Class Experience: Reinforcing Playstyles

There are guides to awarding class experience in the 2e DMG. That table has been reproduced below for your perusal.  This concept can be taken and adapted to many systems that give out generic experience or other types of character-advancement points. The lesson of class experience rewards has already been incorporated by systems like Hârn, BRP, Aftermath!, and CoC where abilities improve when you use them as you use them.

What, then, is that lesson? These awards serve a number of purposes. The first is to reinforce class archetypes. The second is to guide play. The third is to simulate an in-game effect. Each of these purposes is important, though I would argue that reinforcing class archetypes is perhaps the strongest of these factors while guiding play is the weakest.

Reinforcing class archetypes. Warriors war and wizards wiz, and this is an essential element of the playstyle of earlier Dungeons and Dragons games. The obsession with mixing and matching skills and powers to create nebulous classes or to deconstruct classes altogether does not pervade pre-Skills and Powers D&D (note that I actually like a lot of the Players Option books... just not the character building of S&P).

There are good in-setting reasons for these archetypes that are built into the core assumptions of D&D. We aren't, for example, considering an underlying setting in which anyone who says the magic words can cause magic to function—magic takes dedication, both mental and physical, and an understanding of deeper philosophies. These class archetypes (warrior, wizard, thief, etc.) dictate the career of a character and the things they will learn. However, absent the rules awarding those characters with experience for doing class-like things, there is no other incentive to adhere to the archetype.

The presence of individual class experience encourages players to do class-like things. Wizards gain experience for using magic to solve problems, which encourages them to apply spells to as many problems as possible. Warriors get experience for fighting. When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. This works the players into the player-character mindset, reinforcing the tools those characters have at their disposal to approach problems.

Note that I generally give ALL classes xp awards for diplomacy, thereby making the diplomatic option equally attractive to all players. This economics-of-experience can mould and shape the way players get into character, which is pretty cool.

Guiding play. In much the same way as the xp awards reinforce the class archetypes, they also shape the play of players. Whereas class archetypes deal with in-setting reality, play-guiding deals with out-of-character incentive. These two work in hand in hand; above and beyond the effect of reinforcing archetypes, however, the play-guiding effect teaches players how to play that type of character.

Simulating in-game effects. The in-game effects are alluded to above; wizards learn how to use magic better by using magic. Warriors improve their skills at combat by fighting. While it is potentially possible for a character to go from level one to level twenty without ever getting into a combat (although I can't imagine the insane quest rewards the DM must be giving out for this fabricated character), it makes little sense for a warrior's ability to swing a sword to improve simply because he talked to a bunch of people and worked out a problem.

Let's examine a low level warrior killing, say, goblins. He is likely in a party; for sake of ease, let's say a party of 5 people. Goblins are worth 15 experience points each. Because he is with 4 other characters, he will get a total of 3xp per goblin on the straight reward value. But, the individual award for a warrior when fighting a goblin is 10xp per. This is three times again as many experience, just for him. Because fighting is what he does, improving his fighting happens faster when he is actually fighting.

In a scenario with 10 goblins, the warrior will receive 30xp from the goblins and 100xp from individual class awards. A wizard, however, will receive the flat 30xp. If the wizard used a level one spell throughout the course of the fight, he will get an extra 50xp, for a total of 80xp. HOWEVER, spells have more utility than simply combat: that wizard may get an extra 50xp next time the party goes to a town because he used a sleep spell to knock out some knights and help steal their manor-keys.

For these three reasons, I love individual class awards.

Why We Don't Kill Everything For Experience OR How Not To Be That Group

So apparently, unbeknownst to me, real adult human beings play D&D in such a manner where if something grants experience, they're going to try to kill it. Nevermind that it's just a local knight or baron, that the source of xp is the kindly wizard living in the wild, or just a simple bear minding its own business. Since the game says there is a reward for killing it, we should kill it. I have only rarely encountered this attitude before and I beat it out of people right quick, not with verbal lessons, but with object ones about the danger of combat and the results of randomly murdering people wherever you go. Apparently, there are people (like —C of Hack 'n Slash) who think that these sort of in-milieux consequences don't go far enough to discourage wanton murder because the mechanics are secretly whispering for you to do something else. Here are my contentions against this viewpoint.

I. What XP Describes. It's important to understand what experience is meant to model in D&D. It's certainly not just a "reward," as nebulous as that is in a game where you can't really win. XP, as it says on the tin, is experience. Primarily, it is the experience of having been in battle and understanding how your weapons could be put to better use, the honing of your muscles and intuition, the sharpening of your reaction speed, even the deeper understanding of the spells you know by repeated use.

II. What is the logic for getting XP from combat? It follows from (I) that the logic is simply this: as you fight more things, you get more experienced at fighting things. Seems to make sense to me and I'm not sure how this could become a point of contention.

