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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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?

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

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

Zak Arntson wrote: 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.

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.

I was also going to point to traveller as a game in which characters really only improve by getting better toys.

Another idea that might be different is to have the players use a reward system to mold their reputation. the player could choose to be feared, or loved, or looked up to, or connected or some other thing, which would make world react to them in some way that was beneficial to their style of play. a neat side effect of this is that if they botch a scenario they don't get worse but the world might treat them like they did. I kind of like the idea of negative experience points.

Another system we have been toying with is that from the start of the game the character is degrading (Now that my gaming group is turning fourty we bring this up less often). and the player needs to use rescourses at an increasing rate just to stay where they are. You start the game in peak physical condition and have to find ways to make up for the fact that you ain't got it anymore.

the two could work together so that as your atributes decay your skill level or connections or hirelings or whatevergoes up.

I was playing Gamma World in the early 80's, and it had no rewards at all, at least in the 4th edition we were using (I think there were some very minimal rewards in 3rd edition, which is what we started with).

The problem I had with it then was that Gamma World was an extremely deadly game, and there were no guarantees that you would create a survivable character, or not lose one that was durable to a sudden fluke in play, or be able to create another viable character after that. I, as a player, felt that the game needed some way for characters to grow a lot stronger than they were.

That, though, came from the fact that the game was geared to create a bleak post apocalyptic future in which death was expected, and that really wasn't something which interested me. I sort of expected it to create heroic adventures like its sister game AD&D (particularly as I didn't ever get to play AD&D but always had to run it, so I was looking for the experience my players had in some other game). I felt that the danger was constantly increasing, and all we could do was try to play smarter, more carefully, and with a lot more attention given to whatever technology we managed to accrue.

For what it was trying to do, it did it very well. I didn't really want to do that, so I didn't enjoy it so much as I might have done. On the other hand, I probably would not have enjoyed Call of Cthulu, either, and a lot of people do.

Multiverser has no "reward system" whatsoever. It does have character improvement, for any player who wants to put his character through the rigors of practice and training to get good more quickly, or in general recognition of the ongoing use of low-level skills improving. It never occurred to us that it might need anything remotely like experience points once we'd solved the question of how character abilities improve with in-game answers. As a result, players define their own objectives, and are rewarded by doing what they enjoy.

So add that to the alternatives to experience points.

--M. J. Young

I will note in passing that aside from the games mentioned, Pretender has no XP or reward system, tho characters can change whenever the group thinks its okay. If you do a search for threads featuring the game, you'll find that this didn't hamper people enjoying themselves at all.

xiombarg wrote: I will note in passing that aside from the games mentioned, Pretender has no XP or reward system, tho characters can change whenever the group thinks its okay. If you do a search for threads featuring the game, you'll find that this didn't hamper people enjoying themselves at all.

RobNJ wrote: Were the rules of negotiating a change rigid or loose? How was it managed?

I believe the trick is to create a focus on scalability that does not depend on general rewards. By this I mean that the players should be allowed to choose which areas or parts of their characters they wish to develop. This does two things,

1. It provides a level of scalability that is character-driven. This almost always drives plot. Plot makes the RPG.

2. It gives players a goal. I firmly believe that an RPG without an award system will not keep players coming back. With rewards, players work on their characters, work toward a goal. If done correctly, an award system drives character which, in turn, drives plot.

I have an example of a scalable award system, and I will provide a link to it, but I want to do it without it sounding like a shameless plug for my game. I truly believe in this so please keep that in mind if you choose to view the example.

In this game, Archena Role-Playing, we decided to make ALL aspects of a character awardable, from stats to skills and weaves (spells) -- the latter two of which are created by the players in-game. This is not new, but it does create an environment in which players have complete control over the development of their character. You can download the sample here to see in total,
http://www.16cbh.net/Archena/archena-pt.html

In the german game Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye) the Abenteuerpunkte (Adeventurepoints) are given out only for the in-game experience of the characters. In that game the XP are part of the simulation and not of the reward system - there is no reward system at all. DSA has quite a monopole in germany: the game ist played by the majority of german players, and most of them dont know any other games - and hence know XP only as a part of the simulation.

