Death in games

[hollowecho]

Ok so a PC has died and wants to make new character. for the sake of this lets say your group is 6 th level, what do you do let him come back As a first level or one under or equal to his peers?

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

New pc is always L1

[Killer Cyborg]

Ok so a PC has died and wants to make new character. for the sake of this lets say your group is 6 th level, what do you do let him come back As a first level or one under or equal to his peers?

We always started off new PCs at level 1.
Of course, we were playing Rifts as a rule, where levels don't matter quite as much as powers and gear.

When I ended up playing D&D 3.x and 4.0, though, the group I was with would always start off new PCs as 1 level behind the party average.
It didn't seem to cause much in the way of problems, although there were a couple players that were pretty indifferent to whether their characters died, because they could always roll up a new one (which they enjoyed).

[Nightmask]

Really depends on the game and setting, some it's more important the character start closer to the rest of the group's level than other. Palladium's setting in general does allow for characters to start at level 1 in general and be able to be competitive along-side higher level characters, others (like AD&D) it's far more difficult to impossible for it to work.

[Goliath Strongarm]

I generally go with last characters level minus one. Minus two if he was above the average level of the group. Keeps the power balance there.

[Nekira Sudacne]

I try to make sure new characters, both old players making a new one and new players bringing in first time characters, are roughly on the same power teir. in Rifts, this dosn't always have to do with levels. in fact it rarely does so.

[Zamion138]

The reason id say not lv1 is that if their are 4 lv6 chars and some wet behind the ears lv1 tries to join them why would they want him or her? Same level or one lower is how id play it.
If they are burning through chars often maybe not but if they died trying to do something good or just dumb luck then why penalize them so heavily, its hard to build levels in palladium as is.

[Snake Eyes]

Well, considering how horribly low some skill percentages are, i start everybody at level 5. but because there is still a good chance that a player's character will at some point meet their demise, i tend to let them have a backup character on standby

[MaxxSterling]

Levels are fairly meaningless in this game. I mean, a level 1 Glitterboy or level 1 bio-borg can destroy much higher level characters all day. Considering the armor and weapons available in this game I don't see a 5 level gap being an issue. However, as with anything in this game, it depends heavily on setting. Plus, the other play should catch up pretty fast, since around 6th-7th level is where the game starts to bog down level wise.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Levels are fairly meaningless in this game. I mean, a level 1 Glitterboy or level 1 bio-borg can destroy much higher level characters all day. Considering the armor and weapons available in this game I don't see a 5 level gap being an issue. However, as with anything in this game, it depends heavily on setting. Plus, the other play should catch up pretty fast, since around 6th-7th level is where the game starts to bog down level wise.

Some of us also go for the ROLE play aspect, where things like skills matter... not everything is about combat... and not everything is about RIFTs either...

[The Dark Elf]

I always go with level one. The PC's arent aware of any "levels" at job interview but may need to know what skills the new charatcer has. A little lie here or there can make for great roleplaying and some comedic moments later on when the parties new safecracker has his moment to shine and fumbles his weak skill percentage.

New characters in a level 6 party doesnt take some control from the GM to not get him slaughter in a random encounter but also the character with zero experience of confronting death dealing monsters/bad guys wouldnt be the one running into battle first either.

[Soldier of Od]

I would also go with starting at level one, unless there was immediate and severe danger where a level one character would find it impossible to survive (hard to survive is fine, but impossible, not!). With the way that levels progress very quickly at the early stages and then slow down, if the other characters are level 6, the new boy will have already reached a respectable level 4 before they have even made it to their next level, evening it out a bit.

Being the new guy in the group and having to learn quickly to adapt to the others and the situation they're in makes for good role playing opportunites anyway. And if the group is lacking a particular set of skills, then a new member with these skills will be useful even if they are low level.

This situation might also give the group an opportunity to adapt to changing circumstances, e.g. if the adventure was occurring mostly in a city, but they then discover they have to go on a long sea voyage or journey into the wilderness, the death of a PC would give the group an opportunity to have the replacement character be a mariner/sailor or ranger, giving the group more control over their own destiny where they may have been forced to hire an NPC sailor/ranger instead. And it saves the GM having to worry about another NPC. Of course this is only if the player is happy with rolling up said OCC for his next character - we wouldn't want to force him into a role he wasn't happy with.

