PDA

View Full Version : GMs, Favors, and Experience



BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 02:28 PM
On my birthday, a random gathering of friends resulted in the formation of a weekly gaming session running D&D 5e. The DM was, like most of us, new to the system and things have gone haywire, but it has been fun nonetheless.

Early, we determined the houserule "If you don't show up, no XP for you." However, the winter weather made that a questionable choice, and subsequent sessions have involved bring up stragglers to lowest party level. And soon it was all but abandoned.

As the campaign progressed, it became apparent our DM was having balancing issues, as when we weren't breezing through with our obnoxiously over level magic gear, we were saying "Wait a minute dude, we're only level 5."

To remedy this the DM asked me to run a session, one he could play in. He grabbed an at level character and I ran a campaign which I designed to show him how to present a challenge to the party by playing on their weaknesses and general indecisiveness, without it being beyond their ability. Needless to say, half-dragon kobolds with a cannon holding a long, dark, narrow hallway painted the picture strategy could make up the difference so without out CRing the party.

The next session, the DM returned to his seat and it went well. The only hiccup was the bard trading his character in to play test a home brewed witch for the DM. But tweaking of abilities mitigated that.

At the end of the campaign, however, when the XP was handed out the Fighter mysteriously leveled up. Funny, because bolstered by roleplaying XP I was the second highest in the party. But I wasn't leveling.

When I questioned this, it struck the DM (who is the fighter's brother) as odd. So he fiated "How 'bout we all level then?"

Today I'm accosted over Facebook by the fighter, who points out he got XP for the session I ran, but I didn't. When I pointed out that I had been awarded that XP too, he flipped his lid.

My thoughts, and the DMs, was that that session was me doing the DM a favor. Showing him some pointers, which he got to experience from the view of a player. And the monotony of him having to DM was broken for a session.

So now the fighter has decided to leave the campaign. He's convinced it is some great injustice, even though the DM's afore mentioned fiat effectively ruled in his favor (he now has a few hundred or so XP on me).

And when I pointed out that by his logic, the bard would take a whole level worth of penalty just for agreeing to play test the DM's homebrew and that other players never earned more than 3rd level due to absences, he reverted to insulting me.

TL;DR: Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence resulting from something a player did to help the GM?
I.e. taking the GM reins for a session, testing a homebrew for a session, etc.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 02:38 PM
Using in-game rewards (or punishments) for out-of-game behavior (good or bad) is rarely a good idea.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 02:41 PM
Our initial thought was to enforce attendance. In hindsight, not a good idea. But obviously in both cases, the player was in attendance, just in a different role.

kieza
2015-03-17, 02:53 PM
This is why I don't track separate experience for each player in any of my campaigns. Just have an experience total for the party, and everyone levels at the same time.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-17, 03:07 PM
Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence resulting from something a player did to help the GM?

I don't think this is the real issue here -- it's the maturity level of this player. You seem to be implying that he was cheating (by adding extra XP?), he was fishing for an explanation to allay your suspicions, and he accidentally stumbled on the knowledge that you got XP for a session you didn't control your PC in.

You didn't award yourself XP, the DM did. His anger (if it's real and not just a smokescreen to hide his own misdeeds) is misplaced. You may be better off with him not playing anymore if this is typical behavior from him.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 03:08 PM
Our initial thought was to enforce attendance. In hindsight, not a good idea. But obviously in both cases, the player was in attendance, just in a different role. Right, but D&D players love to take things that were intended for one purpose and try to use them for another purpose, and they commonly misunderstand the mechanism of the intent. "No XP unless you attend" also means "if you attend, you'll get ahead" which appeals to some people, and might supersede the actual intent in their minds. "No XP unless you attend" might be assumed to be as a result of not participating in the mechanism of acquiring XP via in-game actions; obviously you don't get XP, because you didn't kill any monsters.

Either or both of those misinterpretations might be at play here: the player might have been excited about being ahead and was miffed to get that taken away, or the player might have assumed that it was the actual monster killing (or whatever) that got the XP and was miffed to learn that it's more a matter of attendance.

Point being, tread carefully when it comes to incentive mechanisms. You might be providing an incentive you didn't realize you were providing.

Forrestfire
2015-03-17, 03:12 PM
TL;DR: Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence

Yes.


resulting from something a player did to help the GM?

Irrelevant.

They presumably play the game for fun, and, if, for example, life got in the way, they lost out on that fun. If someone consistently misses sessions, I would talk to them about it, but overall, the game runs better if everyone is the same level, and it's just cruel to kick some while they're down. Missing out on playing the game is bad enough.

If someone has issues with keeping people on the same playing field, I would think that they should take a step back and ruminate on what the game's actually about, before being a jackass about someone else getting a "free handout".

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 03:32 PM
I think the big issue lies with roleplaying XP. My original lead was because he tends not to actually roleplay a character. But the game is about roleplaying, not just killing monsters. I suppose the fear is that removing roleplaying for roleplaying XP would further promote his lack of doing so. After all, why would he when other players do that and he could leech off them?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 03:43 PM
I think the big issue lies with roleplaying XP. My original lead was because he tends not to actually roleplay a character. But the game is about roleplaying, not just killing monsters. I suppose the fear is that removing roleplaying for roleplaying XP would further promote his lack of doing so. After all, why would he when other players do that and he could leech off them? This all seems to have a lot to do with caring about how others behave, and trying to offer them incentives to behave a different way. I hope you're starting to see how that sort of approach can be problematic. It's fine to want people to behave a particular way, but if asking them nicely and clearly doesn't change their behavior then they're not really going to change their behavior. You might be able to employ other means to get the equivalent of what you're after, but you might also be giving them some hidden incentive.

(Hidden incentives and misunderstandings can occur even with direct conversation, but at least then people don't wind up looking disingenuous.)

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 03:57 PM
It's complicated a bit by the fact that the DM and him are my nephews.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 04:06 PM
It's complicated a bit by the fact that the DM and him are my nephews. I can't say I'm surprised that this has a relationship element to it as well.

Karl Aegis
2015-03-17, 04:12 PM
I've heard that offering an incentive to anything is treating them like a dog.

Rhunder
2015-03-17, 04:37 PM
I don't both sides but just from your story, the fighter should have just rolled with it. Its only to his benefit that the whole party leveled. More often than not, I think about the group's well being before myself, because if the group is going strong than more likely than not I am too. Unless there was plans to betray one another, who cares?

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 04:41 PM
I've heard that offering an incentive to anything is treating them like a dog. Do you believe that?


I don't both sides but just from your story, the fighter should have just rolled with it. Its only to his benefit that the whole party leveled. More often than not, I think about the group's well being before myself, because if the group is going strong than more likely than not I am too. Unless there was plans to betray one another, who cares? By that token, the original poster might simply not have raised the issue when the fighter leveled up. Don't they want the fighter to level up?

Maglubiyet
2015-03-17, 05:48 PM
By that token, the original poster might simply not have raised the issue when the fighter leveled up. Don't they want the fighter to level up?

Yeah, I agree. What was the big deal that he leveled up in the first place? Maybe I'm missing something, but this all sounds kind of petty, especially since it's family.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 06:01 PM
Yeah, I agree. What was the big deal that he leveled up in the first place? Maybe I'm missing something, but this all sounds kind of petty, especially since it's family. Sometimes people are more petty towards their family.

Well, actually, I guess that's not true. It's more like "lots of the time."

Maglubiyet
2015-03-17, 06:10 PM
Sometimes people are more petty towards their family.

Well, actually, I guess that's not true. It's more like "lots of the time."

Excellent point. That might explain a lot here.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 06:11 PM
Yeah, I agree. What was the big deal that he leveled up in the first place? Maybe I'm missing something, but this all sounds kind of petty, especially since it's family.
Well, cheating is generally frowned upon. And the magical appearance of 4000 extra experience points that weren't there before raised an alarm.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-17, 06:18 PM
Well, cheating is generally frowned upon. And the magical appearance of 4000 extra experience points that weren't there before raised an alarm.

No offense, I get where you're coming from, but why didn't you just ask him directly? All this later fall-out seems like it's tied to the implied cheating.

The whole matter about whether you get XP when you're not playing is just incidental to the real issue. Anyway, you already established that players who didn't show got XP, so why should the fact that you GM'ed be any different?

jaydubs
2015-03-17, 06:50 PM
I'm going to echo some other posters and say - Don't track separate XP. The reward for showing up at the game is getting to play the game.

That applies to roleplaying experience as well. Here are 3 ways to reward roleplaying that don't involve individual experience rewards.

1. Spotlight time. If you're roleplaying, you're the one doing stuff. And when you award experience at the end, specify where it came from as a second round of "applause" if you will.

2. Allow roleplaying to solve problems. Players are a lot more likely to talk to NPCs, and try alternate strategies to combat, if those non-combat things are more than window dressing. If they know beyond a doubt that it will come down to combat no matter what, a lot of players will have the attitude (not unreasonably) of just wanting to get down to it.

3. Give extremely short-term buffs. Things that can't be hoarded, and won't change the balance in the long term. Like 5e's very useful inspiration. Or giving advantage on specific checks for being descriptive.

Talakeal
2015-03-17, 07:42 PM
The whole concept of XP is a minefield full of social pitfalls. Long ago I realized that it was way more trouble than it was worth and the negatives far outweighed any potential positives.

