A Completely Unbiased XP System

[Li Shenron]

But what I really need is an easy checklist. Like:

• Monsters killed
• Chests opened
• Secret rooms found

I just want to know that the list has no/low redundancies, doesn't provide undue incentives (murderhoboing), and rewards different playstyles.

Sounds like am interesting plan...

I would try to build the list at a somewhat higher level, around the principle of "tasks that require problem-solving", based on the fact that killing a monster is not a matter of just rolling a dice, but it's a complex task that normally requires multiple decisions. Barring lucky strikes, you normally defeat a monster using more than one action, and you typically also vary that action depending on how the first action(s) have performed. You also typically kill a monster as a team rather than an individual. (This is tangential to the main question here, but I always reward XP to the group, not individually... just out of bad experience when I started off as a DM handing out XP separately to each PC and didn't like what it brings to the table).

Because of that, maybe I am not I would grant XP for tasks that are resolved with a single action, especially if the action doesn't require much choice. For example, if the Rogue says "I search for traps", the DM asks for a Investigation check -> roll dice -> success -> "Ok you found a trap"... that as a single task doesn't sound very worthy of XP to me.

However, dealing with a trapped area sounds better, as it might mean something more complex... deciding what precautions to take in case a trap gets sprung, where exactly to focus on searching, what tools to use, whether to expend resources such as spells...

Similarly, a social encounter definitely sounds like a good item to have on the list, as there are multiple ways to achieve the wanted outcome, and probably implies a bit of roleplay. But then, if the DM resolves the encounter with a single dice roll to see if the guards let you through, it doesn't sound worthy of XP. At least if you want XP to actually mean earning experience i.e. learning something. You can still have the list even if you want a micro-managed style of XP as a measure of achievements instead of a measure of learning, though.

Either way, these could be the start of an expanding of your list on the top of my head:

• monster
  • killed
  • avoided
  • captured
  • befriended
• gathering correct key information
  • by investigation/dialogue
  • by espionage
  • by coercion
• acquiring a major item
• exploring a new location
• passing through
  • a trapped area
  • a hazardous area
• saving a life
• releasing a prisoner
• earning a favor, credit or reward
• reaching a destination
  • far away
  • in a hard-to-reach spot
• acquiring an ally
• learning a major piece of knowledge
• ending a threat to a community
• building something that lasts

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I need a new XP system, gang. The kind that awards XP for different activities, not just killing monsters. Allow me to set some expectations. Experience Points (XP) are a metagame feature that characters (generally) earn for doing things in-game, and contribute to level-ups which players use to upgrade their characters. The character levels are tailored by players for characters - so a warrior could get better at fighting with a new level, or an innkeeper could get better at inn-running. However, it's generally a system for adventurous types.

So what are the things that adventurous types do, which of them are worth XP, and how many are too many? (One, monster killing, is obviously too few.) If those questions were too easy, chew on this: what are the relative weights of each of those activities? I.e. is killing the boss worth half as much as rescuing his victim? Is finding a statue worth more than finding coin?

Ideas, please!

Huh. This made me genuinely intrigued and confused. I understand what you're looking for. I just don't know why, or more importantly, what you expect to get. Perhaps the vagueness is intentional so that we won't be burdened to match any specific (or unintentional) ideas or expectations, thus freeing us to think outside any percieved and conventional boxes...?

Challege accepted!

First, I want to address this:

Experience Points (XP) are a metagame feature that characters (generally) earn for doing things in-game, and contribute to level-ups which players use to upgrade their characters.

I believe there should be more distinction between "experience" and "XP".

Experience is what a character learns by dealing with (and having exposure to) the world around them. Generally speaking, we expect characters to learn and grow more from overcoming adversity and challenges that are difficult rather than sitting around comfortably idle or unopposed.

Experience Points (XP) is what a player earns by interacting with the game through their character. Players engage directly with the game system (rules, mechanics, etc.), and indirectly with what happens within the narrative of the game (monsters, traps, etc.).

Why does this distinction matter? Well, if we think of XP as a meta-currency of the game, then it should be awarded for what the player does rather than what the character accomplishes. Players play the game. Characters are just played.

So XP is really about rewarding behaviors and accomplishments about what the players do when playing the game. This includes how they utilize their characters, as well as how they engage with the story, and how they interact with the others in their group. If they're playing the game as expected, then it is conceivable that their characters are learning and growing with every experience, regardless if they are winning or succeeding at doing what they are expected to do.

So, given this context, what does the player accomplish when their warrior character swings a blade, kills the monster, and finds a gold statue in the chest? Isn't that just the expectation of what should likely happen in the game? If so, then they are playing the game, and their character, as expected.

