.

Huh, y'know, I really don't care. I guess it matters more to me how the XP are earned. And I do like them to be earned, or more precisely, connected in some way to the actual events of the game and the individual contributions/activities of each character. Keep that linkage and I'm fine.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHuh, y'know, I really don't care. I guess it matters more to me how the XP are earned. And I do like them to be earned, or more precisely, connected in some way to the actual events of the game and the individual contributions/activities of each character. Keep that linkage and I'm fine.

Same here.

xp gives a nice little "accomplishment" feeling, if it's earned.  If it's just flat-rate or arbitrary (Good roleplaying!  Dipshit charlie just showed up.  Har!) I'm less enthused about it.

A lot of people seem to really hate the idea of "good roleplaying" XP bonuses or XP just for showing up.

But... if you get "XP for accomplishing stuff in game" then aren't you getting XP for what you should be doing anyway?  Along the same lines, should you still get XP if you just found a badass magic sword or gained control of an army?  I mean, you've been rewarded already, in game, so isn't the XP just a bit much besides?

Weapons of the Gods is the best example for me of this.  XP can literally be used to buy anything, from new stats and kung fu to new super weapons to involvement in previously non-existant plot threads.   So when should the GM toss out XP, and when should he just give the players "stuff?"

Quote from: CodexArcanumA lot of people seem to really hate the idea of "good roleplaying" XP bonuses or XP just for showing up.

But... if you get "XP for accomplishing stuff in game" then aren't you getting XP for what you should be doing anyway?

"Good roleplaying" is bullshit.  It can mean anything from "didn't drool on the dice" to "instigated an entire plot by herself" to "spot-light hogged the whole game."

Accomplishment goals are more concrete.

Did the PCs beat the challenge(s)?  Did they accomplish the goal(s)?

Those things are easy to pin down, and everybody shares in the failure or the rewards.

But if you give out xp for warm-and-fuzzies like good roleplaying or even bringing the beer, more power to you.  Hell, even though I prefer accomplishment awards, I still dole out extra points for giving me character sketches and stuff.

Quote from: CodexArcanumAlong the same lines, should you still get XP if you just found a badass magic sword or gained control of an army?  I mean, you've been rewarded already, in game, so isn't the XP just a bit much besides?

Is it too much?  Too much for what?  Your campaign pacing?  Your GM comfort zone?  What?

The way I like it is to dole out rewards for accomplishments, regardless of any other in-game perks.  Others' comfort zones vary.

I'm just saying that the GM paces the game, the plot, and the character power level through the use of XP (metagame) and stuff (in-game) rewards.

My personal style is to give a few XP per session, pretty much regardless of anything and then in-game accomplishments usually have their own rewards.  I don't expect my players to romp off to kill the dark lord (or whatever) if there's nothing in it for themselves.


I guess what I'm asking, at the real core of it, is who defines the goals and accomplishments?  That varies from group to group of course, but I think that even in a relatively player-driven game, the GM can have a powerful guiding effect on what is an "acceptable" goal.  Which of course focuses what the reward might be.

My point is, since a "goal" is likely going to be aimed for and accomplished anyway, is it really that different from just giving out the XP anyway?  Not that PCs don't fail sometimes, but you have to figure on at least some small kind of victory every other session at least.

Quote from: CodexArcanumA lot of people seem to really hate the idea of "good roleplaying" XP bonuses or XP just for showing up.

That's because they're boring people who never get the xp bonus for good roleplaying, and who always show up late and miss out!

Quote from: RedFox"Good roleplaying" is bullshit. It can mean anything from "didn't drool on the dice" to "instigated an entire plot by herself" to "spot-light hogged the whole game."

In practice, I have found it means one of two things, either

• "The way you played your character, we could tell stuff about them without looking at the character sheet." You know, the player didn't have to say, "but my guy is honest/loyal/strong/etc", it just came out in play. OR -
  
• "Thank god you showed up, I keep being scared no-one will show up and I won't have a game group anymore."

The second lot of GMs ought to get some confidence. The first lot are fair and reasonable! And I don't say that because it's me, at all. I'm completely impartial about these things. See? It says on my character sheet I'm impartial, honest and reasonable.

"Good roleplaying" is just like any other award - a sensible group will give some definition of it before the game. For example, "killing monsters" - does just defeating them count? What if you outsmart the thing, take the stuff it was guarding, but don't even scratch it? I've seen lots of different answers to that, seems better when you know beforehand what the awards will be for.

I like to receive cheetos with my xp.

I award the "accomplishing goals" xp. The group votes and awards the roleplaying xp.

Regards,
David R

Pendragon gives Glory (sort of XP) for 'making the GM laugh with delight.'

"With delight, damnit! No cheap laughs!"

In D&D -ish games, I dole out and like to receive XPs immedeately after the task/combat/problem solved.

Personally I find the 'by adventure' to be very awkward. It suggests as a standard that the players will be going on highly, or at least reasonably, structured 'adventures' that have a definite end point.

I submit to you that in twenty years and dozens of groups across thousands of miles that I have never played this way.  I was forced to decide the 'adventure' was over for my RQ game the other night, despite the fact that my players kept playing that night and were following the events of the 'plot' quite doggedly.  If I waited until the 'End' of the 'Adventure' by the book, they'd never progress at all!


Thus, i'm in favor of nightly awards, the way I've always played.

Whenever it's earned.  Generally that's at the end of the session though (and 99% of the time immediately after a fight).

I'd rather have money or sex.  Sure my characters are shit, but its a small price to pay.

I was tempted to answer "mix of 1 and 2", but I realized that particular method and "end of adventure xp only" really bugs me.

Only getting XP at the end of an adventure always seems to me to make the intervening sessions pointless.  Plus, I've seen people get screwed by and abuse that kind of system.  I've seen players get told that since they missed the conclusion of the adventure they get no XP.  I've also seen players skip every session except the adventure concluding one and get more XP than people who had been playing the whole time.  

From a GM standpoint, it seems lazy to me.  It seems like actively avoiding part of their end of the deal.

Quote from: Elliot WilenHuh, y'know, I really don't care. I guess it matters more to me how the XP are earned. And I do like them to be earned, or more precisely, connected in some way to the actual events of the game and the individual contributions/activities of each character. Keep that linkage and I'm fine.

I'm with you, foir the most part. That said, as most games that use XP allow them to be spent on improving anything that the player wants to spend them on improving (or alternately, applies them to improving everything simultaneously ala D&D). To this end, I prefer that they be tied to player accomplishment. I prefer in-character rewards to be things earned in the game world (e.g., treaures, titles, etc).