XP Through the Editions

[Janx]

Another aspect of XP dependent upon edition is that in O/B/AD&D, different classes required different amounts of XP to go up a level. This was a balancing tool, which speaks to how balance in older editions was something that happened over the long term and was not necessarily a concern in a given encounter or even adventure.

though I wouldn't call it a good balancing tool. A tool should give you a metric. If, somehow in a pre-3e game, your PCs never died, by the time your wizard was level 20, everybody else was much higher. What level is your party? What level encounters should you use?

A useful tool is to have everybody's level mean "can travel together reasonably well" That way you can look at the party level, and eyeball what to throw at them. This was actually the design advantage of a level system, compared to others (like Shadowrun, how do you decide how tough to make the bad guys).

Note, I'm not even talking about how wizards suck at 1st level, and outshine at 20th. Just the fact that they used different XP scales REMOVED a useful metric for the GM. You can still have that with a consistent XP table, just by re-arranging what you get at what level (which in fact was already that way).

We put up with it in 2e, concerned that to change it would break the game balance. Its far more useful to know that if everybody's got the same level, they're the same strength (sort of). Without it, what did GMs do, eyeball it or go by XP total?

Making the XP tables consistent with the implication that all PCs of the same level were "good to adventure with" was a reasonable idea as it opened up a useful metric.

What actions earned XP, how much was given to establish a pace of leveing, that's a worthy topic in any edition.

 

[pemerton]

I don't reward the players for interacting with the game world in any specific way outside of having the world react in a reasonable, or a reasonable facsimile of reasonable, fashion.

For the reasons I posted upthread, I think even if you do award XP in 4e, the rewards from playing are more like the ones you described here - namely, the gameworld changes in response to the players' engagement with it via their PCs.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As I said in the other topic, we don't use XP in our 4E game (and stopped using it in our 3E game) because we want the group to level together. We've substituted action points (and to some extent, the pick of the best treasure) as the reward for being there and success. Basically, we don't want the power level of the characters tied to the pacing of the story or tied to the rewards offered for the things we want to encourage. (Also, when I seriously considered putting together a spreadsheet to manage XP for nine 3E characters, with 4-5 different character levels represented, I realized it was time to change something. )

However, if I did use the XP in 4E, I'd very much run an experiment. This would be an avowedly sword and sorcery game. I'd use a variation on the pre 2E editions, and give XP only for treasure. You wouldn't even get any for quests--unless the quest produced a treasure of course. And I think I probably would limit it to the treasure spent. You'd need a few subsystems or structures to handle that money flow, but I think the dynamic might be fairly interesting.

 

[Reynard]

A useful tool is to have everybody's level mean "can travel together reasonably well" That way you can look at the party level, and eyeball what to throw at them. This was actually the design advantage of a level system, compared to others (like Shadowrun, how do you decide how tough to make the bad guys).

True, but rmember that in pre-3E, there was a much flatter power curve, and it gts flatter the farther back you go. With lower hit point and damage totals for everyone, including monsters, and smaller/less frequent bonuses based on level, characters 2 or 3 or even more levels apart could still "travel together reasonably well".

This too had an impact on play. The world was less "level appropriate" and the adventuring parties were less homogenous in regards to PC levels. Plus, henchmen and hirelings were given names and quirks because they would often end up PCs.

XP and how it is handled really does impact how the game is played, and while it isn't necessarily a bad thing to make everyoen level at the same time -- either because the system forces it or the GM does it ad hoc -- it has a distinct effect.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Consider, if you will, a 4th Edition where the PCs were awarded 0 XP for defeating opponents but only for the amount of gold (in the form of items and coin) they managed to gather during a session.

Does the game change radically? How valuable do skills like Diplomacy, Stealth, Intimidate become? Invisibility? Comprehend languages?

Step back to 2nd Edition AD&D and apply these rules. The PCs learn that a dragon has left his lair. Its massive treasure is guarded only by its loyal Kobolds.

A rogue's ability to sneak past enemies, remove traps, detect noise, and pick locks become very valuable in this world. Perhaps more so then any combat prowess he brings to the party. His abilities are designed to avoid combat and get the gold.

