Advancement in Tales from Wilderland

[PaulButler]

Perfectly defining XP awards based on monsters killed or objectives reached? That's the old school D&D way.
That way lies madness.

I don't think anyone has suggested that here, have they?

Nope, not at all. Just providing a stark contrast.

It will also eliminate the problems so many others see as potentially game spoiling for them, as discussed over here: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1021

Absolutely. That's exactly my point, you've adopted some rules not really as per the RAW for XP advancement. Most others haven't, they've followed the RAW, which is why this thread and the one you've linked to above are discussing such issues. If the RAW would have been a little more defined, offered some more detailed advice, or been thought out and executed as I've described I don't think people would be having the issues they now have. I'm not saying it would have solved the problem, but it would have alleviated it somewhat.

I don't think I've adopted house rules. I've just chosen to utilize the "bonus" XP rules as I have interpreted them. The tone of the writing certainly seems to suggest that they are optional bonuses to be applied at the LM's discretion and not simply points that should be tacked on at the end of every adventure. (At the very least, they indicate some wiggle room with the specific quantity awarded in this manner.) I have definitely occasionally tweaked the 1XP per session rule based on extra long or extra short sessions.

Others may not read the rules that way. To your point, they seem to have been interpreted differently by many. *shrug* YMMV.

My point was simply that I think an RPG, by nature of being an RPG, should be open to a bit of pushing and pulling concerning rules. It's the nature of the medium. That GM screen isn't there to hide stats from players after all, it's there to lie about dice rolls as needed to provide the best experience and story for your players. Though of course I realize that not everyone feels the same way.

[Rich H]

Let me try to be crystal clear about the issue of progression and XP advancement and the problem the RAW causes. The rules state the following:

At the end of the gaming session each hero receives one Experience point.

Just taking that rule, Gaming Group 1 plays for 8 hours, finishing the adventure, and obtains 1 XP. Gaming Group 2 plays for 2 hours and obtains 1 XP. They finish the same adventure as Gaming Group 1 after 4 game sessions in total but they have received 4 XP whereas Group 1 has only received 1.

That means that XP gain is quicker the shorter the game session is, yet crazily a group playing for longer has experienced more within the game world yet has less XP.

That's broken.

Now supplementary XP is awarded at the end of the adventure but that remains constant for each gaming group - its just obtained after the first game session for Group 1 and the fourth gaming session for Group 2. But when progressing through a campaign that doesn't matter, it's the length of the game session that throws XP accrual out of whack.

A better mechanic would to be to award base XP at the end of each adventure with guidelines as to how and what to award bonus XP for within each adventure. The progression would be more transparent and controlled by in-game elements rather than largely, as if now, controlled by game session length.

[Beran]

XPs at the end of each adventure...I was beginning to think the same thing myself. Makes more sense.

[PaulButler]

Let me try to be crystal clear about the issue of progression and XP advancement and the problem the RAW causes. The rules state the following:

At the end of the gaming session each hero receives one Experience point.

Just taking that rule, Gaming Group 1 plays for 8 hours, finishing the adventure, and obtains 1 XP. Gaming Group 2 plays for 2 hours and obtains 1 XP. They finish the same adventure as Gaming Group 1 after 4 game sessions in total but they have received 4 XP whereas Group 1 has only received 1.

That means that XP gain is quicker the shorter the game session is, yet crazily a group playing for longer has experienced more within the game world yet has less XP.

That's broken.

Um, why? Are both Fellowships going to duke it out at some point?
It's a role-playing game. It's a closed system. Game balance is a meaningless concept except within the confines of your own game.

[PaulButler]

A better mechanic would to be to award base XP at the end of each adventure with guidelines as to how and what to award bonus XP for within each adventure. The progression would be more transparent and controlled by in-game elements rather than largely, as if now, controlled by game session length.

Then do that. The CB7 rules police aren't going to knock on your door.
I'm sure you probably make your own NPCs and adversaries, yeah? You certainly write your own stories for your campaign. So tweak the rules.
It's not like we're all gonna go play in the World Championship One Ring tournament and compete against each other using a mutually agreed upon rules set.

[Yusei]

Well, sure, we all tweak the rules at some point. But it's good to talk and define guidelines, because, when it comes to XP, it can already be too late when you notice a problem. You can't easily remove XP from the characters if you suddenly find out you've given too much

[Glorelendil]

I'm struggling with these issues as well. And to build upon Rich H's point about game session durations, some groups also play faster/slower than others. (More jokes, longer time looking up rules, etc.)

I'd love to see XP recommendations included with Adventures. I.e., each chapter of DoM could include recommendations at the end, depending on which goals were accomplished.

[PaulButler]

Well, sure, we all tweak the rules at some point. But it's good to talk and define guidelines, because, when it comes to XP, it can already be too late when you notice a problem. You can't easily remove XP from the characters if you suddenly find out you've given too much

Agreed.
And to your final point, I suppose that's why I err on the side of fewer XP, knowing that a bonus later to bring things up to speed certainly wouldn't be minded by the players.

[Rich H]

Um, why? Are both Fellowships going to duke it out at some point?
It's a role-playing game. It's a closed system. Game balance is a meaningless concept except within the confines of your own game.

Like I stated earlier, and you've either missed the point or misunderstood or I wasn't clear enough, for written adventures (and particularly sequential ones or campaigns) it's best to have a system of XP that is clear and based on in-game achievements. Many gaming groups are going to use these adventures/campaigns and if the XP progression is based on the length of a gaming session then that makes them far more difficult to put together and build challenge levels into them as different groups are going to progress at different rates through an adventure. I deliberately picked the 2 hour session and the 8 hour one because those times relate to the two game groups I play in. If the same TOR campaign was being run for both groups then the challenge level of the written adventures for one group as opposed to the other would noticeably become an issue. The LM would then have problems unless they luckily ran their game at the same speed as what the designers built this mechanism for. Too slow and the XP rate makes things more challenging, too quick and it becomes too easy. We can tweak the rules but we really shouldn't have to - XP is a fairly simple thing to get right. It's an issue for TOR in areas - the game seems to focus on rewards keyed into the end of a game session rather than in-game triggers.

[Rich H]

Then do that. The CB7 rules police aren't going to knock on your door.
I'm sure you probably make your own NPCs and adversaries, yeah? You certainly write your own stories for your campaign. So tweak the rules.
It's not like we're all gonna go play in the World Championship One Ring tournament and compete against each other using a mutually agreed upon rules set.

Oh, come on fella, that's a cheap shot and a pretty snarky comment to be honest, and it's stating the obvious so not really helpful at all. We're discussing here what appears to be an obvious issue with the game for many people. It's what this forum and these threads are for after all.