So on Facebook recently, I was posting about my upcoming 5e game, when an acquaintance of mine who plays at the FLGS asked me about the experience gap between spellcasters and melee fighters.

I had no idea what he was talking about.

He said that the DM said that the only way to get XP was to "kill stuff and complete quests" and their Rogue was almost 3rd level, their melee fighters were 2nd level and their spellcasters were only halfway to 2nd level.

I told him that I thought that was questionable DMing, at best, since one of the two official published adventures for 5e (Hoard of the Dragon Queen) offered multiple scenario specific XP rewards.

I found out later from a friend that played 3.5 under this guy and quit, that he gives melee characters 20% more XP per encounter and only gives spellcasters XP based on the spells they cast in a session.

So.

That is certainly one way to solve the Melee/Magic Imbalance.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;784609So on Facebook recently, I was posting about my upcoming 5e game, when an acquaintance of mine who plays at the FLGS asked me about the experience gap between spellcasters and melee fighters.

I had no idea what he was talking about.

He said that the DM said that the only way to get XP was to "kill stuff and complete quests" and their Rogue was almost 3rd level, their melee fighters were 2nd level and their spellcasters were only halfway to 2nd level.

I told him that I thought that was questionable DMing, at best, since one of the two official published adventures for 5e (Hoard of the Dragon Queen) offered multiple scenario specific XP rewards.

I found out later from a friend that played 3.5 under this guy and quit, that he gives melee characters 20% more XP per encounter and only gives spellcasters XP based on the spells they cast in a session.

So.

That is certainly one way to solve the Melee/Magic Imbalance.

I suppose? Would it help if I whacked him in the balls?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;784609I found out later from a friend that played 3.5 under this guy and quit, that he gives melee characters 20% more XP per encounter and only gives spellcasters XP based on the spells they cast in a session.

Weak, most of the time I've seen xp split, is when the party splits or a character pulls of a crazy stunt.

I can't remember the last time I played any D&D-like game where the XP wasn't doled out equally. I assumed it was the norm because otherwise the bitchy folks would bitch about it.

Wait. You think that an equal distribution of XP is actually a good thing?!? Why? I'd rather have a fair and contextualized distribution of rewards, not a forced equality that by default fails to do justice to each player's contributions to the game.
The idea of making XP rewards specific to each class and its role is not bad, either. In the OP's example it might benefit from a better fine adjustment (and it basically requires scenarios where each class has the potential to contribute regularly), but as a concept, it is fine (and from my subjective point of view, preferable to any game that fails to reward proper engagement and significant contributions by the players in form of XP rewards).

Quote from: Beagle;784626Wait. You think that an equal distribution of XP is actually a good thing?!? Why? I'd rather have a fair and contextualized distribution of rewards, not a forced equality that by default fails to do justice to each player's contributions to the game.

Because when me and my friends get together to play a game it's about having fun, not competing to see who has the largest "contributions to the game". I can't even imagine how that would be measured in any way other than "I like you more than I like her".

I always give out XP equally - even when players have to miss a session and someone else plays their character for them. XP is a measure of how experienced the characters are, not a Pavlovian reward for the players playing the way I want them to play.

In fact, the only House Rule I'm using in 5e is that we ignore XP completely and the characters simply goes up a level (together) when I say so.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;784627Because when me and my friends get together to play a game it's about having fun, not competing to see who has the largest "contributions to the game". I can't even imagine how that would be measured in any way other than "I like you more than I like her".

(...) XP is a measure of how experienced the characters are, not a Pavlovian reward for the players playing the way I want them to play.

But there are games where xp rewards don't work that way at all.

For a long time I GMed the German game, Midgard. (A 1981 EPT clone that evolved into its very own thing.)
It has three different kinds of xp, based on combat, magic, and general stuff, and a character can only invest the proper kind of xp into new weapon skills, spells, or skills. The rules are quite strict on how to award xp (per damage output, per energy invested into a spell, per successful skill use, per days travelled, etc.).
When I read the rules first I thought it would be a chore to use all that but in play it was surprisingly smooth - and all in all, quite fair. Over the years all characters were in roughly the same level brackets (depending on when they were created, thanks to later additions to group, or character deaths).
The whole leveling system depends on expenditure of xp (as the character "level" is only the result of expended xp, not xp received) so I never thought of doing it differently (in that game - I eyeballed xp in other games frequently).


