Style of Play Incentives

[DanDare2050]

I started playing D&D with Chainmail and White Box original. At that time characters dungeon crawled and got XP primarily from treasure. And treasure was important to be able to eventually afford your stronghold, raise a military force and begin asserting political power. This made an incentive for dungeon crawling (the main source of treasure). Some XP came from monster slaying so there was a little incentive for doing that too, when it wasn't advisable to bypass the monster to get at the treasure. The wilderness had sporadic treasures and monsters but was a place you travelled through to get to dungeons or to do politics. The political sphere, as you got past 6th level, started providing lots of incentives for wilderness treks. So these factors pushed players to hex crawling. The incentive to politics felt very much "do unto others before they do unto you".

Fast forward to D&D 5e. What sort of play incentives do you think it produces? It seems heavily combat encounter oriented. Is there stuff in RAW that helps push thief or espionage play styles? Treasure hunting? Quests? Politics? Exploration? Obviously GMs and players can produce their own incentives so I'm interested in your ideas about what is actually built in as the default set.

[Kyutaru]

The randomness of Stealth doesn't encourage spying or thievery. You had more encouragement in 3rd edition with ludicrously high Stealth rolls and Hide in Plain Sight. Invisibility isn't effective because although it lasts for an hour it can't autopass your Stealth check and it doesn't ignore True Seeing or Blindsight.

Treasure hunting is fairly limited by bounded accuracy and the inability to really min-max your way to crazy potential through item collection.

Questing would matter if it existed at all. That's a DM invention and the system doesn't lend one way or the other about it.

Exploration and Politics seem most encouraged. The various movement spells that exist encourage planar travel and venturing into the unknown. The various social skills and defenses that exist encourage figuring out which buttons to hit when depending on the situation. Ultimately this means 5th edition is geared for roleplaying or LARPs like Vampire: the Masquerade.

[Lunali]

Combat is the only thing explicitly incentivized, since it's easy for the designers to set appropriate xp rewards for it.

That said, a lot of groups are moving towards milestone leveling or at least non-combat xp awards, so the actual incentives vary greatly from table to table.

[TyGuy]

Milestone leveling is a RAW variant. It's even encouraged in some modules. And it's amazing.

[Zhorn]

While not a RAW system, I'm fond of the hatch-mark method. Each time a player does a thing that you think is neat or worth an experience reward, you just jot down a hatch next to their name. End of a session (or at a long rest, whenever you like to hand out the xp), tally up those marks and use them to award an xp bonus.
Originally heard about it from one of Mercer's guides, but have come across a few others since then using similar reward systems.

Adhoc Hatch-mark XP system
1 Hatch-mark = 25 XP x Player Level


Marks
Rewarded for


1
Uncover an adventure hook or quest in role play


1
Completing a side quest


2
Completing a quest for a main story character


2
Completing a main story event


2
Convince a hostile creature to reveal new quest related information


3
Complete a player character specific objective


1
Finding a hidden feature (trap, switch, door, etc)


1
Disabling a trap


2
Utilising a trap or environmental feature against an opponent


1
Contribute a plan that is used to overcome an obstacle


1
Enact on a plan to overcome an obstacle


1
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 15


2
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 20


3
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 25


4
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 30


1
Committing to character role play even where there is no practical benefit


2
Committing to in character decisions when the player knows otherwise out of character


4
Creative use of character role play to successfully complete an objective



The table isn't a hard rule set of what actions are worth what, but more of a rough guide.

[MaxWilson]

Fast forward to D&D 5e. What sort of play incentives do you think it produces? It seems heavily combat encounter oriented. Is there stuff in RAW that helps push thief or espionage play styles? Treasure hunting? Quests? Politics? Exploration? Obviously GMs and players can produce their own incentives so I'm interested in your ideas about what is actually built in as the default set.

5E is all about customizing your PC with game-mechanically unique combat buttons, so it incentivizes getting into fights with monsters so you can express your individuality by what you do to the bodies of those monsters.

If you're not playing combat-heavy hack-and-slash I don't recommend 5E as a system.

[DanDare2050]

Milestone leveling is a RAW variant. It's even encouraged in some modules. And it's amazing.

I've generally found milestone levelling a big disincentive myself. Its saying more or less you have to follow the scenario story line and then you get bigger/stronger. If you do something else then you don't get bigger/stronger. It removes multiple ways to improve and makes improvement a DM controlled thing instead of a lever for players to pull on.

[DanDare2050]

While not a RAW system, I'm fond of the hatch-mark method. Each time a player does a thing that you think is neat or worth an experience reward, you just jot down a hatch next to their name. End of a session (or at a long rest, whenever you like to hand out the xp), tally up those marks and use them to award an xp bonus.
Originally heard about it from one of Mercer's guides, but have come across a few others since then using similar reward systems....

...The table isn't a hard rule set of what actions are worth what, but more of a rough guide.

I like that. Consider it pilfered.

[DanDare2050]

5E is all about customizing your PC with game-mechanically unique combat buttons, so it incentivizes getting into fights with monsters so you can express your individuality by what you do to the bodies of those monsters.

