What Is an Experience Point Worth?

It seems like a simple question, but the way you answer it may, in effect, determine the metaphysics of your game. Many RPGs use some sort of "experience point" system to model growth and learning. The progenitor of this idea is, of course, Dungeons & Dragons; the Experience Point (XP) system has been a core feature of the game from the beginning.

View attachment 88552​

Yet what exactly an experience point is remains unclear.

Think about it: can anyone earn an XP under the right circumstances? Or must one possess a class? If so, what qualifies an individual for a class? The 1st-edition Dungeon Master’s Guide specifies that henchmen earn 50 percent of the group’s XP award. In other words, they get a full share awarded, but then only "collect" half the share. Where does the other half go? Did it ever exist in the first place?

These esoteric questions were highlighted for me recently when I recreated a 20-year-old D&D character from memory for a new campaign I’m playing in. All I could remember of this character from my high school days was her race and class (half-elf Bladesinger, because I liked the cheese, apparently) and that the campaign fizzled out after only a handful of sessions. If I made it to level 2 back then, I couldn’t rightly say.

I asked my Dungeon Master (DM)—the same fellow who had run the original game for me back in the days of the Clinton administration—whether I could start a level ahead, or at least with a randomly-determined amount of XP (say, 200+2D100). Being the stern taskmaster that he is, he shot down both suggestions, saying instead that I’d be starting at 0 XP and at level 1, just like the rest of the party. As justification, he said that my character had amassed 0 XP for this campaign.

As the character probably only had a few hundred XP to her name to begin with, I let the matter slide. But it did get me thinking: do Experience Points only exist within the context of individual campaigns? Was my DM onto something?

This sort of thinking can in turn lead down quite a rabbit hole. Are classes themselves an arbitrary construct? Do they exist solely for players, or are non-player characters (NPCs) also capable of possessing classes and levels? Different editions of D&D have presented different interpretations of this question, from essentially statting up all NPCs as monsters, with their own boutique abilities (as in the earliest iterations of the game), to granting NPCs levels in "non-adventuring classes" (the famous 20th-level Commoner of 3rd-edition days).

The current edition of D&D has come back around to limiting classes and XP awards to player-characters only—which brings us back to our original question: are Experience Points, like character classes, meant to function solely as an abstract game mechanic, or are they an objective force within the game world? How do you, the reader at home, treat XP in your campaigns?

contributed by David Larkins

 

[Jhaelen]

The fact remains that we don't have an internationally-recognized bureau of standards for designating what is and is-not an RPG. As such, it remains up for debate, unless there's universal consensus. Which there isn't, because I disagree with you.

Funny. I was just going to point out, there'll never be universal agreement, because _you_ disagree

Allow me to point out that there is absolutely _nothing_ that is _literally_ universally agreed on. It's absolutely sufficient if a significantly large part of a relevant group with a shared interest agrees. Not only are 13th Age and Fate RPGs, they're also some of the best RPGs on the market. Your disagreement does absolutely nothing to change that, just like a single person's disagreement about the existence of gravity doesn't cause everyone to float up into space!

 

[pemerton]

The evils of meta-gaming are over-rated in my opinion.

Agreed.

But the weird thing about this discussion is that it is not about player metagaming - which has a long tradition of attracting suspicion among RPGer - but GM metagaming, which is objected to by Gygaxian skill-oriented RPGers (see eg Lewis Pulsipher's essays in early White Dwarf), but has never been objected to on the grounds [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] advances by anyone but Saelorn, to the best of my knowledge.

If the players ignore the beggar on the street, who has a vital clue, there is no sin in getting that clue to the players in another way. Having the story grind to a halt is way worse. And no, this is not railroading, because what the players choose to do is still entirely up to them.

What you are describing is very heavy on the simulationist end of the spectrum.

Influenced by The Forge, I would regard the sort of RPGing in which there are "vital clues" that the GM has to get to the players as also simulationist - the players explore not a setting or a character but a story written by the GM. Personally I do regard this as a form of railroading, because the outcome - PCs learn vital clue to this important matter - is written by the GM independently of play.

the "narrative snobs" might very well accuse you of being not a true role player!

I don't know if I count as a "narrative snob", but personally what I prefer in RPGing is much closer to what The Forge calls "story now" or (less perspicuously) "narrativism".

 

[Arilyn]

You might be surprised in how much that text actually does vary between games. Suffice it to say that many RPG-adjacent games incorrectly believe that they are RPGs, and conveniently redefine the medium so that they are still included. Such is life in a hobby without unifying oversight.
Impractical for whom? As long as we can distinguish between actual games where you role-play as a character within an objective world, and other games where you tell a story about a character within a narrative construct, the definition is doing its job.

