Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Ditto 04-18-07, 09:14 AM	I've been thinking ... (yeah, dangerous ... ) I've always done XP a bit different than the base DMG ... Basic difference: DMG bases XP on CR ... I "tend" to base XP on EL ... It's always struck me as "odd" that you get the same XP after fighting 10 individual orcs over 4 days ... as you do by fighting 10 orcs in 1 single battle .. *shrug* .. but maybe that's me ... anyway, that's not my question ... just establishing where I'm coming from. Second, I tend to "slow down" XP gain ... I generally hand out 50% of what the DMG states ... (I find the DMG progression seems waaaaay too fast). (Keep that 50% in mind for the following "question"). I've see it talked about, and I've seen it in play ... PC's facing 1 (or 2) encounters, then finding someplace to rest before continuinng. I've been trying to think of a way of encouraging players to manage resources better, and I think I have a way. PCs play for XP ... plain and simple ... (ok, we all like to role play or roll play, whatever .. but really, it's all about the "reward" .. XP and magic items ... XP being the bigger - I think - reward). So what if there was a reward for "endurance" ... that is, for pushing and managing your resources well enough that you could do the 4 or 5 or more encounters a day. In other words: Facing 6 EL 5 encounters in 1 day resulted in more XP than facing the same 6 EL 5 encounters over 3 days (ie 2/day) ?? I think the answer is relatively simple: % of XP. I already hand out "50%" for my own personal "throttling" mechanism. (other DMs will use their own % ... 100% being the same as the DMG ...) What if each encounter was worth a % of XP, and each subsequent encounter that day (prior to resting) was rewarded with a higher % ? For example: 1st encounter: 30% 2nd encounter: 40% 3rd encounter: 50% 4th encounter: 60% .. etc. or maybe: 1st encounter: 20% 2nd encounter: 40% 3rd encounter: 60% 4th encounter: 80% .. or if you're basing off 100%: 1st encounter: 70% 2nd encounter: 90% 3rd encounter: 110% 4th encounter: 130% the idea being to get 4 encounters to "roughly average" your target % ... (mine being 50% ... other's - I suppose - being 100%) I think it makes sense, as the later encounters would be harder, so should be worth more XP ... the PCs have to make some harder decisions ... Do we rest, and get less XP? or do we push forward, and try for the higher XP? Risk vs Reward is a good thing ... IMHO ... :tiphat: Opinions?
Leilond 04-18-07, 09:21 AM	You're encouragin "meta game" in this way! Player 1: "Guys, I'm wounded and I've got only one cure spell to use. Let's rest" Player 2: "Next encounter will give use duble XP!! No, let's go" (METAGAME!!!) The reason to "not rest" must be an in-game reason. There must be a reason to make characters don't want to rest and not a reason to make players don't want their character rest If I want my players make more encounter without resting, I create a mission (or submission) that must be solved in less than 8 hours (rescue the baby before sunlight, stop the ritual befor midnight)
Frugal 04-18-07, 10:24 AM	I'm confused by what you're doing with XP by EL instead of CR. Let's look at a simple example, 1 CR 6 creature is EL 6, a party of 4 6th level adventurers gains 450 XP each. 4 CR 4 creatures is EL 6, a party of 4 6th level adventurers gains 900 XP each. Now yes, it depends on the CR of the creatures as once the CR gets below a certain point the XP does start to drop off. So yes, I can see awarding XP based on the EL of the encounter if that results in more XP than doing it per creature (figuring that facing a large group of weak creatures is more challenging than fighting them individually). But, I'd ask whether the encounter actually felt challenging. A bunch of low CR creatures could just end up in a die rolling exercise. I do agree that this does encourage metagaming. The other big issue I see is that the game is supposed to be balanced against 4 encounters per day of an EL equal to the average party level, but with your model they're getting more XP than they would normally for just completing the expected number of encounters. If you're having issues with the party resting after only 1 or 2 encounters then I'd say it's better to deal with this in-game. Find ways to prevent them from resting. Have the enemies attack while they try to rest. Or set a time limit. Or have the enemies use that time to strengthen their defences, or reset traps, etc, etc. There are plenty of ways to make resting less appealing and I think they work better than adjusting the XP.
Marcus Majarra 04-18-07, 02:29 PM	Let's look at a simple example, 1 CR 6 creature is EL 6, a party of 4 6th level adventurers gains 450 XP each. 4 CR 4 creatures is EL 6, a party of 4 6th level adventurers gains 900 XP each. This is incorrect. 4 CR 4 creatures results in EL8, not EL6 (see p49 of the DMG). For a 4th-level party, a total of 1800 XP is awarded, or 450 XP a piece (which is the same reward a single CR 6 opponent provides). For the most part, the XP system seems well calculated except in two semi-common instances: 1) Dealing with larger groups of creatures 2) Dealing with creatures of fractional CRs For example, an encounter with 10 standard orcs is EL5. A CR5 creature awards a 1st-level party 1800 XP, which is 300 XP more than 10 encounters with a single CR 1/2 opponent would award. XP pretty much stays standard when dealing with groups of up to 4 opponents of identical CRs. This is evidenced by the fact that, in general, doubling the CR increases the EL by two. If you'll look at the XP award table on page 38 of the DMG, this is evidenced that, except for the borderline cases of low CR and low character level, the award for defeating two opponents of any given CR will be the same as that of defeating one opponent of the same CR +2.
Frugal 04-18-07, 03:08 PM	This is incorrect. 4 CR 4 creatures results in EL8, not EL6 (see p49 of the DMG). For a 4th-level party, a total of 1800 XP is awarded, or 450 XP a piece (which is the same reward a single CR 6 opponent provides). Doh, this is what happens when I post from work and read the "average party level" line as EL on the encounter generator.
Eightbitmage 04-18-07, 06:34 PM	The biggest problem I see here (other than metagaming) is that this type of system would increase the number of TPKs you have. I actually do agree with you about the whole 5 in one day vs. 5 over 5 days thing, but the only way I could think to solve it would be to NOT tell the PCs where they are getting their experience from. If they have 4 encounters in one day rather than 4 over 4 days give then a slight xp boost, but don't tell them they had the boost so that they don't do something stupid in the pursuit of power.
The_Ditto 04-19-07, 08:26 AM	The biggest problem I see here (other than metagaming) is that this type of system would increase the number of TPKs you have. I actually do agree with you about the whole 5 in one day vs. 5 over 5 days thing, but the only way I could think to solve it would be to NOT tell the PCs where they are getting their experience from. If they have 4 encounters in one day rather than 4 over 4 days give then a slight xp boost, but don't tell them they had the boost so that they don't do something stupid in the pursuit of power. I was thinking of just that .. ie ... not announcing it ... I mean XP is pretty much DM perogative anyway ... I could just pick random numbers out of a hat if I wanted .. (I don't) .. but the PCs do not "need to know" how it's being calculated ... hmm ... I wonder if it's worth hinting (at least) that since each subsequent encounter is (technically) more challenging, than they are likely to earn more xp ... but that may encourage (as pointed out) "metagaming" ... The other way of doing it would be to ensure that the xp "gain" isn't really significant ... (my first examples have a pretty big % swing to them ... so yes, that much certainly might lead to metagaming). I've also thought of doing something like: Start at 40%. After an encounter, adjust that % by a certain amount based on how challenging that encounter was. If it really wasn't challenging (ie a CR2 trap ...), I might leave it at 40% ... if, however, it was a major fight, I might then increase it to 50% or even 60% ... and keep going. I The other big issue I see is that the game is supposed to be balanced against 4 encounters per day of an EL equal to the average party level, but with your model they're getting more XP than they would normally for just completing the expected number of encounters. No it's not ... 4 encounters at % of: 70, 90, 110 and 130 average out to 100% .. which is the XP "as is" from the DMG. Using my 50% base for my games, 20, 40, 60 and 80 average out to the 50% target ... most other numbers I have tossed out are just "numbers" to show what I'm doing ... not true "I plan on using this precise number" .. (see above ... I plan on doing it much more dynamically and much more "DM uses his judgement to adjust the XP gain")
Frugal 04-19-07, 08:55 AM	No it's not ... 4 encounters at % of: 70, 90, 110 and 130 average out to 100% .. which is the XP "as is" from the DMG. Using my 50% base for my games, 20, 40, 60 and 80 average out to the 50% target ... most other numbers I have tossed out are just "numbers" to show what I'm doing ... not true "I plan on using this precise number" .. (see above ... I plan on doing it much more dynamically and much more "DM uses his judgement to adjust the XP gain") Ah, this is true for the math. However, here's another way of looking at things, XP is basically a reflection of learning from the encounter. Why should my learning depend on how many encounters I overcame in a single day? I can see the justification from a metagame perspective, you want the players to not rest after just 1 or 2 encounters. But I can't see how you justify it in-game. And as I've said, I think there are plenty of other ways in-game to discourage resting after only 1 or 2 encounters and that they're a better way to go.
