I'm possibly taking aim at a sacred cow - but I'm wondering about the whole purpose of individual XP.  As a counter-example, one of the features of True20 was that it has levels but no XP. Instead, everyone went up to a new level based on GM judgment. Alternately, one could have XP but they are accumulated by the group rather than by individual character.

Some people felt that this was opposed to the "game" aspect of RPGs, but I don't think that's true.  In competitive sports or games, no one gets a head start because of experience.  More experienced soccer players or chess players do better solely because the player actually has more skill - not because they have more points accumulated from previous games. In both, everyone has the same level - it's a "level of play" for the group, rather than an individual "experience level".

In this sense, making an equal playing field can emphasize player skill rather than hiding it.

That said, I don't have a problem with inequality - such as having random-roll characters where a player can get lucky or not.  With random roll, though, you're getting something from the mix-up, by making players try things they might not have chosen. The question in my mind is, what is gained by having some players be at different levels?  What's the individual XP supposed to motivate?

It makes huge amount of sense if you get away from "ONE FUCKING GROUP OF TRIED AND TRUE HEROES JOINED AT THE HIP" and play "Five to twenty players who play at different times and frequencies."  If I play twice a week for six months how the hell does it make any FUCKING sense at all for somebody who's played a total of three times to be the same level?


In four years or so of playing Greyhawk and Blackmoor, I never ONCE played in a party where everyone was the same level.  I think most of the "disadvantages" are nugatory and devised by people who have never really tried it.

And a healthy dose of "waah waah wahh Davy has something I don't."

An XP system can do a lot of different things. For instance:

• Incentive - XP can be used to encourage certain behaviours. For instance in D&D speak whether you give out XP for gold or for monster kills  can condition the style of play. Likewise XP for simply showing up or for making the GM can be used to reward desired behaviors.
• Measure of Achievement - XP used to show that characters have done well as part of a risk/reward equation. The more effective the party in play, the more XP er session they gain.
• Simulation - Characters gain XP as a way to simulate growing proficiency and more general going up in the world.
• Pacing Device -Leveling up as a way to vary the gaming experience and play the game on a different scale.

Which of the above you want for you game may vary but it is worth noting they aren't all compatible. If you are mainly using XP as pacing device a flat XP per session or even no XP, characters just level up when the GM says so works fine, but pretty much undermines XP as an incentive or measure of achievement role.

There are always trade-offs.

A generalized distribution of XP is always inferior to an individualized one. Don't let anyone tell you the opposite.

By getting rid of XP or by only ever granting the exact same amount of XP to all players, you can no longer treat each of your players individually in this regard and lack the option to adjust the rewards to the actual contributions. As a consequence, through neglecting the individual contributions of each individual player, a collective reward can never ever be truly fair.
At the same time, due to the lack of an interconnection between player ideas and action on the one hand and the desired consequences on the other hand makes it signficantly more difficult to use XPs as a reward mechanism, and sacrificing such an essential tool of gamemastering comes very close to self-sabotage.
 The players will appreciate their gains more if they have to actually work for them, and the more comprehensible the connection between the cause (each player's efforts) and the effect (XP) is, the more transparent and direct is the feeling of actual accomplishment. This is basic gamemastering psychology.  


Yes, individualized XP sums are a bit more work, and yes, they can cause misgivings, mostly with the kind of self-entitled players who think they deserve only the best by default simply due to their presence. These misgivings (or the unwillingness to have this conflict) is almost always the true reason why gamemasters are using the inferior option of enforced equality, hich just prolongs the problem (namely player self-entitlement) but does not provide a solution. The sooner the players learn that they do not deserve any rewards whatsoever until they actively contribute to the game,  the faster the game will improve and the better the game will become, especially for the players who gain the agency to directly affect their individual boons and who gain the feedback that their action within the game do matter, that they are appreciated and that they do accomplish something.

Quote from: Old Geezer;840545It makes huge amount of sense if you get away from "ONE FUCKING GROUP OF TRIED AND TRUE HEROES JOINED AT THE HIP" and play "Five to twenty players who play at different times and frequencies."  If I play twice a week for six months how the hell does it make any FUCKING sense at all for somebody who's played a total of three times to be the same level?

Actually, I was thinking very specifically about the case of different players playing at different times and frequencies.  If everyone is locked at the hip and everyone plays together, then they'll all typically have the same individual XP.  

Again, I have nothing against differing levels or inequality.  For example, maybe a new character coming in (or another one rejoining) has an individual level of (level of play + 1d6 - 1d6).  So everyone might be at different levels.  

This does run counter to the idea that a player who has attended regularly for a while is supposed to be a higher level than a newbie.  

In-game, I think this makes plenty of sense:

1) For the case of a new player bringing in a new PC, it would be strange if the PCs only ever accepted new members who were level 1.  After all, they meet NPCs above first level - why wouldn't they ever accept an experienced adventurer into the group?

2) For the case of an existing player who has been absent for a while, it would make sense that the character has actually been around and doing things for the three months they were gone - rather than them just disappearing into limbo and reappearing. I advance my NPCs over time as well.

Yes I prefer "The GM decides when people level up" rather than keeping an XP record, but interestingly some players for 5E that I run have stated the LIKE keeping a tally of the XP and consider it as fun part of the game.

Seeing as it's not a big deal to me really and it seems important to them, I have stayed with using an XP tally to keep a record levels.

I like mixed "level" parties. (I put level in quotes as I haven't played level-based games in decades.) The difference in competence makes for more interesting play and seems more realistic to me than everybody always the same. Which, by the way, sounds soul-crushingly oppressive, not fun, to me.

Tracking points (for the sake of discussion let's call them XP) used for improvements means the differences in level or competence are not solely based on GM whim. They are the natural outcome of different people playing differently and of playing more or less frequently.

