PDA

View Full Version : Giving out XP based on amount of damage sustained?



harpy
2010-01-19, 12:54 AM
I guess this would apply to really any version of D&D, but one thing that knocks about in my head is an old element in Middle Earth Role Playing, where players would earn xp for the damage they took.

That has stuck with me over the years, and after a recent game of Pathfinder where players coasted through several encounters that were rated as being "hard" for their level, I thought perhaps... instead of giving out xp based off of the potential threat of the encounter, why not give out xp based on the actual threat of the encounter?

That is, the more the characters take a beating, the more xp they get, regardless of whatever the encounter is rated at.

I haven't thought rigorously about how a system would work, but loosely you could, say, add up all of the hit points the party possesses. Then as the combat unfolds you just keep track of the total damage delivered to the party. Also note things such as failed saving throws, characters that go unconscious, how many spells and other resources are expended.

Add all of that up and that would yield how much the encounter was worth. So the ideal situation for players who wanted to get as many xp as possible would be to get beaten to within inches of their life as much as possible.

Has anyone done anything like this, or are there any system that are built around this method?

Kylarra
2010-01-19, 12:55 AM
I don't really like it because HP is only one resource that the characters have to be depleted.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 12:56 AM
So how much XP do I get for dying?

Riffington
2010-01-19, 12:56 AM
You want to reward the players for "holding back" when fighting mooks?
If so, why?

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-19, 01:00 AM
Wizard: So, if I cast ghost sound to lure the guards away from the door, thenuse Invisibility Sphere, we can approach it, and the Rogue can hopefully pick the lock and slip us through before they get back.
Pacifist Cleric: But then we get no XP!
Fighter::Hit me with Enlarge Person, I need the lower AC.
Wizard: Fine. *casts*
Rogue: CHARGE!

How is this a good thing?

harpy
2010-01-19, 01:00 AM
Well, like I said, catalog all of the resources that players have and then add up all of them to see how much was spent to get over the encounter.

As for standing their and letting mooks beat on them... I'm sure there are ways to not count absurd situations, or put an encounter clock into the matrix of factors.

Like I said, I don't have any real system worked out, just wondering if people have tried this in some manner.

Traikan
2010-01-19, 01:02 AM
I'd actually consider the opposite, rewarding the players for handling encounters efficiently. Not handling them quickly or with some unexpected cheese, but if they play their cards right and have some great group tactics then I'll toss an XP bonus at them.

With regard to your suggestion, it's an interesting idea... and there is merit to rewarding players that manage to get out of a bad situation that got worse.

Just make sure you don't tell the players you plan on rewarding them for getting beaten to a pulp. It would definitely encourage the wrong (in my opinion) kind of play.

Though going back to tactics I might tell the players I'd reward them if they play their roles well, so a tank taking damage certainly qualifies.

Cthulubot
2010-01-19, 01:06 AM
How are you counting damage against summons, animated dead, and other sponges for hp damage?

I'm also wondering how this would interact with the Crusader's delayed damage pool. Having two separate incentives for taking it on the chin for some mechanical benefit may encourage behavior that goes beyond the normal risks of being in-combat.

Kylarra
2010-01-19, 01:17 AM
Well, like I said, catalog all of the resources that players have and then add up all of them to see how much was spent to get over the encounter.

As for standing their and letting mooks beat on them... I'm sure there are ways to not count absurd situations, or put an encounter clock into the matrix of factors.

Like I said, I don't have any real system worked out, just wondering if people have tried this in some manner.It seems like it would end up being an overly convoluted system to me.

LibraryOgre
2010-01-19, 01:20 AM
It seems like it would end up being an overly convoluted system to me.

"Overly Convoluted" describes Rolemaster (and it's simpler child, MERP) to a T. However, IIRC, the XP wasn't for damage taken, but for criticals, both given and received... but in the MERP system, almost every hit had SOME sort of critical associated with it. You got XP for moving maneuvers (i.e. WALKING).

harpy
2010-01-19, 01:23 AM
How are you counting damage against summons, animated dead, and other sponges for hp damage?

I'm also wondering how this would interact with the Crusader's delayed damage pool. Having two separate incentives for taking it on the chin for some mechanical benefit may encourage behavior that goes beyond the normal risks of being in-combat.

I haven't the faintest idea :)

I pulled out my old MERP rulebook and here is how xp were handed out with that system:

Hit points - get 1xp per hit point taken in battle.

Critical Hits - you got a certain amount of xp depending on how bad the critical hit was on your character. Players would often bemoan getting a lame "A" crit and cheer when they got an "E" crit, until I rolled on the chart and paused a moment, wondering if they just got killed... but I think that was some of the most fun moments as players trash talked to each other over the xp they were getting for the awful crits they survived.

You also got xp for delivering crits on opponents, but the big payouts were usually when you got hit.

Kill Points - You got a certain number of points for delivering the deathblow to an opponent. When the monster was really powerful the reward was pretty big. This was once again another great font of memories as players would yell at each other telling them not to kill the BBEG because they wanted to deliver the deathblow. I miss that kind of jockularity in games.

Manuever points - you got these for pulling off what are essentially skill checks.

Spells - If you cast a spell that was pertinent and effective in the encounter they you gained xp.

Idea Points - If you came up with a good idea then you got xp for that.

Travel Points - all the travel earned you xp also. Every 10 miles you traveled int new lands you got xp, and it was rated on how dangerous the area was that you traveled through.

Miscellaneous points - A grab bag for the DM to hand out. This was generally for making good strategic decisions, or developing a character story more, etc.

