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

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What I find amusing is that the "narrative snobs" might very well accuse you of being not a true role player!

I also find this funny. It just goes down to the problems of not having a unified language for describing things, aside from the somewhat-functional-but-still-insufficient GNS theory.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

These two sentences are in contradiction. If the first sentence is true, then either (i) the game is about rescuing elves, or (ii) there is no game; hence (i) whatever game there is is about rescuing elves. So whatever happens in the shared fiction, it's going to pertain to the rescuing of elves. The scope of "something else entirely" seems to extent to trying but failing to rescue the elves.

Just because the characters care about rescuing elves, and there are elves to be rescued, it does not necessarily follow that those characters will find the relevant dungeons and explore it and find what they're looking for. But yes, the primary alternative to rescuing the elves is in failing to rescue the elves. Depending on how badly they fail, they may end up captured by drow instead, at which point the goal becomes one of escape, and then survival.

Consider the Lord of the Rings, as an example. The GM is responsible for creating the ring, all of the bad guys, and thousands of years worth of history. The players are encouraged to make characters who have a reason to undertake this quest. The scenario is worth playing out, because we don't know what will happen. The choices of the players all matter, because the end isn't written yet, and the only way to see what happens is to play out the consequences of those choices.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And this right here, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], is why you (and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] too) are likely never to see eye-to-eye with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], et al. when it comes to gaming philosophy. Your vision of roleplaying is limited to GM control, and you refuse to acknowledge as possible (let alone potentially preferable) any style of gameplay that seeks to limit the privilege of GM control over that of the other players in the game.

It's not that the players have no control. Players have absolute control, over the decisions made by their characters.

What players don't have is the burden of figuring out what else is going on in the world. The player doesn't have to worry about establishing what the weather is like, or the conditions of a wall they might want to climb; whatever the state of the environment may be, it is what it is, and only a fool would try to argue with reality. The only thing that the players need to worry about is what their characters would do.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Its very frustrating.

My take (as you know) is that the AD&D 2e culture (GM metaplot, big setting/setting tourism, "its the GM's world/game", metagaming is bad, the only correct resolution mechanics/adjudication is binary pass/fail in action resolution that hews to GMs cognitive bias about internal causality, addressing a focused premise aggressively is bad/not RPGing) that pervaded the late 80s and early/mid 90s have come roaring back to life and presently has a stranglehold on EnWorld. It makes nuanced discussion about interesting topics that I care about utterly impossible/not worth even trying to engage. Hence why I don't post much anymore (along with the fact that it has chased away an enormous number of posters that I like to engage with!)!

For what it's worth, I feel the exact same way about modern-hippie-indie game culture. It has a stranglehold over these forums, with people openly declaring that meta-gaming isn't bad, and expecting to be taken seriously for it. It makes nuanced discussion about interesting topics that I care about impossible to engage with, since someone always barges in with some completely ludicrous idea about how nothing really exists and there's no point in pretending otherwise. And it has chased away a significant number of the posters that I previously enjoyed engaging with.

 

[Arilyn]

For what it's worth, I feel the exact same way about modern-hippie-indie game culture. It has a stranglehold over these forums, with people openly declaring that meta-gaming isn't bad, and expecting to be taken seriously for it. It makes nuanced discussion about interesting topics that I care about impossible to engage with, since someone always barges in with some completely ludicrous idea about how nothing really exists and there's no point in pretending otherwise. And it has chased away a significant number of the posters that I previously enjoyed engaging with.

There is no doubt that EN World attracts primarily DnD players. The idea that the forums are dominated by us "indie hippie players" is ludicrous. I think you might be feeling under siege because you have very extreme views, which are non-negotiable.

Question. Why do you equate the indie movement with hippies? What do hippies have to do with anything as regards to role playing? You complain about the lack of open dialogue, while showing zero respect for the more modern ideas, which have been emerging in this hobby for quite a number of years now. It's really hard to debate game theory with you, when you refuse to acknowledge that we are even engaged in the same hobby.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no doubt that EN World attracts primarily DnD players. The idea that the forums are dominated by us "indie hippie players" is ludicrous. I think you might be feeling under siege because you have very extreme views, which are non-negotiable.

The idea that meta-gaming is bad should not be considered an extreme view. It should be the very minimum that all role-players can agree on.

Question. Why do you equate the indie movement with hippies? What do hippies have to do with anything as regards to role playing?

I thought that was the standard terminology to describe people who play those types of games, like FATE and Burning Wheel. I've heard it in many places. Hippies are normally considered one of the least malicious subcultures in recent history, so I wasn't aware that the term might be offensive.

You complain about the lack of open dialogue, while showing zero respect for the more modern ideas, which have been emerging in this hobby for quite a number of years now. It's really hard to debate game theory with you, when you refuse to acknowledge that we are even engaged in the same hobby.