Oh the text is pretty much the same...There are differences later, if the rules are discussed.

Incorrectly believe they are rpgs? That's just funny.

Saelorn, there must be very few rpgs out there, if we follow your very narrow view of true role-playing. And there must be a lot of very confused designers who don't realize that they are not actually creating role playing games...

 

[Arilyn]

Agreed.

But the weird thing about this discussion is that it is not about player metagaming - which has a long tradition of attracting suspicion among RPGer - but GM metagaming, which is objected to by Gygaxian skill-oriented RPGers (see eg Lewis Pulsipher's essays in early White Dwarf), but has never been objected to on the grounds [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] advances by anyone but Saelorn, to the best of my knowledge.

Influenced by The Forge, I would regard the sort of RPGing in which there are "vital clues" that the GM has to get to the players as also simulationist - the players explore not a setting or a character but a story written by the GM. Personally I do regard this as a form of railroading, because the outcome - PCs learn vital clue to this important matter - is written by the GM independently of play.

I don't know if I count as a "narrative snob", but personally what I prefer in RPGing is much closer to what The Forge calls "story now" or (less perspicuously) "narrativism".

Yes, and even Gygax encouraged players to add interesting sites to the GM map. At least sometimes. Gygax was inconsistent. Arneson, I suspect engaged in all kinds of meta-gaming.

To me, railroading is when player choices don't matter. The GM has decided that the priceless artefact will be stolen, for example, no matter how clever and/or careful the players are. Another form of railroading would be telling the players how their characters react or feel. One GM threw an ex-husband at me I didn't even know existed. That was annoying. (An in-game npc, he wasn't throwing actual men at me..)

I enjoy playing through a story designed by the GM, as long as the player choices matter. When I GM, I come up with the plot and what will happen if the players don't interfere. Of course they do interfere, and then the story can go in a myriad of different directions.

I enjoy your style of gaming too, and have actually been experimenting with GMing in that style more lately. It can be a lot of fun to just see what develops. I just need to gain a little more confidence that I can manage things. Did have a long PF campaign once, almost entirely driven by player character backstory and drives. Got really convoluted and interesting. Was a ton of fun, so I get you.

Wasn't accusing you of snobbery! There's snobs on both ends, though, which I find amusing. Lots of great ideas came out of The Forge. Game philosophy is very interesting, and all the many ways our hobby grew and evolved from those original little books, which didn't even have the words role playing in or on them is fascinating.

 

[Lanefan]

These two sentences are in contradiction. If the first sentence is true, then either (i) the game is about rescuing elves, or (ii) there is no game; hence (i) whatever game there is is about rescuing elves. So whatever happens in the shared fiction, it's going to pertain to the rescuing of elves. The scope of "something else entirely" seems to extent to trying but failing to rescue the elves.

Yes Saelorn's sentences seem to contradict each other, but I kinda think I see what he's getting at.

At session 0 he-as-DM says something like "The basic idea I've got here to start with is the rescue of some Elves - keep that in mind while generating your characters - and we'll see what happens after that." I might say something similar at the start of a campaign. But - and here's the key - as DM I know full well (and I think from his second sentence Saelorn also knows) that once the puck drops and the players get going that I might very quickly find myself in react mode e.g. when by session 3 they've in-character decided the poncy Elves aren't worth bothering with (no reward is worth this!) and are instead headed to the coast to jump on a ship and see where it takes them.

When they throw me a curveball I have to react to it. A railroady DM would react by saying or enforcing something like "you can't do that, you have to rescue the Elves". A not-so-railroady DM would react by simply reacting neutrally to what the players (in character) do. They go to the coast? DM the trip to the coast - that's what your regional or national map is for. They want to get on a ship and sail into the sunset? DM them finding a ship and sailing into the sunset. They want to go and beat people up in a waterfront tavern? DM that...and then DM the consequences.

Neutrally reacting doesn't make the game world any less the DM's. The DM is going to be the one determining - probably by a somewhat random roll in all cases, taking any relevant skills etc. into account - what and how many ships are in port, how long it takes to get passage on one (or buy one outright), what the weather does once they leave harbour, and how good their navigation is. It's even possible the DM has already made notes on what ships are in port...who knows? But it's not the players' place to be determining any of these things, it's the DM's; forced in this case by the unexpected decision of the players/characters. What the players have to do is react, preferably in character, to the world presented to them.

