Experience: Combat or Role-playing?
Jaimie L. Elliot
A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
Easy on theory and hypothesis... I would appreciate concrete examples
and experiences.
-jaimie
Kid Kibbitz
Elliot) writes:
>A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
>characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
>
>If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>
>If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
I usually allow about 10% of experience to come from role-play. The rest
is based not necessarily on combat, but on use of the character's
abities--and in general, the more central the ability is to the character,
the more experience s/he gains for using it.
For example, a brick/fighter/marine/genre-nonspecific-combat-specialist
will gain more experience from fighting (well) than from picking a lock; a
sleuth-type will gain more from finding critical evidence than from casting
just that right spell; etc.
These are, of course, generalizations, but the basic idea is that the
character gain experience for doing what that character is training/has
trained to do.
Just MHO,
--KidKibbitz
Hamlet
>I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear of endless threads, but...
>A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
>characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
>If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
you should get experience from role-playing your character well. if this
involves combat (i.e. if your character is one who fights things, not
necessarily only a fighter-class), so be it. if your character is a
pacifist, or worships a god of peace, or is portrayed as someone who faints
at the first sign of danger, no experience should be gotten for fighting.
tsr for some reason likes combat, and so gives xp values for individual
monsters, to be gotten when a character kills it. this is silly. with the
number of monsters running around in the dnd system there should be no
non-adventurers left; they would all be dead. when giving experience you
should think about how well the player role-played their character in terms
of what was written down in the character history, etc.. if the berserk
dwarf thief kills a monster, that character gets xp. if his weak-hearted
fighter friend somehow overcomes his fear of goblins every time a goblin
appears, and helps kill them, that character should not get any experience.
hamlet.
ab0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
soft you now, the fair ophelia! -- nymph, in thy orisons be all my sins
remembered.
no, i'm not an actor -- but i play one on tv.
Robbie Westmoreland
>characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>think.
Experience should come from life. It shouldn't be tied to any single game
mechanic at all. You live, you experience, and if you live intensely,
you gain experience intensely.
Combat experience should enhance combat. Cooking experience should enhance
cooking. Etc.
My favorite experience systems: Runequest (2nd edition, anyway, dunno
about other editions) because it's specific about usage leading to
increases; Ars Magica (3rd edition) because you get experience just for
living, and because studying from books is modelled.
--
Robbie Westmoreland, Dilettante rob...@inviso.com
"Today history is no more than a thin thread of the remembered stretching over
an ocean of the forgotten..." Milan Kundera, _The Joke_
"In a certain sense, all men are historians." Carlyle
Kid Kibbitz
mada...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Dalton) writes:
>Kid Kibbitz <kidk...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>I usually allow about 10% of experience to come from role-play. The rest
>>is based not necessarily on combat, but on use of the character's
>>abities--and in general, the more central the ability is to the character,
>>the more experience s/he gains for using it.
>
>specialize in certain fields and not to stray from those fields: i.e. if
>a brick (without the training or skill, by virtue of good roleplay/lucky
>rolls) manages to infiltrate the Royal Bodyguards, or whatever, he would
>earn less experience than a "spy" doing the same thing. Personally, I
>would like to see the brick earn *more* experience (= greater learning) from
>this; it's much harder for him to pull off. OTOH, maybe this is a good
>model for class-based systems, in which specialization is generally
>considered a good thing.
Actually, play skill-based systems almost exclusively (HERO, mostly).
I did, perhaps, over-state my case above. My main concern is that
experience NOT reward a character (player) for playing out-of-character.
For example, if my fighter-type Grundarr the Dimwitted has always taken the
direct, physical road, then I will expect him to continue doing so (unless
he undergoes some philosophical revelation--entirely possible), and not try
some elaborate, sophisticated, subtle plan because the player thinks it has
a better chance of succeeding. Similarly, I'd be disappointed if a sniper
(longbowman) whipped out a .50 cal machine gun (ballista, fireball) to
assassinate her target.
Maybe this is typecasting a bit; if so, it's because my examples are far
more typecast than a real character would (should) be, not because of the
way I give out experience. To make a short story long :), my only point
was that I don't like to reward players for acting out-of-character, not
that I don't like them to broaden their horizons *within* character.
Maybe a halfway-decent example would be this: can you imagine Jessica
Fletcher (Murder, She Wrote) whipping a pistol out of her handbag and
toting the villain off to jail by herself? If Emma Peele (The Avengers)
did this, OTOH, it'd be natural. Can you see Lt. Columbo getting into a
fistfight with his witness/suspect? Happens all the time to Mike Hammer.
Etc.
