[In the style of Daztur] XP Rewards vs. XP Awards

[Libramarian]

I've been thinking about modular XP for D&D Next. I think there are basically two ways to use XP:

XP as REWARD, and XP as AWARD.

XP as reward is when you give XP to players when something bad happens, to reduce the sting. E.g. that battle turned out to be extra tough! -- Give extra XP in compensation. If you're thinking of XP in this way, you'll probably like the sound of making XP more and more accurately reflect how difficult the battle actually was. Like calculating XP based on the amount of damage sustained by the party. Another example is giving XP whenever a character has to make a saving throw.

XP as award is when you give XP to players when something good happens, to recognize the achievement. You sneak around the monsters -- full XP, for much less danger (so some XP is "free"). Or giving XP when the players find gold & treasure, or accomplish a goal or quest. It's hard to explain this as your character "learning" anything. It's more like: the players have proved that their characters are worth more XP. XP as award has less of a simulationist cause-->effect feel to it than XP as reward.

XP as reward cares more about the means than the end. It incentivizes a particular approach to a problem or goal. Differing XP is given depending on how much punishment you take on the way there. So if you reward combat, you make it a more and more attractive approach to solving problems. XP as award cares about the end more than the means. It doesn't matter so much how you accomplish the goal. The XP recognizes the achievement. If your approach has mitigated the amount of punishment you've taken on the way there, all the better.

XP as reward pays an hourly wage. XP as award pays on commission. In the military, medals for being wounded in action are XP as reward. Promotions are XP as award.

Which do you think more accurately describes how you use XP in your games? (A mixture is certainly possible) What should Next do?

I think my preference is for most of XP to be in the form of awards. I don't want XP to be invisible. I want players to think about it, to watch their total tick closer and closer to level-up. I want it to drive play (hmm, or at least "point" play). I don't want to have to give players quests just so they have some goal. The game should give them a goal by default. Then I can work off of this and maybe introduce complications that make pursuing this goal single-mindedly problematic.

I think XP as reward works well as a supporting factor though. It depends on what incentives and disincentives are interacting. If you have a system where entering into deadly melee combat is not really disincentivized that much in the first place (e.g. high encounter balance expectation, attrition has little effect on future battles, players make a new character at the same level if they die, etc.) and combat is already incentivized (because it's fun!) then you don't really need to reward it with XP. XP doesn't really do anything in this situation and is likely to feel superfluous*. OTOH, if combat is potentially highly damaging/costly, then you need to reward it with XP if you don't want PCs to be tiptoeing cautiously around it.

I don't necessarily want the players to be looking for combat, but I don't want them to be overcautious either. I do like to get my hack & slash on at times. So I want combat to be rewarded, probably more than in AD&D where monster XP is very small in comparison to the XP you get for finding gold and magic items. Last night in my AD&D game the players found a magical ring and brooch in a giant rat den worth 1000XP each. It feels kind of silly to be calculating 9 or 10 XP for each rat (in fact I got the sense that the magic item XP value actually felt over-large). I like the fact that most of the XP is goal-oriented, but I'd like a bit more compensatory XP both to make them a little less cautious and for the simulationist aspect of it (I would like to give XP for saving throws made and damage sustained, if there were an easy way to do that). Of course not enough to actually incentivize weird behavior like prolonging combat to get hit more and more (I used to do this playing the videogame Morrowind...).

Basically I like combat XP to be largely compensatory XP (XP as reward) on the way to something else providing XP as award. Although I do like the idea of some monsters giving award XP (where hunting and killing the monster is the goal). I perhaps could go for an explicit distinction between two types of monsters based on this.

One thing I don't much like is giving XP for different things depending on character or class. That's kind of anarchic, like different games are going on at the same time.

So reward vs. award: which do you think describes most of the XP flying around in your games and what sort of XP module would support it?

* People who don't use XP: is this why?

 

[howandwhy99]

One thing I don't much like is giving XP for different things depending on character or class. That's kind of anarchic, like different games are going on at the same time.

