Quest XP only?

[AkumaWolf]

Back when they talked a little about D&D online when it was still in it's early beta, they mentioned something that I found interresting.
The fact that the game only allows XP for quest completed.

Unfortunately, a while back I found out that D&D online sadly goes and horribly *rapes* the core rules of normal D&D... but still, that quest XP idea still hold a place.

So far, I see no drawbacks to it.
A rogue can sneak through enemies without killing them to get the quest item, thus filling a role he's best suited for.
A mage doesn't need to fill up on blaster type spells, since there probably a few that would make solving the quest easier instead of duking it out.
And even the fighter would still benefit, since there will be some quests where someone need to be very dead, no questions asked.


But then some would say: "What's the purpose of fighting then, why don't we just avoid fights altogheter and just pump up the level?"

One word...... Loot

Facing an enemy could still produce a fancy new weapon and some gold, thus still giving a reason to fight.
So in the end it's up to the players? Which is more important to them... XP or loot?

The reason why this sparked my interrest is that this looked like the last possible way I can force my players not to kill anything that breaths.


I want to know if there's some who's tried DM'ing like this, and how it turned out. Or if someone sees a possible flaw in this.
I'm interested to hear you guys' opinions.

[rollfrenzy]

In our group, we generally have a very "free-form" experiences gains. Basically we get xp for playing, the Gm kind of arbitrarily decides how much. In fact if we get past whatever without fighting and instead are clever, we usually get more than just run in and kill. It works well for us and we go up at whatever pace the DM wants.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Back when they talked a little about D&D online when it was still in it's early beta, they mentioned something that I found interresting.
The fact that the game only allows XP for quest completed.

Unfortunately, a while back I found out that D&D online sadly goes and horribly *rapes* the core rules of normal D&D... but still, that quest XP idea still hold a place.

So far, I see no drawbacks to it.
A rogue can sneak through enemies without killing them to get the quest item, thus filling a role he's best suited for.
A mage doesn't need to fill up on blaster type spells, since there probably a few that would make solving the quest easier instead of duking it out.
And even the fighter would still benefit, since there will be some quests where someone need to be very dead, no questions asked.


But then some would say: "What's the purpose of fighting then, why don't we just avoid fights altogheter and just pump up the level?"

One word...... Loot

Facing an enemy could still produce a fancy new weapon and some gold, thus still giving a reason to fight.
So in the end it's up to the players? Which is more important to them... XP or loot?

The reason why this sparked my interrest is that this looked like the last possible way I can force my players not to kill anything that breaths.


I want to know if there's some who's tried DM'ing like this, and how it turned out. Or if someone sees a possible flaw in this.
I'm interested to hear you guys' opinions.
Ultimately I find that I have to do something like this to make the game at all reasonable.

First, you're giving XP for monsters the players "beat" without killing. Then, you're taking enough time for out of combat roleplaying that you have to give some "RP" XP. By the end of it, quest XP makes the most sense.

[yango]

It depends how you write your adventures.

First, theres the issue with the "never gain enough XP to level twice" rule, which would have to be thrown out the window, since long adventures DEFINITELY get that much XP.

A similar problem would be the progression of enemies. If the players don't level up along the way of the adventure, then enemies at the end of an adventure will be SIGNIFICANTLY harder then they would normally be.

IMO it works for a computer game, where a single adventure will take a few hours, but when you're playing at the table, where a single quest/story-arc could take many sessions, not leveling up along the way is going to cause problems, unless you start writing MUCH shorter adventures (which IMO aren't as fun).

[Person_Man]

I actually don't even bother with explicit XP numbers most of the time. I just announce that everyone has faced enough encounters, battle, roleplaying, and training to move up a level. Obviously, once players start making magic items or using XP cost spells, it becomes important to keep an explicit number. But at least at low-mid levels, I find that keeping track of detailed XP numbers is just annoying bookkeeping.

[Krrth]

You can still give just quest XP, and give them loot. Just figure out what the critters and such would have, and they find it. You just don't worry about individual monster XP.

[Arbitrarity]

You can still give just quest XP, and give them loot. Just figure out what the critters and such would have, and they find it. You just don't worry about individual monster XP.