I don't use XP at all anymore. I especially do not give (or even worse remove) XP for attendance or roleplaying.

Just have everyone be the same level and advance together at the same rate, you will save everyone at the table a lot of headaches.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 08:24 PM
No offense, I get where you're coming from, but why didn't you just ask him directly? All this later fall-out seems like it's tied to the implied cheating. I did. My mistake was probably doing so during play, instead of after. The DM's fiat was likely a means to defuse the situtation. The fighter's retort, however, didn't come until a day later. No allegation of cheat was made though.


The whole matter about whether you get XP when you're not playing is just incidental to the real issue. Anyway, you already established that players who didn't show got XP, so why should the fact that you GM'ed be any different? Which was more or less my point. Even when the rule was "attendance for XP", I attended the session as I was the bloody DM. But since XP has already been given out largely without regard to attendance, how was it different. So his argument came out of left field. The more I think about it, the more suspicious it becomes.



That applies to roleplaying experience as well. Here are 3 ways to reward roleplaying that don't involve individual experience rewards.

1. Spotlight time. If you're roleplaying, you're the one doing stuff. And when you award experience at the end, specify where it came from as a second round of "applause" if you will.

2. Allow roleplaying to solve problems. Players are a lot more likely to talk to NPCs, and try alternate strategies to combat, if those non-combat things are more than window dressing. If they know beyond a doubt that it will come down to combat no matter what, a lot of players will have the attitude (not unreasonably) of just wanting to get down to it.

3. Give extremely short-term buffs. Things that can't be hoarded, and won't change the balance in the long term. Like 5e's very useful inspiration. Or giving advantage on specific checks for being descriptive.In the future I'll keep these in mind.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-17, 09:37 PM
Well, cheating is generally frowned upon. And the magical appearance of 4000 extra experience points that weren't there before raised an alarm. But that's one of the problems with this situation: you thought he might be cheating and you voiced your accusation, however obliquely. No one likes having it implied that they're a cheater, because no one thinks of themselves as a cheater, even if they are one. If you want to stand entirely on principle and treat any discrepancy as a reason to become alarmed and check things over, you're going to run into situations where the social mess that causes is far worse than the potential problems you might have averted by stopping the cheating. Who really cares anyway? As has been pointed out, if the fighter is more powerful that helps everyone, right? Anyway, it's a fighter and I assume you're not playing 4e (which encourages same-level groups) so how powerful can he really get?

Aspiration
2015-03-17, 09:50 PM
Take this with a grain of salt, because it's just two cents from a newbie, but... I'm looking at this as a question of why the fighter cares so much about relative level. Is he just foolishly being competitive? Or are there any other possible factors, such as level being seen as a measure of behavior ("Bob is underleveled because he's a bad person who missed too many sessions and doesn't RP well. Don't be like Bob, everyone") or him worrying about his character falling behind compared to others?

jaydubs
2015-03-17, 10:07 PM
Take this with a grain of salt, because it's just two cents from a newbie, but... I'm looking at this as a question of why the fighter cares so much about relative level. Is he just foolishly being competitive? Or are there any other possible factors, such as level being seen as a measure of behavior ("Bob is underleveled because he's a bad person who missed too many sessions and doesn't RP well. Don't be like Bob, everyone") or him worrying about his character falling behind compared to others?

He probably cares about relative level because most players care, in some part or another. It's just human nature. It's why a lot of us argue for everyone getting locked to the same character levels. It removes the desire to pull ahead, and the threat of falling behind.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-17, 10:40 PM
Back in our 3.5 days, he wasn't much in the way of an optimizer. So he often felt behind and useless. But honestly that's because he never bothered to pick up a rulebook. 5e has been different for him, so he tends to be hypercompetitive about these things.


But that's one of the problems with this situation: you thought he might be cheating and you voiced your accusation, however obliquely. No one likes having it implied that they're a cheater, because no one thinks of themselves as a cheater, even if they are one. If you want to stand entirely on principle and treat any discrepancy as a reason to become alarmed and check things over, you're going to run into situations where the social mess that causes is far worse than the potential problems you might have averted by stopping the cheating. An accusation of cheating was never actually leveled. I was more concerned with potential accounting errors on either end. He is notoriously bad with math, and I'd done many rewrites of my character sheet (OCD). More over, by the "higher level is better" argument, what I did was actually best, since I bought half the party a level up with my complaint. And in the end he still leads in XP, if just by a few hundred.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-17, 10:57 PM
I guess the big question is: Is it more important for you to be "right" and "win" this argument or would you rather have your nephew rejoin the game? What do you hope to gain here?

It seems pretty clear that you didn't do anything wrong. Regardless, though, your nephew is pretty upset about it. Is there a compromise you could come to that might restore harmony? I mean, come on, at the end of the day it's just a game. Is it worth bad blood in the family over?

NichG
2015-03-18, 03:01 AM
Its dangerous to use progression mechanics as motivators because it drives the game towards imbalance. Imagine if you have one player who isn't as dedicated to the game as everyone else, so he gets a little less XP. He is going to tend to fall behind, and as a result he may become even more disinterested in the game because he has less and less ability to actually make a difference. So its an unstable thing.

Its a bit better to use incidentals as motivators. For example, here's a silly little system you could use:

- Every game that a player shows up for, they get 1 'style point'
- A player may spend 1 style point to refluff the aesthetics of a specific item, ability, etc: their magic missile spell is actually a swarm of butterflies, they have a weapon that has the mechanics of a long-sword but looks like a naginata, etc.
- A player may spend 3 style points to have the DM introduce a Lv1 NPC with a specific personality, aesthetic, etc (but not specific mechanics). The DM may raise the NPC's level if appropriate. Alternately, a player may spend 3 style points to alter the aesthetic of one of the DM's NPCs when they are introduced (but not their goals, mechanics, etc) - if they want the villain to have poofy hair, then it is so.
- A player may spend 5 style points to reinterpret a specific roleplay requirement of a mechanical game element belonging to their character. For example, a player could alter their Paladin's code. This can be used per situation to reinterpret roleplay requirements of universal mechanical game elements, e.g. 'what I just did doesn't count as Evil this time'.
- One or more players may spend 9 style points to have the DM run a specifically themed game session some time within the next few games - 'I want us to go to an island', 'I want us to get kidnapped', etc.

If you never get any style points, its not a huge deal because they don't really influence your ability to keep up with the game all that much. But if you're very dedicated to the campaign, then your buy-in is rewarded in the form of additional creative control.

Battlebooze
2015-03-18, 03:59 AM
Sometimes people are more petty towards their family.

Well, actually, I guess that's not true. It's more like "lots of the time."

I believe the term, "Blood is thicker than water" applies here.

BWR
2015-03-18, 06:57 AM
I've never believed in using rewards or punishment for attendance. If people like the game, attendance is its own reward. Punishing people for not showing up just causes bad feelings all around. People have lives outside of the game and punishing people for taking other things more seriously than a hobby is plain wrong, and punishing them for sometimes preferring some other hobby instead is just petty.
Two personal examples: One of my friends works at a job with a lot of responsibility and pressure (he had an explosion in the lab one week after he took over as leader for the department), two small kids, coaches the local kids' football (soccer) team, runs fund raisers for the team, does his militia thing (note that the Norwegian 'militia' is quite a different animal from what you find in the US), and has a lots of friends who aren't gamers. He rarely gets to play more than once a month, and it's more like every 6-8 weeks. Should we punish him for having a life outside of the game? Should we punish and possibly alienate him because he has responsibilities he takes seriously? Hell no!

Or another friend who apart from studies and work is fairly heavily involved in various CCG and video game tournaments around here. Sometimes he'll be a no-show because he has other commitments to other people for those hobbies. Sure, it's annoying if he doesn't show up because he's busy somewhere else and worse if the game has to be cancelled because he thinks something else is more important, but he enjoys the game and the company, we enjoy his company; you just live with it because you like your friends.

Rewarding players merely for showing up is basically the same as punishing no-shows.

NichG
2015-03-18, 08:40 AM
I've never believed in using rewards or punishment for attendance. If people like the game, attendance is its own reward. Punishing people for not showing up just causes bad feelings all around. People have lives outside of the game and punishing people for taking other things more seriously than a hobby is plain wrong, and punishing them for sometimes preferring some other hobby instead is just petty.
Two personal examples: One of my friends works at a job with a lot of responsibility and pressure (he had an explosion in the lab one week after he took over as leader for the department), two small kids, coaches the local kids' football (soccer) team, runs fund raisers for the team, does his militia thing (note that the Norwegian 'militia' is quite a different animal from what you find in the US), and has a lots of friends who aren't gamers. He rarely gets to play more than once a month, and it's more like every 6-8 weeks. Should we punish him for having a life outside of the game? Should we punish and possibly alienate him because he has responsibilities he takes seriously? Hell no!

Or another friend who apart from studies and work is fairly heavily involved in various CCG and video game tournaments around here. Sometimes he'll be a no-show because he has other commitments to other people for those hobbies. Sure, it's annoying if he doesn't show up because he's busy somewhere else and worse if the game has to be cancelled because he thinks something else is more important, but he enjoys the game and the company, we enjoy his company; you just live with it because you like your friends.

Rewarding players merely for showing up is basically the same as punishing no-shows.

