Methods of XP Distribution

[zephiros]

I was just wondering how DMs typically distribute experience in their own campaigns, I've witnessed a variety of ways myself, and I was looking at learning some of the pros/cons

Ones I've personally come across

XP per approximate damage dealt - tedious to figure out after a while
XP per successful hits - one of the better ones I've played with
XP per monsters slain - another good one
XP per hit, bonuses for killing blows - probably the best I've used
Full level gained after specific activity/activities completed - kind of tedious in that characters don't typically level as fast as they normally would.

Not sure if there's any other generally used ways.

I think the best one I've come across, in my opinion, is to give xp per hit, bonus on killing blows, bonuses on "flavourful" attacks (things that are flashy / big damage / particularly ingenuous) as well as gaining xp outside combat for character development, etc. I don't really feel as amiable to the "gaining full levels at a time" because, well...it just feels like less of an accomplishment, and it can make your current level drag on a bit until the DM feels you've completed a worthy action.

But I'd like to hear what other people think.

[Kylarra]

Assuming D&D and similar games, my personal favorite is not giving exp, you just level up after a certain number of sessions or when the DM says so.

[arrowhen]

I've had good results with "Gain a level whenever you think you've earned it; be honest" in the past, but usually I just use the DMG method.

And I *never* give bonus XP for roleplaying or any other "impress the DM" crap.

[Frog Dragon]

I give xp for doing stuff. If everyone does stuff, everyone gets xp, but say, if one char goes soloing for whatever reason, only he gets xp.
I chuck the dmg method to the wayside and just give the amount that feels right.

[Jack_Simth]

I was just wondering how DMs typically distribute experience in their own campaigns, I've witnessed a variety of ways myself, and I was looking at learning some of the pros/cons

Ones I've personally come across

XP per approximate damage dealt - tedious to figure out after a while
XP per successful hits - one of the better ones I've played with
XP per monsters slain - another good one
XP per hit, bonuses for killing blows - probably the best I've used
Full level gained after specific activity/activities completed - kind of tedious in that characters don't typically level as fast as they normally would.

Not sure if there's any other generally used ways.

I think the best one I've come across, in my opinion, is to give xp per hit, bonus on killing blows, bonuses on "flavourful" attacks (things that are flashy / big damage / particularly ingenuous) as well as gaining xp outside combat for character development, etc. I don't really feel as amiable to the "gaining full levels at a time" because, well...it just feels like less of an accomplishment, and it can make your current level drag on a bit until the DM feels you've completed a worthy action.

But I'd like to hear what other people think.

The 3.5 D&D standard is party XP. Leveling at plot points is also common and acceptable. The others you listed are a bad idea... and there's a reason for that.

Let's go through them: These four all have the same problem:

XP per approximate damage dealt:
XP per successful hits - one of the better ones I've played with
XP per monsters slain - another good one
XP per hit, bonuses for killing blows - probably the best I've used

Okay, so now the Cleric either doesn't do 'rescue' healing (as he's too busy keeping up with everyone else's output), or he falls behind on the XP scale (as the Wizard doesn't have to stop and heal the meatshield, but the Cleric does). Likewise, the Cleric can't buff the party - if he does, he's basically feeding them XP at a cost of his own - Blessing your allies, Baning your opponents, or casting up a Prayer do not deal damage - so the Cleric doesn't get anything that turn - but it does speed up how much the rest of the party deals damage, making them level faster. Likewise the Bard loses out if he makes use of Bardsong.

Additionally, What do you do about the people that are useful, you know, outside of combat? The Rogue that took care of those traps. The Wizard who's Fly spell got the rope up so everyone could climb. The Bard who convinced the the enemy to stand down. And so on?

The traditional method (Party XP for beating encounters) or the plot-based method work fine for the most part (the plot-based method runs into a problem: Crafting XP), but if you base leveling up off of combat statistics, then the game quickly becomes a competition on who can do the most X... even though in a great many cases, the party is more effective when one member buffs up the others.

[Powerfamiliar]

Since pathfinder scrapped XP for crafting, I've pretty much been using the "You level every couple of sessions" methods. Works pretty well since you always know what level the PCs will be for a given session no matter if they skipped encounters, and you never have to bother adding up xp.

[Vangor]

Experience calculation feels rather tedious and ignores exploration, social interaction, knowledge through progression, and similar most of the time. With a proper amount of progress, parties should level about identical rates in what would be a couple of sessions (meaning large story element to next large story element) no matter how you distribute; has worked this way when we did calculate CRs for experience and such. Thus, I save time, and I reward playing rather than strict combat.

