What's your advice on how to hand out experience points?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

As Agemegos said Godd RP is a reward in itself.

I don´t Play for XP and i´ve found to often, that good roleplay XP meant Points in Klischeeplay or worse, following the storyline(and trying to figure out what the script is) instead of storybuilding aka inactive Players with roleplay reduced to boring to dead Tavernblather and trying to Play their PCs to the expectations of the Highlord, the fast-talker using his fast talk abilities InGame who´re not in the last related to his and i´ve never ever found an objective measure for good roleplay

It ignorees Character Development

I'm just baffled at all of this. My experience has been quite the opposite. Most of my players give me very little of that sort of thing, and on the other hand they have given me some absolutely stunning (or chilling) roleplaying, sustained character development, and a higher general level of roleplaying than you seem to envision.

As to objective measures of good roleplaying, I'm not making any such claim. This is an aesthetic question, and aesthetics is a matter of personal taste and personal judgment. But it's not just eeps awards that call for that; building the world calls for the same qualities, and coming up with storylines, and running scenarios. My players are coming to me precisely because they value my subjective aesthetic judgments; that's the heart of what I'm offering.

And i don´t think it is fair to penalize the less gifted actor or those whose taste of "dramatic acting" is different from the highlords(Yes i started with DSA/TDE whose writer preached those things thoroughly) or has a bad or hard day at work .

I'm not a socialist. I don't think that if A gets a reward, the people who don't get the reward are being treated "unfairly" or "penalized."

And thinking of this in terms of power is just totally wrong to my mind. I have no power over my players. They're in my campaign of their own choice; they don't have to sign up, and they are free to walk out any time. They only keep playing because I make playing rewarding to them. And I don't mean "rewarding" in the sense of eeps, because eeps have no inherent value; they're of value only in developing your character, which is only worth anything if you already want to keep playing. I mean rewarding in the sense of being fun. Having good, dramatic, entertaining acting adds to the fun of the other players.

I don't consider eeps essential for this. I get good acting in campaigns where I don't use eeps at all. But I don't find them to be a problem, and they provide a mechanism for formally acknowledging the merit of players who help make the game fun in this way.

Bill Stoddard

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Most of my players give me very little of that sort of thing, and on the other hand they have given me some absolutely stunning (or chilling) roleplaying, sustained character development, and a higher general level of roleplaying than you seem to envision.

I´ve experienced that using XP for a "good roleplay reward"(most often "good roleplay" was what Klischee, Storyline and the Author / Highlord expected to be) can lead to this.

Maybe don´t like for the above reasons to give XP for something i´m not being able to measure fairly

I don`t use Storylines, storylines should be what happens most likely if the PCs do nothing

I have no power over my players. They're in my campaign of their own choice; they don't have to sign up, and they are free to walk out any time

that i was used told these highlords every third day, in one case i walked away after an hour in his Story.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

I don`t use Storylines, storylines should be what happens most likely if the PCs do nothing

I've heard that kind of theory, but it's not very relevant to my campaigns. I don't normally think about what will happen if the PCs do nothing, because I never expect them to "do nothing." It's happened to me occasionally, and I've had to stop and think about what was going to happen next—because I hadn't worked it out. It was a real "missing step" feeling.

But equally, I don't have a storyline that the PCs are expected to follow. The storyline, the only storyline in my games, is what emerges from my decisions as GM and the players' as players, trading off against each other. I create situations or problems, but I don't have intended solutions—the goal is to find out what the PCs will do. If they surprise me, so much the better.

Bill Stoddard

[Sword-dancer]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I've heard that kind of theory, but it's not very relevant to my campaigns. I don't normally think about what will happen if the PCs do nothing, because I never expect them to "do nothing."

if the PCs do nothing, something went or is very wrong, but i experienced it a few times in games were Players expected to follow the script but there was None or when there was communication mistake/or some important difference between what the common Picture what the GM intended to describe wasn´t what the other Players envisioned.

My storyline without PC is something of a rough sketch what the different Groups wanting to do and so on

[Kromm]

As a GM, I agree with the view that it isn't my problem if some players aren't as good as others at improv acting . . . or at writing backstory, drawing portraits or family crests, etc., if such things matter in the campaign. Were I running a daycare for children of parents who subscribe to present-day views of entitlement and self-esteem (particularly the myth that everybody can be and do anything), I might consider turning a blind eye to individual gifts. But I'm not! I'm hosting an event for adults, and as in all adult activity, there will be ladders of ability. Exactly as a cocktail party will have people who are better at small-talk than others, individuals who are sexier or better-dressed than others, drinkers who can hold more liquor than others, attendees who can stay later than others, etc., my game will have a range of player talents. I'm fine with rewarding the gifted, even if the model I use in my current campaign happens not to do so. I see this not as unfair, but as an incentive for others to aspire to greater ability.

