GM's: Group XP versus Individual XP

[John515]

What are your thoughts on awarding experience points? Do you tend to give everyone in the group the same amount or do you award them based solely on the individuals actions?

[Celt]

I'll tend to give the same amount to each player, with rare one xp awards to individuals. I game with people who've known each other for years. It's not all about the points for us and while I think some are better players than others they are all at least adequate. I see no point in setting up divisions amongst my friends over a few points.

[tesuji]

I give 1 xp per session per person.

I find that the rewards for good this or exceptional that tend to show up in play and results.

[Nightshade]

I write down individual experience awards on little pieces of paper. If they want to share how much they got, that's fine, but I give them that option.

Nightshade

[Blue]

I base them individually, and send them to the playes via e-mail so that they don't feel compelled to share their figures with one another. Often I feel that someone maybe... slacked on the the adventure. You know: The guy who didn't feel much like playing and did other things while the game went on. If he's not pushing the plot, helping in the decision making, etc. then I don't feel compelled to give him as much experience.

As for amounts: I'm much more generous than I should be. First off, I started the campaign off at a low base (300pts) so that the characters were similar in level of ability. So I'm accelerating experience to make up for it. Additionally I sense the campaign only has a short time left because of all the people with outside obligations; so as I don't see us playing this until everyone hits 500 or more points, I see no harm in the extra experience points.

And for the end of the current story arch (my game runs as a serial), I have a small bonus for them in the form of an item or other bonus, personalized. This is outside the normal experience award. But they have get/find these things, so in a sense, it aint free.

[Mordacius]

I give out the same amount to everybody for a couple of reasons:
- I want my players to advance at the same rate to save me extra challenges when bookkeeping or balancing adventures. 1 point here or there might not seem like much, but it is if you play long term. In my experience - or at least in my group - the same people tend to deserve the awards most sessions.

- 1 XP means a *lot* in HERO. There aren't a lot of actions that, in my book, are worth getting a whole extra point. (I do hand out extra XP in systems where it's less granular, like D&D.)

I give players who do cool stuff temporary Luck, usable that session only, instead. Works pretty well. (I stole it from Spycraft.)

[Lord Mhoram]

I give group awards at the end of the session. For individual awards, I give them immediately after the action that garned the award. If there is a great roleplaying momemnt, or a really nice bit of tactics or that kind of stuff, I immediatly award 1/4 to 1/2 XP (a full one for really exceptional stuff). That immediate reward helps show what it is I'm looking for.

[DoctorItron]

Originally posted by Celt
I'll tend to give the same amount to each player, with rare one xp awards to individuals. I game with people who've known each other for years. It's not all about the points for us and while I think some are better players than others they are all at least adequate. I see no point in setting up divisions amongst my friends over a few points.

What he said. We're in the same game.

[Tom McCarthy]

I hand out individual awards, and it's public. But A reward for a fine play, roleplaying, or inspiration that drives the plot forward is one or two 'plot points', usable for a +1, a reroll of a die, or as one fifth of an XP.

[CrosshairCollie]

I use the XP chart, per player, though I increase the 'base' to two XP. I generally only do the 'award extra XP to brilliant player', rather than 'deducting' one for crappy RP, but I have done it once (the player got up after about 10 minutes of just intergroup RP and said 'call me when the fight starts').

[badger3k]

I usually give out the same points for everyone. If someone does something really good they get extra, sometimes during play but usually at the end. I also like to give out a "best player" award during good sessions - that's voted on by the whole group. So far there hasn't been any problems.

[keithcurtis]

For heroic level games, I give out a flat 3 points per adventure. Said adventure may take 1-2 nights to run. If you show up, you get the award. I don't hand out extra for extra good roleplaying, because some people would consistently get more.

Once the characters begin to get more powerful though, I scale back the awards.

One thing I do is to alter the award for people who want to start out with more powerful characters. From my Websitel (http://home.comcast.net/~TheGM/SE/savage.html):

<B>Limited Experience</B>
Characters who wish to start the game at a slightly more powerful level may take the quasi-disadvantage of Limited Experience. Each Level of limited Experience is worth 25 points. These points do not count against disadvantage totals. Each Level of Limited Experience means that the character gains one less xp than the standard amount given at the end of an adventure. The minimum award cannot be less than 1, as long as any experience at all is handed out. This slowed experience is a permanent aspect of the character. It cannot ever be bought off. However, once the character has earned enough experience to equal the number of "free" points, he may begin earing at a rate equivalent to the other characters. Note that by this time, they will likely be receiving a reduced experience award anyway, due to the standard house award for experienced characters.

