Topic: XPs for a party goal where part of the group did not participate

[Ecthelion]

Of course this makes sense  . Perhaps the general question is how the XP system can help to encourage players to develop a wider range of skills for their PCs, in this case including RRs, instead of focusing only on e.g. combat.

[ArmoryDave]

I can definitely see the value in developing RR skills especially, and I am not saying that it should not be encouraged.  In fact, I can think of many examples where this might bog down the playing for other players if half of the group can't stand their ground to fight something that is scary.

I also think that trying to use the XP system to enforce building up a wider range of skills is ultimately counter-productive.  First, if players have their characters penalized because they highly specialized some skills (not always combat related skills) for the price of deep deficiencies in other skills, that was a roleplaying decision that should have been overridden by the gamemaster upon character creation and not in the middle of a game.  If the problem occurred during level ups, then why would the GM penalize that character through XP, which would prolong and exacerbate the problem of an underdeveloped skill set? 

I can definitely see a penalty for players who purposely abuse the system, but I am not convinced that XP is the way to do it. Perhaps cut their portion of loot, or skip them over for a magic item?

[Arioch]

Perhaps the general question is how the XP system can help to encourage players to develop a wider range of skills for their PCs, in this case including RRs, instead of focusing only on e.g. combat.

One way is making each skill as rewarding as combat ones (in other words, passing a RR should be worth as much XP as surviving a combat).
But this imho is not enough. As long as the PCs will get XPs for accomplishing goals as a party, they'll be encouraged to build very specialized characters, because they can count on other party members to cover their "weak spots".
Awarding XPs for individual achievements, instead, favor the development of a wide range of skills, since it encourages PCs to do things all by themselves.

So you could increase individual rewards, or force PCs into situations where they have to split the party.

[jasonbrisbane]

Instead I am looking for an XP system that is easy enough to handle and that motivates the players to work together on the gaming table towards a common goal and which gives some incentive for good roleplaying.

And situations like this are the reason I say that XP alone aren't enough to motivate players to work together. 

However, in a certain sense, I agree with Rasyr, PCs should not be penalized too much for having failed a RR.
OTOH, the players made a conscious choice when they favored other skills over Will and that failure is a consequence of this choice.
Let's think what would happen in another, similar situation:
The party need to get a precious artifact, hidden in the royal treasure chambers.
The party thief, having focused his development on Subterfuge skills, easily slip in and manages to steal the artifact.
The fighter, who didnìt buy a single rank in subterfuge, cannot even get close to the castle without being spotted.

In this situation, would you award XPs to all the party for reaching their goal, or just to the thief?

the fighter should know better and be the Distraction. if they used their abilities to their best (the fighter was "breaking in" and caused guards to go towards him, the theif has less chance to be spotted no matter his stalk/hide rolls, so they both participate.

If the fighter just trie to sneak and failed miserabnly then he is not using his abilities or learning that he really should try to sneak without some training... so I would be inclined to give the fighter less XP.

[RandalThor]

Of course this makes sense  . Perhaps the general question is how the XP system can help to encourage players to develop a wider range of skills for their PCs, in this case including RRs, instead of focusing only on e.g. combat.

I don't agree here. I think it is the GMs responsibility to do this. For example: If the group plans on going on a long expedition into the jungles of Y'thrain, don't leave it up to one or two members of the group to get jungle survival skills. Everyone should have some skill in survival so they at thee very least, aren't negative modifiers to the group survival skill checks. (Yes, this is a problem for level-based games which require you go up a level in order to gain skills - which is why I prefer levelless systems.)

I mentioned it on another XP thread, but I don't award XP at all when running HARP/RM/or any other level-based system. I level everyone up prior to the beginning of the 4Th session. For exceptional game-play, cool ideas, and the like I give in-game bonuses, such as bonus Fate Points (or whatever is used for that game) or even temporary bonuses to a group of actions for the rest of the session or the next encounter, whatever. That is all in addition to the immediate situational bonuses they get for having a good idea on how to deal with the problem at hand.