Punish? No, that suggests that the motivation is somehow to get restitution for a wrong or to inflict unhappiness as revenge. But, incentivize behavior which is beneficial to the quality of the overall game? If it works, then why not? The goal isn't 'get even with that jerk for not showing', the goal is to make people more excited about showing up and playing. Not being rewarded is not the same as being punished.

And in any event, if a player has that much stuff going on in their life and can't commit to the game to the extent that its causing problems, then the polite thing for them to do is to bow out, not to insist that everyone else also not take the game seriously because they aren't able to.

BWR
2015-03-18, 09:54 AM
Punish? No, that suggests that the motivation is somehow to get restitution for a wrong or to inflict unhappiness as revenge. But, incentivize behavior which is beneficial to the quality of the overall game? If it works, then why not? The goal isn't 'get even with that jerk for not showing', the goal is to make people more excited about showing up and playing. Not being rewarded is not the same as being punished.

And in any event, if a player has that much stuff going on in their life and can't commit to the game to the extent that its causing problems, then the polite thing for them to do is to bow out, not to insist that everyone else also not take the game seriously because they aren't able to.

I disagree. Strongly. People who have the time to show up more often getting more is basically saying they are worth more than those who don't get time to show up. Characters lagging behind others because they are always don't get as much xp/loot/whatever is no different than if everyone is there and one person gets less than the others just because.
We like to keep our friends close and when they choose to spend their free time doing fun stuff with us, we consider it a blessing when they have time to show up, we don't focus on how annoying it is when they aren't here. Some friends we don't get to see that often and for all intents and purposes the game is the only time we do get to see them. Expecting them to quit the game - possibly the only group they have - because they can play less often than others is frankly a seriously **** move. It would mean that we would go from not seeing them as often as we like to practically never seeing them.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-18, 10:59 AM
TL;DR: Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence resulting from something a player did to help the GM?

It depends on the game, as they tend to handle character advancement differently.

For most games I own, the question is backwards. Experience points are in-game rewards for in-game actions, so it doesn't make sense to reward characters who did not take part in those actions. The concept that all characters in a party should be "on even ground" plain does not apply.

Even if you do away with player-character-distinction, the question still strikes me as backwards. We don't give belt degrees in karate to people because "they're our friends", we give them as acknowledgement of achieved skills. In their original conception, character levels in RPGs had a somewhat similar function: as characters started out at level 1, advancement in levels was seen as an indicator of how good the player was at playing that character. So again, awarding a player for things they've not done doesn't make sense.

NichG
2015-03-18, 12:05 PM
I disagree. Strongly. People who have the time to show up more often getting more is basically saying they are worth more than those who don't get time to show up. Characters lagging behind others because they are always don't get as much xp/loot/whatever is no different than if everyone is there and one person gets less than the others just because.

Read my earlier post. I specifically suggested not using character advancement things like XP for this purpose because it creates an unstable dynamic that damages the playability of the game and thus creates even more of a reason to disconnect from things. But if the reward for investing your time is increased creative control over the game, then that isn't going to interfere with people's ability to play the game or participate, but it rewards people who are willing to rank the game as more important relative to other things with more ability to control the thing they care about.


We like to keep our friends close and when they choose to spend their free time doing fun stuff with us, we consider it a blessing when they have time to show up, we don't focus on how annoying it is when they aren't here. Some friends we don't get to see that often and for all intents and purposes the game is the only time we do get to see them. Expecting them to quit the game - possibly the only group they have - because they can play less often than others is frankly a seriously **** move. It would mean that we would go from not seeing them as often as we like to practically never seeing them.

If someone says 'I have to prioritize this other thing over your game, sorry', thats fine. That's a reality everyone has to deal with. But if you say 'I am going to prioritize this other thing over your game, but I expect you to prioritize my ability to occasionally play your game over doing other things with your time', that's being unreasonable. That's saying 'me getting my gaming fix is more important than your time'. Its 'frankly a seriously **** move'.

And in some cases, that may be something you're willing to deal with, because sometimes friends have to deal with each-others' crap. But that doesn't make it not crap, and if you're always the one making compromises for them and not vice versa, that's not a good sign.

icefractal
2015-03-18, 07:33 PM
The amount that having an XP-disparity makes sense at all is limited by how you handle new players. If new players come in at the average party level, then letting people fall below that point for absences is insulting. I'm a couple levels behind because I missed a few games, but Bob - who has attended zero games - isn't behind at all? Bull****.

If you're starting new players at 1st level, that doesn't apply. But OTOH, a lot of players don't want to be relegated to sidekick status for a bunch of sessions. If someone pitched a game to me where the party was highly skilled but I had to start at complete noob, then I'm probably going to look elsewhere for a campaign that's more focused on mutual fun than seniority.

goto124
2015-03-18, 08:45 PM
If one player has to miss sessions due to RL, and ends up lagging behind everyone else because of that, it'll make the game less fun for her.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-18, 08:50 PM
I guess the big question is: Is it more important for you to be "right" and "win" this argument or would you rather have your nephew rejoin the game? What do you hope to gain here?

It seems pretty clear that you didn't do anything wrong. Regardless, though, your nephew is pretty upset about it. Is there a compromise you could come to that might restore harmony? I mean, come on, at the end of the day it's just a game. Is it worth bad blood in the family over? The bard has already voiced his belief in the whole matter's absurdity. The DM has remained silent on the event so far. Honestly, however, I'd be lying if I said this was the first time he's pull this kind of crap. It's getting tiresome. Almost convinced that he'll miss the campaign more than it'll misses him. And when he comes back, we'll level him up with the party. Kill 'im with kindness.


Its dangerous to use progression mechanics as motivators because it drives the game towards imbalance. Imagine if you have one player who isn't as dedicated to the game as everyone else, so he gets a little less XP. He is going to tend to fall behind, and as a result he may become even more disinterested in the game because he has less and less ability to actually make a difference. So its an unstable thing. I suppose. Guess we just got tired of people always complaining about how we never regularly play, then not being willing to schedule anything.

I guess I've always believed that you shouldn't make promises you can't keep. So if you make obligations to others to do something with them, you better have a damn good reason to bail on them. People rarely do. It's just another form of lying.

(Note both the fighter and I have had perfect attendance records for this campaign)


Its a bit better to use incidentals as motivators. For example, here's a silly little system you could use:

- Every game that a player shows up for, they get 1 'style point'
- A player may spend 1 style point to refluff the aesthetics of a specific item, ability, etc: their magic missile spell is actually a swarm of butterflies, they have a weapon that has the mechanics of a long-sword but looks like a naginata, etc.
- A player may spend 3 style points to have the DM introduce a Lv1 NPC with a specific personality, aesthetic, etc (but not specific mechanics). The DM may raise the NPC's level if appropriate. Alternately, a player may spend 3 style points to alter the aesthetic of one of the DM's NPCs when they are introduced (but not their goals, mechanics, etc) - if they want the villain to have poofy hair, then it is so.
- A player may spend 5 style points to reinterpret a specific roleplay requirement of a mechanical game element belonging to their character. For example, a player could alter their Paladin's code. This can be used per situation to reinterpret roleplay requirements of universal mechanical game elements, e.g. 'what I just did doesn't count as Evil this time'.
- One or more players may spend 9 style points to have the DM run a specifically themed game session some time within the next few games - 'I want us to go to an island', 'I want us to get kidnapped', etc.

If you never get any style points, its not a huge deal because they don't really influence your ability to keep up with the game all that much. But if you're very dedicated to the campaign, then your buy-in is rewarded in the form of additional creative control. Sounds like a fun, zany variation of the DMG-optional "plot points".

themaque
2015-03-19, 04:57 PM
I will open with, I'm biased. I'm an older gamer with an involved career that keeps me from gaming every single week. I came up with this mainly when I was in the military. In a remote location we would game a lot, and players would drop in and drop out as they could. How do you reward those who are there, but not make the new guy feel useless?

I open with that so you can take what I am about to say with a grain of salt...

I think it's high time to abandon individual Xp records.

It started as a means to balance individual classes with differing power levels. The Rogue may be level 6 but he's about on par with the 4th level wizard. but in more modern games that's not really needed.

3.P tried to balance things out, with lower level characters earning more XP, but that never really worked out IMHO. You where always behind and felt it. I wasn't a member of the Party, I was the henchman.

I think leveling the party as a whole when appropriate is the way to go. But what rewards for people who show up every week vs those who cant? Loot and Story rewards. The guy who isn't there all the time will generally be lagging behind on the good stuff. Oh, a generous party will keep that ring that's perfect for you, but you generally don't get first pick if you missed a session or two.

the second part is even better, since it can reward good role playing as well. The characters get involved in the story, and natural rewards come out of it.

Rescue the tavern keeper's daughter? Free room and board.
Rank & Titles
reputation including renown/infamy

The person who isn't there all the time isn't quite as involved in the story, but he is still of an adequate raw power level that it makes sense for him to be there and not feel useless.

I'm a little light headed with medicine so I hope I made sense.

themaque
2015-03-19, 04:58 PM
OP, the fighter sounds like he is being a jerk.

