For those who didn't know (yet), Ryan Dancey has a blog (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/Blog.html). Starting on October 9 (http://web.mac.com/rsdancey/iWeb/RSDanceyBlog/Blog/E5184AAA-88B5-4CFC-828C-A999AA001450.html), he's posting some commentaries about D&D. First entry is called Experience Points & Player Rewards.
So he wants XP to be done the way The Shadow of Yesterday does it? Cool!
Makes sense to me.
I don't know that the system needs to be reworked. I kind of like the CR & EL system and it works for me. To me it is kind of a no brainer that there are situation where some monsters are going to have an advantage, but most GMs should be able to see that and adjust the enounters accordingly.
More like BRP/RQ or Burning Wheel, I think. Learn by doing.
meh
" XP would be awarded for characters successfully using class features to overcome challenges"
That been tried many times and has its pitfalls as well. Then thieves will try to pick every lock they see, fighters will attack rats to try out special moves, etc.
It still comes down to needing DM fiat that some things merit XP and others don't. I prefer putting XPs on a higher level, such as major goals, to allow more leeway in player actions. I don't want them to fight the monsters because if they don't, they miss the XPs. I want them to fight the monsters for reasons internal to the game.
Screw that noise. Experience should be handed out by the GM according to how rappidly he wants players to advance.
If you want them to advance roughly 1 level ever 4 sessions then hand out experience accordingly. I remember in 2nd end where theives got xp per gold piece stollen and fighters per xp creature defeated in solo combat, mages by the spells cast or some bullshit. That concept never works.
I just seems to me that the way that XP is awarded , as written in the core books, seems to work fine. I belive it does also say that GMs can give XP for RPing and general goal achievemnts.
Quote from: Nicephorus" XP would be awarded for characters successfully using class features to overcome challenges"
That been tried many times and has its pitfalls as well.
Indeed. That has "tracking nightmare" written all over it. I didn't use the "xp for class ability" thing in 2e, either, and thought it was a bad idea then.
Mind you, I don't award XP as in the core book, either.
The major problem with the current system is the loss of the XP for treasures recovered.
Also, I want the record to reflect that I still think Ryan Dancey is a horse's ass.
Quote from: jrientsThe major problem with the current system is the loss of the XP for treasures recovered.
It's almost ironically anti-ironic that I say: treasure is its own reward. :)
Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt's almost ironically anti-ironic that I say: treasure is its own reward. :)
Except it's not. In the current incarnation of the game it seems to be used to buy magic items.
Quote from: kryystScrew that noise. Experience should be handed out by the GM according to how rappidly he wants players to advance.
That's one of the things I don't like about any kind of equation for advancement. What if we're having fun a level 5 and really don't want to get beyond level 10?
I also don't like the record keeping and the fiddling.
Quote from: jrientsExcept it's not. In the current incarnation of the game it seems to be used to buy magic items.
Which you use to fighter bigger evils and get bigger spoils. Ad nauseam...
I once created a SR character (hey, it was the only game in town) and spent all my beginning cash on permanent luxurious lifestyle. I won!
The financial mechanics of 3E are really fucked up. But it ties in with the universal resource management thingamajig. Designers should stay away from themes. The core rules are okay, but I liked the philsophy better when there was none...
Quote from: jrientsExcept it's not. In the current incarnation of the game it seems to be used to buy magic items.
And?
Even if I bought into the "it's not a reward if it doesn't yield a bonus", buying magic items with it... yields a bonus.
Is there a breakdown of the reasoning behind 3.x's treasure system? Reading up on the RC, it's obvious there was a major change in the reasoning behind gp; I'd like to find out what it was.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadAnd?
Even if I bought into the "it's not a reward if it doesn't yield a bonus", buying magic items with it... yields a bonus.
Now you've confused me.
You were the one arguing that treasure was its own reward, right? I say you're wrong. Treasure exists in the current game primarily to buy shiny widgets.
My earlier point was the elimination of the rule that gold pieces could be converted in experiences points radically altered the dynamic of the game. It's one of the reasons 3.x is more tactical and less strategic.
Quote from: fonkaygarryIs there a breakdown of the reasoning behind 3.x's treasure system? Reading up on the RC, it's obvious there was a major change in the reasoning behind gp; I'd like to find out what it was.
If I remember correctly, the RC didn't even have gold piece values for the magical items, so there you had gems & gold at one side and magical items on the other. That was different with previous editions of AD&D, but even then the basic assumption was that you couldn't just go out and buy the stuff you needed.
