Character Building: Backgrounds and Personalities

So I've done mostly, if not entirely, GMing advice on The Author Trap to date. Since I intended this to be a blog about all aspects, I do feel a bit sheepish. My freewheeling topic choices have gotten the better of me and I've neglected the larger portion of gaming. Today's topic is one for the ladies.

Okay so that joke doesn't really work that well seeing as how there's a ton of women who play PNP games. No, today I'm going to go over character background, personality, and what you can do if you get stuck. I see this a lot, where someone wants to play but has absolutely no idea what or who they WANT to play. I have some tips, tricks, solutions, and secret weapons to get the mind-juices flowing and make it easier to build a rich character.

Basically, the first thing you ought to do is take stock of what you DO have in mind, and it helps to write it down. This isn't to make some sort of ordered list, but instead to get your mind churning on it. The ancient art of word association(the thing where you put a word in the middle of the page and make lines out to associated words) might help you figure out where you are. In fact, a lot of those dumbass brainstorming and note-taking skills you ignored in high school might help. Another thing to remember is that it's perfectly okay to start with any aspect of the character: Race, Class, Background, or Personality. Once you've got ONE down solid, it makes it easier to define the others by inferring.

What I mean is, all you need is one little nugget, and you can start layering on top of it just by asking questions. If all you know is that you want to play a barbarian, you can ask what sort of person would would BE a barbarian. You can ask what happened in their life to make them like that. You can ask what sort of race would celebrate those traits...or hate them. Really, that's the first secret weapon: Asking yourself what the opposite of what's expected is can open your mind to an interesting twist that'll hook your mind and pull out a really cool character. Sure, people like Grom Hellscream, Red Sonja, or The Hulk might be barbarians, but consider this: You could make a strong argument for Porthos, Casey Jones(the one with the hockey mask and the sports equipment) or Marv from Sin City. Now if you disagree with those examples, that's not EXACTLY the point: you can even just humor me and imagine if they were.

Actually, a lot of my interesting concepts come from a what-if. What if Batman was poor? What if an archetypal 'auspicious birth' golden child turned out to be a lazy slackass? What if the cold, unfeeling demeanor of a mercenary was due to social anxiety? It can help to take a stereotype and flip it around in some way, even if doing so leads you to another idea entirely. Maybe these twisted stereotypes are even just someone the character had met, or wants to be.

So sometimes it can even be pretty difficult to get that little nugget to start with. It's easiest to pick a class and race and go from there, but sometimes you don't want to do that. Maybe you want to form a personality first then decide on a class that fits it(or one that doesn't). For times like these, or for fleshing out a personality that's not very well defined in my head, I have my next secret weapon: Online personality and mental health tests. Yeah, they're usually bullshit. Yeah, they're not likely to tell you much about yourself...but that's not why we're taking them. Put yourself in the mindset of your character, your class archtype, or just some random popular character,  and take one as they would. This is an exercise to get your mind flowing and trailing along, and in time you can easily form something just because your experiences with the series of questions you answered. This list is something I found recently, and these "shitload of questions" lists can help too. Remember, it's less about answering accurately, and more about getting you thinking about the questions.

So background is USUALLY the one that comes last, but there's no wrong way to build a character. Ask what would've happened in the character's life to bring them where they are, to make them the kind of person they are. Ask how a popular character might be different if his experiences or surroundings were different. It's okay, even suggested to put a crazy situation or extraordinary circumstances in your background. It's compelling, and plenty of people in real life who you'd think were perfectly normal have been through a lot of shit. In a lot of circumstances you're also making things easier on the GM by being a little extraordinary. Consider these two simple, one-line backgrounds.

"I am a drow who was sold to a family of dwarves as a baby because my parents needed money for alcohol."

"I am a drow who left the Underdark at an early age because I felt I was different from other drow."

Both of these are fine to start a background with. They really are, even though the first one's ridiculous and the second one's bland. However, riddle me this: If you were the GM, which of these is easier to write a plot hook with? I'd certainly say the first one. Building strange things into your background can help a GM involve you in the plot or create a personal one. It's not WRONG to build someone who was a perfectly average person before the game started, but it's like handing them a glass ball. As in, it's smooth. Not very easy to put a fish hook in. I am the king of metaphors.