Not only are 13th Age and Fate RPGs, they're also some of the best RPGs on the market.

I know nothing about Fate beyond what I've read on these forums, but I think that might be the first and only time I've ever seen anyone write anything positive about it. 13th Age, on the other hand, I've seen all kinds of positive things about.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

When I GM, I come up with the plot and what will happen if the players don't interfere. Of course they do interfere, and then the story can go in a myriad of different directions.

Exactly.

I also come up with the actual adventure modules or homebrews I can string together to make up said plot, again in isolation of player interference, knowing full well I'll be lucky to end up running half of them. That said, I more or less know my players - and with that knowledge comes the realization that while they'll sometimes do their own thing and take things seriously sideways, there'll be other times when the game will grind to a complete halt unless I put on the engineer's cap and start the locomotive. It's not seen as that big a deal by either they* or me as long as there's a game every week.

* - or if it is, I never hear about it.

Lanefan

 

[darkbard]

Neutrally reacting doesn't make the game world any less the DM's. The DM is going to be the one determining - probably by a somewhat random roll in all cases, taking any relevant skills etc. into account - what and how many ships are in port, how long it takes to get passage on one (or buy one outright), what the weather does once they leave harbour, and how good their navigation is. It's even possible the DM has already made notes on what ships are in port...who knows? But it's not the players' place to be determining any of these things, it's the DM's; forced in this case by the unexpected decision of the players/characters. What the players have to do is react, preferably in character, to the world presented to them.

And this right here, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], is why you (and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] too) are likely never to see eye-to-eye with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], et al. when it comes to gaming philosophy. Your vision of roleplaying is limited to GM control, and you refuse to acknowledge as possible (let alone potentially preferable) any style of gameplay that seeks to limit the privilege of GM control over that of the other players in the game.

 

[pemerton]

Good and bad are subjective, but if you're meta-gaming, then you're doing it wrong. (In case you haven't heard, meta-gaming is bad.) The first job of the GM is to create the world, and describe it in as much detail as they need to, such that the players can make decisions for their characters.

This is a statement of your preferences as an RPGer. It is not a definition of RPGing, or of the roles of GM and players in that process. AD&D and Classic Traveller are both RPGs - they say so in their rulebooks, and everyone in the world except you regards them as exemplars of the genre - and yet neither has instructions to players that conform to your preferences.

As long as we can distinguish between actual games where you role-play as a character within an objective world, and other games where you tell a story about a character within a narrative construct, the definition is doing its job.

Besides the point just made, there is an additional objection to this claim: the only "objective" world is the actual one. Every "world" in which the game events of RPGs take place is authored, and hence has no existence independent of acts of creation. It isn't knowable by its author in an objective fashion.

 

[pemerton]

At session 0 he-as-DM says something like "The basic idea I've got here to start with is the rescue of some Elves - keep that in mind while generating your characters - and we'll see what happens after that." I might say something similar at the start of a campaign. But - and here's the key - as DM I know full well (and I think from his second sentence Saelorn also knows) that once the puck drops and the players get going that I might very quickly find myself in react mode e.g. when by session 3 they've in-character decided the poncy Elves aren't worth bothering with (no reward is worth this!) and are instead headed to the coast to jump on a ship and see where it takes them.

When they throw me a curveball I have to react to it.

I also come up with the actual adventure modules or homebrews I can string together to make up said plot, again in isolation of player interference, knowing full well I'll be lucky to end up running half of them.

So what you describe is one way to run a game - the GM keeps throwing "hooks" at the players until they bite on one.

Another way is for the players to generate PCs that have hooks built in (eg the mage with a demon-possessed brother who wants to acquire magic items that will let him confront his brother and end the possession) and the GM bites on those.
[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] asserts that the first is RPGing and the second is not. You seem to assert that the second is not possible. I know the second is possible, because I've done it. And I think it has one obvious advantage: instead of waiting until session 3 to get a game going that everyone is invested in, you can start with it in session 1. (And "session zero" becomes redundant.)

Another reason I prefer my approach - instead of characters who have only thin, mercenary motivations ("no reward is worth this!") you can have RPGing about characters who have a richer, more verisimilitudinous range of motivations (as is found in both romantic and modernist fantasy stories).

A railroady DM would react by saying or enforcing something like "you can't do that, you have to rescue the Elves". A not-so-railroady DM would react by simply reacting neutrally to what the players (in character) do. They go to the coast? DM the trip to the coast - that's what your regional or national map is for. They want to get on a ship and sail into the sunset? DM them finding a ship and sailing into the sunset.