"Unification" is the big word for D20. All treasure the party can gain is totalled, money and magical items are totally interchangible. Even low-level PCs can already create items (at a greatly reduced price). They are much, much more mundane in the new edition.
This assumption is one of the foundations of the game now, taking out items will destroy the game balance. Without tweaking the monsters, they'll wreak holy havoc. And non-mages are even worse of than they're already...
Before the RC, neither Mentzer nor Moldvay nor Holmes have GP prices for magic items. Nor do the Little Beige Books.
Quote from: jrientsNow you've confused me. You were the one arguing that treasure was its own reward, right? I say you're wrong. Treasure exists in the current game primarily to buy shiny widgets.
By saying it's its own reward, I am saying that it gets you other benefits... you don't NEED it to give you XP too.
Whatever Caesar was saying, I think he meant that treasure is an in-game reward because it has inherent in-game benefits, like being able to buy magic items. Whereas having it also provide XP makes it a double reward.
(Does any version actually allow GP to be converted to XP? The way I played white box & AD&D 1e was that the value of treasure gained = the XP you got...but you still kept the treasure.)
Quote from: Elliot WilenWhatever Caesar was saying, I think he meant that treasure is an in-game reward because it has inherent in-game benefits, like being able to buy magic items. Whereas having it also provide XP makes it a double reward.
(http://users.gmpexpress.net/adkohler/agree.gif)
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the interchangeability of gp and items, etc. is specifically to facilitate the campaigns (Mark of Heroes, Living Grewhawk, etc.). This makes sense as it eases the ability of a large, disparate DM-organization to create a world-wide campaign that has some continuity.
But then you go and say that you'd like to see a change to the XP system that would introduce something fundamentally opposed to that purpose? I mean, if you're going to try to give XP for actual uses of skills, then isn't that going to:
- complicate adventure writing for those very campaigns (including XP for all of the variants of classes that might take part in an encounter)?
- complicate tracking of said XP in a world-wide campaign?
- introduce even more subjectivity into the XP dispensing process?
- one or more of all of the above?
Just a thought...
Quote from: James J Skach- complicate adventure writing for those very campaigns (including XP for all of the variants of classes that might take part in an encounter)?
- complicate tracking of said XP in a world-wide campaign?
- introduce even more subjectivity into the XP dispensing process?
- one or more of all of the above?
Me oh my, alternative XP systems. Yes, they have to be carefully thought out. And yes, almost every DM already has one in place. As you control all the other factors, too, things shouldn't get out of hand.
As a general replacement for, let's say 4E, well, then it has to be pretty good.
I don't think adventure writing would take that much more time. There's more than one way to skin a goblin, so if you present them with a certain obstacle, how they solve it will depend on their classes. No need to cater to certain players, give them one rat-infested hole and you'll get different solutions from the blackguard, the hexblade, the fighter (some still out there) and the Holy Dishwasher Of The Self-Flagelatting Wizard-God.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen(Does any version actually allow GP to be converted to XP?
Only some very interesting variants. I thinking particularly of the hobby rules in Arneson's
First Fantasy Campaign (though I'd need to re-read those) and the excellent little
Dragon article "Orgies, Inc."
In early D&D there wasn't that much stuff one could spend a fortune on unless you were saving for a castle or somesuch. They existed mostly as
points to be scored. "Orgies, Inc." added an extra step by requiring the money to be spent frivously to earn those xps.
"Orgies. Inc." is the best title for a
Dragon article ever, BTW.
Quote from: jrientsIn early D&D there wasn't that much stuff one could spend a fortune on
Mostly because we were to young to know about fornication and fermentation?
Quote from: SosthenesMostly because we were to young to know about fornication and fermentation?
Ale & Whores, that is? :D
Quote from: Caesar SlaadAle & Whores, that is? :D
For starters.
Quote from: jrientsIn early D&D there wasn't that much stuff one could spend a fortune on unless you were saving for a castle or somesuch. They existed mostly as points to be scored.
Ah, yes, it's coming back to me. After Adventure #1,
everyone buys Plate Mail (the fighters & clerics at least)...and after that, stuff like Iron Rations and 10 foot poles aren't really going to put a dent in the PCs' savings.
Basically, once the Thief class was introduced in Greyhawk, I suppose there was a strong argument for having a way to get experience without killing the beasties. And even before that you might have treasures that could be gotten through cleverness rather than combat. But a lot of the time it seemed to me that instead of giving XP for gold, you might as well just double the XP for each monster on the assumption that it'd be guarding treasure commensurate with its toughness (and no more than that).