[SmilingJack]

Honestly for the sake of the gamers involved as well as the overall flow of the game I'd recreate the character at a equivilant level to the PC's

Why

Because ever person who dies first

Complains why the death was impossible, how it could never have happened, which page directly disputes my ruling, etc

Secondly

If you set them at level one they will complain the entire way through the adventure about how they were wronged and even further insulted by having to play a weak lvl 1 character

Avoid the frustration

Let them play at the same level regardless

Also it expedites the character creation process if they don't have a secondary character prepared

the decision should come down to will the player have less fun and how does it affect the group morale

The first and foremost rule is to have fun, don't do anything that impinges upon this

[Razzinold]

Ultimately it's up to you (real helpful answer eh ?)
Honestly though, asking a question like that is going to get you a ton of different responses, there are people on here who have their players start at level 2, 3 ,4, etc. when first starting out the campaign as it is.
Myself? Usually I make everyone start at Level 1 (once in awhile it's level 2 but not because they asked, it's something I do for the sake of the group back story, but that is rare for me)
I'm not saying don't let their starting level be equal to the rest of the group, I'm just saying keep an eye on your players if you do allow it.

My buddy's GM used to let new characters come in at the same level (sometimes 1 or 2 back depending on the OCC) until he realized that people weren't trying so hard anymore. PC's would literally run headfirst into combat with no thought to cover or tactics (or logical common sense from the fake characters point of view) because a] they knew that if they didn't survive they could roll up a nearly equally powerful character or b] had become bored with/regretted their OCC choice and wanted a new one. The second one was made painfully obvious by one player, but harder to spot with the others. He lost his character and rolled up a new one (that was being introduced in the next session since they halted that night's session at his death). Not even half way through the next session he "sacrifices" himself on a grenade even though it totally went against his alignment (which was selfish) and the way he portrayed the character until that point (he got caught scamming the other pc's on some gear, knowingly sold them faulty stuff, and actually stole a piece of their gear from them and was caught).

After that he made every new character start at Level 1.

[Eashamahel]

Huh, never really considered this before. Always just started every character at level 1, since that's where they start, and because, as already stated, your level only indicates your ability relative to the same class as yourself, and not each other. Meaning a 6th level Rogue Scholar has a significant advantage over a 1st level Rogue Scholar, but that 1st level Scholar is on a different level than a 7th level Vagabond, and that 6ht level scholar is probably nowhere near the 2nd level Juicer.

As long as the PC is the only one in the party with that role (ie, the only scholar, ect, the only Power Armour Pilot), than their level doesn't really change their interaction. If the entire group is made up of similiar types, then maybe a higher level?

Also, I think my opinion is influenced by the fact that I have always viewed first level characters as consumate professionals in their field. They are not 'in training' nor inexperienced, they are fully capable and functional characters. A first level Rogue Scholar or Scientist is a multi-disciplinary, university level trained pro, similarily, a first level Ley Line Walker or Shifter has already spent YEARS studying, mastering and casting spells and magic in general.

[Noon]

Level 1. The disparity isn't so big in the palladium system.

And doing one level behind gets weird - one person with a level 10 character might be able to say they got them there all the way from level 1.

Another person with a level 10 character might say they got them there all the way from...level 9

It makes the whole 'what level did you get to' unimportant.

Maybe you're players don't care about that and it's okay. But generally it's a thing.

[Cinos]

It makes the whole 'what level did you get to' unimportant.

Given that EXP awards are rather subjective and change hugely between GM to GM as much as gear does, its a rather false augment (Granted one used by many people, but it makes as much senses as bragging "Wooooo! Someone gave me an imaginary sword that I can only get by them saying it get it!).

As for what I do, it depends. If it's a more fighty style game where having a lower leveled character is a near automatic death sentence, I'll generally put them at or just under the party norm. If the game is less level centric, and more about that role playing thing, generally lower leveled. Not always level 1 (since not everyone starts their adventuring life as a green nobody), but perhaps half as well off as the others, perhaps 25% less. This is also subjective a bit to how high level the group norm is. If they're all level 10, a level 1 or 2 is never catching up, and will always be the dead weight on the party, which is rarely fun for most, and I've noticed they can just stop coming if they feel they're doing more harm then good, with fun being the important aspect to them (and ideally the group). But a level 7 could still play on that field just fine, clearly not as great, but they can do support tasks and their in the same realm.