Sometimes it's hard to game with family. I try to be even with my wife, but she accuses me of being harder on her than anyone else. Maybe I overcompensate to avoid favoritism? Maybe I hold her to a higher standard? I can't say, I just try to be even so I don't notice it.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-19, 05:09 PM
I will open with, I'm biased. I'm an older gamer with an involved career that keeps me from gaming every single week. I came up with this mainly when I was in the military. In a remote location we would game a lot, and players would drop in and drop out as they could. How do you reward those who are there, but not make the new guy feel useless?

I open with that so you can take what I am about to say with a grain of salt...

I think it's high time to abandon individual Xp records. I entirely agree. I'd go so far as to abandon XP entirely, leveling when everyone thinks it's time. I think a lot of people already do that.

jaydubs
2015-03-19, 06:09 PM
I think leveling the party as a whole when appropriate is the way to go. But what rewards for people who show up every week vs those who cant? Loot and Story rewards. The guy who isn't there all the time will generally be lagging behind on the good stuff. Oh, a generous party will keep that ring that's perfect for you, but you generally don't get first pick if you missed a session or two.

the second part is even better, since it can reward good role playing as well. The characters get involved in the story, and natural rewards come out of it.

Rescue the tavern keeper's daughter? Free room and board.
Rank & Titles
reputation including renown/infamy

The person who isn't there all the time isn't quite as involved in the story, but he is still of an adequate raw power level that it makes sense for him to be there and not feel useless.

I agree with story rewards. The issue with loot is that in many systems, loot = power. So I find it better (both as a DM and as a player) to just assume that characters not present are doing something during that time that still earns them independent loot.

It also means the players present don't have to worry about saving stuff for people who are absent.

TheCountAlucard
2015-03-19, 06:43 PM
I believe the term, "Blood is thicker than water" applies here.An aphorism that's ancient in origin, indicating that ties formed via blood-covenant (or perhaps shedding blood on the battlefield) are more important than mere family (the "water" of the womb). :smallamused:

Famous sayings are funny like that.

goto124
2015-03-20, 12:59 AM
I'm stealing that interpretation for one of my PCs. May I quote you please?

TheCountAlucard
2015-03-20, 02:28 AM
Me? Quote away.

BWR
2015-03-20, 02:57 AM
If someone says 'I have to prioritize this other thing over your game, sorry', thats fine. That's a reality everyone has to deal with. But if you say 'I am going to prioritize this other thing over your game, but I expect you to prioritize my ability to occasionally play your game over doing other things with your time', that's being unreasonable. That's saying 'me getting my gaming fix is more important than your time'. Its 'frankly a seriously **** move'.

And in some cases, that may be something you're willing to deal with, because sometimes friends have to deal with each-others' crap. But that doesn't make it not crap, and if you're always the one making compromises for them and not vice versa, that's not a good sign.

I don't know what you think we do but it's not what you seem to think. As long as we reach critical mass of players (GM+3, usually) we play, even if that means a couple people miss the session. That's the only sensible way to do it what with the problems of getting everyone together. The only person who has to show up for each session is the GM (obviously). So if one person has a hard time making it every session, it doesn't mean no one gets to play except on those rare occasions we can all make it.

Terazul
2015-03-20, 03:38 AM
Yes.

Irrelevant.

They presumably play the game for fun, and, if, for example, life got in the way, they lost out on that fun. If someone consistently misses sessions, I would talk to them about it, but overall, the game runs better if everyone is the same level, and it's just cruel to kick some while they're down. Missing out on playing the game is bad enough.

If someone has issues with keeping people on the same playing field, I would think that they should take a step back and ruminate on what the game's actually about, before being a jackass about someone else getting a "free handout".

Agreed. If there's ever issues with chronic absences, try to see what's up and work it out. This issue seems to be less about absences and more about the fighter's maturity level though. Even in games where people have separate XP and roleplay bonuses and whatnot, people tend to stay around the same level. Questioning a sudden level up when everyone was far off from it doesn't seem like a terrible thing to do. The fact that when everyone was given a boost the fighter threw a fit for suddenly not being ahead of the curve, and then personally insulted you and threatened to leave the game if it wasn't left alone, says a lot about him. Like really dude, I look forward to my friends leveling up just as much as myself, and the worst part is it's not like he even did anything extra to get it either. It wasn't like he ran side sessions or a solo dungeon to put himself ahead of the curve, he's just been playing the same character without swapping out to DM or test things, so there's no real reason he should be that far ahead, either.

NichG
2015-03-20, 08:44 AM
I don't know what you think we do but it's not what you seem to think. As long as we reach critical mass of players (GM+3, usually) we play, even if that means a couple people miss the session. That's the only sensible way to do it what with the problems of getting everyone together. The only person who has to show up for each session is the GM (obviously). So if one person has a hard time making it every session, it doesn't mean no one gets to play except on those rare occasions we can all make it.

I don't know what your situation is, but certainly I've been in games with sufficiently marginal player counts that game gets cancelled if one person can't make it. The usual case for my games is, two people can't make it means game gets cancelled.

BWR
2015-03-20, 11:20 AM
I don't know what your situation is, but certainly I've been in games with sufficiently marginal player counts that game gets cancelled if one person can't make it. The usual case for my games is, two people can't make it means game gets cancelled.

I can certainly sympathize but I don't see how kicking out someone who has a hard time making it every time somehow results in more gaming. Our groups are GM plus 4 and 5 players, so it usually works out. If we only played when everybody could the five-man groups would play maybe 5-6 times a year rather than on average every other week. The four-man group is a lot better off and apart from vacation weeks we get to play just about every week, even if we're one player short every now and then.

NichG
2015-03-20, 07:55 PM
I can certainly sympathize but I don't see how kicking out someone who has a hard time making it every time somehow results in more gaming. Our groups are GM plus 4 and 5 players, so it usually works out. If we only played when everybody could the five-man groups would play maybe 5-6 times a year rather than on average every other week. The four-man group is a lot better off and apart from vacation weeks we get to play just about every week, even if we're one player short every now and then.

It may not make for more gaming (it can, though), but it does make for less time spent showing up then going home - less time wasted. If we just don't game, I can still hang out with friends by inviting them over to watch TV or go to a restaurant or something that doesn't require a fixed set of people.

Anyhow, usually the situation is something like, we could design the game to work with any number of players, but the actual degree of how well it works depends on that number being somewhat accurate. If I plan for a game involving just 3 players, it's going to use things that rely a lot more on each player being proactive in of themselves. If I plan a game using 6 players, it'll be based more on group consensus. Things like that. If you have a 6 person game and only 3 people show up, I find that the remaining 3 players reflexively try to avoid doing plotty things because the other players will miss it, and generally it acts on a damper on the situation. So depending on the campaign, its better to cancel beyond a certain threshold of no-shows. Player inconsistency also makes it hard to run plots that react to individual player characters rather than just reacting to the party as a whole. If last game the party decided 'lets go help X deal with the chaos in his home country next' and then X doesn't show, that causes problems.

In the current campaign, I wanted 3 players because it was going to have a LOT of player independence - each player gets a nation that they control. Not only does that require a lot of commitment to make it work, its not something I can run with 6 players because it can quickly become unmanageable. I happen to have 4 players currently, which is already so many for this kind of thing that I was forced to restructure the game a bit to make it work.

So my general policy is that I recruit N+1 players (generally I expect at least one person to end up having to drop the game because of life crises or whatever), end up getting N+3 or N+4 people interested, and then we have to decide who plays because more people want to play than there are reasonably slots for. Preference goes to those who can commit, and I'm not shy about saying 'if you can't commit to this game, I will stop trying to involve your character in things because I can't rely on them being there'.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-20, 09:03 PM
I think it's high time to abandon individual Xp records.
Guess I'm still in a 3.x mindset, where XP is a currency for crafting...

Truth be told, always thought that was the great equalizer in 3.x that people who babble about caster supremacy ignored. Making magical items to equip the party at a gold discount costs XP.

It no longer does in 5e, meaning separate tallies for characters are unnecessary. Unless a Deck of Many Things comes up.

Gritmonger
2015-03-20, 09:33 PM
Guess I'm still in a 3.x mindset, where XP is a currency for crafting...

Truth be told, always thought that was the great equalizer in 3.x that people who babble about caster supremacy ignored. Making magical its to equip the party at gold discount cost XP.

It no longer does in 5e, meaning separate tallies for characters are unnecessary. Unless a Deck of Many Things comes up.

I've dropped xp entirely, and level up players based on rough approximation of how much a hypothetical character would have leveled up by this point in the story. I started recording it, but with drop ins and outs, it quickly became impractical.

themaque
2015-03-21, 07:27 AM
Guess I'm still in a 3.x mindset, where XP is a currency for crafting...

Truth be told, always thought that was the great equalizer in 3.x that people who babble about caster supremacy ignored. Making magical items to equip the party at a gold discount costs XP.

It no longer does in 5e, meaning separate tallies for characters are unnecessary. Unless a Deck of Many Things comes up.

The deck... no... No... NO.. NOOOO!!!



It may not make for more gaming (it can, though), but it does make for less time spent showing up then going home - less time wasted. If we just don't game, I can still hang out with friends by inviting them over to watch TV or go to a restaurant or something that doesn't require a fixed set of people.

I would also state that, unless you have a last minute change, you should let people know as soon as possible when you can't make it. People shouldn't be calling YOU half an hour after game time for you to reply "Oh, sorry, I couldn't make it this week!" Sure, accidents happen and plans change, but if that becomes a regular thing the problem isn't just attendance but being rude and very poor communication.

