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

[Ecthelion]

Hi,

in our recent HARP session we had the case that, when encountering powerful undead, twice part of the group fled in fear of the undead and the rest of the group had to survive the combat alone. In the first case two members of the group were affected by fear of the undead, but since the undead blocked the exit from the room they cowered in a corner hoping for a chance to flee from the room. On the second encounter with undead monsters another member of the group panicked and escaped from the combat via a nearby stairway, returning minutes later when the combat was over for a long time. In both cases those members that did not flee were in grave danger, since these were quite powerful undead, and barely survived the fight, while the members that fled would only have been in danger in the case the rest of the group would lose the fight (first encounter, with the panicked characters in a corner of the room) or were not in danger at all (second encounter).

Nevertheless, as we always do, the GM handed out the XPs for the party goals - of course including also the XPs for the successful combats against the undead - equally to all group members. Only later I thought that this perhaps was not the best solution. Perhaps the XPs for the encounters with the undead should only have been distributed among those PCs that actually participated in the combat.

What do you think?

[ArmoryDave]

I'm not sure I can agree with you.  A bad dice roll is what seems to be the problem here.  What if instead a character had been knocked unconscious on the very first roll of the combat and didn't participate in that way?  Does that character not get points just because of the unfortunate timing?

I'm not saying that I always distribute XP equally.  Usually creative roleplaying and amazing maneuvers (not always in combat) can earn a character a little extra over the group. 

But I've never penalized a character because of a bad dice roll. 

This is, of course, just my impression of the situation you presented.   

[Karizma]

I'm with Armory Dave here.

From a literalist view, the text says that the goal for encounters is "Surviving".  Running away *IS* a form of survival.  Plus, I think that it's good incentive for those members to start putting ranks in RR Will.

To me, being stricken with Fear is just as much participating as being knocked out, or caught in the Samsara of Stun.

But what I might do, is give a bonus to the fighting characters with a new Personal Goal: Protecting those who are scared.  In this way, those who fought DO get more experience, but it's not PENALIZING those who COULDN'T fight.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

If the players choose to run away on their own, leaving the others to fend for themselves, that would be one thing, but if they ran because of a failled RR, then no, they should not be penalized.

[Ecthelion]

First, thanks to you all for sharing your opinion.

I'm not sure I can agree with you.  A bad dice roll is what seems to be the problem here.  What if instead a character had been knocked unconscious on the very first roll of the combat and didn't participate in that way?  Does that character not get points just because of the unfortunate timing?

Yes, I thought about this too and I see the problem.

Plus, I think that it's good incentive for those members to start putting ranks in RR Will.

A bit I fear just the opposite. Those characters that ran away were those who put just one rank in Will RR. What if one or two of the "brave" characters that stood and fought would have been killed or would at least have lost a Fate Point? In a way they would have been penalized for having developed Will RR. Furtunately it did not turn out that way (although I though for some time it would do so during the second encounter).

[Winterknight]

Blanket party.

For those not familiar with the term, it's a military form of discipline, where the members of a unit...encourage...a substandard member to improve his efforts, especially if there are detrimental effects from his shoddy performance to the group as a whole.  E.g. "Recruit Anderson couldn't seem to fold his clothes properly, so he gets to run the obstacle course again.  The rest of you go along to make sure he finishes."

Now, lore would have you believe that the term comes from throwing a blanket over the offending individual while he is in bed, with several people holding him down in place by pulling the blanket taut over his supine form while others do the active encouraging using bars of soap in socks.  I've never seen or legitimately heard of it going that far, mind you.  Usually, talking to the individual is enough, if he has any semblance of a conscience.  Most people don't want to be the weakest link.

So, to the point, I think handing out goal XP evenly is fairest - it tends to keep players focused on the larger picture, and moves away from the "who killed the mostest bestest" mindset that so many of us grew up with.  If the party succeeds, everyone wins.  If I were GM, I would find other in-game rewards for those who contributed more, but keep the party advancing at the same rate with XP.

But, you players have every right to speak to the other players who do the Brave Sir Robin maneuver.  "I don't care if that's what your thief would do, I'm asking you to support the team.  Do you want my barbarian to have this discussion in-game with your weasel?  Because that's what HE would do."

[Ecthelion]

Right, perhaps we should resolve this in-game. E.g. one brave PC could suggest that the "cowards" receive less from the loot or so.

[Marc R]

Hard to judge accidental from on purpose though. . .at least if you're being honesly IC.

Like, if My PC runs becauuse he failed an RR, and your PC just bails by choice, how can anyone tell the difference?

