Personally speaking, I just don't like feeling like a chump and finding out that I've been sold 'be free to do whatever you want' and actually given 'ha ha ha, stupid fucker, your character sucks.'

I've encountered this a bunch of times in various guises, and it doesn't have to be intentional to suck.

I've encountered MANY systems where people can specialize in various areas, and because the designers never gave much thought to 'campaign balance,' well, your bright idea of a character ends up stupid and useless.

Quote from: Will;785719Personally speaking, I just don't like feeling like a chump and finding out that I've been sold 'be free to do whatever you want' and actually given 'ha ha ha, stupid fucker, your character sucks.'

I've encountered this a bunch of times in various guises, and it doesn't have to be intentional to suck.

I've encountered MANY systems where people can specialize in various areas, and because the designers never gave much thought to 'campaign balance,' well, your bright idea of a character ends up stupid and useless.

One of those that particularly frustrates me is in systems where you get exponentially better at stuff the more you specialise. That tends to mean that a "jack of all trades" character is completely non-viable because they end up sucking at everything so much compared to the specialists. I prefer systems where specialising gives you an edge but you get diminishing returns from over-specialising. That way you can still be "the best" at a particular thing, but not at the expense of leaving non-specialists completely in the dust.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;785786One of those that particularly frustrates me is in systems where you get exponentially better at stuff the more you specialise. That tends to mean that a "jack of all trades" character is completely non-viable because they end up sucking at everything so much compared to the specialists. I prefer systems where specialising gives you an edge but you get diminishing returns from over-specialising. That way you can still be "the best" at a particular thing, but not at the expense of leaving non-specialists completely in the dust.

In my systems characters with poor stats tend to become specialists where as the more naturally talented end up more like jacks.
This isn't entirely accurate (naturally talented people end up often being better at everything) but it works in a game context and gives folks with weaker stats a niche.

Quote from: Sommerjon;785587Everything else you state that is factored into the way you do XP is directly imputed by the player.  Dice rolling is random.  Perhaps you want that little bit of randomness involved, I would ask why.

I have no idea what you mean by "imputed by the player," but I include dice in my RPGs because rolling dice is fun. If you don't enjoy the random effects of dice, there are games like Amber that don't use dice. Have you tried one of those games?

QuoteI didn't miss it.  It is an unknowable quantity.

What the major contribution is (if any) for a given session is unknown for future sessions. It is knowable for past sessions. I don't know why you think that major contributions are unknowable. That seems odd.

Quote from: Bren;785811I have no idea what you mean by "imputed by the player," but I include dice in my RPGs because rolling dice is fun. If you don't enjoy the random effects of dice, there are games like Amber that don't use dice. Have you tried one of those games?

I have no problems with rolling dice.  I have issues as a gamer when the results of random rolling directly impacts how much XP you will give me.
"Whereas I am using experience as a combination of what a character does (attacks made, spells cast, traps detected) and what they endure (damage taken, spells resisted, etc.)."
All the underlined is random dice rolling.
A character surviving isn't enough? You have to take it a step further and give bonus XP to players who happen to be on a hot streak with the dice?

Quote from: Bren;785811What the major contribution is (if any) for a given session is unknown for future sessions. It is knowable for past sessions. I don't know why you think that major contributions are unknowable. That seems odd.

Because (you) have to tell them it is a major contribution.

"strategy, innovative ideas, thinking around the problem"
Do you give XP for these even if the group doesn't implement it?

Sommerjon, was "imputed by the player" a typo, because I still have no idea what you meant by that statement.
 

Quote from: Sommerjon;785876I have no problems with rolling dice.  I have issues as a gamer when the results of random rolling directly impacts how much XP you will give me.

I don't have issues with random rolls impacting XP. Though I would say the impact is indirect, not direct.
 
D&D, like the vast majority of RPGs that people play, uses random rolling to determine success and failure. Therefore success will be in part a function of how the dice roll. Therefore any system of experience based on what the character does will be based on part on random rolls. This is a consequence of using random rolls. I don't find this a big deal. You clearly do.

Quote"Whereas I am using experience as a combination of what a character does (attacks made, spells cast, traps detected) and what they endure (damage taken, spells resisted, etc.)."
All the underlined is random dice rolling.

Not all. Just some.

1) Attacks made, like spells cast, isn't the same as an attack succeeding. Attacks made just indicates the character was involved in the combat, taking a risk and trying to get a hit.

2) Damage taken in D&D is a measure of the character being involved in the fight. Often it is not a function of a player roll, but a function of the NPC's roll. If you want to include both player and GM rolls, then OK, it's random. In variant's where the PC has an active defense, then damage taken will be a result of NPC hits and player's defense fails. So still random, but a bit odd to complain about getting experience for random failure when your original point seemed to be that you didn't like not getting experience due to random failure.

QuoteA character surviving isn't enough?

