RPG encounter

>Still using XP
>Not just giving a level at story milestones

>Now. To business. I trust you are all suitably humbled. I saw how you divided up the money when the troll had much metal and you all desired it. I thought, ’At last, the foreigners show sense! If someone else had metal to which he was not entitled, I, too, would desire it.’ But then, you divided the metal up evenly! Are you all equal? What a foolish notion.

ITT Children argue about meritocracy in group-based games that require some meta assumptions about cohesion. Nobody learns anything.

At a certain point if you unequally divide xp you get two things. Unequally leveled characters and players strangling each other. In real life I am very much a capitalist. I magic elf games I know that the best way to fun is roughly equal char progression.

Even in real life, there is value in making sure that people continue to get along in the long term even if it doesn't mean immediate short term profit. It's basically the prisoner's dilemma.

Teamwork should be rewarded, and not everyone can do just as good always, we are merely human.

Okay so what?

>teamwork
But if you're working well in a team you're doing something. That's the opposite of doing nothing or not contributing.

>we can't do good always
So you get rewards when you do well. When you don't work well in a team, don't contribute individually, don't roleplay well, don't really help the game or party in any way, well, you don't get rewarded.

It's simple, really.

Some members of a team are insurance. A trap specialist isn't important in an untrapped dungeon, but you didn't know that going in. You pay specialists for their time and expertise, not just the actual labor they contribute day to day.

>Optimally, people who do more should get rewarded more
Okay. Under what metric do you propose we reach this optimal utopia?

This. Party works together to accomplish things (often meaning killing things), then the xp from the kills get evenly distributed among everyone.

Only time someone gets extra is if the player is looking after initiative for the session (extra ~50xp per session), or did some really awesome roleplaying that prompted the DM to say "I'll give you 50xp for that"
Sometimes players also get a bonus (~50xp) for playing an extra character of a person who didn't show up, as a bonus for the extra work. The character of the person who didn't show up still gets the regular xp though.

Tally up the total number of successful skill checks, kills made, traps avoided, and a time bonus if you complete a dungeon or adventure in a single sitting. This probably works for one-off dungeon runs, but it's a start.

Aww fuck that picture brings back some bad memories.

Each player secretly votes for the player that they think contributed the most
Players cannot vote for themselves
The player with the most votes gets a big bonus, second most votes moderate bonus, etc.
Someone who gets no votes gets no EXP
This is to encourage players to not only put in their best effort, but to get along well with and impress each other. Also adds in a healthy element of nepotism I think.

>not using milestone leveling

In game rewards are different. Honours are handed out to characters that earn them. Loot is dropped or found naturally and the players can decide who gets what. Players/characters can discuss distribution of items, or they can steal an extra share.

Having characters at different strengths sounds awful for everyone involved.

This is stupid reasoning. Rewards aren't payment in the sense of currency, they're character advancement that occurs from contributing to the story. That is: accomplishing things.

Stop making One Trick Pony characters that are so niche they just stand around most of the time in basically every session. If you're actually lagging behind then it isn't the game's fault: it's yours for trying to make a character that fills an ultra specific niche like being the Expert One-Legged Hypogriff Rider (but only during storms, and on mondays). Make better characters.

And your logic is retarded in a business sense as well, these specialists you're referring to would still be paid according to the demand. If they're such a niche (e.g only 1% of the 99% of dungeons is full of traps they can handle) then they'll be called in on a case by case basis and be paid accordingly. Very few of them will exist, to boot.

ACTUALLY, I don't hate the idea of head-pats for doing stuff. But exp isn't the way to go.

In Cortex there were plot points which are a bit like bennies in Savage Worlds- basically they can be spent on rerolls and stuff- and there are a few ways to earn them. Sometimes they're handed out at milestones, sometimes for roleplaying your flaws (or just good roleplaying.) But coming up with a clever solution or doing something worthwhile can earn you plot points as well. A gm is encouraged to toss them to players who they think deserve them.

This could likely be adapted to any system really.

Very few adventurers typically exist. Despite not finding any traps, the rogue is spending time and effort looking for them. The perfect day in IT includes doing absolutely nothing. Hiring an expert on retainer is a fine option, but its not the norm for a group that sticks together.

>secret vote
>cant vote for self
Pick one.

>give less xp to those that contribute less
>creates level disparity and the now lower level characters are unable to contribute as much due to being less powerful
>they can never catch up
>entire party suffers because not everyone is same level and balance becomes impossible, either higher level characters sweep the floor with the enemies or low level characters have to run and hide or die
>players angry that game sucks
>they caused the problems by asking for different xp in first place

Rogues contribute more than just looking for traps, don't pretend that your example makes any sense.
Plus: Keeping the party safe is a contribution.

