Doing away with XP

[Robert Bohl]

In the interests of being very precise, below, when I talk about what I am "for" or "against", I'm talking about this one particular game (or style of game) I'm trying to develop.  Below, if I say I am "for" a thing, that does not mean that I consider it to be a religious dogma that must be adhered to, but rather what I am seeking in a game that does not rely upon a method of character development that is based mostly on increasing power.

I'm using the Forge Glossary's definition a) of reward. There are three definitions there, so RobNJ, which are you talking about, specifically?

Well, definition a is what's most important to me.

I am for b, as long as they are changes and not necessarily advancements.  They may be increase, decrease, or lateral movement, but it ought to be as the story logically dictates, rather than increase for increase's sake.

c is pretty much what I want to avoid.

[Jonathan Walton]

How did Torchbearer handle this?

Characters in Torchbearer (by Shreyas Sampat) have traits like "My Sword is Sharp as Winter" or "Khalia Owes Me A Favor."  During the course of play, events can put traits into "Crisis."  For instance, Athestha could swing her sword so hard that it snaps in two or Khalia could save Athestha from certain death.  At this point, the trait is put into Crisis until the end of the scene, it which point the Crisis is either resolved or the trait transforms into a new trait.  Post-transformation, Athestha might have traits like "I Must Mend the Broken Icetooth Blade" or "I Am A Life-Debtor to Khalia."  Each character also has an identity trait that defines the core of who they are and what they want out of life.  These can be put into Crisis too, during the climaxes of major efforts to achieve goals or redefine yourself.

[tiago.rodrigues]

That being said, even if there is no single score that is kept and used to buy ability improvements, whatever it may be called, I believe there still must be a way for characters to improve their abilities somehow

But why must there be a way for characters to improve their abilities?  Just because that's what everyone's expecting?

Not really, that's because the GM usually won't allow his players to start out arbitrarily powerful, and the players will usually have an ideal in mind (Aragorn Strider, Captain Nemo, James Bond, Captain Kirk, Count Dracula) which he can't achieve immediately.  So there must be a method for the character to work toward that goal: if a player is told that there are things some NPCs can do with their skills but his character can't, ever, suddenly the character's a source of disappointment.  A character should have the ability to become (within reasonable limits) whatever his player desires for him, given enough dedication.

Also, there's the idea of 'challenge' in a game.  Typically, players will want to face bigger, badder things as the campaign wears on -- if they just saved the umpteenth village from attack from a 50-orc tribe, they'll want to try to stretch their abilities.  But if their abilities are the same as when they faced the first 50-orc tribe, if they try to face a 40-ogre tribe they'll probably be creamed -- unless the 50-orc tribe wasn't much of a challenge at all...

It's not just combat, either.  Imagine a steampunk inventor PC.  Let's say she can invent a flying machine.  Next she wants to invent a cannon to send people to the moon.  After that, she wants to invent a cannon to Mars.  Now, the GM might let her build just about anything, in which case she has an unlimited inventing ability, or she can invent some things but not others, in which case there's an arbitrary cap on the number of things she can invent.  Notice this is not necessarily the same as the number of inventable things.

Of course, in my view, you can do away with character advancement in spite of all that.  But in this case, you'd be better off doing away with scores in general, and maybe even the whole character sheet.  Just make everything up as you go along, just like you used to in the make-believe games when you were a kid...  Then again, when it reaches that level, is it a RPG anymore?

[Zak Arntson]

Of course, in my view, you can do away with character advancement in spite of all that. But in this case, you'd be better off doing away with scores in general, and maybe even the whole character sheet.

Tiago, you can have a roleplaying game without constantly increasing scores and still keep the character sheet and rules. There are different social and personal rewards for playing a game. For example, here is a roleplaying game without advancement:

Each player list three people their character is somehow related to (family, friendship, sexual, enemy, etc). Any action may cause the GM to ask for a roll. If the roll is 1-3, it fails. If it is 4-6, it succeeds. If the player uses a person on their character sheet, the player rolls a 6-sided die. If the roll is a 1-2, the action fails and the the person is removed from the character sheet. If the roll is a 3-4, the action succeeds but the person is somehow harmed in-game. 5-6, the action succeeds and the person is fine, AND (if there are less than three people on the character sheet) the player adds a new person.

So that's a roleplaying game without continual upping the challenge. I recommend you check out the Gamism, Simulationism and Narritivism essays in the Articles section here at the Forge. Even if you don't agree with them, they provide examples of games with varied play goals (one of those goals is a constantly increasing power matched by increasing challenge).