[Bill]

I award points to players rather than characters. And I don't penalize people for getting their characters killed, losing all of their gear and backstory is bad enough. So sixth level, with a couple interesting adventure stories written by the player, featuring at least one very good piece of equipment and half dozen story hooks/NPCs.

[Noon]

It makes the whole 'what level did you get to' unimportant.

Given that EXP awards are rather subjective and change hugely between GM to GM as much as gear does, its a rather false augment

It sounds like you're saying it varies so much that some GM's, after five minutes of play, will hand out ~21,000 XP to a player. Like a GM saying you start off at sixth level is essentially handing out ~21,000 XP after zero minutes of play.

You'd have to tell me how far you think it varies over time played, on average, otherwise I don't think you've presented a point yet? How far are you saying it varies? Is ~21,000 XP over five minutes an example of what you're saying? And you're saying alot of GM's do this?

I kinda think you just want to give the message 'it's not about gamist style play to win accomplishment'. I'd say no, it can be about that, the numbers handed out will have a rough average, but if you don't want it to be for your game, okay.

(Granted one used by many people, but it makes as much senses as bragging "Wooooo! Someone gave me an imaginary sword that I can only get by them saying it get it!).

What rule in the book says the GM is forced to only ever use GM fiat to determine whether someone gets an item?

Possibly you're GM has never rolled a percent chance to see whether you get an item like a sword - maybe they feel the dice invade or corrupt 'the story' and make the game world mechanistic or something ('like a video game' is the usual derisive complaint of the last decade. Munchkiny was the derisive complaint of the prior decade).

But there's certainly no rule forcing the GM to use GM fiat instead of that percentile roll (or instead of making up more complex puzzles for items)

I'm kinda thinking you want it to be that items are only ever from GM fiat and no one could take a gamist pride in that.

On the other hand, when you play, why do you need a GM to tell you you got a sword? You can't imagine that on your own already? What's so substantial about you're style of group play, given you could imagine that by yourself already?

[ZorValachan]

Look at your group. Talk about it. Make a discision everyone at least is aware of before the game starts. Clear communication in the group playing is important, especially when peoples perceived conceptions could be proved wrong later.

My history:
Hated the first RPG I played D+D (1st edition based on the GM, and I was 11 or 12 and didn't know anything)

Got Robotech. At that time (13 or 14) I did not see a reason for 'Levels'. Trying to recreate battles was cooler to my group. We just made a 'squadron', made characters and based level on rank. This hooked me on PB.

TMNT was next. Did the samem Making the characters was cooler than 'leveling'.

Got PFRPG 1st ed. This was the first time I saw levels being important (I was maybe 15). Characters' deaths = new one at level 1. A new player would also start at level 1. 1st because of 'punishment' for letting character die and 2nd to be 'fair' to those who spent the time actually playing and their character surviving.

That attitude lasted many years, until one new guy came to our PFRPG 1st game and the group was level 5-7ish. A level 1 character seemed way behind, so we let him come in at level 3 (Witch hunter or maybe it was Undead hunter from yin-sloth book) Those OCCs were more 'advanced' and got magic items to start, so it seemed comparable. But death usually resulted in being 3-4 levels behind (start at level 3), as 'punishment'

I started to dislike level based systems, and the point based and multiplier based systems seemed easier to have someone's character die and start 'newbie' and not be too far surpased by the others. When one guy started having characters die because of bordom/trying out new concepts, our group didn't like it so made a rule anyone who has a character die has to start out as a 'farmer' or such and work towards getting adventuring skills (learning weapons, spells, prayers, etc.)

I made my own system, where 'newbies' could be effective (but not -as- effective) alongside veteran characters, so did not have that problem during those years.

Came back tp PB because of nostalgia. We were more mature and in the one death on the second or third adventure did not set that character back more than half a level.

Found out about 4th ed D+D and fell in love. Read the DMG and had an epiphany on advancement and character death.

