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

 

[Nagol]

Learning about the gameworld that is irrelevant to the play of the game - which means, in effect, the GM reading me bits of his/her notes - is not very immersive to me. Frankly, if I want that sort of immersion I will read a novel - most published novelists are better writers than most GMs I have encountered (me included).

Learning about my PC's experiences which I care about (as player, and as "inhabitant" of my PC) does make the game immersive. But I don't need the GM to have pre-authored the gameworld in order for that to take place.

It is only irrelevant to the play of the game if the players deem it so. Typically, game worlds are full of resources, opportunities, and potential inspiration. World-building comes into its own for exploratory play and sand-boxing where the PCs are more proactive with their desires. It's also great for soap-opera style relationship games (like some superhero games) which involve the interplay of personal relationships, both open and secret which is another form of exploratory play.

 

[pemerton]

It is only irrelevant to the play of the game if the players deem it so.

I was just following along with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s description.

Typically, game worlds are full of resources, opportunities, and potential inspiration.

This is true, but it's as true of the gameworld that pertains to the focus of play as to "irrelevant" stuff - perhaps even moreso.

World-building comes into its own for exploratory play and sand-boxing where the PCs are more proactive with their desires. It's also great for soap-opera style relationship games (like some superhero games) which involve the interplay of personal relationships, both open and secret which is another form of exploratory play.

My experience of games with those soap opera elements is that they tend to be heavily player-led. At least in my experience, the players care about the soap-operatic dimensions of their PCs' social worlds, but not so much about NPC A's connections to NPC B.

 

[Nagol]

I was just following along with @Lanefan's description.

This is true, but it's as true of the gameworld that pertains to the focus of play as to "irrelevant" stuff - perhaps even moreso.

My experience of games with those soap opera elements is that they tend to be heavily player-led. At least in my experience, the players care about the soap-operatic dimensions of their PCs' social worlds, but not so much about NPC A's connections to NPC B.

Our mileages differ. The players seem invested in discovering the relationships between the NPCs for a few reasons: they want explanations for apparent contradictory behaviour so as to better model the NPC's behaviour, they want alliances to deal with "the greater threat", they want to help some NPCs in unpleasant circumstance, and they seem interested in the act of exploring. In other words, they didn't care about the relationship between NPC A and B as much as they cared how those relationships could impact them.

 

[Sadras]

No. I personally don't like GM pre-authored backstory which is used as a basis to stipulate that player action declarations for their PCs fail without consulting the action resolution mechanics.

Understood.

The particular approach to GMing I've been focusing on over the last few pages of this thread is the following:

(1) The GM is allowed to use his/her pre-written, secret-from-the-players notes to declare that a player's declared action for his/her PC fails; and,

(2) The GM is also allowed to change or depart from his/her pre-written notes if s/he thinks that will improve the game.​

The combination of (1) and (2) prevents the game being like classic Gygax/Moldvay/Pulsipher D&D, because (2) means that the game is not a puzzle/maze for the players to unravel.

Do not agree. If consistency remain then 2 does indeed remain a puzzle/made. For instance, during the Siege at Sukiskyn (B10), I inserted an additional NPC in the homestead. He left shortly after the siege for Kelven to gather assistance, leaving the characters to guard the homestead.

In the module notes, Pyotr's daughter, is mentioned to be very perceptive and able to detect lies.
I decided that she mentions to her mom, that she believes this NPC lied and would not be going to Kelven. The daughter's family having had experience with their daughter's uncanny perceptiveness in the past inform the PCs of his information.

Now in my notes I have developed a secret backstory on the NPC. I can change it, as long as the previous interactions the PCs had with this NPC remain valid for the new secret backstory I develop. The puzzle is still there to be unravelled and retains its integrity.

It also prevents it being player-driven in the "indie" sense of "go where the action is", because (1) prioritises the GM's prior conception of the shared fiction.

Pretty much...this is evident in D&D modules all the way from 1e to 5e.

 

[Sadras]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] speaking about your comment GM pre-authored backstory which is used as a basis to stipulate that player action declarations for their PCs fail without consulting the action resolution mechanics:

In combat encounters PCs face assailants. The PCs are not always privy to the abilities and defences (i.e. immunity to fire...etc) of the assailants due to secret backstory and so the result of the action declarations fail. Why are you accepting of this during combat, but have issues of this out of combat (such not finding a map in the desk draw)?

 

[pemerton]

I inserted an additional NPC in the homestead. He left shortly after the siege for Kelven to gather assistance, leaving the characters to guard the homestead.

