What Is an Experience Point Worth?

It seems like a simple question, but the way you answer it may, in effect, determine the metaphysics of your game. Many RPGs use some sort of "experience point" system to model growth and learning. The progenitor of this idea is, of course, Dungeons & Dragons; the Experience Point (XP) system has been a core feature of the game from the beginning.

View attachment 88552​

Yet what exactly an experience point is remains unclear.

Think about it: can anyone earn an XP under the right circumstances? Or must one possess a class? If so, what qualifies an individual for a class? The 1st-edition Dungeon Master’s Guide specifies that henchmen earn 50 percent of the group’s XP award. In other words, they get a full share awarded, but then only "collect" half the share. Where does the other half go? Did it ever exist in the first place?

These esoteric questions were highlighted for me recently when I recreated a 20-year-old D&D character from memory for a new campaign I’m playing in. All I could remember of this character from my high school days was her race and class (half-elf Bladesinger, because I liked the cheese, apparently) and that the campaign fizzled out after only a handful of sessions. If I made it to level 2 back then, I couldn’t rightly say.

I asked my Dungeon Master (DM)—the same fellow who had run the original game for me back in the days of the Clinton administration—whether I could start a level ahead, or at least with a randomly-determined amount of XP (say, 200+2D100). Being the stern taskmaster that he is, he shot down both suggestions, saying instead that I’d be starting at 0 XP and at level 1, just like the rest of the party. As justification, he said that my character had amassed 0 XP for this campaign.

As the character probably only had a few hundred XP to her name to begin with, I let the matter slide. But it did get me thinking: do Experience Points only exist within the context of individual campaigns? Was my DM onto something?

This sort of thinking can in turn lead down quite a rabbit hole. Are classes themselves an arbitrary construct? Do they exist solely for players, or are non-player characters (NPCs) also capable of possessing classes and levels? Different editions of D&D have presented different interpretations of this question, from essentially statting up all NPCs as monsters, with their own boutique abilities (as in the earliest iterations of the game), to granting NPCs levels in "non-adventuring classes" (the famous 20th-level Commoner of 3rd-edition days).

The current edition of D&D has come back around to limiting classes and XP awards to player-characters only—which brings us back to our original question: are Experience Points, like character classes, meant to function solely as an abstract game mechanic, or are they an objective force within the game world? How do you, the reader at home, treat XP in your campaigns?

contributed by David Larkins

 

[pemerton]

Quite true.

My question was, however, how many games other than 5e and 1e (sort of) actually endorse kitbashing right in their rulebooks?

Cortex+ Hacker's Guide; Burning Wheel; Classic Traveller; Rolemaster - that's the one's I've GMed a reasonable amount.

Over the Edge; HeroQuest revised; The Dying Earth; Fate - they're the ones that I'm familiar with but haven't GMed.

 

[Lanefan]

But upthread you said that, if this hasn't already been established in play, the the GM can change it (from X to Q).

Only before the PCs start interacting with it. If they're searching room 11 it's too late to move the map there from room 14 as they're already interacting with room 11. But if they're searching room 11 and the DM has a sudden flash of inspiration and realizes things would be much more interesting were the map in room 18 instead of 14 (neither of which being places the PCs have had anything to do with yet) and no previous fiction or hints of clues have pointed specifically to room 14, then moving it is fair game.

That said, I try to do this sort of thing as little as possible.

If the GM is prepared to change those materials if s/he thinks it woudl be more interesting, but equally sticks to them when s/he prefers them, how would you describe it?

As a DM trying to provide the best game she can; because while you only here mention these changes being made due to DM preference they could just as easily be being made due to (perceived) player preference. Most DMs know their players, and know what'll interest them; and chances are if she thinks it'll be better it'll be better if only because she'll run it better. Either way, the players get a better game.

But if the GM is permitted to do that, and does so when s/he thinks it would be fun, but doesn't do so when s/he prefers what s/he already wrote, then isn't it the GM who's deciding how the situation resolves?

No. The DM may be deciding (or heavily influencing) where and when the situation will resolve, but not how it will resolve.

