Why Calculated XP is Important

[Reynard]

Forked from: DM'ing is a skill, not an art.

We've long ago switched to "all characters are the same level" (dropped XP altogether, actually). The reasons for those are manyfold.

One reason was that we'll not "punish" people who cannot make a game - especially not if they have to miss a game or even 6 months worth of games because they are serving in our army.

Another reason is that I want people to do what they have fun with during the game, without worrying whether or not it'll give exp, and how much.

Although I certainly won't argue with Fenes about what makes the game fun for he and his group, I personally feel that calculating XP and awarding it based on what happens in game is very important. XP is a prime motivator in play, and how and for what it is awarded has a powerful impact on what happens at the table.

I'll start with a personal situation: I play in a 4E campaign that schedules about once a month for 5 hours or so, about an hour and a half away from my home. Having a couple kids and such, I don't always make it. The DM, a good friend of mine, started out awarding XP to players who made it, for the challenges overcome and quests completed in play. Even though I was slipping behind some of the other players -- due to a combination of a few missed sessions and regular character demise -- I preferred it that way. My paladin bought the farm the last session I attended, and my new character is a dwarf fighter. The DM put me at 3rd level to be on par with the other PCs, and as I was using the character builder to make him, I realized I didn't have any investment at all in the character. He was third level because the DM wants him to be 3rd level for ease of play reasons. He wasn't third level because my previous characters had earned enough XP to get me there and the XP was just tranferring over. It's kind of empty. And when he says "You all gain a level" after two sessions, regardless of how much XP we've collected in play so that the campaign keeps pace with where he wants it to be, level wise, it will be equally empty.

(Don't get me wrong -- I like the game and my friends.)

XP is both a player and a character reward. Tying it to what happens at the table ties the player to the table and makes the characters' choices and actions more important. Choosing to give XP for certain types of behavior promotes those behaviors and de-emphasizes other kinds of behaviors. Giving full XP for killing things in combat and only half for sneaking around the enemy, for example, would promote wanton slaughter. Giving bonus XP for creating and/or using PC backgrounds emphasizes role-playing. Awarding XP for smokes, beer and pizza has an altogether different effect.

Perhaps it is my tendency toward "sandbox" play, where the players drive much of the action. By awarding XP for what they actually do, it motivates them to, well, actually do something. By not awarding XP for no-shows (or half XP for an absent player who allows his character to be run by the other players) it promotes making an effort to make time for the game. Of course, I understand stuff happens, what with real life and all, and that's okay. Just because you're a bit behind the rest of the party doesn't mean you're "losing" and shouldn't have a major adverse impact on your enjoyment of the game.

(As an aside: being behind XP total wise had a lower impact in AD&D, since the XP requirements per level were much greater and the level curve was shallower.)

 

[RangerWickett]

I play the game to have fun, not to get a reward. If a game has to dangle an illusory carrot in front of you to make you want to play it, it has problems.

Consider Half-Life 2, which I think is a great example of game design. You do tons of stuff, but the designers were pretty good at shaking things up, so the moment you got bored with your new toy, you got a new one. Imagine if, instead, you had to kill 50 or whatever bad guys with the bug organ thingy before you were allowed to move to the next section of the game. That isn't fun for me. It's tedious, and I don't want my games to be tedious.

When I run D&D, I basically pick a level I want to start at, and whenever the group seems like they've experienced all the new toys they got at that level, I move on to the next one.

... Also, I don't usually kill my PCs.

 

[Fenes]

Well, I want people to have fun in game no matter what they do. I consider it equally valid if my group spends a session picking clothes for a ball, or verbally sparring with a rival group, or trying to disentangle a love-triangle from an old family feud, or rigging a horse race, or performing a play, or cleaning a haunted tomb, or playing pranks on each other, or simply talking to each other around the campfire.

Given my wide range of equally encouraged choices of action, doing away with XP works best.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I agree with the OP. In a recently concluded campaign the GM simply promoted us every so often. It felt arbitrary, even though I bet he was basing it on the XP values of the encounters or at least the expectations of the published campaign.

As a player, I find the getting and tallying of XP, and the looking forward to getting the next bit that bounces me up a level, a satisfying element of the game. As a GM, I like the players to have mechanical responsibility for their characters.

