When I run a game for a cooperative and congenial group, I often just give everyone the same lump sum of XP at the end of the session.

I've played in games where the GM takes the same "socialist" approach and I've always found it perfectly functional, nothing special but it gets the job done. In some games, the GM will highlight a particular character's action and award a special XP bonus, the subtext being "be more like that guy!" I've also played in games where the GM just decides when everyone advances (usually at the same milestone for all PCs).

What I lack is recent experience with XP that is doled out like an accountant might, where gold is tallied with monster XP values and PCs routinely earn chunks of XP for various actions and playing their character well. I assume from various OSR rules as written that this is still common practice. Is this done at your table?

I have a bit of a blind spot. I don't know if a detailed XP calculus is worth the trouble. In your experience, does it motivate players to be better players?

What's your preferred approach to granting (or receiving) XP? Are there any pros and cons that you've noticed?

It doesn't necessarily create better players; it encourages them to game the system for greater XP payouts. This is expecially true the more detailed the XP system is, and Rolemaster/Spacemaster gives a perfect example of a very detailed XP system that can become a game of its own (and not in a way that makes the game more enjoyable for anyone other than the accounting min-maxers).

I use the full Rolemaster experience system when I run it.  It rewards actions and gives clear divisions and is quite simple to work out on the scrap sheet I track npc hit points and stuff on.

Anyhow, my own games lean towards fixed rewards over time.  In Galaxies In Shadow you get three points every month but are constrained in how you spend it by the learning experiences you had.  The Arcane Confabulation gives out roughly 200 experience points per year.  I've had players react badly to that line of thinking.  It's a bit like Lisa Simpson begging to be graded during the teacher's strike.

First, it depends on your players.  I've run games for players that will absolutely "chase XP", no matter how it is presented.  Even if I give out a group reward off a wild guess, they'll still do it.  If there is no in-game mechanism, they'll start trying to "game the GM".  I've likewise run games for players that simply don't care.  They play the way they want to play, and the XP comes when it comes.  And then players everywhere in between.

Now, the good news is that players that aren't all that motivated by XP tend to already be "good players" for its own sake.  The bad news is that they might be "good players" for some other game than the one you want to run.  I find with them that just talking about it works better than anything.  Either they can be convinced to try a different style or they can't, and if they give it a fair shake, they might or might not like it.  Generally, the styles in which I'd be willing to run and enjoy the game are more varied than those players, so guess what?  I end up running something I'm ok with that they like, because I want to keep them.  Occasionally, we try something new, they don't care for it, but I appreciate their willingness to try.

With those caveats out of the way, that brings us to players that are motivated to some extent by XP.  Again, there are variations.  Some players really don't like it when individual awards are given, especially in borderline cases.  Other players love it. 

Borderline cases are when it is supposed to be a group effort, but the same people are always working the system.  If the whole party works together to get through all the dangers to get to the treasure vault, then the thief manages to pocket a choice share for himself, gaining more XP accordingly, how do they take to that?  Some find it hilarious, some find it highly annoying, and others just roll with it and try to find a way to get even.  I find that there needs to be tolerance for a certain amount of PvP before a group is completely accepting of such tricks.  It need not necessarily come to blows, but the thief player has to know that if he pushes it to far, he might get smacked hard by the fighter or polymorphed by the wizard, no raise dead from the cleric for you! In other words, you can extrapolate possible consequences for such behavior, and those are all on the table. 

Then let's consider "good roleplaying" awards. If it's acting monologues that really aren't all that interesting to the rest of the table, then it's really more spotlight stealing than good roleplaying.  (Not to mention that "acting" being mistaken for "roleplaying" is another persistent bad idea.)  In that case, giving bonus XP for that is rewarding behavior that is hurting most of the participants interest in continuing.  Highly demotivating.  You can get the other side, too, where everyone is so self-effacing that they are embarrassed by being singled out for a bonus award.  Yep, I've seen that one a lot.  That's like yelling "speech, speech" at every lunch with the painfully shy guy.  Also highly demotivating.  Yet, if the whole group is on board with it, and willing to react at least some of the time, you can get a lot of mileage out of such individual awards for particularly excellent actions. 

You can go too far the other way.  Yeah, for people that aren't motivated at all, milestones work fine.  They don't work for anyone else.  There has to be some tie from what you did to the XP you got, however tenuous.  Players not motivated individually can still be motivated as a group.  This is where, if you don't want them to fight everything all the time, give XP for quests, or gold, or whatever stand in you want to use instead of monsters.  It doesn't need to be elaborate accounting, but it does need to be clear accounting in the way you tell them.

