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.
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.


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
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
From my perspective, an ideal D&D campaign is roughly similar to a Final Fantasy game, the best of the classic games in that series was IV, and like half of the playable characters in that game were reigning monarchs by the end of it (Cecil and Rosa, Edward, Yang, Edge and Rydia). So it doesn't seem weird to me for a PC to be a reigning monarch. (A similar trend can be observed in Phantasy Star III: Generations of Doom.)

Please note that I said “starting” background. I’ve no issue with a character earning monarch status, I’m just not starting them that way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Please note that I said “starting” background. I’ve no issue with a character earning monarch status, I’m just not starting them that way.
Fair enough. Half of those characters are monarchs at the start of the game, though, so it's still not that weird to me. "Reigning monarch" ranks up there with "bounty hunter" and "amnesiac" for common character backgrounds.
 

pemerton

Legend
I'm not as convinced of EGG's motivations in writing that. Low-level play is a specific type of play which can rather obviously only be experienced at low level; and he's trying to ensure all players get the chance to do this. The "learning" part of it isn't as big a deal, as a new player is going to learn a bunch of stuff no matter what level she starts at. He's wrong, however, in saying a novice player will get the full experience by simply starting at 1st level as he fails to note that it'll be completely different (and somewhat lost) if the rest of the party doesn't start at 1st level along with him.
Gygax doesn't fail to note that. He expressly discusses it, and recommends the new player either starting solo, perhaps with experienced players playing the men-at-arms; or making sure the group of newbies starts separately from the old hands.

Except in 1e, where by RAW gold translates directly to xp.
Yes. It's not a separate currency for PC building (contrast 3E and 4e, where it buys items).
 

howandwhy99

Adventurer
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?
XP Score is each player's game score. D&D, like other games, is designed for repeatability so players can actually improve their playing the game. The XP score can be a reliable measure for players reflecting on the different campaigns they've played and how they might change their play to improve their game.

The objective of D&D is to score as many XP as possible. One of the (once) unique things about D&D was your gaming piece improved in their class (roleplaying) abilities as the player demonstrated their ability at playing the role. As your piece's abilities increased you could more reliably aim to take on harder threats and receive even more points.

Do Experience Points only exist within the context of individual campaigns?
I'd say this is an obvious yes. If you switch to a different game, a different campaign, you begin again at the start. No score.

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.
To allow a fair game between players I think it's best to start everyone at the same time and without any head start points. After all, each campaign is different and their is a lot to learn each time. That said, experienced players who have played the same ruleset repeatedly might want to start a campaign at a higher level. This allows them to skip ahead to the range they are being challenged at, but there are drawbacks to this. New players might have some talent, but aren't experienced with the game, so they should always start off at zero. If they are very good, they will score points and advance quickly anyways.

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?
Everything in a game is an arbitrary construct. What allows the construct to be a game is its persistence. It's the players who are roleplaying the class, but the design which has different focuses for mastering the game according to a role. As game constructs, NPCs might have gained ability in a class, but it depends on the monster type I suppose.

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?
The 1e DMG is notoriously unclear, but still is chock full of game design. I go with the interpretation that NPCs gain 50% XP compared to PCs (for a number of varying reasons) and taking only such from group XP totals, but it's up to the DM ultimately. How useful are NPCs when they aid the players at the game? I think that matters. Are they constructs the players game as well? Or, for some, are they some kind of way for a the DM to play a PC? A DMPC? (Which always struck me as an impossibility in a roleplaying game.)

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?
I think monsters gain classless XP, advancing as monsters, but that was a latter day rule to make monsters make sense. The early game really only had XP for treasure acquisition, same as Dungeon! boardgame. Not even XP by class for roleplaying mastery.

As to what qualifies a character, a creature speaking broadly, for a class depends upon the design the DM chooses. I think it was originally treated as a human-only characteristic which the demi-humans were mimicking and the rest of the humanoids weren't. I don't think it's simply a measure in class abilities or many mindless monsters would qualify. I'd say it's closer to something like a high level of trained skill in a class. Ability + Skill to even reach 0 XP level 1 in a PC class. NPC classes would require less training and treated as a separate route of advancement altogether, one with slower and weaker progression. All very much depending on the particular class of course.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I'm not one to judge how people play the game unless I'm at the table and experience it first-hand.