Nope.

I prefer that a useless, do nothing character gets less experience than a useful do (or at least try to do) something character. It's not the only way to allocate experience but it is a reasonable and fair way of determining experience.

QuoteBecause (you) have to tell them it is a major contribution.

I don't have a problem with the GM figuring that out. Though in our games, experience allocation tends to be consensus based. There is seldom any disagreement since 90-95% of the time it is obvious to everyone at the table who did what and calling identifying that 'the GM telling them' is a misnomer. Anyone at the table could tell everyone else because it is obvious.  Maybe 5-10% it is not obvious and in that case the GM needs to make a call that someone at the table will disagree with. I can live with that.

Quote"strategy, innovative ideas, thinking around the problem"
Do you give XP for these even if the group doesn't implement it?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting that a group that comes up with five plans and implements plan C should get more experience than a group that comes up with say three plans and who also implements the exact same plan C?

If that's what you are asking, then no I don't do that. Frankly that sounds rather silly and like a perverse incentive that would just waste everyone's gaming time.

Quote from: Bren;786187Sommerjon, was "imputed by the player" a typo, because I still have no idea what you meant by that statement.

Oh, yeah 'input'
However
Impute:  Law. to ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible.
kinda works as well.

Quote from: Bren;786187I don't have issues with random rolls impacting XP. Though I would say the impact is indirect, not direct.
 
D&D, like the vast majority of RPGs that people play, uses random rolling to determine success and failure. Therefore success will be in part a function of how the dice roll. Therefore any system of experience based on what the character does will be based on part on random rolls. This is a consequence of using random rolls. I don't find this a big deal. You clearly do.

I have a 'big deal' with the idea that (all other things being equal) I get more experience than you because I happened to roll better than you did.

Quote from: Bren;786187Not all. Just some.

1) Attacks made, like spells cast, isn't the same as an attack succeeding. Attacks made just indicates the character was involved in the combat, taking a risk and trying to get a hit.

2) Damage taken in D&D is a measure of the character being involved in the fight. Often it is not a function of a player roll, but a function of the NPC's roll. If you want to include both player and GM rolls, then OK, it's random. In variant's where the PC has an active defense, then damage taken will be a result of NPC hits and player's defense fails. So still random, but a bit odd to complain about getting experience for random failure when your original point seemed to be that you didn't like not getting experience due to random failure.

No my original point is I don't want to be rewarded or penalized(with experience points) by the results of dice rolling. Group and/or individual survival is where dice rolling comes into the game(imo) XP means diddly squat if the person/group is currently rolling up a new character(s).  I see no reason to double dip into that.
I rolled bad and am now rolling a new character while another who rolled well gets XP plus a bonus to that XP for rolling well?  nah, not for me.

Quote from: Bren;786187Nope.

I prefer that a useless, do nothing character gets less experience than a useful do (or at least try to do) something character. It's not the only way to allocate experience but it is a reasonable and fair way of determining experience.

Why I said I take me out of it. I may not like a player who does nothing, but that is my issue not the game or groups issue.  I don't want/need to reward for proper(read my preference for) play.

Quote from: Bren;786187I don't have a problem with the GM figuring that out. Though in our games, experience allocation tends to be consensus based. There is seldom any disagreement since 90-95% of the time it is obvious to everyone at the table who did what and calling identifying that 'the GM telling them' is a misnomer. Anyone at the table could tell everyone else because it is obvious.  Maybe 5-10% it is not obvious and in that case the GM needs to make a call that someone at the table will disagree with. I can live with that.

Another reason why I dropped XP.   If only 5-10% is not obvious, I guess we play very different games.

Quote from: Bren;786187I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting that a group that comes up with five plans and implements plan C should get more experience than a group that comes up with say three plans and who also implements the exact same plan C?

If that's what you are asking, then no I don't do that. Frankly that sounds rather silly and like a perverse incentive that would just waste everyone's gaming time.

What about plan E? You breathed a sigh of relief when they went with plan C.  You know the plan that was chocked full of strategy, innovative ideas, thinking around the problem. The plan that had you sweating.  Does the player who came up with plan E get XP for it?

The fundamental problem is that magic can potentially accomplish anything. Even a novelist must come up with some "rules of the game" to prevent a magician character from solving every problem with a mere wave of a wand.

A problem that has arisen in fantasy games is that the more combat dominates play time, the bigger the push from players of magicians to increase their fighting power. This is especially a difficulty with the D&D character-class system, which is premised on a game in which the fighting man can shine precisely because there's plenty of other activity in a typical hour of play.

This compounds the wargame origin of the MU as artillery and at higher levels air power. That was limited at first by gamers who wished to see serried ranks of knights, spearmen and archers; wherefore if wizards alone could decide the issue?