Quote from: jrients"Orgies. Inc." is the best title for a Dragon article ever, BTW.
What issue was that in?
Quote from: KnightskyWhat issue was that in?
Dragon #10. 1977. Gee, a few months older than me...
Quote from: Caesar SlaadAle & Whores, that is? :D
At high levels it was Champagne & Courtesans. :p
As it stands at the moment, so far every group I've played in has by and larged ignored the XP rules and handed them out by fiat. In some cases just given flat levels, to save on bookkeeping. Xp by characer action would wind up getting ignored just as readily as the existing CR system.
As for treasure, as was pointed out, treasure is XP, just of a different sort. The game balance in 3.0/3.5 is built around the expectations that PC will have a certain gold value worth of magical crap, depending on their level. That's what the PC starting gold by level table in the DMG is all about.
Giving XP on top of that would just break the balance. You'd have to effectively rebalance the entire XP scale and treasure tables.
It's actually sometihng of a problem I find in a lot of fan made NWN modules, as the designers don't seem to understand the importance of treasure balance at all. You either wind up with uber stingy GMs, and thus characters with gear totally uncommensurate with their level, or monty haul stuff where it just piles on the gold and loto in insane quantities.
Even the official campaigns have similar problems really.
Quote from: SosthenesWhich you use to fighter bigger evils and get bigger spoils. Ad nauseam...
I once created a SR character (hey, it was the only game in town) and spent all my beginning cash on permanent luxurious lifestyle. I won!
You know, this is a fundamental problem with cyberpunk games (and a lot of other genres, thinking about it). The goal is that one last big score, the one that will allow them to retire from this incredibly dangerous lifestyle
I was playing a Shadowrun character, a grizzled mercenary whose stated goal was to get enough money together to retire, open up a gun shop and settle down with his wife and kid
Second adventure into the campaign we got lucky. Picked up a side trek the GM didn't think we'd go for and wound up with a reward for rescuing the daughter of someone very rich
and picked up a pile of expensive kit. I nearly retired him, but I was having too much fun playing him. I think in the end I was going to have him funding an orphanage
It's not just cyberpunk - pirate games have a similar problem. I once knew this incredibly successful pirate LARP group that fell apart after they'd finally found the McGuffin
Quote from: Hastur T. FannonYou know, this is a fundamental problem with cyberpunk games (and a lot of other genres, thinking about it). The goal is that one last big score, the one that will allow them to retire from this incredibly dangerous lifestyle
I wouldn't say this is really a problem, it just encourages a different style of game. No long-running campaigns, no wide spread of character advancement. You play, you win, you retire (you get offed by the corps). SR1-3 advancement rules sucked anyway, you became much too good way too soon.
"Traditional" RPG has a unprecedented length of character development.
Without a doubt, the best system for XP is the one found in True20: The PCs level whenever the GM says they level.
Formalizing this, and realizing that you don't need anything else beside the GM's judgement (and some kind of guidelines to help GMs make their choices, but not a complicated point-counting system) is the most radical advancement of all of True20's components.
RPGPundit
Quote from: SosthenesI wouldn't say this is really a problem, it just encourages a different style of game. No long-running campaigns, no wide spread of character advancement.
Good point. You need to taylor your campaign to your players expectations and goals for their characters, otherwise you end up rail-roading
A friend of mine was once telling me about this new campaign he was playing in, really looking forward to it because, as he said, "it's Exalted
and we all get to play pirates!"
A couple of sessions later I asked him how it was going. He looked disappointed, made "choo-choo" noises and made a gesticulation indicating that the campaign was now being pulled along by the plot train. Apparently one player wanted to play a pirate, then the rest of the players wanted to play pirates, but the GM had an entirely different campaign in mind - and didn't tell the players. They'd even taken Sail charms (/shudder)
Quote from: RPGPunditWithout a doubt, the best system for XP is the one found in True20: The PCs level whenever the GM says they level.
Formalizing this, and realizing that you don't need anything else beside the GM's judgement (and some kind of guidelines to help GMs make their choices, but not a complicated point-counting system) is the most radical advancement of all of True20's components.
RPGPundit
I pretty much agree with this. I think a group should trust the GM to give the level bennie when it seems most appropriate, It isn't that hard to do. I did it while I was running a RIFTS campaign many years ago when I decided I had enough on my mind running the rules to bother calculating XP, and it worked out great.