Why would I possibly show any respect for meta-gamers, when their entire position is defined by destroying the hobby that I care about? I will stop dis-respecting these individuals when they stop dis-respecting the hobby.

 

[Nagol]

Its very frustrating.

My take (as you know) is that the AD&D 2e culture (GM metaplot, big setting/setting tourism, "its the GM's world/game", metagaming is bad, the only correct resolution mechanics/adjudication is binary pass/fail in action resolution that hews to GMs cognitive bias about internal causality, addressing a focused premise aggressively is bad/not RPGing) that pervaded the late 80s and early/mid 90s have come roaring back to life and presently has a stranglehold on EnWorld. It makes nuanced discussion about interesting topics that I care about utterly impossible/not worth even trying to engage. Hence why I don't post much anymore (along with the fact that it has chased away an enormous number of posters that I like to engage with!)!

The default style of the current D&D edition seems at its best when hewing to your description so I'm not surprised. We've had some discussion about drifting it in a more "Nar"/PC-oriented mythic style that seemed unsatisfying; as a game engine I think it is ill-equipped to go there.

 

[Nagol]

I see it as possible, but in all likelihood not sustainable. Why's that, you ask? Because if the DM isn't interested in running the game or story that results from the players' hooks that game ain't going very far (without a DM there's really no game); while if a player isn't interested in playing the game or story that results from the DM's hooks the game can (in many cases) survive that player's departure.

<snip lots because I have little time>

I find such games are easy to run for short campaigns and similarly easy to run for longer campaigns in specific genres like superheroes, film-noir, or other situations where the characters are expected to be primarily reactive. For me, D&D isn't one of those, so I don't try to use those techniques when I want to run a D&D experience. I could see a different GM running Dungeon World for the moderate to long term though.

 

[Lanefan]

After reading all of this, I'm left with the desire to DM @pemerton, @Saelorn [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], and @Manbearcat via virtual table in at least a one shot.

A small difficulty with this just occurred to me.

Looking at our various locations, I see you, Saelorn and Manbearcat are all in eastern North America. I'm on the west coast, three hours time difference but not insurmountable.

Pemerton, however, is (I believe) in Australia. That would put him roughly half a day out of synch, thus finding a common time to do this would be...well, difficult at best.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

You do realize that there are LOTS of TTRPGs that have a baked-in premise that is meant to be addressed during play. That premise is neither owned by the GM nor is it owned by the players.

Yes, but unlike the examples you listed D&D on the whole isn't really such a game. D&D is malleable enough to be able to handle pretty much anything pre-modern-technology (and can even deal with a bit of that sprinkled in), thus a Greco-Roman-era setting is just as playable as a Renaissance European setting or something prehistoric. Which means there's much less baked-in premise, and much more room for the DM to design the setting she wants...or choose to use a pre-fab setting such as FR or Greyhawk, whatever.

Folks who agree to play Blades in the Dark are fundamentally agreeing to play a game about a ruthless gang that is starting at the bottom rung of the power ladder in a gothic, supernatural-charged, city (which is inspired by early 20th century London/Birmingham). They aren't playing through a GM conceived metaplot. They aren't playing to tour a GM-conceived setting. They aren't playing to not address the premise of that gang scrapping and striving to climb that power ladder (eg, lets go eff off and sail the black sea and hunt Leviathans forever even though this game isn't about that!).

Folks who agree to play Dogs in the Vineyard are agreeing to play gun-toting Paladins meting out justice in a "Wild West that never was". There is a focused game premise baked-in, with character build-rules and setting that hook directly into that. Then we play to test God's Watchdogs (the PCs) and see what happens to them, their loved ones, their Faith, and the people they're tasked to protect from sin and demonic influence. Its not a game about "hey lets go be cattle ranchers because eff it!"

Folks who agree to play My Life With Master are looking to find out what happens when Love and Self-loathing compete as minions (PCs) under a dark lord(ess) enforce the villainous will of their master against a town held hostage...and ultimately rebel.

And these, when looked at from the more open-ended viewpoint of a D&D player, are all very limiting in what they let you do. If you're only looking to play this campaign or game for a few months or half a year then it doesn't matter, you accept the premise knowing it won't last long; but if you're looking for something that'll last for 5 or 8 or 10+ years of regular play.... This is what I mean by sustainable.

I just don't understand what work "not practical" is supposed to be doing here? I've GMed dozens of Dogs, Mouse Guard, My Life With Master, a few game of Blades, a game of Sorcerer, lots of Dungeon World & Apocalypse World, Monster Hearts, Masks, all the Cortex+ games, 10 Candles, Dread. Others I'm failing to remember now. They were all very practical. All very functional. All very coherent. All very enjoyable. All extraordinarily wieldy.

And how long did any of those games/campaigns last?

Lanefan