XP/Reward based on Actual Challenge vs Intended Challenge?

[Robert K Beckett]

Naw, Mike, I'm not looking for realism, because that would be max xp for just training all day. :P

I am an ardent supporter of what I consider "fair reward" in gamism, that being harder challenges deserve more xp.

Chris

Have you thought about using XP awards strictly to mitigate failure, ie as a sort of "consolation prize" for serious, damaging failure?

[Mike Holmes]

Actually, Chris I was responding to this by Thoth:

Also, yes...my intent was also to make it more "realistic".

But your point about Gamism is well taken. My response would be that combat is a gamble taken on by the characters. Creatures rated as tougher are worth x amount. I woudn't fiddle with that. Essentially, giving players the same reward for easier kills is a way of saying, "Good Job!" here's your extra reward. IOW, I think that this system is contra-gamism. It only seems to make sense in light of what is "real" in the game world. Which you don't seem to be interested in.

Yes this is metagame, but so is gamist play for the most part.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Actually Mike, I'm not so much about giving greater rewards for weaker challenges, but hoping for more advice than "If the monsters ambush the players, raise the CR by 1 or 2".   What I'm thinking of is a system that takes into account or at least has better guidelines for stuff like kobolds armed with flasks of green slime, etc.  

My only two beefs with the D&D experience system as it stands is
•IMHO, it doesn't really balance a proper award for those crazy special attacks that lay people low in one or two hits, etc.
•It doesn't really give good guidance for a real fun crazy scenario, like say Rune would, for those times you want to have the kobolds armed with green slime flasks attacking the PC's on a rope bridge across a piranha infested river :)  I guess you could call it compound threats.

Chris

[thoth]

Then one thing you may wish to consider is not applying the ratio method.

For example, if I just fought something that seriously reduced my combat abilities(strength, items, etc) and then fought something much weaker and killed it, by using the ratio system, it directly affects the amount of xp I would get from the smaller foe, although just now are the effects of the previous combat really kicking my rear.  Although I'll be getting more for the little guy, it's really xp from the big guy I should be getting.

However you work it out, I look forward to eeeing your formula for xp.

Chris

Except is it really fair get to more XP from the big guy if he wasn't a challenge? I can't say yes. But if that weaker guy is a challenge...then it's not really a weaker guy after all and would be worth a reward in line with the challenge.
It is a very a narrowed view, with each combat being rewarded as it is right there and then, as if nothing else happened before or will happened after, and not how it should be.

I do understand where your coming from with non-regenerating things (charges, single use items, etc). But the way i'm seeing that, is they make the current fight easier, but all future fights more difficult. So i'm seeing at as sort of evening out. With less of reward coming from the current fight when they items are used, and more of reward from pretty much all future fights because those items are no longer available.

Of course, not even that reason keeps the idea of rewarding use of non-regenerating things from lingering abouts my head ;)

I thought it might be realism.

If you are trying to "fix" D&D for realism, have you considered that you might be playing the wrong game?

Hmm..that would appear to be inappropriate casting of my intent. I am by NO means trying to "fix" D&D for realism. I AM trying to 'fix' the D&D XP award system to be more fair, which I'm inappropriately equating to 'realistic' rewards. Fair being subjectively defined as 'the greater the challenge the greater the reward, and the lesser the challenge the lesser the reward'.

But your point about Gamism is well taken. My response would be that combat is a gamble taken on by the characters. Creatures rated as tougher are worth x amount. I woudn't fiddle with that. Essentially, giving players the same reward for easier kills is a way of saying, "Good Job!" here's your extra reward. IOW, I think that this system is contra-gamism. It only seems to make sense in light of what is "real" in the game world. Which you don't seem to be interested in.

But rated tougher relative to what? My problem with that, is that whatever the creature is being rated against, probably has little to no comparison to a real player group.
For example, D&D3E's Challenge Rating, is supposed to be a 'moderate challenge to a group with average level equal to the CR'. But that leads me to question of "what the hell is an average group"? 2 warriors, 2 magics, 2 others? I'm not sure if i've EVER played in a group like that ;)

Also, this started as a d20 mod...but I can't see any reason it can't be at least somewhat system independent.

