PDA

View Full Version : Is "grinding" an important aspect of a tabletop system?



Talakeal
2013-05-13, 06:02 PM
So in my homebrew system I give experience points for completing objectives rather than for killing monsters, good role-playing, or amassing treasure. This system seems to work out fairly well, although it sometimes makes it tough to run a sandbox game where the players don't want to set specific goals for themselves.

Recently I had a player complaining that in this system he always had to be "doing" something, and that he would much prefer a system where he could simply wander the world killing monsters and still progress his character.

I explained to him that he could set his own goals which involved wandering the countryside killing monsters such as "map the southern wilds", "make an overland journey to the coast," or "clear out the monsters who inhabit the local countryside," but he said that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted to simply be able to wander around aimlessly Final Fantasy style, killing random encounters until he could level up.

Is this a normal desire for players? This is the first time I have ever heard anyone who wants to add more grinding to a tabletop game, normally I hear quite the opposite, video game players who feel cheated by games that expect them to grind out levels to pad out play time.

What do you think?

Kaun
2013-05-13, 06:14 PM
Yeah that's a strange one.

Not something i have encountered in my 15+ years of running games.

Generally if you want that kind of game, video games will do it much better.

Craft (Cheese)
2013-05-13, 06:22 PM
I can't speak for your player with confidence, but I suspect he only wants the ability to do this: If you actually gave it to him I doubt he'd actually start running around aimlessly slaying monsters just to get XP.

As for why he feels this way, perhaps he's just being contrarian about it: The surest way to make someone want something is to tell them they can't have it.

Vitruviansquid
2013-05-13, 06:43 PM
Why not give experience for both?

Ravens_cry
2013-05-13, 06:52 PM
It's possible, especially in Sandbox games, to do this, but it's never being something I have really encouraged or desired in any game on either side of the DM screen.

Talakeal
2013-05-13, 06:52 PM
Why not give experience for both?

Mostly because we get into arguments about what constitutes "defeating" a monster.

Players will pick fights with harmless creatures to get XP from them. If I give full XP for just getting past a creature no one will ever fight, and if I give reduced xp for not fighting it no one will ever try to sneak / talk their way past.

Also had a case where an enemy was using hit and run tactics over the course of an entire adventure and the PCs demanded full XP for defeating it each time they encountered it. That really soured me on the concept of XP for kills.

JoshuaZ
2013-05-13, 06:55 PM
To some extent the classic dungeon crawl is a bit like this.

But it seems like this player has had too much exposure to MMOs and similar things. Maybe try to get him to understand roleplaying a bit more? That part of the point is to play as an interesting character with goals and ambitions and people they care about, etc.? Ask them to imagine what sort of person would actually say "I'm going to wander around the desert fighting everything I see so that I get to be the best warrior ever."

Acanous
2013-05-13, 06:59 PM
Sneak it into your system as fractions of the quest/objective XP.
For instance, if he wants to aimlessly slay monsters, make his quest "To find a Worthy Opponent" or "To become a better Swordsman/Caster/etc by practicing on local threats" or the other examples you cited. Then divvy up the quest XP per monster.

On the player side of the screen, it looks like he's getting XP per kill, when on the DM side, he's getting XP for progressing his quest.

Talakeal
2013-05-13, 07:00 PM
To some extent the classic dungeon crawl is a bit like this.

But it seems like this player has had too much exposure to MMOs and similar things. Maybe try to get him to understand roleplaying a bit more? That part of the point is to play as an interesting character with goals and ambitions and people they care about, etc.? Ask them to imagine what sort of person would actually say "I'm going to wander around the desert fighting everything I see so that I get to be the best warrior ever."

This player has told me numerous times he doesn't care about roleplaying a personality, only a collection of stats. One time he told me straight out "people are boring, only powers are interesting"when I aksed why he wans't interested in RPing more.

So yeah, I have mostly given up on trying to force this player to RP so long as he isn't being actively disruptive.

JoshuaZ
2013-05-13, 07:05 PM
This player has told me numerous times he doesn't care about roleplaying a personality, only a collection of stats. One time he told me straight out "people are boring, only powers are interesting"when I aksed why he wans't interested in RPing more.

So yeah, I have mostly given up on trying to force this player to RP so long as he isn't being actively disruptive.

Does the rest of the group get along with him ok? What does the rest of the group want to do? If his goals are far enough from what the rest of the group wants (and what the DM wants to run), then you may want to just tell him that the table isn't for him.

neonchameleon
2013-05-13, 07:25 PM
Is this a normal desire for players?

Nope. Not even slightly. And grinding is something I find annoying; I don't play enough each week anyway. Missing the interesting parts would be silly.


Mostly because we get into arguments about what constitutes "defeating" a monster.

Players will pick fights with harmless creatures to get XP from them. If I give full XP for just getting past a creature no one will ever fight, and if I give reduced xp for not fighting it no one will ever try to sneak / talk their way past.

This is one of the reason for the XP for GP rule in 1e. And Gygax I believe also divided the XP for low level monsters by 10 at one point to prevent exactly this.


Also had a case where an enemy was using hit and run tactics over the course of an entire adventure and the PCs demanded full XP for defeating it each time they encountered it. That really soured me on the concept of XP for kills.

:smalleek: If the monster withdrew on its own terms it wasn't defeated.

Also how adventurous are your groups with different systems. I'd have a look at both Marvel Heroic Roleplaying (http://www.amazon.com/Marvel-Heroic-Roleplay-Basic-Game/dp/1936685167) and Apocalypse World (http://theunstore.com/index.php/unstore/game/83), both of which have characters with cool powers, XP systems that can be gamed extremely effectively - and the game only gets more awesome when someone games the XP system unless they are being ridiculous.

tensai_oni
2013-05-13, 07:28 PM
Games I play are often heavily plot- or character-based. Walking around and killing monsters aimlessly is actually impossible in my settings, and frankly sounds boring.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-13, 07:53 PM
Also had a case where an enemy was using hit and run tactics over the course of an entire adventure and the PCs demanded full XP for defeating it each time they encountered it. That really soured me on the concept of XP for kills.