Hoping this made any sense at all,
--KidKibbitz
11265-Graham Wills
up who did how much to what, what skills people succeeded at and what bright
ideas people had.
Now I use a simpler system. Before each session i gave the players a piece
of paper and tell them to write anything notable that happens to them or
that they do down so they *might* get experience for it.
I also award them all a fixed amount for how well the group acheieved
group goals and individuals achieved their goals.
Everyone seems happy with this, and it's much less work.
They get experience for experiences.
-Graham
Oh, I also give away free skill ranks when they roleplay certain things.
A guy who's been creative in running a bar gets a skill rank in
business administartion free.
Mutant for Hire
>A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
>characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
In some games, you have certain options. My favorite one is where you can
give experience points both in general, and for specific skills. In HERO
and GURPS, for example (and the list by no means ends with them) a GM
could give general all-purpose experience points for roleplaying and being
a good gamer in general, and could give specialized experience points for
those skills that are used in the game.
In addition, if the player tries new stuff and actually pulls it off, or
fails and looks like the character might have learned something anyway,
points dedicated to new skills can come about.
In other systems, it can get a little tricker, especially AD&D, which
doesn't have a special skill system.
--
Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Synchronicity Daemon, Priest of Shub-Internet
Disclaimer: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but flames are just ignored
mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu mfte...@pucc.bitnet anonym...@charcoal.com
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
bayburte@rand
>
> A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
> characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
> think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
> from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
> not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
>
> If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>
> If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
Experience should be based on what the GM wants to encourage: If
you want to encourage players to get their characters into fights,
give experience for combat. If you want to encourage players to "play
in character" and to talk to NPC's, then give experience for that.
If you want to encourage the players to cast lots of spells, give
experience for casting spells. And if you want to encourage the
PC's to buy vacuum cleaners to suck up every last copper in the
dragon's hoard, then give experience for treasure.
Then there is the purist school of thought that says that a GM
shouldn't give *any* experience at all - all improvement must
come strictly from training.
One interesting method is to give the players a "boasting period"
at the end of each session, allowing each player in turn to
brag about how well his or her character was played and explaining
why the character deserves lots of experience for the session.
The GM then gives experience based on the boast.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
(Email to ero...@aol.com)
arne jamtgaard
Jaimie L. Elliot <jel...@ctron.com> wrote:
> I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear of endless threads, but...
> A friend and I are having a disagreement...
> Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed from
> role-playing?
> If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
> If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
>-jaimie
For quite a while I gave out experience (GURPS eps) based on four categories
(you can tell what I as a GM think is important from this...)
Combat (if it occurred) 0-1 (players are informed that they need not
create combat characters, but that it
will happen, and if they have little to
do on a one-second time scale, they will
probably get bored.)
Role-playing 0-1 (did the player play his character? if he
did, even at the expense of the mission,
he should get rewarded for it.)
Furthering the adventure 0-1 (did the character contribute to the task
at hand? If they did and were in character,
they win twice. If they sacrifice character
for optimal solutions, they still win once.
Same for sacrificing solutions for playing
in character.)
Time in play .5-1 (If the player participated in any way for
most or all of the session, they get some
points just for having their characters
live through it. So just showing up will
(slowly) advance a character. Useful for
NPC experience as well.)
Well, that's what I did. These days the categories are a little blurred, but
I still see a max of 4 pts per session (usually 6-8 hours) as reasonable.
I guess to answer your question, I weight combat and roleplaying (sort of)
equally, although there are always sessions with roleplaying, and not
always sessions with combat.
Arne
--
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the
shoulder of Orion. I've watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tanhauser
Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.
--Roy Batty, from the movie Bladerunner
jonathan broadfield
: A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
: characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
: think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
: from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
: not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
in my games, i try to give experience primarily for tasks completed,
and then modify that by role-play (ie, how they faced the task).
the r-p modifier generally comes to ~ + or - 30% of the total exp(when
dealing in points). combat, of course, then simply becomes another
'task', and each battle an approximate exp 'value' to be divided
equally between the players. in cases of group combat, where one
character (pc) carries the brunt of the battle and does much of the
slaying, i have tried giving the players the battle total and let them
divide it up.
this usually works quite fairly.
: -jaimie
of course it doesn't work quite like this for call of Cthulhu, which
has a skill-check experience system, but the san bonuses for good
role-playing (let alone surviving) are enough to keep the players
hopeful...;)
--
-- \
-- starman - sta...@astro.ocis.temple.edu - *
-- \
--
J Christian Jurvanen
>I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear of endless threads, but...
