XP Alternatives -- What Have You Tried?

[barsoomcore]

This thread got me wondering about the idea of "currency of value" in D&D.

Mainly cause I came up with that little turn of phrase myself, and I think it's clever, so I'm showing off. What?



But seriously, I think it's true that D&D RAW encourages efficient slaughter on the part of the PCs. The strategy that exposes them to the least amount risk while causing the largest amount of death is the best one to choose in standard D&D.

Which is fine for what it is, but it got me thinking about alternate "currencies" that might allow different strategies to be optimal.

The example given in the thread linked above is Action Points (in the Spycraft/Grim Tales version), where a DM can convert a critical hit by an NPC only by awarding the targetted player an Action Point. Since Action Points are an alternate currency of value, this means that the strategy of going toe-to-toe with your enemy might be a better one than creating an elaborate death-trap from which he cannot escape, since while slugging it out with him you might get a couple of Action Points you can then use to smack him down.

I was also thinking that registering Action Points with the PLAYER rather than the CHARACTER might have interesting effects as well, since optimizing to avoid character death becomes less completely important.

Right now in my Barsoom campaign I don't award XP at all. I just arbitrarily decide when everyone levels up, and announce it. Seems to work, though I'm not sure as to what the exact effects are. My hope is that it makes the players less concerned with optimizing their XP intake -- but my players aren't super-concerned with that anyway, so they may not be a good test group.

What other "currencies of value" have you experimented with? What results can you report to the rest of us? How DO they get the soft, creamy caramel inside the delicious chocolate coating?

 

[Corinth]

*ahem*

Spycraft/Stargate SG-1 uses Action Dice, not Action Points. AD work under a different mechanic, refresh at a different rate, and relate differently to Character Level and class abilities than APs do. This is a distinction with a big difference.

 

[Planesdragon]

Challenges.

But seriously, I think it's true that D&D RAW encourages efficient slaughter on the part of the PCs. The strategy that exposes them to the least amount risk while causing the largest amount of death is the best one to choose in standard D&D.

I don't find this to be the case.

The words from D&D Core -- specifically, challenge rating and overcoming challenges -- strongly imply that killing is not necessary to be rewarded XP.

Now, the lack of a good social combat system makes non-combat challenges feel less of an accomplishment than combat, which in turn makes GMs reluctant to award XP for them, which in turn makes Players more likely to seek combat over conversation.

IMC, simply awarding PCs XP when they defeat their foes is good enough. If they don't kill them, they can usually make contacts, gain information, or even get followers -- a tangible benefit that they get with no loss of XP.

 

[painandgreed]

While I never got totally rid of XP for combat, I did introduce it for other things. Role play bonus every game, perhaps getting more if they go with what is in line with the character's concept rather than the safest strategy. Then I asked for three minor goals, compeltable in a single session or two if time is spent, important to the PC and one major one, which would take many sessions to complete. Each time one of those goals is completed, they get an XP bonus, and replace with another goal. I also give out XP for turning in things that help flesh out and detail your characters such as portraits and fiction. I want role playign and character development as well as combat, so I reward those things also and get both.

 

[barsoomcore]

The words from D&D Core -- specifically, challenge rating and overcoming challenges -- strongly imply that killing is not necessary to be rewarded XP.

Ah, but the ONLY way provided to determine the Encounter Level of any encounter is by referring to the Challenge Rating of the creatures involved -- and the Challenge Rating is specifically a description of how difficult a particular creature is to kill. CR increases as Hit Dice, effectiveness of attacks, AC and other special abilities increase. Creatures that are harder to kill have a higher CR, and so are worth more XP.

Of course you CAN determine EL any way you choose, and you can award XP for any sort of ad hoc scenario you like, but that's not the RAW. Under what you're given, killing creatures ALWAYS gives you maximum XP for their EL. Other tactics MIGHT, or they MIGHT not, according to each DM's whim.

IMC, simply awarding PCs XP when they defeat their foes is good enough. If they don't kill them, they can usually make contacts, gain information, or even get followers -- a tangible benefit that they get with no loss of XP.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about -- how do you as a DM alter the system by which XP is awarded, OR what other awards do you provide, in order to encourage other kinds of behaviour. It sounds (though I'm not entirely sure from what you've written here) as if you award full XP even if your players don't kill their enemies, upon which case you tend to provide them with other, less tangible awards.

