A 50% session bonus to xp, am I overreacting?

[gadren]

So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

[hymer]

MVP? What's that?
Anyway, sounds like it could be a good rule (depending on the system) or at least an idea that could be worked with, but it just isn't in this group because some people are getting all the good stuff and some get none. And depending on the system, the good stuff isn't broadening the character so much as making it higher (if that makes sense), creating a divide between PCs.
As a new player, and as one who feels marginalized already, it's hard to bring this subject up, but it does seem like it ought to be brought up. If the bonus is granted because someone did something they used their previous bonus to achieve, the snowball effect can be quite disruptive.
Have you tried nominating the players who get little MVP? What are the criteria for MVP?

[Lalliman]

MVP = Most Valuable Player

Seems like a horrible rule to me. Ask the other players how they feel about it, and if the majority agrees with you, take it to the DM. As a player, I would strongly object to this rule even if I was the one getting the MVP bonus all the time.

[hymer]

MVP = Most Valuable Player

Thanks! But it sounds like they're awarding Most Valuable Character, or Player I Like Best, or The Usual Suspects.

[Gastronomie]

Being a good player should be awarded with rules like Inspiration*, not by making his character fundamentally more powerful than others. This rule is stupid, and you should object to it.

*Rule from D&D 5e. Said short, people who RP well get an Inspiration point that can be expended to re-roll any d20.

[icefractal]

Sounds like a bad rule, I wouldn't like it either.

I'm not a big fan of "MVP" benefits to begin with, but if you did do it, it should be some temporary benefit, not a permanent advantage. And if it was a permanent advantage, it should be a small one. Like +10% XP at most, not +50%!

Have you brought your concerns up? "I never get the MVP bonus" might seem self-centric, but you can point out the level disparity arising in the party as an objective issue. If their answer is along the lines of "just be more active, you'll get MVP" then you can point out how you've tried that and it didn't work.

And if they brush it off anyway, there is the (somewhat passive aggressive) option of suiciding/retiring and bringing in a new character once there's a two-level difference (assuming new characters come in at the average level, or that everyone who's behind does it). When they ask why, just say "Hey, since player A & B get so much more XP, I figured this was the only way to catch up."

[hymer]

It is possible that the players are speculating in this mechanic, depending on the system. It may be that having two characters well ahead of the curve may in fact move everyone forward faster, if they gain more XP from participating in fights carried by the two frontrunners.

[Contrast]

We have a similar rule in our group but with a much less significant bonus (typical session XP is 300-400 plus any bonuses the DM wants to hand out, player of the day award is 25XP - in this system the cheapest a skill or talent can be is 100XP so you need several before it actually becomes relevant at all).

So firstly I think +50% is way too much.

Secondly, when awarding XP our DM goes through and lists anything special he thinks people did that sessions and awards XP for it. Player of the day is awarded by the players to try and catch anything we think he missed. Most importantly in our group player of the day is rarely awarded to the person who killed the most or pulled off the most spectacular stunt (though it can be if particularly impressive) as thats usually already been accounted for (also a general rule for us seems to be that its not that impressive to do the thing that your character is built for anyway - thats what you built the character for after all). Usually the vote focuses on who we feel roleplayed particular well or had a moment that we particularly enjoyed. I think the DM mostly introduced it because he wanted to try and encourage us to give more feedback to each other about how we were playing and in my group its been reasonably effective in that regard.

I know some of the players in my group really enjoy the player of the day and would be sad to see it go (I'm somewhat neutral on the issue - I've probably won more than my fair share but it can be a little frustrating when you think you've played your socks off and no-one seems to have noticed. In addition theres one player in our group who may have only got it once or twice because she's typically very quiet, doesn't really roleplay much and seems to mostly just enjoying the mechanical side of things in terms of rolling dice to kill things). I'd be very cautious about awarding extra XP at all in a level dependant system just because theres usually a more discrete power level difference between different levelled characters and its better to keep things on a level (ho ho) playing field.

So in summary, 50% is way too much and it sounds like your group is being a bit partisan in its distribution which doesn't help. If its bugging you, I would have a chat with your DM about why he's doing it and if he's open to it being changed if it isn't doing what he wants it to (we can only hope this isn't what he wants it to be doing). I would definately suggest significantly toning down the level of reward. As Gastronomie said, if its bothering you maybe suggest reducing it to a reroll or bonus to a single roll next session if he doesn't want to stop it entirely so that there's no snowball effect of those who win it getting better at winning it.

