Quote from: CRKrueger;840756Hmm, yes and no.

Wait, that doesn't sum up my feelings on the matter?

:confused:

Quote from: CRKrueger;840756There 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.

As I mentioned, I have no problem with disparate levels.  I explicitly suggested randomized levels earlier as an option.

Quote from: jhkim;840541The question in my mind is, what is gained by having some players be at different levels?  What's the individual XP supposed to motivate?

In older D&D variants and OSR games, classes have different XP tables, so this may change the levels of the different PCs (especially multiclass PCs) even if they earn the same each time.

I don't think it's of any use (i.e. the different XP tables), so in my own FH&W game I gave all the classes the same XP progression rate. Then, I give XP solely on GM fiat, because computing XP bores me. However, sometimes I will give a PC a bonus number of XP during the game for something brilliant. And there is the players who are absent so they don't get XP. Hence this will lead to PCs of different levels.

Quote from: Old Geezer;840744We always had multiple players on a side, and a referee.

Interesting. In my seven years of WHFB/WH40 gaming (not counting my current Necromunda revival) I never encountered multiple players on a side or even the suggestion of it despite how obvious the idea is (especially for teaching). I wonder why. Perhaps some seismic changes in wargaming culture, or perhaps something specific to WHFB/WH40 culture? Or perhaps freak chance.

Quote from: jhkimWhen 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.

What do you think of the common notion that it is best not to overwhelm new players with too many choices and too much detail all at once?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840802What do you think of the common notion that it is best not to overwhelm new players with too many choices and too much detail all at once?

They should have some overview perhaps, a lot of adult learners do better with that upfront. Not overwhelming people with too much detail all at once is one of the truisms of teaching/training. There's no reason it wouldn't apply to RPGs or miniatures war gaming. Knowing how much is too much or not enough can be tricky, especially if you've never done it before.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840802What do you think of the common notion that it is best not to overwhelm new players with too many choices and too much detail all at once?

For me, it has its place. To be more specific,

1) It depends on the previous experience and skill of the new player.  In some cases, a new player is an expert in the system, and will deal fine with many choices from the start.

2) I will generally offer it as a choice of the new player. If a new player says, "No, let me play the full game" - then I'll let them go ahead. If they say, "I want the simplified version", then I'll offer it.

3) Simplified options isn't the same as lower power level.  Often, simplified will make things more powerful.  For example, I would often tell new Champions players to not worry about endurance costs, which is a limitation that they ignore.  I've often done the same with range penalties or other fiddly penalties.

I think it requires a delicate balance. On one hand you want to reward individual effort because doing something cool or fun or unexpected with a successful result empowers that sort of thinking. But on the other hand, large disparity in character levels means more work for the DM and ever increasing chances of TPKs or cake-walks.

In one v3.5 game I was in I had a character die and I was told to make a new character at 1st level. The group with about level 8 at the time. I laughed because I knew that most likely the next encounter would probably mean my death. I asked why I started so low and the DM said "Well it makes sense that in a game where you start new you start brand new. It keeps up the verisimilitude..." The next battle the monster was a CR 10 and I hid for pretty much the entire time occasionally using Aid Another action. I think I gained 3 levels from the resulting XP.....for basically doing nothing. It was really dumb from a "verisimilitude" point of view.

So in that regard, I do give out XP for individual acts and if someone does something cool they'll usually get style points and stuff like that. But I don't let the disparty between characters reach more than a level or 2 at the most.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840802Interesting. In my seven years of WHFB/WH40 gaming (not counting my current Necromunda revival) I never encountered multiple players on a side or even the suggestion of it despite how obvious the idea is (especially for teaching). I wonder why. Perhaps some seismic changes in wargaming culture, or perhaps something specific to WHFB/WH40 culture? Or perhaps freak chance.

Most of my miniatures gaming over the years has been either at a convention or mostly in a club.  That probably matters.

I use Gold Stars and M&Ms* for the people who have to have individual accomplishment rewards for playing make believe.






* or other culinary treat

We use XP's.  We divvy up among survivors at the end of each session. Players retain old XP totals if their PC dies. So, yeah, you get credit for showing up and being part of the team. Why? It's a team game. The group wins together. Having little tallies for individual play only encourages players to feed the DM's notion of what the game should be. You make it about overcoming challenges, accomplishing your goals, everybody wins. Tom Brady may lead his team to victory. Does that mean only his name goes on the trophy? (Metaphorically speaking--I know it ain't the Stanley Cup there).

