D&D 5E Wandering Monsters 01/29/2014:Level Advancement...

[Savage Wombat]

It appears to me that, despite the tone of the thread, we actually approach a consensus of sorts on the role of Experience Points:

1) That they are essential for classic Gygaxian rewards systems that appeal to those such as the OSR crowd; and

2) That they are redundant and perhaps completely unnecessary in story-based games that appeal to those such as Pathfinder's Story Path fans.

So the real issue becomes: in a game designed to bridge the gap between groups such as these, what sort of system do we need? The concept of character level remains baked into D&D, so some kind of system designed to determine "how often" would seem to be necessary, even if it has to be explained in a sidebar that the intent is to have a PC level up after X hours of play.

 

[Lokiare]

It appears to me that, despite the tone of the thread, we actually approach a consensus of sorts on the role of Experience Points:

1) That they are essential for classic Gygaxian rewards systems that appeal to those such as the OSR crowd; and

2) That they are redundant and perhaps completely unnecessary in story-based games that appeal to those such as Pathfinder's Story Path fans.

So the real issue becomes: in a game designed to bridge the gap between groups such as these, what sort of system do we need? The concept of character level remains baked into D&D, so some kind of system designed to determine "how often" would seem to be necessary, even if it has to be explained in a sidebar that the intent is to have a PC level up after X hours of play.

The answer is to come up with two or more systems side by side and say "pick one of these", but that will never happen...

 

[pemerton]

The answer is to come up with two or more systems side by side and say "pick one of these", but that will never happen...

Why not?

4e has both levelling-via-XP and levelling-via-"when it makes sense" side by side, and tells you to pick one.

It also has magic items and inherent bonuses side by side, and tells you to pick one.

If they can do this sort of thing around rewards and progression in 4e, why not in Next?

 

[mxyzplk]

Why not?

4e has both levelling-via-XP and levelling-via-"when it makes sense" side by side, and tells you to pick one.

It also has magic items and inherent bonuses side by side, and tells you to pick one.

If they can do this sort of thing around rewards and progression in 4e, why not in Next?

Well, you can, but here's the problem. Having XP even "as an option" changes the tenor of the game.

I was just listening to a Know Direction podcast where Amber Scott was talking about the process of working on an Adventure Path chapter lately, and discussed that some of the challenge was the changing/padding required to generate the 'right XP budget' and that the actual theme/story of the adventure had to be compromised somewhat to make that work. That sucks, and it means that any published adventure (and especially RPGA/Organized Play ones, from my experience there) have to make a lot of Hobson's choices just to get the 'correct amount' of XP generated. If you are trying to generate a 'correct amount' of XP then having XP is of no value, as it loses its lovely alleged Randian properties.

But I also feel that it hurts sandbox gaming. Why? Don't tell me about "OSR," I've been playing D&D since the original Red Box. Here's the deal - I like Combat As War. XP for monsters (I'm not sure adding "for gp" really helps that) drives a playstyle where you confront everything head-on, grinding like it's WoW. If the goal is "save the princess from a castle full of bad guys," you can't just do that, because the ugly head of metagaming rises and says "If you just scry and teleport in and grab her you won't get as many XP as if you do a room-to-room fight with every orc..."

In this way, XP forces compromise from both the GM in terms of adventure design and the players in terms of in-character play. Having "the option" not to XP doesn't help that all that much - we already have that option, but our adventures and players are still tainted by the XP-oriented mindset.

(I decided to express this more at length with some more backing details: http://geek-related.com/2014/02/02/the-time-for-experience-points-has-come-and-gone/)

 

[howandwhy99]

Well, you can, but here's the problem. Having XP even "as an option" changes the tenor of the game.