[Saph]

I just do XP by the book. I find players enjoy it more.

The DM in our Pathfinder game does the "level at plot points" method. It cuts down on bookkeeping, but it can be a bit frustrating that how fast you learn and improve has nothing to do with how challenging or dangerous your adventures are.

[W3bDragon]

Our group does xp at the end of the session. We find that this has a few benefits.

- Xp doesn't interrupt the flow of the action
- Players are never sure when an encounter is over because xp isn't given on the spot
- Doing a quick recap of the session at the end of it to hand out xp helps gel the events of each session into a story instead of a series of encounters
- It gives incentive to players that tend to leave early to stay to the end of the session, lest someone mess up recording their xp for them

We also usually go over all the events of the session, and any good idea or good exceptional roleplaying is rewarded on a case by case basis. This is especially good for the DM because it helps him show what he wants from his players by rewarding them for these actions outside combat.

tl,dr We use the system in the DMG for combat exp, and give liberal roleplaying xp, at the end of the session.

[FuryOfMetal]

I tried to hand out exp using the combat rewards table or whatever, but then i had to keep checking back to the exp required for each level, their current exp, tally any bonuses i'd give, announce at the end the total....So now my players just level up when i tell them to, which i usually judge to be every other session. But if at any point i judge they'd level up midway through a session i announce it at the end then they'd also level up after next session most likely.

But now that exp is out of the window i'm stuck at how to reward awesome roleplaying, plans of action, epic attacks etc. so I'm thinking of introducing teh "cool point" system.

Our WoD GM gives us a cool point whenever we do something amazing or make a meaningful mental leap in regards to the plot and in WoD exp is measured on the scale of 1, 2, 3...not 1000, 2000 etc.

So to apply this to DnD i was thinking maybe every time you accumulate 5 cool points you could increase an attribute by 1 point when you next level up (stacking with the increase every fourth level). Would this be a good idea? Possible different rewards for awesome roleplaying, actions etc.?

[Kylarra]

Action points or variants thereof can be used as impromptu rewards.

[arrowhen]

Why do you have to "reward" players at all? Good roleplaying is its own reward, and you can express your appreciation for their other contributions through ordinary social means like laughing at their jokes or paying them compliments.

[Jarawara]

Why do you have to "reward" players at all? Good roleplaying is its own reward, and you can express your appreciation for their other contributions through ordinary social means like laughing at their jokes or paying them compliments.

Well put.

Through much of my years as DMing, I have gamed with just one player at a time. When the player gives a really good description on his attack, I give bonuses to hit (or an automatic hit if appropriate). If she gives a good argument in the roleplay when trying to convince my NPC's, I allow her automatic diplomacy success. The more they emerse theirselves into the game, the more likely I am going to reward them.

But when we have others at the table with us, that has to stop. Otherwise, it quickly becomes "Whoever monopolizes the DM's time the most gets rewarded for it." That just doesn't work.

The only individual reward I'd consider in a multi-player gaming group is when a player helps out with the details of running the game. You know - helps the new player make a character, brings chips, generally covers the little detail. That's worth rewarding, and the appropriate reward is public recognition for their efforts.

[zephiros]

Okay, so now the Cleric either doesn't do 'rescue' healing (as he's too busy keeping up with everyone else's output), or he falls behind on the XP scale (as the Wizard doesn't have to stop and heal the meatshield, but the Cleric does). Likewise, the Cleric can't buff the party - if he does, he's basically feeding them XP at a cost of his own - Blessing your allies, Baning your opponents, or casting up a Prayer do not deal damage - so the Cleric doesn't get anything that turn - but it does speed up how much the rest of the party deals damage, making them level faster. Likewise the Bard loses out if he makes use of Bardsong.

Additionally, What do you do about the people that are useful, you know, outside of combat? The Rogue that took care of those traps. The Wizard who's Fly spell got the rope up so everyone could climb. The Bard who convinced the the enemy to stand down. And so on?

The traditional method (Party XP for beating encounters) or the plot-based method work fine for the most part (the plot-based method runs into a problem: Crafting XP), but if you base leveling up off of combat statistics, then the game quickly becomes a competition on who can do the most X... even though in a great many cases, the party is more effective when one member buffs up the others.

I definitely agree with your thinking here, and perhaps I didn't explain particularly well before, the "per hit" one that I described as being my favourite also gives equivalent or scaled xp for healing / buffs / any number of other things that a player may do in combat aside from hits. Essentially beneficial combat actions gain experience, and if one character got a bonus for delivering a killing blow, the one who aided him in doing so may also receive that bonus.