[Koo Rehtorb]

There's games that do this without a houserule needed. But the important part of those games is that there's an "MVP" bonus AND a "Teamworker" bonus. And the same person can't get both.

[hymer]

There's games that do this without a houserule needed. But the important part of those games is that there's an "MVP" bonus AND a "Teamworker" bonus. And the same person can't get both.

Wait, wait, the Most Valuable Player isn't automatically also the best teamworker in a team-based game pretty much by default? I'm liking this notion less and less.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Wait, wait, the Most Valuable Player isn't automatically also the best teamworker in a team-based game pretty much by default? I'm liking this notion less and less.

Quoting the exact definitions from the book:

The MVP award goes to the player who made the crucial roll so the party could face down the big problem besetting it in the session.

The player who worked the hardest to keep the group together and in good shape. This award goes to the ones who help despite the risks, who spend all of their gear for their mates and sacrifice their goals for their companions.

[Anonymouswizard]

In general I dislike single-player bonus XPO. I did once give PCs XP only for what they actually did, but it ended up with two characters consistently earning the most due to having the most versatile characters.

I highly dislike this for several reasons, one being the massive bonus (50% is massive, even 25% is iffy), and another being that it can only go towards one player. I like the idea of a smaller version being used to cover for anything awesome that the GM forgot, but I have a general rule:

'Any Experience Points that could be awarded to one player should be awarded to all'.

This is for the simple reason that planning adventures is easier with all the PCs equal.

[lunaticfringe]

So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

You made a thread on the internet on the vague hope someone would justify your feelings so I'm go with:

Yes, you are overreacting in my mind.

That bonus XP is a really ****ing stupid Idea though. Your DM is Stupid.

[Aetis]

Your DM is not thinking.

You should encourage him to think, but do it in a nice way.

[ComradeBear]

The basics of the idea aren't terrible, but the reward is waaay too big.

It would be fine if you got something like a one-time-use +5 bonus token or reroll token at the start of the next session or something. It's potent, and a reward, but not going to have permanent ramifications.

I'd also as a GM try to ensure that different people got it. If the same two guys got it every time, I'd take steps to make them suggest other people.

All in all, the idea isn't inherently bad. But the execution here is really not good.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The basics of the idea aren't terrible, but the reward is waaay too big.

It would be fine if you got something like a one-time-use +5 bonus token or reroll token at the start of the next session or something. It's potent, and a reward, but not going to have permanent ramifications.

I'd also as a GM try to ensure that different people got it. If the same two guys got it every time, I'd take steps to make them suggest other people.

All in all, the idea isn't inherently bad. But the execution here is really not good.

Pretty much this.

[Anonymouswizard]

It would be fine if you got something like a one-time-use +5 bonus token or reroll token at the start of the next session or something. It's potent, and a reward, but not going to have permanent ramifications.

Heck, if a game has a metagame currency use that, it's basically the explicit intention of the stuff. Extra Fate Point or two in Fate (effectively increase their Refresh by 1 for the next session), starting with Inspiration in D&D 5e, a bonus starting bennie in Savage Worlds, free Moxie point in Eclipse Phase (man, was I so happy to discover EP had 'luck points'), a Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds, with a reroll being a good 'generic' reward as most of the above have them as one of their options (heck, I believe in Fate you can technically elect to reroll after you've discovered the result, although it is a very modern game) and it not increasing the maximum result (look at the use of Advantage in D&D 5e which does the same thing).

I'm not going to be a fan of bonus tokens, but then again I like 'stunting', where bonuses are given for attempting awesome stuff rather than succeeding at awesome stuff.

[denthor]

So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

Agree this is frustrating had a similar thing happen in my game of 9 two always agreed with each other they would bring for a couple of nights more players till they got the majority, then would call for a new game so that they could feel superior then quit because we always start at 1st and they feel like they are under powered repeat cycle. Bad rule and the only thing you can do is wait it out. When they are several (double or more your level) depending on where you started this is when you can bring it up.

[ComradeBear]

Heck, if a game has a metagame currency use that, it's basically the explicit intention of the stuff. Extra Fate Point or two in Fate (effectively increase their Refresh by 1 for the next session), starting with Inspiration in D&D 5e, a bonus starting bennie in Savage Worlds, free Moxie point in Eclipse Phase (man, was I so happy to discover EP had 'luck points'), a Hero Point in Mutants and Masterminds, with a reroll being a good 'generic' reward as most of the above have them as one of their options (heck, I believe in Fate you can technically elect to reroll after you've discovered the result, although it is a very modern game) and it not increasing the maximum result (look at the use of Advantage in D&D 5e which does the same thing).