Now what if they are making the right moves and doing the right things, but the dice aren't cooperating with them? Do they not get the XP because luck failed them? Do we deny the XP, or penalize them because they missed a target number? Are we roleplaying or gambling?

I know. This goes against everything I (we) grew up with in these kinds of games, and it is a feature of the OSR and retro games many people adore. But not knowin what the OP is working with specifically, whether it is some version of D&D or their own homebrew system, I'm just throwing out a perspective that may or may not be useful or relevant. Just something to think about.

 

[Barner Cobblewood]

Yeah there's a lot of difference of opinion about the relation of experience, player, and PC / NPC. I am in the camp that XP are awarded to the player for what they do in actual game-play, not the PC for what they "accomplished" in the imagination. The player then uses the resources as they wish in the play.

 

[the Jester]

Uneven party levels is just a really bad idea normally, you can do it, but in most cases like old DnD its just extremly bad gamedesign thats why its no longer done.

That's an opinion, not a truth. My game uses an "Everyone Starts at First Level" model and it works fine.

And punishing someone for "not taking a risk" is just silly. This is a roleplaying game. If a character is risk averse, they should avoid risk.

If a character is risk averse, why are they an adventurer?

There's a line there, of course, but generally speaking, if your character isn't going to adventure, it's time to make a new character who will.

And in the end what matters is that the story is driven forward, and that is rewarded by milestones.

Oh hell no. I mean, that's fine for certain playstyles, but again, it's not a truism for all DnD. In some playstyles, the "story" is what emerges from play, not some predetermined course that the party must follow.

Milestones are great for playstyles that want that predetermined style, but I think it's a poor one for DnD. It's not right for me, that's for sure. It might be fine for you- and maybe even for the majority of gamers these days- but that doesn't make it absolutely right. It's just right for some people.

 

[Tigris]

That's an opinion, not a truth. My game uses an "Everyone Starts at First Level" model and it works fine.

When 99% of modern fames do something because all their gamedesigners think its better, its pretty much a truth.

If a character is risk averse, why are they an adventurer?

Because we are playing a ROLE PLAYING game. And we often see in stories characters with flaws and being "too cautious" is one wr can often see.

Having different characters is what makes role playing fun.

There's a line there, of course, but generally speaking, if your character isn't going to adventure, it's time to make a new character who will.

If the other players like that character then I see no problem.

roleplaying games other than DnD like the dark eye do have non adventueing players characters commonly.

Oh hell no. I mean, that's fine for certain playstyles, but again, it's not a truism for all DnD. In some playstyles, the "story" is what emerges from play, not some predetermined course that the party must follow.

milestone leveling is about having stories with defining elements. If you want a sandbox with non professional random came up story then of course milestone leveling is not ideal.

Milestones are great for playstyles that want that predetermined style, but I think it's a poor one for DnD. It's not right for me, that's for sure. It might be fine for you- and maybe even for the majority of gamers these days- but that doesn't make it absolutely right. It's just right for some people.

Just because some people like bad things (out of nostalgia) does not make these things less old and bad.


I also like some objectively bad things, everyone does, but this should not try to limit progress of general design.


Like its fine that some people still line to use some cars with manual gear, but its still a bad idea to try to sell this as a good idea and being it back in mainstream cars.


Roleplaying games are about playing roles and stories. If you just want to randomly fight stuff etc then playing a pure dungeon crawler might be better.


And if you sont like predefined stories, then you can still use milestones. They are just triggeted by big changes.

Lose all your money -> Milestone
Kill of a faction changing the city dynamic -> Milestone
Get thrown into jail as a party -> Milestone


This can all happen as emergent play ehich creates the stories and you can still use milestones perfectly fine.

 

[Vrindlevine]

Oh, the player's participating all right, but that participation takes the form of making sure that whenever danger arises the character is safely out of harm's way while others deal with that danger and accept whatever Bad Things (up to and including death) said danger might represent; even if-when the character's jumping in would significantly reduce the risk for everyone else. There's no way in hell that should be rewarded, and yet that's exactly what milestone does (as does any set-up where everyone gets the same xp no matter what).

The other thing that shouldn't be rewarded is the character not being present or involved at all for an xp-granting situation. For example if the party gets attacked during overnight rest and my character sleeps through the whole encounter, everyone else gets xp for for defeating those attackers, but not me.

I should note here that to me xp are completely a character-based reward, not a player-based reward. For example if you-as-player miss a session your character is still involved and still gets xp for what it did, just as if you had been there.