...Which brings up Palladiums XP system (which I'll get to in a second).
First of all- I like the current D&D XP system, and I think it works for the most part. It's flexible enough for me to have the session where the characters spend the entire night gambling or following clues but don't actually fight anything. And then follow it up by the session where there's a lot of battle. Also, the flow in the current system is constant.
Other levelling systems I've played in seem to have a 'quagmire point' where characters simply cease to level, and just sort of grind slowly away. THIS IS THE REAL ISSUE. In Palladium that level is 7th-8th or so. In 1st Edition (AD&D), we never went far past 9th ("name level"), but that was a long time ago. Earthdawn had a grinding point as well. D&D currently solves this problem, and does a pretty good job of moving characters forward constantly, but there is an inconsistency with things like CRs as Ryan Dancey is saying.
I'm against going back to the gold=XP system as a solution (sorry jrients!). It creates more problems than it solves, because by the end of it, you have to give out hoards of multiple thousands of coins. The only fun thing about that is watching the players come up with a plan to get the gold hauled out of the monster lair.
Two proposed solutions:
Dancey: "XP would be awarded for characters successfully using class features to overcome challenges"
Pundit: "Just have the GM determine when the party levels"
I'm not sure I like either one of those, although both would be acceptable if they took into account the issue of flow (maybe in the GM's advice section).
Dancey's solution doesn't seem to account for the notion that it's best for the party to stay around the same XP if possible. (Maybe he doesn't agree!)
Pundit's does but also seems to be a bit arbitrary.
Also I find this 1 level every 4 sessions (or 16 hours) to be a bit simplistic.
My Ideal is-
1st level: 2 sessions max. Maybe just 1 session!
2nd level: 2-3 sessions.
3rd level-10th level: 3-4 sessions each.
11th-16th: 4 sessions each
17th-20th: 5 sessions each.
I want a system that levels characters up to 10th in 6 months of regular, weekly sessions. (That's around 25 sessions). And after a year (around 50 sessions or so) I want the party to be reaching 20th. A campaign takes around a year for me.
Okay, so .. Palladium.
Palladium has an interesting XP system:
you get points for skill use (25 points each!), and you get points for things like 'overcoming obstacles or challenges'. And you get XP for 'good roleplaying'.
But then you also can get XP for 'avoiding violence' or 'coming up with a cool plan'. You even get XP for having a plan that fails.
It's a great system, and each player usually goes in turn and says what they did in the session "I used 10 skills.. I helped defeat the Flumph.. I had the plan to fool the wererats by using giant puppets.. " whatever, and that determines his XP. It has only one problem: none of the awards scale. So whether you are 1st level or 19th.. you still only get a lump award of 150XP for 'avoiding violence' or whatever. So you generally hit 7th and just sit there for a few months.
Solve that problem, and you have a good XP system.
Quote from: NicephorusThat's one of the things I don't like about any kind of equation for advancement. What if we're having fun a level 5 and really don't want to get beyond level 10?
I also don't like the record keeping and the fiddling.
I agree completely. I don't care what the system is I always hand out xp according to how well I think the players/characters have done and also with relation to how fast I want them to advance. Now I prefer systems that you can use XP to by advances along the way and not hold out for the next level up. However that doesn't change things. The thought of players trying to 2nd guess me by totalling how much XP they got based on how many monsters they killed, locks they picked or treasure they've stollen. That's pretty much the antithesis of how I think any XP system should work.
At that point you might as well just plop them in the dungeon and give them a score card and go nuts. Hmmm sounds kinda like a typical Wargame setup actually....
Quote from: Abyssal MawIt's a great system, and each player usually goes in turn and says what they did in the session "I used 10 skills.. I helped defeat the Flumph.. I had the plan to fool the wererats by using giant puppets.. " whatever, and that determines his XP.
Yeah the method was interesting - the round robin chat afterwards I mean. I've used this concept in other systems before handed out XP based on what I thought they did, then basically allowed the players to tell of their exploits and boast to gather some more xp out of the situation. Even if they are boasting over things I've already given them XP for. It's fun to hear of the things they think are interesting. It also helps keeping things in characters (all boasting is in character). It helps pump themselves up and also has helped in giving the characters reasons to stick together as a sort of camradery develops.
QuoteIt has only one problem: none of the awards scale. So whether you are 1st level or 19th.. you still only get a lump award of 150XP for 'avoiding violence' or whatever. So you generally hit 7th and just sit there for a few months.
