.

:smalltongue:




Originally Posted by Karoht
Granted, RP XP sort of feels like a solution in search of a problem.

What if it's just, you know, a little bonus XP, and no big deal? Why make it a big deal?

There have been some good points made here, but a lot of the criticisms have really been reductio ad absurdum, or using some reeeeeeallly specific niche examples.

What we're missing here is any commentary from anyone who's had a traumatic gaming experience with bonus XP. For me, it's been a minor part of a much larger gaming landscape for the past ten years. No broken bones, no contusions, no one crying in their car after the session closes. If there have been actual negative experiences from actual game sessions discussed here, as opposed to worst-case theorycrafting, I've completely missed them.

[TheStranger]

What if it's just, you know, a little bonus XP, and no big deal? Why make it a big deal?

What we're missing here is any commentary from anyone who's had a traumatic gaming experience with bonus XP. For me, it's been a minor part of a much larger gaming landscape for the past ten years. No broken bones, no contusions, no one crying in their car after the session closes. If there have been actual negative experiences from actual game sessions discussed here, as opposed to worst-case theorycrafting, I've completely missed them.
See my earlier post. I played in a game with bonus XP, and it made the game less fun in a noticeable way, completely independent of any mechanical effect.

[137beth]

There's some trends I've noticed among the people that are proclaiming the virtues of rp xp.

There's a lack of system mastery understanding of how a little bit can make a huge difference.
The definition of role-playing is poorly defined. It's taking actions in character but taking actions in character isn't roleplaying.
There's a general resistance to acknowledge that performance/presentation play an important part of role-playing since anyone can give a laundry list of actions all in character.


There's some trends I've noticed among the people that are proclaiming the virtues of combat xp.

There's a lack of system mastery understanding of how a little tactics bit can make a huge difference.
The definition of 'challenge'. It's killing stuff in-character but killing stuff in-character isn't always a challenge.
There's a general resistance to acknowledge that player-skill developing strategy play an important part of combat since not evryone can give a great method to defeat a challenging encounter.



You guess wrong. My objection is over providing IC rewards for OOC actions.
Every single way of earning xp in D&D involves OOC actions/player skill.

Rewarding or punishing people based on a feature of their personality and claiming it's because every IC action requires player skill? Er, no. That's just back to assigning arbitrary bonuses because someone pleases you more. Hey, favouritism.
Well, you were the one who said roleplaying xp involved player skill, but now you say "oooh, no, did I say player skill, it's their personality!"

Also, as explained by others repeatedly on this thread: if the rpxp system you are using inherently favors extraverts over introverts, then that is a poor implementation, or a result of poor DMing (or both). Decrying all rpxp systems because it COULD be done badly is like saying that all spellcasters are underpowered because of the Healer class.

[kaminiwa]

I'd point out that I may just outright want to discourage people from playing quiet, taciturn characters who rarely contribute any actual roleplaying to the group. If you're not doing anything that excites the rest of the group, then it's obvious you've chosen a boring concept that adds nothing to the experience for anyone else.

Conversely, if you're constantly making everyone at the table laugh, you're making things more fun for everyone else.

People, by default, do what you reward them for. If I want an awesome gaming group full of great lines, strong characters, and players who make the game fun for everyone, then... I should reward that behavior! ^_^

---

Of course, the flip side of this is that I also pay close attention to who I'm *not* rewarding, and ensure they have time in the spotlight. I'll encourage descriptiveness and roleplaying from them. And if ever one of my players felt actively hurt or bothered by not getting bonus XP, I'd probably stop doing it - my group is reasonable and everyone cares about everyone else, so I don't think this would bother my players.

In other words, I game with adults, and enough of us are good at communication that we can make sure that everyone is having fun with this system. I've found my players tend to be a little happier when I had out those little bonuses.

Then again, I'm also a GM who runs a sufficiently lethal campaign that there's *usually* a 1-2 level difference. I've also found that the roleplayers tend to have "flashier", more front-line characters, so they tend to be the ones dying most often. They're the ones that do Heroic Last Stands so their friends can escape, etc.. (I outright award extra XP for actions which are OOC stupid but totally fitting IC, because... otherwise no one would ever play that sort of character :))

[NichG]

Rewarding or punishing people based on a feature of their personality and claiming it's because every IC action requires player skill? Er, no. That's just back to assigning arbitrary bonuses because someone pleases you more. Hey, favouritism.

I think you have to be careful of a double standard here. Character-building skill and tactical combat mastery are also influenced by features of people's personalities. I know people who viscerally dislike thinking through their actions before comitting to them in games - the sort of person who gets irritated when they spend more than 10 seconds making a decision, or who plays moves in chess reflexively or 'because I want to see what will happen'. That is as much a personality trait as 'introvert' or 'extrovert'.

[Roguenewb]

I'm gonna end in the same place I ended for the last version of this debate.

Everyone who is for this is quick to tell me how little it affects the game. That's your answer to whether or not to do it. Either you think extra bells and whistles that don't affect the game are a good idea or you don't. I understand mind space and cognitive limits. Either it is a bad thing for balance or it doesn't matter. No scenario where it's worth it.

I think we're pretty much done here.

[Raineh Daze]

Well, you were the one who said roleplaying xp involved player skill, but now you say "oooh, no, did I say player skill, it's their personality!"

'Player skill', in that case, being 'do they roleplay or not'. I'm actually assuming a DM that isn't rewarding based on good roleplaying. If they're giving rewards to one person based on what is entirely their ability at improvising and acting? That's stupid.


Also, as explained by others repeatedly on this thread: if the rpxp system you are using inherently favors extraverts over introverts, then that is a poor implementation, or a result of poor DMing (or both). Decrying all rpxp systems because it COULD be done badly is like saying that all spellcasters are underpowered because of the Healer class.

No, I'm decrying all RPXP systems because they serve no purpose beyond either shallow manipulation or giving those that RP an advantage. I find the first idea abhorrent, and the second one stupid.

My opinion's only going to go downhill the longer this conversation continues. :smallamused:


I think you have to be careful of a double standard here. Character-building skill and tactical combat mastery are also influenced by features of people's personalities. I know people who viscerally dislike thinking through their actions before comitting to them in games - the sort of person who gets irritated when they spend more than 10 seconds making a decision, or who plays moves in chess reflexively or 'because I want to see what will happen'. That is as much a personality trait as 'introvert' or 'extrovert'.

Eh, so long as you aren't individually assigning XP based on contribution to the outcome of battle--in which case, poor fighters/monks--then there's no problem with most sources of XP. Party overcomes challenge, party gets XP.

RPXP doesn't seem to generally go to the whole party. So you're rewarding people based on their individual personalities.

[Amphetryon]

<snip>
What if it's just, you know, a little bonus XP, and no big deal? Why make it a big deal?

There have been some good points made here, but a lot of the criticisms have really been reductio ad absurdum, or using some reeeeeeallly specific niche examples.

What we're missing here is any commentary from anyone who's had a traumatic gaming experience with bonus XP. For me, it's been a minor part of a much larger gaming landscape for the past ten years. No broken bones, no contusions, no one crying in their car after the session closes. If there have been actual negative experiences from actual game sessions discussed here, as opposed to worst-case theorycrafting, I've completely missed them.For those of us who are not fans of the "bonus XP" style, it is a big deal. It does not need to be to the level of (reductio ad absurdum) "broken bones. . . contusions. . . crying in the car after the session" to detract from the fun of what is, at its heart, something most us are presumably doing entirely for fun. It detracts from the fun, for me, for all of the reasons I've already mentioned; apparently from your response, you're choosing to entirely dismiss this. I am unsure why this is so.

[Fax Celestis]

Question. If the XP are not enough to make a level difference, why do they even matter? XP are to determine when you level. If the amount you hand out isn't enough to make some people level earlier, why hand them out at all?

Cynic mode: so you can seem like a nice DM.

[Bulhakov]

From Amphetryon's posts I'm getting a picture of an introvert and overlooked player, and over-competitive and number-focused game and a poor DM at work (but it might be my strong bias again number-crunching DMing and RAW-based gameplay).

I've been a DM for over a decade and I always grant bonus XP for roleplaying. My play style is always very personalized towards the players:

- I never use XP calculating mechanics (maybe for a ball-park estimate of what the XP-range should be)
- I grant XP mainly depending on how much the players feel they achieved during a specific session, comparing to the previous few sessions
- I start with an equal base XP for all players
- Then I add a few extra rewards to various players for good roleplaying, good strategies and emotional involvement in the game
- I never give the biggest or the lowest bonus to the same players twice in a row
- if any player falls behind in XP, I try to tailor the next adventure or hook to let him shine more

[kaminiwa]

Rewarding or punishing people based on a feature of their personality and claiming it's because every IC action requires player skill? Er, no. That's just back to assigning arbitrary bonuses because someone pleases you more. Hey, favouritism.

Roleplaying, descriptive text, and social interaction are actually fairly teachable skills for most people. (I'll concede that autism, crippling social anxiety, etc. might produce exceptions, but merely being an introvert does *not* prevent that)

[Amphetryon]

Roleplaying, descriptive text, and social interaction are actually fairly teachable skills for most people. (I'll concede that autism, crippling social anxiety, etc. might produce exceptions, but merely being an introvert does *not* prevent that)

Is it your contention that people come to play D&D with their friends in order for the DM to teach them these skills?

[kaminiwa]

I'm gonna end in the same place I ended for the last version of this debate.

Everyone who is for this is quick to tell me how little it affects the game. That's your answer to whether or not to do it. Either you think extra bells and whistles that don't affect the game are a good idea or you don't. I understand mind space and cognitive limits. Either it is a bad thing for balance or it doesn't matter. No scenario where it's worth it.

I think we're pretty much done here.

Um, I explicitly pointed out that it's just basic pyschology. People do what you reward them to do, so rewarding good roleplaying will generally result in more of it.

Mind, my groups always run a little bit munchkin, so while praise is a good reward, XP is much better :)

---

Edit:



Is it your contention that people come to play D&D with their friends in order for the DM to teach them these skills?


No, it's my contention that everyone in my group *has more fun* when I encourage roleplaying, and part of that is being willing to offer pointers. It's awesome to watch someone light up when they have their "moment in the spotlight" due to an awesome description, when previously they were just mumbling numbers that they read off their dice.

[Emmerask]

Is it your contention that people come to play D&D with their friends in order for the DM to teach them these skills?

No they do this so they, the dm, can actually enjoy the game more.
The fighting part is actually the most boring stuff you can do dming (from my perspective) the roleplaying and interaction and plots are the fun parts.

[Nooblet]

Hey all, newb GM here, mostly a player for a while and I am going to throw in my perspective. (I haven't read all the posts so I hope I am not just repeating others.)

Although my gaming history is probably much different than others on this forum (mostly play with RL friends, we really don't powergame / min/max whatever).
I actually really enjoy the idea of bonus exp.

A brief history explaining where I am coming from on this. I was a player for a long time in our group, and I always found myself actually trying to RP much more than the others. Our previous GM would only level us after each session. I absolutely hated this because I felt like there was no incentive to RP at all really, since it didn't matter what you did everyone got the same gold star at the end of the day. I tend to be the type that I will get into my character WITHOUT an incentive. I just happened to feel like I was the only one. So now that I am running my game, I have come up with a bonus exp system.

I made a table listing the max possible exp a person can achieve with a wacky +percentage system. It starts off high (compared to the flat rate of exp per level) and then diminishes rapidly. It achieves exactly what I want. It creates a maximum level separation of 2, and only stretches to 3 at level 20 (which we won't get to anyways). However it creates a level separation of +1 by I think level 5. (Then it diminishes.) If you were to achieve max bonus exp every session you would only be 2 levels higher than everyone else. (Before I get flamed to death, the chances of you reaching max per session is fairly low, I only created the boundaries so that I wouldn't have people beyond 2 levels higher).

Personally I have seen good results with it in my group. There are times now that they do make creative decisions (where before, they would just sit around and wait to be spoon fed ideas etc). Also I feel like people appreciate it. Times when people would actually role play (not just myself) our old GM would just nod his head, and continue with his story. One of my players was very excited to receive bonus exp for haggling down one of my vendor NPCs.
(I know, that isn't a big deal and I am not saying it is. What I am saying is he felt like him getting into situation was beneficial.) Keep in mind so far most of my players have gotten bonus exp for something in the game.

I get it, most people will respond with "WELL! You shouldn't play with THOSE people because they don't role play as much as you do without an incentive!" This is possible, but I RP with my real life friends, not strangers online or groups found elsewhere.

So for our little group, I find bonus EXP seems to be a good thing. So in conclusion, I think bonus exp has it's place. Maybe it isn't for every group, but it seems to work well for us.

(For all the grammar nazis, excuse my essay, I am not going to spend 20 minutes proofreading.)

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talderas
Table top RPGs...have an appeal to introverts, shy people, and individuals who suffer from social anxiety. Those types of people don't often like to feel judged about how they're expressing themselves or out they're appearing.

This assertion is variable at best. I'm very much an introvert, and yet being judged on roleplaying simply doesn't affect me the way you're suggesting. Nor does the specter of bonus XP.


Originally Posted by TheStranger
When I make a Diplomacy check, it shouldn't matter how diplomatic I am in real life.

And yet, the thoughts your character has and the words he or she speaks--which have an equal impact on the game--don't come from the name written on the character sheet; they come from you, the player. Your approach to the game is your own, naturally, but I simply don't see the dichotomy you're describing, or at least not to the same degree.


Originally Posted by TheStranger
I played in a game with bonus XP, and it made the game less fun in a noticeable way, completely independent of any mechanical effect.

Looks like I rolled right past this, wherever it was. Fast-moving thread.


Originally Posted by Amphetryon
...apparently from your response, you're choosing to entirely dismiss this. I am unsure why this is so.