If you're not playing combat-heavy hack-and-slash I don't recommend 5E as a system.
That's interesting, because I don't play combat-heavy hack-and-slash, and we do play RAW, 3 core books only, but everyone seems to have been having fun anyway for some years now.

[TyGuy]

I've generally found milestone levelling a big disincentive myself. Its saying more or less you have to follow the scenario story line and then you get bigger/stronger. If you do something else then you don't get bigger/stronger. It removes multiple ways to improve and makes improvement a DM controlled thing instead of a lever for players to pull on.

What are you talking about? It's exactly the tool for a DM to reward non-combat, tangents from the core story line, etc.

[DanDare2050]

What are you talking about? It's exactly the tool for a DM to reward non-combat, tangents from the core story line, etc.

The milestone rule is rewarding players for reaching a point in a GMs prepared story arc. DMG p 261 "When preparing your adventure, designate certain events or challenges as milestones,". It is not a tool to push players to a style of play, unless you consider being railroaded to follow the GMs story plot a play style, which I guess it technically is.

[Samayu]

It is not a tool to push players to a style of play

True. But it is a tool to award XP even though there has been no combat. As long as you feel the characters are doing some thing useful to the storyline (yours or theirs), they can advance.

[TyGuy]

The milestone rule is rewarding players for reaching a point in a GMs prepared story arc. DMG p 261 "When preparing your adventure, designate certain events or challenges as milestones,". It is not a tool to push players to a style of play, unless you consider being railroaded to follow the GMs story plot a play style, which I guess it technically is.

Below the section you quoted is "level advancement without xp" which colloquially gets lumped in with milestone progression because milestones are similar enough and easier to say than "level advancement without xp"

[Paschendale]

My games are extremely story-oriented, so pretty much all rewards are milestone. Most of our combat is complex boss encounters, rather than random monsters in a room with treasure. I wouldn't say 5th edition necessarily incentives this, but you can style your game with whatever incentives you want. That's how my friends and I played 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, too.

[DanDare2050]

True. But it is a tool to award XP even though there has been no combat. As long as you feel the characters are doing some thing useful to the storyline (yours or theirs), they can advance.

Awarding Xp is not the same as an incentive. It would be an incentive if you tell them about it in advance so it directs their behaviour to achieving it. However play style incentives need to be recurring enticements for repeatable types of action.

[DanDare2050]

Below the section you quoted is "level advancement without xp" which colloquially gets lumped in with milestone progression because milestones are similar enough and easier to say than "level advancement without xp"
That is not a change in the discussed point, that milestones do not provide an incentive to a play style.

[DanDare2050]

My games are extremely story-oriented, so pretty much all rewards are milestone. Most of our combat is complex boss encounters, rather than random monsters in a room with treasure. I wouldn't say 5th edition necessarily incentives this, but you can style your game with whatever incentives you want. That's how my friends and I played 2nd, 3rd, and 4th editions, too.

Again, this thread is about incentives to play style. Play thief type games. Play intrigue type games. Play treasure hunting type games. etc etc etc. Story oriented games (by which I believe you mean plot driven, players do A then players do B .....) are strongly DM oriented rather than player oriented games, so player incentive for gaming style doesn't get much of a look in.

e.g.

XP for killing monsters. The players know they get this. They encounter monsters for whatever reason (plotted monster, random monster, location key monster) they can decide - go after it for the XP or not. The incentive is to attack monsters.
I allow XP for monsters only if they pose a threat, and if so you can get the xp for kill, defeat, neutralise somehow, or a political solution. That provides somewhat different incentive to player behaviour.
I could add an XP reward for successful bribes, depending on the amount of money and threat posed by failure. That then provides an incentive for considering bribery in any situation where it may be feasible, above and beyond any "in story" value.
Story based milestones means the DM is, if they tell the players in advance, creating an incentive for players to follow the DMs plot line. As I said above that is technically a play style.

[Azgeroth]

ok so this is a bit of a generic answer, i'll try to give some specific examples.

as is most often encouraged, session 0. ask the players what kind of campaign they want, and what there character concept is AT INCEPTION, and what their goals are.

from that, work with them to establish a framework of risk/reward and hash out any mechanical/rules changes or additions (such as skills, skills checks, flanking, cover etc.)

so heres a brief list of things i have used.

we want quests loot and notoriety!

(de-)centralised organisation for dealing with 'non-state threats' (i.e. adventurers guild/bulletin board)

we want land holdings politics and significant (epic) stories!

adapt your campaign to afford the opportunity to gain land/holdings, lay out the political system (egalitarian is the go to, with some oligarchy (potentially hidden) rulership)

we don't know, can we just roll dice?

best answer, gives you the freedom to do all of the above in as small or larger amounts depending on player response.


the trick to incentivising any play, is to find the aspects of the game the players enjoy most, and expand upon those to taste. everyone enjoys a little risk/reward, especially if they have some personal investment in the matter. this is why the session 0 point is so critical.

~EDIT : i think a point that i havn't seen mention before, is that session 0 should not be the only session 0, its good to check in with the players at- at least the transition between tiers, and major development points of both character and campaign, just to make sure what everyone set out to do is being achieved, and what they thought they wanted is still true.

