I think the challenge information is primarily a DM issue mechanically, with the player interaction being a communication/social contract issue. Thus the need for the DM to have separate guidelines to determine how to break up the daily XP budget in ways that will meet his intentions.
<snip>
there needs to be a separate challenge rating balacing component/guideline that tells the interested DMs how to divide that budget into pieces that fit their social contract and/or playstyle.
Another interesting post, but still no XP for you!
If I'm following you correctly, then you're saying that - for the risk/reward stuff - this is established in the first instance via social contract at the set-up stage, and then managed during the course of play primarily via the GM. So the player conflict-of-interest that I was concerned about shouldn't arise.
Assuming I'm understanding you, that makes sense. I think I find the 4e approach more elegant, but for a system intended to support a wider range of playstyles than 4e, I guess it's inevitable that extra components will have to be added in (in this case, the "GM needs to balance risk/reward in addition to settle the pacing" dial).
If, for example, the social contract is that the heroic party will go charging through the adventure, with clear clues when things are going to get really rough, then the DM needs to know enough about the challenge to communciate the clues. It's a cheap shot to pretend that, but then ambush the party with a complete day's worth of XP budget monsters.
On the player side, I am thinking that agreeing on that sort of heroic play, and then having the PCs, in their downtime, stock up on iron spikes, 10' poles, ear-seeker-proof listening cones, and all sorts of other devices that will let them grind through their opposition in Gygaxian skilled-play style, would be a comparable violation of social contract.
Which suggests that equipment lists and purchasing rules, like every other mechanical component, will need to have notes on what sort of approach is suited to what sort of play.
I don't think this is an inaccurate conflation. Those three things are inextricably linked. All three feed into the risk/reward motivational loop in traditional D&D play.
<snip>
In D&D specifically, XP serves first as a mechanical carrot.
<snip>
In order to serve as an appropriate reward, it must also serve as an appropriate measure of difficulty.
<snip>
Risk and reward are inextricably entwined
This seems to make assumptions that I don't think are universally true.
In 4e, for example - at least as I play it, but I hew pretty close to the RAW - XP are a reward primarily for turning up and playing the game. You get 4 monsters worth of XP per hour of dedicated freeform RP (per DMG 2), 5 monsters worth per full skill challenge (whether your succeed or fail, per Essentials) - which is about an hour's play - and 5 monsters worth per equal level combat (only if you succeed, but the game is designed to make success in combat the overwhelming norm) - which again is about an hour's play. Plus Quest XP, which you earn for pursuing the goals you have set for your PC (player-designed quests).
This is quite different from Gygaxian D&D, where you might turn up and play a full session yet get no or minimal XP because, for whatever reason (poor skill, bad luck) you don't kill much and don't find much treasure.
Also, in 4e XP don't correspond to risk in any tight way. For example, a complexity 2 skill challenge of the PCs' level is worth the same XP as a complexity 1 skill challenge 4 levels higher - but the first challenge will generally be quite a bit easier. Similarly, one level+4 encounter is worth the same XP as two equal-level encounters, but it is harder (and probably will take longer to resolve) than those two done back-to-back with a short rest inbetweeen.
In terms of CrazyJerome's categories, I see 4e XP playing role 2 very clearly - turn up, and play, and your PC
will progress along the road from Heroic to Epic, at aboutone monster's worth of XP per hour of play (so about 10 hours of dedicated play required for a level).
They also play role 3, but in a distinct fashion, via the encounter budgetting rules. Build tougher encounters and the game
will be mechanically more challenging for the players, although the pace of advancement will not change a lot (as I said, it may slow very slightly because one big encounter can actually take more time to play - in part because it is more intricate, in part because higher stakes engender more attentive and cautious play - than two smaller ones).
I see role 1 in 4e being pretty light touch - "good play", in 4e, has little meaning, for advancement purposes, beyond "turn up and do what the rules tell you it is your job to do as a player - succeed at quests by tackling challenges". This is quite a significant difference from Gygaxian D&D. (Which also is a further answer to [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]'s questions, in another thread, about the difference I see between Moldvay Basic and 4e.)