Quote from: jibbajibba;787360I think he is arguing against a feedback loop -- I rolled well for my character so my charcter is both more efficient needs to rolll lower to suceed and has a lower XP requirement to gain levels. Then in actual play if I continue to roll well I gain more xp etc ....

In reality a failure can teach us more than an easy victory.

So I think that is what he is getting at...

Ah. Thanks. I can see how one might be concerned if one really cared, for some other reason, about everyone being the same level.  I can't say I'm concerned about it though.

Part of that is because I see those differences in XP as minor. D&D plays better, IMO, when treasure is the main XP source rather than who hit, killed, or bespelled which monster. And part of that is because parties with level/points/XP differences seem intrinsically more interesting to me than parties where everyone is exactly the same (from a level, point buy, or XP standpoint) and is artificially kept exactly the same. So I don't value everyone being exactly the same. Horses for courses.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787378Because the character is the player.

QuoteI follow the mantra of an old GM of mine the character isn't you.

Sommerjon, both of these statements cannot be true. It would help the discussion if you decided which one you actually believe.

Currently, you are ignoring XP for treasure, which is the major source (80-90%) of XP in any leveled game that I would GM. Ignoring that and focusing on the minor sources of the treasure seems like you are focusing on the tail rather than the dog. But let's look at your latest set of questions.

• Jack gets more XP from killing bugbears.


• Mary may get less XP from tossing darts - depends on what the darts do and what the other PCs do. If the darts do most the damage, Mary might get more XP.


• I don't set the XP for a hall. Deciding on what a hall is worth is a level of minutia not worth my effort. I also don't understand why Hall and Oates are both rolling at the same time (as it seems in your example). Shouldn't one of them be in front making (or failing) the rolls rather than doubling their jeopardy? The one in front (let's say Hall) would get a bit more XP for success. Alternately Hall's player might make a claim for a larger share of the treasure for their Hall since their PC took the risk of leading the way through the trapped hall.


• You ignored the important questions. Was the plan all Shemp's plan (or Shemp's player's plan) with no contribution from the other PCs or players (which would seem unusual in my experience)? Was Shemp's plan really clever, rather than just adequate? If both answers are yes, Shemp gets some extra XP.

Also you still haven't answered my question.

Quote from: Bren;786706I think players coming up with a plan with strategy, innovation, and lateral thinking is fun. Why would I breathe a sigh of relief when they decided to instead choose a simple frontal assault?

And as I said, all these differences in XP awards are very minor compared to the effect of who got how much treasure.

Quote from: Bren;787525Sommerjon, both of these statements cannot be true. It would help the discussion if you decided which one you actually believe.

Sure they can.
Because the character is the player(you), but the character isn't you.


As for the rest.  I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Everything you have listed is exactly the reason why I don't track individual XP or XP period in a level based game.

nor do I agree with the lion's share of XP comes from treasure.  If it is, someones die rolling is breaking statistics.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787550Sure they can.
Because the character is the player(you), but the character isn't you.

X is Y but X isn't Y. Right. No contradiction there at all. :rolleyes:

QuoteAs for the rest.  I'm not going to bother with it anymore.

Since you haven't bothered to answer my questions I can only conclude you aren't actually interested in having a conversation.

Quote from: Bren;787595X is Y but X isn't Y. Right. No contradiction there at all. :rolleyes:

Bob is playing Garn Gravelbeard, but Garn Gravelbeard isn't Bob.
Let Garn Gravelbeard have his own voice, separate from the players wants and desires.
Meaning a player has an infatuation with tridents so every character the player plays has a trident, the character isn't being heard. The player is forcing their wants onto the character.

Quote from: Bren;787595Since you haven't bothered to answer my questions I can only conclude you aren't actually interested in having a conversation.

It was a bit of poetic licensing.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787665Bob is playing Garn Gravelbeard, but Garn Gravelbeard isn't Bob.
Let Garn Gravelbeard have his own voice, separate from the players wants and desires.
Meaning a player has an infatuation with tridents so every character the player plays has a trident, the character isn't being heard. The player is forcing their wants onto the character.

The character isn't being heard?

:rotfl:

Thanks. I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

Yeah, this thread crawled up its ass and into some 9th dimensional bag-of-bullshit-holding ~5-6 pages ago.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;787669The character isn't being heard?

