Quest Points Instead Of XP

[PhoenixPhyre]

"We do nothing, and don't consider it wasted. One level fraction please."

Just kidding of course. I like this idea.

I've had a session where we spent the entire time roleplaying chilling with a goblin tribe. Some PCs helped hunt and gather; others played with the kids or talked to the shaman. Despite being "wasted" (it really didn't advance any of their goals, there were about zero dice rolls and certainly no threats), it was one of that group's favorite sessions and featured a bit of character development (one bigoted character realized that maybe goblins weren't so bad?) that eventually contributed to some rather large changes in the setting. And this was ad hoc--I hadn't planned on it, but we started and kept going until the session was over.

If I awarded XP for combat and quests, that would have been worth zero. Instead, we all agreed it was a meaningful session and moved on. That was before I'd formalized it--at the time I was doing pure fiat leveling (I'll tell you when you level), but it certainly counted as a "worthwhile" session in my mind.

[Stonehead]

Interesting that so many people advocate strict milestone leveling instead of milestone/quest only XP. I think that incentivizing player's actions and rewarding achievements with XP is not something that should be routinely dispensed with. Maybe I do not have the right kind of experience but I think that pure milestone either presupposes a relatively strictly pre-defined storyline (not applicable to many games), or is reliant on GM tracking "achievement and coolness factor" loosely and silently when it could be done better by explicit assignment. I cannot offer a critique of strict session-based leveling except it just feels wrong to me.

Maybe it's my experience with levelless systems that make me feel ok with handing out XP by GM fiat but not levels... except in the levelless point buy free-floating points are closer to D&D levels (just tiny ones) than D&D XP... aaargh.

Also: I was found guilty of committing Playgrounder's Fallacy, but the essence of my previous argument is not reliant on the system: if mathematical relation between a quest point and pre-reform XP can be established then I see no reason not to spell it out. I think it's easier to get an informed buy-in from your players that way. No need to tell them that they are Doomsealers.

I think it could be that leveling up is less important for some groups. Could your characters advancement be more precisely tracked by handing out handfuls of xp for every lost farmer you save? Yeah, probably. Is it worth all the extra time, book keeping, and risk of abuse? Definitely for some groups, but not often for mine.

I've seen the "incentive" argument a lot when discussing why XP is good and milestones are bad. Various permutations of "Why should everyone level up if this guy was doing more roleplaying or that guy missed three sessions?" In my experience, and maybe I'm just unusually fortunate in this regard, getting to play D&D is its own reward and no one in my groups needs to be coaxed into participating. Or, if they do, it's a problem that dangling XP in front of them won't address (shy, unsure of the rules, feels out of place, doesn't like the story, off day in real life, etc). I find there's still plenty of ways to reward people, ranging from loot to inspiration points to character-building side stories to just saying "Hey, that stuff you did was really cool; nice job" after the session.

I think the incentives are supposed to be for the group, not each individual player. I get the argument, and it makes sense. Players will optimize the fun out of anything. So "incentives" to make the kind of game you want the "optimal" way to play isn't a bad idea. I think a lot of groups just find the in-game state of the universe to be incentive enough that it's not worth the extra effort. To my group, learning the history of the world, or keeping different npcs alive and happy is enough of an incentive to play the most fun kind of game.

That's actually exactly what I do, just dropping out the "X experience points" math. You get some fraction of a level each session, unless everyone agrees that it was a wasted session (in which case there are bigger issues, and this has never happened). It's predictable for everyone, doesn't put incentives on "following the DM's quest line" or "kill lots of things", and is, most importantly, really really really easy to manage. I don't have to decide how much a given quest/milestone is worth or what counts as a milestone. I don't have to keep track of encounters. It's basically ungameable. It results in players being incentivised to do things they consider fun. Which is win, for me.

Yeah, I like this system. It's actually RAW in Fragged Empire (which is a fantastic system btw)

[Psyren]

I've had a session where we spent the entire time roleplaying chilling with a goblin tribe. Some PCs helped hunt and gather; others played with the kids or talked to the shaman. Despite being "wasted" (it really didn't advance any of their goals, there were about zero dice rolls and certainly no threats), it was one of that group's favorite sessions and featured a bit of character development (one bigoted character realized that maybe goblins weren't so bad?) that eventually contributed to some rather large changes in the setting. And this was ad hoc--I hadn't planned on it, but we started and kept going until the session was over.

