Trap Experience Distribution [Archive] - Wizards Community

Trap Experience Distribution [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
rikimaru75
06-12-07, 12:22 PM Hey everyone,

After a good month hiatus of DMing, I'm back again with a different group and all the way back at level one.

I just wondering what to do when distributing experience for traps. The Spellthief in my party was the only one tampering with the trap, and so I am arguing to give him experience for finding and disarming the trap himself. And being level one, that's 300 XP just for him (according to my experience calculator).

Do you think this judgment is valid? What is the normal convention with trap distribution experience.

In my previous campaign, I just divided the trap experience up by the group, but seeing how most traps cap out at CR10, the experience was pish-posh by comparison to other things they fought.

Thanks again everyone.
Chakaga
06-12-07, 12:34 PM Normally exp gets devided amoung the group. Lets say the whole group gets into a fight with a monster and the barbarian gets a lucky crit and kills the thing on the first turn, you dont give him ALL the monster exp do you?
rikimaru75
06-12-07, 12:44 PM I typically calculate experience like that with everyone in mind.

In this case, the PC was by himself.
Magrus
06-12-07, 12:50 PM Define "by himself"? As in, he was the only PC in the group, meaning a solo campaign? Or he left the group and went off on his own with the group nowhere near him and dealt with it? Or, he moved ahead 50 ft to search for traps and not hurt the group if he failed?
Fraser1986
06-12-07, 01:00 PM the idea sounds fine in principle but it does have some flaws. If you give trap experience to the spellthief but split all the other experience the spellthief is going to have more than everyone else.

Some characters have more out of combat skills than the others. Unless you give the others extra experience for combat, they will inevitably lag behind as they lack ways to get experience outside of combat.

Also, I would challenge your assertion that the spellthief was the only one involved in the trap incident. Had the trap gone off, the other party members may also have been injured. They bore some of the risk so should get a share of the reward.
Kragg Bonemeal
06-12-07, 02:28 PM Also, as in "by himself", does this mean if the trap had gone off the party cleric would have refused to waste his daily allotment of spells by casting Cure Light Wounds? If the trap had summoned a large Bear, the fighter would not have rushed in to support him?

To quote the legendary Village People "... no man does it all by himself!" :)
Some_call_me_Tim
06-12-07, 02:32 PM Who gets the experience if he blows himself up and the cleric heals him? Shouldn't the cleric get the full xp?

Divvy up the xp by whoever is present, other members keeping a watch out and standing by to rescue said spellthief deserve xp as well.
Kouk
06-12-07, 03:10 PM It is easier, and probably better for group cohesion, to just give everyone equal XP no matter where they are and what they happen to be doing at that moment.

The only exception might be, if the player intentionally refuses to adventure, such as, "You guys go ahead, I'll stay in town and drink myself unconscious."

All the players at some point should be doing things on their own from time to time, so theoretically it should balance out in the long run. But some players' roles are not always as visible to the XP system despite their contributions.

If there is only one party member who can heal, he does not get XP for healing despite being "alone" in his ability to perform that task. He is doing his part in helping the party, that's all. Same thing with a wizard who casts a needed spell, or a rogue who disables traps. The only difference is there is a mechanical XP granting aspect of trap disabling.

Every trap that the rogue disables, is one that the party will never have to fall victim to. Regardless of whatever motivated the rogue to be alone, if he went out with the rest of the group to adventure then he is contributing to the group as a whole.
rikimaru75
06-12-07, 05:01 PM I see everyone's point with dividing the whole experience up with everyone present. I was more so just dancing with the thought rather than actually going to apply it. And so, I have decided to split it up amongst the group.

With regards to people who are not in attendance/show up late and miss encounters, do you think I should just calculate them as if they were along?

I was opting to either give them half of the experience that would have earned with the group, but then penalizing people for such things as "I can't show up until such-and-such because of such-and-such or some important event came up." seems a little mean.

From session example, the 5th member was not around when said encounter occured but later showed up in the session to join the party and stick together afterwards.

Any ideas?
Merestil Haye
06-12-07, 05:54 PM If they're not there, and the character did nothing, he gets no xp.

The design of the regular award system is such that it tends to close the gap between characters of disparate levels. It may seem a shame to punish them for an emergency, but they will catch up eventually.