Of all things, why should the warrior be overshadowed by magicians in battle? Yet real world artillery and air power has sometimes demoted the "queen of battle" to maid of mopping up.

In games such as RuneQuest and DragonQuest, anyone can learn any trade. But if spells were hands down more useful than skills, people would invest in them instead.

Some common ways to limit magic are:

1) A magician can do only some things with spells.

2) Magic is in more limited supply than other resources. Once spells are used up, sword and skill can continue to overcome obstacles.

3) Magic is costly, risky or debilitating, so it is often advantageous to employ other means.

Quote from: Sommerjon;786424I rolled bad and am now rolling a new character while another who rolled well gets XP plus a bonus to that XP for rolling well?  nah, not for me.

This illustrates a key difference in how we view XP. You are looking at XP as something the player gets. So getting XP is a reward to the player and not getting XP is a penalty to the player.

I see XP as something the character gets. So characters that do more, get more. If the player has their character attempt less stuff, they get less XP. If they succeed less, they also get less XP. XP is for doing stuff, trying to do stuff, and enduring stuff. Characters that sit home grubbing potatoes don't get much XP. To me that seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to an interesting RPG. Similarly, characters who go into the dungeon and don't do much also don't get as much XP as characters who go into the dungeon and try and do more and risk more. However they do get more XP than a potato farmer.

The XP is not a reward for playing a certain way, it's aligning XP with what the character does, risks, and experiences rather than using XP as a pacing mechanic or as a some mechaism designed to reward or penalize the player.

QuoteIf only 5-10% is not obvious, I guess we play very different games.

Possibly. Or possibly we just don't see XP the same way. I see XP is a blunt mechanism compared to a more nuanced system like Runequest/BRP skill checks or Pendragon trait checks, but I still see the primary purpose of XP as replicating what the character does, tries, risks, experiences, and learns.

QuoteWhat about plan E? You breathed a sigh of relief when they went with plan C.  You know the plan that was chocked full of strategy, innovative ideas, thinking around the problem. The plan that had you sweating.  Does the player who came up with plan E get XP for it?

What about plan E? Did the player's character ever even articulate plan E? You haven't said, but your focus on the player instead of the character makes me think maybe not. Seriously, how is a plan that a player decided (for reasons) not to implement at all relevant to what XP the player's character should get?

Also, I must say you seem to have a very different attitude towards innovative planning than I have. I 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? That just seems odd to me.

I'm the GM. I'm not in a contest with the players. In part because that is not what I see the role of the GM to be and in part because a GM vs. the players contest would either be pointless and cruel or pointless and silly. I don't play that.

With the original rules, most characters would qualify for a 5% bonus in at least one class, and it would be mighty rare not to qualify for at least one without taking a penalty. I forget the actual numbers, but for the most part that 10% bonus was effectively just 5%.

As if it were not negligible enough had it been 10%!

If you're going to attack luck of the dice, why sight your big guns on a target so trivial compared with bonuses to hit points, armor class, hit and damage, spells and saves, reactions and henchmen?

Quote from: Bren;786706This illustrates a key difference in how we view XP. You are looking at XP as something the player gets. So getting XP is a reward to the player and not getting XP is a penalty to the player.

Because XP is a metagame function.
Especially with how you garner what actions constitute being 'worthy' of XP.

Quote from: Bren;786706I see XP as something the character gets. So characters that do more, get more. If the player has their character attempt less stuff, they get less XP. If they succeed less, they also get less XP. XP is for doing stuff, trying to do stuff, and enduring stuff. Characters that sit home grubbing potatoes don't get much XP. To me that seems entirely reasonable and appropriate to an interesting RPG. Similarly, characters who go into the dungeon and don't do much also don't get as much XP as characters who go into the dungeon and try and do more and risk more. However they do get more XP than a potato farmer.

Still trying to figure out how this isn't what you say...

Quote from: Bren;786706The XP is not a reward for playing a certain way, it's aligning XP with what the character does, risks, and experiences rather than using XP as a pacing mechanic or as a some mechaism designed to reward or penalize the player.

this is.

Quote from: Bren;786706Possibly. Or possibly we just don't see XP the same way. I see XP is a blunt mechanism compared to a more nuanced system like Runequest/BRP skill checks or Pendragon trait checks, but I still see the primary purpose of XP as replicating what the character does, tries, risks, experiences, and learns.

So it's a reward for playing a certain way.

Quote from: Bren;786706What about plan E? Did the player's character ever even articulate plan E? You haven't said, but your focus on the player instead of the character makes me think maybe not. Seriously, how is a plan that a player decided (for reasons) not to implement at all relevant to what XP the player's character should get?

Because it keeps all of the players adding to the game, suggesting ideas, coming up with alternative plans, etc, etc, etc.   It doesn't take long for a player to realize the pecking order of a group.  Of course I realize your groups never had pecking orders, it was all together now.