<snipped the rest as it covers the same ground as above>

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

If the first thing that happens when engaging with a situation is a skill challenge then it's an ironclad guarantee that a bunch of stuff has been skipped, on both sides of the screen.

Unless your game unfolds in a moment-for-moment correlatoin of real time and ingame events, stuff is being "skipped" - the narration of the gameworld is not total. It can't be.

Narration in a RPG involves choosing stuff that is salient. I don't see why you seem so horrified by the fact that I tend not to find the architectural details of building, sewers etc the most salient things.

Simply put, (1) can only happen until and unless (2) happens for the very first time.

Obviously. My point is that if (1) is permitted, then everytime the GM does (2) she is choosing not to do (1) instead. Which means that whether or not the players get what they want depends, in effect, on the GM's opinion as to whether X or Q is better for the game.

How is that not railroading?

However, there's a clause in (2) that needs a closer look, which I've bolded. The DM in this case doesn't even need to invoke any action resolution mechanics: she can, if she wants, just use her knowledge of X (or Q if Q has been subbed in at some earlier point) to flat-out say the action fails. Now most DM's IME wouldn't do it like this as it gives away information (that the action is currently impossible) that the PCs have no reason to know. Instead, having already established in house that the DM makes these sort of rolls, she'd go through the motions of rolling and narrate a failure. This leaves the PCs (and by extension, players) in a more realistic position: they don't know if they've failed because of lack of competence or luck, or because success is impossible.

Again, this is the GM dictating outcomes based on his/her view of what makes for good fiction. (Because, after all, s/he could have taken the player's implicity suggestion and switched from X to Q.) Again, isn't that the definition of railroading? Ie the GM decides all the outcomes.

While from the DM side I'm every bit as capable - maybe more so - of writing a boring dungeon as the next guy, as a player the whole scouting-mapping-exploration bit is a huge part of the game.

This is something the 5e designers really got right, at least in theory: the game has three pillars, of which exploration is one.

You can run an exploration-focused episode of RPGing without extensive pre-authorship. Here's the actual play report of a session of that kind.

So either way, on a say-yes or a successful check the map is found in whatever location the PCs happen to be when they declare they're looking for it. It just appears there.

I don't understand what you mean by "It just appears there".

In your game, you determine the weather with a random roll. Does that mean the clouds "Just appear there?"

Using the results of random rolls to establish the content of the shared fiction is as old as published RPGing - original D&D used wandering monster rolls, for instance. Obviously, when the monsters "appear", in the fiction they came from somewhere (even if that "somewhere" is a magical monster spawner). Likewise, if a check means that a PC finds a map, the map has a causal history every bit as complex as every other object in the gameworld.

So what happens in this situation: we're searching a known-to-be-empty manor house for a unique map we know we'll need later. There's four of us, and we're in a bit of a hurry so in the interests of time efficiency we split up; Abercrombie says he'll search the upstairs bedrooms, Barnacle says he'll search the living and dining areas and the closets, Cadwallader says he'll search the library, and Delmionndia says she'll search the study and drawing room. If nobody finds anything we'll reconvene and search the basement and storage sheds together.

But something odd happens on the way to the forum: all four individual searchers roll mighty successes on their checks. But it's already been established that the map is unique - there's only one - which leaves our DM in something of a bind: four people somehow just found one map in four different places.

A bind, note, that she wouldn't be in had she pre-placed the map in a particular room.

Let's put to one side that this example makes some assumptions about play which probably don't obtain in an actual game being played in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" manner - for instance, it seems unlikely that the map is a high-stakes item for every PC.

But that to one side, consider this: what happens if the GM's wandering monster table has some particular NPC on it (as is the case in X2 Castle Amber), and the PCs split up, and the wandering monster die comes up "6" for all of them, and then the encounter for each of them, oddly enough, comes up as Guillame D'Amberville?

Oddly enough, I think classic D&D weathered this possibility - there are numerous ways of handling it which we probably don't need to go through here (the most obvious: the first roll settles the matter).

The same is true for your example.

