Experience Points: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[Wik]

Definition: Experience points, by my definition, are points awarded for character or player actions in a game environment. These points are either used passively (such as when a character hits a certain number and "levels up") or actively (such as the spending of "karma" in Shadowrun) to improve your character in various ways.

The Good:
* Experience points are a quick and easy way to reward character behaviour. They reward characters for DOING stuff in the game, since that is how they improve.

* Experience points help give a gauge of how powerful your character is; this is especially useful when a GM wants to run a prepublished adventure.

* They are easily conceptualized; almost every player can figure out how they work in a basic system ("Once I get three hundred more, I level!"), and even in complex systems, they're usually pretty easy ("If I want to improve my strength by one point, I need twelve karma").

The Bad:
* Experience points are rewarded only for certain actions in game. this reinforces a certain play type. In earlier editions of D&D, for example, you didn't get XP for social interactions (unless the GM made a house rule, which isn't the point of this thread).

* The actual spending of Experience points (or levelling up, in many cases) interrupts game play. Many players can do this away from the table, but I know many tables - including my own - that do it at either the start or ending of a session. I've even had players do it in the middle of the session! Basically, time spent improving is not time spent playing.

* Some settings are really not served by experience points. In a world war 2 setting, for example, characters should be encouraged to do as little as possible if they wanted to stay "in character" - while XP is rewarded for accomplishing things.

The Ugly:
* As the game progresses (or sometimes, even at the start), the number of experience points awarded increases. This can mean players have to keep track of XP totals in the hundred thousands (or more!) while receiving awards in the thousands. It can be easy for some, but a real pain in the butt for others.

* in a game where XP are spent to improve your character, the costs are never really balanced, which will favour certain builds over others. Even in a game where "levels" are used, those levels are never truly balanced against each other. One could say that a system that uses a form of Experience Points is fundamentally imbalanced. (Yeah, 4e is a pretty balanced system, but it's not perfect)




So, points of view? Disagreements? Additions?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

This is basically why with my games I still have XP but it is generated differently, it isn't by set amounts from kills, quests, etc. It is something that is generated through different milestones that the characters go through.

So uncovering who killed your PC's brother be a major milestone and would garner a certain amount of XP. Or travelling to a new continent be another. Each would gain different amounts depending on how important it is to that PC.

I still use the XP amounts, since as momentous events occur as they rise in level this can correlate the amount of XP given out. I sometimes also if it is a big enough event will simply increase a whole level for the character.

 

[Crothian]

I can't say I've ever seen a game that encourages characters to do nothing, but that has to be a really boring game or setting.

I've never had characters level up or spend XP in the middle of a gaming session. In fact in many games it says that leveling up and XP spending is to be done after sessions when you get your XP. Even if rules don't prohibit it I would consider it very bad form and ask my players to not do it.

Games reward different actions, this is a good thing. People should play the games that fit what they want to do. I have no problems with this.

Your ugly section is not really ugly. Adding numbers even those with 6 or 7 digits should not be seen as hard unless you are playing with children. People have access to calculators and computers and the math does not have to be accomplished quickly.

I'm not sure when the idea that a balanced game was a good idea but it has quickly become one of the worst things in gaming.

 

[Irda Ranger]

UPDATE: This post has been edited to remove "dry sarcasm" that came across as "tense attacks". My apologies for my part in any confusion.

Experience points are rewarded only for certain actions in game. this reinforces a certain play type. In earlier editions of D&D, for example, you didn't get XP for social interactions (unless the GM made a house rule, which isn't the point of this thread).

This is a 'Good', not a 'Bad'. Limited-scope XP keeps the players focused on why everyone's at the table. The guy who is spending all his time on XP farming while everyone else watches is the Bad.

The actual spending of Experience points (or levelling up, in many cases) interrupts game play.

Only if you let it. This is like saying saliva is bad because you can spit on people with it. Clearly that's a problem with the spitter, not the spit. Same for XP. Any alternative system would probably be likewise abusable by rude individuals.

Some settings are really not served by experience points.

And therefore they shouldn't use them. Using the wrong tool for the job in not the tool's fault.

As the game progresses (or sometimes, even at the start), the number of experience points awarded increases.

Not necessarily. I've played RPGs that need 10 XP to advance between each level, across all levels of the game. To the extent any game uses "too much" XP that's a problem with the game's design, not a problem inherent in an XP-based leveling system.

This can mean players have to keep track of XP totals in the hundred thousands (or more!) while receiving awards in the thousands. It can be easy for some, but a real pain in the butt for others.

Eh. It really doesn't get any easier than two-function math (add, subtract). I really don't have much sympathy for something that a $4 calculator from Rite-Aid can make easier if the pencil & paper method is problematic for some reason.

in a game where XP are spent to improve your character, the costs are never really balanced, which will favour certain builds over others.

