Experience Points: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[Wik]

I'm not a huge fan of disecting someone's post, because I always read a sort of "passive agressive" tone when it's done. So, let me say (to both you, Lane, and Irda above) that I just think there's a lot to address here, and I mean no disrespect by doing this. (it could also be that I'm the only one who feels this way when a thread is disected; if that's the case, feel free to ignore me!)

First off, Wik, thank you thank you *thank you* for so clearly indicating in your opening post that ExP are a reward for what the *characters* do. In blarg's post, most of his examples are rewards for what the *players* do; a completely unrelated thing - or at least it should be.

Well, I've actually played in one of Blarg's tables that used this rule - and it works really well in play. It freed up our characters, since we got NO reward for what our characters did in play. Which meant we were free to do whatever the hell we pleased and act in character - while encouraging the PLAYERS to accept certain table rules. Bringing snacks, for example, gained XP if I recall, as did contributing to the campaign development and just generally having fun. I liked the system, and I should adopt something like it one of these days.

My cheap and nasty suggestion here is to veer away from RAW into whatever territory suits your game and style.

Right now, I'm using RAW, but I plan on changing it a bit eventually. The big problem with changing a rule in the middle of a campaign is that it can seem unfair to the players. I have been slowly changing the way the game plays, now that I'm more comfortable with 4e, and my group is responding to it well.

One thing I've noticed is that the longer it takes between level bumps, the less attention the players usually pay to ExP: "Oh, I've got thousands to go before I bump - don't bother giving 'em out yet." With 3e and 4e's hyper-fast (by my standards) level advancement, however, there's a constant back-of-mind nagging question "Did I bump yet? Did I bump yet? ..." and as such the DM is by necessity forced to give out ExP much more often.

You know, I've noticed that too. Though, in earlier editions, I've found that even if everyone had more or less the same XP totals, SOMEONE was pretty close to "bumping" (due to different XP requirements per class).

An effective way of mostly taking out mid-session stops while someone does their level-up stuff is to enforce training rules (a RAW variant in 1e, nonexistent in 3e-4e that I know of); you don't get the benefits of a new level until you spend some time training. That way, level-up paperwork can be dealt with along with all the other bureaucracy (treasury division, shopping, etc.) when the party gets back to town.

Hunh. I never really considered this. A sort of "bookkeeping phase" within the regular campaign. It makes sense. My problem has always been that one or two players are very quick at levelling (I am, as well), while another one or two will spend HOURS flipping through books and feat choices to level up. And, as I said above, the necessities of the game force the players to level up sometime during the session, not off-session. I've actually carried on with the adventure while one character levelled up, simply because everyone else was bored.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Have I been really saying that? Mostly, I've just put this up to invite discussion. I've never said "hey, you're wrong". I can take people disagreeing with me.

So can I. What I said though was that you're avoiding the arguments by simply saying "Well I disagree". We're not having a discussion here because you're not directly addressing many of the arguments made against your contention, and I'm on the verge of giving up here.

And here we go back into 4e again. I believe I mentioned that this wasn't an attack on 4e, that I was only using it as an example.

So was I. Just so we're clear.

Was NPC interaction rewarded in the R.A.W. in 3e? Not really. It has better representation in 4e (I believe I've said this already), but it's still not perfect. You obviously feel differently. I can accept that.

This is exactly what I mean by "not engaging"! Both Crothian and I have pointed out to you that Skill Challenges and Quests encompass "roleplaying" and earn XP rewards. I'm not "disagreeing with you" on something that's a subjective preference. It's a fact that you can earn XP from roleplaying (whether directly or indirectly). There is no reasonable disagreement with this statement. You could (within the RAW of 4E or any other game) earn the majority of your XP for a session or campaign from roleplaying.

This is factually accurate. It is not a problem with XP leveling systems. If you aren't earning XP for roleplaying it's because that's how your DM wants it, and is not inherent in XP systems (4E or otherwise).

This post was not a personal complaint - I'm sorry if you feel that it seems that way.

Look, just for me at least, you can stop with this constant apologizing. I haven't interpreted anything in this thread as a personal complaint or attack; and short of you PMing me with ad hominem insults I promise not to going forward either.

It's instead just an observation on how RPGs are designed.

And several posters have now pointed out that some of these observations are wrong. Not "we disagree with you" wrong but factually, objectively, observably "in the scientific sense" wrong.

Think of it this way - if you were going to try and turn 4e (or 3e, or 2e... I don't really want to get edition-specific) into a mystery/horror game, what would get in the way of that? From one of my "bads", I'd argue that part of it is due to that acting in a manner appropriate for a horror/mystery game is not rewarded by the RAW of D&D editions. I'd suggest you'd need to rewrite the XP awards to better fit your genre.