As for characters who are good at out of combat situations, I meant those types of proficiencies to be included under the RP heading, although I did not explicitly mention so, and certainly any beneficial and reasonably difficult action would warrant experience

I simply find that the "level up at story point x" modes that I've played with take far too long to get to, and detract a bit from the feeling of progress with one's characters. Personally, the fact that I've never played through to level 20 is actually starting to annoy me a bit, because in all honesty, I'd really like to. Maybe that's biasing it a bit on my part, because the per damage / encounter campaigns I've played have tended to result in faster leveling but that's my take on it.

[arrowhen]

The only individual reward I'd consider in a multi-player gaming group is when a player helps out with the details of running the game. You know - helps the new player make a character, brings chips, generally covers the little detail. That's worth rewarding, and the appropriate reward is public recognition for their efforts.

Right, but at that point it's not really a "reward", it's just basic politeness. When someone does something that you're thankful for, you thank them for it. It has nothing to do with your position as DM. If I think it's cool that Jane brought a bag of chips and helped Bob make his character, I'll say, "Hey, Jane, it's really cool that you brought chips and helped Bob with his character," whether I'm the DM or not.

A DM's job is to portray NPCs, craft challenges for the PCs and make judgment calls about game rules. And that's all. I don't know where the notion came about that running a game should also confer some kind of social status or out-of-game authority, but that notion is destructive, creepy, and just plain wrong.

[arrowhen]

As for characters who are good at out of combat situations, I meant those types of proficiencies to be included under the RP heading, although I did not explicitly mention so, and certainly any beneficial and reasonably difficult action would warrant experience

Are you familiar with "Keys" from The Shadow of Yesterday?

Basically, a Key is a character goal. Everytime the character does something to advance that goal, they get experience points. For example:

Key of Conscience
Your character has a soft spot for those weaker than their opponents. Gain 1 XP every time your character helps someone who cannot help themselves. Gain 2 XP every time your character defends someone with might who is in danger and cannot save themselves. Gain 5 XP every time your character takes someone in an unfortunate situation and changes their life to where they can help themselves. Buyoff: Ignore a request for help.

(Two points here: first, 1 XP is a lot in this game; second, "buyoff" means you get 10 XP but you lose that Key and can never take it again. Basically, it means a hefty mechanical advantage in exchange for major character development.)

The cool thing about Keys is that the GM doesn't give you XP for bringing your Keys into play, you take them whenever you bring your Keys into play. In other words, the GM isn't responsible for "rewarding" you for playing your character, but is instead responsible for crafting their adventures in such a way that you have the opportunity to do so.

Which is made easy for them by that fact that the Keys you choose are a very strong statement on your part about what kind of play experience you want to engage in. If you take the Key of Bloodlust, you're telling the GM you want lots of opportunities to kill things. If you take the Key of Faith, you're telling them you want lots of opportunities for your character to defend her faith, and so on.

[Psyx]

I
XP per approximate damage dealt - tedious to figure out after a while
XP per successful hits - one of the better ones I've played with
XP per monsters slain - another good one
XP per hit, bonuses for killing blows - probably the best I've used
Full level gained after specific activity/activities completed - kind of tedious in that characters don't typically level as fast as they normally would.


But I'd like to hear what other people think.

These are all awful ideas. Firstly, they only reward killing things, which is terrible. Beyond that; they reward people who dish out vast swathes of damage and kill stuff. That's actively discouraging people from playing healers/the skill monkey/battlefield control.

If a GM tried to pull this on me, I'd play a pure skill monkey and deliberately avoid doing damage in combat while making sure I was utterly indispensable to the group both in and out of combat, and I'd roleplay to the hilt. then -6 weeks on when everyone had levelled twice except me- I'd tell the GM exactly what I thought of his idiotic XP system and back it up with epic proof of it's suckness.

[Tyndmyr]

XP per approximate damage dealt - tedious to figure out after a while

Not a fan of these. They underreward support types.

XP per successful hits - one of the better ones I've played with

Again, biased against certain types of characters.

XP per monsters slain - another good one

If this doesn't take into account CR, definitely broken. If it's just killing blows, it has all the problems of the earlier models, plus kill stealing.

XP per hit, bonuses for killing blows - probably the best I've used

Sorry. It's terrible. Horribly unfair, and very obviously exploitable.

Full level gained after specific activity/activities completed - kind of tedious in that characters don't typically level as fast as they normally would.

I don't like this method, but that's because of inherent subjectivity and not meshing with xp burned in crafting, etc. Speed can be fast or slow in any system.