I was just listening to a Know Direction podcast where Amber Scott was talking about the process of working on an Adventure Path chapter lately, and discussed that some of the challenge was the changing/padding required to generate the 'right XP budget' and that the actual theme/story of the adventure had to be compromised somewhat to make that work. That sucks, and it means that any published adventure (and especially RPGA/Organized Play ones, from my experience there) have to make a lot of Hobson's choices just to get the 'correct amount' of XP generated. If you are trying to generate a 'correct amount' of XP then having XP is of no value, as it loses its lovely alleged Randian properties.

Whether you intend it or not, this appears like an argument by dilemma for never using XP. Story path games are going to be affected by games that pre-set a specific level of advancement. Events must happen in order and PCs must be at an effective level to participate in them. By using XP as a Story Reward only most Pathfinder DMs already sidestep this horn of the dilemma. Publishers who create adventure path adventures should specify exactly what kind of XP they are using for this reason. XP that is gained by players by learning via game play or XP gained by moving through the events of the storyline. Adventure publishers who want to do both might look at Necromancer Games' W1 The Crucible of Freya for a very early sketch of how this might be done.

But I also feel that it hurts sandbox gaming. Why? Don't tell me about "OSR," I've been playing D&D since the original Red Box. Here's the deal - I like Combat As War. XP for monsters (I'm not sure adding "for gp" really helps that) drives a playstyle where you confront everything head-on, grinding like it's WoW. If the goal is "save the princess from a castle full of bad guys," you can't just do that, because the ugly head of metagaming rises and says "If you just scry and teleport in and grab her you won't get as many XP as if you do a room-to-room fight with every orc..."

I'll argue this isn't another horn of the dilemma, but mistaking player goals as immutably set by the game rules. Players can go through the castle to save the princess, and if they could succeed taking this harder path they would gain greater XP. If they simply teleported in, they also would gain XP, but far less. However, they would also have the princess at far less cost. The belief that D&D players only ever seek to gain XP or kills is a false prejudice held by many who have come to hate D&D over the years. It's not something supported by the game's design.

Also the above is why gold, treasure, and all of the game resources of D&D not part of class abilities aren't balanced for or distributed to PCs, but rather to dungeon levels. You can seek those out instead of advancing in your class. And while the princess may be valuable to your current goals, players change goals as their learning of the situation changes. Like when they storm the front gates and find rooms of other slaves within.

In this way, XP forces compromise from both the GM in terms of adventure design and the players in terms of in-character play. Having "the option" not to XP doesn't help that all that much - we already have that option, but our adventures and players are still tainted by the XP-oriented mindset.

Tainted is a strong word. People are thinking wrong when they come to play isn't a great opener. Instead, I think it's important for any game to define its rules clearly as well as its objectives.

For the case of D&D, I think it may be about putting players in a position to create, plan, and realize their own goals in an imaginary environment within the limits of a role. So XP is not a reward at all, but rather another stat. One measuring a player's actual demonstration of their proficiency in playing the role (class) they've chosen within the game. Unlike rolled stats this one must be proven by the player through play. Of course, XP doesn't necessarily represent a player's actual game ability, only the demonstrated ability within the current game (campaign). But XP isn't a reward or a badge of some sort; it's only an estimation of player skill. In this way it might be thought of as a handicap in bowling.

 

[pemerton]

I was just listening to a Know Direction podcast where Amber Scott was talking about the process of working on an Adventure Path chapter lately, and discussed that some of the challenge was the changing/padding required to generate the 'right XP budget' and that the actual theme/story of the adventure had to be compromised somewhat to make that work.

Publishers who create adventure path adventures should specify exactly what kind of XP they are using for this reason. XP that is gained by players by learning via game play or XP gained by moving through the events of the storyline.

I agree with howandwhy99 here. If the designers are designing an adventure path, just put in the adventure that they want! If it needs to start at 1st level and end at 20th, but doesn't need a whole lot of stuff in between, just say so, and give indications as to when the PCs are expected to level within the structure of the story path.