Problem with that is, then they avoid all the combats, etc. However, that's not necessarily a problem, as the XP/GP ratio remains balanced, and they progress as the enemies do.

[Aquillion]

So far, I see no drawbacks to it.
A rogue can sneak through enemies without killing them to get the quest item, thus filling a role he's best suited for.
A mage doesn't need to fill up on blaster type spells, since there probably a few that would make solving the quest easier instead of duking it out.
And even the fighter would still benefit, since there will be some quests where someone need to be very dead, no questions asked.Er, per the RAW, that's how things work already. XP is awarded for getting past challenges, not for winning combats. Look at it like a Knights of the Round Table quest: The DM sets things up with the Holy Grail at the end and a bunch of challenges to be defeated along the way. Every time the players get past a challenge--by any means--they get XP.

If your players are somehow completing a quest without getting the xp, that means you, as DM, either forgot to award it or forgot to put the challenges in the first place (whoops!) A group that sneaks or talks their way past an encounter, though, is always supposed to get full experience for it just as if they'd slaughtered every living thing.

Naturally, sometimes the players set their own goals and create challenges for themselves through their incompetence, but that's no problem. If the player sets a goal of 'clean up all the crime in this town', the DM just decides how difficult the challenges to do that will be, assigns some CR to them, and awards it appropriately. If the player deals with those high-CR criminals by talking them out of their life of crime, they still get their xp.

And if players are easily avoiding combats, that's usually a sign that the DM is doing something wrong--the difficulty of avoiding an encounter should be factored into its CR just as much as the HD and damage dice involved, and is just as valid a way to earn the challenge's xp. Otherwise, what would be the point of all those sneaky and challenge-avoiding skills?

Again, that's the way the game is supposed to work. If you've been playing it differently, you misread the rules.

Of course, their are limits to this. My favorite silliness:

PC: "I'm going to set a goal for myself. I think I'll kill every dragon in the world."

DM: "Er... ok."

PC: "On second thought, I changed my mind. I think I won't kill every dragon in the world... and, by making this decision, I have avoided an encounter with every dragon everywhere, and therefore get the same XP I'd have gotten if I defeated them."

Repeat until you're level 20.

[AkumaWolf]

Er, per the RAW, that's how things work already. XP is awarded for getting past challenges, not for winning combats. Look at it like a Knights of the Round Table quest: The DM sets things up with the Holy Grail at the end and a bunch of challenges to be defeated along the way. Every time the players get past a challenge--by any means--they get XP.

If your players are somehow completing a quest without getting the xp, that means you, as DM, either forgot to award it or forgot to put the challenges in the first place (whoops!) A group that sneaks or talks their way past an encounter, though, is always supposed to get full experience for it just as if they'd slaughtered every living thing.

Naturally, sometimes the players set their own goals and create challenges for themselves through their incompetence, but that's no problem. If the player sets a goal of 'clean up all the crime in this town', the DM just decides how difficult the challenges to do that will be, assigns some CR to them, and awards it appropriately. If the player deals with those high-CR criminals by talking them out of their life of crime, they still get their xp.

And if players are easily avoiding combats, that's usually a sign that the DM is doing something wrong--the difficulty of avoiding an encounter should be factored into its CR just as much as the HD and damage dice involved, and is just as valid a way to earn the challenge's xp. Otherwise, what would be the point of all those sneaky and challenge-avoiding skills?

Again, that's the way the game is supposed to work. If you've been playing it differently, you misread the rules.

Of course, their are limits to this. My favorite silliness:

PC: "I'm going to set a goal for myself. I think I'll kill every dragon in the world."

DM: "Er... ok."

PC: "On second thought, I changed my mind. I think I won't kill every dragon in the world... and, by making this decision, I have avoided an encounter with every dragon everywhere, and therefore get the same XP I'd have gotten if I defeated them."

Repeat until you're level 20.



Umm... I don't think your get what I'm saying...

I know the D&D rules...
Shaking your fists at the goblins scares them away and thus you get the XP for 'defeating' them.

What I'm talking about is not giving XP for things such as random encounters (which does not fall on the quest 'to do' list)

I want my players to consider their actions for taking on a fight. I want to them to think "do I REALLY need to risk my neck here"

Because of standard D&D XP gains, my players would take on demi-gods at 1st level if the XP award sounds appetizing enough*
(*blown out of proportion here, but they still would take on things way higher than their level.)


