Is there a Relationship between Game Lethality and Role Play?

[Ariosto]

There's a difference between players setting their own goals (whether with treasure or with something else as an "XP token") and the DM determining for them what "the story" is.

If players don't get to choose the source of "story awards", then we're back to where we were with treasure: Attainments of role-playing goals are not necessarily rewarded with XP.

In my experience, people who want to engage in intrigues, romances, etc., do so regardless of whether it helps gain levels -- which are pretty irrelevant to such pursuits anyway. ("Now I'm the equal of five normal men at killing goblins! That's going to help me become the kingdom's top fashion designer!")

People who are not interested in such pursuits tend not to have their fun improved by the coercion of holding XP hostage. A game of competing for the most over-the-top thespian performance tends to rub very much the wrong way folks who came expecting to play D&D, not American Idol.

A common goal (such as glorious treasure, whether plunder or bounty) enables characters to team up even if they share no other objectives. It can also establish a theme for the campaign -- which in old D&D was "sword and sorcery". In that context, braving perils and exploring is simply what adventurers do; it's not the utility of the Emerald Eye of Enire that chiefly matters, any more than that of the peak of Mount Everest, the headwaters of the Nile, or the ruins of Troy.

 

[Barastrondo]

There's a difference between players setting their own goals (whether with treasure or with something else as an "XP token") and the DM determining for them what "the story" is.

I don't think a story XP award system has to imply one or the other, though. If you see the lack of explicitness before the fact as a problem, then yes, you do kind of have to have the DM be determining the narrative early in order to map out its rewards. But at its heart, the story award is essentially a way for rewarding PCs for hitting narrative milestones. It might be useful to define specific milestones in advance, particularly if you're writing an adventure for publication, but in my experience it's not necessary for homebrew adventure. Everyone pretty much knows one when they see it. If the game's lively, they emerge naturally.

You can run the risk of the DM determining priorities for the players with any XP system. Tying it to treasure or combat is essentially the DM saying "This is what's important." I think story awards are probably the closest current thing to an experience system that is genuinely emergent, though even then it's a ways off.

In my experience, people who want to engage in intrigues, romances, etc., do so regardless of whether it helps gain levels -- which are pretty irrelevant to such pursuits anyway. ("Now I'm the equal of five normal men at killing goblins! That's going to help me become the kingdom's top fashion designer!")

Very dependent on system. Even using the "top fashion designer" stereotype, in 3rd edition or 3.5 D&D, absolutely being the equivalent of five normal men at killing goblins would make you better at Profession: Fashion Design. But remember, also there are story goals like "kill my father" (what if he's powerful?), "establish more influence for my royal house" (being a powerful hero might well be relevant), and so on.

People who are not interested in such pursuits tend not to have their fun improved by the coercion of holding XP hostage. A game of competing for the most over-the-top thespian performance tends to rub very much the wrong way folks who came expecting to play D&D, not American Idol.

Agreed, though it cuts both ways: people who are not interested in racking up the treasure tend not to have their fun improved by the coercion of holding XP hostage for that, too — only the game is "The Price is Right," not "American Idol." As always, knowing (and respecting) what your players like about the game is going to be key at not making them feel like they have to jump through your favorite hoops to get a feeling of advancement.

A common goal (such as glorious treasure, whether plunder or bounty) enables characters to team up even if they share no other objectives. It can also establish a theme for the campaign -- which in old D&D was "sword and sorcery". In that context, braving perils and exploring is simply what adventurers do; it's not the utility of the Emerald Eye of Enire that chiefly matters, any more than that of the peak of Mount Everest, the headwaters of the Nile, or the ruins of Troy.

Oh yeah, common goals are highly useful. But even back in the old days, not everyone was playing the game for a "sword and sorcery" theme. With high fantasy as a highly effective gateway drug, people came to it with that attitude, and weren't necessarily weaned off it by other mechanics. Exploration is a great theme, and I've had a lot of fun games messing with it — but if players want to be proactively creative, exploration in and of itself isn't the greatest theme for them. It's too reliant on what the DM has prepared. D&D can do other themes like intrigue or romantic adventure (which can be very Ruggiero and Bradamante instead of Harlequin) quite nicely.

Me, I tend to look at lethality and XP awards as dials to be fiddled with as the dynamics and tastes of the gaming group emerge. Of course, when I offer to run a new D&D game, usually it takes the form of a few specific pitches (Arabian corsairs; political exiles in an underground ruin; weird clans who live in a tremendous labyrinth; Celtic otherworld adventures). Once they've picked one and hashed out concepts, I tend to know just how traditional or non-traditional the game will wind up being. It's a compliment to the game that versatility like that can be implemented.

 

[Ariosto]

Of course it cuts both ways, and there are other possible common goals -- even within the scope of D&D to which I referred. If one wants a "war story" then the body-count emphasis in 2E and 3E may be just the thing.

The DM "determining the narrative" is just the opposite of what I would call letting players choose their goals.

But look here: Traveller has none of that XP and level power trip built in. If you want to hone a skill, you get training and practice for years.