Solve that problem, and you have a good XP system.
See that to me isn't a problem. I don't see the reasoning why a character should advance from level 1 - 2 and 10 - 11 in the same ammount of time. Sure you fight tougher monsters or pick harder locks but your supposed to be. It also helps keep the power escalation down.
Experience points can be a visual help. It will take a while 'til you gain that next level, so for a few sessions you might not gain anything mechanically. XPs let player track their progress to a goal that might be quite far away (maybe not neccesary in the fasttrack world of D20).
Experience points also work like candy. The GM 'throws' some to the players to give them some short-term appreciation. In other games this is often done with some "bennie" points, and some games without levels actually use those directly to increase your abilities.
I recently tried Hackmaster with some players. While we agreed that it's just to baroque for normal play, we had some fun with the XP rules. There was quite some competition about who'll get the award for most damage dealt. On a related note, the Hackmaster honor system works quite nice as a short-term reward mechanic. This game's really not all old-school Gary-speak and polearms. The fifth edition might be worth looking at...
Quote from: jrientsThe major problem with the current system is the loss of the XP for treasures recovered.
:confused: Do you mean magic items made? You don't lose XP for just finding treasure.
Quote from: jrientsAlso, I want the record to reflect that I still think Ryan Dancey is a horse's ass.
Well the fact he doesn't even know how the D&D XP system currently works doesn't make him look good.
QuoteIn 3rd Edition, challenges are given "Challenge Ratings" (CR). A chart is used to determine the Encounter Level (EL) of a given part of an adventure using the CRs of the challenges the characters confront in that section of the story. Then the EL is used in another chart to determine how many XP are earned by each character.
The EL is used just to judge the difficulty of the encounter and to award treasure it isn't used to award XP that just comes from the CR of the creatures or traps or whatever.
Quote from: Bagpuss:confused: Do you mean magic items made? You don't lose XP for just finding treasure.
No. Under previous versions every 1gp worth of loot you wrested from the world earned you 1xp.
And you thought that was a good thing?
Personally I like systems that reward XP for failures as well as success. After all you learn from mistakes.
Quote from: jrientsNo. Under previous versions every 1gp worth of loot you wrested from the world earned you 1xp.
That, I have to say, was one of the first things I ditched. Then I made the players pay GP to go up levels ('training'). They couldn't earn any more XP till they'd done their training.
Harsh but fair, that was me....
Ryan Dancey has really lost it.
He doesn`t even understand that XPs are not the reward system. You don`t play for them. You play to win against "Lord Bane and the Giant Spiders".
Or for high fiving with friends. Or other social reason.
Rewarding class feature use is teh stoopid.
Especially since there is no competition between players in D&D who levels first. Everybody should and will level about the same time +- one evening.
Or how do other people play?
"Hah! I`m thirteenth level but you are only tenth! Loser!"
droog, that sounds like a legitimate variant to me.
Quote from: bagpussAnd you thought that was a good thing?
The nature of the game was fundamentally altered by removing the 1gp = 1xp rule. Previously, most of your xp came from loot. That was a big motivator to brave dragons and other badass foes with tasty treasure types. If you could think of a clever way to score a big haul with minimal fighting, you earned big points. If anything, the present rules encourage more combat.
Quote from: jrientsIf you could think of a clever way to score a big haul with minimal fighting, you earned big points. If anything, the present rules encourage more combat.
No need for combat. Just enter a dungeon with lots of traps and undead and the rest of the party will soak in the light of the high-charisma turning-feat cleric and the trap expert rogue...
I agree with Pundit and Kryyst - advancement should happen at the rate the GM thinks it should happen at, with all point awards being merely guidelines and suggestions.
I've trumpeted my own XP system before, but I might as well flog it again.
* Every character earns 200 xp * the highest level in the party, every session. Period. This is the bonus for showing up.
* I hand out "chips" during the session for anything that enhances the game - bringing snacks, soda, and beer are easy ways to get these; good roleplaying, creative use of abilities, and the like are also good ways to get them. These are worth 40 xp * the highest level.
I anchor everything to the highest level to get the lower-level party members caught up a bit more quickly.
It works and it works darn well without any kind of bookkeeping nightmares.
-O
Quote from: MaddmanI agree with Pundit and Kryyst - advancement should happen at the rate the GM thinks it should happen at, with all point awards being merely guidelines and suggestions.
That's pretty much the system I use for any game that isn't D&D.