Quote from: Bren;786706Also, I must say you seem to have a very different attitude towards innovative planning than I have. I 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? That just seems odd to me.

Because you reward individuals with bonus XP.  If you gots 5 players with 5 different plans..well only 1 gets to be used and that player gets more XP.  That can lead to the players..er characters to argue their plans more heavily.

Quote from: Bren;786706I'm the GM. I'm not in a contest with the players. In part because that is not what I see the role of the GM to be and in part because a GM vs. the players contest would either be pointless and cruel or pointless and silly. I don't play that.

Your putting the players in contests with each other.



I gave up on the check list for individual XP, then took it further and gave up on XP completely for all the reasons you love XP.
I want the player to play their character without having to worry about: Everything you have mentioned.
I reward the character with game world stuff.  Not all of it is something that the player wants.

Quote from: Phillip;786957bonuses to hit points, armor class, hit and damage, spells and saves, reactions and henchmen?

This is my point.  Luck of the dice is baked into the system itself.

Luck of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with "something the character gets"

Quote from: Sommerjon;787183Because XP is a metagame function.

The fact that you seem unable or unwilling to see that XP can be based on what the character does in the game and need not be a metagame, player focused reward system is the point on which we still differ.

QuoteSo it's a reward for playing a certain way.

Still not what I am saying. XP as a metagame cookie for rewarding players (as you apparently have used it or seen it used in the past) is not the only way to treat or use XP.

QuoteBecause it keeps all of the players adding to the game, suggesting ideas, coming up with alternative plans, etc, etc, etc.   It doesn't take long for a player to realize the pecking order of a group.  Of course I realize your groups never had pecking orders, it was all together now.

Your players need XP bribes just to come up with ideas and alternatives? Really? I find players like coming up with ideas and alternatives.

QuoteBecause you reward individuals with bonus XP.  If you gots 5 players with 5 different plans..well only 1 gets to be used and that player gets more XP.  That can lead to the players..er characters to argue their plans more heavily.

How is this an answer to the question I asked, which I'll repeat.

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?

QuoteYour putting the players in contests with each other.

Yes indeed, players are just helpless pawns in a roleplaying arena of death subject to my every whim. They are mere putty in my hands. They have no choice or will in how the game is played and are forced to jump through hoops like performing animals. Mwuh Ha Ha Hah!

QuoteI gave up on the check list for individual XP, then took it further and gave up on XP completely for all the reasons you love XP.

As I said, your method of awarding XP seems overly simplistic to me. In addition, I prefer to have XP connected to what happens in the game world, to what the character does, rather than being solely a metagame, player facing reward. But as long as your metagame dramatic pacing, players-get-to-level-up with and only when the GM tells them they can level up works for your group then you should be happy with using that.

Quote from: Sommerjon;787212Luck of the dice has absolutely nothing to do with "something the character gets"

That's just nonsense. Of course luck of the dice has much to do with what the character gets.

Quote from: Bren;787328That's just nonsense. Of course luck of the dice has much to do with what the character gets.

I 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...

Quote from: Bren;787328The fact that you seem unable or unwilling to see that XP can be based on what the character does in the game and need not be a metagame, player focused reward system is the point on which we still differ.

Because the character is the player.  Everything you have posted is directed at the player to have their character do in order to get XP.
I follow the mantra of an old GM of mine the character isn't you.  I want players to play their character without having to worry about a checklist of things they need to do(or not do) in order to get XP, bonus XP or negative XP.

Perhaps I'm not seeing the forest through the trees.  I'll list a number of things and see what is what.

Jack and Jill both need a 10 to hit bugbears.  They attack separate bugbears.  Jill hits 4 times rolling 10, 11, 12, 12 killing her bugbear.  Jack hits 4 times rolling 19, 19, 19, 20 killing the bugbear.  Does Jack get more XP for killing his bugbear because he rolled well?  From what I have gathered from your posts, yes he does.

Peter, Paul, and Mary are going through a goblin lair.  Peter and Paul are a Fighter and Cleric, Mary is a MU.  Mary hangs in the back throwing darts while Peter and Paul gets up close taking all of the damage.  Does Mary get less XP for not 'taking damage'?  From what I have gathered from your posts, yes she does.

Hall and Oates are working their way through a trap filled hallway needing to make 10 saves and attribute checks all told.  Hall easily makes all of the checks rolling extremely well.  Oates on the other hand fails 4 times.  The Xp for completing this hallway is 100.  Does Hall get the 100 plus a bonus for not failing, plus a bonus for rolling well?  Does Oates get less than the 100 XP for failing checks?  From what I have gathered from your posts, yes to all.

Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp are devising separate plans to tackle the next obstacle.  They argue, wheedle, plead, and so on until Shemps' plan is the one they settle on.  Does Shemp get XP for having his plan implemented?  From what I have gathered from your posts, yes he does.