In the module notes, Pyotr's daughter, is mentioned to be very perceptive and able to detect lies.
I decided that she mentions to her mom, that she believes this NPC lied and would not be going to Kelven. The daughter's family having had experience with their daughter's uncanny perceptiveness in the past inform the PCs of his information.

Now in my notes I have developed a secret backstory on the NPC. I can change it, as long as the previous interactions the PCs had with this NPC remain valid for the new secret backstory I develop.

I referred to the combination of:

(1) The GM is allowed to use his/her pre-written, secret-from-the-players notes to declare that a player's declared action for his/her PC fails; and,

(2) The GM is also allowed to change or depart from his/her pre-written notes if s/he thinks that will improve the game.​

As far as I can tell, you're not combining (1) and (2) - you're not departing from your notes to establish some new backstory in virtue of which you then neutralise/veto a player action declaration.

But suppose a player, following up on the daughter's comments, decides to have his/her PC follow the NPC. In your notes, you had your NPC go to place X (with no stream between the homestead and X). But you think it won't be fun for the game if the players find the NPC at X straight away, so you decide that instead the NPC went to Y (which has a stream between the homestead and it), hence preventing tracking. So the player's action declaration fails due to secret backstory (1) which you made up as you went along for the fun of the game (2).

I'm not expressing a view on whether or not this approach to play is fun for your, or anyone else. As far as fun is concerned, I'm saying I don't enjoy it as player or GM.

But I have said - how is the above not a railroad? All the outcomes depend on the GM's opinion as to how the fiction should develop.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] speaking about your comment GM pre-authored backstory which is used as a basis to stipulate that player action declarations for their PCs fail without consulting the action resolution mechanics:

In combat encounters PCs face assailants. The PCs are not always privy to the abilities and defences (i.e. immunity to fire...etc) of the assailants due to secret backstory and so the result of the action declarations fail. Why are you accepting of this during combat, but have issues of this out of combat (such not finding a map in the desk draw)?

I made a post about this in the other thread:

all action declaration in a RPG depends upon the fictional positioning of the PC - you can't say "I pick up a rock" and hope to have that action declaration succeed if your PC is not in the vicinity of some rocks; you can't say "I buy a shovel" and hope to have that action declaration succeed if your PC is not in the vicinity of some friendly purveyors of shovels; etc.

In a game run on the basis of GM pre-authorship with secret elements of the gameworld, it is possible for a player to think that the fictional positioning is appropriate for declaring some action, but in fact it is not. So the player declares the action, and perhaps the GM even allows the dice to be rolled (or rolls them behind the screen), but the check will always fail (and thus the fiction not develop in the way that the player wants) because in fact the fictional positioning was not apposite.

Now, there are borderline cases here, because "secrecy" is a matter of degree. To give a simple example, a combat encounter that starts with an invisible opponent among the visible ones will produce a moment in which the fictional positioniong turns out to be different from what a player understood it to be - eg (in some editions of D&D) s/he will declare some movement and then suffer an opportunity attack that s/he wasn't expecting. The 4e DMG's skill challenge example has a comparable non-combat example: anyone who tries to bully the duke automatically incurs a failure in the attempt to persuade him.

My own view is that if the secret is (i) within the ascertainable scope of the situation as presented to the players, and (ii) is salient within the context of gameplay, and (iii) is not overwhelming in its impact on the situation, then it's fair game. The two examples I've given satisfy (i) - you can find the invisible foe through various means including Perception checks; you can learn the duke's personality through an Insight check.

My reason for caring about (ii) - salience - is because, in practical gameplay terms, this is a major consideration for knowability. The players need to have at least some general sense of what they are expected to be looking for. I think the combat example satisfies (ii) for a default D&D game - we all know that invisible foes go with the territory. The skill challenge example is, in my view, more contentious in respect of (ii) and would depend upon how the campaign, as actually played, has presented personalities and has treated bullying as a method of persuading them.

My reason for caring about (iiI) is that, if the secret is overwhelming and the players don't learn it, then the game has a feel of "rocks fall, everybody dies". I think that is fair game in classic dungeoneering - ToH is full of it - but I personally don't care for classic dungeoneering as a playstyle, and hence include (iii) as a desideratum. Both the examples I gave satisfy (iii) - a skill challenge isn't lost with a single failure; and one invisilbe foe (who is otherwise part of a fairly desinged encounter) isn't going to lead, in iteslf, to a TPK.

