Why Calculated XP is Important

[billd91]

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.

I don't think there's any possible way to objectively define "skillful play". Even a merit system will include the elements that the DM subjectively considers valuable as indicators of skillful play.

As far as gaining XPs, there may be skillful and non-skillful ways to gain the same XPs. I can't think of any realistic index in the XP system likely to value the behavior that netted the skillfully obtained XP over the not so skillfully obtained ones.

 

[The Ghost]

I don't think there's any possible way to objectively define "skillful play". Even a merit system will include the elements that the DM subjectively considers valuable as indicators of skillful play.

Which is why I leave it entirely to the players now. All I give them is the challenge rating of the encounter and what the group earned in total for roleplaying. It is up to them to make the determination as to how the split goes. Generally, they choose to do it by the book and divide up experience for those who are there. Sometimes, they decide that a particular player had an outstanding night and reward him a little more. Either way, I am not rewarding them, they are rewarding each other. I trust that they can handle themselves.

 

[Roman]

I am one of those DMs who just tells the PCs when they level instead of awarding XP. I have been doing this for years and I also level all the PCs simultanously, so that the group is at the same level. It has worked well for my group and I feel no incentive to go back to the XP system, especially since my players prefer the system I have been using. It also eliminates what I consider to be a complete waste of my DMing time: calculating CRs, Encounter Levels and XP awards.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

But then, missing out on a session will put him/her behind again. What are, in your opinion, justified reasons for having a player character lag behind?

This is an interesting point of view. In 2E and earlier, the idea that characters leveled at the same time didn't exist. XP charts existed for each class, a cleric needed 1,500 XP to level to 2nd level while a wizard needed 2,500 XP. Heck, in darksun, this was used to indicate how much easier a defiler's power grew in relation to a preserver (Defiler on the Rogue XP chart while the Preserver was on the Wizard's XP chart).

It is interesting to look at the character generation in older editions versus 4E and how this relates to XP awards.

Pre-3rd

• Random 3d6 Attribute Generation
• Random Hit Point Generation (grats on your 1hp fighter)
• Different XP rates
• Different THAC0 rates
• Death at 0 Hit Points

4E

• Point Buy Attribute Generation
• Set Hit Points per Level
• Common XP table
• Common Base Attack based on level
• Death comes after 3 failed saves or -1/2 hit points

It is clear that in 4E balance is king. This becomes the basic social contract for the game. Anything that breaks this balance, including awarding XP at different rates, breaks the social contract of the game and can be considered un-justified.

Pre-3E, the game world is king. A person is a random collection of DNA bits, life experience, and luck. 3d6 for stats and random hit points reflect that in the game world. Two first level characters can be wildly different in total stat bonuses and hit points. It wasn't unfair, it was just the randomness of the game world. Heck, the 2E DMG suggested bonus XP depended upon type and having high stats (+10% bonus for a str of 16+ if you were a fighter, etc). Having your character eaten by giant frogs and rolling up a new 1st character was part of the fun of the game.

The implied social contract of 4E is radically different from the implied social contract of 1E and 2E. This acceptance of the social contract influences how you think XP should be given out.

 

[billd91]

This is an interesting point of view. In 2E and earlier, the idea that characters leveled at the same time didn't exist. XP charts existed for each class, a cleric needed 1,500 XP to level to 2nd level while a wizard needed 2,500 XP. Heck, in darksun, this was used to indicate how much easier a defiler's power grew in relation to a preserver (Defiler on the Rogue XP chart while the Preserver was on the Wizard's XP chart).

As of 3e, there are more decision points involved in leveling up than in 1e/2e. In 1e, you rolled hit points and sometimes got a weapon proficiency. Maybe you increased to a level where you needed to update your attack matrix or saves. If you were a thief or assassin, you wrote down some new values but didn't have to choose anything.

In 2e, you rolled hit points, sometimes got a weapon or non-weapon proficiency, updated your THAC0, maybe your saves, and chose which rogue or bard skills to update.

In 3e, you choose what class to advance in (possibly requiring a lot of reference lookup), roll hit points, update saves and BAB, maybe get a feat or stat bump, and now everybody distributes skill points. Maybe you also picked up a couple new spells as a wizard.