I'm not going to be a fan of bonus tokens, but then again I like 'stunting', where bonuses are given for attempting awesome stuff rather than succeeding at awesome stuff.

Absolutely. But I'm fairly sure OP wasn't referring to a game with such tokens. I don't think introducing a single goodie token is bad.

[Jay R]

Consider the MVP award to be a game element. There's a game theory approach to it.

These two seem to have agreed to support each other permanently. They now need only one more vote to win it every time. To win the voting game, you must either:
1. prevent them from getting that third vote, or
2. join the voting bloc.

(1) requires getting the remaining two players on your side. Talk to them away from the two in the voting bloc, and convince them that the three of you will never win MVP except by working together. Agree to support them for it if they will support you another game. The three of you, if you will stick together, can always determine who wins the award. Any bloc of three votes can. [Note that you three can even give it to one of the two who have been winning, if you so choose. Convince them that the three of you will make a better choice that what's been happening up to now.]

Alternatively, (2) requires that you convince the voting bloc to let you be the constant third vote for your share in the bonuses. Note that this will not work if they can already always get a third vote, because in that case, you have nothing to offer - the fourth vote has no value.

Note that I have not yet discussed who actually deserves to be the MVP. That's a tool you will use to convince either pair to join you, but the theory works without it. A bloc of three votes can dominate the MVP award even if they are the three least valuable players.

It's a vote. What's really valuable isn't the issue, but rather, what the players perceive as valuable. Note that "moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to" has no value for the award unless players will vote for it. If those moments seem like you being pushy, then it can cost you votes even if it was actually the most valuable action of the game. Find out from each player what he values, and then see if your player can make that happen. An impassioned speech that the Rogue should get the magic item she wants might be how you buy her vote.

But the crucial fact is this: The already-formed team of two has a huge advantage at the start, because they only need one more vote. You can become their equal by forming a rival team of two, or automatically win with a team of three.

[Anonymouswizard]

Absolutely. But I'm fairly sure OP wasn't referring to a game with such tokens. I don't think introducing a single goodie token is bad.

Oh sure, but if the OP wants to get rid of this rule then giving an alternative that's not so problematic is a good thing to discuss.

[PrincessCupcake]

The concept, on paper, probably looked good. "reward player who did really cool stuff this session" is not a bad thing. Neither is "encourage players to give feedback to each other via a reward".

The execution has damaging effects though. One must make sure of two things when giving out that hefty of a reward. The first is that power of handing it out is distributed fairly. the second is that one or two people do not get it all the time.

It's rather difficult to ensure that everyone feels like their contributions mean something with the method your gm uses, which is why I went with an entirely different system. I set a flat budget for bonus xp and have them distribute it among each other, with two restrictions:

1-you cannot keep it for yourself. any xp not handed out is lost
2- only players who were present at a session are eligible for bonus xp.

it's actually pretty rare that the bonus xp is distributed unevenly.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The MVP reward itself is pretty neat. One of my favorite RPGs (Burning Wheel) has a similar idea, although it also includes an award for the "workhorse", the player who did the most grunt work behind the scenes (so, very similar to your situation).

But a 50% bonus to XP? That's ridiculous and incredibly disproportionate. The reward for an MVP needs to be something far smaller, depending on what in-system tools your game has. I'd personally advocate for something like 4E's action points, which can be spent to gain a free extra action in combat. It's a small reward with some significance, but it doesn't entirely explode the game in favor of the players who are going after the MVP bonus.

[dropbear8mybaby]

This is the exact reason why I don't like rules like this and that includes the base Inspiration rule of 5e.

Even in a solid group of friends, there will always be those who are favoured over others. This is just the fundamental core of human behaviour. Equality isn't a natural state of being, but then again, neither is restraint, so we make rules to be fair to everyone even though it's against human nature.

But it looks like this rule isn't going away and that if you bring it up, you're going to be singled out and probably ostracised even further. Therefore the only feasible solution, short of a picket line and chanting, "What do I want? Fair representation in XP! When do I want it? Now!" seems to be to decide whether or not this is a situation that you can accept and live with in order to continue playing, or if it's not, leave the game.