<i>Example: Hank Woodman is an animate. Since Animates are fairly expensive characters, the player decides to take two levels of reduced experience. This grants an extra 50 points, but the character will only receive 1 xp per adventure. Once Hank has achieved 50 xp in this manner, the xp loan is considered "paid", and he may begin receiving xp at the rate for all characters with 50 xp, i.e. 2 xp per adventure.</i>

This rule is to support the concept that animates, being more or less designed and static, change less rapidly than do living organic beings. They start the game with a higher point total, at the cost of slower progression. This rule also helps to make some concepts more workable. Sometimes characters have a really good idea that simply cannot be bought with the allotted 75+75 given to standard characters. Limited Experience is basically an XP loan, with interest.


Keith "But I'm generous" Curtis

[MoonHunter]

As a general rule, everyone in the group makes a "base amount" of experience based upon how well the group played over the adventure. Then players who were notably better than the average, (had a brilliant groundshaking idea, solved the problem with style, roleplayed worthy of a tony, or had the "staring role"), recieve extra experience points above and beyond. It is not as simple as this rubber stamp

I keep the character's total points on a campaign sheet. When I award experience points, I have the "group" award in my mind. I run down the list and add exp to the player's total. I check the player's performance in the game vs that average. Those who did well, get bonus points as appropriate. Those who did notably less well, get docked points. Then I give each player in the group their total experience earned. I give the totals because after the first few runs, nobody knows exactly who got the extra points and who got docked points.

This is not a hero only rule, I do this with every game.

I should note that players that play notably below the average of the group (disrupting play, assine decisions, roleplay worth of Squad Leader, and so on) do get less than the average. If the player is less than average on a regular basis, I normally dis-invite them from the game (usually with the group's blessing).

[zornwil]

I give everyone the same points for participating in the major villain defeats and story arcs. However, I split it up for the little things that happen or the various side stories that I encourage. I also, as mentioned in another thread, give bonus XPs for collateral material such as diaries, bios, etc.. Finally, I do try to even out the awards except for collateral material; I don't want people to feel gypped, so I try to give enough opportunities for everyone to get individual XPs.

Oh, and in regard to growth, I run a high-growth game, starting a bit on the lower side. When new PCs come into the game, they get awarded at DOUBLE growth rate to help them catch up - and I think it make sense. They are hanging out with guys with more experience who essentially are mentoring them.

My system for XP assignment (and "Reputation Points") is at http://www.asterick.com/realschluss/x-champions/house_rules/ch_gaining_reputation_and_experienc.htm

[Celt]

Originally posted by DoctorItron
What he said. We're in the same game.

Actually, Doc, I was speaking of my Saturday night group. You Sunday guys can just go blow. ;)

Actually, the same applies then with the exceptions that a) I haven't known them for years, and 2-I don't award xp Sundays 'cause I run all of one story cycle as fill-in GM.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
For heroic level games, I give out a flat 3 points per adventure. Said adventure may take 1-2 nights to run. If you show up, you get the award. I don't hand out extra for extra good roleplaying, because some people would consistently get more.

Once the characters begin to get more powerful though, I scale back the awards.

One thing I do is to alter the award for people who want to start out with more powerful characters. From my Websitel (http://home.comcast.net/~TheGM/SE/savage.html):

<B>Limited Experience</B>
Characters who wish to start the game at a slightly more powerful level may take the quasi-disadvantage of Limited Experience. Each Level of limited Experience is worth 25 points. These points do not count against disadvantage totals. Each Level of Limited Experience means that the character gains one less xp than the standard amount given at the end of an adventure. The minimum award cannot be less than 1, as long as any experience at all is handed out. This slowed experience is a permanent aspect of the character. It cannot ever be bought off. However, once the character has earned enough experience to equal the number of "free" points, he may begin earing at a rate equivalent to the other characters. Note that by this time, they will likely be receiving a reduced experience award anyway, due to the standard house award for experienced characters.

<i>Example: Hank Woodman is an animate. Since Animates are fairly expensive characters, the player decides to take two levels of reduced experience. This grants an extra 50 points, but the character will only receive 1 xp per adventure. Once Hank has achieved 50 xp in this manner, the xp loan is considered "paid", and he may begin receiving xp at the rate for all characters with 50 xp, i.e. 2 xp per adventure.</i>

This rule is to support the concept that animates, being more or less designed and static, change less rapidly than do living organic beings. They start the game with a higher point total, at the cost of slower progression. This rule also helps to make some concepts more workable. Sometimes characters have a really good idea that simply cannot be bought with the allotted 75+75 given to standard characters. Limited Experience is basically an XP loan, with interest.


