XP for Failure

[Kami2awa]

Most RPG systems reward only success, particularly via XP. But what do you learn from success? Typically, far less than from failure. Most systems also make it harder to progress as you become more powerful, which is at odds with the idea that success leads to advancement. Are there any systems out there where character advancement comes from failing rolls?

[comk59]

Well, there's the old adage of failing forward, and even game mechanics based on that. But I can't think of a system that explicitly gives XP (or the equivalent) for failure...

Not saying it's a terrible idea, but it doesn't seem to fit well into the classic "idea" of an RPG. Of course, nothing is stopping you from awarding it! The only issue is that in a lot of RPGs, failure means you get eaten by monsters.

[Amaril]

In Apocalypse World, every session, each character is assigned two of the primary character stats as "highlights", facets of their character that the group wants to see explored that session. Every time you make a roll based on a highlighted stat, whether you succeed or fail, you get XP. This is the primary method of advancement in Apocalypse World.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Yes. In Dungeon World you literally get an xp point every time you fail a roll.

[Necroticplague]

The goal of xp handouts (or similar resource rewards)is to incentivize behavior. Give xp for acting out flaws to encourage flaws to be relevant, give experiencr for success to encourage you to try to succeed, give bonus code for taking a hit to humanity to encourage you to be a horrible monster, ect. Now, with this in mind, why would you want to encourage players to fail?

[Amaril]

The goal of xp handouts (or similar resource rewards)is to incentivize behavior. Give xp for acting out flaws to encourage flaws to be relevant, give experiencr for success to encourage you to try to succeed, give bonus code for taking a hit to humanity to encourage you to be a horrible monster, ect. Now, with this in mind, why would you want to encourage players to fail?

But this assumes that character advancement must be the main incentive for player action. Which is hardly the case in many games, and many groups. In my group's current Apocalypse World game, I don't think I've ever had a situation where XP gain even factored into my decision process. This upcoming session will probably see that change for me, but only because gaining power is just now becoming important to my character, since he needs to get stronger in order to defeat an enemy of his.

In games where XP is the main incentive, sure, it should stay tied to success. But not every game needs to be like that.

[Thrudd]

It isn't a great idea, because it encourages and rewards players for doing silly things that their characters would never do.

In games where xp (or an equivalent game token) is awarded for "failure", it usually manifests as rewarding players for portraying their characters' flaws in a way that would be detrimental to their character, in the name of acting and story telling.

"Experience" as it is traditionally used is not really representing the actual activities from which the characters are learning. It is just character advancement points, which are awarded for performing whatever activities the game wants to encourage.

So, think about what sort of things you want the players to do in the game, and that is what they should get XP for. Describing how it is they are actually learning the new abilities they receive from the XP is a separate matter, and something that can happen in downtime between adventures.

[flond]

Yeah Dungeon World (and to some Extent the Burning Wheel family) both do this. Burning Wheel is probably the more..nasty one as it requires a certain number of failures for every skill.

As for why you'd WANT people to fail. Well...beyond the"adding variety" bits...there are a couple advantages I see.

1) Failure hurts. In the games I've seen where this is a thing, failure tends to be painful, and have consequences. Dungeon world really encourages your day to be ruined every time you fail. Getting some consolation for that can be nice.

2)Advancement curving. If you award xp on fails you make sure that the people who are doing the worst are first in line for advancement. This can be a good thing.

[ImNotTrevor]

It isn't a great idea, because it encourages and rewards players for doing silly things that their characters would never do.

In games where xp (or an equivalent game token) is awarded for "failure", it usually manifests as rewarding players for portraying their characters' flaws in a way that would be detrimental to their character, in the name of acting and story telling.

"Experience" as it is traditionally used is not really representing the actual activities from which the characters are learning. It is just character advancement points, which are awarded for performing whatever activities the game wants to encourage.

