D&D General An alternative to XP

[Ovinomancer]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. People can get better at what they do.

It's in the post I quoted -- @Lanefan literally said he didn't level cross-class in real life.

I got better as a software developer through practice and learning. For a game like D&D you have to vastly simplify that process which means giving PCs classes and those classes have levels which roughly model real world growth. What's bizarre is that you've insisted that "people in real life also earn XP". The only reason to have XP in a game is because of that simplification of class levels and that we measure growth in spurts not the continual improvement of reality.

I'm done. Have a good one.

No, I didn't insist that. I said that if you're making the argument that people in real life level up, then that same kind of logic applies to people in real life earning XP. I, personally, think the entire idea of game terms applying to real life to be bizarre and a bit cringe. I'm pointing out that if you're going to claim that leveling isn't as gamey as XP because people in real life have level, that the foundation of that entire argument is smoke. Real life people don't earn XP and also do not level up.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

It's in the post I quoted -- @Lanefan literally said he didn't level cross-class in real life.

No, I didn't insist that. I said that if you're making the argument that people in real life level up, then that same kind of logic applies to people in real life earning XP. I, personally, think the entire idea of game terms applying to real life to be bizarre and a bit cringe. I'm pointing out that if you're going to claim that leveling isn't as gamey as XP because people in real life have level, that the foundation of that entire argument is smoke. Real life people don't earn XP and also do not level up.

Don't mind me, just amused this was a topic, lol.

 

[Lanefan]

Then C, D, and E wait; or A and B go back with them for the sake of the adventure and don't metagame needing to train to level?

How is it metagaming if the PCs in the setting know intuitively when they become capable of training - they've analagously in effect passed this round of field testing and are good for another bout of classroom instruction.

IME never happens. Unless you play with a merry-go-round of PCs and players, that is...

PCs yes, players usually no.

Why replace characters when they are already there?

Because those characters are not always there - they come and go. That, and I put no limits on how many PCs any one player can have in my game world; though there are often limits - usually two - on how many a player can play in the same party at once.

If the adventure is so important you can't wait then you just go finish the adventure and train when you get back. If you need to train to be powerful enough to continue on, then everyone waits, because otherwise you have lower level PCs going back without the higher level ones anyway.

The issue with carrying on untrained - and on this I'm nowhere near as harsh as original 1e was* - is that you start hitting a point of diminishing returns, where your earned xp suffer a penalty based on how far into the new level you've got.

* - in original 1e after bumping you couldn't gain even a single xp until you trained up, no matter what you did.

 

[Lanefan]

You’re talking about conscious value placement. Indeed, this is a highly subjective thing and depends on all kinds of complex factors like cost vs. benefit, personal relevance, and all number of other things. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying here at all.

What I’m talking about is unconscious, instinctive neurochemical reactions in response to stimuli. Seeing a clear indication of progress towards something as a direct result of your actions triggers a release of dopamine in your brain. It just does. That’s just how our brains work. That doesn’t necessarily mean you will like or ascribe value to the thing that caused the release of dopamine. Again, that’s a much more complex phenomenon, and not what I’m talking about.

Just a suggestion, but if you haven't already you might want to post a few links to the studies that have proven this; else you're not likely to get anywhere in advancing your point.

 

[Lanefan]

It's in the post I quoted -- @Lanefan literally said he didn't level cross-class in real life.

Er - I did not say that; I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.

That said...

No, I didn't insist that. I said that if you're making the argument that people in real life level up, then that same kind of logic applies to people in real life earning XP. I, personally, think the entire idea of game terms applying to real life to be bizarre and a bit cringe. I'm pointing out that if you're going to claim that leveling isn't as gamey as XP because people in real life have level, that the foundation of that entire argument is smoke. Real life people don't earn XP and also do not level up.

...there is no doubt whatsoever that in real life people generally tend to get measurably better at what they do by doing more of it*, whether it's a sport or a hobby activity or an occupation or whatever; and that "getting better" can happen through any combination of simple practice, learning from peers, formal or informal training, and-or other methods.

