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.

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.


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
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
This answers [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s question - a successful Diplomacy check gets interpreted in a way that accords with the GM's secret backstory, rather than with the player's intention for the action declaration.
You never said what the player's intention was. Here, if using a check system, I might even give two rolls - one for the original intention of the Diplomacy check and a second without a stated reason (might even get another player to roll that second die, so as not to give anything away) where success and level of success would mean possible clues to and-or exposure of the operative's secret.

But imagination and intention are. I can imagine that the reason an NPC is doing such-and-such is X; but then discover, through play, that it was Y.
Where I can imgaine an NPC's reason for doing something is X and write it down, then as play proceeds my narrations etc. are based around that now-fact. It remains X.

Now in fairness sometimes this can make me kick myself, in a situation where, say, I think of reason X and build it into the narration etc. and then two weeks later think of a reason Q that would have worked much better. But, them's the breaks - can't be perfect all the time. :)

Lanefan
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Two things:

(1) It's always true that, had I done X instead of Y I might have had more fun. Maybe your group would have had a better time RPGing if you'd spent all your efforts on D&D playing Over the Edge instead!

But to the extent that you're fairly confident that the stuff you did was more enjoyable, to you, then the stuff you didn't do - so likewise for me and my group. I don't think anyone thinks it would have been more interesting to map out some catacombs rather than find out what happens to the balrog-possess brother. (Spoiler: the assassin cut his head off before the PC brother could save him; but another PC did manage to catch a whole lot of his blood in a nearby ewer, and carried his head out of the tower in a chamberpot.)

(2) You write as if there was actual stuff to be discovered in the corridors leading from the PCs' chambers in Mal Arundak to the reliquary.
No, I don't know if there's anything there to discover - and I won't know until I explore the corridors. You owe it to your players to at least make passing mention of the corridors - whether it's a long walk or short; up or down or level; whether there's lots of intersecting passages, or few, or none; whether the corridors are damp or dusty or empty or well-used, etc., because that's what the PCs see.
But it's all a fantasy; it exists only in the imagination. The players can only "learn" about such stuff if someone goes to the trouble of making it up, and then telling it to them (at around 100 words per minute for spoken delivery of written text).
It comes down to a pace-of-play issue, I suppose. I don't always (or often) want to just rush from one action scene to the next, and I don't at all mind spending most of a session simply mapping and exploring what turn out to be empty corridors. There's always another session, and another after that...it's open-ended, after all; or it should be.

The players say (speaking as their PCs) "Can we see the reliquary?" I, speaking as the angels, say "OK, we'll take you to it." ^^^ I then start describing the reliquary entrance. That's not railroading. That's framing the scene the players have asked for!
It's both.

The place in the quote above where I put the ^^^ is the railroad part. You jumped straight from talking to the angels to putting the PCs at the reliquary entrance (if memory serves, there was some distance to cover between the site of the angel conversation and the reliquary itself; and I don't recall the angels teleporting them or anything such) without a chance for the PCs to do anything in between...incuding talk further with the angels to get more info! You took options away from the players / PCs by skipping that journey - they'd have had several minutes at least in which to continue their chat with the angels. Who knows what they might have learned? :)

Also, keep in mind that while you-as-DM might know there's no danger involved and that the journey is perfectly safe, the players / PCs very likely don't and must be given the chance to approach it with this in mind. (even just asking for assurance from the angels if the journey is safe would be a start, but you cut that off too).

Lanefan
 

darkbard

Legend
It comes down to a pace-of-play issue, I suppose. I don't always (or often) want to just rush from one action scene to the next, and I don't at all mind spending most of a session simply mapping and exploring what turn out to be empty corridors. There's always another session, and another after that...it's open-ended, after all; or it should be.

If that's how your group has fun--spending, in theory, a whole session mapping out empty corridors--that's certainly within your prerogative. I (and most, if not all, of the people I've played with) consider that a waste of time and unfun. But if you and your group enjoy that, I say to you, "have at it! The game can be many things to many people."

What rubs me the wrong way is that you continue to jump into threads like this one to argue that those who prefer another style of gameplay, be they myself, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], etc. "owe it to their players" (as if you know their players' true desires) or to the integrity of the game to play instead in your fashion.

Where I can imgaine an NPC's reason for doing something is X and write it down, then as play proceeds my narrations etc. are based around that now-fact. It remains X.

Now in fairness sometimes this can make me kick myself, in a situation where, say, I think of reason X and build it into the narration etc. and then two weeks later think of a reason Q that would have worked much better. But, them's the breaks - can't be perfect all the time. :)

Lanefan

This seems to strike at the heart of it: you adhere to secret backstory at the cost of what even you yourself say would be better gameplay, i.e. "would have worked much better."
 