>A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
>characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
Depends on the characters naturally. If you have a bunch of
fighters it should be clear that experience ( defined as becoming
better in what you do ) shoul come mainly from combat. By this I dont
only mean just killing your opponents , it involves using good tactics
and maybe planning ahead how the combat should go so that our side has
the advantage in battle ( you could call them idea exp points ). In my
campaign 80% of exp comes from combat , mainly becouse characters are
combat orientated ( not saying that they don't have other skills ). So
I use a system where I either increase or decrease characters exp by
25% depending how the character was roleplayed.
Summary: From where exp comes?
1. Combat
2. Ideas ( can be combat orientated or not ).
3. Using other skills ( usually not a lot of exp , becouse most exp
to this comes from ideas or roleplay).
4. Roleplay ( can decrease or increase by up to 25% ).
Note! this is for characters who are combat orientated. But I have
designed a system for Rolemaster and Spacemaster that can also be to
give exp for lets say shoemaker who practises his/hers craft daily.
It's mainly designed for characters who study in schools or are training
somewhere ( even by themselves ).
>If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
Well if you are running a campaign where PC:s are scientists , It's
out right stubid.
>If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
That one I really cant answer , except that make a system and stick
by it.
>Easy on theory and hypothesis... I would appreciate concrete examples
>and experiences.
>-jaimie
Christian
JOHN MARTIN KARAKASH
Role-playing and it can easily be implemented. Give XP's for
the 'goal' of the adventure. Then give a 'bonus' or 'penalty' for
roleplaying. The variation on the fixed amount for the goal I
pick to be around 10%-25%. So a successful mission that is accomplished
at the expense of proper role-playing nets less points. A mission
could have sub-goals to more accurately rate the experience by what
the party accomplishes. I have used this system in nearly every system
that uses xp's of one sort or another and it's worked fine.
((personal beliefs below!))
To make a gaming experience more real, more fun, there is
a necessary sense of 'suspension of disbelief'. A player who
stays in character and whose character acts realisticly and
appropriately helps this. One which acts in whatever way happens
to most convenient for the player hampers this. To encourage and
reward good roleplaying an experience bonus is not unreasonable.
-john-
Guy Robinson
Look at your background.
In Bushido they have the excellent system where people gain both On,
honour, and Budo, combat experience. It works well as this encourages
characters to be honorable, a very suitable situaton for a fantasy
game set in medieaval Japan. Note that I am ignoring Ninjas ...
I always enjoyed Rolemaster where you take experience for wounds
and this has always encouraged me to offer experience for defeats
as well as victories. It is the not the winning but the taking
part that matters after all.
In a medieaval society you could offer experience for being part
of a community that has a good harvest, for example. Therefore
defending vilager could be as important as killing the creature
that menaces them. Other awards could be for good celebrations
and fertility ceremonies to tryn to bind the players into the
life of their village or town.
If any conflict of interest arose I would stress the needs of
the people above those of their rulers. A harsh ruler could
provide a more sublte enemy than an army of Orcs or an outright
Evil ruler.
As I feel Orcs are mainly surly creatures deprived of good
land I would encourage communities to view marauding armies
of Orcs as an extra labour source and have players characters
be the brokers of that arrangement.
This could give you an opportunity to introduce a lot of colour
into your campaign and prehaps more bones on the various
dieties involved in your campaign. Certain festivals could
be allocated to certain dieties and ecah brings with it a whole
hots of problems for the player characters.
In Bushido you can loose On seperately from Budo and even loose
a level or two in the progress. While this might be too step
people could be rejected from society as Outlaws, with or
without the support of the people. Without the support of
the people the characters would gain no social experience.
Rewarding roleplaying directly can cause people to just come
up with extreme versions of the character they would have
played in the first place. Rewarding social involvement if
you can plave this thread successfully in your campaign
means they have a community to be part of.
Rewarding combat does mkes thing a bit grim. Often when the
realisation sinks in that you have to perform acts of genocide
on an entire tribe of mosters to get your next level things can
be a bit grim for the players to face.
--
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
The real meaning of Christmas is a Mid-Winter feast.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
I sort of agree on the above; regardless, here come my thoughts on the subject:
I think you should get better at things by practicing the things you want to
get better at, as well as using them "in action". You want to get experienced
at fighting, you better go out there and fight (as well as spend several hours
per week practicing). You want to get more experienced at picking locks, take
your lockpicks and go to it. You want to get experienced at using magic,
bloody well *use* magic. Quite possibly, using abilities in stress-situations
should be more rewarding than a comparative amount of time spent in "dry
practice"; I think this isn't downright unrealistic, plus it encourages PCs
to do typical PC things (go out there and find some dangerous adventures to
get nearly killed in, rather than stay at home for 30 years and practice for
3 hours every day). Finally, as an added incentive to clever playing and good
roleplaying, I'd be more generous with experience when players show ingenuity
and/or in-character actions.