The_Ditto 04-19-07, 10:48 AM	However, here's another way of looking at things, XP is basically a reflection of learning from the encounter. Why should my learning depend on how many encounters I overcame in a single day? I see it more as: the first encounter of the day is easy, since you have full resources .. it's easy to "blow through it" ... those later encounters, however, are more challenging, as you have less resources to expend, etc. Ergo, your reflection of learning from an encounter increases with the challenge of the encounter equates (roughly) to more XP ... That's just my line-of-thought .... (and it may well be invalid due to blocked line-of-effect or line-of-sight ... ;) but oh well ... )
Frugal 04-19-07, 11:33 AM	I see it more as: the first encounter of the day is easy, since you have full resources .. it's easy to "blow through it" ... those later encounters, however, are more challenging, as you have less resources to expend, etc. Ergo, your reflection of learning from an encounter increases with the challenge of the encounter equates (roughly) to more XP ... That's just my line-of-thought .... (and it may well be invalid due to blocked line-of-effect or line-of-sight ... ;) but oh well ... ) I suppose if you take the mindset that being stretched should cause you to learn more that's somewhat valid. However, I think this goes out the window when you're not dealing with ELs equal to the average party level. Suppose you run an encounter that's 3 or 4 levels higher, that should be a tough encounter no matter what. But if they handle that and then stop to rest will they get shafted? I suppose you could handle it by using the same rules for CR and number of creatures. For instance, doubling the number of creatures raises the CR by 2 (usually, it doesn't quite work that way at low ELs). So maybe make an encounter that's 4 levels higher as being equivalent to 4 encounters of equal party level? Maybe adjust a bit.
The_Ditto 04-19-07, 01:32 PM	I suppose if you take the mindset that being stretched should cause you to learn more that's somewhat valid. However, I think this goes out the window when you're not dealing with ELs equal to the average party level. Suppose you run an encounter that's 3 or 4 levels higher, that should be a tough encounter no matter what. But if they handle that and then stop to rest will they get shafted? If it's the first encounter that day ... it was difficult, they'll get rewarded ... If it's the third encounter that day that was difficult .. it was more difficult ... they'll get rewarded more I suppose you could handle it by using the same rules for CR and number of creatures. For instance, doubling the number of creatures raises the CR by 2 (usually, it doesn't quite work that way at low ELs). So maybe make an encounter that's 4 levels higher as being equivalent to 4 encounters of equal party level? Maybe adjust a bit. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here ... this went completely over my head, sorry ... :confused:
Frugal 04-19-07, 02:16 PM	If it's the first encounter that day ... it was difficult, they'll get rewarded ... If it's the third encounter that day that was difficult .. it was more difficult ... they'll get rewarded more I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here ... this went completely over my head, sorry ... :confused: My point is that the system is balanced against 4 encounters of an EL equal to the avg. party level. If you face a more difficult encounter then you should be facing fewer encounters in a day. Your system basically shafts them for doing what they should do, and the system is balanced against; resting after a more difficult encounter. For example, suppose a party of 4 6th level PCs. An encounter of 2 CR 4 creatures is an EL 6 encounter, the system is balanced against 4 of those a day. Now instead, suppose they face 4 CR 4 opponents, now it's an EL 8 encounter, they shouldn't be able to handle as many encounters in the same day. Now suppose 8 CR 4's, now that's EL 10, getting up to the upper limit of what you should throw at the party but since it's made up of a greater number of lower CR opponents it's still doable, but I'd really expect them to have to rest afterwards. Let's do standard XP (showing the per character totals here). If they did 4 of the EL 6's they'd get 450 per encounter or 1800 for the day. If they did 2 of the EL 8's they'd get 900 per encounter or 1800 for the day. If they do 1 EL 10 they'd get 1800 XP for the encounter. So we can agree that these 3 setups are roughly equivalent. So now let's use your system, I'll use the 70%, 90%, 110%, and 130% system for convenience. I'll also do XP by EL instead of by CR as you mention. Okay, so the EL 6 is worth 450 XP. 1st encounter gives 315, 2nd gives 405, 3rd gives 495, 4th gives 585, for a total of 1800, exactly the same (as you correctly mentioned before). So now let's look at the EL 8, it's worth 900 XP. 1st is worth 630, 2nd is worth 810, for a total of 1440, or 360 XP less. Now let's do the EL 10, it's worth 1800 XP. Only 1 encounter so it's only worth 1260, or 540 less. Now notice that in all of this situations the PCs fought exactly the same number of foes in the 1 day. In the higher EL examples they're arguably facing tougher encounters, especially in the EL 10 example that has them outnumbered by creatures that are only 2 CR lower than their party level. That should be a really tough fight but they get less XP for it because they did the right thing and rested after it?
Leilond 04-20-07, 03:32 AM	A good DM know that "everything that could be made in game should be made in game" If you can make your character fight more encounter during a day, using a "role play" motivation, a "story motivation", a "time limit" for a quest ("stop the ritual before midnight"), an "in game reward" for a quick resolution ("if you bring me back that stolen item before tomorrow I'll give you double reward"), all things will go better If you use "out game" motivation for "in game action" you're enforcing and encouraging metagaming... and you're breaking the "realism" (the bit that there is) of the game More of that, the "number of encounter" isn't really a measure of "how much hard they worked". For a party of four 5th level character is really much more hard a single "EL 8" than six "EL 5"... really much more. If you really want to make an XP boost for "more encounter" (I suggest "no" but you can still want to try) I suggest a solution like this Each encounter give his XP plus a boost to XP for all following encounters of the day following this table EL (respect the party) - XP bonus -2 or less => No bonus to next encounter -1/+1 => 5% bonus to next encounter +2/+3 => 10% bonus to next encounter +4 or more => 15% to next encounter The bonus are cumulative So if the party fight an encounter with EL one less of their level they'll recive a 5% bonus to all following encounters of the day If they fight an enconter with EL 2 more than their level they'll have a 10% boost to all the encounter that they'll face that day... summed with the 5% of the previous encounter they'll recive 15% for the next encounter Example 4 character of 5th level They face 4 encounter. EL 4 (-1), EL 7 (+2), EL 3 (-2), EL 6 (+1) 1) Normal XP. Boost to next 5% 2) XP + 5%. Boost to next 10%+5% = 15% 3) XP + 15%. No boost, remains the previous 15% 4) XP + 15%. Boost to next 15%+10% = 25% ... And so on I re-suggest to use "in game" motivation instead of "metagame motivation", but if you really want I think that a system based on the real thougness of an encounters is better than a system based simply on the "number of encounters"
The_Ditto 04-20-07, 08:35 AM	My point is that the system is balanced against 4 encounters of an EL equal to the avg. party level. If you face a more difficult encounter then you should be facing fewer encounters in a day. Your system basically shafts them for doing what they should do, and the system is balanced against; resting after a more difficult encounter. I'm not seeing the "shaft" .. in fact, I'm seeing it as more of a reward ... (ie get more xp out of 5 encounters with this method than 5 encounters normally ... get the same xp out of 4 encounters as the 4 standard encounters) The only time it's a "shaft" is when you face less than 4 but that's not what you're saying .. you're talking 4 encounters, and I purposely balanced the XP to 4 encounters as well ... sorry, not seeing how I'm "shafting" them with 4 encounters ... :confused: For example, suppose a party of 4 6th level PCs. An encounter of 2 CR 4 creatures is an EL 6 encounter, the system is balanced against 4 of those a day. Now instead, suppose they face 4 CR 4 opponents, now it's an EL 8 encounter, they shouldn't be able to handle as many encounters in the same day. Now suppose 8 CR 4's, now that's EL 10, getting up to the upper limit of what you should throw at the party but since it's made up of a greater number of lower CR opponents it's still doable, but I'd really expect them to have to rest afterwards. Ok .. I got nothing to say about this ... I haven't double checked the numbers .. but I don't really think that matters ... I'm just not seeing how the above is any different between "my system" and the standard system .. assumign 4 encounters, net XP will be the same. Let's do standard XP (showing the per character totals here). If they did 4 of the EL 6's they'd get 450 per encounter or 1800 for the day. If they did 2 of the EL 8's they'd get 900 per encounter or 1800 for the day. If they do 1 EL 10 they'd get 1800 XP for the encounter. So we can agree that these 3 setups are roughly equivalent. Yep ... I'm keeping up .. :D So now let's use your system, I'll use the 70%, 90%, 110%, and 130% system for convenience. I'll also do XP by EL instead of by CR as you mention. Ok, but I'd recommend comparing apples to apples ... if you started by doing XP by CR, continue to do that ... me doing XP by EL is another matter completely unrelated ... ;) I'm sure the two will cloud the issue if combined .. So the 4 EL 6's, 450 each. 1st: @70% = 315 2nd: @90% = 405 3rd: @110% = 495 4th: @130% = 585 Total: 1800 Same total ... :tiphat: Using the other examples, they are less than 4 encounters, so yes, they would get less XP ... I'll admit that .. but we were talking 4 encounters / day a second ago ... I'd like to continue discussing that .. (as the system is expecting and balanced on 4 encounters / day ...) If you use "out game" motivation for "in game action" you're enforcing and encouraging metagaming... and you're breaking the "realism" (the bit that there is) of the game I know many people have said this .. I just don't really buy into it ... the PCs are already largely metagaming by blowing everything they have on 1 encounter, and resting (via Rope trick or whatever ... ) a day ... It rewards wise management of resources ... I don't think that's really a metagaming thing ... if you were a spell caster, you'd be doing everything you could to make sure you didn't run out of spells ... that's just resource management .. and although it might require a bit of paperwork and creative thought by the PCs .. that doesn't automatically make it "metagaming" .. I just think the term "metagaming" gets tossed around a little too much ... (people are waaaay too sensitive on this stuff ... hehe .. :D ) Each encounter give his XP plus a boost to XP for all following encounters of the day following this table I mentioned in a later post I was thinking about something along this lines ... that is, start at a % of say .. 