I recently did up a mod for d20 and awarding XP. It is based on the concept of giving XP for the Actual Challenge of a critter and not the Intended Challenge. As such it based on how much damage was done and taken, with opponents being 'removed' by various means counting as kills.

So here's my question:
Does anyone else think this is viable?

One "problem" that people might find is that if a group got lucky and scored a bunch of critical hits and killed something quickly, the group won't get a lot of XP. With the Actual Challenge idea they would not get a lot of XP since the opponent was not much of an Actual Challenge, even though its Intended Challenge could have been quite difficult. Fate dictated otherwise.

Another "problem" might be that it only covers combat situations. Which isn't really a problem since that's the intent (for now, maybe).

Here is a link to the original mod:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rathoth/d20_XP_Mod_v2.txt

And a more recent one, that's based purely on how damaged the Player Group is after combat, but hasn't been completed:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rathoth/d20_XP_Mod_v3.txt

I treally all depends on what you intend to promote with the system. Do you want a feeling of "realistic" growth? Then a limit on EXP for a monster that was killed easily is likely to help with that. Do you want to fairly reward challenges undertaken? Then the flat EXP is more likely what you want.

I can see players in the mod you have actually using weapons that do less damage and such in certain circumstances just so that they can be assured of more EXP from an encounter. Or, rather, Gamist players will likely search for the rate that provides the best return based on resources.

A sort of combination approach would have the regular EXP as a minimum value, and award more, if by the other system the challege was higher than expected. This might provide a rate where players are still incentivized to kill as quickly as possible (and get the artificially high min), but still reward tehm more when the combat went long.

Mike

Cool idea! Great minds must think alike.

If I was gonna do it, (and yes I've thought of something like this), here's how I'd do it.

Forget about the damage "rate". Just keep track of beginning & ending HP levels for the monsters (as a group) and the PCs (individually).

Two factors count here: How much damage the PC's did and how much damage they took.

Measure creature damage by the total of HPs of all "vanquished" creatures for a particular combat.

Measure PC damage by a ratio: Damage (in HPs) sustained in combat over the PC's HP total. This will always be less than one unless the PC has zero HP remaining, in which case it is 1.00. Eg if the PC lost a quarter of his HPs due to this particular combat, his Damage Ratio is 0.25

To get the XP award for this combat, multiply the Total # of HP of all "vanquished" creatures by the PC's Damage Ratio. This will probably have to be normalized with a constant factor like your 300 (one would need to experiment).

This way, if the PCs are battling powerful creatures who exact a heavy toll during combat, the PCs will gain a lot of XPs.

If they exterminate a bunch of nancy-boy critters and don't take much damage themselves, they will not get many XPs.

This trend will follow them up as they level; if they were to keep killing the same critters throughout their career, they'd get fewer and fewer XPs the higher they advance. This encourages them to take on more challenging opponents as they (the PCs) become more powerful.

I don't play D20 or D&D anymore, but I've thought a lot about advancement mechanics for all kinds of RPGs.

Edited to add: If you wanna get real esoteric (and lose a lot of potential players hehe), use the SQUARE ROOT of the PC Damage Ratio. it's slightly more complicated, but it rewards players who "cut it close", ie get really close to zero HPs in combat.

BTW, and FWIW, this all sounds very much like how Rolemaster handles EXP.

Mike

Mike Holmes:
Rolemaster handles XP like this!? Cool :)
Can't say I knew that before now, but I would have found out soon enough since i'm planning on getting that "3 Books for $55" deal from ICE's site.

And yeah, one of the things about v2 is that it can be cheated on. Which sorta led to the incomplete and not-to-clear v3.

The combo idea might be workable. Probably not with v2 though. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the sheer abusability of it.


Robert K. Beckett:
I think we're both thinking along the same lines, where the tougher the combat the more damage the group suffers the more XP they earn.
Although I was thinking (with the v3 one) that monster HPs are irrelevent. Whether a monster group has a total of 10, 100, or 1000 HPs seemed meaningless to me. It's whether or not and how much damage the monster group can do.

We're also on the same page with regards to ratio of damage taken vs pre combat HPs. Though my is page is a bit clouded and dirty and makes little sense ;)

And that [Level * 300] XP comes from the CR-XP tables which gives [Current_Level * 300] XP for defeating a critter of equal CR, which is supposed to be a "Moderate Challenge". So the question is, how much damage does a "Moderate Challenge" do to a party? 25% damage? 50% damage?