I like tracking XP. It makes the improvements my character gets seem like something I and my character have earned rather than a gift or mere GM whim. (And yes, I know there is usually an element of GM whim in assigning XP and no, the two methods are not equivalent just because they each have a certain measure of subjectivity.)

It also depends a lot on the kind of game.  In an exploration based sandbox game like OD&D, it's a great way to introduce and teach new players, much like we brought new players into miniatures games.  But just like you don't put a new wargamer in charge of an entire army, you need to exercise some thought about how you as a higher level PC will integrate a low level PC into your party.  We never really had a problem with it, but it could be one.

It might be very different in, for instance, a non-humorous Silver Age Superhero game; if the other players are playing Superman, Green Lantern, Iron Man, and Thor, who wants to be Arthur from "The Tick?"

Quote from: Old Geezer;840647It might be very different in, for instance, a non-humorous Silver Age Superhero game; if the other players are playing Superman, Green Lantern, Iron Man, and Thor, who wants to be Arthur from "The Tick?"

Very few people. Who are not me.


Although for a lot more reasons than just the power disparity.

Quote from: Old Geezer;840647... it's a great way to introduce and teach new players, much like we brought new players into miniatures games.  But just like you don't put a new wargamer in charge of an entire army ...

Sorry for this slight side-track, and sorry if there isn't much more to say, but could you say more about how best to introduce people to miniature games?

Quote from: Beagle;840560A generalized distribution of XP is always inferior to an individualized one. Don't let anyone tell you the opposite.

By getting rid of XP or by only ever granting the exact same amount of XP to all players, you can no longer treat each of your players individually in this regard and lack the option to adjust the rewards to the actual contributions. As a consequence, through neglecting the individual contributions of each individual player, a collective reward can never ever be truly fair.
At the same time, due to the lack of an interconnection between player ideas and action on the one hand and the desired consequences on the other hand makes it signficantly more difficult to use XPs as a reward mechanism, and sacrificing such an essential tool of gamemastering comes very close to self-sabotage.
 The players will appreciate their gains more if they have to actually work for them, and the more comprehensible the connection between the cause (each player's efforts) and the effect (XP) is, the more transparent and direct is the feeling of actual accomplishment. This is basic gamemastering psychology.  


Yes, individualized XP sums are a bit more work, and yes, they can cause misgivings, mostly with the kind of self-entitled players who think they deserve only the best by default simply due to their presence. These misgivings (or the unwillingness to have this conflict) is almost always the true reason why gamemasters are using the inferior option of enforced equality, hich just prolongs the problem (namely player self-entitlement) but does not provide a solution. The sooner the players learn that they do not deserve any rewards whatsoever until they actively contribute to the game,  the faster the game will improve and the better the game will become, especially for the players who gain the agency to directly affect their individual boons and who gain the feedback that their action within the game do matter, that they are appreciated and that they do accomplish something.

Wow.  Yeah, that really sums up my feelings on the subject nicely.

I would add in that the in-game reason is that people learn different skills differently, that a fighter takes completely different things away from a battle than does a magic-user, and so on.

I generally keep track of XP for each player but I don't bother with individual awards for doing stuff. That is too tedious to track. Everyone who participates in a given adventure session earns the XP for that session.

If a player misses sessions then his/her character will be behind others in XP total and may end up behind in level a bit due to the disparity but it isn't a big deal.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840711Sorry for this slight side-track, and sorry if there isn't much more to say, but could you say more about how best to introduce people to miniature games?

Well, what worked for me is in my very first battle, a CHAINMAIL battle, they gave me a unit of 20 Vikings, showed me the chart with movement distances, and then said "Go attack those guys on top of that hill."

In my first WW2 miniatures battle, they gave me a couple of tanks.  We were using TRACTICS, which requires you to specify where you're observing.  I was told things like "Follow my tanks through here, I'll stick left and look to the left, you stick right and look to the right, and spread out your observation as much as we can, we need to see as many different places as possible."

We always had multiple players on a side, and a referee.

If this gives rise to more questions, feel free.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;840739I generally keep track of XP for each player but I don't bother with individual awards for doing stuff. That is too tedious to track. Everyone who participates in a given adventure session earns the XP for that session.

If a player misses sessions then his/her character will be behind others in XP total and may end up behind in level a bit due to the disparity but it isn't a big deal.

Agreed that it's not generally a big deal, but it is interesting.

In my experience, a lot of groups unofficially have policies that are counter to the official rules for XP.  Rather than bringing in a new PC at 1st level, some groups let a new PC come in at the same level as the others, for example.

Despite this, I can't recall games or systems that make this official.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840711Sorry for this slight side-track, and sorry if there isn't much more to say, but could you say more about how best to introduce people to miniature games?

I'd be interested, too, and it seems at least tangentially on topic.

When introducing people to board games, I tend to give newbies a bonus, rather than starting them out with less and having them work their way up.

Quote from: Beagle;840560This is basic gamemastering psychology.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;840712Wow.  Yeah, that really sums up my feelings on the subject nicely.

Hmm, yes and no.  Yes, generally, but there are many other ways to reward a character then just XP if you have a truly living, breathing "World in Motion" campaign.  For example, a 3rd level wizard with just the right spells can be worth a lot more than a 6th level wizard without them.  Same goes for magic items, weapons, armor, etc for other classes.  That's not even getting into campaign rewards like reduced cost or free spells, medals and honors, land grants, etc.  There should always be many ways to reward a particular character even if they have the exact same xp reward as the rest of the party.

That having been said, I don't have a problem with disparate levels at all, I mean some of my favorite games are RM/MERP, WFRP, Shadowrun, and RIFTS.  When you can deal with the unbelievable character disparity that can exist in those settings, you tend to not have numerical insecurities.