I'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?
It 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."
An XP system can do a lot of different things. For instance:
- Incentive - XP can be used to encourage certain behaviours. For instance in D&D speak whether you give out XP for gold or for monster kills can condition the style of play. Likewise XP for simply showing up or for making the GM can be used to reward desired behaviors.
- Measure of Achievement - XP used to show that characters have done well as part of a risk/reward equation. The more effective the party in play, the more XP er session they gain.
- Simulation - Characters gain XP as a way to simulate growing proficiency and more general going up in the world.
- Pacing Device -Leveling up as a way to vary the gaming experience and play the game on a different scale.
Which of the above you want for you game may vary but it is worth noting they aren't all compatible. If you are mainly using XP as pacing device a flat XP per session or even no XP, characters just level up when the GM says so works fine, but pretty much undermines XP as an incentive or measure of achievement role.
There are always trade-offs.
A generalized distribution of XP is always inferior to an individualized one. Don't let anyone tell you the opposite.
By getting rid of XP or by only ever granting the exact same amount of XP to all players, you can no longer treat each of your players individually in this regard and lack the option to adjust the rewards to the actual contributions. As a consequence, through neglecting the individual contributions of each individual player, a collective reward can never ever be truly fair.
At the same time, due to the lack of an interconnection between player ideas and action on the one hand and the desired consequences on the other hand makes it signficantly more difficult to use XPs as a reward mechanism, and sacrificing such an essential tool of gamemastering comes very close to self-sabotage.
The players will appreciate their gains more if they have to actually work for them, and the more comprehensible the connection between the cause (each player's efforts) and the effect (XP) is, the more transparent and direct is the feeling of actual accomplishment. This is basic gamemastering psychology.
Yes, individualized XP sums are a bit more work, and yes, they can cause misgivings, mostly with the kind of self-entitled players who think they deserve only the best by default simply due to their presence. These misgivings (or the unwillingness to have this conflict) is almost always the true reason why gamemasters are using the inferior option of enforced equality, hich just prolongs the problem (namely player self-entitlement) but does not provide a solution. The sooner the players learn that they do not deserve any rewards whatsoever until they actively contribute to the game, the faster the game will improve and the better the game will become, especially for the players who gain the agency to directly affect their individual boons and who gain the feedback that their action within the game do matter, that they are appreciated and that they do accomplish something.
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?
Actually, I was thinking very specifically about the case of different players playing at different times and frequencies. If everyone is locked at the hip and everyone plays together, then they'll all typically have the same individual XP.
Again, I have nothing against differing levels or inequality. For example, maybe a new character coming in (or another one rejoining) has an individual level of (level of play + 1d6 - 1d6). So everyone might be at different levels.
This does run counter to the idea that a player who has attended regularly for a while is supposed to be a higher level than a newbie.
In-game, I think this makes plenty of sense:
1) For the case of a new player bringing in a new PC, it would be strange if the PCs only ever accepted new members who were level 1. After all, they meet NPCs above first level - why wouldn't they ever accept an experienced adventurer into the group?
2) For the case of an existing player who has been absent for a while, it would make sense that the character has actually been around and doing things for the three months they were gone - rather than them just disappearing into limbo and reappearing. I advance my NPCs over time as well.
Yes I prefer "The GM decides when people level up" rather than keeping an XP record, but interestingly some players for 5E that I run have stated the LIKE keeping a tally of the XP and consider it as fun part of the game.
Seeing as it's not a big deal to me really and it seems important to them, I have stayed with using an XP tally to keep a record levels.
I like mixed "level" parties. (I put level in quotes as I haven't played level-based games in decades.) The difference in competence makes for more interesting play and seems more realistic to me than everybody always the same. Which, by the way, sounds soul-crushingly oppressive, not fun, to me.
Tracking points (for the sake of discussion let's call them XP) used for improvements means the differences in level or competence are not solely based on GM whim. They are the natural outcome of different people playing differently and of playing more or less frequently.
I like tracking XP. It makes the improvements my character gets seem like something I and my character have earned rather than a gift or mere GM whim. (And yes, I know there is usually an element of GM whim in assigning XP and no, the two methods are not equivalent just because they each have a certain measure of subjectivity.)