They're probably right.

I don't recall the source, but when a combatant in dnd flees, surrenders, or retreats, it is considered overcome, and the victors gain xp for the encounter. Of course, if the enemy gives up more easily than its tactics suggest, the challenge rating and experience award should be modified accordingly.

Water_Bear
2013-05-13, 08:20 PM
How do you define "completing objectives" and what sort of XP awards are we talking?

Is having the objective of "build a pile of gold to rival a Dragon's Horde and dive into it like Scroodge McDuck" or "kill every goblin in a 500mi radius, personally" a legitimate choice?

How big does an objective have to be; where on the spectrum from "my goal is to seduce this barmaid" to "my goal is to become king by my own hands" do you draw the line?

Is there a procedure for Players to formally declare objectives or are they implicit?

I'm not trying to make a point, it just seems like kind of important info. If we know what the system here is, maybe that will reveal what he hates about it; after all, you said he had stopped RPing, which implies he did sometime before the switchover to the new rules.

Jeff the Green
2013-05-13, 08:27 PM
They're probably right.

I don't recall the source, but when a combatant in dnd flees, surrenders, or retreats, it is considered overcome, and the victors gain xp for the encounter. Of course, if the enemy gives up more easily than its tactics suggest, the challenge rating and experience award should be modified accordingly.

Hit and run =/= fleeing or retreating

Mr Beer
2013-05-13, 08:51 PM
If he only wants to play a game style that you and the rest of the players find tedious and he is not contributing to the shared enjoyment of the game, I don't believe that you should expend any significant time or energy accomodating him.

I would be letting him know the way it's working now is the way it's going to work going forward and if he's not happy with that style of play, you would understand if he felt the need to seek adventure opportunities with another group.

Mr Beer
2013-05-13, 08:54 PM
Also, a guerilla opponent is not defeated until...defeated. Running away in order to come back, set up a trap and fire arrows at the beleaguered party is not defeat. That's a tactical withdrawal.

I might give them extra XP when they do defeat the opponent though, to reflect the additional difficulty of beating him. They're not going to get full XP for the half-a-dozen harrassment encounters though, no way.

Ravens_cry
2013-05-13, 08:54 PM
Hit and run =/= fleeing or retreating
Bloody annoying is what it is. Doing it a few times is all right, but I know from my experience as a player that it is infuriating to have happen over and over again.

Musrum_
2013-05-13, 09:16 PM
This player has told me numerous times he doesn't care about roleplaying a personality, only a collection of stats. One time he told me straight out "people are boring, only powers are interesting"when I aksed why he wans't interested in RPing more.

So yeah, I have mostly given up on trying to force this player to RP so long as he isn't being actively disruptive.Introduce the concept of an extra-dimensional "daemon" called a "Playa" that sometimes possesses people of your world. These particular beings cannot be detected or dealt with magically.

Only by their sociopathic behaviour and sometimes odd way of speaking can they be found. And the only solution is to slay them.

I'd start with a "monster of the week" run by a guest player. This person would run a typical munchkin PC character which the PCs can take down with significant effort, spiced with a bit of 4th wall dialogue.

After they take him/her out, then they can get the information about what was "infecting" the character. From there you could get some intra-party suspicion or a full on "hunted" campaign scenario.

Friv
2013-05-13, 09:22 PM
Honestly, it sounds like your player might be more interested in a rousing game of Mordheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordheim).

Anyway, to answer your OP, that's an unusual request, I think. To be honest, it's been a very, very long time since I did anything but hand out experience at the end of a session, based on how much was accomplished that session, ignoring any other rules entirely. My players get the same experience whether they win, lose or bypass challenges, or spend two hours getting to know everyone in town, as long as they're doing things all session long.

valadil
2013-05-13, 09:49 PM
I've never met a player like that but I'm not surprised one exists. I think if it were my game I'd argue that the monster's loot or corpse was the prize for killing it. If you need to earn some gold, mammoth ivory is the way to go. If you need to earn XP, accomplish something.

Geordnet
2013-05-13, 10:06 PM
Bloody annoying is what it is. Doing it a few times is all right, but I know from my experience as a player that it is infuriating to have happen over and over again.
Why do you think it is such a widely-used tactic in real life? :smallamused:

I would personally use guerrilla warfare in every tactical situation it is appropriate in; the same way I'd use appropriate tactical maneuvers and formations for any situation. Tucker's Kobolds are merely typical of a well-prepared defense, and an example of why storming the castle gates is a really bad idea. :smalltongue:



Hit and run =/= fleeing or retreating
Falling back in general is an interesting subject, because it depends on what level of "victory/defeat" that you're thinking of. A skirmish-level retreat is just another move in a tactical-level battle, one which may in fact be part of the path to tactical victory; so too is a tactical-level retreat just another part of the strategic-level war.

Then there's the question of what "victory" and "defeat" actually mean. If they are defined merely in terms of succeeding or failing in one's objective then a successful retreat can be a victory, if the goal was to withdraw (usually stipulating minimal casualties).

FreakyCheeseMan
2013-05-13, 10:13 PM
This player has told me numerous times he doesn't care about roleplaying a personality, only a collection of stats. One time he told me straight out "people are boring, only powers are interesting"when I aksed why he wans't interested in RPing more.

So yeah, I have mostly given up on trying to force this player to RP so long as he isn't being actively disruptive.

...why is he playing a tabletop game at all, then?

Slipperychicken
2013-05-13, 10:22 PM
storming the castle gates is a really bad idea. :smalltongue:


Bad for the guys storming it, or at least the first wave. Not so bad for the commander. I recall such operations were so lethal, that the first wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forlorn_hope) would actually get promotions and prizes if they managed to survive it.

