Doing away with XP

[Robert Bohl]

Fiction (be it plays, movies, books or TV) is not typified by people always becoming more powerful.  Depending on the genre, they may even degrade over time.  Instead of people becoming More and Better, fiction tends to focus on development, changes, but not necessarily an ever-upward scale of change.

My friends and I are developing a noir/dystopian style game, and I am contending that we should drop this notion of XP, and rather have changes to characters focus on in-game rewards, changes in the characters' standing in society and the fortunes of their lives.  To have changes to the character sheet negotaited at the table between games rather than being the result of some expenditure of resources or consequence of gathered points as in most games.

Getting increasingly powerful is only an artifact of the history of roleplaying games.  It's not a facet of most fiction (at least that that comes before RPGs or isn't aware of them).

I know there are arguments that can be made against this position, and I'd like to hear them, or let me know if you agree.

Has anyone done a game where xp and an ever-increasing power curve were not part of the mix?

[smokewolf]

I sorta agree...

In The Swing, I use a system of party votes rather than XP per sae to determine if a character has "grown". If the party feels that the skills they used and actions they committed warrant the effect of increasing the characters "experience" or knowledge then the character gains XP. It is even possible for someone to gain XP in areas where they are currently not interested. If you are playing a scientist who just happens to whoop ass this session, then the party could give you XP towards being a soldier.

XP is used to measure improvement in a characters career. It is not used for anything else. It is to be able to tell the difference from an experienced person from a newbie. But not in a traditional D&D like sense. XP can come from whatever the party feels like it should come from, be it combat, social interactions, etc. Also in The Swing, character development depends heavily on the characters in game actions. If the character is taught to be ambidextrous, then they gain the ability of amidexterity, they do not have to spend XP to get it.

[Michael S. Miller]

Has anyone done a game where xp and an ever-increasing power curve were not part of the mix?

Hi, Rob.

The choices are quite diverse in these parts. Just to name a few:

My Life with Master has a definite endpoint, and, while stats do increase during the game, it's definitely *not* "an ever-increasing power curve"

Sorcerer does have the possibility of advancement upon the resolution of Kickers, but it's relatively minor. More important is the potential re-writing of the character upon Kicker completion or upon going to 0 Humanity.

InSpectres has rewards (Franchise Dice) which accrue only to the group, not to individuals.

One of the ideas I've always been fond of, but haven't quite found a place to fit is this: Allow points to be shifted out of one stat into another at certain points in the game. Thus, a 100-point scientist character could remain a 100-point character, but he might not be as good at computers as he was a few sessions ago, because he's been moving his points into his combat skills. Just an idea.

[Zak Arntson]

XP is a reward system. Reward systems are fundamental to roleplaying games, and XP is simply one way to reward participants. When you create a reward system for a game, you are encouraging the players to reach for that award.

In many games, XP is the strongest reward because it allows for greater character effectiveness (more skills, better stats, new abilities, etc). If you want to encourage this, go for it. But remember that your players will be encouraged to maximize their XP gain.

With your example of noir/dystopia, you have to consider what you want to encourage from the players, and what rewards you offer for these behaviors. Any reward system is fine (including XP), so long as the benefit gained reflects the style of play you'd like to get. Like you said, character standing and fortune are fine rewards.

Rob, you've got to be more specific when you say "power curve". In fiction, many characters begin with a low impact on the story, and get more and more entangled in the plot, so that every movement affects everyone else. Let's take the example of a petty criminal (PC) who steps off a bus, unknown. He's pretty tough, and is hired by Jimmy to rob Kurt's store. The PC busts into the store, meets Kurt's wife, sleeps with her, and they both rob the store together. The PC then has all this loot, and decides to put out a hit on Jimmy instead of give up the loot.

Suddenly PC has "power" in terms of affecting the story, without any gain in XP (or other stereotypical resources, like skill levels, attributes, and such).

So there is no argument about XP It's merely another tool to use as a reward system. You can take it or leave it, but your game design will benefit from knowing why you're using or not using it.

As for games that don't use XP, there are tons of them. Off the top of my head, you've got InSpectres, Sorcerer, Trollbabe, tons of my own games (see Harlekin-Maus Games), Pantheon. Note that these games have a reward system, just not in the form of XP.

[Robert Bohl]

Thanks for separating out reward systems from XP.  Had I been thinking clearer, I would have done that myself.

I guess what I mean is must one have a reward system that focuses on improving the character's statistics on the sheet?

If not, what are some good examples of reward systems that do not do that?

Also, do people think of negotiating changes to character sheets among the gaming group?

[Doctor Xero]

One of my current playing groups will be breaking up at the end of the summer as the graduating students go their various ways, and they asked me to run our final campaign.

They made it clear to me that they didn't want me to have to deal with the concerns of their characters' gaining levels or spending experience points or however the system rewards a person.  They told me to simply assign increases in skills or new skills as I saw fit and to forget about game balance or even player-character equity -- if one player's character ended up with far more improvements than another's by campaign's end, no one cared.

