When You Aren't Playing To Level

[hanasays]

I just finished taking part in a marathon session. The game is a tabletop Warcraft campaign (which is essentially D20) and my brother is the DM. This was the very first session playing with these characters, so we went through the "introductory phase".

The interesting bit was that the entire session was RP. It was only me and one other player, as the third member of our party was unable to make it today. I'm playing a True Neutral Human Runemaster ("Kreuwig"), but the way that my character is set up, he's basically a wizard who punches people in the face. It's interesting because it's strange being both the primary tank and the primary caster. The other player is a Chaotic Neutral Goblin Rogue ("Gobstab") who has basically turned out to be a kleptomaniac to the point of (amusing) near-idiocy.

With no combat encounters, we really didn't get much Experience. My brother doesn't hand out a whole lot of EXP to begin with, and he's usually reluctant to hand out roleplaying Experience Points, although he did hand some out this session (and to tell the truth, some DMs don't hand out EXP for roleplaying AT ALL, so I can't complain). House Rules place a hard cap on the maximum amount of RP experience you can accrue per session. It worried me for a bit going into this campaign as it's only the second one he has ever run, and I worried that it would cause the other players to stop trying to role-play as there was little point, especially since I have played for years and years (since practically grade-school) but both of them are very new to the game (this is the first time they've played a tabletop roleplaying game). Being mainly video-game players, I thought that they would largely focus on hack-and-slash and leveling.

However, I noticed that the other player really took to his character and did a great job role-playing. I also enjoyed playing Kreuwig, and I can tell he's going to be a lot of fun to play. The session was awesome, better since we recorded it for posterity. It's hard not to get attached to characters, but in the case of the one I currently have, with the way his personality works I wouldn't mind going down if it meant I could go out with a bang.

So far, we are really enjoying playing our characters and getting up to non-combat antics despite the lack of EXP and knowing that, with this particular DM, leveling is very slow and most EXP is very hard-won. It hasn't seemed to impact the behavior of the other players so far, although this was only session #1 and I don't know if this will carry throughout the entire campaign. It's not a bad start, though.

I know a lot of players play some pretty RP-heavy campaigns, and most of the campaigns I play in with this group of people are fairly RP-heavy (for changes of pace, there's a different group I play with that is very much comedic hack-and-slash). What campaigns have you played in where RP took precedence over combat and experience points, even to the point where you've lost Experience Points? How about campaigns where you enjoyed playing your character to the point where you really didn't care whether you leveled or not? What sort of character did you play, and what did you enjoy the most about it?

 

[Fenes]

We've been playing for years without Exp at all. We level up if we feel like it and the group agrees, no matter if we spent the sessions killing enemies or preparing for a party.

I doubt I could play in or run a campaign where people actually get exp for killing stuff, and would "lose" exp for roleplaying.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

We only give out XP during "milestones" when something significant happens in the characters life. Usually levelling is handled to go along with the story.

 

[hanasays]

I doubt I could play in or run a campaign where people actually get exp for killing stuff, and would "lose" exp for roleplaying.

It's not like we "lose" exp for roleplaying - maybe I phrased that the wrong way. What I meant is more like, we spent a lot of time wandering around in town getting into trouble - social trouble, though - and because of the "RP Experience Cap" that the DM imposes (he has reasoning for it, I am sure) it means that by technically avoiding combat (town is pretty safe right now), we lost chances to gain combat experience. The new players are aware of this, and yet they seem to opt for RPing in town versus wandering around looking for fights almost every time.

I'm glad that your group has worked out a different way of doing things. I'd probably suggest it to my current group but because they're new, we've decided to follow standard rules - you get exp for killing things. Not giving combat exp would feel like a penalty/punishment for these new players. Levels exist in the game we're currently playing because they're a reward for effort and taking them away from new players who are used to a more goal-oriented game might remove one of the things that allows them to "connect" with the game.

As things stand with the current DM, you fight for every inch of your level. It's pretty much a part of the game. So, in a game following standard mechanics where you pretty much scrap for experience, and in a game with experience (the "no experience, level when we like" variant is also interesting) it's sort of gratifying to see players - especially players new to the genre who are used to more goal-oriented computer/console games - do things that are technically counter-productive but ultimately more interesting.

