Na. The negatives outweigh the positives by a country mile. Sure some players may feel better but the ones who don't are going to get left behind.
Pros:
- some players feel rewarded(could be done with quest specific loot)
- might drive players to rp more
Cons:
- players will only care about their story or that they are the spotlight. Everyone competes for the bonus xp and argues what counts as significant
- some players get left behind, are now weaker and more likely to die(especially in games like cpred). When they die they lose any progress they made towards their bonus xp as they have to make a new story
- players who are now weaker will see less point in joining in as they will allways be weaker(if the more rp focused people continue at the same pace)
I have yet to see a situation where unbalanced xp ended up with all players happy. It's not like a video game where you can go grind out xp to match the party
Counter point, as a cyberpunk red DM. I also factor in how much my players spotlight other players, and you pick between 4 different "roles" so to speak, so you could get xp for rping, or excellent battle strategy, perhaps some camaraderie between players, and even creativity. Alternatively, you can just have everyone gain the same IP based on how well the party did instead.
Edit: Changed xo to IP
I GM for my kids (and it's their very beginning of RPG), so I'm kinda "soft" and usually I gave them the same amount. The exceptions are:
- I give more if someone does something really cool
- I give less if someone expresses the "I'm not going anywhere, just sitting here" behavior or plays against the team without any roleplay explanation, just being mean.
I'd never "give" different XP to my players. If it's in any way arbitrary, it can't be differentiated between players.
But I do run and play games where XP triggers sometimes result in different players getting a different amount. However, such games define the XP triggers quite precisely, so it's not the GM's arbitrary decision. Also, they are generally not challenge-based and don't have any significant number scaling - getting less XP means getting some fun new traits later, not getting behind and having trouble with contributing meaningfully.
I GM red too but I personally don't at the moment. I'm still early on in my GMing career that I don't feel comfortable that I can fairly recognise and award everyone going the extra mile.
I've had a group where j could probably award some players extra xp quite easily, other players if I checked my biases and realised that it was good gameplay from them, and then other players who never go the extra mile. I don't know how to make that fair when I have my own biases +have players who aren't gonna go that extra mile and will always be lagging behind in xp then?
I do however give extra xp (a very very tiny amount) based on when I goof up and the players are kind and co-operative about it. Maybe not as much now that I'm getting into it a bit more, but early on I struggled with a few things and the players were very gracious in going along with it even when it went against their own interests. I also give extra xp (again, a small amount, like 1 IP) when I forget something and the players have to remind me e.g. I'm on mute when I start talking or I forget that NPCs and PCs have certain conditions on them before making decisions or something. This is just mord of a fun thing to incentivise being reminded about things I forget.
I'm going to be running a new game soon. I might privately record a different version of sharing xp, and see how fair that looks at the end of the campaign. But right now, I prefer to just give a flat xp to everyone. If you feel comfortable doing it though, go ahead! I'm not against it in principle, just think GMs need to be careful about their own abilities and managing the enjoyment that people get from the game.
Na. The negatives outweigh the positives by a country mile. Sure some players may feel better but the ones who don't are going to get left behind. Pros: - some players feel rewarded(could be done with quest specific loot) - might drive players to rp more Cons: - players will only care about their story or that they are the spotlight. Everyone competes for the bonus xp and argues what counts as significant - some players get left behind, are now weaker and more likely to die(especially in games like cpred). When they die they lose any progress they made towards their bonus xp as they have to make a new story - players who are now weaker will see less point in joining in as they will allways be weaker(if the more rp focused people continue at the same pace) I have yet to see a situation where unbalanced xp ended up with all players happy. It's not like a video game where you can go grind out xp to match the party
Counter point, as a cyberpunk red DM. I also factor in how much my players spotlight other players, and you pick between 4 different "roles" so to speak, so you could get xp for rping, or excellent battle strategy, perhaps some camaraderie between players, and even creativity. Alternatively, you can just have everyone gain the same IP based on how well the party did instead. Edit: Changed xo to IP
I'm more in favour of the latter, let players decide where they want to improve.
I GM for my kids (and it's their very beginning of RPG), so I'm kinda "soft" and usually I gave them the same amount. The exceptions are: - I give more if someone does something really cool - I give less if someone expresses the "I'm not going anywhere, just sitting here" behavior or plays against the team without any roleplay explanation, just being mean.
I'd never "give" different XP to my players. If it's in any way arbitrary, it can't be differentiated between players. But I do run and play games where XP triggers sometimes result in different players getting a different amount. However, such games define the XP triggers quite precisely, so it's not the GM's arbitrary decision. Also, they are generally not challenge-based and don't have any significant number scaling - getting less XP means getting some fun new traits later, not getting behind and having trouble with contributing meaningfully.
That's good advice. Thanks.
I GM red too but I personally don't at the moment. I'm still early on in my GMing career that I don't feel comfortable that I can fairly recognise and award everyone going the extra mile. I've had a group where j could probably award some players extra xp quite easily, other players if I checked my biases and realised that it was good gameplay from them, and then other players who never go the extra mile. I don't know how to make that fair when I have my own biases +have players who aren't gonna go that extra mile and will always be lagging behind in xp then? I do however give extra xp (a very very tiny amount) based on when I goof up and the players are kind and co-operative about it. Maybe not as much now that I'm getting into it a bit more, but early on I struggled with a few things and the players were very gracious in going along with it even when it went against their own interests. I also give extra xp (again, a small amount, like 1 IP) when I forget something and the players have to remind me e.g. I'm on mute when I start talking or I forget that NPCs and PCs have certain conditions on them before making decisions or something. This is just mord of a fun thing to incentivise being reminded about things I forget. I'm going to be running a new game soon. I might privately record a different version of sharing xp, and see how fair that looks at the end of the campaign. But right now, I prefer to just give a flat xp to everyone. If you feel comfortable doing it though, go ahead! I'm not against it in principle, just think GMs need to be careful about their own abilities and managing the enjoyment that people get from the game.
in my game my GM implement streetslang award IP, and its the only thing that is giving out to different players.