I never liked XP. Yes, I totally understand it's purpose, origin, blah blah, etc. So fucking what? Still don't like it.

When I had the chance to play with Dave Arneson at a convention one shot, one of the players asked how much XP we got as a joke and Dave said if you survive an adventure, you gain a level. I nearly hit the floor.

And I've been really happy doing that ever since. I have zero idea if Dave did that back in the day, or whether that was a later idea of his, but it really works for my style of high danger, frequent PC death DMing.

I like XP as we originally ran it.  I think it's pointless how we run it now, and how I assume most other groups do.  Now, we just pass equal XP out to everyone at the end of the session and characters (in modern D&D) all level at exactly the same time.  It's pointless.  We might as well just declare when characters level, and in fact od that.

In Ye Olden Days of Yore, I did a few things with XP.  First, the MU advancement system in OD&D and AD&D was daft.  The B/X one is much better.  (Aside:  pretty much everything in B/X is better than OD&D IMO.  Amazing, I never saw it until the 2010's!)  Anyhow, here's how I ran XP back in the OD&D days:  monster XP is split evenly between everyone at the end of the session.  I just track it and divide it evenly.

Of course, monster XP is pretty small.  It's treasure XP that's the big deal.  I grant XP for treasure based on cuts of treasure at the end of the session, so splitting the loot is very much a micro game that's more about XP than tracking gold in the bank.  To make it more interesting, XP is based on what everyone walks away with.  It's easy to split 1000 gp equally between 6 characters.  However, if that is a piece of jewelry worth 1000 gp, then the players have an interesting dilemma.  One character can take that item and get 1000 XP for it, or the party can go sell it to the local merchant for 800 gp (for example) and then split the gold 6 ways and split 800 XP 6 ways.  Magic treasure has no XP value:  the value is in it's utility, though if someone sells it off immediately without using it they can have the XP for the final price.  

This usually ends up with some interesting tactical choices by the players.  The first adventure, they may get back to toward the a potion and 1800 gp worth of treasure.  It's common for them to gift 1500 gp worth of loot directly to the cleric's god via the cleric's character, so they push the cleric right up to level 2 and that precious healing magic.  Someone takes the potion, and the others all split the remaining 300 gp evenly.

I find that interesting and fun in OD&D.  I just declare when the party levels in 5e.

Quote from: RMS;1109177This usually ends up with some interesting tactical choices by the players.  The first adventure, they may get back to toward the a potion and 1800 gp worth of treasure.  It's common for them to gift 1500 gp worth of loot directly to the cleric's god via the cleric's character, so they push the cleric right up to level 2 and that precious healing magic.  Someone takes the potion, and the others all split the remaining 300 gp evenly.

Rigging the division of XP among players seems very weird to me. But so does awarding XP for different things based on class. There's enough things to motivate any amount of discord among players without rigging the XP system to get more.

The differing XP tables by class and the odd spell progression of clerics and the differing saving throw tables and the limits on non-humans except for thief were just the way things were when I started. I imagined at first that all of the arbitrary choices made in OD&D were motivated by deep understanding and analysis to get the best possible choice - e.g., balancing the classes; that wishful thinking was punctured quickly - within 6 months, I'd guess.

The idea that a game must be perfectly balanced between players and foes, and between players, is an odd one. It doesn't represent real teams of soldiers or sportspeople or IT professionals or whatever, nor even fantasy fiction.

In reality and in fiction, each contributes their own particular skill, however great or small.

Well, some of this dynamic now is a chicken or the egg thing.  I'm not sure which came first in early D&D.  Was different advancement rates there and that supported characters of different power levels adventuring together?  Or the different power levels adventuring together was already there, so that the advancement rates were no big deal?  I'd guess the latter.

Point being, however it came about, the idea of henchman and big groups of NPCs was gradually replaced by each player running only their character as "the party, the whole party, and nothing but the party."  It didn't help any that 3E doubled down on this trend as a "feature".  3E doesn't need separate advancement charts because it barely works at all when characters in the party get more than about 2 to 3 levels apart.  

5E has reserved the trend, for the first time since 1E, but I'm not sure it has made it all the way back to 2E territory yet.  (Would depend on the particular 2E slant, I suspect.)  That is, 5E has taken a step back in tone, but not all the mechanics have caught up to the reversal.

