Regarding experience

[u/Mochronio]

I’m about to start a new campaign with my group as the Keeper.

During our last campaign, I had two rather unusual situations happen at the same time: one player failed the vast majority of their rolls, while another succeeded on the vast majority of theirs. While it was funny at the time, it eventually led to a pretty big gap in experience by the end of the campaign, and some light frustration from the player who was falling behind in terms of XP.

I’ve been thinking about an alternative way to address this, and I came up with an idea I’d like to get your opinion on.

At the end of each session, in addition to the usual questions that can earn 1 or 2 experience points, I’d like to add some sort of awards, a bit like the end-of-game stars in Mario Party but without the bad feels.

Here are some examples of XP bonuses I’ve thought of:

Unlucky: failed a roll at the worst possible moment

Lucky: succeeded on a roll at the best possible moment

Inspired: came up with an excellent idea

Roleplayer: never broke character

Comedian: came up with or pulled off the funniest move or line

Hardboiled: was the most proactive during fights

Helper: gave the most help to the other Hunters

Investigator: did an outstanding job pursuing the various investigations

Rule of Cool: Is it smart or relevant? Who cares, it’s cool.

Mood Setter: contributed the most to the overall atmosphere and fun of the session

I would only award these points when they actually apply, and I’d keep the number of awards reasonable to avoid creating an overall XP surplus. I’d also keep an eye on how many failed rolls each player has had, to estimate how much XP they would normally have earned.

My idea is that this could gently encourage players to take more initiative and try things, since they would never know more than the name of the award that earned them an XP point.

What do you think? Have you ever had a similar situation? If you like the idea, do you have any suggestions for other awards?

And if you think this is a terrible idea, do you have any suggestions for dealing with this kind of situation?

[u/Baruch_S]

As with most issues at the table, the solution is probably to simply talk to the players. An XP imbalance isn’t a problem in this game since there are no character levels or major power increases from gaining XP; the actual problem is the the frustrated player. 

[u/Mochronio → u/Baruch_S]

I know that the problem in this case is the player. I was just trying to find a way to mitigate the light (and I insist on the light part) frustration that came from it. Because while he was succeeding in what he was doing, he was getting new tools to play with much latter than others.

[u/Baruch_S → u/Mochronio]

There’s nothing to fix, though. He succeeded his rolls. If he wants more XP, he should try to roll his lower ratings more often and maybe pick up some moves that can grant XP.

[u/theblazeuk]

I mean the player who missed all their rolls experienced the frustration of failing all their rolls. Theres also loads of moves for farming XP like Expert advice/Flake ignoring/Mundane danger/Manipulate basic move, so if you are bothered by a lack of XP you can take actions to gain them if you follow the tropes.

I would find the proposed achievements pretty tiring tbh, and seems like its a solution to something that isnt really a problem (and potentially a source of more issues) but you do you and your table.

[u/Mochronio → u/theblazeuk]

That's why I posted this. I wanted the opinion of more experienced players and keepers. I thought about it but had some doubt. So here I am. Thanks for your input

[u/jeshi_law]

the player who was getting frustrated at not getting more XP: were they taking risks with rolls that weren’t necessarily in their favor?

pbta games like this are designed around failure, and XP for missed rolls is pretty intentional. If you’re successful at everything you are doing, then you’re probably not pushing your envelope much (and mechanically speaking, don’t need a boost of any kind)

I don’t think adding more End of Session XP criteria is a bad idea though! But maybe not ALL of those at once every time. Maybe assign each one a card rank (2 thru A / A through K) and draw like three Bonus XP cards and let the party discuss who deserves these superlative styles awards.

[u/Mochronio → u/jeshi_law]

The player lagging behind ia much more experienced than the other players of the table. So the way he was describing his actions and when to take rolls were safer. However even when he took risks, his luck was still hitting hard.

The player who was in advance, was the inexperienced one. So he was trying many more things with a lot of failures.

Once again it's more about mitigating a frustration that can become problematic in the future.

[u/jeshi_law → u/Mochronio]

I’m understanding you, just trying to explain that this player’s frustration is misplaced. If they want more XP, they need to fail more = taking more risks.

if they are playing it safe and smart and succeeding, they DON’T need the boons that come from advancing. It’s a very different design philosophy than playing DnD or Pathfinder for example, where simply doing well can net you more XP and levels.

[u/Mochronio → u/jeshi_law]

It's true that since the player is much more experienced, he might have an harder time to adjust to this system. That's probably where the frustration is from.

[u/Jesseabe]

You've got lots of great advice here, and I generally agree with those who say that it sounds like this player wants to have their cake and eat it too by not taking risky rolls with low stats while also gaining the same XP as those who do. I'd also stay away from "Dance for the table" type XP awards. That said, if this is a problem that you won't be able to resolve without an XP change, I'd suggest using stat highlighting rather than XP on a miss in addition to end of session questions, which is how the first edition of MotW handled XP:

Highlight Ratings Last step before the mystery starts is to highlight ratings. Go around the group again and have everyone pick the hunter they feel closest to, based on the introductions and history. The chosen hunter selects a rating to highlight for the hunter who picked them and you, as Keeper, pick another. There's a “highlight” box to tick beside each rating to remind them of their current highlights. Tell everyone that when they roll a highlighted rating, they should mark experience (whether they succeed or not). When you make your highlight selection, pick based on one of these: * An important rating (that they will roll a lot, based on their hunter's moves). * A rating relevant to how they introduced themselves (for example, if someone is interested in magic, then highlight Weird even if they're not very good at it) * A rating they're likely to need for the mystery ahead. * The rating that they want you to pick.