Not sure if there's any other generally used ways.

The DMG used method is generally solid. Find the line for the CR fight killed, match up with levels of players, divide by party size. Has the advantage of rewarding all characters participating rather equally, and also gives extra xp to those a level or more behind. This is great, as otherwise raise dead is dehabilitating, and those who die become ever more likely to die again as they fall further behind.

Bonuses for completing objectives and such are also great. Use the CR thing as a guideline. After all, difficult RP objectives should be rewarded too, right?

[Tyndmyr]

If a GM tried to pull this on me, I'd play a pure skill monkey and deliberately avoid doing damage in combat while making sure I was utterly indispensable to the group both in and out of combat, and I'd roleplay to the hilt. then -6 weeks on when everyone had levelled twice except me- I'd tell the GM exactly what I thought of his idiotic XP system and back it up with epic proof of it's suckness.

I was thinking of taking the opposite method of demonstrating it's ineptness. If it's scaling xp in accordance with damage, bust out an ubercharger. If it's flat xp per hit...force missile mage. Hit every opponent on the field, never miss.

It'd be even more amusing if these were in the same party, as one character levels 10 times as fast as another.

[Aroka]

Quoting myself from another thread because I can't be arsed to write this again:

I]Artesia: Adventures in the Known World[/I] has one of the best experience systems I've seen. It uses a set of Tarot-style Arcana (that have a great deal of mystical significance in-character), each of which consists of attributes, skills, gifts, and bindings that points earned in that specific Arcana can be spent on; and a list of behaviors and numbers of Arcana points they grant. For instance, punishing the guilty gets you Justice Arcana points, while seducing someone gets you Empress Arcana points. Arcana points are explicitly only awarded when the action taken advances the story (whether the acting character's story, another character's story, the party's story, the entire adventure, or the entire campaign).

This is accompanied by a standard training system where time spent practicing a skill or attribute advances it, but the mystical or semi-supernatural Gifts can only be acquired through appropriate Arcana, and Bindings (weaknesses) can only be bought off with appropriate Arcana.

Basically, characters can advance at different rates, but everyone has the same opportunities, no type of action is preferred over any other (approaching a problem through violence, social skills, magic, or almost any other viable mean is as valid as any other option), and players benefit from thinking about stories rather than mechanics: you can't really "game" the mechanics because the GM is only going to award you for actually advancing the story, and the player is best off thinking of a story arc he wants to see (although, really, just personality-simulating your character is equally valid), with rises and downfalls (indeed, some big AP awards come from failures, like becoming jealous, betraying your lover, leaving or abandoning those close to you, feeling guilty, dying, etc.).

[Subotei]

In our group the GM usually dishes out the XP for the last session at the start of the next, unless we're in the middle of a combat, in which case we leave it to a convenient point. If it was a standard party bash its usually "You all get 2000XP" or whatever, appropriate to the encounters. Some token bonus XP is given to characters who perform some epic deed like preventing a TPK (or that entertains the DM - using a halfing as an improvised weapon - that kind of thing).

Only time we wouldn't split XP equally was if a PC was incapacitated or absent from the session.

[Psyx]

I was thinking of taking the opposite method of demonstrating it's ineptness. If it's scaling xp in accordance with damage, bust out an ubercharger. If it's flat xp per hit...force missile mage. Hit every opponent on the field, never miss.

It'd be even more amusing if these were in the same party, as one character levels 10 times as fast as another.

But then to make the point, you'd have to completely fail to roleplay and be utterly useless outside of dealing damage. That would bore me. But both in the same party would nicely prove the point.

[Eldan]

Most of the time, I went with "When it's appropriate for them to level, they do", mostly after they completed an adventure, or an important part of it.
Then, in my Skype games a few players complained, so I went with more detailed XP per quest done.

[Aotrs Commander]

Depends entirely on the game and campaign in question. For our day games, I generally level everyone at the end of the session. But as we play those parties only once or twice a year, it doesn't matter. (With Rolemaster it's about once every two sessions).

With a weekly campaign, I tend nowaday to calculate XP as I go (especially if I'm running a module), going minimum and maximum XP, so as to better gauge the PCs level (if I'm writing my own) or what level the module is deisnged for (with a pre-written module). I am cheating nowadays, by making a spread sheet to take some of the work out of it (trying to do Shackled City and Rise of the Runelords by hand - when the latter also needs upgrading for six characters - is just too much work!)

