In 4e there are 3 ways to earn xp: combat, skill challenges, and quests.
In comparison here is what the 2e DMG says regarding awarding xp.
Common Individual Awards
Player has a clever idea 50-100
Player has an idea that saves the party 100-500
Player role-plays his character well* 100-200
Player encourages others to participate 100-200
Defeating a creature in a single combat XP value/creature
*This award can be greater if the player character sacrifices some game advantage to
role-play his character. A noble fighter who refuses a substantial reward because it would
not be in character qualifies.
Warrior
Per Hit Die of creature defeated 10 XP/level
Priest
Per successful use of a granted power 100 XP
Spells cast to further ethos 100 XP/spell level*
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magical item XP value
Wizard
Spells cast to overcome foes or problems 50 XP/spell level
Spells successfully researched 500 XP/spell level
Making potion or scroll XP value
Making permanent magical item XP value
Rogue
Per successful use of a special ability 200 XP
Per gold piece value of treasure obtained 2 XP
Per Hit Die of creatures defeated (bard only) 5 XP* The priest character gains experience for those spells which, when cast, support the
beliefs and attitudes of his mythos. Thus, a priest of a woodland deity would not gain
experience for using an entangle spell to trap a group of orcs who were attacking his
party, since this has little to do with the woodlands. If the priest were to use the same
spell to trap the same orcs just as they were attempting to set fire to the forest, the
character would gain the bonus.
I think it's better to reward things like this with dice roll bonuses rather than experience.
I agree, particularly since most people I know don't even award XP, we just level up at appropriate times. XP is just a pacing mechanism, nothing more; it would be another fine thing to chuck in a future edition and just provide guidelines on pacing.
I think it's better to reward things like this with dice roll bonuses rather than experience.
Thirded.
Also, in my experience, the clever thinking that gets rewarded often has a healthy amount of metagaming involved. Just my experience.
I agree, particularly since most people I know don't even award XP, we just level up at appropriate times. XP is just a pacing mechanism, nothing more; it would be another fine thing to chuck in a future edition and just provide guidelines on pacing.
Ah, but not true. XP is also a carrot. A very powerful carrot, especially if you are entirely willing to have a party with different levelled characters in it (at a minimal extent, like one or two levels each way, it's not as bad as you'd imagine). Getting a +1 to hit once is not a reward a player will get behind to do things he would ordinarily be reluctant to do, but if you offer him 25 experience points, suddenly he's giving you all sorts of useful feedback about the entire adventure, and writing up backstories, and all these other things. Experience points, I find, are an even more powerful reward than a magic weapon or armor precisely for the same reason - a +1 isn't exciting, a new power or feat is very exciting.
While not in all campaigns is the use of XP appropriate, where it has potential for use it has potential to cause serious incentives towards following the intended theme of a campaign. If your campaign is about exploration, and you give players XP for drawing maps, and you give players XP for piecing together write-ups of history scraps they discover, they're going to start doing those things a lot more often!
XP is, in essence, the DM's best tool for designing his (or her) own take on D&D, and maybe it varies by the campaign they run, or even by adventure, or perhaps they always run the same thing, but it follows the most important principle of game design: "How am I going to reward goal-seeking behavior?" If you don't play with XP you lose a very powerful weapon in your quest as a DM to reward goal-seeking behavior, and running the game becomes a lot harder unless it's a very particular type of game you are running (notably closed table/narrative, although they might be others).
I think it's better to reward things like this with dice roll bonuses rather than experience.
I agree, particularly since most people I know don't even award XP, we just level up at appropriate times. XP is just a pacing mechanism, nothing more; it would be another fine thing to chuck in a future edition and just provide guidelines on pacing.
Yes, it really has become a pacing mechanism. It never used to be that way and I'm not really sure it should be that way. I guess I just miss awarding xp out when players role play or come up with a good idea on the spot.
Ah, but not true. XP is also a carrot. A very powerful carrot, especially if you are entirely willing to have a party with different levelled characters in it (at a minimal extent, like one or two levels each way, it's not as bad as you'd imagine). Getting a +1 to hit once is not a reward a player will get behind to do things he would ordinarily be reluctant to do, but if you offer him 25 experience points, suddenly he's giving you all sorts of useful feedback about the entire adventure, and writing up backstories, and all these other things. Experience points, I find, are an even more powerful reward than a magic weapon or armor precisely for the same reason - a +1 isn't exciting, a new power or feat is very exciting.
If I want my players to do something, I just make it matter. You map the maze because its layout matches the correct key to the door that won't kill your characters. You give me a backstory because characters who have backstory get more time in the spotlight than those that don't, and they have more say in how the campaign goes.
