I've decided I don't like the XP system. Mostly because it only rewards the "kill things and take their stuff" mode of play, because role-playing awards are tacked-on, and because heavy use of the same rapidly unbalances the game.
So, here's the system I'm now advocating (lifted almost wholesale from Star Wars):
Each session, award a number of XP equal to 1,000 times the average party level. Divide this total between the surviving PCs, as always.
And that's it. This means, of course, that an average group will take an average of 4 sessions to go up, regardless of level. Bigger groups go up more slowly, and smaller ones more quickly. You can, of course, tune the numbers to suit yourself.
Comments?
Archived comment by Mort:
ReplyDeleteI've never liked the way D&D handled experience. As you say it definately supports the whole kill - loot - repeat playing style. Star Wars is indeed a more sensible approach. However, assigning a fixed amount decided beforehand is IMHO wrong. It basically means the players will have to fight each other for the xp, as there is just a certain amount to go around. But if the GM is flexible and adds (or subtracts) points depending on how the players solved the problems encountered, then I think it is a decent xp system.
Now one system which has got an interesting idea for xp assignment is Rolemaster. (Yeah yeah, here he goes again, I can hear you moaning.) Rolemaster basically gives you xp for doing stuff. Most things you do gives you a certain amount of xp. Climbing a rope for the first time, good, have some xp. You also get xp for things like traveling, studying, casting spells and of course killing things. In the basic setup the guy who gets the killing blow gets all the xp, not the best solution, so we always used to split the amount between whoever fought the monster, with a little bonus for the guy who killed it. You even get xp for getting hurt, but that's one of the things I'd rather remove, as it gets a bit silly.
But the system is good, because you basically never have to kill a single thing to go up a level, you can spent the time traveling around and studying books or whatever. It also allows the GM to assign xp for certain things in an adventure, this will provide a carrot for the players to actively do stuff. Fist guy on that hill gets 100xp, the person who solves this puzzle gets 200xp, etc. (Of course this xp can be shared.)
In the end however, this system calls for quite a bit of paperwork on the GM's side, but if you are GM:ing Rolemaster, you should be used to such a thing already. Then there is the fact that different characters might have quite widly different experience, but I don't really see this as a bad thing, more like a real life thing. Finally the rules, as supplied, are a bit wonky so they do need some house ruling to make them work, but the basics are definately there.
Then again, as I said before, I'm a total Rolemaster fanboy, so I'm rather partial.
Archived comment by me:
ReplyDeleteYou've hit upon my big problem with individual awards (without intentionally hitting the subject), which is that there are a limited number of awards to go around. And, if one PC consistently gets more of them than the others, that character runs away with the game. This makes them better able to qualify for the awards in the future, and the problem recycles.
As for the awarding of a fixed amount, I was being only partially serious. However, I do think something like this is basically workable. Maybe assign a number of criteria, each worth 250 XP times the average character level. Then, assign these according to how many criteria the group match. Again, the group shares the total award, rather than it just going to an individual character.
As for the "killing blow gets the XP" rule, I often wondered where that came from. Now I know. It's a really bad rule, since under that system one fighter could deplete all but one of the monster's XP, only to have the rogue land a lucky killing blow. Which is hardly fair.
The system you described with individual awards assigned immediately for achieving goals seems fine, but requires a lot more paperwork than I'm willing to do, frankly. And it also requires the DM to be even-handed in assigning the challenges that can be met, to allow all PC types a fair shot at the XP awards (since not every challenge is equally suited to the talents of all PCs).