Dropping in a whole lot of filler just to make the levels come out right according to some arbitrary table in the PHB seems to be a bad case of letting the tail wag the dog, and all in the name of maintaining some illusion about the "organic" nature of the pre-scripted adventure.

Just be upfront in design and the issue goes away.

I also feel that it hurts sandbox gaming.

<snip>

XP for monsters (I'm not sure adding "for gp" really helps that) drives a playstyle where you confront everything head-on, grinding like it's WoW.

gold, treasure, and all of the game resources of D&D not part of class abilities aren't balanced for or distributed to PCs, but rather to dungeon levels. You can seek those out instead of advancing in your class.

<snip>

XP is not a reward at all, but rather another stat. One measuring a player's actual demonstration of their proficiency in playing the role (class) they've chosen within the game.

Besides (what I take to be) howandwhy99's point, that the game can be approached so that XP is not the be-all and end-all, and that character progression (eg via item acquisition) can be handled in other ways, there is also the option of other models of XP: XP gained for achieving goals, for instance (4e has quest XP) or XP for non-combat encounter resolution (4e has skill challenge XP).

If you are using XP, and the way XP are awarded is not driving the sort of play that you want in your game, then (assuming you don't just drop XP) you're awarding XP on the wrong basis.

 

[Uller]

Well, you can, but here's the problem. Having XP even "as an option" changes the tenor of the game.

And isn't the opposite also true? If the game is designed from the ground up with no XP option, doesn't that leave groups that want an XP system out in the cold? I too have been playing D&D for a very long time (1979) and for a regular group that meets weekly for 3-4 hours I'd prefer an XP system. For more casual groups (like I have right now), I prefer a story based system so we can level up when it feels right. It's definitely easier to take an XP system and make it story based than vice versa.

I have to say...when someone takes the position that allowing a choice they don't like messes up the one they prefer...well...see my Aesop quote in my signature. Let people choose from a set of reasonable choices...if they want somthing outside of that, that's on them to make it work.

I'm about to start running Ghosts of Dragonspear castle. It has expectations for PC level at various points but it's XP budget doesn't fit. So as a DM you adjust it to fit your game and group. Big deal.

If you prefer a story based leveling and playing an adventure written with an XP budget in mind, so what? If your players start going after unnecessary encounters just to get XP, make it cost them in the story...the bad guy makes progress towards his goal, they make an enemy or lose an opportunity or whatever...

 

[Lanefan]

I don't agree with this at all. The players dictating when they got their cookies and medals was at the core of Gygaxian play, as described by him in his PHB: as players, first you scout out and work out what treasures (= XP, in that edition) are where; then you plan expeditions to go and get it. And assuming you play well, your expeditions will succeed and you'll get the treasure (= XP, in that edition) that you were aiming for.

In Gygaxian play, only unskilled players don't try and dictate their own rate of progression and leave it up to random chance - for instance, by simply fighting whatever they encounter, by not using divination magic and sages to work out where the best treasures are, etc.

4e removes the "skilled play" aspect of this, because it removes the "scouting" aspect of play and simply mandates that certain treasures (= player power-ups without the intermediation of XP, in that edition) is accrued per level. But I don't think hat has anything to do with "entitlement". As [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] said, it's about changing sensibilities in fantasy RPGers - since some time in the late 70s and early 80s, a good number of them - perhaps even the majority - have not been wargamers, and so aren't that interested in the "skilled play" idea.

This last paragraph is one of the saddest things I've read in quite some time.

I'd far rather reward skilled play than skilled character builds or simple system mastery.

I agree with howandwhy99 here. If the designers are designing an adventure path, just put in the adventure that they want! If it needs to start at 1st level and end at 20th, but doesn't need a whole lot of stuff in between, just say so, and give indications as to when the PCs are expected to level within the structure of the story path.

