When GMs go....good?

[ShelleyCM]

After class today, I was talking to a fellow student about RPGs. During the course of the conversation, he asked, "What do you do when your GM assigns too many experience points?" [He plays D&D 3d.]

I didn't have a clue how to answer, since this is not a problem I've encountered -- usually we get our two or three points and that's it. When I run I usually hand out two or three with a bonus here and there for great RPing.

Has anyone had this problem? How has it been handled? My gut reaction is just to suggest to the GM that I'd like more of a challenge/fewer points...out of earshot of all the other players.

-Shelley

[Edsel]

I am experiencing a form of this problem right now. We have a good group that consists of 7 players and the GM. It works pretty good since 3 of the players can be counted upon to show up to every game and, usually, at least two of the others will show up at any given game.

When our group decided to build a base it was agreed that each player would kick in 5 XP toward getting the base and computer built. The GM who was apparently eager to get things moving along then granted 5 XP to the base for free and then 5 XP toward the computer as well. At first I was really pleased by this since I was (and have) designed both. But now that the facilities are active I kinda have this nagging feeling that we had it too easy. I mean I think I would appreciate them more if their points had come exclusively from player-character donations (and disads).

One or two characters still owe a couple of points and I think I will suggest to the GM (in private) that these points go toward paying off the points the GM gave away. I'm hoping, if that flys, to suggest that the GM consider the granted XP to be donated points, a loan and that the group should buy off with future XP. Putting my money where my mouth is I've already donated 6 points myself and am holding 3 more XP for this purpose if I can talk the group into it.

[Hermit]

I love Exp points. Not just in HERO system. Others may covet the gold, some the treasure... but for me, it's all about power.. mwhahahahaha!

so I've never had this problem as a player. :)

As a GM, it tends to balance out when we have to close up early and I forget to give ANY Exp that night.

[lemming]

Ooooo. I must be an awful GM, I don't hand out any XP...

That reminds me, I need to hand out some death trap points for last game...

[The Mad GM]

We have been running a fantasy hero game in which the average is 1 point per game - the idea being that in our last game, we became way too powerful way too quickly, and the nature of some of the long range goals of the game had to change. The game eventually ended because we reached a specific goal, but the climactic battle was a little lackluster because our characters were so overpowered.

We were literally running out of things to legitimately buy with points (I think my character was around 340 points by the end of the three year mostly weekly campaign). As a group, we stood toe-to-toe with a near godling with a spd of 12.

However, with this new game, the characters feel somewhat static. Especially since our gaming has faded to essentially one night in three weeks. I'd almost rather get clumps of experience sporadically, than this slow trickle. Either that or have smaller, shorter game story arcs and then start over with new characters.

It's a live and learn process.

On the other hand, in one game (the same GM) we started with weaker characters and he gave out something like 10 points the first game, 5 the second, and about 2-3 from then on, with the requirement that the first two infusions of points go solely toward non-combat round-out-the-character type skills. We weren't told this when we went in, and I think it was a good way to do it - it gave us a chance to see what we had come up with, a little about how we worked together, and modify accordingly. The in-game justification was that we were joining an organization that provided intensive training.

It almost requires a plan in terms of how powerful the players need to be in order to tackle what part of the overall campaign (most of our games have a specific goal in mind). As long as it balances, it can work either way. But in a long term game, too much experience is an unbalancing thing.

[DoctorItron]

Superhero games offer countless places to spend XP: bases, followers, contacts, interesting background skills that rarely help the character, plus the more obvious combat skills. As a player and GM I've never had a problem with too much XP. I award 3-5 XP per session.

Heroic level games, however, are another story. Characters can become overwhelmingly powerful in a relatively short time. The GM needs to carefully regulate how Xp is awarded and spent.

[allen]

Originally posted by ShelleyCM
After class today, I was talking to a fellow student about RPGs. During the course of the conversation, he asked, "What do you do when your GM assigns too many experience points?" [He plays D&D 3d.]


I had a similar problem with a D&D 3e game -- my peasant potato-farmer was a 4th level Fighter faster than you can say "Weapon Specialization". I really felt the character didn't have time to develop, and the group missed out on the all-important "we're 1st level and death is just a goblin's sword away" bonding experience...

That being said, I think it's the nature of the beast when it comes to 3e... experience progression is more similar to a video game than previous incarnations of D&D. A character "levels up" frequently and consistently, and that's the way the designers want it.

