Why Calculated XP is Important

[Mallus]

Why should I have to show up for a bunch of lower-level game sessions to get there?

Presumably because you enjoy playing the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's the disconnect: you seem to think that getting to 30th level has to be an achievement. In a more "casual" playstyle, it's not. If the DM and the players want to have a 30th level game, the DM can just prepare a 30th level adventure and the players can just create 30th level characters, and they can play.

Interestingly enough, this probably has a direct relationship to the problems with higher-level play. How does a designer know what challenge level is appropriate, when he doesn't know whether the players in question will have "learned the system" through 30 levels, or be (effectively) 30th level amatures?

Because, conceptually at least, "earning" XP isn't about pleasing the DM. It's about demonstrating that one has learned the game system sufficiently to handle harder challenges. Especially in earlier editions, with their flatter power curves, it was the experience of the players, far more than the experience of the characters, that often determined success or failure. The XP system provides, at least in part, some method to determine when a player has learned enough to take on harder challenges.

Now, of course, one might say "I don't need to demonstrate any such thing." But that same person, as often as not, is the one complaining about asshat DMs who throw too much at them.

When playing 3e, I used a 1/2 suggested XP houserule. When asked why, my answer was simple: "To give you a chance to master your powers before you gain new ones." There was some grumbling, but when I ran WLD using unmodified XP rules, at least one of the players was willing to admit that he could see my point.

There are certainly some players who can read the rulebook and then jump into the deep end without problems. IME, these players are few and far between. Players who think that they are these players are, OTOH, a dime a dozen. Again, the XP system gives the DM a reasonable idea which type of players he actually has, and this is vital information when designing challenges.

A longstanding group might not need this benefit, of course. A sandbox campaign where the players decide what they are willing to attempt might not need it, either. Overall, though, I think an XP system is a valuable tool for most DMs, most players, and most campaigns.

One might also point out that there are more than a few players who, having survived the Tomb of Horrors, feel that their success is penalized when Bob and Joe get the same XP, the same treasure parcels, and the same levels, despite doing nothing whatsoever. Despite, perhaps, not being there at all. YMMV. IME, players who prefer that others don't get the benefits of their success are a dime a dozen, too.

Finally, one can take an XP-using game and modify it to not use XP with very little difficulty, as many in this thread have demonstrated. It is not as easy to take a non-XP game and graft an XP system onto it. IMHO, at least. Therefore, while one might cease to use the XP system to expand one's horizons, the game that has an XP system that can be used or not used as the group desires automatically allows for a wider range of playstyles than one which does not.


RC

 

[shilsen]

I'm firmly in the "no XP" camp and don't see any real benefit to including it in the game.

Plus [tongue-in-cheek] it's just so videogamey! PCs grinding their way through session after session, collecting every imaginary brownie point that they can, all so that they can hit the next level and ... well, do the same thing all over again? No thanks! If someone wants to focus on XP, they might as well be playing WoW![/tongue-in-cheek]

 

[Raven Crowking]

Presumably because you enjoy playing the game.

But, assuming that I enjoy playing a level 30 game, why shouldn't the game just start at level 30? Even if it is a game system I have no experience of playing levels 1-29 of?

Also, my reducto ad absurdum was a direct response to the approval of a similar reducto.


RC

 

[FireLance]

Because, conceptually at least, "earning" XP isn't about pleasing the DM. It's about demonstrating that one has learned the game system sufficiently to handle harder challenges

...

The XP system provides, at least in part, some method to determine when a player has learned enough to take on harder challenges.

...

Finally, one can take an XP-using game and modify it to not use XP with very little difficulty, as many in this thread have demonstrated. It is not as easy to take a non-XP game and graft an XP system onto it. IMHO, at least. Therefore, while one might cease to use the XP system to expand one's horizons, the game that has an XP system that can be used or not used as the group desires automatically allows for a wider range of playstyles than one which does not.

Now, these are reasons for having XP in a game that I can get behind.

However, if XP is supposed to measure a player's experience with the game, or at least, with a character, then bonus XP for "good role-playing", or anything unrelated to observing the character's mechanical performance, is a bad idea.

 

[Mallus]

...it's just so videogamey!

It's only videogamey when the later editions do it.

 

[Nebulous]

The other assumption I'm making here (and I'll guess I'm making it in error, given what I've read so far) is that one of the things you're doing as DM is keeping notes during a session of exactly who got involved in what. This makes it easy to figure out ExP later; just divide the total available ExP for each given encounter by the number of characters involved in it, and repeat for each encounter. But you have to keep the notes...

Nope, this is something that is just NOT part of my DM style. I don't enjoy doing it as part of the hobby personally, and i've found a work around i do enjoy. I told my players up front i don't do XP, told them how i DO calculate it, and went from there. This style works fine for our group but i see how it might not work for others. I don't take notes during sessions, but i frequently write a summary that i post online for the group, which is essentially the same thing. As i've mentioned before, for good roleplaying or good ideas i do give out rewards in tangible, in-game methods rather than intagible rewards like XP that don't really mean anything until you hit the "level up" number.

I've never had a situation where a new player clamored for XP reward, but if that happened i would deal with it on a case by case basis.

Now, i have found XP useful in 4e when calculating encounter design, it's great for determining threat level, but even that i eyeball most of the time.

 

[Mallus]

But, assuming that I enjoy playing a level 30 game, why shouldn't the game just start at level 30?

Go find a campaign starting at 30th level.

Also, my reducto ad absurdum was a direct response to the approval of a similar reducto.

Nitpick: they weren't that similar.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, these are reasons for having XP in a game that I can get behind.

However, if XP is supposed to measure a player's experience with the game, or at least, with a character, then bonus XP for "good role-playing", or anything unrelated to observing the character's mechanical performance, is a bad idea.

Which is why said XP bonuses, by and large, are not included in 1e.

Indeed, if you read the 1e DMG, Gygax is clear that he believes it crucial for new players to begin at 1st level, but that it is okay for experienced players to begin at higher levels.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nitpick: they weren't that similar.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point. I modelled my reducto off the other. Perhaps I am not a 30th level satirist?


RC