Edit:

Only before the PCs start interacting with it. If they're searching room 11 it's too late to move the map there from room 14 as they're already interacting with room 11. But if they're searching room 11 and the DM has a sudden flash of inspiration and realizes things would be much more interesting were the map in room 18 instead of 14 (neither of which being places the PCs have had anything to do with yet) and no previous fiction or hints of clues have pointed specifically to room 14, then moving it is fair game.

That said, I try to do this sort of thing as little as possible.

As a DM trying to provide the best game she can; because while you only here mention these changes being made due to DM preference they could just as easily be being made due to (perceived) player preference. Most DMs know their players, and know what'll interest them; and chances are if she thinks it'll be better it'll be better if only because she'll run it better. Either way, the players get a better game.

No. The DM may be deciding (or heavily influencing) where and when the situation will resolve, but not how it will resolve.

By deciding where the map is; and by choosing whether or not to move it from room 14 to 18, or even to some bit of room 11 that the PCs haven't searched yet (eg they've checked the chests, but not behind the tapestry, and the GM decides putting the map behind the tapestry would be more fun); the GM decides whether or not the players' declaration that their PCs search will bear fruit.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Quite true.

My question was, however, how many games other than 5e and 1e (sort of) actually endorse kitbashing right in their rulebooks?

I don't know of any that say "You must follow the rules exactly" as part of their rulebooks. As far as I'm concerned, that's the equivalent of acknowledging that at the very least, the designer has no control over the gameplay.

To be honest, All versions of D&D have some reference to modifying things as you see fit. I can look them up if you'd like. I'm willing to bet that any book that spends significant time helping the GM will have at least one passage on rules modification and adjudication.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I don't understand what you mean by this. What is a "RAW discussion"?

This thread (for the past 8 pages or so) has been primarily about RPG design and GMing techniques. It is possible to play games in a fashion similar to how Gygax advocates in his PHB. Playing a DL game using the published DL modules has almost nothing in common with a game played in that fashion, other than that both are RPGs (ie both involve players engaging a shared fiction "administered" in some fashion by the GM, using individual characters as their vehicle for that engagement).

Hi Pem -

A major underpinning of the arguments throughout this thread has been playing the game rules-as-written vs. making changes that suit the group and how Gygax supposedly wanted it at different points in time. You've contributed by using the term "Gygaxian". I don't agree with the use of that term to support rules-as-written. I'm willing to agree with other definitions of the term specific to the era though.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Hi Pem

I'm familiar with the acronym. That doesn't tell me what you think a "RAW discussion" is, or how the notion is relevant to this thread.

Replied to this separately with another post.

Well, when it comes to leisure activities like RPGing, we don't have to do much of anything. And you're not obliged to post in this thread. It's just the question I'm asking.

Sure. I could ignore you, or I could respect you by taking the time to reply. My point about having to find the confluence has more to do with my thinking that the answer is obvious to experienced players of the game and I don't know why we're discussing it in the first place.

So it seems that the answer is that it's railroading, and the GM should be trying to keep the moments of railroading secret from the players.

Yes. So long as we keep in mind that like most things, there's "good" and "bad" railroading, railroading is a tool in the box and the difference is whether or not the use of the tool is good for the majority of the table or just good for the GM.

I'd suggest, if we're interested in having a longer discussion about railroading as a tool it gets its own thread. This particular one is so far off topic at this point it's silly.

Cheating is a social problem. But presumably we're talking about playing a game in accordance with the rules and guidelines.

I'd posit that "bad" railroading that doesn't serve the good of the majority of the table is cheating based on what Gary was getting at in the writings we have access to. I'd certainly feel that way as a DM

If the GM in a Moldvay Basic game changes things in his/her notes without telling the players, that's cheating. Gygax has a lot of discussion of this sort of thing in his DMG - for instance, he contrasts the GM exercising control over content introduction, which he thinks is permissible in certain circumstances, with the GM exercising control over action resolution, which he opposes except for a narrow case of a skilled player having his/her PC die unluckily - and then the exercise of control Gygax permits will be overt to the player, as the GM will narrate death from hp loss as maiming or coma instead.

