PDA

View Full Version : DM Help XP for Style?



Yora
2015-06-15, 02:55 PM
I've read an old article by The Angry GM (http://www.madadventurers.com/angry-rants-lazy-dms-and-non-experience-systems/) today, in which he makes some interesting points about XP. I've pretty much running campaigns without XP for a while now, as I just don't want to bother with any accounting in my game (also don't use money and don't measure encumbrance by weight). Though admitedly, since I am no longer running D&D 3rd ed./PF, calculating the XP would actually be a lot less of a bother.
But Angry makes a good point. XP are a very strong motivator for players. If they know what gets them the most XP, they generally feel highly motivated to do just that thing as much as they can.

If you simply give XP for defeated monsters, you get the weird situation where the players are encouraged to get into every possible fight they can, unless it will really block the progress of the adventure. But finding every single last goblin hiding somewhere in the fortress to get into a fight with him? Why not? You get more levels more quickly that way.
AD&D actually did it somewhat differently in a quite interesting way. That was not a game about fighting monsters, but a game about hunting for treasure. So in that system you get some XP for defeating monsters but also considerable amounts of XP for all the treasure you haul back to town. This encourages players to actually avoid combat and find other creative ways to get treasure without a fight. Say a party could defeat 5 monsters in battle during a day. If they fight everything they encounter, they get XP for five fights and XP for the five treasures they got from those fights. But if they try to avoid combat, each time they get a treasure without a fight, they can still keep going hunting for more treasure. So at the end of the day, when their resources are running out, they still could have the XP for five fights and the XP from the treasure from those five fights, but they might also have gotten XP for three more treasure they manges to steal without a fight. As a result, those parties who fight less actually get the most XP. (Of course, assuming infinitely large dungeons with infinite amounts of monsters and treasures.) Another thing that motivates players to avoid combat is that characters are quite fragile, die easily, and are expected to die often. Killing all the monsters in the dungeon might not even be possible, even if they come back many different times on different days. And even if they do, the risk of getting killed in fights against monsters, whose treasure they could have already stolen, would often be just too high to consider.

With a stronger focus on character and story development, having characters die easily and often is usually not desireable, so most of the times players are pretty confident that they will be able to deal with everything the GM will throw at them. So this is much less of a factor to encourage players to think creatively and avoid fights.

So simply giving XP or new levels at story appropriate points might seem like a good possible solution to get around that. When fights don't get the characters any gain, they are just a risk with no reward, and players automatically want to avoid them when possible. But the big problem is that it doesn't exactly inspire the players to greatness. You get your new level at a specific point in the story, regardless of how you got there. Making the story a good story is of course a motivation and a reward in itself, but the XP are just "meh, whatever". Parties they give their everything and make the greatest of plans will get the same XP as those that would do it as half-arsed as possible. If you need to lure the players with XP to make any real efforts, there is something much worse that needs to be adressed, but you still can make getting XP fun and motivating.

So what I am thkining of is to somehow tie the amount of XP the PCs get on how well the players did. If the players get badly beaten up in a fight and barely made it through victorious, the XP they get are only very little. But if they manage to get a flawless victory with almost no damage taken and no losses on their side, they get much much more XP for the same opponent. This encourages players to not just win every fight they get into, but to win it really well. It encourages them to plan ahead and use every trick they can think of, so they will win as efficiently as possible. This could also be applied to situations other than fights. If their goal is to sneak into a place silently with minimum signs of their presence, they would get maximum XP if they can get in without any fight, but for each guard they have to knock out or suspicious tracks on the carpet their XP get reduced. When negotiating with NPCs they get high XP for doing it really well, but perhaps no XP if they just barely manage to get whatever agreement they came for.

The big problem with that approach: How do you measure the degree of success in a way that is fair and transparent for the players. Because that's the whole point. We want the players to mentally connect great performance with faster character advancement. In the end, it always has to be the GMs call, but there probably could be several ways to make it less arbitrary and more transparent?