40% ... and start increasing, as the PCs encounter challenges .. (raising the % more after facing a tougher challenge ...) I re-suggest to use "in game" motivation instead of "metagame motivation", but if you really want I think that a system based on the real thougness of an encounters is better than a system based simply on the "number of encounters" I have never suggested that I do not use such "in game" motivations ... I just believe the whole package makes a better scenario and playing experience for everyone ... :D
Leilond 04-20-07, 08:58 AM	I have never suggested that I do not use such "in game" motivations ... I just believe the whole package makes a better scenario and playing experience for everyone ... Let me be more clear then I suggest you to use ONLY "in game motivations" You say your players still "metagame". Why giving them more reason to "metagame"? They're metagame more! If you use only "in game motivations" to not rest, you're going to lower the metagame level of your sessions, that it's always a good thing I know that there will be always a level of metagame in a session, but if you can find ways to lower it, it's good... if you use a method the hight it up, well it's bad
Frugal 04-20-07, 11:39 AM	Ok, but I'd recommend comparing apples to apples ... if you started by doing XP by CR, continue to do that ... me doing XP by EL is another matter completely unrelated ... ;) I'm sure the two will cloud the issue if combined .. Actually, in the examples I used they worked out the same. Using the other examples, they are less than 4 encounters, so yes, they would get less XP ... I'll admit that .. but we were talking 4 encounters / day a second ago ... I'd like to continue discussing that .. (as the system is expecting and balanced on 4 encounters / day ...) No, the system is balanced against 4 encounters/day if they are equal to the party's level. But if you include higher level encounters (as the DMG suggests) then you should also be reducing the number of encounters per day. You'll also note that in my examples I increased the EL simply by increasing the number of creatures, this was intentional as it helps illustrate the point that if you fight 4 balanced encounters against 2 guys each time you get more experience than if you fight the same 8 guys in 1 encounter. Similarly it helps illustrate the concept that you should be resting after higher EL encounters; if it's perfectly acceptable to rest after fighting 8 guys if you fight them in 4 separate battles then why is it not acceptable to rest after fighting all 8 in 1 battle? I know many people have said this .. I just don't really buy into it ... the PCs are already largely metagaming by blowing everything they have on 1 encounter, and resting (via Rope trick or whatever ... ) a day ... Again, then find ways to prevent this in-game. Time limits are the obvious ones but other ones are things like patrols finding the bodies of their comrades and raising the alarm. Maybe they setup ambushes for the party. Or they get reinforcements, or they reset traps, etc. Another option is divination, gives the enemy time to find out they're coming and buff himself, and so on. It rewards wise management of resources ... I don't think that's really a metagaming thing ... if you were a spell caster, you'd be doing everything you could to make sure you didn't run out of spells ... that's just resource management .. and although it might require a bit of paperwork and creative thought by the PCs .. that doesn't automatically make it "metagaming" .. I just think the term "metagaming" gets tossed around a little too much ... (people are waaaay too sensitive on this stuff ... hehe .. :D ) It does if the players start going, "hey, we should rest we're almost out of spells," and others go, "no way, if we keep going we'll get more XP!" That's metagaming. Now how much better is it when they go, "we should stop to rest, we're getting low on spells," and others respond, "no, we only have until midnight to stop the ritual!" Suddenly what you have is a group of people who are thinking in-game and are motivated by in-game events and the in-game rewards, this helps create good immersion, which should help with good roleplay. However, if it just turns into an XP hunt then that keeps pulling them out of game.
The_Ditto 04-20-07, 12:04 PM	if it's perfectly acceptable to rest after fighting 8 guys if you fight them in 4 separate battles then why is it not acceptable to rest after fighting all 8 in 1 battle? That's an excellent point ... I suppose it really comes down to DM judgment in the end ... (no big surprise there ... ) ... I guess what's being lost in (my) translation, is that I'm trying to get away from the "mindless" XP calculation from the DMG ... not that I'm trying to generate another "mindless" XP calculation .. just trying to consider all the factors, so - as a DM - I can adjust XP more accordingly ... Again, then find ways to prevent this in-game. Easier said than done .. and if every "quest" always has time limits or other such limits, the whole thing starts getting dry. I like giving my PCs the time and flexibility they deserve .. however, I don't like handing out (mindless) XP for encounters that easier than the same encounter on a different day .. (due to multiple encounters met). It does if the players start going, "hey, we should rest we're almost out of spells," and others go, "no way, if we keep going we'll get more XP!" That's metagaming. Now how much better is it when they go, "we should stop to rest, we're getting low on spells," and others respond, "no, we only have until midnight to stop the ritual!" Not much ... how many midnight rituals do the PCs have to stop? Why can't they be on a quest that's not so time-constraint? And yes, I probably won't inform them that they get more XP ... hence, the metagame issue of : "Hey, let's keep going to get more XP" isn't really an issue .. I see it more as: "Hey we should rest, we're almost out of spells" is good, regardless of the system .. as opposed to: "Hey, we should rest, because I blew all my spells in that last fight ... " It's the whole "nova" thing .. really ... sure, they can do it ... (I'm not one to stop them .. ) .. I'm just trying to find a way of risk-vs-reward ... I don't like rail-roading my PCs ... :tiphat:
starfire311 04-20-07, 02:41 PM	My point is that the system is balanced against 4 encounters of an EL equal to the avg. party level. If you face a more difficult encounter then you should be facing fewer encounters in a day. Your system basically shafts them for doing what they should do, and the system is balanced against; resting after a more difficult encounter. lets just take a look at this for a sec. The system is supposedly balacned around the 4 equal level encounters... this means that if you fight a CR 6 creature at APL 6 it is really only an apporpriate CR if you also fight 3 other EL 6 encoutners that day, if you stop after that one encounter, then you are indeed deviating from what the entire system is balanced around. Sicne you are deviating from the system, then it is understandable that you would need to ad hoc something here. I think Dittos idea has a lot of merit I think starting the XP at 70% of listed value and increasing ity 20% for each encounter in the day is a decent rule of thumb for adjusting xp rewards based on a non-standard day, with fewer or greater than 4 encounter. You don't even need to tell the players, they don't need to know how you are handing out xp, so there will be no metagaming involved.
Frugal 04-20-07, 04:50 PM	That's an excellent point ... I suppose it really comes down to DM judgment in the end ... (no big surprise there ... ) ... I guess what's being lost in (my) translation, is that I'm trying to get away from the "mindless" XP calculation from the DMG ... not that I'm trying to generate another "mindless" XP calculation .. just trying to consider all the factors, so - as a DM - I can adjust XP more accordingly ... Well that's kind of what I was trying to get at with adjusting things to an equivalent number of of encounters equal to the party level. That will help with keeping low EL encounters from bringing up the total and skewing things and ensure that they don't get shafted from having fewer high EL encounters. Easier said than done .. and if every "quest" always has time limits or other such limits, the whole thing starts getting dry. I like giving my PCs the time and flexibility they deserve .. however, I don't like handing out (mindless) XP for encounters that easier than the same encounter on a different day .. (due to multiple encounters met). Not much ... how many midnight rituals do the PCs have to stop? Why can't they be on a quest that's not so time-constraint? I mentioned time limits as one example. Having their opponents become forewarned or better prepared due to them stopping for a rest is another really good example. For instance, if they're raiding a cave complex and rest with rope trick, well then odds are good that the raid will be discovered. Set up ambushes, reset traps, place new traps, have reinforcements come in, have people divine their location, etc, etc. The idea is to make the world dyanmic rather than static. Don't create a world where the party can just hit "pause" for 8 hours and come back with more strength.
