Giving out XP based on amount of damage sustained?

[harpy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kylarra]

I don't really like it because HP is only one resource that the characters have to be depleted.

[DementedFellow]

So how much XP do I get for dying?

[Riffington]

You want to reward the players for "holding back" when fighting mooks?
If so, why?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

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

How is this a good thing?

[harpy]

Well, like I said, catalog all of the resources that players have and then add up all of them to see how much was spent to get over the encounter.

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

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

[Traikan]

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

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

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

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

[Cthulubot]

How are you counting damage against summons, animated dead, and other sponges for hp damage?

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

[Kylarra]

Well, like I said, catalog all of the resources that players have and then add up all of them to see how much was spent to get over the encounter.

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

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

It seems like it would end up being an overly convoluted system to me.

[LibraryOgre]

It seems like it would end up being an overly convoluted system to me.

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

[harpy]

How are you counting damage against summons, animated dead, and other sponges for hp damage?

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

I haven't the faintest idea :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yukitsu]

They'll be the first people to publish the book "Self mutilation for fun and profit."

[Firefingers]

Notice he didnt just say on damage sustained but on total resource expenditure in the encounter, this would include spells used, wealth used (potions and expendables) damage taken.

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

[DementedFellow]

I thought the whole goal was to not have a convoluted experience. This is starting to border on needlessly complicated.

[harpy]

I thought the whole goal was to not have a convoluted experience. This is starting to border on needlessly complicated.

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

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

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

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

[DementedFellow]

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

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

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

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

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

[Superglucose]

Very much.

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

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

[Dr.Epic]

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

[Eldan]

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

[Runestar]

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

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

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

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

Shifts the paradigm of gameplay too much for my liking.

[MickJay]

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

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

[Tyndmyr]

This solution rewards neither clever strategy nor good roleplaying...

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

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

[RebelRogue]

So how much XP do I get for dying?

Actually, in a 1e/2E hybrid setting one of my friends played in there was a rule of getting 1000 XP the first time you died, should you ever be revived. The argument was, that it should give some new outlook on life.

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

[Gnaeus]

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

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

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

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

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

[harpy]

Lots of great responses!

Random things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DementedFellow]

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

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

These two paragraphs I find troublesome.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[MickJay]

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

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

edit:

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

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

[harpy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MickJay]

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

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

[shadow_archmagi]

It seems to me that this presents a conflict of interest for the PCs, since generally masochism isn't one of the heroic qualities.