Experience gain with illusions/tricks

[kiralon]

If a character falls prey to a trick where he thinks somebody is in mortal danger and 'saves' them even though they weren't actually in danger should they actually get experience for saving someone when putting themselves in what they thought was mortal danger, or should it be experience for what they actually did, which was pick someone up and carry them outside.

The players argue that they should get the experience for saving someone, as that is what they thought they were doing.
my response was mostly haha suckers, he tricked you good.

[Prysus]

If a character falls prey to a trick where he thinks somebody is in mortal danger and 'saves' them even though they weren't actually in danger should they actually get experience for saving someone when putting themselves in what they thought was mortal danger, or should it be experience for what they actually did, which was pick someone up and carry them outside.

The players argue that they should get the experience for saving someone, as that is what they thought they were doing.
my response was mostly haha suckers, he tricked you good.

Greetings and Salutations. As a G.M., I agree with the players. The characters put themselves in danger. In fact, quoting from the book:

... or offering his/her own life to save the group or another.

The offering is enough, and the character does not have to die, or technically even be in real danger.

If you want to take that idea even further, you can also have them spend one or more sessions going through elaborate plans and actions, then tell them they've just been dreaming, and since they were actually just lying there they get 0 experience points for all those sessions because none of it happened. O.C.C. that deal with things like the Dreamscape (Nightbane) or Astral Plane (most settings)? Well, their bodies are usually just in a coma-like trance ... ha! No experience points there either.

However, to me, all of that is basically just being a jerk. Now, if the players knew it was an illusion and the player and only made a self-sacrifice because he was metagaming (and he wouldn't do it otherwise), that's a different story. But if the player character made a genuine offer, then s/he should get genuine experience points. Farewell and safe journeys.

[kiralon]

hmm, you must have a slightly more modern palladium book then me as it just mentions in my book

'Endangering the character's own life to help others'

and neither characters nor saved person were actually in danger as the villain was making them waste time. They got the experience points for the actions they took (recognise poison, ropeworks, pick locks etc) but the endangering bonus was more hazy for me. I mostly said no so the players don't engineer things to get bonus xp by playing tricks on each other.

[Prysus]

hmm, you must have a slightly more modern palladium book then me as it just mentions in my book

'Endangering the character's own life to help others'

and neither characters nor saved person were actually in danger as the villain was making them waste time. They got the experience points for the actions they took (recognise poison, ropeworks, pick locks etc) but the endangering bonus was more hazy for me. I mostly said no so the players don't engineer things to get bonus xp by playing tricks on each other.

Greetings and Salutations. As you said they were putting themselves to (what they thought) was mortal danger, I went to: "Self-sacrifice (or potential self-sacrifice) ..." Maybe that was the wrong category, but I'm just playing guess work off your post. Of course, things like this could also fall under: "Daring (clever or not)."

In my opinion though, Palladium will often reward on the spirit of things. You can be rewarded for actions in the Astral Plane or the Dreamscape (even though, in many cases, your spirit is the only thing really doing anything), you can be rewarded for a "Clever, but futile idea" (so nice try, but you didn't actually accomplish anything, yet still get a reward), you can be rewarded for "Self-Sacrifice" even if you don't die. The fact the character's life wasn't actually in danger is irrelevant. I'd rank it along the lines of the a player stepping in front of a small child and taking a potentially lethal blast and then the G.M. saying: "Haha! That kid was a god in disguise and was in no danger. You couldn't have possibly known that, but since a god was no real danger, you get no experience for the sacrifice. Sucker." Or a character going into a hostage situation against a gunman, and talking the situation down then the G.M. going: "Haha! The gun wasn't actually loaded. Sure if this happened in real life you'd probably still be praised as a hero, but in my games you get no XP and are just a sucker."

As you said, your response was "haha suckers," where you laugh at them and insult them, and refuse to reward them for their actions because they didn't know everything the G.M. knew. I wasn't there and only have your post to go by, but it reads to me like an adversarial G.M. trying to gloat about how much smarter he is than the players. I also disagree with why you "mostly" didn't allow it as stated in your second post (quoted above). If they do end up trying to abuse this in the future, that can be addressed then, but right now you're penalizing what they did do because you're worried about what they may do.

Now, for the record, I'd say the best compromise is to award 100 xp for the action. Why that number? Well, it's the lowest end of "Endangering" on the list (lower end since there was no real danger). Also, it's on the high end of "Daring (clever or not)." Even if you feel they were suckers in your eyes, they were still daring (though not clever) and could be awarded. As such it could be justified either way. But, in the end, I'm neither the G.M. nor the player, this doesn't actually affect me personally (beyond taking the time to respond to posts). Take that all for what you will. Farewell and safe journeys.



