Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812974However, that makes me wonder what to do when I'm playing a sandbox game (or even in this module if the players go do something else). When would I award experience then? In a sense, if I give experience for non "official" quests, isn't that basically telling the players they can pretty much go do anything and get experience for it.

And then there are battles. They got into a fight with some people that wasn't really meant to be a fight, and won. I did not give them experience for that though, because it wasn't a task, and it wasn't a fight that needed to happen. Would you give them experience for that?

Basically the question is, what counts as a completed task when you're giving out experience that way. Who decides it was a task. How significant does it have to be.

1: That depends on how hardline you want to get about only awarding EXP for quests and nothing else. The more you slip the potential is there for the players to take advantage of that.

2: Dont award EXP then. They knew offing these people wasnt part of the mission and was not even necessary. But did it anyhow. They got their own reward with the "thrill of the kill".

3: What counts is what rules you set down as counts and stick to it. If you sau "Only quests grant EXP." Then only quests grant EXP. Otherwise what was the point of saying "Only quests grant EXP." when you really meant "Only quests grant EXP. Except for all those EXPs on legs you might deem to bump off.".

I tell the players that attacking civilians will have repercussions and likely get them killed. Attacking a merchant WILL have repercussions. And they go and do it. Then hello. Meet your new friend Mr Repercussions.

Quote from: Omega;8131593: What counts is what rules you set down as counts and stick to it. If you sau "Only quests grant EXP." Then only quests grant EXP. Otherwise what was the point of saying "Only quests grant EXP." when you really meant "Only quests grant EXP. Except for all those EXPs on legs you might deem to bump off.".

I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading. At least with giving EXP for monsters, you are giving experience for anything the players decide to fight and that is up to them. The problem is that it produces players that just want to kill everything, but giving experience only for quests means you're basically saying that if they don't follow the path you think they should then they get no experience.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading. At least with giving EXP for monsters, you are giving experience for anything the players decide to fight and that is up to them. The problem is that it produces players that just want to kill everything, but giving experience only for quests means you're basically saying that if they don't follow the path you think they should then they get no experience.

There is another option, that can help keep the players focused on the tasks at hand without railroading them.

Use XP for everything they do in pursuit of goals chosen by the players.

Present them with multiple possible quests or endeavors and let them decide their path. Obstacles to their goals will count towards XP and others will not. You won't be deciding what they do, the players will be.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;813231There is another option, that can help keep the players focused on the tasks at hand without railroading them.

Use XP for everything they do in pursuit of goals chosen by the players.

Present them with multiple possible quests or endeavors and let them decide their path. Obstacles to their goals will count towards XP and others will not. You won't be deciding what they do, the players will be.

I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

Which is why modules suck.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

I don't think the concept is getting through. There ARE no "official" quests that grant xp and others that don't. Whatever goals the players set their sights on become official quests.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading.

Railroading only if there is only say 1 quest each time.

Set up a bunch of quests and let the players decide what they do.

Example: A "Help Wanted" board outside the tavern or constables office. Listing a few things people want done. The constable might want someone to deal with some goblins, the blacksmith might want someone to investigate who stole a  sword he crafted, the town cleric might want someone to go out to the ruins and kindly ask the spectre to stop waylaying travellers and sharing his cookie recipies. A Gnoll wants someone to retrieve a tribal totem, a farmer wants someone to explore into the wilderness north for better farmlands.

Variety and choice.

Quote from: Old Geezer;813274Which is why modules suck.

Nah, only poorly written ones. Or ones the DM forces on the players. bleah!

Good modules either allow alot of freedom, or are essentially a big quest the players opted into. yay!

The only games that I run that players do silly outrageous stuff are supers games. They know that if they try to be crazy heroes when I run D&D, they will very likely end up dead. If this is really an "issue", it's the DMs fault.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading.

"What do you guys want to do?"

"Uh, we're going to assassinate the Baron!"

"Cool.  If you manage that, I'll give you 5Kxp."

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

I divide all things that occur in my game into XP packets that I divide amongst those that participate in completing them.

However, I also get the players to set PC objectives. So Frank the wizard wants to track down his old teacher (from background) I decide that the teacher has been captured by a demon and made to work for him. Now the player says my objective is "find my teacher" I say that is a 10,000 Xp quest. Wow replies the player okay can I break the quest into more management chunks? Sure lets see, trace his last movements 2,000xp, find out who took him 3000 xp, find him the final 5000xp....
Now the PC has 3 objectives these are quite separate from teh immediate game world activities (defeat Duke Carmor's army = 10,000xp; Join Duke Carmor's Army and defeat the people of Legrance = 5,000 xp; Usurp Duke Carmor and then use his army to make yourselves kings = 20,000xp) that are shared and for which the xp rewards are hidden.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;812526This article by the Angry DM posted up today is relevant to this thread's topic: http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-overpowered-encounters/

He says D&D isn't made for non-balanced encounters.