Of course, I did mention my concerns; my method of dealing with it wasn't exactly direct. At the end of games, I would say such things as: "Boy, I sure don't feel like a 4th lvl fighter." "Gee, 1st level sure went by fast." "Golly, I can't believe how bad@$$ my 17-year-old potato-farmer is in only 3 months of adventuring." "Wow, that sure is alot of experience points."

I can't recommend my method; I think I would've been better served being more direct.

[tesuji]

In my experience when a GM gives too much Xp it is often due to his wanting to "get thru" the early stages quickly.

In HERo, i gave typically 1 xp per session per character for ages. Sometimes i had "bonus xp" where one player each night got 1 more for a good moment.

Even this seemed quick.

On the other hand, when my players wanted their own base and i said "Ok sure, you don't have to spend for it if you dont want"... and later they realized that meant "cuz i will apply mystery disads to compensate" they somehow stopped thinking i was being too good to them.

"Well, what kind of "neighbors dropping by without calling first" situations do you expect when you have your wizard pop your base to an other dimension? Mary Poppins with cookies and cream? Now, what is your character saying to the fire demon?"

:-)

[allen]

Originally posted by allen
I had a similar problem with a D&D 3e game -- my peasant potato-farmer was a 4th level Fighter faster than you can say "Weapon Specialization". I really felt the character didn't have time to develop, and the group missed out on the all-important "we're 1st level and death is just a goblin's sword away" bonding experience...

That being said, I think it's the nature of the beast when it comes to 3e... experience progression is more similar to a video game than previous incarnations of D&D. A character "levels up" frequently and consistently, and that's the way the designers want it.


I should also add, with regard to 3rd edition and levels, I came into the game with a 1st/2nd edition mind-set... 1st-4th is low level, 5th-7th is mid, 8th-12th is high. Don't think that applies in 3e... 10th level is mid-level. So if your friend thinks there's too much experience, maybe the problem is he/she is trying to equate levels across editions...

[misterdeath]

Originally posted by allen
I had a similar problem with a D&D 3e game -- my peasant potato-farmer was a 4th level Fighter faster than you can say "Weapon Specialization". I really felt the character didn't have time to develop, and the group missed out on the all-important "we're 1st level and death is just a goblin's sword away" bonding experience...

That being said, I think it's the nature of the beast when it comes to 3e... experience progression is more similar to a video game than previous incarnations of D&D. A character "levels up" frequently and consistently, and that's the way the designers want it.

Of course, I did mention my concerns; my method of dealing with it wasn't exactly direct. At the end of games, I would say such things as: "Boy, I sure don't feel like a 4th lvl fighter." "Gee, 1st level sure went by fast." "Golly, I can't believe how bad@$$ my 17-year-old potato-farmer is in only 3 months of adventuring." "Wow, that sure is alot of experience points."

I can't recommend my method; I think I would've been better served being more direct.

That's exactly what's going on in 3e. You're supposedto gain a level every 13 encounters. Apparently, negotiating with the armorer is 1, talking to the hooker is 2, making nice with the ork pirate is 3, etc.

One or two good combats and voila, you're next level.

And, most people like it that way. D&D is set up for Epic Fantasy, where the characters are far and away powerful heroes. But, they start out so wimpy, that in order to make them useful, you stack on xps, and levels, very fast. Of cource, then after 6 months of real time, the characters are all 18th level, and the players are bored. But they love that feeling of accomplishment when they get a level.

My wife cuts the xp in half when she passes it out. Slows things down considerably. Still fast enough to see progress, but you spend time at each level figuring out what works.

I think the system could be improved by making starting characters less wimpy. More skills and feats. Adding levels is counterproductive, because then all of a sudden you can survive direct attacks that you shouldn't.

Ah, well, that's a different thread.


D

[allen]

Originally posted by misterdeath

My wife cuts the xp in half when she passes it out. Slows things down considerably. Still fast enough to see progress, but you spend time at each level figuring out what works.



If I were to run 3e, I'd do something similar or else throw "XP based on Challenge Ratings" out entirely... it's admittedly a matter of taste, but I felt the levels went by too quickly when experience is awarded by the book.

[Tasha]

When I last ran 3rd edition, I found that the characters tended to level just fast enough for my taste. I also may have been more frugal in giving experience.

Personally, I think that D&D 3rd edition doesn't really get until your players are at least 5th level. By then you have had enough experience to get some feats and skills so that you can differientiate yourself from the others in your main Character Class. It is also the point where being slightly overmatched means instant death.