[TyGuy]

That is not a change in the discussed point, that milestones do not provide an incentive to a play style. Character progression (levels) is one of a few rewards (incentives) in RPGs. It's often linked to xp which is often linked to things like monster kills and/or accomplishing a task (mission/quest).

Milestone leveling or character advancement without xp, if you will, unties the leveling process from the formulaic advancement method of kill things for xp for levels or completing plot points for xp for levels. Because your character can advance (level up) through whatever tasks and accomplishments the DM finds appropriate.

[Unoriginal]

Awarding Xp is not the same as an incentive. It would be an incentive if you tell them about it in advance so it directs their behaviour to achieving it. However play style incentives need to be recurring enticements for repeatable types of action.

"Succeed at an encounter and you'll get XPs" is a repeatable, recuring enticement, and as such an incentive.

The XP is not given for killing monsters, but for succeeding an encounter, no matter the nature of the encounter or the nature of the success.

[NatureKing]

I've generally found milestone levelling a big disincentive myself. Its saying more or less you have to follow the scenario story line and then you get bigger/stronger. If you do something else then you don't get bigger/stronger. It removes multiple ways to improve and makes improvement a DM controlled thing instead of a lever for players to pull on.

You find only killing monsters to otherwise be a big incentive?

[JellyPooga]

While not a RAW system, I'm fond of the hatch-mark method. Each time a player does a thing that you think is neat or worth an experience reward, you just jot down a hatch next to their name. End of a session (or at a long rest, whenever you like to hand out the xp), tally up those marks and use them to award an xp bonus.
Originally heard about it from one of Mercer's guides, but have come across a few others since then using similar reward systems.

Adhoc Hatch-mark XP system
1 Hatch-mark = 25 XP x Player Level


Marks
Rewarded for


1
Uncover an adventure hook or quest in role play


1
Completing a side quest


2
Completing a quest for a main story character


2
Completing a main story event


2
Convince a hostile creature to reveal new quest related information


3
Complete a player character specific objective


1
Finding a hidden feature (trap, switch, door, etc)


1
Disabling a trap


2
Utilising a trap or environmental feature against an opponent


1
Contribute a plan that is used to overcome an obstacle


1
Enact on a plan to overcome an obstacle


1
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 15


2
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 20


3
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 25


4
Overcoming a skill challenge of DC 30


1
Committing to character role play even where there is no practical benefit


2
Committing to in character decisions when the player knows otherwise out of character


4
Creative use of character role play to successfully complete an objective



The table isn't a hard rule set of what actions are worth what, but more of a rough guide.

This irks me somewhat, as being a little too success driven. Failure should bring its own rewards, perhaps even grant more, because success is its own reward (find the thing, progress the story, avoid the trap, etc.). Incentives should be about getting players to try, not just succeed. Encouraging players to do something they might fail at, rather than those they're moderately sure they'll succeed at is more important than just encouraging success. It's what irks me about the baseline xp system in 5ed (or d&d in general, I guess) and this "hatch-mark" system doesn't do much to change the bottom-line of it.

They do say we learn more from our mistakes...

I'd like to see a system that actively encourages players to punch above their weight and even fail in their task every now and then; such is the stuff of legend. The plucky heroes that take on the Tower o' Peril to save the day is a much more compelling tale than the experienced veterans that do the same. Take Conan the Barbarian (Arnie original, of course); like an idiot, he goes to take on Thulsa Doom alone, gets caught and almost dies, before coming back better prepared and more experienced to win the day. How much less compelling would the tale have been had he just rocked up on his first try and lopped off Dooms head, job done?

[Unoriginal]

Failure doesn't bring reward, otherwise it'd be a success. A partial success can still happen, though, and failure gives other opportunities to attempt things.

In other words: it's not a "either you succeed all or you get nothing", but it's still not "you failed, here's your reward".

[JellyPooga]

Failure doesn't bring reward, otherwise it'd be a success. A partial success can still happen, though, and failure gives other opportunities to attempt things.

In other words: it's not a "either you succeed all or you get nothing", but it's still not "you failed, here's your reward".

It's not failure or success that brings the reward, but the attempt. As i said, success is its own reward, but failure in d&d gives nothing and that doesn't quite sit right with me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Failure doesn't bring reward, otherwise it'd be a success. A partial success can still happen, though, and failure gives other opportunities to attempt things.

In other words: it's not a "either you succeed all or you get nothing", but it's still not "you failed, here's your reward".


It's not failure or success that brings the reward, but the attempt. As i said, success is its own reward, but failure in d&d gives nothing and that doesn't quite sit right with me.

I agree with JellyPooga, but want to phrase things a bit differently. Failure should not bring the same reward as success, but a style of play I like is

Success: Great. You get what you wanted. That's your reward.
Failure: Great. You don't get what you wanted, but here's an alternative (possibly lesser but certainly different) reward.

Without this, you end up with people who will only try things they know they can do without substantial risk. And that's boring. I want high-flying action where people take risks. The whole heist mentality, where every forseeable detail has been planned in advance and every possible complication has a contingency (often called 5D chess) is horribly boring for me.