If you are seriously pretending that people should receive equal rewards even when they stand around doing nothing, or that there are characters that are actually gimped to be "one trick ponies" that deserve any sort of reward or to even exist at a table, well my friend...

One could amend that to being secret to everyone but the GM, who we can hopefully assume is an unbiased party. And if the GM is not an unbiased party you probably have bigger problems.

Everyone gets a note card, when done casting vote you put your card in front of you.
Or
Everyone gets a different colored notecard/post it note.
Or
Everyone passes their card to the right starting with who ever sits to the GMs right, adding their card on top of the pile of others cards, so when the pile gets to the GM's left they can easily see who voted who.
Or
You actually GM for friends you know and can tell who voted who based on hand writing.
Etc.

>Contribute less
This is stupid. A balanced game would have all characters contributing in some form.
If they are not useful at all, to the point of creating a disparity, then they shouldn't really be there.

>B-but why is the bard doing better than my fighter in this campaign of political intrigue
A) you are not focusing where you should: take your fighter as a bodyguard or to fight in an assination, don't play to your weaknesses
B) your gm is actively not giving scenarioa where you can flourish, this can be because you misread the campaign tone and made an unsuited character, or because he sucks
C) Realize that even if he is above you by one level, when a fight comes around you'll still be the guy needed to turn things around.
Then stop bitching about your lack of ability to contribute.

>But why don't I just GET things: the Thread
Fucking millenials.

1) Everyone gets notes with names other than their own.
2) Everyone picks one note and secretly casts that vote into the poll.
3) Remaining notes are all mixed together and set aside or disposed of.
4) Votes in poll are counted.

Running a game is fucking hard enough, I'm not gonna fucking calculate who is more deserving of xp to split it up, it's a goddamn game. Stop bitching that Jerry should get less xp because you killed a few more monsters than him and just accept that we are planning a game that's essentially imagination time with dice.

>Using XP
>Not using milestone leveling
>Not finding rewards in storytelling or loot, preferably both
>Turning your RPG into a mini tabletop game by using minis and grids
>Actually buying minis for a pen and paper rpg
>Participating in adventure league
>Not fitting rules variations to the campaign
>Not using hooks
>Actually giving your monsters HP
>Revealing to your players that you don't give the monsters HP, ruining the illusion

We started running a system where xp is given based on how much you accomplished during the session and not how tough the monsters you killed were. The players started sperging out when they realized this, because now they had to actually contribute to the plot going forward instead of staring at their phones until combat. It also stopped them from trying to kill literally everything, which they were also mad about. I don't understand them.

>Allowing phones during gaming.
>Not utilizing some kind of "bonus" dice for good roleplaying
>Allowing players to get level/power disparities

So many ways you could improve.

In my game, I made the group in day 1 register at the local Guild has an adventure group, told them they could name the group and even design a personal flag if they want to. I did this not just because of my homebrew setting's demands, but because of the EXP.

I count every contribution done during the day, I even tell them after we are done for the day,"Paladin you earned 250xp today" and so on and son on. But then I finish with "The Adventurer party earned a total of 1000xp, decide how you distribute it"

So far it worked for me since no player is lagging behind. Mostly because they are not trying to break the system and pour all the exp on 1 guy, instead, they distribute it evenly.

Sounds like a social problem, better handled with judgement and discussion than in-game rewards.

I don't allow phones. But other than tearing the phones from their hands, I don't know what to do. I call attention to them doing it and it will temporarily stop, but that's about it. The xp system has worked perfectly to fix these problems. The players participate, don't murder everything that has a pulse, and get shit done. Not sure how I could improve on what already is working for me. The players are a bit peeved, sure, but only because they can't just throw peasants into a grinder for levels now. And I'm fine with that.

It's passive aggressive as fuck.

"Hey guys, we're about to start. Let's leave the phones on the desk over there so they don't distract us."

So don't be passive, you massive cunt. Just get a box with a lock and ask for all the devices. Once they're in and locked, give out the character sheets.

If they don't give in the phones? Just make some food and hang out that night.

They run the show, they make the choices, and it's super chill.

They won't comply. That was the first thing I did. They are shitty players. Though I'm not sure how me telling them in the middle of the session, "hey dude, put your fucking phone away" is passive aggressive. I didn't introduce the xp system to stop this, it is literally built into the game that we're now playing and then being more attentive was literally a side effect of the game. I didn't know the xp system was in there, as one of my players was the one to suggest we play.

You can't be serious. Phones are not that big of a deal. Players occasionally have phones out at my table too and it annoys me, but I'm not gonna turn into their mom about it.

You seem confused. We agree.

You said "I call attention to it". Obviously saying, "Dude put your fucking phone away" is perfect. And if you are playing with adults, they should act like adults and put the fucking phone away.

Why do you play with shitty players?

