Why Calculated XP is Important

[Darkthorne]

I'm for xp rewards. If I end up behind the rest of the group because I don't show for several sessions that doesn't bother me. When I do show & help solve a problem or be part of a battle while the xp reward will be the same amount it's a higher percentage corresponding to my level, being 1 or 2 levels behind doesn't bother me or the people I game with (and I would have to miss a good number of game to get that far behind). When I pull off something that the more advanced characters couldn't to me that's more memorable even if it's something that can be considered mundane. If I don't show up on time when we are told when the game going to start because I'm lazy, unorganized or get wrapped up with something else I expect to get less xp. I once showed up on the tail end of a game (for whatever reason) and didn't add anything productive to the game due to the lateness of my arrival & trying to figure a way to get me into the game, but the person reffing gave me the same xp's as everyone else. It felt like if I just came to say hi I would have gotten the xp's. It felt wrong to me and to me it didn't seem fair to the rest of the people that had been there all night. Also D&D does push the xp bit, otherwise they should have tables for increments of levels "getting through this level of the dungeon is worth 1/5th your way to the next level" but that my POV and how I prefer to play.

 

[Reynard]

Wonderful post, Celebrim. If I didn't have to spread more around, you'd have gotten XP for it.

RC

What he said.

 

[billd91]

I believe that to a very large extent, being a good player is a skill not an art.

Being a player takes skill as well. The only reason I wouldn't say its absolutely a skill is that I've had players who were naturally skilled at most of what makes a player a good player.

If you read the 1st edition DMG, there is this thread that runs throughout it, that the primary job of the DM is to create an environment for the players that rewards 'skillful play'. And by 'skillful play', Gygax means the ability to overcome adversity, to manage the resources the DM provides efficiently, to be creative problem solvers, to learn how to interface with and manipulate an imaginary environment, to use good tactics, to stay focused on your goals, and so forth. Gygax believed that the game was designed or should be run such that those players which 'played well' excelled, and those players that didn't 'play well' would learn how to play well so that they too would excell.

<snip>

Anyway, my point is that I largely agree. Calculated XP is still important, at least to me, in gaming. If I played a game where the XP was arbitrarily assigned, I'd somehow feel cheated.

The way I see this, neither calculated nor individual experience are necessary for the concept of promoting skilled play. Arbitrary or evenly divided experience primarily just shift the focus from the individual player to the group.

The issue of skilled play and whether or not it is promoted, as I see it, is determined more from the level of challenge set by the DM and the consequences of failure. If the challenges are too low or the characters have too much plot immunity, there's less incentive to improve the areas of play where failure is possible (primarily combat). As long as success determines whether or not the characters gain more gear, power, or levels and failure hinders advancement or leads to character death, specific XPs are ultimately superfluous.

I will add a caveat that XPs have a useful purpose for charting progress to the next level of achievement. They just aren't what I would call the primary engine for promoting skillful play. In 1e AD&D, I'd have been more inclined to point at the rules on training for a level and the expense involved as being a stronger engine for promoting skillful play. Poor play took, as I recall, cost 4 times as much in both time and money as exceptional play when it came to leveling up.

 

[Reynard]

I prefer one party XP level that rewards the group as a whiole for the work of the group. PCs that do great things in character are rewarded by what occurs as part of the adventure - not by gaining more power faster than their allies.

The PCs should be competing to beat the traps and challenges the DM sets before them, not with each other to get the most XP.

I think the vast majority of XP should come from group play, but I see nothing wrong with the individual XP rewards outlined in the 2E DMG, for example.

 

[Mallus]

Gygax believed that the game was designed or should be run such that those players which 'played well' excelled, and those players that didn't 'play well' would learn how to play well so that they too would excel.

The thing is, there's nothing near an objective standard for 'playing well'. It varies from DM to DM, tied to he governing campaign assumptions. 'Skillful play' can mean play that demonstrates mastery of the rules, skill at solving problems that are unmediated by the rules, creative play, or some combination thereof. It can also mean nothing of the sort. As I said earlier, it frequently means 'play in a manner the DM approves of'.

I don't think Gary could have imagined all the ways people would end up playing his game, and all the corresponding ways one can be good at it.

If you go back and play an 1980's video game, what you are going to find in most cases is a game with a very steep learning curve...