As to the broader topic, I don't find XP a good incentive, especially XP for discrete things. My players' biggest incentive to act is that by doing so they change the world. I run a multi-group, persistent world where things that people do have lasting effects. They don't get XP for killing things, some groups don't even track treasure beyond useful items, but they do keep track of what their characters have changed. They're in it for the unfolding story (which is not planned in advance, mind). So I've moved to a time-based leveling thing. Each session spent doing something meaningful (where that's up to table consensus) gets a tic mark. At a certain number of tic marks[1], you level up to the next level.

[1] my current plan is that T[N+1] = MIN(N, 5), where N is your current level. So from levels 1-4 it takes N meaningful sessions, from level 5+ it takes 5 sessions. In my usual 20-21 session campaigns (1 school year, playing roughly weekly with some off weeks), that puts a starting party from level 1 to borderline level 6, or a returning party from level 6 to level 10. This is a fast pace, but I want to show a wide variety of situations in a compressed time-frame. "Regular" groups with longer sessions and longer campaigns would use a different frequency formula.

[Unoriginal]

I'll reiterate my point: failure doesn't grant reward, otherwise it is not failure. It grants possibilities, opportunities, knowledge of what to do/to avoid, and the chance to struggle until an appropriate success is reached. Which are awesome things in their own right, but still not reward in any sense of the term.

Rewarding failure is the exact opposite of "high-flying action where people take risks", because there is no risk if failure is rewarded. In my experience, that leads to players either losing interest in what's going on because there is no serious consequences or in them demanding reward for everything.



In other words: failing forward is great, failing upward just encourage not doing efforts.

Again, though, there are such things as partial success.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll reiterate my point: failure doesn't grant reward, otherwise it is not failure. It grants possibilities, opportunities, knowledge of what to do/to avoid, and the chance to struggle until an appropriate success is reached. Which are awesome things in their own right, but still not reward in any sense of the term.

Rewarding failure is the exact opposite of "high-flying action where people take risks", because there is no risk if failure is rewarded. In my experience, that leads to players either losing interest in what's going on because there is no serious consequences or in them demanding reward for everything.



In other words: failing forward is great, failing upward just encourage not doing efforts.

Again, though, there are such things as partial success.

I think we're using different definitions of "reward" here. If someone fails at, say, a daring tactical maneuver (swinging off a chandelier to get behind a foe who thinks they're safe, but not quite sticking the landing), they get a couple things. Sure, they may not be in the position they wanted to be (they failed, so they don't get what they want), but they might get (depending on the circumstances) any of:

* Inspiration
* a good reaction (startlement, thoughtless tactical repositioning of the enemy)
* advantage for an ally (due to the surprise effect)
* etc.

They get something other than the "oh, you failed. You wasted your turn and nothing happened" kind of mechanical application of rules. But they don't get what they want. So they definitely failed, but the narrative moves on and changes.

That is, I use "Yes, and...", "No, but...", or "Yes, but" quite a lot. They may not be able to do exactly what they wanted, but they get something to show them that trying wasn't a waste. I see players (especially new ones) always defer to the person with the highest bonus or get disappointed when they can't do things. So I find ways of letting them do the next best thing or showing them that failure can be interesting to.

If failure isn't interesting, if everything is all or nothing (you either get what you want or you get nothing), then the whole system of ability checks breaks down. Because those are only to be rolled when failure has interesting consequences.

[Zhorn]

This irks me somewhat, as being a little too success driven....
With the hatch mark system, there's nothing stopping you from putting a mark next to someone's name for other reasons. It's the second sentence in I said

...Each time a player does a thing that you think is neat or worth an experience reward....
and at the end after the table

The table isn't a hard rule set of what actions are worth what, but more of a rough guide

I also hand out experience for 'attempts' all the time, that's what...
Contribute a plan that is used to overcome an obstacle
Enact on a plan to overcome an obstacle
...are for. And I'm pretty sure those two points are the exact thing you're wanting to do.
I just prefer not to hand out xp for auto-pilot decision making (ie: 'the melee runs in and attacks' isn't going to get them anything extra)

As for being 'too success driven'
Committing to character role play even where there is no practical benefit
Committing to in character decisions when the player knows otherwise out of characterare each examples of xp for pursuing the 'wrong' in character choice over the 'optimal' mata-game choice.

Again, the table is just a guideline on how many marks to deal out at a time, not a hard and fast rule of "only strict adherence to the exact wording of the list is worth any reward", because that would just be silly :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

I think we're using different definitions of "reward" here. If someone fails at, say, a daring tactical maneuver (swinging off a chandelier to get behind a foe who thinks they're safe, but not quite sticking the landing), they get a couple things. Sure, they may not be in the position they wanted to be (they failed, so they don't get what they want), but they might get (depending on the circumstances) any of:

* Inspiration
* a good reaction (startlement, thoughtless tactical repositioning of the enemy)
* advantage for an ally (due to the surprise effect)
* etc.

They get something other than the "oh, you failed. You wasted your turn and nothing happened" kind of mechanical application of rules. But they don't get what they want. So they definitely failed, but the narrative moves on and changes.