I want to try to nudge my D&D campaigns to something more than Oblivion style "travel, travel, travel, travel... ooooh, a dungeon along the way, let's rack up them XP boys!"

[Krrth]

Problem with that is, then they avoid all the combats, etc. However, that's not necessarily a problem, as the XP/GP ratio remains balanced, and they progress as the enemies do.

Not quite what I had in mind. They do still have to defeat the monsters to get whatever they had on them. You just don't worry about the XP for each individual monster.

[Arbitrarity]

Isn't that the initial suggestion? :smallwink:

Ah, I misread your post :smallsigh:

[Krrth]

Heh, it's all good. I've been told I'm not exactly clear on what I mean many, many times......

[PhallicWarrior]

Quest-based XP is pretty much the only way I deal with experience, at least in my SWD20 game. (Sort of. I GM a solo campaign for my lil' sis and I do XP by encounter to make sure she can hold her own against an Emperor's Hand and... let's say half of the forces at his command. She went from lvl 1 to lvl 4 in the span of a story arc.)

[horseboy]

In my preferred system they recommend no more than 1/4 of the total points come from combat. 1/4 from loot, 1/4 from roleplaying and 1/4 for plot points completed. Sure you CAN go just slaughter everything, but it'll actually take LONGER (not to mention safer) than just finishing the story.

[ChrisMcDee]

This isn't using D&D, but in my home system the DM gives a player an experience point when they complete a task of importance. Usually this would be completing some sort of mission, completing a long, dangerous journey or a dungeon, and in some cases may be worth two points. Bear in mind that one point is more than it sounds in this system!

[Overlord]

It depends how you write your adventures.

First, theres the issue with the "never gain enough XP to level twice" rule, which would have to be thrown out the window, since long adventures DEFINITELY get that much XP.


Well, that rule is frequently misinterpreted. Sorry if you already know this, but I'
ll mention it for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know.

The rule doesn't state that you can't get enough XP to level twice in an adventure. It just states that you can't get enough expericence points from a single award to level more than once as a result of that award. So, let's say you go on an adventure and you're level 2. And let's say that over the course of your adventure, you kill 50 CR 2 monsters. If you are in a party of four PCs, then your cut of the XP is 150 each. Multiply that by 50, and by the end of the session you should be getting 7,500 XP. But hey! That's enough for you to reach level four! It doesn't matter. Each of those encounters was an individual award. You should have leveled up to three after the 14th encounter. If your DM didn't have you level up in the middle of the game, that's his decision, but the rules state that you earned level 4 (at higher levels, you begin earning less XP for the same encounter as you gain levels, and your DM might or might not adjust for that if he doesn't allow you to level up). It's perfectly understandable that many DMs (including, quite frequently, myself) don't want to stop in the middle of the game so that everyone can pick their new skills and feats, or whatever. But if you look in almost all published adventures, like the ones in Dungeon, that intend for characters to receive enough XP to level up more than once, they state that the PCs should be allowed to level up during the adventure (because the encounters start scaling up in difficulty to make up for that fact).

Now, if in the middle of a game, your party kills an extremely high level monster, and you gain that 7,500 for nothing other than killing that uber-monster, then yes, you should only be allowed to level up once.

Again, sorry if you already knew this, but I wanted to make sure that this was clear for everyone (assuming that I'm actually correct :smalltongue: ).

[Dausuul]

I want to know if there's some who's tried DM'ing like this, and how it turned out. Or if someone sees a possible flaw in this.
I'm interested to hear you guys' opinions.

Almost every D&D game I've ever played in has awarded XP on a loose "quest basis," translated as "however much the DM thinks is appropriate." Works fine. The few games I've played that awarded XP by the standard rules were mostly hack-fests.