Stellar_Magic
2015-06-15, 03:09 PM
Actually I've done the reverse of this... Barely winning or, in a few cases, actually being bested by the foe is more of a learning experience - therefore I give them more XP if that happens.

Also I give XP for roleplaying elements instead of just giving them XP for fighting a monster... be that a roleplay session or a 4E style skill challenge.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-15, 03:11 PM
It's a hard sell, because occasionally, winning by the skin of your teeth is the only way you can do it. Rewarding lack of damage might make players risk averse.

I use the "story rewards" method, which I must've read somewhere because I've been doing it for a long time. Similar to the gold=xp scenario, except that it's outcome driven, not motivated by treasure.

PC's gain xp from overcoming obstacles, regardless of how they achieve it. The town is saved, yay! Doesn't matter if it's because they diverted a dam to flood the valley and block the invasion route, parlayed with the enemy commander, or murdered every single soldier in the attacking force. Mission accomplished, xp gained, cha-ching!

Stellar_Magic
2015-06-15, 03:17 PM
I liked to say, you get XP by beating the enemy/obstacle/trap/challenge. It never says beating them in combat...

Just once I'd like to see a party raid a goblin band or kobold lair and demand to parley instead of going in guns blazing. Hmm... maybe that's why the skill is named Diplomacy? Eh?

Thrudd
2015-06-15, 03:30 PM
It's a good question and a real dilemma. You want to reward good play, but doing so can be highly subjective when not tied to measurable results like getting treasure or winning fights.

Setting encounter specific rewards can work, but may be time consuming.

If rewarding players for winning with the minimum damage is the goal, you could set a maximum reward based on the challenge and subtract XP per hp lost (aggregate of all party members, not individual rewards). Then give set rewards for accomplishing story requirements maybe.

Ruslan
2015-06-15, 03:47 PM
I want to start with the very premise.

The big problem with that approach: How do you measure the degree of success in a way that is fair and transparent for the players. Because that's the whole point.
I dunno, I kinda disagree with this. The transparency of the XP-giving process, at least to me, is definitely not the whole point. It's not even a point.

I have run three very long campaigns (2+ years each), currently on what I hope will be the fourth, and I have never been transparent about XP-giving processes. "You'll get it when you get it" was the motto. It lasted me through three long campaigns and a several shorter ones. YMMV, of course.

kieza
2015-06-15, 03:47 PM
I tell my players up front that they get bonus XP for audacity--whether or not they succeed.

Enter the fortress by rushing the drawbridge and ducking under the falling portcullis? Audacious.
Enter the fortress by jumping off the back of a roc? Audacious.
Enter the fortress by taunting a nearsighted giant and getting him to smash through a wall? Audacious.

I'm not sure what the opposite of audacity is--cravenness? Ordinariness? Overweening caution? But I've seen a few examples:

If you bypass the dungeon by spending a month conducting a geological survey and then tunneling into the final chamber, that's boring.
If you spend 5 minutes searching every square you enter in case it happens to be trapped, that's tedious.
If you kill everything in the dungeon by diverting a river and flooding it, that's craven. (And also counterproductive, since there might be prisoners to rescue, or leaders to capture alive, or just a lot of treasure that's harder to reach now.)

I've told one group that did this kind of thing a lot that I was running the game on the assumption that they wanted to play adventurers, and if they wanted to play civil engineers, they should go try Minecraft or Dwarf Fortress. Be bold! Take risks! Face the enemy! And don't be so concerned about the "mathematically optimal" solution.

Yora
2015-06-15, 04:11 PM
It's a hard sell, because occasionally, winning by the skin of your teeth is the only way you can do it. Rewarding lack of damage might make players risk averse.
I actually think that's a great part of what makes it sound attractive.