The overall result I remember from these games was that people didn't do min-max nonsense. Instead it was a gambling game. Players knew that if they went up against more challenging opponents and survived then they'd earn big.

Yukitsu
2010-01-19, 01:24 AM
They'll be the first people to publish the book "Self mutilation for fun and profit."

Firefingers
2010-01-19, 01:25 AM
Notice he didnt just say on damage sustained but on total resource expenditure in the encounter, this would include spells used, wealth used (potions and expendables) damage taken.

Its an interesting way to handle encounters, just remember to give rewards for innovative solutions that bypass the encounters like the ghost sound solution earlier it would still earn some exp because of the spells used and possibly some more as a bouns considering it is also an innovative solution to the guards, I would also consider them leaving some potions or something behind as they are planning to return make it valuable enough to tempt the players but also something that if they are thinking they would know the guards might notice missing, can lead to some interesting interactions especially if your party has kleptomaniac theives getting them into no end of trouble with guards.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 01:28 AM
I thought the whole goal was to not have a convoluted experience. This is starting to border on needlessly complicated.

harpy
2010-01-19, 02:03 AM
I thought the whole goal was to not have a convoluted experience. This is starting to border on needlessly complicated.

Well, from remember my old games of MERP, because of the system's incentive to give out xp for resources being expended, it made it easy for players to keep track of what was happening to them so that they could cash it in at the end of the encounter. When the whole group is looking at it in that way it's pretty easy.

"The orc just critted you with the great axe, you take 33 hp."

"Awesome, I get 33xp for the hit points, double that because it was a crit, and I'm at -8 hp now, giving me a bonus of 50 more xp! A total of 116xp, thank you orc!"

That's kind of how MERP would go back in the day.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 02:18 AM
Well, from remember my old games of MERP, because of the system's incentive to give out xp for resources being expended, it made it easy for players to keep track of what was happening to them so that they could cash it in at the end of the encounter. When the whole group is looking at it in that way it's pretty easy.

"The orc just critted you with the great axe, you take 33 hp."

"Awesome, I get 33xp for the hit points, double that because it was a crit, and I'm at -8 hp now, giving me a bonus of 50 more xp! A total of 116xp, thank you orc!"

That's kind of how MERP would go back in the day.

I was joking with my "How much XP do I get for dying?" comment earlier. Now I see this was entirely valid. And that saddens me.

Superglucose
2010-01-19, 02:27 AM
Very much.

XP shouldn't be given for sucking. XP should be a reward for doing well: in combat, in roleplaying, whatever. Give XP for ending combats quickly with fewer resources spent, give XP for roleplaying that left everyone at the table excited and intrigued. Hell, give XP for when the players make a great joke, IC or OOC!

On the same token, penalize them for roleplaying that pisses everyone off and penalize them for bad jokes that leave everyone just staring.

Dr.Epic
2010-01-19, 04:51 AM
That sounds like a dumb idea. XP based on damaged taken? The warriors and tanks are going to level up like crazy. I'd say this would be balanced if caster got XP for spells they caster but the non-caster, less melee active classes are going to be left behind.

Eldan
2010-01-19, 05:13 AM
It also gives you a certain party imbalance:
A party of four raging barbarians will level faster than a party of four sneaking rogues. Why? Because the rogues backstab their targets, killing them quickly, while the barbarians will rage around in a horde of mooks, soaking up damage like crazy with their large HP pools.

Runestar
2010-01-19, 05:55 AM
It would probably only work if players are genuinely playing to the best of their abilities and not attempting to game the system. In this case, the amount of resources expended could be a fairly accurate assessment of how challenging those encounters are.

It might even out in the long run. If you expend fewer resources, you get less xp, but can theoretically adventure longer, and so should get more xp.

But even then, it only only be fair for very specific makeups. For example, if I am a party made up of classes with potentially unlimited resources (eg: binder, warlock, warblade, dragonfire adept etc), I would in theory get no/very little xp.

It may also penalize superior tactics. In normal situations, it would be an astute move to use benign transposition to replace a grappled PC with a summoned monster. Not so in your proposed houserule, which would deprive the PC of xp (as he takes less damage).

Shifts the paradigm of gameplay too much for my liking.

MickJay
2010-01-19, 07:07 AM
Honestly, it much depends on how you treat XP. Is it a reward, plain and simple? If so, efficiency and cleverness (e.g. "flawless" fights, avoiding combat altogether) should get rewarded more than hard-fought ones. Or is it an abstraction of what the characters actually learned, experienced? In that case, they should get more XP for harder fights where they got badly hurt because they would remember it better and would learn more from the hard lesson. Of course, this approach would also reward clever approach (using advantages, avoiding fight), since this would also constitute a valuable experience. Straightforward, "clean" fights mean they were easy, not worth mentioning, even if the opponents were powerful (unless they were such specifically because the players were thinking out of the box, or came up with something unusually clever. Merely using character's abilities to its full extent is just that, and not worth additional rewards - the easy victory was the reward in itself).

Ideally, I'd see the perfect system as a balance of the two approaches, but in the long run, there are too many variables, and it would make more sense to simply give slightly less XP for defeating monsters and supplement that with bonuses for being clever/suffering much.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-19, 07:35 AM
This solution rewards neither clever strategy nor good roleplaying...

Harder fights should be given more xp, yes. Harder does not mean "took more damage". That time when the rogue thinks up a brilliant way to avoid half the opponents? That's him getting smarter/better. Pretty much the definition of the sort of action experience should match up with.

This just rewards people charging in and soaking the hits every time.