If you want something with a little more structure, here's a system I'm thinking of using in my next campaign:

At the end of each session, award character points to participating players, based on the following criteria:

GROUP AWARDS
Showing up to the game: 1 point
Basic award to everyone who showed up.
Each plot point accomplished: 2 points
Award for advancing the plot (e.g., finding an NPC with information about the MacGuffin). This should happen about once a session.
Each quest completed: 4 points
Award for accomplishing a major task (e.g., retrieving the MacGuffin). This should happen about once every 4-6 sessions.
Each campaign arc completed: 8 points
Award for completing a major story arc (e.g., using the MacGuffin to defeat the BBEG). This should happen about once every 15-25 sessions.
Group worked well together: 2 points
Award for working together effectively, using each character's strengths for the benefit of the party and resolving arguments without killing each other.
Danger pay: 2 points
Award for overcoming several extremely dangerous/difficult encounters.

INDIVIDUAL AWARDS
Most Valued Player: 1 point
Award for being the most intelligent, the most effective, or just in the right place at the right time. Determined by party vote. Ties are broken by rolling 1d20. However, the same player cannot receive the MVP award two sessions in a row.
Playing in character: 1 point
Award for speaking or acting in character when the situation calls for it.
Character's level is lower than party average: 1 point per level difference
Award to help lower-level characters catch up to higher-level ones.

Characters gain a level every 20 character points. If you need to convert to the regular XP system (for magic item creation and the like), each character point can be traded for 50 XP times your level at the time of trade.

[TheOOB]

Players level when I say they level, usually around 2-3 sessions, or when they complete an important mission. I hate having to balance out encounters so players don't level up too fast/too slow.

If I need to award someone something for being awesome, I give them an action point, people like action points.

[Diggorian]

I want to try to nudge my D&D campaigns to something more than Oblivion style "travel, travel, travel, travel... ooooh, a dungeon along the way, let's rack up them XP boys!"

Quest or Story XP is a good way to do that in my experience.

Party is charged to confront the undead general to the north, they get XP for overcoming every challenge that hinders their path to the general. Party hears rumor of a giant ant hill south and camps south near sighting places (i.e. spawn points) of giant ants can kill the whole hive yet get no XP, since it's not part of the story.

If the party set out to destroy the ant threat, no XP for undead they happen into cause it doesnt contribute to their overall goal.

Put XP as the carrot of plot progression, players become narrative minded with true protagonist characters. Give it for any challenge, they become thrill seekers.

Ofcourse, any change in your playstyle may take adjustments for the group, including some leaving.

[Matthew]

I haven't awarded Experience for 'killing stuff and taking treasure' since my earliest games of D&D. Quest Awards are much easier to handle and overall more satisfying, in my experience.

[Winterwind]

Not D&D, but in every single roleplaying game I have ever played, without exceptions, all of the experience came from completing adventures, and none from encounters. Frankly, I can hardly imagine it to be otherwise - it would make for an extremely combat/challenge oriented game otherwise, it seems to me.

Actually, we go even a step further, and there is, generally, no noteworthy loot from encounters, either. Except if it benefits the story. Well, actually, there are no encounters, unless they benefit the story, but interesting items are found because it is currently fitting that they are found, or because their special properties or their "fluff" will yet come up and influence the plot, not because defeating monsters has to be rewarded with items. Which makes combat either a pure roleplaying decision or a story element.

[leperkhaun]

Mostly our dm keeps loose track of what the xp is and generlly says.....hmmm level up.

As for the no xp for random encounters. I think you should give xp for them, or at least some of them. Now granted a random encounter while traveling from town to town could not warrent a xp component since there is no reason why the group wouldnt go all out and use all of thier abilities. On the flip side random encounters thrown into dungeons and in places where they have to conserve thier abilities because there is a good chance of facing more danger should give at least a bit.

[yango]

Well, that rule is frequently misinterpreted. Sorry if you already know this, but I'
ll mention it for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know.

...

Again, sorry if you already knew this, but I wanted to make sure that this was clear for everyone (assuming that I'm actually correct :smalltongue: ).

From my understanding, the rule was that you can't gain enough XP from one session to level twice (since the DMG doesn't list XP for stuff more than 8 CRs higher than your level anyway). The reason why I said it would have to be changed is because with quest XP, you wouldn't technically gain quest XP until you finished the quest, meaning multiple sessions worth of XP would be crunched into 1 session.

[Ramza00]

Maybe I don't like this due to a bad experience, but this logic is almost identical to an old computer game Diablo 2.