The default difficulty level of video games is decreasing for the simple fact they're being played by an older audience, an adult audience. Also a wider audience. People without an obsessive kid's devotion to mastering a game (and I say this with love as a old-school twitch gamer. I recall just how hard they were, and just how much free time I frittered away learning to beat them).

I'm all for easier games nowadays. Unlike my 12-year self, I have a career and a lovely wife...

 

[Reynard]

In 1e AD&D, I'd have been more inclined to point at the rules on training for a level and the expense involved as being a stronger engine for promoting skillful play. Poor play took, as I recall, cost 4 times as much in both time and money as exceptional play when it came to leveling up.

Given the arbitrary nature of that system, though, it may or may not useful. or rather, it's useful for promoting only what the DM in question considers "skillful play". In order for it to be more objective, one would have to create a tracking chart of some sort, where demerits are handed out for 'out of class' behaviors.

Of cours,e because of the nature of XP charts in 1E, while XP gain might be a good metric by which to measure play skill, level gain may not be. Frex, the thief gains levels rather quickly. Of course, this may be more an attempt at balance that promoting skillful play.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Of course, individual xp was less of an issue back in 1e and earlier days - because the gap between levels was so huge (10s of thousands and more) that a little difference here and there didn't make much difference. Also, gaining a level was few and far between, so people I knew were less concerned about their xp total per se.

Regards

 

[Raven Crowking]

The thing is, there's nothing near an objective standard for 'playing well'. It varies from DM to DM, tied to he governing campaign assumptions. 'Skillful play' can mean play that demonstrates mastery of the rules, skill at solving problems that are unmediated by the rules, creative play, or some combination thereof. It can also mean nothing of the sort. As I said earlier, it frequently means 'play in a manner the DM approves of'.

One might, instead, say, "play in a manner the group approves of". After all, in Gary's game, if you don't like the game the DM is running, you don't play in that game.

I don't think Gary could have imagined all the ways people would end up playing his game, and all the corresponding ways one can be good at it.

However, this is hardly a problem, as the DM determines the XP and the group of players, individually, choose to play for that DM or not. Indeed, an easier game, of the type severally described in this thread, is possible in a game system where the DM adjudicates rewards (by simply choosing arbitrary XP amounts or arbitrary levelling, as severally described).

Where I am concerned, a game that is able to handle multiple playstyles is better than a game that can handle fewer (or only one).


RC

 

[Aus_Snow]

What has this to do with XP, you may ask? Well, Gygax treated XP like it was a way to keep score. Skillful players not only survived the dungeon, but dug more treasure out of the dungeon at less cost, and so obtained greater XP. Advancing a character to new heights of experience (before that character died), was how a player knew that he was playing more and more skillfully. Eventually, after much struggle, some players might be rewarded with very powerful characters indeed, but only after mastering Gygax's idea of 'skillful play'. (Those players with too much hubris, could be treated to something like 'Tomb of Horrors' to bring them back down to earth.)

There is I think a trend to get away from this and to consider it quite 'old fashioned' and primitive, inferior, unsophisticated, and obselete. There is this trend to simply level up the party when the DM thinks its time, or to award everyone an arbitrary amount of XP. Maybe it works. I don't know. But I think that if you did this, you'd be very much in danger of leaving behind the notions the game was founded on, like 'skillful play'.

I find skilful play is quite well rewarded with other in-character gains, like (firstly and mostly) surviving. . . and 'getting away with it' [whatever 'it' is, in each case], gaining more money or better items (or other sources of power), and so on.

Re: the notions the game was founded on. . . it's a very different game now, regardless of what XP (or equivalent/replacement) system is being used for PCs.

Really, I've come to quite dislike disparate XP increases. But anyway, I would certainly rather objectively calculated XP than arbitrary [and potentially unequal] XP or (shudder) XP dispensed according to a DM's judgement. Ugh.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Of course, individual xp was less of an issue back in 1e and earlier days - because the gap between levels was so huge (10s of thousands and more) that a little difference here and there didn't make much difference. Also, gaining a level was few and far between, so people I knew were less concerned about their xp total per se.

Not to mention that a flatter power curve means that it is easier for characters with different levels to adventure together (albeit, perhaps not widely different levels).


RC