That is, I use "Yes, and...", "No, but...", or "Yes, but" quite a lot. They may not be able to do exactly what they wanted, but they get something to show them that trying wasn't a waste. I see players (especially new ones) always defer to the person with the highest bonus or get disappointed when they can't do things. So I find ways of letting them do the next best thing or showing them that failure can be interesting to.

If failure isn't interesting, if everything is all or nothing (you either get what you want or you get nothing), then the whole system of ability checks breaks down. Because those are only to be rolled when failure has interesting consequences.

For me, they should get Inspiration for trying something fun (regardless of failure or success), and if they fail it's not "nothing happen", it's "failure happens".

Someone who swings to a chandeliers, assuming that I consider it worth a roll rather than an auto-success, and fails would fall and likely hurt themselves, maybe get prone.

THAT is what I would call an interesting failure, because the manoeuvre was daring and risky. It's not daring and risky (nor interesting, IMO), if the result of not succeeding is just a slightly less important reward.

Of course, as I said, that's just an example. Most of the time if they try to swing to a chandelier to land on the other side I would let them do it, because D&D PCs are pulp heroes and that kind of thing is part of the genre. It'd take some kind of big hindrance for them to need a roll for it, like carrying the President on their back or being engaged in a kick vs kick duel (because their hands are busy) against a foe who's also swinging from the same chandelier.

Or if the jump was really too much for the PC in question, maybe.


Then again, it's just a question of tastes. Not everyone like the successes and failures the same way, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't see the point of making failure benefit PCs (unless in cases where it's the normal result of the action, like accidentally triggering a trap when enemies are in the trap's area of effect or the like).

[JellyPooga]

For me, they should get Inspiration for trying something fun (regardless of failure or success), and if they fail it's not "nothing happen", it's "failure happens".

Someone who swings to a chandeliers, assuming that I consider it worth a roll rather than an auto-success, and fails would fall and likely hurt themselves, maybe get prone.

THAT is what I would call an interesting failure, because the manoeuvre was daring and risky. It's not daring and risky (nor interesting, IMO), if the result of not succeeding is just a slightly less important reward.

Of course, as I said, that's just an example. Most of the time if they try to swing to a chandelier to land on the other side I would let them do it, because D&D PCs are pulp heroes and that kind of thing is part of the genre. It'd take some kind of big hindrance for them to need a roll for it, like carrying the President on their back or being engaged in a kick vs kick duel (because their hands are busy) against a foe who's also swinging from the same chandelier.

Or if the jump was really too much for the PC in question, maybe.


Then again, it's just a question of tastes. Not everyone like the successes and failures the same way, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just don't see the point of making failure benefit PCs (unless in cases where it's the normal result of the action, like accidentally triggering a trap when enemies are in the trap's area of effect or the like).

Failure, like success, comes with its own reward, only unlike success, the reward is negative. That doesn't mean it can't come with a positive "consolation prize" of xp or the "fail forward" notion. Attempting to swing on a chandelier (to roll with the example) and failing will have the penalty of damage, falling prone and so forth, but if that's all you get for failing then you have no incentive to try. If there's the kicker that you get something and not nothing for the attempt, regardless of success or failure, then there's more incentive to try. That's the point. A "reward" for failure means more attempts by the players, whether they succeed or not.

[NatureKing]

Failure, like success, comes with its own reward, only unlike success, the reward is negative. That doesn't mean it can't come with a positive "consolation prize" of xp or the "fail forward" notion. Attempting to swing on a chandelier (to roll with the example) and failing will have the penalty of damage, falling prone and so forth, but if that's all you get for failing then you have no incentive to try. If there's the kicker that you get something and not nothing for the attempt, regardless of success or failure, then there's more incentive to try. That's the point. A "reward" for failure means more attempts by the players, whether they succeed or not.

The reward in the example given was being able to attack a character you otherwise would not have been able to. No need to bonus XP something.

[Unoriginal]

Failure, like success, comes with its own reward, only unlike success, the reward is negative. That doesn't mean it can't come with a positive "consolation prize" of xp or the "fail forward" notion. Attempting to swing on a chandelier (to roll with the example) and failing will have the penalty of damage, falling prone and so forth, but if that's all you get for failing then you have no incentive to try.



The incentive to try is the chance of success.




If there's the kicker that you get something and not nothing for the attempt, regardless of success or failure, then there's more incentive to try. That's the point.

As I said, Inspiration for doing something daring and fun.


A "reward" for failure means more attempts by the players, whether they succeed or not.

A reward for failure means no failure.


There is no point in criticizing people for wanting only to do safe options with predictable beneficial outcomes if the way you make them do something is to remove risks so that all options are safe and have a predictable beneficial outcomes.

If I'm charging at a Sahuagin Baron with a chariot filled with explosive, I want the chance to blow up in horrible little bits as much as I want the chance to destroy the Baron.

[Kyutaru]

I'm seeing two camps of players here.

On the one hand, the game should be punishing. Failure is failure, success is success, you can only achieve success if you prevent failure and that's the way it should be. Rocket tag or bonus stacking are the preferred styles of combat because enemies should be a challenge and it detracts from the game if you reward incompetence.