As for the issue of being awarded too much exp. I would advise talking to the other players first. See if they agree. If so, then all of you can provide a united front to the GM. If all of the players aren't liking the instant progression of their characters, then the GM (If they are good) will listen to your concerns. If not then see if the other players will consider only taking 80% of the awarded experience. You may be circumventing the GM, but if you are rocketing up though the levels it may be the only thing that you can do.

Another problem with 3rd edition D&D (Which Fantasy Hero shares) is the way that Magical items that seem pretty low power, will dramatically shift the power level of the party. In my campaign the party came into a lot of money at 2nd level. I did what I could to make the cash unspendable until they were higher level, but the damage was done. I actually thought that as long as they didn't buy any magic items then the party would still be ballanced. What happened was that the Fighter bought Full Plate mail and Shield becomming like AC 22+. Suddenly the encounters that challenged the rest of the party was a cakewalk for this character. I had a hard time challenging the character without making the encounter too deadly for the rest of the party. Now the Party is 5th level and I am not worrying so much. The party is much better ballanced.

Actually I think that this close ballance issues is why many FH campaigns don't have many magic items. It is really too easy to make the PCs too powerful. In D&D 3rd ed the GM has to give out magic weapons of a certain bonus by certain levels or the party will find itself unable to deal with an otherwise normal fight for character at their level. Due to Damage Reduction (nasty ability in both systems) having the DR being negated by +3 weapons and having the first 25 points of damage be ignored just makes too many monsters too powerful. In the D&D game that I play in currently, the players fought a demon. We beat the hell out of the thing but we couldn't cause it any lasting damage due to it's DR. We had to keep it beaten down to below 0HP and take it to the rulers of the city who had more powerful magical weapons and were able to perminiantly slay the demon.

I guess I am saying that it can be very difficult to balance powerlevels in Fantasy Games. Super's games don't usually have is issue as the things that people spend Exp on cost so much that it takes much longer to purchase them. Also an extra DC or and extra level usually doesn't make a character instantly overpowered. I think that it is due to Supers being so powerful to begin with. When you are fighting things that are DCV 9-11 and you add one combat skill level to OCV 9 you don't become too over powered. When you are dealing with characters that all average DCV 5-6 and you add a level (which can be converted into damage if you have 2 of them) then going from 6-7 to OCV 8can seem like a bigger deal.

Good luck,
Tasha :)

[Killer Shrike]

There is no hard and fast rule that is universally applicable. It has to do with the tastes of the group, the setting and the genre of the campaign, and also the CURRENT point level of the characters.

3 points is a much larger percentage of a 150 pt character than it is of a 500 pt character afterall.

I range around depending on the speed I want to accomplish in moving the characters along a progression. I also will vary within a given campaign on occasion, sometimes being a tad miserly, and other times being a tad generous.

The main thing is that I almost always give individual experience awards, complete with critique. If one player did nothing useful and didnt portray thier character well, Ill give them 1 point and a clear delineation why and what improvements I expect to see in the next session. If they did a great job, Ill give them all due accolades, and let them know what it is that I liked. And everything in between. I think it means more to a player to feel like they personally earned their XP than to feel like they get the same as everyone else no matter what they did. When I play it really bums me out if after a night of 110% performance I get the same lump sum as everyone else.

Right now in my new Champs game I plan to give out 2-4 per logical session (usually 1 per day of real life play, but occasionally 2 in 1 long day of playing or 1 spanning 2 weeks) and have followed that rule, thus far (1 session in), with a rare 5th point for masterful roleplaying and a 1 for not so masterful.

[ShadowRaptor]

in my old 3e games I always cut off at least 30% of the total xp that would have been earned according to the xp chart in the DMG. I also did provide bonus xp for each natural die roll of 20 and 1 (+10 pts for each) and +xp if the players wrote me a player journal between sessions (of course only one person took me up on the offer so when the other players complained to me one day I told them they all had the chance and therefore the decision was theirs, and they still didn't write one).

In three months of steady playing at this rate I had all characters go from 1st level to 4th level and if we had played for a entire year then they should have reached 15th level, which is good I guess.

I have never played HERO so I can't say anything about it, but if anybody wants to give me some advice as to how to handle xp, by all means I will take it.