This, of course, is much easier to do in skill-based systems (which I prefer)
than in class-based systems such as the ever-present xD&D family and some
others. This is one major reason why I prefer skill-based systems. Just
my twenty milli-bananas.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y (lei...@kari.fm.unit.no)
"Take your cigarette from its holder, and burn your initials in my shoulder.
Fracture my spine, and swear that you're mine...
as we dance to the masochism tango." (Tom Lehrer)
Alexander Schroeder
: and experiences.
Here goes (my preference):
After the gaming session, assign a few skill points for the things players
did. Forget about training, levels etc.
The player fought a tough enemy (ignoring the outcome of the fight):
increase combat skills (weapon skills/THAC0/whatever).
Players travelled through the mountains on mules? Increase riding skills,
climbing skill, or animal handling - if it was a difficult task, say in
winter, or over a two week period etc.
Player was hit several times in combat, lost consciousness/nearly died?
Increase constitution/hit points whatever.
Has carried a new spellbook around for a longer time period, studied hard
in a library (no need to roleplay this): increase spell casting skill/add
spell to repetoire (if you use a system with spell levels, only allow tough
spells later in your game).
See the direction?
I used to calc all the exps/carefully note every action on behalf of the
characters, add the same amount for good roleplaying - until I realized
(I hope no player reads this)
I was just making it up in the end! I rounded everything, invented the rest
and distributed to my liking...
-- [ Everything's a fairy tale - and everything is true ]
Hans M Dykstra
>characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
>
>If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>
>If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
First, combat and role-playing is a false dichotomy. There are many
things that are not combat and not role-playing.
So I will interpret "combat" in your question to mean, "any use of
character skills", including lockpicking, tactics, bribery,
fast-talking, equestrian, whatever.
I give experience solely for the above types of things, that is, for
things the characters actually did, tried to do, or experienced.
Nothing for "good role-playing" in the sense of staying in character,
making pretty speeches, etc. It is too hard to say what is good
role-playing. If a player plays a taciturn, my-sword-speaks-for-me
kind of mercenary, he can be screwed just because "role-playing"
his character doesn't jump right out at you.
I don't think that this necessarily favors the hack'n'slash style,
primarily because just straight-out combat is only a tiny fraction
of the things that characters can do. Especially in skill-based
systems, there are a lot of other actions that can increase the
character's skill in _something_.
Good role-playing can and will be rewarded rather automatically,
it seems to me. The well role-played character will make friends
and enemies, gain reputation and influence, and generally become
a more interesting character in ways that don't need so much
mechanical support.
If you play a system that has points for Honor, Influence, Karma,
Reputation, or whatever, I'd consider giving role-play bonuses
in this area. But generally, a well-played character will tend
to *earn* more such points than a poorly played one, even without
any need for special evaluation of the player's role-play ability.
***
hmd
James J Davis
>If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
I give experience for attaining a goal. Each character may go about it
in thier own way, whether it be trickery, combat, etc. I specifically
don't give exp for roleplaying unto itself, becuase I do not wish to
force my ideas on this subject on others through the exp mechanic. As
a gaming idea, this has worked best for me (and I've tried pretty much
most of the basic exp award ideas out there).
-james
Kid Kibbitz
writes:
>I give experience for attaining a goal. Each character may go about it
>in thier own way, whether it be trickery, combat, etc. I specifically
>don't give exp for roleplaying unto itself, becuase I do not wish to
>force my ideas on this subject on others through the exp mechanic. As
>a gaming idea, this has worked best for me (and I've tried pretty much
>most of the basic exp award ideas out there).
Just curious....
Is this a GM-presented "goal" or a player-created "goal" in your first
sentence?
--KidKibbitz
Deep Six
> If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>
> If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
>
> Easy on theory and hypothesis... I would appreciate concrete examples
> and experiences.
Definitely do not reward experience on the basis of combat
performance alone. If these are the only areas you have to award
experience in, then I would split it between the two.
In my GURPS campaigns, I give experience to the characters
according to what they did during the game. Like this:
"Matt, your character gets 2 experience points in any of the
following skills -- Diplomacy, Climbing, Guns (rifle), Language
(Laotian), Survival (jungle), Throwing or Tracking. You also get
an extra point for your roleplaying when the party was trying to
get past that tax collector."
The first 2 points are to be used in the skills listed. That's
not 2 points for each of those skills, he splits the 2 points up
in whatever configuration among those skills. These points are
only awarded for skills used during the session. This reflects
the learning process as I understand it -- you do something and
then later analyze and think about what you could have done
better. I allow the player to choose what his character will have
concentrated on (from among the skills used during the game).