On the other hand, the game should be rewarding. Failure is an opportunity for success. The more you fail, the more opportunities you are given to turn that around. Inspiration dice or consolation prizes propel characters to meet the challenges impeding their path through persistent struggle while success merits its own reward and is accompanied by a distinct lack of failure. Combat and campaigns result in an averaged median of progressive adjustments whereby if challenges are too challenging the players are artificially helped out.

[MaxWilson]

Awarding Xp is not the same as an incentive. It would be an incentive if you tell them about it in advance so it directs their behaviour to achieving it. However play style incentives need to be recurring enticements for repeatable types of action.

And that is why 5E incentivizes combat-heavy games. Combat is where all of the repeatable action enticements are in 5e. Can you play 5E combat-lite? Yes, but when I do I wind up wishing I'd used a different system like Rules Cyclopedia D&D or AD&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm seeing two camps of players here.

On the one hand, the game should be punishing. Failure is failure, success is success, you can only achieve success if you prevent failure and that's the way it should be. Rocket tag or bonus stacking are the preferred styles of combat because enemies should be a challenge and it detracts from the game if you reward incompetence.

On the other hand, the game should be rewarding. Failure is an opportunity for success. The more you fail, the more opportunities you are given to turn that around. Inspiration dice or consolation prizes propel characters to meet the challenges impeding their path through persistent struggle while success merits its own reward and is accompanied by a distinct lack of failure. Combat and campaigns result in an averaged median of progressive adjustments whereby if challenges are too challenging the players are artificially helped out.

I find the first style both boring and frustrating. Because 1d20 is a huge source of randomness. Failure =/= incompetence, unless you can avoid it entirely. Which you can only do by doing things that carry no risk of failure. And that's horribly boring. It also means that failure simply stops the narrative in its tracks. You've failed, and you have to keep beating against that wall until you succeed. I want failure to be more about diverting the narrative down a different track. Failure to connect this time means you'll have to take a different tactic and take other risks to get what you want.

And 5e does not support the first style very well at all. For all the things that matter, the d20 is a main player by design. So avoiding or minimizing failure means going to spells (and reading them loosely so that you can leverage your way to success by tricky wording).

Sure, there comes a point, after repeated failures, that you're sunk. But there shouldn't be single points of failure, things that make everything fall apart if you roll too low on a single d20. Which means not punishing failure beyond the natural, inevitable consequences of not succeeding.

And it's not about artificially helping the players out--it's about proper design. And it's not about succeeding at the combat as a whole, but at individual actions. I don't use bonus XP awards, because I don't use XP. I do generally do partial success for a lot of actions, both in combat and out. That, or rolling only to see how long it takes.

I care less about whether the players succeed (because my baseline is that they will generally succeed at the strategic level), but about how they succeed and what they have to sacrifice or do to do so.

[MaxWilson]

It's not failure or success that brings the reward, but the attempt. As i said, success is its own reward, but failure in d&d gives nothing and that doesn't quite sit right with me.

I like to give out XP when a challenge first reveals itself (becomes available for player interaction), not when you beat it. This serves the dual purpose of allowing you to learn from your failures as well as successes, and also telegraphing danger to the players through the metagame.

"The emaciated old man smiles creepily at you, and says, 'Who said I was alone?' You hear a dozen crossbows click, and you suddenly realize that you may have bitten off more than you can chew. Gain 5000 XP. What do you want to know or do next?"

It's not like they can actually do anything with that XP anyway until downtime, so giving it out in advance simplifies bookkeeping, telegraphs the scope of the danger, and provides a consolation prize for failure and/or PC death. Win/win/win.

[Sigreid]

IMO failure should be failure. At that point the question is what do the players do to mitigate that failure? How do they survive, regroup, overcome stigma or whatever?

[NatureKing]

I find the first style both boring and frustrating. Because 1d20 is a huge source of randomness. Failure =/= incompetence, unless you can avoid it entirely. Which you can only do by doing things that carry no risk of failure. And that's horribly boring. It also means that failure simply stops the narrative in its tracks. You've failed, and you have to keep beating against that wall until you succeed. I want failure to be more about diverting the narrative down a different track. Failure to connect this time means you'll have to take a different tactic and take other risks to get what you want.

And 5e does not support the first style very well at all. For all the things that matter, the d20 is a main player by design. So avoiding or minimizing failure means going to spells (and reading them loosely so that you can leverage your way to success by tricky wording).

Sure, there comes a point, after repeated failures, that you're sunk. But there shouldn't be single points of failure, things that make everything fall apart if you roll too low on a single d20. Which means not punishing failure beyond the natural, inevitable consequences of not succeeding.

And it's not about artificially helping the players out--it's about proper design. And it's not about succeeding at the combat as a whole, but at individual actions. I don't use bonus XP awards, because I don't use XP. I do generally do partial success for a lot of actions, both in combat and out. That, or rolling only to see how long it takes.

I care less about whether the players succeed (because my baseline is that they will generally succeed at the strategic level), but about how they succeed and what they have to sacrifice or do to do so.

The 'repeated failures' issue goes away when you give the players enough time to complete a task. The repeated failures also translates to repeated passes. In previous editions, this was called Take 10 or Take 20, which had conditions on when it could be applied, and whether there consequences for failure.