I'd suggest you quote sources. You're interpreting Gary a certain way that fits your worldview and that's very easy to do when only looking at the rules in a paragraph to paragraph way, but it's pretty clear that Gary's intentions were "Game as a Whole", "Your Campaign", and "Your Players" in that order. (Based on the high-level direct quote I posted earlier) Any one paragraph needs to be interpreted first from the lens of "Game as a Whole" and I don't think you're doing that the way you're presenting the content.

If a GM in BW sets a difficulty, and then tells a player whose dice roll beats it that nevertheless s/he doesn't get what s/he wants, well again that's overt and the player will know that the GM is not following the rules.

Or, alternatively, that the difficulty has less to do with the outcome and more to do with the circumstance. If a player is looking for something that I know isn't in the room but the clue to find it is (crumbs) then regardless of what the player thinks, I'm giving them the difficulty for finding the clue.

Note: The clue (crumbs) may not be in my notes. It may not have existed before the player went into the wrong area of the home and I may be trying to conserve game time by rewarding the right actions in the wrong places. I don't consider that "bad" because most games only have a short timeframe to play in to get something done and the player does get some benefit.

The only way the player knows for a fact that the DM is not following the rules is if there's significant social impact (e.g it's clear that the player is getting screwed as he or she is not able to enjoy the game due to bias OR the DM makes it a habit of players rolling well with no benefit at all, OR the DM tells the player he or she is cheating.)

The particular method that you set out in your post that I've quoted depends upon a whole lot of practices - eg a player can succeed on a check to find the map in the study and yet not get what s/he wants (instead, the GM gives the player some clue). There are plenty of RPGs that use different practices (of the ones I GM, Burning Wheel, Classic Traveller and Cortex+ are different; and 4e can be played in the same (different) way which is how our group plays it).a

The only practice it depends on is having a fair, balanced and experienced or creative DM. I'd also add socially aware to that list as it goes a long way towards compensating for experience.

Be well
KB

 

[Sadras]

Obviously. My point is that if (1) is permitted, then everytime the GM does (2) she is choosing not to do (1) instead. Which means that whether or not the players get what they want depends, in effect, on the GM's opinion as to whether X or Q is better for the game.

How is that not railroading?

Again, this is the GM dictating outcomes based on his/her view of what makes for good fiction. (Because, after all, s/he could have taken the player's implicity suggestion and switched from X to Q.) Again, isn't that the definition of railroading? Ie the GM decides all the outcomes.

(snip)

By deciding where the map is; and by choosing whether or not to move it from room 14 to 18, or even to some bit of room 11 that the PCs haven't searched yet (eg they've checked the chests, but not behind the tapestry, and the GM decides putting the map behind the tapestry would be more fun); the GM decides whether or not the players' declaration that their PCs search will bear fruit.

Good gawd Pemerton, given this and other threads, you argue against pre-written secret backstory and you argue against making stuff up on the spot since they are both railroads according to you. i.e. railroads = bad in Pemerton's world.

In B10 what if you changed the information obtained about the Iron Ring from one goblin tribe to another (i.e. changing the location of the map from one room to the other).

So the module as written is railroading and changing the location of the information from one goblin tribe to another goblin tribe is also railroading.

Then I posit the only way one is not railroading according to Pemerton is if EVERYTIME the party happens upon a goblin lair, they roll for the information to be found (i.e. the map). Because the players certainly don't know and (get this) the DM doesn't know because he is playing to find out.

Technically if you were at Pemerton's table, you could attempt to
(a) roll to find all the information about the Iron Ring at one of the Goblin Tribes' Dens and (b) roll to encounter Golthar (The Iron Ring Leader) and roll (c-z) xxxxxxx and essentially complete the adventure - if you rolled high enough because that is the only way you don't railroad. Heck, why even try find the goblin den? You should be able to complete the adventure from Misha's Ferry before you even reach Sukiskyn or better yet, that moment in the tavern when you got propositioned to to deliver the horses. That sounds like a swell adventure because there were no railroads and everyone (including the DM, again) rolled to find out stuff. Some more

Imagine if the Hobbits could have just solved the entire problem with the ring from the Shires, what a great book that would be. So much railroading in the original.