[F. Scott Banks]

I'm not sure how this applies, but I utilize a skill system wherein characters become better through combining different skills to create unique ones.  if you want to cast a fireball, you simply conjure a sphere of energy, enchant it with fire and cast it.  These same skills can be applied to other things though.  You could conjure a sword of energy, enchant it with flame, and wield it.  So theres no listing of premade spells that have to be gradually earned through XP.

I do utilize a progressive advancement system, but it's more unique to the skills you're interested in advancing.  It's not the traditional "kill stuff", "get XP".  It's more "do this", "get better".

Just a thought.  Mine is more of a new take on the traditional style moreso than a unique style in and of itself.

[Tobias]

Sounds a bit like that old computer game, Wyldkarte... what was it again... Dungeon Master?

Zo Fir Ka, or something?

Damn, that's a long way back. And amusing as h*ll.

[F. Scott Banks]

lol....whoo that's an old one.

Yeah, I like the old ways and with my interests being unapologetically computer-oriented, they do reflect the things I thought were "done right" but have fallen by the wayside in favor of what "looks cool".

I think it was Zork, but that was so long ago I hardly remember.  I know I'll always remember Zork for it's first-person dungeon crawling.  The game I'm working on now is pretty much copying that style.  Lord knows it's easier than rendering everything in real time.

But...uhhh...back to XP less gameplay.

I still don't know if skill-based is a valid alternative to kill-based.  The difference when comparing two CRPG's is signifigant, but when comparing pen-and-paper...I dunno.

[Garbanzo]

RobNJ-

Seeing as how you were interested in Torchbearer's character development (vs. character advancement), I'll throw in the rules from Zero, the granddaddy in this department (AFAIK).


There are two kinds of skills, Focus skills and Previous skills (stuff you once knew, but is pretty rusty now).  You choose up to 10 Focus skills, the number of which is your Focus Number.

Roll (d6 * d6) for any skill check.  For a Focus skill, rolling above the Focus Number is a success, for a Previous skill, rolling below the Focus Number is a success.

So, there's a real trade off in building the character.  Few Focus skills = good at those few things, terribly crappy at the rest.  Increasing the number of Focus skills dilutes this effect.


You gain XP (1 - 2 per session).  XP is spent to change the character, although "improvement" is kindof out of the question.  3 XP to make a previously-unknown thing a Focus skill, 2 XP to make a Previous skill a Focus skill, or vice versa.

(Or spend XP 1:1 to reduce damage)

-Matt

[tiago.rodrigues]

Tiago, you can have a roleplaying game without constantly increasing scores and still keep the character sheet and rules. There are different social and personal rewards for playing a game. For example, here is a roleplaying game without advancement:

Each player list three people their character is somehow related to (family, friendship, sexual, enemy, etc). Any action may cause the GM to ask for a roll. If the roll is 1-3, it fails. If it is 4-6, it succeeds. If the player uses a person on their character sheet, the player rolls a 6-sided die. If the roll is a 1-2, the action fails and the the person is removed from the character sheet. If the roll is a 3-4, the action succeeds but the person is somehow harmed in-game. 5-6, the action succeeds and the person is fine, AND (if there are less than three people on the character sheet) the player adds a new person.

The scores are done away with, though.  I never actually suggested throwing rules away: even make-believe has rules (implicit or explicit);  I guess one could call the friends list you used as an example as a character sheet, though it would be strictly through catachresis, as it says nothing about the character herself, except through her connections to other people.  I would call it a relationship list, karma list, or whatever name sounds cool to the players...

I also realize my previous posts seem to have a mainly Simulationist or Gamist slant; maybe it's true, and I'm biased.  I apologize, but I want to say I did read the essays, and I took them into consideration when I wrote the previous posts.  Perhaps I haven't had enough time to digest the information, though -- it always takes a while for me.

[Zak Arntson]

I guess one could call the friends list you used as an example as a character sheet, though it would be strictly through catachresis, as it says nothing about the character herself, except through her connections to other people.  I would call it a relationship list, karma list, or whatever name sounds cool to the players...

I get where you're coming from. In my sample game's case, the character is defined solely through relationships. That says everything about the character (in terms of that game)! This is tangential, so I'm moving it to another thread for discussion in this thread: New Glossary Entry: Character Sheet.

Perhaps I haven't had enough time to digest the information, though -- it always takes a while for me.

Don't apologize! It takes a while for that stuff to gel. I'm just now feeling comfortable enough understanding it to prod at the thing and challenge it.

[Alf_the_Often_Incorrect]

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?

Makes sense at first glance. However, consider this: without advancement, the game could easily get boring pretty fast. Let's face it: people like getting stronger. It doesn't nesscesarily have to use XP (I'm going to make a post soon about an alternative to XP, but it would be tangential here). I don't think a game without advancement would be much fun at all. Besides, a lot of novels in the fantasy and sci-fi genre do involve advancement.