All in all, it's not wrong to start with some neat mechanical idea, or to base part of your character on a pop culture figure. The Dread Pirate Roberts is so fucking cool, how could I really blame you? I'd try to make it your own as opposed to mirroring the character exactly. Even twisting one little thing can make someone wildly different. So long as something gives you a nugget of an idea, and you arrive at the starting line with everything in order, there's no problem. Hell, you don't even really need a background to start if your GM is okay with that, so...I guess so long as you arrive at the 2nd set of hurdles with everything in order, there's no problem.

Illidan Stormrage and the Art of Railroading

"You are not prepared."

It's story time again. Today's topic is a parable to teach about railroading. This is not even close to the only time we're going to talk about this, but I noticed something about our hero's story that inspired this topic. Railroading is really hairy to talk about since it's not always bad, and in fact sometimes it can be necessary to tell a good story. But on the other hand, it can easily make a PC's actions feel pointless and many, many horror stories begin with a heavy handed train conductor of a GM. The TPK on Railroading will come eventually, this story is just a bit too long to include in it. Hopefully it'll teach you about ONE thing to never do. Man, I already did the Ren and Stimpy joke too. Oh well. Here's some advice for free, don't blow your joke-load early.

Illidan Stormrage was the personal spellcaster of a military leader. His brother Malfurion possessed great druidic skill, but sorcery called to him in a way that druidic magic didn't. When his brother had found his destiny, Illidan was still searching for his own.

The Well of Eternity was a powerful artifact, a lake of scintillating arcane energies that was the source of the Night Elves' magic and immortality. Being such a ripe, low hanging piece of fruit, a demon lord named Sargeras sent his lieutenant Archimonde to use the well as a foothold to invade the world from dimensions beyond. Malfurion convinced his brother Illidan to leave his duty and help fight the legion of demons pouring from the Well of Eternity.

Malfurion's plan was to destroy the Well to stop the invasion. This wholly appalled Illidan: The Well is too powerful and may truly be the source of the elves' immortality. In addition to this, Illidan admired the fel power the demons used, seeing it as a pure magic underlying their chaos. A satyr(read: bad guy) named Xavius used this confusion to "plant seeds of confusion" in his mind and trick him into seeking a dragon-forged artifact called the Demon Soul to become powerful enough to stop the Burning Legion. Unknown to Illidan, this was to deliver the Demon Soul to Archimonde's master Sargeras and make the portal stronger. Xavius further "darkened Illidan's mind" by manipulating his love for a novice priestess named Tyrande, who despite Illidan's efforts had chosen Malfurion almost immediately. The satyr convinced Illidan that if Malfurion were to die, Tyrande would have to choose him instead.

This is an aside, but really don't worry too much about remembering all these names. Xavius and Archimonde don't really factor into Illidan's story too much, and that's actually part of my point later.

Seeing Tyrande in the arms of his brother broke what ties he had to the defenders. His new plan was to feign allegiance to Sargeras' lieutenants to eventually gain the power and leverage to find the Demon Soul, claiming it was to help the Burning Legion but in actuality hoping to close the portal and save the Well of Eternity. And all those other guys too, I guess. Sargeras loves the plan and, as a gift(I'm doing air quotes) burns Illidan's eyes out and replaces them with burning fel-fire that allows Illidan to see all forms of magic.

We're only talking about Illidan, not the whole war, so I'm skipping through what happens next quickly. Illidan delivers the Demon Soul and it is used to stabilize the demon portal.  Malfurion, heartbroken by his brother's apparent betrayal, storms the demon-infested city to battle the corrupted Queen Azshara and Sargeras' other lieutenants, disrupting their final spell. Illidan, convinced the demons would overrun his people, filled seven vials of water from the Well of Eternity. I'm guessing he filled seven because he didn't have eight. Malfurion's efforts to disrupt the Sorcerer-Queen's final spell disrupts the Well of Eternity, and causes a disruptive explosion that extends to the very heart of the planet and splits Azeroth's single continent into four. Pretty much everyone survives, because of course.

