XP: what is a minor, major, & Great

[wick]

What would you consider to be a minor, major, and great menace for awarding XP?

A small party against even a group of equal or less number of normal zombies can seem pretty daunting with the party using up significant resources and damage taken. Same thing with a group of armed bandits if they have 4 attacks each and some weapon skills. Would these really be minor? What would be major and Greater?

[MaxxSterling]

If you played according to the suggestion of K.S. that Rappanui stated, It'd take you a decade of real time to get to 7th level. I have not seen that particular statement, if you can point out where it's located in canon, I'd appreciate it. (I'm not doubting it, but I want to see it)

As far as minor, major, greater. Really, it's up to interpretation, which I think really sucks. I gauge it on how badly they are beaten on and perceived threat.

[wick]

What would you consider to be a minor, major, and great menace for awarding XP?

A small party against even a group of equal or less number of normal zombies can seem pretty daunting with the party using up significant resources and damage taken. Same thing with a group of armed bandits if they have 4 attacks each and some weapon skills. Would these really be minor? What would be major and Greater?

Minor Menace: Something that the player knows they can handle, (as long as the thing turns out to be what they think-hehe)

Major Menace: Something that the player is on the fence as to whether or not they can handle it, but requires something else with it (a better weapon, the help of a friend).

Great Menace: Something that they don't think they can handle at all on there own, and make have to make a combination of efforts and planning to defeat said Menace.

So far the players doubt they can handle a single zombie adequately. maybe if they had bigger handguns and shotguns with slug ammunition they could deal with it. So by that definition a single zombie would be a major threat.

I guess I will just have to eyeball it. Strange XP system. I was thinking 2-3 sessions to reach level 2. I think that I will use the XP chart for individual rewards since I really had to go out on a limb to make justifications for the XP awards I gave my group and I even padded that with a few hundred in order give them about 1/3 of the XP needed to level. I also gave them for XP for running away from zombie fights, they actually did not kill or disable any zombies my last game, but I won't penalize them for that.

Seems weird that there is no more benefit for fighting 2 creatures or 1 or even 10 creatures if they all fall into the same category. Or fighting a special zombie is the same a s fighting a small group of slouchers. Strange system.

[The Beast]

What would you consider to be a minor, major, and great menace for awarding XP?

A small party against even a group of equal or less number of normal zombies can seem pretty daunting with the party using up significant resources and damage taken. Same thing with a group of armed bandits if they have 4 attacks each and some weapon skills. Would these really be minor? What would be major and Greater?

I base it entirely off of how long it takes them to beat their foe.

[Maull3r]

For zombies just think of it as not numbers based but how the party interacts with the situation, do they kill a few and run (minor), do they stand to hold off a safe haven until help arrives(major), Are they surrounded by thousands and just fighting till their last breath for days as they wait for a military assistance or finding out there is none and making a decision to sneak away using the are of bait and switch and fire (Great), Remember to award your players for heroic self-sacrifices...

[auyl]

I've always considered it as, if they pretty much walk over the enemy with taking minor damage, it's a minor menace. An encounter that takes some work and threatens the characters, a major menace. An encounter where characters lives are threatened, a great menace. Again it is up the GM, hopefully the ideas in this thread will help you.

[Michael Barakofsky]

What would you consider to be a minor, major, and great menace for awarding XP?

A small party against even a group of equal or less number of normal zombies can seem pretty daunting with the party using up significant resources and damage taken. Same thing with a group of armed bandits if they have 4 attacks each and some weapon skills. Would these really be minor? What would be major and Greater?

For the DR system I would rate Slouchers and Crawlers as Minor on an individual basis. ie the party encounters a group of 10 (any mix of said zombie type) and kills 4 (25 xp x4 = 100 xp) downs another 3 meaning they need to regenerate before they are a threat again would be worth 1/2 round down (12 xp x3 = +36 xp) and then runs from the remaining 3 (50 xp for a good judgement) that single encounter garners 186 xp for each member in the group. Given 2,000 to 3,000 xp is the general needed for level 2 only 11 to 17 such encounters are needed to level up the 1st time. That many encounters can easily be had in an action oriented game in just the first session.

Major: runners (due to their speed unless the characters have vehicles available to them with open area to get the most out of their vehicles) and thinkers since they can be armed with weapons and attack the party back in unexpected ways. Keep with the individual basis as expalined for Minor above.

Great: Juggernauts, and just about all the new zombie types found in Endless Dead and especially the Walking Grave. These are the toughest of the zombie types and deserve the highest reward for defeating them. If the PC group actually manages to defeat a Walking Grave maybe just give them a level or 2 instead of xp that thing is a true monster. Again keep with the individual basis as explained for Minor above.

[Tor]

To avoid exploitation of the rules, I think GMs can group foes in terms of awarding experience. If 2 crawlers in tandem still only qualify as a minor threat, the GM might rule them as a single minor threat even if they are killed hours apart.

Otherwise we run into issues like people ritualistically killing hundreds of bumble bees to rack up xp.

[Michael Barakofsky]

To avoid exploitation of the rules, I think GMs can group foes in terms of awarding experience. If 2 crawlers in tandem still only qualify as a minor threat, the GM might rule them as a single minor threat even if they are killed hours apart.

Otherwise we run into issues like people ritualistically killing hundreds of bumble bees to rack up xp.

Bumble bees????? Worth xp????? yeah MAYBE if you get attacked by like 200-300 or more and run away from them to avoid being stung to death (I would call that a good judgement award). But actively going out and finding then killing these normal insects would not normally garner any xp at all, unless they were being used as a plot device then I would have a set fixed plot completion award once a specified number of them were dealt with and that would be a 1 time award.

