GP=XP

[Beoric]

I'm all for heroic altruistic play, but then the experience around the table is going to truly be its own reward. But I am admittedly turned off as a DM by players who want the image of altruism combined with the Bismarkian real-politik of "but of course in exchange for more power as the game defines it".

I fail to see why PCs who put all of the resources at their disposal into rescuing orphans would end up being less skilled than PCs who put all of the resources at their disposal into looting tombs. Equal challenges should receive equal experience. Its all about XP equity, dammit!

 

[squeen]

Yes, and it is something to be encouraged. Which is why you don't want a systemic discouragement of doing so by forcing them to choose between their goals and advancement.

The point I keep failing to convey is that character-ability/level is just not a focus of our (home) game, and I suspect that's not accidental. It's the world events. Not the character sheet. The players just want to monkey with things in the environment---start the dominoes failing, so to speak. Unravel the mysteries. Collect exotics. etc.

Since XP/Level is not a primary metric as to whether or not they are being "successful", nobody seems to care if action X or Y leads to more or less XP. So in that sense, there is no "forced-choice by game XP mechanic". It's a minor motivator---except at the lowest levels where it greatly determines session survival via the ability to weather a single melee-attack, and transforms magic-users from frightened children to functional adults.

I guess I am arguing that this is a fundamental feature of the original game---less focus on character abilities. Hence the flat level-curves. Fewer abilities to gain, etc. No mechanism to modify initial ability scores. Conan starts out pretty tough, but he never gains the ability to "wield the power cosmic". Indiana Jones doesn't gain the ability to leap tall buildings. I think video game designer grabbed the D&D level-up paradigm and then (because of their medium's inherent limitations) over-emphasized it as the success-metric. Video-gamers then brought it back to the hobby with a inflated sense of importance. Again, a sense of entitlement to a "steady upward progression". What is that upward progression suppose to be? Personal power/abilities, or prestige and influence in the world? The former follows the character into any environment, the latter requires a persistent campaign world. Sorry to be so one-note, but this circles back to my "Lesser" and "Greater" D&D epiphany. If you are solely playing a series of one-shot adventures (a.k.a. modules) and constantly transplanting your character into different scenes, then you aren't having the "full" D&D experience and the GP=XP a.k.a. minimal level-advancement looks like a broken metric that needs to be "fixed" in the next edition of the rules. But if you are in a persistent world---then everything "works" the way it evolved to during the hobby's formative years. Hauls don't need to get progressively bigger. Opponents don't need to get progressively more powerful (until you are fighting the King of the Tarasques!). Things remain longer in the scope of "normal humans" and yet are completely engaging (and grow in complexity).

GP=XP works because it creates a MacGuffin to get things rolling. Treasure is something that can be secreted away and is hard to obtain. It demands exploration and risk---and even permits partial-success. Once you get past that initial hurtle of "Why go into the dungeon? That's dangerous!", the game-world continues under its own momentum. After just one decent haul, you are 2nd-level, a local "rockstar" (and target), and most importantly...the game is afoot! Any other quibbling about which XP mechanism enables contiguous and virtuous level-gain is partially missing the point.

As the Ancient One said in the Dr.Strange movie, "It's not about [your character]."

Am I crazy for championing this?

EDIT: I am going outside the hobby---again to the MCU---for another example. The original Avengers were awesome but limited to just "being strong/skilled" (for the most part) and still vulnerable. More recently, take a look at what happened with Captain Marvel. She "leveled way the eff up" in her debut movie. Now what happens? The villains are just going to have to be god-like to even pose a challenge. The emotional impact of her beat-down revenge on Jude Law was vastly diminished by its obvious one-sidedness. In my opinion, Marvel shot itself in the foot there. They over-indulged in girl-power wish fulfillment (don't hate me---nothing universally wrong with that...kinda the point of super-hero movies) to an extent that diminishes the utility of a fictional character to participate in humanizing events by being placed in jeopardy. Captain Marvel wasn't the only one who got a major boost---I think they got a bit carried away with Iron Man's and Spiderman's nanotech abilities too. Power creep is going to complicate any and all future narratives they wish to tell (unless a means is contrived to gimp the protagonist). That's partially why Superman can be such a difficult character to build a compelling drama around and why the relatively weak Captain America and Black Window were such strong emotional anchors (...also why ORIGIN stories keep getting re-told).

Ack! Another long post.

 

[squeen]

Go Cubs!

(There!...That brings down my words/post average).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Squeen, I get your line of logic, but you're making a huge mistake with your reasoning... you're making some universal assumptions that are not universal.