I haven't been the main character in a game in almost a decade now. why? because I show up when work allows. And that is the way it should be.

If player A shows up every week he will be HIGHLY involved in the story, and it will revolve more around him than others. That's his reward for showing up. Player B is involved and may have a thread or two, but the entire campaign won't hing on his showing up.

I now mostly make supporting roles or people with a reason to show up or disappear.

Mysterious Strangers are my current bread and butter.

NichG
2015-03-21, 09:24 AM
I haven't been the main character in a game in almost a decade now. why? because I show up when work allows. And that is the way it should be.

If player A shows up every week he will be HIGHLY involved in the story, and it will revolve more around him than others. That's his reward for showing up. Player B is involved and may have a thread or two, but the entire campaign won't hing on his showing up.

The style point reward system I suggested up-thread is basically taking this and amplifying it a bit without making it about power levels. If you show up more often then the stylistic and thematic decisions of the game affect you more than someone who shows up rarely, and so the system gives you more say out-of-character about the direction of the game the more you show up, rather than just the in-character say you have due to being present more often. This is also useful in the sense that what the character wants is not necessarily the same as what the player wants.

If e.g. you really like zombie games but another player doesn't really care for them, if you're only going to be there 1/3 of the time then its natural to make the game focus more on the other player's tastes than yours - if it turns out to be a zombie game, you get to enjoy it once every three weeks but he's going to be bearing with it every week. And if there is going to be a zombie-themed session it makes sense to reserve it for the rarer occasions that you're going to show up. But that's not an in-character decision.

Synovia
2015-03-23, 03:02 PM
Using in-game rewards (or punishments) for out-of-game behavior (good or bad) is rarely a good idea.

Agree here - if you start penalizing a player in game for not showing up - he's going to show up less, not more. They start falling further and further behind, have less and less fun, and then stop showing up.

If you can't count on a player to reliably show up, either remove them from the group, or plan like they're not in it. If they do show up to a game, add a couple minion type monsters.

endur
2015-03-25, 01:34 AM
I was more concerned with potential accounting errors on either end. He is notoriously bad with math, and I'd done many rewrites of my character sheet (OCD). .

Math errors is the reason why I don't tell party members how much XP they have. I let them know when it is time to level up without ever giving them the xp number they currently have.

ArcanaFire
2015-03-26, 07:18 AM
- Every game that a player shows up for, they get 1 'style point'
- A player may spend 1 style point to refluff the aesthetics of a specific item, ability, etc: their magic missile spell is actually a swarm of butterflies, they have a weapon that has the mechanics of a long-sword but looks like a naginata, etc.
- A player may spend 3 style points to have the DM introduce a Lv1 NPC with a specific personality, aesthetic, etc (but not specific mechanics). The DM may raise the NPC's level if appropriate. Alternately, a player may spend 3 style points to alter the aesthetic of one of the DM's NPCs when they are introduced (but not their goals, mechanics, etc) - if they want the villain to have poofy hair, then it is so.
- A player may spend 5 style points to reinterpret a specific roleplay requirement of a mechanical game element belonging to their character. For example, a player could alter their Paladin's code. This can be used per situation to reinterpret roleplay requirements of universal mechanical game elements, e.g. 'what I just did doesn't count as Evil this time'.
- One or more players may spend 9 style points to have the DM run a specifically themed game session some time within the next few games - 'I want us to go to an island', 'I want us to get kidnapped', etc.

I would end up having to run so many holiday specials it would be ridiculous. My players just love the annual Christmas Adventure.

Jay R
2015-03-26, 10:37 AM
The party should all be on the same side, supporting each other. Being upset that another person's character leveled up is treating that PC as a rival, not an ally. It isn't PvP, but it springs from the same source.

You were upset that somebody else leveled up, and now he's upset that you did. What's the difference?

Either way, it builds walls between players when you want bridges.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-26, 10:47 AM
Like I said, if a party member leveling is a good thing for the party, three party members leveling is better.

That being said, the DM ruled in my favor, as did the other players, and the fighter started pretending nothing happened. The bard took over as DM for the last campaign, and we restarted with new characters.

Now, the fighter is now playing a Stupid Evil Frankenstein clone and dragging the party into his stupid quest to make flesh golems...

mephnick
2015-03-26, 11:19 AM
XP is just the worst form of tracking progress in RPGs. No one should ever use it.

This message isn't blue because I am completely serious.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-26, 11:40 AM
XP is just the worst form of tracking progress in RPGs. No one should ever use it. I almost entirely agree.

Jay R
2015-03-26, 01:21 PM
XP is just the worst form of tracking progress in RPGs. No one should ever use it.

Nobody should ever use it poorly. But it has worked well in the hands of competent GMs for over 40 years, so "no one should ever use it" seems ... excessive.

Talakeal
2015-03-26, 01:39 PM
Nobody should ever use it poorly. But it has worked well in the hands of competent GMs for over 40 years, so "no one should ever use it" seems ... excessive.

Honestly, I don't think I have ever been in a campaign where XP didn't cause issues at some point, back from my first games in elementary school to the mage session I played in last week. While it isn't a huge problem, in retrospect I think that is actually probably pretty sound advice.

Flickerdart
2015-03-26, 01:54 PM
Nobody should ever use it poorly. But it has worked well in the hands of competent GMs for over 40 years, so "no one should ever use it" seems ... excessive.
"Competent GMs" is a tricky notion - the competence of a GM only exists in relation to the system itself. So if the system were less ham-fisted, more GMs would provide an experience that makes them appear competent. The more ham-fisted the system (such as XP) the fewer GMs appear competent when using it. A small crop of the world's most competent GMs could even make FATAL fun.

Gritmonger
2015-03-26, 10:01 PM
"Competent GMs" is a tricky notion - the competence of a GM only exists in relation to the system itself. So if the system were less ham-fisted, more GMs would provide an experience that makes them appear competent. The more ham-fisted the system (such as XP) the fewer GMs appear competent when using it. A small crop of the world's most competent GMs could even make FATAL fun.

...as long as they keep making their San checks (http://theadventuringparty.libsyn.com/character-creation-may-2011-from-another-time-another-land)...
WARNING - They are discussing F.A.T.A.L. so it's inherently NSFW.:smalleek:

Jay R
2015-03-27, 09:24 AM
"Competent GMs" is a tricky notion - the competence of a GM only exists in relation to the system itself.

In my experience, any competent GM will be competent with any system she runs (which is equivalent to saying that a competent GM will only run a system if she knows it well enough to run it, and in sympathy with its intent enough to run it as intended.).


So if the system were less ham-fisted, more GMs would provide an experience that makes them appear competent. The more ham-fisted the system (such as XP) the fewer GMs appear competent when using it. A small crop of the world's most competent GMs could even make FATAL fun.

In a discussion about the worth of XPs, you can't just say that XPs are "ham-fisted"; you have to explain why.

In my experience, the XP system in original D&D and AD&D worked well - assuming that the goal was to encourage avoiding threats and monsters to find treasure. I won't discuss modern D&D (3E+); I don't know those games as well as many of the people who dislike XPs, so my opinions there are probably inadequately researched.

The XP rules in Chivalry & Sorcery worked well to aim characters in certain role-playing directions. Thieves get full points for treasure stolen and monsters back-stabbed, but 10% for treasure found and monsters defeated in fair combat. Wizards got more points for research. Knights got triple honour points when fighting for a lady. So the characters were always played more in tune with classic fantasy.

The Plot Point rules for TOON encourage TOON behavior - especially the rule granting an automatic Plot Point for any time the player's action leaves the Animator laughing too hard to run the game.

Champions XP rules work well, and encourage heroic actions. Pendragon XPs work well (although the Passion and Virtue/Vice rules are what drive player approaches).

Flashing Blades separates out types of experience, and you earn checks in specific skills. One interesting result is that a swordsman will often switch weapons, in order to gain experience with various weapons.

In short, XPs that encourage players to do what the XP rules intended them to do aren't "ham-fisted"; they are working fine - even if you don't like what they encourage.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 03:04 PM
Experience points are basically a scoring system for RPGs. Looking at other types of games, such as board games and wargames, scoring systems work just fine to get players to work towards a game's goals. As such, considering experience points a bad thing no-one should use is an absurd claim.

Talakeal
2015-03-27, 03:46 PM
Experience points are basically a scoring system for RPGs. Looking at other types of games, such as board games and wargames, scoring systems work just fine to get players to work towards a game's goals. As such, considering experience points a bad thing no-one should use is an absurd claim.

I agree with you in theory.

The problem is that board games are typically one time affairs with a straightforward goal.

Unlike XP a board game's score does not impact future sessions and put everyone on an uneven playing field. Also, board games have pretty specific winning conditions, while in RPGs they are usually more freeform, but only giving XP for certain activities forces players into certain behavior patterns if they want to do well.

Also, board game scores are usually predetermined and objective. In RPGs XP is often handed out in a subjective manner by one person, and he often uses it as a reward / punishment for OOC behavior such as attendance or paying attention.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 04:50 PM
The problem is that board games are typically one time affairs with a straightforward goal ... Unlike XP a board game's score does not impact future sessions and put everyone on an uneven playing field.

So? You can play RPGs as one-shots just as well, and many RPGs are geared towards such play. Even longer campaigns typically consists of multiple self-contained scenarios and locations with fairly straight-forward objectives.