That said, I'm not sure I'm into the whole "reward to promote behaviour" aspect of the analysis. I guess I just never play with people who measure their options on an XP scale. Most players in the games I play and GM make their decisions based on the situations, characters, and contexts within the game. I don't think I'm aware of any play decision made on the basis of what generates the most XP.

Also, in my current campaign, one player had to miss a lot of action last year due to a medical crisis in the family. Based on XP earned in play, she would have been a solid 2 levels behind the rest of the party. You're right that roleplaying isn't a win-lose situation, but who wants to be the junior member of the party for the next year of play? Everyone wants to contribute meaningfully to the group's actions, and in a level-based game like D&D, being behind the power curve is just emasculating.

So despite my agreement, I also believe in being flexible enough to react to unusual circumstances and keep people in the fun zone. Like any other aspect of D&D, XP is subject to Rule 0.

 

[Fenes]

Everyone wants to contribute meaningfully to the group's actions, and in a level-based game like D&D, being behind the power curve is just emasculating.

So despite my agreement, I also believe in being flexible enough to react to unusual circumstances and keep people in the fun zone. Like any other aspect of D&D, XP is subject to Rule 0.

What exactly would you consider as justification enough for a player to be behind the power curve for a significant time (like regularily having to play an adventure with a character one level lower than the rest, until the PC levels up too and caught up again)?

Character Death? One, or two, or more?
Not attending a session, or three? And for what reasons?
Missing out on a fight for staying in character and not metagaming?

 

[Nebulous]

I quit awarding XP years and years ago. For me, it's an unnecessary mathematical chore, and i really don't care for math. We get together to slay enemies, laugh at jokes, and enjoy a shared story. Their "reward" for clever ideas is survival, or avoiding an otherwise terrible encounter, or being congratulated by friends for a "great idea." That to us is worth more than "+50 XP"

Now, on the other hand, if we were playing Warhammer where XP is actually USED to improve your character piece by piece, that would be fun.

There have been times when i do give out awards in the form of Fortune Points, a one-time 1d6 bonus to a d20 roll.

EDIT: I should mention that i calculate leveling based on encounters as detailed in the DMG.

 

[Janx]

I like XP.

I like getting XP for achieving goals.

I don't like XP hunters who need to find a rabbit to kill for the last 5 XP so they can level up.

Mostly, I haven't had a problem with the people I play with using the default XP rules.

 

[Plane Sailing]

What exactly would you consider as justification enough for a player to be behind the power curve for a significant time (like regularly having to play an adventure with a character one level lower than the rest, until the PC levels up too and caught up again)?

I award xp, but try to keep everyone on roughly the same level.

If a PC dies in one of my games, their replacement PC comes in with one sessions worth of XP below their previous level, so they get one session of the new PC at below everyone else's capabilities, and then next session their xp will have put them up where everyone else is. I'd prefer to see PCs raised from the dead than simply replaced, and with the 4e raise dead mechanics this seems like a fair compromise

 

[Fenes]

I award xp, but try to keep everyone on roughly the same level.

If a PC dies in one of my games, their replacement PC comes in with one sessions worth of XP below their previous level, so they get one session of the new PC at below everyone else's capabilities, and then next session their xp will have put them up where everyone else is. I'd prefer to see PCs raised from the dead than simply replaced, and with the 4e raise dead mechanics this seems like a fair compromise

Won't the replacement PC be stuck behind a level for a session next time the rest levels again?

 

[Reynard]

That said, I'm not sure I'm into the whole "reward to promote behaviour" aspect of the analysis. I guess I just never play with people who measure their options on an XP scale. Most players in the games I play and GM make their decisions based on the situations, characters, and contexts within the game. I don't think I'm aware of any play decision made on the basis of what generates the most XP.

I'm not really talking about something so premeditated as that. Rather I am suggesting that if you give XP rewards (as opposed to arbitrary levelling) the things for which you award XP will have an impact on *most* players. I'm of a mind that you award the same XP for slaying the giant as bypassing it or tricking it. I prefer for the players to feel they have lots of options and won't be punished for certain kinds of actions. But, in general, I don't give out "story awards" because I try and shy away from "stories". That's the kind of game I prefer to run so I award XP, or don't, for things that promote that style of play. (I do, btw, give "role-playing" awards, but they aren't big and aren't particularly hard to get.)