P.S. Also, in all honesty, I don't usually use the Experience Point Table in my games and just kind of assign numbers at random. For me it would be too much bookkeeping and slow down the game. This is something known in my games, so it's not like a player as other expectations. And, when assigning points, I allow players to make a case for any actions they feel I forgot or diminished unfairly, to which they'll often mention something from the XP Table and I'll agree to (if I think it's fair). My games also tend to be more collaborative, while I'm the G.M., I do my best to empower the players and they tend to avoid abusing the system. I figured it only fair to mention that, so you can give my opinion more or less weight as you see fit.

[kiralon]

hmm, the 100xp for daring, clever or not would work I guess, but then I feel like I'm rewarding them for falling into a trap when they had information saying they shouldn't have been there in the first place because it was the wrong place, and the place they needed to be was miles away.
[Location A burnt down 150 years ago and was relocated to location B about 8 miles away but kept the same name. They had research and information from a local wise man saying this and their mission was to go to the Green Halls and collect a hidden cauldron. The Green Halls were now in location B due to a fire burning down the original Green Halls, but the journal that told them where to go was from 200 years ago (which the party also knew) when the green halls was at location A. The bad guy also knew they were looking so sent a person to intercept them and give them some bad info, and some added urgency saying there might be trouble at the Green Halls and he even pointed them on their way and the players just nodded and agreed and walked off that way and eventually came to the newer Greens Halls with thick smoke coming out of the cellar windows, the players then went into what they thought was a raging inferno in a cellar which turned out to be an apprentice mage trying to scribe a scroll badly and had accidently created a small wall of fire and a large smoke cloud and was panicking as he thought the smoke cloud was poisonous (The spellcaster of the party knew from one look at it that it it wasn't). The characters helped the apprentice and then went oh that's right, we are in the wrong place.]

And the reason I thought it was hazy was because it does say endangering themselves, but the daring is true, it was daring to go down into the cellar, I will give them that one (they will still want the endangering themselves one too though), and I don't think the dreamscape point really applies, as they did get the xp for all their actions they did in getting the apprentice out, and I don't think the gun/god point really hits it either because I think that would be covered by potential self sacrifice, and the danger level of going down into the fire and smoke isn't the same as a loaded gun pointed at someone (also 2 of the 5 players has fire resistance and one can cast breathe without air).
I know its very situational but in this case the only way the characters were going to get hurt was if they did it to themselves due to the circumstances.

Out of curiosity, do you reward XP for skill usage, I just have columns with the players name at the top and use 1 slash for unsuccessful use and 2 slashes for successful use (four slashes and the last slash is a line through the other four so its grouped in bunches of 250xp). This is easily the main source of xp for the players.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. It's late and now I'm now on my phone, so I won't get into an in depth response at this time. I will state this quickly ...

The way I'd award XP for the last scenario is very different than the scenario of your original post. The two scenarios are apples and oranges in comparison, in my opinion.

The original thread title includes illusions. This can be done with magic and psionics. They players could literally rush into an inferno and then keep a fire elemental at bay while they get a civilian to safety because of an illusion, while all they really did was walk into a normal building and carry someone out. And yes, I would reward players despite the illusion not being any real threat.

The last scenario is entirely different. I'll try to address it more later. I wanted to explain why we were having such very different opinions on the matter before going to bed though. Good night. Farewell and safe journeys.

[kiralon]

cheers
I was just including illusions because I believe they come under the being tricked heading, as such id give xp for lockpicking and that sort of thing being done in the illusion, but rescuing illusionary people hmmm when the party isn't in danger of being hurt is another thing.

[Lukterran]

The real question is what is the purpose of experience points. Is it a reward system for players that help create an enjoyable gaming experience for all? Or is means to gauge a characters proficiency development?

If it is the first (which by the Palladium seems to indicate by its reward system) than you should give the players the reward. However, if it is a matter of how good a character has gotten at performing at their occupation than maybe not. But that does match with how XP is rewarded normally (playing in character, unnecessary violence, self sacrifice etc...) All those have nothing to with character class proficiency.

[Prysus]

hmm, the 100xp for daring, clever or not would work I guess, but then I feel like I'm rewarding them for falling into a trap when they had information saying they shouldn't have been there in the first place because it was the wrong place, and the place they needed to be was miles away.