If I awarded XP for combat and quests, that would have been worth zero. Instead, we all agreed it was a meaningful session and moved on. That was before I'd formalized it--at the time I was doing pure fiat leveling (I'll tell you when you level), but it certainly counted as a "worthwhile" session in my mind.

I mean, to be fair, roleplay XP is a thing even in "regular D&D." That sounds like it would qualify without needing any special constructs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, to be fair, roleplay XP is a thing even in "regular D&D." That sounds like it would qualify without needing any special constructs.

5e doesn't mention such a thing, and giving XP for roleplaying seems to have all the issues of milestone XP, plus a bunch.

[Anonymouswizard]

I mean, to be fair, roleplay XP is a thing even in "regular D&D." That sounds like it would qualify without needing any special constructs.

It's a convention, and also a pretty bad one. I think the WoD Agony Munchkin shows the issues with it (particularly that it tends to reward only certain character types, generally spotlight hogs). But I'm not certain it's ever been an official D&D rule.

Interestingly, most systems that use it give it a fixed amount at the end of the session if you 'roleplayed your character well', which mostly fixes the spotlight hog issues.

[Psyren]

5e doesn't mention such a thing, and giving XP for roleplaying seems to have all the issues of milestone XP, plus a bunch.

I guess I'm not really seeing the difference between these. Does your player's character breakthrough not count as a "milestone" to you? I would argue it does. And even if you didn't reward them with "XP", you rewarded them with "quantity of thing that if they accumulate enough of, they go up a level" so I'm not seeing a difference that matters.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess I'm not really seeing the difference between these. Does your player's character breakthrough not count as a "milestone" to you? I would argue it does. And even if you didn't reward them with "XP", you rewarded them with "quantity of thing that if they accumulate enough of, they go up a level" so I'm not seeing a difference that matters.

The character breakthrough wasn't actually noticeable until much much later, near the end of the campaign. But it traced back to that session. Trying to wedge that into milestone XP (the closest thing 5e has to roleplaying XP) would be hard--how much did it contribute? How much was it worth? What counts as "roleplaying worth XP"? Instead, the point of my system is to utterly divorce character progress from in-character decisions, other than from the fact that in-character decisions happened. The only time you'd end up not getting that advancement is if we all agreed that we didn't really play the game that session. Which, I think, is fair. Nobody played, so the game state didn't change. I don't like the idea of "you roleplayed 'well enough', so I'm going to give you a reward." In fact, I don't like tying advancement in as a "reward system" at all. Feels manipulative.

[Anonymouswizard]

Rewards as a motivator it's appropriate when you're trying to create a very specific gameplay experience. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this somebody who actually played it can correct me, but my understanding is that OD&D had a loop of 'go into dungeon, get treasure, get XP from recovered treasure, use new abilities to go deeper and find new challenges'. A very clear objective and progression that should, in theory, end up with an end point of the group eventually conquers the dungeon and their characters either retire or find new dungeons.

People who use arbitrary leveling systems are generally going for a looser style of experience where the point is that something happens, but what it is doesn't matter. In this view buying a pub and defeating a lich are just as worthy of impacting progression, because the players/characters have decided on a goal for the session and pursued it (with actual success being optional).

[Stonehead]

*snip particularly that it tends to reward only certain character types, generally spotlight hogs *snip

I think that's kind of the point. Not the spotlight hog part, but encouraging a specific type of character. Vampire the Masquerade wants you to play angsty edgy boys, Call of Cthulu wants you to play disturbed investigators, etc. I'm not a huge fan personally, but I think calling it a problem rather than a feature is missing the point a little.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rewards as a motivator it's appropriate when you're trying to create a very specific gameplay experience. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this somebody who actually played it can correct me, but my understanding is that OD&D had a loop of 'go into dungeon, get treasure, get XP from recovered treasure, use new abilities to go deeper and find new challenges'. A very clear objective and progression that should, in theory, end up with an end point of the group eventually conquers the dungeon and their characters either retire or find new dungeons.