Later, Illidan would scale the heights of a mountain to find a tranquil lake. Here, he uses three of the seven vials of water to twist the lake into a new Well of Eternity. Malfurion and Tyrande show up immediately(and together) to be shocked and horrified at what he's done. Illidan tries to explain that, should the Burning Legion ever return, the Well's power would be needed.  Malfurion insisted that the magic was chaotic by nature and would only bring destruction so long as it existed. For this crime(and not the other ones), Illidan was imprisoned far beneath that same mountain, away from sight and mind.

He would stay there for ten thousand years. I just want to point out, that number isn't a typo. Ten Thousand. It was after this time he would be released by Tyrande, who slaughtered Illidan's guards. The Burning Legion had returned and were using undead called the Scourge to ravage the land. Still in love, Illidan agrees to help, to throw back the Scourge then leave Night Elf lands forever. After his release in a corrupted forest he encounters a Scourge lieutenant named Arthas, who fights Illidan to a standstill. Arthas then baits Illidan into pursuing the skull of a powerful warlock named Gul'dan which was reported to hold vast power. Driven by the idea that he could redeem himself in the eyes of Tyrande with such power, he takes the "bait" and seeks it out.

He destroys the demon guarding the artifact, but at a heavy cost. The skull's power changes Illidan and warps him with demonic power. Tyrande and Malfurion, who were not helping and had no plan, show up and "sense" the demonic power in him and are disgusted. Malfurion then banishes Illidan, saying he has no brother.

I could go on, but this is already growing quite a tail, and I'm sure you get the idea. Illidan constantly makes logical and correct choices and is proven time and time again to be wrong or manipulated in the end, then mocked by his brother who shows a lack of compassion so intense that this man could be working for Wal-Mart. It doesn't even end there: He would go on to battle the Burning Legion every way he could, encounter Arthas again and nearly give his life to stop him from becoming the Scourge's leader, then later fleeing to a great demonic foothold named Outland to declare himself lord of the broken land, capturing a great demon named Magtheridon, and using this fiend's blood to create an army to use against the demons.

In the end, Illidan is killed by the Horde and Alliance for Marshalling an army he intended to use against their enemy (the Burning Legion) and, of course, is proven to have been manipulated by a man who had already been killed. In addition to this, the smear campaign the lore sometimes runs on Illidan is legendary, calling him dangerously insane and remorseless despite thousands upon thousands of people using the same fel energy as him and not growing corrupted.

If you think of Illidan as a PC, my point becomes clear. They pull "Illidan is tricked or manipulated" upwards of five times, and at this point I don't even see this story as tragic. All I see is a shitty GM pounding Illidan's story into the dust in punishment for Illidan making decisions the GM didn't seem to intend. Illidan is constantly guided toward choices that turn out to be declared "wrong", constantly told he screwed up by his brother and Tyrande, and all of his well-meaning plans are thwarted by someone somehow knowing exactly what he's doing and exactly where he is.

 Don't turn someone's successes into failures through your narrative as GM, even if you might disagree with how they did it or their reasoning. It's fine if information the PCs are given turns out to be wrong sometimes, but it's NOT okay to do it constantly, or even often. Sometimes PCs only follow a hook because they've identified it as a plot hook and don't want to make waves by telling you it sounds god damn dumb. Plot hooks can sometimes be like satire of fundamental Christianity: No matter how absurd it is, someone's going to believe you're serious.

Don't have important NPCs show up just to tell someone they fucked up or "did it wrong", unless those NPCs are antagonists. I could also write a whole book on using manipulative NPCs like Malfurion or Tyrande and why it'd be arrogant to "guide" the PCs like this. In fact, Malfurion overall comes off as a villain even though the game clearly seeks to make him a heroic figure.  Ask what happened to Malfurion's "friend" Fandral Staghelm.