So reward vs. award: which do you think describes most of the XP flying around in your games and what sort of XP module would support it?

Experience points are neither awards nor rewards for me. They measure the amount of experience a character has for actions performed which demonstrate proficiency. XP gained during training is tracked separately and not called XP. A character is a fighter or a magic-user because they've reached they point through training to perform that class without penalties.

My XP is per character per class.

 

[MacMathan]

Good question.

In my current games we don't even count xp anymore and just level up when the DM feels it is appropriate to the story or AP. Much less book keeping that way.

Of the two you mention I think I would go with XP as award. Then the question becomes what do you award if for killing, defeat, circumvention, gold acquired, etc?

 

[BobTheNob]

Good question.

In my current games we don't even count xp anymore and just level up when the DM feels it is appropriate to the story or AP. Much less book keeping that way.

Of the two you mention I think I would go with XP as award. Then the question becomes what do you award if for killing, defeat, circumvention, gold acquired, etc?

Ditto here. Havent calc'd xp for years now and am never looking back. Since the modern convention is one xp advancement chart for all classes, characters (/should) level at about the same time, meaning XP is just bookkeeping. Much prefer to simply advance characters at the appropriate point in the campaign, removes an entire sub-system and gets you back into the game faster.

As for thought on your post...if I WAS using XP I would say XP as award every time. If you have to get past a pack of orcs, and you can engage or sneak, the XP is the same either way. I also say you might go to the local garrison and charm them into sending a patrol to clear the orcs, or climbing the mountain above their position to set off a landslide, or setting a wildfire around them. It doesnt matter HOW they choose to engage the challenge, the point is that they engage the challenge.

How hard they make it is entirely up to them, so this whole "reward vs award" is entirely irrelevent. Get over the challenge = XP award.

Combat is an option only...

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't believe your dichotomy is accurate.

I don't play with XP. I don't like it. It tends to lead to players looking for ways to generate more XP to further advance themselves. Which in turn leads to players going off on their own(not a bad thing) in spite of the party(the bad thing). I don't want Bob the rogue to go off trying to create an underground spy network because I previously rewarded Bill for establishing a militia in an under-defended town.

In my games, players advance because they have completed some important quest or achieved some great feat. Taking out XP in my experience enhances party cohesion, and doesn't promote artificially awarding higher levels of XP for "group activities". The achievements of the individual are the achievements of the group. The Bard wooing the king nets more loot of everyone, not merely himself. The group defeating an evil wizard while the thief was out sick still benefits the thief. The paladin finding a cure on his own for a deadly disease among the common folk benefits the group as much as it benefits the paladin himself.

I award titles, reputation, "renown", which all accumulate towards a certain point, and that point is leveling.

As long as there is a single XP chart for all characters, I see no need to pointlessly award XP values. "Defeat the wicked wizard of the watchtower and be wantonly rewarded by the wimpy king." translates into "one level" just as easily as it does "3000 XP".

Plus, this method allows me to value avoiding an encounter, or creative solutions to an encounter as just as valuable as the actual encounter itsself without bogging me down on how much each enemy was worth. Especially when I custom-build almost all my NPCs.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I disagree with "doing away with XP" - although you can if you choose, just keep XP in core.

XP is as much treasure (award) as gold and magic items. It's something your players are supposed to be earning, by playing the game. After years of playing 3rd ed (etc.) I've grown more dissatisfied with the Wealth-by-Level treasure entitlements, and I think I'd hate milestone-based levels just as much.

I suspect most of the old-school holdouts would agree on this point.

 

[Sadras]

The achievements of the individual are the achievements of the group.

I find this statement to be the most true in our campaigns, although we also award for failures (learning curve and all). We use a modified XP system which works well for the pace of the campaign I run. Characters are awarded XP equally for all achievements whether they were performed by individuals or the group.

5XP for using a power/item/skill in a unique/different/interesting/intelligent fashion, whether it was a success or failure.

