Hi! It's been awhile since I've posted on my budding D&D campaign; the first session report can be found here. Since then, we've had roster changes and some mechanical tweaking, and though there are some rough spots, I'd say we're going along nicely.

Let me break it down:

First, for our second session the other two players got to join in (they were around for chargen but not for the first play session). That makes:

Erik, veteran D&Der who I've played with in the past, playing a male Half-elf Monk, Hung.

Shirley, who's never played before, playing a male Half-elf Druid, Shirlak.

Eriks (that's right, no typo; it's Latvian), Shirley's boyfriend who played a freeform D&Dish thing at a camp or something some years back. He's got a female Gnome Sorceror/Rogue (name unrevealed, called "Gnome", or "the gnome").

Scotty, new to tabletop gaming but with a CRPG background, playing a male Dwarf barbarian, Scotti.

Tommy, a 15 year old (the others are all twentysomethings) who's played D&D with his dad and friends for several years, and is playing a female Elf Warrior (though possibly switching to Swashbuckler) named Silence Estelle.

Second, I arrived at a system for disbursing Action Points, a mechanic I and several players were interested in. I knicked it from Bill White over at Story-Games, just read AP for EP throughout the quote:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2636&page=1#Item_10

Short version: Gain AP (commensurate with risk or personal sacrifice) for acting within your own or adjacent alignments, at level-up, if you've acted more on an adjacent one you shift over. Act on your opposite alignment and either: accept a penalty, or renounce your alignment then and there as your char has a huge change of heart. And I like his alignment descriptions, D&D is often hard to make "real people sense" of, that way.

So! Here's how it went (I'm gonna skim a lot, to cover the major points of the last three sessions):

First session, we opened with Shirlak, Hung and the gnome traveling through the woods to Shirlak's village. Shirlak and Hung had just met and realized they were twin brothers, one raised among humans and one among elves. So off to Shirl's elven mentor for some answers. I worked the new players in with a combat encounter--the party came upon Silence and Scotti as they were getting attacked by an Assassin Vine. After fighting off the killer plant, everyone did the intro thing and teamed up; Silence is looking for her half-brothers, but so far the PCs are cluseless about each others' identities. On the way to the village, they encountered a couple of Gnolls laying in ambush. They dispatched one, and Hung intimidated the other one into fleeing. Silence took a shot at it as it ran off, and Hung berated her for attacking needlessly. They arrived at the village and we called it a night.

Behind the curtain:

I started to get the APs flowing pretty quick; after the vine fight the gnome was grabbing all the loot (some valuables from the plant's last victim) and Shirlak told Silence, "hey, the Gnome's taking your stuff." And sicced his goat companion on the Gnome. The Gnome retaliated with a chill touch on the goat. They each got APs for playing to Neutral Good and Chaotic Neutral, respectively. Then in the Gnoll fight, when Silence tried to whack a fleeing enemy and Hung scolded her by invoking the dictum of the Great Saint, I gave Tommy and Erik points for Chaotic Evil and Lawful Neutral. it seemd to work well as a cool way of reinforcing the fun of characters with beliefs and personality in conflict. Lots of big grins from folks rewarded for stirring the pot.

An interesting issue emerged: When the gnoll fight came up, Shirley was kind of like: another fight? Why? I had tried to explain that Gnolls are menacing these woods a lot, but still she had a hard time seeing why they should be fighting these things. She decided Shirlak would hang back and see what happens; Hung followed her lead, and that led to the "intimidate into fleeing" thing. I thought it was fun and constructive; it helped establish that conflicts can be solved by means other than killing, but I was worried about the impression I was making, especially on new gamers like Shirley. To my mind, both fights served a purpose: the first was a party-bringer-together-er (less cliched than a Tavern meet, at least) and a "hey, there's dangerous stuff in the woods" signal. And the Gnolls were meant to establish that there is indeed a Gnoll problem, and set up for future Gnoll encounters. But to Shirley at least, all that stuff was in one ear and out the other, and the encounters just looked like "GM says fight now" hoops to jump through. (By contrast, Scotty thought it was a blast, and wished the fights were a bit tougher.) There were more developments on this issue in coming sessions, but I'll leave it right here for now.