Some players may get more points or more skills to choose from,
or both, depending on what the player did during the game. I
think this encourages the players to be active and use their
characters' skills efficiently.
The extra point is awarded because he did a really good job "in
character" during the mentioned situation. Players normally get
regular points more than "extra" points, so a player generally
cannot "make a living" on just acting out at every opportunity.
Extra points may also be awarded for coming up with a brilliant
plan, being the first to figure out some plot point, or other
factors. The extra points can be used in any skill, within reason
(if the character can logically learn or improve a skill, he can
spend points in it). The extra points encourage players to take
an active role and play their characters more often.
So in sum, I would say you should go for a mix. Don't concentrate
on any one area.
Okay then,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd VanZanten SL...@CC.USU.EDU ``I must be tired -- I'm almost interested in
what you have to say.'' TV's Joel, MST3K
msam...@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
think.
Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
from role-playing?
>>>>> I think it should come from both. I generaly divide up all "kill" and
"defeated critter" experience equaly among PCs who make a contrubution
to the victory, wether it be from direct hack-'en-slash, magic, or
smarts. If the PC is a coward and doesn't contribute to the conflict
then that PC gets ZERO for kill points. Too bad so sad. If a PC
doesn't risk anything, and doesn't contribute, they lose out pure and
simple.
I then take a fraction of all experience earned by the party and hand
it out as roleplaying and idea points. The coward may get a fair
amount of points there if the PC was in character and helped plan. A
warrior that played in character, planned a raid, then put its butt on
the line is going to get the lions share of the experience. A fire
support mage will also rake in the experience points because I give
points for magic use (items and spells alike). A healer will do ok
as well.
A wimp that doesn't fight and doesn't plan loses out. A PC that stays
out of harms way all the time will not do as well as a line fighter.
Hint: give out experience for successfully using skills. A thief that
uses special abilities should earn points.
Nicholas Charles Argall
: Experience should be based on what the GM wants to encourage: If
: you want to encourage players to get their characters into fights,
: give experience for combat. If you want to encourage players to "play
: in character" and to talk to NPC's, then give experience for that.
: If you want to encourage the players to cast lots of spells, give
: experience for casting spells. And if you want to encourage the
: PC's to buy vacuum cleaners to suck up every last copper in the
: dragon's hoard, then give experience for treasure.
Very true
: One interesting method is to give the players a "boasting period"
: at the end of each session, allowing each player in turn to
: brag about how well his or her character was played and explaining
: why the character deserves lots of experience for the session.
: The GM then gives experience based on the boast.
Fun idea.
Anyway, my preference is for something like the White Wolf storyteller
system: one point for being alive, one for staying in character, one if
there was a particularly brilliant piece of (whatever), and one if you
achieved something.
Of course, in that system, one point is very signifiacnt, but I'm sure you
could multiply those awards by something appropriate.
(Perhaps based on how fast you want the PCs to advance...)
Ritva Koivisto
>Jaimie L. Elliot (jel...@ctron.com) wrote:
>: I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear of endless threads, but...
>
>: A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
>: characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>: think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>: from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>: not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
>
>: If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
>
>: If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
>
>: Easy on theory and hypothesis... I would appreciate concrete examples
>: and experiences.
I'm afraid I can't give any concrete suggestions (I don't GM, so I haven't
had to make major decisions on this matter). However, I've often
given thought to which should be more important, role-playing or
taking plain action, e.g. combat.
My characters tend to be more thought than combat oriented and
therefore I've been often annoyed when killing and foolishly
risking your life gives more experience than looking at ways
to avoid combats. More experience even to characters that are
not fighters and in absolute terms, less experience for non-combat
actions regardless of the character's background. Consequently,
I would personally prefer a system that would stress role-playing
rather than hack-and-slash.
Fighting is a fast way to advance from level to level but
also riskier: you might get killed and have to start all
over again. Avoiding combats, on the other hand, is slower
but in the course of time might get you higher than continuously
taking risks.
This, however, works only on game systems where getting killed in
is a combat is a realistic possibility.
In article <1994Apr19....@news.wrc.xerox.com>,
Guy Robinson <guy....@rx.xerox.com> wrote:
>Look at your background.
In our group, we feel that role-playing is the most important,
regardless of how much experience it yields. Taking into a
character's background, what would the character most likely
do, is the starting point for gaming. For some characters
this
We've spent hours without much advancing the campaign, but
enjoyed side activities: throwing snowballs at each other,
having dinners, carving totems, flirting, etc. All this does
not give much experience but it does give depth to our
characters.
>I always enjoyed Rolemaster where you take experience for wounds
>and this has always encouraged me to offer experience for defeats
>as well as victories. It is the not the winning but the taking
>part that matters after all.