Remember Baal runs? Well people would gladly take a 70 lvl character who would get your lvl 1 character (works better if your character was lvl 25) all the way through act 5 nightmare. You stayed in the corner, they killed things, you gain quests. They grab the gem for completing Act 4 quest part 2 as payment (since it had a high chance of being a rune for rune words).

Well after you did all this you just level up by going back to plain game (non nightmare) and killed baal losts of times till you were level 40 something. You then repeated the same tactic in nightmare baal.

Doing this it was quite easy to get to the mid level 60s or something like that. Problem is you had no loot and you either need a friend to give you some, an e-bay account, or a dungeon crawling to the point you had no life.

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

Well I was one of those people without the high level friends willing to lend items, nor was I going to pay for items off ebay, nor was I going to devote my life to an MORPG (nor a MMORPG). Thus the game got boring real quick after you beat the first level and forgot about doing nightmare. I dislike grindfests.

[OverdrivePrime]

I can see the value of awading exp for whole quests rather than just encounters, but before implementing this myself, I'd like to resolve a couple concerns:

Random encounters - should these be pitched altogether, since they essentially just detract from the main story? I think they can be a very fun and rewarding part of a player's (and DM's) experience. Perhaps just award 1/3 the normal encounter exp for random encounters and incidentals that get in the way of completing the primary quest?

Changes in Direction - I tend to design very complete regions, if not whole campaign worlds, which gives my players a lot of lattitude in where they go and what they do to accomplish their goals. Frequently, they've set off on one quest (rescue the daughter of a fallen paladin from the Poisonwood Forest) and realized that there was something else out there of greater importance (defeat the vampiress responsible for poisoning the Shadow Wood Forest and thereby restoring the Poisonwood to its natural state). Is this greater task a whole new quest (what happens to the old one once it's obsoleted), or is it merely a very powerful series of encounters along the way to a much smaller quest?

The Price of Failure - Heroes aren't always victorious, but not every failure results in a TPK. How would you treat a failed quest? For example, my players (at level 14) decide that it's their duty to take out the Lich King of the North, and mount a huge effort, crossing through his glacial kingdom, fighting through scores of monsters, making alliances with the previously warring Frost Elves and Wolfen (snagged from Palladium!) and other such great deeds of daring-do. When they finally arrive at the Lich King's ice palace, they are ushered in by demonic guards, and taken to the Lich King's antechamber where the king and his best friend politely offer to battle the party for control of the world. After three rounds of combat, the Lich King can tell that the party is waaaaaaaay out of their league and are no real threat to him or his kingdom. Amused, he mass teleports the lot of them three thousand miles to the South, a hundred feet over a lake. Quest failed. Do they get no experience, despite several game sessions' worth of mighty deeds and victories?

[Winterwind]

Well I was one of those people without the high level friends willing to lend items, nor was I going to pay for items off ebay, nor was I going to devote my life to an MORPG (nor a MMORPG). Thus the game got boring real quick after you beat the first level and forgot about doing nightmare. I dislike grindfests.So... how does this relate to this threads topic? :smallconfused:
If anything, it would seem to me that experience merely for roleplaying and not for fighting random encounters would encourage less grind, more roleplaying.


The Price of Failure - Heroes aren't always victorious, but not every failure results in a TPK. How would you treat a failed quest?My personal suggestion would be to not award XP for quests either, but only for sessions. How good/immersive was the atmosphere? In what situations have the characters been?
(Note: I specifically avoid saying "How good did the players roleplay?", because in my opinion only the players themselves can evaluate how well they presented the character only they truly know. Effectively, in our group, XP is awarded by general difficulty, number of important scenes (meeting Elrond and the Council of Rivendell, for instance, were not very dangerous or even challenging scenes, but would have been worth a huge chunk of experience in our group), and rough feeling on how good the atmosphere was during that session)

[AkumaWolf]

Some people gave some great suggestion and reasons.

One of the things that pop up a lot is the fact that some quest take forever and will have players going through 3 gaming sessions before they level.

Well... the way I handled my quest XP is in relation to how big the said quest is...