People who use arbitrary leveling systems are generally going for a looser style of experience where the point is that something happens, but what it is doesn't matter. In this view buying a pub and defeating a lich are just as worthy of impacting progression, because the players/characters have decided on a goal for the session and pursued it (with actual success being optional).

That first type feels to me more like you want to really be playing a board game or a video game. I understand that back when OD&D was created, video games weren't exactly sophisticated. But now? If I want that kind of "point scoring" gameplay, I'll play any number of games.

I want to find out what comes next. What does the party try to do? What changes do they try to make in the world? How do they interact with the pieces that are there? What do they tell me about the setting by their actions? Challenge and "winning" or "losing" aren't really part of it for me.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think that's kind of the point. Not the spotlight hog part, but encouraging a specific type of character. Vampire the Masquerade wants you to play angsty edgy boys, Call of Cthulu wants you to play disturbed investigators, etc. I'm not a huge fan personally, but I think calling it a problem rather than a feature is missing the point a little.

To be fair, games can also be very bad at trekking you what they want you to play, or two you that you should play something they don't want you to.

Like, Vampire is much more manageable and works more as intended of you character's angst is inner control, and focused more on whatever conflict is central this edition.

That first type feels to me more like you want to really be playing a board game or a video game. I understand that back when OD&D was created, video games weren't exactly sophisticated. But now? If I want that kind of "point scoring" gameplay, I'll play any number of games.

To be fair, OD&D was intended more as a wargame

[Psyren]

The character breakthrough wasn't actually noticeable until much much later, near the end of the campaign. But it traced back to that session. Trying to wedge that into milestone XP (the closest thing 5e has to roleplaying XP) would be hard--how much did it contribute? How much was it worth? What counts as "roleplaying worth XP"? Instead, the point of my system is to utterly divorce character progress from in-character decisions, other than from the fact that in-character decisions happened. The only time you'd end up not getting that advancement is if we all agreed that we didn't really play the game that session. Which, I think, is fair. Nobody played, so the game state didn't change. I don't like the idea of "you roleplayed 'well enough', so I'm going to give you a reward." In fact, I don't like tying advancement in as a "reward system" at all. Feels manipulative.

In which case the milestone is just "completed X sessions." Or perhaps "X-A", where "A" = sessions that everyone agrees didn't accomplish anything.

It just seems like marketing to me, but the important thing is that you and your group are happy.

[Stonehead]

In which case the milestone is just "completed X sessions." Or perhaps "X-A", where "A" = sessions that everyone agrees didn't accomplish anything.

It just seems like marketing to me, but the important thing is that you and your group are happy.

Isn't milestone leveling typically based on in-universe accomplishments? Seems pretty different to me from a set number of sessions. At that point, you could call RAW DnD leveling just different marketing of milestone leveling, where the milestone is "slay X monsters".

To be fair, games can also be very bad at trekking you what they want you to play, or two you that you should play something they don't want you to.

Like, Vampire is much more manageable and works more as intended of you character's angst is inner control, and focused more on whatever conflict is central this edition.

I mean, a game could always be bad at fulfilling its design goals, but that doesn't change the intentions. You and I can say we aren't fans of being encouraged to play a certain way, but that's still the purpose of those mechanics.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but it wasn't an accident that these games encourage you to play a certain way, that was what the designers set out to do. It's just that I'm not a massive fan of what they set out to do.

[HidesHisEyes]

Isn't milestone leveling typically based on in-universe accomplishments? Seems pretty different to me from a set number of sessions. At that point, you could call RAW DnD leveling just different marketing of milestone leveling, where the milestone is "slay X monsters".

To me, milestone levelling is when you get xp for doing specific things, like “defeat Lord Evilsworth” rather than “defeat your enemies”. Milestone levelling is inherently railroady and that’s why I don’t like it.