My Kingdom for a Fucking Library Card

So I mentioned "book lists" in my previous post on Socialist Gaming, and it was a little controversial. By "controversial" I mean like one guy pointed out how it might be viewed as contradictory or confusing and he had a point. So, here we are. This dovetails into a discussion of online gaming, but while I prepare a little something on that, I'm going to focus on the reasons you'd want to make a book list and when to avoid it.

A lot of the time predefining a list of books your game will use is unnecessary. If you're gaming face to face, there's a pretty strong agreement to stick to the books the group owns. There are always exceptions, though, and there are even more reasons to do it if your game is being held online. However, I wouldn't say many of the reasons are strictly balance related, though a few are.

Online Gaming. If you're doing a game over the Internet, you can expect your PCs to be using PDF files(OBTAINED LEGALLY, RIGHT) to build and reference, as well as online resource sites and character builders. That's fine, but it leads to every book, every splat and every setting book being at their fingertips, and a lot of them might be books you're not familiar with. I want to point out it's not the end of the world if someone uses a feat or a spell from a fiddly little splat book somewhere, because there's not a whole lot for you to read. As a player you can help by being up front about your build plans and not trying to fool the GM, like that would work anyway. Still, if you're not comfortable with using source you haven't read, you might want to do a list.

Unintended Consequences. When you're mixing two games or allowing things from a setting book for a setting you're not running in, there can sometimes be interactions the developers couldn't possibly have conceived of when writing the material. This can come up when you decide to 'wash' something of its setting ties, since it's entirely possible the social aspect of the ability was intended as a balancing factor. This will ABSOLUTELY come up if you want to run a game that's a mix of Pathfinder and 3.X, since things in 3.X intended to fix balance of barbarians, fighters, rogues or monks(as an example) would threaten to overpower them in pathfinder, doubling up on efforts to 'fix' the class. In these cases it's best to define a list as "All pathfinder source" then a selection of 3.X books.

New GM. You want to try to avoid restricting the players just because you're insecure. Promises of "I'll allow more interesting stuff next time" don't often hold water, because either next time never comes, or you're still just as nervous as you were the first time. Still, if you're worried about your ability to function as GM and create challenges, restricting the scope of the game might help. Just be careful to remember you ARE using a crutch.

New Players. If you're dealing with people who are super newbies, running a short, 3-5 session game with very few books might be helpful to get them to understand the core rules. There's two big pitfalls with this, though. Depending on the game, you might make the whole hobby look really lame if you make them play without any of the cool stuff. Check if they're overwhelmed or not before assuming they are. The other pitfall is even simpler: Remember that people who are coddled don't learn very well.

Poor Source. This is kind of the elephant in the room. I will always, ALWAYS advocate working within the rules, since the rules are the only true arbiter between you and the PCs. However...not all of these books are very good. The writers of the 3.0 monster PC book Savage Species were famously told to make the book suck. Sometimes this happens, and sometimes third party developers make the mechanics in their books powerful to get you to buy the book. Other times, like with Dragon Magazine, no playtesting had actually been done. All I can tell you with this is that, usually, awful source will be obvious. Remember what I said in my previous post, and remember you're not crafting a PNP game like other people craft a PC.

Basically, you don't WANT to make a book list. This is just something that ends up being necessary. Try not to make one, especially if you're playing face to face. Nobody wants to buy a book and then get told they're never going to use it. If you've got to make a list, be generous. You might think it's "cool" to run a game with "just the core books", but that doesn't sound nearly as fun to the people who actually have to make characters, most of the time.

Oh, and if you do restrict the available books...don't start pulling shit out of banned books and arguing that "I'm the GM, I can do what I want." It makes your book list disingenuous. It's okay for you to use things the PCs wouldn't be allowed to every so often, but avoid making the PC think you restricted the book list JUST to do that.

Socialist Gaming

So this is the big one. This is the problem I noticed that made me realize I had a lot to say about gaming, the insidious, infectious school of thought I hate so much that I coined a term for it. Today's topic is balance, armchair game developers, and socialist gaming. Let me get this out of the way: ain't nothing wrong with socialism as a political concept. At least, I'm not saying there is. Speaking strictly about gaming, though: Socialism is bad, and Capitalism is good.