The only person talking about gimmick nonsense builds is you. The question was about people who contributed less in a specific situation, and the counter example was a single dungeon that happened to be free from traps.

If only you had an example of their hand writing to refer too. Perhaps some sort of..character sheet.

If your mom is chill enough to make food and hang with you when you won't do your part to help her do what you asked her to do, for you, then you're mom is nicer than you deserve.

Which means it wasn't a secret vote. Someone knows who voted for what, in some way. I actually don't have a problem with the idea of voting at all, but if you have to let someone, typically the DM, know who did what vote, why have it pseudo-anonymous at all.

It will be generally secret as long as you don't break the rules.

Except it literally isn't, at a minimum the DM knows.
It was brought up that you should be able to trust the DM, sure, but you also should be able to trust your party with your vote. If you can't, why play?

A semi-secret ballet is garbage.

Youre right, no such thing as the GMs plans for the night's meet being secret, since they know them! They may as well tell everyone before the characters actually get to those things!

The GM is there to provide a workable story, and be an arbiter of rules.

If you are clearly trying to game the system of the vote exp by voting for yourself, you've gone against its intention and thus are cheating. Its because of mongs like you we would ecen need to do such a thing.

The party wouldnt know your vote in any of those situations. Get over yourself.

Because it's a game, and if you're there you presumably like games.

If the only factor was whether or not you all trusted each other, just talk it through openly. If you like games, this is one way to have one.

Like, are you saying you should all trust each other but trusting the GM is just too much for you?

It's not just about trusting each other generally, it's about trusting each other not to be weird about it. If it isn't out in the open, any malcontent disperses much more easily.

Girl, what the fuck are you....oh, that's ethanol isn't it?

Again, if the players don't game the system and try to vote for themselves, the GM wont have to confront them.

Open air votes tend to not go well, since it means someones cool moment trumped yours, and generally players dont like it when they feel their contributions arnt valued which is why class balance is even a topic to begin with.

This, also could easily lead to a snowball effect.
>Fighter does most damage at low level
>Gets more xp for more damage
>Levels up faster
>Since he levels up faster he can do more damage
>Since he does more damage he gets more xp
>End up with a level 10 fighter carrying a party made up of a level 6 bard, level 4 wizard, and level 4 cleric

>have to confront them
Hahaha what are you, 10? Your conflict resolution skills are shit.

No, if it were communism, the Political Officer would take all the xp, give a hefty cut back to the DM, and distribute the rest "fairly and equally" to his friends and supporters. Everyone else has to wait in line for a week for xp from rats killed by Young Pioneers in Siberia.

If the rule is 'dont vote for yourself' and your player does so, you have to adress it.

Confront doesnt mean fist fight, nor does it mean callout in front of everyone. Ot means yo bring forth an issur. You can do it pretty easily in private if you have to. You know, with words.

>spelling for days
Much to late for you friend.

You were the one who assumed I mean I physical confrontation.

There are a million ways to play off that scenario without confronting the person, unless you go so wide with your definition of "confront" that even to do nothing is to "confront them with silence and their conscience" or something stupid like that.

Youre right. Being super passive aggresive about the situation is sure to yield better results than something as simple as taking them aside and telling them 'hey man, thats pretty uncool of you. If you really want that bonus exp, maybe show some initative and RP more' post session.

>super passive aggresive about the situation
Literally what the fuck are you talking about?

Believe it or not, some people legitimately think that the only 5 responses to a conflict are to pretend it didn't happen, confront the person in private, call them out openly in front of everyone, get catty as fuck and insinuate it, or have a fist fight with the person.

Well that's one way to balance fighters/wizards. :^)

Why is it so difficult, though? I can't imagine being stumped by someone so stupid they're going to vote for themselves, knowing that you know and knowing that everyone including them has agreed to abide by these rules.

Are they expecting me to look the other way, or something? Regardless of their expectations, why is it such an insurmountable hurdle? I just don't get what the problem is.

*KRUMP*

I secretly run communism experience. The poor fools don't realize that I only DM for them for easy levels.

I cannot name any games that give XP based on how many you kill.

And this is a problem because...

I'm saying that trusting one person isn't different from trusting the rest of them, and I wouldn't game with people that i can't trust to be honest and unbiased with this shit anyway. I'd much rather have a post arc or session discussion, and that can include talking about who did the best and by how much. That can include both mechanically and roleplaying.

I'm saying there isn't a point to ONLY telling the DM, because its the pussy middle ground of an anonymous vote and a group discussion.

Nothing wrong with an anonymous vote, but nothing wrong with a "no voting for self" rule either. Issues with group discussion have been covered already, as well as matter of fun.

Can you describe any actual problem with the DM knowing who voted for whom? Like an actual bad outcome, not your feelings.

Other than it defeating the purpose of an anonymous vote?