 

[Arilyn]

I've been thinking about play styles and railroading quite a bit, which is why I didn't answer pemerton' s query right away.

As regards to the map example, mostly it doesn't matter where the map is hidden, and having the players' rolls frame the action, is fine. As GM, however, I could have interesting information the players don't know. The map, in this case, has to be in the daughter's bedroom, because that's why her ghost is haunting the room, which ties into some other cool piece of story. Yes, I'm deciding this for my players, but it's a neat piece of the story. Since RPGS are shared storytelling experiences, they should also include the GM. And if I originally put the map in the study, and then realize, of course, it should be in the daughter's bedroom I will change it.

If your definition of railroading is the GM forcing story ideas on the world, than I am guilty of building some rails. In my many years of play, however, nobody has complained of feeling constrained under these circumstances.

I haven't had a chance to play BW. I do enjoy Cortex Plus, Heroquest, Fate, Dungeonworld and I think Trollbabe is brilliant in its simplicity. I do appreciate where you are coming from, and as I mentioned before, am dabbling in campaigns that embrace the philosophy completely, but I think I will always be comfortable with mixing the two.

As regards to skipping the mundane details, dungeon corridors? Yes, definitely! Conversations with bystanders that have nothing to do with the story? Those I enjoy.

Yes, pemerton, you did get my gender right. Thanks for asking.

 

[Sadras]

I'm espeically interested in this idea that the GM might change the (as yet unrevealed) fiction to make the game "better", or might instead stick to what s/he pre-authored and, on that basis, declare an action declaration a failure with no check. To me, that seems to make the shared fiction that results from play very much the product of the GM's preferences. I'm waiting for anyone else to post his/her view of it.

@Lanefan was right, this has reached the height of absurdity.

No one is arguing that our roleplaying games are not affected/influenced by GM's preferences, the only one who might be denying it happens to their table might be you.

The changes you made in B10, not just for the players background (dwarves/minotaurs) but others were changes you made because of your own preferences which DID influence part of the play experience. You can deny it till you as blue as a smurf, but it doesn't change that fact.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is true, many of them are not fundamentally integrated but referring to them as knick-knacks that can easily be dispensed with ignores the plug-in styled nature of the 5e chassis, and furthermore, it may arguably be said you used such language as a slight pejorative. Lastly your comment is seemingly very dismissive of the effort that was made to include them by covering many pages within the core rulebooks, far more I might add than 4e's page 42, one solitary page, which is used to shield against and deflect comments about the rigidness of 4e's AEDU/action declaration.

I don't understand how you mean this. "<My post> ignores the plug-in styled nature of the 5e chassis?" That is 100 % precisely what I was saying. Precisely. The plug-in styled nature of the 5e chassis makes it so widgets (is that a better term?) that are not indispensable to the system/play experience (eg not fundamentally integrated) can be easily dispensed with (I don't understand your sensitivity regarding that word...it just means removed/gotten rid of...its just a word).

This is actually good, deliberate design on behalf of the 5e designers. They intended for this because, as we saw in the playtest and afterward, a certain cross-section of D&D players LOATHE(D) these indie components and used all sorts of truly pejorative language (other than benign words like "knick-knack/widget" or "dispensed") to describe them! They knew they had a volatile, well-mobilized group of D&D players to appease...and they did it masterfully while also putting some component parts (widgets, knick-knacks) of indie play in the game that can easily be removed (dispensed with) because they aren't fundamentally integrated into the system.

And again, that was the point of my post. Components/widgets/knick-knacks do not an indie game make. It is the fundamental integration of all the varying parts into a tight design and focused play paradigm/premise that makes a game a modern (non-OSR) indie game.

Again, hence why 5e is basically a "mainstream OSR game" (a DIY-centric, rulings-not-rules game without a tight design around a focused play paradigm/premise) and not a "mainstream (non OSR) indie game" (and why 4e very much fits that bill).