So, think about what sort of things you want the players to do in the game, and that is what they should get XP for. Describing how it is they are actually learning the new abilities they receive from the XP is a separate matter, and something that can happen in downtime between adventures.

The thing about experience is that it isn't necessarily a compelling carrot for encouragement depending on the system.

That, and giving xp for failure makes it possible to have a flat required XP amount per level that also still maintains a curve. (The better you are at something, the less likely you are to fail.) If you use Burning Wheel style of failure-reward, then it doesn't help you much to try to farm xp by doing things you're bad at because it makes you better at those things and those things only, so you only get marginally better a thing that isn't your best skill.

The same happens in Dungeon World, but with a twist. Failure in Dungeon World is unusually costly and can really cause problems for characters. Im that case, the xp alleviates some of that impact. It still doesn't behoove the Fighter to try and rack up failures, because every time he fails things get really bad and he could easily die. So it makes the most sense for him to do what he's good at and take xp for his occasional failures.

I think xp for failure is fine so long as the system is built for it. If you just try to shoehorn it into other game systems it will probably fall apart.

[goto124]

Failure in Dungeon World is unusually costly and can really cause problems for characters. Im that case, the xp alleviates some of that impact. It still doesn't behoove the Fighter to try and rack up failures, because every time he fails things get really bad and he could easily die. So it makes the most sense for him to do what he's good at and take xp for his occasional failures.

It's what I feel about failures, myself. How should I know the 'cost' or 'price' of a failure? How do I 'calculate' the emotional 'cost' of causing sheer frustration to my fellow group members, which is priceless compared to pretty much anything else?

[ImNotTrevor]

It's what I feel about failures, myself. How should I know the 'cost' or 'price' of a failure? How do I 'calculate' the emotional 'cost' of causing sheer frustration to my fellow group members, which is priceless compared to pretty much anything else?

Dungeon World helps you with this by giving you "Moves" that you can use as the GM whenever your players fail. Pick one of those and let it rip, and it will probably be just right.

The point is for failures to cause the danger of the situation to escalate rapidly, so moves should reflect that.

[erikun]

I've played D&D3.5e where I gave full XP for successful adventures, and half XP for unsuccessful ones.

Why? As Necroticplague points out, you want to give rewards for behaviors you want to see again. Full XP for success/zero XP for failure just discourages players from tackling any challenging adventures or anything which might risk the success. If the party has a chance at failing on a mission - even if a minor chance - then they are more likely to waste game time with unnecessary preparation or just avoid the adventure entirely. Granting some (but not all) XP for failing ensures that the players are guaranteed XP with every adventure they participate in. They'll be committed to trying to complete the mission successfully, but if it gets too dangerous, they want to leave to preserve their characters and the XP gain.

Note that, with my group, I was assigning XP based on the adventure - not on the independent encounters or kills. As said before, encourage the behavior you want to see. Rather than triggering every trap for the encounter XP and hunting down every orc for the combat XP, the players were more interested in finding their objective and getting out as best they could.

I'm not sure if full XP on success/half XP on failure is the best divide, but it certainly is the simplest.

[goto124]

Wait, what is 'success' and 'failure' again?

[ImNotTrevor]

Wait, what is 'success' and 'failure' again?

The usual definition I go to for Success and Failure in RPGs goes like this:
Success = The thing you wanted happens. YAY!
Partial success = The thing you wanted happens, but with a cost. Sorta yay.
Failure = The thing you wanted does not happen. Bad things happen instead.

[Toofey]

"So... what have we learned" in a nice casual tone. If the players have actual replies they get XP, typically a good portion of what they would have gotten otherwise, if someone says something particularly good they could get full or extra XP. BUT, I don't lampshade that I'm asking for XP or that I'm even asking as the DM (I mean they know I'm the dm but still).

[Joe the Rat]

Palladium's table-o-XPable events hands out xp for skill rolls (successful or not), ideas and plans (successful or not), or attempting big things. You get more XP for actually succeeding at tasks.