RebelRogue
2010-01-19, 07:39 AM
So how much XP do I get for dying?
Actually, in a 1e/2E hybrid setting one of my friends played in there was a rule of getting 1000 XP the first time you died, should you ever be revived. The argument was, that it should give some new outlook on life.

But I can't say I like the general idea of the rule suggested.

Gnaeus
2010-01-19, 08:43 AM
Well, from remember my old games of MERP, because of the system's incentive to give out xp for resources being expended, it made it easy for players to keep track of what was happening to them so that they could cash it in at the end of the encounter. When the whole group is looking at it in that way it's pretty easy.

"The orc just critted you with the great axe, you take 33 hp."

"Awesome, I get 33xp for the hit points, double that because it was a crit, and I'm at -8 hp now, giving me a bonus of 50 more xp! A total of 116xp, thank you orc!"

That's kind of how MERP would go back in the day.

I remember one time my MERP party was in a forest, might have been Mirkwood. We had all read The Hobbit, so we sent someone to climb a tree to see where we were. Our skillmonkey rolls really badly, falls out of the tree, and breaks his arm. DM computes the crit xp and awards it. The party looks at each other. "Hmm. I can fall out of a tree as well as HE can!" Next thing you know we were all in trees. The guy who rolled the worst crit and almost died got the most xp.

harpy
2010-01-19, 10:44 AM
Lots of great responses!

Random things:

In terms of the difference between MERP and D&D, the crits in MERP were quite lethal and even the lowliest creature could make an amazing roll and deliver a death dealing crit in one hit. So in that regard there was definitely an incentive to shut down encounters as fast as possible and the players responded in that way.

In D&D, with its comfortable ablative armor of hit points you don't have as much urgency and so simply adpoting what MERP did wouldn't work.

Still, I think there is wiggle room. Xps for hit points taken isn't really a whole lot if it is just a 1 for 1 value. But if you increase the value of hit points taken when critted, say hit points x 5, then that helps to reward the nasty blows at a level that is worthwhile to pay attention to as a player. Other types of weighting of values could be done so that the risk/reward is emphasized.

While it worked for MERP to do things individually, in D&D it makes far more sense that a system like this was done where the total xp earned is pooled and then divided among the players. It's very true that if you used this kind of system and doled things out individually then there would be lots of problems with characters getting wildly different values.

As for players gaming the system... maybe its just coming out of old school gaming, but the DM filter always seemed to work fine here. People doing silly things like fireballing the party, or tossing themselves deliberately out of trees would just result in players getting hurt.

Of course, DMs might not want to put up with using a filter all the time. I weeded out crazed rules lawyers and abusive players starting when I was a teen back in the 80's, so I've avoided a lot of the nonsense that others might not be able to deal with or confront with problem players.

Some of the responses are interesting, because it helps to show off my own biases. I'm straining to think of a time when players actively tried to avoid combat, unless the plot was hitting them over the head saying "this is the sneak encounter" so the idea of people coming up with good ideas to avoid combat is almost completely alien to me. Players have always wanted to induce encounters because that is the main way xp are handed out.

Sure you get xp for completing quests or other fluffy stuff, but the real haul comes from the fights. As for xp for roleplaying? I've spent 30 years playing with gamists-at-heart and only can think of a handful of times when people truly roleplayed. We're pretty much a bunch of roll-players.

I guess the central point of trying some kind of system where risk is rewarded is that it tries to goad players away from shutting down encounters easily. If you are optimizing to the point where you cream the encounter before it got even interesting then the drama is fizziling out. I can acknowledge as a player that I enjoy doing that. The feeling of rationally breaking down the situation and then applying an plan that takes out the BBEG is satisfying, but when you have a table full of people doing that it tends to bleed a lot of drama out of the game.

I think the suggestion for a hybrid form between MERP and D&D style experience would work well. You get a flat amount based on CR, but you also get an amount depending on the amount of resources players spent or how close they succumbed to death. I'm sure the numbers could be mapped out so that the numbers aren't too far off from how they roll out now.

It's more of the psychological factor of giving players bonus points because they failed that will save, got critted or went to -9 xp. Those xp reflect them learning something, say, to duck better. There are plenty of psychological studies out there now that show that some of the most potent learning comes from when people learn from mistakes, and not from when they succeed.

As for things like skill checks, it just comes down to risk/reward. If you cross a narrow ledge over a lava pit then you'd get a good chunk of xp. If you jump over a stream to avoid 1d6 damage from a twisted ankle then not so much.

As for brilliant strategies. These things have always been part of the DM filter evaluation. A player who has an obnoxious character build who can walk in and cheesily shut down an encounter isn't going to get rewarded. But if you can think of a way to have that pillar topple on top of the dragon as it comes out of the entrance, then sure that should be rewarded. I haven't really seen any systematic way of rewarding good ideas though. It's always just been one of those catch all categories that the rules give to the DM.

Lets see... the last thing is death. I don't think it was in MERP, but in Rolemaster there was probably at the very least an optional rule where if you died and were resurrected you gained XP. D&D hurts you for this, but with Rolemaster it was more like you coming back as Gandalf the White in a certain way. You've died and now you come back all the wiser.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 11:15 AM
As for things like skill checks, it just comes down to risk/reward. If you cross a narrow ledge over a lava pit then you'd get a good chunk of xp. If you jump over a stream to avoid 1d6 damage from a twisted ankle then not so much.

As for brilliant strategies. These things have always been part of the DM filter evaluation. A player who has an obnoxious character build who can walk in and cheesily shut down an encounter isn't going to get rewarded. But if you can think of a way to have that pillar topple on top of the dragon as it comes out of the entrance, then sure that should be rewarded. I haven't really seen any systematic way of rewarding good ideas though. It's always just been one of those catch all categories that the rules give to the DM.