The_Ditto 04-23-07, 11:42 AM	I suppose it doesn't even have to be an increasing thing you have to calculate "on the fly". You could calculate/choose the % adjustments at the end of the day - after the fact ... So if you had 4 EL 6 encounters ... you jot the notes down somewhere ... then at the end of the day, look at how much they encountered ... and then say: "Ok, they get 100% .. or nah, they only faced 3, I'll give them 90% of all 3 ... or even ok, they managed to get through 6 encounters today, outstanding! I'll give them 120% today .." I think I'll probably be edging along those lines ... Thank for all the feedback guys .. I will definitely keep the "metagaming" issue in mind ... :tiphat:
Leilond 04-23-07, 11:54 AM	The think I don't understand is this Let's immagine I'm a player. I will play the role of my character If I've got all the time in the world, and there isn't any risk in resting, why in the hell have I to go along the journey instead of resting and regaining spell?! I'm an adventurer, I'm not stupid, I know that with spells I will be really more efficent than without, why have I to journey if I can rest? Give me (the player) and "in-game" motivation to continue the journey so that I can "role-play" my character without forcing to do a thing that is obviously not the best thing to do Instead you want to create an XP calculation to make the players play their character in a "non logical" way... make them journey for XP when it will be more logical and efficent to rest I think it is a wrong approach to the problem But it's only my view point
starfire311 04-23-07, 11:55 AM	I suppose it doesn't even have to be an increasing thing you have to calculate "on the fly". You could calculate/choose the % adjustments at the end of the day - after the fact ... So if you had 4 EL 6 encounters ... you jot the notes down somewhere ... then at the end of the day, look at how much they encountered ... and then say: "Ok, they get 100% .. or nah, they only faced 3, I'll give them 90% of all 3 ... or even ok, they managed to get through 6 encounters today, outstanding! I'll give them 120% today .." I think I'll probably be edging along those lines ... Thank for all the feedback guys .. I will definitely keep the "metagaming" issue in mind ... :tiphat: this seems like an even better idea, award xp at the end of the day. If tehy face 1 encounter they get 70%, 2 encounters they get 80%, 3 encounters 90%, 4 encounters 100%, and if it is like out current game, in which we are defending the city of brindel in the RHoD we have completed 8 encounters so far, and we have at least 1 more to go for the day, you would get 140%+. We had lots of allies cutting into our XP, so we will nto get as much, btu still 9 encoutners in one day is very draining, we are using up all of our expendables.
starfire311 04-23-07, 11:57 AM	The think I don't understand is this Let's immagine I'm a player. I will play the role of my character If I've got all the time in the world, and there isn't any risk in resting, why in the hell have I to go along the journey instead of resting and regaining spell?! I'm an adventurer, I'm not stupid, I know that with spells I will be really more efficent than without, why have I to journey if I can rest? Give me (the player) and "in-game" motivation to continue the journey so that I can "role-play" my character without forcing to do a thing that is obviously not the best thing to do Instead you want to create an XP calculation to make the players play their character in a "non logical" way... make them journey for XP when it will be more logical and efficent to rest I think it is a wrong approach to the problem But it's only my view point that is not the point of his idea, the point is to represent the fact that if all you have is 1 equal level encoutenr a day, then it is not nearly as challenging as if it is the last of 4 equal level encounters that day. so why should it yield the same xp, if is is indeed more challenging
Frugal 04-23-07, 12:11 PM	I agree that shifting to a daily model could make more sense, look at the encounters and how challenging the day seemed. At least it does cut down on some of the metagaming aspects. But I also definitely agree that the best thing is to provide in-game motivations to avoid this to begin with.
The_Ditto 04-23-07, 02:13 PM	The think I don't understand is this Let's immagine I'm a player. I will play the role of my character If I've got all the time in the world, and there isn't any risk in resting, why in the hell have I to go along the journey instead of resting and regaining spell?! I'm an adventurer, I'm not stupid, I know that with spells I will be really more efficent than without, why have I to journey if I can rest? You don't ... you want to rest, by all means rest ... knock yourself out .. However .. I'm playing the role of the DM here in this little example .. ;) And it's my job to ensure that things are balanced .. that I provide appropriate challenges to you .. and that you do not get more (or less) than what you deserve. If you only did one encounter that day, nova'd in it, and rested .. sure, you can do that ... .however, I reserve the right to say (to myself) "Hey, that entire day, this encounter, the last 4 encounters (ie 4 days) have all been a (cheesy) cakewalk for you ... sure, you'll get xp, but I don't think you earned full xp for it ... " Now, had you come up with a creative tactic for some things or whatever, sure, I will reward more xp ... but I for one, do not think it appropriate to reward full XP in those cases. Yes you should rest - when you need to .. yes, of course, the PCs should be concerned with their well-being and make sure they are safe ... Yes, as a DM I will throw challenges at them ... (occassional those being random encounters at night while you rest ... ) ... but I will not fall into a "boring montage" of : 1) fight 2) rest 3) wandering encounter - because you're resting when I didn't want you to . :tiphat: I just think it's most appropriate for the DM to fudge the reward based on the risk ... and then reward more (or less) for creative solutions or what not .. Although resting could be considered a "smart" solution ... I've been a player, and I'd much prefer to be playing, than resting all the time .. that's boring, and we don't get anything done. Yes, sure, there is downtime on occassion .. that's kewl ... but there is a cycle of fight - rest - fight that borders on cheesy behaviour ... I want to encourage intelligent resource management ... not intelligent inn room management .. :tiphat: Give me (the player) and "in-game" motivation to continue the journey so that I can "role-play" my character without forcing to do a thing that is obviously not the best thing to do So you're character is a lazy slob who would prefer to hide in his inn-room resting - than finding a job? Ok ... go for it ... I'm not for railroading PCs .. :tiphat: heh Yes, I'm sure there will be times when there is a time constraint .. I'm sure there will be times when there is no place to rest .. I'm sure there will be times when the PCs can rest as long as they want, and suffer no reall ill effects (ie no end-of-the-world schems, no time limits, whatever) .. I want a option that allows for ALL of those ... The XP % I'm looking at seems to do that ... Instead you want to create an XP calculation to make the players play their character in a "non logical" way... make them journey for XP when it will be more logical and efficent to rest Nope .. you keep saying this .. and this is not what I am doing .. nor what I'm trying to do .. If it's logical for them to rest ... than they should rest ... and if they have dealt with significant resistance that day - as decided by the DM - and it makes sense they should rest - because they are weak or low on spells .. than yes, they will likely get 100% XP ... I think it is a wrong approach to the problem I still do not think you totall understand what it is I'm trying to do or how I'm doing it ... I'm trying to leave a lot in the hands of the DM ... there is a HUGE judgement call ... that much has been brought to my attention based on (your) points .. That judgement call involves a great many things ... once of which (I believe) is "Should the PCs be resting now, or do they still have plenty of resources" - or "Are the PCs being 'wimpy' or 'cowardly' or 'cheesy'" (or whatever you want to call it ) ... I don't want to railroad PCs in any way, nor do I want to restrict them in any way .. however, as the DM, it is my responsibility to ensure the PCs receive proper risk vs reward compensation ... if they did not suffer great risk, they should not qualify for great reward ... ;) But it's only my view point And yet it is still a valid point .. :tiphat: If tehy face 1 encounter they get 70%, 2 encounters they get 80%, 3 encounters 90%, 4 encounters 100%, and if it is like out current game, in which we are defending the city of brindel in the RHoD we have completed 8 encounters so far, and we have at least 1 more to go for the day, you would get 140%+. We had lots of allies cutting into our XP, so we will nto get as much, btu still 9 encoutners in one day is very draining, we are using up all of our expendables. Maybe as a base guideline .. sure .. but again, what I think might be best is for the DM to consider those encounters ... For example: APL = 6 Day 1: they face 4 CR 6 encounters .. so we decide - yep, they get 100% Day 2: they face 4 CR 4 encounters .. we decide, hmm, a little on the light side, that was pretty easy for them ... give 95% Day 3: 1 CR 5 encounter ... too simple day - 80% Day 4: 1 CR 9 encounter .. (BBEG) - big fight, only fight .. but yeah, tough: 100-110% ... despite only having 1 encounter. In other words .. yeah, DM's gotta make a judgement call based on how the day went .. I'm thinking that's the best ... that provides minimal meta-gaming from PCs - they should rest when they should rest, not because they expended 1 spell slot and figure "Hey, we might as well rest - no harm done - our characters won't be bored resting in this rope trick for 14 hours ..." ... it gives them full freedom ... and reduces any/all metagaming cheese (either way) ... they will push to their extent - mostly when they are on a time constraint or such .. but they will be more careful if they are not ... It also provides maximum flexibility from the DMs standpoint ... it gives them something to deal with Partys who over-"Nova" ... It allows PCs to rest after just 1 encounter with no penalty - if it's a big encounter and they SHOULD rest after it ... ;) Point is: PCs have no idea how/when the DM will grant XP .. just that they should not rest if they are still "fully loaded" ... But I also definitely agree that the best thing is to provide in-game motivations to avoid this to begin with. Agreed .. but this can only be so many times and for so long ... there has to be a time when the PCs are not "in a rush" ... when they can take their time ... should they get the same XP? Not sure .. up to the DM .. but I'm thinking - mostly no ... a little less ... not much ... but a bit less ... On the flip side ... yes, definitely reward those groups in which the wizards and psions or what not manage their resources well throughout 8 encounters in 1 day ... Congrats!! They should get more for being able to work the tactics to pull that off!!