Also, RPGs inherited campaign-style structure from wargames if I recall right, and even if they didn't, modern war and board games certainly can encompass multiple sessions. Such long-term strategy games (like Diplomacy) make up a minority of overall gaming, but they're there. Of course, the joke is that since most such games are adversarial, "impacting future sessions and putting everyone on an uneven playing field" is not a flaw, it's frequently the whole point of the game.


Board games have pretty specific winning conditions, while in RPGs they are usually more freeform, but only giving XP for certain activities forces players into certain behavior patterns if they want to do well.

So? Why do you think it's a flaw rather than a feature? It's a way to give structure, focus and direction to a style of gaming that would otherwise easily degenerate to bunch of unrelated characters doing whatever. Guidelines for XP and other in-game rewards basically are the winning conditions for RPGs.


Also, board game scores are usually predetermined and objective.

Yes, and? So is XP for most RPGs. Seriously, look at AD&D rules for converting treasure to XP, or d20 XP-per-CR system and tell me those are not predetermined and objective. The ability of a GM to subjectively give XP for things they like is usually just sugar on top of a fairly explicit and extensive reward system.


In RPGs XP is often handed out in a subjective manner by one person, and he often uses it as a reward / punishment for OOC behavior such as attendance or paying attention.

Pretty damn near all games reward attendance and paying attention, with those not paying attention being left without a reward (considering the latter as punishment continues to strike me as backwards). Why does it even matter whether this is hard-coded in the rules or decided by a referee?

Talakeal
2015-03-27, 04:54 PM
So? You can play RPGs as one-shots just as well, and many RPGs are geared towards such play. Even longer campaigns typically consists of multiple self-contained scenarios and locations with fairly straight-forward objectives.

Also, RPGs inherited campaign-style structure from wargames if I recall right, and even if they didn't, modern war and board games certainly can encompass multiple sessions. Such long-term strategy games (like Diplomacy) make up a minority of overall gaming, but they're there. Of course, the joke is that since most such games are adversarial, "impacting future sessions and putting everyone on an uneven playing field" is not a flaw, it's frequently the whole point of the game.



So? Why do you think it's a flaw rather than a feature? It's a way to give structure, focus and direction to a style of gaming that would otherwise easily degenerate to bunch of unrelated characters doing whatever. Guidelines for XP and other in-game rewards basically are the winning conditions for RPGs.



Yes, and? So is XP for most RPGs. Seriously, look at AD&D rules for converting treasure to XP, or d20 XP-per-CR system and tell me those are not predetermined and objective. The ability of a GM to subjectively give XP for things they like is usually just sugar on top of a fairly explicit and extensive reward system.



Pretty damn near all games reward attendance and paying attention, with those not paying attention being left without a reward (considering the latter as punishment continues to strike me as backwards). Why does it even matter whether this is hard-coded in the rules or decided by a referee?

Hold on a second; are you saying you actually tally out specific XP for characters after running a one shot where the character will never game again? And you have actually seen board games where, if someone misses game night due to RL commitments, you penalize them the next time they do play?

If that is the case you are running games in a manner so alien to my experience that I am not sure I have anything to say about it.

Now, as for encouraging behaviors, that depends on the game's style. In my experience I find that giving XP means the players will ignore the plot in favor of attacking random stuff for no reason, but that is a debatable point.

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 05:09 PM
Hold on a second; are you saying you actually tally out specific XP for characters after running a one shot where the character will never game again?

Sure, I did this for my last convention campaign (each session had different group of players) and even made and published a "scoreboard" of sorts after the campaign was over, telling how far each character got for the interest of the players. If playing OSR games, I do it even after games that aren't part of any greater whole, just because it's a) fun for the players and b) I usually retain the character sheet, and it's useful to have a bunch of ready-made characters at hand for new players. You never know when you might need them.


And you have actually seen board games where, if someone misses game night due to RL commitments, you penalize them the next time they do play?

You are aware games like Chess and Go have rankings for the players if you're playing them in a club or for sport? And said ranking will influence who you will play against and even which playing pieces you will have starting out? For mail-order games (again, Diplomacy) the standard here was that if you fail to make you move in time, your turn is automatically passed, or the referee makes your move for you.

It's nothing short of amazing if you've managed to miss all games with these sorts of mechanics, because they are quite common, and many have been passed down to computer games. Even amateur online games these days typically have some form of achievement or score-keeping system, for making matches if nothing else.

Talakeal
2015-03-27, 05:28 PM
Sure, I did this for my last convention campaign (each session had different group of players) and even made and published a "scoreboard" of sorts after the campaign was over, telling how far each character got for the interest of the players. If playing OSR games, I do it even after games that aren't part of any greater whole, just because it's a) fun for the players and b) I usually retain the character sheet, and it's useful to have a bunch of ready-made characters at hand for new players. You never know when you might need them.



You are aware games like Chess and Go have rankings for the players if you're playing them in a club or for sport? And said ranking will influence who you will play against and even which playing pieces you will have starting out? For mail-order games (again, Diplomacy) the standard here was that if you fail to make you move in time, your turn is automatically passed, or the referee makes your move for you.

It's nothing short of amazing if you've managed to miss all games with these sorts of mechanics, because they are quite common, and many have been passed down to computer games. Even amateur online games these days typically have some form of achievement or score-keeping system, for making matches if nothing else.

Honestly I wasn't thinking about playing in a club or a league, I suppose that is a good point. But does your actual "score" matter or just your win / loss records?

No, I was completely unaware that there were games where your ranking influenced which pieces you start with. Is it kind of like a golf handicap but in reverse?

Frozen_Feet
2015-03-27, 06:48 PM
Honestly I wasn't thinking about playing in a club or a league, I suppose that is a good point. But does your actual "score" matter or just your win / loss records?

Depends on who you ask! To me, it's more about the win/loss record, but to players, the exact number can be surprisingly important in measuring who has the biggest virtual rooster. Then there's the odd occasion where a character will move to play under another GM, where the exact XP amount of course is important. In AD&D, some game-holding advice was clearly written with this in mind. I think Pathfinder Society does something similar these days?


No, I was completely unaware that there were games where your ranking influenced which pieces you start with. Is it kind of like a golf handicap but in reverse?

In Go, specifically, it's the same as Golf handicap: a lower-ranking player is given free moves. Go also offers an example of differing play boards: beginners are often taught to play using a smaller grid, before moving to normal-sized board.

More familiar-feeling would probably be those wargames where a player can re-use their squad from game-to-game, so an experienced player's squad can look very different than that of a fresh player joining mid-campaign (I'm having trouble remembering names at the moment. One game I'm thinking was some Warhammer spin-off. Mordheim?). A less direct example is offered by collectible miniature and card games, where the more experienced player will typically own a larger selection of gaming pieces to choose from.

Jay R
2015-03-27, 09:20 PM
In RPGs XP is often handed out in a subjective manner by one person, and he often uses it as a reward / punishment for OOC behavior such as attendance or paying attention.

"...attendance or paying attention"? Surely playing the actual game counts as IC. In truth, nothing else could.

Talakeal
2015-03-28, 12:14 PM
"...attendance or paying attention"? Surely playing the actual game counts as IC. In truth, nothing else could.

I am not quite sure what you are getting at here.

If a player has to miss a session generally their character doesn't leave the party. Now, depending on the session you might find a reason for them to go off, but generally the PC stays with the party even if their player is gone. They may fade into the background or be played as an NPC, but generally unless I have a good reason for their character to vanish absences are only OOC.

Likewise just because the player is looking at their phone or talking back to the DM or making trips to the kitchen for snacks doesn't mean their character, who is in the middle of a grand adventure where their life is likely on the line, is similarly un-invested in his or her own fate.


More familiar-feeling would probably be those wargames where a player can re-use their squad from game-to-game, so an experienced player's squad can look very different than that of a fresh player joining mid-campaign (I'm having trouble remembering names at the moment. One game I'm thinking was some Warhammer spin-off. Mordheim?). A less direct example is offered by collectible miniature and card games, where the more experienced player will typically own a larger selection of gaming pieces to choose from.

I have played a lot of Mordheim and its sister games Necromunda and Legends of the Old West. What you are describing is true, but it is actually the games' biggest weakness. People who play more often get both better as players and their warbands get stronger, meaning that after even a couple of weeks the gaming club is so unbalanced that certain people simply cannot play against other people. This is compounded by the fact that a games' winner generally gets more XP and loot means you get into a situation where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, with only one or two people ever able to win and the rest of the club simply not showing up anymore out of frustration.

In my experience generally handicaps give an advantage to the worse players rather than the better ones; the only thing I can think of where this is not the case off the top of my head is racing where the better racers have the more favorable starting positions.

I have never been in a really competitive RPG game. Normally the players (and the DM) are all collaborating to have fun. I find that keeping everyone on the same level is far more fun that players having rivalries to and rooster measuring contests. Likewise I find that the game should be its own reward, if you need to bribe the players to show up or pay attention you have bigger problems than a couple of points on a sheet can solve. Likewise if someone is having behavior issues it is because, for whatever reason, they are upset or bored, and docking them XP for it is just going to make these problems worse.