The primary reward would be having a good time with each other.

(We do use the equivalent of hero points as game mechanics compensations for those roleplaying actions which endanger the character from a practical or wargaming standpoint but which make sense in the context of character conception and storyline, but that's it, really, and those only help with the occasional dice roll.)

Our decision to ignore levels and experience points for our final game together has worked well for this particular group.

Doctor Xero

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I guess what I mean is must one have a reward system that focuses on improving the character's statistics on the sheet?

That's pretty difficult since for most RPGs the only things at the player's disposal in-game are effectiveness and rescources in relationship to the character's abilities. Therefore, the only thing to reward is character ability. Some games do have other things to reward. Amazing Engine had an interesting take on this by having a character "core" this core allowed players to make characters in any AE world. With experience, they could improve that character, or improve the character core so that the next time they made a character it could start out more powerful.

[Valamir]

One of the ideas I've always been fond of, but haven't quite found a place to fit is this: Allow points to be shifted out of one stat into another at certain points in the game. Thus, a 100-point scientist character could remain a 100-point character, but he might not be as good at computers as he was a few sessions ago, because he's been moving his points into his combat skills. Just an idea.

Interestingly this is exactly the concept behind the Transformation system in Robots & Rapiers.  You start with the abilities you were programmed with, and then as you become more and more self aware, you can delete those old programs in favor of new ones the player chooses.

[Doctor Xero]

Has anyone done a game where xp and an ever-increasing power curve were not part of the mix?

I've had several players who consider knowing the right NPC person or having the support of a good NPC friend to be worth more than the increase in abilities of leveling or of having the right number of experience points to spend.

In a Star Trek campaign I once ran, medals and commendations mattered to the players more than did experience points or, for that matter, promotions in rank.

A bard player-character may find more reward in having his or her songs become popular.

And, to use Aaron Allston's schema, Builders care more about affecting the campaign world than they do about increases in a character's power levels.

Doctor Xero

[Sparky]

I'm kind of surprised no one has suggested the Fame mechanic from Prince Valiant...

PCs earn fame points for dramatic accomplishments and in-game social rank promotions (like becoming a knight, etc.) Fame is a direct measure of importance within the game world. The higher your Fame, the more likely the npcs are to respect you, offer favors and gifts and other such benefits (like the right of first choice out of the treasure pile.) (Further, every 1000 pts confers an extra skill point so that there is still some advancement.)

You could require a certain threshold of fame for membership in certain elite organizations or for having a higher social status. Perhaps every X fame grants another npc contact or access to other resources.

Many of the details would have to be hammered out based on details of your setting and how much/fast the 'gameworld advancement' is desired.

Hope that's of some use...

Chris

[Callan S.]

I think Ron's 'Zero at the bone' mini game is really interesting in that its player reward is expanded narraration control (if I read it right).

If you think about a lot of books, the characters don't get more powerful...BUT, a lot of kinky narrative does build up around them. An escape route turns up just in time, an old contact happens to be in town, they did a course in bomb desposal years ago when living in Japan, etc etc.

You can see that this is something damn useful, a worthy reward, but doesn't involve character powers at all (even the bomb disposal one is kinda just an narrative excuse rather than added on power).

[Robert Bohl]

There's a piece in http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/5/ where Ron says:

"Are reward systems necessary?"

Has anyone tried a system where there were no reward systems?  Where all rewards were in-game, in-character, evolving solely from the story.

More importantly, and separately from whether anyone's tried it . . . would you enjoy playing a roleplaying game where the goal wasn't to improve your character's stats from game to game?

[Jack Aidley]

Has anyone tried a system where there were no reward systems? Where all rewards were in-game, in-character, evolving solely from the story.

Yes; I usually play in such a way. And the early traveller games worked in such.

Note also that character advancement need not be tied to any kind of reward system - and, again, this is typically how I've played even in games with an xp system. If you give a flat rate of XP for sessions, then it ceases to be a reward system.

[Zak Arntson]

More importantly, and separately from whether anyone's tried it . . . would you enjoy playing a roleplaying game where the goal wasn't to improve your character's stats from game to game?

Yup! See the actual play accounts for Shadows: http://www.harlekin-maus.com/play.html On that same page, Metal Opera consists of only one session, though stats improve during that session.  Chthonian holds no method for improvement, either (in fact, in that version of the rules, characters lose effectiveness as the game progresses).

If you give a flat rate of XP for sessions, then it ceases to be a reward system.

No, if you give a flat rate, you're awarding participation. If someone doesn't show up that night, they aren't rewarded. This is an important item for campaign play, emphasizing consistent attendance.

[Robert Bohl]

No, if you give a flat rate, you're awarding participation. If someone doesn't show up that night, they aren't rewarded. This is an important item for campaign play, emphasizing consistent attendance.

Do you mean to suggest that rewardless systems are not meant for ongoing "campaign" type play?  (note: you may not mean to suggest this, that's why I asked; it's a genuine question :)).