This one might be will be a long one, folks. You were warned in advance.

Socialism is when there's democratic control over the means of production. Basically, the government controls economic policies. In capitalism, private companies control the means of production. I am super glossing over this and if you want actual information on economic policies I really have to suggest finding a blog on economic policy. This one's on gaming. Socialist gaming might not even be an apt name for the concept I'm about to explain to you, but in my defense? I was a straight C student.

Back to gaming. Balance absolutely can be a problem in your game and it's (one of) your job(s) as a GM to quell problems and make sure everyone's having a good time. Nobody likes being outshined by someone else all of the time. In extreme cases, people not having fun will either make their own fun by disrupting the game, or get frustrated enough that they want to quit. The thing is, though, a poorly performing character can be exactly as disruptive as an overpowered one. An OP character outshines the whole group, but a bad one IS outshone BY the whole group. It's the same problem in reverse.

There are some easy ways to lower the chance of accidental poor balance, though. The first is to remove random variables from character generation. These are a holdover from first edition Dungeons and Dragons, and many, many games remove them entirely. This is because, obviously, there can be a giant gap between someone who rolled well and someone who rolled poorly. Rolling poorly can even destroy a concept, most notably with someone trying to play a tough, tanky character who then rolls poorly on their hit points. Using a point based stat system and 'average' HP rules(full HP on level 1, then 1/2 of the die value every level) can really go a long way to ensuring your PCs don't suffer from bad luck, and that YOU don't suffer from their good luck. As for stats, I prefer 84 points assigned in a 1:1 ratio. I hate the D20 scaling point cost system with a fiery passion, but that's a discussion for another day. In fact, I already covered it, kind of, when I talked about MAD and SAD classes.

You might have to disallow certain feats, classes, archtypes or spells at some point. Depending on the game you're playing (Looking at you, 3.X D&D) it may even be unavoidable. A lot of people think this is a GM's main job, to make sure balance hits some sort of level or "line". Some people even revel in doing this, feeling like the game is something the GM crafts just like a PC crafts their character. You know how I feel about GMs acting like the Lord of Games, but I also need to stress how dangerous it can be to flat-out disallow something in your game or alter the rules to 'balance' something. It should be seen as a last resort, something you do when there's no other way to balance something.

What I'm getting at is that game balance is the Means of Production. The difference between political socialism and gaming socialism is simple, though: You are a single, biased person. It is impossible for you to make an objective decision. It is impossible for you to define where your 'line' of good balance lies. Even if you don't think so, your decisions will be influenced by your opinions of the player in question. Where Capitalist gaming is everyone building the best character they can, Socialist gaming is the GM saying "Build the best character you can, so long as it's not better than I think it should be."

I don't think I should have to tell you why this is a bad thing. Obviously it's arrogant, but it's also doomed to failure and creates unfairness in every area of your game. That's why the rules are THERE: to create fairness. Yes, that means between you and the players too. Altering the rules by inventing new ones you think will balance the game 'better' will not do so. Coming up with new rules on the fly, in the middle of a campaign or solely to balance a single PC is especially heinous. Disallowing things based on subjective reasoning or circumstances WILL end in the players feeling like they don't have control over how they build their character, because they don't. They'll feel like you're playing favorites, because you are. I've seen a GM pick on his brother for trading out 'useless' class abilities using Unearthed Arcana, then turn around  and suggest his wife trade out all of her less useful class abilities using Unearthed Arcana. It was blatant and insulting to everyone involved, including his wife.

That's a pretty extreme example and deliberate on his part, but he did ALMOST do something right. What you need to do is let everyone build the best character they possibly can, then make sure everyone is around the same level, preferably by bringing people up instead of cutting people down. Preferably you do this via teaching them and helping them make changes to their character. Giving someone an artificial advantage isn't helping them build a better character and ensures this kind of thing will happen in the future.