Frugal 04-23-07, 02:47 PM	Agreed .. but this can only be so many times and for so long ... there has to be a time when the PCs are not "in a rush" ... when they can take their time ... should they get the same XP? Not sure .. up to the DM .. but I'm thinking - mostly no ... a little less ... not much ... but a bit less ... On the flip side ... yes, definitely reward those groups in which the wizards and psions or what not manage their resources well throughout 8 encounters in 1 day ... Congrats!! They should get more for being able to work the tactics to pull that off!! You keep latching onto the time limit example, which was only 1 example of how you can do this. How about situations like not having a place to rest? For instance, a treacherous mountain crossing with nowhere to stop, or a dangerous area with enemy patrols (sure you can stop but you'll probably be discovered), or having intelligent opponents who will discover intruders (works for any kind of raid situation). As I said, it's about making the world dynamic rather than static and having the opponents react to their environment just as much as the PCs do. Sure the PCs can decide to rest but that doesn't mean the creatures in the dungeon just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
Leilond 04-23-07, 04:36 PM	You keep latching onto the time limit example, which was only 1 example of how you can do this. How about situations like not having a place to rest? For instance, a treacherous mountain crossing with nowhere to stop, or a dangerous area with enemy patrols (sure you can stop but you'll probably be discovered), or having intelligent opponents who will discover intruders (works for any kind of raid situation). As I said, it's about making the world dynamic rather than static and having the opponents react to their environment just as much as the PCs do. Sure the PCs can decide to rest but that doesn't mean the creatures in the dungeon just sit around twiddling their thumbs. Exactly what I think I reward them if they play their character wisely more than if they play them making things more dangerous A wisdom 16 intelligence 14 cleric and a winsdom 14 intelligence 16 wizard MUST stop journey if they can do it without risk. If they don't do that they're playing their character not realistic, only taking unnecessary risk, not belivable for character with their stats There are TONS of way to prevent character from resting giving "in game" motivation. It doesn't matter if your "out game" solution can be justified "in game", your player will do it for XP not for logic... because if it was a logic issue you had only to tell them to not rest so much... if you use XP to do that it's because you know that they're going to do it for XP and not for in-game motivation The best campaign I ever played I gave 1/4 actual level XP every session... XP wasn't a "motivation" at all... because they knew they're going to take XP without involving a single kill... they forgot XP and started to role play a lot I know that you can have a different perception, you can "justify" your XP rewarding system, but your players won't rest "to gain more XP" and not "because it's logic" and that is metagaming... if you don't mind metagaming it's all right, otherwise you've to find another solution
starfire311 04-23-07, 05:14 PM	Exactly what I think I reward them if they play their character wisely more than if they play them making things more dangerous I dont reward xp for playing wisly or for making things mroe dangerous, I reward XP for overcoming challenges. What the_ditto is really suggesting is for an alternate way for measuring giving out xp based on the actual challenge of an encounter. The game is based on the fact that an equal CR encounter is worth that CR only because it is part of 3 other encoutners taht happen that day, well what happens if you have fewer or more encounters. The actual challenge of that encounter will be lessened if it is the only encoutner of the day rather than being the 4 of a series of encounters. IMO, This has little to do with encouraging the players to fight more, but is actually about properly assessing the challenges.
Leilond 04-23-07, 05:20 PM	I dont reward xp for playing wisly or for making things mroe dangerous, I reward XP for overcoming challenges. What the_ditto is really suggesting is for an alternate way for measuring giving out xp based on the actual challenge of an encounter. The game is based on the fact that an equal CR encounter is worth that CR only because it is part of 3 other encoutners taht happen that day, well what happens if you have fewer or more encounters. The actual challenge of that encounter will be lessened if it is the only encoutner of the day rather than being the 4 of a series of encounters. IMO, This has little to do with encouraging the players to fight more, but is actually about properly assessing the challenges. Wow... I'm a very poor talker! You assessing the challenges changing the XP awarding instead of giving your character in game motivation to not rest The game suppose the player go for an amount of encounter each day and the game suppose THE DM find a way in game to make that happen I usually change a rule when there's some error. But there isn't any error in the rule, there's an error in the adventure design. When it is possible it's always better to design the adventures to stay in the rules instead of changing the rules to stay in the adventures At least I think so
starfire311 04-23-07, 06:09 PM	Wow... I'm a very poor talker! You assessing the challenges changing the XP awarding instead of giving your character in game motivation to not rest The game suppose the player go for an amount of encounter each day and the game suppose THE DM find a way in game to make that happen I usually change a rule when there's some error. But there isn't any error in the rule, there's an error in the adventure design. When it is possible it's always better to design the adventures to stay in the rules instead of changing the rules to stay in the adventures At least I think so I guess I disagree, I prefer to give the players the freedom to do what tehy want to do most of the time, over the course of 20 levels you will have 260 encoutners, it gets tired and boring, if you ahve to come up for with a way to force the PCs to ahve to always do 4 encoutners a day, and no more or no less. You say it is poor design if I want to just throw 1 encounter at the PCs or that is all the game calls for, I say it is doing waht makes sense to the game world.
Leilond 04-23-07, 07:17 PM	Don't joke with my words please I think it's very clear what I want to mean You said you have a problem, your players rest after each fight and wanted a solution to make them rest less... you asked for a judgement on your idea: give character more XP with more encounters so that they PLAYERS will make their character rest less IT IS an out-game solution, it IS a metagame solution, because you're using PLAYERS knowledge to create CHARACTERS action. You can like it, you can have no problem with out-characters solution but IT IS an out-game solution Do you know the meaning of PEACH
starfire311 04-23-07, 10:03 PM	Don't joke with my words please my apologizes for any offense, I did not mean any. I think it's very clear what I want to mean You said you have a problem, your players rest after each fight and wanted a solution to make them rest less... you asked for a judgement on your idea: give character more XP with more encounters so that they PLAYERS will make their character rest less I think you are confusing me with someone else, I did not start this thread, I just liked his idea, perhaps I liked it for a very different reason than he was posting it, but it was an intriguing idea. The reason I like his idea, because it tries to estimate the true challenge of having fewer or more than 4 encoutners per day. IT IS an out-game solution, it IS a metagame solution, because you're using PLAYERS knowledge to create CHARACTERS action. You can like it, you can have no problem with out-characters solution but IT IS an out-game solution meh, any rule change, is an out of game solution to a problem, I have no problem with houserules. Do you know the meaning of PEACH good question, since I think PEACH is a load of bunk, why the heck wouldn't I be honest.
