GM gives bonuses to xp depending on how well you roleplayed/what you did

Git gud faggot

"Dude unbalancing the party is ok lmao"

...

How much bonus XP?

The party wouldn't be unbalanced if you didn't suck

>"I take a shit in the fruitseller's stall XDDDDDD"

Op i want you to know that the GM is being a faggot
But there are too many gm complaint threads so you are getting a lot of backlash

Last session one player got 100 xp, two others got 75 and I got 50.

Basicly one player got a whole advancement (whfrp) and he spent most of the game fucking around getting things wrong

The problem however is that good roleplaying is completely subjective.

For example, in a RPG I once played the overpowered villain had ambushed us, easily slaying all the NPCs near us. He demanded that he begged for our lives, I answered by jumping through the window. The DM later said that I had roleplayed wrong and that I should have lied down and get on my knees.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Seems like your problem is being a trash player.

OP's situation never happened to him.

I'm back and forth on this idea. On the one hand, using it to punish bad roleplayers just leads to resentment and people acting like OP. He's probably had a bad experience where he was made to feel inferior at the table where he expected to have fun.

Of course, as players get better in generall, the experience gets better for everyone. If an incentive is needed, that's not the end of the world.

Reward what you want to encourage, not just what you think is supposed to be rewarded. Just try not to unbalance the party too much. Connive a way to give the guy who's behind some XP for an unrelated reason. DMing isn't hard.

What does that have to do with anything?

Always thought it was retarded.
I mean, do they want me to talk like a fucking orc? I'll make decisions based on my characters race and background, but I'm not going to speak like one or make weird voices, I'm not a retard.

Oh boy, you would love burning wheel family games then.
Though jokes aside, if it's done by GMs unipersonal decision without clear guidelines it is shit.
If done right it should be more of a player self evaluation before the group, maybe with GM nominating someone for MVP award or whatever, if group can't decide. And there should be clear criteria of what is deserving a bonus, again with group as a judge.
Also individual rewards in progression "points" is just bad for modern d&d-ish games with levels, when it can create power discrepancy. Better if it is some kind of meta currency fate/hero points.

That's just a DM with low situational awareness. I would have expected your response, but I would have been happy with anything BESIDES "exactly what the guy you hate told you to do." I mean, who would do that? Sometimes your character dies because he's got pride and he thinks any slim chance of survival is better than slavery.

While maybe you are right, lots of GMs actually do offer rewards for good roleplaying.

The problem however is that it's usually to benefit their favorites or people who take actions that please them, rather than ensure good roleplaying.

A counterpoint to myself however would be that there's really nothing stopping a GM who wants to fuck with the party. And a countercounterpoint is that, while true, calling it a 'good roleplaying reward' is a way to do so without looking like a huge jackass.

OP, you should think about another hobbu. This one may not be for you.

>GM rewards behavior he wants to see more of
Personally I just give everyone the same amount of XP and use other forms of rewards, but I'm really not seeing an issue here unless one player is consistently getting more(or less) XP than everyone else.

I like it, but I don't know any DM that I would trust to be a good judge of roleplay.

That is exactly what's happening.

Have you tried doing what they do?

This. If the GM is clearly playing favourites or is starting to unbalance the party than it is an actual issue.

Have you tried talking with the GM about it?

I think we can agree that this is the problem. It's not a useful endeavour to repeatedly remind novice players that the veteran is better. Rewards should be used as an incentive.

If anything, the veteran should be led down the garden path and convinced that he doesn't NEED extra rewards. See how well he can handle some additional pressures that the newbies lack. Making him better doesn't show off his skills.

But that's just me, I guess.

As long as the DM keeps the lowest level party member within no more than 1-2 levels as the rest of the party I don't see anything wrong with it.

>Rewards should be used as an incentive.
Like awarding roleplaying with bonus xp

I give bonus XP for roleplaying in that I give quest XP for pursuing character-specific goals and subplots. The whole party can get in on it, if they're contributing in some way, but if your character is particularly personally invested in it you get more.

For instance, the players in my present campaign had a minor sidequest of escorting an NPC home. (A sensible NPC who doesn't go running off into danger like an idiot in a video game...I'm not a monster.) Everyone got some XP for accomplishing this goal, but the chivalrous knight who'd been particularly insistent on doing it and who'd been interacting a lot with the NPC along the way got substantially more than the others, because he was personally invested in it.

All of the players have gotten at least some XP in this way for their own personal goals, and it's visibly encouraged them to really think about their characters' goals and motivations and engage more with the setting in exploring those.

I joined mid campaign and wasn't really given enough info that I can activley impact the story

I'm going to but I just wanted to make a thread about it

I should point out that depending on the class there is a huge jump between a level and another.

Yes, but good roleplaying is a subjective value. It's unfair because you simply cannot contest if it's injust.

>GM just gives everyone exp at the end of the game because he doesn't even understand the xp system and doesn't want the party becoming imbalanced.