He may be correct for WOTC D&D and PF, but it's not really true for TSR editions. That's one of the reasons I will not GM WOTC editions or play in them if they are run RAW. However, it is easy to make over-powered encounters work better in WOTC D&D: add back in monster reaction rolls (so every time monsters are encountered, they don't auto-attack), morale for monsters, and switch to group initiative.

It might be worth doing something like a 'wrap up' discussion about major goals achieved in the last adventure or whatnot, and using that to decide on XP rewards.

Come up with guidelines, like:
In an adventure (defined in more sandboxy things as some period with a definable start and end point, like 'going into the dungeon of despair and then exiting'), you can have a Major Goal.
And the group can decide how successful that goal is, and there's XP scaled on how many sessions went toward that goal.

Then the group can come up with a number of 'notable accomplishments,' maybe up to 1 or 2 per session of the adventure, worth bonus XP.


For example, maybe you decide that an adventure should take about 4 sessions and deliver about 1 'level' worth of XP. In D&D 3e, that would mean:
Adventure goal: 250 xp x average party level x # of sessions
250 base adjusted by how successful (or fun) it was, possibly some sessions don't count, depending on what the players were doing.

Accomplishments: 50 xp x average party level


So, an adventure taking 4 sessions, the party could make up to 1200 xp x average party level (1000 for the goal, up to 200 in side accomplishments)


The potential advantages are that it encourages the group to reflect on what they've done, enjoy their achievements, and do all the 'paperwork' in one short burst rather than strewn about and interrupting stuff during the game.

Obviously a lot of people don't really enjoy this sort of reward scheme and want the fun of immediate give and take -- we deactivated the trap, XP!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813252I already do that. Presenting them with multiple possible endeavors and letting them decide, that is. And I don't reveal which "official" quests are the ones that gain experience.

Although, now that I think about it, this might not be an issue in a homebrewed campaign. This is all because I'm running a module, which has official quests already designated, which caused me to ask what to do about experience given for tasks when players don't go after those quests.

I suppose in a non-module, everything could just be a quest of sorts since there wouldn't be an officially endorsed one. Although you still have to decide what magnitude of task constitutes something worthy of experience.

I am confused. Not uncommon, I will grant, but perhaps with cause this time.

You want to award experience for particular quests; why? To motivate the players to prefer those quests, I guess? But if you don't tell them which quests get an experience award, let alone which get more, how can they possibly be influenced? And that's without the next step of wondering why you want to influence their choices, if you're looking for a sandbox game.

My recommendation is first to award experience based on the risk involved in what they did; you can judge the risk in advance, or on a theoretical basis, but it probably shouldn't be based on the actual events, since that just penalizes clever strategies. Second, award experience based on meaning of their actions: killing a large number of guards but allowing an evil stronghold to reinforce is not worth as much as killing the same number of guards in order to eliminate that stronghold. (In particular, playing Russian Roulette would be risky but not worth experience comparable to that risk, because it's really meaningless.) NPCs who inform the players of quests have thus attached meaning to that quest; but the players might assign meaning to their own plans (unless you think they're gaming the system), especially if the meaning is consistent with the character's motivation, background, etc.

I don't like XP for treasure, unless there's really no use for treasure; if there's something to buy, it's its own reward. But I suppose XP could be a thing you could buy. (It did do a good job of instilling greed for treasure, especially dragon hoards, in OD&D.)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;813192I agree, but my question is, "SHOULD I be granting EXP for only quests" because I am concerned that it might be a kind of GM railroading. At least with giving EXP for monsters, you are giving experience for anything the players decide to fight and that is up to them. The problem is that it produces players that just want to kill everything, but giving experience only for quests means you're basically saying that if they don't follow the path you think they should then they get no experience.

If you've got some narrower meaning of 'quest' in mind, how about shifting to 'objective'.

One thing you might try is to get an advance statement of objective. Then you can assess beforehand the gestalt challenge, if you're using that criterion.

Another criterion that's been used (for instance in C&S, but also in D&D variants) is to go the opposite way and consider discrete activities in terms of their "learning experience" value. A warrior might get a lot of points for a tough fight, but nothing for one that was no real challenge. A wizard's xp would come mainly from magic, a thief's from thiefy stuff (perhaps scored for loot), and so on.

The more you go that way, the more record-keeping is involved. Even with just old-style treasure and monster points, there's a fair bit compared with bumping it up to higher-level objectives.