Greetings and Salutations. Not necessarily true, but I'll address your last two posts in this one and explain as I go.

[Location A burnt down 150 years ago and was relocated to location B about 8 miles away but kept the same name. They had research and information from a local wise man saying this and their mission was to go to the Green Halls and collect a hidden cauldron. The Green Halls were now in location B due to a fire burning down the original Green Halls, but the journal that told them where to go was from 200 years ago (which the party also knew) when the green halls was at location A.

My first thought when reading this is: "And how do we know that after the fire it wasn't moved to the new place?" During fires secret things (since I'm guessing we could surmise the cauldron would survive the town burning down) are uncovered, not to mention if someone hid it in the first place they may want to keep it with them during relocation. But, for now, I'll good with figuring they had some way of knowing that it wasn't moved (especially by their response towards the end).

The bad guy also knew they were looking so sent a person to intercept them and give them some bad info, and some added urgency saying there might be trouble at the Green Halls and he even pointed them on their way and the players just nodded and agreed and walked off that way ...

So basically they went to help people in need. Unless their selfish to evil alignments, this isn't necessarily going to the wrong place. "What? The town is in trouble? Screw them! They can all burn. We're after a cauldron, and saving some stupid lives won't get us to our objective any faster." Basically, they didn't do what you feel they should, so you want to punish them.

Yes, you said the guy was lying, but there's about zero way for the player characters to know that. This isn't D&D where you get things like opposed Bluff and Sense Motive checks, and they had a really high skill they just didn't think to roll. Palladium doesn't have mechanics for that kind of thing, and a G.M. basically makes things up all the time, that's kind of the job. The G.M. needs to make up the world, the NPC in it, etc. So unfortunately body language won't necessarily tell us much either.

If I were a player and my character was good (alignment), I'd have gone to help too. Would I have been suspicious? Probably. I'm paranoid by nature. With that said, I remember hearing a line once regarding someone asking for help and it possibly be a trap, and the response was something like: "I'd rather help someone and regret it, then to not help them and regret it."

Somehow I imagine if there was actual danger there and the players just blew it off, you'd probably be criticizing them for just abandoning people and only thinking of themselves. Though I could be wrong.

... and eventually came to the newer Greens Halls with thick smoke coming out of the cellar windows, the players then went into what they thought was a raging inferno in a cellar which turned out to be an apprentice mage trying to scribe a scroll badly and had accidently created a small wall of fire and a large smoke cloud and was panicking as he thought the smoke cloud was poisonous (The spellcaster of the party knew from one look at it that it it wasn't). The characters helped the apprentice and then went oh that's right, we are in the wrong place.]
[snip]
and the danger level of going down into the fire and smoke isn't the same as a loaded gun pointed at someone (also 2 of the 5 players has fire resistance and one can cast breathe without air).
I know its very situational but in this case the only way the characters were going to get hurt was if they did it to themselves due to the circumstances.

I moved around a bit of your post to address these parts together. Now how much danger running into an inferno is depends on the game (some some try to apply smoke, heat, debris, etc.) while others leave it a bit simpler with the fire. If the reason they don't get experience points is because they couldn't be hurt by the fire even if it was there, that's a different matter (ergo, no danger even if it was real). However, that hasn't been your reasoning thus far.

Also, if we're going that route, any characters considered protected (even it was real) might get "Clever, useful idea or action" for casting Breathe Without Air, while those without any protection (just because some of the party wouldn't be hurt much doesn't mean the entire party wouldn't). So while this would be different levels of XP for different player characters, I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with giving a "Minor Menace" to a dragon hatchling while giving a "Major Menace" to a human for the exact some combat scenario (if appropriate). Characters aren't always created equal (especially not in the Palladium system).

and I don't think the gun/god point really hits it either because I think that would be covered by potential self sacrifice,

cheers
I was just including illusions because I believe they come under the being tricked heading, as such id give xp for lockpicking and that sort of thing being done in the illusion, but rescuing illusionary people hmmm when the party isn't in danger of being hurt is another thing.

So I think I follow now. Fireball coming at a god (or dragon) in disguise and a character jumps in front. No real danger to the actual target, but the character gets XP for potential self sacrifice. Fireball coming at an illusionry person and a character jumps in front. No real danger to the actual target, but the character shouldn't be rewarded for protecting an illusion. A character deals with a gunman wielding an empty weapon. No real danger from the gunman, but the character gets XP. A character deals with a gunman that's just an illusion. No real danger from the gunman, but the character shouldn't be rewarded for dealing with an illusion.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Out of curiosity, do you reward XP for skill usage, I just have columns with the players name at the top and use 1 slash for unsuccessful use and 2 slashes for successful use (four slashes and the last slash is a line through the other four so its grouped in bunches of 250xp). This is easily the main source of xp for the players.