All the previous years we had 'punished' people for not coming to games and characters' deaths. They did not participate and let characters die = no/less EXP.

But we had changed as people (we're mostly hitting 40 now). Punishment because you went drinking, out on a date instead of a to a game is one thing. Punishment because you went to your kid's dance recital/pinewood derby seemed wrong. Also by lowering a character to level 1 you are lowering the whole ability of the group (and in certain games/style this can be bad. In others it does not matter). So in my current game everyone has the exact same EXP. even if your character dies or you miss a session. We create stories/backgrounds for the whys.

So, that is my take. Figure out your group and why you play as you do. Your answer is in that answer.

[Ice Dragon]

New characters start at 1st level, but some O.C.C. allows you to start with an higher level.

Depending on the campain, I - as a GM - would consider to have a new character start at a higher level. But, a level 1 character will gain more experiance and will be near the same level of the other characters very soon.

[Dunia]

In my games (level based): New players are always level 1, but as the GM, I usually (when time permits) play 1-2 solo adventures between the session where said player died and the next one. Just so that he player and I get a little personality and feeling of the character before they meet up with he new group.

Also, for the first level or two (depending on the levels of the rest of the group) the new character gets a bonus 10-20% xp so that he will have it a little easier on catching up.

[Marrowlight]

Always the same level as the rest of the party, unless the player wants to play a rookie for some reason, or unless I think it'd be fun for the story.

[arthurfallz]

It depends on the game and the player.

My one friend, when he GMs, always has the player pick up (if at all possible) one of the supporting cast that has become associated with the group. Our games tend to have interesting NPCs attach themselves to the group, and it's a lot of fun when you can have that character be "playered." From there, it's a matter of deciding where that character is.

My gut feeling is to take the experience points the player-character accumulated, halve them, and let him or her make the character, putting them at whatever level that 1/2 total gives. I might offer 2/3 if the player chooses an O.C.C./R.C.C. that makes sense for the area, or picks up a supporting character.

When a new player joins the game, I would do the same thing. Take the average experience total of the group, 1/2 it and offer the 2/3 if he or she picks up supporting cast / region specific O.C.C./R.C.C.

[Cybermancer]

I've always gone with the theory that it is the player, not the character that earn experience points. Nor do I like penalizing players for misfortune. It's usually bad enough that they just had a character that they've invested time and emotion into die, I'm not going to slap them with an arbitrary penalty on top of that. So they take whatever experience points had been earned up to that point and apply it when making the next character. It is the experience points and the new class that will then determine the starting level for the new character.

For new players joining an established game it can depend. I don't see it as fair to penalize someone just because they weren't there at the start of the campaign. But I also like to be fair to those that were there at the start. Usually I'll give a new player an average of the group's experience points as the benefit of the doubt sort of deal.

If the player is new to gaming however, they start at first level and learn the game from the ground up.

If I'm unsure about a new player I might start them a level or two behind the lowest level currently in the party.

If it's a case of the player just wanting to play a new character than the old character goes into my NPC file and is slowly fazed out or killed off. The new character starts off with the same experience points as the departing character. If a player does this a lot, then I might start slapping level penalties to discourage it as it means more time and effort put in by me to accomodate them.

[JTwig]

Ok so a PC has died and wants to make new character. for the sake of this lets say your group is 6 th level, what do you do let him come back As a first level or one under or equal to his peers?

I think in most Palladium games it is exceptable to have a new player start out at fist level, especially since it possible for a first level charater in Rifts to be as skilled and as powerful (even more so) than a sixth level character depending upon O.C.C. and race selection. A first level Mind Melter is more powerful than a sixth level Rogue Scientist when comparing raw power levels; of course equipment and special abilities will come into play. I've even allowed players who have had character's die in a high level game (all players around 10th level) create new charaters at first level, but let them pick from powerful O.C.C.s/R.C.C. such as Demi-God/Godling and Cosmo-Knights.

Even forgetting game mechanics and focusing story-wise, it still works. How many times have you seen a movie or read a book where a group of vets take under their wing an inexperienced recruit who is filled with potential?

[flatline]

You have a party where all the characters have survived to 6th level?

