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

[Libramarian]

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?

I've realized that i do basically award XP for quests completed in 1e. I just consider the magic items or gold given by the NPC in exchange to be treasure and give XP for that.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

But at what time do they level up? XP in a nutshell takes it out of the DM's hands and make it up to the players when they level (to SOME extent, more or less depending on the amount of control the DM exerts in other aspects of the game), so they can feel a more personal sense of accomplishment for that.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

What if the reason the combat went worse than expected was because the players played poorly? If the game still gives additional XP, then that's xp as reward.

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.

I think you're missing part of the picture. Let's try it from the player's perspective: The goodness of an XP system is based on whether it offers the players a measurement of their playing skill (XP as award) or a fair exchange for and/or record of their trials and tribulations (XP as reward). If the players aren't playing to be challenged and display skill, or the aforementioned trials and tribulations are inherently enjoyable and don't require any incentive, then XP has no point.

 

[dkyle]

What if the reason the combat went worse than expected was because the players played poorly? If the game still gives additional XP, then that's xp as reward.

Sure, if a game worked that way, it would by what you describe as "XP as Reward". But what games work that way? Maybe some weird indie game that I haven't seen does, but more importantly, what edition of DnD works that way, since that's the primarily salient issue for 5E. And what DM actually thinks "oh wow, they really sucked at that and made tons of poor decisions; better give them more XP!".

I think you're missing part of the picture. Let's try it from the player's perspective: The goodness of an XP system is based on whether it offers the players a measurement of their playing skill (XP as award) or a fair exchange for and/or record of their trials and tribulations (XP as reward). If the players aren't playing to be challenged and display skill, or the aforementioned trials and tribulations are inherently enjoyable and don't require any incentive, then XP has no point.

If simply playing the game isn't fun for the players, then I doubt adding a "carrot" with XP is going to actually fix anything. XP should not be seen as a "reward" (or "award") for putting up with an unfun game. "Trials and tribulations" should be rough on the characters, not the players.

XP should be a matter of risk-vs-reward; a justification for why the characters do the risky things they do. Some games, XP isn't necessary for that equation. Story (or loot) rewards are enough.

 

[Glade Riven]

I suppose we can start using "achivements," like a Killtacular and a validation sticker to put on their character sheet if the fighter is lucky enough to cleave 5 kobolds in a row.

 

[Tovec]

We don't use XP at all.

As far as your *'d question. No, that is not at all the reason we don't use XP. We don't use it because it is another measure to keep track of, because it is often broken, inaccurate and arbitrary and because if you miss a session then you don't get XP and then fail to level when others do. We prefer that everyone levels together. We like a nice simple system in this regard and we prefer to let the DM say "ok you level" when he feels we should.

Now onto some of your other points.

XP as reward, by your description, seems to mean that they only get XP for risking their lives and winning.

XP as award, by your definition, is when they get XP for completing something or finding something. You example being finding treasure = XP.

My issue seems to stem from the fact that I don't want either to be true, at best I prefer a mix of the two. What is wrong with getting it for defeating a difficult situation but not killing a creature? What is wrong with not getting it when you find treasure but getting it when you find an important clue? XP is a carrot, it should be used as such. Especially difficult fights are the stick. I don't want my players to have to fight through the gruesome labyrinth in order to think they qualify for XP. If that is the kind of game we are playing then bully, but there will certainly be other reasons for them to want to brave the labyrinth instead of XP rewards.

Also specific issues...

Did you mean 1000GP instead of 1000XP? Is the ring worth 1000XP or is the rat den? I'm confused.

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...).

And with this example

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.

It seems as though your example is flawed for your reasoning.

"XP as reward pays an hourly wage." would seem to be much closely tied to "promotions" and "XP as award pays on commission" meaning it occurs when X happens which would be "medal for being wounded in action".

 

[Doug McCrae]

We haven't used xp in our D&D games for many years. We level up automatically, every 1-3 sessions (depending on the DM). I think the main reason we level up at all isn't either as an award or reward, it's because it's traditional in rpgs, the players like and expect it, and because it changes the scope of the game.

