Last I checked, there were different quantities of XP to be given based on risk and quality of play in the standards, and gold awards were proportional to XP gain (with one notable theme being that gold earned > XP earned, except with low-level overwealth characters, or anyone over the wealth cutoff). I'll grant it's been a few months since I've given standards a hard lookin-through, but I don't think that stuff has changed.Akivaria wrote:This is why I oppose standards. They give the hardasses a license to practice douchebaggery freely, and hamstring DM's who want to reward players for innovative play.
What I would point out is that consistency is nice. If a generous DM gives 100 xp/hour for sipping tea and talking about the weather, while another DM gives 50 xp/hour for a daring attack on a lich's stronghold, chock full of (magical) traps and opening the actual fight with a mysteriously quickened bigby's grasping hand, a wail of the banshee, and a maximised firebrand, we've obviously got some continuity issues with our game world. I'd say that both DMs in that example are completely batty; even bad RPers deserve more than 50xp for that fight, and no one deserves 100 xp for an hour of pleasant small talk. Standards do have a perk of giving us a central document to point to and say "Oi! You're batty."