[Mike Holmes]

I am talking about something arbitrary like the challenge rating. I'm suggesting that you just use it, and never change it. If players have a "hard time" with an encounter, then it's just their "fault" for not preparing more successfully. Or being more alert. etc. I think that the Challenge Rating thing opened up a whole can O worms when it said that "average" thing. What you're trying to do is come up with some system to codify jus this sort of thing. But it's impossible. Have you considered the effect of inclement weather? Poor creature morale? What about penalties the GM gives the creature for not having eaten in days (or bonuses for hunger)?

Modifications to the odds can come from an infinite number of things. So accounting for them is just imposible. Better to do as some have said and just choose an objective rating like HP lost in the fight and go with that.

And magic items used should not count under any circumstances. As you said, it balances. Even in the combat in question. A use of a wand of fireballs will result in a savings of other resources, making it a player choice that does not need to be rewarded separately. And otherwise means that giving magic items is the same as giving out exp. Let's not go back to that.

Anyhow, just going with the arbitrary set amount seems the best to me still. If the GM is feeling generous, he should just eyeball it, and add as much as he thinks make sense. Anything else is just too complicated. RM EXP were just a hassle. People had to record every crit they rolled (and that's most hits in RM), so that they could calcualte EXP after battle, which usually took ten-fifteen minutes. Yikes. I ditched that for a system where I just told my players that their characters went up a level after every couple of sessions.

Mike

[thoth]

I am talking about something arbitrary like the challenge rating. I'm suggesting that you just use it, and never change it. If players have a "hard time" with an encounter, then it's just their "fault" for not preparing more successfully. Or being more alert. etc.

Or the player's aren't where they're "supposed" to be, according to the static rating.

I think that the Challenge Rating thing opened up a whole can O worms when it said that "average" thing. What you're trying to do is come up with some system to codify jus this sort of thing. But it's impossible. Have you considered the effect of inclement weather? Poor creature morale? What about penalties the GM gives the creature for not having eaten in days (or bonuses for hunger)?

That's why I created (or am creating) a system that ends up looking at the Actual Challenge instead of the Intended Challenge. Because using a base static Rating of some form completely neglects intelligent opponents, weather, other conditions (like being ill and tired), and all sorts of other things.

Modifications to the odds can come from an infinite number of things. So accounting for them is just imposible. Better to do as some have said and just choose an objective rating like HP lost in the fight and go with that.

I know that's my route. I dunno if anyone else working on this too?
Specifically, i'm tending towards: (for d20)
(Pre_Combat_Player_HP - Post_Combat_Player_HP) / Pre_Combat_Player_HP * 4 * Player_Group_Level * 300

Generically it'd be based on:
(Pre_Combat_Player_HP - Post_Combat_Player_HP) / Pre_Combat_Player_HP
Then the problem is determining what would be the system's base reward for a certain outcome and integrating it. Fortunately, d20 is fairly explicit in how much a moderate challenge is worth.

That'd be fairly easy to calculate. Sum up all the player HPs before and after combat.

And magic items used should not count under any circumstances. As you said, it balances. Even in the combat in question. A use of a wand of fireballs will result in a savings of other resources, making it a player choice that does not need to be rewarded separately. And otherwise means that giving magic items is the same as giving out exp. Let's not go back to that.

Anyhow, just going with the arbitrary set amount seems the best to me still. If the GM is feeling generous, he should just eyeball it, and add as much as he thinks make sense. Anything else is just too complicated. RM EXP were just a hassle. People had to record every crit they rolled (and that's most hits in RM), so that they could calcualte EXP after battle, which usually took ten-fifteen minutes. Yikes. I ditched that for a system where I just told my players that their characters went up a level after every couple of sessions.