I remember that my AD&D group very much liked the individual xp awards as well (though I guess that there was a factor of "I like you more than I like her" with certain DMs...).
But then, in that campaign the DM rotated, and all players had huge folders of characters of differing levels which were mixed and matched for any given session, so the general competence varied anyway.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;784627Because when me and my friends get together to play a game it's about having fun, not competing to see who has the largest "contributions to the game". I can't even imagine how that would be measured in any way other than "I like you more than I like her".

Acknowledging another player's good ideas and interesting actions is not an expression of competitiveness by default - it could even be the exact opposite, namely an expression of mutual respect and the joy for others being good at what they are doing. Meanwhile, an outspoken concern that someone might get more out of the game than oneself seems rather petty and self-centered in comparison, at least to me. Generosity and
But, even if there is a certain competitive element to it - that is not necessarily bad, either. Friendly rivalry is a great motivator, and if the rivalry consists of "who tries the hardest to make the game as fun as possible for everyone involved", there is virtually no downside to it.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;784627I always give out XP equally - even when players have to miss a session and someone else plays their character for them. XP is a measure of how experienced the characters are, not a Pavlovian reward for the players playing the way I want them to play.

While conditioning is not the worst model to explain gamemastering, it's not Pavlov, but Skinner. While it is not the only explanation, it is an essential part of running a game,  because, as a gamemaster it is your responsibility to provide proper feedback and consequences to the character's actions anyway, and you can be pretty sure that this feedback will shape the expectations and future actions of your players. That's inevitable, as your players. like the sapient beings they are, cannot not learn. So, true to Skinner's model, their behavior and choices do adapt to your feedback, as it will break down to the usual reinforcements anyway - successful strategies and actions are likely become more frequent, while the failing ones will eventually not be repeated. The only choice a gamemaster has is, if one is  using this actively and consciously, granting you the opportunity to use this instrument, or to leave it up to chance by shunning this responsibility and thus make the feedback more random and thus offer less guidance. As XP rewards are not a separate entity from the rest of the game, but a continuation of this very concept of feedback and responses (and thus behavioral reinforcements) the gamemaster is supposed to provide anyway, it doesn't seem that resigning from using this actually very effective instrument is such a smart idea.

While it is probably quite unfair, I primarily associate 'one size fits all' XP rewards with particularly weak gamemasters whose primary interest is avoiding potential conflicts and just evade them instead of standing their ground and find actual solutions.

Quote from: Beagle;784626Wait. You think that an equal distribution of XP is actually a good thing?!? Why? I'd rather have a fair and contextualized distribution of rewards, not a forced equality that by default fails to do justice to each player's contributions to the game.
The idea of making XP rewards specific to each class and its role is not bad, either. In the OP's example it might benefit from a better fine adjustment (and it basically requires scenarios where each class has the potential to contribute regularly), but as a concept, it is fine (and from my subjective point of view, preferable to any game that fails to reward proper engagement and significant contributions by the players in form of XP rewards).

I would agree that in the hands of a competent GM, this isn't necessarily a bad thing...but when it becomes more important that you cast Mage Hand once a session for XP, then actually finding a meaningful way to contribute to the party, then I think something's wrong.

But then, I don't have a problem with group XP because my whole group tends to stay engaged, and individual players that don't aren't long for the table.

personal goals for PCS
Personal xp for PCs based on hitting those goals
'plot' xp dolled out equal split to those that participated in that event.

IN any case rather like annual bonuses you can hand out xp to each PC hidden from the others.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;784641...but when it becomes more important that you cast Mage Hand once a session for XP, then actually finding a meaningful way to contribute to the party, then I think something's wrong.

It all comes down to reinforcing the behaviors you want to see.

If you want a 'me' group where everyone takes actions to get the benefits,  then individual rewards make sense.

If you want an 'us' group,  vice-versa.