I was taught D&D by a middle school teacher in an after school gaming club. His players were his students, and he docked us XP for bad behavior. I thought this was a natural part of the game and I continued doing throughout my first decade or so of DMing. In retrospect it almost always made the problems worse, and usually escalated minor issues into game ending conflicts. Now I don't touch individual XP values, the group gets XP at a set rate each session regardless of their actions, and I find my game is infinetly better for it.

Of course, ymmv and what works for me might not work for you.

mephnick
2015-03-28, 01:58 PM
I'm in a 3.5 game that uses XP now, but am only able to make half the sessions because I work rotating shifts (and a young family)and the DM has very few available dates to play. If he used XP rules that punished no shows I would have no choice but to drop the group. But he doesn't and I update my character as the group levels accordingly. Of course it would be better to not use XP at all, but he likes it. Even an XP fan like him knows how stupid individual XP is.

Rad Mage
2015-03-30, 12:34 PM
There was a time when I missed several meetings in a campaign due to my work schedule at the time. The DM would give me the XP I missed out on but would ask what I did while my character was separated from the group to earn it. Since a lot of the campaign involved traveling between island nations, my guy would stay behind to "watch the boat". We decided that while the party was exploring dungeons or involving themselves with courtly intrigue, my character would take the boat out to sea for my side career as a pirate. This also netted me the occasional magic item to help me keep up, as well as providing future quest hooks.

Jay R
2015-03-30, 03:09 PM
I don't see the logic that getting no XPs when you don't play is "punishing" the player. Followed consistently, that idea would imply that the DM is punishing the entire party if they don't get XPs when there is no game at all.

Yes, some other players get a higher level than I do, if they play more often than I do. But that's not a punishment. They are my allies. My 8th level Ranger is safer with 9th levels protecting him than with 8th levels doing it.

Talakeal
2015-03-30, 03:38 PM
I don't see the logic that getting no XPs when you don't play is "punishing" the player. Followed consistently, that idea would imply that the DM is punishing the entire party if they don't get XPs when there is no game at all.

Yes, some other players get a higher level than I do, if they play more often than I do. But that's not a punishment. They are my allies. My 8th level Ranger is safer with 9th levels protecting him than with 8th levels doing it.

A lot of people get very competitive with the other players, and even if they aren't competing directly they do feel bad because they have less of an ability to impact the game than other players with a less powerful character.

There isn't anything wrong with it per se, and depending on the game I might actually prefer to start from scratch regardless of the party level, but a lot of players do have issues and I find it better to just avoid them.

I remember another thread on this board where a DM was talking about giving bonus XP for writing a good character backstory. One of the posters said that a rewarding one player for doing something is effectively the same as punishing all the other players who don't do it, just phrased in a nicer way, and he doesn't like to participate in games where he gets punished for not doing out of game activity. While I don't agree with him entirely, I do see where he is coming from and wouldn't want to be in that situation where a player feels that way.

Keltest
2015-03-30, 03:44 PM
I remember another thread on this board where a DM was talking about giving bonus XP for writing a good character backstory. One of the posters said that a rewarding one player for doing something is effectively the same as punishing all the other players who don't do it, just phrased in a nicer way, and he doesn't like to participate in games where he gets punished for not doing out of game activity. While I don't agree with him entirely, I do see where he is coming from and wouldn't want to be in that situation where a player feels that way.

I can see where he is coming from as well, however I am generally of the opinion that people who look at things that way are trying to rob themselves of their enjoyment. As a DM, im not going to cater to them if they do that. If they feel "punished" with lack of power for not showing up, then they should either make an attempt to show up more often, or quit and find a group that they can enjoy themselves in. Im not unreasonable; if someone can only show up to one session out of five, ill let them XP boost themselves up to an appropriate level relative to the party, or even just roll a new character. But if theyre going to whine about how they missed one session and didn't get the XP rewards for attending, im not going to hand them pity XP.

goto124
2015-03-30, 08:21 PM
if someone can only show up to one session out of five, ill let them XP boost themselves up to an appropriate level relative to the party, or even just roll a new character. But if theyre going to whine about how they missed one session and didn't get the XP rewards for attending, im not going to hand them pity XP.

I wonder at the last statement. Could missing a session's worth of XP lead to a slippery slope pf falling behind the rest of the party?

Keltest
2015-03-30, 08:28 PM
I wonder at the last statement. Could missing a session's worth of XP lead to a slippery slope pf falling behind the rest of the party?

Not if im doing my job right. For starters, im not just making them fight whatever I feel like, theres actual thought that goes into the encounters. Theres always a way to survive, even if that way is "Run away". More importantly though, experience doesn't make it easier to get more experience. The rest of the party isn't going to start shooting up in levels compared to the guy who missed a session. At worst, they might miss out on a chance to get themselves a nice piece o' magic, but more than likely if they are legitimately the best able to benefit from it, they'll end up with it anyway.

Flickerdart
2015-03-30, 08:35 PM
I don't see the logic that getting no XPs when you don't play is "punishing" the player. Followed consistently, that idea would imply that the DM is punishing the entire party if they don't get XPs when there is no game at all.
No, that's not even remotely true. To the characters, there is no world while there is no game.


Yes, some other players get a higher level than I do, if they play more often than I do. But that's not a punishment. They are my allies. My 8th level Ranger is safer with 9th levels protecting him than with 8th levels doing it.
That would be true if the party was still fighting encounters appropriate for 8th level characters. However, they are not.

Galen
2015-03-31, 06:56 PM
I never penalize my players for not showing up.
You see, I am confident in my DMing capabilities, and I know that players who do show up to play a game with me and the rest of the gang, will have a good time. Therefore, the players who are not showing up to play - regardless of what their reason is - have already been penalized by missing out of a fun gaming session. There is no need to punish them further. Everyone gets the same rate of leveling up always. The only penalty for not showing up is not getting to play.

Jay R
2015-04-03, 10:04 AM
I never penalize my players for not showing up.
You see, I am confident in my DMing capabilities, and I know that players who do show up to play a game with me and the rest of the gang, will have a good time. Therefore, the players who are not showing up to play - regardless of what their reason is - have already been penalized by missing out of a fun gaming session. There is no need to punish them further. Everyone gets the same rate of leveling up always. The only penalty for not showing up is not getting to play.

Neither do I. But I don't reward them for it, either.

I really dislike the notion that you get experience points when you play is somehow a "penalty". If the other players earn a reward you didn't earn, then I'm not penalizing you by giving it to the people who earned it.

Having said that, I have an approach that my players are comfortable with.

My house rule is that if you designate somebody to play your character, and agree that whatever happens to your character happens, including potential death, then she takes part and gets experience points. But bonus experience points earned by clever play go to the character of the player who did it.

If you want to guarantee that nothing bad will happen to your character when you aren't the one playing her, fine. But nothing good will happen either. She will be assumed to have some sort of intestinal flu that lets her walk with the party, but not fight or cast magic. And she will successfully hide in a melee.

Virtually all players have a designated player already worked out, but I had one player who chose to not risk the character in somebody else's hands, and accepted no xps for that session.

[My rule does not involve money or magic items. That's for the party to decide.]

Keltest
2015-04-03, 11:28 AM
Neither do I. But I don't reward them for it, either.

I really dislike the notion that you get experience points when you play is somehow a "penalty". If the other players earn a reward you didn't earn, then I'm not penalizing you by giving it to the people who earned it.

Having said that, I have an approach that my players are comfortable with.

My house rule is that if you designate somebody to play your character, and agree that whatever happens to your character happens, including potential death, then she takes part and gets experience points. But bonus experience points earned by clever play go to the character of the player who did it.

If you want to guarantee that nothing bad will happen to your character when you aren't the one playing her, fine. But nothing good will happen either. She will be assumed to have some sort of intestinal flu that lets her walk with the party, but not fight or cast magic. And she will successfully hide in a melee.

Virtually all players have a designated player already worked out, but I had one player who chose to not risk the character in somebody else's hands, and accepted no xps for that session.

[My rule does not involve money or magic items. That's for the party to decide.]

That's how my party handles it as well, though sometimes if there is a particular need for a specific character and they didn't designate someone to play for them (or that someone is also absent) ill have a third person play them, and just not do anything permanent to the character, including death, outside that specific session.

Synovia
2015-04-03, 03:43 PM
In Go, specifically, it's the same as Golf handicap: a lower-ranking player is given free moves. Go also offers an example of differing play boards: beginners are often taught to play using a smaller grid, before moving to normal-sized board.
.

This is the opposite of D&D though - the D&D equivalent would be that the higher rank player gets extra moves.

I'm with Talakael here - I think individual XP causes more problems than it fixes - and I've seen too many groups destroyed because players start falling behind in-game because of real life out-of-game stuff.

Out of game problems shouldn't affect in-game. A guy having to stay late for work because of a big project shouldn't fall a level behind because of it.

Keltest
2015-04-03, 04:46 PM
This is the opposite of D&D though - the D&D equivalent would be that the higher rank player gets extra moves.

I'm with Talakael here - I think individual XP causes more problems than it fixes - and I've seen too many groups destroyed because players start falling behind in-game because of real life out-of-game stuff.

Out of game problems shouldn't affect in-game. A guy having to stay late for work because of a big project shouldn't fall a level behind because of it.

If theyre falling behind a level for more than a session, then theyre either playing an edition where classes have huge differences in XP needed to level, or theyre missing a LOT of sessions.