Some people also use it to mean “gain xp when it feels like you’ve done something significant”, ie anything that feels like “story progress” after it’s happened earns you xp. This for me has the opposite problem: it doesn’t railroad you but it also doesn’t incentivise you to do anything. It works fine as long as the whole group knows what kind of thing they’re going for and don’t need mechanical incentives up front.

Just saying “you level up when I say so”… it works fine but I wouldn’t call it an advancement system at all. It’s just sidestepping the need for a system.

I mean, a game could always be bad at fulfilling its design goals, but that doesn't change the intentions. You and I can say we aren't fans of being encouraged to play a certain way, but that's still the purpose of those mechanics.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but it wasn't an accident that these games encourage you to play a certain way, that was what the designers set out to do. It's just that I'm not a massive fan of what they set out to do.

Yeah and I’d like to see this attitude more often. I think a lot of people assume the core design goal of any RPG to be “make sure the players can use the system to get whatever customised experience they want”. It’s not correct and it seems to cause a lot of tension.

[Vahnavoi]

Rewards as a motivator it's appropriate when you're trying to create a very specific gameplay experience. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this somebody who actually played it can correct me, but my understanding is that OD&D had a loop of 'go into dungeon, get treasure, get XP from recovered treasure, use new abilities to go deeper and find new challenges'. A very clear objective and progression that should, in theory, end up with an end point of the group eventually conquers the dungeon and their characters either retire or find new dungeons.

As someone who's played these kinds of games extensively, you are missing one important detail:

The basic gameplay loop is instrumental to some larger goal. At its most banal, as seen in myriad computer games which copy the basic gameplay loop of old D&D, it's something like "kill ultimate evil" (Diablo, Moria, Angband etc.) or "become immortal" (Nethack etc.). In actual tabletop environment, it's always been more varied. Either way, players who keep their eyes on the price stop seeking instrumental benefits of treasure and xp once they feel confident they can reach their terminal goal, and are fine with not getting xp and treasure if they feel they are still getting closer to their terminal goals.

The more important point, though, is that points-for-treasure doesn't encourage going deeper and facing challenges. It encourages thinking of everything in terms of coin value, meaning players will scheme to alter or skip the basic gameplay loop to get more profit. Classic examples of profit-motivated perversity are stealing everything from everyone, including murdering fellow player characters for their shares, scavenging doors or traps guarding the treasure because they give more money for less risk than the actual treasure, selling fellow player characters to slavery, etc..

In my own games, players turned to piracy and then scavenging and restoring shipwrecks, once they realized how valuable ships are. They spend several sessions of real time and over six months of game time restoring a wrecked galleon, for one case, because they realized it would count as greater treasure than anything they could find from a dungeon.

I've tried points-for-quests, both with player set and game master set quests, and they work worse. The issue with player set quests is that while points-for-treasure sometimes encourages dubious means, points-for-quests encourages dubious ends: basically, players are tempted to set frivolous goals to advance quick and easy. The issue with game master set quests is that players stop setting their own goals entirely: they do only things they think a game master will reward, and don't do a whole lot else.

Tl;dr: experience points and treasure are instrumental for a player character's terminal goals. Once you start giving xp for character goals, you turn the whole process on its head.

[Jophiel]

Some people also use it to mean “gain xp when it feels like you’ve done something significant”, ie anything that feels like “story progress” after it’s happened earns you xp. This for me has the opposite problem: it doesn’t railroad you but it also doesn’t incentivise you to do anything.

I disagree there. If the overarching game theme is "Stop Lord Eviljerk" and the party is progressing towards stopping Lord Eviljerk rather than starting a dry cleaning business then they could be working towards milestone xp. The party is incentivized to be finding some way to stop Lord Eviljerk rather than abruptly deciding that they'd rather plan a wedding or opening an orphanage for young grells.

This is different from "You'll level after you've cleared the Southlands outpost of the Eviljerk Empire". If the party can find an alternate way of progressing towards the game's ultimate goal then good for them. I suppose it also doesn't work in aimless sandbox games without a theme either but I don't find those games to be my preference to run/play.

[Devils_Advocate]

The more important point, though, is that points-for-treasure doesn't encourage going deeper and facing challenges. It encourages thinking of everything in terms of coin value, meaning players will scheme to alter or skip the basic gameplay loop to get more profit.