If I have to bribe the players with XP to do something, it probably isn't worth doing in the first place.
I think it's better to reward things like this with dice roll bonuses rather than experience.
I agree, particularly since most people I know don't even award XP, we just level up at appropriate times. XP is just a pacing mechanism, nothing more; it would be another fine thing to chuck in a future edition and just provide guidelines on pacing.
Yes, it really has become a pacing mechanism. It never used to be that way and I'm not really sure it should be that way. I guess I just miss awarding xp out when players role play or come up with a good idea on the spot.
The biggest problem with that is then some character are always going to have more experience and be "better" than others because their player is better at making stuff up. Instead of rewarding their situational inventiveness with a single reward (bonuses to dice rolls, for an example, or an inexpensive consumable), awarding XP for things like this actually punishes any player who isn't the kind that can think fast on their feet. And unlike those dice rolls or single consumables, XP stays around. It always has been a pacing mechanism, it just used to be used to track the pace at which players could out-think each other and the DM, and now it's used to track how well they all work as a team. The intent is the same (to track progression), but the mode (single players competing against each other and the DM vs. Players working together to overcome challenges created by the DM) has changed.
If I want my players to do something, I just make it matter. You map the maze because its layout matches the correct key to the door that won't kill your characters. You give me a backstory because characters who have backstory get more time in the spotlight than those that don't, and they have more say in how the campaign goes.
If I have to bribe the players with XP to do something, it probably isn't worth doing in the first place.
So I take it your game has no treasure either, then? Because that's a "bribe", too, you know. So is the amount of time in the spotlight you give them. These are all rewards that encourage certain kinds of behavior. If you want to purposefully avoid a potential reward structure that's fine but it's not the only way to play - I don't tell you that treasure is pointless because "I don't bribe my players into killing the dragon".
> to overcome foes or problems.
If they've overcome a challenge through these methods then they get the XP for doing so just as much as if they smashed their way through.
--
Tossing out XP as an advancement mechanic is probably still a better idea though.
In my current campaign, I don't even track XP at all.
So I take it your game has no treasure either, then? Because that's a "bribe", too, you know. So is the amount of time in the spotlight you give them. These are all rewards that encourage certain kinds of behavior.
A) My players get treasure one way or another, regardless of their actions. So, no, it's not a reward.
B) I specifically said "bribe with XP." I did not say "bribe at all." Next time you want to argue a point, make sure you have one.
A) My players get treasure one way or another, regardless of their actions. So, no, it's not a reward.
B) I specifically said "bribe with XP." I did not say "bribe at all." Next time you want to argue a point, make sure you have one.
So you support other kinds of bribes, but not XP? Why is XP so deserving of your scorn?
That was my point, by the way; perhaps rephrasing it more bluntly as such will garner a more productive response.
So you support other kinds of bribes, but not XP?
XP and treasure are not really directly comparable here. Treasure is something that exists in the game world that the characters can find or be given as a reward. XP is entirely a metagame concept which is relevant only to the players.
It makes perfect sense for the characters to be motivated by the prospect of finding a chest full of gold or a magic sword. But that's quite a different thing from the players being motivated by the prospect of adding a few points to a number on their character sheet.
In any case, I've never found anything that acts as a better motivation for good roleplaying than the simple fact that good roleplaying makes the game more fun.
XP and treasure are not really directly comparable here. Treasure is something that exists in the game world that the characters can find or be given as a reward. XP is entirely a metagame concept which is relevant only to the players.
Well, yes and no. While I agree that a character can obviously hold a +1 Sword of Awesome in his hands and be motivated to acquire that +1 Sword of Awesome, XP is a reward that characters seek yet is entirely intangible. Imagine you are, yourself, a professional adventurer. Let's say you're a wizard. Wouldn't learning a new spell be important to your adventuring career? Well, when you level up, there's your new spell. How do you acquire the levelling up? XP. In other words, it's an indirect character motivation rather than a direct one... but I think it's still a character motivation. I want to learn a new spell, therefore I seek XP-rewarding activities (whatever those may be). I want a new +1 Sword of Awesome, therefore I seek the +1 Sword of Awesome. While it's an order removed, it still motivates the characters.
In any case, I've never found anything that acts as a better motivation for good roleplaying than the simple fact that good roleplaying makes the game more fun.
I'll agree with this, certainly. Of course, sometimes additional positive reinforcement helps, I think. Learning is great, but I'd like the diploma, too, please ;)
I don't award XP individually either. I reward it for encounters, quests, and good roleplaying in general. But that goes to the entire group for having fun with a situation, not one person in that group. Because that'd be unfair to the more quiet types.