In a group with trust issues, the DM could easily be sharing voting information with someone else.
In a group without, i have no issue taking a public vote.

As for asking for "no voting for self", there is 0 reason to enforce it in a good group, and in a bad group i don't want ANYONE knowing my vote anyway.

Hell, in an ideal group, voting for yourself SHOULD be allowed, because if people are honest with themselves it won't cause any problems.

what

>purpose of an anonymous vote
That assumption may be your problem.

>group trust is binary
Another assumption.

>there is no way to ensure no voting for self without vulnerability to people knowing your vote
Pathetic.

>voting for yourself should honestly be allowed
Agree. In fact, depending on how rewards are structured it doesn't really hurt to vote for yourself anyway.

> Giving exp based on "encounters"
Go play some wargames instead.

Everything about this entire concept is metagamey as fuck. Handing out XP based on "party contribution," regardless of how you actually go about it, will either lead to the party being unevenly leveled at which point there is no incentive for lower level characters to remain and their continuing to adventure with the party is going to be for purely metagame reasons or else everyone ends up with about the same XP anyway and all you've done is add a bunch more accounting to the group for no damn reason at all.

It's also a total failure to understand what capitalism is or how it works. XP rewards given by the GM are not and cannot be like a salary paid by an employer. Employers pay a salary from their profits at market rates in order to continue making profits. GMs have unlimited XP to distribute and require nothing from the PCs to maintain this infinite supply. Infinite supply but finite demand fucks up standard capitalist theory beyond repair. It's like a black hole for economics.

Anyone worth their minerals knows that. It's more fun to indulge them and point out where they're being morons on a deeper level.

Whoa Satan, calm down. You roasted him so hard that he is at a loss for words now.

Why you gotta be so mean, tho?

This is really interesting and almost never done even in videogames. Only time I ever saw it used was in Granstream Saga. I'd likely do this myself.

It's not unusual in indie games, even AAA titles to a degree. Maybe you're playing the wrong games.

Communism works fine in a group of like 5 people who have to be operating at similar levels to accomplish the collective goal.

Mostly because they can kick you out of you're a faggot.

Maybe, I don't play many AAA titles, new games or indies.

DnD, for one.

Though admittedly, pretty much the only one, since no almost no other game rewards killing with XP, its derivatives excluded.

It's bad game design so nobody does it.

I'm pretty sure gated character development was old in the 90s.

good post.

in addition, it sucks when you're the guy who's behind. everyone else gets cool toys and you're stuck with your starting gear.

further, how are you (the DM) deciding who contributed the most?
are you basing it on kills, and accepting that someone could cheese the rest of the party out of XP by last-hitting everything?
are you basing it on total damage dealt, and accepting that the guy who won the fight with a well-placed entangle gets nothing to show for it?
are you just winging it, and accepting that this is arbitrary and pointless and will set your players against each other?

No no no, he's playing the right games.

What do you have against gated character progress?

You could use the time to actually ...you know? roleplay?

I think that is why I love japanese TTRPG systems, they take away with a lot of math that is chocking western systems and favour the groth of That Guys

I think he means I'm playing the right games because I'm not buying into the cancerous nu-vidya industry nor the shovelware garbage that is 99% of indie games.

I don't even want a PS4, I research any PS3 game I want to buy and I play oldies on my laptop.

For a example, my group has an archer, a man with a huge sword and a blunderbuss, a guy with a musket and poleaxe and a doctor with a staff and pistol.

The doctor contributes in fights, but not as much as others. He has less skill points in weapons and weapons more suited to defending himself then bringing overwhelming firepower to bare. His armor is light, he is carrying 28 pounds of medical gear that means he just can't keep as much armor and weapons as people with more points to put into Strength and no need to carry bulky medical supplies.

Outside of fights he's vital to keep people alive and provides a lot of useful stuff, with enough Intelligence to figure things out the rest of the group would struggle with, even if Intelligence doesn't help much in combat when it's a very low/no magic game.

Sounds like you're just getting ready to fold up and die playing games that came out when you were young.

I kindof think there should be different versions of intelligence. Just because you got a really proficient doctor doesn't make him smart when it comes to other situations. Give Gordon Ramsay a wrench and tell him to figure out a 747 engine would leave him as stumped as most others. It should give you a bonus but I suppose maybe that's what Wisdom's for.

Or Intelligence should have a set of feats you can take.

It's fine if you just use it as a rate of learning stat.

In this case intelligence is used for most skills that aren't dexterity, but you are encouraged not just to make yourself a mega-genius. It's much cheaper to get good at skills other ways then to just up intelligence to high levels. Talents, for example, make you good at a related group of skills like doctoring.

I can't help finding more substance and enjoyment from old games than new ones eh. As long as you're having fun.