Me, since I've nearly always got at least one wall flower, and probably more than one, as well as a couple of other players that will tend a little towards spotlight hogs if you let them (or the wall flowers simply give them a vacuum they can't ignore, not always their fault), then the behavior I want to reward is more group participation and cohesion.  So I tend to give out two kinds of bonuses:

1. A group bonus, defined explicitly, as the group did X that was in sync with our declared theme and style of the game.  Some people may have contributed more than others, and they get "atta boys" from the rest. 
2.  Individual bonuses for stand out actions that were notable and led the group towards the same.  (Monologues are bad.  Getting half the group involved in an in character discussion pivotal to what is happening, gold.)  For these, however, I don't tend to give XP.

I also routinely make a distinction between regular encounters inherent in the adventure versus wandering monsters.  Wandering monsters give very little XP, rapidly collapsing into zero XP after the first couple of such fights in an area.  This is explicit to the players to get them to avoid fights when possible, and get on with the exploring.  But that's more of an XP penalty than a bonus.

The reason I no longer give XP for individual awards is that I don't enjoy navigating that minefield for what little return it usually gives.  With the right group of players, I'd have no issue with it, but I never have that group now.  However, giving "stuff"--items, favors, contacts, metagame currency (when the game has it, which I don't typically do much anymore), etc.--that works great.  The reward for a thief stealing a piece of equipment out from under the noses of his comrades is--he has the piece of equipment.  If he wants to make that pay off somehow, well, that is what subsequent sessions are for, along with more chances for him to get caught. 
 

For a long time I used more or less the original DnD system but it got increasingly obvious it encouraged a hack'n'slash style of play, which was okay but I got seriously bored of setting up scenes just for it all to be smashed and cut down the moment the players turned up.

Emphasising a virtual social system came as a shock to my players, and no matter how often I explained things, they always defaulted to a free willed anything goes attitude. I guess modern mindset isn't easily comfortable with medieval style expectations and justice, but I persevered.

In fact, I stopped awarding XP as a direct bounty on what they'd done. I set mission goals (quietly, I never actually told them that was how I was counting XP), and marked down unique events, like a cleric telling me that since it was a special date he was observing the rituals of his faith, or a fighter seeking a renowned warrior to get some advice and training from, or when the mage told me she was taking time out to do certain specific things. I don't think it ever quite dawned on them their interaction was being judged like that. It was more like they sensed that I was emphasising a virtual reality and they responded quite naturally, albeit clumsily most of the time.

I don't think any XP system is automatically superior. Award points to whatever criteria you feel is appropriate, but always scale them to progress. Thee's nothing worse than high level players equipped with powerful magic and other bonuses wading into a game with not the slightest idea of how to behave.

We don't use or track XP.  Level-up happens as a group when the group accomplishes major goals/hits milestones. 

What doesn't work for us is Paizo Adventure Path leveling, where you level up 2-3 times in a single adventure (and if you don't, you will die).  In our current campaign we've completed 14 'chapters', each 2-4 sessions, mostly, and we're level 4 (and just reached that a short time ago).  Our system only has 12 levels, so level 4 is probably more like level 6-7 in 3.5.  But we definitely don't miss XP - we like the 'slower pace' and getting a chance to use our abilities at each level.  If you get too many presents all at once, it's hard to enjoy them all.  Slowing down progression also helps us see progress.  When you have used all of your abilities and are very familiar with them, getting a new one and having options you didn't have before feels like real progress. 

What we definitely want to avoid is a system that rewards you for killing things or stealing things.  Heroic play is about the quest - doing good things because they're good (or maybe for profit, your choice!).  I remember one situation (in 3.5) where we were in a dungeon and we discovered a pit of refuse, and using detect magic we determined there was something valuable.  Using mage hand we recovered the magical item and we could bypass the Otyugh we all knew was lurking there.  Instead of bypassing the encounter, someone said 'I need the XP' so we fought it anyway.  I think bypassing encounters/saving resources for the BBEG makes sense, but if you need XP to gather resources then the system incentivizes behavior I don't really like.   

I tend to hand out XP based on "accomplishments". Any time the group does something significant everyone gets XP—even if it was just one guy using their singular skills to get the job done (such as a rogue-type disarming a trap, or a ranger/tracker/investigator type uncovering some clues that help advance the plot). If everyone faces the challenge, everyone gets XP, even if only one or two guys do most of the work, similar to how warriors work better in combat, but a low level mage cowering at the corner with a sling to save up spells (or cuz they ran out) still gets the same combat XP.