Frugal 04-23-07, 11:03 PM	There's nothing wrong with planning for 1 encounter in the day, just account for the change in the difficulty level. The issue is when you plan for more encounters (say a typical dungeon crawl) and the players hit 1 or 2 encounters and then just rest. Yes, you could adjust the XP, and I think that adjusting XP based on the challenge of the encounters is a good idea in general. For instance, if the enemies setup an effective ambush and it made for an encounter that was tough for the CR of the creatures then I might award a little more XP, unless it was something that the players walked right into and could've taken simple measures to avoid. Similarly, if an encounter was a total pushover then I might not give as much XP, unless it was due to the PCs being smart and setting up circumstances to make the encounter easy in which case I'd likely give bonus XP. However, that still doesn't solve any of the "problem" with PCs resting after 1 or 2 encounters. I think there's several methods that can be used, and I think that in-game methods are better than out of game ones. For instance, right off the bat if they only go for a couple of encounters and then rest they're probably resting for more than 8 hours, account for that. They can't just rest for 8 hours and get spells back because spells are also limited per day. Well, actually not entirely since you could prepare spells at a different time of day but what I mean is you can't wake up in the morning with fresh spells, blow them all off in 2 hours and then rest for 8 more hours and keep going with new spells in the same day. So, how long did they adventure for before resting? What are they doing with that time? If they're using protective spells are they long enough duration to account for this extra time? Sure they might be using rope trick but if they're only adventuring for 6-8 hours then they're going to need to have it work for the remaining 16-18 hours which means they'd have to be pretty high level to accomplish that. I'm not saying to completely shaft the party, I'm just saying that you should enforce the limitations that are in the game, rope trick's a great spell for resting but it's not the instant "immune from danger for as long as we need to be" type of spell some make it out to be. Other examples are to make the area dynamic. Just as you should be rolling to see if nearby creatures hear the PCs making noise, you shouldn't just have the monsters stick to their designated areas 24/7. Doesn't anyone say, "gee, Meepo should have reported back from his patrol 2 hours ago, let's go look for him"? Or something similar to that. What are the PCs doing with dead bodies after they've looted them? Most parties will tend to leave them where they fall, so it's pretty obvious to anyone walking by that there's been some combat going on, sound the alarm, wake the guards, bring in reinforcements, buff up, search the area, reset and bolster traps, and so on. To suggest otherwise just makes the world feel like a 2-dimensional cut out where everything is on pause until the PCs enter the room. Establish a timeline for events separate to the PCs actions. For instance, maybe the BBEG has a plan that will take 3 months to complete, this is a long timeline, obviously his preparations will be at a different stage of development if the PCs show up in 2 weeks vs. showing up in 2.5 months, or even 4 months later, he's not just sitting around waiting for them to show up. Figure out what he's going to be doing and when he'll be doing it, then you'll also have a better idea of how the PCs' actions will affect his plans and how he'll adjust. This isn't arbitrarily setting up a time limit to force the PCs on, it's creating a world that exists beyond the PCs and gets away from the computer game "scripted events" concept. For instance, you ever play a computer game where no matter what you do you always enter the next village just after the raid? You could head there as quickly as possible and that will happen or you can spend time hitting on the bar maid, exploring all the side quests, selling gear, resting numerous days and wow, look at that, you still show up right after the raid, amazing! Personally I think it's much better to create a realistic world where things happen outside the players actions. It helps create a sense of immersion and verisimilitude and it also helps create in-game motivations for the characters. Sometimes waiting can be good, but other times time is important. The key though is to create a situation where the PCs know that if they sit around and wait then things will change. Frankly, the XP system proposed just sounds like a way of punishing the players for exercising that freedom that starfire311 talks about. I'm all for the PCs to have the freedom to do what they want, but I just want them to also feel that their in-game actions will have ramifications (both good and bad). If the players want to go on an XP grind for awhile that's fine and good but don't expect that the bad guys won't also be doing things and moving along their plans. If the players want to rush through things and take chances with resources, well that's the prerogative too but there can be consequences to that too. Sometimes either approach will work and sometimes either approach can blow up. The key is to get the players thinking about which way they want to go.
Frugal 04-23-07, 11:06 PM	meh, any rule change, is an out of game solution to a problem, I have no problem with houserules. Yes, but the issue is whether a rule change is even needed. As I've said, I think that XP should be adjusted, to a degree, based on the difficulty of the encounter but I think the rest issue is much better addressed in-game and with no rules changes.
Frugal 04-23-07, 11:10 PM	Other thoughts on the rope trick conundrum in particular, note that it's dangerous to bring 2 extra-dimensional spaces into each other. So, does the party have any bags of holding, Heward's handy haversacks, portable holes, etc? Guess what, can't bring them into the rope trick's space. For that matter, aside from the duration thing I already brought up, how about the space limitation? It's 8 people and the rope hauled up takes a space. So, that's 7 spaces, not bad for a normal party, but is anyone enlarged? How about having to travel with some NPCs? I'm not saying nerf it all the time but it's a 2nd level spell, it shouldn't be the ultimate game breaking thing that some make it out to be. Enforce the limitations that are in place on the spell and find the odd time to negate it in creative ways, that work in-game, such as travelling with a larger group of NPCs, or not being able to bring bags of holding into the space (someone has to stay outside to stand watch over the haul). Get creative.
Leilond 04-24-07, 04:12 AM	Yes, but the issue is whether a rule change is even needed. As I've said, I think that XP should be adjusted, to a degree, based on the difficulty of the encounter but I think the rest issue is much better addressed in-game and with no rules changes. If the players are smart and find a way to make an encounter easier than you suppose, do you give them less XP? I think no, because it's not nice to penalize players for smart solutions Resting after a battle to regain spell is a smart solution to make encounter easier, and for this reason they deserve the same amount of XP that you give to "not smart" players that make wrong decision putting themselves in bad situation Example Two party have to fight a Black Dragon The first party manage to take the Dragon out of his marsh, inside an underground place where the Dragon cannot fly The second party go to the marsh and fight the Dragon there The first party will have an easier encounter, because the Dragon cannot fly, and will stay to the ground fighting melee, taking more blow and without the chance to hide underwater to attack from unexpected position The second party will have more problems, because the "water breath" ability of the Dragon will make it attack from underwater (risk of a surprise round), the Dragon will fly and breath from the air, and so on If both the party manage to beat the dragon, will you give the first party more XP than the second because they managed a more dangerous encounter? If you do so, the "smart" party will have less XP because of a smart tactic, and it seem unfair to me Resting is the same issue. A party have a good solution to make encouter easier and I cannot give them less XP than a party that do not use that good tactic. Using a "less effective" tactic do not deserve more XP You want more difficult encounters? Find an "in game" way to make those encounter more difficult Making the rest more difficult because of patrols or wandering creatures Making the "boss" look for them to attack at night Making enemies "perpare" to ambush them Making enemies flee in fear, leaving the party without a treasure Making "time" pressure And so on There are A LOT of solution... choose your... and sometimes let them rest (making only one big and very hard encounter). You're the DM, you'll find tons of way to make the rest more or less desiderable (not forcing, making it more or less desiderable)
Frugal 04-24-07, 08:13 AM	If the players are smart and find a way to make an encounter easier than you suppose, do you give them less XP? I think no, because it's not nice to penalize players for smart solutions Resting after a battle to regain spell is a smart solution to make encounter easier, and for this reason they deserve the same amount of XP that you give to "not smart" players that make wrong decision putting themselves in bad situation Leilond, I've been agreeing with you since day one on this thread: Similarly, if an encounter was a total pushover then I might not give as much XP, unless it was due to the PCs being smart and setting up circumstances to make the encounter easy in which case I'd likely give bonus XP. I agree that some XP adjustment for difficulty or for PC tactics is a good idea. If they do smart stuff that make the encounter easy they should get more XP, if they do stupid stuff that makes the encounter harder they shouldn't get a boost for the encounter being harder. If I've adjusted the circumstances (environment, terrain, tactics, etc) to make the encounter harder then I'll probably give a bit more XP. I think the problem with PCs resting after only 1 or 2 encounters is much better solved through in-game means, and I really see it as a separate issue from that of how you should adjust the XP for the level of challenge from any given encounter.
