What does XP mean to you?

[Rothe]

What do experience points mean to you?

....

Since I think XP is effectively a metagame construct that exists purely for the purposes of the game, I mostly divorce it from character actions. I don’t use the “PC by CR” calculation system and PCs get a fixed number of XP per session, usually about 1000, modified up or down depending on when I want them to level up. It’s irrespective of what the characters do in the session. I figure the XP gain is only there so that the PCs can advance in level after a while, so it makes sense to me to keep it occurring at a rate which is conducive for me to run the game. If it weren’t for the fact that many PCs are creating items and doing things that use up XP, I’d have dropped it altogether. And next time I run a campaign (this one’s over a year old and has gone from 3rd-9th lvl), I’ll probably drop XP altogether and find a way to handle everything in the campaign that uses XP some other way (probably stealing from Piratecat’s use of action pts).

I’ve found some serious benefits to this approach to XP. Not only does it save me a lot of time, but it makes my players think about combat a lot more like their characters do. Since combat provides no OOC benefit (namely, XP), the only reason for getting into combat is because the characters think it’s a good idea, and they’re much more likely to consider other options than they would in a game using standard XP gain methods. I also avoid all the debates I see on these boards about situations where the DM isn’t sure how much XP the PCs deserve. All in all, I don’t think I’ll ever use the standard XP awarding system again.

.....

So, that’s my take on the subject. What do you think of XP and how do you award it?

I pretty much agree on your approach. I don't like to award a fixed amount per adventure (rather letting the PCs actions determine the amount the gain) but I also don't want xp=killing. I award xp for "overcoming" an encounter, which includes many things besides combat. For example, if the party sneaks past a room full of monsters they get xp as if they had defeated them in battle, likewise if they succesfully parley their way past them. Having to actually fight and kill them is not needed, but "facing" and overcoming the danger is. I'll also award xp bonus for achieving certain goals or tasks in the dungeon. Similar I guess to a role playing award but less subjective in that if you accomplish x you get a certain number of xp. The subjective part of course comes in what x is and the relative reward .

 

[Mallus]

What's XP mean to me as a DM? Not much. I don't see it as a reward at all anymore. For all intents and purposes, XP simply accrues over time, which is how you do it, right Shil?

What is XP a reward for? If you effectively can't fail to receive an reward (and I've never seen XP bonuses or penalties given for play amount to much in terms of overall XP total), is it really a reward? Or then its a reward to play itself, regardless of character actions.

XP is just a rough, relative measure of character abilities which in turn describes opponents and their abilities.

I've come to the point where I don't like to reward certain types of play. It's too discriminatory, at least when I do it. Honestly, I can't tell you what 'good' or 'smart' play is, not even with the pretense of objectivity. I'd reward the style of play I enjoy. Case closed. So I stop handing out bonus XP completely. In my game, everyone has the same XP total, regardless of whether they die, switch characters, etc.

I try to stress that playing the game is its own reward.

Why do I even bother with XP at all? I don't know. I could just as easily inform players when they level up. And to be clear, PC's level up because the inevitable rise to superherodom is a default assumption in D&D. Characters don't hone their skills so much as leave humanity entirely behind and become some kind of treasure-obsessed ubermenches .

 

[MarkB]

What's XP mean to me as a DM? Not much. I don't see it as a reward at all anymore. For all intents and purposes, XP simply accrues over time, which is how you do it, right Shil?

What is XP a reward for? If you effectively can't fail to receive an reward (and I've never seen XP bonuses or penalties given for play amount to much in terms of overall XP total), is it really a reward? Or then its a reward to play itself, regardless of character actions.

I'm not following you at all here. If characters successfully overcome a challenge, they're awarded XP for it. If they fail to overcome the challenge, they don't get XP. Particularly spectacular success may earn extra XPs, and partial successes may earn a portion of the available XP reward.

How does that equate to "you effectively can't fail to receive a reward"? And how is it unclear what you're being rewarded for?

 

[Mallus]

If they fail to overcome the challenge, they don't get XP. Particularly spectacular success may earn extra XPs, and partial successes may earn a portion of the available XP reward.

For one thing, the rules assume that PC's will overcome the challenge. Character survival is pretty close to the default assumption. Though you a lot of people play differently.

For another, its my experience that players never fail to earn XP for a session. There always seems to be a default amount of XP for simply playing. Spectacular success or particularly amusing role-playing might net you a little more XP, but not a signifigant amount. In other words, the XP reward is divorced from player actions in play. That's my practical experience of the game.

And how is it unclear what you're being rewarded for?

'Overcoming a challenge' means different things to different players in different situations.

 

[Ciaran]

For one thing, the rules assume that PC's will overcome the challenge. Character survival is pretty close to the default assumption. Though you a lot of people play differently.

False dichotomy. You can fail to overcome a challenge without dying.

 

[MarkB]

For one thing, the rules assume that PC's will overcome the challenge. Character survival is pretty close to the default assumption. Though you a lot of people play differently.

"Overcoming the challenge" and "dying" are not the only two options. If an encounter is too challenging, the party may simply have to retreat - or if there's a specific goal they're aiming for, they may fail to achieve it without ever being in any great mortal peril.

For another, its my experience that players never fail to earn XP for a session. There always seems to be a default amount of XP for simply playing. Spectacular success or particularly amusing role-playing might net you a little more XP, but not a signifigant amount. In other words, the XP reward is divorced from player actions in play. That's my practical experience of the game.

It's certainly not mine. In most of the groups I play in, XP is tracked by encounters successfully completed, and if you don't complete a challenge, you aren't awarded for it. I have played in campaigns where characters were awarded simply for the players showing up, but these have been the exception, not the rule.