Also, yes...my intent was also to make it more "realistic".
With challenges being rewarded according how challenging they were in reality. It's probably never going to be as easy as static or somewhat static XP values of course.
There was also the intent to try to limit characters from gaining XP from combat with completely unworthy opponents. I mean hell, a sufficiently magic-enhanced group could probably take down a higher CR critter in no time at all, without breaking a sweat, and wouldn't deserve the XP it would get by standard means.
I also wanted a mechanical means to calculate the XP, beyond relying only on the Ad Hoc method. :)

I don't know how well exact formulas would work, but I have noticed that D&D usually doesn't reward enough for dealing with stuff like invisible enemies, one-hit kill/incapacitation attacks, multiple attacks, regeneration, immunities, and shapeshifting/liquid enemies. Oh, wait, that's almost everything isn't it? ;p

Has anyone dealt with this problem and come up with any good fixes for that as well?

Chris

Well, all those things don't necessarily need to be Explicitly considered. All these things would be Implicitly included in considerations of HPs before and after a fight.

Here's my train of thought relative to some things you mentioned.

Invisible Enemies:
More difficult to hit, longer combat, more likely to do more total damage.

Multiple Attacks (Players):
Drops the enemy quicker, making it an easier battle.

Multiple Attacks (Enemy):
Does more damage. More difficult (higher chance of actually dying).

Regeneration:
Longer combat, more to do to have greater total damage.

Immunities:
Bitch of a fight. Probably long. Probably painful. Worth more XP.

Liquid Enemies:
I'm assuming they'd also be more difficult to hit. So the fight would last longer...

One-Hit "Vanquishing":
On one hand, if the enemy fell so quick...wasn't much of a real challenge. OTOH...it could very well be a unique circumstance, and handled as such.

That's my take, at least. :)

basing experience solely on damage taken might be a pretty good idea. like you, thoth, I think the issue of whether the monster was invisible or immune to nonmagical weapons or something is irrelevant under such a system, but you might want to award bonuses for penalties other than damage. lost your best magical sword taking on a rust monster? get some kind of bonus. Strength reduced permanently? get a bonus.

it would certainly change the feel of the game, however. normally, a party that attacks a dangerous monster from a distance gets experience. change the source of experience to damage taken and characters are rewarded for being daring instead of cautious.

this brings up another idea: what about allwoing players to select different methods of gaining experience? one player writes "COURAGEOUS" on the character sheet and gets experience rewards only from damage taken; another player writes "CAUTIOUS" and gets experience only from the difference between damage taken and damage dealt.

How do spells used and charged magic items figure into this system?

A party that defeats something without a great deal of HP loss themselves, yet uses up a slew of their own resources to do so (ie: spells, potions, charges from magic items and similar temporary/expendable resources), should recieve more XP for the encounter than one that does so purely by the luck of the roll.

I would say the use of charged magic items should count more towards XP when the case is such that the charges are not easily/cheaply replaceable (ie: potions and scrolls). Spells and items with charges that are likewise easily replaced should count similarly to HPs, which also refresh naturally/cheaply merely given time.

My only issue with HP only damage taken is that what sort of HP damage do you count when people are turned to stone? When almost the whole party is paralyzed? When you get turned into a werewolf/vampire/bog wight? There's plenty of monsters that do comparitively weak hp damage, but their special attacks are horrendous. What about those funky things that age you several years? Or level drain?

What about monsters with comparatively low hp and incredibly high AC?

Monsters that don't fight fair are more than just hp drain, they can out and out kill folks, which is very different than just thugs in a fight. For example, an invisible monster that attacks PC's while asleep? Kobolds who gather green slime in tossable vials? Umber Hulks who just collapse the tunnel on the party and never bother to go hand to hand?

I'm not arguing against the hp value as a viable method, I just think it might need to be augmented to account for more than hp damage.

Chris

but you might want to award bonuses for penalties other than damage. lost your best magical sword taking on a rust monster? get some kind of bonus. Strength reduced permanently? get a bonus.

this brings up another idea: what about allwoing players to select different methods of gaining experience? one player writes "COURAGEOUS" on the character sheet and gets experience rewards only from damage taken; another player writes "CAUTIOUS" and gets experience only from the difference between damage taken and damage dealt.

How do spells used and charged magic items figure into this system?

When almost the whole party is paralyzed? When you get turned into a werewolf/vampire/bog wight? There's plenty of monsters that do comparitively weak hp damage, but their special attacks are horrendous. What about those funky things that age you several years? Or level drain?

What about monsters with comparatively low hp and incredibly high AC?

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

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?

Mike

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

Bankuei wrote: 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

Actually, Chris I was responding to this by Thoth:

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

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

Bankuei wrote: 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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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?

Mike Holmes also wrote: 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.

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

Mike Holmes wrote: 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

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?

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

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.

Robert K Beckett wrote: 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 wrote:
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

Robert K Beckett wrote: Often, success is its own reward.

Robert K Beckett wrote: 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.

Robert K Beckett wrote: 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.

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.