And if you must bribe people, immediate effects are probably more effective.
Characters don't learn new spells by roleplaying, though. It makes no sense for a Wizard to say "aha, that one liner was so funny, I am now 15% closer to learning my new spell!". Maybe for a Bard, though.
Well, this brings us back to goal design, and also abstraction. In terms of goal design, if you don't think that this particular reward makes sense for this particular goal, then don't use it. It's true, a witty one liner probably doesn't do a whole lot for helping the wizard learn a new spell. The wizard, in terms of concrete relations, would probably gain XP from other sources. In terms of roleplaying, maybe you would reward the wizard for doing things like After Action Reports - he's got high intelligence, after all, and it stands to reason that by analyzing the past he can gain some knowledge to put towards, say, a spell.
To lift an idea from Spirit of the Century, you could copy the idea of Aspects. Each player has ten facets that define their character, and when you play to those aspects you receive bonuses to your actions, and in order to recharge the bonuses you can spend on your actions the GM can compel an aspect in a negative way - you may want to do X, but according to your aspect your character would want to do Y, for going along with that good roleplaying here's a reward. Just replace fate points (the disposable/rechargeable bonus resource) with XP and all of a sudden now you've got goals defined by your players that they would like to be rewarded XP for achieving in addition to the "normal XP stuff". I think that would be a good way to define who gets XP for what.
Anyway, on the other hand, the level of abstraction also matters. XP has never been terribly concrete, and personally I treat it just as a progress bar rather than a concrete simulationist idea. After all, what is an "experience point" in the game world, really? It's just character progress. If you do something that can progress your character then it still makes sense to get XP for it. D&D has always worked that way (that you can be rewarded XP for roleplaying), and 4th edition is no different. It's one of those gamist concepts that I think bears acceptance and will probably never be simulationist. The new spell? That's a concrete game world idea, but the way you get there is by fulfilling goals. Maybe, using our example above, if the wizard decided he wants to be rewarded XP for having a "razor tongue" (a la aspect), and makes a barbed remark, he could get some XP for that. How does that help him make a spell? It doesn't, but it does progress his character's development to the point where the character goes "aha, I've got it! A new spell!" Sort of like a narrative progress bar, again, rather than a physical in-game item.
I don't award XP individually either. I reward it for encounters, quests, and good roleplaying in general. But that goes to the entire group for having fun with a situation, not one person in that group. Because that'd be unfair to the more quiet types.
In terms of my own experience I've done shades up and down the spectrum of XP, from giving out XP individually based on goal-fulfillment, all the way through to completely narratively decided levels. I think they all have their drawbacks. For instance, narrative levelling sort of lacks strong goal-orientation. On the other hand, individual rewards can feel very biased and has the possibility of reinforcing the wrong goals. I don't think there's a "right way" to do it, but I do think that having XP as an option in your toolbox is very powerful.
If someone is playing a roleplaying game and needs to be bribed, cajoled, or otherwise coerced into roleplaying, they're probably better off finding a different hobby. Roleplaying should be the reason you play the game, a reward unto itself.
Or (and I know someone will take issue with this) just not roleplay in the game. I mean, it is an option.
So you support other kinds of bribes, but not XP? Why is XP so deserving of your scorn?
No scorn. I just don't use it. My post was in response to the statement that if you don't look to XP as a bribe, you are missing out on a powerful tool. I disagree that it's powerful, and I have found more influential ways to influence character outcomes.
Think about this for a second. If I give you an XP award, the ONLY time you will see any benefit from it is if that little bit of reward is enough to push you past the threshold for another level at a time when your other party members are lagging behind. After all, if those party members get the reward as well, then the group is going to face more difficult challenges, the mechanical benefit of the level is off set, and you're right back at the same progression a narrative-based level system would put you. So, XP awards only have an impact in those rare circumstances where the bonus XP pushes you a level past your compatriots.
In my experience playing 3.5, I'd say 95% of the level disparity is due to players missing sessions, rather than bonus XP.
So, as a reward, the payoff is illusory. A one-use +2 to hit is going to have a bigger impact than an additonal 100 XP at any level of the game, as that +2 is going to be the difference between a blown daily and victory, while the 100 XP remains just some pencil scratches on a character sheet.
Furthermore, as a DM, I don't have to worry too much about how many awesome points or whatever I hand out: they're disposable. The XP, as stated earlier, sticks around, and if I hand out too much in an uneven distribution, it's going to screw up party dynamics.