Suffice to say that I'd find a way to make the party suffer on occasion and make it linger in exchange for those gifts. Reigning monarch on a starting background table just blows my mind.
Getting into nobility at all is a very low chance - 1 or 2 in 1000, I think it was. Then you have to roll again, for what you are (monarch, prince/ss, duke, baron, etc.) with monarch being maybe 1% chance. She nailed it - right in front of me.

The party did suffer, a) because she was often trying to boss them around, and b) because domestic political machinations kept getting in her - and thus the party's - way.

As far as a big difference between half a party and a TPK. Presently, I don't allow myself to run games with less than six players or more than 13. 8 or 9 is my sweet spot. If one or two get away I've seen seven or eight die. That's a TPK to me even if I don't get them all. :)
I usually have 4 or 5 players at the table, running a party of 6-11 characters.

Lanefan
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So what's the point of the falling damage rules?
To handle short-ish falls that may be survivable, or longer falls where you land on a forgiving surface. Once a fall gets beyond about 50' onto a hard unyielding surface the falling damage RAW become rather useless; even more so if the landing area is jagged or spiked.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Raymond Chandler is one of the more famous American crime fiction authors. The movie version of The Big Sleep, with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, is pretty well known and well regarded.
Ah. I don't read much (i.e. any) American crime fiction, and anything with Bogart and Bacall in it is a long way before my time. :)

The world is such a wacky and unpredictable place that explanations for these things always abound.

There's nothing verisimilitudinous about imaginary worlds being less surprsing than the real one.
They can be surprising, and yet still maintain internal consistency.
 

Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
Ah. I don't read much (i.e. any) American crime fiction, and anything with Bogart and Bacall in it is a long way before my time. :)

They can be surprising, and yet still maintain internal consistency.

Lane - I'd recommend watching some Bogart if you have some time. At least based on your profile I'm about 12 years younger than you, and I still consider Casablanca my favorite film. Just don't go into it with a mind towards comparing it to anything modern and you'll have a good time of it.
 


pemerton

Legend
The job of the GM, in such a case, is to figure out what these things should be based on what they already know about the world. This is a case where you need to trust the GM to not meta-game. Whatever the backstory of this random encounter, it is based on events that happened in the past, and certainly not on who the PCs are or what would be "interesting" for the players.

<snip>

What's explicitly not cool is when things happen based on what the player or GM wants or doesn't want to happen; or what they think is or is not exciting or dramatic.
You write as if based on events that happened in the past and would be interesting for the players are inconsistent. But they're not.

For instance: the random encounter is with a bounty hunter. In the past, the PCs stole something from a powerful NPC. The GM could decide that the bounty hunter is looking for some random NPC the PCs (and players) have never heard of; or could decide that the bounty hunter is on the track of the PCs at the behest of the person they stole from.

One way to resolve that question is for the GM to just decide - this is how I would handle it if I were running 4e or Burning Wheel but (for some reason) using random encounters.

Another way to resolve it is to make a reaction check - a neutral or friendly reaction means the bounty hunter is not after the PCs; a poor reaction means that s/he is. That is how I would handle it running Traveller.

In other words, different games use different devices for establishing content; but I would never consider it "not cool" to read an interesting rather than uninteresting encounter off the output of those devices.

If a player asks whether there are clouds visible, then the most important thing about the existence or non-existence of those clouds is that it is not influenced by the fact that the player asked or whether they have a clever idea that is contingent on there being or not-being clouds visible. If the GM has been tracking the weather patterns lately, then great. If not, then rolling randomly is still infinitely better than the alternative.
If a player has a clever idea contingent on clouds being visible there's any number of ways of handling it.

Again, details of different RPGs vary, but my default would be to allow the check, and if it fails narrate a lack of sufficient visible clouds as a cause of the failure. (One problem with non-4e D&D is that it has no check-based resolution system for casting spells, which makes it harder to GM by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice. That's why I tend not to run non-4e D&D.)
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top