Sorry If Im stepping on anything covered in the other XP thread still ongoing but after a brief scan i think Im touching on something different here.

A buddy and I were discussing XP the other night and came a startling conclusion. We had totally different perspectives on just what XP actually represents.

I believe its representative of the character's life experience, their accumulation of knowledge and refinement of skills. A character spending a week watching the local smithy work would therefor gain some XP. If possible it should be in something related if the system allowed it but if not and XP is more general, he should still earn some.

He held that in most games it has very little if anything to do with actual practice, instruction, hands on improvement of abilities or knowledge but rather is an abstract system to reward participation and more importantly, success, in the game. There for the guy watching the smith wouldnt get squat unless he tried to make something, rolled well and then was rewarded for his success.

Fighting and losing therefore would be worth a lot to me but almost nothing to him.

Whats your opinion? Should a character receive experience and develop in his abilities because the Player roleplayed well that session for example?

You are both wrong. Or maybe you are both right.

I prefer experience to be tied to character actions much like in the real world. So they get better at what they do during play and what they practice and train at (which usually occurs outside of play.) That's one of the reasons I prefer games that are not level-based, particularly games like Runequest, BRP, and Call of Cthulhu where the system easily connects those things to what characters improve. However, from a game perspective I like a certain amount of rewarding participation and success. I think it makes for a more fun game experience. It also allows me to provide some incentive or reward for what I want to see at the table.

But the PCs can only use their experience points (or whatever we use to track stuff) to improve things (skills, stats, what have you) that their characters used under pressure during play or that they explicitly said they were practicing or training in or that they could implicitly be presumed to be practicing. Here are some examples.

• During the session your character fought dangerous opponents (made skill rolls under pressure) using your bow or your sword and shield. You used the skill under pressure in play, so you could improve your skill with bow or with sword and shield.
• Your character finds a fencing master who agrees to teach you (for pay, for a favor, whatever). Explicitly you are training so you can increase your fencing skill, learn new maneuvers, get better fighting with a sword, or whatever makes sense for improvement in the system in use.
• You've told the GM that your character has been practicing driving a chariot in his spare time. Explicitly you declared stuff that your character is working to improve so you could improve that.
• Your character traveled through the wilderness. During the session your character spent 2 weeks of game time riding a camel with a camel caraven. Implicitly you have practicing camel riding so you could improve your camel riding skill.
• During the last several sessions your character and his party have been guarding a diplomatic mission in the Netherlands. You might be presumed to have been picking up the language in day to day activities and transactions so implicitly you could learn or improve your ability to speak Dutch.

It's a reward mechanism, essentially abstract. In D&D XP give Levels, which represent the Power/Heroism/Awesomeness of the PC, not their lived experience. You certainly do not get XP in D&D for watching a smith work, except in some degenerate approaches to 3e D&D. You might at most eventually acquire skill points or tool proficiency, depending on the edition. Practicing smithing does not give you XP, does not give Levels, does not increase your hit points or your Power/Awesomeness.

I agree totally but you understand many systems dont distinguish between XP gained with your sword and XP gained learning Dutch. You get XP and then level up, receiving whatever abilities come with it. In this case WHAT your character does to earn XP becomes the big question. But I totally agree it should be character related only, not GAME related.

Ive seen GMs do the any or all of the following..

Award XP for showing up at a session.
Award XP for performing some bit of roleplaying or introducing a joke that was really entertaining.
Award XP for depicting their character's personality really well.
Award XP for having their character act in accordance with a flaw they have.
Award XP for bringing the snacks or settling an argument between players at the table.

I cant see where any of these things would have the slightest effect on the character's development in the world they consider reality. They arent even aware of the existence of a "player". How could something the player does or simply behaving normally in their perception, result in furthering their personal development?

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013992He held that in most games it has very little if anything to do with actual practice, instruction, hands on improvement of abilities or knowledge but rather is an abstract system to reward participation and more importantly, success, in the game. There for the guy watching the smith wouldnt get squat unless he tried to make something, rolled well and then was rewarded for his success.