Quote from: jrientsThat's pretty much the system I use for any game that isn't D&D.
Why don't you use it in D&D? You want the game to have the felling of a video game? If so that's cool. Just curious why you make the distinction.
Quote from: kryystWhy don't you use it in D&D? You want the game to have the felling of a video game? If so that's cool. Just curious why you make the distinction.
Not video gamey, just gamey. My basic approach to xp in D&D is to treat it as your score.
Jeff, as someone who first played D&D nearly 30 years ago, let me say that your comments have been enlightening. (Especially as I'm considering running a Rules Cyclopedia game at the moment.)
D&D does make more sense if treasures are the main score, while killing stuff is just a bonus.
But this has a problem if you want to play a game where "getting treasure" isn't always the main focus.
Therefore I propose that there be a way for the DM to assign a "bounty" of XP for accomplishing certain goals, however they may be achieved.
Now the problem is figuring out how to pick the goals.
Quote from: Elliot WilenNow the problem is figuring out how to pick the goals.
For that, I let the players/plot determine it. If they successfully slap the king and rescue the princes (or slap the princess and rescue the king) like they were trying, they get a bonus. If they give it a good shot but don't succeed, they get a partial bonus.
You can also throw in individual bonuses. If Odoacer finds his long lost puppy just like his background describes, he gets bonus XP that session.
I don't think it's worthwhile making a complex goal system that will work for every game.
How about giving each player an allottment of XP, say three different amounts, and fix the campaign around the goals?
1000 xp - Woo Essela the Witch-Maiden
500 xp - Drive the orcs out of the Blue Forest
150 xp - Find my missing brother
Once a goal is completed, have the player pick a new goal that you give a higher amount.
Just thinking out loud here.
Quote from: SettembriniRyan Dancey has really lost it.
He doesn`t even understand that XPs are not the reward system. You don`t play for them. You play to win against "Lord Bane and the Giant Spiders".
Or for high fiving with friends. Or other social reason.
For a lot of players, XP is one of the reward systems that matter most.
RPGPundit
Quote from: jrientsHow about giving each player an allottment of XP, say three different amounts, and fix the campaign around the goals?...Once a goal is completed, have the player pick a new goal that you give a higher amount.
That would be cool. I'd throw in that you might want to have one goal the same for everyone (so that they are working together) but the value of that goal might vary across characters.
I've never done that formally (I'm a lazy record keeper) but framing it like that might help some players think more about their character motivation.
QuoteFor a lot of players, XP is one of the reward systems that matter most.
Still, does anybody play it contest-style?
Level faster than the rest of the group?
Never ever encountered that way of play.
Jeff (& Nicephorus): yes.
But what if somebody doesn't want one of their goals anymore? Can you change goals? How?
Also, as a side issue, I'd think once someone has their goal, the DM must make sure that it's available "somewhere on the map". None of this crap where the DM strings you along until he feels like giving you the goal. Just as in a dungeon, YOU should be able to decide when you're ready to fight the red dragon (or go down a level, etc.), and if you try to take it on too soon, well, maybe you'll get lucky.
But then, when placing the goal "on the map" (which may not be a literal geographical map, more like a "space" of stuff that can happen), you also need a way to relate the XP reward and the difficulty/significance of the goal. This is where it gets especially tricky since "difficulty" is based on so many factors, including the PC's own abilities & resources.
Quote from: SettembriniStill, does anybody play it contest-style?
I have a bit - players competing over how much XP they get in 2E AD&D. It was annoying enough that I stopped using the individual awards system.
Quote from: Elliot WilenBut what if somebody doesn't want one of their goals anymore? Can you change goals? How?
Maybe you can pick a new goal without fufilling a previous one, but the new goal is worth less than if you had completed your earlier quest?
QuoteAlso, as a side issue, I'd think once someone has their goal, the DM must make sure that it's available "somewhere on the map".
Yeah, that's absolutely critical.
QuoteBut then, when placing the goal "on the map" (which may not be a literal geographical map, more like a "space" of stuff that can happen), you also need a way to relate the XP reward and the difficulty/significance of the goal. This is where it gets especially tricky since "difficulty" is based on so many factors, including the PC's own abilities & resources.
Yeah, it won't be easy to balance against the PC capabilities.
Quote from: Elliot WilenBut what if somebody doesn't want one of their goals anymore? Can you change goals? How?
I'd just allow it during any downtime between adventures/sessions. "Odoacer has thought about it. He no longers seeks to become a bunny. Now, he wishes to remain an orc and find a mate."