I've been playing the first six years of my rpg-career that way, then I joined an AD&D group and was quite shocked about the reward system - I felt like being back at school! So I left that group after the first game session and got back to my old DSA group. Since then, when gamemastering a game with a reward system the first thing I do is skipping the reward system and either use a flat progression-rate (even for players that dont show up) or, in systems with levels, let the players make a group vote about when to level up. My current D&D-group for example is stuck on level 8 or 9 since nearly a year, since they think more powerful characters wouldn't be fun to play. So we started to rearrange the characters instead of leveling them up.

My oberservation is that players that are not used to reward systems dont need a reward to play - to them the fun of playing is "reward" enought. If you give out rewards to these players they feel treated like children. While players that have grown up with a reward system feel uneasy when not getting rewards. Some of them even dont know what to do when not guided by rewards.

My conclusion is that a reward system is not a must have, but just a matter of habits.

Gelasma wrote: My oberservation is that players that are not used to reward systems dont need a reward to play - to them the fun of playing is reward enought. If you give out rewards to these players they feel treated like children. While players that have grown up with a reward system feel uneasy when not getting rewards.

Greetings to all.

I think it's all fine and dandy not having an experience point system, but going ahead and saying XP systems aren't workable is a bit much. They clearly are, or every game which uses an XP paradigm wouldn't be here today.

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, even if it's "study for n game months and make a Learning Roll" or "gain 1 point every time you score a critical success/failure". I myself don't believe in freeform awarding of abilities to my players, because they'd just mis-use it -- at least for a number of them. However, if your group can handle it, then I say go ahead with freeform.

Lately, I've been pretty anti-experience or advancement systems. I feel that it's far more interesting and realistic for characters to be constantly becoming DIFFERENT instead of quantitatively BETTER. Torchbearer is the first game that, for me, really nailed this transformative model. I feel like the need to get "better" is a throw back to the origins of roleplaying, where accumulation of power and material resources was part of the stated point. Additionally, this way, you don't have to worry about issues of scalability, have high and low experience characters together, "balance," and other potential problems.

RobNJ wrote: 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 :)).

Jack Aidley wrote:

Zak Arntson wrote: 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.

Which would be true if you didn't award them XP if they didn't turn up.

Gelasma wrote: My conclusion is that a reward system is not a must have, but just a matter of habits.

RobNJ wrote: ...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?

tiago.rodrigues wrote: 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

Jonathan Walton wrote: I feel that it's far more interesting and realistic for characters to be constantly becoming DIFFERENT instead of quantitatively BETTER. Torchbearer is the first game that, for me, really nailed this transformative model. I feel like the need to get "better" is a throw back to the origins of roleplaying, where accumulation of power and material resources was part of the stated point.

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.

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

RobNJ wrote: How did Torchbearer handle this?

RobNJ wrote:

tiago.rodrigues wrote: 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?

tiago.rodrigues wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Zak Arntson wrote: 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.

tiago.rodrigues wrote: 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...

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

RobNJ wrote: 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?

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

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

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

Andrew Morris wrote:

Alf_the_Often_Incorrect wrote: 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.

Alf_the_Often_Incorrect wrote: 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.

Alf_the_Often_Incorrect wrote: 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, 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.

Andrew Morris wrote: 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.

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

Thomas,

Oops...you got me! Read it as "any element may potentially vary" instead of "everything varies" and it'll convey what I meant. I suppose even this could be contested as an absolute, but like you said, you understood the point.

An alternate form of advancement that I toyed with in one of my early design attempts was called Fallback (I think, that is what it was called, its been a few years...like 10..lol). Anyway - basically characters earned 1 Fallback point per adventure or session, GM preference.. They could call on these points to "add" a skill during play. For example, a player could suddenly remember that he went to a school on how to drive Sherman Tanks when he used to be in the army and therefore would gain the appropiate skill. These could not be used to advance existing skills though. A character had to spend time training and applying the skill to advancement, and only when the GM agreed could the skill be advanced one rank. Likewise, a skill that was not being used frequently could degrade on GM discretion. The one problem we had with this was that it was a lot on the group to actually pause every few games and go through your character sheets to see what kills you had and had not been using. Overall it worked well, but in the end simply did not fit the feel for the system I was working on at the time.