An important part of the linked post is that the GM should pick three kinds of player behavior that is to be encouraged under the premise of the campaign. Avoiding risky fights is something I want to encourage in my campaigns quite a lot. Though I also want to reward cunning over cowardice. There could be many different things that get rewarded. The most important part is that the players know and understand what things they will be rewarded for.

One simple mechanical solution may be this: When planning the adventure, every obstacle gets assigned an XP value. In case of ambushes or guards, that will simply be the regular combat XP for the involved opponents. In an ambush the goal is "defend yourself", for guards it's "get past the guards". It is then up entirely to the players to decide how they want to deal with the situation.
Once the confrontation is over, the GM decides, entirely subjectively, if the perform was "terrible", "poor", "adequate", "very good", or "amazing". The XP then get modified by -50%, -25%, +0%, +25%, or +50% accordingly. Even though it's a subjective call, there probably won't be a lot of debating or disagreement if you're limiting the rating to these five categories. When it goes poorly, the players generally understand fully that it really wasn't a good showing on their part.

An idea that I like from some RPGs is to give players XP even if they fail. Say the party gets taken prisoner or they only win with half of them dead or disabled. While it was terrible, they did survive (at least the survivors) and got tougher from living through it and won't make the mistake again. Even someone who loses 20 battles has much more battle experience than someone who has just a single victory.

It adds another step of XP calculation, but if you have a reasonably simple system (Like enemy X is always worth 200 XP), it's not a big deal. You just have to make a note after every fight how well the players did.

It still leaves open how to award XP for situations where there is never a risk of a fight breaking out, regardless of how bad the players perform.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-15, 04:25 PM
I actually think that's a great part of what makes it sound attractive....
Avoiding risky fights is something I want to encourage in my campaigns quite a lot.

Yeah, rewarding the lack of damage seems a good way to work toward that end.


It still leaves open how to award XP for situations where there is never a risk of a fight breaking out, regardless of how bad the players perform.

To be clear, are we talking about (DM-defined) adventure objectives or PC roleplaying here? The stuttering half-orc with two-left feet might be playing his part perfectly when he blunders through the delegation and sparks an international incident. However, if the mission was to smooth over relations and avert a trade embargo, then he has utterly failed.

How much do you weight RP vs goals? Can they be mutually exclusive?

EDIT: "mutually exclusive" might be a poor word choice. I mean can you succeed at one, but fail at the other and still gain XP?

Bad Wolf
2015-06-15, 04:57 PM
XP for style? Hell yes.

Yora
2015-06-15, 05:02 PM
I think I personally wouldn't give XP for roleplaying. Characters grow stronger by overcoming obstacles. If you're not trying to accomplish something against resistance, it's not a learning experience from which you get stronger.
Though that's part of my style of running campaigns. "Acting" isn't really given any weight. It's always primarily of making progress towards the goal. I don't think I've ever got any social gatherings in my games. Talking to NPCs is always about getting information or assistance.

Things I like to reard are winning fights, getting NPCs to comply, and recovering valuable artifacts. (Not simple treasure; stuff that provides big advantages for solving the adventure.) All of which are optional and not necessary to completing the overall goal of the adventure. It can be completed in many ways, but I want to encourage the players to defeat their opponents through cunning. That means using the battlefield to your advantage and perhaps even chosing it and setting it up in preparation for a fight; getting allies for your side and and making the enemy lose troops without a fight; and searching for and acquiring resources that give you an advantage.

Comet
2015-06-15, 05:14 PM
XP is a tool for giving an incentive for a particular player action, right? You do this, you get rewarded.

XP for gold encourages players to get rich with minimal risk.
XP for kills encourages players to seek out strong things to kill.
XP for failure encourages players to try, even if it is against the odds.
XP for character bonds encourages players to find PCs or NPCs to share story moments with.

And so on.

XP for... doing well? That's not entirely a player action, since dice are probably involved in how well you do. Sure, planning and such come into it but I don't think it's very useful to reward players for things they don't have complete control over. Though, to be fair, this does vary by system and the game you're playing might favour player decision making over character skill in which case you can pretty safely ignore the above.

