The meaning of XP

Posted on August 16, 2008 by Ellisthion
  • Share
  • Share

XP. The humble experience point. A core concept in many role-playing games, and lately leaking into other genres. Used as an abstract way of representing how a character develops their skills, the core question is: how and why does a character gain the XP?

Well, many RPGs feature combat. So why not award XP for winning combat? Yeah. Okay, you get people who get better at picking locks by killing orcs, but hey. No worries.

What else? Well, there’s always the Quest. Yup, capital Q. As true as in the epic tales than spawned them, RPGs always have the Quest. Well, surely, if you drop the magic ring in the volcano, your character should learn and be rewarded for it. It’s an experience, so you get Experience Points!

But then… the association comes. XP = reward. Reward = XP. So both the Game Master, who want to reward certain actions, and players, who desperately want that sweet XP that means so much, they start making more connections. It’s a Role-playing Game, yes? So, you should get XP for Role-playing, yes?

And thus, role-playing XP was born. Now fairly common, it has reached the point where people expect it. And, well, it’s not a bad idea. But where does it lead?

This design article for 4th Edition D&D raised this point:

“I’ve seen a lot of games (both in early RPGA and home games) that gave XP for good role-playing. By good role-playing do I mean the quality of your character acting? The problem with the role-playing reward is this: You’re almost always going to give out the maximum to everyone at the table. Why? Because telling someone that they didn’t do a good job of role-playing in a game where everyone is there to have fun seems overly judgemental, can create hurt feelings, and is… well… just downright crappy. It’s also so very meta and arbitrary that it begs questions about other forms of bonus XP. Why not give similar bonus XP for rule knowledge? Playing well with others? Bringing the most snacks?”

Heh. Well, I know I, as GM, have given out snack XP before. But, rule knowledge? Playing well with others? They’re just as good as the others. Rule knowledge is the Game part of Role-playing Game. Teamwork is undeniably an important aspect, so XP for that makes sense, if you’re going down this path.

So perhaps we should go back to the first one: XP for role-playing. Why do we need this? Does role-playing need a reward? Surely the reason we play an RPG, over, say, chess, is because it is an RPG?

Perhaps role-playing should be its own reward?

Similar Posts:

About Ellisthion

Duncan played his first game of 1st Edition AD&D at the ripe age of 10. The fires kindled, he moved onto 3rd then 4th edition D&D, Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, whilst occasionally dabbling in other stuff, such as far too many computer games. He prefers games with complex rules to learn and master, and favours high fantasy settings. He is currently participating in the Grand Gaming Experiment where he has run Star Wars Saga Edition and GURPS.
This entry was posted in Rants, Role Playing Games and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    But if Role-Playing is its own reward, shouldn’t the Game part of it also be its own reward too? :) The problem with most systems is that the rewards for your character is primarily given for the game part. Now this is easily rectified by the GM giving Role-Playing rewards in character. For example, after having beaten off the Orc raiders, the village make them honourary members of the tribe – or the local noble grants them a title or some such.

    But honestly… what GM has time for all that… :)

    I think an occasional Role-Playing XP reward is ok – but maybe instead it should be for playing the part you prefer. For example:

    The Rules Lawyer – knowing the Rules.
    The Power Gamer – for twisting the Rules in such a way as to, well, embarrass the designers
    The Actor – for playing the part
    The Strategist – for coming up with a cunning plan

    …and the list could go on, but I am lazy…

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    But if Role-Playing is its own reward, shouldn’t the Game part of it also be its own reward too? :) The problem with most systems is that the rewards for your character is primarily given for the game part. Now this is easily rectified by the GM giving Role-Playing rewards in character. For example, after having beaten off the Orc raiders, the village make them honourary members of the tribe – or the local noble grants them a title or some such.

    But honestly… what GM has time for all that… :)

    I think an occasional Role-Playing XP reward is ok – but maybe instead it should be for playing the part you prefer. For example:

    The Rules Lawyer – knowing the Rules.
    The Power Gamer – for twisting the Rules in such a way as to, well, embarrass the designers
    The Actor – for playing the part
    The Strategist – for coming up with a cunning plan

    …and the list could go on, but I am lazy…

  • Cuchulain

    One good reason for non-standard XP rewards is to encourage behaviour and game styles that the GM would like to see in the game. I believe that’s one of the primary instigators of role-playing XP.

    Consider also the source of the above quote: a designer of 4th ed D&D. What are they doing? Taking it back to its wargaming past. Why? So they can sell more miniatures and increase their income. What gets in the way of this plan?

    Role-playing.

    For if people realised how much fun character, story and dialogue could be, then encounter powers and five foot steps might go the way of the dodo, and so would their precious model revenue.

    What about all those games where no combat occurs at all? Do characters in such a game never develop?

    A useful alternative is the BRP system. When a skill is successfully used, it gets a check. At a significant pause in the game, these attributes might improve. Genius. Simple, direct, broad. It’s not just about combat; there’s none of that cheese where my killing 2 dozen orcs can earn me 5 ranks of Knowledge: cheeses of southern France. You advance in what you’ve done well with.

    In fact, as I write, it occurs to me that gaining experience through encounters dealt with/successful combats is an extremely poor way to advance a character. How exactly is killing yay many foes going to teach one the gentle art of persuasion? Bluff? Disguise? Knowledge: virtually anything other than gizzards of various species? The basic calculus of XP as it stands in the D&D game is to mark time to be spent per level. You could organise this any way you like. Some very successful systems have merely said to the GM: tell the players to advance when you think they’ve spent enough time in their current level.

    I’m good with that.

    Another good one is the old White Wolf system. 1 XP for turning up to the game. 1 XP if you completed a story arc. 1 XP if you played really well, making the game enjoyable for everyone and basically raising the tone of the game. Simple, elegant, totally divorced from combat expertise.