It also depends a lot on the kind of game. In an exploration based sandbox game like OD&D, it's a great way to introduce and teach new players, much like we brought new players into miniatures games. But just like you don't put a new wargamer in charge of an entire army, you need to exercise some thought about how you as a higher level PC will integrate a low level PC into your party. We never really had a problem with it, but it could be one.
It might be very different in, for instance, a non-humorous Silver Age Superhero game; if the other players are playing Superman, Green Lantern, Iron Man, and Thor, who wants to be Arthur from "The Tick?"
Quote from: Old Geezer;840647It might be very different in, for instance, a non-humorous Silver Age Superhero game; if the other players are playing Superman, Green Lantern, Iron Man, and Thor, who wants to be Arthur from "The Tick?"
Very few people. Who are not me.
Although for a lot more reasons than just the power disparity.
Quote from: Old Geezer;840647... it's a great way to introduce and teach new players, much like we brought new players into miniatures games. But just like you don't put a new wargamer in charge of an entire army ...
Sorry for this slight side-track, and sorry if there isn't much more to say, but could you say more about how best to introduce people to miniature games?
Quote from: Beagle;840560A generalized distribution of XP is always inferior to an individualized one. Don't let anyone tell you the opposite.
By getting rid of XP or by only ever granting the exact same amount of XP to all players, you can no longer treat each of your players individually in this regard and lack the option to adjust the rewards to the actual contributions. As a consequence, through neglecting the individual contributions of each individual player, a collective reward can never ever be truly fair.
At the same time, due to the lack of an interconnection between player ideas and action on the one hand and the desired consequences on the other hand makes it signficantly more difficult to use XPs as a reward mechanism, and sacrificing such an essential tool of gamemastering comes very close to self-sabotage.
The players will appreciate their gains more if they have to actually work for them, and the more comprehensible the connection between the cause (each player's efforts) and the effect (XP) is, the more transparent and direct is the feeling of actual accomplishment. This is basic gamemastering psychology.
Yes, individualized XP sums are a bit more work, and yes, they can cause misgivings, mostly with the kind of self-entitled players who think they deserve only the best by default simply due to their presence. These misgivings (or the unwillingness to have this conflict) is almost always the true reason why gamemasters are using the inferior option of enforced equality, hich just prolongs the problem (namely player self-entitlement) but does not provide a solution. The sooner the players learn that they do not deserve any rewards whatsoever until they actively contribute to the game, the faster the game will improve and the better the game will become, especially for the players who gain the agency to directly affect their individual boons and who gain the feedback that their action within the game do matter, that they are appreciated and that they do accomplish something.
Wow. Yeah, that really sums up my feelings on the subject nicely.
I would add in that the in-game reason is that people learn different skills differently, that a fighter takes completely different things away from a battle than does a magic-user, and so on.
I generally keep track of XP for each player but I don't bother with individual awards for doing stuff. That is too tedious to track. Everyone who participates in a given adventure session earns the XP for that session.
If a player misses sessions then his/her character will be behind others in XP total and may end up behind in level a bit due to the disparity but it isn't a big deal.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840711Sorry for this slight side-track, and sorry if there isn't much more to say, but could you say more about how best to introduce people to miniature games?
Well, what worked for me is in my very first battle, a CHAINMAIL battle, they gave me a unit of 20 Vikings, showed me the chart with movement distances, and then said "Go attack those guys on top of that hill."
In my first WW2 miniatures battle, they gave me a couple of tanks. We were using TRACTICS, which requires you to specify where you're observing. I was told things like "Follow my tanks through here, I'll stick left and look to the left, you stick right and look to the right, and spread out your observation as much as we can, we need to see as many different places as possible."
We always had multiple players on a side, and a referee.
If this gives rise to more questions, feel free.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;840739I generally keep track of XP for each player but I don't bother with individual awards for doing stuff. That is too tedious to track. Everyone who participates in a given adventure session earns the XP for that session.
If a player misses sessions then his/her character will be behind others in XP total and may end up behind in level a bit due to the disparity but it isn't a big deal.
Agreed that it's not generally a big deal, but it is interesting.
In 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.
Despite this, I can't recall games or systems that make this official.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840711Sorry for this slight side-track, and sorry if there isn't much more to say, but could you say more about how best to introduce people to miniature games?
I'd be interested, too, and it seems at least tangentially on topic.
When 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.
Quote from: Beagle;840560This is basic gamemastering psychology.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;840712Wow. Yeah, that really sums up my feelings on the subject nicely.