You learn from your mistakes, but success leads to deeper insights.


Another wrinkle in the discussion is to separate "fail xp" systems from "partial credit xp" systems - you have multiple XP awards, and get credit for the ones you achieve.

[erikun]

Wait, what is 'success' and 'failure' again?
In general, when you go on an adventure, there is some goal in mind. Generally acquiring some object or NPC and transporting it out of the area. Getting the thing and getting out (or smashing it, if it's a "don't let the badguys have it") would be considered a successful mission, since you succeeded in what you were trying to do. Not getting to the thing, or getting to it but letting the enemies leave with it, would be a failure since you didn't get the thing from the enemy.

Otherwise, just sort of fudge what the ultimate goal of the party probably is in determining XP. If they're trying to pass through a cavern, then success is getting through while failure is needing to retreat and ultimately take a different route. It was kind of a half-planned system, so there were some times when I just needed to handwave away the distinction. (Oh, you fought the ambush and got away alive? Sure, have XP for that. Why not.)

[Noje]

In first edition AD&D, XP points are not given based on how many monsters you kill, it is based on 1) how many encounters you survive, be it through sneaking around it, defeating them, or running away and 2) How much treasure was gained on the adventure. It works very well given that surviving past first level is an achievement.

[Knaight]

It's been done in a few places, and it often works. Burning Wheel has been mentioned as the most obvious one, but there are also systems which look at the straight die roll and award at both ends (think of a 1 and a 20 on a d20 here, although I've never seen this for a d20 system), where the lower end usually is a failed roll. There's also at least one percentile system where you increment by some tiny percentage when you fail, which causes a very soft and very gradual improvement curve which starts out a bit slow and ends at a downright glacial pace for high skills.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Burning Wheel doesn't advance based on failure...

You advance skills by rolling them. Success or failure on those rolls is irrelevant (except for a few specific things which only advance if you succeed the roll). When skills get high enough you can only advance them by taking on rolls which you are very likely to fail, but if you somehow pull off a success anyway the skill does still increase anyway.

[BayardSPSR]

Suppose we all agree that XP-like systems incentivize player behavior that leads to character advancement. If you tie that reward into something that the player doesn't want to have happen, might that defang failure? That is, "if I succeed I succeed, but if I fail I get XP, so I don't care what the result of the roll is."

In my experience of Dungeon World, this meant that the only thing I didn't want to have happen was one of those middling, mixed-result rolls. The stakes were really low.

[Amaril]

Suppose we all agree that XP-like systems incentivize player behavior that leads to character advancement. If you tie that reward into something that the player doesn't want to have happen, might that defang failure? That is, "if I succeed I succeed, but if I fail I get XP, so I don't care what the result of the roll is."

In my experience of Dungeon World, this meant that the only thing I didn't want to have happen was one of those middling, mixed-result rolls. The stakes were really low.

I feel like that's because the intent with Dungeon World and other PbtA games is less to make you invested in your own character, and more to make you invested in telling a compelling story. Making great success and dire failure equally appealing outcomes helps with that, because both of those add to the drama; by contrast, middle-of-the-road outcomes tend to be less exciting to watch (though I personally find partial successes in those games just as interesting, most of the time).

[Knaight]

Burning Wheel doesn't advance based on failure...

You advance skills by rolling them. Success or failure on those rolls is irrelevant (except for a few specific things which only advance if you succeed the roll). When skills get high enough you can only advance them by taking on rolls which you are very likely to fail, but if you somehow pull off a success anyway the skill does still increase anyway.

Burning Wheel also demands that you make checks against rolls that you will fail, and it does that from the beginning.

[BayardSPSR]

I feel like that's because the intent with Dungeon World and other PbtA games is less to make you invested in your own character, and more to make you invested in telling a compelling story. Making great success and dire failure equally appealing outcomes helps with that, because both of those add to the drama; by contrast, middle-of-the-road outcomes tend to be less exciting to watch (though I personally find partial successes in those games just as interesting, most of the time).