I spent a long time in retail sales, and was a far better seller five years into that career than I was when I started; and was better yet after ten years rather than five. Lots of every-day practice plus both informal and formal training saw to that, and we had the metrics and records to prove it. I'm also an amateur writer, and though perhaps not very good overall I'm hella better at it now than I was 40 years ago.

Xp and levels are merely the game's way of abstracting this "getting better" process; and though the D&D level advancement curve is far steeper than anything in real life would map to, the abstraction itself is quite solid.

* - provided one's body and-or mind can keep up with what's being asked of it.

 

[Yaarel]

Just a suggestion, but if you haven't already you might want to post a few links to the studies that have proven this; else you're not likely to get anywhere in advancing your point.

All one needs to do is step into a casino, and its stimuli tactics, to see that what @Charlaquin is saying sounds about right. Popular videogames too.

 

[Oofta]

Ok? Recieving a gift doesn’t necessarily cause a release of dopamine. I mean, unless that gift is like, really calorie-dense food, that you then eat. It might release setatonin, if it’s a thing you like. That’s the happy brain chemical. Dopamine is the I did a good job brain chemical. Maybe if you won the Hummel figurine in a test of skill, then you’d get dopamine. Not because you got a Hummel figurine, but because you won a test of skill.

Winning the contest is an intrinsic reward, not an external reward. In many cases getting an external reward for something that you would have done for the intrinsic reward can be detrimental and lower your overall enjoyment. Let's say I enjoy bicycling. I just do it because I enjoy the fresh air and getting to zone out for a bit. Then I get an app on my phone and it tracks how far I bike and how many calories I use. If my motivation becomes do X miles or burn Y calories, the intrinsic value I had for biking can be lessened. Biking, which I used to enjoy just for biking becomes work, something I need to do for the number of calories burned external reward I get from my phone app.

I view D&D and XP the same way. I want the game play to be intrinsically rewarding, XP is externally rewarding. Instead of just having fun playing the game in the moment it can become grinding out XP which lowers the overall intrinsic reward. We still have levels but if people know they're going to level at the first opportunity after X hours of play like I do, they stop thinking about doing things in order to level.

 

[Oofta]

It's in the post I quoted -- @Lanefan literally said he didn't level cross-class in real life.

No, I didn't insist that. I said that if you're making the argument that people in real life level up, then that same kind of logic applies to people in real life earning XP. I, personally, think the entire idea of game terms applying to real life to be bizarre and a bit cringe. I'm pointing out that if you're going to claim that leveling isn't as gamey as XP because people in real life have level, that the foundation of that entire argument is smoke. Real life people don't earn XP and also do not level up.

Right. So you were referencing something I didn't write without leaving any clue in your post. People don't have XP even though you were the one who made the statement that "people in real life also earn XP" because they can improve there skill. I never said people leveled up, they gain skills. We use levels in D&D because it has to over-simplify everything including how it models getting better at your chosen class profession. But we're not supposed to talk about any correlation between reality and game because it's "cringe" for some reason.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Er - I did not say that; I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.

Totes right, man. My bad. @Oofta said that and somehow I misattrubited to you in my memory.

That said...

...there is no doubt whatsoever that in real life people generally tend to get measurably better at what they do by doing more of it*, whether it's a sport or a hobby activity or an occupation or whatever; and that "getting better" can happen through any combination of simple practice, learning from peers, formal or informal training, and-or other methods.

I spent a long time in retail sales, and was a far better seller five years into that career than I was when I started; and was better yet after ten years rather than five. Lots of every-day practice plus both informal and formal training saw to that, and we had the metrics and records to prove it. I'm also an amateur writer, and though perhaps not very good overall I'm hella better at it now than I was 40 years ago.

Xp and levels are merely the game's way of abstracting this "getting better" process; and though the D&D level advancement curve is far steeper than anything in real life would map to, the abstraction itself is quite solid.

* - provided one's body and-or mind can keep up with what's being asked of it.

Yeah, don't disagree with this.

 

[Oofta]

Just a suggestion, but if you haven't already you might want to post a few links to the studies that have proven this; else you're not likely to get anywhere in advancing your point.

For what it's worth, I'm familiar with the concept of extrinsic motivation, but it can backfire. The reward also has to be seen as valuable to the recipient.