I was looking at how much the task of awarding xp has changed across all the editions of D&D. I think it's obvious that 4e has made our job easy, but are we missing something?
In 4e there are 3 ways to earn xp: combat, skill challenges, and quests.
I really do like awarding the player xp for a good ideas and casting rituals to overcome foes or problems. It might encourage players to be a little more active in the game. XP for furthering a priests ethos was also a great idea because it helped encourage the player to be mindful of his faith.
It's kind of funny that in 3e you lost xp for creating magical items but in 2e you gained it.
Remember though, a 'quest' can be almost anything. It is essentially whatever the DM cares to consider a plot element. If you give all the PCs various minor quests on a constant basis you effectively have the '2e' style of XP progression. Even better you can let the players articulate what exactly they consider to be a minor quest goal, and then perhaps put a bit of story emphasis on it with a bit of feedback from NPCs or whatever. Major quests are a bit more universal, but they can work in a similar fashion. As another poster said earlier, I don't think it matters that the XP is split between the party. Everyone gets to share in the reward, but the more each player is willing to do their part the more overall rewards there will be given out. You COULD have a 'freeloader' player, but I really doubt individually specific rewards would change that behavior.
DMG2 does talk about 'RP reward', though it is not along the lines of what 2e or other editions did, you simply give out a straight XP award to the party for every N minutes of role-play. Frankly I don't think it does much except technically create an XP reward mechanism for a group that rarely actually uses the rules. It probably makes as much sense to just advance them at a faster rate when they do have encounters or achieve quests.
You could also consider boons and such as potential rewards for specific PCs. That would make some sense to me and can be worked into most storylines I expect.
There are always 'RP' type rewards that can be given to characters as well. Membership in organizations, support from specific NPCs, information, authority, etc. In a sense those can make the most sense, and can be the most fun. Each PC can remain mechanically equal, but the guy who's willing to really buy into the setting and play his character as a part of the world gets to be a bigger part of the world. You have to be careful not to play favorites and give the other PCs a chance to gain the same kinds of rewards, but that's true of any system.
And, yeah, honestly I've been pretty much ignoring XP in 4e for a while now. It works, and it is a good way to handle things in some groups. OTOH if you have a group where everyone plays the same characters together all the time as a fairly tight-knit team there's not a whole lot of reason to need to do all that tracking.
No scorn. I just don't use it. My post was in response to the statement that if you don't look to XP as a bribe, you are missing out on a powerful tool. I disagree that it's powerful, and I have found more influential ways to influence character outcomes.
Think about this for a second. If I give you an XP award, the ONLY time you will see any benefit from it is if that little bit of reward is enough to push you past the threshold for another level at a time when your other party members are lagging behind. After all, if those party members get the reward as well, then the group is going to face more difficult challenges, the mechanical benefit of the level is off set, and you're right back at the same progression a narrative-based level system would put you. So, XP awards only have an impact in those rare circumstances where the bonus XP pushes you a level past your compatriots.
In my experience playing 3.5, I'd say 95% of the level disparity is due to players missing sessions, rather than bonus XP.
So, as a reward, the payoff is illusory. A one-use +2 to hit is going to have a bigger impact than an additonal 100 XP at any level of the game, as that +2 is going to be the difference between a blown daily and victory, while the 100 XP remains just some pencil scratches on a character sheet.
Furthermore, as a DM, I don't have to worry too much about how many awesome points or whatever I hand out: they're disposable. The XP, as stated earlier, sticks around, and if I hand out too much in an uneven distribution, it's going to screw up party dynamics.
Ah, thank you, that's much more reasonable.
As to your point, I'll start in the middle - personally I don't think that missing sessions in a narrative campaign should probably result in missing XP (at least to some extent). The DMG is probably right about that, at least in my mind. That being said, there are times where missing XP due to missing sessions can make sense - usually in a group with a rotating cast due to size.
That out of the way, I'm not so sure that XP is lacking power as you say. I've never seen players excited for a +1 or +2 to hit now and again, but they're always excited about "what I'm going to take next level". As for the reward only being tangible when players are at disparate levels, yes I agree, but where I disagree is I don't think that means XP has no impact otherwise. If you get 100 XP each time you reach a particular character goal, for instance say it's "looting money" for the rogue and "making pithy remarks" for the bard, and both the rogue and bard loot and make pithy remarks at an equal rate in order to secure XP, the XP is still having an effect - it is causing them both to do a lot of in-character actions to acquire the XP. "Now Reaper", you might say, "surely they would be doing those in-character actions anyway, it is a roleplaying game after all!" As far as I can tell, yes and no. To bring back my analogy of a school, I learn things all the time on my own. I love learning things. I've read whole books about how best to learn things. But I still study differently and more vigorously at school. Why? Because it presents a goal: a diploma, and grade marks.