[Hitchhiker]

I give out XP when the players have

a) achieved a major goal
b) achieved an important minor goal
c) defeated at least 500 teethrippers from the abandoned caves
d) completed two or more smaller quests
e) done additional work I originally just put in the game for fun
f) solved one of my eViL RiDdLeS

And of course, if they bring along enough chocolate cake...:rolleyes:

[The Mad GM]

I like hitchhiker's suggestion of basing exp on goals. It makes more sense story wise. Personally, I would hand out minor exp (1 or fewer per game plus bonuses for exceptional roleplaying/tactics/etc.), then a bunch at the completion of a goal.

Plus I like chocolate cake.

[Armitage]

Originally posted by allen
That being said, I think it's the nature of the beast when it comes to 3e... experience progression is more similar to a video game than previous incarnations of D&D. A character "levels up" frequently and consistently, and that's the way the designers want it.

Aparently the market research that preceeded the design of 3e indicated that the average campaign ended after a year of steady play. So they designed the experience system so that a year of steady play would put a character close to (pre-Epic) maximum level.

[Armitage]

Originally posted by Tasha
Actually I think that this close ballance issues is why many FH campaigns don't have many magic items. It is really too easy to make the PCs too powerful. In D&D 3rd ed the GM has to give out magic weapons of a certain bonus by certain levels or the party will find itself unable to deal with an otherwise normal fight for character at their level. Due to Damage Reduction (nasty ability in both systems) having the DR being negated by +3 weapons and having the first 25 points of damage be ignored just makes too many monsters too powerful. In the D&D game that I play in currently, the players fought a demon. We beat the hell out of the thing but we couldn't cause it any lasting damage due to it's DR. We had to keep it beaten down to below 0HP and take it to the rulers of the city who had more powerful magical weapons and were able to perminiantly slay the demon.


From your mouth to the designers' ears...
According to Dragon #306, that's one of the rules being changed in D&D 3.5.
A lot of the DR numbers will be lowered. The average will be 10 with a fair number of 5's and 15's.
The +X will be replaced with things like Magic (any plus), Epic (+6 or greater), Alignment (Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic), Special Material (silver, adamantine, cold iron, wood), and so on.
A spell called Align Weapon will be added, as an alignment version of Magic Weapon. A monk's Ki Strike ability will treated as Magic, Lawful, and Adamantine at various levels. And so on.

[Vondy]

I base EXP on goals.

For example:

Midnight wants a swing line that will cost 10 points. No problem. I let him have a swing line, and 10 xp later I ask him what else he wants to work on.

Thats for little things.

If it were something big I'd do the inverse:

Midnight wants the Batmobile, er, the Midnight-Mobile (TM). I say...okay... and when he has enough XP I give it to him.

Of course, there are the little things along the way, too. Contacts, favors, KS's.

I usually give 1 xp per session, with additional awards for notable roll playing, inspired ideas, and being a good sport when bad things happen. I also give XP's for taking care of communal things. Assisting other players with character design, providing the soda and chips that week, or character artwork.

[Tasha]

Originally posted by Armitage
From your mouth to the designers' ears...
According to Dragon #306, that's one of the rules being changed in D&D 3.5.
A lot of the DR numbers will be lowered. The average will be 10 with a fair number of 5's and 15's.
The +X will be replaced with things like Magic (any plus), Epic (+6 or greater), Alignment (Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic), Special Material (silver, adamantine, cold iron, wood), and so on.
A spell called Align Weapon will be added, as an alignment version of Magic Weapon. A monk's Ki Strike ability will treated as Magic, Lawful, and Adamantine at various levels. And so on.

Actually I knew that. It is still a pet peeve until 3.5 ships.

Thanks,
Tasha :)

[CourtFool]

When I play it really bums me out if after a night of 110% performance I get the same lump sum as everyone else.

In the past I would have agreed with you, Killer Shrike. But is it fair to punish players that just can not give that much?

[Killer Shrike]

In the past I would have agreed with you, Killer Shrike. But is it fair to punish players that just can not give that much?

It's not punishment, its a measurement of their own performance. And what's hard to "give" as a player? Someone else has done the work part, you just have to show up and play your character. If you can't do even that why are you showing up at all?

It's not enough to just show up to the table IMO. If you can't spend the time you are at the session engaged in the game, then don't game. By showing up and not committing to it you're just wasting a table slot that could go to someone else that wants to play, and also tapping the GM for prep time and resources to provide content for your character and involve them in the game that you aren't really going to utilize anyway.

Non-participant players brings the game down for everyone else, IMO, and to reward them for this behavior sends the wrong message to the players that do commit.

[CourtFool]

Point.