Mini-Quest: XP Reward = 50 x Average Party Level

Very small side-quest that would take no more than 10 min to complete out of game. Are very plentiful and a fun break from main quest and isn't dangerous at all.
"There's rats in the cellar, get rid of them for me, please..."
You'll need to complete 20 mini-quest to gain a level.


Small Quest: XP Reward = 100 x Average Party Level

Small quests that would take no more than 30min to complete out of game.
Most likely found in taverns or from peasants and might pose a mild threat sometimes.
"Two goblins are stealing my sheep, get rid of them..."
You'll need to complete 10 small quests to gain a level.


Medium Quest: XP Reward = 250 x Average Party Level

Meduim sized quests that would take no more than 1-2 hours to complete out of game. Usually gained from important NPC's and will most likely pose moderate threat.
"Escort these nobles though the war-ridden ash lands for three days..."
You'll need to complete 5 medium quests to gain a level.


Large Quest: XP Reward = 500 x Average Party Level

Large quests could take up to 5 hours to complete and is most of the time linked to the main quest.
"Clear the dungeon of all monsters so that our wizards can discover what dark arts it holds..."
You'll need to complete 2 large quests to gain a level.

Main Quest: XP Reward = 1000 x Average Party Level

Main quests follow the main storyline set up from the DM and will be awarded as the main quest jump into another main story arc. There's usually around max 3-4 main quests in a campaign.
"Go to the dark liches tower and finish this war..."
You'll need to complete 1 main quests to gain a level.

Looking at this system, it would still seem like it would take long to level, but the way I'd handle it is by breaking one simple quest into many of the above... for example:

The captain of the guard has been having problems with people disappearing while wandering the edge of the forests, a local merchant said he saw something odd on the path and captain asks you to investigate [Small Quest]. The merchant will only give the info for a price or if you can persuade his lover to forgive him for some previous bad deeds [Small Quest]. After persuading his lover, he tells you of a place he's seen in the wood that looks suspicious, but he can't remember it very well, all he could give you were some common landmarks. After telling the captain, he asks you to head out and investigate [Medium Quest]. Using the descriptions the merchant gave and after a few close encounter with some forest beasts, you eventually find a dungeon that seems to be some sort of slave camp run by goblins. You enter the dungeon and start clearing it of evil [Large Quest]. Along the way, you find a couple of peasants that's captured, they plead to you to set them free and escort them out of the dungeon [Medium Quest]. One of the people between the peasant is an experienced wizard, and tells you that he can help you escape if you help him find the hobgoblin shaman who took his spellbook, spell components and magical items and retrieve it for him.[Small Quest]
Eventually, the dungeon is cleared and the peasants returned to their home.
The party calls it a night by getting a drink in the local tavern."


That comes down to: 1300XP if the party is lv.1 :smallbiggrin:

[Jack_Simth]

At a glance, this doesn't support "Catching up" - the level loss from Raise Dead and similar is permanent; anyone who crafts a lot will end up permanently behind, and so on. This could discourage players from classes on the front lines.

[Anxe]

When one of my players DMed he had us level up after each adventure we completed. Damn, I wish I could play my character from that campaign again.

[Skjaldbakka]

This may have been said already, and if so, I apologize, but I wanted to get my two bits in.

I don't really have a problem with free-form, informal XP awards (unless I am a crafter- then I need to know exactly how much XP I have). What I do have a problem with is DMs who insist that XP should only be awarded for good roleplaying and quest completion. The XP system is kinda wonky in that you get better at various non-combat skills and abilities by killing things, but that is a result of those skills being tied to level (which they can't be removed from, really, not and still be D&D). My two bits pretty much boil down to this:

The majority of the benefits you gain from leveling are combat-related. Therefore, the majority of the XP you gain in order to achieve those levels ought to be from combat.

[Matthew]

At a glance, this doesn't support "Catching up" - the level loss from Raise Dead and similar is permanent; anyone who crafts a lot will end up permanently behind, and so on. This could discourage players from classes on the front lines.

This may actually not be considered a bad thing, depending on perspective. I consider it a good point of the system.

[Diggorian]

My two bits pretty much boil down to this:

The majority of the benefits you gain from leveling are combat-related. Therefore, the majority of the XP you gain in order to achieve those levels ought to be from combat.