Unless XP gains are built-in to the system (like in games such as Dungeon World) I just have the PCs level up when appropriate (at the end of an "adventure" or when they reach a significant milestone).

For individual rewards I just give them Bennies/Fate Points/Inspiration etc...

For my upcoming D&D in Ancient Greece campaign, in which each PC secretly has a divine patron, they'll get boons and favors in the form of guidance, cool loot and temporary bonuses or powers.

Quote from: Beagle;784633Acknowledging another player's good ideas and interesting actions is not an expression of competitiveness by default - it could even be the exact opposite, namely an expression of mutual respect and the joy for others being good at what they are doing.

Agreed. That's what we do in my groups.

It has nothing to do with experience points though.

QuoteMeanwhile, an outspoken concern that someone might get more out of the game than oneself seems rather petty and self-centered in comparison, at least to me.

Enjoying the game is its own reward, and if someone else enjoys it more than me then good for them.

This is still nothing to do with experience points. Again, you're characterising a character getting more experienced at what they do as being a reward for players.

QuoteBut, even if there is a certain competitive element to it - that is not necessarily bad, either. Friendly rivalry is a great motivator, and if the rivalry consists of "who tries the hardest to make the game as fun as possible for everyone involved", there is virtually no downside to it.

If you say so. I don't see such rivalry in my groups. It's probably a cultural difference.

And how on earth do you measure who's "trying hardest" to make it fun for everyone, anyway?

QuoteWhile conditioning is not the worst model to explain gamemastering, it's not Pavlov, but Skinner. While it is not the only explanation, it is an essential part of running a game,  because, as a gamemaster it is your responsibility to provide proper feedback and consequences to the character's actions anyway, and you can be pretty sure that this feedback will shape the expectations and future actions of your players. That's inevitable, as your players. like the sapient beings they are, cannot not learn. So, true to Skinner's model, their behavior and choices do adapt to your feedback, as it will break down to the usual reinforcements anyway - successful strategies and actions are likely become more frequent, while the failing ones will eventually not be repeated.

Agreed. The actions of the characters (and therefore by proxy the decisions of the players) will have consequences in-game and this will reinforce successful strategies provide negative feedback to unsuccessful ones.

Similarly, the actions of the players will have consequences out of game in terms of how much fun everyone is having, and this will reinforce popular actions and provide negative feedback to unpopular ones.

But none of this has anything to do with experience points.

QuoteThe only choice a gamemaster has is, if one is  using this actively and consciously, granting you the opportunity to use this instrument, or to leave it up to chance by shunning this responsibility and thus make the feedback more random and thus offer less guidance. As XP rewards are not a separate entity from the rest of the game, but a continuation of this very concept of feedback and responses (and thus behavioral reinforcements) the gamemaster is supposed to provide anyway, it doesn't seem that resigning from using this actually very effective instrument is such a smart idea.

And this is the point where I disagree.

Experience points are not part of the feedback and response. They are not a "reward" for "good play".

They are a measure of how experienced the character are - and the characters learn just as much from mistakes as from successes, so it is decoupled from any kind of feedback about how well the characters are doing, and even further away from how "well" the players are playing.

QuoteWhile it is probably quite unfair, I primarily associate 'one size fits all' XP rewards with particularly weak gamemasters whose primary interest is avoiding potential conflicts and just evade them instead of standing their ground and find actual solutions.

That's nice for you.

It is unfair, by the way, since it is assuming that people who do things differently actually agree with your preferred way to do them but are too cowardly to put it into practise, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt and accepting that they do things differently because they actually disagree with your preferred way.

I'm crazy and silly and just give out Xp based on "Are we having fun" Would doing it differently be not fun.

So I give it out even if your character isn't there, evenly. Seems fun and fair after all missing my game is punishment enough. Means you had no or at least less fun and may be a little lost in what is going on when you return. I think that is punishment enough.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;784627Because when me and my friends get together to play a game it's about having fun, not competing to see who has the largest "contributions to the game". I can't even imagine how that would be measured in any way other than "I like you more than I like her".

In that case your choice to dole out experience equally or to level everyone at the same time is a good choice for you.