Not really. I run a rather rules lite game. I also don't require players to actually roll their skills that often (unless the specific task is extremely difficult or they're trying to do a rush job). Of course, I also have gone several games without awarding experience points at all. We tend to focus more on the actual story and such. Then eventually it'll be: "Uh ... you haven't given us XP in like 6 sessions?" "Oh crap. Sorry. Do you want me to do that now or should we start game?" "Let's just play. We can deal with it after game." Then we play until we're played out, and don't do it then either. Eventually it'll get to the point where someone really wants the XP, and I'll take the time to hand it out. Or, other times, I'll go: "You were earning about 1,000 XP per game when I handed it out regularly. Do you want me to figure it out, or I can just say 1,250 per game and be done with it." "We'll take the 1250 per game." "Oh, and you finished that storyline over there. Throw in an extra 1,000 points at the end. And Jack, remember when you did that thing. That was awesome. An extra 500 for you. And Tony, that was a really clever use of that skill when you did such and such. 250 for you too." Note: Numbers were picked at random and for simplicity.

Now, with that said, I'll add a few points ...

1: If you're asked because you feel that you give more XP via skills than the endangering anyways, your argument still falls flat. If you feel it's not that important, then it wouldn't be that important if you gave it to them anyways.

2: If you're asking since I don't play by the rules anyways, I honestly don't care if you don't go by the rules either. What bothers me is why. You have seem to take an extra issues with illusions, not because the threat isn't real (as you said you'd reward it for other false threats) but because you dislike illusions for whatever reason. Even worse is that it shows inconsistency in the ruling.

3: I generally dislike adversarial style Game Masters (with your players, not with me in this particular case). That style just doesn't sit well with me. When your main case rests on you insulting your players (they're suckers so they don't deserve it, or they might try to abuse it and don't want to reward munchkins), it's not a good case in my opinion.

I'm very opinionated, but I tend to keep my opinions to myself unless the thread is specifically asking for opinions. If this had been a simple statement thread about what suckers your players are, I'd have just rolled my eyes and moved on. Again, it won't affect me how you rule, but you asked so here we are. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[kiralon]

@luketerran
I don't think its just a simple matter of either but a mix of both as well as the yardarm to see how well they are doing.

I do give bonus xp for completing a mission, with more being given the better they did (usually have a few objectives)
also I only give skill xp for needed usage, but the players are always happy to try to talk to strangers in their native language because they get xp for it, they don't backflip to 5th level because a titan comes out and breaks their arms on the third backflip. Metagaming is frowned upon.

Greetings and Salutations. Not necessarily true, but I'll address your last two posts in this one and explain as I go.
My first thought when reading this is: "And how do we know that after the fire it wasn't moved to the new place?" During fires secret things (since I'm guessing we could surmise the cauldron would survive the town burning down) are uncovered, not to mention if someone hid it in the first place they may want to keep it with them during relocation. But, for now, I'll good with figuring they had some way of knowing that it wasn't moved (especially by their response towards the end).

Their research told them it hadn't moved as you surmised.

Yes, you said the guy was lying, but there's about zero way for the player characters to know that. This isn't D&D where you get things like opposed Bluff and Sense Motive checks, and they had a really high skill they just didn't think to roll. Palladium doesn't have mechanics for that kind of thing, and a G.M. basically makes things up all the time, that's kind of the job. The G.M. needs to make up the world, the NPC in it, etc. So unfortunately body language won't necessarily tell us much either.

If I were a player and my character was good (alignment), I'd have gone to help too. Would I have been suspicious? Probably. I'm paranoid by nature. With that said, I remember hearing a line once regarding someone asking for help and it possibly be a trap, and the response was something like: "I'd rather help someone and regret it, then to not help them and regret it."

Somehow I imagine if there was actual danger there and the players just blew it off, you'd probably be criticizing them for just abandoning people and only thinking of themselves. Though I could be wrong.

They were on a time limit, and they only had time to go to one of the places successfully, and if some unknown guy came up to me and started to try set me on the wrong path I would have asked for some corroboration and asked around the place. Certainly not believed him word for word in their situation.

