Forums of the Megaverse®

I've been a DM/GM off and on for years, yet this is still something I struggle with. I'm curious as to how other GMs handle this scenario. You're distributing XP based on the Experience Points Award Table in the book... (it's a system I personally like very much, btw)...

Player A gets 1000 XP for his/her various actions/decisions.
Player B gets 1300 XP for his/her various actions/decisions.
Player C gets only 500 XP because he wasn't very effective, either in combat, decision making, skills, or what not.
etc....

I always feel bad giving some players more XP than other players, especially when everyone is putting in a real effort. But let's face it: if a particular segment of the game happens to be combat-oriented, your Rogue Scholar may not be as effective Likewise, if your session takes place in downtown Arzno, your Glitterboy may not be as effective either. So it can all even out in the end.

But players won't always feel that way at the time.

As I said above, I appreciate the Rifts XP Award system and have no desire to change it. But, as a GM, how do you handle a player who feels 'slighted' when he/she receives a lower XP award than another player? Especially if he is playing an O.C.C. that requires much more XP to level up?

Just curious if anyone has any thoughts/suggestions.

Thanks!

IIRC d20 from WotC adds up a total of XP and distributes it evenly amongst the group thus everyone getting the same XP for the team effort. You could go that route and maybe just give a little extra to those that performed above par?

Add all the XP you have for all the players. Divide by the number of players. That is the XP they all get. Above average performances for the night get a 50-100 XP bonus.

That way no one wil really feel slighted since it is supposed to be a team/group oriented game.

You don't handle them. Life's not fair. If they want more XP, then play better. End of story and if they don't like it, there's the door.

MaxxSterling wrote:You don't handle them. Life's not fair. If they want more XP, then play better. End of story and if they don't like it, there's the door.

Well, yes, I realize life isn't fair. And I could easily have the "f*** you" attitude you suggest and the result will be just want you said at the end: the door. That's no fun for anyone either, including me.

The game is supposed to be enjoyable and perhaps an escape from life, not a reminder of it.

jaymz wrote:IIRC d20 from WotC adds up a total of XP and distributes it evenly amongst the group thus everyone getting the same XP for the team effort. You could go that route and maybe just give a little extra to those that performed above par?

Add all the XP you have for all the players. Divide by the number of players. That is the XP they all get. Above average performances for the night get a 50-100 XP bonus.

That way no one wil really feel slighted since it is supposed to be a team/group oriented game.

That's an interesting approach. I used to do something similar in D&D. The reason I haven't been doing that in Rifts is because it seems so tailored to individual accomplishments. But I didn't consider the going that route and giving a little extra to those who accomplished some obvious feats. That's not unreasonable at all.... Thanks for the tip.

dpenwood wrote:

jaymz wrote:IIRC d20 from WotC adds up a total of XP and distributes it evenly amongst the group thus everyone getting the same XP for the team effort. You could go that route and maybe just give a little extra to those that performed above par?

Add all the XP you have for all the players. Divide by the number of players. That is the XP they all get. Above average performances for the night get a 50-100 XP bonus.

That way no one wil really feel slighted since it is supposed to be a team/group oriented game.

That's an interesting approach. I used to do something similar in D&D. The reason I haven't been doing that in Rifts is because it seems so tailored to individual accomplishments. But I didn't consider the going that route and giving a little extra to those who accomplished some obvious feats. That's not unreasonable at all.... Thanks for the tip.

No problem

Communism doesn't solve the issue.

By giving equal amounts you're actually penalising the player who potentially gave his all and giving away earned xp to the drunkard in the corner.

Each should have they own xp as theyve earned it. For the ones bringing up the rear, maybe the need to be more involved.

What I would suggets is this:
In Rifts the game is supposed to have minimal balance. One day the GB might b the focus, the next day its the scholar, the next day its all of them. The point being that IF you have a game where this cant happen pre warn the players before starting. Dont say "no" to an OCC/RCC but just let them know an outline so they can gear their choice of character; "Hey guys, new campaign next week. It's a real subterfuge, secrecy, plot type of adventure." or " Hey guys, next adventure is gonna be an all out shoot em up merc campaign!"

That way if they all have a moment to shine then even the players who really get into it and gain the most xp each week (Im always having the **** taken out of me as it's always my brother that gets the most - but he's active the most!...) will only be turning level 7 when everyone else turns level 6. Not a big deal IMO.