See above to TheStranger.


Originally Posted by Roguenewb
No scenario where it's worth it.

Unless you're in a group where everyone's okay with it, and the players actually like it. For instance:


Originally Posted by kaminiwa
In other words, I game with adults, and enough of us are good at communication that we can make sure that everyone is having fun with this system. I've found my players tend to be a little happier when I had out those little bonuses.

And this very nicely summarizes what else I was about to say.

:smalltongue:

[Emmerask]

So for our little group, I find bonus EXP seems to be a good thing. So in conclusion, I think bonus exp has it's place. Maybe it isn't for every group, but it seems to work well for us.

(For all the grammar nazis, excuse my essay, I am not going to spend 20 minutes proofreading.)

Yes, there is more then likely nothing that works for every group there is, but this subsystem still has its place.

And dont worry, in the playground there are very very very few people who base their reply on grammar ^^

[TheStranger]

Roleplaying, descriptive text, and social interaction are actually fairly teachable skills for most people. (I'll concede that autism, crippling social anxiety, etc. might produce exceptions, but merely being an introvert does *not* prevent that)
I'll reiterate my experience. I played in a game where roleplaying XP made the game less fun simply by existing. The DM was excellent, the roleplaying XP was fair, and the mechanical impact was minimal. It was absolutely a best-case scenario for roleplaying XP in every way I can imagine.

And the existence of roleplaying XP still made the game less fun for me. I didn't like feeling like I was being judged when I talked to NPCs. It didn't make me roleplay more or less, but it did make me more self-conscious about it.

This is completely separate from my objection to making player skill a mechanical factor. I may well have gotten better at roleplaying as the game went on. But just by existing, the roleplaying XP took me out of my comfort zone and made the game less fun. It was a relatively small impact - the game as a whole was excellent. I never talked to the DM about it. But it did make a difference, and it wasn't a positive one.

There may not be somebody like that in every group, but if there is, you'll probably never know. And I'd like for one of the roleplaying XP proponents to address this.

[Emmerask]

It cant be a best case scenario because you did not enjoy it :smallbiggrin:

In a best case scenario ie the group I played with both as player and dm everyone involved enjoyed it and even insisted on it being in the new campaign another player now dms.

And as I said no system is good for every single group, however as a dm if the amount of roleplaying is not sufficient enough for me to enjoy the game, I would talk to the group, offer this incentive reward and if not accepted and no change in amount of roleplaying is accomplished over a few sessions (with or without incentive), I would cancel the campaign (or offer someone else to dm it).

[3WhiteFox3]

It cant be a best case scenario because you did not enjoy it :smallbiggrin:

In a best case scenario ie the group I played with both as player and dm everyone involved enjoyed it and even insisted on it being in the new campaign another player now dms.

Yes it can be. To use a example from popular media, in the show mythbusters, they often try to give the myth the best chance of success, even if the best case scenario is extremely unlikely. These myths sometimes fail, despite the fact that everything was going for them. For TheStranger and others, Roleplaying XP detracted from the experience, for others it adds. Is anyone right? I dunno.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by TheStranger
I never talked to the DM about it.

This would have been my one and only question to you.

Of course there may be someone in a gaming group who's uncomfortable with one or the other aspect of roleplaying, or group dynamics, or any of a thousand other potential issues.

But if you don't bring it up, and don't try to discuss it with the DM and/or other players, you're essentially choosing to let it slide. And from the DM's perspective, there's no reason to cut out aspects of the game on the mere supposition that someone might be uncomfortable about it. At some point, communication has to happen.

I've seen games bogged down by a great many issues--but whether or not they were successfully resolved to everyone's satisfaction, they were brought up and discussed.

[kaminiwa]

I'll reiterate my experience. I played in a game where roleplaying XP made the game less fun simply by existing.

That's totally fine not to like it! I realize it is not for everyone :)


There may not be somebody like that in every group, but if there is, you'll probably never know.

I doubt it. I watch how much fun my players are having. Much more importantly, I talk to them about what they're having fun with, and what they aren't having fun with. I'm pretty active in soliciting feedback and trying to improve so that the group is having more fun :)

And, well, sometimes one player has a tiny bit less fun, so that everyone else can have a lot more fun. As long as it's mild enough that the player losing out doesn't feel the need to object, I'm okay with that!

[NichG]

Is it your contention that people come to play D&D with their friends in order for the DM to teach them these skills?

Speaking for myself, I've made characters in games specifically to teach myself skills or different ways of looking at things. I've tried to play high Wis characters to improve my own intuitive abilities, social manipulators to try to better my understanding of motivation and deception, etc.

So I certainly would appreciate this if the DM had something to teach, and I have in fact played with DMs who have taught me useful things in the process of the game, including things which have improved my own DMing.

[Segev]

It's not a strawman if it happens, and assuming the same Players are the extroverts every week, and the same Players are the introverts (a reasonable assumption), means that the extroverts leveling faster will happen in an ongoing campaign, all else being equal, because math.

Ah, but then the PCs that are down a level should get a 10% bonus to help them level faster, according to the rules! Right, except the extroverts are already getting that 10%, so the introverts had to fall a level behind in order to gain the same amount of XP per session as the extroverts. This will not help them catch up to the extroverts in total XP.

Ah, but they'll only be down by a level for about a session, at most, assuming XP is doled out at the end of every session! Right, and if that session happens to be one where the party faces a dangerous adversary - like Roguenewb's example Dragon. . . .
The straw man is that "introverts" are unable to role play.

You are defining "role play" effectively as "acting" and "LARP." Neither is my position, therefore your arguments do not address my position.

Introverts are quite capable of RP, and they don't have to act to do it. They just have to think about how their character would act, and come up with cool things for them to do to showcase that. Not "cool things the player does OOC." Which seems to be the definition of "role play" you're hung up on. "Cool things they can say their character does."

The example on the prior page of "player says his character gives a great speech" vs. "player acts out giving a great speech" is not, in fact, an example of non-RP vs. RP. I, as DM, might ask the first player for some details - not acting, just points covered or a general idea of the emotional impact the speech should have - but as long as it's IC for the character to do that, the fact that the player took the effort to explain that his character gave a speech (rather than trying a seduction, or getting buddy-buddy and friendshipping his way past, or just insisting "I roll Diplomacy; I don't care how my character does it IC"), it earns the RP bonus XP.

It's about contributing to the game and playing the character rather than merely being a pile of stats (or "playing" a "character" that just does random things to try to pretend to RP when really all that's happening is the pile of stats being thrown at the problem).

That last parenthetical is actually only a problem if the "fake" attempt doesn't yield an enjoyable character, even.

We're not being ogres, here, despite your efforts to paint us that way. We just wish to reward, you know, playing as if the characters were meant to be more than game pieces. As if the characterization matters.

[Amphetryon]

Speaking for myself, I've made characters in games specifically to teach myself skills or different ways of looking at things. I've tried to play high Wis characters to improve my own intuitive abilities, social manipulators to try to better my understanding of motivation and deception, etc.

So I certainly would appreciate this if the DM had something to teach, and I have in fact played with DMs who have taught me useful things in the process of the game, including things which have improved my own DMing.

Fascinating. I would have thought you came to the game in order to have fun, rather than to treat it as a work seminar on, for example, teamwork.

Perhaps you find such seminars fun, I suppose.

ETA:

You are defining "role play" effectively as "acting" and "LARP." Neither is my position, therefore your arguments do not address my position.
Unless you can show me that your position in this matter is the same as others who support bonus XP, I'd say that the above is, itself, a working definition of a stawman.

[kaminiwa]

For TheStranger and others, Roleplaying XP detracted from the experience, for others it adds.

I think that actually summarizes the entire thread perfectly. Some people like it, some people don't. Be an adult, communicate, and figure out what compromise works for your group :)

[NichG]

Fascinating. I would have thought you came to the game in order to have fun, rather than to treat it as a work seminar on, for example, teamwork.

Perhaps you find such seminars fun, I suppose.

Seminars, no, but something where I can try out ideas without any real reprecussions for failure or ethical issues (well, in the sense that I can play someone villainous in the game without being a horrible person OOC), then hell yes.

Is it so strange to you that someone could find learning fun?

I should also say, my 'attempt to learn about social manipulation' character was an abject failure because the DM gave me no feedback whatsoever. Everything I tried didn't work, so there was nothing for me to grab on to in order to improve.

[Jade_Tarem]

It made me feel like I was being judged every time I was talking to an NPC. It didn't make me do any more or less roleplaying than I would have anyway, but it made it feel like a chore, and it made me more self-conscious about how well I was doing it.


Rewarding or punishing people based on a feature of their personality and claiming it's because every IC action requires player skill? Er, no. That's just back to assigning arbitrary bonuses because someone pleases you more. Hey, favouritism.


I actually understand this. Table top RPGs, and this may sound a bit weird at first, have an appeal to introverts, shy people, and individuals who suffer from social anxiety. Those types of people don't often like to feel judged about how they're expressing themselves or out they're appearing. I could certainly agree that such a system could be quite insenstive without people realizing it.


It's close to condescending, really. Why does the DM think I need a reward to roleplay? Does he really think I have to be bribed in order to put in some effort to get into character? I think part of me would be a little offended.

Note that these are all your reactions to it. And these are great reasons why, perhaps, your group shouldn't do it, especially as your DM can't seem to mitigate or eliminate those feelings. Where I take issue is when you begin projecting your insecurities onto other groups or ascribing tons of negative qualities (insensitive, condescending, playing favorites, utterly moronic) on to every DM that does this. Sorry, Dr. Freud. Not all DMs are doing it because they're terrible people who think their players are stupid and bad. You're just plain wrong about that. Some DMs are doing it because their group likes it.


You guess wrong. My objection is over providing IC rewards for OOC actions. Because strictly speaking, and nothing anyone has suggested would speak otherwise, whether or not it is rewarded is a function of performance and not of roleplaying. The separation of OOC from IC is and should be one of the paramount aspects of any RPG that all players should strive towards. This reward system blatantly breaks that.

The bolded part is what I'd like to address, specifically with, "Except those who prefer method roleplaying." Also note that separating IC and OOC and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive. The aforementioned Witch does it all the time. And once again, everything your character does IC was an OOC action first. There is no 'total separation.' That one-way street must exist or you aren't playing DnD.

[Segev]

Unless you can show me that your position in this matter is the same as others who support bonus XP, I'd say that the above is, itself, a working definition of a stawman.

Um, no. The definition of "straw man" is to construct an argument that you can easily paint as ridiculous or otherwise dismantle, and then attribute all your opposition to holding that position. Which is what the "RP XP is bad" crowd has repeatedly done by defining "RP" to be very narrow so as to automatically exclude people who are playing the game, and then to inflate the awards to the point that people will be excluded until they just can't keep up.

What I have done is provided counter-example of what at least one person (me) who is advocating for RP XP bonuses does, sees, and expects to see. You've yet to provide even that anecdotal level of evidence that your claimed situation is what inevitably occurs. You do not get to shift burden of proof that, because you constructed that straw man, those who oppose you must prove that it never, ever happens.

You've ceased to actually try to make your case, and are now trying to "win on the internet."

[Hecuba]

I have a couple of tables I play at regularly where we use role-play XP, and a couple where I would never consider it.

One of the tables we use it uses something like the fan-mail system Fax already mentioned and also rotates DM duties.

The difference is the emphasis on collective storytelling. I would never recommend it for any group that wouldn't be comfortable spending a session or two strictly on world-building.

Essentially, I see RP XP as a reward for continued world-building.

[Eldan]

Note that these are all your reactions to it. And these are great reasons why, perhaps, your group shouldn't do it, especially as your DM can't seem to mitigate or eliminate those feelings. Where I take issue is when you begin projecting your insecurities onto other groups or ascribing tons of negative qualities (insensitive, condescending, playing favorites, utterly moronic) on to every DM that does this. Sorry, Dr. Freud. Not all DMs are doing it because they're terrible people who think their players are stupid and bad. You're just plain wrong about that. Some DMs are doing it because their group likes it.


Aaaand you're putting words in my mouth. Thank you for that. I didn't say that's the DMs real motivation. I said that part of me would feel as if that was the case. And I don't usually generalize.
If your group likes it and you like it, by all means do it. I don't think anyone is debating that. We're just listing arguments for why we don't like it. The "condensating" part is a small one for me, far behind the fluff disconnect, and mainly due to my own anxieties ending up in me overanalyzing people's motives.


And again. Why does everyone here assume that people hwo don't like roleplaying XP don't like roleplaying? I have spent entire sessions on roleplaying. I've spent entire sessions with my players sitting in a tavern, trading anecdotes and reminiscing about their last adventure. I've spent entire sessions on diplomatic negotiations. I still don't like handing out XP for that.

[Raineh Daze]

I like roleplaying.

I would also reject any attempt to give me XP for it. And probably roleplay less out of spite.

[Segev]

Why does everyone here assume that people hwo don't like roleplaying XP don't like roleplaying? I have spent entire sessions on roleplaying. I've spent entire sessions with my players sitting in a tavern, trading anecdotes and reminiscing about their last adventure. I've spent entire sessions on diplomatic negotiations. I still don't like handing out XP for that.

If you go and read the most vehement arguments (and often appeals to emotion) made against RP XP in this thread, you'll find that they revolve around the question of why those of us who like RP XP would be so mean and cruel as to punish players who don't like RP. "RP" is then often defined very narrowly as a set of extrovertive behaviors including actual LARPing and speaking IC exactly as the character would, and specifically excluding things that an "introvert" might do.

Since both this horrible cruelty to introverts and this narrow definition of RP are straw men, time has been taken to demonstrate why.