I moved around a bit of your post to address these parts together. Now how much danger running into an inferno is depends on the game (some some try to apply smoke, heat, debris, etc.) while others leave it a bit simpler with the fire. If the reason they don't get experience points is because they couldn't be hurt by the fire even if it was there, that's a different matter (ergo, no danger even if it was real). However, that hasn't been your reasoning thus far.

Also, if we're going that route, any characters considered protected (even it was real) might get "Clever, useful idea or action" for casting Breathe Without Air, while those without any protection (just because some of the party wouldn't be hurt much doesn't mean the entire party wouldn't). So while this would be different levels of XP for different player characters, I'm okay with that. I'm also okay with giving a "Minor Menace" to a dragon hatchling while giving a "Major Menace" to a human for the exact some combat scenario (if appropriate). Characters aren't always created equal (especially not in the Palladium system)..

Being fire resistant and not likely to succumb to smoke inhalation were only 2 of the dangers, the building could collapse if enough damage had been done to load bearing structures and other unknowns, but I think the xp reward is for knowing the danger is bad enough to cause harm and doing it anyway. If they take some measures to protect themselves with a fire im usually fine with it. A wet blanket, cloth to cover the mouth if the smoke is too bad. However breathe without air is pretty much designed for situations like this so I wouldn't give clever idea for casting a spell to protect themselves.

So I think I follow now. Fireball coming at a god (or dragon) in disguise and a character jumps in front. No real danger to the actual target, but the character gets XP for potential self sacrifice. Fireball coming at an illusionry person and a character jumps in front. No real danger to the actual target, but the character shouldn't be rewarded for protecting an illusion. A character deals with a gunman wielding an empty weapon. No real danger from the gunman, but the character gets XP. A character deals with a gunman that's just an illusion. No real danger from the gunman, but the character shouldn't be rewarded for dealing with an illusion.

Partially true but also partially wrong, but im also trying to say is if the danger is unknown, should they get xp for it compared to when they know what the danger is, especially when they get into the issue with their own actions, but im just trying to go by what the particular xp bonus says, and it say endangering the characters own life to help others, not if they think they are endangering themselves to help others. The pc jumping in front of the fireball to save the god shouldn't, because he isn't helping the god as it would just bounce off. They could go for self sacrifice, but that's a different matter. Fireball at the illusion, id say mostly no but there could be very unusual circumstances. With the gunman I would have to know more about the circumstances, who are the characters helping, do they know the gun is unloaded. Dealing with the illusionary gunmen no if they aren't endangering themselves, but that's the point of the question.

But as normal talking it out has helped.
The real question is are the experience awarded from the gm's point of view or the characters point of view.
If its the characters point of view a really paranoid character would get lots of experience, not to mention people who would take advantage of it. (and they would, as in planning things for next session take advantage of it)
The GM's point of view can be overly harsh as they see all and know all.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Inconceivable

Out of curiosity, do you reward XP for skill usage, I just have columns with the players name at the top and use 1 slash for unsuccessful use and 2 slashes for successful use (four slashes and the last slash is a line through the other four so its grouped in bunches of 250xp). This is easily the main source of xp for the players.

1: If you're asked because you feel that you give more XP via skills than the endangering anyways, your argument still falls flat. If you feel it's not that important, then it wouldn't be that important if you gave it to them anyways.

Usually yes, because the rules say to give experience for skill usage, and the players tend to get shirty if they don't, and yes skill usage does usually give more when you add it up, especially when the party wants to dungeon crawl, but I guess I might give more opportunity for skill usage, I don't know.

2: If you're asking since I don't play by the rules anyways, I honestly don't care if you don't go by the rules either. What bothers me is why. You have seem to take an extra issues with illusions, not because the threat isn't real (as you said you'd reward it for other false threats) but because you dislike illusions for whatever reason. Even worse is that it shows inconsistency in the ruling..

Nope, was just curious, you might have an awesome way with dealing with recording xp, not going to find out if I don't ask and you are a palladium veteran. I do take extra issue with illusions because they tend to murky the waters in a lot of situations like giving xp (get xp for picking a pocket - is an illusionary pocket a real pocket and a true test of skill? Should it matter?). Have DM'd a few illusionists and phew they are more a lot work than most other classes.

and depends on the false threat and who knows what, that makes it harder.

3: I generally dislike adversarial style Game Masters (with your players, not with me in this particular case). That style just doesn't sit well with me. When your main case rests on you insulting your players (they're suckers so they don't deserve it, or they might try to abuse it and don't want to reward munchkins), it's not a good case in my opinion.