Flickerdart
2013-05-13, 10:27 PM
Do note that he wants to run around and kill monsters to level up, which is basically training, a totally legitimate thing from a roleplaying perspective. It's pretty easy to tie in a couple of quests should someone want to do this - say, while wandering around looking for stuff to fight, he finds out (from a monster, a traveller, or through primary sources) that a very powerful dragon lives nearby, and would surely be a worthy challenge, or he finds an intelligent sword/prisoners who ask him to do something...the great thing about a tabletop RPG is that you can plant plot hooks anywhere you please.

Rhynn
2013-05-13, 10:54 PM
Some players don't want to do any thinking. It's common enough from what I can tell.

By the by, the way OD&D through AD&D 1E worked, you got far more XP for treasure than for killing monsters. If you do the math, a dragon's hoard is worth several times what defeating the dragon is. The idea was, in fact, to make fighting and killing monsters less attractive than cheating, fooling, avoiding, or robbing them through cleverness.


Players will pick fights with harmless creatures to get XP from them. If I give full XP for just getting past a creature no one will ever fight, and if I give reduced xp for not fighting it no one will ever try to sneak / talk their way past.

This was a known problem in the AD&D 2E era - I've read a Dragon magazine Scale Mail from the 90s where someone brought up exactly this. The specific example, I think, was killing a barmaid to get those few XP needed. The answer here is simple: it's not worth XP.

One question, though: why construct adventures so that fighting is assumed? What you describe - XP for goals - already makes fighting unattractive, except in the rare cases where it's the goal? (That's how it was in pre-2E!)


Also had a case where an enemy was using hit and run tactics over the course of an entire adventure and the PCs demanded full XP for defeating it each time they encountered it. That really soured me on the concept of XP for kills.

Again, that's nonsense and obviously wrong.

You always have the worst stories about players, though.


Incidentally, on the topic of experience points, Artesia: Adventures in the Known World gives you XP (called Arcana Points) for things like "befriend a stranger or outsider", "write a new essay", "hold an opinion in the face of evidence to the contrary", "break something beautiful", "break a vow", "make a judgment about yourself", and "Die." Arcana Points are earned for specific Arcana (as in Tarot Major Arcana), each useable for improving specific related characteristics, skills, and gifts. It's an awesome system everyone should check out. :smallcool:

Slipperychicken
2013-05-13, 11:28 PM
By the by, the way OD&D through AD&D 1E worked, you got far more XP for treasure than for killing monsters. If you do the math, a dragon's hoard is worth several times what defeating the dragon is. The idea was, in fact, to make fighting and killing monsters less attractive than cheating, fooling, avoiding, or robbing them through cleverness.


To be fair, in 3.5, although it was heavily de-emphasized, you were still considered to have defeated monsters which you overcame, whether you snuck past them, tricked them, intimidated them, convinced them to surrender, or so on.

Rhynn
2013-05-13, 11:40 PM
To be fair, in 3.5, although it was heavily de-emphasized, you were still considered to have defeated monsters which you overcame, whether you snuck past them, tricked them, intimidated them, convinced them to surrender, or so on.

Yeah, but by then, AD&D 2E (and probably vidya games, especially AD&D ones) had sort of ruined the field, made the default assumption "combat encounters!" (blech!), and the notion of getting XP for "getting around" enemies was buried in the text somewhere (same as the option for XP for treasure in 2E), and almost all published material assumed players will dutifully fight almost all enemies.

A lot of other d20 games seem to take the "you get XP for doing stuff, not for defeating enemies" approach, though. Maybe, in isolation from what came before, even 3E's text would have worked more to that effect.

Starwulf
2013-05-13, 11:59 PM
What do you think?

So, I haven't actually gotten to take part in a real D&D gaming experience in RL, just a couple of games here on the forums, none of which, unfortunately, ever lasted more then a month or two(admittedly, by the end of trying, I was becoming part of the problem myself, I guess I just naturally expected it to die, so I didn't put forth a lot of effort myself). But I can safely say I can see where your player is coming from. Somewhat.... lol ^^ For me, it would be not so much just wandering around grinding out level after level(though I do enjoy that in video games, it's quite fun to me), it would be more of a "I want to explore without the little voice in the back of my head telling me I should be off saving the princess, or clearing out that specific dungeon, and trying to thwart the BBEG". I want to be able to explore, wherever, and just stumble across cool stuff. Random dungeons or old ruins, hidden monasteries, secret villages, whatever, that isn't part of the plot. Even if doing so gets me killed, it's the thrill of "OH holy crap, I just found a village full of half-dragon/half-human creatures, and they don't want this secret to get out, but I don't want to die, how the hell am I going to get out of here".

Sorry for the wall-o-text, just wanted to throw that out there. On that note, I reaallyy need to fire up my old computer, clear off a flash drive, and move all my digital D&D books so I can find a game here on the forums to play. Starting to crave some character building.

Edit: After reading a bit more, I can safely say I obviously don't empathize much at all with your player. Even though I love the concept of being able to wander wherever I want, I want to do it as part of that characters personality. A kid that grew up in a small village, or even a large city but never outside of his particular street, and now wants to see all that he can see, with nothing particularly holding him down. I don't understand the "I just want to play a set of stats, and that's it". That defeats the whole idea of roleplaying and table-top gaming ><

Sith_Happens
2013-05-14, 12:03 AM
How do you define "completing objectives" and what sort of XP awards are we talking?

Is having the objective of "build a pile of gold to rival a Dragon's Horde and dive into it like Scroodge McDuck" or "kill every goblin in a 500mi radius, personally" a legitimate choice?

This. You give XP for completing objectives. His objective is "kill X many of Y." Ergo, when he finishes killing X many of Y, he gets XP proportional to how hard it was to do that.

If you want to keep things coherent from a character perspective, think Monster Hunter. That's basically what his character is. Maybe encourage him to keep trophies, and have his reputation build up as a great hunter of monsters.

Jeff the Green
2013-05-14, 12:19 AM
If you want to keep things coherent from a character perspective, think Monster Hunter. That's basically what his character is. Maybe encourage him to keep trophies, and have his reputation build up as a great hunter of monsters.