I don't think I've ever seen that happen. We always had lots of character turnover from characters being killed or retired. I would guess that in a long campaign, we'd end up with a party of mostly level 2-4 characters with a small number of level 5-6. It was a very rare thing for someone to play a character all the way to level 7 without retiring him. Retired characters were usually given to the GM as a potential NPC.

New characters usually started at level 1, but sometimes, depending on the GM, the power level, and the character class, a new character might start as high as level 3. Alternatively, if a player took over an NPC, they started at whatever level the NPC was.

--flatline

[Goliath Strongarm]

You have a party where all the characters have survived to 6th level?

I don't think I've ever seen that happen.

Wow... you know, some things always amazed me, like people who say that it took them years of weekly gaming to reach high levels, or the "noone ever survived to level X"...

I've been in games that had PCs with 30-45ish levels. And we EARNED them. And it's not the GM handing out extra exp or anything, it was by the book exp. Granted, our "weekly" game was pretty much a 24-48 hour marathon, but still seems that we flew by what other people said.

I've also been with multiple GMs over the years, and never seemed to have that much "lag" or that high of a death rate. Now, I'm not saying that there weren't deaths, or that we didn't rez some characters, but never as bad as some people seem to talk about.

I don't know. Maybe I was just lucky with GMs that had well balanced adventurers, and groups that were good at handling things. I've lost track of the characters that have retired at level 12+, or even 15 (and a few times 15+)!

Really, if you're having that high rate of PC deaths, two things need to be examined, because there is a problem at one of them: Either A) The GM is throwing way too powerful and/or inappropriate adventures, or B) the players need to pay better attention to their abilities, equipment, and TEAMWORK.

Also, if you're levelling up so slowly (as some people at various places have commented on before), then the GM needs to look at what he's considering a minor menance and what's a major menace, and needs to look at if he's giving the actual exp that is earned. If the GM is certain that he's correct in the EXP he's handing out, then he needs to look at increasing the dangers posed, so that PCs can earn more exp, because he's cheating them, really. One of the worst things you can end up doing to the party is when they're level 8 and earning exp at the same rate as when they were level 2... they'll never level up. If you're a player, and this is what's going on, speak to your GM, and ask for bigger challenges, more appropriate to your levels!

[flatline]

You have a party where all the characters have survived to 6th level?

I don't think I've ever seen that happen.

Wow... you know, some things always amazed me, like people who say that it took them years of weekly gaming to reach high levels, or the "noone ever survived to level X"...

I've been in games that had PCs with 30-45ish levels. And we EARNED them. And it's not the GM handing out extra exp or anything, it was by the book exp. Granted, our "weekly" game was pretty much a 24-48 hour marathon, but still seems that we flew by what other people said.

I've also been with multiple GMs over the years, and never seemed to have that much "lag" or that high of a death rate. Now, I'm not saying that there weren't deaths, or that we didn't rez some characters, but never as bad as some people seem to talk about.

I don't know. Maybe I was just lucky with GMs that had well balanced adventurers, and groups that were good at handling things. I've lost track of the characters that have retired at level 12+, or even 15 (and a few times 15+)!

Really, if you're having that high rate of PC deaths, two things need to be examined, because there is a problem at one of them: Either A) The GM is throwing way too powerful and/or inappropriate adventures, or B) the players need to pay better attention to their abilities, equipment, and TEAMWORK.

Also, if you're levelling up so slowly (as some people at various places have commented on before), then the GM needs to look at what he's considering a minor menance and what's a major menace, and needs to look at if he's giving the actual exp that is earned. If the GM is certain that he's correct in the EXP he's handing out, then he needs to look at increasing the dangers posed, so that PCs can earn more exp, because he's cheating them, really. One of the worst things you can end up doing to the party is when they're level 8 and earning exp at the same rate as when they were level 2... they'll never level up. If you're a player, and this is what's going on, speak to your GM, and ask for bigger challenges, more appropriate to your levels!

Well, if you get 800-1000 EXP in a 4-6 hour weekly session, it takes somewhere around 20 sessions (5 months) to reach level 5. Now if your group is playing 3 different campaigns and splitting the time equally, you play a particularly campaign once every 3 weeks, so suddenly it takes 15 months to get that character up to level 5.

We always had a fair amount of PC death, but we lost more characters to retirement. A player would get a new book, become interested in a new character, and retire his current character in order to play the new character he was excited about.

