Why Calculated XP is Important

[Mallus]

Playing out the exciting --and frequently reason-defying-- situations that our PC's get into is the primary motivation for my group ie. XP isn't the reward, the pleasure found in playing, in creating the 'story' of the game is. We haven't used XP in years.

I'm not sure sandbox play has to do with this. Most of what our party does is player-initiated. Like recently, when we put on a violent neo-Bollywood musical about a divine pig in order to settle a score with a powerful enemy.

 

[small pumpkin man]

The xp system for every system after OD&D (or whenever they fazed out xp from treasure) has been awful, especially for a sandbox style game where the point is interacting with and exploring the world, not killing everything you see, it actually really annoyed me when my SAGA DM was handing out xp from killing things, it just didn't fit with what I wanted to be doing in SW, especially since even in my 3.5 games I was using the old star wars "you level up after so many sessions" (or after achieving a majorish goal) deal.

Yes, I do think xp can be used for a good enticement, but D&D style doesn't cut it, nor does WoD style, so I generally don't worry about it.

 

[delericho]

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.

To be honest, I think you kind of answer yourself in this paragraph. To take things out of order, "XP is a prime motivator in play" "for (you) and (your) group".

The big problem I've encountered with players falling behind due to non-attendance (and also due to character death) is that as they fall behind their characters become less competent relative to the rest of the group, and so less able to contribute. I've found (YMMV) that this has led to players being less involved in the game and enjoying it less as a result. And that by itself can be enough to move a player from being 'marginally interested' in the game to 'not interested' in the game.

Consequently, I find it better to simply keep everyone at the same raw XP total (modified if the casters craft items (3e)). For most games, though, I do still calculate and award the XP they 'should' have gained for their actions. I find this gives about the right rate of advancement for me and my group.

Obviously, I respect others who do things differently.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

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.

I think you're in a small minority here. I've been gaming for 28 years, and I've never played a game that didn't have hybrid player/PC awards. Speaking for myself, and all my players, we definitely regard accumulation of XP as such an award.

(That said, how much "XP grubbing" goes on varies from player to player. I personally wait for my DM to tell me my updated total, but some players in my game pressure me to award it every session. (Which doesn't happen. Not even close.))

 

[CharlesRyan]

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

The XP gap will grow proportionally smaller and smaller as the characters advance. Being behind by 200 points is a big deal when your playing at 2nd level, but it's only a fraction of a single session's XP haul at 8th level.

So the functional penalty is only temporary, even if the character is behind by that amount forever.

 

[CharlesRyan]

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)?

I don't approach it from that angle. I give XP according to the conventional system. 95% of the time, that means that while one character might level a session or two ahead of another, by and large the party operates at the same general level.

It's only under unusual circumstances, like a player involuntarily missing a lot of sessions, that I take remedial action.

[Actually, I lie--I do have a couple house rules that give players opportunities for small XP boosts. I use Plot Dice in my game, for example, and players can cash them in for a bit of XP--I've had players who were a bit behind do that. Of course, that's just exchanging one resource for another, but at least it puts the choice in the players' hands.]

 

[Fenes]

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?

 

[CharlesRyan]

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.

I'm in complete agreement, at least insofar as bypassing or tricking meets the goals of the encounter. And, incidentally, that's what the DMG says as well.

 

[Mallus]

First, let's resort to analogy, that last refuge of scoundrels...

The penalty for missing a party is missing the party. A person who misses the party shouldn't be offered fewer beers at the next one. We're all mostly all busy adults with families, we should endeavor to be accommodating.

The other reason I don't like to hand out XP for specific actions in play is simple. I'm biased. I tend to reward people for playing the game the way I do. Specifically, I label play that resembles my own as smart and creative, and then tell myself I'm rewarding intelligence and creativity, as if the complementary viking hat that comes with the DM screen somehow imbues me with objectivity.

I dole out enough rewards for playing like me, in terms of unconscious favoritism, when I DM. I don't need to supplement those with mechanical benefits as well.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Why not give out XP for those things?

You can ask the player, "What does your character want?" Then give them a bunch of XP when they do that or accomplish something related to that. If you wanted to emphasize inner conflict, you could award XP if they choose to do the opposite, something that moves them away from their goal.


I think XP works best when it's reinforcing what you already want to do. It's not a carrot driving behaviour, it's the cherry on top of the cake.