Of course, another way to do it is sort of adopt the Earthdawn method only in Development Points. Award development points instead of xp and when they reach a certain number of DPs they are the next level. In this case I would say that you should be using a set number of DPs, not have them dependant upon the individuals attributes. You would also have to deal with the whole max # of ranks / level situation, but since that number goes up very quickly (by 10Th level it's 33 max skill ranks in a single skill) so maybe that isn't a big deal once they get to a decent level. This method would allow them the option to learn new skills as they need them. Using the jungle example: the group finds itself in the jungle (not planned) so as they adventure they they will have the opportunity to gain skill ranks in jungle survival without having to gain a level, and thus show their growing familiarity with their surroundings.  In some cases, I would think it totally appropriate for the GM to require the players to purchase some ranks in particular skills.

[jurasketu]

RandalThor-

(Yes, this is a problem for level-based games which require you go up a level in order to gain skills - which is why I prefer levelless systems.)

You can do the same thing by not forcing expenditure of DPs when the characters level up - I should write this up for the Guild Companion so it would make more sense without context - but here's the original post (sorry for the quoted repost - I think I can provide a link - but I always seem to bungle those)

Let me first provide context. I think that one of most difficult chores for a gamemaster is making sure an adventure scenario can be accomplished by the players. If its impossible, that's bad. A self-designed module has to take into account the skills and spells the players currently have to provide the right level of challenge. With a published module, either you have to "hint" the players to take a particular skill or spell (and hence give away something) or modify the module. What's the point of purchasing a module if you have to spend hours editing to make it suitable?.

So. I allow my players to spend DPs whenever they wish on skills and spells they already know, could reasonably know or provide a story suitable explanation why they could know. I allow this to be done even in the middle of combat if a player so chooses - even to purchase a fate point if they wish. I allow them to purchase as many ranks as their level allows per the standard rules. The story rationale is this - the player suddenly remembers they know how to swim or ride a horse. Or secretly have been practicing Turn Undead.

I know it sounds insane - it goes against everything RPGs have ever been. But it has many advantages. Since I encourage players to hoard their DPs until they need them, many new skills are born in the context of an encounter or story obstacle. This gives most skills and spells special story context and history. I like that. It allows players to be creative and actually take relatively obscure skills because the context allowed the skill not to be a potential total waste.

For my many years as a player in Rolemaster (I own a tattered, stained copy of the original Arms Law) and Chaosium games, I was always frustrated that there were all these interesting skills available that I wanted to take - but knew that the odds of any single skill proving useful was practically zero. Still, I would waste a few points here and there on obscure skills and then go through stupid gyrations to try and work the skill into the game.

Instead, this way - during the adventure, the odds of SOME obscure skill being useful is actually quite high. And so players have an incentive to take them when its useful or even critical. Its a nice way to give a character extra color without having been penalized for trying to do so up front. Plus, adventuring teams "balance" themselves out over time without having to do careful planning four and five levels in advance.

Its also a great boon to the GM. Purchased modules can be run practically "as is". A particular skill or spell is critical? Players don't have that skill or spell? No problem. Just spend the DPs, keep going. Self-made modules can be created the way they "should be" instead of trying to make sure the team's skill mix will work. Before I came up with this idea, I would provide an NPC with the critical skill if necessary - but that's kind of like playing solitaire RPG... And mind you, I don't make suggestions or tell the players what skill to take on the fly - they have to do that thinking for themselves.

It also works for NPCs (friend and foe). The GM can pick a NPC level and profession, allocate how many ranks the NPC would have (although typically I start the NPC with 25% or more ranks allocated to endurance, perception and resistance skills and 25% on their "basic" combat package just so I have an adequate feel for the character). And then select other skills and spells on the fly. The players don't feel cheated because they can do the same thing themselves. Plus, the hour you spent creating a sophisticated, interesting NPC background isn't totally spoiled by the fact you forget to give them Arcane Lore Demons like you intended. More fun, less preparation. This is important when you use Oatmeal for Brains.

Robin

[RandalThor]

The end result is the same. I still prefer my method because it doesn't have the stigma of delayment (new word?!?). Also, it has a more natural feel to it to me. Not sure if I can really explain "natural feel."