(Urgh...so sick of allusions to "expertise." It's a goddamned game, a hobby.)

Quote from: Sommerjon;840890I use Gold Stars and M&Ms* for the people who have to have individual accomplishment rewards for playing make believe.

* or other culinary treat

M&M's...what people will do for them...:-)

I add to the party XP total when someone does something particularly awesome that contributes to the game experience.

Quote from: jhkim;840541I'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?

I could run for hours on this one.
Which I don't have time for and would possible bore to tears.  

But, as a big picture, first remember that character growth and improvement is a reinforcer for almost all players.

Soccer and chess are not long term games, where the choices made and the actions of one game affect games in the future.  And if you do have more skill in many RPGs, one of the reinforcers is that direct reward for good play.  Sure, they feel good, the other players think they did good, but for decades i've watched the tangible effectiveness of rewarding good play with individual EXP, and the growth that comes from it.  Most gamers don't really compete against each other so much as they compete against the world, gaining more effectiveness in the setting, but it is still hugely satisfying when they hit a new plateau.  

We use a skill based system with lots of little level increases kept in each skill, and after a break all the players gather to watch the dice rolls for the amount of the increase in skills.  

And I play very long games, so keeping a character alive for a longer period is also a reward.  Many of my PCs talk  about running the ragged edge of taking enough risks and playing well enough to gain reward without going over the edge.  But it also adds verisimilitude, that people are not all magically the same ability level, especially as time goes on.

Quote from: jhkimThe 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 originated as a game, in this "point scoring" respect basically the same as a huge number of other games from Poker to Pac-Man. What's changed since the original form is that nowadays the campaign is typically not a lot of players, perhaps with multiple characters each,  freely interacting at various frequencies.

In that original context, different players -- and different figures of the same player -- could be involved in different undertakings with different outcomes.

I might for instance have a wizard holed up for weeks making magical goodies. Meanwhile, another is out winning treasures in a perilous adventure, while yet another perishes from some combination of error and bad luck. Different choices present different tradeoffs of risk and reward, again a phenomenon familiar to most people from playing mainstream games such as Monopoly or Risk.

Someone else plays but rarely, but always the same figure. She scores what she wins in her ventures, not anything for NOT playing -- just as she scores nothing for NOT playing Tennis or Tetris. Success will lead on average to more rapid advancement than if play were split among two or more figures, but that means she's back to square one if her sole character buys the farm (unless a henchman that has accompanied and so also gained levels  is promoted to PC status).

Such considerations -- and the game-balance elements that go along with them -- fade away when we have a "monolithic party" rounding up the same Usual Suspects so many times a month and that is all there is to the campaign.

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?


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."

Indeed this is problem that comes up in actual play, although theorycraft says "why not have level of play?".

I've got a group going through the Tiamat campaign, which uses the "Campaign milestone" method. When the party reaches a milestone, everyone goes up a level.

It's a great theory, and assuming WotC playtested Tiamat (quite possible, the campaign runs fairly well), it worked because you had employees showing up every day to play.

But my group of 8 players doesn't have everyone showing up every time, and no mention anywhere in the campaign book what to do about it. I've just been letting players that happen to miss "milestone night" to get a personal milestone after an adventure or two, but overall, the awarding of EP per session is just a better plan for actual play.

Quote from: jhkim;840749In 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.

That's an example of doing things per the 'rules' in the 1st ed. Dungeon Masters Guide. Actual level might vary from one new figure to another -- and there won't be such a thing as "the level" for every established figure from a thief to a fighter/mage, either.  The latter is a consequence of actual xp requirements. For the former there are no rules in the strict sense of, say, Contract Bridge, but there certainly is advice.

If you want to play a scenario of gods vs. titans, or whatever, you can just do it. D&D is not something less than the Chainmail Fantasy Supplement!

However, what the original is mainly designed for is a game in which players discover things for themselves -- such as the characteristics of a given monster or treasure -- and have a chance gradually to learn the various levels of spells and special abilities and other gizmos that enlarge the game.

Both the sense of wonder and accomplishment, and the ease of handling what one is given, benefit from gradual introduction of elements as opposed to piling the whole heap of elaborations on a novice. It's similar to, but deeper than, the reasons for giving a new wargamer a single brigade instead of the whole Grande Armee.