Btw, most of my players xp comes from quick thinking, critical action or deductive reasoning. One brainstorming session can earn thousands of xp but I will give this to ideas of the player as well as actions of the character (ie deductive reasoning from a player although a bit of meta-gaming is going on - his charatcer's not actually privy to that knowledge for e.g.).

The Dark Elf wrote:By giving equal amounts you're actually penalising the player who potentially gave his all and giving away earned xp to the drunkard in the corner.

Thus why I myself stated to give those that did more extra XP. Again this is a team game isn't it?

The Dark Elf wrote:Each should have they own xp as theyve earned it. For the ones bringing up the rear, maybe the need to be more involved.

The XP awards are skewed towards eliminating threats more than just thinking up good ideas etc. That makes it skewed towards the heavy combat characters more or less even though again, dealing with these things is supposed to be a team oriented process.

If the goal is achieved then all should be rewarded for achieving the goal, not "oh well you accomplished more in achieving the goal than me so you should get more credit.

I look at it like a group project at school. You typically get graded on the project as a whole and not your individual efforts.

Besides there are other ways to reward the more involved players aside from XP.

dpenwood wrote:

MaxxSterling wrote:You don't handle them. Life's not fair. If they want more XP, then play better. End of story and if they don't like it, there's the door.

Well, yes, I realize life isn't fair. And I could easily have the "f*** you" attitude you suggest and the result will be just want you said at the end: the door. That's no fun for anyone either, including me.

The game is supposed to be enjoyable and perhaps an escape from life, not a reminder of it.

I'm nicer about it, but in the end I'm about the same as Maxx.
If somebody doesn't want to sharpen their skills, to push themselves to be a better and better player, then they're not going to do very well at my table.
I've run 4-5 hour sessions, and had some players receive 0 XP before. It wasn't even that uncommon, back when I was running regularly.

I never got too many complaints, though.
Some players just didn't care, because they figured they weren't going to live to be high level anyway.
Some felt that leveling up didn't give enough of a bonus to worry about.
Some were just "Buddy" players who didn't really care.

Of course, I'd also suggest to people ways to improve their game. If they'd claim that they did "everything that they could," I'd point out things that they could have done if they'd put more thought and effort into it. I'd try to be encouraging, but if somebody doesn't want to try, they don't want to try.

I've used didfferent ways over the years and cannot say that any 'system' is better than any other. It depends on a few factors. You and your gaming group are the main factor. Our systems of Exp awards have been:

1st system: Exp for combat is added up and divided amongst all who contributed to the combat. Contributed doesn't mean did damage, but moved the combat forward. A mage casting 'buffs' on warriors is contributing to combat. A thief sneaking over to shut a porcullis in order to prevent reinforcements for the enemy is contributing. A scholar telling the warrior "His heart's in his right shoulder, hit him there" is contributing. A guy sitting in the corner is NOT contributing. Then I would give individual Exp to those who had the good ideas, moments, skills, etc. When someone died, their next character would start at 1 level less than the previous as 'punishment' for dying.
I used that system when I had a lot of games that people just came to game, not all personal friends.

2nd System: Similar to above, but instead of me as the GM giving out the extra 'Exp' based on my idea of what was good ideas, moments, skill use, etc. at the end of the night I would gather the group around and we'd all state what these were. This proved a little better because I might not have written down something/forgot or didn't think something was good, whereas other people thought it was a key idea/action/etc.

3rd System: Again, similar to above, but each night I gave 5 'tokens' to each person. Nickle, Nickle, Nickle, Dime, Quarter. If a person thought something someone else did, they could give the token/coin to that player and that player would receive the amount. More than 1 coin could be give and multiple people could give more, but once you gave all your coins, you could not give more. Many days not all coins had been give.

In all three, I gave a little Exp (up to 50 points) for doing things to help the group. Bringing snacks for all (not just a sandwich for yourself)-to keep us from having to break up to go eat. Journals, timelines, treasurer, etc. things that helped the group.

I found the above systems work with groups/games that are about the individual characters and if you have some players who contribute more than others. It works fine for this. It also works on the mentality of punishing an individual for not doing well and rewarding an individual who does well. We also had a few hurt feelings when someone came up with an idea and another guy's character did it, but I as the GM didn't realize the first guy came up with the idea.