The only time I give individual XP, is if a player/character does something spectacular that's our of the norm. Otherwise I tend to give the whole group XP, just for participation—partly to avoid giving uneven XP, but also partly just to make my life easier.

I prefer XP over Milestones because I personally find the feeling of "earning" XP more satisfying (like getting a reward, plus giving a sense that I'm starving towards something) than being stuck in level until the GM arbitrarily declares that everyone advances at once, and anything extra that we accomplish (or don't) in between doesn't matter.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 07, 2022, 09:53:18 AM
I have a bit of a blind spot. I don't know if a detailed XP calculus is worth the trouble. In your experience, does it motivate players to be better players?

Depends on what your definition of better is?

My interest lies in running campaigns where the players get to trash the setting. I like setting a situation within a setting and sees what the players do with it. I go in without expectations as to the outcome. The only plans are those I draw up for individual NPCs and even then they are like the player's plans, things to be attempted but will get altered when circumstances change.


At first I did this because I started out playing wargames in elementary school. I like how RPGs took some of the ideas in the more sophisticated wargame scenarios to the next level. In addition, I was a tolkien fan and loved the Return of the King appendices and doodled my own worlds and timelines. RPGs offer a way to make those doodling useful.

So it started by me running campaigns in junior and senior high school where the players could if they got high enough level and had a good plan could knock off a king and become rulers themselves.  I found out that to make this happen in a way that was fun, you had to "go with the flow" with whatever the players come up with. That "knocking off" a king to be interesting couldn't be just marching into the throne room and killing them.

So I started doing what people call milestone awards of XP. And I didn't award them on the basis of some chart. I started to listen to what the players were planning and whatever that was, if they succeed I awarded milestone XP. Back then I called it good roleplaying but later after realizing not everybody like doing funny voices just changed it to be purely goal oriented.

And the thing is, I don't set the goals, the players do. Nor do I use any formal mechanic for the list of goals to be generated. I just know based on what the players talk about with the party and by themselves.  The only formal mechanic for D&D based RPGs is that I have some factor (100 to 300) and I multiply by a number from 1 to 5 depending on how difficult the accomplish was. And multiply that by their level.

I ditched all other forms of xp awards except for monster xp. And they get that if they overcome the monsters which may mean death, and may mean something else like they turned an enemy into ally.

I did this because my definition of a better player, is one who is willing to explore and interact with my setting. Willing to set goals that may result in trashing my setting  Or more politely goals that will leave a mark on the setting.

It has been my observation that gold for xp and other similar situation distort players behavior as their characters. They will nearly always try to maximize their XP in accordance. My system does away with that distortion. Where it doesn't work is for players who have trouble motivating themselves. In which case I will look at what they do as far as helping other players go.

Hope this helps.

If I have to run D&D I generally hand out 1xp per gp/day spent on training.  First edition had this weird thing where you needed to spend gold for training to level up and got xp for gold but didn't get xp for training.  Then I will often have a patron offer training as a reward and cut out the middleman.  I like hierocentric exchange in play because it puts the focus on achieving the tasks set by a patron rather than killing every kobold baby for xp.

Quote from: rytrasmi on September 07, 2022, 09:53:18 AM
What's your preferred approach to granting (or receiving) XP? Are there any pros and cons that you've noticed?

I went from tracking xp, to giving lump sums, to having the characters level up after X sessions, and wound up back at tracking xp.

I like tracking xp. I award smaller amounts for nearly everything the player do. I keep an xp log and tally it at the end of the session.
I like doing it that way because once you boil away the "xp for gold" idea, you realize the goal is the xp and the power it gives the characters when they level up. The gold becomes an afterthought past a certain point.
I also like the idea that the characters have some control of their risk/reward. They can take chances or push their luck, and get greater xp awards, or play it safer but slower.

Quote from: David Johansen on September 07, 2022, 02:47:17 PM
If I have to run D&D I generally hand out 1xp per gp/day spent on training.  First edition had this weird thing where you needed to spend gold for training to level up and got xp for gold but didn't get xp for training.  Then I will often have a patron offer training as a reward and cut out the middleman.  I like hierocentric exchange in play because it puts the focus on achieving the tasks set by a patron rather than killing every kobold baby for xp.

I like this and will be stealing it.