Perhaps my experience isn't as typical as I assumed.

--flatline

[Goliath Strongarm]

Well, if you get 800-1000 EXP in a 4-6 hour weekly session, it takes somewhere around 20 sessions (5 months) to reach level 5. Now if your group is playing 3 different campaigns and splitting the time equally, you play a particularly campaign once every 3 weeks, so suddenly it takes 15 months to get that character up to level 5.

First, I'm used to pretty much one campaign at a time, with a second one only being played when a player is missing (and even then, sometimes main campaign still goes on, with a "reason" for that PCs absence). So yes, that IS a factor. However....

Wow... if in 4-6 hours, you're getting 800-1000, then either the PCs are short changing themselves, or the GM is being stingy. Seriously. A major menace alone is 75-100, and each adventure should have a MINIMUM of one (if a small party), more likely either two or a Great menace, which is 150-300.

If you figure a 5 person group (which is about average)
1 great menace: 200
15 minor menace: 750 (50each, minions)
10 minor menace: 250 (25 each, traps, etc)

That's 1200, or 240 each for the group exp. PLUS Individual
5 skill use: 125 (this is a MINIMUM. Most characters should use a LOT more!)
2 futile idea: 100
1 useful idea: 100
Endangering own life: 100 (maybe not EVERY adventure, but a lot of them. Oh, you're off to go kill monster X to save the village? You're risking YOUR life for others! The greater the beast, the higher the exp)
2 Deductive reasoning: 200
2 good judgement: 100
5 daring: 250
in character: 50

Makes individual reward: 1025. Plus 240 from your share of the group exp. 1265 total. BARE BONES.

At 17500 for level 5 (some classes higher, some lower, that's a decent middle ground), that's 14 sessions.

Keep in mind, a lot of those have a range of potential exp, and I mainly used the LOW end. Also, depending on the character type, a lot of your quantity per session numbers should be higher. Playing a mage? Deductive reasonings should be insane, so should skill use. Playing a heroic paladin? Daring, endangering own life, add in potential self-sacrifice, etc... Seriously, I've seen (from an ~8 hour session a party have almost 7K experience... why? Because they went **** deep into it!)

Take for example the old fantasy stereotype of "the goblins are attacking the village! HEEEELP"
Say, there are 4 PCs. 12 goblin minions, a goblin shaman, and the chief.
That's 12 minor threats, and (2 majors) (2 greaters) (a major and a greater).
Anywhere from 450-1200 exp (112.5-300exp per PC) And that's just killing or subduing. That doesn't take into account skills, ideas, bravery, good judgement, in character, plus 100-300 to each PC for risking their lives for the townsfolk, etc.

We always had a fair amount of PC death, but we lost more characters to retirement. A player would get a new book, become interested in a new character, and retire his current character in order to play the new character he was excited about.

This I could understand more than PC death. Especially if you play fantasy. There are always ways to be brought back from death. Sure, they're expensive, but cash cost can be defrayed by a massive quest (which can net you good exp). Also helps the GM control finances in the game

However, being as I played fantasy more than RIFTs, the "ooh, look at the shiney and new!" wasn't/isn't really such an issue. After all, new books come out so rarely that it's almost laughable. However, when someone did get "bored" and want to swap to something new, we usually worked their character into being a "strategic liason" for the group- for example, one Wizard my buddy played "retired" to the Library of Bletherad. We financially supported him (to a degree), and he was able to do research to his hearts content, and fed us information. When we needed info on specific topics, we sent questions and stuff to him, and would get replies after a week or two. It was great for us, because we didn't lose adventuring time to research, and it worked for the GM, because he didn't have to worry about us getting distracted or being stupid while at the great library (like with a former PC that decided he was going to doodle images of naked trolls into some of the books....). He could also feed us plot hooks whenever he wanted.

[flatline]

Compared to your example, all our regular GMs were pretty stingy (although I don't remember us thinking so at the time).

For example, a goblin party with 12 goblins, a shaman, and a chief would probably have counted as a single major menace rather than 12 minor menaces and 2 major menaces.

--flatline

[Goliath Strongarm]

Compared to your example, all our regular GMs were pretty stingy (although I don't remember us thinking so at the time).