So, no, we're not saying anybody who doesn't like RP XP must hate RP; we're respondign to the blanket claim that some people don't like RP and shouldn't be punished for it (by the strange definition of "punish" wherein not giving somebody a reward for something they didn't do is a punishment) by questioning why people who don't like RP are playing in a game focused on it.

In short: your "why are you saying these libelous things about me?" lament is, again, a straw man, as nobody has said that about you. What you're claiming is such a statement about you is actually a response to the accusation that we are mean and cruel people who like punishing those who don't like RP, by the narrow definition of RP used as a straw man by your side of the argument.

[Segev]

I like roleplaying.

I would also reject any attempt to give me XP for it. And probably roleplay less out of spite.

If you feel spiteful over a convention at my gaming table, I would invite you to leave. This is supposed to be fun game-time. My friends and I - who I would have, until that happened, hoped would include you - don't need somebody ruining it for us by being spiteful over how we play the game.

[TheStranger]

I think that actually summarizes the entire thread perfectly. Some people like it, some people don't. Be an adult, communicate, and figure out what compromise works for your group :)
This. If there are groups where it works for everybody, by all means, do it. Just keep in mind that there are people it doesn't work for and that, by nature, the extroverts are much more likely than the introverts to make their feelings known (and to defend their position rather than deferring to the group). For instance, I wouldn't have posted what I did if I thought there were any members of my group in here.

I'm going to drop out of this conversation now, because I think at the end of the day, it does come down to personal preferences, completely aside from any implementation issues.

[Roguenewb]

Um, I explicitly pointed out that it's just basic pyschology. People do what you reward them to do, so rewarding good roleplaying will generally result in more of it.

Mind, my groups always run a little bit munchkin, so while praise is a good reward, XP is much better :)


Skinnerism isn't mind control. If the player recognizes its trivial, it won't motivate or change behavior. If I give you a penny everytime you let me through the door first, you aren't gonna go out of your way to let me go first. If your players are munchkins, then they will evaluate rewards and not care much. If it seems to be making your players roleplay more....I'd like to do some double blind studies.

[Jade_Tarem]

Aaaand you're putting words in my mouth. Thank you for that. I didn't say that's the DMs real motivation. I said that part of me would feel as if that was the case. And I don't usually generalize.
If your group likes it and you like it, by all means do it. I don't think anyone is debating that. We're just listing arguments for why we don't like it. The "condensating" part is a small one for me, far behind the fluff disconnect, and mainly due to my own anxieties ending up in me overanalyzing people's motives.

And again. Why does everyone here assume that people hwo don't like roleplaying XP don't like roleplaying? I have spent entire sessions on roleplaying. I've spent entire sessions with my players sitting in a tavern, trading anecdotes and reminiscing about their last adventure. I've spent entire sessions on diplomatic negotiations. I still don't like handing out XP for that.

It was a general response to several posts (not all of which were quoted), some of which, as Segev points out, are a bit hysterical in their claims about the motives and methods of DMs who award xp for roleplaying. Parts of it might not have applied to you, specifically.

Out of curiosity, what fluff disconnect are you referring to?

[13_CBS]

This. If there are groups where it works for everybody, by all means, do it. Just keep in mind that there are people it doesn't work for and that, by nature, the extroverts are much more likely than the introverts to make their feelings known (and to defend their position rather than deferring to the group). For instance, I wouldn't have posted what I did if I thought there were any members of my group in here.

While I'm inclined to wholeheartedly agree, I'm under the impression that the discussion in this thread was to figure out, ultimately, whether RP XP rewards is ultimately good game design or not.

[Segev]

I'm not sure it's an introvert trait to "just go with the rest of the group." I'm an introvert, myself, but if I find my view being unrepresented, I absolutely will make my feelings known. I can be quite vocal, in fact. I just then want to retreat to recover my aplomb in private, as I will likely have used up my energy for dealing with people on the confrontation (unless, as is generally true amongst friends, my voiced concerns are handled politely and with calm negotiation).

[Raineh Daze]

If you feel spiteful over a convention at my gaming table, I would invite you to leave. This is supposed to be fun game-time. My friends and I - who I would have, until that happened, hoped would include you - don't need somebody ruining it for us by being spiteful over how we play the game.

If roleplaying less is reason to declare somebody no longer your friend and/or welcome, then it doesn't seem like much of a loss. :smallsigh:

[Emmerask]

I like roleplaying.

I would also reject any attempt to give me XP for it. And probably roleplay less out of spite.

OR you could just not write it down on your sheet :smallwink::smallwink::smallwink:

[Segev]

If roleplaying less is reason to declare somebody no longer your friend and/or welcome, then it doesn't seem like much of a loss. :smallsigh:

Oh, please. You're the one who said you'd do this "out of spite." It's the spite I don't need. If you're just not in the mood to role-play and it's actually hampering the enjoyment of anybody (including you) at the table, I'd first see if I could help, and then, if I couldn't, I'd suggest maybe it wasn't the game for you. I wouldn't try to ostracize you, but if you are being spiteful, you'd do it to yourself, as my friends and I don't tolerate that kind of nonsense.

If you're mature about it, we will be, too. If you're not, then you can go have your tantrum where it won't bother us.

Please don't try to get on a high horse about how we're kicking you out over "role playing" when you're the one who specifically said you were acting out of spite.

[Raineh Daze]

Unless you're a mind reader, there's no way to tell that the decrease in roleplaying is because of spite.

[Jade_Tarem]

Unless you're a mind reader, there's no way to tell that the decrease in roleplaying is because of spite.

This is going a bit off topic, but ultimately I think Segev has the right of it. If you're going to be nasty and try to ruin the game over a mechanic you don't like without even trying to work it out with the DM, then you really don't have any business playing. Even if you're good at hiding it. Especially if you're good at hiding it.

[Emmerask]

Unless you're a mind reader, there's no way to tell that the decrease in roleplaying is because of spite.

Well a sudden drop in roleplay is very noticeable... and as a dm I would more then likely ask if something was wrong after the game... and then if you say that you dont want any of that roleplay xp I would say: okay i will not hand you any roleplay xp from now on ^^

[Segev]

Unless you're a mind reader, there's no way to tell that the decrease in roleplaying is because of spite.

Ah, so you're going to hide that it's spite and be a cheerful and positive contributor to the table? Then we have no problem. (I also applaud your acting skill and marvel that you'd waste it on being spiteful without letting us know you're being spiteful.)

[Raineh Daze]

This is going a bit off topic, but ultimately I think Segev has the right of it. If you're going to be nasty and try to ruin the game over a mechanic you don't like without even trying to work it out with the DM, then you really don't have any business playing. Even if you're good at hiding it. Especially if you're good at hiding it.

Ruin the game? No. Stop doing something that gets me a reward I abhor? Yes.


Ah, so you're going to hide that it's spite and be a cheerful and positive contributor to the table? Then we have no problem. (I also applaud your acting skill and marvel that you'd waste it on being spiteful without letting us know you're being spiteful.)

I have too much practice at acting. I'd rather I didn't.

[Segev]

I still don't know why you'd make yourself miserable trying to hide from us that you're pissed, rather than talk to us about it, but yes, if yo'ure that good an actor, we will take it at face value. This doesn't, honestly, sound like a problem with "us," though. >_>

[nedz]

I have at least one player whom I would expect to walk if I were to use this rule. Basically it would likely trip his injustice switch. I would be accused of being arbitrary and unfair. I think he would have a point since it is impossible to do this objectively.

A DM wears many hats. One of these is that of impartial umpire which is compromised if you start making mechanical decisions based on subjective opinions of someone else's playstyle.

[137beth]

Unless you're a mind reader, there's no way to tell that the decrease in roleplaying is because of spite.

Huh, it's almost like you explicitly said you would roleplay less out of spite, and now want to be able to deny that you would do anything out of spite:amused:

[Jade_Tarem]

I have at least one player whom I would expect to walk if I were to use this rule. Basically it would likely trip his injustice switch. I would be accused of being arbitrary and unfair. I think he would have a point since it is impossible to do this objectively.

A DM wears many hats. One of these is that of impartial umpire which is compromised if you start making mechanical decisions based on subjective opinions of someone else's playstyle.

Once again, this is non-optional. You can't remove subjective decisions or, for that matter, failing to account for the playstyle of your players.


Ruin the game? No. Stop doing something that gets me a reward I abhor? Yes.

Orrrrr you could bring up with the DM that you don't want to use the system instead of sitting there, wallowing in silent, well-concealed resentment.

[Vedhin]

Generally speaking, my problem with RPXP is that D&D is a RPG. Yes, the RP stands for roleplaying, but more importantly, the G stands for game. D&D is, when it comes down to it, a form of entertainment. D&D has the advantage of allowing many styles of play within the constraints set down by the system. Roleplaying is but one of many ways of enjoying the system. The problem with RPXP is that it gives players who are skilled at one aspect of the game, an advantage in a different aspect of the game, that requires a different skill set. Even if the RPXP is only enough for the psychological benefit, it still makes the players who gain the RPXP appear better than those who do not, for the same psychological reasons. Essentially, some people are better at RP, some are better at the mechanical parts of the game. RPXP gives a percieved (or worse yet, real) mechanical advantage for being good at roleplaying. For RPXP to be fair, you would have to give out awards based on the players' combat capabilities, or some other facet governed by XP. This reward should affect RP exclusively, and also be of commeasurate value, otherwise it is not "fair".

Also, as someone who is an introvert in real life, I find the basic concept of RPXP offends me. It essentially comes down to "my way of playing the game is better than your way of playing the game, so you should enjoy what I enjoy." This remains true regardless of intentions; it is simply inherent in the concept.
My question is, why is RPXP needed in the first place? People who already RP won't change their behaviour, and people who strongly dislike RP will feel resentful that the people who are better than them at RPing now get mechanical bonuses, so they get better characters than them too. Sure there are people in the middle who simply didn't care one way or the other, but you're still trying to get them to change their behaviour, when they were perfectly fine doing their own thing. RPXP implies a disrespect for other's preferences, even if that disrespect doesn't exist.

[The honest illusionist]

My current DM gives us small amounts of bonus XP (10, 25, 50) when we do something in the game that amuses him. He also gives these bonuses 'achievement' titles. The rewards are certainly not limited to one style of play, and again the only real metric here is whether our actions amuse (or impress) the DM. We enjoy the rewards, and it encourages us as players to shake things up.

[Emmerask]

Generally speaking, my problem with RPXP is that D&D is a RPG. Yes, the RP stands for roleplaying, but more importantly, the G stands for game. D&D is, when it comes down to it, a form of entertainment. D&D has the advantage of allowing many styles of play within the constraints set down by the system. Roleplaying is but one of many ways of enjoying the system. The problem with RPXP is that it gives players who are skilled at one aspect of the game, an advantage in a different aspect of the game, that requires a different skill set. Even if the RPXP is only enough for the psychological benefit, it still makes the players who gain the RPXP appear better than those who do not, for the same psychological reasons. Essentially, some people are better at RP, some are better at the mechanical parts of the game. RPXP gives a percieved (or worse yet, real) mechanical advantage for being good at roleplaying. For RPXP to be fair, you would have to give out awards based on the players' combat capabilities, or some other facet governed by XP. This reward should affect RP exclusively, and also be of commeasurate value, otherwise it is not "fair".


But since you mentioned them, dont those people that are superior at the mechanical aspect of the game also get an unfair advantage in pretty much every aspect of the game on the virtue that their characters are... mechanically superior?



My question is, why is RPXP needed in the first place? People who already RP won't change their behaviour, and people who strongly dislike RP will feel resentful that the people who are better than them at RPing now get mechanical bonuses, so they get better characters than them too. Sure there are people in the middle who simply didn't care one way or the other, but you're still trying to get them to change their behaviour, when they were perfectly fine doing their own thing. RPXP implies a disrespect for other's preferences, even if that disrespect doesn't exist.

the answer is pretty easy, rp xp is geared for neither of the two, its for those in the in-between to get them to rp more and by that making the game more enjoyable for everyone including the dm.

[Jade_Tarem]

Generally speaking, my problem with RPXP is that D&D is a RPG. Yes, the RP stands for roleplaying, but more importantly, the G stands for game. D&D is, when it comes down to it, a form of entertainment. D&D has the advantage of allowing many styles of play within the constraints set down by the system. Roleplaying is but one of many ways of enjoying the system. The problem with RPXP is that it gives players who are skilled at one aspect of the game, an advantage in a different aspect of the game, that requires a different skill set. Even if the RPXP is only enough for the psychological benefit, it still makes the players who gain the RPXP appear better than those who do not, for the same psychological reasons. Essentially, some people are better at RP, some are better at the mechanical parts of the game. RPXP gives a percieved (or worse yet, real) mechanical advantage for being good at roleplaying. For RPXP to be fair, you would have to give out awards based on the players' combat capabilities, or some other facet governed by XP. This reward should affect RP exclusively, and also be of commeasurate value, otherwise it is not "fair".

Also, as someone who is an introvert in real life, I find the basic concept of RPXP offends me. It essentially comes down to "my way of playing the game is better than your way of playing the game, so you should enjoy what I enjoy." This remains true regardless of intentions; it is simply inherent in the concept.
My question is, why is RPXP needed in the first place? People who already RP won't change their behaviour, and people who strongly dislike RP will feel resentful that the people who are better than them at RPing now get mechanical bonuses, so they get better characters than them too. Sure there are people in the middle who simply didn't care one way or the other, but you're still trying to get them to change their behaviour, when they were perfectly fine doing their own thing. RPXP implies a disrespect for other's preferences, even if that disrespect doesn't exist.

This has been answered many, many times. I'll give it one more go.

The existence of bonus xp awarded for roleplaying does not preclude giving bonus xp awards for other reasons.

Roleplaying, superior strategy, having the metaphorical danglies required to take an awesome one-in-a-million chance, saying something really, really funny, even by accident. All of these can be triggers for handing out xp. A good DM will do all of this and more, to encourage his players to do what they do best - even if that's RP - in the hopes of enhancing the game.