The skills system in Chaosium's RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, etc., is finer grained -- but again training and practice are the determinants.

Romance in itself does not make one a better swordsman (although the duels it occasions might, if one survives and learns from one's mistakes).

 

[Barastrondo]

But look here: Traveller has none of that XP and level power trip built in. If you want to hone a skill, you get training and practice for years.

The skills system in Chaosium's RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, etc., is finer grained -- but again training and practice are the determinants.

Romance in itself does not make one a better swordsman (although the duels it occasions might, if one survives and learns from one's mistakes).

Sure, but if the system at hand doesn't decouple skill and aptitude from combat enhancement entirely, you're going to run into the problem of having to be a better swordsman to, say, forge the world's best sword. HERO System decouples such things nicely; I've watched my wife spend 125 XP like water and become only slightly more combat-effective, while her skills list grows remarkably. Level-based systems are by their nature less agile in that regard.

4E has some interesting wrinkles on that solution. I actually think their deemphasis on fantasy realism and stronger emphasis on simulation of narrative convention makes the whole "get XP for non-combat activities, become a better fighter" more appropriate. Hit points and attack skill rise as you become more narratively significant, in a way: more of a protagonist, therefore more likely to survive dramatic situations.

Which suits me fine. If players want to say their power gains come from deep introspection, rigorous training, a strengthening deific relationship or renewed inspiration from the face of their beloved, they can do any or all of that. Maybe Romeo "levels up" after the death of Mercutio because it's a dramatic milestone, and that gives him the edge he needs to kill Tybalt. The audience sees newfound determination, and the mechanics reflect that with a level. I enjoy that kind of reskinning of mechanics to play a lot of different kinds of game with one system.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't think a story XP award system has to imply one or the other, though. If you see the lack of explicitness before the fact as a problem, then yes, you do kind of have to have the DM be determining the narrative early in order to map out its rewards. But at its heart, the story award is essentially a way for rewarding PCs for hitting narrative milestones. It might be useful to define specific milestones in advance, particularly if you're writing an adventure for publication, but in my experience it's not necessary for homebrew adventure. Everyone pretty much knows one when they see it. If the game's lively, they emerge naturally.

Many years ago we took out the ExP-for-treasure rule from our 1e game and replaced it, to a small extent, with what we call "dungeon bonus", given out at the end of each identifyable adventure or mission. The size of bonus varies widely depending on mission, party level, etc., and within the party it varies usually on time spent in the party within that adventure...if you joined halfway through, you get half dungeon bonus, for example. If you died, missed some adventuring, then came back, you'd get a partial bonus. And so on.

This accomplishes several things at once:
- it defines the end or completion of a mission or adventure
- it presents a metagame reason for trying to finish the mission rather than bail on it, and for trying not to die
- in a broad-brush way it covers off the little tiny things I'd otherwise have to give out small amounts of ExP for (picking locks, finding campsites, trivial interactions, etc.)
- in a small way it replaces the ExP that otherwise would have come from treasure; at very roughly about a 1-in-10 ratio.

Lanefan

 

[Ariosto]

The XP factor might -- when it is present -- weigh more than lethality, but we've got to keep it in context. In old D&D, getting home with the loot is a "narrative milestone". It's the completion of the goal, and that -- not trifling over so many points for this or that incident along the way -- is where the focus lies. There's a lot of elbow room for keeping treasure as a token, because it can be come by in so many ways. It need not even all go into the character's coffers (and indeed cannot in the case of a paladin or ranger). Almost anything for which heroes might quest will do. It could be a medicinal leaf from a tree, a Word to open a door, a treaty between two nations. Again, the precise means by which the goal is achieved is irrelevant -- what matters is that the attainment be a worthy challenge.

What I have seen is that high-level characters, although quite able to fight a lot, do not balk at quests requiring other methods. That they can survive some otherwise deadly mistakes gives confidence in dealing with intellectual puzzles that are potential traps. They have access to magic capable of doing things more interesting than killing.

"When all you have is a hammer ... !" If combat is the most interesting thing to do, then players are likely to want to do a lot of it.

It is perhaps also notable, though, that it takes a LOT of XP (e.g., a quarter million for a fighter) to gain each new level. Where that might once have been a roughly monthly (real time) event, now it might take a year of play. For non-spell-casters, even gaining levels becomes mechanically a bit lackluster eventually. So, more immediate gratification may be more significant.

 

[Barastrondo]

Many years ago we took out the ExP-for-treasure rule from our 1e game and replaced it, to a small extent, with what we call "dungeon bonus", given out at the end of each identifyable adventure or mission. The size of bonus varies widely depending on mission, party level, etc., and within the party it varies usually on time spent in the party within that adventure...if you joined halfway through, you get half dungeon bonus, for example. If you died, missed some adventuring, then came back, you'd get a partial bonus. And so on.

That's a clever idea, and I must admit "dungeon bonus" is fun to say. My current D&D game is fairly player-driven, with adventures and missions bleeding into one another (and finding a town to sell loot and buy beer would be almost the capstone of the campaign), but if I were doing something more traditional, I'd be tempted to swipe it.