• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

XP For You

Do you award XP for slaying a monster? What about for resisting a succubus’s lure? Do you award it for discovering a new land, or for building your character’s relationship with another? How about for resolving a plot point, or disabling a trap? Do you award it for bringing pizza to the game, award it differently depending on the kind of PC, or do you just award it every few sessions? Or do...

iStock_000002307155Small.jpg
Do you award XP for slaying a monster? What about for resisting a succubus’s lure? Do you award it for discovering a new land, or for building your character’s relationship with another? How about for resolving a plot point, or disabling a trap? Do you award it for bringing pizza to the game, award it differently depending on the kind of PC, or do you just award it every few sessions? Or do you just ignore it entirely?

XP in D&D (and its parallels in other systems) serves an interesting psychological function: it is reinforcement.
Reinforcement is a powerful psychological element that is easy to under-estimate. The basic mechanism of reinforcement is this: if you perform this action, you will be given something you want. But why does XP work as an incentive? Why do we want XP, anyway?

A Measure Of C
In order to look at how XP functions as an incentive, it’s useful to look at why we would want to get these points. After all, they’re not directly useful. It’s not like winning money in poker – you can’t use your XP to buy an extra beer. So why do we want these points? What makes them fun?

The answer is multifaceted, of course. Since all lemonade is local, we all have our own agenda when it comes to this. But it wouldn’t have stuck around for 40+ years unless it was hitting on a few different cylinders, and there are a few big reasons, for a few different kinds of players, as to why XP can be fun.

A Measure of Player Skill
One of those cylinders, perhaps one of the first that XP fired on, is competition. It’s a way of measuring how “well” you play the game – those with a higher XP total have played “better” than those without.

This was very true when D&D was a deadly game – characters with higher XP totals had survived longer, and survival was a sign of player luck and skill, because death was so aggressively enforced.

In order for this to be true, players need to be awarded XP at varying rates. If you award bonus XP for the player who brings pizza, or you award XP based on various class-specific actions, you’re effectively creating this kind of division: some people are playing D&D “better” than others, perhaps because they’re willing to feed everyone, or perhaps because they played the right kind of class for your game. If you give EVERYONE XP for Bill bringing in a pizza, this doesn't necessarily reward Bill, showing him, in numerical terms, why he's awesome.

This can work on a group level, too, of course: if an easy challenge nets a small XP award while a bigger challenge results in a larger XP reward, high-reward challenges can be sought out,

This kind of XP award depends mostly on a direct numerical comparison, and a kind of competition. Whoever has the better score is being awesome (even if this means outside-the-game things like telling a great joke), and those who don’t score as high are not quite as awesome. It’s appealing to players seeking emotions like fiero – it creates a competition with other players, and a high score is a sign of winning that competition.

A Measure of Character Change
XP naturally has the effect of causing your character to gain more power and more abilities and more options – this is the nature of character advancement, and XPs are the logs you throw on that fire to keep it burning. XP serves as a device to drip some novelty into the character you’ve been playing – it determines how long you need to keep rolling dice until you get to do something new with your avatar.

Those abilities are frequently more powerful and awesome the higher up the chain of levels you get, so XP also serves to help demonstrate your growth as a hero, from low-level goblin-slayer to high-level dragon-slayer, with the chops to prove it. You are measurably a different character after 60,000 or so XP than you were a few XPs ago, and through that arc, you see the character that you’ve been playing come to life.

This nature of XP was explored a little bit when I talked about delayed gratification and marshmallows: when you see the awesome things your character is capable of at high levels, this becomes an incentive to get there as efficiently and effectively as possible. XP is the thing you must get to become awesome, so they become desirable things.

This kind of fun-from-XP focuses on feelings like desire and anticipation, creating a feeling that someday, someday soon, this reward will let you be awesome.

A Measure of Time
Games that award levels at certain intervals, or “whenever the DM feels like it” still effectively use XP. The XP isn’t explicit, but if one took the average rate of level gain, and the XP it takes to gain that level, one could get an approximate value for “XP per session.”

XP in this style aren’t desirable because of what they’ll get you or as a reward for good play, but they are desirable because they help account for how long you’ve been with a given story or a given character. Gaining a level is still a way to inject some change into the character, but it’s also a way to see how long you’ve spent with a given character, or with a given campaign. Even if you don’t care about the change of your character, you might care about the investment you have in that character, and remember fondly various games you’ve played with them.

This is appealing to emotions like satisfaction or pride, giving you a sense of having created something, something shared, that has created some lasting value.

A Measure of DM’s Desires
Finally, XP is desirable because it can be a sign that you are meeting the desires of the DM. This may not be very arbitrary, and, in fact, can be highly customized. A DM who wants to encourage a behavior may award XP for it, and this XP becomes valuable because it does what the DM wants. This shows a deep trust in the DM, but it can be very rewarding to follow that breadcumb trail. If the DM awards XP for fighting monsters, but not solving mysteries, then the DM clearly trying to incentivize a certain action, and XP is a measure of what that DM wants to see out of the players (murder and fighting!). If the DM awards more XP for discovering a new land than for fighting monsters, the DM is telling you to boldly go explore, rather than to stick around fighting orcs.