I ran a whole campaign using the invariant xp table. Since there is no inbuilt catchup mechanism, I did the half-xp award thing because it was needed. But the regular system does not.
StevenO
06-12-07, 06:23 PM If the character contributes it deserves XP even if its player isn't there. Joe is out sick but he plays the party cleric; if the party goes out adventuring and then comes back injured the cleric patches them up just like if Joe was there to play him and deserves the XP. PLAYING should be the players award for DnD, XP is just used to measure the pace of the game and all the characters should have about the same amount.
Kouk
06-13-07, 02:23 PM If you know in advance that a player cannot make it on time, you can have someone else play their character until they arrive. This works best when one player designates another to be in charge of the character, but sometimes it depends on volunteers.

This would require you to have copies of the sheets, or else the player could give it to another player beforehand.

On the other hand, if it is not a tremendous issue (like the player always comes late every time, or skips sessions routinely) you could just forget about it because he probably hasn't missed that much, and contributes as soon as he is able to.

You wouldn't want them to have to rush over to the game, driving recklessly just to get an extra few hundred XP :P.
mvincent
06-13-07, 02:36 PM Joe is out sick but he plays the party cleric; if the party goes out adventuring and then comes back injured the cleric patches them up just like if Joe was there to play him and deserves the XP.This would imply that NPC clerics might get a share of your XP if you pay them to patch you up after an adventure (i.e. after you return to town).

I would argue that Joe's cleric deserves a share of the loot (as payment for his services) but not XP.
Malcaor
06-13-07, 04:56 PM I distribute xp evenly jsut as long as the person was there able to lend a hand or idea if necessary.
StevenO
06-13-07, 09:01 PM This would imply that NPC clerics might get a share of your XP if you pay them to patch you up after an adventure (i.e. after you return to town).

I would argue that Joe's cleric deserves a share of the loot (as payment for his services) but not XP.
That is fair enough but if you "pay" your adventuring companion now for healing they may start expecting it all the time. My example was maybe a little extreme but if Joe's cleric came along and basically stayed out of the way but provided needed healing there is little question the character should receive XP for "adventuring" even if it didn't take as much risk as everyone else.

I'm just advocating keeping all the character at or near the same play level. Minor variations in treasure can be made up easily enough but while XP difference may be self correcting in the long run (provided lower level characters get more XP for the same encounters) I think the game will work best if all the characters are within a level of each other.
Krusk
06-13-07, 11:26 PM I give it to the entire party, unless someone can justify to me that they do not need it. I also do lump XP at the end of a session.

here is why.
cleric- took the risk of being willing to spend any spells in order to heal/cure poison in the event of a botched trap disabling.

wizard- took the risk of being hit by any calatoral damage the trap may have, also if magical in nature is able to identify the spell cast or the effects of the trap.

rogue-physically attempted to turn off the trap. sort of a duh, so im not going into it.

fighter- stood ready to fight anything that happened to be summoned by the trap.

Also if you want traps all the way into epic levels grab dungeonscape, i highly recomend this book to all DMs.
rikimaru75
06-14-07, 10:31 AM Thanks for all the opinions.

In order to keep the headache level as simple as possible, I decided to just stick to my old system by rewarding everyone else XP, but calculating encounters based off of 5 people instead of 4 (That's the size of my group after all). I will, however, keep track of each person's experience in the event of character death, XP spells, etc.

Who knows? This might change again over time. Oh and about Dungeonscape, thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look at it next time I get the chance.
mvincent
06-14-07, 12:09 PM if you "pay" your adventuring companion now for healing they may start expecting it all the time.You misunderstand: they should be expecting an equal share of the treasure (which is generally more than paying the going rate for spellcasting services anyway).

if Joe's cleric came along and basically stayed out of the way but provided needed healing there is little question the character should receive XP for "adventuring" even if it didn't take as much risk as everyone else.I disagree (and I have a lot of experience adjudicating this in long-term campaigns).

I'm just advocating keeping all the character at or near the same play level. Minor variations in treasure can be made up easily enough but while XP difference may be self correcting in the long run (provided lower level characters get more XP for the same encounters) I think the game will work best if all the characters are within a level of each other.I've found that variations in treasure can be a bigger deal (i.e. it is not self-correcting like XP is). Also, XP is a kind of reward system... if you reward players even if they don't show up, then missing games becomes more acceptable. I personally like to discourage flaky players (ymmv), but rules support this method.

Since XP is self-correcting, players are unlikely be to more than a level apart unless you have a very flaky player... in which case (assuming you want to keep such a player) he can always make a new PC when he gets too far behind.