OTOH, the barbarian threatening to bash your head in the next time you run and leave him in trouble might encourage you to puchase some RR Will.

[Sazen]

Our party rules that if you don't contribute to the fulfilment of a goal then you don't get any XP

Last session we were ambushed be spiders and our watch failed both his perception checks. My character is asleep when attacked and immobile for the rest of the combat. No XP as i did not help the party survive the encounter.

I would rule it would be the same for failing a fear roll. If the character doesn't do anything then they cannot learn from the experience

[Winterknight]

I'd darn tootin' learn to sleep lighter when Fritz the Unperceptive is on watch.  That's worth XP in my book.

[jurasketu]

Running in terror is most definitely an EXPERIENCE...

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Running in terror is most definitely an EXPERIENCE...

Exactly. I feel that it up to the GM to allocate experience in a fashion that reflects the amount of experience that was actually experienced. This goes back to the core of the old rolemaster xp system where the individual xp was earnt. All individual xp (or a proportion of it) is then totalled and distributed in whatever fashion that the GM considers correct as a bonus. Those players who hadn't experienced fear before and fled would recieve more than those who were making a consious choice to run away, hold back or whatever.

 

[Ecthelion]

To be honest, I don't care so much whether the PCs actions would result in much experience in real life (otherwise I could almost as well use the old RM XP system that assigns XPs for every single action, trying to reflect such real-life experience as detailed as possible). 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. That's what HARP's XP system with its party goals and individual goals IMO serves quite well.

As mentioned above, though, I thought it might be an incentive for players to invest in the RRs of their PCs if otherwise their characters might receive less XPs from time to time. But I see the problem that it might be hard to draw the line, so that it's probably best to always hand out party XPs evenly and let the PCs handle it in-game how they react towards PCs that ran away in fear and left them alone in a dangerous combat.

[Arioch]

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?

[Cormac Doyle]

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 didn't 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?

but if that is the only thing occurring at the time, the GM is not being fair.

If the GM has made that goal a party goal, they should also have set it up such that the non-stealthy fighter is needed (perhaps to make a distraction so the thief would be successful ...), thus enhancing party play

[ArmoryDave]

I think the point he is trying to make is that each character has a situation in which they are going to be more or less useful to the group regardless of how well the GM plans the adventure and encounters.  Over the course of a few gaming sessions or a campaign the involvement of the characters in the accomplishment of the overall group goals should even out. 

[Ecthelion]

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

As I already mentioned I see that it might become a problem where to draw the line if not the whole party is involved in a particular action. Plus see the comments given by ArmoryDave and Cormac.

[Cory Magel]

In a broad generalized answer... if it was not a conscious choice on the players part to flee they should not be severely penalized.  If certain players are knowingly not increasing their RR's when they know they really ought to, don't give them fight exp but give them mission accomplished exp.

You could also penalize those who failed their RR a percentage of exp equal to the number by which they missed their RR. That'll get them buying RR 'skills'.

[jurasketu]

The funny thing is... I award the majority of my XPs for just entertaining role playing. Sure I award mission and survival points - but 60 to 80% of my XPs are awarded for making me smile.

I smile at clever maneuvers, clever use of spells, clever dialog with NPCs, staying with the PCs personality even if its detrimental (like running away in terror knowing that tactically it was stupid), playing 'straight' even when they know something their PCs don't and generally trying to make the game fun for everyone.

At the same time, I typically award the same number of XPs to all characters regardless of relative contribution. This is *wrong* on a number of levels - but it is *right* on a "team" level.

For a major party goal... In my campaign anyway, it would be highly unlikely for a particular major goal to be met in just a single session/encounter - even if a PC wasn't involved in the climatic battle - the PC would likely have contributed in some fashion prior to the climax - so I only would "short" a PC experience for particularly BAD role playing - ie continually making me frown...

Robin

[Arioch]

I think the point he is trying to make is that each character has a situation in which they are going to be more or less useful to the group regardless of how well the GM plans the adventure and encounters.  Over the course of a few gaming sessions or a campaign the involvement of the characters in the accomplishment of the overall group goals should even out. 

Yes, I understand this, what I was trying to say is:
- this time the PCs who escaped were not useful, because they probably focalized on some skill at the expenses of Will. So no XP for them
- in another situation the same PCs will shine thanks to that skill, and probably the others will not be very helpful. So, they'll get XP and the others don't.

It's the same of the example above: the thief get XP for stealing the artifact, the warrior for figthing the guards.
Both get XP for the major party goal, since they both helped to accomplish it.

Does it makes sense?