First, I've been using "Quest XP" since AD&D 2E, and you can define that so specifically as to support pretty much any genre. Further, if you still refuse to admit that "Quests" and "Skill Challenges" are so broad as to support roleplaying awards, changing what you earn XP for is a trivial change that is far easier to implement than thinking up a whole new advancement system.

Also, the "level up in the middle of the adventure" has been a problem of mine in the past, and I've seen it while sitting at other tables, too.

But this isn't an XP issue. You wish to discuss XP, yes? Well this problem is not an XP problem. It's a problem that you'll have with any RPG if you allow it to happen, and won't be a problem in any system where you don't allow it. This is a problem with your table rules, not XP.

In my campaign, I'm the only guy with the books (this isn't that unusual, is it?)

I think it is, actually. Most people usually have a PHB. But regardless, this clearly isn't a problem with the XP system.

- meaning the players HAVE to level up at my place, which cuts away from gaming time. The only fix I have for that was getting more PHBs at the table, and doing whatever I could to speed things up.

Exactly. Not a problem with XP.

I agree that RPGs need some sort of improvement mechanism, but I don't think XPs are the only way this can be done. I can think of a few examples -

* Chaosium games have a system where each skill you use has a chance to improve. At the end of each session, any skill you use has a chance of improving by an improvement roll (my game, by the way, does something similar, except that your skills improve during actual play).

* The original Gamma World had no levelling mechanic - PCs improved only through the gear they received, and through mutations they may acquire during play.

* Savage Worlds, while an XP system, had "bennies" that were essentially action points. In the original system, if you kept any bennies, they could be cashed in for more "xp". The neat thing about them was, you could get more bennies (basically awarded at the GM's whim, for doing something in the spirit of the game).

Tomato, tomato. All of these systems will have the same problems you outlined in your post.

 

[Crothian]

I'm speaking in generalities, and you're speaking in specifics.

Generalities don't work though as it is treated very differently in so many games. There will be too many games that generalities just don't work with.

In my campaign, I'm the only guy with the books (this isn't that unusual, is it?) - meaning the players HAVE to level up at my place, which cuts away from gaming time. The only fix I have for that was getting more PHBs at the table, and doing whatever I could to speed things up.

Depends on the game and who I'm playing with. Now that my group are adults and all work as long as the game is in print then I expect them each to have a copy of at least the main book. However, I also love Changeling the Dreaming which is out of print and copies can be hard to find and expensive. So, for this I have acquired the PDF as well as a few spare copies so when I play it my players have something to have access to. Even back when we were kids and had only one book we made photo copies in the school office. We found ways to make sure everyone had what they needed.

 

[blargney the second]

Well, I've actually played in one of Blarg's tables that used this rule - and it works really well in play. It freed up our characters, since we got NO reward for what our characters did in play. Which meant we were free to do whatever the hell we pleased and act in character - while encouraging the PLAYERS to accept certain table rules.

I posted an abbreviated list of XP-generating activities before. About 40% were player-derived and 60% by the characters. It was a fun system, which we later abandoned in favour of simply levelling up when the Savage Tide told us to. I'd use it again for a non-adventure path game.

As for strictly RAW stuff, I quite enjoy XP by the books for a straight up dungeon crawling game. I like a healthy dose of hack n slash and its attendant rewards.
-blarg

 

[Storminator]

More than anything else, I think experience points are unnecessary. So in our campaign(s), they're gone!

On the other hand, in non-level based games like M&M2e which allow for more granular character development (in the mechanical sense), experience points called --called Power Points-- are necessary. They are acquired at the end of each adventure, then can be immediately spent improving aspects of your character.

Actually, my M&M game does great with semi-random assignment of power points. I allow my players to rewrite their PC each issue. So there's a lot less importance attached to points. If I can change every single thing about my character, how important are 2 pps?

I also jump up and down power level at whim. Our last 5 sessions were PL 10, 11, 11, 6, 8.

I was going with a slow, steady advancement in the beginning, but once I realized that was unnecessary, I'm a lot happier.

PS

 

[Ariosto]

[deleted as counterproductive]

 

[insanogeddon]

chill

Everyone gets their jollies differently.

Systems need to consider this and assign a BASE system thats unbiased to individual peculiarities.

Some games the world grows out of the heroes story, Some heroes grow out of the worlds story.

Some prefer games where dm/gm s fudge others HATE this whimsical bias as cheating or discrimination.

There is an assumption, well founded, that people want their characters to grow: in personality and power.