Besides, having "ghost" players ruins the "feel" of the game for me. "The Gamers" gives a good example of what I mean.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
rikimaru75 06-12-07, 12:22 PM	Hey everyone, After a good month hiatus of DMing, I'm back again with a different group and all the way back at level one. I just wondering what to do when distributing experience for traps. The Spellthief in my party was the only one tampering with the trap, and so I am arguing to give him experience for finding and disarming the trap himself. And being level one, that's 300 XP just for him (according to my experience calculator). Do you think this judgment is valid? What is the normal convention with trap distribution experience. In my previous campaign, I just divided the trap experience up by the group, but seeing how most traps cap out at CR10, the experience was pish-posh by comparison to other things they fought. Thanks again everyone.
Chakaga 06-12-07, 12:34 PM	Normally exp gets devided amoung the group. Lets say the whole group gets into a fight with a monster and the barbarian gets a lucky crit and kills the thing on the first turn, you dont give him ALL the monster exp do you?
rikimaru75 06-12-07, 12:44 PM	I typically calculate experience like that with everyone in mind. In this case, the PC was by himself.
Magrus 06-12-07, 12:50 PM	Define "by himself"? As in, he was the only PC in the group, meaning a solo campaign? Or he left the group and went off on his own with the group nowhere near him and dealt with it? Or, he moved ahead 50 ft to search for traps and not hurt the group if he failed?
Fraser1986 06-12-07, 01:00 PM	the idea sounds fine in principle but it does have some flaws. If you give trap experience to the spellthief but split all the other experience the spellthief is going to have more than everyone else. Some characters have more out of combat skills than the others. Unless you give the others extra experience for combat, they will inevitably lag behind as they lack ways to get experience outside of combat. Also, I would challenge your assertion that the spellthief was the only one involved in the trap incident. Had the trap gone off, the other party members may also have been injured. They bore some of the risk so should get a share of the reward.
Kragg Bonemeal 06-12-07, 02:28 PM	Also, as in "by himself", does this mean if the trap had gone off the party cleric would have refused to waste his daily allotment of spells by casting Cure Light Wounds? If the trap had summoned a large Bear, the fighter would not have rushed in to support him? To quote the legendary Village People "... no man does it all by himself!" :)
Some_call_me_Tim 06-12-07, 02:32 PM	Who gets the experience if he blows himself up and the cleric heals him? Shouldn't the cleric get the full xp? Divvy up the xp by whoever is present, other members keeping a watch out and standing by to rescue said spellthief deserve xp as well.
Kouk 06-12-07, 03:10 PM	It is easier, and probably better for group cohesion, to just give everyone equal XP no matter where they are and what they happen to be doing at that moment. The only exception might be, if the player intentionally refuses to adventure, such as, "You guys go ahead, I'll stay in town and drink myself unconscious." All the players at some point should be doing things on their own from time to time, so theoretically it should balance out in the long run. But some players' roles are not always as visible to the XP system despite their contributions. If there is only one party member who can heal, he does not get XP for healing despite being "alone" in his ability to perform that task. He is doing his part in helping the party, that's all. Same thing with a wizard who casts a needed spell, or a rogue who disables traps. The only difference is there is a mechanical XP granting aspect of trap disabling. Every trap that the rogue disables, is one that the party will never have to fall victim to. Regardless of whatever motivated the rogue to be alone, if he went out with the rest of the group to adventure then he is contributing to the group as a whole.
rikimaru75 06-12-07, 05:01 PM	I see everyone's point with dividing the whole experience up with everyone present. I was more so just dancing with the thought rather than actually going to apply it. And so, I have decided to split it up amongst the group. With regards to people who are not in attendance/show up late and miss encounters, do you think I should just calculate them as if they were along? I was opting to either give them half of the experience that would have earned with the group, but then penalizing people for such things as "I can't show up until such-and-such because of such-and-such or some important event came up." seems a little mean. From session example, the 5th member was not around when said encounter occured but later showed up in the session to join the party and stick together afterwards. Any ideas?
Merestil Haye 06-12-07, 05:54 PM	If they're not there, and the character did nothing, he gets no xp. The design of the regular award system is such that it tends to close the gap between characters of disparate levels. It may seem a shame to punish them for an emergency, but they will catch up eventually. I ran a whole campaign using the invariant xp table. Since there is no inbuilt catchup mechanism, I did the half-xp award thing because it was needed. But the regular system does not.