I agree. Further, we've introduced to MERP a system where
experience points can be allocated to skills between the levels
(1 pt/500 exp earned). We don't anymore focus on reaching
the next level as badly as before as skills can be bettered
more steadily. This certainly has encouraged non-combat
role-playing.
>In a medieaval society you could offer experience for being part
>of a community that has a good harvest, for example. Therefore
I like this idea.
>Rewarding roleplaying directly can cause people to just come
>up with extreme versions of the character they would have
This is where the GM's judgement comes in: taking one's character
into the extreme should not be rewarded.
>Rewarding combat does mkes thing a bit grim. Often when the
>realisation sinks in that you have to perform acts of genocide
>on an entire tribe of mosters to get your next level things can
>be a bit grim for the players to face.
Letting players to allocate experience points to skills also
between the levels might help here.
--
***********************************************************************
Ritva Koivisto ## f1r...@uta.fi ## University of Tampere, Finland
"Do not squander time, it is the stuff life is made of."
Michael Lusignan
flame me for my style.
As to Combat vs Role-Play, I don't think it comes down to that at all.
I've been playing D&D since it was three little white books(a long time),
and I'm currently a Champions Guru...
IMHO, experience should be given out for accomplishing whatever goal is set
out for you by the GM. If the goal is to kill all the Orcs, and you slaughter
all the Orcs, HOORAY! you win. If the goal is to use diplomacy and tact to
stop a war between two countries, and you do, you win again.
Now here comes the tricky part... The way in which you solve the problem
is going to affect the level of experience handed out. If you are supposed
to avert a war between two countries, and you do it by killing one of the
countries' king(and the GM thinks this is bad) then you are likely to get
punished for it. If that same act is completely within character, then you
should be rewarded.
It is a lot of work for a GM to plan an adventure that isn't able to be
solved by much blood shed, especially D&D styled games in which all the
emphasis is on a character's ability to survive or avoid combat.
In my Champions universe, I start all my heros out with 150pts base and up
to 175pts in disads for the specific reason that they are capable of
crushing under their heels any resistance to themselves. They can kill
anyone they choose. They are capable of ruling the world with an iron hand
and few hero teams could hope to equal my heros. But then, the question
becomes, what do they do about domestic violence, or the steel mill that's
being shut down. How do they handle public scrutiny? What do they do when
their DNPC loses her job as a secretary because she was sexually harrassed
by her boss, and she stood up to him? Do they kill the guy? Do they use all
the bullyish might at their disposal to unmake the problem? Or are they
capable of subtlety? It is a question of whether they stay in character,
and do what the character would do. If they solve the problem in character,
then they win. They learn about the world they live in, about how it works,
and about how they work within it. I alsways give my players the power, and
temptation to be small gods if they choose, and then challenge them to
resist it.
Lastly, all of my PC's are held accountable for their actions. Everything
in my universe has ramifications. It is a lot of work, but hey, I'm having
as much or more fun than my players.
Thanks for reading
Keith Johnson
--
: (GETPROP 'LISP 'BEAUTY)
"MARVELOUS"
Jim Katic
the game that is relevant to the adventure at hand.
combat...because the PCs could die
role playing...because it s enjoyable
puzzle solving...because that is what the PCs have to do
having fun...because they is why *I* am there
Jim
M J G Day
I/we (my rping mate's) tend to do one of the following
1. everyone who survives the adventure gets a level (we don't use Xp's
as these are too fiddly) then anyone who did something extrodinary
or experienced something extrodinary (i.e staring into the face of the
devil beating a god at arm-wrestling, shaggiing the princess, stoping
the world ending) agest another level or maybe 2 depending on exact
action(s) and generostity at the time!
2. at the end of a session the Gm and players decide between them what
skills the PC has used and 4how much they have used them then assignes
a fairly arbitary number of skill ranks to the appropriate skill
Games: learnt on D&D AD&D, then played MERPS, traveller, parania
now settled as a RM and SM player and GM.
--
M.J....@durham.ac.uk Praise BoB, BoB don't ever change!!!!!!!!
I give 'em 'eadbutts ***8-) GIVE ME SLACK OR GIVE ME DEATH!! SubG is @#
Durham University, England Snailmail:13 Lawson Tce, Durham DH1 4EW GB!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Almost everything fnord you ever hear/read is wrong!!!!
Carsten Husek
: bayburte@rand wrote:
: : Experience should be based on what the GM wants to encourage: If
: : you want to encourage players to get their characters into fights,
: : give experience for combat. If you want to encourage players to "play
: : in character" and to talk to NPC's, then give experience for that.