Your argument is valid if RP is the only thing the players are offered a bonus for. Otherwise, a player would have to be bad at everything to never receive bonus xp. And frankly, if you're bad at every aspect of the game... then you need to get better at it. That's how games work.

[Azoth]

As a DM who does give out RPXP I must be lucky not to have had it cause any issues. Then again I award it when someone has their character do something that anyone at the table can agree upon as awesome and not just how well you present your character/how much you talk/ect.

If the party barbarian who is quiet and doesn't speak much suddenly takes it upon himself to hold a choke point so the rest of the party can escape a losing battle while risking his neck and he lives long enough to let them get safe distance and makes it out alive...yeah he gets some extra.

If the wizard has poured himself over all manner of tome and through trial and error come up with a new spell (not one in any published book), and causes a show stopper moment with it, yeah he gets some extra.

The rogue manages to succcessfuly navigate the entire party through an enemy stronghold without raising alarms or suspiscion so they get the drop on the BBEG...he gets some extra.

To me it isn't about how talkative or showy your character is, but how you bring them into the spotlight. Those moments when there are other ways to do something, and no spotlight is intended to shine, but you manage to step up and be the hero/vilain you are supposed to be. That is when I award it.

[Nooblet]

Ruin the game? No. Stop doing something that gets me a reward I abhor? Yes.


Not to be confrontational, but if you were in a game with people who enjoyed bonus exp, why couldn't you just ask the GM in private to not award you any?

Then your friends could enjoy their perks, and you could enjoy not feeling pressured?

I am not understanding this mentality of "Well I hate bonus EXP, so if I am in a game NO ONE gets bonus exp."

Are you a very competitive player where you feel like others can get "more" out of the game than you because of a bonus EXP system? I play with people who really aren't competitive and just play their characters casually.

To reiterate, I am not trying to flame you, I am just honestly not understanding this complete hatred towards rewarding other players for good role playing, be that "acting", "problem solving" or what have you.

[Amphetryon]

But since you mentioned them, dont those people that are superior at the mechanical aspect of the game also get an unfair advantage in pretty much every aspect of the game on the virtue that their characters are... mechanically superior?

In general, a Player who is less mechanically savvy has the benefit of a) everyone getting the same XP for overcoming obstacles/meeting storyline goals or whatever metric is being used, and b) it being entirely possible to find a way to make your mechanically inferior concept competitive with the rest of the group in a single sitting with one of the other Players, or with a single perusal of a thread on various RPG fora, such as this one.

It is generally considerably less likely to be able to overcome the obstacles to gaining sufficient roleplaying "skill" to appease a DM who rewards it separately. This is particularly true since you'll likely be starting at an XP deficit and there's no indication that the previous "good roleplayers" will cease to get the bonuses that put them ahead of you in XP to begin with.

[Black Jester]

By the very same logic that indicates that an individual adjusted amount of XP is somehow a punishment for the 'weaker' players, a levelled amount of XP is a punishment for the more pro-active and contributive players. And if i can only choose *who* I punish and not if i do it at all, I'll rather go with the ones who might actually deserve it.


A player who is more proactive, attentive and contributes significantly to the mood and atmosphere of a game is more of an asset than one that is mostly passive and expects to be entertained. Therefore, treating both the same way is inherently unfair;you are not elevating the weaker player to the niveau of the better one, you are dragging the better one down by not acknowledging his contributions.

Rewards for contributive and constructive roleplaying are in my opinion, obligatory for a fair and balanced treatment of the *players* (yes, the players. Not the characters). These rewards are an essential expression of respect and the acknowledgement of said contributions, and a very effective and sustainable tool for giving the game a meaning and a distinct direction. Yes, any GM can do without, but that is not much of an argument; you can do without opposing thumbs as well, but these digits are sure nice to have.
XP should be something I have to actively work for, not something I'm entitled to by default. Only by making them something which requires active thought and participation, they become worth something. Reducing these trophies from something you have actually earned to a free giveaway, diminishes them and their meaning, both for the game and the receiving player.
And this pro-active participation comes in many different forms; from developing smart plans and strategies to coming up with creative solutions or being very effective in a physical confrontation, but as the very centre of every roleplaying game, actually PLAYING A ROLE is by far the most important aspect and therefore the one that deserves the most attention and acclaim when done right.

Aaand: basically every argument against an individually adjusted reward of XP is basically based on a very simple motive: the avoidance of envy, either to dodge a potentially problematic conflict or because people are actually envious an have a problem seeing their fellows to get nice things. And I'm not entirely sure if envy of all things is something one should take special care for.

[Vedhin]

But since you mentioned them, dont those people that are superior at the mechanical aspect of the game also get an unfair advantage in pretty much every aspect of the game on the virtue that their characters are... mechanically superior?

Indeed they are. But that is a pre-existing problem, not something created by RPXP. I prefer to work from the status quo, not pile solution on solution.
Also, the mechanically-expert are better able to assit the RPers with mechanics than RPers are able to assist the mechanically-expert in RPing. This is because RP happens in real-time, while mechanical aspects can be discussed more. You can usually interrupt some musing about what action they should take. Interrupting the speech to the king tends to irritate people.

[Raineh Daze]

Not to be confrontational, but if you were in a game with people who enjoyed bonus exp, why couldn't you just ask the GM in private to not award you any?

Then your friends could enjoy their perks, and you could enjoy not feeling pressured?

I am not understanding this mentality of "Well I hate bonus EXP, so if I am in a game NO ONE gets bonus exp."

Are you a very competitive player where you feel like others can get "more" out of the game than you because of a bonus EXP system? I play with people who really aren't competitive and just play their characters casually.

To reiterate, I am not trying to flame you, I am just honestly not understanding this complete hatred towards rewarding other players for good role playing, be that "acting", "problem solving" or what have you.

Sense of fair play. Hate the penalties for Raise Dead and Resurrection, too, since that just piles yet more problems on the characters that were already weakest (since they died and all).

[Jade_Tarem]

It is generally considerably less likely to be able to overcome the obstacles to gaining sufficient roleplaying "skill" to appease a DM who rewards it separately. This is particularly since you'll likely be starting at an XP deficit and there's no indication that the previous "good roleplayers" will cease to get the bonuses that put them ahead of you in XP to begin with.

This has been answered over and over again.

[nedz]

Roleplaying, superior strategy, having the metaphorical danglies required to take an awesome one-in-a-million chance, saying something really, really funny, even by accident. All of these can be triggers for handing out xp. A good DM will do all of this and more, to encourage his players to do what they do best - even if that's RP - in the hopes of enhancing the game.


I think it's obvious from the strength of feeling in this thread that some players strongly dislike this policy. A good DM will not pursue a course of action which will lead to unnecessary OOC conflict; moreover a good DM will let their players play their characters in a style of their choosing. I just see this idea as a potential campaign wrecker which is the opposite of an enhanced game.

[XenoGeno]

Why do DMs have to cater to players not in their game? I'm reading this discussion, and it seems like there are plenty of examples of people who've used it and their groups loved it; like anything else a DM can do, it can be handled well, and it can be handled poorly, and there will be people who dislike it no matter what. I've never used it, personally, because I had players who I know would not react well to it, but I think the idea is sound and very definitely might use it in my next game. But I find it kind of hilarious that people seem to want to apply social justice theory to games. A DM doesn't need to start at a point of origin behind a veil of ignorance and be as fair as possible to any theoretical, potential players they may or may not ever get. They need to look at the very real desires of themselves and their actual players, and adjust for that. The notion that RPXP is inherently bad game design and bad DMing (which while I don't see it explicitly stated anywhere by anyone, it's certainly implied by a few people here) is ridiculous, because, as stated, some people enjoy it, and no DM worth his salt would keep using it if some people in his group hated it.

[Amphetryon]

This has been answered over and over again.

With math? Where? I've read the whole thread; quote the response where the math proves that RPXP won't lead to a disparity. Or, by "answered" do you mean "dismissed out of hand without a rebuttal tied exclusively to emotion"?

[Emmerask]

I think it's obvious from the strength of feeling in this thread that some players strongly dislike this policy. A good DM will not pursue a course of action which will lead to unnecessary OOC conflict; moreover a good DM will let their players play their characters in a style of their choosing. I just see this idea as a potential campaign wrecker which is the opposite of an enhanced game.

But what you forgetting is the dms fun, its often completely left out and I do not know why.
Because in all honesty if I had to dm a game without roleplaying and only kick in the door fights I would fall asleep midcombat ^^


With math? Where? I've read the whole thread; quote the response where the math proves that RPXP won't lead to a disparity. Or, by "answered" do you mean "dismissed out of hand without a rebuttal tied exclusively to emotion"?

He means the part where roleplaying is not limited (for him,others and me) to acting out but encompasses a lot more.
ie stuff like saying "I swing my sword in a high arc aiming at the orcs head, 19 to hit" instead of "19"

[Vedhin]

I think it's obvious from the strength of feeling in this thread that some players strongly dislike this policy. A good DM will not pursue a course of action which will lead to unnecessary OOC conflict; moreover a good DM will let their players play their characters in a style of their choosing. I just see this idea as a potential campaign wrecker which is the opposite of an enhanced game.

This is basically my problem. RPXP sends the subconcious message that one way is the right way to play, and that those who enjoy, for example, kick in the door, are wrong. Even if that is not the intention, the message is still there. You shouldn't try to get players to change how they play unless their playstyle is making the game unfun for others, you should let them do their thing with no prodding. If the player does make the game unfun, then you should talk it out and try to come to an agreement.

[Emmerask]

This is basically my problem. RPXP sends the subconcious message that one way is the right way to play, and that those who enjoy, for example, kick in the door, are wrong. Even if that is not the intention, the message is still there. You shouldn't try to get players to change how they play unless their playstyle is making the game unfun for others, you should let them do their thing with no prodding. If the player does make the game unfun, then you should talk it out and try to come to an agreement.

I think wrong way is wrong :smallbiggrin:
More like when I dm roleplaying plays a huge part in it, if you want kick in the door gaming then I might be the wrong dm for the job.
Because if I do not enjoy the game then well the quality will suffer and in the end no one will enjoy it most likely.

[Raineh Daze]

I think wrong way is wrong :smallbiggrin:
More like when I dm roleplaying plays a huge part in it, if you want kick in the door gaming then I might be the wrong dm for the job.
Because if I do not enjoy the game then well the quality will suffer and in the end no one will enjoy it.

And yet, surely it would be more effective to just ask people to try roleplaying more than inept subterfuge? :smallsigh:

[Amphetryon]

He means the part where roleplaying is not limited (for him,others and me) to acting out but encompasses a lot more.
ie stuff like saying "I swing my sword in a high arc aiming at the orcs head, 19 to hit" instead of "19"So he's using a rebuttal to an argument I've not made, as if it dismissed my argument. Interesting. :smallconfused:

[Nooblet]

This is basically my problem. RPXP sends the subconcious message that one way is the right way to play, and that those who enjoy, for example, kick in the door, are wrong. Even if that is not the intention, the message is still there. You shouldn't try to get players to change how they play unless their playstyle is making the game unfun for others, you should let them do their thing with no prodding. If the player does make the game unfun, then you should talk it out and try to come to an agreement.

I think this is a false assumption.

From what I gather across this entire thread, is that DMs reward bonus XP for either strategically sound decisions, or good "acting" (some would call that RP) or even just being your character (Roleplaying as you should) when doing something OOC would be more beneficial for you in game.

I think you are tripping on the idea that "Bonus Exp" is always rewarded for good "acting". From what I gather so far, the supporters of bonus exp are not making this universal claim.

For example, if you made a really good tactical decision, bonus EXP could apply.

[Emmerask]

And yet, surely it would be more effective to just ask people to try roleplaying more than inept subterfuge? :smallsigh:

I actually do both, the thing is roleplaying is hard for most (except for some natural actors) it takes effort and its so much more easy just to say "19" especially during long sessions (10+hours).
Having some token of recognition even if its completely insignificant helps players to still try... at least in my experience with my groups, and when I play as a player it helps me too.

[nedz]

But what you forgetting is the dms fun, its often completely left out and I do not know why.
Because in all honesty if I had to dm a game without roleplaying and only kick in the door fights I would fall asleep midcombat ^^

That is not what I said. I am not arguing against RP, actually quite the opposite. If I want to encourage RP then I will create interesting situations/NPCs etc. rather than patronise my players because I like their play style.

[Emmerask]

That is not what I said. I am not arguing against RP, actually quite the opposite. If I want to encourage RP then I will create interesting situations/NPCs etc. rather than patronise my players because I like their play style.

then I am sorry, you focused so much on the players fun that for me it implied the dms fun being insignificant, I misunderstood your meaning.

Though I wouldnt call rewarding them in recognition for trying to enhance the gaming experience for all patronising :smallwink:

[Black Jester]

This is basically my problem. RPXP sends the subconcious message that one way is the right way to play, and that those who enjoy, for example, kick in the door, are wrong. Even if that is not the intention, the message is still there. You shouldn't try to get players to change how they play unless their playstyle is making the game unfun for others, you should let them do their thing with no prodding. If the player does make the game unfun, then you should talk it out and try to come to an agreement.

And? There *is* a great variety in quality levels in RPGs, from a mechanical to a social to a performance level. Of course, XP rewards for players who contribute more to the game are a way to influence the players (in addition to treating them fairly), but it is utterly impossible not to influence or educate the players in one form or other; you can only do it unconsciously and somewhat arbitrarily or use it consciously as a tool to give the game direction.
Aaand at the same time, you could turn your argument easily upside down: By not adjusting the granted XP individually you convey te message that playstyle, dedication and contributions don't matter, which is a much worse lesson, isn't it?