StevenO 06-12-07, 06:23 PM	If the character contributes it deserves XP even if its player isn't there. Joe is out sick but he plays the party cleric; if the party goes out adventuring and then comes back injured the cleric patches them up just like if Joe was there to play him and deserves the XP. PLAYING should be the players award for DnD, XP is just used to measure the pace of the game and all the characters should have about the same amount.
Kouk 06-13-07, 02:23 PM	If you know in advance that a player cannot make it on time, you can have someone else play their character until they arrive. This works best when one player designates another to be in charge of the character, but sometimes it depends on volunteers. This would require you to have copies of the sheets, or else the player could give it to another player beforehand. On the other hand, if it is not a tremendous issue (like the player always comes late every time, or skips sessions routinely) you could just forget about it because he probably hasn't missed that much, and contributes as soon as he is able to. You wouldn't want them to have to rush over to the game, driving recklessly just to get an extra few hundred XP :P.
mvincent 06-13-07, 02:36 PM	Joe is out sick but he plays the party cleric; if the party goes out adventuring and then comes back injured the cleric patches them up just like if Joe was there to play him and deserves the XP.This would imply that NPC clerics might get a share of your XP if you pay them to patch you up after an adventure (i.e. after you return to town). I would argue that Joe's cleric deserves a share of the loot (as payment for his services) but not XP.
Malcaor 06-13-07, 04:56 PM	I distribute xp evenly jsut as long as the person was there able to lend a hand or idea if necessary.
StevenO 06-13-07, 09:01 PM	This would imply that NPC clerics might get a share of your XP if you pay them to patch you up after an adventure (i.e. after you return to town). I would argue that Joe's cleric deserves a share of the loot (as payment for his services) but not XP. That is fair enough but if you "pay" your adventuring companion now for healing they may start expecting it all the time. My example was maybe a little extreme but if Joe's cleric came along and basically stayed out of the way but provided needed healing there is little question the character should receive XP for "adventuring" even if it didn't take as much risk as everyone else. I'm just advocating keeping all the character at or near the same play level. Minor variations in treasure can be made up easily enough but while XP difference may be self correcting in the long run (provided lower level characters get more XP for the same encounters) I think the game will work best if all the characters are within a level of each other.
Krusk 06-13-07, 11:26 PM	I give it to the entire party, unless someone can justify to me that they do not need it. I also do lump XP at the end of a session. here is why. cleric- took the risk of being willing to spend any spells in order to heal/cure poison in the event of a botched trap disabling. wizard- took the risk of being hit by any calatoral damage the trap may have, also if magical in nature is able to identify the spell cast or the effects of the trap. rogue-physically attempted to turn off the trap. sort of a duh, so im not going into it. fighter- stood ready to fight anything that happened to be summoned by the trap. Also if you want traps all the way into epic levels grab dungeonscape, i highly recomend this book to all DMs.
rikimaru75 06-14-07, 10:31 AM	Thanks for all the opinions. In order to keep the headache level as simple as possible, I decided to just stick to my old system by rewarding everyone else XP, but calculating encounters based off of 5 people instead of 4 (That's the size of my group after all). I will, however, keep track of each person's experience in the event of character death, XP spells, etc. Who knows? This might change again over time. Oh and about Dungeonscape, thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look at it next time I get the chance.
mvincent 06-14-07, 12:09 PM	if you "pay" your adventuring companion now for healing they may start expecting it all the time.You misunderstand: they should be expecting an equal share of the treasure (which is generally more than paying the going rate for spellcasting services anyway). if Joe's cleric came along and basically stayed out of the way but provided needed healing there is little question the character should receive XP for "adventuring" even if it didn't take as much risk as everyone else.I disagree (and I have a lot of experience adjudicating this in long-term campaigns). I'm just advocating keeping all the character at or near the same play level. Minor variations in treasure can be made up easily enough but while XP difference may be self correcting in the long run (provided lower level characters get more XP for the same encounters) I think the game will work best if all the characters are within a level of each other.I've found that variations in treasure can be a bigger deal (i.e. it is not self-correcting like XP is). Also, XP is a kind of reward system... if you reward players even if they don't show up, then missing games becomes more acceptable. I personally like to discourage flaky players (ymmv), but rules support this method. Since XP is self-correcting, players are unlikely be to more than a level apart unless you have a very flaky player... in which case (assuming you want to keep such a player) he can always make a new PC when he gets too far behind. Besides, having "ghost" players ruins the "feel" of the game for me. "The Gamers" gives a good example of what I mean.