These two paragraphs I find troublesome.

As far as the first one, 1d6 twisted ankle damage. I was unaware that it was dangerous for wizards to wade across streams. Hell that's life-threatening for a first level wizard!

There are two reasons why this bothers me. Let's assume that this wasn't an arbitrarily-assigned number. By your own admission then a first level wizard avoiding a pitfall that could end him is not worthy of XP but if he jumps a bigger distance, which would still spell his demise if he failed, he would get XP. It seems arbitrary.

Let's then assume that you were using an off-the-cuff remark. Since when do the players get to decide when a skill challenge should happen? It is up to the DM to assign skill challenges and up the DC if need be. And if a DM actually has a skill challenge to prevent twisted ankle damage, then hell, I guess the characters might need a fort save every 5 seconds to remember to breathe too.

As far as the second paragraph. Let's say that I am playing a Walker in the Waste. It's a pretty campaign specific class with pretty restrictive entrance requirements if you're not playing a particular kind of cleric. So are you telling me that if I end an encounter with the BBEG in the first round by using my ONCE A DAY ability to turn him into a pillar of salt then I am not worthy of being rewarded for my efforts?


Call me old fashioned, but is it too difficult to reward for what you actually accomplished? For instance:

Did you slay the monster? Yes.
Did you keep the prince safe? No.
Rescue the princess? Yes.
Discover the traitor? Yes.

Stuff like that should be awarded XP, not how much damage you took. I shouldn't hope to critically fumble in order to level up. Sure you can add XP for extra stuff like innovation or excellent roleplaying, but damn people, being rewarded for not knowing which end of the spear is the pointy end is just counterintuitive.

MickJay
2010-01-19, 11:22 AM
Technically speaking, in D&D players are rewarded for overcoming obstacles. The simplest way is to treat creatures as walking XP packets and just "collect" them. If your goal, however, is not the extermination itself, but the treasure the monsters are guarding, then the players should get the same XP as if they killed the monsters just for sneaking in, getting the treasure and successfully sneaking out. I mean, at the beginning of D&D, you got XP directly for getting the treasure, monsters, obstacles and whatnot did not matter one bit, except as distraction to be avoided. There was no point in fighting the monsters, unless plot demanded that, since all you could gain from it was some bruises, expenses and a risk of death. I know the system is an abstraction, but I always wonderd how exactly is killing things with, for example, spells, making a wizard more powerful (unless we assume that killing another creature lets its slayer suck out some of its vital force that, in turn, strengthens the killer).

Come to think of it, it would actually make a lot of sense.

edit:
Stuff like that should be awarded XP, not how much damage you took. I shouldn't hope to critically fumble in order to level up. Sure you can add XP for extra stuff like innovation or excellent roleplaying, but damn people, being rewarded for not knowing which end of the spear is the pointy end is just counterintuitive.

Well, it is arbitrary, but it again comes down to what XP represents: a reward for doing things nice and clean, or an abstraction of actual experiences the characters had that makes them wiser. Of course, the experience for obvious "stupidity" should not be awarded (or awarded once, if the action did not at first seem as stupid as it turned out to be in practice). Gamist vs. simulationist approaches at their finest (for whatever these labels are worth).

harpy
2010-01-19, 11:59 AM
Let's then assume that you were using an off-the-cuff remark. Since when do the players get to decide when a skill challenge should happen? It is up to the DM to assign skill challenges and up the DC if need be. And if a DM actually has a skill challenge to prevent twisted ankle damage, then hell, I guess the characters might need a fort save every 5 seconds to remember to breathe too.

Yeah, it was just off the cuff. I don't really have any system to point to, but I'd assume if one sat down and worked at the math and probabilities a bit then you'd be able to come up with some values that relate to probabilities of success at certain levels vs DCs.

But once again... a certain bias is evident in my view. While its not all the games I play in "modern times" most of them have a kind of video game structure to them. There are the moments when players talk with NPCs, investigate, etc. These are more like the dialogue trees in video games. Then when something risky happens the DM presses the "encounter button" and then players roll to see if they succeed at thinks like climb checks or full blown fights.

So to a large degree, the DM is deciding when checks are being made and setting the difficulties. A typical session of play is [intro plot hook] [encounter] [talk with npc] [encounter] [investigate] [encounter] [talk with npc]. Games are episodic, and so open ended gaming doesn't really happen. In many ways it is like structure of popular music: verse/chorus/verse/chorus/bridge/verse/chorus.

Because of that, a lot of the issues for players running around trying to hurt themselves or doing wacky things just to induce risk just doesn't happen. The players know and expect a narrative structure to their episodes and just run through them. I know... this sounds nightmarish and anathema to many roleplayers out there.



As far as the second paragraph. Let's say that I am playing a Walker in the Waste. It's a pretty campaign specific class with pretty restrictive entrance requirements if you're not playing a particular kind of cleric. So are you telling me that if I end an encounter with the BBEG in the first round by using my ONCE A DAY ability to turn him into a pillar of salt then I am not worthy of being rewarded for my efforts?

Well, you'd get the value for CR, but nothing else. The basic point is that fights shouldn't end that way, they ought to be cinematic and on the edge of your seat.

The ideal fight is one where the whole party is down, save for one last character and if they don't hit the monster in this final roll then statistically the next round the BBEG would hit and kill the guy and it would result in a TPK. I guess if you want to make it really ideal then the only way the guy can kit the BBEG is to roll a 20.