I'm starting to think you think I'm griefing you, not sure what I wrote that offended you after looking back but i'm sorry that I did. As mentioned before you make a lot of good points, and I like to argue back, it tends to sort out the nitty gritty bits and bring in new ideas. If they fell for a trick that they had info on about what was correct, yes im afraid I will say haha suckers, just like if i play a trick on them in real life, but not in a harsh way. Adversarial GM's tend not to have players for very long, and I've been the gm %90 of the time for the last 25 years, probably because I read more than the others. Can't remember who said it but a storywriter will turn over a library to help write his own story. This had been a planned trick where they got told the right information multiple times from multiple trustworthy sources, and the wrong info once.

I'm very opinionated, but I tend to keep my opinions to myself unless the thread is specifically asking for opinions. If this had been a simple statement thread about what suckers your players are, I'd have just rolled my eyes and moved on. Again, it won't affect me how you rule, but you asked so here we are. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

And your opinion is what I was hoping to get, insulting you which I will say again i'm sorry for, but i'm still clueless how I did it, certainly wasn't my intention.

[Whiskeyjack]

In my opinion, if the character believes they are risking their life, they are truly risking their life, illusion or not and should get experience for it. They shouldn't get docked because they didn't follow clues that you left for their players that would have had them avoid the situation. They didn't and faced the situation and should be rewarded for it. Had they flowed the clues properly, they would have gotten experience differently.
As to abusing skills, that's easy. Skills are to be used in game for a real purpose. If someone says I backflip down the road to get experience, they get a warning for metagaming. Next time, 500 exp docked. Increase by 500 each time. The character doesn't know that using a skill will increase his level, just that practice makes perfect. If a character truly wants to improve and practice a skill, that is different. They need to find someone better than them to teach them, spend the time, and I'd allow them to "burn" experience to increase the skill.

[Prysus]

If they take some measures to protect themselves with a fire im usually fine with it. A wet blanket, cloth to cover the mouth if the smoke is too bad. However breathe without air is pretty much designed for situations like this so I wouldn't give clever idea for casting a spell to protect themselves.

Greetings and Salutations. Agreed that there's nothing wrong with taking precautions. But the more precautions you take, the less of a danger it is. On the other hand, I don't want to encourage recklessness just for added experience points, so I often reward it in other ways such as good planning. I'd say that Breath Without Air has a different general purpose, but depending on the game (especially if used in such a way often) it might not be clever (and instead, just standard). That'll depend a bit on the game and the players.

So, for me (and this is just as an example), the first time it was used in that way it might be 100 exp. The second time only 50. Third 25. After that it's just standard practice. In this particular case, if it was the first time and he hadn't done things like that before, maybe just 50 the first time (since I consider it a variation on the intent, but not truly inspired either), and then nothing in the future. *Shrugs.* Of course, I'm making numbers off the top of my head. In this particular case, it depends a lot on the player (more so than the character).

The pc jumping in front of the fireball to save the god shouldn't, because he isn't helping the god as it would just bounce off. They could go for self sacrifice, but that's a different matter. Fireball at the illusion, id say mostly no but there could be very unusual circumstances. With the gunman I would have to know more about the circumstances, who are the characters helping, do they know the gun is unloaded. Dealing with the illusionary gunmen no if they aren't endangering themselves, but that's the point of the question.

And yet both are illusions. I described both situations more in my earlier post. The god (or dragon) is disguised as a small child, giving the appearance of someone who is helpless. You said it's not comparable to an illusion though, but when you break it down to its core it's basically just an illusion. With the gunman, I said they found out after dealing with it that it's unloaded. The threat of the gun is effectively an illusion as well. Yet you seem to treat it differently because ... well, I don't know, like I said, you seem to have a particular issue with illusions, and as a result (in my opinion) it leads to a very inconsistent ruling. Note: I care less about the specific rule and more about keeping the rule consistent.

But as normal talking it out has helped.
The real question is are the experience awarded from the gm's point of view or the characters point of view.
If its the characters point of view a really paranoid character would get lots of experience, not to mention people who would take advantage of it. (and they would, as in planning things for next session take advantage of it)
The GM's point of view can be overly harsh as they see all and know all.