Quote from: Elliot WilenAlso, as a side issue, I'd think once someone has their goal, the DM must make sure that it's available "somewhere on the map".
Yea, this method would allow the players to set much of the agenda and the DM would have to take that into their planning- the goodness/badness of that is a matter of taste.
It would still require a bunch of fudging in my opinion - DM ruling that some goals are too long/short term or too hard/easy. I could imagine a dickwad player trying to pick very easy goals to advance faster.
Quote from: SettembriniStill, does anybody play it contest-style?
Level faster than the rest of the group?
Never ever encountered that way of play.
I've seen it happen, but only in games where individual awards are gained based on character class (AD&D primarily). Of course, AD&D also exasperates the problem by having different XP charts for each class.
Quote from: NicephorusI could imagine a dickwad player trying to pick very easy goals to advance faster.
I don't recommend playing with dickwads. If one must, I suggest running 1st edition AD&D exactly as written.
Quote from: jrientsI don't recommend playing with dickwads.
Either do I. But some overall good players have a bit of dickwad in them that gets triggered by specific situations, often if something becomes competitive between players.
An XP system like this could set them off - someone planning to use it should plan on saying no a fair amount and be ready for the whining. Hopefully, it wouldn't happen more than once or twice.
I don't see a problem with dickwads if the GM simply makes easy goals worth fewer points, and limits the number of outstanding goals somehow. Not sure how this would fit with the "switching goals" issue but basically you can't pick a new goal until you go up a level or some other milestone.
This would encourage players to pick goals they think they can achieve but which aren't trivial.
I suggest everyone should just play Warhammer.
Surviving with as many fate points (limbs and insanity points) as you begain the session with is the goal. XP, gold, fame are just those extra things thrown in on the side because other RPG's have them.
QuoteI've seen it happen, but only in games where individual awards are gained based on character class (AD&D primarily). Of course, AD&D also exasperates the problem by having different XP charts for each class.
Yes, but this oughta be the largest RPG experiment in the world. And it turned out badly. So how in Marc Miller`s name could Rieuyan hault D´ancy come to this stoopidmost
conclusio irrationalis?
Maybe it's not irrational. Perhaps something in his gaming group's style, or his GMing style, brings out that side of the XP system.
Well, if he was just Andreas R. Bumquvist, like me, who`s reflecting on games because he likes to do so, and who only draws upon some google-fu and a daily dose of pundit and OOTS, I´d say your argument may be valid.
But he was one of the lead people at WotC for third, he should have some more insight and level of reflection than a Bumquvist like me.
A hobby, where fans can outsmart and outthink and are better informed the "industry" is in dire straits.
Luckily he isn`t important anymore.
Quote from: SettembriniBut he was one of the lead people at WotC for third, he should have some more insight and level of reflection than a Bumquvist like me.
He's management. Not the source for informed opinions, anyway. He's basically an enthusiastic player like all of us. And haven't we all got some pretty creepy thoughts, sometimes? ;)
Quote from: SettembriniLuckily he isn`t important anymore.
A-fucking-men to that.
QuoteHe's basically an enthusiastic player like all of us. And haven't we all got some pretty creepy thoughts, sometimes? ;)
Yepp. So he´s excused. He`s a gamer manager, what can you expect?
Quote from: SettembriniA hobby, where fans can outsmart and outthink and are better informed the "industry" is in dire straits.
I don't know about that. Hollywood and Network TV seem to be going pretty strong.
Quote from: SettembriniEspecially since there is no competition between players in D&D who levels first. Everybody should and will level about the same time +- one evening.
What you say makes no sense.
In every single game group I've ever seen or even heard about, there is competition to get more XP than the other guy and level first. Players get irate when they get less XP than the other guy or are behind in levels. Meanwhile players who are ahead make a point that they are indeed "winning" compared to the players who get less XP and levels.
Quote from: GabrielWhat you say makes no sense.
In every single game group I've ever seen or even heard about, there is competition to get more XP than the other guy and level first. Players get irate when they get less XP than the other guy or are behind in levels. Meanwhile players who are ahead make a point that they are indeed "winning" compared to the players who get less XP and levels.
In every single game group I've been in or heard about this is not the case. Having lower level characters in the group is seen as a hinderance, and they often want to get them 'caught back up' to everyone else.
There's lots of different ways to play an RPG.
Quote from: MaddmanHaving lower level characters in the group is seen as a hinderance, and they often want to get them 'caught back up' to everyone else.