Now let's take me out of the equation and replace me with Student A. He has an academic rival, Student B - and for some reason a crazed professor is indulging them in their rivalry, and will pay 100 dollars to whichever student gets a better mark than the other. Now, while Students A and B may have tried hard to best each other before simply on the principles of honor, it's turned up to 11 to get the 100 dollar payout. And so they both study their pants off, and both get a straight 100% on their exams. Well, neither student did better than the other, so there is no tangible payout. All they get is their pride at having done a good job, not even of beating their rival. And yet, the reward still had an effect in that it made them work harder.
In other words, even when the reward isn't displayed for the world to see ("I have a new power and you don't, neener neener neener!") the XP is still a reward with the potential to be displayed for the world to see. That potential is enough to elicit certain kinds of good behavior. Now of course at this point you'd likely be thinking "hey wait a minute, my +1 to hit tokens" (or whatever) "are a reward, too, and they're tangibly displayed immediately! Why would they not be more powerful?", which brings me back to where I started - I have never seen a player get terribly excited for having a +1 to hit token, and certainly not like I've seen them be excited to level up. This is precisely because the problem you list with XP, being potentially a game-ending mistake to spread too willy-nilly since it's permanent, is also the reason it is so desirable. It's the reason rituals aren't beloved by players everywhere - they're transient and consumable. Once you use them you're out some money. Better to pay once upfront for something like a sword and keep it forever. Similarly, you "pay once up front" for the XP, then you keep it forever.
The precise reason that +to hit chips are poorer than XP to encourage goal-seeking behavior, and this time not only in my mind but in legitimate psychological studies as well, is because there is no actual end goal of +to hit chips. The ability to throw them around indiscriminately does not help that matter, either, in fact it sabotages them as a reward. Why? Because goal setting is one of the most powerful means of personal motivation, most especially if you commit to it in writing. There is no actual, solid goal of acquiring X +to hit chips per session or per level, that's ambiguous, but there is always the goal of "reaching the next level" in a game with levels. It's implicit to the game, and it's written down in the books a thousand times for anyone to see. XP begins its life as a powerful reward exploiting commitment and consistency principles.
Of course, you can always set a goal for these +to hit chips. Nothing has to happen if you hit it, but the simple fact of having an implicitly understood end goal will make them a lot more effective. Then again, that's design we didn't really need to do - XP already does it for us. No point in reinvention, right?
Anyway I thought that was pretty convincing but you may think otherwise so of course let me know
A bit off topic, by the way, but the kind of XP rewarding that Kev is talking about, that is rewarding roleplaying behavior with XP, also exploits the consistency principle in another way. (No I'm not a psychology major; I did say I like to learn things, right?) If you're just in it for the XP, but to get XP you have to roleplay, that seems bad, right? Like we're bribing the players into doing something they don't want to do? Here's the funny (and useful) part, though: by causing them to roleplay to get the reward, they begin to think of themselves as roleplayers. Where once their roleplaying career stood on only a single, shakey, leg ("I'm in it for the money"), it now stands on many ("roleplaying is fun", "roleplaying creates cool stories", "roleplaying allows me to explore characters I'd never be", etc.) In other words, "bribery" is a way to create roleplayers who think of themselves as roleplayers while they didn't before. Basically it's a way to generate new, good, players of the game.
As an historical example of this sort of indoctrination principle, the Chinese during the Korean War used a similar strategy to subvert American prisoners into informing on unwanted POW behavior - a stark contrast to how it worked in the German camps in WW2 where all those prison wardens got was name, rank, and serial number. Why? Because they started small and built by exploiting rewards, commitment, and consistency. They asked prisoners to say things like "The United States is not perfect", or "In a Communist country, unemployment is not a problem." Once they agreed to these innocuous statements - and who wouldn't? - they were then asked to make further trifling commitments, like writing down the problems the US has - after all, it's "what [they] believe isn't it?" from the first minor concession. Eventually it would come time for a political essay contest among the prisoners - believe me I'm going somewhere with this sit tight - for a small prize, not unlike XP, which often times doesn't really make a tangible difference but for rarely.