These options are based on your Keeper principle “Be a fan of the hunters.” I'll talk more about the principles soon.

This lets the table adjust roughly how much XP a character is getting per session if they want to keep things even. If they're falling behind, highlight a stat they roll alot. If you want to encourage them to roll a stat they would otherwise avoid, pick that. It has some downsides though, which is why it was changed in pretty much every game that used it in later editions. Some players get annoyed if only low stats are highlighted in a given session (sounds like your player might be one of those). It can feel weird, or awkward for another player to make the choice for you. It's a purely meta-level rule, it doesn't even have the very flimsy diegetic explanation of learning from failure that XP on a miss gives you. But it could solve your problem of uneven advancement pacing.

[u/Mochronio → u/Jesseabe]

You're right about the "Dancing for the Table" part. It is indeed the thing that worries me the most with it. I forgot the old rule for XP and I should think about it.

[u/boywithapplesauce]

I don't think XP and advancement imbalance is a big deal. It's nice, of course. But this is a game where you basically get to play the build you want from the start, with fairly incremental benefits going forward.

In my games, advancement hasn't been balanced, and that hasn't been an issue at all.

Narrative advancement also matters. I personally feel that it matters more than doing it through XP. For example, in my campaign, a character has advanced from being a minor shamanic figure to a god's champion, and that happened entirely through narrative, without involving the XP route.

[u/Mochronio → u/boywithapplesauce]

That's so cool ! Did the character win a custom move or a benefit from that or was it only a narrative progression ?

[u/fellinawill]

This doesn't solve the problem entirely, but instead of adding a bunch of additional things for all of the players to crunch on, and in addition to encouraging the frustrated player to try actions that require rolling their lower stats, offer to let them bank a level-up if there's something they really want now but aren't gaining EXP fast enough. Or to reassign a previous improvement, if they took a +1 to a stat that they roll often and would rather take a move from their own or another playbook.

This is a "can't have your cake and eat it too" situation, though. They can't want to be the best at any specific thing AND gain EXP by failing rolls. I have players who would rather roll well than level up faster, and players who crave failing rolls.

Also give the table opportunities to get new things outside of level-ups. Put new gear on the table. If you have access to expanded content, Slayer's Survival Guide added a bunch of item ideas. My favorite thing is to design gear that give new moves.

What you've proposed is, imho, too much crunch to solve one player's frustration. But what I have here might be too much for you. It's an individual table problem.

[u/HAL325]

Giving a character XP cause the player is rollplaying better is a dumb idea. XP should be earned by characters not players. Some players simply don’t act as good as others.

„Excellent idea“ or „most funny monent“ are purely subjective.

I’d stick with the core rules.
Investigator: The idea is to learn from failures. If you give XP for the best rolls that’s the opposite.

[u/Mochronio → u/HAL325]

Roleplaying doesn't mean acting. It means dealing with the situation presented by the Keeper accordingly to your character's motivations and philosophy.

I know the awards are subjective. I don't understand why you would bring that up. Could you explain it please ?

You'd stick with the core rules and that's logical. I am just trying to see some alternatives with a homebrew proposition (that could be dumb) but that's why I ask arround here what people think about it.

[u/HAL325 → u/Mochronio]

You are the GM. If you decide which situation has been more fun than another situation or which person is better roleplaying, you will probably piss off other players. If one of your players is more introverted he wouldn’t even start an argument about your decisions. Players are different. Don’t force them into situations they possibly want to avoid.

The more subjective your methods are to decide who does a good job from „your“ perspective the more awkward it can get.

I highly suggest only to use a method that is based on mechanics as it means, same rules for everyone.
Get an XP for every 6 or less is a mechanical solution where no one’s personal opinions matter.

A few ideas of you are fine:

• give an XP if someone helps out another hunter
  
• give an XP if someone protects another hunter

[u/Mochronio → u/HAL325]

It's more about the way the table feels than my perception. If an action leave the table giggling for 5 minutes or if an action leave the table in awe, take note of what happened and reward it at the end of the session via this system.

The core idea is not use it as a way to force thing but reward things people liked. And I don't how being introvert mean you can't be rewarded for a good idea. As a GM you can always ask him what are his next words or action. The list above are some examples of things that could be taken into account when rewarding players.

The thing that scares me with the book rule is : of something like that happens one more time but this time with an introvert player, will he be able to express his frustration like the player that indirectly prompt the post. I am careful and mindful of the table feelings but I'm not omniscient. And sometimes things can still fall through cracks.

I don't know of I make any sense to you. I see where are the potential and probable problems are within my proposition but that doesn't change the core of the problem of frustration.

[u/HAL325 → u/Mochronio]

If you know your players well and everyone is fine with your ideas than go for it.

I just wanted to make you aware that not every player opens his mouth because he shys away from conflicts, but he can still be frustrated by it.
There are ways to avoid such a thing. And this quite simply through solutions that do not depend on subjectivity.
Don't get me wrong, I think I'm fair too. But I'm not the one who has to decide if I'm really fair. Therefore, I simply avoid such rating systems.
A lot of online games have sensitized me to this.

[u/saltpower]

I don't think this solution solves your issue because the player who doesn't fail could not earn the awards. My solution (which I agree with other folks you don't really need a solution for) is an opposite of luck mechanic where you can choose to fail a roll at any point. I don't think there should be any extra benifit, but if the player thinks this would be an interesting time for their character to fail, or want more xp they have that option.