Or, alternatively, as a serial killer.

DrBurr
2013-05-14, 12:34 AM
So in my homebrew system I give experience points for completing objectives rather than for killing monsters, good role-playing, or amassing treasure. This system seems to work out fairly well, although it sometimes makes it tough to run a sandbox game where the players don't want to set specific goals for themselves.

Recently I had a player complaining that in this system he always had to be "doing" something, and that he would much prefer a system where he could simply wander the world killing monsters and still progress his character.

I explained to him that he could set his own goals which involved wandering the countryside killing monsters such as "map the southern wilds", "make an overland journey to the coast," or "clear out the monsters who inhabit the local countryside," but he said that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted to simply be able to wander around aimlessly Final Fantasy style, killing random encounters until he could level up.

Is this a normal desire for players? This is the first time I have ever heard anyone who wants to add more grinding to a tabletop game, normally I hear quite the opposite, video game players who feel cheated by games that expect them to grind out levels to pad out play time.

What do you think?

Sounds like your player just wants to kill stuff and be challenged, clearly he finds combat fun so thats what he wants to do and he wants to get better at it so he wants XP for having fun.

Really whats the difference between Party Member A, who finds overarcing fetch quests fun, wanting to forge the apocalypse sword and getting XP every time he gets one step closer and Party Member B, who likes killing goblins and gets XP for doing that.

Rhynn
2013-05-14, 12:39 AM
Really whats the difference between Party Member A, who finds overarcing fetch quests fun, wanting to forge the apocalypse sword and getting XP every time he gets one step closer and Party Member B, who likes killing goblins and gets XP for doing that.

Ooh, I know this one.

A is playing a roleplaying game to tell a story, B is playing a roleplaying game to play a wargame?

Nothing wrong with either approach, but they are not very compatible. Someone's gonna be bored a lot if they're trying to play at the same table.

Tengu_temp
2013-05-14, 12:39 AM
What do you think?

I think you should find better players.

Talakeal
2013-05-14, 12:39 AM
Sounds like your player just wants to kill stuff and be challenged, clearly he finds combat fun so thats what he wants to do and he wants to get better at it so he wants XP for having fun.

Really whats the difference between Party Member A, who finds overarcing fetch quests fun, wanting to forge the apocalypse sword and getting XP every time he gets one step closer and Party Member B, who likes killing goblins and gets XP for doing that.

Very much not this. He does NOT want to be challenged, and has told me this straight up many times.

I think part of the reason why he wanted more "grinding" is so he could always dictate the pace of encounters and always be at full strength, novaing every fight so he doesn't have to face the downsides of being a spellcaster in my system (namely phenomenal cosmic power but long prep and recovery time).

137beth
2013-05-14, 02:13 AM
Grinding is not a part of tabletop systems.

Grinding is an important part of videogame RPGs, particular online ones (the console rpgs tend to have less grinding and more plot).
Honestly, an online RPG sounds like exactly the thing that this player wants:
--No roleplaying whatsoever
--No obligation to quest/be challenged
--Unlimited grinding available
--No reliance on convincing other players/DM to allow him to grind

What he wants are four things which are very much a part of almost every online rpg, and very much not a part of tabletop rpgs.
Does he even know about online games:smallconfused:

Sith_Happens
2013-05-14, 02:26 AM
Very much not this. He does NOT want to be challenged, and has told me this straight up many times.

I think part of the reason why he wanted more "grinding" is so he could always dictate the pace of encounters and always be at full strength, novaing every fight so he doesn't have to face the downsides of being a spellcaster in my system (namely phenomenal cosmic power but long prep and recovery time).

Oh, well in that case the answer is in fact "he needs to find something else to play, preferably by himself."

Seccorath
2013-05-14, 02:17 PM
I actually logged in to my account for the first time in roughly 7 years because the hostility in this thread toward a player we know little about is frightening. All too often I have seen threads like this where people are attacked because they have different goals when playing a game than the majority.

I think it is always important to remember that the definition of fun is not universal. While I would not enjoy playing a game in the manner this player does, it doesn't mean he is "wrong". Indeed, there is no wrong. All that matters is that people are having fun.

I know people who despise role-playing, it doesn't mean they should "find something else to play". Just because most table top gamers prefer that aspect of the game (myself included) there will inevitably be others who simply enjoy the combat mechanics and the company of their friends.

As always, the most important factor is to open a dialogue between this player and the other group members to see if their styles are compatible. If they are not, it doesn't mean that anyone did anything unacceptable, only that they have different way of playing the game.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-14, 02:52 PM
Or, alternatively, as a serial killer.

Same thing. "Monster hunting" is just premeditated murder of creatures which people don't like.

DrBurr
2013-05-14, 02:52 PM
Ooh, I know this one.

A is playing a roleplaying game to tell a story, B is playing a roleplaying game to play a wargame?

Nothing wrong with either approach, but they are not very compatible. Someone's gonna be bored a lot if they're trying to play at the same table.

People can like different parts of RPGs besides roleplaying and that includes combat. By that same token if B should be playing a War Game. A should be writing a book.

And those two styles are incredibly compatible, A has his quest and B helps him kill stuff how is that not the definition of Compatible.


Very much not this. He does NOT want to be challenged, and has told me this straight up many times.

I think part of the reason why he wanted more "grinding" is so he could always dictate the pace of encounters and always be at full strength, novaing every fight so he doesn't have to face the downsides of being a spellcaster in my system (namely phenomenal cosmic power but long prep and recovery time).

If he's not challenged then why should he get XP? Hes not really experiencing anything new if he just meteor swarms the same five goblins every day.

I would say at this point is just talk to him preferably when no one else is around.

Geordnet
2013-05-14, 04:18 PM
I would say at this point is just talk to him preferably when no one else is around.

Yeah, you really should talk to him about why he is playing the game.

If he just wants to hang out and have fun, and not think about stuff, that's perfectly fine –but he could have picked a better class. Offer to let him swap his character out for one of equal level, wealth, etc. but in a class that requires less thinking; perhaps a melee tank.