In games with quick level advancement (by RAW this means anything 3e and newer) both writers and users of long adventure paths need to make a bunch of not-necessarily-good-for-the-game assumptions:
- that the players will stick to the path and not take side treks that would give extra xp and-or treasure
- that level advancement will roughly stay in line with what the path expects (in other words, that you're either using the path's default game system's level advancement by RAW or you're willing and able to make some compromises)
- that characters who leave or die or retire will be replaced with characters of much the same level and-or abilities
- that unexpected level loss or gain will not occur

So yes, writers of adventure paths really need to do one of two things: either bake into the path where and how level advancement should occur, or make the path's challenges flexible enough to allow for a considerable variance in the average party level at any given point on the path.

Lan-"another reason why I prefer stand-alone adventure modules"-efan

 

[billd91]

4e removes the "skilled play" aspect of this, because it removes the "scouting" aspect of play and simply mandates that certain treasures (= player power-ups without the intermediation of XP, in that edition) is accrued per level. But I don't think hat has anything to do with "entitlement". As [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] said, it's about changing sensibilities in fantasy RPGers - since some time in the late 70s and early 80s, a good number of them - perhaps even the majority - have not been wargamers, and so aren't that interested in the "skilled play" idea.

I don't know why being or not being a wargamer would have a causal relationship with this sort of skilled play. Rather, I think newer versions of the game (and other games) have made it so easy to shortcut this type of play that it's no longer a focus at the tabletop. The style of play isn't necessarily inherent with wargaming. After all, there's a reason that some of the searches that get conducted in "skilled play" are called pixel bitching. A lot of computer games in the 1980s and 90s included very detailed searching and scanning the scene for clues to where things might be hidden - which probably fed the skilled play style as much or more than wargaming. You even see it in many modern console games - but here, I think, the convenience of being able to play on your own helps satisfy the demand for that style of play so it doesn't need to be explored on the tabletop as much.

 

[pemerton]

I don't know why being or not being a wargamer would have a causal relationship with this sort of skilled play.

I used the word "wargamer" for three reasons.

First, [MENTION=2205]Hobo[/MENTION] used it already upthread with the same meaning.

Second, the designers of D&D, who had the "skilled play" paradigm in mind and advocated it very strongly in the AD&D PHB and DMG, were wargamers.

Three, I needed a word and thought "wargamer" would do well enough to convey the point. If I was posting on some other forum I might say "gamist", but on ENworld that word is not generally used with its Forge meaning. And also, within the Forge meaning, there can be gamist play that doesn't focus on skill but other forms of competition/showing off (eg luck - Tunnels & Trolls is an example here).

I'd far rather reward skilled play than skilled character builds or simple system mastery.

Sure. But 4e isn't really about rewarding anything much, as far as advancement is concerned - if you play the game roughly in line with the way the rulebooks suggest, your PC will advance at a fairly steady and reasonably predictable rate. And I think 4e is written on the assumption that the players will enjoy this advancement of their PCs in the fiction, even though - because of the mechanical scaling of the game, action resolution doesn't get any easier. To the extent that 4e rewards player skill, it is at a tactical level that is not a big part of AD&D (at least as presented by Gygax in his rule books) - it is about showboating in the minutiae of action resolution.

In games with quick level advancement (by RAW this means anything 3e and newer) both writers and users of long adventure paths need to make a bunch of not-necessarily-good-for-the-game assumptions:
- that the players will stick to the path and not take side treks that would give extra xp and-or treasure
- that level advancement will roughly stay in line with what the path expects (in other words, that you're either using the path's default game system's level advancement by RAW or you're willing and able to make some compromises)

These two assumptions aren't particularly good for my game, but that's part of the reason why I don't use adventure paths. And when I've used 4e modules, I've routinely levelled-up (and once or twice levelled down) the NPCs and monsters to make them work for where my group is at. (I mostly use modules for maps and story elements rather than stats, which - especially in 4e - I can do myself without too much trouble.)

But I assume that if a group plays and enjoys adventure paths, then they like the idea of "sticking to the path".