The player rolls a 20, the table erupts in cheers and all is well. So that is the apex, trying to emulate Luke's Death Star shot, or any of a zillion other movie moments where it all comes down to one long bomb throw that turns the tide of battle.

So that's the ideal state of drama, and so having a system that can nudge towards that would be great.

I know... D&D isn't meant to emulate movies and that you can't create a sustainable and viable system hoping for miracle rolls. Still, "system matters" and I'm sure there are ways to encourage one thing over another.

I've been awash in 30 years of gaming culture which is inherently risk averse. System analysis, careful planning, and all of that is good fun, but when you step back it is also the opposite of how any movie or novel works. I guess in a certain way its about trying to create a reward system that is helping amp up drama, much as many newer indie games attempt, but without all of that goopy player narrative power. It's about creating a physics engine that shoves people towards risk taking and creating a dynamic where combats are more tense.



Call me old fashioned, but is it too difficult to reward for what you actually accomplished? For instance:

Did you slay the monster? Yes.
Did you keep the prince safe? No.
Rescue the princess? Yes.
Discover the traitor? Yes.

Stuff like that should be awarded XP, not how much damage you took. I shouldn't hope to critically fumble in order to level up. Sure you can add XP for extra stuff like innovation or excellent roleplaying, but damn people, being rewarded for not knowing which end of the spear is the pointy end is just counterintuitive.

I don't see any problem with rewarding accomplishments. The big problem is when the system plays into risk aversion to the point of bleeding all of the drama out of game.

I understand where people are coming from wanting to reward doing the perfect job. I even feel that as a player. In fact one of the charms of roleplaying games is that you can inject yourself in a story and be able to say, "I'm not going to be like those fools in the movies that make all the mistakes, I'm going to shut this situation down before it even gets out of hand!" and that's fine.

I guess after decades of doing that, it can also be a bit dry.

MickJay
2010-01-19, 12:12 PM
What would you do if the players tried to get a treasure from a dungeon that, if they wanted to fight their way through it, would simply kill them? The players know that, so they are doing what they can to avoid combat. They also know that if they screw up their stealthy approach, they're dead. If they forget about some precaution, they're dead. If anyone in the dungeon as much as suspects that there's been a breach of security, some mage is going to try to detect the intruders (they're dead, unless the scrying fails, either because it was insufficient, or because the players were prepared for it). Ideally, the players will get the treasure and retreat as they arrived, undetected.

Such game would rely not so much on HP and power playing, but on "power sneaking", and would be potentially much, much more deadly to everyone involved. How would you deal with awarding the XP for such an experience?

shadow_archmagi
2010-01-19, 12:13 PM
It seems to me that this presents a conflict of interest for the PCs, since generally masochism isn't one of the heroic qualities.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 12:17 PM
Thank you for your speedy response.

The only thing I disagree with is the way you feel an ending should be. I can think of two movies right away where the endings don't pan out like that and it didn't hurt the feel of the movie. Idle Hands and Big Trouble in Little China are the ones that spring to mind. The climaxes were both, "That's it?" but in the end you forgave them because you had a fun ride on your way there.

Certainly suspense has a time and place, but why should a character who has invested a lot of time and resources in a class/item/ability be penalized for not making it cinematic?

Correct me if I am wrong, but when you know the final battle is up, you have in your head (or on paper) what you're going to award the players before they even start, right? So why would you penalize players for not conforming to your specific gameplay (i.e. almost die then hope for a fortunate crit) when you allow a particular class/item/ability in your game to start with?

"Well I would have given you 8000 XP for having an awesome battle, but you unfortunately researched your foe well, exploited his weakness, used minimal amount of resources, suffered little to no casualties, developed a good strategy, and killed him before the start of the second round. Since you did this I can only award you 7000 XP. Do better next time."

Jayabalard
2010-01-19, 12:18 PM
Wizard: So, if I cast ghost sound to lure the guards away from the door, thenuse Invisibility Sphere, we can approach it, and the Rogue can hopefully pick the lock and slip us through before they get back.
Pacifist Cleric: But then we get no XP!
Fighter::Hit me with Enlarge Person, I need the lower AC.
Wizard: Fine. *casts*
Rogue: CHARGE!

How is this a good thing?Isn't that explicitly reducing the gains when the group utilizes the wizard's ability to bypass challenges by himself, and then giving better gains when the players take more risks? Wouldn't that make the wizard less important to the group, and the fighter more important to the group?

Really, the only part of your objection that makes any sense to me is a result of the players gaming the system rather than reward method itself.


This solution rewards neither clever strategy nor good roleplaying...It does reward a sort of good cinema... nad if that's the sort of game you're playing, then it's rewarding good* roleplaying

*where Good is defined as "fitting the genre that you're playing"

Britter
2010-01-19, 12:23 PM
Apologies if it was already pointed out, but the XP for taking crits and damage thing in MERP/ICE was, as I recall, like all xp based events in those systems. There were steep diminishing returns. Sure you got a lot of XP the first time you survived a critical. But the second time was something like half as much. And the third time was a really piddly amount. The premise behind that xp system, as I recall, is that as an event becomes common place for your character it ceases to be an efficent way to gain XP, whether that event is killing an orc or being hit by an axe.

Nohwl
2010-01-19, 12:24 PM
what happens if the fighter picks a fight with the cleric, and the cleric casts harm on the fighter? does the fighter get any xp for that?

harpy
2010-01-19, 12:27 PM
Such game would rely not so much on HP and power playing, but on "power sneaking", and would be potentially much, much more deadly to everyone involved. How would you deal with awarding the XP for such an experience?