[Vedhin]

I think this is a false assumption.

From what I gather across this entire thread, is that DMs reward bonus XP for either strategically sound decisions, or good "acting" (some would call that RP) or even just being your character (Roleplaying as you should) when doing something OOC would be more beneficial for you in game.

I think you are tripping on the idea that "Bonus Exp" is always rewarded for good "acting". From what I gather so far, the supporters of bonus exp are not making this universal claim.

For example, if you made a really good tactical decision, bonus EXP could apply.

Well, in that case replace the sole instance of "RPXP" in the quoted post with "Bonus XP awarded based on playing in a certain style". The point remains the same.

Edit@Black Jester: The first part of your post sums up to "we can't make it completely fair, so we shouldn't bother trying." I'm going to just agree to disagree on this point, as my feelings about this are very strong.
The second part I now turn upside down, with the arguement that not giving bonus XP illustrates that all playstyles are equally welcome and correct, which is something that I, personally, would like to do.

[kaminiwa]

Some groups have one style, some have another. I play a lethal campaign where death is always a threat, and it carries consequences. My players all know this up-front.

I've run other games where death was a triviality and everyone was always kept equal, because that's what fit the campaign and the play group.

I'm really unclear here: Are you genuinely saying you have a problem simply because other people don't share your preferences? Are you upset at the very idea that my play group runs an "unfair" campaign with these sorts of discrepancies? Would you seriously have an issue with me as a GM, even knowing that a brief conversation would fix the problem? :smallconfused:

(P.S.: Death, Negative Levels, and Tiers all produce vastly more disparity. D&D is, at it's heart, a horribly unfair, unbalanced game. It's why I use it as a system when I want to run a campaign with a lot of power disparity, and other systems for more "balanced" campaigns.)

(P.P.S.: If someone collects 50 XP every session, then in the ~67 sessions it takes to hit 20th they will have gained all of 3,350 XP; enough to let them have one or two sessions where they level up before the rest of the group, but that's about it. Or to help someone who lost a level catch up a little quicker. It's seriously a trivial discrepancy compared to even ONE death, and death can happen multiple times over the course of a campaign!)

----------------------

EDIT ADD:


Well, in that case replace the sole instance of "RPXP" in the quoted post with "Bonus XP awarded based on playing in a certain style". The point remains the same.

"Playing a Tier 1 character" is a certain style of play.

"Not dying in combat" is a certain style of play.

"Refusing to fight anything which inflicts negative levels" is a certain style of play.

"Roleplaying" is a certain style of play.

Please note that this list is ordered from MOST impactful (Tier) to LEAST impactful (50 bonus XP)

[Vedhin]

I'm really unclear here: Are you genuinely saying you have a problem simply because other people don't share your preferences? Are you upset at the very idea that my play group runs an "unfair" campaign with these sorts of discrepancies? Would you seriously have an issue with me as a GM, even knowing that a brief conversation would fix the problem? :smallconfused:
Why would I have a problem with the GM? The bonus XP is what I have a problem with. And I do acknowledge that it functions for some groups, I just believe that the system has more potential for harm than good.



(P.S.: Death, Negative Levels, and Tiers all produce vastly more disparity. D&D is, at it's heart, a horribly unfair, unbalanced game. It's why I use it as a system when I want to run a campaign with a lot of power disparity, and other systems for more "balanced" campaigns.)

As I'm not capable of a rational arguement on this subject, I'll leave it alone.



(P.P.S.: If someone collects 50 XP every session, then in the ~67 sessions it takes to hit 20th they will have gained all of 3,350 XP; enough to let them have one or two sessions where they level up before the rest of the group, but that's about it. Or to help someone who lost a level catch up a little quicker. It's seriously a trivial discrepancy compared to even ONE death, and death can happen multiple times over the course of a campaign!)

It's the psychological factor, just like the psychological benefit some people were citing. If the reward is big enough to create a "feelgood" sensation, it's big enough to cause feelings of envy in other players. Death is something mechanical, where you can decide what to do to try to avoid it, and get predictable results based on the choices you and others make, and by how the dice fall. You can't decide to be good at RPing.
And personally, I don't like the level penalty for death, but one problem at a time.




"Playing a Tier 1 character" is a certain style of play.

"Not dying in combat" is a certain style of play.

"Refusing to fight anything which inflicts negative levels" is a certain style of play.

"Roleplaying" is a certain style of play.

Please note that this list is ordered from MOST impactful (Tier) to LEAST impactful (50 bonus XP)

The first three "styles of play" you mentioned are all in-part mechanical things, with the rewards built into the system. The rewards they give are also mechanical. Roleplaying is not mechanical. Therefore, it should not be rewarded mechanically, that's what the mechanical bits are for.

[Invader]

There still seems to be a prevailing thought of rewarding people who RP well is the same as punishment is hinges those who don't which categorically false.

Let's also point out that there is precedent set in both rewarding people for specifically for RP and story rewards as well as precluding people from getting Xp rewards for not participating in an encounter.

[Amphetryon]

There still seems to be a prevailing thought of rewarding people who RP well is the same as punishment is hinges those who don't which categorically false.


I have yet to see why this is false, let alone "categorically false." If a teacher rewards everyone who does an oral presentation with a free period, and has those who write a report instead do a quiz, those who don't do the oral presentation are being punished by having a free period withheld from them. If I give a cookie to those who wear green to the game, I'm punishing those who didn't wear green by withholding the cookie (and that cookie is less likely to influence the Character's power level over a long campaign than a 10% XP "cookie").

[TuggyNE]

I've played in a few sessions where bonus XP was handed out, although it was mostly for saying funny stuff (and one person got about twice as much as the average, i.e. 200 xp at level 3, and one or two people got very little; I was somewhere in the middle). At the time, I didn't really care, since there was so much else going on anyway. But upon thinking about it, it seems like the sort of unfairness that's easy to overlook if you're not the type targeted by it. More common than you'd think, really.

Let's do a comparison of different XP award/level-up strategies, shall we?
{table=head]Aspect|RP bonus XP|Joke bonus XP|Encounter XP|Fiat leveling|Goal XP|Shared RP/Joke bonus XP
Objective|No|No|Yes|No|Somewhat|No
Even|No|No|Somewhat|Yes|Yes|Yes
In-character**|Somewhat*|No|Yes|Somewhat|Yes|Somewhat *
Personality-dependent|Somewhat|Yes|Somewhat|No|No|Somewhat
Competitive|Somewhat|Yes|Somewhat|No|No|No[/table]
This might need a bit of explanation: shared RP/joke bonus is the practice of awarding everyone bonus XP whenever anyone performs some especially good bit of roleplaying or cracks the DM up or what have you; fiat leveling is leveling up the party whenever it seems like they've probably gone up a level, without tracking XP or specific goals; goal XP is granting XP primarily or solely based on accomplishing tasks, quests, goals, or the like. Objectivity and Competitivity are fairly obvious; "Even" was chosen instead of e.g. fair, equal, level, just, to indicate how well the party as a whole experiences consistency, as opposed to how often one character/player will benefit alone (actually, "just" is opposed to this, since the concept of justice hinges on a proper reward or punishment for individual deeds without consideration for equality of result); Personality Dependence just measures how much the system varies based on player or DM personality. Finally, In-Character deserves special note, since while XP, HP, and the like are not directly observable in game for the most part, they do represent real in-game quantities; "quality of jokes told by player" and "fidelity of roleplaying by player to character concept" are entirely divorced from any in-game reality, and the fact that it is possible to spend XP in a dissociated way (such as gaining a level in Wizard after swording a bunch of kobolds as a Fighter) does not change the fact that the awarding of XP by encounter or goal is fully associated.

As far as "lack of reward equals punishment", or not, they're not precisely the same, but the distinction between a lack of reward and an active punishment can be pretty small in many cases. It's useful to know the difference, but it's also good to remember that for a lot of people the difference doesn't meaningfully exist. Not everyone responds the same to the same incentives.

P.S. I'm not necessarily trying to make a full argument, just lay the groundwork for a rather better and more formal discussion, instead of the emotionally-charged back and forth we've been doing. So if you note that the table doesn't lead to any very obvious conclusion, that's why.

[Segev]

With math? Where? I've read the whole thread; quote the response where the math proves that RPXP won't lead to a disparity. Or, by "answered" do you mean "dismissed out of hand without a rebuttal tied exclusively to emotion"?No, actually. "Countered" in the sense that it was stated that a DM is going to have to keep an eye on the totals and work with those falling behind while slowing the awards to those who're already in the habit of doing it naturally. Increase rewards to those who are behind by awarding lesser instances so they have a clue where to do more.

It's your appeal to emotion and your demonic painting of a cruel and capricious DM that leads to the problem in the first place. We do not dismiss it out of hand through emotion; we dismiss it out of hand because your argument is an appeal to emotion.

[Invader]

I have yet to see why this false, let alone "categorically false." If a teacher rewards eryone who does an oral presentation with a free period, and has those who write a report instead do a quiz, those who don't do the oral presentation are being punished by having a free period withheld from them. If I give a cookie to those who wear green to the game, I'm punishing those who didn't wear green by withholding the cookie (and that cookie is less likely to influence the Character's power level over a long campaign than a 10% XP "cookie").

So if a rogue picks someone's pocket in the game and the dm rewards him with a change purse with 100 gold he subsequently punishes all the other players because they didn't get something.

Or if you'd prefer, the group is sent to retrieve the magical mcguffin from the depths of some monster infested dungeon but the wizard simply teleports in grabs the item and teleports out. Should the whole group get XP even if they didn't do anything, are they being punished if they don't receive XP?

[Invader]

And again there's RAW in black in white for rewarding RP and for not rewarding characters that don't take part in an encounter so like it not, that's fine, but it's part of the game.

[XenoGeno]

I have yet to see why this is false, let alone "categorically false." If a teacher rewards everyone who does an oral presentation with a free period, and has those who write a report instead do a quiz, those who don't do the oral presentation are being punished by having a free period withheld from them. If I give a cookie to those who wear green to the game, I'm punishing those who didn't wear green by withholding the cookie (and that cookie is less likely to influence the Character's power level over a long campaign than a 10% XP "cookie").

You have yet to demonstrate that the absence of a positive is necessarily a negative. A reward is something above and beyond the status quo; a punishment is something less than the status quo; or, remaining at the status quo if the status quo is bad. You missed the point of the Office Space scene, which was that the only reward was not having the boss berate you. There was no actual motivation to go above and beyond aside from that. See the scene where Ron Livingston is talking with the Bobs. There's no carrot, only stick, which is the opposite of the situation here. Only carrot, no stick. And here's the thing; even if they were punishments, it's punishments that players can easily avoid. I've actually had the teacher thing happen to me several times, or close to it. If everyone has the opportunity to earn extra credit, but not everyone takes it, that's not punishing those who choose not take it, or who lack the ability to perform it. It's optional, above and beyond. If you still disagree, you have a definition of "punish" that isn't what the majority of other people agree it means.

Also, no one's saying 10% XP bonus, but small rewards for specific examples of good RPing, in the 50-200 XP range.

[kaminiwa]

Everyone has their own tastes and preferences. As long as the GM is upfront about using RP-XP, you can just take a pass on joining, right?

I guess I don't see how this is any different from a player who doesn't like steampunk elements, or who wants to play a Tier 5 pacifist in a high-combat high-optimization kick-in-the-door campaign. Sometimes a campaign just isn't a good fit for a particular character or player.

[Amphetryon]

You have yet to demonstrate that the absence of a positive is necessarily a negative. A reward is something above and beyond the status quo; a punishment is something less than the status quo; or, remaining at the status quo if the status quo is bad. You missed the point of the Office Space scene, which was that the only reward was not having the boss berate you. There was no actual motivation to go above and beyond aside from that. See the scene where Ron Livingston is talking with the Bobs. There's no carrot, only stick, which is the opposite of the situation here. Only carrot, no stick. And here's the thing; even if they were punishments, it's punishments that players can easily avoid. I've actually had the teacher thing happen to me several times, or close to it. If everyone has the opportunity to earn extra credit, but not everyone takes it, that's not punishing those who choose not take it, or who lack the ability to perform it. It's optional, above and beyond. If you still disagree, you have a definition of "punish" that isn't what the majority of other people agree it means.

Also, no one's saying 10% XP bonus, but small rewards for specific examples of good RPing, in the 50-200 XP range.
The portion I bolded is asking me to prove a negative as stated, a notoriously difficult task.

As I have continued to assert, the threat of withholding the carrot is a penalty. You are free to choose not to see this. As to the "it's a punishment the Players could easily avoid" bit, almost any punishment is avoidable. That doesn't keep them from being punishments, and doesn't mean they ought to have a place at a roleplaying game amongst supposed friends.

Finally, "no one's saying 10% XP bonus" entirely ignores the fact that I've said it, repeatedly. So has Roguenewb. So have others. Please do not marginalize me into a non-person in order to support your POV.

[Segev]

So, then, because Bill Gates made millions of dollars for creating Microsoft, you are being punished that you didn't start it instead?

[georgie_leech]

Finally, "no one's saying 10% XP bonus" entirely ignores the fact that I've said it, repeatedly. So has Roguenewb. So have others. Please do not marginalize me into a non-person in order to support your POV.

I'm trying to stay out of this, but most of the people claiming large numbers are those arguing against RPXP. Has anyone in favour of RPXP claimed a large number?

[kaminiwa]

For what it's worth, I actually agree with Amphetryon on the "failure to reward == punishment" thing.

Mathematically speaking, one player has 50 XP more than the other. While psychologically speaking, the phrasing of it as a bonus for good roleplaying vs a penalty for bad roleplaying is important, it doesn't change the fact that one player got 50 XP extra.