Hmm, yes and no. Yes, generally, but there are many other ways to reward a character then just XP if you have a truly living, breathing "World in Motion" campaign. For example, a 3rd level wizard with just the right spells can be worth a lot more than a 6th level wizard without them. Same goes for magic items, weapons, armor, etc for other classes. That's not even getting into campaign rewards like reduced cost or free spells, medals and honors, land grants, etc. There 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.
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.
I've been impressed by our DCC GM who has stuck to his guns about Players who lose characters starting up as lvl zeros... and darned if it doesn't make the whole affair a lot more interesting and fun.
So our current group, deep in a weirdo science dungeon full of batmen and flying skulls, is a mix of levels going up from zero to 3rd (which is like 5th/6th in regular D&D). As we lose PCs we keep finding various prisoners of the batmen to free and join our cause.
The XP is a bit higher from the heightened danger so the lowbies lvl up faster... but die a lot easier as well. The lvl 3s can't carry the group through on their own so everyone has to fight... which has moved us to be a lot more creative in how we've approached fights, just charging in screaming won't work.
So yeah, I'm sold on mixed lvl games being more interesting than finely tuned balance between PCs.
Quote from: jhkim;840541Some 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".
As competitive sports-people improve their playing ability they're given more resources to try to ensure they realize their potential: better coaching, better sports medicine, better equipment, more time to devote to their craft, etc. This seems analogous to giving the better players better characters in an RPG.
QuoteThe question in my mind is, what is gained by having some players be at different levels? What's the individual XP supposed to motivate?
When the consequences of poor play decisions really hurt (e.g. start again at first level) player turtling can become a serious problem. My players used to argue about which character should mess with a new magic item/weird thing until they decided amongst themselves that whoever messed with it first gets to keep it if it turns out to be valuable.
I don't think individual combat XP is necessary in classic D&D, because your combat role is so obvious given your class. It's easy to call out a player for turtling, e.g. a fighter hanging back with a sling. But in a classless game, or a D&D edition/variant with sloppier class design, I would definitely consider individual XP to try to balance reward with risk.
Quote from: Simlasa;841136I've been impressed by our DCC GM who has stuck to his guns about Players who lose characters starting up as lvl zeros... and darned if it doesn't make the whole affair a lot more interesting and fun.
So our current group, deep in a weirdo science dungeon full of batmen and flying skulls, is a mix of levels going up from zero to 3rd (which is like 5th/6th in regular D&D). As we lose PCs we keep finding various prisoners of the batmen to free and join our cause.
The XP is a bit higher from the heightened danger so the lowbies lvl up faster... but die a lot easier as well. The lvl 3s can't carry the group through on their own so everyone has to fight... which has moved us to be a lot more creative in how we've approached fights, just charging in screaming won't work.
So yeah, I'm sold on mixed lvl games being more interesting than finely tuned balance between PCs.
I cannot tell you how many games I have run that have ended up with this feel.
Very good description...
I couldn't care about awarding XP. I talk to the group about what is realistic for the length of the campaign and then decide what level I want the PCs to start and what makes sense for PC's level at the end. Then I base the level progression on how many adventures happen between levels. AKA, do you gain a level after each adventure, 2 adventures or 3 adventures? That's a tally I can deal with.
Regarding OD&D, I rarely start campaigns below 3rd level.
I don't have interest in running campaigns that piddle out. I'd rather know we are going 10 sessions and commit to making that happen. If it works, great we can go for another 10, but that's doubtful. Maybe its a LA thing, but gaming group cohesion is rare.
As for individual rewards, I have never seen that go well. If you show up, your earn a tally mark XP and whatever goodies happen in game. If you don't show, you don't get the tally mark and miss out on the adventure. If you die, you get a tally mark XP for your new PC.
As for mixed level parties, that works for me in most RPGs.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;840802In 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).
Are your 7 years of play recent? AKA, post 2000?
I played WHFB and 40k in the 80s and team vs. team play was common among our club in the SF Bay Area. You occassionally saw writeups in White Dwarf in the 80s and 90s for mega-battles too, but I noticed the 2000s pushed Warhammer as a competitive 1 vs. 1 tourney style play.
My fav memories of 40k were massive convention battles where Space Marines & Eldar teamed up against Orcs & Chaos on giant tables. Each player brought in 1000 points of painted whatever and initiative went back and forth so it wasn't all one side move while other side waited.