Mike

I actually don't see 'eye balling it' and other systems (like RMs, or mine/Beckett's) as 'either/or'. Honestly, I feel they go together. With the more complex systems setting up the 'feel' of how much XP this situation and that situation is worth. And then once someone is comfortable with the feel of what's worth what and when, they can eye ball it without unbalancing anything.

I believe someone expressed that to me elsewhere.

Of course, 'gain a level every couple of games', is probably the easiest, quickest and best method for those who just don't want to waste game time on XP. I myself have no problem with wasting a little game time ;)

[Robert K Beckett]

Have you thought about letting the odds themselves decide "what the situation is worth"?

One system I'm seriously considering is a Trait + Skill + 2D10 vs Target Number system. The only way to get XPs is to hit exactly the TN, in which case you get a number of XPs equal to the die roll.

So if you have to roll a 4 on the 2D10 to hit the TN exactly (and you do), you get 4 XPs.

If you have to roll a 17 (and you do), you get 17 XPs.

The system is more probabilistic than the "XPs = Damage taken" system, but the result over several rolls is similar. As in, you get very few XPs for easy rolls, a lot of XPs for challenging 50-50 rolls, and not quite so many XPs for very very difficult rolls (but the XPs come in much more gratifyingly large chunks for the difficult tasks).

So anyway, have you thought about basing XP awards on the probablities of the tasks?

[M. J. Young]

Quick observation: speaking as one who always looks for the best way to keep his character safe and alive (from the player perspective) by playing intelligently (from the character perspective), it appears to me that this rewards system is a disincentive to innovative solutions.

I would think that the best warriors would seek a way to take out an opponent with a minimum of risk to themselves. Doing so in this system assures that they will get minimum experience for doing so. Wreckless abandon in direct melee combat will almost always yield the highest experience levels (and as I think Mike mentioned using the worst weapons is also an advantage). Now, if what you want is to encourage hack-and-slash play, this seems a good way to do it. Personally, I'd like to see a system that rewards the characters who can avoid personal risk and dangerous combat, and particularly those who are not fighters by class. Speaking strictly of D&D, can you really see any logic to a thief or magic user making a frontal attack on a beast merely because it is the most dangerous thing they could do, as opposed to trying to find a clever or intelligent way to take out the beast with little risk to their own lives?

What really are you after here?

--M. J. Young

[thoth]

I haven't even considered anything remotely like this. Nor would I have, in all honesty.
You need to do at least a quicky write up, and create a new topic for it. This idea deserves its own unique discussion.

Have you thought about letting the odds themselves decide "what the situation is worth"?

One system I'm seriously considering is a Trait + Skill + 2D10 vs Target Number system. The only way to get XPs is to hit exactly the TN, in which case you get a number of XPs equal to the die roll.

So if you have to roll a 4 on the 2D10 to hit the TN exactly (and you do), you get 4 XPs.

If you have to roll a 17 (and you do), you get 17 XPs.

The system is more probabilistic than the "XPs = Damage taken" system, but the result over several rolls is similar. As in, you get very few XPs for easy rolls, a lot of XPs for challenging 50-50 rolls, and not quite so many XPs for very very difficult rolls (but the XPs come in much more gratifyingly large chunks for the difficult tasks).

So anyway, have you thought about basing XP awards on the probablities of the tasks?

[Robert K Beckett]

Personally, I'd like to see a system that rewards the characters who can avoid personal risk and dangerous combat, and particularly those who are not fighters by class.
--M. J. Young

Hey There M. J.

There are many ways reward a PC/player. Often, success is its own reward. Meaning, if the player is really good at getting what he wants (eg to keep the character alive, to win conflicts, to gain "treasure" or reputation or magic items or whatever), then why should he necessarily be given higher probabilities of success in the future? One way of looking at it is that the character doesn't "need" the XPs if he gets what he wants using high-probablity methods.

That's been one of the main gripes about many RPGs; the exponential spiral caused by rewarding success with the means to attain yet more success. In such a system, the advancement reward model is "OK you did a lot of easy things, so here's the means to do some harder things"

With a system that gives XPs for failure or for damage taken, the model is more like, "Whoa you got your butt kicked trying to do those harder things; here's the means to make it easier next time."