I've been in groups where the rogue was required to share loot with the rest of the group, to preserve fairness. It's a simple understanding that the PCs are a *team*, and they work *together*.

Fundamentally speaking, RP-XP is an unfair mechanic that produces a power disparity. If it's not doing that, you could drop it and just tack on an extra 50 XP at the end of each session.

The key point, to me, is that D&D isn't a fair system: Sometimes you roll badly, sometimes the encounter doesn't play to your class, and sometimes you die.

Some groups like unfairness, some hate it. But saying RP-XP is a *fair* system is just plain false!

And I say this as someone who is a big fan of RP-XP :)



Finally, "no one's saying 10% XP bonus" entirely ignores the fact that I've said it, repeatedly.


I think this would be an accurate rephrasing, although the original quote isn't mine: None of the pro-RP-XP GMs on this thread are advocating for rewards that extreme. In fact, I think everyone here would agree that a 10% reward is extreme.

So, since that point is already one we all agree on, it's pointless to bring it up. Let's discuss the actual controversial bit, which is the GMs who feel okay handing out 50-100 XP "perks" :)

[Raineh Daze]

If the tiny XP bonuses have no impact, they're basically just mindgames. :smallannoyed:

[Amphetryon]

If the tiny XP bonuses have no impact, they're basically just mindgames. :smallannoyed:

Mindgames have an impact, though. . . .

[Deophaun]

If the tiny XP bonuses have no impact, they're basically just mindgames. :smallannoyed:
But if you're a Wizard, you can craft magic items with them. So it helps the Wizards keep pace with the Fighters.

[Dalek Kommander]

That's assuming people actually get time in the spotlight, some groups give more spotlight to the extroverts or those who 'roleplay' better. Thus creating a vicious cycle where the newbie (or introvert) feels shunned because his personality and situation is being ignored.

You might as well say that giving out XP based on kills is bad, because some groups are dominated by epic-level CoDzillas who use boots of speed to solo entire low-level dungeons before the poor newbies can kill a single kobold.

The problem isn't bonus XP, the problem is "some groups".

[kaminiwa]

If the tiny XP bonuses have no impact, they're basically just mindgames. :smallannoyed:

I've already stated about what I hand out (~3,300 XP over the course of a 1-20 campaign). That's a decent pool for crafting magic items, the occasional session where you're one level ahead of everyone else, or a quicker recovery from levels lost to other sources.

In other words, it's a small but real perk. Sort of like how many video games give you a little extra loot if you play a good alignment :)

If it was just a "mind game" I'd award gold stars instead, and possibly let players trade those in for roleplaying-specific perks like a sideplot or a favorable NPC reaction. Or I'd just encourage people to roleplay things out, but the introverts in my group HATE that. And, really, so do I :)

[Raineh Daze]

I've already stated about what I hand out (~3,300 XP over the course of a 1-20 campaign). That's a decent pool for crafting magic items, the occasional session where you're one level ahead of everyone else, or a quicker recovery from levels lost to other sources.

So the only people it actually benefits are those playing casters or artificers. Well, that's it, it buffs things that are already broken, definitely no redeeming it now. :smallsigh:

The impact it has on regaining a lost level? Trivial. Truly, by the point you have Raise Dead, it's a fragment of what you need to level, not to mention you just lost the accumulated bonuses due to... you know, dying.

[Invader]

So the only people it actually benefits are those playing casters or artificers. Well, that's it, it buffs things that are already broken, definitely no redeeming it now. :smallsigh:



Players can use their own XP instead of a casters for the purpose of creating magic items.

[kaminiwa]

So the only people it actually benefits are those playing casters or artificers. Well, that's it, it buffs things that are already broken, definitely no redeeming it now. :smallsigh:

Crafters in my group routinely value the good of the team, and spend their XP making items for the party fighter. Also, having a Wizard who has a Scroll For Every Situation generally benefits the entire group :)

In the current campaign, the party Artificer has made it explicit that any time she's got the highest XP total, she's fine using the difference as a "crafting pool" to help gear up the party :)

You also seem to have totally missed the perk of "occasionally spending a session one level above the group". I'm pretty sure that's the the main incentive for my players, since this is the first campaign I've actually had a PC touch crafting rules :)



definitely no redeeming it now.


It doesn't need redeeming. It makes every single person in the campaign happier, myself included. There is NOTHING more important than this factor. Nothing.

[XenoGeno]

The portion I bolded is asking me to prove a negative as stated, a notoriously difficult task.

I admit I shouldn't have used positive and negative there, because I used the more common definitions of "good" and "bad" and this is a debate and therefore they mean different things. Strictly speaking, I AM asking you to prove a positive statement: ~A->B "If not A [in this case, A represents a reward], therefore B [in this case punishment]". It's the difference between agnosticism and atheism, "I don't believe in God" versus "I believe there is no God." They mean two different things, but you've set them up as a dichotomy where others don't see one, including myself. What I'm asking from you, therefore, is to support your position, which you have failed to do so so far. Simply providing examples of what you consider punishment by virtue of absence of reward doesn't prove that absence of reward is punishment.


As I have continued to assert, the threat of withholding the carrot is a penalty. You are free to choose not to see this. As to the "it's a punishment the Players could easily avoid" bit, almost any punishment is avoidable. That doesn't keep them from being punishments, and doesn't mean they ought to have a place at a roleplaying game amongst supposed friends.

And yet, clearly lots of groups can use them and not only still be good friends, but actually ENJOY THEM! Clearly it varies from group to group; if you don't like it, that's fine, but don't say they shouldn't belong at a game among friends, when it's just they don't belong at a game among YOUR friends. Which is fine for you. But if other people have fun in a way you disagree with, why do you care so much?

Also, if you choose to accept a punishment when you could easily not do it, it's less of one, to the point of not being one when it's so trivial. With your example of the students, it seems like those who didn't simply decided that their free time at home was worth more than having a single free period. Their choice, so if the only two options are "reward" or "punish" with no middle ground, and you have every opportunity to take "reward" but don't, it's not something you can complain about later.

And I still object to your definition of "punish" because I believe you're absolutely creating a false dichotomy. While I grant this is totally Webster's Fallacy, I don't see any definition of punish here (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/punish?s=t)that comes close to what you're saying it mean.


Finally, "no one's saying 10% XP bonus" entirely ignores the fact that I've said it, repeatedly. So has Roguenewb. So have others. Please do not marginalize me into a non-person in order to support your POV.

Fine: no one SUPPORTING RPXP has said that, only people demonizing it. Which means it's absolutely a straw man. Considering how people who are pro-RPXP generally argue AGAINST a percentage (I may have missed one or two posts saying otherwise, but they're clearly a minority), the gist of my point stands.

[NichG]

On the failure to reward == punishment thing, it may be borne out mathematically, but it is counterfactual when it comes to human psychology.

There were studies done where people were asked to say how much they would pay for a mug (generally responding with low amounts). Then, a separate group of people were given a mug 'here, this is yours' and then asked what amount of money they would accept to give it back. The answers were wildly different, with people putting far more value in 'not losing the mug' than obtaining it in the first place.

[ericgrau]

Mindgames have an impact, though. . . .
This is pretty much it.

Big power disparities cause significant game issues so thousand xp rp awards should be avoided. But no one does that. Throwing out small xp rewards for certain actions is like throwing candies to players. It's not actually worth that much but it still encourages certain behaviors. Encouraging certain behavior might be something the players like or it might irritate them. Or if you're easy going enough about it, it won't make much difference either way.

I also kind of like having equal xp for most or all players to make tracking it easier.

[kaminiwa]

Also, if you choose to accept a punishment when you could easily not do it, it's less of one, to the point of not being one when it's so trivial.

I'm pro-RP-XP and I still think this is a totally unfair argument to make.

The fact that I can do something to negate a punishment does NOT make it less of a punishment. And just because it's easy for *you* to roleplay doesn't mean it's easy for *them*.

The fact that it's a trivial punishment also means it's a trivial reward. If one player is really that upset about it, why wouldn't you just drop this trivial matter so that they can have fun in your campaign?

Sometimes, us humans *care* about trivial things. We can't just turn that off.



And, honestly, I think a lot of players have had experiences with GMs where this was just the surface level of "playing favorites", so it serves as a warning sign to them that the GM is going to be unfair in other ways. By being willing to compromise on this, you reassure them that you're going to try and be fair in other areas too.

[Segev]

Again, if lack-of-reward == punishment, then there is literally no such thing as reward. Ever.

It's also a ridiculously entitled attitude. It denies the concept of earning anything, ever. You don't earn anything; you just are punished less for not misbehaving. You're always guilty or your punisher is always a monster; it's just a matter of how guilty you are or how much of a monster he is.

Such a bleak way to look at the world, but the argument that lack-of-reward == punishment, always and every time, cannot lead anywhere else.

[Invader]

I had a DM who would give RP xp as well as xp for exceptional back stories, bringing snacks taking group notes, and keeping track of initiative, as well a slew of other things. This along with the fact that when we would get a new player or when someone died they started out at a lower level, lead to our group ranging in level from 4 to 7 and it never posed a problem.

[XenoGeno]

I'm pro-RP-XP and I still think this is a totally unfair argument to make.

The fact that I can do something to negate a punishment does NOT make it less of a punishment. And just because it's easy for *you* to roleplay doesn't mean it's easy for *them*.

The fact that it's a trivial punishment also means it's a trivial reward. If one player is really that upset about it, why wouldn't you just drop this trivial matter so that they can have fun in your campaign?

Sometimes, us humans *care* about trivial things. We can't just turn that off.

And, honestly, I think a lot of players have had experiences with GMs where this was just the surface level of "playing favorites", so it serves as a warning sign to them that the GM is going to be unfair in other ways. By being willing to compromise on this, you reassure them that you're going to try and be fair in other areas too.

To be honest, if the GM's crappy about it, yeah that sucks. But if they're going to play favorites with RPXP, they're going to play favorites anyway, with treasure or something else. It happens. The only way to avoid that is to get a better GM. The presence or absence of RPXP doesn't matter in this case (and I said earlier that it definitely varies from group to group whether it works).

But to say the definition of punishment is "not receiving an optional reward when you elect not to go for it" strikes me as ridiculous. If the only choices are an actual penalty of some sort and maintaining the status quo, that's different. However by the definition Amphy proposed, we're operating under the assumption that staying at the status quo is a punishment of some sort, but (again, this is assuming the status quo isn't inherently horrible or something similar that would be a different argument than this one) that's not actually a penalty itself. If it is, then NOT offering a possibility for a reward (and therefore everyone stays at status quo) is a penalty to everyone, and they have no way of resolving their problem. I object to that wholeheartedly.

[kaminiwa]

if lack-of-reward == punishment, then there is literally no such thing as reward.

It's probably more useful to think in terms of "fair vs unfair" instead. If the GM gives his girlfriend a bonus 100 XP each session for dating him, that's clearly unfair, and would upset most players. It doesn't matter that it's a reward for her, not a punishment for them. It's just plain *unfair*.


It's easy to be unfair, too. I think most GMs, certainly all the good ones, *try* to be fair, of course! But, I mean, they're friends with John *because* John has such an awesome sense of humor, so he *always* walks away with the Roleplaying Bonus XP. And the GM doesn't really get Sally's sense of humor, so she only gets it when she argues for it at the end of the session. And Lea is incredibly shy and can barely manage to declare her action and roll the dice, so she never gets bonus XP.


Now, if Sally and Lea are okay with this situation, that's fine! Things do NOT need to be fair. Personally, when I'm in the role of Lea, I'm okay with it - it encourages the rest of the group to do stuff I still find fun, and I don't mind the disparity.

I'm fine being 50 XP behind if it motivates a couple cool one-liners :)

But, I'd certainly be pretty understanding if Sally was hurt by this, and I'd totally understand if Lea wasn't comfortable playing with the group at all.

[ScrambledBrains]

For the love of Pelor...:smallsigh:

Ok, before I go any further, I wish to make one point as excruciatingly clear as I can-I have no dog in this fight. I don't know if any of my DMs, past or present, IRL or PBP, ever used/use 'Bonus XP' for roleplaying, and more to the point, even if they did or do, I don't care.

But are we truly going to make this the next wall in the series to further segment our already marginalized hobby? We are already a fragment of society, a group who is, at best, ignored, and at worse routinely ridiculed for enjoying spending time creating fictional characters and having them perform fictional feats of daring and defeat fictional beasts in a fictional universe.

Off the top of my head, we already are split on:


3.5 Edition vs. 4th Edition

Tiers

The Monk, Fighter and Paladin vs. Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader

Core vs. Non-Core

And I'm willing to bet there's plenty more I'm either incapable of remembering, or have just never seen. Why, in the name of Yondalla, would you want to create yet another pointless, arbitrary divide? Look, there are people who play tables where the DM gives out extra XP for certain actions done by the players, and they enjoy themselves. Conversely, there are tables where the DM does not give out extra XP for anything beyond the overcoming of challenges done by the players, and they also enjoy themselves. What, exactly, is the point of looking at the other group and going, 'You are not playing precisely like us, despite us playing similar in 95% of ways. Therefore, you are doing things wrong.'?

Do some of you want us to be completely fragmented? Because that does not strike me as a useful or justifiable goal. We should celebrate our commonalities and our similarities-Play what system/s you enjoy in the way/s you enjoy, granted, and I sincerely wish anyone who does so nothing but fun times acting, rolling, or even just hanging out with friends, but the way I see it, crying foul just because a table/PBP you may not even be in gives out bonus XP for certain actions is just as foolish as crying foul because one of the players at one of the aforementioned tables/PBP rolls their dice overhand rather than underhand.