TheThan
2015-06-15, 05:15 PM
I love the way fate and Iron Kingdoms does it. That is to say it sort of doesn’t.

What it does is encourages players to reach milestones. Such as coming to the end of a major story arch.
You’re not tracking experience and spending time calculating how much XP each enemy is worth; which is a lot of time lifted off the Dm’s shoulders.

I also like the way Iron kingdoms doles out Xp.
Instead of gaining experience for defeating monsters or stealing shiny things. You gain XP primarily for participation. You gain 1 xp for being there and participating. 1 XP for working with the other players as a team, and 1 XP for achieving milestones in the game (see above for ideas). So again you’re not tracking XP from monsters.

I like this system more because it should discourage the murderhobo approach and keep the players interested in the story so they’re less likely to check out on the Dm.

goto124
2015-06-16, 12:53 AM
If XP is rewarded individually, wouldn't it cause an XP imbalance between the PCs, leading to an every-growing rift between characters and eventually the players? Those players who just aren't at good at e.g. style, see the others outperforming them and growing far ahead in levels and getting all the cool spells/stuff/whatnot. Then they get increasingly discouraged and the gap gets bigger and bigger...

Actana
2015-06-16, 02:35 AM
I love the way fate and Iron Kingdoms does it. That is to say it sort of doesn’t.

What it does is encourages players to reach milestones. Such as coming to the end of a major story arch.
You’re not tracking experience and spending time calculating how much XP each enemy is worth; which is a lot of time lifted off the Dm’s shoulders.

Fate also has the secondary rewards of Fate Points, which are gained by playing to your character's weaknesses. While not XP per se, these secondary rewards that many other games use too are also almost as important as the primary "XP" as player motivators, and work as a great alternative to XP for guiding players towards certain playstyles.

harlokin
2015-06-16, 02:41 AM
If XP is rewarded individually, wouldn't it cause an XP imbalance between the PCs, leading to an every-growing rift between characters and eventually the players? Those players who just aren't at good at e.g. style, see the others outperforming them and growing far ahead in levels and getting all the cool spells/stuff/whatnot. Then they get increasingly discouraged and the gap gets bigger and bigger...

I agree.

Also, since XP is commonly not awarded immediately, but rather at the end of a session/chapter/adventure, there can be a disconnect it, and the virtuous behaviour that triggered the 'bonus XP'.

I much prefer Benny/Style Point/Willpower type resources to reward good play, rather than interfering with advancement.

Yora
2015-06-16, 03:20 AM
What it does is encourages players to reach milestones. Such as coming to the end of a major story arch.
That means you advance your character depending on how quickly you accomplish medium-term goals. Which might be desirable for some campaigns.

While I like the idea of rewarding and encouraging good planning with character advancement, the more I am trying to figure out a good way to implement, the less I feel like all that trouble is really worth it. It's just so much annoying accounting. Simply getting a new level at the end of a big adventure is just so more convenient.

Slipperychicken
2015-06-16, 11:42 AM
To encourage playstyles, what if you instead used GM-cookies which aren't related to advancement, like 5e's inspiration or Shadowrun's edge points? That way, players could be rewarded for adhering to your desired playstyle, but party balance wouldn't be greatly affected by it.

Friv
2015-06-16, 12:59 PM
If XP is rewarded individually, wouldn't it cause an XP imbalance between the PCs, leading to an every-growing rift between characters and eventually the players? Those players who just aren't at good at e.g. style, see the others outperforming them and growing far ahead in levels and getting all the cool spells/stuff/whatnot. Then they get increasingly discouraged and the gap gets bigger and bigger...

You can have a group pot that individual players feed into. When a player does something cool and stylish, everyone gets X experience.