Keith "But I'm generous" Curtis

I like it - it allows differing power (i.e. point) levels within the basic campaign. How has this worked out in the long run? The reason I'm asking is that the characters who start out higher have more power, but seem to pay for it in the long run, since I've found (as has been suggested numerous times through the years) that a character built straight with points is different then one built with experience. Does it seem to balance out overall?

[keithcurtis]

Originally posted by badger3k
I like it - it allows differing power (i.e. point) levels within the basic campaign. How has this worked out in the long run? The reason I'm asking is that the characters who start out higher have more power, but seem to pay for it in the long run, since I've found (as has been suggested numerous times through the years) that a character built straight with points is different then one built with experience. Does it seem to balance out overall?

I seems to balance fine, since I only allow it for characters whose concept require extra points. There are two archetypes in my campaign that really need it.
The only problem I have seen is the player who took it is now looking enviously at the characters who have caught up and are now earning more XP until he makes up his deficit. He has hinted that he would like a rules change.

Keith "But I rule emy world with an Iron Fist" Curtis

[badger3k]

Originally posted by keithcurtis
I seems to balance fine, since I only allow it for characters whose concept require extra points. There are two archetypes in my campaign that really need it.
The only problem I have seen is the player who took it is now looking enviously at the characters who have caught up and are now earning more XP until he makes up his deficit. He has hinted that he would like a rules change.

Keith "But I rule emy world with an Iron Fist" Curtis

Thanks - I was considering offering something like that to one player (the one who I think could roleplay best) as a "group mentor" type thing.

Although, if it works like you said, how is he still paying for it? With a standard of 3 points vs 2 (assuming a 25 point "buy"), he will be at 200 points in 12 awards (201 by my reckoning), while a normal character will be at 186 after the same time. After 5 more awards, the limited exp guy would have 211 points vs 201 of the normal character. That continues on up farther than I want to go now. Only 10 point dif after a moderate time (17 adventures). Of course, as I said, did that character take 2 picks (i.e. he was your example)?

[Wolf]

Personally I do a mixture of group, and personal.
I make a judgement based on how much the group got done, how they worked together, monster XP (for D&D type games), and any other concideration I felt they deserved as a group.
Then I hold an AAR (an army term) After Action Review. I go around the table and ask all the players who deserved extra EP and why. That is to say I start on my left and ask them why the person on my right deserves bonus xp, then I ask the next person why the person on my right deserves bonus xp, and why. This goes on untill everyone has given an opinon as to why everyone else deserves XP. In my opinon this helps to encourage people to "role" play, and to support eachother. Even though I decide what XP total the suggestions are worth, they still feel that they are supporting eachother.
Then I ask them for one good thing that I did, and one bad thing I did each. Starting with all good or all bad, then moving to the other. I rite down the suggestions and the "your good at" 's they give me and it helps me learn what they want, and them to feel like they are giving me XP.
The only problem with this system is that one is now going an hour (in big groups) or more if a discussion starts over normal game time, however I find it's very rewarding to all players and the GM.
-Cam

[badger3k]

Originally posted by Wolf
Personally I do a mixture of group, and personal.
I make a judgement based on how much the group got done, how they worked together, monster XP (for D&D type games), and any other concideration I felt they deserved as a group.
Then I hold an AAR (an army term) After Action Review. I go around the table and ask all the players who deserved extra EP and why. That is to say I start on my left and ask them why the person on my right deserves bonus xp, then I ask the next person why the person on my right deserves bonus xp, and why. This goes on untill everyone has given an opinon as to why everyone else deserves XP. In my opinon this helps to encourage people to "role" play, and to support eachother. Even though I decide what XP total the suggestions are worth, they still feel that they are supporting eachother.
Then I ask them for one good thing that I did, and one bad thing I did each. Starting with all good or all bad, then moving to the other. I rite down the suggestions and the "your good at" 's they give me and it helps me learn what they want, and them to feel like they are giving me XP.
The only problem with this system is that one is now going an hour (in big groups) or more if a discussion starts over normal game time, however I find it's very rewarding to all players and the GM.
-Cam

Mine don't take that long, but then we normally don't go into that much detail. Like I posted (although didn't explain) I just ask for comments on what went on and who is eligible for the "MVP" award. It does make the game better, and IMO is worth the time.