I'm interested in the more tangible awards here -- game mechanics designed to reward particular kinds of behaviour. But of course ad hoc rewards will also promote certain kinds of behaviour (for example, any time one of my players gives up some details about their character's background, I try to work it into the story, so that they feel some ownership of the campaign and are thusly more encouraged to come up with such details -- which works great).

I used to award XP for writing. Any in-character writing my players did, be it journal-keeping or letter-writing to NPCs, records of dreams or little off-screen scenes with each other or NPCs, was worth a certain amount of XP. I abandoned it when it became clear that two players had time to write between EVERY session and the rest did not, and those two PCs were pulling way ahead in the XP sweepstakes.

Spycraft/Stargate SG-1 uses Action Dice, not Action Points. AD work under a different mechanic, refresh at a different rate, and relate differently to Character Level and class abilities than APs do. This is a distinction with a big difference.

Okay. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Fedifensor]

Since we're about to start an Eberron campaign, we're going to use Action Points...with a twist. Instead of awarding them by level, we're halving the amount and awarding them per session. There's the potential to award bonus AP's for actions, but the players aren't the sort that need to be rewarded in order to roleplay. I like the Action Dice system from Spycraft, but we're trying to stick to core D&D rules to keep things simple.

As far as XP, we're doing a flat 1000/session. It gets everyone past the first few levels quickly, slows things down later on, and avoids the annoying CR calculations.

The campaign is done round-robin style, and is still in the early stages. Still, it's shaping up nicely. There was a thread about it here on EN World, with a URL for the campaign webpage.

Round-Robin Campaign Thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=109855

Campaign Webpage:
http://www.peakpeak.com/~fedifensor/games/dnd3e/eberron.htm

 

[shilsen]

Right now in my Barsoom campaign I don't award XP at all. I just arbitrarily decide when everyone levels up, and announce it. Seems to work, though I'm not sure as to what the exact effects are. My hope is that it makes the players less concerned with optimizing their XP intake -- but my players aren't super-concerned with that anyway, so they may not be a good test group.

I use the same system as you, and have for a while now. My group is generally quite interested in when and how soon they can level up, or at least that's how they've been when others (who follow the standard XP method from the DMG) have been DMing, but when I DM they seem much less concerned about XP. So I would hazard that as long as one is up-front about the method, it can work even with a group not used to it.

 

[2WS-Steve]

One of my games I did the by the book calculations -- another I simply gave the players a level every four game sessions.

The non CR method was easier and might have helped promote doing things other than going after goals -- however, in my by the book game the players didn't just focus on whacking monsters anyway.

What I plan to do more extensively is assign various goals (such as discovering a clue, or turning a noble into an ally) challenge ratings, and also be more willing to assign an ad hoc CR value roughly equal to average character level when the players achieve something I didn't expect. I think this will help give the players some impetus to achieve things while still allowing them to go their own way. I think this will be particularly important if I can ever get around to running a d20 modern game.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

In the past, I've tried this:

You gain a level when you complete a session. Period. And, in a way, I even liked it. The problem was, core d20 levels mean too much for this to work well. A 7th-level character is just too different from a 3rd-level one.

If I ever encountered a really good point-buy system for d20, I'd use that to split up the first 30 levels of D&D advancement into 100 much smaller levels. A level might give one feat, for instance, or a BAB improvement, or a few skill points.

 

[Umbra]

I think it's true that D&D RAW encourages efficient slaughter on the part of the PCs. ...Right now in my Barsoom campaign I don't award XP at all.

My group gets awarded xp at the end of each session based on their level adjusted a little for how well they played. The base amount is one fifth of the required xp for the highest level character to go up a level (i.e. new level min xp requirement minus current level min xp requirement divided by 5.) If they stuffed around all session they may only get one tenth. If they complete a major component of the campaign a quarter or a third.

This means:

a) they are not focused on combat unless it is required for survival or to achieve an in-game goal. They will hunker down to achieve goals rather than trying to find things to kill.
b) they still have xp for creating magic items, powering spells, etc
c) lower level characters can still gain ground on the higher level ones in regards to levelling
d) Less admin. I don't have to calculate xp from combat