That's the thing, though: character advancement will always (I think) incentivize a focus on your own character. Even in the most nominally story-focused games, I (the player) will always have more of an impact on the story (and more insulated from risk, of things going wrong in the long term) if my character is stronger. So my feeling is that having a way of increasing character strength, and then making that happen when things go wrong in the short term, means that players will be encouraged not to care about what happens in the short term. That is, the players will be discouraged from caring about what the characters care about (in the immediate sense, the success of whatever it is they're trying to do) in favor of prioritizing something that their characters are mechanically rewarded for but unaware of: XP and advancement. That seems to be the opposite of what a story-focused game wants its players to think about.

[Amaril]

That's the thing, though: character advancement will always (I think) incentivize a focus on your own character. Even in the most nominally story-focused games, I (the player) will always have more of an impact on the story (and more insulated from risk, of things going wrong in the long term) if my character is stronger. So my feeling is that having a way of increasing character strength, and then making that happen when things go wrong in the short term, means that players will be encouraged not to care about what happens in the short term. That is, the players will be discouraged from caring about what the characters care about (in the immediate sense, the success of whatever it is they're trying to do) in favor of prioritizing something that their characters are mechanically rewarded for but unaware of: XP and advancement. That seems to be the opposite of what a story-focused game wants its players to think about.

Yeah, I can see how that's an issue with Dungeon World, which, though I love it, really isn't the best PbtA system. Dungeon World tries to emulate D&D with an engine that was designed for something completely different from D&D. In Apocalypse World, and other games more suited to PbtA, my experience is that your character never advances enough to no longer be constantly vulnerable. They get more diverse options, but they're still at risk of getting screwed at any time. Plus, in Apocalypse World, you get XP for succeeding as well as failing, as long as you're doing the types of things the group wants to see your character do that session. So you don't end up prioritizing XP over what your character wants to accomplish, because your ability to affect the story doesn't depend on gaining XP.

Of course, the whole constant vulnerability thing might just be because our GM enjoys making us suffer, but when is that not a possibility? :smalltongue:

[BayardSPSR]

Yeah, I can see how that's an issue with Dungeon World, which, though I love it, really isn't the best PbtA system. Dungeon World tries to emulate D&D with an engine that was designed for something completely different from D&D. In Apocalypse World, and other games more suited to PbtA, my experience is that your character never advances enough to no longer be constantly vulnerable. They get more diverse options, but they're still at risk of getting screwed at any time. Plus, in Apocalypse World, you get XP for succeeding as well as failing, as long as you're doing the types of things the group wants to see your character do that session. So you don't end up prioritizing XP over what your character wants to accomplish, because your ability to affect the story doesn't depend on gaining XP.

I keep hearing good things about Apocalypse World in comparison to its hacks; it's a pity I'm not inspired by the theme.

Speaking of poor hacks: Monsterhearts is a mess, advancement-wise.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Burning Wheel also demands that you make checks against rolls that you will fail, and it does that from the beginning.

There's no such thing as a roll that's impossible, unless you have no fate. There is such thing as a roll that's very unlikely to succeed, though. The point is you don't advance by failing, you advance by making rolls, many of which are next to impossible to succeed at.

Being rewarded for rolling difficult rolls is slightly different from being rewarded for failing rolls, though it's certainly fairly close.

[SirBellias]

The thing about powered by the apocalypse games is that they aren't typically about becoming more powerful. In my experience, they're about creating compelling stories about awesome characters driven by their own internal logic. In monster of the week, you get experience for failure. The game is primarily about investigating mysteries, hunting monsters, and foiling plots. In it, you learn from your mistakes, but the goal isn't to become better monster hunters, it's to stop the bloody monster that killed your family/friends/pet/acquaintance/somebody in the news. Also, failure is painful, or just complicated matters. Which is bad. Learning how to not screw up next time is good for toning down the amount of hurt you immediately face.