A Figther, on the other hand, brought one of his many polearms and heavy armor. When trying to sneak past the kobolds to get to the empty dragon's lair, he's the liability. Perhaps the wizard needs to create a distraction to allow the fighter to sneak by. Why was the fighter even brought? As a last resort. If the rogue triggers an alarm or alerts a patrol, if the Dragon returns while the treasure is being hauled out, or if a random angry owlbear stumbles upon the party, the Fighter is called upon to use force of (pole)arms to save the party. The Fighter is the first guy in and the last guy out.

In the world of gold equals XP, combat is dangerous. The positive outcome of the fight is not XP and advancement, it's survival. Death, defeat, retreat are all possible outcomes of the fight. Regardless of the number of Kobolds killed, if the party doesn't get the dragon's treasure, they aren't getting the XP.

On the other hand, the same senario plays out totally differently if you give out XP for killing Kobolds instead of recovering treasure. Why sneak past the Kobolds? Kicking down the door and slaughtering them is the best approach. In fact, the game must be totally different if designed around this. The rogue's ability to avoid detection is not nearly as valuabe as the Fighter's ability to kick ass. The Fighter's multiple attacks, weapon specialization, and higher hit points make him infinitly more valuable then the rogue's backstab and sneaking. The rogue, as a class, has a lot of ground to make up to become as useful to the party as the fighter is.

Why you award XP is important. It radically shapes the way the game is designed and played.

 

[Diamond Cross]

If people don't like to award xp, how else can a character advance in level or improve in classless games like Vampire The Masquerade?

 

[pemerton]

though I wouldn't call it a good balancing tool. A tool should give you a metric.

In addition to your point, there is just the point that the balance was fairly weak. Roger E Moore had an article discussing this in an early Dragon magazine (maybe somewhere in the 50s?).

 

[Ahnehnois]

If people don't like to award xp, how else can a character advance in level or improve in classless games like Vampire The Masquerade?

The original question was framed around 'your D&D-like rpg of choice', assuming levels and experience points to get them, with XP as a potentially expendable middle man. Obviously, advancement in a classless rpg is a different issue.

I've only played a little bit of one classless game so I can't speak much from experience, but I get the impression that XP in a classless rpg is very different than in D&D. It's probably closer to some of the ad hoc XP awards-gain some skill points whenever you hit a plot milestone or after every session played, etc. I'm sure there's a lot of games out there with very different systems.

 

[Reynard]

I think we're getting our threads crossed. This thread is about how the different XP systems inform play in the various editions of D&D. The other thread is about whether you use XP by the book or at all.

 

[Obryn]

OD&D/BD&D and AD&D 1E: Killing monsters but primarily for recovering treasure.

AD&D 2E: Overcoming monsters, plus an adventure "story award" (equal to or less than the total monster XP), plus individual awards based primarily on hewing to class stereotypes.

3E: Overcoming challenges, which includes traps and role-playing encounters, as well as creature combat (with a nod toward avoiding encounters, though I can't say that for certain).

4E: Similar to 3E except that instead of being figured based on the encounter, the encounter is figured based on the XP budget (which is based on party level). Also, there are Quest awards -- major and minor, individual and group.

Well, within the last 5 years, I've run three of these and stuck pretty close to by-the-book. Here's my own thoughts...

3e and 4e largely work the same - PCs get XP based on challenges. Apart from the official addition of skill challenges & quest XP in 4e, they're barely different. In both 3e and 4e, I based the challenge on the characters' level (either above or below) and constructed encounters around that. The XP budget in 4e is, honestly, just a more intuitive and easier-to-understand CR/EL system. In both, while the DMGs give all sorts of advice on how many encounters make up a level, it works fairly organically in the game itself.

AD&D is where I had the most bookkeeping. Again, I was trying to run by the book insofar as that's possible, and Gary had some pretty strong words about awarding XP. It's the only edition where I've needed to pull out a spreadsheet to calculate XP, with numerous treasure entries, sale vs. xp award value of magic items, henchmen being worth half a share, and so on. I loved running AD&D and would do so again in a heartbeat, but the bookkeeping and micromanagement of XP made for a lot of work on my part!

That's all just IMO. I really don't see much of anything other than a superficial difference between 3e and 4e here, but 1e was vastly different in an interesting, fun, and work-intensive way.

-O