Quote from: Spinachcat;841152I don't have interest in running campaigns that piddle out. I'd rather know we are going 10 sessions and commit to making that happen. If it works, great we can go for another 10, but that's doubtful. Maybe its a LA thing, but gaming group cohesion is rare.
I've no idea if the area is a factor. But this style of intentionally short commitment gaming is very different than my experience. Given your situation, I can see why you look at it the way you do though.
QuoteAs for individual rewards, I have never seen that go well.
In over 40 years of gaming I've never done it any other way. It hasn't been a problem. Maybe it's an age thing? Or different social circles?
The closest to group awards was probably our 1990s FASA Star Trek campaign. It didn't have group experience; it basically had no experience at all. The only time a character improved was when they went off to some 6 month course at the academy e.g. Command School or Fleet Tactics. Obviously that was individualized. Only the character who left the ship to do that got the improvement. Most characters didn't leave the ship so most didn't improve at all. It worked fine.
Quote from: Bren;841188I've no idea if the area is a factor. But this style of intentionally short commitment gaming is very different than my experience.
I think area is a big factor. I didn't have these issues in the SF Bay Area where I found gaming groups far more stable. LA is a very transient culture in so many ways.
But instead of fighting the tide, I have adapted using "mini-campaigns" which seem to have better results, especially for me because I want a beginning / middle / end resolution to at least one major plotline before the group implodes!
For a couple years, I ran "convention campaigns" where I ran 16-20 hours of a mini-campaign over 2-3 days. I had packed tables with gamers who told similar stories about who just as they got really into the home campaign, the group would melt and vanish.
Quote from: Bren;841188In over 40 years of gaming I've never done it any other way. It hasn't been a problem. Maybe it's an age thing? Or different social circles?
I personally like individual XP rewards...but I've only got bad memories from when I used them. Somebody always got butthurt and I do whatever I can to avoid drama at the game table.
Hell, I've had enough issues with one player getting a cool magic item and someone else at the table pouting...not a pimpled teen, but a 40 year old with a master's degree. I gotta say 4e did make my life easier in that regard.
Quote from: Spinachcat;841215Hell, I've had enough issues with one player getting a cool magic item and someone else at the table pouting...not a pimpled teen, but a 40 year old with a master's degree. I gotta say 4e did make my life easier in that regard.
Fucking shit, I'd quit the hobby.
Quote from: Old Geezer;841219Fucking shit, I'd quit the hobby.
You?!? Are you getting fucking feeble in your dotage. In the old days (like say last year) you'd have just killed them and taken their stuff. :p
Metamorphosis Alpha (1976) has no general "experience" rule at all. Nonetheless, figures certainly have experiences that change them, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. These are particular to individuals, because that's what makes them individuals in the first place.
This assumption, which I have always taken for granted, has a "game" aspect but mainly it's just common sense from life. Different people make different choices and encounter different phenomena, and as a consequence become very different people even if they were genetically identical twins. It's part of natural role-playing that the role is in a world with at least that much similarity to the one we know.
If you're against the keen student becoming more skilled than the lazy one, what then of the otherwise reckless vs. prudent, and the myriad of other variations in outcome? If Alex eats poison, must Barbara get sick? If Susan climbs a tree and finds a ring in a magic egg, must magic rings suddenly appear in the pockets of Thomas and Jane?
It occurs to me that in some games these days, the choices players make really are of trivial significance compared with the stats getting run through a mechanical process while the players are just along for the ride. If that's what people are into, then I can understand a "Harrison Bergeron" kind of attitude.
Quote from: Bren;841244You?!? Are you getting fucking feeble in your dotage. In the old days (like say last year) you'd have just killed them and taken their stuff. :p
People have shit stuff nowadays. Unless it's model train stuff.
Slightly more seriously, with over 500 model freight car kits to assemble, my tolerance for wasting time has pretty much vanished. If I'm not having as much fun as building freight car kits is, I'm out.
Quote from: Phillip;841276If you're against the keen student becoming more skilled than the lazy one, what then of the otherwise reckless vs. prudent, and the myriad of other variations in outcome?
I honestly couldn't care anymore. I left the teaching profession for a reason. I am not DM Daddy trying to instill work ethics into my players.
I always let my players know the score with me: deadly games with high reward. I run dangerous worlds with dangerous foes and shove PCs in the middle of the mosh pit, but the rewards are high and advancement is swift for those who survive. Those who die come back swinging with a new PC as fast as I can rationalize their immersion.