I see experience discrepancies to be incentives to play less favorable classes and disincentives to play others, which is often informed by setting and play style. Having to make a cleric because you're the last one in the group to make your character and the party needs a healer was a meme until in modern rpgs they turned clerics into superheroes or just made 10 other support class\subclass options. The thief class was generally frowned upon especially with regards to how it was played in the past, but it was also pretty essential to get past save versus death traps, even if it was usually the thief who suffered from those traps first. The emphasis for my own games back then was mostly dungeon crawling and well, we needed a thief. The idea of playing a magic user is cool, but i believe their high XP progression says much about how rare they should be in the world. A few times I've consciously opted to not play a magic user because of the harsh situation they begin in but also because of the experience required to level.

I believe there's a misconception about varying experience requirements to level, which is why I think balance had little to do with it. When you stand back and look at the math, the way each level doubled the amount of xp you needed until the next level generally meant no one was ever more than 1 level behind. All it meant was that players leveled up at different times, probably better that way, everyone gets to feel special for a moment.

And even if you died at level 5, and had to make a new level 1 character (if your referee made you re-roll level 1 characters), your new character would gain quite a few levels, usually level 4 or 5, before the others reached level 6.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109222The idea that a game must be perfectly balanced between players and foes, and between players, is an odd one. It doesn't represent real teams of soldiers or sportspeople or IT professionals or whatever, nor even fantasy fiction.

In reality and in fiction, each contributes their own particular skill, however great or small.

In a game, players are looking for opportunities to contribute.  In a novel, the minor character can be content to remain a minor character, but a player is sitting around a table.  If they have to spend 7 1/2 hours waiting for their moment to shine, even if their one contribution is significant, we'd expect the player to get bored.  They may not even be paying attention when they CAN contribute.  

To make the game more enjoyable for everyone, it's broadly accepted that people should be able to make contributions most of the time.  It doesn't really matter if someone's contribution is bigger or smaller in one scene (especially if it's reversed in another), but it definitely does matter if one (or more!!!) characters have nothing to do at all for long stretches of game time.  

Balance doesn't have to be 'perfect' to consider how a variety of players can contribute.

Finding a way to contribute is up to the player. That's part of player skill. Same as any team event or sport. If you choose to stand in a corner of the field picking your nose that's up to you.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109627Finding a way to contribute is up to the player. That's part of player skill. Same as any team event or sport. If you choose to stand in a corner of the field picking your nose that's up to you.

No, look, if we're playing basketball and I'm a 60% shooter and you're a 25% shooter, we should both still get an equal number of shot opportunities to make everything equitable. I shouldn't expect you to maybe play shutdown defense or anything like that because scoring points is exciting and defense is boring.

Quote from: Brad;1109631No, look, if we're playing basketball and I'm a 60% shooter and you're a 25% shooter, we should both still get an equal number of shot opportunities to make everything equitable. I shouldn't expect you to maybe play shutdown defense or anything like that because scoring points is exciting and defense is boring.

No, for equity, you just need to look at the score afterwards. If it's not a perfect tie, it's unfair.

Quote from: Aglondir;1108823Does anyone know the rationale why each class had it's own XP progression?
(e.g. the Thief needs 1250 XP to get to second level, but the Mage needs 2500 XP.)

Ediit: Do you see this as a feature or a bug?

One difference I've observed between authentic old school design and modern game design is modern game design seems to put rules first. By which I mean, there is obsession over the rules. There is desire for the rules to look tidy and neat and elegant. And for there to be balance and symmetry. And for them to be simplified. It's almost like the ideal is to have mechanics that make you say "Gosh, that's clever. I'm going to houserule something like that for my campaign." Old school puts the play first. By which I mean, when it comes to writing rules, the foremost question is always "Is this reasonable?" Look at the 1E bend bars/lift gates percentiles. No pattern to them at all. It's what I'd expect to see if you just played a whole lot of D&D and players kept wanting to bend bars like Conan did in Conan the Destroyer, and you'd just make up a probability on the spot based on the character's Strength and over a long period of time came up with this set of numbers that seemed most reasonable in most circumstances.