BWR
2015-04-03, 07:10 PM
If theyre falling behind a level for more than a session, then theyre either playing an edition where classes have huge differences in XP needed to level, or theyre missing a LOT of sessions.

Or they miss one session that gives a lot of xp. My gf's group levels on average once a session on the various adventure paths they play, twice in some cases.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 12:12 AM
Honestly, this whole XP business sounds like it adds a lot of needless complexity, based on how people are talking about it.

On the good side, it allows a reliable mechanic for determining when characters can advance, which would otherwise be in the GM's hands. Except that the GM determines when XP is handed out - especially if they're using XP rewards and penalties for anything not listed in a book. And even if they're only giving XP for things that have XP rewards literally written next to them, they still determine when those things are encountered.

In other words, if you're not randomizing everything (or taking everything out of a packaged adventure), XP is practically identical to having a GM decide when everyone levels, except with more book-keeping.

I guess you could make the argument that it helps players feel like they're advancing when they aren't, which is most of the time when you're playing an RPG system with character levels.

NichG
2015-04-07, 12:50 AM
XP is honestly a lot more central in modular systems where you can 'spend' XP on different kinds of things, because there it establishes the relative value of different types of advancement.

shadow_archmagi
2015-04-07, 09:20 AM
Tabletop Roleplaying occupies a position between wargame and message-board-collaberative-fanfic that means no two groups are every going to agree.

It depends on the game you're running, really. I've run OSR games that were super sandbox and had high risks, so choosing to send your character to the Lich King's Tomb meant you'd either emerge rich or dead. For that, I wouldn't award XP for no-shows if their characters didn't attend.

I've also run casual, 3.5/4e/pathfinder games that were fairly linear, mostly just me telling a story and players beating conventional enemies in conventional ways. I wouldn't have dreamed of penalizing no-shows.

I think the core issue is about the central themes of what your group wants out of roleplaying. Are they centered around clever ideas and risk-taking, or a social space for group storytelling?

Jay R
2015-04-07, 09:48 AM
I play for fun, and I can have fun even when my allies gain more power than I do.

I like my allies.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-07, 10:50 AM
In other words, if you're not randomizing everything (or taking everything out of a packaged adventure), XP is practically identical to having a GM decide when everyone levels, except with more book-keeping.

If you follow this attitude to its logical conclusion, all rules are identical to a GM deciding what's allowed, expect with more book-keeping.

The fact that someone needs to arbitrate the rules is not a good argument for not having rules.



Out of game problems shouldn't affect in-game.

Have you perhaps considered this in an unworkable ideal?

You will realize why if you try to expand this to any other hobby (such as karate) or to a game with no mechanical character advancement relying purely on player skill (most card and board games).

The guy who plays more will usually be better. This applies to RPGs just as well even when you're artificially leveling the playing field via granting everyone equal experience. If you miss out a session or two, you will likely forget vital clues, character motivations, events, locations etc. and hence have harder time making reasoned decisions even when your character is mechanically on par with others. Even with the handicap, the less experienced person in Go or Golf still typically loses.

In 1st Ed AD&D, Gygax adressed what to do with unevenly leveled characters: you have the lower level characters adventure separately, or with hirelings of the more experienced characters. Taken a step further, this'd mean holding a different campaign to A, B and C, than to just A and B when C is not around. What are people's thoughts on this model?

goto124
2015-04-07, 11:23 AM
Holding different campaigns to each player? I doubt many DMs would want to do that, much for the same reason we say 'Never split the party'.

How about: Forget XP, just level everyone equally basee on narrative.

Frozen_Feet
2015-04-07, 12:07 PM
Holding different campaigns to each player?

Not to each player, to different grouping of players. So Group ABC plays a different campaign than AB or BC. Etc.

erikun
2015-04-07, 02:13 PM
One thing that I am noticing, throughout the thread, is that there isn't much discussion about the different types of RPGs that people could be playing. A valid solution to one type of game may not be a valid solution to another type of game.

What happens in a more exploration-based or sandbox-based game, where challenges have a set level or difficulty independent of the characters in the party? What about when PCs might run into something random, anything from CR1 to CR20? What happens when you can give even a 1st level character a +1 Longbow and have them be a reasonable threat in combat? In that case, then having wildly different PC power levels isn't so much of a problem. The difference between three 9th level characters, and three 9th level with one 8th level character, is that the party now has an entire extra character to come along on the adventure! That's an extra set of hands and an extra weapon in combat, which makes the entire adventure go more smoothly. There will be times when this isn't an advantage (taking that 1st level character along with several 15th level characters is probably a bad idea) but for the most part, everyone gains by bringing along the lower-level character and every gains by having the one character gain an extra level.

What happens when the game is more combat-focused, though, and when the enemy challenges take the PC number and levels into consideration? Then there is a situation where everyone wants all the party members at the highest level possible. Nobody is going to want three 8th level characters and one 9th level character when it means they need to fight 9th level challenges now rather than 8th. Everyone would rather the whole party remain at 8th level, or level up to 9th level together, to better meet the challenges. There is little reason for a party of four 10th level characters to bring along an additional 1st level character, because now they get to fight opponents for a five-10th level PC party. In cases like this, there can be animosity towards the one lower level player for not "pulling their weight" (or the one higher level player for getting too far ahead) and so the level difference could actively cause a problem at the table. This can also apply in a more exploration-focused game if the lower level characters simply can't do anything meaningful; if, even after superior weapons and party buffs, they can't do anything meaningful in combat, then they are likely to just feel useless when combat comes around.


Or in short, the topic of XP is probably more complex that simply "individual XP rewards is bad" or "party XP rewards is good".

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 05:37 PM
If you follow this attitude to its logical conclusion, all rules are identical to a GM deciding what's allowed, expect with more book-keeping.

The fact that someone needs to arbitrate the rules is not a good argument for not having rules.

Let me clarify.

Let's say rules in an RPG exist to moderate player interactions with the world, and world interactions with the players, as a way of avoiding cops and robbers-style "I shot you!" "You missed!" The GM doesn't award successful actions to the players if they're good, or failed actions if they're bad; the GM sets the environment for the players to act in and determines environmental actions with or against the players. The GM doesn't know what the result of any given action is going to be, partly because of player agency, and partly because of randomness from dice.

Character advancement may or may not have solid rules in an RPG. In systems where treasure=XP=level-up, it does; it also does in systems where character advancement isn't GM-mediated (I think Dungeon World does this).

In a system where character advancement is based on leveling up, and leveling up is based on XP, and the GM can and does directly give XP to players for anything they like (as well as having complete freedom in giving out things that give out XP), there is little difference from a system in which the GM tells players "you can level up now." XP is an exclusively GM-side rule. In games like this, I believe that using XP obfuscates how character advancement works (GM fiat).

This isn't to say this kind of XP has absolutely nothing going for it. In systems where advancement is tied to character levels, it makes leveling up more predictable (unless the GM awards XP inconsistently, or reduces it as punishment), and makes players feel better about empty sessions in which they don't level up. It also distances the GM from the responsibility of managing player advancement and rewards:

For example:
"Hey, we haven't leveled up in a while."
"Well, you don't have enough XP."
The player may or may not then blame the GM for not giving enough XP for the PCs to advance as fast as the players want them to; if no XP is being used, then the GM will be blamed for not giving players the kind of game they want.

Alternately:
"Hey, we found treasure! Is there a magic sword?"
"No, but there would have been if you hadn't missed the last session."
The player will feel much worse about not getting better at things than if the player is leveling more slowly because they missed a major XP payout.

Personally, I would rather approach character advancement directly than deal with a getting-better meter. It's a bit like keeping track of a value whose only purpose is to generate another value. Why not track the other value directly?

Keltest
2015-04-07, 05:50 PM
Let me clarify.

Let's say rules in an RPG exist to moderate player interactions with the world, and world interactions with the players, as a way of avoiding cops and robbers-style "I shot you!" "You missed!" The GM doesn't award successful actions to the players if they're good, or failed actions if they're bad; the GM sets the environment for the players to act in and determines environmental actions with or against the players. The GM doesn't know what the result of any given action is going to be, partly because of player agency, and partly because of randomness from dice.

I think heres the big difference in opinion. I at least consider a character's knowledge to be in the realm of the environment. The DM will give you information the character knows, or set up a situation to determine if the character knows it. Whether or not the Player knows something is irrelevant to that.

Going from that, a character can act on the environment the DM has provided in any way the Player wishes, however using knowledge the character does not have is akin to the Player attempting to dictate part of the environment to the DM.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 06:04 PM
I think here's the big difference in opinion. I at least consider a character's knowledge to be in the realm of the environment. The DM will give you information the character knows, or set up a situation to determine if the character knows it. Whether or not the Player knows something is irrelevant to that.

Going from that, a character can act on the environment the DM has provided in any way the Player wishes, however using knowledge the character does not have is akin to the Player attempting to dictate part of the environment to the DM.

...

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure you meant it for this thread. You seem to be talking about metagaming, rather than XP, which is what I was talking about.

Please correct me if I misunderstood.

Keltest
2015-04-07, 06:41 PM
...

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure you meant it for this thread. You seem to be talking about metagaming, rather than XP, which is what I was talking about.

Please correct me if I misunderstood.

You are correct. Opps! Participating in too many threads when youre tired leads to confusion, apparently.