Tell him that he should reward the entire party for good roleplaying, and not individual players.

RpXp is written into the system dickhead

Oh ok so it's just a shit system

Ask for some info then? Really sounds like you should talk to the GM more, both in and out of character.

>As long as the DM keeps the lowest level party member within no more than 1-2 levels
>A level 4 fighter can make a meaningful contribution in a party with a level 6 wizard, sorcerer, or druid

This is generally why (as a forever-DM) I prefer giving in-game rewards or meta bonuses like additional dice or increases. Too many people get butthurt when one player receives extra

Psychologically it makes more sense too. Why have a delayed reaction to someone doing well, when you could reward them in the moment? It's better because everyone sees the benefits of their actions immediately, so they will want to follow up. It also encourages other players (Even minmaxing "rollplayers") to get into it so that they can get more bonuses. Everyone wins.

Where is the problem?

Good roleplay is simply acting out your pc.
That said, I've found roleplay xp to be a convenient way to weed out edgelord loners; they don't do much because they don't want to engage the world, I don't give them xp, and when they ask why, I tell them "I asked for characters prepared to engage the world actively in their own measure, and you chose not to".

>I'm going to but I just wanted to make a thread about it
Good luck with that! Try asking him for pointers what you should do, and suggesting that he tries other forms of rewards instead.

...

>character advancement isn't equally given to all attending players
I like the idea of rewarding roleplay through loot and meta currencies (like bennies to spend on rolls), but character advancement should be uniform or else some players are just going to sink to the bottom.

My GM tried this during a mini campaign. In order to foster conversation everyone would get a card with another character on it, and if you had a "significant meaningful conversation" you got bonus XP. It just made interaction more janky and left me feeling cheated just because two characters arbitrarily didn't have an opportunity to interact. But I sure as hell wasn't going to fault someone for trying something new in a side campaign.

He isn't

>Good roleplay is simply acting out your pc.
Yes, but your idea of what your PC is may be different from your GM. And even if it acted perfectly as agreed in lesson 0, the GM can still penalty you whenever you take an action that is outside his expectations.

You sound boring. I'm glad my gm is more fun.

>gm sends fiery religious zealot to hunt us down
>rogue was sitting in a tree at our camp and rolled stealth
>use an illusion spell to make monk character who is wanted by the religious look like a rock.
>hunter sees only 3 people, explains he is looking for a party of 5 with a monk of a specific description.
>Succeed bluff and tell him we saw a group like that in the city we just left, also lie about where we're going.
>the main encounter for that session takes off and we continue on our way.
>GM doesn't award as many points, but almost as much because we all did our part to avoid an encounter.
>as an additional reward receive a magic item that gives a bonus to bluff.

>Navigate through a dungeon to rescue a blacksmith who went missing.
>find a hall with various prison cells
>massive golem prison guard confronts us
>he's supposed to be the boss of the dungeon, and really difficult for out party. Sorry GM.
>he won't allow us through
>we ask if he's caught any trespassers or thieves recently
>he describes one as a blacksmith
>we claim to be hunting a known thief wanted elsewhere and request he allow us to transfer his prisoner to another prison elsewhere to await trial, be will be sure to include any additional charges he would like placed on the criminal.
>GM adds penalty to the roll, Golem's roll is not that great, roll a 19, but with bonuses it barely beats the golem's.
>we pretend to rough up the blacksmith and carry him out, grabbing the magic maguffin he had been looking in the dungeon for in the first place.
>we thank the golem ignore spooky jail cell, obvious treasure trap cell, and we just get out fast.
>for a second time succeed a stealth around the sleeping monster from the beginning of the dungeon he had already avoided
>he wakes up just before we escape because the golem realized his maguffin is missing.

This whole campaign has been a lot of fun and the GM always has a backup plan.

PSA: If you don't give rewards for roleplay you will encourage murder hobos and powergamers.

>right hand on left arm
Peter Griffin confirmed for Rakshasa

>Giving rewards for combat too
They're both signs of a bad GM/system

Untrue. Murderhobos and powergamers should be punished by natural consequences.

Fingers don't look like that

that's what op wants. He's an annoying powergamer who bluntly forces his way through every encounter like he's speedrunning on Twitch. He's the kind that stares serious faced at the GM too much like he's trying to mentally mash buttons to skip dialogue and cutscenes.

>your idea of what your PC is may be different from your GM
Then the biggest issue is that the player and the GM are not on the same page, which is the root of most disagreements and problems in a group.
Why doesn't the GM understand the pc? Wasn't not explained well enough? Was the concept fuzzy, or not clearly put to pen?

How do you know that user? Were you there?

I've seen too many of them.

>Good roleplay is simply acting out your pc.
I would argue that that's a pretty bad definition. Good roleplay - at least in terms of "behavior that should be rewarded" - is roleplaying that in some way makes the game better whether by moving things forward, entertaining the rest of the group, or taking things into interesting direction. "Simply acting out your PC" is just roleplaying and not necessarily good or bad, and certainly shouldn't be singled out as something to be rewarded(unless, perhaps the entire group or a particular player is bad at it).