:rotfl:

Thanks. I haven't laughed that hard in a while.

Yes.  The character isn't being heard.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787727Yes.  The character isn't being heard.

Character: " Why isn't anyone LISTENING to me!!  :rant:"


Everyone else: " Umm. Perhaps because you are a figment of some dude's imagination."

Quote from: Sommerjon;787665the character isn't being heard.

Yeah, no one heard my character say "My sword is yours."

Everyone did hear the player state "Your sword is mine..." however.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787550Sure they can.
Because the character is the player(you), but the character isn't you.

The degree of difference varies, but yes that is part of the fun. Another part, for many of us, is actually playing a game. It is therefore a significant matter for us to have characters appropriate to the game at hand. A lazy homebody who has no use for adventures ("Nasty disturbing uncomfortable things! Make you late for dinner!") might not be appropriate for D&D. It depends on how often a "thespian" DM is going to insist, "You're not allowed to do that, because it's not in character."

There's an odd trend today, though, to want weaknesses somehow to get lip service but to have no effect. Foolish behavior must reap the same as wisdom. Since in such circles we have clearly left a proper game behind, it is a testament to the kind of story those storytellers think most worth telling.

QuoteEverything you have listed is exactly the reason why I don't track individual XP or XP period in a level based game.

nor do I agree with the lion's share of XP comes from treasure.  If it is, someones die rolling is breaking statistics.

Huh? That's the way the game works! Even the original 100 points per level of monster was just a consolation prize.

In Original or Basic, 5 hp is slightly above average for a 1st-level fighter; in AD&D, slightly below. That's a 1/3 chance of getting killed with a single hit of 1d6, 1/2 with 1d8. Two hits of d6? Dead 5 times in 6. (It will be slightly less with a variant such as negative hp, assuming the foe is too busy to finish you off.)

Do you seriously expect to survive anything near 20 fights to attain 2nd level? Even half that? And as many again to reach 3rd?

If you do, you're in for rolling up a pile of characters, unless your luck with dice is astounding.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787727Yes.  The character isn't being heard.

Ironically, this is about the only thing you've written that does make sense to me.

And my valuing the character's voice sometimes is exactly why I like mechanics for emotions like fear or rage. Because they take some of the control out of the player's hands and make what the character does about who the character is. And I like that because these strong emotions in the real world are frequently not within the control of real people.

Quote from: Larsdangly;787671Yeah, this thread crawled up its ass and into some 9th dimensional bag-of-bullshit-holding ~5-6 pages ago.

Sure seems like it.

Quote from: Phillip;787770Huh? That's the way the game works! Even the original 100 points per level of monster was just a consolation prize.

Sure that is what people want to believe, except the treasure table doesn't bear that out.  

Quote from: Phillip;787770In Original or Basic, 5 hp is slightly above average for a 1st-level fighter; in AD&D, slightly below. That's a 1/3 chance of getting killed with a single hit of 1d6, 1/2 with 1d8. Two hits of d6? Dead 5 times in 6. (It will be slightly less with a variant such as negative hp, assuming the foe is too busy to finish you off.)

Do you seriously expect to survive anything near 20 fights to attain 2nd level? Even half that? And as many again to reach 3rd?

If you do, you're in for rolling up a pile of characters, unless your luck with dice is astounding.

Don't look at me.  I'm not the one that made the treasure table.  It wasn't until finding shit loot multiple times that we realized the treasure table is ass.

Quote from: Sommerjon;788273Sure that is what people want to believe, except the treasure table doesn't bear that out.  


Don't look at me.  I'm not the one that made the treasure table.  It wasn't until finding shit loot multiple times that we realized the treasure table is ass.

The treasure tables are fine for the filler of random dungeon stocking. Like anything else that is completely random, the results are likely to be all over the place.

 Important monsters & treasures should always be placed by the DM.

Tables are fallback filler. If you rely on them to design your entire campaign then you deserve what you get.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;788276The treasure tables are fine for the filler of random dungeon stocking. Like anything else that is completely random, the results are likely to be all over the place.

 Important monsters & treasures should always be placed by the DM.

Tables are fallback filler. If you rely on them to design your entire campaign then you deserve what you get.

That doesn't ring true to the stance here.

Nor is that ever stated in the books.