So that's Session 2; I'm out of time so I'll leave off here. I'll post on the other sessions when I can but feel free to comment on this one in the meantime!

Peace,
-Joel

Hmm, sounds like Shirley's indicating she's not interested in fighting gnolls, which may raise trouble later if you're going for the whole gnoll trouble angle.

Do you have any idea what Shirley really wants to be doing in the game?  That may help.

Well, something interesting emerged when I mulled this over: In every combat encounter in the game to that point, Shirley tried the nonviolent solution first. The bar brawl at the opening, Shirley stayed out of it and delivered the beer that ended it. In the later attack by wolves, she tried Wild Empathy to pacify them (and failed). Next session, when faced with the assassin vine, she wanted to know if Wild Empathy would work on it, and only attacked when informed it wouldn't. Then there was the Gnoll fight, where she waited it out while her compatriot ran the surviving opponent off nonviolently.

So there seems to be a pattern there.

Things took an interesting turn next session, though, which I'll get to.

As far as the base question, though, no, I'm not really sure what Shirley wants out of the game. She's kinda quiet and goiong with the flow so far. I expect I'll have to ask her.

Peace,
-Joel

"Chaotic Neutral" does not mean Chaotic Stupid, Shortsighted, and Selfish.  

"Chaotic Neutral" simply means a normal guy who doesn't care for heirarchical authority.

The Chaotic Stupid view of CN, is in many ways the flip side of the Lawful Stupid view of LG.

Now, some Chaotic Stupid characters may qualify as CN -- a Chaotic Stupid character can certainly be CN (with strong CE tendencies).  So I'm not saying your player got it wrong.  

But the view that *all* CN characters are Chaotic Stupid is one of the most annoying things I've found since I started playing D&D again about a year ago.

We return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

I hear ya, Lee. I have in fact suffered at the hands of "Chaotic Stupid" characters and their cousins, "Chaotic Bat-shit Insane."

I think this line from the PHB is pretty helpful, but I'm not sure if anyone ever reads it.

QuoteA chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.

The player in question definitely is going for a prankster type. I'm giving him CN points for most pranks, CE when they're particularly cruel.

And for what it's worth, here's what the CE description from the system I'm using. I think it's pretty good:

QuoteTake 1 xp whenever you take an action that expresses your singular individuality in a way that flouts authority, tradition, convention, or common sense. Take 2 xp if such action is patently illegal or highly dangerous. Take 5 xp if such action is suicidal or self-destructive.

In fact, I like the whole lot of alignment descriptors in Bill's writeup. Gives you at least a rough idea of how a real person of such a persuasion might behave.

Peace,
-Joel

Ok, I'm back with enough time to cover another session. Here we go!

Session Three:

The game's been progressing a bit slowly; I had thought for session 2, "OK, they'll meet the other PCs, have a couple of fights, then arrive and explore the elf vilage. Instead, the meet and two fights took up the whole second session, so we saved the town for sesion three. Part of it is our short time; we've only been able to play for about 2-3 hours each night. I'm used to more like four. Still, it'd be nice to move things along smoother, though that'll probably come easier as I figure out what really jazzes the group.

