Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 jake22007 Jul 10, 2008 14:52:25	I have been playing D&D for some time now. We have a player who often also Dm's and is not a bad DM, however it seems that when he is either DM or a player and when the group reaches say level 6 or near to that he gets bored with the system and always manages to pursuade everyone to change system and start of at 1st level again. This is starting to annoy me quite a bit. We went from 1st edition to third edition back to 1st edition then to edition 3.5 then 2nd edition. Thankfully now again we are playing 4th edition, but he is DM'ing and I kept my fingers crossed we would stick with that till our characters were nice and high level. Now however he's just dropped a bombshell and proclaimed that in his campaign no-one would get any XP and he would decide when the characters should go up level, so it would fit better with his campaign. Granted that does not destroy roleplay, but for me it puts a downer on the gameplay and a lot of the satisfaction of playing. The others in the group seem about to go along with that. I could just quit but they all play at my house and I don't want to let others down. Help !!!! what do you guys suggest?
#2 malkav666 Jul 10, 2008 14:54:00	Tell him no (event hough admittedly I dont award experience points in my games either, I just level the group up whenever it seems appropirate) love, malkav
#3 manion Jul 10, 2008 14:54:51	I suggest you talk to the other players about this. It sounds like this one guy has an excess of control over the group. I'd be surprised if others didn't share some aspect of your feelings.
#4 ilvarin Jul 10, 2008 15:12:52	Where does your state stand on the subject of ritual castration? Failing that, point him to page 32 of the DMG: Problem Players, specifically the sections on Out-of-Control Players and Prima Donna Players. Just make sure (in a respectful way if this guy is your friend) that he is the out of control prima donna. IMO, the character is all the player has in the game world and if they jump through all the flaming hoops I am going to throw at them, then they have earned their rewards. The DM should control rate of advance through XP economy, not by setting himself up as the final arbiter of your worth in his game. Good luck with it and I sincerely hope my thoughts weren't offensive.
#5 fodigg Jul 10, 2008 15:21:04	Time to DM yo-self.
#6 matthew77 Jul 10, 2008 15:39:33	Now however he's just dropped a bombshell and proclaimed that in his campaign no-one would get any XP and he would decide when the characters should go up level, so it would fit better with his campaign. Meh, this is pretty much how I've handled exp for the last decade or so. Its been a long time since I actually calculated exp awards by the rules guidelines. It sounds like this person has issues with getting along and being cooperative in general, which is a different matter entirely, but the "level up when it feels right" instead of "track every exp point by the rules" change isn't automatically a bad thing, IMO.
#7 Skrittiblak Jul 10, 2008 15:59:38	I must confess, this is also how I handle Experience. I plot out a certain number of encounters in an Arc and then I level up everyone when I reach the end of that Story Arc. This allows me to prepare adventures well in advance because I know what level the characters will be when they get there.
#8 _jayne_cobb_ Jul 10, 2008 16:11:14	Just say no. The DM does not dictate what edition the group uses, or particularly changes to - the group as a whole does. If the DM refuses to allow a game to progress past a certain point, or refuses to run a particular edition, then have someone else DM.
#9 AaronOfBarbaria Jul 10, 2008 16:12:16	1) This isn't a inherently bad change. He could be saying "I don't want to have to stop running the game for even the brief moment it takes to tell you what an encounter was worth in XP" or he could be saying "I don't like the progression speed of the game and don't care what your opinions are about it" 2) since having your character get better at things is part of the fun of playing the game, keep a tally of how many encounters you go through. When the tally hits 10 or so, start asking if you have leveled up yet. If you face 10 encounters of the same level as you are, that is enough XP for a level... it could take more or less encounters if you fight tougher or easier encounters. 3) If you can't stand not knowing how much XP your character has, or if it seems like he is changing the speed of level gaining too much, let him know that you don't like it that way. State your opinion respectfully, and don't try to get the rest of the group in the middle of it. "Hey dm, I'd be having more fun if you were telling us how much experience we are gaining." If you are willing to have a different leveling speed, let him know that and encourage him to trim some of the xp numbers he hands out if he wants slower or hand out a few extra points if he wants more.