'Overcoming a challenge' means different things to different players in different situations.

True, but it's the DM who gets to make the definition, as he's the one doing the awarding.

 

[shilsen]

What's XP mean to me as a DM? Not much. I don't see it as a reward at all anymore. For all intents and purposes, XP simply accrues over time, which is how you do it, right Shil?

Pretty much.

I've come to the point where I don't like to reward certain types of play. It's too discriminatory, at least when I do it. Honestly, I can't tell you what 'good' or 'smart' play is, not even with the pretense of objectivity. I'd reward the style of play I enjoy. Case closed. So I stop handing out bonus XP completely. In my game, everyone has the same XP total, regardless of whether they die, switch characters, etc.

That's another reason why I effectively dropped the "XP for <insert here>" approach and especially not "roleplaying XP". I do enough grading as a teacher to not want to do so as a DM, and awarding XP for certain achievements is effectively the same.

I try to stress that playing the game is its own reward.

Same here. That's why PCs get the same XP whether the player is present or not. The way I figure it, the player has already been penalized enough by missing out on the sublime experience of playing in a session of my game

Why do I even bother with XP at all? I don't know.

Considering the way you handle item creation, I really don't know why either. I'm beginning to think you just like playing with those numbers.

I could just as easily inform players when they level up. And to be clear, PC's level up because the inevitable rise to superherodom is a default assumption in D&D. Characters don't hone their skills so much as leave humanity entirely behind and become some kind of treasure-obsessed ubermenches .

Treasure-obsessed? Come on, you've met Meiji! Obsessive, maybe, but treasure isn't the focus thereof.

 

[Mallus]

"Overcoming the challenge" and "dying" are not the only two options.

I know, but I was thinking of the simplest case; players vs. monster(s). That doesn't change the fact that in the standard implementation of the ruleset, player characters are suppose to face a steady stream of winnable challenges that yield XP. Which is effectively the same thing as shil's set XP per session played in.

If a 'typical' encounter is supposed to use up %25 of the parties reasources, and a 'typical' session consists of 3-4 encounters, its not much of leap to simply award XP per session.

The XP game is rigged. Its assumed players will encounter sources of it, ie an unlikely procession of events and encounters in which to play hero. And its equally assumed they'll overcome obstacles thrown at them, since the game is set-up to facilitate long-term serial campaings. That's why I don't see it as a reward, its just a product of play that get discussed as if it were a reward, becuase doing so it that language heightens (some) players enjoyment of the game by increasing their sense of accomplishment.

I have played in campaigns where characters were awarded simply for the players showing up, but these have been the exception, not the rule.

I could say I reward players for actively participating in my campaign. I don't have anybody who 'just shows up'. I'm lucky like that...

True, but it's the DM who gets to make the definition, as he's the one doing the awarding.

Sure. But that very quickly turns into me awarding more XP to players who play like me, or who manage to entertain me most during the session. And that gets compounded by the kind of challenges I like to throw at players; situations in which the winning/losing conditions
are fluid. I think making a situation more interesting is just as valid a source of XP as merely overcoming it. And changing your goals on fly is just as good as clearly acheiving them...

 

[ThirdWizard]

I agree with Mallus, in that I know before the session starts, as the DM, pretty much which challenges the PCs will overcome and which will be too much for them to handle. I bet my projected XP per session if I tried to figure it out beforehand would be very close to the actual XP that the PCs get during the session.

So, in that sense, XP is not much of a reward and more of whatever the DM wants it to be anyway. If I wanted XP to be low, it would be. If I wanted it to be high, it would be. I'm not saying that the PCs have nothing to do with it, but the DM has more to do with it. In actuallity, I never actually look at the XP values for stuff when designing, but I'm still in more control than the PCs.

So, to me XP is the marker. It allows the PCs to have a general idea when they'll level up next. I think we're used to about 2000 xp per session, give or take 500 or so, lately. So, we can pretty easily figure out how many sessions until level up.

 

[MarkB]

I know, but I was thinking of the simplest case; players vs. monster(s). That doesn't change the fact that in the standard implementation of the ruleset, player characters are suppose to face a steady stream of winnable challenges that yield XP.

Actually, strictly by the DMG (page 49), the party should be running into a variety of encounters ranging from Easy to Overpowering.

If a 'typical' encounter is supposed to use up %25 of the parties reasources, and a 'typical' session consists of 3-4 encounters, its not much of leap to simply award XP per session.

Sure, if all your encounters happen to be 'typical'. But in a more varied game, where 'typical' is just a rough midpoint amidst challenges of widely varying nature and difficulty, it might be nice to make your awards a little more individual too.

The XP game is rigged. Its assumed players will encounter sources of it, ie an unlikely procession of events and encounters in which to play hero. And its equally assumed they'll overcome obstacles thrown at them, since the game is set-up to facilitate long-term serial campaings.

Again you're assuming "succeed or die". I've seen campaigns where the party were driven back from the objective of their quest multiple times before finally winning through, and others where they were competing against villainous NPCs who would get to a particular goal before them on several occasions. Even in campaigns where the party has generally been successful there have been some things they didn't do as well as they could have done, which cost them XP. A campaign can easily survive over the long term without consisting of a long series of unmitigated successes.

This just seems to be a matter of differing playing styles. If you're used to games in which the PCs never actually fail, I can see how you'd start seeing XP as automatic. But in campaigns which hold the possibility of characters trying, failing, and still living to try again, that failure will reduce the XP earned, which will in turn highlight the fact that it is a reward.