So, elf village. At its perimeter they were met by a guard, Shirlak's ranger stepbrother, who resents the half-elf adoptee being trained as his mom's druid successor instead of him (He didn't have the aptitude; he became a ranger as second-best choice and compensates by over-applying himself to ranger-ing). He challenged them, saw it was Shirlak, commented what a strange bunch he was bringing to town, and said that Heian the chief would want to see the visitors. Shirley was kind of like, "yeah, whatever, I'll see him  in my own good time." The Druidess reveals the twins' (illegitimate) royal heritage, and tells about the usurper who killed their father. At the bar one of the (new) King's men is eying them suspiciously as "half-breeds and ruffians." The chief's assistant is frantic that they haven't been to see him, so they go to the meeting hall, where the chief is worried sick that the Inquisitor will find out who they are, and the small core of New Regime supporters in town will sway the populace against them, and against him. The party announces their plan to head for the Dwarf lands in search of allies against the usurper (the new regime has a big "Pure Elven Blood" platform and the Dwarves don't like it), and the chief is relieved. The go back to the Druid hut to sleep and are attacked by Dire Rats gnawing through the walls.

Behind the curtain:

First off, Scotty and Tommy weren't present. Scotty had to drop out of the campaign for scheduling reasons, and Tommy was supposed to be on his way but never showed. I defaulted them to "They go to the bar and get drunk." That was OK, but I was a bit frustrated since Tommy's PC had been set up as rather central, and seeing how she reacts to the royal blood thing (since nobody as yet knows she's their full-blooded older half-sister!), as well as how she interacts with the town, was pretty important in my book. I hate autopiloting characters when there's a situation just laced with juice for them. Especially when we're still establishing the PCs' personalities, motivations, and group dynamic.

This village is Shirlak's home town, so I tried to spotlight that by giving her a bunch of interesting relationships with the locals, and a whole network of intertwined people to interact with. In practice, though, I ended up telling Shirley about all these things she's supposed to care about, rather than letting her develop it. I didn't make the mistake of dictating her feelings, but I did a lot of "OK, so he's your stepbrother and he resents you 'cause blah blah blah," or "The chief struggles with control of the town 'cause though he's a fair and good-hearted man, many feel he lacks the presence and deciciveness to rule," and so on. I just barraged her with information, and though I tried to keep it short and sweet and work it in naturally, I think that even if she absorbed the info she wasn't really given much investment in it. I wish in retrospect i'd have worked out with her beforehand, "OK, we're gonna be coming to your village; what sorts of relationships do you have there--hey, how about a resentful stepbrother?" Getting her input and allowing her to tell me what she wanted to care about would have worked a lot better, methinks.

And finally, on the combat frequency issue. . .then end of the night rolled around, and it was the perfect time to leave off, setting out on another journey at the beginning of the next session. But everyone wanted some action. Shirley, in fact, said "I want to fight something, I haven't rolled my dice all night." (Someone pointed out that she had in fact made a Sense Motive check or something, but that was it.) There was a chorus of agreement from the table, and someone said, "How about Dire Rats, it's a physical law of D&D that Dire rats can appear anywhere." So what the hell, I thought, and the rats attacked them in their sleep.

It was an interesting balance, I thought--two fights was too much, but no fights was too little. Dunno if I can extracta formula from that, or if it's a more general pacing issue--after all, interesting stuff happening doesn't mean just fights (as we'll see next session!). In a way, it's a blessing that Scotty can't make it--he's a good friend, but his preference for "fights, and plenty of 'em" (and not much else) would have only continued to clash with the others.

I think I'm just floundering a bit figuring out what constitutes "interesting stuff' for the group. The town was full of cool shit, I thought, but to some degree felt to the players like "nothing happening." Then again, the previous session with just a couple of fights also was regarded as "nothing happening." Perhaps if I'd managed to work the fights and the town into the same night it would have given a different impression.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: MelinglorFirst off, Scotty and Tommy weren't present. Scotty had to drop out of the campaign for scheduling reasons, and Tommy was supposed to be on his way but never showed. I defaulted them to "They go to the bar and get drunk." That was OK, but I was a bit frustrated since Tommy's PC had been set up as rather central, and seeing how she reacts to the royal blood thing (since nobody as yet knows she's their full-blooded older half-sister!), as well as how she interacts with the town, was pretty important in my book. I hate autopiloting characters when there's a situation just laced with juice for them. Especially when we're still establishing the PCs' personalities, motivations, and group dynamic.