So that goes a long way to answering your question, and I suppose even most questions about old school rules. Old school XP tables? 'Cuz that's what seemed reasonable when you just played a ton, all things considered. And so, yeah, this is a rationale in itself. And yeah, automatically a feature. It takes a whole lot of intent to do things that way, and nobody is intending to break the game. And notice how every fix to it, or every insinuation that it's wrong or is somehow flawed sneaks in the assumption of mathematical sleekness somehow being automatically more correct. The mystery of why magic-users advancement seems to speed up at those mid-levels is solved if you imagine that it was just played a bunch of times and those numbers were what worked.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109627Finding a way to contribute is up to the player. That's part of player skill. Same as any team event or sport. If you choose to stand in a corner of the field picking your nose that's up to you.

Developing ways for characters to contribute is up to the game designer.  If you create a major game system (like Decking in Shadowrun) that only one character can participate in, and that's the only place they can really make a difference in, you have a setup where 5 guys are standing around with their thumbs up their butt while one player is playing the game, or you have a situation where the one player doesn't get to contribute.  

I've been playing video games since well before Nintendo, but I know that playing Super Mario Bros. two players isn't much fun.  You're each taking turns and never playing together at the same time.  Don't tell me it's Luigi's player's job to figure out how to contribute while Mario is on-screen.  That's bullshit and you know it.

All you've demonstrated is that video games are inferior to tabletop games, because even the dumbest DM is smarter than a computer. In tabletop games, there is no Three Foot Wall of Doom, nor will NPCs endlessly repeat the same lines for all eternity until the heat death of the universe. In computer games, the rules - the programming - are complete, because anything outside the rules you simply can't do. Even a rather dull DM will allow you to step a small way outside that.

And so, to clarify for the slow kids in class: finding a way to contribute is up to the player, and it's up to the DM and other players to encourage them.

It doesn't matter what the rules are if Timmy is too busy fucking about on his mobile phone to pay attention to what's happening, nor does it matter if Joanne is paying close attention and comes up with something entertaining, creative and smart which the rules don't cover. Timmy's in trouble either way, and Joanne will do fine either way.

In a boxing match, you have to be good at boxing. In a running race, you have to be good at running. In soccer, at kicking the ball. And in a social creative hobby like roleplaying games, you have to be social and... creative. It's not the job of the rules of rpgs to make up for players' lack of social ability and lack of creativity any more than it's the job of the rules of football to make up for players' lack of ball skills and athleticism.

In order of importance to the success of a game session: people, snacks, setting and system. The rules come last. Always.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109674Developing ways for characters to contribute is up to the game designer.  

The problem with that is that tabletop roleplaying center around campaigns being run by referees. A game designer can provide tools to make this easier especially if they directly the genre or setting the referee opted to use.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109674If you create a major game system (like Decking in Shadowrun) that only one character can participate in, and that's the only place they can really make a difference in, you have a setup where 5 guys are standing around with their thumbs up their butt while one player is playing the game, or you have a situation where the one player doesn't get to contribute.  

However it reflects the reality of shadowrun setting and the cyberpunk genre. No amount of rules is going to paper over the issue that in cyberpunk, hacking is portrayed as a solitary activity. It also requires a specialized skill set. However there have been film and tv protraying the use of hacking as part of a team effort. I would look to those to as inspiration to provide some guidance on how to integrate it in a group with a mixed set of character types.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109674I've been playing video games since well before Nintendo, but I know that playing Super Mario Bros. two players isn't much fun.  You're each taking turns and never playing together at the same time.  Don't tell me it's Luigi's player's job to figure out how to contribute while Mario is on-screen.  That's bullshit and you know it.

Of course if you are good enough you can decompile the binaries or if lucky have access to the code and alter the scenario. However luckily with tabletop RPGs that capability is not only there but an intrinsic part of how it works due to the presence of the human referee.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1109720In order of importance to the success of a game session: people, snacks, setting and system. The rules come last. Always.

You pretty much ignored the Shadowrun example. For another example, social interaction where characters from lower social classes get thrown in prison and the noble characters get to argue the party's case. You can say, "well, they just need to think of something relevant" but that's no help when their situation is rigged to allow for nothing relevant, the rules can pretty much force such situations. Locks, traps, arcane symbols, one-on-one duels and navigating hostile terrain are other situations where rules often sideline most of the characters.

I'd rank the four elements as people, system, setting, snacks. You can fix each of these on its own if the preceding elements are good; there may be no choice that works if the preceding elements are not all good. I might add genre between people and system; the high level view of setting that doesn't depend on system.