The current system I use throws all that mentality away and gives everyone an equal share of Exp. It's easy to keep track of Exp. no one can 'fudge' and add a few Exp when I'm not looking. Also, while the above system rewards/punishes individuals on an individual basis, it also punishes everyone. If some of the group is 1-2 levels higher, those lower level characters are bringing the group as a whole down. They can't do as much as a group and the guys who are higher level have lesser level people watching their back. Final note: everyone in my current groups (2 groups) are friends outside the game. Everyone participates fully and we have no slackers. As with everything else, look at you and your group and tailor it to fit everyone the best.

As a GM I give everyone the same xp to everyone, when I even remember to give xp. I usually just tell them they have made a level, and/or they develop different abilities/powers through the course of playing. Funny enough though no one has complained about my lack of giving xp.

I'm super fine with players not getting even amounts of EXP if there is real performance differences (in their play, depending on their character focus), and their involvement in the game as a whole (read: Commitment to the game). Though in addition to this, for larger games (5+ players) I also did a hidden rating system, end of the night, I'd pass around a note book for everyone, and they'd put a score in for each player 1-10, total added up, multiplied, given as EXP (This worked more so in games where loyalty to the party was not assured to start).

I think you should award XP as someone mentioned... combat would be split among everyone who contributed.

Skills can be done in a similiar way... Someone who performed the skill but the other team member who suggested the idea both get the points.

Last I think you could award team work/participation points. So just for participating and not bringing the team down they get a chunk of XP. Most games everyone should get this. If a player struggles to get these xp then there is an issue I think.

Then extras like bringing food, drinks, or contibuting to the session in other ways. Award appropriate xp.

I give out experience points as players earn them; the difference is that I use counters. The players then total up the experience at the end of the session. Currently I use small glass beads with a flat side like the ones used in the bottom of fish tanks. I have also used poker chips. This method seems to work out well as I can reward the players as things happen without slowing things down.

For combat encounters, players earn extra XP as action happens with good ideas, good use of skills, or in character actions that are creative. At the end of combat all characters in the party that participated in the event in a manner consistent with their character get same encounter XP. That would include the young rouge scholar who tried to stay out of the action and just yelled warnings to other characters.

I also reward a base 50-100 xp per hour of game play as long as the players are playing in character and the story moves along. If we stall for an hour and just bs about rules or some new movie, no xp.

In addition to the hourly XP I reward big bonuses for completing story parts or character development. After major “chapters” in a campaign I reward about 1,000 XP per session that was part of the story segment. A player must have been present for most of those sessions.
In most cases this method has really helped my groups focus on story and actions that are “in character” as that is what I reward heaviest. Since story and character development are both important to me, this has been great. It also seems to “train” the players to get into character, the story, and the action more.
When I was running my game we played a 4-6 hour session once a week. Most of my campaigns run 6-12 months. In general my players earn 800-
1,200 exp a session. With my bonuses added in characters generally start first level and progress to 6th or 7th level in yearlong game.

in combat, regardless of how effective the player is, if he participates i reward him with experience in relation to the threat. For a GB, an evil bandit would be a miniscule threat ( or what ever) but to a scholor the threat would be more modest. I would reward them the lower threat level due to the ease of killing. As long as the scholor participated in some way (fired shots and what not to atleast hit or disable said bandit) They both get the same exp from the kill.

Playing in character is where these noncombat characters really shine though. doesn't seem too balanced, but atleast people get their exp and not divided.

Which means a great menace would be rewarded individually to the group rather then split among the entirety.

Helps to level faster and keep a balance.

Of all the GM's I've played with, my favorite method of attributing experience worked something like this.

Every hour of playing, each player who was actively playing received some small number of poker chips. Each chip was worth 10 Exp. This set the base rate of experience gain. The number of chips given each hour depended on the whim of the GM, but was usually between 3 and 5 and was identical for all players. If a player did something that the GM thought was worth rewarding, the GM would toss a chip or two to the player during play. Similarly, the GM could take chips away if he thought a penalty was deserved. Players could toss chips to other players at any time, so saving the group could be very profitable even if the GM didn't toss you any chips. Player to player chip transfers were subject to GM approval in order to prevent abuse like giving all your chips away right before you die. Donating chips to the guy who brought food or drink was standard practice. If someone brought in a new character or had a character close to a new level, the other players would often donate some of their chips to that character to speed things along.