For added teamwork, you can set it up so that a given player can only trigger XP gain a certain number of times per session. If the group wants full XP, they need to push their quieter players into the limelight once in a while. Put a little tracker in the middle of the table for players to mark off when they do things. You could even have a tracker that looks like:

ACTED COOL: [Player 1] [Player 2] [Player 3] [Player 4] [Player 5]
GOT IN TROUBLE: [Player 1] [Player 2] [Player 3] [Player 4] [Player 5]
STRONG ROLEPLAYING: [Player 1] [Player 2] [Player 3] [Player 4] [Player 5]
SOLVED A PROBLEM: [Player 1] [Player 2] [Player 3] [Player 4] [Player 5]
BEHAVED HEROICALLY: [Player 1] [Player 2] [Player 3] [Player 4] [Player 5]

And then each player is allowed to trigger any three of the above in a given session, so that people can play their characters in different ways within a theme.

(Note: If you have particularly quiet players, this is going to backfire horribly. If you have players who are just a little shy, though, it can work very well.)

hydroplatypus
2015-06-17, 01:15 PM
For a simple XP system, how about setting a lump sum of XP for accomplishing a significant goal. But from there establish several secondary XP goals that are not mandatory to complete the main goal. And/or subtract XP for terribble problems the PCs cause in the course of meeting the goal.

For instance, suppose that some bandits are disrupting trade. The main goal is to get rid of the bandits, for let's say 5000XP. However, perhaps the bandits have captured several prisoners. While it's not strictly necessary to save the prisoners, if they do do so they get an extra 2000XP. Perhaps one of the bandits is wanted for questioning about an unrelated crime. Taking him alive is another 1000XP. If they burn down the entire forest to kill the bandits, they've technically accomplished the goal, but I doubt people are happy with the PCs actions. Maybe subtract 2000XP for that. Maybe the bandits have captured a holy relic. Taking the relic intact gives another 1000XP.

This both encourages the PCs to pursue main goals, while also rewarding them accomplishing them in a sensible manner.

goto124
2015-06-17, 09:16 PM
If the group needs XP subtracted to learn that burning down the forest is a bad idea, there's some big issues to resolve.

XP subtraction is... iffy, too. I don't expect players to take well to it, to put it mildly.

Question here: how do you balance encounters to suit the PCs' levels? Say you made an encounter for a level 5 group. But when your group gets to it, they're level 8. What now?

Maglubiyet
2015-06-17, 09:39 PM
XP subtraction is... iffy, too. I don't expect players to take well to it, to put it mildly.

Yeah, this has some psycho-babble name that I can't recall right now. If you have an empty pot and you add rewards, psychologically it feels like more than if you have a full pot that you take away rewards, even if the end result is the same amount.

In one case everything added is a bonus, in the other case everything taken away is like getting cheated out of something that was "theirs to begin with".

Sacrieur
2015-06-18, 06:31 AM
I've read an old article by The Angry GM today, in which he makes some interesting points about XP. I've pretty much running campaigns without XP for a while now, as I just don't want to bother with any accounting in my game (also don't use money and don't measure encumbrance by weight).

That sounds abusable. The accounting is very easy.

I even make my players account for the gold weight they carry. I have an Excel spreadsheet that automatically calculates all of it for me, but if you don't have one you're just multiplying by 0.02 (At 50 coins to the pound that's 0.02 lbs. per coin. Saying you can't do this is saying you can't add everything together and multiply by two.

---

This thread does give me an idea about a system that uses XP as currency for feats, class levels, or skills. I should look into it.

---

You should never, ever take XP away from your players--especially on whim where you decide the amount arbitrarily. If there is any way for them to lose XP it must be their choice and theirs alone. I can think of no quicker way of angering your players than to take away their XP because you don't like what their characters did.

See Rule Zero abuse for more information.

prufock
2015-06-18, 07:08 AM
Action Points or something similar are a much more motivating currency, in my opinion, than experience points. They can be used right away, you have a lot of freedom to give them out for whatever reason you like, and they give a character a "badass moment."