Very true given the DMG endorsed XP system. Building a political concensus amongst nobles over the course of several adventures may yield RP XP enough to level, but the increases are going to always be better ability to neutralize attacks (HP) and either better physical and mental capacity to adapt (saves) and/or more accurate striking acumen (BAB). None of which have much to do with strengthening the skills exercised.

For this reason I've implemented a more customized leveling apparatus: 2 base points to raise saves or BAB per level, 3 pts at third levels, and 1 of these points can be exchange for 2 extra skill points. So leveling need not involve increasing combat prowess.


The concept of quest XP though limits the rewards to those gained from plot "relevant" combat.

Using this idea, I've responded to PCs going out to have generic encounters with generic results: they patrol the streets at night they may find a mugger, roll opposing level checks vs their opposition, if successful they get about 10-20XP per level (peanuts). I consider "If this was a book/movie/TV episode how much camera time would I devote to it as author/director." not much if it does nothing to advance the story.

[Matthew]

Except that Hit Dice can also simply represent good fortune and divine favour, rather than combat expertise. BAB is probably the only base aspect that can be directly connected to experience and levelling via combat. That said, many Feats and Class Features are Combat Related, but need not be a result of experience themselves, especially if Training Rules are in play.

[Diggorian]

Except that Hit Dice can also simply represent good fortune and divine favour, rather than combat expertise.

I would conceed to my esteemed British counterpart on HP as good fortune, aka luck, as hitpoints dont diminish when flat-footed -- although one could read HPs as representing being so battle-hardened that the skill of damage neutralization is unconscious -- yet divine favor they aint as patron deity for non-clerics is a fluff entry on the character sheet. :smallamused:

Still, one ponders the opinion of the learned GM from New Castle on the author's other ideas. :smallbiggrin:

[Dausuul]

This may have been said already, and if so, I apologize, but I wanted to get my two bits in.

I don't really have a problem with free-form, informal XP awards (unless I am a crafter- then I need to know exactly how much XP I have). What I do have a problem with is DMs who insist that XP should only be awarded for good roleplaying and quest completion. The XP system is kinda wonky in that you get better at various non-combat skills and abilities by killing things, but that is a result of those skills being tied to level (which they can't be removed from, really, not and still be D&D). My two bits pretty much boil down to this:

The majority of the benefits you gain from leveling are combat-related. Therefore, the majority of the XP you gain in order to achieve those levels ought to be from combat.

That depends on the campaign. If you're in an RP-heavy game where you only have a fight once every 3 sessions, then the skills you get from levelling up are a whole lot more valuable than the combat stats. The fact that you have more numbers on the character sheet devoted to combat does not mean that your character is primarily a combatant.

The way I see it, the more RP there is in your game, the more valuable the RP-related stats are, and the more combat there is in your game, the more valuable the combat stats are. Quest awards represent earning XP for everything you did in-game. So in a combat-heavy game, where combat stats are the most important part of your character, quest awards will mostly be rewarding you for combat. In an RP-heavy game, quest awards will mostly reward you for RP.

[Matthew]

I would conceed to my esteemed British counterpart on HP as good fortune, aka luck, as hitpoints dont diminish when flat-footed -- although one could read HPs as representing being so battle-hardened that the skill of damage neutralization is unconscious -- yet divine favor they aint as patron deity for non-clerics is a fluff entry on the character sheet. :smallamused:

Still, one ponders the opinion of the learned GM from New Castle on the author's other ideas. :smallbiggrin:

Heh, well technically, most things can be explained away as luck and divine favour rather than actual Skill, but I think it's safe to say that Characters must be getting more skilled from experience in the field (or training at home) and that this translates into their statistics to some degree or another.

For my Houseruled and Homebrewed 2e style Game, I suspect I do similar to you. I allow Characters to increase 'Skills' 'Saving Throws', 'Attack Bonuses' and 'purchase 'Feats' via Character Points, so that it's up to them how their Character develops by level (and I have been known to allow such things to occur independent of level). Makes no sense to increase your Combat Abilities if the game is all about Political Intrigue, but I wouldn't disallow it either.

[Jack_Simth]

This may actually not be considered a bad thing, depending on perspective. I consider it a good point of the system.
Well, part of it depends on the table choices on replacing lost characters but...