This seems like another case of "feature, not bug" to me. In such a system where player rewards are tied to acquisition of wealth because that's supposed to be what's motivating the characters' actions, the players are meant to attempt to optimize for wealth, e.g. by circumventing fights and hazards that would be unnecessary risks and drains on resources. In that context, if salvaging shipwrecks is the best way to get rich, then that's what the party should be doing. The players are solving the intended optimization problem and roleplaying in character. Abandoning a more lucrative, less dangerous career to go dungeon delving is at that point playing worse and out of character. If dungeon delving was intended to be the best way to get rich, then making something else more profitable was a screw up on the part of the setting designer or game master, as is any case where earning money is "too easy".

[Vahnavoi]

It's definitely a bug. But it's not a bug in the game, it's a bug in human psyche, where simplistic attempts to externally motivate behaviours via points or money screws with internal motivation and cause counterintuitive results. Going off a tangent in a game is pretty mild example of it.

[Stonehead]

Yeah and I’d like to see this attitude more often. I think a lot of people assume the core design goal of any RPG to be “make sure the players can use the system to get whatever customised experience they want”. It’s not correct and it seems to cause a lot of tension.

Man, the amount of people I've seen use DnD for a modern-day social intrigue game... I've been accused of gatekeeping DnD for suggesting rules-lite systems to people who want to play rules-lite games.

As a more general point, I think a lot of people have a hard time differentiating "I don't like this thing", and "this thing is bad". There are some really atrocious games that should never be played (you know the one). There are also some fantastic games that I don't want to play. Two completely different things that both exist.

This seems like another case of "feature, not bug" to me. In such a system where player rewards are tied to acquisition of wealth because that's supposed to be what's motivating the characters' actions, the players are meant to attempt to optimize for wealth, e.g. by circumventing fights and hazards that would be unnecessary risks and drains on resources. In that context, if salvaging shipwrecks is the best way to get rich, then that's what the party should be doing. The players are solving the intended optimization problem and roleplaying in character. Abandoning a more lucrative, less dangerous career to go dungeon delving is at that point playing worse and out of character. If dungeon delving was intended to be the best way to get rich, then making something else more profitable was a screw up on the part of the setting designer or game master, as is any case where earning money is "too easy".

It stops being a feature when the most optimal way to make money strays from the playstyle the game promises. If the DM pitches a game where you fight liches and save the world, and the players go refurbish boats for 3 sessions because that's the optimal way to level up, something went wrong. If you want to play a game about getting rich no matter the cost, then it might fit, but I don't think the responsibility should be on the DM to manage the entire economy such that following the main hook is always the most economically sound option. And even if you do, you run into that classic DnD issue where you could study magic for years to become a level 1 wizard, or go kill a few goblins for the same result.

I'm still pretty convinced that gameability is a strong negative in any advancement system.

[HumanFighter]

Phoenix Phyre's system of leveling seems to be flawless

[HidesHisEyes]

I disagree there. If the overarching game theme is "Stop Lord Eviljerk" and the party is progressing towards stopping Lord Eviljerk rather than starting a dry cleaning business then they could be working towards milestone xp. The party is incentivized to be finding some way to stop Lord Eviljerk rather than abruptly deciding that they'd rather plan a wedding or opening an orphanage for young grells.

This is different from "You'll level after you've cleared the Southlands outpost of the Eviljerk Empire". If the party can find an alternate way of progressing towards the game's ultimate goal then good for them. I suppose it also doesn't work in aimless sandbox games without a theme either but I don't find those games to be my preference to run/play.

I see what you mean: the PCs have a predetermined goal and any progress towards that goal earns them xp, so they’re incentivised to pursue the goal but can do so however they like. This is different from either of the versions of milestone I described, true, and much less objectionable than either.

My preference is still for a list of generic actions to earn xp: defeat a powerful foe, help someone in need, learn something new and significant, etc. This way the PCs can choose their own goals, and there isn’t even an intended end point in mind - I like this because it makes for genuinely organic narrative and a sense of discovery and surprise for even the GM. But they are still incentivised to engage in certain ways and not others - I like this because it encourages a certain type of gameplay and narrative experience, so you know roughly what kind of thing you’re gonna get. You know a dungeon fantasy adventure game will generate some kind of dungeon fantasy adventure story and not “we want to run a bakery”, for example.