In other words, they're "losing," they know it, and they're behaving accordingly by competitively trying to catch up to the "winners."
Quote from: GabrielIn other words, they're "losing," they know it, and they're behaving accordingly by competitively trying to catch up to the "winners."
Well, they don't need to, most of the time. They can stand back and reap the extremely high XP rewards they get from the high-level encounters.
I've never done this much in pen & paper campaigns, but in the high-level Gold Box AD&D games, immediate dual-classing was kinda fun. You surmounted your old level within the first few combats and had enough hit points to survive them. I especially recommend starting as ranger and dual-classing to wizard ;)
Quote from: SosthenesI've never done this much in pen & paper campaigns, but in the high-level Gold Box AD&D games, immediate dual-classing was kinda fun. You surmounted your old level within the first few combats and had enough hit points to survive them. I especially recommend starting as ranger and dual-classing to wizard ;)
I've never done that before.
The one thing that threw everyone I ever knew who played the Gold box games, or any official D&D based game, was spell preparation. No one I've ever met ever played with spell preparation as detailed in the books and implemented in the computer games. Everyone used a system like Wizardry and every other computer game with spell slots used. If you had an applicable spell slot available, you could cast any spell you knew.
Having to select which specific spells you could cast per day struck everyone as clunky and pointless. Yet, everyone stuck with the game because of its depth and awesome combat system.
It was also most players' introduction to things like Sweep Attacks and Training Costs. I knew of these rules, but everyone else went "WTF?" whenever they encountered them.
Other things were hidden, but even Weapon Speed and Weapon versus Armor modifiers became known about when friends were asking "Why can't I hit anything?" or "Why is my fighter always going dead last?"
I still remember long sessions of playing to gather up the damn gold needed to raise the Thief up a level, because they needed more gold for training than they had received for XP.
Quote from: GabrielIn every single game group I've ever seen or even heard about, there is competition to get more XP than the other guy and level first.
Weird our group everyone gets the same XP, even if they miss a week and someone else plays their character, we all level at the same time. What is this competition you speak of? Is there a prize?
Edit: and as James points out xp is shared evenly in the group under 3+ rules, so unless people miss a week or lose XP due to level drain or item creation the party should be on the same level anyway.
3.x XP is generally awarded to the group as a whole. I don't recall any specific single person rewards in the books. Doesn't mean that they can't exist, but if they do it's not the game causing the competitiveness, it's the rules addons.
Quote from: GabrielIn other words, they're "losing," they know it, and they're behaving accordingly by competitively trying to catch up to the "winners."
Read what Maddman said again. He's not talking about the low level characters busting their ass to catch up with the high levels, he's talking about the high levels busting their ass to get the low levels caught up.
Why? Because the low level characters weaken the party as a whole. And when you're out in High Dudgeon facing a blue wyrm you don't want a weak party. Competition has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of survival.
Quote from: mythusmageRead what Maddman said again. He's not talking about the low level characters busting their ass to catch up with the high levels, he's talking about the high levels busting their ass to get the low levels caught up.
Why? Because the low level characters weaken the party as a whole. And when you're out in High Dudgeon facing a blue wyrm you don't want a weak party. Competition has nothing to do with it, it's a matter of survival.
Exactly. Seeing it, at least in my circle of gamers, as competition between players is viewed as somewhat childish, and the game focuses on the characters vs the setting and antagonists as a whole. If one of the characters is weaker then the team is weaker. It's like the quarterback thinking he's getting ahead when the center pulls a muscle - he's further ahead in the quality of the individual members, but they're gonna lose the football game.
QuoteExactly. Seeing it, at least in my circle of gamers, as competition between players is viewed as somewhat childish, and the game focuses on the characters vs the setting and antagonists as a whole. If one of the characters is weaker then the team is weaker. It's like the quarterback thinking he's getting ahead when the center pulls a muscle - he's further ahead in the quality of the individual members, but they're gonna lose the football game.
Totally with Maddman there. And never ever heard of a "level race" gaming group. And believe me, I´m one of those dreaded "minuature pushaz" and "gun porn lovaz", I´m no Storyionic or Thematician. Where did Gabriel meet those guys?
In every single game I have ever played, save my old Vamp LARP for reasons of persistance of gameworld, we have always kept the PCs on equal level. Everyone gets the same XP, because everyone was there, and it keeps the players balanced in respect to each other, which makes thigns easier for the GM, and keeps the players from feeling gimped in respect to their companions.