This feature of XP appeals to emotions like empathy and compassion – giving other people what they would like can be insanely gratifying for the giver, as well as the recipient.

Additional Incentives
Regardless of the direct reason we as players seek out XP rewards (or level rewards, in games that prefer to award big chunks at a time), we all do value them, to varying degrees, for various reasons. They are a way to codify what psychology calls "positive reinforcement:" do something someone else wants you to do (have your avatar slay the monster, keep playing the game, bring back GP, explore the frontier, etc.), and you -- as a player -- get rewarded for it (you get to see your character grow powerful, your score gets higher, your story continues, and your DM is happy).

This shows that XP and levels are not just character rewards -- they are rewards for the players of the game, rewards that show, quantitatively, a measure of achieving the emotional goals the players set for themselves. Viewed in this light, you can see that XP can be used to add a concrete number to any behavior the group (or the DM, at least) wants to incentivize. It's a way to communicate, "yes, this action was good, we want more of that," even if the action indicated is simply playing the same campaign on a weekly basis.

In a previous article about pigeons, I talked a bit about B. F. Skinner. It turns out, this guy was big into reinforcement. In fact, in his mind, human action consisted only of these "conditioned responses." There was no acceptance of a reflective, internal world where we make free choices, only a world of behaviors we have learned through previous experience. For Skinner, you sitting down to play a game of D&D isn't about you choosing to do so, but about you expecting to get a positive reinforcement for doing so. XP is that positive reinforcement, codified.

This is why a minor change, like changing what the party receives XP for, can have deep ramifications in the actual playing of the game. So your challenge this week: for the next level of your games that your characters can gain, change how you give out XP, and see what effects this has on your table.

Are you usually the type to ignore XP and only give a level up "whenever?" Try awarding XP explicitly for killing monsters or solving mysteries or bringing back GP. Are you the type to award XP simply for showing up to the table? Try awarding XP based only on other players nominating each other for XP. Are you a diehard XP-for-GP person? Try awarding XP based on class behavior, or for discovering a new land.

Tell me what XP system you use, and one that you'd like to at least give a trial spin to, down in the comments! And let me know what effect changing that simple little mechanic has on your game!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fox Lee

Explorer
I view XP as a reward for group success, which in itself is a bit vague. Usually it means "you succeeded at what you were trying to do", but that might involve lots of approaches - avoiding a trap rather than disarming it, negotiating a truce rather than fighting a battle, coming up with their own solution to a problem rather than completing the "quest" the way that was expected. And of course, in the event that their original plan should fail, it always includes "successfully flying by the seat of your pants". Basically, the only way they will get no XP for something is if they deliberately ignore it (like a subquest that isn't to their tastes) or manage to skip it entirely (take a different path, never pursue that plot tread, etc.).

Thus, I don't bother with individual character XP. On principal I don't want characters to be at different levels because it's fiddly and bothersome, but on a more pragmatic level, my guys don't seem to care very much about XP. They are lazy about tracking their own totals, so I'm not going to spend extra effort on it.

As an addendum, in the first game I ever ran - 3.5 D&D - I found calculating challenge ratings and treasure awards to be a horrible chore, so I played it very fast and loose. The characters simply levelled up when it seemed appropriate - pretty much once per major plot arc. They were all fine with this, but I would hardly call it an ideal situation, so I was glad when 4e made GMing about a million times easier for me. The other current GM in my group is using the same abstracted XP style right now, and - maybe because I have a much higher level of system mastery in 4e than I did in 3.5 - that does kind of bug me. I'm not about to stop playing or anything, but I do wish I knew what I actually earned. I can understand why this style would bother people, aso unless it's the default assumption for your game system, I think it's important too decide it with player input, not just on GM preference.

In this case, perhaps, it may be a different Measure of C to what you've discussed. Maybe a "Measure of Discovery", since it was based almost entirely on uncovering and pursuing "quests", rather than monster difficulty. Or "Measure of Narrative", since ultimately levelling up was a thing that happened at the point you would expect it to in the plot of a comic book, shounen anime, et cetera.
 

Cephor

Villager
I've got a similar thought process with the game I'm about to run. I'm going to track the group xp and inform them at the end of the proper sessions when they've leveled as a group (or by email in between if I don't have time to calculate). Encumbrance will also be abstracted unless a PC decides to carry a piano.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nellisir

Hero
I'm an "ignore XP and level up when I say so" DM. Switching AWAY from XP reduced the number of conflicts, disagreements, and dissatisfaction with my players, and reduced my stress level quite a bit.
 

Kalontas

First Post
Classes in D&D are combat-based. XP is used to advance in those classes. Thus, I'd give out XP for overcoming combat obstacles.

That's the way that system is designed, but I disagree if that's how a really good game should be designed. Obviously, D&D is popular enough to warrant a point in a "is it a good game" argument, but I think its main flaw is exactly my first paragraph: the core of the system seems centered around combat, avoiding it, or restoring after it.