This kind of thinking really can be a hard thing to avoid, but it's easier if you build a few habits. First, know the game you're running and identify problems before anyone's had a chance to build a character. If it's a game with a lot of source like D&D 3.X, put together a book list the PCs can choose from to build their character. Never make "all things considered" decisions about someone's character or allow something for one character but not another. Be fair, and make sure your decisions affect everybody. If you want to use alternate rules, make sure EVERYONE agrees, and strongly consider sticking to published alternate rules to avoid unintended balance issues. Try to avoid meddling in a game's system to 'fix' it. You're not a game developer, and they've done more testing than you. Unless you ARE a game developer, in which case I apologize but I'm not backing down.

Sometimes a spell effect, feat or ability might be okay for most people, but feel overpowered when someone else is using it. The classic example of this is spells like haste or expeditious retreat when applied to a monk. In these cases, the first thing you need to do is consider if it's really that bad or not. Try to remove your fear of large numbers and ask yourself what it really means for them to have this 'overpowered' ability. An incredibly high skill check might be disastrous when applied to stealth, but in many other skills it's not a big deal. In the case of move speed, it might be much higher than someone else's speed...but even the monk with a 100 speed still has to take an action to get anywhere. Use your 'bottom line' skills I taught you in a previous blog.

Also keep in mind that a character might be "OP" because they've built their whole character toward one thing. That's their prerogative to do so. Before you get upset at the insane capability they've built themselves, look for a flaw they've left in their character somewhere. Most of the time, there will be one. The man with the insane stealth skill did have to take Stealthy and/or Skill Focus(Skill Focus! What a dork, right?!) and a special race like goblin to get there. Start to get nervous when the player has achieved something insane while still having decent or even great capabilities everywhere else. I have also seen a wealth of characters designed to be OP at a single really stupid or silly capability, like a Two Weapon Fighting character able to use daggers or tekko-kagi, a "superman" cosplayer in Shadowrun with 30 dice in jumping, or a troll so big they use a boat anchor as a weapon. If you see one of these...strongly consider letting the player have their fun. It's probably not as bad as it seems.

A player who feels like they've been treated fairly is a happy player. A player who's allowed to build a cool character without someone leaning over their shoulder like a schoolteacher feels accomplished. I'm not saying you'll never have to make a balance call, though. Games with a wealth of source often have balance issues or 'power creep' because developers can't or won't consider everything when designing material. I'm going to leave you with two things to remember.

The first is that balance truly matters the most when characters are compared to each other. If every PC is equally broken (whether they're OP or just the normal kind of broken) then there might be no problem. Just accept it and do your best to challenge them. Only in rare circumstances will it become difficult, such as when everyone's very powerful in extremely different or strange ways.

The second is that you need to see your balancing decisions not as an artful rapier, but as a bomb. Huge, dangerous, powerful, but used only when absolutely necessary, because it can cause far more damage than good.

Just Rewards

"But that's ridiculous, right? Yeah, you're the type of person who won't ever be happy."

I'm gonna throw this out there, most people hate experience. It can be a nightmare for GMs to math out proper rewards, and even veteran gamers get tired of the math/erase/math/erase mambo. This is why most games with roots not quite as old as Dungeons and Dragons use much smaller values: In Shadowrun, it's much easier to reason how much to dole out when a run is intended to give between three and five. The fact that the PCs can spend it on whatever they want also makes it way easier to predict their power levels. Even That One Guy in a World of Darkness game blowing every available point of experience on new powers isn't THAT much ahead of a guy who spreads theirs out. It's a weird combination of slower growth, but more meaty, impactful choices.

So obviously the solution is to never play D20 again. Nah. Nobody wants that. There are some things to know about experience and rewards that will make your D20 games smoother and feel better, and applying these to lower value games like WoD will probably make them run like a buttered mongoose fighting a popcorn snake. That, uh...that's a good thing, I promise.

The first thing you need to understand is a bit of an elephant in the room. It's your first hard lesson as a game master, and for a lot of people this is too much to wrap their head around, especially as beginners. As a game master, you are not the King. You are not the Master(I did notice the irony, yes). You are not the Boss. You are a storyteller. You're a concierge.  Your job is to make sure everyone's having a good time, to tell the stories, to help the PCs tell their part of it, and to make them feel like the badass heroes they are. A great game becomes something everyone will remember, maybe for the rest of their lives. A bad game does too, though, but not for the reasons you want. Trust me. Acting like King A-rab and saying things like "My way or the highway" will lead to a bad game.