When you say -

"Since XP/Level is not a primary metric as to whether or not they are being "successful", nobody seems to care if action X or Y leads to more or less XP. So in that sense, there is no "forced-choice by game XP mechanic". It's a minor motivator...",

- you are applying your headspace on the matter to everyone else who plays the game. Yes, I understand you are describing the mentality of your own group. But the problem arises because you are projecting your group as a sort of universal standard for all groups, and using it as justification for your position about GP=XP being superior. This is wrong, because I can tell you firsthand that I encounter many MANY players who feel the opposite way you do.

Your arguments make it sound like you are essentially saying "if you aren't playing it my/Gary's way, you're playing the game wrong", which is silly. Different people have different motivations, enjoy different things, have different viewpoints. I can assure you that my players have just as much fun playing my game as yours do in your games. There's nobody sitting at my table thinking "gee, I'm not so sure I'm having the full D&D experience"... that would be asinine. Yet your arguments seem to hinge very distinctly on "right" or "wrong" (or "greater" and "lesser") ways to play D&D. That somehow abandoning rules from the original game "muddies" D&D, which is again really bad logic because the game has changed CONSTANTLY since inception. Gygax was not perfect in his designs; OD&D had a ton of holes in the rules.

So when the arguments come up about motivators, or character priorities, or what it means to make progress as a character, I feel as though I should remind everyone that they need to view things through a more objective lens rather than through the lens of their own home game/groups.

 

[squeen]

@DP: Yes, you are right (and I've missed your frequent postings, BTW). I have put aside my objective-lens for the moment and am evangelizing. You are correct that there are many different ways to play and have fun---no argument there. However, I've learned a lesson that works for me, so I'm trying to share it.

What I'm preaching is for a DM to consider shifting/encouraging focus away from character levels/abilities and outward into the campaign world because it is a more workable game over the long-haul. What I am not sure of is if this message is generally known and discarded, or is a foreign concept. Do folks know there is another way to play? It's not clear to me that they do. We certainly are not all playing the same "D&D" in many ways, but I'm trying to get the word out about what I've discovered is "good" and "sustainable". For me, 2e was the pivot-point towards a ubiquitous character-centric thinking and I'm just trying to twist the needle back a tad.

When I talk about the "Lesser" vs the "Greater" D&D, that is (to me) a very different and specific point---and edition agnostic: "Are you playing in an on-going (heavily home-brewed) campaign-world or not?" It's that simple. I make that distinction because I think it's a massive dividing-line in terms of player experience and "what makes sense" in terms of house rules. The DM is doing different things, and the players will invariably have different goals. By analogy: are we dealing with character development through a single movie/novel versus an episodic serial TV-show/pulp-magazine?

So, I'm not really projection my group-dynamic (I know it's atypical), so much as advocating for a changed mindset for players, one that the DM can and should facilitate by de-emphasizing (retarding?) level advancement through design.

Heresy, right? But consider for a moment that XP and "levels" were probably originally just an outgrowth of the notion of "veteran" troops in wargaming. In D&D, a fighter achieves the Veteran title at 2nd level.

Once a new precedent is set (with regards to the success criteria), you might be surprised that many players will adapt. They just want to "win"...I believe a DM can influence what "win" means. With that in mind, it probably doesn't matter too terribly much WHAT=XP so long as the give-away isn't too liberally (but GP=XP does totally work, has some nice side benefits, and is in no-way broken).

Cool?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

but GP=XP does totally work, has some nice side benefits, and is in no-way broken

Cool?

Still debated. For instance, GP=XP doesn't jive with players who crave experience points but have a DM who wants to run an altruistic campaign. Yes you can say "players shouldn't be craving XP, they should be craving a fun game!" and I'd agree that they SHOULD be, but often they don't, and reality is sometimes a smack in the face like that.

All systems have their pros and cons; on that, I think we can agree.

 

[Ice]

One thing that we don't want to forget is that it is fun to get XP as a player. At the end of a session or a delve, it's fun to find out how much XP you got. It feels good to get XP, extra good if you feel like you earned it. I think the ultimate point of DnD(or DCC[or any RPG]) is to be engaging, and experience points definitely make it more engaging, at least for me (when I play).

Gold for XP is interesting because it is the most objective method of giving out XP. However, getting rewarded for 'encounters' (combat or not) is fun and engaging too. My players expect to get XP from doing things, be them good things or bad things, so I give them XP for it. I enjoy being as objective and as judge-like as possible when I DM, so it's more fun for me to dole out XP if I use a metric (detailed above).


From a player's view, a very fun part about DnD is having your character advance and become more powerful. A campaign would be less engaging if you were not advancing. XP is cool because it lets you feel like you are earning the advancement.