Overall, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the tried and true methods.

[Andrew Morris]

without advancement, the game could easily get boring pretty fast. Let's face it: people like getting stronger.

I've got to disagree with you, Alf. Lack of advancement doesn't make a game boring, in and of itself. For example, a game could be designed that deals with a plague that's wiping out humanity. The characters are fated to die horrible deaths, and all that makes it possible for them to go on is achieving some goal. As the campaign progresses, the plague takes its toll, robbing them of their strength of body and mind. Thus, each session has heightened excitement, as their deadline draws nearer, even if the characters are given no advancement mechanism, whether it be XP or something else.

Besides, a lot of novels in the fantasy and sci-fi genre do involve advancement.

I don't think literary sources "prove" anything here; if you look hard enough, you can find plenty of examples to support either viewpoint.

Overall, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the tried and true methods.

I don't know that character advancement is "tried and true," or if it's just what everyone's done simply because "that's the way it's done." Personally, I remember many times where, over the course of a long-running campaign, my character became so powerful that the game was no longer challenging, and I lost enjoyment.

[Alf_the_Often_Incorrect]

without advancement, the game could easily get boring pretty fast. Let's face it: people like getting stronger.

I've got to disagree with you, Alf. Lack of advancement doesn't make a game boring, in and of itself. For example, a game could be designed that deals with a plague that's wiping out humanity. The characters are fated to die horrible deaths, and all that makes it possible for them to go on is achieving some goal. As the campaign progresses, the plague takes its toll, robbing them of their strength of body and mind. Thus, each session has heightened excitement, as their deadline draws nearer, even if the characters are given no advancement mechanism, whether it be XP or something else.

Besides, a lot of novels in the fantasy and sci-fi genre do involve advancement.

I don't think literary sources "prove" anything here; if you look hard enough, you can find plenty of examples to support either viewpoint.

Overall, I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to the tried and true methods.

I don't know that character advancement is "tried and true," or if it's just what everyone's done simply because "that's the way it's done." Personally, I remember many times where, over the course of a long-running campaign, my character became so powerful that the game was no longer challenging, and I lost enjoyment.

I can imagine that the plague-RPG you mentioned would be exciting, but I'm not talking about degrading being boring; I'm talking about staying the same being boring.

Okay, so you have me in the sense that non-advancement takes all of the fun away, which was definitely a poorly phrased opinion to begin with. Anyway, I don't see a definite flaw with advancement, except your complaint that it's unrealistic, which it isn't. After all, without advancement, a veteran soldier would be no more competent than a private. It really contributes no realism whatsoever. If your character is no longer challenged, that's your GM's fault. The point of advancement is soaring to bigger and better things; if you aren't, that's the GM's fault, not the system's, for not challenging your character appropriately.

I see no point in removing advancement; it's just removing a harmless element which positively contributes to the game for no apparent reason.

[Andrew Morris]

Alf, I guess I didn't communicate my ideas well enough. I was trying to show that even the opposite of advancement can be interesting. My point is that the value of advancement depends on the particular game. In some games, advancement is a perfect fit. In others, it is not.

As to advancement being unrealistic, I don't know where I said that. But I don't think being "realistic" is the be-all, end-all argument for a particular game element, whether it's character advancement or anything else. For example, it's realistic to expect that people will catch a cold or other minor sickness every now and then. Does that mean every game should have a chart detailing the frequency a character must check to determine if he has caught a cold? Of course not. Nor does it mean that this will never be useful in a particular game.

I'm not taking a stance either for or against advancement. What I disagree with is stating that such an argument applies across every game or for every player. There's a whole lot of variety that I think gets ignored with absolute statements. That's all. That's my point -- everything varies with the particular game in question and with the particular players.

EDITED to remove comment about non-functioning link, since it seems to be working now.

[Tomas HVM]

I'm not taking a stance either for or against advancement. What I disagree with is stating that such an argument applies across every game or for every player. There's a whole lot of variety that I think gets ignored with absolute statements. That's all.  

This is very well spoken!

I am very much in agreement with Andrew Morris, even though he ends his argument with an absolute:

That's my point -- everything varies with the particular game in question and with the particular players.

This absolute is as false as any absolute statement about RPGs I've seen. I do see the intention behind the words, but there is no way I will accept that "everything varies".

It varies how a game is played, yes, but most of the time you may recognise a game for what it is. And much roleplaying is in fact built upon repetitive routines, mostly routines given by the design. Roleplaying games are young, so we may very well live to see some pretty strange games of this type yet, with or without "character advancement".

My humble point; method does matter!