I dislike xp for the same reason I dislike encumbrance, and keeping track of money, ammunition, and provisions. To me, all of these are just fiddly arithmetic that adds little or nothing to the play experience. They're fine for people who enjoy arithmetic, which I suspect includes many rpgers.

Furthermore, I don't really like the way most rpgs handle character growth at all - ie fairly slow, but steady, leading to the PCs becoming significantly more powerful. I prefer it if PCs start off as capable as they'll ever be, and don't change after that. I admit that this view is not at all popular, even amongst my own group.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd have used the terms simulationist and gamist.

Gamist xp is xp as award. Gamism means challenging the players. If the players meet the challenge, they get xp. If they exceed it, they get xp faster. If they fail, they don't get any xp.

Simulationist xp is characters in the fictional world getting better at tasks by performing them, receiving training, or thru study. Some systems grant xp for each success, in others a character learns more from failure. It doesn't matter, the point is that this is more realistic than xp as award. I'm not sure if this is quite the same as your xp as reward, but it seems pretty close.

Gary Gygax discusses this distinction on page 85 of the 1e DMG, when he defends 1e's gamist xp/xp as award -

Note: Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

 

[Lanefan]

I sort of think I would define the terms "award" and "reward" in this case about directly opposite to their use in the OP. That said, to me XP are a character-based reward for what the character does and-or achieves in the game.

XP are not a player reward - you don't get XP if you bring extra snacks, but your character does get XP even if you're not there to play it, if it does something in the game.

We don't use [XP] because it is another measure to keep track of, because it is often broken, inaccurate and arbitrary and because if you miss a session then you don't get XP

Why?

and then fail to level when others do. We prefer that everyone levels together.

If that's your group's preference, more power to ya. But there are so many possible reasons for characters not all levelling together...

- some characters had no participation in something (e.g. sleeping through a night encounter that those on watch deal with)
- one or more characters do something on the side (e.g. an Assassin does a "job" in town while the party otherwise takes a break)
- one or more characters skips an entire adventure for whatever reason
- some characters cycle in and out of the party while others are constant members
- level loss (pre-4e)
- variable progression rates (pre-3e)
- new characters join at a lower level than the party average

...that it makes no sense to arbitrarily level 'em all up together.

Lanefan

 

[Tovec]

I sort of think I would define the terms "award" and "reward" in this case about directly opposite to their use in the OP. That said, to me XP are a character-based reward for what the character does and-or achieves in the game.

XP are not a player reward - you don't get XP if you bring extra snacks, but your character does get XP even if you're not there to play it, if it does something in the game.
Why? If that's your group's preference, more power to ya. But there are so many possible reasons for characters not all levelling together...

- some characters had no participation in something (e.g. sleeping through a night encounter that those on watch deal with)
- one or more characters do something on the side (e.g. an Assassin does a "job" in town while the party otherwise takes a break)
- one or more characters skips an entire adventure for whatever reason
- some characters cycle in and out of the party while others are constant members
- level loss (pre-4e)
- variable progression rates (pre-3e)
- new characters join at a lower level than the party average

...that it makes no sense to arbitrarily level 'em all up together.

Lanefan

We don't use XP for the reason I gave but it also has to do with the type of games we run. We play campaigns lasting around 8 months with a game every week at a set time. We play at campus with a group of university students. For a variety of reasons it is not always feasible for everyone to show up to every session. When that happens, and the group levels, it sucks to be the person left behind. Some groups do operate this way but given the rather quick pace in which we level being that odd man out starts to hamper your ability to contribute to the party. This in turn leads to them dying off, killing themselves or quitting the game more often than not. In order to increase the people in the game, happy and playing we usually have it that everyone levels together. At best some people may end up getting a level (on the outside 2 levels) ahead or behind but those are less common than the whole. It also provides a situation that weaker gamers still level or that they still level as quickly as others even if they were unable to contribute as much.

I'm not saying other styles are not appropriate, I only mean to say that for us we prefer when the group levels together and that the DM tells us when to level. It keeps us happy and on track and gaming instead of taking care of XP amounts and referring to the XP table to see when we should level. I HAVE played in games with XP but found them to be less intuitive than the games without.

My original post also pointed out that THESE were the reasons why we don't use XP, which was the asterisked question. Cheers

Tov-"don't call me Mr. Spock"-ec