I guess it would be that skill checks are rated for the risk involved. You could have a value matrix that takes into account the DC for the check, but also give a value at what the actual effect is rated at the intensity of the effect. If the effect is death, then they get a good chunk of xp if they succeed.

Combat and skill checks have different ways of being calculated. In combat, you get bonuses for using resources because it is a measure of how difficult it was to overcome. Skill checks don't usually have resource expenditures, they just either work or they don't, so you'd get xp based off of the potential, rather than actual risk, such as in combat.

With a broader view, if it is a sandbox campaign then you just go old school and let things happen as they happen. If players want to run that risk then they run the risk.

If it was a modern illusionist/railroading episodic campaign, the DM wouldn't even create those kinds of conditions. In those cases the players need to succeed for the story to continue, it'd be the DM's job to make them feel as if it is actually deadly, even if it isn't.

harpy
2010-01-19, 12:33 PM
what happens if the fighter picks a fight with the cleric, and the cleric casts harm on the fighter? does the fighter get any xp for that?

I'd just go with DM filter and say no.

But this is also once again personal bias. Inter party conflict? I haven't seen it in decades.

The party is supposed to run in, kill stuff, and get stuff, not play out character motivations and pick fights with each other.

harpy
2010-01-19, 12:52 PM
Thank you for your speedy response.

The only thing I disagree with is the way you feel an ending should be. I can think of two movies right away where the endings don't pan out like that and it didn't hurt the feel of the movie. Idle Hands and Big Trouble in Little China are the ones that spring to mind. The climaxes were both, "That's it?" but in the end you forgave them because you had a fun ride on your way there.


I guess they exist. The way I'd see it is just that their endings aren't as aesthetically pleasing as something like the death star trench run.



Certainly suspense has a time and place, but why should a character who has invested a lot of time and resources in a class/item/ability be penalized for not making it cinematic?

It does come down to culture and playstyle to a degree. But a character that is made to consistently hit the "I win" button and shut down encounters is perhaps satisfying to that one player, but the DM (who spent a lot of time working on the encounter) and perhaps some of the other players would find it annoying and sucking a lot of the drama and fun out of the game.



Correct me if I am wrong, but when you know the final battle is up, you have in your head (or on paper) what you're going to award the players before they even start, right? So why would you penalize players for not conforming to your specific gameplay (i.e. almost die then hope for a fortunate crit) when you allow a particular class/item/ability in your game to start with?

I guess the broad idea, and what has evolved over the course of just this thread, is the idea that the encounter would have a set value to it. However, additional points would be gained based on the resources spent.

So, from your example. The game typically rewards 8000xp for the encounter, but under this system it would reward 7000 + risk. Since the risk is variable it might mean that the party ends up gaining 9000xp because they got stomped on before finally winning.

It's really just trying create incentives for risk taking, inverting the current system that encourages risk aversion.

I think ultimately it is just what flavor do you want in the game. Do you want the cerebral, engineering style of play, or do you want a more gut level, cinematic experience?

For someone, and I know plenty of people who do, who want the cerebral game, then the system wouldn't be rewarding that style of play. There are also players who want more of a gamblers game and they'd appreciate a different system that encourages them to jump into the thick of it.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-19, 12:55 PM
It does come down to culture and playstyle to a degree. But a character that is made to consistently hit the "I win" button and shut down encounters is perhaps satisfying to that one player, but the DM (who spent a lot of time working on the encounter) and perhaps some of the other players would find it annoying and sucking a lot of the drama and fun out of the game.

If there is a singular "I win" button, then the problem is that the game is structured so as to have such a button. Or the DMs fault, for a campaign with such a button.

If you want a way to add drama, look up 7th Sea's Drama die system.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-19, 12:59 PM
I was joking with my "How much XP do I get for dying?" comment earlier. Now I see this was entirely valid. And that saddens me.

Consider: Some characters don't die at -10. Hell, some of those are capable of beating your face in even at -15!


And now consider where the whole "stick your head in a bucket of water to reset your HP to 0" came from (a theoretical exercise on infinite damage).


I, for one, would be against the idea of gaining XP by taking damage as the PCs could just have a Crusader stand by and heal them every time they take a hit, thus allowing them to gain infinite XP.

DementedFellow
2010-01-19, 01:00 PM
If there is a singular "I win" button, then the problem is that the game is structured so as to have such a button. Or the DMs fault, for a campaign with such a button.

I agree. If you're going to allow it, then why penalize? A lot of "I win" buttons require a DC to be overcome, and being the DM, it's not too hard to change numbers and amp it up to a sufficient degree to where "I win" turns into "I hope I win".

harpy
2010-01-19, 01:10 PM
I, for one, would be against the idea of gaining XP by taking damage as the PCs could just have a Crusader stand by and heal them every time they take a hit, thus allowing them to gain infinite XP.

For me, that would just be poor DMing. If the DM is allowing silly loopholes to work in a system then the need to take better control of the game.

It's not as if the game is a computer program where you can truly game the system. Part of the DMs job is to make sure the rules are a tool for the betterment of fun, not be a slave to rules and let them take over.

Keshay
2010-01-19, 01:13 PM
Sorry for the non-sequiter, bu tthe discussion in the thread reminded me of Xp/skill point gain in Final Fantasy Tactics. Basicall you got Skill points for everything "Job-Related". This lent itself to getting you party to surround a monster, wail on it, heal it, wail on it some more, get hit, heal you ally, hit the monster, heal it, etc... You could have maximum Skill points after the first map.

Actually, I do not recall if it was the core or variant xp rules for 2e D&D, but there was a table that stated a Cleric got x*Spell level xp for all spells cast to promote the agenda of the Cleric's deity. You could convolute that into allowing yourself to take damage, then heal yourself, rinse, repeat...