The_Ditto 04-24-07, 08:38 AM	Long post warning - sorry, had a lot to respond to ... You keep latching onto the time limit example, which was only 1 example of how you can do this. How about situations like not having a place to rest? For instance, a treacherous mountain crossing with nowhere to stop, or a dangerous area with enemy patrols (sure you can stop but you'll probably be discovered), or having intelligent opponents who will discover intruders (works for any kind of raid situation). As I said, it's about making the world dynamic rather than static and having the opponents react to their environment just as much as the PCs do. . Not really "latching onto it" as much as "just using it as the main example" ... yes, dynamic = good ... but dynamic doesn't mean "force the characters to push forward with a variety of means" ... I see it more as, dynamic = be realistic about the situation: Yes some will chase, yes, some situations will demand the PCs push .. and yes, some will allow them relax a bit more ... again .. I want an XP system that handles ALL of them .. Sure the PCs can decide to rest but that doesn't mean the creatures in the dungeon just sit around twiddling their thumbs Now who's being "static" ?? ;) Think about the PCs retreating/teleporting back to their inn rooms ... Sure, some more advanced opponent's might be aware of, and be able to track them ... but not all of them will .. As you said ... be dynamic ... A wisdom 16 intelligence 14 cleric and a winsdom 14 intelligence 16 wizard MUST stop journey if they can do it without risk. If they don't do that they're playing their character not realistic, only taking unnecessary risk, not belivable for character with their stats I happen to believe that it is not realistic for a cleric or wizard to expend 1 or 2 spells, then rest ... because they only have .. what ... 32 spells left, instead of 34 ... :rolleyes: that's not realistic ... Yes, if they have expended a significant amount of resources, then sure ... I expect them to rest ... even if that's after 1 or 15 encounters ... It doesn't matter if your "out game" solution can be justified "in game", your player will do it for XP not for logic... again, we're assuming they know exactly what's going on ... assumptions being made don't make good arguments .. because if it was a logic issue you had only to tell them to not rest so much... Probably exactly what I would say to them: "Why are you guys resting, you're still - basically full strength?" I dont reward xp for playing wisly or for making things mroe dangerous, I reward XP for overcoming challenges. Well said .. :tiphat: (at least I know I'm not going crazy when at least one person seems to understand what my goal is ... now if I can just figure out how to explain it properly without getting distracted with all the misdirections ... :thinks: What the_ditto is really suggesting is for an alternate way for measuring giving out xp based on the actual challenge of an encounter. Yes, exactly .. thank-you, well-said ... :bow: (I've never been really great at putting ideas to words .. hehe) . But there isn't any error in the rule, there's an error in the adventure design. I disagree ... we're back to that "dynamic vs static" thing .. If you think that every adventure design must have something to force the PCs to attend .. then who's being static?? ;) Yes, as I admitted, some adventures will have that .. others will not ... I'm looking for an XP system that handles both ... I do not believe the current one accounts for it properly or fairly. The DM's job .. by the way, is to provide PCs with a challenge and reward them accordingly ... Don't joke with my words please I think it's very clear what I want to mean You said you have a problem, your players rest after each fight and wanted a solution to make them rest less... Clarifications: First: StarFire isn't the original poster here, I am ... Second: Maybe I didn't voice it properly in the OP .. however, that is not what I'm asking ... what I'm asking is an idea on "fudging" the XP reward based on the number of encounters ... Not trying to "make them rest less" ... if they want to rest more, let them ... I believe I have always stated that ... Yes, but the issue is whether a rule change is even needed. Is it needed? Probably not ... but that's doesn't mean it wouldn't be "nice to have" .. :tiphat: If the players are smart and find a way to make an encounter easier than you suppose, do you give them less XP? If they come up with creative and intelligent ways to overcome a challenge, they'll actually get more in my games ... If they rest "too often" (*as determined by DM judgment), then they did not face the DMG "prescribed" 4 encounters per day of their CR .. so (I believe) they should not receive the full XP. This goes beyond the "Make the encounter easier", it actually hinges on (what I believe) is the true intent of the XP system. Does your "dynamic and realistic" campaign world always pit the PCs up against 4 encounters of their CR every day? What ever happened to that CR 1 kobold raiding party they used to encounter? Where'd all the kobolds go after the party hit level 10? Why do CR 15 dragons never show up when your PCs are level 2? My campaign world is very dynamic, and if the PCs aren't smart - they will die ... they must be careful as "random" encounters can - and often are - out of their CR range .. (either too high or too low). If they are too low, it provides a great role-playing opportunity, or for certains PCs to show-boat and generall "have fun" ... (sure, everyone knows they're not getting any XP for it ... big deal ...) But they also know they have to be careful ... they're aren't always the "big boys on the block" and they need to know when to run at times. They do not always encounter 4 encounters per day .. they often only encounter 1 ... that's ok .. I do not have a problem with 1 encounter per day what I have a problem with is that you get the same XP for facing 1 enounter per over 4 days as you do for facing the identical 4 encounters in 1 day. :tiphat:
Frugal 04-24-07, 11:19 AM	Not really "latching onto it" as much as "just using it as the main example" ... yes, dynamic = good ... but dynamic doesn't mean "force the characters to push forward with a variety of means" ... I see it more as, dynamic = be realistic about the situation: Yes some will chase, yes, some situations will demand the PCs push .. and yes, some will allow them relax a bit more ... again .. I want an XP system that handles ALL of them .. I'm not saying force the characters to push forward, I'm saying provide some realistic in-game reactions or consequences to resting. Sometimes there will be a short time frame, sometimes it will be that the opponents will react to the presence of the party in some manner. Other times it may make no difference (the party hid their tracks well enough, or the next encounter is some distance away, etc). All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to have some idea of how the PCs' actions have affected things? Are their opponents more aware of their presence now? How will they react? Will they change their plans or tactics? Yes, resting frequently can make some encounters easier, but if you create some in-game consequences/changes/reactions then at least you get the players thinking, "what will happen if we stop now?" instead of just, "gee, if we stop now we'll have more spells." Now who's being "static" ?? ;) Think about the PCs retreating/teleporting back to their inn rooms ... Sure, some more advanced opponent's might be aware of, and be able to track them ... but not all of them will .. As you said ... be dynamic ... You're trying to twist my words to make your point. All I've said is think about the in-game impacts. If they're teleporting back to town then as you said, many enemies won't be able to track back, but that doesn't mean they'll do nothing. Was their presence discovered (even if after the fact)? What will they do? I'd say for starters they'll likely reinforce weak points, maybe determine how the party got in and block off that entrance, or place new traps, or more guards, or all of the above. How long are they gone for, maybe they've called for help and reinforcements will have time to arrive. Or maybe they'll realise that they're out-classed and leave. Obviously this is all dependant on the particular adventure. If it's a kobold raiding party then picking up and leaving is a very plausible option, if they're assaulting a castle it's probably not, but then bolstering the defences is an option. All I'm saying is that it seems like some groups seem to play as if the party can start a raid, then decide to head back to town to rest, be gone for a week (few days travel each way) and expect to fast forward back to the exact area they were in with nothing changed. I'm not saying that's how you're running things but given how much trouble you seem to be having with PCs resting I'm going to guess that you're not doing much/enough to make the world feel dynamic and not like a world that can just be put on "pause" because the players left an area. I happen to believe that it is not realistic for a cleric or wizard to expend 1 or 2 spells, then rest ... because they only have .. what ... 32 spells left, instead of 34 ... :rolleyes: And again, I happen to believe that they're doing that because you're letting them get away with it with few, or no, consequences. I disagree ... we're back to that "dynamic vs static" thing .. If you think that every adventure design must have something to force the PCs to attend .. then who's being static?? ;) Who's said anything about forcing? Personally, I think the best way to design an adventure or campaign is to simply figure out what's going to happen if the PCs take no actions. Remove the PCs from the equation completely, what's going on? Who's involved, what are their motivations, what are they trying to achieve, what's their timeline, etc? Ask all of these questions and figure out what's going to happen. What this achieves is that when the PCs suddenly zig when you expect them to zag you'll have an idea of how that changes things. Let's use an example; a low level adventure where kobolds are raiding a small village. Okay, well why are the kobolds doing this? Let's assume it's a new situation as otherwise it doesn't make sense that something hasn't been done before now (or at the very least, things have escalated). Okay, so why have the kobolds started raiding this village (or increased their raids)? Are they building up their strength for a larger operation? Is something more powerful threatening them and forcing them into new raiding areas? Let's assume it's the building up for a larger operation. Okay, well then when is this going to happen? Let's suppose that the kobolds are going to raid again in 3 days, and once more 5 days from now, then take 3 days to gather up their strength (and possibly coordinate with other tribes) before marching on the nearby town, which will take them 2 more days to reach. Okay, now we know what will happen if the PCs aren't there at all. Now suppose the PCs never go to that village, then we know that it will be raided 2 more times and then a larger force will attack a town. Maybe the PCs really slack off (or pursue other things) and only discover any of this when they show up at the town 2 weeks later and find that it's still recovering from the large kobold strike. Maybe they show up at the village and stop one of the raids, well then how will that affect the attack plans? Maybe they go further and discover the kobold caves and are able to clear that out, and so on. But the point is that for each PC action you're able to look at the overall storyline and figure out how that will change things. Now that's using a limited time example but unless the PCs discover the larger plan they'll never know they're on a timeline, but what they will see is that things change depending on the choices they make. Now let's look at another quick example, suppose it's a higher level adventure and they're going up against a powerful lich. He's methodical and patient and has been working on his plans for centuries. If he faces some serious opposition from the PCs, and they don't finish the job, then he might decide that it's in his best interests to withdraw for now. Perhaps he sets up some nasty enchantments on his tower before slipping out while the PCs are away resting, they'll return and run into whatever was left behind for them and find the lich has disappeared, now they've got a whole new story arc of trying to find out where he went, or they might decide he's been "beaten" and go off in a whole other direction, which could have it's own set of circumstances. Is this "punishing" the players for resting instead of continuing on? Well in a way, sure, but the thing is that it all makes sense in-game and the XP adjustments (lost XP from not defeating the lich, sure they might get a bit for delaying his plans) are simply a factor of the in-game events rather than an out of game punishment for resting because they used 2 spells. Does your "dynamic and realistic" campaign world always pit the PCs up against 4 encounters of their CR every day? What ever happened to that CR 1 kobold raiding party they used to encounter? Where'd all the kobolds go after the party hit level 10? Why do CR 15 dragons never show up when your PCs are level 2? My campaign world is very dynamic, and if the PCs aren't smart - they will die ... they must be careful as "random" encounters can - and often are - out of their CR range .. (either too high or too low). Now you're making assumptions. My goal is to create an organic world that makes sense outside of the PCs, if the PCs were never there then it would still make sense. Yes, I'll use the CR/EL guidelines to get a sense of the challenge I'm throwing at the party but I made sure to warn my players that for the campaign I was working on that they can and will run into things that they can't beat and that they shouldn't just assume that it's an appropriate encounter because the DM threw it at them. I'm not looking for TPKs but I'm also not going to bend realism to make the world revolve around the characters and whatever level they're at. A big part of my planning was asking questions like, "how do I want to handle the humanoid races so that kobolds don't just disappear after a couple levels for no reason?" What I decided to do was to make the world generally somewhat dangerous, the PCs start at level 1 but they're young, a lot of stuff is going to be higher levels. So there aren't that many level 1 kobolds around (unless it's a young kobold), there are 3rd and 4th level kobolds, if not higher. But I also don't intend to just keep scaling them up as the PCs level, all my races are planned with a CR range, there are some exceptions outside of that but it means that things can scale much more freely and the odd higher level creature makes a lot more sense. For instance, if they keep facing "typical" kobolds and they're 3rd or 4th level then running into a 6th level sergeant doesn't feel odd, or an 8th level leader. And by increasing numbers and using tactics, it allows you to make challenging encounters up to much higher levels and not leave the players scratching their heads wondering why the kobolds keep getting tougher. Now I will admit it creates some issues of how to handle the lower levels and making sure you avoid TPKs but that's the sacrifice I chose to make.