Systems need to consider all this. Its not just about 'your' experience.

Essentially all games need a mechanic for GROWTH. Provide it thru karma, equipment (some what anti-heroic to so some), small XP, large xp, a combo of these, cthulu type learning via doing or even 'bennies' or wozzubbles its all the same slime just piled differently: draw lines in the sands and segregate 'levels' or just have far, far more lines in the sand and segregate individual skill ranks and individual powers, whatever.
What has to be realised tho is large level type segregations make for a system FAR easier to balance.
Tho balance isn't the golden goose some believe it to be it does allow a DM/GM who doesn't fudge to have a benchmark idea to plot about.

Fortunately there is a breadth of systems to assure this. There is a system out there for everyone and for the rest there are house rules.

Those with a like minded group that share biases and are cut from the same cookie cutter can subvert rules entirely and make their own very specific growth systems. I would talk to your players tho as they are the motivating force of the game as players if not as characters.
Awarding metagaming might not be bright depending on your group and awarding snacks and 'adding content' is favouring those with more time/money/perhaps poor health etc and might only serve to scare another generation from the game and its noble traditions of servicing cardiologists!!

Also dnd IS essentially a combat game. That should be considered when choosing games/considering the impact of growth tracking piles.

 

[LostSoul]

Experience points are rewarded only for certain actions in game. this reinforces a certain play type.

I don't think this is bad. I think it's good.

You want to be rewarded for different actions? Play a different game.

The actual spending of Experience points (or levelling up, in many cases) interrupts game play.

Not in all game systems. Gaining and spending XP on the fly in The Shadow of Yesterday creates really cool moments.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think this is bad. I think it's good.

You want to be rewarded for different actions? Play a different game.

There are games though that want PCs to do one thing but reward XP for other things. Or the game totally doesn't get what people want to do when they play the game and reward the characters for the wrong actions.

 

[Wik]

So can I. What I said though was that you're avoiding the arguments by simply saying "Well I disagree". We're not having a discussion here because you're not directly addressing many of the arguments made against your contention, and I'm on the verge of giving up here.

Y'know, maybe that's the problem here. I thought up "hey, what are the goods, the bads, and the uglies of Experience points in RPGs?". I posted up what my takes were on that - I KNOW there are specific examples that can counteract my points, but I think in general, they stand more or less true. While I hate to say it again... you disagree. I can live with that.

I think the problem was, I wasn't clear in my OP. I didn't really frame the discussion, probably because it was getting late, and I had other things on my mind. Fair enough. So, here's the question - what do you think are the good, the bad, and the ugly side of experience points?

You may love them (I generally do), but I'm sure you can think of some bad sides.

***

Regarding my "Table rules" - while this is a whole different subject, table rules grow out of book rules. And I personally think that some of the particular points of XP grow into certain table rules - that people will "level up" at the table. Now, you're lucky if every player has a PHB, because I have NEVER seen that happen. I have played for a long time, and in many different settings, and I've been lucky if half the table has a copy of the rulebook.

The closest I got lately was with Savage Worlds, when I bought three rulebooks (still cheaper than the price of one normal RPG PHB!) and split them among the five of us. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has this problem. While this problem is not a direct outcropping of XP, they are definitely related, and it is not so easily fixed as saying "Okay, everyone buy their own PHB". It's a hobby for some of us, and something to do on a tuesday for others. And none of us are rich.

One thing I want to ask is, do those "XP-Less" systems really suffer from many of the things I outlined in my post? Chaosium does suffer from the bookkeeping problem, for sure (you still need to check to see if individual skills improve), but it has the benefit that the player essentially improves in areas that he actually uses in play - getting rid of the "rewards a certain playstyle" point I made. It is also very easy in the math, from beginning to the end (some players do have a problem with big numbers. As evidence, I give you my STAP group, who all had different XP totals, even though they all got the exact same rewards!).

Gamma World didn't suffer from ANY of those "bad" and "ugly" problems (unless you count treasure division as part of character progression, which is a whole new can o' worms... and since Gamma World throws "balance" to the wind anyways, that's not a problem!).

***

There are games though that want PCs to do one thing but reward XP for other things. Or the game totally doesn't get what people want to do when they play the game and reward the characters for the wrong actions.

Yup. And that can be aG problem with some XP systems. 2e is what springs to mind here. It used to write whole ESSAYS about role-playing, and how great it was... but the only real way to get XP in the RAW was to kill stuff. Story awards were suggestions, but not RAW... as were role-playing rewards. Even if you used both of them, though, the bulk of your XP was from killing stuff (if I recall correctly).