Fighting and losing therefore would be worth a lot to me but almost nothing to him.

That's much how I do it (in D&D), though I often give half XP for a lost battle well fought. I am rewarding participation, but I reward success even more.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1014002I cant see where any of these things would have the slightest effect on the character's development in the world they consider reality.

The reason those things might matter is because it's a game.



That said, something like Pendragon is possibly an exception to #3 on your list being disconnected from the character and game world since Pendragon explicitly tracks and changes personality and passions based on character actions which the player is implementing and roleplaying out.

It's a game. Like bringing me beer always nets some XP.

The way I look at it, you are not just rewarding the character, you are also awarding the  player and it's cool to give out little bonuses like that.

As always its a matter of perception and objective. For me Roleplaying is all about "making believe", the gamey rule stuff are just necessary evils to avoid the "I got you! No you missed" things when it comes to resolving actions. I dont look at RPing as a Game at all, or at least I try not to. I realize a certain amount of gaminess is necessary but I try to minimize whatever I can. I consider XP awards for non-character actions in that category.

The distinction between the "rewards" is why I generally prefer systems that have some small OOC currency, such as Action Points or Hero Points or the equivalent, in addition to XP.  Then regardless of how the system manages it, I change it so that XP is earned by a character for doing things in the game, while the OOC currency is earned by the player for performing activities that we also value as a group.  Exactly how the XP works (for training or only quests or success) varies.  Likewise, how the OOC currency works can vary, including how it is gained.  But there is a line between them.  

There are several reasons I prefer this. For example, one minor one is a mild aesthetic distaste for using XP for OOC activities, such as showing up or OOC funny comments or the like.  However, mainly I prefer the division because that way I can easily vary the importance of either, based on the players at the table.  I'll see anything from players that will all but ignore the OOC part, in which case I can simply not award them, all the way to players that will happily engage at that level, and actively drive the game in ways that everyone finds fun.  When you tie those sort of things to character growth, it can distort player behavior, because now you might have a player that really has no interest in OOC behaviors (good or bad), but feels compelled to engage just to advance the character.  That seldom works very well.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1014002I agree totally but you understand many systems dont distinguish between XP gained with your sword and XP gained learning Dutch. You get XP and then level up, receiving whatever abilities come with it. In this case WHAT your character does to earn XP becomes the big question. But I totally agree it should be character related only, not GAME related.

Ive seen GMs do the any or all of the following..

Award XP for showing up at a session.
Award XP for performing some bit of roleplaying or introducing a joke that was really entertaining.
Award XP for depicting their character's personality really well.
Award XP for having their character act in accordance with a flaw they have.
Award XP for bringing the snacks or settling an argument between players at the table.

I cant see where any of these things would have the slightest effect on the character's development in the world they consider reality. They arent even aware of the existence of a "player". How could something the player does or simply behaving normally in their perception, result in furthering their personal development?

Yeah, I don't give XP for those or other purely OOC stuff.

I do give XP for in-character written session accounts, and for mapping. In those cases both player & PC write the account/draw the map.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1014032The distinction between the "rewards" is why I generally prefer systems that have some small OOC currency, such as Action Points or Hero Points or the equivalent, in addition to XP.  Then regardless of how the system manages it, I change it so that XP is earned by a character for doing things in the game, while the OOC currency is earned by the player for performing activities that we also value as a group.  Exactly how the XP works (for training or only quests or success) varies.  Likewise, how the OOC currency works can vary, including how it is gained.  But there is a line between them.  

There are several reasons I prefer this. For example, one minor one is a mild aesthetic distaste for using XP for OOC activities, such as showing up or OOC funny comments or the like.  However, mainly I prefer the division because that way I can easily vary the importance of either, based on the players at the table.  I'll see anything from players that will all but ignore the OOC part, in which case I can simply not award them, all the way to players that will happily engage at that level, and actively drive the game in ways that everyone finds fun.  When you tie those sort of things to character growth, it can distort player behavior, because now you might have a player that really has no interest in OOC behaviors (good or bad), but feels compelled to engage just to advance the character.  That seldom works very well.