If, however, the root of the problem is that he just wants to feel powerful... Then there's a bigger issue. It's a hard talk to give, but you need to explain what a social game means. It means catering to all the players' wants: not by compromise, but by finding something that you all enjoy. He must be willing to yield to the group when their interests vary, for harboring resentment will sour the experience at least for himself, with a good chance of damaging others' enjoyments as well. If he cannot abide this, or is not willing to examine himself or listen, then the only thing left to do is ask him to leave. The loss of any member is regrettable, but it's what's best for everyone (including the person who leaves).

Slipperychicken
2013-05-14, 04:43 PM
Very much not this. He does NOT want to be challenged, and has told me this straight up many times.


No challenge, no XP. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Sorry.

Talakeal
2013-05-14, 04:53 PM
I would say lack of challenge goes hand in hand with "grinding". If it is actually challenging you aren't grinding, you are progressing normally. Grinding is, imo, tediously killing things that are not a challenge to you so that you will be strong enough to face things that are.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-14, 05:03 PM
I would say lack of challenge goes hand in hand with "grinding". If it is actually challenging you aren't grinding, you are progressing normally. Grinding is, imo, tediously killing things that are not a challenge to you so that you will be strong enough to face things that are.

Well, the CR system already represents this to a degree. If you want to farm low level encounters, you can do that, but you're going to get so little xp it's not worth the in-game time, and especially not the real-world time you spend doing it.

In the metagame, it's not like you're going to let them bum around stabbing nothing but CR 1 goblins for 3 months, then faceroll the villain. The BBEG wasn't sitting on his thumbs that whole time, he was doing stuff and getting stronger.

Talakeal
2013-05-14, 05:10 PM
On the topic of XP for encounters, lets look at the following scenario:

The PCs encounter a sleeping red dragon. They:

A: Sneak past the dragon and easilly steal its treasure with no loss of resources.
B: Attack the dragon for the hell of it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
C: The party is told that they need to ensure the dragon does not threaten the nearby village and so they attack it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
D: As C, but instead of attacking the dragon the party bribes it into leaving at no risk but a great deal of resource loss.
E: As C, but the party scares the dragon off with intimidation rather than force, with a great deal of risk but no resource loss.


Which of these scenarios counts as "defeating" the dragon? Which rewards full XP?


Well, the CR system already represents this to a degree. If you want to farm low level encounters, you can do that, but you're going to get so little xp it's not worth the in-game time, and especially not the real-world time you spend doing it.

In the metagame, it's not like you're going to let them bum around stabbing nothing but CR 1 goblins for 3 months, then faceroll the villain. The BBEG wasn't sitting on his thumbs that whole time, he was doing stuff and getting stronger.

I am pretty sure he wants an AD&D style game where each monster is worth a set amount of XP regardless of party level.

Sith_Happens
2013-05-14, 05:38 PM
On the topic of XP for encounters, lets look at the following scenario:

The PCs encounter a sleeping red dragon. They:

A: Sneak past the dragon and easilly steal its treasure with no loss of resources.
B: Attack the dragon for the hell of it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
C: The party is told that they need to ensure the dragon does not threaten the nearby village and so they attack it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
D: As C, but instead of attacking the dragon the party bribes it into leaving at no risk but a great deal of resource loss.
E: As C, but the party scares the dragon off with intimidation rather than force, with a great deal of risk but no resource loss.


Which of these scenarios counts as "defeating" the dragon? Which rewards full XP?

All of the above.


I am pretty sure he wants an AD&D style game where each monster is worth a set amount of XP regardless of party level.

Then he literally is playing the wrong game for that.

Emmerask
2013-05-14, 05:43 PM
So in my homebrew system I give experience points for completing objectives rather than for killing monsters, good role-playing, or amassing treasure. This system seems to work out fairly well, although it sometimes makes it tough to run a sandbox game where the players don't want to set specific goals for themselves.

Recently I had a player complaining that in this system he always had to be "doing" something, and that he would much prefer a system where he could simply wander the world killing monsters and still progress his character.

I explained to him that he could set his own goals which involved wandering the countryside killing monsters such as "map the southern wilds", "make an overland journey to the coast," or "clear out the monsters who inhabit the local countryside," but he said that wasn't what he wanted. He wanted to simply be able to wander around aimlessly Final Fantasy style, killing random encounters until he could level up.

Is this a normal desire for players? This is the first time I have ever heard anyone who wants to add more grinding to a tabletop game, normally I hear quite the opposite, video game players who feel cheated by games that expect them to grind out levels to pad out play time.

What do you think?


I would point that player to the next best mmo if he/she wants that kind of game... because really this would be the most boring dming ever.

In all the years I´ve played this is the first time I heard anyone expressing that need however ^^

Talakeal
2013-05-14, 05:52 PM
All of the above.

But doesn't the CR vary based on their capabilities?

Should outwitting Hulk Hogan really be the same CR as out wrestling him? Should outwrestling Stephen Hawking be the same CR as outwitting him?

Which should you base CR off of? The approach that most favors the PC? The approach that most favors the NPC? An average of all approaches?

How about if I don't actually do anything myself, but rather pay someone else to do it? Could a PC coast from say, levels 16-20 by just giving the accumulated WBL of their first 15 levels to a group of NPC adventurers to handle all their problems for them?

Water_Bear
2013-05-14, 06:09 PM
But doesn't the CR vary based on their capabilities?

Should outwitting Hulk Hogan really be the same CR as out wrestling him? Should outwrestling Stephen Hawking be the same CR as outwitting him?

Which should you base CR off of? The approach that most favors the PC? The approach that most favors the NPC? An average of all approaches?

CR is a guideline about how powerful a creature is overall. So if a Troll is deadly in combat but can be easily fooled, those two factors are both (supposed to be) taken into account. Using the base CR makes sense in the circumstances.