 

[Sadras]

As far as I can tell, you're not combining (1) and (2) - you're not departing from your notes to establish some new backstory in virtue of which you then neutralise/veto a player action declaration.

I don't believe anyone was suggesting vetoing player action declaration.

But I have said - how is the above not a railroad? All the outcomes depend on the GM's opinion as to how the fiction should develop

I do not disagree. The above is a railroad. Even my own example includes a railroad in that the daughter only mentioned her suspicions about the NPC organically during a conversation between the PCs and her mother about how this threat of goblin attack would end soon as the NPC returned with reinforcements.
But by this stage the NPC already had a 3-4 hour start. I could have had the daughter mention her observations earlier allowing the PCs to confront the NPC, but I thought better for the story that it was revealed later.

Now the PCs along with refugees from other homesteads which had at this stage arrived decided to:

1) Investigate the nearest homestead for clues and survivors and return by nightfall in case there was a follow-up attack;
2) Follow the tracks of the NPC and establish if he is indeed heading towards Kelven for reinforcements and return by nightfall in case there is a followup Siege; and
3) Repair the defences of the Sukiskyn after the initial siege;

The trackers have uncovered that the NPC headed northwards following the Volaga river towards the hills instead of westwards towards Kelven for the reinforcements.

PCs now are torn between chasing down the horse-thieves, investigating more homesteads, head towards Kelven for reinforcements themselves or attempt to track down this mysterious NPC - all the while ensuring that the Sukiskyn residents remain safe from any future goblin attacks. Some believe they (the homesteaders) should give up the settlement given the dire conditions they find themselves in.

I have no idea what table will decide - I just know various NPCs approach the party pulling them in this or that direction providing their own justifications.

Are there railroad points (like the one I illustrated), sure. Is the adventure a complete railroad - No. The PCs are free to go where they like, however their backgrounds are tied to the Iron Ring and they are aware (from conversation and investigation) the Iron Ring is directly or indirectly behind the attack on Sukiskyn.

 

[pemerton]

I don't believe anyone was suggesting vetoing player action declaration.

I've lost track, a bit, of who's said what in which thread. But when I talk about veto-ing an action declaration I'm not just meaning "You can't do that!" I'm also meaning "OK, you don't find what you're looking for" (or similar) because the GM has already decided, secfretly, that there's no such thing to be found.

This is what I have described as adjudication by reference to GM's secret backstory.

I don't think there was any of that in your example.

Even my own example includes a railroad in that the daughter only mentioned her suspicions about the NPC organically during a conversation between the PCs and her mother about how this threat of goblin attack would end soon as the NPC returned with reinforcements.
But by this stage the NPC already had a 3-4 hour start. I could have had the daughter mention her observations earlier allowing the PCs to confront the NPC, but I thought better for the story that it was revealed later.

How is that a railroad?

What action declaration by a player was rendered pointless? What outcome of play did you predetermine?

I see framing - you as GM decided to present things a certain way, so that the challenge for the players is can we catch this guy who has a 3 hour headstart? But I don't see any predetermination of outcomes.

(In the bigger context of some of these discussions there's scope to talk about different ways in which we choose what challenges to present; and different ways in which we resolve player attempts to resolve them. I suspect that you and I have different preferred methods for both these things. But narrowing in just on your example from the earlier post - how can you say that there is a railroad? It's not a railroad to present the players with a challenge!)

 

[Lanefan]

I've lost track, a bit, of who's said what in which thread. But when I talk about veto-ing an action declaration I'm not just meaning "You can't do that!" I'm also meaning "OK, you don't find what you're looking for" (or similar) because the GM has already decided, secfretly, that there's no such thing to be found.

"You can't do that!" is a veto. "You don't find what you're looking for." is not a veto, in that the declared action (in this case, searching) was run through to its completion and a result duly narrated.

You might not like the method in which the action was resolved (the DM consulted her notes and based on info found there, said no) but you can't deny that it was in fact resolved rather than vetoed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"You can't do that!" is a veto. "You don't find what you're looking for." is not a veto, in that the declared action (in this case, searching) was run through to its completion and a result duly narrated.

You might not like the method in which the action was resolved (the DM consulted her notes and based on info found there, said no) but you can't deny that it was in fact resolved rather than vetoed.

Moreover, it was resolved by use of the game's action resolution mechanics, which clearly stipulate that the DM only asks for a roll when the outcome is uncertain.

If they know that the thing will not be found, because it doesn't exist in that location, then the game mechanics tell them how to resolve that (i.e. the DM narrates the certain result).