The many types of Sandboxes and Open-World Campaigns

[dragoner]

The issue is that you're not rewarding anything, nor are you incentivizing anything. Characters level up regardless of the risks they take or the things they accomplish.

Sure you are, that is the nature of an open game, they reward themselves.

 

[Yora]

Then why have XP at all?

 

[Reynard]

Then why have XP at all?

It would be interesting to combine gear only advancement with actual player experience knowledge advancement. For example, a milieu in which recipes are important. Players get the recipes by actually discovering them in game through combining components. Sure, some recipes might be able to be purchased, too, but they wouldn't just appear because you dinged.

 

[Aldarc]

Then why have XP at all?

Are you responding to my post or dragoner's?

 

[John R Davis]

The only problem with that approach is it assumes a pretty unitary speed-of-activity by people which I'm not sure is at all warranted.

Except it's not a problem as it works well IME

 

[Yora]

It would be interesting to combine gear only advancement with actual player experience knowledge advancement. For example, a milieu in which recipes are important. Players get the recipes by actually discovering them in game through combining components. Sure, some recipes might be able to be purchased, too, but they wouldn't just appear because you dinged.

Stalker works really well as an equipment only game. It doesn't have character stats or attributes at all.
But I'm not sure if a comparable granularity of accuracy, weapon damage, armor protection, and elemental resistances could translate into RPGs while being both noticable in action and practical to manage.

 

[payn]

XP are a deliberate metagame tool. They exist for the purpose of encouraging certain behavior and discouraging others. That is the whole point. Players doing whatever they feel like is not inherently desireable or good.
A good game is not all the things to all people. A good game has a focus. Rewards and incentives are a great tool to maintain focus in the campaign and staying within the campaign's premise. For one player it might be fun to play the game in whatever way seems most interesting at the moment, but when you have six people who are all interested in different things that doesn't really work. Also, in a campaign that is set up for a certain thing, the GM can prepare and create content accordingly. This becomes increasingly harder and less effective when the scope of the campaign is less defined. And when players can do anything, but nothing seems really pressing, it becomes hard to decide what to do to create new exciting situations.
A clear system that tells players "You'll always get rewarded for doing that thing" helps with all of that. It helps keeping thr campaign within its premise without having to set up invisible walls.

(That being said, D&D wants to be all things to all people and XP as a mechanic were copied over blindly out of tradition, without considering what they are supposed to incentivize.)

XP in D&D has always been so generic though. I dont drive game purpose (mystery, political intrigue, etc...) with the XP system. All those generic things are baked into the classes. The players use the abilities, skills, feats, etc.. to solve problems discover a way forward and drive the game. The purpose is derived through setting and campaign guide that the GM (I, or whoever) sets up for session zero.

I have used many Paizo adventure paths where they come up with contrived XP systems to try and accomplish this. Settlement systems, wagon train systems, library information systems, etc.. Almost universally they where ditched by GMs and tables because they were too one note. Players just hyper focus on what nets XP and lose sight of actually taking in the setting and adventure. The role play takes a back seat to the game mechanics.

The best way I can describe it is using XP is like watching a 70's TV show now, and not using XP is like watching a show thats made for audiences today.

 

[Aldarc]

Stalker works really well as an equipment only game. It doesn't have character stats or attributes at all.
But I'm not sure if a comparable granularity of accuracy, weapon damage, armor protection, and elemental resistances could translate into RPGs while being both noticable in action and practical to manage.

Is it really all that difficult? A lot of these things are typically locked in D&D style gaming behind the granularity of level progression, where a character may get bonuses to attributes, attacks, or acquire more powerful weapons and armor with gold. Index Card RPG, for example, typically offers a loot based method of progression, as opposed to level-based, where the items provide bonuses to PC stats or abilities.

 

[Yora]

That is true. It's one of the things specifically adressed in Philotomy's Musings:

One of OD&D's most distinctive qualities is its rules for handling ability bonuses, and its philosophy of bonuses, in general. Compared to later versions of the game, OD&D bonuses are uncommon. This means that a +1 bonus in OD&D is a bigger deal than a +1 bonus in B/X, BECM, AD&D, or 3E D&D; you need a truly significant advantage before receiving a +1 bonus (e.g. a magic sword). Consider that Str does not affect attack or damage rolls. Dex does not affect Armor Class. Dex does affect attack rolls with ranged attacks, but the largest bonuses you can receive from high Dex is +1. Et cetera.

 

[Guest 85555]

The issue is that you're not rewarding anything, nor are you incentivizing anything. Characters level up regardless of the risks they take or the things they accomplish.

but this can be very in keeping with an open sandbox. I don't use the approach for XP personally. I can see how it would be beneficial though if what you really want is a long term open sandbox campaign. The only real reward mechanism is people get rewarded for keeping the game going I suppose. But then they are free to choose to do what they want to do in the campaign itself, without having XP as a pressure to guide those choices. Which I think is about as open sandbox as you can get. They go on the adventure because they want to, or because the in setting rewards are worth the risk, but not because of a meta thing the player knows about that the character doesn't. Again I use XP that rewards things for the kinds of campaigns I like to run, but I see nothing wrong with not taking the XP as reward approach.