5-10XP per good role-playing scene/moment, whether from NPC (humourous moment) or from the PC (being true to character) and its determined by the group. All this adds to the enjoyment of the session so it is rewarded.

10XP for learning something new about the campaign world (story, legend, spell, ritual..etc), or travelling/exploring a new major road/path for the 1st time, entering a town/city for the first time, meeting a prominent person - basically anything which increases the knowledge of the characters about the campaign world.

10XP for encountering a new monster (never faced before) and 5XP per knowledge gained about that monster whether it be through combat or other...for instance using a dragon as an example - it's claw attack, a white dragon's icewalk ability, experiencing/witnessing the beasts incredible strength to smash doors open (cincematic scenes), its breathweapon, tail slap, wing buffet..etc. This reflects the knowledge gained by the PCs so they will only get these XPs once off - not everytime they battle the same monster - unless the new monster utilised a different ability/power never experienced/witnessed before.

5-10XP for cinematic scenes - performing amazing feats which add to the storytelling of the session, even feats from antagonistic NPCs, as long as it contributes to the enjoyment of the session (bonus XP if you will)

15XP for completing side/minor quests.

40XP for completing major quests.

Its summation a character earns XP for knowledge gained whether they studied, explored, experienced or witnessed it as well as good roleplaying.
We keep record of it all on an excel doc which also acts as the characters' journal.

So XPs gained in a session can range anywhere between 150-600XPs per session it varies from session to session. It works and its quick and easy record keeping - and assists with failing memories

I think XPs are a great concept and an enjoyable aspect for players - they just havent been worked well in any of the editions. My opinion.

 

[The Shadow]

* People who don't use XP: is this why?

No. I don't use XP because it is a lot of work for no real benefit. Why bother with all sorts of subsystems to let you 'control pacing' when you can just control it directly by saying, "Okay, you guys all level," when you feel like it?

It's pretty much an entirely useless mechanic, IMO. A layer of attempted simulation that doesn't really accurately or interestingly simulate anything.

 

[Sadras]

No. I don't use XP because it is a lot of work for no real benefit. Why bother with all sorts of subsystems to let you 'control pacing' when you can just control it directly by saying, "Okay, you guys all level," when you feel like it?

It's pretty much an entirely useless mechanic, IMO. A layer of attempted simulation that doesn't really accurately or interestingly simulate anything.

I agree the current and past mechanics have been poorly constructed but that does not mean one cannot create an accurate and/or interesting simulation that works for them.

XPs are important for players because they represent rewards for good roleplaying contributions to a session and its always great to be noted for such contribution. For DMs sure they mean less, but not for players.

 

[dkyle]

I'm not entirely convinced that your dichotomy gets at the core splits in XP philosophies. I'm not sure that any (or at least, any significant proportion) of DMs intend for what you call "XP as Reward". If XP gets adjusted because a combat went badly, it's because the DM realized that the combat was nastier than expected and wants to "Award" more XP for overcoming that fight. I don't think many actively want to "make up for" bad things happening.

I'm not going to try to come up with an alternative dichotomy, but I do think that the most important thing about XP is that it is an incentive. And I think how "good" an XP system is, for a given campaign, should be based on whether it successfully incentivizes the activity and play style that the DM wants to encourage. In other words, the XP rules should be set up such that optimizing those rules produces the kinds of play the DM wants to see.

For example, if the DM doesn't want the players to go out and kill monsters purely for XP, the game should not focus on individual-monster XP rewards.

If the DM wants treasure hunting to be a major focus, then XP should be primarily loot-based. The XP might be granted for finding loot (as in original D&D), or might even be the loot itself, which is used up to level.

If the DM wants the players to focus on completing meaningful quests, then XP should be primarily quest-based.

If the DM wants to have a mechanical means to encourage "good roleplaying", then XP should be rewarded for roleplaying.

If the DM doesn't want the focus of the game to be on leveling (but still wants mechanical character progression over time), then XP has no point, and the DM should just have the characters level as he feels appropriate.