I see what your saying. I guess I have never witnessed this behavior from a character for the totalty of a campaign. I have always played with people that want to jump into adventure, at least in DnD (and alikes) where such things are sort of assumed (i.e. playing adventurers).

Like I had a fellow party member once whose character was a coward, but they got over it eventually and become a valuable member of the party, heck their cowardice actually saved us once (that classic thing of "I will run away but on the way I spotted an ambush".) That cowardice was part of their "experience".

Like let me see if I have this correct, you seem to be saying that:
A: You have players that keep their characters out of danger.
B: You have other players that are being left in the lurch by the first players.
C: The first players are ok with both losing out on xp and abandoning their friends to die or suffer.
D: The second players are ok with this happening consistently (because they get to be a higher level I guess?)

Its an interesting group dynamic for sure.

 

[GMMichael]

So XP is really about rewarding behaviors and accomplishments about what the players do when playing the game. This includes how they utilize their characters, as well as how they engage with the story, and how they interact with the others in their group. If they're playing the game as expected, then it is conceivable that their characters are learning and growing with every experience, regardless if they are winning or succeeding at doing what they are expected to do.

Good post, but I think we're disagreeing here. Characters ideally get better at what they do (level up) for doing related things. This doesn't have to be tied to what the player does. A player can be fully engaged and a helpful co-GM, and yet play a useless character. I wouldn't expect that character to level up, unless levels are a reward for player-ing instead of (character) experiencing.

Or did I misunderstand you?

 

[Clint_L]

Milestone plus a conversation. When it feels like a natural progression point (i.e. they’ve completed a significant story arc), I ask the players if it feels like time to level up. If they agree, then they are free to level up when it feels right for their character.

But it’s all story driven. Players are rewarded for progressing their stories.

 

[stonehead]

The most unbiased xp system would be to award a flat amount of xp at the end of every session. Fragged does this, Lancer does this, Fabula Ultima mostly does this. Some GURPS options do this.

The pros are that it helps everyone equally, and it doesn't favor any one playstyle over another.

The next best thing would be pure GM fiat milestone leveling. You level up when the GM says you level up. The GM says you level up when they feel like the party has earned it. It's similar to flat per-session xp, but requires even less book keeping. One potential disadvantage is that the players are left unsure of what they need to do to advance their characters.

---

That being said, I would ask if you actually want an completely unbiased system of xp. XP is a super useful incentive for gentling pulling the party towards one playstyle or another. Early DnD was a game about infiltrating dungeons, and stealing stuff. By giving xp for gold spent, it encouraged that careful management of risk and reward that a cautious tomb raider would need. Rolling dice and pretending to kill monsters is fun, so I suspect they added XP for defeating monsters to encourage players to do the thing they liked.

I think PbtA games generally do a really good job at this. There's a list of objectives, and at the end of each session, the party goes through the list, and gets an xp for each objective they acomplished this session. That way, each game is pulling the players to engage with the themes and playstyles that the game is about, without heavy-handedly limiting what they can do. They go a step further, and give each class its own objective, which encourages them to play towards the specific fantasy of that class.

Cypher has a pretty cool system where you pick an "arc" for your character. They're supposed to represent character arcs like in regular stories. You come up with 4 or 5 stages of this arc, and when you complete a stage, you get xp for it.

One disadvantage to these "end of session check" systems is that there's no objective distinction of whether each objective has been met or not. Does defeating that prison guard count as "overcoming a powerful foe"? It feels bad to miss out on xp by being too strict, but it also feels bad to argue in favor of everything, regardless of if you really deserved it.

In a WWN game I ran, I just defined the goals specifically enough that there wasn't much room to argue. Instead of "find a rare treasure" and "save a settlement from a significant threat" we had "Find treasure worth at least 500g" and "save the lives of a number of npcs at least equal to your level."

If you have a genre that you're going for, it's not that hard to come up with your own list, though it is more effort than the simple "5 xp per session" rules.

 

[Li Shenron]

Good post, but I think we're disagreeing here. Characters ideally get better at what they do (level up) for doing related things.

Just be careful what you ask

Characters success is mostly defined by dice rolls. Players success is more defined by decisions.

There's a possibility of ending up with a system which just rewards luck twice. For instance, if you grant XP for every trap found, and you resolve trap finding with a dice roll (that only requires a player to declare "I search for traps" but no specifics and no further decisions needed), you could have one character who rolls lucky the first several times, earns XP for that, advances in level and gets even better bonus on those rolls, while another character rolls poorly and lags behind. You are just rewarding being lucky.