I more or less know my players - and with that knowledge comes the realization that while they'll sometimes do their own thing and take things seriously sideways, there'll be other times when the game will grind to a complete halt unless I put on the engineer's cap and start the locomotive. It's not seen as that big a deal by either they* or me as long as there's a game every week.

If the players want to play the game, and yet the game is "grinding to a complete halt", what has gone wrong? (This doesn't happen eg if everyone has arrived and wants to play bridge.)

Another reason I prefer my approach is that you don't get this problem. If the players have arrived, and want to play, then there is a direction for the game and it's game on!

Part of this is not reacing neutrally. Eg your players want to sail into the sunset. But your map says there is no coastline. Now what happens? What does a "neutral reaction" look like?

This is why I call it a railroad - because in that situation the GM's vision of the fiction, and of the outcomes of choices and desires in the fiction, trumps the players'. And in most real RPGing situations it's situations more intimate to gameplay than sailing into the sunset - eg the players want their PCs to break into the bank using the sewers, and the GM declares there are no sewers; the players want to bribe a guard, but the GM decrees that all the guards are uncorruptable; etc.

In my approach, the GM takes the players' action declaration at face value, does not veto it by reference to secret backstory (otherwise describable as the GM's personal preference for the gameworld), and instead either says "yes", or sets the parameters for a check which then resolves the matter.

Neutrally reacting doesn't make the game world any less the DM's. The DM is going to be the one determining - probably by a somewhat random roll in all cases, taking any relevant skills etc. into account - what and how many ships are in port, how long it takes to get passage on one (or buy one outright), what the weather does once they leave harbour, and how good their navigation is. It's even possible the DM has already made notes on what ships are in port...who knows? But it's not the players' place to be determining any of these things, it's the DM's; forced in this case by the unexpected decision of the players/characters. What the players have to do is react, preferably in character, to the world presented to them.

And here, again, we see the reasons why I describe it as railroading. And also an explanation for what the game might grind to a halt.

Here's another possibility:

The question of how many ships in port only comes up because one of the players cares about it - they want a ship for some purpose (to hijack; to burn to the waterline; to stow away on; whatever). So either you tell them there's a ship, and then they can enacat their plan, and the game goes on (that's saying "yes") or - if that would be too easy and would deflate the high stakes of play - then you set a check (eg "Make a Perception roll to spot a ship suitable for your purposes") and if they succeed on the check their PC sees the ship they need, and if they fail some appropriate uhappy result is narrated ("The only ship that looks like you can get to it for your arsonist plans is also the one that you know has to carry your secret society's message to the next port - so what's it going to be?" - that's "roll the dice" instead of "saying 'yes'"). The game never grinds to a halt.

I know nothing about Fate beyond what I've read on these forums, but I think that might be the first and only time I've ever seen anyone write anything positive about it.

We post in many of the same threads, and Fate is a very popular and widely-praised game. (I've read it but never played it myself.)

And this right here, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], is why you (and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] too) are likely never to see eye-to-eye with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], et al. when it comes to gaming philosophy. Your vision of roleplaying is limited to GM control, and you refuse to acknowledge as possible (let alone potentially preferable) any style of gameplay that seeks to limit the privilege of GM control over that of the other players in the game.

It's the issue of possibility that frustrates me a bit. I don't mind how other people play their RPGs, but I find it baffling when they deny that other ways are possible even when pointed to actual play accounts of people playing in those other ways!

 

[Manbearcat]

And this right here, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], is why you (and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] too) are likely never to see eye-to-eye with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], et al. when it comes to gaming philosophy. Your vision of roleplaying is limited to GM control, and you refuse to acknowledge as possible (let alone potentially preferable) any style of gameplay that seeks to limit the privilege of GM control over that of the other players in the game.

It's the issue of possibility that frustrates me a bit. I don't mind how other people play their RPGs, but I find it baffling when they deny that other ways are possible even when pointed to actual play accounts of people playing in those other ways!

Its very frustrating.

My take (as you know) is that the AD&D 2e culture (GM metaplot, big setting/setting tourism, "its the GM's world/game", metagaming is bad, the only correct resolution mechanics/adjudication is binary pass/fail in action resolution that hews to GMs cognitive bias about internal causality, addressing a focused premise aggressively is bad/not RPGing) that pervaded the late 80s and early/mid 90s have come roaring back to life and presently has a stranglehold on EnWorld. It makes nuanced discussion about interesting topics that I care about utterly impossible/not worth even trying to engage. Hence why I don't post much anymore (along with the fact that it has chased away an enormous number of posters that I like to engage with!)!