    I suppose the main problem with XP per encounter is that it ensures the game is all about combat. You’re correct to point out the xp/reward calculus. If XP is only gained from combat, then it is only combat that is rewarded. Therefore players will always be looking for the violent option. It drastically cuts down on player options, themes, story possibilities, you name it. It shoots your game in the foot.

    Down with combat XP!

  • Cuchulain

    One good reason for non-standard XP rewards is to encourage behaviour and game styles that the GM would like to see in the game. I believe that’s one of the primary instigators of role-playing XP.

    Consider also the source of the above quote: a designer of 4th ed D&D. What are they doing? Taking it back to its wargaming past. Why? So they can sell more miniatures and increase their income. What gets in the way of this plan?

    Role-playing.

    For if people realised how much fun character, story and dialogue could be, then encounter powers and five foot steps might go the way of the dodo, and so would their precious model revenue.

    What about all those games where no combat occurs at all? Do characters in such a game never develop?

    A useful alternative is the BRP system. When a skill is successfully used, it gets a check. At a significant pause in the game, these attributes might improve. Genius. Simple, direct, broad. It’s not just about combat; there’s none of that cheese where my killing 2 dozen orcs can earn me 5 ranks of Knowledge: cheeses of southern France. You advance in what you’ve done well with.

    In fact, as I write, it occurs to me that gaining experience through encounters dealt with/successful combats is an extremely poor way to advance a character. How exactly is killing yay many foes going to teach one the gentle art of persuasion? Bluff? Disguise? Knowledge: virtually anything other than gizzards of various species? The basic calculus of XP as it stands in the D&D game is to mark time to be spent per level. You could organise this any way you like. Some very successful systems have merely said to the GM: tell the players to advance when you think they’ve spent enough time in their current level.

    I’m good with that.

    Another good one is the old White Wolf system. 1 XP for turning up to the game. 1 XP if you completed a story arc. 1 XP if you played really well, making the game enjoyable for everyone and basically raising the tone of the game. Simple, elegant, totally divorced from combat expertise.

    I suppose the main problem with XP per encounter is that it ensures the game is all about combat. You’re correct to point out the xp/reward calculus. If XP is only gained from combat, then it is only combat that is rewarded. Therefore players will always be looking for the violent option. It drastically cuts down on player options, themes, story possibilities, you name it. It shoots your game in the foot.

    Down with combat XP!

  • Miss T

    You haven’t given XP for rule knowledge, but as a player I remember you receiving it…

    So I think XP for anything that warrants it is good. Basically, apart from Quest XP and Combat XP people should get XP for putting in extra effort, whether that be rules, playing well with others, roleplaying, never missing a game, cooking something, etc…. :)

  • Miss T

    You haven’t given XP for rule knowledge, but as a player I remember you receiving it…

    So I think XP for anything that warrants it is good. Basically, apart from Quest XP and Combat XP people should get XP for putting in extra effort, whether that be rules, playing well with others, roleplaying, never missing a game, cooking something, etc…. :)

  • Ellisthion

    I’ve been playing a skill-based system, in Call of Cthulhu, and I must say I did enjoy it. The only problem I see is that in any system where combat is important (like D&D), people will then fight a lot just so they get better at fighting, and then violence will become the first resort because they’re good at it, and it’s applicable to any situation.

    I don’t recall getting rule XP, but it sounds right. Heh. Maybe I should have given rule XP. Actually, now that I think about it, it wouldn’t have been a bad idea.

    I have to say, I’m not fully decided about this all. Ultimately, I think I agree with Miss T: any time you put a bit of extra effort in, you should be rewarded.

    There’s one final problem, though, which I was particularly having trouble with:
    *Lots of bonus XP = level difference = whole point = absolute hell to balance encounters in D&D 3.x (hard enough already)
    *Small XP = no level difference = becomes useless

    This problem can actually be solved by throwing out the CR system and pretending we’re in 1st Edition but, frankly, walking round a corner and running into a beholder is just not that fun.

  • Ellisthion

    I’ve been playing a skill-based system, in Call of Cthulhu, and I must say I did enjoy it. The only problem I see is that in any system where combat is important (like D&D), people will then fight a lot just so they get better at fighting, and then violence will become the first resort because they’re good at it, and it’s applicable to any situation.

    I don’t recall getting rule XP, but it sounds right. Heh. Maybe I should have given rule XP. Actually, now that I think about it, it wouldn’t have been a bad idea.

    I have to say, I’m not fully decided about this all. Ultimately, I think I agree with Miss T: any time you put a bit of extra effort in, you should be rewarded.

    There’s one final problem, though, which I was particularly having trouble with:
    *Lots of bonus XP = level difference = whole point = absolute hell to balance encounters in D&D 3.x (hard enough already)
    *Small XP = no level difference = becomes useless

    This problem can actually be solved by throwing out the CR system and pretending we’re in 1st Edition but, frankly, walking round a corner and running into a beholder is just not that fun.

  • dk

    How about character progression by GM fiat? It’s about as good as any of the systems I’ve heard discussed, and is a heck of a lot simpler! Admittedly it works better in a point based system – level based systems are a bit too “lumpy” in their progression for my liking.

  • dk

    How about character progression by GM fiat? It’s about as good as any of the systems I’ve heard discussed, and is a heck of a lot simpler! Admittedly it works better in a point based system – level based systems are a bit too “lumpy” in their progression for my liking.

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    GM Fiat? Isn’t that two makes of car? :)

    Actually, link please to read about car style XP?

  • http://www.diceofdoom.com RupertG

    GM Fiat? Isn’t that two makes of car? :)

    Actually, link please to read about car style XP?