#10 pariator Jul 10, 2008 17:47:31	Up until 4e, this is similar to how I handled XP. I found it to be too much of a PITA to do it in previous editions via the RAW... 4e makes it ridiculously easy to plot out the advancement of my party and to create interested and challenging adventures at the same time. As long as he doesn't make you go like 6 sessions between level 1 and 2, you should be fine. Unless you don't mind slower advancement, then all is gravy. So in short... if you don't like it to the point of considering to quit... talk to him about it. If he persists, offer to DM or suggest that he looks over the rules for awarding XP in 4e and see if he'll compromise and at least give you some method of XP tracking.
#11 tomicat Jul 10, 2008 17:57:44	I have never done it that way in all my years of playing Ds....keeping track of your PC's XP is a pile of fun to me...now as a DM I have done the Xp after each encounter, after each session, and after each adventure, but I have always given XP. But you should at least try it first, and that talk to the group about it after a few sessions. Maybe you'll like it...maybe the group as a whole will tell him it is crap and he should use a method more to the groups liking. If he is a problem DM to you then I also suggest that maybe you should don the DM cap and try it out for a while.
#12 Rogue_Elendae Jul 10, 2008 18:01:18	So, is this because he doesn't like to have to concern himself with leveling up mid-session, or is this just an "I don't want to number-crunch," or an "I want you to level up when I decide"? Because I don't really know what to tell you with regard to the second or third, because that just sounds like he's either not wanting to put in effort or wants to have control of the characters to keep them constrained to how he wants the story to flow. But that's just my view of it, and doesn't do me much good as I don't know your DM. As to the first, why not suggest that he hold on to the experience points to the end of a session, rather than handing them out per-encounter, if that's the reason? If it's players who hit level-up at the middle of a session, and therefore have to adjust, add new spells/powers/abilities to the list, etc., then don't give out the XP in the middle of the session. Our group (even in playing 3.5; this isn't just a 4E change) never gives out experience until the end of the session, which is part of what makes it special--we find out not only what we earn by fighting the monsters, but also whether or not we completed a part of the adventure that was a major marker/milestone, whatever else might be important (ie; bonus for how we handled a situation via roleplaying instead of combat or other means, etc.), and occasionally a bonus to the player who did the most creative thing/roleplayed the most intriguingly, etc. (aka the MVP award)...it's the sum total of what happened, rather than "You did this at this time, you get these points right now" in Final Fantasy fashion. Not saying this idea will fly, but it might be an alternative.
#13 wishthink Jul 10, 2008 18:05:54	Not really a big deal unless he makes it one. For example you need 1000 xp to get to level two, he throws four encounters at you. Those encounters are 250 each. After the four encounters he says "you have leveled up". As long as he doesn't make it something along the lines of "10 encounters later you get a level". Infact i'd most likely prefer it this way. The DM determines the encounters you will have, so he must likely has already added up the experience. When you actually WOULD level up, he will most likely have you level up. So instead of you having to keep up with it, adding all the encounters together, bugging the DM for the number, having him look it up etc. He just goes "when you reach this point - you level". It also prevents people trying to get exp when they don't need/deserve it. IE going out on there own, or "roleplaying"[which i find just over dramatic in a lot of cases] and so on. Do you want to look at your sheet going "well i need 280 exp.. i wonder if this fight will level us" or do you prefer "ok you are level 2". Calculating, changing, bugging to get the numbers - or just wait for him to say when you do. As long as he keeps it straight that is.