With all of that said, I really don't think it's a unicorn campaign if the characters like doing exclusively good deeds. This is exactly what many WoTC products are about. If you go play DnD at a random game store, a lot of times, that is exactly what you are doing. I feel like this style of play is actually the baseline for many people. As a DM and a player, I am not a huge fan, but if you like it, so be it.

The players that I DM like being rewarded for their actions and nothing is wrong with that. I just try to be as objective as possible about it.

 

[Ice]

Just for clarity's sake, when I say "unicorn" I mean campaigns where players and DM want to do good deeds without their being sullied by accompanying rewards of monetary value. Not merely campaigns where good deeds were the goal. The example pulled out is always an outlier of some good deed for which no reward is possible, and I've never seen a single long-standing campaign where players went session after session declaiming treasure rewards; good deeds or no, XP for GP or no.

I haven't seen any recent WOTC adventures but if they've stopped handing out treasure in them I'll take people for their word.

lol, I see what you mean now. From what I've heard, the current Adventure's Guild set-up is that you get magic items after finishing the modules based on where the module is in the sequence of modules. I've played a few random Adventure's Guide type things around the city I live in and they were quite bad, but I haven't experienced this phenomena myself.

 

[squeen]

I wanted to throw out a DMing biscuit by way of example: rival NPCs.

My players were at a relatively low level (2 or 3), but starting to feel like Hot Stuff when I brought in an outside party of NPCs to "take control of matters". This group was locally famous and referred to themselves as the "Fabulous Five". They came to this podunk locale after word got out about some of the hauls the PC were bringing back with them from the dungeon. They proceed to take charge of the situation and treated the PC in much the same manner as PCs treat hirelings, e.g. meat-shields, horse-watchers, no role in decision making, flat-fee (vs. share of the treasure), tried to intimate them whenever the PCs complained, and generally claimed all the credit while minimizing their own risk.

The PCs (who originally sucked up to them because they were famous and powerful) quickly learned to seriously DESPISE those jerks. Even now, years later, if anyone mentions a rumor of the "Fab Five", the party goes ballistic.

I present this an example of the world creating its own motivation (revenge on those bastards!), that is engaging and is unrelated to treasure or XP. I think its something we need to be mindful of as DMs. It's our responsibility to suck the players in to something beyond a formulaic routine of Fight-Treasure-XP/Level-Up---especially at higher levels when it breaks world-balance. We want to instead get under the player's skin and keep the brass-ring dandling just barely out of reach. It's not having a thing that is fun, it's chasing it. D&D should never become a game of driving around in a limo with a hot-tub in back and a girl on each arm like some 90's rap video. If and when that starts to happen, it's truly game-over.

For sake of quotable hyperbole I will stick my neck out further and make the following (hopefully controversial) blanket statement:

A good experience point system is one that motivates players to take major risks and begin exploring the world, by rewarding active play sufficient to achieve 5th-level (zero-to-hero/magic-user-gets-fireball) over the course of many months of adventuring. Beyond that point, it is irrelevant that the same mechanism that worked in the early game is by-and-large useless and/or broken, because the momentum of world-play will carry the action forward, and should (rightly) shift the focus away from character-level advancement and acquisition of XP as the primary motivator towards other (self-selected) goals.​

​

In his review, Byrce frequently chides an adventure for being too low on treasure in a GP=XP system. What I'll suggest is that he should instead focus on "Does this adventure provide sufficient motivation for the appropriate-level PCs to undertake the risk?". Screw the actual reward---in my book it's even better if the players think they are going to "make out" and end up getting hood-winked in the end. (Well...at least half of the time. Gotta keep them guessing.) It's better in a campaign if they always "stay hungry", even if they are a bit better off over time than they used to be. The have to have problems. They have to have unfulfilled desires and lots of obstacles to overcome---with no guaranty they will ever overcome them. Hope, not success, is what should keep bringing them back to your table.

There. Hopefully that stirs things up a bit. If not, I'm going to passive-aggressively insult newer editions again.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

What's to stir up? The post essentially amounted to "players can be motivated by many things" - you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with you on that point.

Being said, I don't care much for the quote you've included, mainly because I take issue with people who automatically assume their way of play is the "one true D&D". Different folks like different styles, ya dig?

 

[squeen]

The post essentially amounted to "players can be motivated by many things"

No. I'm trying to go one step beyond that and say, "as time progresses, a DM should strive to move the focus away from level-advancement and character-stats". Wean them from the XP-drug (and obsessing over their character) in order to sustain long-term play.

With non-level routes to power, you can giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other. With levels it's an infinite supply of renewable-power, and the only mitigating tool you have you have is level-drain---not something you'd want to over-use.