If you had lean towards one, I'd say character, since the character is the one learning from the experience. Let's say this happens to me in real life. I see smoke and think there's a fire. I rush in to save whoever is inside. Turns out something else and just a lot of smoke. I overreacted a little, and maybe feel a bit foolish. But the courage it took to go in is real. Maybe I also learn to be a little more careful. After all is said and done, I now have to think about what if the fire was real! I could've died and made my wife a widow. Would that have been worth it? I have to figure that out, and I grow as a person. The threat was fake, but my actions were real, and now I have to deal with those actions. On the other hand, this could also work the other way. Let's say a character is immune to fire. The player thinks: "Ha! The fire can't hurt me." So he rushes in, thinking there's no danger. Smoke and debris start causing problems, but the player hadn't considered it. Ergo, the character didn't actually endanger himself (he did, but he didn't realize it so he wouldn't get the reward for it).

With that said, my honest answer would be: Neither. I do my best to answer it from an objective standpoint (as if an outside observer were watching). Did the characters have a realistic expectation of danger? Pretend you're watching a movie and the hero does something truly epic and awesome. After, you find out it was an illusion and the hero was tricked. Do you get up and walk out of the movie because the hero was so stupid? Did that reveal time travel and remove the excitement and anticipation when you watched it earlier? So if you rush into a fire, whether an illusion or not, if there was a realistic expectation of it being real then there would be experience points.

This should, by the way, also help prevent abuse. So, for example, the paranoid character (that would be me, typically) might expect everything is a trap. That stranger might be trying to lead us astray. Let's question him. That kid running towards us might be a dragon in disguise. Be ready for combat (in the most subtle way possible, of course). Someone else just made dinner. Did they poison it? Wait until someone else eats first. However, the question again becomes, was there are a realistic expectation of danger? Have you thrown a lot of dragons and gods disguised as kids already? Are we in the midst of hunting a dragon that disguises himself as a kid to get close to victims? Have you just left a bunch of clues that this is happening? If not, then there's not a realistic expectation, and there's no experience points. Are you in the thieves' den after you just killed 20 of their members? Did the cook give an odd smile as I lifted my spoon? If there's no realistic expectation of being poisoned (other than general paranoia), you don't get extra experience points for being the guinea pig and eating first.

If, as an outside observer, you'd be thinking: "That's a good idea" or "That's brave" etc, then it should get experience points (even if you find out after the fact it was false). If, however, you'd be thinking: "That guy is just crazy and jumping at shadows" then it probably isn't worth awarding experience.

Nope, was just curious, you might have an awesome way with dealing with recording xp, not going to find out if I don't ask and you are a palladium veteran.

That's cool. I doubt my way will work, but always willing to share. I mainly mentioned it to be honest. I don't want to make it sound like I'm saying you need to run a certain way when I don't. On the other hand, I will state that even I awarded experience points closer to the books, I wouldn't grant experience points for speaking in your native language (basically every time you talk) nor swinging your sword (W.P.), or parry (auto-parry is granted by HtH). That, in my opinion, is not the intent. I will almost always follow intent over what's written. Note: My style as a Game Master changes with players. I once ran much darker games, and now they tend to have a much lighter tone. If I had players that were more concerned about Experience Points, I'd probably have adapted a new system for that by now.

I'm starting to think you think I'm griefing you, not sure what I wrote that offended you after looking back but i'm sorry that I did.
[snip]
And your opinion is what I was hoping to get, insulting you which I will say again i'm sorry for, but i'm still clueless how I did it, certainly wasn't my intention.

Nope, no offense (at least not in this thread, and my responses are directed solely at this thread). I'm not in your games, and if I witnessed these things first hand I might have a very, very different opinion. Written words are also not always the best method for effectively communicating, as a lot of communication is body language and tone and such. Instead, I have to try and draw conclusions based on what's written here.

Phrases like "haha suckers" was one such thing to give that impression. There's also factors like you're blaming them for being tricked, but (in my experience) it's very easy for a G.M. who knows what s/he's doing to trick players. I misdirect my players all the time (IN game, never with the G.M. voice talking to the player, only as NPC giving information or the particular way I craft a situation to look like something it's not). So, in general, I don't view it as any type of feat to have done so nor something to condemn a player for. In fact, if you describe the place as if being on fire, you shouldn't blame the players for thinking the place was on fire. Also, in my experience, players can be immensely dense at times. I once made a magical item (a weapon accessory that could enchant the weapon it's placed on) called the Silver Moon, and the werewolf in the party was always extremely on edge around the item (not even its activation, just its proximity). They had already encountered other accessories that did things like add Fire damage or Cold/Ice damage. The player spent an entire game session trying to figure out what the Silver Moon did (on the other hand, the same player would pick up on the most subtle of clues and deduce an entire plot). Players can be extremely perceptive at times, and other times there's not a clue bat big enough.