#14 alphasquirell Jul 10, 2008 18:32:16	That's what I do, Wishthink. I'll plan it out in advance, and instead of counting XP for every encounter, I just know after which encounter they should level. For the most part, our campaigns are dungeon-crawlers. (2 notes: there's extra XP here and there for non-combat stuff, but it's never right then that you level, so I can count it in to the mix later; 2nd note, we have had outdoor dungeon crawlers, it's not like we spend all our time in a dank and dark cave) If they do something worthy of ad-hoc experience, I count that in by removing one monster later. They get the same experience in the end. (now, they don't know this, so it's not like they are role-playing to make encounters easier, that's just the tangible reward they get, whether they know it or not; thank goodness my players don't visit these forums...) Of course, I'm bound to reward ad-hoc stuff more along the lines of treasure and money than XP. It's easier to not mess up my equation. And for the most part, my party hasn't ever done a complete 180 and missed an important chunk of XP. (they are gamers, and all it takes are the right couple of plot hooks, and they manage to get everything done THEY want to do while still taking the bait, hook line and sinker) As to the original issue. I don't think it's a problem unless he draws it out too bad. The general measure is 10 encounters to level. (a 500 xp encounter only nets a 5-man party 100xp each, so with that as the basemark, including a few higher and lower xp encounters, 10 encounters levels you; higher levels are just higher-xp encounters, but still about 10 to level) Depending on session length, this could take forever. If it gets TOO drawn out, try to get a hint. If he says "you're a long way to level" or "you're halfway to level", do what he does. Get the group to switch editions or start a new campaign. If HE complains, point out that's what he does. If you can do that in a not overly rude way, it should bring to light his problems, and help make everyone happier. Just a thought, any chance you can get him to start a campaign at say, 5th level? Maybe it will take him just as long to get bored, but you can move on to new stuff, of a higher level, at least.
#15 snipafist Jul 10, 2008 18:49:35	Well, let's separate out the concerns and go from there. Your DM sounds as though (s)he is either a control freak, scatterbrained, or both. How (s)he manages to keep his/her players (god I hate English's lack of a gender-indefinite third-person word) from deserting in droves is beyond me. Any good roleplaying campaign requires a large degree of input from your players and constantly tipping over the table and saying "whoops, time to do this over again because I didn't like it!" does not encourage people to invest in the D&D experience at all. Not giving players XP but just deciding when they level is not on the same level in most cases, however. I've seen this method used to good effect. It has its upsides and downsides though. Pros Players don't count their XP like misers, eagerly anticipating encounters or even worse, CREATING encounters just to level (everyone get that peasant! I'm 10 XP from levelling!) Players that invent creative ways to circumvent danger will still get the XP for the encounters they avoided, which I feel is fair. It also means that there is no arguing about whether or not doing *insert action here* qualifies for "defeating" said encounter rather than just avoiding it. My personal feeling is that if the players are aware of a threat and they find some way to circumvent it without resorting to potentially fatal combat, they should get the XP, no arguing. In my experience, this encourages more role playing and thinking outside the box. Cons Your DM can use this method to artificially hold your party back. Some DMs seem to delight in running games that take forever to level up in, which is very frustrating. One of the appeals of D&D is that each session should reward you with something new, whether it's an item, a significant plot twist, a new level, etc. Your DM can use this method to reward players for not being team players. If some members of your party decide to pursue a high-risk high-reward scenario and win out while others sit on the sidelines and are not willing to take the risk, then it kinda defeats the purpose if the cowards level at the same time that the bold and stupid level. So I guess I'd say that if you have confidence that your DM can run an even-handed and fair game that considers the players' wants and needs, then the "you gain a level when I say so" system can work out quite well. However, I feel you are justified in believing that your DM does not have the character traits necessary to pull this off successfully. Best of luck to you.
#16 thecapn Jul 10, 2008 21:59:33	your DM sounds a bit like me. I get bored with high level play, as I feel it takes some of the wonder and excitement out of the game. When you become as strange and powerful as the fantastic things you're fighting it just turns in to a muscle-flexing contest. Often, once I get bored I'll hand the reins over to another person who can choose to either take over the story, or start a new game of their own. I feel that as a DM if I force myself to continue the campaign past my own level of interest, the game as a whole will suffer. The storyline will become boring. Encounters will become routine, and so forth. I've done the "you level up when I say you level up" method on a few games, but none of them using D&D. When you play D&D its a big part of the game to be getting XP. I usually wait until the end of the game session to award it. So if your DM wants to control the speed of level progression, he can just award an arbitrary amount to everyone at the end of the game, that fits his idea of progression. That should please most players, as they are getting something for their efforts, but will still **** of the people who need to know exactly how much xp they are getting for everything they do. What I'm trying to do for my first 4e campaign is work with the 10-encounters-per-level method. By giving myself a 10 encounter framework, I can decide on the pace of the storyline and levelling up myself. I've told my players that there will be 10 storyline based encounters that will net them the XP needed to level up. Anything else they choose to do (or I randomly decide to drop on them) won't give them XP, but they might still get money/items out of it. It basically means they don't get XP from "grinding" and are encouraged to follow the storyline instead of avoid it. I have a pretty sandboxey style of DM'ing. Stick em in a world, let them do what they want, but give them an obvious storyline they should be getting involved in. Whenever they get bored doing what their doing, they can move on to the next part of the story, and they don't end up being overpowered for what I have prepared just because they decided to run around exploring the wilderness, beating up fluffy animals for 3 sessions. I would suggest your DM use the same framework as well. If he has a clear goal (10 encounters per level. ~5 combat. ~5 non combat) to work towards when writing his campaign it might inspire him to space things out, fill in gaps and generally balance his game so there is a nice level of progression vs storyline.