So this idea does have some precedent in core D&D (old version, but still).

Zaydos
2010-01-19, 01:15 PM
I actually like 2e's system of extra rewards. Wizards got XP for casting spells (might have specified to overcome problems), rogues for treasure gained, and warriors for HD of creatures defeated in combat and double if they actually did the final blow or some such. I forget because I never actually saw it implemented but it always seemed to be cool.

As for XP per hp lost if you're giving XP for everything (like in MERP) then ok, but normally that will just encourage bad strategy.

Artanis
2010-01-19, 01:19 PM
If you want the fights to be harder why not just make them harder?

You're talking a lot about the DM having to keep a close eye on the system itself just to make sure it works at all. How would all this be easier than just having the DM just find some way to make fights harder?

It seems like a whole lot of complexity for little if any gain.

Lamech
2010-01-19, 01:25 PM
I wouldn't give out xp for just damage, and in some extreme situations you're going to have to obviously limit the xp. For example if the party goes to the positive energy plane, and is cheap so they just cut themselves to keep from 'asploding they do not deserve xp for all 24,000 damage they will have sustained after 8 hours. Make sure the party understands that they will not get the xp if they try to exploit it, or if they do something like the above example.

And also give xp for other things as well, casting spells, clever ideas, killing stuff, ect.

jiriku
2010-01-19, 01:53 PM
This is a nice take on an old system I played a little MERP back in the day and it was a fun experience.

Obstacles I'd See:
Such a system would have to be complicated in order to be fair. It would take time to develop, and it would take time to track in-game. Time you spend fiddling with an XP system is time you don't spend gaming or hanging out with your loved ones.

Obstacles I Don't See:
Abuse. It sounds like your players wouldn't even think to game the system, and as the designer of said system, they're not going to be able to slip anything past you.

Suggestions I Might Offer:
If you execute your system as you're considering, definitely split the XP evenly.
Alternately, just create a small table with a list of mishaps that trigger an automatic XP reward, granted on-the-spot during combat. This would be simple and light-weight. Something like this:

{table]Mishap|Reward
Failed save|Small
Failed skill check|Small
Spell countered|Small
Take damage|Small
Negative status effect|Small
Unable to act|Medium
Critical hit|Medium
Unconscious|Large[/table]

You'd need a separate table defining small, medium, and large rewards, because the amount would need to scale with level in order to remain relevant, and the xp cost to level up doesn't scale in a simple way.

Ravens_cry
2010-01-19, 02:24 PM
I don't like how this system makes one think. It doesn't encourage problem solving or role play or lateral thinking. All it seems to encourage is combats dragging on as long as possible. Sneaking past the guards, or tense negotiations sound much more engaging and narrative then an endless litany of hits, to me. You may not be using up in game resources, but so what? You're solving the problems, you're meeting goals, why is that not worth XP while getting bashed in the face because of clumsy tactics and worse strategies is? And, as you've noticed, it's super easy to exploit. Yes, you can 'limit' this, but then what's the point of the system? Even easier, a character with fast healing could simpley self flagellate in their off time for free XP.
How's that cinematic?
It's hard when what one feels to be a good idea is shot down, and that is personal experience talking. But I just don't see much, if anything, this would add to the game.

Indon
2010-01-19, 02:36 PM
I'd suggest a tweak of the original idea.

Rather than resources drained, or anything like that, have simple bad luck reward XP.

Bad luck includes failing your Fireball reflex save with a 1, the kobold critting, or your party landing a herd of trolls on the random encounter chart (where applicable).

Gnaeus
2010-01-19, 02:48 PM
I agree with Ravens Cry, I think this would have bad impacts on character builds and play.

Things that make PCs immune to enemy effects are out. Displacement type miss chances. Necropolitan, any other undead or template changing types. Rings of evasion. Mettle. High AC. A lot of basic spell defenses, like really high saves. Most battlefield control. If it keeps PCs from being hurt or effected by enemy status effects, it has become a bad thing.

Things that let you recover are improved. Iron Heart Surge. High HP builds. Resurgence. Any kind of HP recovery batteries. In battle healing. Crusaders and Warblades in general. You want to be able to be beaten on, then shrug it off. Big bonus for Shield Other, to share that XP love around the party.

It is better, for example, to buy a Stone to Flesh scroll, than it is to figure out how to not be turned to stone.

I don't see how this improves the game.

Draz74
2010-01-19, 02:51 PM
Vicious weapons FTW!

carrion pigeons
2010-01-19, 03:16 PM
Damage taken, bad luck, or long fights are not how you'd get experience IRL, any more than is efficiently killing monsters over and over.

If you want to reward XP for cinematic moments, then do it. You know what constitutes a cinematic moment, and you have the prerogative to award bonus XP for anything you like to see from the players. It doesn't seem like gutting the current XP system to replace it with a complicated and abusable one is sensible.

If you plan to award a LOT of bonus XP this way, just adjust the rest of the campaign so the players level up at an appropriate rate. That's really the only issue. That way, the less cinematic your players are as you start out, the more risks they have to take in order to catch up as the campaign goes on.

Deepblue706
2010-01-19, 03:53 PM
Oh man. If I were a villain, I had better hope the PCs never escape that Super Torture Room of Infinite Pain. Wait, is that why the good guys always escape??

Ravens_cry
2010-01-19, 03:58 PM
Oh man. If I were a villain, I had better hope the PCs never escape that Super Torture Room of Infinite Pain. Wait, is that why the good guys always escape??
Because then they wouldn't be the good guys, but merely the guys who went and tried unsuccessfully to stop the big baddy bad bad before the story begins. Duh!