I'm glad we got that out of the way. I'll talk more about it and Rule Zero soon, but for now, this is what you need to remember: When you give out rewards, you are not being gracious or magnanimous. You are handing the PCs something they earned through their actions. Withholding rewards or trying to weasel out of giving them is awful, and it's not helping anyone have a good time.

So, why do people do that? Well, a lot of the time they're worried they won't be able to challenge the PCs if they gain too many levels or get too much loot. I get it. This is basically a fear of failure and fear's not something I can give a whole lot of advice on. The only way to get good at this, a GMing in general, is to do it. You might screw up a bit, or a lot, but if people are having fun...maybe just chalk it up to experience and let it go. If not, you can discuss ways to fix the problem...but penny-pinching your players is a non-solution. You're punishing them for your own insecurities.

Course, the opposite sucks too. Rewards need to feel earned, and huge amounts of experience or big fat loot can quickly become devalued. To avoid being too generous with gear, hand-pick treasure troves instead of rolling them(Even the Pathfinder developers think the PF core random tables suck) and give 'unique' magic items or intangible rewards as well. A custom magic item, like a sword with a name and a neat ability or a talking book that can make skill checks feel awesome without really being very expensive. Intangibles like access to the Royal Wizard, a stronghold of their own or thieves' guild favors can be very useful and awesome...but not in combat, where you need to worry about the PCs and their stats.

So how often is often enough? with loot, eyeball what they've got every so often if you're worried and see if it's close to what your core book says a PC should have at that level. This makes it easier to curb a problem by being a little stingy or generous with their next few encounters instead of suddenly realizing the PCs have too much stuff after they ask you if 'teeth' is a valid magic item slot.

For experience values, my buddy Ray(Yes, that's Captain William) once said it should work like a curve, and that's a damn fine idea. Levels should come quickly when the PCs are below 10, and slowly drop off later. That's because a lot of builds feel like they're waiting to mature at low levels, but after about 8 or 9 most of them have their meat and potatoes. This is another big reason you don't want to be stingy: If your game is ending at level 10 or 12, it's possible there's PCs in your group that feel like they never got to really enjoy their character.

So, starting with 2 or 3 sessions between levels at 1 through 6 or so, slowly cut back on the experience until it's about four or five at level 10, and even slower going forward. I would say something as high as six sessions between levels is okay after level 15. So, if that's the case, why not just hand them the levels after that long without having to track the number? Well, if everyone's okay with that...sure. You can. Just remember to stay consistent and never let them wonder when their next level is coming. The excuse of "Well, you guys haven't done much" is kind of on you, buddy. YOU control the pacing of the game more than they do. This system doesn't always fly with PCs though, because seeing an EXP value means you know how close you are to a level: Even if they trust you with their lives and believe you when you say they'll get a level in three sessions, seeing the number and KNOWING that is nice. Imagine a program install bar, or download percentage bar. Would it be the same if you got absolutely no indication of how far you were, but instead got an implicit, trusted promise that it'll be done in three minutes? I can't imagine it would. If you don't believe me, think of how irritating those bust-ass programs with bad percentage values are, the ones that jump from 65% all the way to complete in the last few seconds of the install.

 Anyway, if they're NOT comfortable with a "no EXP values" system, it's perfectly okay to give experience based on an average and give bonuses for plot points. Calculating experience by encounters is something nobody, NOBODY likes to do. It's even okay if you work out exactly how much experience per session they need to fit into the above EXP curve...just don't do it in front of them and remember to mix in some plot bonuses, or else they'll see your Richard Pryor ass behind the curtain and think what they're doing doesn't matter.

That would be because, in this case, it kind of didn't. This is why you mix in some plot or 'boss encounter' bonuses. Even consider throwing them a bone for great roleplay.