Sadras

Legend
This seems to strike at the heart of it: you adhere to secret backstory at the cost of what even you yourself say would be better gameplay, i.e. "would have worked much better."

I'm not @Lanefan, but you might have misunderstood his quote in this instance.

He mentioned that he thought of the secret backstory (x) and built it into the narration. I understand that last part as it being firmly established at the table during play. To now change that (x) to (y), which according to him would have been a better backstory, is perhaps possible in some situations, but in many situations it is not. A DM who keeps chopping and changing established play and storylines will see the door very quickly in that style of game.

Secret backstory that has not yet been revealed/established may of course be changed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

darkbard

Legend
I'm not @Lanefan, but you might have misunderstood his quote in this instance.

He mentioned that he thought of the secret backstory (x) and built it into the narration. I understand that last part as it being firmly established at the table during play. To now change that (x) to (y), which according to him would have been a better backstory, is perhaps possible in some situations, but in many situations it is not. A DM who keeps chopping and changing established play and storylines will see the door very quickly in that style of game.

Secret backstory what has not yet been revealed/established may of course be changed.

I think you're right that in this case I may have misinterpreted what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] was describing. Yes, if the GM decides to retroactively change what had been established in narration, that would break "story now" principles as much as it would Lanefan's traditional approach.

That said, the picture I've gotten from Lanefan is that the secret backstory is set, immutably, by the GM prior to play and is introduced into the narration irrespective of PC actions, broadly speaking, assuming the PCs choose to interact with the elements he has designed prior to play.
 


Arilyn

Hero
This is a very interesting conversation dealing with two distinct philosophies and game styles/preferences. As I mentioned in an earlier post I have been starting to experiment more with the "indie" style. Games like FATE and Cortex are my preferred games, but I often GM them in a more traditional style, although I alter a lot of details based on player choice and what's cool at the moment, as long as it doesn't break consistency.

I think having a large tool box is maybe the best way to go? Lanefan' s GM toolbox is filled with a selection of good traditional tools, and he is suspicious of those "newfangled" toys. pemerton, on the other hand, loves the "newfangled" toys and is ignoring the old ones, finding fault in their ability to help construct stories.

I enjoy the newfangled tools a lot. I also come up with stories for players to adventure through ahead of time, and I even purchase modules, cause I appreciate other ideas too. Although, modules end up playing very differently than what was published, I find them to be useful springboards, especially if I'm feeling tapped creatively.

Looking back at my campaigns, I am using a variety of tools. Running with player driven goals can work really well, but sometimes it fizzles. Having a cool story is not railroading, and let's me come up with really neat twists and turns that might not happen, if I'm improvising, but sometimes, the players aren't that into it...

I think a good GM should have a full toolbox with goodies from the many years the hobby has existed. Being flexible and adaptable is usually considered an invaluable trait, and many different tools designed for different purposes can help. Mixing things up helps keep up player engagement. Game getting a little unfocused lately, as an indie style? Have players go through a preplanned story, and give them a creative break. Players getting restless with troubles GM is throwing at them? Let them create and pursue their own agendas for a while. It can be fun to explore all the details on a map. It can also be really tedious, so skip it and get to interesting bits. It all depends on mood, needs of the story, and player preferences. Those preferences, however, can change, even if playing with same group.
 

Sadras

Legend
@Arilyn pretty sums up my thoughts on this with his post above. As I mentioned our table plays with a combination of the two styles. What is important to note that the 5e DMG seemingly dismissed by the 4e proponents does possess a great deal of indie concepts/variants.

With concepts along with their mechanics for things such as - success at a cost, degrees of failure, the inspiration mechanic, backgrounds, ideals and flaws, skill variant rules, plot points and I'm sure quite a few others D&D has certainly evolved with the RPG community around it, recognising and incorporating various ideas from other games.
 


Kobold Boots

Banned
Banned
@Arilyn pretty sums up my thoughts on this with his post above. As I mentioned our table plays with a combination of the two styles. What is important to note that the 5e DMG seemingly dismissed by the 4e proponents does possess a great deal of indie concepts/variants.

I think it's entirely possible to be a strong 4e proponent and also an "indie-hippie". In my own case, I absolutely adore the 4e mechanics for combat and character powers. However, I've never let the game get in the way of a good story. The only thing you have to do as a DM to bridge the gap is work with the players to come up with viable story lines for whatever happens when the players lose or die.

Story should never eliminate risk, and if players really love story they should adore adapting to the unknown and creating better stories. In fact, the only real way to tell any good story is through overcoming adversity and loss.

KB
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top