The prize was normally given away to a pro-Communist essay, but occasionally to a pro-Capitalism/US essay (to make it seem more like it's a free choice on what to write - if Communism won every time it'd be obvious that it's not your choice to write pro-Communism, but if it wins most of the time it's still the best idea). However, at this point the damage is done - people were freely making the choice to write essays positive to a point of view they originally detested, and now we can return this principle to roleplaying games - while the XP is a small lure, and maybe most of the time it's given out to people acting in their own character's goals, but some of the time handed out to everybody (like for completing a quest), it becomes a choice to pursue the reward by going after the optional goal of roleplaying. Once you do that, you begin to see yourself as a roleplayer - just like once the POWs began to freely choose to write pro-Communist essays they began to collaborate much more closely with their prison wardens to prevent escape attempts. Once they acted like "collaboraters" they began to see themselves as "collaboraters" and filled the role, just like new roleplayers will.
So, similarly, once you convince somebody to see themselves as a roleplayer, the initial reason for doing it begins to fall away and you're left with them just believing they've always been into roleplaying.
Yay psychology!
As to your point, I'll start in the middle - personally I don't think that missing sessions in a narrative campaign should probably result in missing XP (at least to some extent). The DMG is probably right about that, at least in my mind. That being said, there are times where missing XP due to missing sessions can make sense - usually in a group with a rotating cast due to size.
I don't, either. But, that is, in my experience (pun not intended), where experience rewards are most likely to crop up. Those games that do not penalize absence with loss of XP tend not to track XP at all.
That out of the way, I'm not so sure that XP is lacking power as you say. I've never seen players excited for a +1 or +2 to hit now and again, but they're always excited about "what I'm going to take next level".
Ah, but have you seen the satisfaction they get when they lay down that +2 to hit bonus on that monster that's been causing them grief for the last four rounds and just knocked out one of their allies? I've heard people tell stories about those things. I haven't heard anyone tell a story about how they marked an extra 25XP on a character sheet.
If you get 100 XP each time you reach a particular character goal, for instance say it's "looting money" for the rogue and "making pithy remarks" for the bard, and both the rogue and bard loot and make pithy remarks at an equal rate in order to secure XP, the XP is still having an effect - it is causing them both to do a lot of in-character actions to acquire the XP. "Now Reaper", you might say, "surely they would be doing those in-character actions anyway, it is a roleplaying game after all!"
Actually, I'm more prone to say that the DM should not be encouraging them to engage in a specific act of roleplay. The characters belong to the players, not the DM, and as such, the DM shouldn't be doling out rewards based on how the DM thinks the character should be played.
As far as I can tell, yes and no. To bring back my analogy of a school, I learn things all the time on my own. I love learning things. I've read whole books about how best to learn things. But I still study differently and more vigorously at school. Why? Because it presents a goal: a diploma, and grade marks.
I agree. And +2 tokens aren't going to do that. Story, however, does. You work harder because the story gets better the more you work at it.
That's why I don't use XP rewards. I can dole out little cookies with non-game breaking tokens, and I can cover the meta aspect through the development of the campaign itself. There is no reward niche that I need XP to fill.
If you want to replace the standard XP method of 4e with something like earlier editions, while keeping the even progression that 4e relies upon, simply give all XP earned to all PC regardless of which PC specifically engineered the source of that XP gain. What is good for the PC is good for the group, and what is good for the group is good for the PC. It's all an arbitrary abstract construct anyway.
Ah, but have you seen the satisfaction they get when they lay down that +2 to hit bonus on that monster that's been causing them grief for the last four rounds and just knocked out one of their allies? I've heard people tell stories about those things. I haven't heard anyone tell a story about how they marked an extra 25XP on a character sheet.
Point taken, although having a level on everyone can lead to just as many stories about using your cool new power. Honestly I hear more stories about rolling nat 20s or nat 1s than hitting or missing anyway. Of course this entire argument is based on anecdotal evidence from the two of us, so...
Actually, I'm more prone to say that the DM should not be encouraging them to engage in a specific act of roleplay. The characters belong to the players, not the DM, and as such, the DM shouldn't be doling out rewards based on how the DM thinks the character should be played.
Then I will point you back to a previous post I made in this thread -
To lift an idea from Spirit of the Century, you could copy the idea of Aspects. Each player has ten facets that define their character, and when you play to those aspects you receive bonuses to your actions, and in order to recharge the bonuses you can spend on your actions the GM can compel an aspect in a negative way - you may want to do X, but according to your aspect your character would want to do Y, for going along with that good roleplaying here's a reward. Just replace fate points (the disposable/rechargeable bonus resource) with XP and all of a sudden now you've got goals defined by your players that they would like to be rewarded XP for achieving in addition to the "normal XP stuff". I think that would be a good way to define who gets XP for what.
which would address your problem of the DM designing the goals quite handily, I think, since now the players are designing their own goals. I also like the original implementation of aspects in the system I suggest lifting them from in that the players can use them to their advantage, while the DM can use them to enforce interesting (and good) roleplaying by offering a reward to the player if they acquiesce to the request. That way both the DM and the players are having fun with a roleplaying reward mechanic and not just one side or the other.