I used to give XP by character, with bonus for roleplaying, but I gave up because it was too much effort. So now, taking a leaf out of KotR and it's ilk, I now award party XP. Bonuses for good roleplaying or clever ideas are being moved from XP to other things, like fate points. (I do think these are worth having, as a special reward for putting the extra effort in or being really clever.)

[Psyx]

I give everyone the same amount.

It has been noted that my generosity is directly proportional to how drunk I am by the end of the session.

I'll occasionally (about once every three sessions) give on the spot bonuses to an individual for pulling off something very cool, reducing me to tears of laughter, or sharing a really interesting and relevant piece of campaign knowledge that I had no idea about.

Also: Being early XP. My group have got a bit slack recently, so people who arrive on time get a small bonus.

Oh: And 'Going to the shop to get more teabags/milk/tobacco' XP.

[Kaww]

I personally give xp per encounter by splitting total xp equally between the participants of the encounter. I also give xp for: bright ideas that make your life easier(100xp x ECl), smart start of an encounter (1,5 x xp), completing a mini quest or a mini game - varies. And I also give some, very small, amount of xp for people that make me drop down laughing or that leave me speechless. I'm there to have fun too...

As a player I just prefer DM telling us "add xxxx experience". Which is what I basically try to do as a DM. And I believe in equal share - less headache for me.

[valadil]

I usually tell them to level when I feel they've earned a level. This ends up being every 2-3 sessions, which is a pretty good pace in my book.

In my current game I'm trying to go by the book, but deviating in a few places. I give out a lot of roleplaying XP to the whole group.

Two sessions ago they bypassed all my combats because they were really interested in talking to a few people. They received XP comparable to what they would have earned fighting, plus a bonus for taking extra initiative to do what they wanted instead of what I told them to do. I really don't want to encourage them to fight just because it's the most lucrative source of XP. Thus far I've given even amounts of RP XP to the whole party, rather than giving a bonus to the player who talks over everyone else.

I also give out backstory XP. The way I did it in this game was to give out a flat 500 for writing a backstory. Each time someone's background came up in the game (meaning I had less to write because I could recycle their work) I gave them 250. If the backstory affected them in a bad way (namely, one of the PCs being hunted down by assassins from his past), it's an extra 500. I like this quite a bit because it encourages quantity without making the players aim for pages and pages of material.

If players miss a session, they get catch up XP. They get half the catch up at the next session and the other half at the session after that. If they skip either of those sessions, they miss out entirely. Catchup XP is based on combat and SC XP, so none of the bonus roleplaying stuff is available for players who no show.

[zephiros]

Tyndmyr and Psyx: I addressed the issue of non-combat oriented characters in my second post "per hit" is a general term. Essentially what I'd be looking at is recording xp as given for any action beneficial to the party. A warrior gets a hit, a cleric heals, a rogue opens a lock, as well as anyone RPing, then likely compiling it at the end to be distributed. I'm by no means suggesting to cut out benefits to non-combat oriented characters, or people who RPing, both of those are among my own favourite activities in-game as creative problem solving is awesome. In fact I don't feel most people do enough RPing, or combat subversion.

I find Aroka and Arrowhen's offerings to be quite interesting, but I'm not sure how completely it would mesh with combat offerings and such, unless that would xp calculated separately. Definitely sound worth a look though.

[valadil]

Tyndmyr and Psyx: I addressed the issue of non-combat oriented characters in my second post "per hit" is a general term. Essentially what I'd be looking at is recording xp as given for any action beneficial to the party. A warrior gets a hit, a cleric heals, a rogue opens a lock, as well as anyone RPing, then likely compiling it at the end to be distributed.

Are you able to write a game that allows for equal opportunity XP gain? I'd feel bad for the rogue who played through a session with only one lock, while the fighter got 20 kills.

Personally I think this level of book keeping is more trouble than it's worth. I like this sort of thing in a computer game, but there are better things the GM can do than tally hits.

[lsfreak]

I prefer the DMG method, except I throw out the listed CR. Instead, I eyeball how difficult an encounter actually was. If a bunch of 12th level players kill a 19th level NPC because it was caught completely unaware, they don't deserve that much experience, as they didn't experience anything. On the other hand, if I happened to give the same group an encounter that was made up of a squad of 7th level characters, but that for some reason it was difficult and the players had to think carefully about their actions, they deserve the XP for a difficult encounter.
(Another reason I like this is it means I can build extremely optimized, lower-level characters. Their CR might be listed at X, but compared to the party, they're more like CR X+4. Fights become more tactical, as enemies are dangerous, and fights become less of the chipping-away-at-health that unoptimized, higher-level opponents would provide).