As it happens, I dislike rewarding players for writing up backstory and drawing pictures . . . but that isn't because I object to them trying to capitalize on their gifts. Rather, it's linked to my belief that everything that weighs materially on game play – including advancement – should occur in play. Players whose alter-egos have done more before the campaign started (i.e., in their backstory) than in current events, and whose image is static (i.e., an idealistic portrait) rather than dynamic, tend to be invested more in their characters' personal myth than in the shared story. All too often, they express palpable frustration when the rules prevent them from reprising the cool heroics of their past, or when circumstances in the story make clear that they look nothing like their picture. Far too many players draw someone with stunning looks and amazing equipment, write up grandiose exploits, and then expect those images and events to influence the game more than the Appearance, gear, and skills they've paid for, and I'm disinclined to encourage that thinking – which I consider disruptive – with extra points for text and illos.

But I think it's important not to blur these things together. Nigh-socialist real-world egalitarianism is one thing. In-world egalitarianism (i.e., everybody gets the same number of points) is another. Blurring the line between dynamic improv and static stories and artwork is yet another. I'm not sure I see much of a link between these things, though it's possible to forge links if one is so inclined.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

As a GM, I agree with the view that it isn't my problem if some players aren't as good as others at improv acting . . . or at writing backstory, drawing portraits or family crests, etc., if such things matter in the campaign. Were I running a daycare for children of parents who subscribe to present-day views of entitlement and self-esteem (particularly the myth that everybody can be and do anything), I might consider turning a blind eye to individual gifts. But I'm not! I'm hosting an event for adults, and as in all adult activity, there will be ladders of ability. Exactly as a cocktail party will have people who are better at small-talk than others, individuals who are sexier or better-dressed than others, drinkers who can hold more liquor than others, attendees who can stay later than others, etc., my game will have a range of player talents. I'm fine with rewarding the gifted, even if the model I use in my current campaign happens not to do so. I see this not as unfair, but as an incentive for others to aspire to greater ability.

As it happens, I dislike rewarding players for writing up backstory and drawing pictures . . . but that isn't because I object to them trying to capitalize on their gifts. Rather, it's linked to my belief that everything that weighs materially on game play – including advancement – should occur in play. Players whose alter-egos have done more before the campaign started (i.e., in their backstory) than in current events, and whose image is static (i.e., an idealistic portrait) rather than dynamic, tend to be invested more in their characters' personal myth than in the shared story. All too often, they express palpable frustration when the rules prevent them from reprising the cool heroics of their past, or when circumstances in the story make clear that they look nothing like their picture. Far too many players draw someone with stunning looks and amazing equipment, write up grandiose exploits, and then expect those images and events to influence the game more than the Appearance, gear, and skills they've paid for, and I'm disinclined to encourage that thinking – which I consider disruptive – with extra points for text and illos.

Both your practice and your rationale seem quite close to mine.

Bill Stoddard

[muranternet]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

And i don´t think it is fair to penalize the less gifted actor or those whose taste of "dramatic acting" is different from the highlords(Yes i started with DSA/TDE whose writer preached those things thoroughly) or has a bad or hard day at work .

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

that i was used told these highlords every third day, in one case i walked away after an hour in his Story.

I'm sure there's a hilarious story of GM hubris and gaming disaster behind these statements.

[Sword-dancer]

There is a School of Storyreading by the highlord and the PCs must follow it, and whose PC derivates from this is stupid, an Egotist or both

I don´t found any use in extra XP for good roleplaying or such, it disrupts the Balance between the PCs, allow the "Good Roleplayers" to overpower the others and get more screentime, doesn´t fit well with many Characterconcepts or the Balance between many different Characterconcepts

Kull of Valusia embrace death in his fights to give death to his enemies(he wouldn´t stood a Chance to survive some of his fights if the other guy on his side didn´t act as his Defender/safekeeper concentrating on parrying and blocking attacks on both of them) with mighty, dramatic blows, Solomon Kane fights in a coold, controlled efficient and highly precise style and deadly strikes.
My descriptions especially in combat are more Solomon Kanes Style than Kulls but mos GMs find Kulls Style "better roleplaying"

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Sword-dancer

Kull of Valusia embrace death in his fights to give death to his enemies(he wouldn´t stood a Chance to survive some of his fights if the other guy on his side didn´t act as his Defender/safekeeper concentrating on parrying and blocking attacks on both of them) with mighty, dramatic blows, Solomon Kane fights in a coold, controlled efficient and highly precise style and deadly strikes.
My descriptions especially in combat are more Solomon Kanes Style than Kulls but mos GMs find Kulls Style "better roleplaying"

The example helps make it clear where your concerns are coming from.

On one hand I want to say, "Just because you've seen it handled badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well, or that you should reject it when it's done well." On the other hand, there are gaming practices that I'm opposed to because I think they are much too likely to be done badly or abused. This just doesn't happen to be one of them. But then, I don't think I've seen it abused in the way you describe; if I had, I might feel differently.

Bill Stoddard

[The Benj]

A point for showing up.
An extra point for showing up on time.
A point for the first time in a session that you entertain me by talking in character.
Players can nominate each other for an extra point for being extra entertaining in character.

I'm totally okay with players being encouraged to make things fun for me. I'm here to have fun and help my friends have fun.