Worked very well, especially the players rewarding each other. Don't think I ever saw it abused and I've never played with a group that had such an outstanding spirit of cooperation. If I ever GM a group, I'll do something similar.

--flatline

You guys have some seriously interesting XP ideas. But I think you severely over complicate things. IMO.

As the GM, I add up the XP in real-time according to canon and I just tell the players when they've gained a level, or if they ask me how much XP they have. That's it.

I guess I just don't see the reason for all the extra work and time some of you are putting into this?

It's cool, I'm not saying there's a right an wrong way. But I think just the fact you are the G.M. should be more than enough.

IMO, players are scum. It's like owning a nice car or a great game system and then just letting your friends play with it and you never use it. Sure you can look at it and brag about it, but you never do anything with it... If I had players that were upset about not getting the XP, or said I was being cheesy about something, or basically had any "out-of-character" gripes, then I would tell them exactly where they could go and shove something.

I guess that's kind of the interesting dynamic of gamers. In 15 years and about a dozen gamers, never had any issues...

MaxxSterling wrote:It's cool, I'm not saying there's a right an wrong way. But I think just the fact you are the G.M. should be more than enough.

IMO, players are scum. It's like owning a nice car or a great game system and then just letting your friends play with it and you never use it. Sure you can look at it and brag about it, but you never do anything with it... If I had players that were upset about not getting the XP, or said I was being cheesy about something, or basically had any "out-of-character" gripes, then I would tell them exactly where they could go and shove something.

I guess that's kind of the interesting dynamic of gamers. In 15 years and about a dozen gamers, never had any issues...

I don't think I followed any of that. What did you mean when you said that players are scum?

--flatline

I thought it was pretty clear...

MaxxSterling wrote:I thought it was pretty clear...

You said that players are scum and as explanation you said "it's like owning a nice X but never using it yourself". For some reason I can't connect the dots between those two statements, so I'm pretty sure I didn't understand your point.

Almost certainly a reading comprehension issue on my end.

--flatline

I'm just saying, that as a G.M. you are putting yourself out and not getting the enjoyment of playing the game because you are the one "working." So, with that in mind, if you have players that complain, you should remind them, that YOU are the reason they have something to do on a Friday evening and that they should be grateful to you.

And to keep us on the posted topic, that is why I feel that if players feel that they are being "cheated" on the XP side of things, unless they have a very valid argument, they should be happy that they are even playing a game in the first place. And I think it's ok to remind them of that, but generally only if it is a reoccuring theme. If your players are actually your friends, then you shouldn't have to remind them of this and if your players are not friends, well, why run a game for them?

MaxxSterling wrote:I'm just saying, that as a G.M. you are putting yourself out and not getting the enjoyment of playing the game because you are the one "working." So, with that in mind, if you have players that complain, you should remind them, that YOU are the reason they have something to do on a Friday evening and that they should be grateful to you.

And to keep us on the posted topic, that is why I feel that if players feel that they are being "cheated" on the XP side of things, unless they have a very valid argument, they should be happy that they are even playing a game in the first place. And I think it's ok to remind them of that, but generally only if it is a reoccuring theme. If your players are actually your friends, then you shouldn't have to remind them of this and if your players are not friends, well, why run a game for them?

Ah, I get your point now. Thanks for the explanation.

--flatline

I think that unless a player really is very poor compared to his/her peers, the xp should balance out if you provide a balanced campaign.
The skill based characters should be given the same opportunity to shine in their niche as those that are more combat focused. If the combat characters are getting more experience and it isn't because the skilled characters suck, it is probably because you are putting too much of a focus on combat and not the other aspects of role playing.

The exception to that would be if a character genuinely sucks. If a character sucks at combat, is very limited in useful skills and doesn't have a high enough IQ to justify being capable of coming up with ideas worthy of rewarding xp, then they are a little bit screwed. The only option you have left is to reward them for successfully roleplaying their limitations - the penalty section for low attributes in the RUE goes into a bit of detail about that.

I mark the GM Experience Log every time a character does something appropriate. I give out bonus xp when they do something funny in character; one fellow turned on the radio and flipped the dial until he found a CS propaganda/talk station. "What's on? Rush Lim-borg?" +100
I'll also dock them a little for being inattentive.

The most important part for me is giving out the xp in front of the group. Not only does it show that the good players are rewarded better, but it hopefully gives the others something to think about. In one case, I had a player drastically improve after receiving the lowest xp for several sessions in a row.