No D&D-like game will ever be perfectly balanced. Only games with perfectly even sides (like chess or checkers) are "really balanced."

Further, I don't see how XP is the problem here. If 4E is "imperfect" the problem is most proximately caused by power and feat design (and most easily fixed by addressing power and feat design, not XP).

Even in a game where "levels" are used, those levels are never truly balanced against each other. One could say that a system that uses a form of Experience Points is fundamentally imbalanced. (Yeah, 4e is a pretty balanced system, but it's not perfect)

As opposed to what? Your post suggests that both "leveling" and "free form point buy" systems are equally problematic, but this is not the case. Leveling systems are far more easily to balance than "free form" ones.

 

[Wik]

Whoa, IR, you're a little tense, here. For what it's worth, there was no attack on ANY system here. You're reading into things.

Mostly, I wanted a discussion on experience points. I pointed out how I saw them... you apparently disagree. And then some.

Feel free to add/modify my list. All I'm trying to say is this: experience points are NOT the only way to handle character progression.

As for this:

Please email me when you've done better. Until then, I'm playing 4E.

Calm down. There was no attack in my original post. But, I think you know that the classes are not really balanced, and experience points (or, rather, the system that relies on them) contribute to that. Granted, the balance is pretty tight... but it ain't perfect. Nor, do I think, will it ever be.

Crothian was much nicer when he stated his views on that point.

Personally, I think you need a visit from Mrs. Manners.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd say this is a pretty accurate list, with the exception of your last Ugly bullet. No game is truly balanced, regardless of whether xp is involved. Levels can do wonders to make a game more balanced than it would be otherwise, but levels =/= xp.

 

[Irda Ranger]

UPDATE: This post has been edited to remove "dry sarcasm" that came across as "tense attacks". My apologies for my part in any confusion.

Whoa, IR, you're a little tense, here.

I wasn't remotely tense. Sitting on a comfy leather couch with wife next to me and dog at my feet is about as un-tense as I can get while still awake.

For what it's worth, there was no attack on ANY system here.

I never thought there was.

Mostly, I wanted a discussion on experience points. I pointed out how I saw them... you apparently disagree. And then some.

You clearly have things in your gaming experience you want to improve, and I wasn't disparaging any problems you may have, but that didn't hold me back from pointing out that XP is not the most proximate source of those problems. In each case your 'problem' either wasn't really a problem or it arose from a source other than XP.

All I'm trying to say is this: experience points are NOT the only way to handle character progression.

Okay, that's empirically true. Was there a more specific contention or question?

But, I think you know that the classes are not really balanced, and experience points (or, rather, the system that relies on them) contribute to that.

I don't know anything of the kind. Further I can't imagine how XP contributes at all to any imbalance between the classes that may exist; certainly none of your above arguments make the case for that.

Personally, I think you need a visit from Mrs. Manners.

I probably just need to stop trying to assume a particular tone of voice on the Internet when there's a 100% probability that at least one person reading it won't "get it."

 

[blargney the second]

There was a blurb on XP in Green Ronin's Advanced Game Master's Guide for 3.5 that I quite like. Basically, it said that you will get more of whatever you reward the players for doing. So our group sat down and hashed out what we wanted players to do more - we ended up with stuff like:
story awards
fast turns in combat
showing up on time
bringing and sharing snacks
making other players laugh
participating in in-character dialogue
getting the group to act upon a plan or idea

The ultimate purpose of XP is to determine the rate of advancement of the PCs.
-blarg

 

[Umbran]

Maybe. Preferably a British one - they're the best. I doubt she could teach me patience with poorly formulated contention though.

Unfortunately, you get a Mod Fairy instead.

Everyone - if a lack of patience manifests itself as rude snarkiness, we have a problem. We expect our posters to bring their patience to the table, and that you'll step away when you've run out of that resource.

Respect for each other, folks. Please stick to that, first and foremost. Thank you.

 

[Ariosto]

"Good" and "bad" are subjective in the first place, so not very conducive to rational discussion of the actual phenomena so labeled. Before asserting that something is necessarily so, one might inquire as to whether one's knowledge base is adequate evidence; it takes but one counter-example to make the claim false. That A and B coincide does not make one the cause of the other, and (again) one might wonder whether they are indeed even universally coincident.

Some statements may not hold up very well under even cursory examination:

"Experience points are rewarded only for certain actions in game."
So, experience points should be awarded for every action in the game?
How many points for a sneeze?

Consideration of the likes and dislikes behind the "good" and "bad" labels may help in defining a viewpoint.

Why do you dislike that some actions earn XP and others not?
Taking on the specific example, why do you dislike that a game of Dungeons & Dragons should award points for securing treasure, but not for "social interactions"?

What do you think was the designers' reason for designing the game that way?