Oh, and if anyone's argument is that either A: Giving Roleplaying XP is a way to help get people more into the game or B: By giving Roleplaying XP you are punishing Introverts, then I feel I must state the following unequivocally-The only person who can control how much a given person gets into Roleplaying, no matter what rewards, punishments, lack-of-rewards or lack-of-punishments are dangled before them, is that given person. And quite frankly, attempting to influence that in any direction strikes me as something of a futile endeavor.

[nedz]

And, honestly, I think a lot of players have had experiences with GMs where this was just the surface level of "playing favourites", so it serves as a warning sign to them that the GM is going to be unfair in other ways. By being willing to compromise on this, you reassure them that you're going to try and be fair in other areas too.

Most groups contain players with a range of play styles. RP-XP rewards players who have the same play style as the DM. This sets the precedent that there is a right way to play the game, which there isn't. This can appear to be playing favourites even when there is no such intention.

There are other issues too, but I have already listed some of them.


But upon thinking about it, it seems like the sort of unfairness that's easy to overlook if you're not the type targeted by it. More common than you'd think, really.
<nice table>
"Even" was chosen instead of e.g. fair, equal, level, just, to indicate how well the party as a whole experiences consistency, as opposed to how often one character/player will benefit alone (actually, "just" is opposed to this, since the concept of justice hinges on a proper reward or punishment for individual deeds without consideration for equality of result);

Slight contradiction maybe ?
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

[kaminiwa]

To be honest, if the GM's crappy about it, yeah that sucks. But if they're going to play favorites with RPXP, they're going to play favorites anyway


Not necessarily. It really is possible to produce an unfair situation without meaning to. Just see the above example. And if a bad GM gets confronted about RP-XP being unfair, it may well help them turn things around and fix the rest of the game, too.



If a GM puts down their foot and refuses to budge, it's a sign that the GM is dedicated to running an unfair "my way or the high way" campaign.

And, on the flip side of that coin, if a player has dealt with a lot of bad GMs, it's an easy way to advertise that you're a cool GM who is willing to work with them, rather than ignoring their preferences. :)



We're all humans here. Sometimes we have stupid, trivial preferences, like avoiding RP-XP. If it's really a big deal to one of your players, and it's not a big deal to you, then why in the world would you risk losing a player over something you don't even care that much about?

[Segev]

It's probably more useful to think in terms of "fair vs unfair" instead. If the GM gives his girlfriend a bonus 100 XP each session for dating him, that's clearly unfair, and would upset most players. It doesn't matter that it's a reward for her, not a punishment for them. It's just plain *unfair*.

See, there's a distinction here: "A 'reward' for 'dating the DM'" is going to be inherently unfair. Unless the DM is really creepy and building a harem (and has only his preferred gender(s) as players in his game), this is something that only one person is going to be able to "earn."

The rewards we're talking about are things that anybody may earn if they wish to. Arguments that some people "can't" are spurious. It might be harder for some, but a good DM (and any argument centered around the DM not being good flop because that will be a problem no matter what rules he uses) will work with them to help them and likely will be a little more generous with what he considers reward-worthy if only to give them clearer guideposts to follow.

[XenoGeno]

Not necessarily. It really is possible to produce an unfair situation without meaning to. Just see the above example. And if a bad GM gets confronted about RP-XP being unfair, it may well help them turn things around and fix the rest of the game, too.

So you're saying that they then could start using RPXP fairly? Then we're in agreement.


And, on the flip side of that coin, if a player has dealt with a lot of bad GMs, it's an easy way to advertise that you're a cool GM who is willing to work with them, rather than ignoring their preferences. :)

I've always said it doesn't work for everyone, and that I had players whom it definitely wouldn't work for in the past. Again, I don't think we have much of a disagreement here, except whether or not something can be a punishment if there is no penalty.



We're all humans here. Sometimes we have stupid, trivial preferences, like avoiding RP-XP. If it's really a big deal to one of your players, and it's not a big deal to you, then why in the world would you risk losing a player over something you don't even care that much about?

Well, if such a small thing makes a single one of my players flip out so much that they threaten to leave my game, I'd probably be okay with it because they'll probably flip out even more if something big were to actually penalize their character, even if it was totally justified (a character death that was their own fault, etc). Again, RPXP is totally fair, because everyone can get it (unlike, say, dating the DM), and it doesn't actually require acting or player skill or anything like that. It requires thinking about what your character does, and saying your character does that. No different from combat, aside from being a bit more freeform.

For the record, my main reason for chiming in has far less to do with me thinking RPXP is a good and wonderful thing, and more to do with my objection to the idea that it's always a bad and horrible thing you should never do even if your players like it. Disparaging someone's DMing style, when it's successful with said DM's players, is silly.

[SciChronic]

Even if RP xp is given to the extent where a character reaches a higher level than the rest of the party the "experience is a river" thing comes into play, and the underleveled people should catch up

[mattie_p]

Didn't see this on the 1st page, so I'll just leave this here. From the DMG:


Such roleplaying should be rewarded, since it enhances the game. (If it doesn’t enhance the game, don’t give an award.)

[kaminiwa]

The rewards we're talking about are things that anybody may earn if they wish to. Arguments that some people "can't" are spurious.

:smallmad: ... :smallfrown: ... :smallyuk:

I game with autistics, people with crippling social anxiety, people who deal with severe depression, people who have just lost their parents...

[nyjastul69]

I've tried giving bonus XP for good RP in a few games. What I've found is that it tends to lead to players trying to 'create' good RP situations for their characters. Sometimes this leads to interesting situations or hooks. Sometime it leads to the game being needlessly derailed. I eventually settled on group RP rewards for the party as a whole when engaging the campaign well.

[kaminiwa]

Disparaging someone's DMing style, when it's successful with said DM's players, is silly.

On this, we are in total agreement.

But it's also silly to keep using RP-XP when you have players that it doesn't work for; or to disparage those players; or to insist that it's "equally available"; or to insist that just because someone *can* do something they find unfun, it's somehow fair and balanced with the players who have fun with it.

Of course, again, just because it's unfair doesn't mean it's unfun or a bad idea! I use RP-XP despite usually having at least one player that almost never sees rewards from it. The key is that I talk to them and make sure that they're okay with it. :smallsmile:

(Tangentially, most of the GMs in my group are polyamorous bisexuals, so "dating the GM" is actually pretty equal opportunity :smallbiggrin:)

[LordBlades]

Personally, I dislike roleplay XP.

I roleplay (or not) because it's fun or because I'm in the mood, not because I expect a reward out of it.

I write cool background stories because I have a cool idea or character concept, not because I expect to be rewarded for doing so.

Also, I don't really like the idea of a guy who's neither an acting teacher or literary critic passing value judgements of backstories and RP 'Jim did it better than John. Jim gets 200 xp, John gets 100'.

That being said, I've played both with and without roleplay XP, and can't say I've noticed any big mechanical impact either way or, surprisingly, RP quality improvement. Believe it or not, most people come to a tabletop RPG to roleplay anyway.

[TuggyNE]

It's probably more useful to think in terms of "fair vs unfair" instead. If the GM gives his girlfriend a bonus 100 XP each session for dating him, that's clearly unfair, and would upset most players. It doesn't matter that it's a reward for her, not a punishment for them. It's just plain *unfair*.

It's also unjust, because dating is in no way connected to the game.


Most groups contain players with a range of play styles. RP-XP rewards players who have the same play style as the DM. This sets the precedent that there is a right way to play the game, which there isn't. This can appear to be playing favourites even when there is no such intention.

I didn't put "appearance of playing favorites" (or "rewards similar playstyle") on the table, but perhaps I should have; RP XP and joke XP both reward that quite a bit, while encounter XP rather less, and neither of the others reward it especially at all.


Slight contradiction maybe ?
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Justice and fairness are often opposed, especially when trying to ensure equality of results from inequality of effort/talent/resources/training. This is one of those cases, since it's unfair to give some people more XP for their personality/natural tendencies/habits that they didn't work on significantly; it is not, however, unjust, since they are actually better and might reasonably expect more of a reward.

Ideally, though, the system avoids both injustice and unfairness. Encounter XP, goal XP, and shared bonus XP can all meet that criterion.

[137beth]

Most groups contain players with a range of play styles. RP-XP rewards players who have the same play style as the DM. This sets the precedent that there is a right way to play the game, which there isn't. This can appear to be playing favourites even when there is no such intention.
Wow, every single argument against rp xp in this thread works equally well against combat xp:smalleek:
RP-XP rewards roleplaying.
Combat xp rewards killing stuff. This sets the precedent that it is a "right" way to play the game, which it isn't. This can even appear to be playing favorites when there is no such intention.

[Jade_Tarem]

With math? Where? I've read the whole thread; quote the response where the math proves that RPXP won't lead to a disparity. Or, by "answered" do you mean "dismissed out of hand without a rebuttal tied exclusively to emotion"?

Let's back up a bit, and go over Debate 101:

You began the thread with an assertion. If you don't remember it, here it is:


A comment I made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15872269&postcount=88) on the perils of giving out bonus XP for roleplaying, and the preceding and proceeding comments on this topic, indicate to me that this side conversation should move to its own thread. To be clear, my objections to giving out bonus XP don't extend merely to roleplay XP, but to any XP reward that is clearly given to some Players, and not to others, in a session.

Aside from the arguments already presented, the concept of roleplay XP can put Players into unfortunate circumstances. For example, if Pat wants to play Ragnar, a taciturn Barbarian of limited intellect who rarely speaks more than a couple of words, and Kelly wants to play Lulu, a Buomann Cleric, both are put into the unfortunate circumstance where declining to speak up keeps them from getting the roleplaying XP, putting them behind the others in the game, eventually by a level (which is significant), while choosing to be more extroverted in their RP could ALSO reasonably keep them from getting the roleplaying XP, because they're not being true to their Characters.

Add to the above the fact that (unless houseruled or in PF), crafting magic items of any kind costs XP, and now the quiet, bookish spellcaster is either falling still further behind the XP curve, or forced to abandon the idea of crafting scrolls, potions, or wondrous items for the good of the party.

In all of the above circumstances (and more, besides), the "bonus XP" serves as a fundamental metagame limiter, not only on the types of Players in your game, but on the types of Characters your Players will reasonably want to play. It is my strongly held belief the sum total of the above is punitive toward certain Players and playstyles.

Opinions?

I've colored red everything that forms the subject of debate, point by point. To wit, the assertions are as follows, based on the language used:

1. All even remotely uneven bonus xp is always bad - nay, perilous, to use your word.

2. Introverted Characters will never get bonus xp, and will unavoidably fall behind the rest of the party.

3. Other people also added "Introverted Players will feel punished for not LARPing."

4. You later added a strong assertion that uneven reward and uneven punishment are equivalent.

5. It was added later still that the very act of handing out RPXP is condescending and judgmental.

These were responded to with the following rebuttals from those in favor of RPXP:

1. No it isn't, we've seen it work before. This is called proof by counterexample. No further proof is needed. Your only recourse on this point is to prove that we're somehow all lying.

2. Roleplaying does not mean playing an extroverted character. A well-roleplayed introvert is still well-roleplayed, and could gain bonus xp.

3. It's best argument your side has made, but a competent DM will actually have a broad bonus xp system if he/she has one at all, and will monitor the players to ensure that your doom scenario never occurs. It's what the DM is there for.

4. You're equivocating and also have the definition of "bonus" wrong. And all of your analogies for it are spurious. If you, personally, cannot handle not having exactly as much xp as everyone in the party, that's a personal problem for you, not a universal trait of all players everywhere.

5. Effectively an opinion on your part. Once again, proof by counterexample. If the DM didn't do it to be condescending or playing favorites, and the players don't believe he was condescending or playing favorites, then guess what?


The portion I bolded is asking me to prove a negative as stated, a notoriously difficult task.

Tough. Your side of this debate took the absolute line. The burden of proof is on you.


As I have continued to assert, the threat of withholding the carrot is a penalty. You are free to choose not to see this. As to the "it's a punishment the Players could easily avoid" bit, almost any punishment is avoidable. That doesn't keep them from being punishments, and doesn't mean they ought to have a place at a roleplaying game amongst supposed friends.

Again, this is equivocation, dime-store philosophy, and, frankly, rampaging irrational jealousy on your part. You've confused "bonus" with "standard."

So let's go back to the initial statement.


With math? Where? I've read the whole thread; quote the response where the math proves that RPXP won't lead to a disparity. Or, by "answered" do you mean "dismissed out of hand without a rebuttal tied exclusively to emotion"?

Again, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to disprove anything, especially not with math, because I've never claimed that RPXP can't lead to a disparity, only that it wouldn't with a competent DM at the wheel and players who enjoy it. Given that most of the other posts for the RPXP IS PURE EVIL side of the argument rely heavily on strawmen, appeals to emotion, equivocation, false either/or dilemmas, ad hominem, and a host of other logical fallacies - and that all of the rest carefully ignore the pro-side's conditionals about needing a competent DM and assertions that roleplaying is not limited to acting and LARPing, it shouldn't surprise you that some of them were dismissed. They're not valid arguments, because you're not responding to anything current or real, and you can't 'win' the debate, because your original position was far too assertive what what's largely a matter of play style. It can be proven that RPXP *can* be bad, but not that it *always* is - or even that it *usually* is. If you disagree, then it's up to you to prove that it is, indeed, always 'perilous.' It's not up to me or anyone else to prove anything beyond what we already have.

[olentu]

Eh, I don't really like additional bonus XP for "good" RP. There are several reasons, not the least of which is that I have generally found it to either be annoyingly pointless to deal with or causing a measure of imbalance. Usually this corresponds to the size of the award but there can sometimes be other factors.

[Black Jester]

Edit@Black Jester: The first part of your post sums up to "we can't make it completely fair, so we shouldn't bother trying." I'm going to just agree to disagree on this point, as my feelings about this are very strong.
The second part I now turn upside down, with the arguement that not giving bonus XP illustrates that all playstyles are equally welcome and correct, which is something that I, personally, would like to do.