Deepblue706
2010-01-19, 04:20 PM
I didn't really understand what you just said. But with this rule I'd be investing in a ring of regeneration and then go out and fist-fight a lot of housecats.

Flickerdart
2010-01-19, 04:33 PM
There is a torture device in BoVD that simultaneously heals and harms anyone trapped inside it. The idea is to prolong suffering infinitely, but it's also an infinite source of damage...

elonin
2010-01-19, 04:55 PM
Xp for hit points taken is a merp / rolemaster idea that wouldn't work for dnd. They are completely different systems.

I do like the role-master xp system. The main difference is that role master rewards skill use. For example xp is rewarded for critical hits (more luck of die roll), hit points delt, kills, hitpoints taken, and dying (getting ressed is harder), but also for movement maneuvers (tightrope walking, and moving in armor), and casting spells. The main difference between dnd and rm is that in rm these are all skills. If you want hit points (body development), improved attack with a group of weapons, armor proficiency (each armor type has a penalty that you can overcome with skill), spells (spend development points toward a % to learn a segment of a list) all of these are skills. There are also role play xp awards given for completion of quests that are arbitrary. The one area of weakness is that most xp is individually generated. But this isn't as bad as you'd think from outside of the system.

Tyndmyr
2010-01-19, 05:01 PM
You're talking a lot about the DM having to keep a close eye on the system itself just to make sure it works at all.

This. Yes...you can use rule zero to fix the massive problems inherent in the system. You can use rule zero to fix anything, in theory. Thing is, if the system is obviously completely broken without rule zero....it's not a very good system.

If you want to award xp for some badass battle in which the heros almost die, but pull out a win...do so. This requires no massive overhaul.

MickJay
2010-01-19, 05:49 PM
All things considered, there are lots of systems that are far better suited to cinematic-style gameplay than D&D (and I'm not even talking about Exalted). Take Starblazer Adventures, for example. Or almost anything else that uses FATE system. D&D (all of the newer editions) tends to reward accountancy and bookkeeping when resources are concerned, and that does not encourage bravery, either IC or OOC. Why not use a system that was designed with the thought of action and crazy adventures instead? :smallwink:

AslanCross
2010-01-19, 05:54 PM
It seems like it would end up being an overly convoluted system to me.

Same here. As a DM I do enough bookkeeping as it is. I like it when the players can avoid an encounter, as combat is not the only way to defeat an encounter. If I'm not mistaken, the DMG is clear that you don't have to kill everyone in an encounter to succeed.

Volos
2010-01-19, 07:09 PM
Wizard: So, if I cast ghost sound to lure the guards away from the door, thenuse Invisibility Sphere, we can approach it, and the Rogue can hopefully pick the lock and slip us through before they get back.
Pacifist Cleric: But then we get no XP!
Fighter::Hit me with Enlarge Person, I need the lower AC.
Wizard: Fine. *casts*
Rogue: CHARGE!

How is this a good thing?

I couldn't say it better myself. XP is rewarded for the challenge of an encounter. It's just as hard to slip past a monster as it is to beat it to a bloody pulp. Though it is harder to convince the monster to 'play nice'. My players have learned to either diplomancy things out for more XP or use non-leathal damage so that they can collect the bounty.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-01-19, 08:36 PM
If the problem is that PCs are risk averse, fix that problem. If there's anything Shadowrun has taught me, it's that all the planning in the world can't eliminate drama. Planning to reduce obstacles is great and intelligent, but it can never be comprehensive. If you want drama, put it into the game. The PCs can't possibly stop you.

harpy
2010-01-20, 08:35 AM
All things considered, there are lots of systems that are far better suited to cinematic-style gameplay than D&D (and I'm not even talking about Exalted). Take Starblazer Adventures, for example. Or almost anything else that uses FATE system. D&D (all of the newer editions) tends to reward accountancy and bookkeeping when resources are concerned, and that does not encourage bravery, either IC or OOC. Why not use a system that was designed with the thought of action and crazy adventures instead? :smallwink:

Well, one factor that is important to me is drawing upon a decent size pool of local players (around 40 or so) which are all well versed in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Games tend to be organized so that people can rotate in and out depending on their schedule. I really like having such a broad base of players, so fragmenting the community with lots of specialized systems isn't really desired.

From my perspective, it is far better to have a general system that lots of people know well, and if you want to tweak it for a particular mini-campaign then you just need to provide a page or two of house rules. So a lot of energy goes into making solid house rules.

So to a certain extent, "all roads lead to D&D" in my rpging world.

MickJay
2010-01-20, 09:42 AM
In that case, I guess D&D is kind of inevitable. Still, there are enough systems that can be learned in 10-15 minutes and more or less mastered during a single session that the community wouldn't get fragmented over introduction of a new ruleset. Funnily enough, FATE, for example, tends to be much more flexible with what players can do and less prone to being abused than D&D, too. :smallbiggrin: The main focus is on roleplaying rather than "rollplaying" and number crunching (which are practically impossible with FATE), though, so this particular system could be slightly too different from what your players are used to.

One-Roll Engine is also fairly simple, while (probably) lending itself better to fantasy settings.

Anyway, as I see it, D&D is simply too rules-heavy for casual tweaking, it would probably take less effort to take a more suitable system, learn it from scratch and make a few adjustments than introduce a series of houserules for D&D that would cover all possible situations (unless the rules would be fairly general and subject to DMs interpretation in each case, but then some players could be unhappy about "arbitrary" decisions, unless they fully trust their DM to do the right thing).