#17 vaeliorin Jul 10, 2008 22:23:38	I've run a campaign where I didn't give out xp, I just told the party when they'd leveled, and it worked fine for my group. Part of the reason I did it was because I hated having to sit there and look up the stupid 3.X chart every time an encounter or session was over, and part of the reason I did it is because I don't really like the speed of leveling from 3.X on. I'm of the mind that the early level can go by fairly quickly, but as you get higher level it should take longer to level, and obviously this isn't the way xp worked in 3.X or 4E (and coincidentally, the whole "10 encounters to level" is the one thing that I'd like to black out in all of my players PHBs. I wish they hadn't put that in there. It's not something the players need to know.) Anyway, as with pretty much all situations like this, the appropriate thing to do is sit down and talk together as a group about how you feel about this, and come to some sort of a consensus. Oh, and as far as the constantly restarting campaigns...that would drive me crazy too. I don't think I could stand playing under a DM who did that. So I'd suggest either sitting out his campaigns and playing when someone else DMs or, again, talking it over and letting him know how frustrating/annoying it is.
#18 eluxis Jul 10, 2008 22:54:43	I have been playing D&D for some time now. We have a player who often also Dm's and is not a bad DM, however it seems that when he is either DM or a player and when the group reaches say level 6 or near to that he gets bored with the system and always manages to pursuade everyone to change system and start of at 1st level again. This is starting to annoy me quite a bit. We went from 1st edition to third edition back to 1st edition then to edition 3.5 then 2nd edition. Thankfully now again we are playing 4th edition, but he is DM'ing and I kept my fingers crossed we would stick with that till our characters were nice and high level. Now however he's just dropped a bombshell and proclaimed that in his campaign no-one would get any XP and he would decide when the characters should go up level, so it would fit better with his campaign. Granted that does not destroy roleplay, but for me it puts a downer on the gameplay and a lot of the satisfaction of playing. The others in the group seem about to go along with that. I could just quit but they all play at my house and I don't want to let others down. Help !!!! what do you guys suggest? I'd say wait and see. Seriously. I've DM'd without XP a few times and played in games without XP a few times and I can honestly say that every time, the players usually end up leveling at about the same time or sooner than they would have if we had been tracking XP. Don't make it an issue if it really isn't going to be one. But if you do play and find he's being skimpy with the levels, then get together with the other players and MUTINY!
#19 Ramble Jul 11, 2008 0:47:59	Another vote here for wait and see. It sounds like he is the type of GM who likes the Farmboy style of build up heroes rather than established heroic powered figures. In 4e those levels are actually taken out to make 1-30 to be the sweet spot of previous editions with 5-13. If your DM doesn't like that feel, 4e might not be his cup of tea, or hopefully it will make him examine to at least 10 level before giving up. After that, I would let him run his game his way. As much as players are important, a good dm is a treasure to be nurtured. You don't tell him how to run the show, you may tell him what you'd prefer but he does more work and puts more effort in for your enjoyment. That deserves a little respect.
#20 nehallenia Jul 11, 2008 1:57:50	I second the wait and see. There are a lot of DMs, me included, that do not give XP according to the ruling system. We should not forget that the rulebooks are a guideline, but ultimately it's the DM's world: if he wants to either make it harder on you, or make sure that they way your characters are "growing" follows the major events and story archs, it's his choice. Wait and see how it goes. If you continue to have a problem with it however, talk with the other players about it and tell your DM that it's really bothering you and making the game less fun. I'm sure that you'll be able to come to a compromise.
