DM XP (discussion)

[Teric neDhalir]

One main point of concern over the XP standards: I don't think that splitting RP XP into different bands is a good idea for the following reasons:
- It is too subjective to be a true standard and will lead to the normal bickering about favouritism and so on. Rusty will say that it's clearly explained but my gut feeling is that it won't work in practice.
- We expect RP in ALFA to be of a high standard all the time. It's why we have an applications procedure. To my mind RP when playing is either good enough or it's not. If it's not the DM can award no RP XP and tell the player why.
- If we have a single RP XP rate (30-40/hr?) examples of good play can be rewarded by taps of the Bonus widget - good players get more xp.
- I dislike the suggestion that any OOC comment is a good reason to lower one's xp rate. It is a social game, after all, and to think that you can't crack a joke while you're waiting for another player to get their sh1t together is enforcement of a very po-faced sensibility.

[Rotku]

I miss the old 100/hour rule. Short and simple.

[Veilan]

I miss the old 100/hour rule. Short and simple.

That always only was a rule of thumb.

The current system is in fact already a lot more simple than what we used to have, and goes along the lines of a system I developed for Rusty a while back. I had suggested different bands, and only 3 instead of four, and I can see the point of Teric's concerns, however...

I think bonus xp by cookie-tapping are more dangerous, as they are some sort of instant-self-enforcing circle, rewarding people on the spot for "good" roleplay, fostering and encouraging competition for DM-attention... who gets the most wittiest, character portraying remark out there? It punishes slow typers and quiet characters, who may at the end of the session get a good rp ratio in the band, when a DM sits down to reflect on the RP of the people, but they miss out with cookies. And cookies add up far too quickly and easily, also, they require a DM to pay attention to it, taking away from them doing what they are / were doing at the time.

So, all I'd do to the system is cut down the bands and kick out the cookies.

[Teric neDhalir]

I miss the old 100/hour rule. Short and simple.

Well, personally I think that's far too much for a shotgun approach, but that's really a "pre-standards" rule of thumb anyway.

Thought a bit more about this during the day and what bothers me most is that all the other XP standards are based on making everyone's rewards proportionally the same for the same actions, kill XP based on CR and so on. Even the quest difficulty XP part is quantifiable to some degree if you keep track of monster CRs, skill DCs and the like. The RP part is more tricky because one DM may be willing to overlook "infringements" like OOC comments if the general tone of the session is good, while another may keep rigidly to the letter of the law and "mark down" players. All I want to avoid is a situation in the future when someone's rate of levelling is called into question (and baby, you know it's going to happen) and we spiral down into more scandals of some DMs awarding XP at the highest rate to some players. It's far safer, fairer yada yada to make it a constant.

And Veilan I think most of your arguments about awarding bonuses actually also hold true for a graded system based on RP. And of course an eager DM could use extra bonuses on top of a maximum RP bonus.

Sorry to have left this a bit late to bring up, but I wanted to raise concerns before it got set in stone.
Teric

[Legionnaire]

Simple is good. Having comprehensive xp standards split amongst different categories simply creates another obstacle for new (and old) DMs. We have enough obstacles already.

[Veilan]

Yes, I acknowledge they do.

I'm a big proponent of giving one group the same set of xp in the end - after all, they as a team roleplayed together, and that would reward nice build-ups, people tossing each other balls to let them play their character instead of only shining themselves. Because then you profit not from shining more than the rest, but from you, as a whole, giving a comprehensive and good roleplaying experience. Of course, you'd get punished for someone being an ass too, but in such cases a DM can just take the player aside and tell him about it, not to mention the peer pressure.

So, yeah, I'm very much against people competing against each other for experience points with roleplaying. It's a group based game, and while groups in a PW may not always stay the same with different later joiners or early leavers, I think we profit more from giving people this outlook:

Everyone adds to a pool of xp, that gets divided equally in the end.

That way, we're well in the spirit of cooperation and everyone can have a more fun time, in my opinion.

For the record, it's what my group has been doing in PnP for years, and it works out splendidly, it makes people work together to impress the DM with good roleplay of the group and a general setting of the overall atmosphere, instead of just focussing on their own act.

[Rusty]

What I want to do - and I'll be brief, 'cause I'm busy as hell - is to try this set up and then, after say a month of actual Live use, take the data our DM logging will provide, get feedback from the DM Corps on their actual use, and review them. To a certain degree, whatever we're doing is shooting in the dark, but if we can test these as they are for a while, we can inform future policy with actual data, which is always fun. Do keep feedback on principles coming tho'.

[Rotku]

What I want to do - and I'll be brief, 'cause I'm busy as hell - is to try this set up and then, after say a month of actual Live use, take the data our DM logging will provide, get feedback from the DM Corps on their actual use, and review them.

Excellent approch. That's what ALFA needs more of, with big things like this - a review a few months after, to see if it's successful or could be improved.