: : If you want to encourage the players to cast lots of spells, give
: : experience for casting spells. And if you want to encourage the
: : PC's to buy vacuum cleaners to suck up every last copper in the
: : dragon's hoard, then give experience for treasure.
: Very true
This leaves not much to add.
: Fun idea.
: Anyway, my preference is for something like the White Wolf storyteller
: system: one point for being alive, one for staying in character, one if
: there was a particularly brilliant piece of (whatever), and one if you
: achieved something.
: Of course, in that system, one point is very signifiacnt, but I'm sure you
: could multiply those awards by something appropriate.
: (Perhaps based on how fast you want the PCs to advance...)
An additional idea:
Combine this with the Runequest expeience system.
How much experience you get depends on how much the group achived during
the adventure, their roleplaying, danger etc. etc.
Add in personal accomplishment of indivitual PCs.
But where you can put those points is determined by the skills you actually
used (just make a check on those skill you use during play and after the
session you still know where t put those points).
--
Carsten Husek, thought collector and intellectual randomizer, fuzzy
satanic RPG-worshipper FNORD
**************************************************************************
"It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile,
be yourself, no matter what they say" Sting
Karl S Wilkinson
: First, combat and role-playing is a false dichotomy. There are many
: things that are not combat and not role-playing.
: So I will interpret "combat" in your question to mean, "any use of
: character skills", including lockpicking, tactics, bribery,
: fast-talking, equestrian, whatever.
: I give experience solely for the above types of things, that is, for
: things the characters actually did, tried to do, or experienced.
: Nothing for "good role-playing" in the sense of staying in character,
: making pretty speeches, etc. It is too hard to say what is good
: role-playing. If a player plays a taciturn, my-sword-speaks-for-me
: kind of mercenary, he can be screwed just because "role-playing"
: his character doesn't jump right out at you.
That's right. And who is the GM to say whether someone played in character?
The player must be the best judge of that since he/she designed the character's
personality (unless you use some pathetic random method. I can't stand random
personality traits, they always get ignored.)
: I don't think that this necessarily favors the hack'n'slash style,
: primarily because just straight-out combat is only a tiny fraction
: of the things that characters can do. Especially in skill-based
: systems, there are a lot of other actions that can increase the
: character's skill in _something_.
: Good role-playing can and will be rewarded rather automatically,
: it seems to me. The well role-played character will make friends
: and enemies, gain reputation and influence, and generally become
: a more interesting character in ways that don't need so much
: mechanical support.
Not if you are playing a manic depressive. (Random personality traits again,
or possibly a mind altering magical effect or the result of sanity loss.)
A Rolemaster GM made me roll up traits and I got a coward! If I played him
well he would have retired with his considerable wealth. I just ignored the
trait, which helped game-play significantly.
: If you play a system that has points for Honor, Influence, Karma,
: Reputation, or whatever, I'd consider giving role-play bonuses
: in this area. But generally, a well-played character will tend
: to *earn* more such points than a poorly played one, even without
: any need for special evaluation of the player's role-play ability.
Not always. (see above)
: ***
: hmd
Personally I just give equal points to everone who remains fairly active (not
necessarily in a literal physical sense). I sometimes award people extra if
they contribute particularily well to the game (in whatever way). Sometimes
characters can be played too well, to the point of making play impractical
(parties of characters probably wouldn't stay together so well if they were
realistic individuals.) Also, does a low intelligence characteristic mean you
have to play your character stupidly?
Karl Wilkinson.
Scott D Gray
: I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear of endless threads, but...
: A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
: characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
: think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
: from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
: not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
: If it's combat, does that put too much dependency on "hack-n-slash"?
Yes.
: If it's role-playing, how can you implement it fairly?
1) Though I am not a great fan of Storyteller games (White Wolf's
VAMPIRE, WEREWOLF, MAGE, etc.) they suggest each player choose a
"demeanor" that best suits his/her character and a "nature" that best
suits his/her character -- and gains "willpower" points according to
certain definite criterion based upon the character's nature and
demeanor. (eg. Jack is a conniver -- he gains 1 willpower every time he
tricks somebody. Doris is a Lazy-Good-For-Nothing -- she gets one
willpower when she manages to avoid any serious work. Dave is a Gallant
and gains one willpower for saving fair ladies...)
2) Group roleplaying awards... Everybody gets the same reward, based
upon how the party did altogether. HANG being fair. This has the side
benefit of encouraging PCs to enhance and assist the roleplaying of
_other_ PCs.