No taking 20 on a tightrope across a guaranteed death fall. No taking 10 when you are being shot at by Orcs.

If in the example of the man hiding behind a table where the only way for a character to get to him in time is to leap across a table, then they must pass an Athletics check to do so. Failure means that they were unable to achieve something they were unable to do so before. Success means that they could now move into a position placing the opponent in their reach.

The alternative, you are rewarding players wuo say 'I make attack rolls - with a backflip'. There are mechanic in 5e which explicitly represent such swashbuckling antics and flourishes. In the same way that the person not playing a princess diaries rogue can't say 'I'm going to try and hit him harder than usual' and expect anything from it.

[Kyutaru]

I like to give out XP when a challenge first reveals itself (becomes available for player interaction), not when you beat it. This serves the dual purpose of allowing you to learn from your failures as well as successes, and also telegraphing danger to the players through the metagame.

"The emaciated old man smiles creepily at you, and says, 'Who said I was alone?' You hear a dozen crossbows click, and you suddenly realize that you may have bitten off more than you can chew. Gain 5000 XP. What do you want to know or do next?"

It's not like they can actually do anything with that XP anyway until downtime, so giving it out in advance simplifies bookkeeping, telegraphs the scope of the danger, and provides a consolation prize for failure and/or PC death. Win/win/win.

Surely this gives rise to the "Punch a Dragon" philosophy followers? Worst case, you die with a few levels and get resurrected later.

[NatureKing]

Surely this gives rise to the "Punch a Dragon" philosophy followers? Worst case, you die with a few levels and get resurrected later.

You hope.

Letters

[MaxWilson]

Surely this gives rise to the "Punch a Dragon" philosophy followers? Worst case, you die with a few levels and get resurrected later.

Nope. Worst case is you're dead and so are all of your friends and neighbors and you have to roll up a new first level PC in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

The case I've worried about more is "what if the PCs just run away from everything?" but the solution to that doesn't require adjusting the timing of XP rewards--just the situations that trigger XP rewards in the first place. Seeing a dragon flying overhead, ignoring you, doesn't give XP.

In practice it hasn't been an issue though. Players like engaging more than running away, usually.

[KOLE]

As a DM, I have always done Mileston levelling. I do not use predetermined points, however. Only when it feels appropriate, which is usually pretty generous on my part.

My party just hit level 4 after defeating a completely unplanned boss. The previous three sessions were intrigue heavy while they tried to discover a plot. They managed to sidestep the major plot entirely and latch on to a deeper conspiracy that I had not planned on. Going by XP alone, those three sessions would have given them next to no XP and the boss battle might have have gotten them a quarter of the way there.

I feel no need to partially reward XP for certain things based on what I want. Rather, the session unfolds organically based on what the PCs want. They certainly could have murder hoboed their way through the intrigue, and chose not to. Milestones don’t have to be preser or a tool for railroading. To the contrary, they allow the flexibility and don’t directly encourage the players to kill when they don’t have to. It works very well for my table, and saves me the headache of tracking XP. It also ensures everyone levels equally. Having recently played in a group where everyone was at a different level, i think this is important.

[JellyPooga]

The incentive to try is the chance of success.

And if the chance of success is low, then there's little incentive to try and the player doesn't do whatever it is.


A reward for failure means no failure.

Hardly. If PC1 attemtps and fails to pick a lock, the door is still locked. Whether he gets an xp reward for the attempt or not doesn't change the locked status of the door.


If I'm charging at a Sahuagin Baron with a chariot filled with explosive, I want the chance to blow up in horrible little bits as much as I want the chance to destroy the Baron.

And you still have both chances, but if the plan goes awry and you both get blown to smithereens, but the Baron wins the day...assuming you somehow survive, you don't think your character would have learned something from the encounter? You failed to stop the Baron with your harebrained scheme of exploding chariots, but you survived the encounter, learned something about when is best to jump of a runaway chariot, maybe found out something about Sahuagin, etc. etc. The scheme failed, you failed, but that doesn't mean you didn't learn anything or aren't deserving of some kind of reward (perhaps the Baron was critically wounded and his machinations have been set back for a time).

Maybe the chance of success is enough for you to attempt even the craziest of tasks, but I know few people who'll willingly try things with little chance of success, knowing that the price of failure is usually pretty high.

@MaxWillson I like that idea. Essentially announcing the scale of an encounter both reveals its importance and the stakes. It's a bit like when you hear dramatic music in a film or game, telegraphing the action to come. I might start using that myself!

[Kurt Kurageous]

It all comes down to the OP starting point.

What does 5e incentivize? Ans: Combat mostly, but who cares? I'm running my game!

What do I want to incentivize? Each DM must answer for their game.

I want scenes completed. Completing a scene earns points equal to 1/6 to 1/8 of the daily adjusted XP budget for the level of the party.

To qualify as a scene, there has to be a conflict.

As a result, my players are encouraged to complete scenes. I tell them this in case they miss the point and start spending 1+hours of in game with a social encounter they made up (go to the tavern, seduce someone seduce-able, etc. etc.)

[DanDare2050]

You find only killing monsters to otherwise be a big incentive?