No, I say: Without Bonus XP it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to treat players fair and balanced. Generalized XP rewards are inherently and inevitably unfair. A balanced and actually fair treatment of each individual player requires to treat him or her as an individual and grant everybody what he or she deserves, not some kind of arbitrary average.
The better player deserves more XP, the worse player less. XP are a reward for contributions to the game; if the contributions aren't equal, an equal reward is usually not appropriate (it can happen that everybody contributed equally for a session. That however, is usually an exception, not the rule). The problem is that some people obviously believe that they are entitled to the rewards, and this self-entitlement - mixed with a good measure of envy because someone else is getting a reward for actually doing good - is the core of any argument for generalized XP.

And the idea that all play styles are equal is not only obviously nonsense, it is also grossly counterproductive. It is basically the assumption that you couldn't do any better, you don't need to do any better, because, hey you are already perfect. Now, it is possible that RPGs are the one exception to the idea that once you stop trying to do better, you stop being good, but I seriously doubt it.

For reasonably mature players, there is by the way, a relative easy solution: Everybody evaluates himself and adjusts the level of XP based on that personal impression, and everybody can hand out bonus XP to other players for things that they liked, including the GM.

[olentu]

No, I say: Without Bonus XP it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to treat players fair and balanced. Generalized XP rewards are inherently and inevitably unfair. A balanced and actually fair treatment of each individual player requires to treat him or her as an individual and grant everybody what he or she deserves, not some kind of arbitrary average.
The better player deserves more XP, the worse player less. XP are a reward for contributions to the game; if the contributions aren't equal, an equal reward is usually not appropriate (it can happen that everybody contributed equally for a session. That however, is usually an exception, not the rule). The problem is that some people obviously believe that they are entitled to the rewards, and this self-entitlement - mixed with a good measure of envy because someone else is getting a reward for actually doing good - is the core of any argument for generalized XP.

And the idea that all play styles are equal is not only obviously nonsense, it is also grossly counterproductive. It is basically the assumption that you couldn't do any better, you don't need to do any better, because, hey you are already perfect. Now, it is possible that RPGs are the one exception to the idea that once you stop trying to do better, you stop being good, but I seriously doubt it.

For reasonably mature players, there is by the way, a relative easy solution: Everybody evaluates himself and adjusts the level of XP based on that personal impression, and everybody can hand out bonus XP to other players for things that they liked, including the GM.

That seems unnecessarily complicated. When I think that someone isn't contributing equally to the group I tell them to shape up or leave. Rarely I will let one of these problem players back in if they can get several references from other DMs I trust and pass a session long evaluation.

[Gwendol]

What's this about contributing equally? And expecting equal rewards? Are your gaming groups set up like a sovjet kolchos?

Dealing out Bonus XP (even for roleplaying) is described in the DMG. Either deal with it, or find another game.

[TuggyNE]

No, I say: Without Bonus XP it is utterly IMPOSSIBLE to treat players fair and balanced. Generalized XP rewards are inherently and inevitably unfair. A balanced and actually fair treatment of each individual player requires to treat him or her as an individual and grant everybody what he or she deserves, not some kind of arbitrary average.
The better player deserves more XP, the worse player less. XP are a reward for contributions to the game; if the contributions aren't equal, an equal reward is usually not appropriate (it can happen that everybody contributed equally for a session. That however, is usually an exception, not the rule). The problem is that some people obviously believe that they are entitled to the rewards, and this self-entitlement - mixed with a good measure of envy because someone else is getting a reward for actually doing good - is the core of any argument for generalized XP.

Point of order: you're not arguing for fairness here, but for justice, possibly at the expense of fairness (or at least equality). See my earlier distinctions.

[Black Jester]

That seems unnecessarily complicated. When I think that someone isn't contributing equally to the group I tell them to shape up or leave. Rarely I will let one of these problem players back in if they can get several references from other DMs I trust and pass a session long evaluation.

Every time? I am not talking about an overall arc here, but an individual assessment of each player at the end of each session. That's not complicated. That is a part of the necessary feedback cycle that concludes the game.

[Eldan]

This is pretty much it.

Big power disparities cause significant game issues so thousand xp rp awards should be avoided. But no one does that. Throwing out small xp rewards for certain actions is like throwing candies to players. It's not actually worth that much but it still encourages certain behaviors. Encouraging certain behavior might be something the players like or it might irritate them. Or if you're easy going enough about it, it won't make much difference either way.

I also kind of like having equal xp for most or all players to make tracking it easier.

That's what I'm saying, though. I'd be much more comfortable if you had an actual bowl of candy.

In fact, how about that. Bring a pack of small candies with you and toss the player one whenever he does something interesting.


It's probably more useful to think in terms of "fair vs unfair" instead. If the GM gives his girlfriend a bonus 100 XP each session for dating him, that's clearly unfair, and would upset most players. It doesn't matter that it's a reward for her, not a punishment for them. It's just plain *unfair*.

Psh. THat's absolutely fair. The DM is clearly just showing you that he wants everyone in the group to flirt with him. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Wow. I am seriously genuinely surprised that this has become such a passionate debate. I honestly had no idea there would be any conflict about this whatsoever. Fascinating.
The thread's kinda gotten away from me, so I admit I've skimmed half of it and skipped the rest, and probably won't be contributing too much else - most others seem to have it under control anyway.

I did spot something that seemed to go unnoticed, though:
There was the argument that RPXP discourages people from playing introverted, unsocial characters, because they won't be able to roleplay those characters as much, or as obviously. I strongly disagree with this claim, for reasons I've already explained, but that's not the point here.
There is also the argument that instead of RPXP, good roleplaying should be rewarded with roleplay rewards such as the obtaining of friends, allies and contacts, respect, influence, reputation, being treated better by people, etc.
To me, this "alternative" IC-social reward system suffers far, far more from the first argument than RPXP does, and makes less sense. Why should Ragnar the surly Barbarian make more friends by being visibly surly? Why would the sneak-thief who always makes a point of nicking anything with a spider on it gain respect and an enhanced reputation? Surely the only characters that would benefit from these rewards are the very same loud, spotlight-hogging extroverted ones that anti-RPXP people claim RPXP is unfairly skewed towards?
I find these two arguments incompatible.

[nedz]

Wow, every single argument against rp xp in this thread works equally well against combat xp:smalleek:
RP-XP rewards roleplaying.
Combat xp rewards killing stuff. This sets the precedent that it is a "right" way to play the game, which it isn't. This can even appear to be playing favorites when there is no such intention.

It is not Combat XP, but XP for resolving encounters.
Whether you kill the guards, sneak past them, fast talk them, ..., whatever.



I didn't put "appearance of playing favorites" (or "rewards similar playstyle") on the table, but perhaps I should have; RP XP and joke XP both reward that quite a bit, while encounter XP rather less, and neither of the others reward it especially at all.

You also missed XP by Deck of Many Things :smallbiggrin:
But that would come under the heading of Random and Arbitrary.

[Invader]

Didn't see this on the 1st page, so I'll just leave this here. From the DMG:

I brought up this point up as well plus the rule about not rewarding XP if a character doesn't participate in an encounter and they were both ignored.

[olentu]

Every time? I am not talking about an overall arc here, but an individual assessment of each player at the end of each session. That's not complicated. That is a part of the necessary feedback cycle that concludes the game.

The complication is not about the time frame within which you choose to provide feedback, but rather the clarity of feedback and the speed of reform. A mere XP addition/subtraction is not especially clear if it does not come with an explanation of when and how the problem player failed in its responsibility to the group. Providing that explanation soon after the incident means that the problem player's failing should be crisp and clear in its mind. Similarly, a mere XP addition/subtraction is not necessarily a sufficiently strong motivator to correct a problem player's behavior in a prompt manner. A deadline keeps a problem player from taking an excessively long time to resolve the deficiencies in its person. If the problem player is unable to reform in the appropriate time frame expulsion protects the group from the problem player's influence. With a mere XP addition/subtraction a problem player could infect the group for numerous sessions.

[Eldan]

To me, this "alternative" IC-social reward system suffers far, far more from the first argument than RPXP does, and makes less sense. Why should Ragnar the surly Barbarian make more friends by being visibly surly? Why would the sneak-thief who always makes a point of nicking anything with a spider on it gain respect and an enhanced reputation? Surely the only characters that would benefit from these rewards are the very same loud, spotlight-hogging extroverted ones that anti-RPXP people claim RPXP is unfairly skewed towards?

These things can be indirect. And they require some creativity from the DM. The surly barbarian is intimidating. Perhaps the pick-pocket who was going to rob him thinks again. Or his personal enemy can't find a thug willing to go up against Ragnar.

The thief only steals things with spiders on it. That's the stuff fascinating news stories are made from. Three such cases later and people will be talking about it in the tavern. After half a year of that, someone will include the spider thief in a play or novella. Maybe you'll meet a rival adventurer group who are bragging about how they totally going to catch the spider thief. Maybe someone will hire a jeweller to craft a ruby-encrusted adamantine amulet of a black widow, in order to bait the famous spider thief and you have a side quest.


I find these two arguments incompatible.

They are. Because I'm arguing against RPXP from an entirely different direction. I've never said the introvert thing, though now that I'm thinking about it, perhaps I should consider it more.

[TuggyNE]

You also missed XP by Deck of Many Things :smallbiggrin:
But that would come under the heading of Random and Arbitrary.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to get every possible source of XP, just the ones vying for (part of) the "ubiquitous XP source" role.

[Black Jester]

The complication is not about the time frame within which you choose to provide feedback, but rather the clarity of feedback and the speed of reform. A mere XP addition/subtraction is not especially clear if it does not come with an explanation of when and how the problem player failed in its responsibility to the group. Providing that explanation soon after the incident means that the problem player's failing should be crisp and clear in its mind. Similarly, a mere XP addition/subtraction is not necessarily a sufficiently strong motivator to correct a problem player's behavior in a prompt manner. A deadline keeps a problem player from taking an excessively long time to resolve the deficiencies in its person. If the problem player is unable to reform in the appropriate time frame expulsion protects the group from the problem player's influence. With a mere XP addition/subtraction a problem player could infect the group for numerous sessions.

As a measure to influence behaviour, Rewards (and Punishment) need to be applied promptly and within the same situation to be as effective as possible. The longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes for the recipient to associate the reward with his or her actions. For the training of dogs, it is usually assumed that any reward or punishment must be applied within five seconds of the shown behaviour to support any learning. I am not entirely convinced that the attention span of the average RPG enthusiast is that much longer. Insofar, I mostly agree with you.
Nonetheless, the closing exchange of feedback is a very helpful tool for running a game. It helps to bring closure to the session, you offer the players the opportunity to discuss the events out of character and so on.
Aaand: the influencing aspect of XP rewards is certainly important, but not as important as the concept of fair treatment of each individual player as an individual based on their merits and contributions to the game. Again, this is the only fair way to deal with each player, based on each individual's merits and contributions.

[Talothorn]

As a DM, I have dealt with this issue for a while. I want to encourage and reward role playing. That is why I am playing d&d. (when I want hack and slash, I play Diablo). The problem is not all players are comfortable roleplaying. The solution I have found is to give bonus xp for roleplaying - to the whole group. Shared evenly. I do not give one player more xp for combat because he does more damage, all players share evenly. Same with skill challenges or puzzles or traps.

Role players are encouraged to roleplay, and appreciated by the party. The more each player roleplays, the more there is in that particular pool.

"okay guys, here is your xp: 500 each for the three kobolds, 25 each for the pit fiend that eric killed, 100 each for the lumpy pillow trap george found and disarmed, 200 each for al's roleplaying with the sultan, and 100 each for ryan's backstory he wrote."

[olentu]

As a measure to influence behaviour, Rewards (and Punishment) need to be applied promptly and within the same situation to be as effective as possible. The longer you wait, the more difficult it becomes for the recipient to associate the reward with his or her actions. For the training of dogs, it is usually assumed that any reward or punishment must be applied within five seconds of the shown behaviour to support any learning. I am not entirely convinced that the attention span of the average RPG enthusiast is that much longer. Insofar, I mostly agree with you.
Nonetheless, the closing exchange of feedback is a very helpful tool for running a game. It helps to bring closure to the session, you offer the players the opportunity to discuss the events out of character and so on.
Aaand: the influencing aspect of XP rewards is certainly important, but not as important as the concept of fair treatment of each individual player as an individual based on their merits and contributions to the game. Again, this is the only fair way to deal with each player, based on each individual's merits and contributions.

Oh I have no problem with end of session discussion. it has many useful features. I merely feel that XP addition and subtraction is too roundabout and its influence is too weak when compared to direct action.

But yes, in the end, the real thing that matters is that a player is entitled to what it can produce. The idea that the rewards of the better players should be taken from them and given to the poor players, that the great players should be constrained by the substandard, is unconscionable.

[mattie_p]

I brought up this point up as well plus the rule about not rewarding XP if a character doesn't participate in an encounter and they were both ignored.

Wow, a RAW argument that is being ignored? I seriously have no idea what the playground wants anymore.

[Amphetryon]

On the failure to reward == punishment thing, it may be borne out mathematically, but it is counterfactual when it comes to human psychology.



Given that it is literally how I look at it - and have for a long time - I'll have to go with "Amphetryon's not human" as the takeaway here.

[Talothorn]

Given that it is literally how I look at it - and have for a long time - I'll have to go with "Amphetryon's not human" as the takeaway here.

I think that's the problem is right there. Dwarves have a much different social worldview based on clan upbringing where the good of an individual takes a backseat to the good of the group/family/clan, whereas humans value individualism and personal gain. This is a contributing factor to dwarves trending to lawful, and humans to neutral.

I am generalizing, of course, because I cannot discern your subrace by your avatar.