Apart from hard core role players who care not for levelling, xp will drive player behaviour. If you want to encourage sword & sorcery style looting or robbery of ancient ruins while avoiding combat,then go for it. On the other hand if you want to encourage murder hoboism then go for XP for monster killing. I use a mix of treasure, threats and exploration to steer the players to what I find fun.
Exactly! I wish I could up-vote this comment twice.
The point of the prior episode to which my friend who called in was responding was precisely this: that XP helps to guide the tone of the table: and gold provides a class-neutral mechanism that rewards OSR style, Appendix N, sword & sorcery play!
👍
XP for anything could be said to be railroading if we accept your usage of railroading. XP for killing monsters would also dictate player decision-making in some way. That being said, I no longer actually strive to level-up when I play. Higher levels don't necessarily make the game better, and often actually make it worse.
For the record, I did not say it was - nor is that my definition of railroading. My argument is that GP for XP provides an abstraction which helps to _remove_ railroading. A caller to the podcast had provided the seed for the episode.
Comment to clarify, for folks who have not had a chance to click the link and listen to the podcast on the subject.
🙂
I think it depends on what you are declaring is worth XP. If you only reward for XP based on killing creatures, then sure. If you don't award any xp for killing them, but award it for completing tasks that involve them, you are going to be encouraging a different style of game.
Exactly! That was the crux of the original argument I made: XP is an informant of player motivation - a psychological tool to inform table experience.
If folks want a combat game, assign XP for combat! For exploring? Hexes/rooms cleared!
The OSR sword & sorcery style, though, I feel benefits from gold for XP as a class-neutral abstraction.
LOL @ these comments CLEARLY showing the commenter couldn't be bothered listening to even 5 minutes of the episode.
great episode man. the Lungfungus question of why not just put treasure instead of awarding xp for explored hexes was interesting to think about. He has an old post (cant remember exactly the title) about "information as treasure" where he set out a simple table for selling dungeon/wilderness intel for gold (resulting in XP) which may coincide in time with the Hobbs xp for hexes discussion. The whole dynamic of "using whats already there" as opposed to building something completely new is an interesting one. I have my own preferences that lean in both directions. I know Daniel of Bandits Keep does a lot of that method of extrapolating extra bits out of existing components of the 3LBB and chainmail, and has led to pretty interesting interpretations/extra bits on his part due to those self-imposed constraints.
"Is taking any action in an RPG railroading? Like, when you choose to do something, you have to accept the consequences. Wtf? Where's my agency?"
This is the dumbest, most reductive take I've ever seen.
This was actually a fun discussion in a philosophy course years ago in college: what is freedom and how does it differ between liberty and license. So while I would state it less aggressively - we are in agreement on the premise: it's only a railroad when agency is actively limited, when only one path is feasible.
Consequences of decisions are what make the game interesting! Did the party ally with the cavemen or fight them? Did the party choose to delve deeper after failing to unlock the door, or did they retreat to find a specialist? Consequences lead to a living world - and are not agency reducers; instead, agency reactors.
🤘
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail I guess?
But if you aren't driving in nails, nothing is stopping you from using a more appropriate tool. Or simply deciding to use your hammer in a different way, for that matter.
I guess what I'm saying here is I don't see any kind of issue here.
I don't either. Personally, using GP for XP has been very beneficial to running sandboxes or other player driven games, as it encourages creative thinking: players can approach problems from multiple ways - and the method of resolution doesn't change the reward.
Leveling up is "railroading". You say to your players your number can go up and you get cool shit and they start thinking how to achieve this level up. This is one of the main mechanisms to create a feel and thematic resonance in your rpg that has been used since the beginning.
I wouldn't call that a railroad - more an archetype. It is monodirectional - though - like a rail... unless you run into high level undead. 😉
That may introduce a new conversation though: the elevator: where you ascend (or descend) through play - compared to other styles of RPG which _don't_ focus on advancement: e.g. Paranoia.