Not a good reading of what I said. I don't like milestones because they are related to the game masters story needs, not the players interests.

I like systems where players know "if I do this then I can get this reward, regardless of the story at present".

So XP for exploring new territory, or XP for completing a deal with a king and so on would be incentives to explore and make deals.

XP does not have to be the only reward. What about wealth, or political power?

[DanDare2050]

This irks me somewhat, as being a little too success driven. Failure should bring its own rewards, perhaps even grant more, because success is its own reward (find the thing, progress the story, avoid the trap, etc.). Incentives should be about getting players to try, not just succeed. Encouraging players to do something they might fail at, rather than those they're moderately sure they'll succeed at is more important than just encouraging success. It's what irks me about the baseline xp system in 5ed (or d&d in general, I guess) and this "hatch-mark" system doesn't do much to change the bottom-line of it.

They do say we learn more from our mistakes...

I'd like to see a system that actively encourages players to punch above their weight and even fail in their task every now and then; such is the stuff of legend. The plucky heroes that take on the Tower o' Peril to save the day is a much more compelling tale than the experienced veterans that do the same. Take Conan the Barbarian (Arnie original, of course); like an idiot, he goes to take on Thulsa Doom alone, gets caught and almost dies, before coming back better prepared and more experienced to win the day. How much less compelling would the tale have been had he just rocked up on his first try and lopped off Dooms head, job done?

This is an important consideration. Instead of points for "disarming a trap" you could award points for "attempting to disarm a trap".

There is the usual attendant problem of people searching every square inch of every space for traps and trying to disarm them whether its important or not. The Hack n Slash blog talked about this in relation to monster kills, that he only gives rewards for defeating monsters if they were an active threat that you didn't provoke to start with. He gave XP for surviving such encounters, monster dead or not. This stopped characters from roving around looking for bears to fight all the time but rewarded players that took on threat situations even if they had to run away.

[DanDare2050]

As a DM, I have always done Mileston levelling. I do not use predetermined points, however. Only when it feels appropriate, which is usually pretty generous on my part.

My party just hit level 4 after defeating a completely unplanned boss. The previous three sessions were intrigue heavy while they tried to discover a plot. They managed to sidestep the major plot entirely and latch on to a deeper conspiracy that I had not planned on. Going by XP alone, those three sessions would have given them next to no XP and the boss battle might have have gotten them a quarter of the way there.

I feel no need to partially reward XP for certain things based on what I want. Rather, the session unfolds organically based on what the PCs want. They certainly could have murder hoboed their way through the intrigue, and chose not to. Milestones don’t have to be preser or a tool for railroading. To the contrary, they allow the flexibility and don’t directly encourage the players to kill when they don’t have to. It works very well for my table, and saves me the headache of tracking XP. It also ensures everyone levels equally. Having recently played in a group where everyone was at a different level, i think this is important.

I like this. I wouldn't call it "milestone" as you are not rewarding reaching story milestones. (DMG p261). Its, "estimating the value of what the players just did". If you are consistant that means the players will get an idea of how they should behave to get you to do it again, which then becomes an incentive.

[DanDare2050]

It all comes down to the OP starting point.

What does 5e incentivize? Ans: Combat mostly, but who cares? I'm running my game!

What do I want to incentivize? Each DM must answer for their game.

I want scenes completed. Completing a scene earns points equal to 1/6 to 1/8 of the daily adjusted XP budget for the level of the party.

To qualify as a scene, there has to be a conflict.

As a result, my players are encouraged to complete scenes. I tell them this in case they miss the point and start spending 1+hours of in game with a social encounter they made up (go to the tavern, seduce someone seduce-able, etc. etc.)

Yeah. And your answer "Combat mostly" seems to be the big thing.

My reason for asking is that I run a huge open table. We have 5 DMs and 30 players who play regularly and more beyond. I'm cogitating about building a more interesting structure that lets players build and gain value from stuff beyond straight fighting and wanted to see if any one thought that was already in the system.

The thing I'm looking to design will probably involve stuff connected to down time things between sessions, that will act as drivers for adventures via quests. I want to reduce the amount of DM fiat with it, or the players having to argue the DM around each session. Something with some simple mechanical bounds that might still need judgement calls. Things like the ability for a character to run a merchant caravan trip, and know that the trip itself will provide some XP, or dedicate a new shrine to a god, or go on a pilgrimage, or chart the length of the Black River and so on. The DM validates the player's decision at the start of the quest, indicates the XP for trying, and the extra XP for completing, and then away the players go. Encounter type XP on the way is a bonus. This is largely player driven.

[NatureKing]

If you actually played DnD like it's supposed to be played (DM, 3-4 other players), then the rules will be more typical.

You are asking for the rules to provide RAW incentives to apply to 35 diverse individuals. It is hard enough with 5, let alone groups 700% their size.

Step 1. Cut the 35 players into groups of 7 different like minded player groups.
Step 2. Play stories that engage the players in what they want. People who want to watch action movies don't sit themselves through RomComs unless they specifically want to watch a RomCom. Why should a player be penalize by not getting as many incentives for engaging in a storyline they didn't want to play anyway?
Step 3. Why would you think there is a step 3?