For example, a goblin party with 12 goblins, a shaman, and a chief would probably have counted as a single major menace rather than 12 minor menaces and 2 major menaces.

--flatline

See, this is one of my gripes about other GMs. Now, if you're a group of level 8 characters, and this poses no threat, that's one thing. Otherwise? That's stinginess.

Also, should be considered if its one big fight, or lots of small fights.

[Killer Cyborg]

I always went by encounter, not by individuals within the encounter.
The Four Horsemen fought all at once, is one Major Menace (or whatever the highest xp encounter would be).

[flatline]

Compared to your example, all our regular GMs were pretty stingy (although I don't remember us thinking so at the time).

For example, a goblin party with 12 goblins, a shaman, and a chief would probably have counted as a single major menace rather than 12 minor menaces and 2 major menaces.

--flatline

See, this is one of my gripes about other GMs. Now, if you're a group of level 8 characters, and this poses no threat, that's one thing. Otherwise? That's stinginess.

Also, should be considered if its one big fight, or lots of small fights.

My experience is that as long as you can avoid combat, EXP comes quickly. It's easy to net 400-800 EXP in an hour of role-playing, yet a combat encounter that takes the whole night to complete might only net you 800 EXP. Unfortunately, some players seem to like combat, so it's sometimes hard to convince them that avoiding combat is the optimal strategy.

Three of us actually tested this out once without the GM's knowledge. We made characters with the sole goal of being able to avoid and escape combat and the three of us hit level 4 by the end of the 3rd session. But once the rest of the group came back, we were unable to maintain the same solidarity of purpose. The GM got a laugh out of it once we explained what we'd been doing. He loved it. That's when we really started designing house rules to make combat go faster so we'd have more time for role playing.

--flatline

[Noon]

Compared to your example, all our regular GMs were pretty stingy (although I don't remember us thinking so at the time).

For example, a goblin party with 12 goblins, a shaman, and a chief would probably have counted as a single major menace rather than 12 minor menaces and 2 major menaces.

--flatline

See, this is one of my gripes about other GMs. Now, if you're a group of level 8 characters, and this poses no threat, that's one thing. Otherwise? That's stinginess.

I don't know why you gripe about other GM's - if the rules let such a disparity occur, isn't it the rules that are the problem?

[ZorValachan]

Compared to your example, all our regular GMs were pretty stingy (although I don't remember us thinking so at the time).

For example, a goblin party with 12 goblins, a shaman, and a chief would probably have counted as a single major menace rather than 12 minor menaces and 2 major menaces.

--flatline

See, this is one of my gripes about other GMs. Now, if you're a group of level 8 characters, and this poses no threat, that's one thing. Otherwise? That's stinginess.

Also, should be considered if its one big fight, or lots of small fights.

It's not stinginess if the GM and Players all know this is how exp are given out for their group's game. Some of us like gritty games where characters scrape by and leveling is slow and harder earned.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Compared to your example, all our regular GMs were pretty stingy (although I don't remember us thinking so at the time).

For example, a goblin party with 12 goblins, a shaman, and a chief would probably have counted as a single major menace rather than 12 minor menaces and 2 major menaces.

--flatline

See, this is one of my gripes about other GMs. Now, if you're a group of level 8 characters, and this poses no threat, that's one thing. Otherwise? That's stinginess.

I don't know why you gripe about other GM's - if the rules let such a disparity occur, isn't it the rules that are the problem?

While PB rules have plenty of issues, honestly, the exp chart isn't really one. Could it use a bit of a cleanup? Probably. Does it work as is? Yes.