DM's worst nightmare.  I hate dealing with this.  One of the big plusses of Amber is that it make dealing with this quite a bit easier.  Not necessarily easy, and it varies from case to case -- but the ability to Trump out to any part of the universe at a moment's notice makes it easy enough to say "Joe's character got an emergency Trump call, and he really had to go".

QuoteI think I'm just floundering a bit figuring out what constitutes "interesting stuff' for the group. The town was full of cool shit, I thought, but to some degree felt to the players like "nothing happening." Then again, the previous session with just a couple of fights also was regarded as "nothing happening." Perhaps if I'd managed to work the fights and the town into the same night it would have given a different impression.

Peace,
-Joel

Best thing to do, IME, is just ask them.  Doesn't mean you'll get a useful answer, unfortunately.  Yeah, it would probably help to have the fights integrated into the plotline better.  But I think you're right -- it would be good to get the players' input on what relationships are important, etc.  Idea:  let them define their important relationships, and whenever those are related to a conflict, give them +1 morale bonuses to hit, damage, saves, checks, everything but AC.  Allow them a fixed number of relationships, say 4.  Make them a limited resource, and most players go nuts trying to figure out how to use them well.  Which is exactly what you want -- players putting time and energy into thinking about the relationships.  

Then, after they're done, make them tell you about the relationships.  Then you can preload the scenarios with interesting conflicts.

Quote from: Lee ShortDM's worst nightmare.  I hate dealing with this.  One of the big plusses of Amber is that it make dealing with this quite a bit easier.  Not necessarily easy, and it varies from case to case -- but the ability to Trump out to any part of the universe at a moment's notice makes it easy enough to say "Joe's character got an emergency Trump call, and he really had to go".

Over the Edge is pretty convenient for this kind of thing, too. "Oh, Frank's bumming around a different part of the city tonight." Occasionally, though, we'll end up with a pretty pivotal scenario that involves some kind of group mission, and be missing a key person. "OK, we're ready to assault that lair of Pharaoh underlings, and. . .what? Sheldon's at a 10:00 showing of Spider-Man 3? And Adam too? Dammit!!"

Quote from: Lee ShortBest thing to do, IME, is just ask them.  Doesn't mean you'll get a useful answer, unfortunately.  Yeah, it would probably help to have the fights integrated into the plotline better.  But I think you're right -- it would be good to get the players' input on what relationships are important, etc.  Idea:  let them define their important relationships, and whenever those are related to a conflict, give them +1 morale bonuses to hit, damage, saves, checks, everything but AC.  Allow them a fixed number of relationships, say 4.  Make them a limited resource, and most players go nuts trying to figure out how to use them well.  Which is exactly what you want -- players putting time and energy into thinking about the relationships.  

Then, after they're done, make them tell you about the relationships.  Then you can preload the scenarios with interesting conflicts.

I have been trying to ask, in fact. We had a big bull session before play about what kinda stuff people want out of the game; I had a "rate these in importance from 1 to 5" type survey drawn up. It didn't end up giving me a lot of useful data, though it did paint a sort of hazy picture of group expectations. And I've tried to solicit opinions of how things went post-session, but I don't seem to get anything back beyond "yeah, it was cool. A little slow."

I do have a chance to redeem myself relationship-wise with the other characters at least; there's still time to have the players develop their relationships for future scenarios should we venture into anyone's "home turf." One thing about "wandering adventurers" gaming that makes things tough for relationship-play is that the wandering prevents you from being around your loved ones (or "hated ones") for very long.