#21 aldaron Jul 11, 2008 2:36:21	I'm not sure about the multiple reset problem, but as far as the "no xp" variant, I'm with the "wait-and-see" group. I've mixed and matched this idea with the more traditional XP approach for many years (mainly with Star Wars, actually, because the SWRPG has never had good XP guidelines), and it's worked a treat when I'm running a long-view campaign with specific story-points in mind. It's not as good for "beat up the monsters for XP" type campaigns, but works well if the DM has a long-range story, with a start, middle and end (which 4ed is tailor-made for, what with the three tiers of character advancement).
#22 yesterdays_fate Jul 11, 2008 2:59:46	I'm going to give another "wait-and-see". However, that being said. Don't wait an arbitarily long amount of time. If, say, you notice after "10 encounters" (personally I'd go by the general feel of the encounters- i.e. how hard they are) and/or the number of sessions you go through before leveling. If you're beginning to notice it seems rather rediculous: Say you've gone three to five sessions without leveling, and/or you've constantly been downing groups of mosnters that push you to your limits (including monsters that you know by their power level should be 'boss'-type solo-monsters or the like) and you still haven't leveled, I'd say bring it up to the DM and the party. If this happens and you ask your DM about gaining a level and he just says "No, you haven't gained a level yet." "Why not?" "Because I don't want you to yet." Well, I'd say bring it up to your DM that you're not enjoying the game being that way and ask him if he may consider running it another way (and also see if the other players feel the same way or not.) In the end though, all things aside, it should always come down to what I think is known as "Rule 0" (and this doesn't just apply to D&D) "If you're not enjoying the game, then why are you playing?"
#23 drmorganes Jul 11, 2008 7:11:34	Admittedly, he's being a bit heavy-handed about this... however, XP awards happen at the discretion of the DM. I have always done something similar in my games. I know how much XP a given encounter is worth - the player's don't. When there's a logical break in the action, I award XP. What your DM is describing is essentially the same thing, except that he's only going to tell you when you've accumulated enough XP to level. Assuming that he is, in fact, keeping track of XP... However, if you really, truly can't abide by this sudden break from your typical process - tell him. Nicely, politely, but let him know. Decide before you bring it up if this new turn of events is a deal-breaker. If it's not, simply state your view and let it lie. If it is, now you have to decide - before you bring it up - what you're willing to do if he refuses to change his mind.
#24 stormbrand Jul 11, 2008 7:29:57	On the whole "wait and see" angle, I think previous experience has already covered that. I once had a DM who insisted on keeping the characters low-powered, purely because it made the game easier for him by having things be consistently more powerful than the PCs. Of course, when we were stuck at levels 8-10 for over a year while he kept having uber-master NPCs with wierd and wonderful powers, it got old fast. Higher level games are different to lower level games, because so many obstacles can be circumvented. Find someone else willing to run a higher level game - perhaps even a continuation of a previous game which was abandoned.
#25 inlicere Jul 11, 2008 8:24:34	Now however he's just dropped a bombshell and proclaimed that in his campaign no-one would get any XP and he would decide when the characters should go up level, so it would fit better with his campaign. Granted that does not destroy roleplay, but for me it puts a downer on the gameplay and a lot of the satisfaction of playing. The others in the group seem about to go along with that. Help !!!! what do you guys suggest? Here's an alternative you could suggest -- I started this in one campaign as an experiment, and the players really liked it: Suggest that the characters advance one level every three play sessions (three is an example number; pick whatever sounds right for your group). That way, the DM doesn't have to worry about tracking XP, but the characters still get regular advancement. The players like it because it gives them an idea of what to expect.
#26 captfisher Jul 13, 2008 0:31:41	I'm going to say the same thing..wait and see the group i game with had three diffrent DMs doing diffrent things on diffrent nights. When the group of us got together one of the things we all three complaned about, was characters going up levels to quickly. I would have this great idea for a 5th or so level party, they would go on a character driven side quest, which i think is a lot of fun, and by the time they were ready for the main plot, they were 7th level or so. (Dms rule #1, nothing screws up a game like players), and this would throw off all my plans for the campaign. So we started a level up at "DMs discretion" and it has worked out great, we never have that moment of being to powerful for the encounter. Sometimes its more than 10 encounters...in one game we spent a long time at level 7, and then almost missed 8 on our way to 9. That being said...your dm does seem to have some control issues
#27 shinkirou Jul 13, 2008 0:40:57	I'd say ask the other players what they think about it. Do they want to get exp? Are they getting annoyed with the constant resets? If so, bring it up with the DM. If it really gets to be a problem with you to the point where it stops being fun, just quit.