As for your 2 crawlers with the statement of them being hours apart that would count as 2 seperate encounters so xp is awarded for both encounters. If both were encountered at the same time or relatively close together (ie as you finish killing the 1st crawler the 2nd one shows up drawn in by the sound) AND your, in my opinion, a xp-light GM then those 2 crawlers would be worth 1 single award.

[Michael Barakofsky]

My suggestion: Group all the XP the PARTY earns and dish out ... within 3 months you'll be lvl 4.
Ie. If player A , B and C each do diffirent things, AWARD THE ENTIRE PARTY the same xp. you will get your levels and not feel like no one conitrubted.
Now if PLAYER A is behaving badly, You deduct xp from him. Or give him a multiplier penalty. -10% per infraction.\
further example. Player A comes up with constantly futile Ideas. Player B gets lucky with the skills, Player C is good with saving the group. You will Tally all these awards, and Give each player the sum total. Now under this system, You are going to dish out demerits . You can treat that as XP penalty (-100 per infraction) or as a multiplier penalty (-10% per Demerit..)... you will no longer have players feel like player A is hogging the XP or the GM is favoriting someone.

Your idea of an xp pool where the entire party earns xp sounds interesting but it also sounds over powered to me as well. Just to make sure I understand what your saying Characters A, B & C example (all 1st level):
A: has 2 good judgements, kills 3 minor menaces, makes 6 skill checks and has 1 clevel but futile idea: 300 xp value
B: kills 4 minor menaces, makes 2 skills, 1 quick thinking action, and 1 avoiding unnecessary violence: 350 xp value
C: kills 1 major menace, makes 4 skills, 2 good judgements, and 1 endangering self to save others: 600 xp value

That totals out to be 1,250 xp that would then be awarded to each character A, B & C? Assuming that none of the players made any mistakes deserving of xp penalties. If this is correct and I tried that in my gaming group my players would go on strike for giving too much xp too quickly. That and probably hang me for giving xp earned by a specific character to another character that didn't earn it. It might work better or at least sound better if the total 1,250 xp was divided between the 3 characters giving each 416 after rounding down.

Using the Palladium XP system combined with the XP tracker sheets that Palladium has provided is very helpful to keep track of who earns what in a game session. Also that method promotes individual character development. If players A & B from above try to say that C is hogging the XP the GM can show them the tracker and explain that players A & B need to develop their role playing skills and try taking risks and unusual actions more frequently.

[Michael Barakofsky]

Making it individual awards only, makes it a competition.. and leads to players wanting to one up the other.And generally leads to Player antagonization and gm player favoritism.

I would have to say that depends on the players. My group has been doing individual awards fo over 20 years and the only arguments we have had are about when a player wants to build a new piece of equipment or make a new spell or something along those lines how the player wants it to work vs how the GM is comfortable with it working and finding a neutral ground where both player & GM can agree on a final version.

[Zamion138]

We do individual awards for skills, ideas, rp, and plans. For combat and the base for the misson/game/what have you we do a group xp.
"Ok you all get 600 xp, bob i counted 10 usefull use of skills and 2 terrible plans, youd played in char so take an extra 50 ect....... did i miss anything you feel you should have gotten xp for?" Kinda like that.

[Michael Barakofsky]

That also DOES NOT alleviate Slow Advancement Palladium has.
which was the whole point!

Could you elaborate on your slow advancement statement a little more please?
You see I keep seeing people complain about slow advancement from the Palladium xp award system but in practice I have never noticed slow advancement from using it.
I have played Rifts for the last 20 years and various other Palladium titles before that even and the xp award system Palladium uses works IF the GM pays attention to the details.
1) Every time a skill roll is called for by the GM award that character for the skill check that was called for (this negates the canceling skill xp award at 4th level).
2) Pay attention to the comments/thoughts/ideas/statements of the player/character and award the clever but futile and similar ideas and/or actions.
3) If the character runs into a burning building to save a kid give that character daring heroic action and possibly even a potential self sacrifice award.
4) If the characters decide to avoid a fight don't forget to award them the avoiding unnecessary violence.

When I started running Dead Reign my party consisted of 4 characters. I started them at 1st level as is appropriate for a begining campaign. That 1st game sesion lasted 8 hours and we broke for the evening. I tallied the earned xp from that session and when we met for session 2 (two weeks later) I gave the players the xp for their characters and we leveled up before starting play that day going from 1st to 3rd for the entire party. Thats a 2 level gain from 1 game session using individual xp awards as Palladium perscribes. Session 2 was only 6 hours but the characters still gained 4th level from that session. It took sessions 3 & 4 to make 5th level (combined they were 8 hours of game time). Currently the leveling has slowed as 2 of the characters recieved sever damage and were placed on bed rest/light duty by the NPC doctor so the other 2 characters have been focusing on strengthening the defenses around their HQ. Effectively 4 levels in 4 sessions isn't slow advancement in my book.

Now of course if your talking about higher level characters, say 10+ level then unless the adventure is on par with placing the Old Ones back into their eternal slumber level gain should slow down to 1 level every 3rd or 4th session depending on what the players do and how long each session lasts (I am taking 6 hours as an average length for 1 session). Which to me is still not slow level progression, it may not be jackrabbit fast but it is not slow it is a good steady even progression.

[Michael Barakofsky]

Well I guess everyone has different situations they have to contend with, suffice to say that what works for 1 GM & gaming group may or may not work for another. Oh and my groups average game time currently is 6 hours per session once a month. It used to be 6 hours a day for 3 or 4 days a week plus 12 to 14 hours on both saturday & sunday. Hopefully we will be getting back to those good old days within the next year.