I've seen too many Game Masters talk about how stupid the players are for not following their carefully crafted clues, and/or how they can do things better as the player. Too often it's putting down the player and trying to boast about themselves. That's more how your posts have read to me, especially at the start (though seeing others do it in the past may have made it an easier conclusion to reach, and my natural paranoia expecting the worst). As time has went on the perception has changed a bit, but that initial post will continue to weigh you down. Again, I can't read tone, only the words, and "haha suckers" kind of set your tone for me. However, I'm not taking any of this personally. I'm opposed to the concepts, not you as an individual. Farewell and safe journeys.

[kiralon]

In my opinion, if the character believes they are risking their life, they are truly risking their life, illusion or not and should get experience for it. They shouldn't get docked because they didn't follow clues that you left for their players that would have had them avoid the situation. They didn't and faced the situation and should be rewarded for it. Had they flowed the clues properly, they would have gotten experience differently.
As to abusing skills, that's easy. Skills are to be used in game for a real purpose. If someone says I backflip down the road to get experience, they get a warning for metagaming. Next time, 500 exp docked. Increase by 500 each time. The character doesn't know that using a skill will increase his level, just that practice makes perfect. If a character truly wants to improve and practice a skill, that is different. They need to find someone better than them to teach them, spend the time, and I'd allow them to "burn" experience to increase the skill.

Problem is knowing if characters actually think they are risking their life, or as mostly seems to happen not really think about it and walk into it because something happening there.
Im similar that there has to be a reason for using the skill, and if multiple people have the skill have at it and they all get the xp for usage, practise is something they do for a while (level dependant, the higher the level the longer the time) and then get the xp usage points.

I actually had someone playing a dwarf in plate and chain try to backflip through a town.
Apparently backflipping in plate and chain isn't easy when your a dwarf.

[kiralon]

[quote="Prysus"]
big snip
I've seen too many Game Masters talk about how stupid the players are for not following their carefully crafted clues, and/or how they can do things better as the player. Too often it's putting down the player and trying to boast about themselves. That's more how your posts have read to me, especially at the start (though seeing others do it in the past may have made it an easier conclusion to reach, and my natural paranoia expecting the worst). As time has went on the perception has changed a bit, but that initial post will continue to weigh you down. Again, I can't read tone, only the words, and "haha suckers" kind of set your tone for me. However, I'm not taking any of this personally. I'm opposed to the concepts, not you as an individual. Farewell and safe journeys.[quote]
One of the problems is these players tend to not worry about the danger as its not them. These players have dug 10ft deep trenches (dwarf in the party) to get a dragon in it so they could cloud of slumber its head and then stab it to death with long spears (They were level 2 and went looking for it, stupid cloud of slumber spell). They were definitely endangering themselves but the danger of it wasn't even thought about, it was mostly an argument about who got the teeth if they won, and if something looks interesting they will go look just because its interesting without thinking of the danger.

Im also a prankster and enjoy playing tricks on people, so do it in the game as well, however I know that what I think is obvious the characters often (usually) don't, but when actual notes stuck to your character sheet saying where you have to be and at what time are ignored because some guy comes up to you unasked, gives you a spiel and then wanders off and you go against your notes without even checking on the guy, im still going to laugh and call you a sucker, in a nice way of course, but they were well suckered. (Old guy in corner of tavern anyone?)

Brave is usually doing stupid things and surviving.

[Library Ogre]

I would say that a character who seems to honestly believe he's risking his life should get the reward.

How to tell? One of the simplest is "Does the player seem to think they are?" If they spend some time trying to disbelieve the illusion, then they are likely of the opinion that it is an illusion, and are acting on that. If they just dive into it because its the right thing to do, then they're probably not thinking "This might be an illusion, so I'm *probably* safe."

[Veknironth]

Well, I think that the character who believe it is risking it's life should receive XP, regardless of the actual danger. Now, if the character quickly finds out it was an illusion or charade, I'd limit the EXP awarded. I figure that the knowledge that there was no real danger will limit the uptake of the experience for the character (unless it was the most dangerous thing to have happened to the character), so it won't have as much of an improving impact for the future.

As for the calculated recklessness, no. If you have some method of mitigating the possible danger to yourself and you choose not to use it, that shouldn't receive more EXP.

-Vek
"False experience is the second best teacher."