Peace,
-Joel

Allright, one more round:

Session Four:

The heroes rise early in the morning to quit the village inconspicuously. Vadania produces a crest of translucent crystal which is the key to a nearby shrine set up for when the twins are ready to realize their heritage. She says they don't have to go until they are ready; they decide that they're ready now and purpose to visit before journeying on to the Dwarf lands. Vadania assignes them Aramil as a guide to the secluded shrine, and they set off. In the village commons, they catch whispered gossip directed at them, "always knew something off about that Shirlak. . .look who he's brought to the village. . .probably spies. . .well, I never," etc. The Gnome pranks them and the group moves on. Hung spots Silence slipping away from the group into the meeting hall, but decides she's not worth following and they leave without her.

They trek through the woods till nightfall and make camp. While building a fire, Aramil starts to open up about his insecurities and inadequacies in light of his adopted rival turning out to be royalty. Shirlak listens but doesn't respond much; the Gnome meanwhile was setting up a prank with Shirlak's assistance. The prank (flash powder on a piece of firewood) goes off in Aramil's face and everyone plays dumb, and Aramil turns sullen.

In the middle of the night on Hung's watch, strange piping wafts through the trees. The gnome's familiar wakes her, and Hung wakes Aramil. Aramil tenses with concern: it is the piping of the Satyr. They all resist its charms, and investigate. The gnome sneaks up and holds it at crossbow-point--it's a female satyr! "Oh, he's yours, I'm sorry, I didn't know!" gasps the creature. The gnome is puzzled and the Satyress babbles on about how "he" resisted her charms and now everything's ruined. "Please, you have so many males, can't you spare just one?" Then Hung, Aramil and Scotti (Shirlak's still asleep) come upon them and the Satyress is aghast and ashamed. She sobs and squirms and it becomes clear that she's fallen hopelessly in love with Hung, and is miserable now that he has resisted her and has no interest in her. Hung, Scotti and Aramil return to camp, and when they're alone again the gnome whispers \, "hey, you can have him--he's yours." Gleefully the Satyress bounds into camp and hugs Hung. "It's OK, you can come with me!" "Er, what?" "Go get 'er, Hung!" cries the Gnome, laughing. "See, she releases you! We can be together now!" Hung lies and tells her he already has a girl back home. "You're a thief and a liar, Gnome!" she spits with a look of hatred, and flees sobbing into the night.

They go back to sleep, sleeping longer into the morning to recover fropm the night's excitement, and so do not come upon the shrine until nightfall of the next day. The entrance is a large hollow tree, but it's guarded by. . .a pair of Gnolls? The place seems to be infested. The group sneaks up and ambushes the Gnolls, dispatching them without raising any alarm, and then are ready to dare the complex below.

Behind the curtain:

A minor problem came up at the start which thankfully didn't spread to the whole session. When Vadania was revealing the Shrine key, something about the way I said it made it sound (to the players anyway) lke she produced its case from her vagina. Much joking and giggling. I continued, but then when she opened the box the key became a crystal dildo, and the fact that it "opens the hidden shrine" didn't help a bit. I was kinda frustrated, and Shirley said "I thought we agreed that kidding around is OK," referring to the Survey I mentioned in my reply to Lee. I said sure, it is, but it's so bad right now that I can't get a word in edgewise. Things calmed down and we were able to continue.

First: No Tommy tonight. I had emailed him, which my browser said he'd read, but I haden't actually spoken with him. He doesn't have his own cellphone, relying on his mom's and girlfriend's phones, so he's tricky to get ahold of. And he didn't show. So I had Silence split off from the group (I had thoughts of both her looting the hall and possibly running afoul of the King's Man) and let the party decide what to do about that. As it happens they did nothing. Which is at least convenient in the short run. I've since contacted Tommy and learned that he opened but didn't read the email. :raise:  But he's also clarified that he's got a lot of shit going on and realistically can't really play. He says to give it a month or so and he'll probably be able to rejoin the campaign. So it's good that that's clear.