 

[hanasays]

We only give out XP during "milestones" when something significant happens in the characters life. Usually levelling is handled to go along with the story.

That's also an interesting approach. Again, something I'd suggest to the current DM if the players weren't fairly new. Right now they're struggling with learning the game mechanics, so it would throw them off. And then there's the "levels as rewards" aspect.

Is there much combat in that particular campaign, or is it almost entirely RP? I ask because I'm curious about how it affects what you do as characters. Does it affect the "out looking for a fight" mentality and cause you to lean more toward politics/intrigue?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It generally changes for each campaign. Usually what I do though as a DM is I still record what XP they would get from things like quest completion, combat, skill usage, interesting RPing, etc. and simply include that in the math for the milestone.

So, a minor milestone will gain some XP from the source of the milestone, but the majority from the life-experience up to that point.

Essentially a milestone is when all the experiences they have had up to that point come to a head. A major milestone is viewed as a automatic levelling, since it is that powerful.

So basically enough minor milestones (that is easier to obtain) can level you, or a major milestone (that is hard to obtain) can level you.

Umm... I can't really say, since our group already is fairly social/political minded in gaming. But they will still enter combat when needed. So no they don't really seek out combat, but they wouldn't anyways.

One way to generate XP without combat is to give it out for skill-challenges, quest completion, doing something clever, etc.

 

[Fenes]

I have to add that we level rarely once past level 10. We've gone from level 13 to 16 in about 5 years playing weekly although we're also very flexible when it comes to characters getting changed - if someone wants a new build with 3 levels of rogue instead of all barbarian, that's no problem (and the entire party retroactively changed builds to incorporate Bo9S this year).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Rewards and Cost of gameplay can greatly influence how a game is played. It's nice to see that it's working out fine so far for you.

D&D typically rewards killing monsters and taking their stuff. (IIIRC, it used to reward only taking their stuff - XP for GP). That means there is a great motivation for everyone to actively seek out monsters to fight. There is an incentive to really _clear_ a dungeon.

We recently played Torg, and the game supports cinematic action a lot. Combats are still an important part of gameplay. But you are not rewarded for combats, you are rewarded for completing at the end of each act and the end of each adventure. The reward comes in "Possibilities", that allow you to improve your characters skills and abilities, are used to pay off adventure cost for special abilities, and are used to improve dice rolls or to avoid damage.

The latter two points are very critical - whenever you engage in a fight, you end up spending your own rewards to win it! There is no incentive to seek out a fight. Clearing a dungeon (in the aforementioned adventure, it was not a dungeon, but a oil drilling platform) is never something you're interested in.
The only remaining incentive might be equipment or money - but both is pretty irrelevant in Torg. Sure, you have your equipment, but there is little incentive to find more, since you probably already have the best you can use anyway. If you need more - the equipment you find in the fights you have to take will usually suffice.

 

[WayneLigon]

It depends on the game and how it handles XP. Games like D&D that require lots of XP at large discrete levels tend to generate more combat by their very nature. Games, usually point-based ones, where XP can be spent immediately on Things For Your PC, tend not to generate so much.

 

[hanasays]

Interesting how this turned into a discussion about game mechanics influencing gameplay...

D20 systems (D&D and related) generally do tend to encourage people to go out and pick fights. Ridcully's mention of Torg in comparison is actually pretty interesting. By the way, Ridcully - I love your username.

On the other, extreme end of the scale - I actually played a (future/Modern) game where we threw the dice out the window. We wound up with a called-shots system where players could call a certain number of shots per session. The shots had to be within what everybody agreed was your ability range, and it was ultimately up to DM discretion.

Interestingly, people became a lot less kill-happy and started focusing on how to best disable an enemy in order to accomplish their goal. I think it had to do with only having X number of outcomes you could declare in a given session, so if you attacked someone, you REALLY made it count, as combat was going to burn through a lot of your called shots.

It was probably also partly because people tend to get really irritable when you kill their ambassador.