But that’s my personal top preference, not some one true way. Setting a specific goal and rewarding them for working towards it however they like will also result in a lot of organic narrative and discovery, I’d imagine.

[Vahnavoi]

My preference is still for a list of generic actions to earn xp: defeat a powerful foe, help someone in need, learn something new and significant, etc.

In practice, this leads to players asking "do I get XP for this?" for every damn thing and if the answer is ever "no", they stop doing that thing. This interferes with choosing goals more than it helps, because the most common goal players gravitate towards is "gain more XP".

[HidesHisEyes]

In practice, this leads to players asking "do I get XP for this?" for every damn thing and if the answer is ever "no", they stop doing that thing. This interferes with choosing goals more than it helps, because the most common goal players gravitate towards is "gain more XP".

In my experience it works just fine. In the games I’ve played that do this, you generally get the xp at the end of the session for having done the thing in the session, and sometimes double xp if you did the thing multiple times or in a really significant way. But the amount you can earn per session from one type of action is capped. I can imagine the problem you describe coming up if they got xp each and every time they did the thing.

[Vahnavoi]

In the games I’ve played that do this, you generally get the xp at the end of the session for having done the thing in the session, and sometimes double xp if you did the thing multiple times or in a really significant way. But the amount you can earn per session from one type of action is capped. I can imagine the problem you describe coming up if they got xp each and every time they did the thing.

I've done it both ways, but now that you mention it, it is possible when points are revealed makes a difference. This would be a good thing to empirically test when designing a new game.

[Psyren]

In my experience it works just fine. In the games I’ve played that do this, you generally get the xp at the end of the session for having done the thing in the session, and sometimes double xp if you did the thing multiple times or in a really significant way. But the amount you can earn per session from one type of action is capped. I can imagine the problem you describe coming up if they got xp each and every time they did the thing.

Even if you don't tell them why they got XP though, eventually they're going to figure out they got X amount during the session where Y happened, and {X-A} during the session where Z happened or less Y happened instead. Which will likely lead to them doing less Z or demanding more Y.

[Quertus]

In my experience it works just fine. In the games I’ve played that do this, you generally get the xp at the end of the session for having done the thing in the session, and sometimes double xp if you did the thing multiple times or in a really significant way. But the amount you can earn per session from one type of action is capped. I can imagine the problem you describe coming up if they got xp each and every time they did the thing.

Party #2 vs the Impossible Wave Witch

1 Point Automatic [check]
1 Point Learning Curve - Magic Missile is painful [check]
1 Point Acting "Chicken!!!" (Pronounced more like "chiiii-Khan") [check]
1 Point Role-playing - cat chasing mice, Necromancer intimidating [check]
1 Point Heroism

1 Point Taking an Unusual Action that Worked - falling overboard to conceal lycanthropy transformation [check]
1 Point Noticing an Important Fact or Clue - the spells that the Impossible Wave Witch casts are impossible [check]
1 Point Showing Unusual Wisdom, Restraint, or Vision - used the ship's ballista to shoot the dilapidated Ghost Ship out of the water before it closed to ramming range [check]
1 Point Major Accomplishment - took the Impossible Wave Witch captive, converted her to the party's side [check]
1 Point Comic Relief

Seems pretty simply to apply, even months later to a scene where I was GM.

Even if you don't tell them why they got XP though, eventually they're going to figure out they got X amount during the session where Y happened, and {X-A} during the session where Z happened or less Y happened instead. Which will likely lead to them doing less Z or demanding more Y.

Not my experience using the above example. Even though we almost never earned the "Heroism" XP, we never asked for more opportunities to be heroic.

I've done it both ways, but now that you mention it, it is possible when points are revealed makes a difference. This would be a good thing to empirically test when designing a new game.

Yeah, for this style, I strongly recommend "end of session" or "email after session" over "mid-session".