Yora
2015-06-18, 07:40 AM
That sounds abusable. The accounting is very easy.

I even make my players account for the gold weight they carry. I have an Excel spreadsheet that automatically calculates all of it for me, but if you don't have one you're just multiplying by 0.02 (At 50 coins to the pound that's 0.02 lbs. per coin. Saying you can't do this is saying you can't add everything together and multiply by two.
I can do. I just don't want to. There is no benefit in doing that but it adds unnecessary work that needs to be done all the time.

Sacrieur
2015-06-18, 07:55 AM
I can do. I just don't want to. There is no benefit in doing that but it adds unnecessary work that needs to be done all the time.

It's a heavy part of the game's balance. You're nerfing people who go strength because of it.

Many times have I gone, "Oh you want to pick up all their weapons? Check your encumbrance."

Yora
2015-06-18, 09:17 AM
What game? What balance?

Slipperychicken
2015-06-18, 09:38 AM
What game? What balance?

Don't you remember? DnD 3.5 is the only roleplaying game in existence.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-18, 09:51 AM
Don't you remember? DnD 3.5 is the only roleplaying game in existence.

No no no, there is also the completely different and distinct game of Pathfinder.

Eisenheim
2015-06-18, 09:59 AM
Put me down in the column that advocates using some kind of resource not tied to character advancement as a reward for desire player behavior. Additionally, put me down in the column that suggests not basing advancement on any particular in game actions.
If you're playing a system that demands advancement, advance the players at the speed of the narrative and reward style with some kind of more transitory bennie: fate points, actions points, inspiration, edge, whatever.

Elandris Kajar
2015-06-18, 12:42 PM
In my group, we more or less eyeball XP. We have several categories, and the DM gives each player xp from each category. They are:

Combat: pretty self- explanatory.

Roleplaying: the same.

Alignment: are your actions generally consistent with your alignment.

Good luck/bad luck: did anyone have great or terrible luck. Little xp given.

Tactics: who came up with good ideas.

Story: DM thinks we have achieved major plot points, as well as misc. such as negotiations.

DM is out for blood: really hard encounters, or anti-PC fiat.

This way, everyone is rewarded for all aspects, and it is easy for the DM to get us to advance at his prefered pace.

Spojaz
2015-06-18, 02:59 PM
I'm trying out a very granular homebrew system, where regardless of level, you need 10 experience to get to the next level. One experience point is given for anything I want to encourage at the table.
This includes: carrying out a plan, a victorious battle against level appropriate foes (generally 2 or 3 encounters), a discovery of the nature of the gameworld, completing a quest, good roleplaying, making a personal sacrifice, or doing something awesome. Lower level characters gain them a bit more easily, to keep the party somewhere near balanced. Since I'm currently running an exploration/survival sandbox game, you get a point for visiting a new area, to encourage interacting with more of the world I spent so long crafting. My players seem to get 2-4 points per session.

So far, I feel like this system strikes a reasonable balance between the motivation of personal experience points and the bookkeeping hassle of looking up and keeping track of the several two-to-four-digit numbers for each player every battle, while actually running the game. It also makes every experience point feel more valuable than the hundreds that normally gush from the wounds of mid-level foes. We have been trying it out for a few sessions and it seems to work pretty well.

Thoughts?

Sacrieur
2015-06-20, 02:21 PM
In my group, we more or less eyeball XP. We have several categories, and the DM gives each player xp from each category. They are:

Combat: pretty self- explanatory.

Roleplaying: the same.

Alignment: are your actions generally consistent with your alignment.

Good luck/bad luck: did anyone have great or terrible luck. Little xp given.

Tactics: who came up with good ideas.

Story: DM thinks we have achieved major plot points, as well as misc. such as negotiations.

DM is out for blood: really hard encounters, or anti-PC fiat.

This way, everyone is rewarded for all aspects, and it is easy for the DM to get us to advance at his prefered pace.

Don't you have arguments about how much XP should be awarded?