Also, why should we punish targeting the monster's weakpoints? Saying you should get reduced XP for sneaking by or intimidating a Dragon is as silly as saying that you should get less XP against an Ice Elemental because you used Fire magic. Players using their brains rather than weight of dice to overcome challenges should be seen as the ideal, not a glitch to be corrected.


How about if I don't actually do anything myself, but rather pay someone else to do it? Could a PC coast from say, levels 16-20 by just giving the accumulated WBL of their first 15 levels to a group of NPC adventurers to handle all their problems for them?

Unlike every previous example, this is a case where the PCs have done nothing to actually overcome a challenge. They may have expended resources, but resource expenditure has absolutely nothing to do with how challenging something is; after all, you could use a nuclear bomb to kill a fly or a boxcutter to assassinate a head of state.

Talakeal
2013-05-14, 06:18 PM
CR is a guideline about how powerful a creature is overall. So if a Troll is deadly in combat but can be easily fooled, those two factors are both (supposed to be) taken into account. Using the base CR makes sense in the circumstances.

Also, why should we punish targeting the monster's weakpoints? Saying you should get reduced XP for sneaking by or intimidating a Dragon is as silly as saying that you should get less XP against an Ice Elemental because you used Fire magic. Players using their brains rather than weight of dice to overcome challenges should be seen as the ideal, not a glitch to be corrected.



Unlike every previous example, this is a case where the PCs have done nothing to actually overcome a challenge. They may have expended resources, but resource expenditure has absolutely nothing to do with how challenging something is; after all, you could use a nuclear bomb to kill a fly or a boxcutter to assassinate a head of state.

Ok, so let's say we have a level 1 fighter guarding a toll bridge. He asks for a 1 GP toll. If the players pay it, they have lost nothing of value, where at no risk, were not challenged, and expended only a few seconds of game time. Should they get full XP for defeating a CR 1 encounter as a result?

If no, how about it the PCs scream "no one touches my GOLD!" and attack the man. Should they get XP for defeating a CR 1 encounter as a result?*

How about if instead of a toll bridge it is a "troll bridge" with a CR5 troll collecting the tolls instead of a level 1 fighter. If the PCs give him the money, it is literally no more challenging than giving the same toll to a human, but is he now worth the full XP of a CR 5 encounter?


*: This second scenario is what I think my player is getting on about. If he goes "off mission" and does something random and unexpected which ends up challenging him or using up time / resources, he wants to be compensated for it.

Spamotron
2013-05-14, 06:44 PM
In the second cases for both they get full XP but also gain a reputation as a dangerous psychotic who attacks people for trivial reasons. Weaker NPC's start running away wherever he goes stronger ones seriously consider pre-emptive strikes and he probably gets a sizable bounty on his head with adventurers after him for it.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-14, 06:45 PM
Which should you base CR off of? The approach that most favors the PC? The approach that most favors the NPC? An average of all approaches?


I think CR should be based around what sort of encounter it starts off as and what your objective is. This gives much more flexibility; allowing the DM discretion in assigning a CR value, and the players know they will gain the same experience no matter how they deal with it (encouraging them to take the most expedient option, rather than the most difficult one).

For example, say Hulk Hogan is hostile and begins attacking you, but you manage to talk him down and convince him to let you go. In this case, the challenge presented is in combat, and overcame that by persuading him to stop fighting. You could still have decided to fight him, and physically defeating the fight would still have overcome the same challenge and given the same xp.

Another example: Hawking slips out of the shadows and tells you he will only give you directions out of the maze-dungeon if you win at a game of riddles. You reject the game, electing instead to beat the snot out of him until he tells you how to get out. The challenge was persuading Hawking to give you the desired information, and you succeeded, if in a brutal and unexpected manner. However, if Hawking rolled up to you and declared a game of fisticuffs to determine if he gave you the intel, you would gain much less experience for talking him down because he wasn't much of a threat to begin with.


This method doesn't reward one approach over others, but does make it clear that the PCs will not gain metagame rewards for making things harder on themselves (although increasing risks may increase rewards, like stealing Hogan's valuables off his defeated body, or having access to Hawking's intellect and connections), nor will they lose out on xp for taking the "easy way". Their actions will be guided more by in-character logic than by the metagame desire for xp which turns many PCs into murderhobos.

Water_Bear
2013-05-14, 07:33 PM
Ok, so let's say we have a level 1 fighter guarding a toll bridge. He asks for a 1 GP toll. If the players pay it, they have lost nothing of value, where at no risk, were not challenged, and expended only a few seconds of game time. Should they get full XP for defeating a CR 1 encounter as a result?

If no, how about it the PCs scream "no one touches my GOLD!" and attack the man. Should they get XP for defeating a CR 1 encounter as a result?*

How about if instead of a toll bridge it is a "troll bridge" with a CR5 troll collecting the tolls instead of a level 1 fighter. If the PCs give him the money, it is literally no more challenging than giving the same toll to a human, but is he now worth the full XP of a CR 5 encounter?

If the Fighter or the Trolls are an obstacle (they will actually try to prevent the PCs from crossing the bridge), the PCs overcome that obstacle (even at no cost) and the obstacle is deemed enough of a challenge to award XP (measured through CR) then the PCs should get an XP reward.

Now, they won't get much XP; after all, a single CR 1 enemy isn't worth much even for a first level party, and as the disparity rises the XP gain gets lower and lower. After a certain point (about level 8) killing town guards and the like gives literally no reward whatsoever, and it's been a waste of time for a long time before that.


Another example: Hawking slips out of the shadows and tells you he will only give you directions out of the maze-dungeon if you win at a game of riddles. You reject the game, electing instead to beat the snot out of him until he tells you how to get out. The challenge was persuading Hawking to give you the desired information, and you succeeded, if in a brutal and unexpected manner. However, if Hawking rolled up to you and declared a game of fisticuffs to determine if he gave you the intel, you would gain much less experience for talking him down because he wasn't much of a threat to begin with..

I want to play in this game immediately. It sounds much more fun than the campaign I'm prepping.