The difference is that in the damage= XP model, you have to attempt challenging (ie low-probability, often injurious) tasks in order to advance. You cannot rely on strategizing [sp?] or taking on easy opponents in order to advance. Those things (strategy, fighting low-level opponents) will get you success, but they won't advance your skill level.

Of course this approach may be problematic for D&D since XPs and leveling up are considered of prime importance by so many players.

[M. J. Young]

Often, success is its own reward.

That is the way it works in Multiverser, so I certainly understand the concept.

One way of looking at it is that the character doesn't "need" the XPs if he gets what he wants using high-probablity methods.

Eventually you poke a stick at D&D in this regard; but the game does provide good examples if only because most of us understand it. I have twice seen people roll up otherwise excellent Irda Wizard of High Sorcery characters who had exactly one hit point. This in itself strongly influences how you play the character. It will not do to say that the one hp character should be excluded; it is an excellent character who just needs to stay out of the way. Arguably, if this character manages to resolve situations without taking damage, the player has played brilliantly; conversely, if the character does not avoid damage, someone is going to have to save the character's life immediately. I think that a player in this situation who manages to avoid taking any damage by playing smart should not be penalized in comparison to, say, the minotaur barbarian who started with twenty hit points and took eighteen in combat with two kobolds. I think there is something to be said for the ability of the character to avoid damage, to make a potentially difficult situation easier by smart action. A system that rewards based on the damage taken in essence rewards wreckless and stupid play, and penalizes intelligent play. Besides, the one hit point wizard needs the experience considerably more than the twenty hit point barbarian--the latter can probably stand his ground against at least some opponents several levels higher, while the former is desperate to survive long enough to make that next level to be secure against even minor dangers.

What's true at this exaggerated level is true in the smaller aspects. If you're going to reward for injury taken, you are in essence penalizing efforts to avoid injury. It makes no sense to improve your armor, because that reduces your experience. There is a sense in which better skill plays against you. Smart strategy is a bad idea. What the system encourages is doing anything that will get you nearly killed, as long as you survive.

To exaggerate again, if I've got a high-level cavalier in full plate armor who encounters five kobolds on a routine patrol a few hundred yards from the castle, there is no reason why I can't engage them, let them attack me for twenty rounds until I've been whittled down from fifty to five hit points, then kill them all in a single round of attacks. I've just gained a lot of experience points, because fighting these kobolds was "difficult" as measured by my injuries. On the other hand, if they set an ambush for me and I noticed it, slipped around behind them, and killed them all before they knew I was there, I'm rewarded with no experience for my ability to play smart.

The difference is that in the damage= XP model, you have to attempt challenging (ie low-probability, often injurious) tasks in order to advance. You cannot rely on strategizing [sp?] or taking on easy opponents in order to advance. Those things (strategy, fighting low-level opponents) will get you success, but they won't advance your skill level.

No, you only have to play in such a way that you do take damage. Given the choice between a sound plan that will win the battle with minimal injuries (what nearly every fighter would always take in any potential combat situation) and a crazy idea that will almost certainly bring us to within inches of death but should leave us alive but battered, the reward system says to do the latter. Note that it both recognizes and facilitates such play: it gives you points for taking the injuries, and increases your ability to take greater injuries in the future.

I suppose it would make a good reward system for Hackmaster. I think we were looking at something intended for use in a D20 game, and while I don't much care for D20, I think D&D games as written do encourage creative efforts to fight intelligently, and this suggested mechanic discourages them.

--M. J. Young

[Robert K Beckett]

You make good sense, M J.

I agree about the details of the system. XPs are just too important in D&D, and some characters won't have enough HPs to make the initial investment required to gain more XPs/HPs. And you're right; basing advancement strictly on damage received is too limiting.

I still think the idea of awarding XPs for attempting difficult, hi-risk tasks has merit. That's what my "XPs for calamitous failure" model was about.

The Devil is in the details.