(assuming characters that are otherwise balanced with each other)

Level/XP loss/fallback (from whatever source - level drain, crafting, XP costing spells, death and Ressurection, and so on) means you cannot catch up - ever. The best you can hope for is the rest of the party being dragged down.

Fighter takes an unlucky crit from a beast and dies. Crits happen. Players tend to grow attached to characters - so they get a Raise Dead, and he's back.

Now, though, he's more vulnerable - few HP, worse saves - and less effective (lower BAB, fewer feats, and so on). Next time he's in a fight, he's more likely to die; the next Raise Dead becomes more likely. If he gets hit with an effect that applies negative levels, he's more likely to fail the save for the negative level becoming permanent. The next Phantasmal Killer is more likely to live up to it's name. And so on, and so forth.

Now, with rules that permit catching up, this is recoverable - he'll earn XP faster for being lower level. If he plays it a little safer for a while (more Fighting Defensively, mostly), he'll be back up to full strength relative to the rest of the party in a few sessions. He has to lay back a bit and not play as strong a role as before, but he'll get back to it; the occasional random bit of ill-fortune doesn't leave the character permanently in the dust.

Without rules that permit catching up, this is not recoverable. If he plays it safe, he's less likely to lose another level in the same manner.... but he's also going to be considerably less in the spotlight (which, for most, means less fun). If he doesn't play it safe, he's still less in the spotlight (although not as much as when playing it safe) but he's more likely to have another unlucky incident. Provided the other characters don't have matching bits of ill-fortune (at which point, it ceases to be chance - the DM is basically deliberately forcing the other characters to meet comparable fates), he's permanently less in the spotlight, no going back.

This works the other way, too. Without equalization routines (catch up xp, slow-down XP, or the DM stepping in and stomping a character, or some other method), the "sole survivor" is going to be permanently stronger than the rest of the party. This character gets more spotlight time. If the DM throws opponents for the rest of the party into the fray, the "sole survivor" does better against them, and is more likely to take spotlight simply for being better at doing the job. If the DM throws opponents for the "sole survivor" at the party, the others are more likely to go down again, and the "sole survivor" will still have more spotlight time, as he's more capable.

Now, if the table-choices permit a replacement character at the average level of the rest of the party (or the average of the rest of the party -1) this isn't a problem from a metagame perspective, as there's a cap on how far behind (retire the character, replace with another that's up to party standards). This, however, introduces an additional strain in verisimilitude - okay, so the group that has been adventuring together for years, having lost a member, suddenly trusts their lives to some new guy they just met? It becomes a bit more of a creative challenge to make it make sense.

Catchup rules, on the other hand, deal with both aspects - an unlucky roll does not permanently hamper the character (usually - exceptions exist for alignment-restricted classes, such as the Cleric, Druid, or Paladin who have an unlucky roll with alignment-altering effects) and you don't have a new guy to suddenly trust because the character had to be retired to get back up to normal power. Plus they have the benefit of being Core and the expected.

Now, it is a preference thing - near-meaningless death is one of those things many dislike about D&D. At the same time, people play characters they like, and having lost the character, will want to continue to play it - and have about as much spotlight time as everyone else. Catchup rules permit this (which is good), but remove much of the meaning from a character's death (which can be bad). No-catchup rules prevent this (which is kinda bad), but add an extra "edge" to death (which can be good).

Eh, done ranting for now.

[Matthew]

Heh, heh. Yeah, I understand your point Jack Mann, but I do think this is one of those things that is handled within the game with less difficulty than extreme cases may suggest. Characters with more experience than their fellows don't necessarily hog the limelight, but more importantly, because of the way Magic Item production works, they can contribute more experience to that total, allowing the party to even itself out (if it so desires). Honestly, though, I have no problem with Characters within the same Party being different levels from one another.

There is some degree of catch up, anyway:

Level 1 Character joins a Level 10 Party, 45,000 Experience Points later he is Level 10 and the Party is Level 14.

Saying that, the bulk of my experience is with 2e and the 'catch up' mechanic there is much quicker. By the time a Level 8 Fighter has advanced to Level 9, a Level 1 Fighter has advanced to Level 8.