[Zaydos]

I've used an MVP award before. I broke it down into 4 rewards (6 players) though, and made it 50 XP (so 1% of a level) though after a level or two (where it was less than a percent of a level) it got changed to 250 XP iirc. There was DM's pick which was used to encourage good RP, teamwork, or not letting someone fall behind the XP curve. Then I let the players pick Something (I forget what it was), Best Idea, and Most in Faction (it was a Planescape game). After someone got voted for all three, I made it a rule no one could get more than 2, and no one could get the same reward 2 sessions in a row.

I think there was one session where the XP difference was enough to matter because I gave ad hoc party XP and made sure to keep them on the same level, but it was an effective carrot regardless and mostly worked to get people to think about RPing, and I'd make sure to bring up who stated ideas that worked out for the party, and so forth.

50% XP though Ia Cthulthu that's too high. This is something that needs a good amount of GM oversight to begin with to make sure it doesn't cause party imbalance (even with in game bennies), and it looks like the GM isn't doing the oversight which makes it less of a tool for encouraging good play and more of a path to power via positive feedback loop.

[slaydemons]

A thing my group has used in the past similar to this was. At the end of the session everyone gives a summary of what every person liked about every other characters actions, and everyone gives a yay if they also liked that, giving that player a minor amount of extra exp by the gm.

[Earthwalker]

MVP? What's that?
[snip]

Most Vertical Primate.
It was a movie (or series of movies) about a monkey playing basketball. It depended on the old trope of "Well there's nothing in the rules says you cant have a monkey on your team"

I am "Helping" !!!

For most games I play I just prefer xp awards to the group. I know its boring but its just easier and avoids petty squabbles on who did the best this session. It also prevents hurt feelings.

The OP seems to show everything that's wrong with this system 50% is way too much of a bonus for one thing.

[Thrawn4]

Additional XP for certain behaviour is almost always a very bad idea. It enforces a certain way of playing that is contradictory to the fun of those who want to relax and play. Whether the DM hands them out for "good roleplaying", killing more monsters or having good ideas, it always creates some pressure to "be better at playing".
The player's play as a group. Together they stand, together they fall. Is it fair? Not always. But neither is rewarding certain aspects that suit some players better than others. The goal for everyone is to have fun, and imho this is easier to achieve if nobody has to worry about falling behind.

I think there are only two somewhat good reasons for handing out more XP to a certain player. The first one is to encourage new players to speak in character and act appropriately (this is a crutch and might undermine the purpose of roleplaying in the long run; basically a last resort if everything else fails, and even then its worht is doubtful.)
The second one is if one player did something that is beyond all expectations (happened exactly once over the last few years. the entire group was hunted by enemies and one of them volunteered to distract them. I should add that the encounter was designed as an escape or desperate team fight. The player barely survived, and only did so because of some brilliant ideas)

[Jay R]

Am I really the only one interested in how to play this new aspect of the game that the DM has introduced?

[Lorsa]

So, the current game I play in has a houserule that at the end of the night, the GM asks the group who they think should be MVP. That person gets a 50% bonus to xp for the evening.
Now, I'll be honest upfront, I really don't like this rule, and have not liked it from the start. But I'm not the GM so I've kept my mouth shut about it.
My character has never received the MVP bonus. Ever. Despite really shining during some sessions (in my opinion), and moving the adventure forward when no one else seemed to, my contributions always seem minimized and every single session the bonus goes to one of the same two players out of a group of five. These two players are noticeably more potent because they keep getting the MVP bonus, and being more potent puts them constantly into the spotlight so they can get the bonus. And one always nominates the other.

I'm really frustrated by this. I thought maybe if I shined by contributing in non-crunchy ways, thinking of ideas and such, then I'd get the chance to earn the bonus. But who came up with those ideas always seems to be forgotten.

I'm not sure if I'm more frustrated by being at a mechanical disadvantage or just not having my contributions being recognized. I'm honestly rather vexed at the moment. Should I be? Am I making a big deal out of nothing?

I've seen people attempting to implement systems like this before, never with any success. Admittedly, I've never seen it as high as a bonus 50%, more of a flat bonus of, say 200, but the effect is still the same.

I think this type of procedure is incredibly toxic to any roleplaying group. If your DM won't listen, you should try to talk the other two people that are at the bottom end of things to form a new group with you and leave the other three. I really don't need to know more about this group than "there's a vote for who will get bonus XP" to understand that the table is broken. Get out of there before it's too late.