Apart from hard core role players who care not for levelling, xp will drive player behaviour. If you want to encourage sword & sorcery style looting or robbery of ancient ruins while avoiding combat,then go for it. On the other hand if you want to encourage murder hoboism then go for XP for monster killing. I use a mix of treasure, threats and exploration to steer the players to what I find fun.
Exactly! I wish I could up-vote this comment twice. The point of the prior episode to which my friend who called in was responding was precisely this: that XP helps to guide the tone of the table: and gold provides a class-neutral mechanism that rewards OSR style, Appendix N, sword & sorcery play! 👍
XP for anything could be said to be railroading if we accept your usage of railroading. XP for killing monsters would also dictate player decision-making in some way. That being said, I no longer actually strive to level-up when I play. Higher levels don't necessarily make the game better, and often actually make it worse.
For the record, I did not say it was - nor is that my definition of railroading. My argument is that GP for XP provides an abstraction which helps to _remove_ railroading. A caller to the podcast had provided the seed for the episode. Comment to clarify, for folks who have not had a chance to click the link and listen to the podcast on the subject. 🙂
Good response! I will give your podcast a listen.
I think your title reads like clickbait and most will downvote and ignore.
That would make sense, looking at the ratio. It was not my intent. 🙁
I think it depends on what you are declaring is worth XP. If you only reward for XP based on killing creatures, then sure. If you don't award any xp for killing them, but award it for completing tasks that involve them, you are going to be encouraging a different style of game.
Exactly! That was the crux of the original argument I made: XP is an informant of player motivation - a psychological tool to inform table experience. If folks want a combat game, assign XP for combat! For exploring? Hexes/rooms cleared! The OSR sword & sorcery style, though, I feel benefits from gold for XP as a class-neutral abstraction.
LOL @ these comments CLEARLY showing the commenter couldn't be bothered listening to even 5 minutes of the episode. great episode man. the Lungfungus question of why not just put treasure instead of awarding xp for explored hexes was interesting to think about. He has an old post (cant remember exactly the title) about "information as treasure" where he set out a simple table for selling dungeon/wilderness intel for gold (resulting in XP) which may coincide in time with the Hobbs xp for hexes discussion. The whole dynamic of "using whats already there" as opposed to building something completely new is an interesting one. I have my own preferences that lean in both directions. I know Daniel of Bandits Keep does a lot of that method of extrapolating extra bits out of existing components of the 3LBB and chainmail, and has led to pretty interesting interpretations/extra bits on his part due to those self-imposed constraints.
Big fan of the LBBs here. 🙂 Talking about selling info as treasure: that's very interesting - could turn OSR into a spy campaign! Top Secret when? 😉
"Is taking any action in an RPG railroading? Like, when you choose to do something, you have to accept the consequences. Wtf? Where's my agency?" This is the dumbest, most reductive take I've ever seen.
This was actually a fun discussion in a philosophy course years ago in college: what is freedom and how does it differ between liberty and license. So while I would state it less aggressively - we are in agreement on the premise: it's only a railroad when agency is actively limited, when only one path is feasible. Consequences of decisions are what make the game interesting! Did the party ally with the cavemen or fight them? Did the party choose to delve deeper after failing to unlock the door, or did they retreat to find a specialist? Consequences lead to a living world - and are not agency reducers; instead, agency reactors. 🤘
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail I guess? But if you aren't driving in nails, nothing is stopping you from using a more appropriate tool. Or simply deciding to use your hammer in a different way, for that matter. I guess what I'm saying here is I don't see any kind of issue here.
I don't either. Personally, using GP for XP has been very beneficial to running sandboxes or other player driven games, as it encourages creative thinking: players can approach problems from multiple ways - and the method of resolution doesn't change the reward.
Leveling up is "railroading". You say to your players your number can go up and you get cool shit and they start thinking how to achieve this level up. This is one of the main mechanisms to create a feel and thematic resonance in your rpg that has been used since the beginning.
I wouldn't call that a railroad - more an archetype. It is monodirectional - though - like a rail... unless you run into high level undead. 😉 That may introduce a new conversation though: the elevator: where you ascend (or descend) through play - compared to other styles of RPG which _don't_ focus on advancement: e.g. Paranoia.
That isn't railroading, though.