Quote from: Phillip;841276If Alex eats poison, must Barbara get sick?
Barbara's player would probably throw a mega hissy fit, but damn that would be an interesting magical poison!
I am going to use that!!!
Quote from: Phillip;841276If Susan climbs a tree and finds a ring in a magic egg, must magic rings suddenly appear in the pockets of Thomas and Jane?
Why not? It's a fantasy game.
Again, I am going to use that!!!
My D&D parties are almost always multi-level. When a PC dies, you start again from 1st level (or 0 level, if its one of those games).
Quote from: RPGPundit;841862My D&D parties are almost always multi-level. When a PC dies, you start again from 1st level (or 0 level, if its one of those games).
I do that with my d20, usually.
my main skill based system, the new character starts with an EXP pool 10% less than the weakest PC.
Giving out XP equally to everyone promotes teacup ride players. The players just sit at the same tavern street corner, waiting to be told how great their characters are in encounters that come to them.
I got bored with XP a long time ago. Seriously, it's the one part of any monster I always have to look up. And if I make something up on the fly, what XP value do I define it? Is it worth more XP to save a wealthy merchant from an orc than a pregnant woman? Is it even worth XP at all? What's the point? I hand it out mostly randomly based on how hard I feel the encounter was and about how interested everyone feels in leveling. Most people have figured out the "formula" but I'm not overly worried. As an aside, I really like 13th Age's way of handling it, so that you'd get a bonus from the next level at your current one until you collected them all, then leveled. Handing out a bonus to people works much better than XP, plus it feels better (I got an extra spell slot, rather than I got some numbers on my sheet)
As an aside, I truly genuinely dislike the "start at level 1" approach in most systems. Compared to a level 6 or something, this person is a completely useless piece of shit (seriously, a level 6 can take down how many level 1s? A bunch) so why is the party dragging him along this useless dunderhead? We always have to come up with a set of reasons that boil down to "because obviously".
QuoteGiving out XP equally to everyone promotes teacup ride players. The players just sit at the same tavern street corner, waiting to be told how great their characters are in encounters that come to them.
If I have players who don't want to play, I don't want to play with them. Period. I'm not in school, I don't have to include them in the mandatory group project. If my players want to sit back and observe, well, fuck them, they're getting pulled in, and if they don't like it they can go elsewhere.
Quote from: Spinachcat;841317I honestly couldn't care anymore. I left the teaching profession for a reason. I am not DM Daddy trying to instill work ethics into my players.
I took that for granted. The question concerns the relationship of this subset to the vastly greater -- and in my experience more significant -- set of ways in which one figure can become "better" than another.
It seems strange to make such a ruckus over the one and ignore all the others, but it seems still more bizarre to follow through consistently and produce a game-world so alien to human experience and natural interest.
I conclude that "levels" somehow have an overwhelming importance in the game considered. Whatever that may be, it is not the D&D, etc., that I know.
QuoteI always let my players know the score with me: deadly games with high reward. I run dangerous worlds with dangerous foes and shove PCs in the middle of the mosh pit, but the rewards are high and advancement is swift for those who survive. Those who die come back swinging with a new PC as fast as I can rationalize their immersion.
Barbara's player would probably throw a mega hissy fit, but damn that would be an interesting magical poison!
I am going to use that!!!
Why not? It's a fantasy game.
Again, I am going to use that!!!
Must is not the same as may. It's the difference between slavery and liberty.
For my part, playing GURPS liberates me from some of this crap. The XP system is desperately simple and straightforward -- the thought of having to look up the "XP value" of individual monsters or calculating "Challenge Ratings" is laughable to me. Having run parties with as much as a hundred-point disparity, it's also relatively free of the "OMG you can't run characters of different levels!!!" fallacy (and I do think it's overblown, even with D&D).
But beyond that, I question why "advancement" is necessary at all. I was in a large fantasy boffer LARP for many years. I'd hit the ceiling of how far it was possible to advance in the magic system in 1991. I was 32 by then, the oldest player in the game, and I sure wasn't improving as a fighter -- by 2000, I was doing two three-hour combat practices a week just to keep my skills from deteriorating too fast.
For the last eleven years I was in that game, I didn't "level up." Yet I had fun nonetheless. How could that possibly be?