#28 Ramble Jul 13, 2008 1:31:36	If so, bring it up with the DM. If it really gets to be a problem with you to the point where it stops being fun, just quit. IMO if you are the type to quit on a friend over a minor issue as this you arn't much of a friend. Player walk out taints a game as much as insulting the DM to his face. If it comes to this get off your ass and DM yourself and show that DM how it can be fun to go to these areas.
#29 shinkirou Jul 13, 2008 8:11:21	IMO if you are the type to quit on a friend over a minor issue as this you arn't much of a friend. Player walk out taints a game as much as insulting the DM to his face. If it comes to this get off your ass and DM yourself and show that DM how it can be fun to go to these areas. If you're not having fun I dont see a reason to keep playing. You and your friend can find anything to play together (console games for one), but if you're sitting there annoyed to death with the way things are going I'd advise to either bring it up with the DM or quit playing. I'm not going to sit down and play a game that I hate just because my friend likes it. Me and my friends understand that we just dont like some of the things the other does and are fine with that, and wont try to force it on the other.
#30 Ramble Jul 13, 2008 19:48:05	I've walked away from games that have been at odds, either too many players with some dominants leaving them in the shadows of the action or even when the DM fudged rules to bait and screw over players, but this isn't even a flavour and style issue, it is a rules mechanic that promotes metagaming in many players. Quitting should be the last resort. Unless you make the effort to help make the game better first then it is insulting your friend who has put a lot more effort into the game to try and entertain you by virtue of being the DM.
#31 shinkirou Jul 13, 2008 21:13:05	I've walked away from games that have been at odds, either too many players with some dominants leaving them in the shadows of the action or even when the DM fudged rules to bait and screw over players, but this isn't even a flavour and style issue, it is a rules mechanic that promotes metagaming in many players. Quitting should be the last resort. Unless you make the effort to help make the game better first then it is insulting your friend who has put a lot more effort into the game to try and entertain you by virtue of being the DM. That's why I mentioned talking to the DM first. If you can't work out an agreement, and it gets to the point where it's no longer fun, walk out.
#32 etarnon Jul 13, 2008 21:55:24	I've experienced games like this, and didn't have a problem with it, if the story was good. I'm not gonna guess the guy's motivations. As for myself, in my currently running Spycraft 2.0 game we do 3 to 5 adventures per level. I don't keep track of every single 25 XP here and there. If they need three thousand to level, they get 1000 per adventure. 1500 if they did well. After three adventures, or so, they level. No big deal. Back in the day starting out 30 years ago, i used to keep detailed lists of 8 XP for this rat, 75 XP for that goblin. Nowadays, I can't be bothered with that crap, since the goal is three to five adventures per level, so be it. I run it, and they level. Some players might feel like "Well then it doesn't matter what we do we get XP regardless." That might be true to a point. But it's also true of the 8 XP per rat deal also. Kill a rat, a few goblins, a troll, whatever, In the end, characters get gear, levels, and power. As to the game switching... If you don't like it, and you are hosting, stop hosting. Tell the DM you want to have some continuity, and play a high level character. If he disagrees, let him know you are leaving the group. Or, decide you don't care, and have fun with a new character. In the last two years, (under various DMs from the group, or as a player, I've DMed / Played Buffy The Vampire Slayer, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Conspiracy X 2.0, D&D 3.5, Last Unicorn Star Trek, D&D 1e, OD&D Red Box, Hackmaster, 7th Sea (once as a player in a mini campaign, once running 3 linked sessions), and Spycraft 2.0. I'd prefer it to stay the same game. But I 'd rather hang out with the group I have, than leave, and we eventually get back to games, sometimes. I like my friends, they are good guys. Finding friends you can trust is really really hard, especially when you get up into middle age years. That's been my experience. Good luck.