Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1014032The distinction between the "rewards" is why I generally prefer systems that have some small OOC currency, such as Action Points or Hero Points or the equivalent, in addition to XP.  Then regardless of how the system manages it, I change it so that XP is earned by a character for doing things in the game, while the OOC currency is earned by the player for performing activities that we also value as a group.  Exactly how the XP works (for training or only quests or success) varies.  Likewise, how the OOC currency works can vary, including how it is gained.  But there is a line between them.  

There are several reasons I prefer this. For example, one minor one is a mild aesthetic distaste for using XP for OOC activities, such as showing up or OOC funny comments or the like.  However, mainly I prefer the division because that way I can easily vary the importance of either, based on the players at the table.  I'll see anything from players that will all but ignore the OOC part, in which case I can simply not award them, all the way to players that will happily engage at that level, and actively drive the game in ways that everyone finds fun.  When you tie those sort of things to character growth, it can distort player behavior, because now you might have a player that really has no interest in OOC behaviors (good or bad), but feels compelled to engage just to advance the character.  That seldom works very well.

Hmmm...your idea and especially your justification for the division is interesting. :cool:  I'm going to have to think how I might do something like this for my current Star Wars campaign.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1014041I also like the BRP system of awarding checks to skills a character used which can then be cashed in for chances to improve those skills.

I've always like the RQ/BRP/Pendragon method of a check for appropriate skill use then later a roll to try to improve.

• What improved was directly related to what your PC did.
• The number of subjective decisions for the GM were manageable.
• Bookkeeping was simple.
• The system allowed a lot of flexibility for the shape of the learning curve, i.e. you could make improvement fast, slow, or vary it based on skill level to make skill mastery a big thing or to keep characters in a sweet spot longer.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1014026As always its a matter of perception and objective. For me Roleplaying is all about "making believe", the gamey rule stuff are just necessary evils to avoid the "I got you! No you missed" things when it comes to resolving actions. I dont look at RPing as a Game at all, or at least I try not to. I realize a certain amount of gaminess is necessary but I try to minimize whatever I can. I consider XP awards for non-character actions in that category.

Thar's a perfectly reasonable position. I will point out that if you prefer the roleplaying activity to be as minimally 'a game' as possible, then advancing your characters abilities from a lower power level to a higher one (however the game in question achieves this) is also a gamist concept that doesn't need to happen (at all, or at a particular pace, or for any particular reason). At this point, you can almost divorce advancement from any xp system whatsoever.

It varies by game and group and can be either, as others have said.

Personally, I want things to make sense in the game and be as consistent as they can be, so I tend not to like much of anything to be tied to the players (including rewards and incentives), real-world time, game sessions, etc. I also don't like disproportionate changes in character ability based on nothing that makes sense to me in the game world, so unless a PC has a psychological block where they can't realize their full abilities unless they attain some goal, I don't much like XP for goals, because I don't think that's generally how people improve at all.

XP for gold seems like a very unsatisfying abstraction to me, particularly because I also don't think it makes much sense for the world to offer fixed amount of treasure for things correlated to how challenging they are - "Treasure Class" seems like an obviously incorrect/weird model of how money possession works as well. And, gold (and what it can purchase) is clearly its own reward.

Tying adventuring-class levels to political/administrative position also seems off to me, since more often than not, the people heading governments and guilds or whatever have no particular adventuring or combat ability. If I used class-based character systems, it seems to me that the skill of gaining and maintaining a position of power would be its own class (probably conferring no combat abilities, and using a different type of improvement system from adventuring XP).

It depends.

You can go both ways, but I think that to some degree you need abstraction. The more you try to base xp-giving on 'life experience', the more complex the system for it has to become.

For me, it's enough to figure out an XP method that makes sense within the genre you're trying to emulate. There are lots of ways to do that.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1014002I agree totally but you understand many systems dont distinguish between XP gained with your sword and XP gained learning Dutch. You get XP and then level up, receiving whatever abilities come with it. In this case WHAT your character does to earn XP becomes the big question. But I totally agree it should be character related only, not GAME related.

Ive seen GMs do the any or all of the following..

Award XP for showing up at a session.
Award XP for performing some bit of roleplaying or introducing a joke that was really entertaining.
Award XP for depicting their character's personality really well.
Award XP for having their character act in accordance with a flaw they have.
Award XP for bringing the snacks or settling an argument between players at the table.

I cant see where any of these things would have the slightest effect on the character's development in the world they consider reality. They arent even aware of the existence of a "player". How could something the player does or simply behaving normally in their perception, result in furthering their personal development?

I award XP for all those things but still maintain that XP is life experience in setting.  I like having the carrot for players to behave at the table to make the session progress more smoothly.  Sure the character itself doesn't learn anything from this but honestly the awards are usually so small that at later levels it is nearly inconsequential (but at that point people are usually treating the game as pretty serious business).

In Lion & Dragon, players get Xp for just showing up, if they complete some kind of major adventure or quest (just what constitutes those terms is left entirely up to the GM), and optionally one player each session gets XP for 'best roleplayer'. That's it.

So in essence, this is the method to use when you don't want characters to have to do any specific thing to get XP, and leave them free to just play their characters however they want.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1015379In Lion & Dragon, players get Xp for just showing up, if they complete some kind of major adventure or quest (just what constitutes those terms is left entirely up to the GM), and optionally one player each session gets XP for 'best roleplayer'. That's it.

So in essence, this is the method to use when you don't want characters to have to do any specific thing to get XP, and leave them free to just play their characters however they want.

That's one of the strong points of the game, indeed;).

Quote from: RPGPundit;1015379In Lion & Dragon, players get Xp for just showing up, if they complete some kind of major adventure or quest (just what constitutes those terms is left entirely up to the GM), and optionally one player each session gets XP for 'best roleplayer'. That's it.

So in essence, this is the method to use when you don't want characters to have to do any specific thing to get XP, and leave them free to just play their characters however they want.

Interesting, so the same way I run it in my home games.

Yeah, in my experience it's pretty liberating for the players, and it means they can focus entirely on playing their character however that character would be.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1015379In Lion & Dragon, players get Xp for just showing up

Literally, or do they have to engage in adventurous activities? I often award session XP, but not if the players just sit around planning & take no in-game action.

To each their own for sure.

I would think playing a character true to form woukd present the same opportunities to gain experience as it does in real life. No distinction needed. But playing without a nod towards what actually earns experience and then just handing it out for giggles seems a little gamey.

Quote from: S'mon;1015712Literally, or do they have to engage in adventurous activities? I often award session XP, but not if the players just sit around planning & take no in-game action.

I still award XP for that since they showed up and spent time playing it out.

A lot of my sessions are just the players RPing being in a tavern and bantering. (At least online.)

Quote from: rgrove0172;1015756I would think playing a character true to form woukd present the same opportunities to gain experience as it does in real life. No distinction needed. But playing without a nod towards what actually earns experience and then just handing it out for giggles seems a little gamey.

It depends on how much downtime or assumed time goes in between each session.  If you're extremely compressed because the characters are constantly in danger and you go a few sessions still in the same day, then it can seem a little odd.  Still, L&D is a Class-based game, so meant to be abstracted.