I tried adding in individual rewards for better gameplay but dropped it for reasons mentioned above.  We're playing The Dark Eye which factors in a Fate Point mechanic (think:  re-roll skill check, get to act first in initiative, additional defense) and that's how I reward superior gameplay.  Most recent example I can think of was a warrior in full chainmail dived into a river to save an NPC and just counted on his strength and companions to help him out.  Noble, heroic, selfless, the kind of stuff I like to reward.  Could have been XP, but he was just as happy with the bonus Fate Point.

As for XP, I award an amount (the same amount for everyone) at the end of the night based on monsters killed, puzzles/challenges figured out, engaged RP, and party resourcefulness.  It's all in the mix so there's no calculus involved (because I'm a simple caveman).

I like to itemize my experience points, having found as a player that I find that more rewarding. Also, I find that having a pre-established XP scale is another way of safeguarding against GM bias. The system I'm currently using awards different values of XP for the following:

-Session Attendance
-Adventure Completion (Characters receive this if their player was present for at least 50% of the sessions in which that adventure was played)
-Encounters (with different XP given for solving an encounter socially, through, combat, or by evading it. Absent players receive encounter XP if their character engages in combat, but not if for social encounters)
-Clever play/problem solving

I used to give out experience for good roleplaying as well, but having been on the receiving end of that kind of rule, I've found that I don't like it. What the GM notices and decides constitutes "good roleplaying" can easily come over as highly arbitrary and prone to favoritism. It can also end up encouraging hammy behavior and spotlight-hogging, which I detest.

Do you award XP for playing the game?
Do you sometimes run campaigns rather than strictly one-shots?
Have you ever had a player miss a session?

If you answered yes to all three, congratulations, you've awarded different XP to different PCs based on their participation without changing a single thing about what you're doing. It's not new. it's not scary. And it doesn't take a CPA to pull it off.

I think to a degree gamers are in an abusive relationship with one another. We're tired of bickering and arguing. So we act fake, over-playing the idea that everything is a matter of preference with no one way inherently better or worse than the other. And to buttress that, we often straight up manufacture pros and cons that don't even exist about different ways of handling things.

I think your hesitation is largely unfounded. That said, there are ways to do it well and ways to do it badly.

Two pieces of advice I'd give on how to do it well.

First, for special XP rewards for special individual activity or accomplishments should be awarded immediately. Not waiting until the end of the session. Two reasons. One, by awarding it immediately, you don't have to track it. You don't have to add it to the leger, you don't have to worry about any double-entry bookkeeping. You can give your accountant the night off. It even saves you from ever having to add that reward to the general XP reward. Two, at least part of the function of XP is incentive. General XP at the end of the adventure makes sense as that's the carrot for the group to see their way to the end of the session. But if you're trying to incentivize specific instances of good play, it makes no sense to wait 3 hours, 3 hours of play where the reward isn't incentivizing anyone, to the end of the session where for all you know the player will have forgotten exactly what it was they did to get that reward.

My second thing is, there is absolutely no reason you can't deal in round numbers. The overall reward still winds up being proportional to the challenge and degree of success even when you round off. Special individual rewards still incentivize the same way whether it's a round number or an exact number. Any notions of how doing this introduces complexity, requires accounting, involves adding columns of numbers and so forth is all complete bullshit. You've been lied to by your fellow gamers. You may have even lied to yourself. All you need to do is let it go, and you can essentially have your cake and eat it, too. You can actually improve your way of running your game, not just adopt a new playstyle that appeals to a different preference set.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 08, 2022, 11:35:51 PM
First, for special XP rewards for special individual activity or accomplishments should be awarded immediately. Not waiting until the end of the session. Two reasons. One, by awarding it immediately, you don't have to track it. You don't have to add it to the leger, you don't have to worry about any double-entry bookkeeping. You can give your accountant the night off. It even saves you from ever having to add that reward to the general XP reward. Two, at least part of the function of XP is incentive. General XP at the end of the adventure makes sense as that's the carrot for the group to see their way to the end of the session. But if you're trying to incentivize specific instances of good play, it makes no sense to wait 3 hours, 3 hours of play where the reward isn't incentivizing anyone, to the end of the session where for all you know the player will have forgotten exactly what it was they did to get that reward.

I've often thought about doing this.

I'm using openD6 there are no levels though players want them, so i implemented levels in the form of a skill cap, and "glory" rather than xp which is used in combination with money to purchase a lvl up, which simply raised the skill cap so you can spend character points and raise that skill higher. Glory is just points you get for exploration social interaction and combat, 100 of them buy a level, and x thousand gold spent on social events festivals drunken brawls etc can convert to glory for this purpose, usually 5k times current level.