The_Ditto 04-24-07, 03:13 PM	I'm not saying force the characters to push forward, I'm saying provide some realistic in-game reactions or consequences to resting. Sometimes there will be a short time frame, sometimes it will be that the opponents will react to the presence of the party in some manner. Other times it may make no difference (the party hid their tracks well enough, or the next encounter is some distance away, etc). All I'm saying is that it's a good idea to have some idea of how the PCs' actions have affected things? Are their opponents more aware of their presence now? How will they react? Will they change their plans or tactics? I agree 100% ... I've never disagreed with this stance ... ... can we get back to discussing XP reward now? ;) (I'm not trying to be snarky .. just trying to emphasize, I'm talking about XP reward, you're talking about finding ways to get PCs to rest ... not the same topic - maybe related .. maybe not ...) :tiphat: You're trying to twist my words to make your point. All I've said is think about the in-game impacts. I have ... and now I'm trying to do something about XP rewards ... If they're teleporting back to town then as you said, many enemies won't be [snip] assaulting a castle it's probably not, but then bolstering the defences is an option. Again .. dodging the issue ... I'm not arguing the adventure designs or in-game hooks ... I want to discuss XP rewards ... I'm not saying that's how you're running things but given how much trouble you seem to be having with PCs resting Clarification: Examples do not mean I am having problems with PCs resting .. ;) I'm not having problems with PCs resting ... I have a problem with the way XP is calculated .. Yes, I'll use the CR/EL guidelines to get a sense of the challenge I'm throwing at the party but I made sure to warn my players that for the campaign I was working on that they can and will run into things that they can't beat and that they shouldn't just assume that it's an appropriate encounter because the DM threw it at them. I'm not looking for TPKs but I'm also not going to bend realism to make the world revolve around the characters and whatever level they're at. .. and all I'm looking for is to find a "better" way of assigning XP when the challenges are ... "skewed" ... or "unbalanced" .. I'm not asking for a lecture on how to design an adventure with proper "in-game" motivations ... got that ... been there, done that ... thank-you! :tiphat: Again ... not trying to sound snarky, just trying to steer us back on topic ... ;) (and yeah, I realize it's tricky, as the two subjects can be closely related ... so it's easy to step across ... :D )
Frugal 04-24-07, 03:23 PM	... can we get back to discussing XP reward now? ;) (I'm not trying to be snarky .. just trying to emphasize, I'm talking about XP reward, you're talking about finding ways to get PCs to rest ... not the same topic - maybe related .. maybe not ...) :tiphat: Fair enough, but the key question is, "what are you trying to achieve by adjusting XP?" The main motivation appears to be to address issues with the PCs resting after 1 or 2 encounters instead of continuing on, and for that I think it's valid to suggest that the XP system doesn't need tweaking and to instead look for in-game solutions to this issue. Now if their are other motivations, let's hear them. For instance, you already talked about slowing down levelling by giving 50% XP. Okay, that's a whole other motivation, and as long as you're careful about party wealth you'll be fine with doing that.
UAMDB 04-24-07, 03:58 PM	I have an idea for the OP. Just make up what ever amount of xp you want to give the players. I mean you already are doing this with only giving 50% for the DMG stated value. Forget CR's EL's and APL's you want them to get 100xp for the night give them 100xp for the night. Quit arguing with the other people on this board and do what you want to. You will find out of its a bad idea depending on what your players do. If they stay its not that bad of an idea. If they walk out you know you messed up. You are set on using this method, so why does our opinions matter to you?
Wopple 04-24-07, 06:00 PM	I agree 100% ... I've never disagreed with this stance ... ... can we get back to discussing XP reward now? ;) (I'm not trying to be snarky .. just trying to emphasize, I'm talking about XP reward, you're talking about finding ways to get PCs to rest ... not the same topic - maybe related .. maybe not ...) :tiphat: I have ... and now I'm trying to do something about XP rewards ... Again .. dodging the issue ... I'm not arguing the adventure designs or in-game hooks ... I want to discuss XP rewards ... Clarification: Examples do not mean I am having problems with PCs resting .. ;) I'm not having problems with PCs resting ... I have a problem with the way XP is calculated .. .. and all I'm looking for is to find a "better" way of assigning XP when the challenges are ... "skewed" ... or "unbalanced" .. I'm not asking for a lecture on how to design an adventure with proper "in-game" motivations ... got that ... been there, done that ... thank-you! :tiphat: Again ... not trying to sound snarky, just trying to steer us back on topic ... ;) (and yeah, I realize it's tricky, as the two subjects can be closely related ... so it's easy to step across ... :D ) To go off topic again... I usually tie in rewards with time. Finish faster, more gold. I also sometimes make them actualy roleplay out stuff, or purpously delay game, to avoid them wanting to rest every 3 seconds, making one gaming session be tehcnially a few weeks of gametime. As far as xp rewards.... it is an interesting idea. To be honest, in real life terms, it makes anti-sense (more rested you are more likly you are to learn from stuff), but then this is D&D, not reality. For starters I agree that you should definatly not tell them. But then you still need a mech for putting a fire under their ass. I mean, if they keep it up and do not change, effectively all this does is slow down their leveling. I think I would put some RP thing up with no reward. The guy wants you to hurry, you think maybe the world will end if you don't hurry, somethign that will kinda nudge the characters with RP towards taking less time, but something that also gives no concrete reward for time spent. Then you can do the XP thing in secret, as a way to reward them (or punish them) for roleplaying correctly. One thing to consider, tho, besides %'s, is just to change encounter level. If a party pops up from bed and fights guys, that is a much less difficult battle than the 6th battle of a day, low on spells, low on supplies, maybe debuffed by exhaustion. Maybe just go EL -1 for first, EL for second and third, EL +1 for fourth, and so on. Also you'll need to consider the strength of the combats. If you fight 11 goblins, one at a tiem and seperated, it's not the same as 11 frost giants. Maybe go like this... (Cumulative EL for all battles previous)/10 + Normal EL for current battle = used EL. So say you are level 4, and you fought four CR 2 guys, EL 6(I believe). You beat them, and vola, you have 6 EL's of XP. Then you go up agaist a CR 5 dragon, really crappy dragon. 6/10 is less than 1, disgard it. Now you have 11 EL's stacked up. Fight some bullywugs, which I am assigning an EL.. um... 4 to. Then you beat them, get EL 5 instead of EL 4. Fight an EL 5, get another making it EL 6. Fight an EL 3, get +2 making it EL 5. At the end of the day, you fought, under normal system.. EL 6, EL 5, EL 4, EL 5, EL 3 But with adjustments.. EL 6(0), EL 5(6), EL 4+1(11), EL 5+1(15), EL 3+2(20) For EL's 6, 5, 5, 6, 5 Or, if you wanted to start out by penalising them, change (cumulative EL)/10 to (Cumulative EL)/10-(avg party level)/5
The_Ditto 04-24-07, 06:22 PM	I have an idea for the OP. Just make up what ever amount of xp you want to give the players. I mean you already are doing this with only giving 50% for the DMG stated value. Forget CR's EL's and APL's you want them to get 100xp for the night give them 100xp for the night. Quit arguing with the other people on this board and do what you want to. You will find out of its a bad idea depending on what your players do. If they stay its not that bad of an idea. If they walk out you know you messed up. You are set on using this method, so why does our opinions matter to you? grabbing opinions is what I'm after ... trying to convince you guys? Nope .. just getting opinions .. and I do appreciate that much ... seeing things from different angles helps identify problems and issues I myself would not have seen.