TuggyNE
2013-05-14, 08:18 PM
On the topic of XP for encounters, lets look at the following scenario:

The PCs encounter a sleeping red dragon. They:

A: Sneak past the dragon and easilly steal its treasure with no loss of resources.
B: Attack the dragon for the hell of it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
C: The party is told that they need to ensure the dragon does not threaten the nearby village and so they attack it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
D: As C, but instead of attacking the dragon the party bribes it into leaving at no risk but a great deal of resource loss.
E: As C, but the party scares the dragon off with intimidation rather than force, with a great deal of risk but no resource loss.


Which of these scenarios counts as "defeating" the dragon? Which rewards full XP?

They all reward some XP, but A rewards a lot less, because the effective challenge was less. (D might have a bit less too, but probably not.)

Geordnet
2013-05-14, 09:44 PM
On the topic of XP for encounters, lets look at the following scenario:

The PCs encounter a sleeping red dragon. They:

A: Sneak past the dragon and easilly steal its treasure with no loss of resources.
B: Attack the dragon for the hell of it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
C: The party is told that they need to ensure the dragon does not threaten the nearby village and so they attack it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
D: As C, but instead of attacking the dragon the party bribes it into leaving at no risk but a great deal of resource loss.
E: As C, but the party scares the dragon off with intimidation rather than force, with a great deal of risk but no resource loss.


Which of these scenarios counts as "defeating" the dragon? Which rewards full XP?

They all reward some XP, but A rewards a lot less, because the effective challenge was less. (D might have a bit less too, but probably not.)
I would actually be inclined to give the party more XP for passing the encounter in a novel way. I'd think I'd rather give out XP for accomplishing useful things than killing stuff, but for me it breaks down like this:

XP for getting the treasure (assuming that was their goal).
No XP. The PCs' reward is surviving their own stupidity. (I might even give an XP penalty...)

They still get XP for gaining the hoard, if that was their objective.

XP for doing a task. (Quest XP.)
Normal XP for the quest, for they spent a lot of resources on a less effective solution, I don't want to discourage alternative ways of thinking.
Bonus XP for the quest, due to solving it in a bold and unique manner with little wasted effort.


I'd reward creative thinking and encourage the players to accomplish things as efficiently as possible; which seems to me to make a lot more sense than rewarding doing things the hard way just because it's a "challenge". Anyone can make a task harder for himself -it takes a clever mind to make it easier.

Slipperychicken
2013-05-14, 10:06 PM
No XP. The PCs' reward is surviving their own stupidity. (I might even give an XP penalty...)


Isn't a close fight like that precisely the sort of thing which should make the PCs into grizzled badass veterans? Besides, it makes for an awesome story of facing grim odds but still coming out on top.


Practice makes perfect. You face a challenge, you learn something from it, and your skills grow. Even when you do it completely wrong, you learn how it works, how to avoid mistakes, how to recover from them, and (in this case) how to fight like a demon when the situation demands it. That's what experience is all about. It applies to everything: schoolwork, music, programming, speaking, leadership, decision-making, and fighting all benefit from experience (and especially learning from your mistakes!).

Geordnet
2013-05-14, 10:15 PM
Isn't a close fight like that precisely the sort of thing which should make the PCs into grizzled badass veterans?


Practice makes perfect. You face a challenge, you learn something from it, and your skills grow. Even when you do it completely wrong, you learn how it works, how to avoid mistakes, how to recover from them, and (in this case) how to fight like a demon when the situation demands it. That's what experience is all about.

In real life? Sure.

But in a game, what actions I reward XP for (or do not) reinforce them psychologically. If I reward the players for making things harder for themselves, that sends the wrong message to the players. I want the players to act prudently and intelligently, so I reward prudent and intelligent actions.

That is why I generally don't reward XP for killing things for no purpose, because I don't want my players randomly killing everything they come across. And I want them to consider other, often better tactical options such as stealth and withdrawal.


If anything, the Players will have gained some experience, and know better than to disturb the sleeping dragon next time. :smalltongue:

Rhynn
2013-05-14, 10:28 PM
I am pretty sure he wants an AD&D style game where each monster is worth a set amount of XP regardless of party level.

There's nothing wrong with that.

The thing is, in AD&D, your party of 5 each get 3 XP for each orc they kill. By 9th-11th level, they need 220,000 to 375,000 XP per level. Enemies worth more than 10,000 XP are incredibly rare, and a party of 5 would have to kill hundreds of those to go up one level. Ergo, "grinding" would take forever.

Meanwhile, they could be finding treasures worth tens of thousands of XP.


But doesn't the CR vary based on their capabilities?

The CR system kind of sucks, anyway. And I don't mean it's inaccurate, I mean it's founded on bad principles from the late 2E era.

In older D&D, I'd give the dragon's combat XP value for B and C (fighting). A, D, and E (sneaking, bribery, intimidation) are the smart thing, and standard old edition tactics - they don't risk their lives, yet get treasure (which is worth XP, and usually more of it). Brave fools who kill or subdue the dragon, whether for a reason or not, get combat XP for it, but some of them probably die. ("Encounters" should not be "challenging but manageable." A dragon's a dragon, and those fighting one should expect real losses.)

Avilan the Grey
2013-05-15, 04:47 AM
Mostly because we get into arguments about what constitutes "defeating" a monster.

Players will pick fights with harmless creatures to get XP from them. If I give full XP for just getting past a creature no one will ever fight, and if I give reduced xp for not fighting it no one will ever try to sneak / talk their way past.

"Boil an anthill, go up a level"... :smalltongue:

To answer the original question... sort of: Why on earth would grinding be a part of a tabletop game?

Jay R
2013-05-16, 12:07 PM
Sounds like your player just wants to kill stuff and be challenged, clearly he finds combat fun so thats what he wants to do and he wants to get better at it so he wants XP for having fun.

Really whats the difference between Party Member A, who finds overarcing fetch quests fun, wanting to forge the apocalypse sword and getting XP every time he gets one step closer and Party Member B, who likes killing goblins and gets XP for doing that.