Here's how it breaks down, honestly. PB isn't for GMs that need handholding. It isn't for those that need everything spelled out for them. If it was, you would need KS and the Crew to go through every book, and list "this is a minor threat. This is a major threat. This is a greater threat". But there are a million and one variables. If my party is 9 characters, average 10th level, and we all have a rune item, a single Maggot (the supernatural kind) is NOT going to be a "greater threat". But if we're a group of 5 people, average level 4, and no major magic items to speak of, yeah, it is.

start Digression....
The problem gets to be that we have a "generation" (for lack of a better word) of gamers that have learned "at this level you should have X amount of gold, and this many encounters of this level and of this type equal this much" etc etc. But you know, if you're not running Company Z's premade modules (and thank GOD we don't have those for PB!) it's all variable based on the GM. Is the GM the kind that says "well, to be fair, if one person gets a rune weapon, I should make sure everyone can get one"? Does he easily allow you to amass millions in gold? Or is he like one of my old GMs, that we pretty much had equipment we found, barely ever had gold, and it didn't matter because we so rarely saw civilization we couldn't buy anything anyways? A billion and one things make it all campaign dependent. THAT is why PB doesn't hand hold us. /digress


But, GMs have started developing a habit of going to one extreme or the other. Either "ok, so... go ahead and have a level" or "700 exp" (I had one GM that I was ticking off stuff on my own sheet, and we easily earned 1500+ each, and he awarded us 500) because they wrote a milllion mile long adventure around specific low levels, and didn't account properly for player progression, and don't want to be bothered to adjust their plan. And when it comes to loot, "You find 1d20*100,000 gp, plus several gems and artworks that value about 2 million gold" or "you find 3000 gold" (after a 14 hour long adventure- actual playing time, not including breaks, at level 9! And automatically anything we went to pillage was "too damaged").

There IS a middle ground. It's the balancing act, and a LOT (not all, just a lot) of GMs have lost it. Hell, I admit it- even I did for a while. I was running a group, and I was getting overworked at work, and at home, and with the game, I let them wheedle me into giving them everything they wanted without having to really work for it. And then I had a 3 day break right before a game. And I came back with a vengeance. Single night of gaming, I balanced it all out. And I also reminded them why dragons were creatures of nightmares.

[Cinos]

I don't know why you gripe about other GM's - if the rules let such a disparity occur, isn't it the rules that are the problem?

While I don't disagree with the point that rules are a problem in this game, EXP and how fast it flows, is always kind of a variable in any RPG, it's rather a strength of the format, that a group as a collective can find that medium they want to advance at. Some people like to have their characters grow slowly over time, while others want a fast track to the higher levels.

But you remember that post about how hugely different GM's have advancement happen, seems that disparity is pretty big

[Goliath Strongarm]

But you remember that post about how hugely different GM's have advancement happen, seems that disparity is pretty big

*Note: all times that I use him/he/ etc is not intended to imply male only. I use those because it's a male-dominated hobby.

Yes, but this is one of the areas I don't blame on rules, I actually blame on GMs, and to an extent, players. I'll explain..

GMs-
We all hit our streaks where we start to get tired, or get worn down. If you're newer to GMing, you may not know what I'm talking about. If you've been doing it for a while, you know what I mean. When we hit that stretch, we start getting a bit lazy about things. And when that happens, we either tend to give too much, or too little, to the PCs. And we don't worry about it, using the mantra "it'll all balance out".

Players-
Too often players don't give feedback. Multitudes of reasons. Uncomfortable about it. Afraid the GM will quit running, and then no game. Afraid of retaliation from the GM. Too nice of person. New to the group and figures it's "their way", when noone else has decided to speak up. Etc etc etc etc. Without this info, the GM will probably just keep on in the same vein. GMs need feedback. They need to know what the players are liking and disliking. Does it seem that they are levelling too slow? Too quick? Too much treasure? Too little? Yes, some players WILL say "holy crap, that is WAY too much loot for our level!". Those tend to be my favorite kind of players.


If the players say certain things, the GM should look and see- is it the system or him? If the system, can he houserule it?

But, the other end of the disparity comes from GMs having this adventure that they figured will take PCs from level X to level Y... and if PCs start getting too much exp, instead of changing the adventure, they modify how the PCs gain exp. Is that fair? Punish the players/characters because the GM doesn't want to adjust his plan?

Honestly, I've NEVER had an adventure that I went "oh no, the PCs have gained too much experience! My game is ruined!". I've known GMs/DMs that have said that. And it shocked me. Simply up the challenge! Oh, that Baal-Rog? Give him some minions. Give him some magic items that have limited uses.

[Noon]

To call it a balancing act is to just treat ones own preference for the handing out of XP as if it's the true way to do it and others have failed to balance toward it.

Really you've just as much failed to balance toward the other persons own preference for handing out XP.