Excellent post. I agree 100% and do a bit of that myself. (Awarding "bennies" for OOC stuff)

XP for showing up makes some sense as being experience for generally showing up to life.  Bringing snacks seems very meta and OOC as a reason to award XP, but I have seen some games do it.

I like what I remember of the old White Wolf experience. You got points for showing up, points for learning something (in character), and points for role playing. I also like the BRP system of awarding checks to skills a character used which can then be cashed in for chances to improve those skills.

Palladium Books had a long list of things to gain XP for including using skills (succesfully or unsuccessfully), beating foes in combat, clever plans, being party leader, tripping traps and taking damage. all sorts of practical adventuring things that would presumable make you a better adventurer.

D&D's XP for gold is perhaps the most abstracted. Representing all the things you did to gain the treasure that weren't killing monsters. It always felt a bit awkward to me. It didn't account well for time spent in training for one thing.

If I was given free reign to just use whatever system I wanted I would probably award XP based on time and activity, perhaps on a monthly (in game) basis. If you had a fairly productive, challenging, dangerous month... you get a lot. If you had an uneventful few weeks on ship or horseback, visited a couple quiet village and maybe had a fight or two... you get less. Of course this is for an abstract Leveling system like D&D wherein all XP goes in one basket.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013992Sorry If Im stepping on anything covered in the other XP thread still ongoing but after a brief scan i think Im touching on something different here.

A buddy and I were discussing XP the other night and came a startling conclusion. We had totally different perspectives on just what XP actually represents.

I believe its representative of the character's life experience, their accumulation of knowledge and refinement of skills. A character spending a week watching the local smithy work would therefor gain some XP. If possible it should be in something related if the system allowed it but if not and XP is more general, he should still earn some.

That's where I'm at, too.

QuoteHe held that in most games it has very little if anything to do with actual practice, instruction, hands on improvement of abilities or knowledge but rather is an abstract system to reward participation and more importantly, success, in the game. There for the guy watching the smith wouldnt get squat unless he tried to make something, rolled well and then was rewarded for his success.

And for many groups' games, your friend is right:)!

QuoteFighting and losing therefore would be worth a lot to me but almost nothing to him.

Well, no, fighting and losing doesn't really help you learn fighting...but that's tied to the general patterns losing reinforces, and is beyond the scope of this thread. Fighting, being put in a spot, and triumphing nonetheless, however, would be worth more to me than either losing, or winning easily;). Of course, it doesn't happen much.

QuoteWhats your opinion? Should a character receive experience and develop in his abilities because the Player roleplayed well that session for example?

Well, good roleplaying is generally tied to expressing some skills and attitudes that would help his character's performance, so why not?
Whether the player should be required to spend those on the skills he used most in the session, is another matter entirely:D!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1014046If I was given free reign to just use whatever system I wanted I would probably award XP based on time and activity, perhaps on a monthly (in game) basis. If you had a fairly productive, challenging, dangerous month... you get a lot. If you had an uneventful few weeks on ship or horseback, visited a couple quiet village and maybe had a fight or two... you get less. Of course this is for an abstract Leveling system like D&D wherein all XP goes in one basket.

I think (though I'm not sure) that I prefer some intermediate ground, where we all make a nod towards XP being tied to whatever the character was doing, but then we don't enforce it very strongly, and certainly don't have much rules to back it up.  I don't want to deal with the accounting, for the most part.  It's possible that a system design to make such tracking as painless as possible would appeal.  I've had Fantasy Hero groups that mostly worked that way, but where one or two people kept bucking the spirit of the table, and it really annoyed the rest of the group.  "We shouldn't need to spell out that Rolf isn't going to be improving in this area, since it has nothing to do with his character, and is in fact a blind grab at abusing the system."  I did step on that kind of thing as a GM, but I dislike being forced to do it ad hoc.