Personally, I kind of like that outside of "dungeons" magic is rare and valuable---but Beyond the Veil in the Mythic Underworld, magic comes much easier and is used up just as quickly. The characters get to briefly manipulate awesome forces---but don't get to walk away with the ability "for keeps". Potions are nice that way. So are devices that tend to get smashed up during combat. Magical servants with limited periods-of-service are another great temporary power-boost that spice up the low-level game. Let's not forget the old-reliable "temporary hit-points" that don't heal.

Being said, I don't care much for the quote you've included, mainly because I take issue with people who automatically assume their way of play is the "one true D&D". Different folks like different styles, ya dig?

I understand, and certainly don't hold (nor seek) the power to impose my preferred style on anyone else. But the problem with just falling back into the catch-all of "different strokes for difference folks" so quickly is that it stifles debate and doesn't help us---the small group of practitioners known as DMs (or GMs if you are afraid of a lawsuit?)---to learn, and hone our craft. It presupposes that we are all perfect and immutable. It's an escape-hatch that allows us all to be "right" without self-examination or a pursuit of "better". That said...for every rule, there is an exception.

The "D&D of hard knocks", "perpetual carrot-on-a-stick", or "XP-lean" type of game I am advocating that keeps levels lows and challenge high is one of the few life-lessons I learned both as a player 30 years ago, and as a DM now. To me. it's a more mature, and saavy mindset---so it's worth sharing and "banging a drum" about (to steal Guy's metaphor). I don't think its obvious---because I know I've made the mistake of making things too easy. I believe it's a coorallary principle to the "lethal-ity (especially) at low-levels" that's a characteristic of old-school play.

Is it absolute TRUTH? No, but its a small truth I've learned. It's a technique. A sleight-of-hand trick. A school of thought, like "method acting"---one I believe will help others who choose to go that route and keep it in the forefront of their mind. It's the kind of tip I'm looking for as I scour the blog-o-sphere looking for things that will help me improve my game.

Maybe, as you say, it's not discussed because it's so obvious. How can I know, unless I bring it up?

NOTE: Many edits.

 

[squeen]

Gosh, I could go on and on...(and usually do)

I could totally see running a game where the ONLY way to go up levels beyond 5th was to find magical grimoires/manuals, being training by fantastical creatures, undergoing a life-changing transformation, drinking from a fountain, or obtaining powerful artifacts.

Talk about motivation for risky adventures!

On a related note, another thing I want to mention---and have fallen totally in love with---is artifacts that bestow power proportional to the level of the user. This is the One Ring in Tolkien, but is fun to apply for most major items. The more powerful you are, the more you can do with a particular talisman.

Wait...I think I've totally veered off course.

What was my point again? Oh yeah!

Checks and balances on player-power are essential to a healthy game.

(Wait. That's it? DP was right, that doesn't sound too exciting. Poop. Thought I had something there...)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Wait. That's it? DP was right, that doesn't sound too exciting. Poop. Thought I had something there...

I'm always right; it's just that the subjective applicability of my truth is always open to (mis)interpretation.

 

[Beoric]

Can someone start writing summaries of Squeen's posts? I have a nine-year-old yammering in my ear while I read and I lose my place a lot.

A word on, *ahem*, unicorn campaigns, as defined by EOTB. Doing good has never been a motivation of players or GM in any campaign I've played in. That said, I've been playing with the same people since the 80s, and none of them are motivated by nonmagical treasure except in terms of what it can buy you - which in a traditional old school campaign where you can't buy magic items means they pretty much aren't motivated by it at all. They are spit between those who are motivated by the acquisition of personal power (levelling and gaining magic items) and those just want to do stuff in the world and don't really care about personal power. All my players are motivated by various in-world power trips like revenge, prestige or glory.

When I use GP=XP (and we rotate DMs, and I'm the only DM who uses it), it drastically changes the behavior of the XP-motivated players. If I instead use killing=XP, those same players will act in a very different way (and the game gets a lot less bloody if I instead use winning=XP). I am therefore very conscious of the way different reward systems can alter the way people play the game. If the system you are using disproportionately rewards one mode of play, it clearly less suitable to other modes of play; and while players can accommodate the lack of flexibility by choosing not to value that reward system, this does not negate the fact that the system in fact lacks that flexibility.

What I am advocating is developing systems that are flexible enough to accommodate other modes of play – particularly for groups which, like mine, include players with different motivations. If some of my players like conquest, and some like XPs, I would prefer a system that does not require me to choose between them.

 

[squeen]

Can someone start writing summaries of Squeen's posts? I have a nine-year-old yammering in my ear while I read and I lose my place a lot.