That's why I'm all for skill systems these days. That way, you can get a class that has barely any combat skills at all (some kind of noble/aristocrat perhaps) and still advance it. Usually you advance in a skill system by advancing your skills, which is done by actually using them. So a noble can advance by scheming on a court and turning his enemies against each other, or by charming noblewomen into putting a knife through their husband's unfaithful backs.

I may be starting to sound like a broken record, praising skill-based systems wherever you can find me, but I honestly believe that's the way a system non-combat-centric should be done.
 

Fox Lee

Explorer
That's why I'm all for skill systems these days. That way, you can get a class that has barely any combat skills at all (some kind of noble/aristocrat perhaps) and still advance it. Usually you advance in a skill system by advancing your skills, which is done by actually using them. So a noble can advance by scheming on a court and turning his enemies against each other, or by charming noblewomen into putting a knife through their husband's unfaithful backs.
I absolutely agree that D&D is a combat-centric system, but it is worth noting that in 4e at least, XP rewards for non-combat challenges is no longer a suggestion but a part of the core rules. Like them or loathe them, Skill Challenges are definitely there to provide XP for the sort of things you describe in this paragraph, which I find to be a welcome change of pace from "you could maybe think about giving XP for non-combat stuff, if you're that kind of GM" :p

Quest rewards being "canonised" is also a long-overdue advancement in my mind. It's an excellent representation of how a series of plot- or objective-connected encounters - combat, skill or social - are worth more than the sum of their parts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hussar

Legend
Some years ago, when I first started DMing online using OpenRPG, I instituted a rule to get people talking more. You got 1xp X Level for every time you wrote something and hit Enter. I went through the logs after game, did a simple count on the number of times your character name came up and awarded xp that way, with some bonuses for exceptional posts which generally got reposted to a Hall of Fame style thread on the board we were using.

Worked very, very well. Those that were participating strongly got the most xp and those that wanted to just wall flower didn't. The disparity became very clear very quickly and the wall flowers started actively posting their character thoughts and reactions. Made for a better game IMO.
 

odinfellhammer

First Post
I usually give out Xp for surviving the fights and good roleplay. We also had individual rewards where each player had a chip to give to a person that did something funny or performed some great feat. I also had chips to give out. These chits were worth about 25 xp each.
 

Gorgoroth

Banned
Banned
"I absolutely agree that D&D is a combat-centric system, but it is worth noting that in 4e at least, XP rewards for non-combat challenges is no longer a suggestion but a part of the core rules. Like them or loathe them, Skill Challenges are definitely there to provide XP for the sort of things you describe in this paragraph, which I find to be a welcome change of pace from "you could maybe think about giving XP for non-combat stuff, if you're that kind of GM""

Yeah, our groups disliked them so much due to being so bland, that nobody used them more than once or twice, leading back to the same result. 4e tried to encode skill challenges as xp-worthy, except that XP was the same across all classes, and that's a criticism of 3e too. Having the same XP is saying that when a wizard turns 5th level, it's the same as a cleric turning 5th. Not. at. all. But two equal levelled characters is fine, when one is a wizard and one is a fighter, since the wizard PC will have to play that much smarter to earn the much higher XP threshold. Actually this opens up a tons of new options, since if you have exponential or geometric xp progression like earlier editions had, you can much more easily have varying levels in the group and it still work. This in turns also allows the deadlier gameplay, because you are supposed to die. Removing PC death from something the players worry about is what ruined D&D4 (IMO). Why would I care about getting more XP? Just award levels and be done with it. The wizard uses the same to-hit charts are the fighter, has similar HP and defenses (ok not exactly, but a 4e wizard is much tougher than earlier edition melee types in comparison...our wizard in 4e used like three surges in the entire campaign, and never dropped once. it was absurd, he just didn't care any more. also, same for our warden, he wasn't even optimized and he was unkillable. the game was utterly boring as a result).

Awarding XP is only meaningful when there is real risk of death...then earning more XP by doing even riskier things for greater/earlier rewards is a real headscratcher and makes you worry for the safety and the outcome of that dice roll. Every +1 will count, you will bide your time to get advantage, or do what it takes. that's REALLY fun to me. to taste life, risk death. As a videogame developer, I yearn for the days when you can't save/reload ad nauseum since easymode games are not as good. Challenge is key. Skill "challenges" where there is no or little inherent risk of actual, permanent, sudden PC death are yet another treadmill of boredom that I can do without. At least 4e combat succeeded in being tactical, like a board game. Skill challenges were just a contrived series of rolls. Utter failure on every level, game design, fun, player+dm interest in the game, player+dm interest in optimising anything but combat combos (since out of combat encounters your entire character sheet was next to useless...how can you use an "encounter power" if you're not in an encounter? ugh...more fail.)
 

odinfellhammer

First Post
I have killed no died my fair share of characters in 4E. Skill challenges are to used in the story by using skills. players should not know they are in a skill challenge in an encounter which powers can be used.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top