I stuck them with Aramil for the reason I was mentioning to Lee: it's the only way to keep relationships relevant to a party on the go. I wanted to try and develop the sibling rivalry and see where it could go, and I thought I had Shirley pegged as wanting more interaction along those lines (i.e. as opposed to fighting). But Shirley didn't really take the opportunity when Aramil started spilling his guts, and took advantage of his vulnerability to prank him with the Gnome. Shirley even commented that "the conversation was getting boring." So it's not entirely a "in-character" thing. Not sure what do do about that, I can't make them care about a character, but I'm kinda tired of players in whatever game I run being so dismissive of NPCs.

The Satyr encounter was tons of fun. I had, pre-game, pulled out my Monster Manual and told Erik "roll me a D317." Just hoping I'd turn up a page with a Dragon or the Terrasque or something, to joke about siccing it on the party. I ended up with the Satyr entry, though, and the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a good idea. Highlights the dangers and mysteries of the woods, shows that not all encounters have to be the fighty kind, and made a really fun event in the story to boot. I had a blast playing the naive, overemotional would-be temptress, and now there's a Satyress out there in love with Hung and hating the Gnome. Heh heh heh, what potential!

I made a point after the encounter that getting a full rest (for spell recovery) would delay the trip and they'd arrive at the shrine later in the day. I wanted to introduce those little questions of resource management that D&D revolves around in an unintimidating way. They opted to rest, and so arrived at nightfall--meaning they DIDN'T catch the nocturnal Gnolls sleeping.

Shirley had a bit of a tough time in the Gnoll fight. She first thought to climb a tree to use her sling while the rest of the party either charged or flanked the gnolls, but in practice by the time she got her turn the gnolls were in melee with the party and she couldn't really hit them well. So intead she used a Jump spell to leap[ out of the tree and close with the Gnolls. She got one attack in next round before the fight was done. i thinki it was good that it happened because it sort of demonstrated the tactical subtleties of D&D combat and allowed Shirley to learn from her mistakes without getting hosed on anything really crucial. 4 LVL 2 characters against 2 Gnolls is a pretty safe place to screw up. And I tried to play up the spell (jumping twice as far as natural human ability while trailing magical glow) as something truly spectacular.

The AP thing progressed interestingly. Nobody's used their APS yet (as I'd expect, there hasn't been anything yet that's important to them, or sufficiently difficult), but the AP awards took a turn or two. Normally, I've been giving the Gnome CN APs for her pranks--they're just harmless annoyances--but this time, I gave her CE points on two occasions: pranking Aramil while he's trying to bare his soul to the half-brother he can never quite open up to, and in playing with the poor Satyress's feelings, both of which seemed to me to fit the concept of "casual cruelty" pretty well. I wanted to do something with Shirlak and Hung for their assists in both those cruelties, but it didn't quite fit. Shirlak's NG, the opposite would be NE, and her behavior wasn't really selfish, just indifferent. I could make a weak case, but I didn't want Shirley to be the first person penalized AP without a strong reason. And Hung's LN, the opposite is CN, not quite the CE required for "casual cruelty." So I had to let both instances go as mere non sequiters to their alignment (and thus, not penalized or awarded).

So that's that. Next session is tonight, so if anyone has any absolutely pivotal advice hopefully they'll post it quick.
Peace,
-Joel

's some cool stuff. Curious how it continues to flow - I know all about players who just don't offer feedback - but I was wondering...

Quote from: MelinglorSecond, I arrived at a system for disbursing Action Points, a mechanic I and several players were interested in. I knicked it from Bill White over at Story-Games, just read AP for EP throughout the quote:

http://www.story-games.com/forums/co...page=1#Item_10

Any chance you, or someone else, could copy and paste this in some fashion, even to my PM? I'm not interested in having to be judged worthy enough to read Story Games.

Oh. The link's broken. Well, shit.

Here it is again: http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=2636&page=1#Item_10

I think it should work this time. But hell, just in case, here's the quote:

Quote# Norm of the Crusader (Lawful Good). Take 1 xp whenever you take action that addresses some clear evil or injustice in a way that has been deemed proper by authority or tradition. Take 2 xp if that action involves moderate risk or danger; take 5 xp if that action involves very great risk or danger.