I agree. And +2 tokens aren't going to do that. Story, however, does. You work harder because the story gets better the more you work at it.
Not really how the analogy works and obviously I definitely disagree with your notion that story is as effective a lure by itself as is something like XP on top of a story. If getting a good story is like getting a good education, people will work X hard at learning things just to learn them because learning is a fun activity, but if they get a diploma and grades they'll work X+1 hard at learning because they have solid, goal oriented "play" rather than the ambiguous task of "learning things" ahead of them. Human psychology is structured to be committed to a written goal based system and that's just how it goes whether we like it or not. Have you ever had players drifting about listlessly before suddenly attaching for dear life on to some random NPC or an idea like buying the town's tavern that had nothing to do with anything? That's them forming goal based play because they feel that their goals are ambiguous or not to their liking. And even if you're so lucky as to never have had it happen, I know it's a "thing" not only because I've experienced it, but because of the absolute deluge of content you'll find if you cursorily search for "players derail campaign". XP, on the other hand, is a very transparent goal and becoming more powerful is very rarely not to anyone's liking.
As to XP breaking the game, I don't even really think it's a problem at all, any more than any reward system can break the game. Can you give away way too much XP and break the game? Sure. Can you give away way too many +to hits and break the game? Sure. Can you give away way too much magic treasure and break the game? Definitely; in fact, we have a name for that last one: a monty haul campaign. XP may be more permanent on one hand, but on the other hand your villain won't effectively have -2 to all defenses after a long adventuring day of handing out +to hit tokens. And fixing problems with XP? Just change how you reward XP, bam. Exactly the same as you would change how you hand out tokens or treasure. Additionally, and this may not necessarily be your experience, but I find that when I hand out bonuses like tokens that my players rarely even remember they have them. I might as well be handing out tuna sandwiches for them to eat instead, at least they'd get used!
Then I will point you back to a previous post I made in this thread -To lift an idea from Spirit of the Century, you could copy the idea of Aspects. Each player has ten facets that define their character, and when you play to those aspects you receive bonuses to your actions, and in order to recharge the bonuses you can spend on your actions the GM can compel an aspect in a negative way - you may want to do X, but according to your aspect your character would want to do Y, for going along with that good roleplaying here's a reward. Just replace fate points (the disposable/rechargeable bonus resource) with XP and all of a sudden now you've got goals defined by your players that they would like to be rewarded XP for achieving in addition to the "normal XP stuff". I think that would be a good way to define who gets XP for what.
which would address your problem of the DM designing the goals quite handily, I think, since now the players are designing their own goals. I also like the original implementation of aspects in the system I suggest lifting them from in that the players can use them to their advantage, while the DM can use them to enforce interesting (and good) roleplaying by offering a reward to the player if they acquiesce to the request. That way both the DM and the players are having fun with a roleplaying reward mechanic and not just one side or the other.
Except, that system hinders character growth. You thought your character wanted X. Your character thought he wanted X. As you play, you realize that your character never really wanted X, but wants Y. But, you've now got a DM telling you your character still wants X.
True, you could talk to the DM about this change, but the fact is, you already did that back when you thought your character wanted A and B. Is asking for a third change pushing it?
No, if I'm going to give roleplay rewards, they will be rewards that relate to that type of roleplaying. I assume my players go out of their way to do things because they find those activities fun.
And I've never reached a point where the number of +2s became a problem, even durring a phase where I gave them out like candy. Yes, some players will forget that they have them. Then I remind them and their eyes light up.
As for treasure, well, as I stated, the players get that no matter what, so it's not a reward.
I think it's obvious that 4e has made our job easy, but are we missing something?
In each edition, D&D seems to be moving away from XP as a reward. Which is probably fine since XP could be cumbersome, subjective and often wasn't a driving factor for players anyhow.
However, I agree that declaring rewards for certain behavior can have an overall effect (whether any given player cares about the reward or not). Merely stating that there are rewards for say, Clever Ideas can cause a game to be viewed as Clever Idea-centric and gives players license present clever ideas (without fear that their peers will be adverse to such concepts... since it it written into the rules).