The difference? Player A is the party leader for the purpose of clearing the forest of monsters, or finding the McGuffin of Infinte Plothooks, while Player B is the combat leader.

All that's needed is a quest or goal that calls for appropriate quantities of both.

valadil
2013-05-16, 12:24 PM
Very much not this. He does NOT want to be challenged, and has told me this straight up many times.

I think part of the reason why he wanted more "grinding" is so he could always dictate the pace of encounters and always be at full strength, novaing every fight so he doesn't have to face the downsides of being a spellcaster in my system (namely phenomenal cosmic power but long prep and recovery time).

In that case I'd think he'd actually like the goal based XP. It means he can power up his spellcasting without putting his character into a fight.



The PCs encounter a sleeping red dragon. They:

A: Sneak past the dragon and easilly steal its treasure with no loss of resources.
B: Attack the dragon for the hell of it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
C: The party is told that they need to ensure the dragon does not threaten the nearby village and so they attack it, and narrowly defeat it, expending a great deal of resources.
D: As C, but instead of attacking the dragon the party bribes it into leaving at no risk but a great deal of resource loss.
E: As C, but the party scares the dragon off with intimidation rather than force, with a great deal of risk but no resource loss.


I'm starting to see this as an argument for use based skill increases. A-E are all victories, but A increases your sneaking skills, B&C increase your combat skills, D increases your social skills, and C increases your intimidation or combat skills depending on how it works out.

Burning Wheel does this already. You need to have a certain number of successes and failures with a skill before it can be increased.

I've seen something similar grafted onto WoD and Deadlands. After each session, the GM marked off which skills the player used to good effect. He wasn't marking every single thing that was rolled, but the things the players used well. Each of these marks was a bonus XP point that could be used when upgrading that particular skill. Costs to upgrade were based on the number of points you already had (ie, upgrading 3 -> 4 cost 2 times current = 6, so having a discount mark lowered it to 5).

I'm not sure how that would work with something like D&D where all skills cost one point no matter your current level. I've gotten permanent circumstantial bonuses in my knowledge checks before. For instance, knowledge history might gain a permanent +1 when applied to the history of a particular country. Something like that could be applied here. So the sneaking option results in a permanent +1 to sneaking in caves, or the intimidate option results in a permenent +1 to intimidating creatures larger than you. It would probably be hard to translate this to combat though, since that's a whole other subsystem.

Talakeal
2013-05-16, 03:32 PM
I tried used based skill increases for a while, I don't think it worked. It felt like people were trying to find excuses to use whatever skills they wanted to improve and ignoring skills they didn't want to improve even if they would be the optimal solution to a problem.

I really don't like systems which force you to play in a certain way because metagame logic tells you that is how to best advance your character.

I allow players to purchase whatever skills they wants. The logic being that improving a skill is a combination of training, practice, and testing your limits. The first two can happen just fine between adventures, and the third only really matters when a challenging opportunity to use the skill presents itself. If you don't use your skill at all during adventures, isn't having spent points to improve something you never use punishment enough? Do I really need to curtail future advancement on top of it?

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 03:40 PM
I tried used based skill increases for a while, I don't think it worked. It felt like people were trying to find excuses to use whatever skills they wanted to improve and ignoring skills they didn't want to improve even if they would be the optimal solution to a problem.

Any old RuneQuest GM could have told you that. :smallamused:

SOP for RQ munchkins: "I shoot him with my bow. I hit him with my axe. Then I hit him with my sword. Then I hit him with my club. Then I hit him with my dagger. Then I kick him. Then I hit him with my shield..."

(Although I don't think the rules ever say you get an experience check any time you use a skill... it's up to the GM.)


I really don't like systems which force you to play in a certain way because metagame logic tells you that is how to best advance your character.

Artesia: Adventures in the Known World takes an interesting approach on this. It gives you metagame reasons to play your character... any damn way. You get Arcana (advancement points) for so many activities, the only possible way to approach it is to decide what sort of character to play, and go with that. For instance, you can go for IX. Justice and XX. The Last Judgment and make judgments about yourself and others to advance. (Of course, each Arcana is only useful for improving certain things.) The caveat is that the GM decides if an act merits Arcana, based on whether it had any significance to the world and/or the story. Killing your sworn nemesis gets you various Arcana, but killing some random schmoe for no reason doesn't get you any.

valadil
2013-05-16, 04:01 PM
I tried used based skill increases for a while, I don't think it worked. It felt like people were trying to find excuses to use whatever skills they wanted to improve and ignoring skills they didn't want to improve even if they would be the optimal solution to a problem.

Intuitively I don't like that behavior. But when I think about it it makes sense. Instead of taking a lunch break I went to the gym and did front squats because my quads are too weak. When I couldn't do any more, I threw in a little yoga to improve my flexibility for the next time I do front squats.

I don't have stats that I'm aware of, but I'm still trying to up my abilities. I don't think it's unreasonable for your PCs to do this too.

However, I do think it's unreasonable for your PCs to do this all the time. If they're constantly training up their weak skills, I think that means your checks are too low. If they're consistently succeeding at things using their dump skills, that sounds like they're exploiting the difficulty of those particular checks. I'd up the checks or work on the consequences of failure.

I'd also reevaluate how you're awarding these marks. "Have +1 climb because you climbed the rope!!1!" is nice and all, but maybe too generous. Treat skills as a toolbox. Reward players for the successful and appropriate use of their tools. It's lovely that the player climbed the rope, but the stairs were unoccupied so the player was just showing off. Poor use of the tools available disqualifies a skill bonus.

Rhynn
2013-05-16, 04:08 PM
Use-based skill advancement is great, but you have to do it right: experience "checks" should only be awarded for skill uses that matter, that are part of the story, or that are challenging (depending on your desired playstyle). Burning Wheel's "X successes, Y failures" also makes sense.

Practicing/training should generally be a separate mechanic, IMO.