# Norm of the Benefactor (Neutral Good). Take 1 xp whenever you do something that significantly and materially helps or benefits another person. If this action requires a moderate degree of sacrifice or exposure to danger on your part, take 2 xp. If it requires some very great sacrifice or risk, take 5 xp.

# Norm of Rebellion (Chaotic Good). Take 1 xp whenever you defy authority or tradition in order to help someone. Take 2 xp if that defiance exposes you to moderate sanctions; take 5 xp if it exposes you to severe sanctions.

# Norm of Judgment (Lawful Neutral). Take 1 xp whenever you enforce the dictates of an authority or tradition to which you subscribe. If this enforcement causes you some moderate inconvenience or trouble, take 2 xp. If it causes you very great trouble, take 5 xp.

# Norm of Moderation (True Neutral). Take 1 and only 1 xp for obeying any other "neutral" norm (i.e., lawful neutral, chaotic neutral, neutral good, or neutral evil), regardless of the level of risk or danger it involves.

# Norm of Freedom (Chaotic Neutral). Take 1 xp whenever you take an action that expresses your singular individuality in a way that flouts authority, tradition, convention, or common sense. Take 2 xp if such action is patently illegal or highly dangerous. Take 5 xp if such action is suicidal or self-destructive.

# Norm of Domination (Lawful Evil). Take 2 xp whenever you enforce the strictures and perquisites of some status hierarchy, whether by bullying subordinates or toadying up to superiors.

# Norm of the Malefactor (Neutral Evil). Take 2 xp whenever you engage in selfish, self-aggrandizing, or callous behavior at the expense of others.

# Norm of Destruction (Chaotic Evil). Take 2 xp whenever you engage in an act of wanton destruction or casual cruelty.

There ya go; enjoy. Any comments?

Peace,
-Joel

No 1 or 5's for the Evil's?

If that's bog-standard D&D in terms of XP, you might want to jack up the awards and only award them once per session. Some reasons:

1) Chances are, you're going to forget or not notice a lot of instances where they do something in line with the norms you've set up. With such small awards, the players might feel that they have to constantly point out when they match the norm to build up XP, which could slow things down.

2) Because it's such a small amount, PCs might go the other way and just ignore them, which defeats the purpose as well. They might also ignore them because they don't want to have to point out every instance where they follow them.

In short, there's a fine balance. I'd suggest making the award 10xlevel XP for following one of the norms, and 50xlevel for following a norm in dangerous situations. That's an XP award worth working for, but not big enough to make it irresistible.

Thanatos: I thought long and hard about how to parallel the other alignments' 1-3-5 progressions for the Evil alignments. And I just couldn't make it work. The other alignments' progressions are based on a pattern of "Act this way casually, get one point, act this way at some risk or cost to yourself, get 3 points, act at GREAT risk or cost to yourself, get 5 points." This does't really map well to the Evil alignments. . ."Get 3 points for acting selfish at some cost to yourself"? Sure, there are some edge cases where acting on your alignment will ultimately hurt you, but as far as regular opportunities to play Evil self-sacrificially (or even self-sabotaging), I just wasn't seeing it.

So, my solution (or Bill's, which I'm retaining): Evil gets 2, all the time, whereas the others get 1 regularly with scattered opportunities for 3 and 5. In other words, evil pays off more in the short term, but good is more rewarding in the long run.

Pseudo: Sorry if I wasn't clear; the system I quoted was designed for XP, but I'm using it for AP, retaining the standard D&D XP system. Also, I believe Bill's XP system involves changing the D&D leveling scale in the first place (like, dividing it by 100 or something), so that the 1s, 3s, and 5s will add up a lot quicker. The whole thing's based on Shadows of Yesterday's experience system, in fact.

Peace,
-Joel

I thought about posting it here since the thread's still active, but it's long, so I'm starting a new thread for my next session.

Peace,
-Joel