Unfortunately, the 4e mechanics causes the game to be viewed more as combat/board-game/optimization-centric, with Clever Ideas being avoided (since they can wreck the carefully crafted "board-game" combat setup, or else it's negated by the DM for that exact reason). And yes ('cuz you were about to say it) the game certainly can be played otherwise... but my premise was "rewards for certain behavior can have an overall effect"... and this has indeed happened in how the majority of people play 4e.
As for treasure, well, as I stated, the players get that no matter what, so it's not a reward.
Yeah... I hate that. I try to play old-school (even though I'm using LFR adventures):
1) You have to search for the treasure if you want to find it
2) you'll find what's there (and not what you asked Santa for), and
3) you'll like it, 'cuz
4) I'm not going to babysit you to make sure everyone has enough gear.
Yeah... I hate that. I try to play old-school (even though I'm using LFR adventures):
1) You have to search for the treasure if you want to find it
2) you'll find what's there (and not what you asked Santa for), and
3) you'll like it, 'cuz
4) I'm not going to babysit you to make sure everyone has enough gear.
#3 is what made me stop doing #1 in old school games. If I can't convert the fourteenth +1 longsword we found in this dungeon into something worth using, I'm going to leave it in the godsforsaken pit I found it.
And I was never big on #1 to begin with, and steered away from campaigns where "find a new piece of armor" occupied the same or brighter spotlight as "save the town from the evil necromancer." Too boring.
I can do #2 all day in 4e without a problem. The players just break it down into residuum if they don't like it. But #3? No.
The players just break it down into residuum if they don't like it.
That's why I can get away with #4 (fwiw: #3 is merely a joke that mocks my own use of #2)
(fwiw: #3 is merely a joke that mocks my own use of #2)
That's good to know. But, there are a lot of DMs that actually do/did think that way.
Except, that system hinders character growth. You thought your character wanted X. Your character thought he wanted X. As you play, you realize that your character never really wanted X, but wants Y. But, you've now got a DM telling you your character still wants X.
Or you change it over time, just like in the parent system. That doesn't inhibit character growth at all.
True, you could talk to the DM about this change, but the fact is, you already did that back when you thought your character wanted A and B. Is asking for a third change pushing it?
Absolutely not pushing it? Characters evolve over time, I don't see how this would be a problem.
No, if I'm going to give roleplay rewards, they will be rewards that relate to that type of roleplaying.
Uh, I don't exactly follow what this means and I can't respond to the rest of your point without that understanding. Can you elaborate/restate this?
I think it's obvious that 4e has made our job easy, but are we missing something?
In each edition, D&D seems to be moving away from XP as a reward. Which is probably fine since XP could be cumbersome, subjective and often wasn't a driving factor for players anyhow.
However, I agree that declaring rewards for certain behavior can have an overall effect (whether any given player cares about the reward or not). Merely stating that there are rewards for say, Clever Ideas can cause a game to be viewed as Clever Idea-centric and gives players license present clever ideas (without fear that their peers will be adverse to such concepts... since it it written into the rules).
Unfortunately, the 4e mechanics causes the game to be viewed more as combat/board-game/optimization-centric, with Clever Ideas being avoided (since they can wreck the carefully crafted "board-game" combat setup, or else it's negated by the DM for that exact reason). And yes ('cuz you were about to say it) the game certainly can be played otherwise... but my premise was "rewards for certain behavior can have an overall effect"... and this has indeed happened in how the majority of people play 4e.As for treasure, well, as I stated, the players get that no matter what, so it's not a reward.
Yeah... I hate that. I try to play old-school (even though I'm using LFR adventures):
1) You have to search for the treasure if you want to find it
2) you'll find what's there (and not what you asked Santa for), and
3) you'll like it, 'cuz
4) I'm not going to babysit you to make sure everyone has enough gear.
I also use number 2. It helps that none of my players make wish lists so that is really my only option though. When we started they were all brand new (the couple we play with) or barely interested players (my wife). None really had much interest in reading the PHB before we started so I had to explain the rules. As we got further into the game one of the players started really getting into looking at her skills and rituals. Now she looks at the PHB a lot. My wife got into the game and asked me to play a second game with her brother and his family. I told her I would play as a player, but I did not want to DM another campaign. She agreed to DM it which made her read the books. She is more into D&D than ever now and her campaign hasn't even started yet.
I do try to give out items I think they will find cool or help each player get a chance to shine for a while. I noticed one player wasn't really shining much and we had a lot of cold creatures coming up in the story arch, so naturally +2 flaming waraxe for him would allow him to take a lead through those encounters.