You guys are killing me. DP already did ("players can be motivated by many things") which was painful.

Short attention spans abound.

All my players are motivated by various in-world power trips like revenge, prestige or glory.

MIne too. Maybe an underutilized motivator in adventure design.

 

[squeen]

A quote from the Hack & Slash blog about high-level play:

5th Edition: I've run several fifth edition games to levels 15+. 5th edition characters require about the same amount of experience for each level, making leveling very consistent. Characters will reach 2nd level after one session, and third level by their third session. After that they will level about every 3 sessions. Many, many fifth edition players remove player motivation and use milestone experience to control the rate of advancement.

5th edition characters do not stop increasing in personal power. The curve is more suited to a B/X style game, but the endless gain of personal power provides a very different endgame.

For an example, my ex-wife played a barbarian during Horde of the Dragon Queen. Her standard procedure after level 10 was to jump to reach whatever dragon was flying nearby and grapple it while hitting it with her axe several times each round until it died. Once a dragon lived through two rounds of this. At the end of the campaign, she had upwards of over 300 hit points, and during her endless rage only took half damage from anything but psychic attacks. Not counting healing or other defenses, this generally required doing 700+ points of damage before she even felt threatened in combat. Considering the bard could heal everyone for hundreds of hit points every round, it often required many hundreds more points of damage.

Our battlemaster fighter wore heavy armor that provided damage reduction. I could only manage to hit him, with anything but the most powerful monsters, 5% of the time. Since he also had the lucky feat, he could nullify 3 of those hits every game session. He also had over 100 hit points.

Do you know how many times you have to attack a person before you hit with a 20? A lot. The fact that the first 3 important hits could be waved away with lucky made him almost invulnerable.

High level 5th edition play, with its focus on constantly and steadily increasing personal power feels very anime, very Final Fantasy. Everything is very elastic, you're up, you're down, the power levels are very high, and the threat to the characters is very low. Combat runs amazingly quickly, considering the complexity of the game. It's extremely well designed. Often the most time consuming part of combat is doing three column subtraction of hit points.

Is this hyperbole or is it really typical for 5th edition---the super-fast leveling at low levels and the demi-god like abilities at higher levels?
Or is this just modern-day Monte-Hall-DMing-strikes-again?

 

[bryce0lynch]

You guys are killing me. DP already did ("players can be motivated by many things") which was painful.

Short attention spans abound.


MIne too. Maybe an underutilized motivator in adventure design.

Hand of Vecna.

Older D&D plays style hits a sweet spot between boardgame and indie RPG. It can be quite light on rules but there's this "winning" thing attached to it. XP, power, etc. Power trip fantasy.

 

[bryce0lynch]

A quote from the Hack & Slash blog about high-level play:


Is this hyperbole or is it really typical for 5th edition---the super-fast leveling at low levels and the demi-god like abilities at higher levels?
Or is this just modern-day Monte-Hall-DMing-strikes-again?

Tangentially ... Mearls thinks you should level once a session, iirc.

 

[squeen]

Tangentially ... Mearls thinks you should level once a session, iirc.

Hey Bryce! Always nice to hear from our benevolent overlord benefactor. You certainly practice what you preach---it takes me a bit to unpack your terse prose.

Mearls, I have pieced together, is the 5e co-designer. If that was his expectation/intent, then all I can say is "merde".

I guess I belong to a austerity-appreciative minority. I love the struggle. Both as a player and now as a DM. Don't get me wrong. I also love big in-game fireworks after the PC's have set off the gonzo powder-kegs, but I believe there is something essential in the players never feeling "powerful" or "in control". In my experience, everything awesome comes with a small flaw to keep things balanced and grounded. A reset switch that keeps players hungry for more (like life). Wish-fulfillment/omnipotence/guaranteed-success is not fun---quite the opposite, I find it boring. Like playing with the cheat-codes.

Lastly, I haven't successfully decoded your cryptic reference to "Hand of Venca". I mean, I know the 1e DMG artifact, but beyond that your reference is lost on me. Care to elaborate?

Cheers.

 

[bryce0lynch]

Goes to show you that 5e is a completely different beast and playstyle. Both OSR and 5e are, I think, story games, but in wildly different ways. 5e emphasizing story and arc railroad that you get a little wiggle room in as a player with OSR representing the a free flowing style where the story is what the players create.

The Hand is, I think, the best representation of power trip gaming. Something so lustful that you'll chop off your own hand for. Power/Prestige/XP.

These things all make perfect sense in my head ... which I guess shows the importance of context. But don't fucking tell Derrida that!