>Then the biggest issue is that the player and the GM are not on the same page, which is the root of most disagreements and problems in a group.
No, the biggest issue is using a subjective value to put players into tiers, in a game where most actions can be contested thanks to the material. Anything that happens outside the game really should be kept to the minimum possible.

So you admit you weren't there to see. And I have to seen many people getting screwed by DM favoritism. So that's not an argument since it could have gone both ways.

Thats his right hand...

>he has two left hands

Nothing wrong about it, stop being a pussy and role play better, or get a new troupe

I mean, the GM is in the right to reward players that entertain him more than dullards that don't really drive the plot forward or make him smile at all.

Have you tried looking for a GM who is more on your wavelenght and would be more inclined to find your type of characters fun and entertaining?

What the hell do you even think you're talking about right now?

>I mean, the GM is in the right to reward players that entertain him more
So basically RPGs are a test to see who can fellate the GM better?

This is my first irl roleplaying group and I'm not really sure of any others nearby looking for players. I feel like the reason they were looking for players because the GM and one certain player don't mesh well at all but they keep playing together and need fresh meat to circumvent their non-meshing? I'm not really sure

That saying 'I saw many cases so OP must be one of those' is intellectually lazy.

If you consider watching a nice movie or reading an enjoyable book the same as fellatio, then yes.

>intellectually lazy
Where do you think you are right now?

fellate the table better. At the end of each session a gm could ask the players who they though did the best.

Well, you have time to improve. When I started playing, I also was pretty bad at roleplaying: I played a strongman in a M&M 3e campaign and the most things I brought to the table were big guy memes and optimization by beating any villain into dust with superstrenght.

I got better at RPing though and the GM was expressively telling us how much he liked how the group played last game.

>If you consider watching a nice movie or reading an enjoyable book
Which would be a point if a 'nice' and 'enjoyable' weren't also subjective metrics and a GM can use those to justify whatever he wants to.

No one mentioned GM favoritism.
OP never mentioned GM favortism.

Either you're assuming a lot of nonsense and missing that GM might just be a boring super serious no fun no rp player.

Or you're OP and you fucked up in describing what about your GM was actually a problem and instead complained about the xp, when the root cause was favoritism.

Either way while someone could be "intellectually lazy" in response to you, unlike you it's not because they're lacking in ability.

I feel like we're missing a lot of Lois by what isn't cropped.

I never said that it is objective, user. I am well aware that it's subjective, which is why my advice is "find some people who enjoy what you like and play together"

You don't want to come to a table expecting grim, gritty WHFRP and instead get a lighthearted and comfy, if a bit tacticool, DnD game, would you?

Just make sure to talk about your expectations with the players and you'll be fine! I can guarantee it.

dumb frogposter

Half the time "good roleplaying" isn't the subtle displays of character and development but LOLEPIKXD randumb bullshit the DM finds funny.
For example I haven't ever seen a player get insipration in 5e for playing to the characters personality/flaws/ideals/bonds. I've seen several times inspiration given out for bullshit making it seem more like an achievement in a videogame than to encourage roleplaying.

It's clear you and the GM have different expectations: the quickest and most effective solution to this problem would be to find a group that is more going with your style.

>No one mentioned GM favoritism.
And how does this change the fact that roleplaying XP is easily abusable?

Obviously I was talking about the concept of giving XP as reward for roleplaying and not about OP exactly situation.

>>he has two left hands

stormwind my neg hole

System is fine, either the DM or player (or both) are shit.

I often use system with "hero points" like Atomic Highway or Barbarians of Lemuria, I won't give exp for good roleplaying but I might give one hero point to a player if he comes up with a nice one liner, piece of dialog or a witty solution to a problem.

I don't think it's to wrong or unfair to give exp to very good roleplayers but I personnaly won't do it as it might lead to some imbalance. The solution would be to grant this bonus exp only once per game and never grant it two game in a row to the same player

Yes user, if the players are cool guess what? Literally anything works. With XP or no bonus XP it makes no difference.

The matter is only a problem when players aren't the best. And when this happens the game needs to give concrete values to ensure it won't crash into itself.

Thqt works in games like that but if you are running 2e d&d or any low magic/old school game. Xp rewards are better in order to keep realism.

>It's a fucking rpg not a competetive game
>It's a fucking rpg
>rpg
>role
>playing
>game

What's wrong roll-player?

My DM just gives me bonuses for doing cool shit.
>Try to finish most encounters with wrestling moves.
>Paladin gets in on it too.
>By the end of the campaign we're the most notorious tag-team duo on the sword coast.

>roleplay
>not rollplay

Casual.

If you're running OSR, XP should be rewarded for gold only.

user, not him, but RPGs aren't competitive. They are cooperative.

They can be competitive but those are like the exception.