3) HANG experience. Just don't award it... Or award it at set
pre-determined rates... "I don't care that your characters did X, Y or Z
-- how does that make them more skilled? Nope -- everyone gains
experience at a set rate. In my Shadowrun game I award everyone one
karma point every session or two; so that I am not giving _extrinsic_
rewards for any behavior. By doing so, every action will be taken for an
_ingame_ reason (kill that monster for cash, talk to that merchant cuz
he's a funny guy, go to the big game to lose oneself in the crowd and not
be seen by the snipers, attempt to steal Van Gogh's Sunflowers to keep
from having your cortex bomb explode, etc).
: Easy on theory and hypothesis... I would appreciate concrete examples
: and experiences.
: -jaimie
--Scott.
Scott D Gray
:IMHO, experience should be given out for accomplishing whatever goal is set
:out for you by the GM. If the goal is to kill all the Orcs, and you slaughter
:all the Orcs, HOORAY! you win. If the goal is to use diplomacy and tact to
:stop a war between two countries, and you do, you win again.
Ick. Why?
Frankly, the GM shouldn't be _setting_ goals. The GM's job is to make a
believable world in which characters can exist and interact...
On what grounds should a _character_ (the ingame personae, not its
out-of-game player) become more or less skilled because that _character_
chose a path and course of events prefered by the Game Master?
Many people on this board have suggested that points should be given for
"goal completion", but this seems frankly backwards...
If the GM chooses arbitrarily that his adventure is to kill the orcs, but
my character chooses instead to use oratory and bartering (the offer of a
great deal of booze) to instead _hire_ the orcs as a mercenary band...
And (s)he succeeds... Why the heck should that character not learn
oratory and fellowship just as the one who chooses orc-slaying learns
fighting skills?
Or if the GMs "scenario" is to use diplomacy to prevent war, and my
greedy little mercenary character realizes that he'll be "out of a job if
peace breaks out!", is there any particular reason for that character to
gain fewer experience points for creating a diplomatic incident than
(s)he would for preventing one?
No... Roleplaying games are _not_ just a series of puzzles and tests set
by a GM. The idea is _not_ to figure out how to accomplish X, Y or Z...
The idea is to play a character within the context of a world created by
a GM.
I try very hard not to railroad my PCs into one or another goal or
plotline... To let differences exist between characters -- with the odd
possibility of the PCs going in the "wrong" direction and yet attaining
their _personal_ goals -- one must not base one's rewards to the
players/characters upon the following of a particular script.
This makes the job harder for the GM... (S)he has to be willing to junk
the "module" at a moments notice and design (ussually on the fly) a new
country when the PCs unexpectedly board a ship and sail off into the
seas... To structure a world for the protagonists; not to decide their
characters for them by making it clear what goals are "valid" and which
aren't.
:Thanks for reading
:Keith Johnson
:--
:: (GETPROP 'LISP 'BEAUTY)
:"MARVELOUS"
--Scott
A Lapalme
In a previous article, Sva...@world.std.com (Scott D Gray) says:
>Jaimie L. Elliot (jel...@ctron.com) wrote:
>: I'm almost afraid to post this, for fear of endless threads, but...
>
>: A friend and I are having a disagreement about where experience for
>: characters should come from, and I was curious as to what other people
>: think. Should experience be based on combat, or should it be computed
>: from role-playing? (Note: I'm using Experience in a general term; it is
>: not restricted to AD&D or any TSR derivative.)
Over the last year I've tried a different approach to experience in my RM
game. At the end of each session, players are given 2000 points to spend,
not on themselves, but on the other players. They award the points based
on 3 categories: roleplay (1000), actions(500) and gamemenship(500).
Furthermore, they can't evenly split the points (for example, if Joe has
to split 1000 amongst 4 other players, he just can't give them 250 a
piece. For each category, a player must be excluded. This forces the
players to think about it).
Advantages: takes a load off my back (I still award experience but mostly
for stuff the players can't be aware of but have deduced and have not
realized it yet)
2. I don't get to force a goal on the PCs. The PCs set a
goal for themselves and rate each other on that (BTW, goal setting has not
been explicit. It just seems from the ratings Isee that the short term goal
of the group has an impact on how the points are awarded).
3.- It involves the players and makes them more responsible about
the game. ie if a player always acts like a real jerk, that player does
not get much for gamemenship - usually the lesson takes.
Disadvantages:
1.- some players hate it
2.- the GM looses some control of the game: (ie if players start
giving points to the best munchkin, the game could degenerate).
The other appraoch I have seen is to forget the whole XP thing. A friend
of mine, who uses RM, does not award points. Once in a while he just
tells the group they all went up a level. I personally have misgivings
about this approach, specially with players you don't know. I his case,
all the players are over 30, maybe even over 35, and they've been playing
together for nearly 10 years.
My 2 cents.
Alain
--