The games have gotten more complicated. 4e removes some of the decision making and administration (no hit point rolls, no skill points) but adds more in the form of powers and allows retraining.

But with 3e and 4e, the difference between characters of different levels doesn't level off. In 1e/2e, it wasn't necessarily a big deal to have 11th level characters adventuring with 14th level characters. Differences in things other than spells tended to level off. That's less true in 3e and 4e. The difficulties of being a couple levels off are higher.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

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

My own personal experience has been just the opposite of this. Now that the time between levels is smaller, I worry less about xp (I know that I'll gain a level this session, or the next one... or possibly the one after that... so it's not a big deal). In previous editions of D&D, when level advancement was a much rarer thing... it seemed to occupy more of my attention (when the bleep am I going to get the next level!?).

Also... When my character is ahead of the xp curve (from other players missing out on sessions) I feel more positive towards directly calculated xp and when I am behind the curve (because I've missed sessions) I feel more positive towards equal xp.

 

[Mallus]

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).

Heh... my decision to ditch XP was solidified by my experiences accommodating people with different playstyles in the same campaign --my long-running 3e World of CITY game I run for some ENWorlder's here in Philly.

The more I came to accept that there were many legitimate approaches to the game, the less comfortable I was with doling out XP for merely playing it like me.

 

[Jack7]

For me it depends on the style of the game.

I'm with Maddman on this one.

I don't think there's any possible way to objectively define "skillful play". Even a merit system will include the elements that the DM subjectively considers valuable as indicators of skillful play.

I think of skillful play, like "skillful" anything, in this way - Few people may be able to define it linguistically in-book by a rule-set but almost everyone recognizes it, and its opposite, in action.

Crazy idea for mature bunch of players:

At the end of the adventure, give each player a fixed amount of xp which then can award to other PCs (not their own) as a sort of MVP/most entertaining player moment.

or to bring up to par a PC who is languishing with lower hp

Nice Idea


Of course, I'm under the impression, and have used this technique for a long time, that rewards should be far more diverse than treasure taken, and/or experience points gained for action.

In real life there are a multitude of rewards, for instance, which characters could also easily achieve. Reputations, marques and honors, estates, titles, gains in abilities, capabilities, and skills (through exercise and practice - few things are better exercise and practice than actual field-work), gifts, legacies, rewards such as political power, information, and so forth and so on. I think that the game, any game, should have a wide range of "rewards" and methods of gaining value and advancement, rather than just a small number of limited means of "reward." Even intangible rewards, it seems to me, should have some effect as to "character advancement." And I'm using "advancement" in the widest sense possible.

Of course most of those things are setting and milieu rewards, and most wouldn't work well or have any real value in hack and slash games, or one shots.

 

[Voadam]

But to me, 'hard' is a very good thing, because if it is 'easy' I can't play the game for very long. I beat the game and its over, and then I must move on to something else.

And you feel this applies to D&D as well as to video games?

For me "hard" is an impediment to play, one I deal with and overcome to get the benefits of playing. I enjoy D&D despite it being hard, not because of it being hard. My enjoyment comes from other areas of play including skillful play because skillful play in its own right is fun for me.

Playing high level in AD&D was not because people had mastered the skill set. Against the Giants had high level pregenerated characters. Skillful players could come into a game at first level when the rest of the party was higher level. There was enough random death effects that had nothing to do with skillful play that skillful players could "lose" and then come in with low level characters behind the curve of their compatriots.

I stopped giving out individual xp awards ages ago and I'm happy I did. I dislike calculating and tracking it as a DM and as a player. For the D&D experience I want PCs to be relatively combat balanced so xp variances are a bug and not a feature for me.

I must admit though that in one game I play in where xp is tracked I do get a pleasureable little rush from seeing I get more than everybody else even though I know it is based on a mechanics illusion and not my superior play (I'm playing an LA+1 character who bought off his LA and crafted a bunch of items so he is earning xp as if he was a level below everybody else in the party).

 

[Voadam]

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.

While I would say it can have an impact on what happens at the the table I wouldn't say it is that powerful an impact or a prime motivator for play.

I also don't think the benefits of the carrot and stick approach of tailoring xp to individual game events outweigh the negatives.

I don't think calculating and awarding xp is very important.