III. What is the logic for getting XP from conversation, or class-specific rewards? This should really be broken into two sections, since conversation and roleplay are not the same as the rewards. Thus, let us say (Ai) Conversation and roleplay provides experience simply on the scale of a benny or a bump to encourage you to do it in the future. But (Aii) it also models the process by which characters experience other worldviews and new facets of the world. While this might not be extremely useful for combat, there's no reason why it wouldn't increase your overall competency. So we have a (Ai) reward-based logic and an (Aii) advancement logic here. I think they work well together.

Class-specific awards are given out because not all classes focus on the same thing. They have new and different ability suites, other than just "murder." This is why the class-specific awards given to warriors are all for killing, but wizards get awards for any useful spellcasting. The logic goes both ways as above: (Bi) This causes you to behave in a manner commensurate with your class. Eg, fighters will see fighting as the most viable option, while priests will attempt to follow the dictates of their gods instead (whether those are to fight or not, etc.) We also have a (Bii) advancement logic; fighters skills are mostly geared towards fighting, so they will get the most xp from doing this. However, thieves, for example, have a vast array of non-fighting skills, which should be increased by using them rather than by fighting. Thus, this logic spreads out the advancement based on what the class would actually need to do to become more proficient at its essential characteristics.

IV. What happens if you kill everything? There are a number of answers to this, so once again we will divide them into categories. The first answer is that (A) Combat is dangerous. The second is that (B) people in the setting will behave differently if the PCs are known to be murderers and possibly insane. The third is that (C) the characters in world have no reason to act that way. Now, I openly recognize that (C) is the weakest of the points. I think it's been discussed to death at this juncture, so let us explore points (A) and (B).

(A) Combat is dangerous. I don't run easy combats. Every time the PCs get into a fight, no matter what level their opponent is, no matter what it is, there is a chance that someone will die. This means they limit fighting to that which is absolutely necessary. I like this. Their bowels turn to water when swords are drawn. This has the effect of limiting the number of combat encounters to those which are unavoidable. Of course, unavoidable here doesn't mean that they will only fight when the foe offers battle, but rather when it is necessary to complete a certain goal. It would be hard to kill the archwizard Bazil if they never got into any kind of altercation with him.

(B) People will treat you differently. Murderers, particularly those with reputations for murder, can expect to find themselves hunted down by other adventuring parties. Someday, the parties coming after them will be strong enough or lucky enough to kill them. That's the facts jack. Further, parties with bad reputations are likely to be denied entry to towns and cities, to be harried by the faithful of those they've wronged, to be cursed by the gods, etc.

V. The game is not just a collection of rules. It must also encompass a setting/milieux. The rules and the milieux interact together. This is what makes an RPG different from a board game. Sure, it has that G for Game in there, but it also has that RP for Role Playing. If you need a hard rule to discourage you from playing a psychopath that kills everyone who speaks to him, you probably don't really want to be playing a PnP RPG, which is about maximizing choice freedom, the essential quality whereby it differs from any other kind of game.

The Priestly Experience

I've had some problems with clerics, religion, and priesthoods in D&D, and a variation of this problem has irritated me since I started playing the game. The question, and I've yet to see this really answered in an official product, is why don't clerics and their use of healing magic affect the world in a greater way? I've come to answer this in a number of ways myself; there are a series of small answers that add up to, what I think, is a real solution.

Stating the question broadly: In a world where healing magic is available, why isn't the social structure different from what we know of the middle ages? The implicit assumption is that the widespread use of healing would extend the lifespan of everyone in the setting, not just the adventurers. Why should a king ever be assassinated if the local high priest can resurrect him? These questions of social stability plague my mind, since the very way in which human beings interact with one another or conceive of social position would inevitably change.

My answers are multifarious, as I've stated above. The confluence of the following setting-assumptions keeps healing magic from overwhelming the established social order:

• Not all priests have the ability to commune with their gods. (This may stand to revision now that I've read the 1e rules in the DMG describing the low level clerical spells, namely 1-2, being empowered by the rituals learned by priests... though, the more I think about it the more I think I will simply say that those rituals are only learned by those novices who show aptitude and desire to take on the additional sacred duties) This means that of the many priests in a locale, only some will have a class.
• The gods are jealous and strict with magic, reserving its use for those who pledge themselves to one cult exclusively, which is a small segment of the population.
• The law of the pantheon, as enforced by its beneficent autarch, prevents gods from becoming flagrantly involved in the lives of mortals except through the official and approved channels of the clergy.
• Powerful magic is difficult to access, and takes a real toll on the priest and the god. Thus, it is not waved around and applied everywhere it could be.
• Resurrection is against the code of the Gods, and must be cleared with Akem the Gatekeeper, who is notoriously cranky and rarely lets anyone return to the Middle World. As the Papyrus of Anki states: "The Gates of Death are closed."

So, these facts restrict the massive use of healing magic that would break down a lot of normal assumptions about life, living, and society. Kings who are assassinated cannot be returned to life because their souls are jealously guarded by Akem, who sends them on to their proper rewards but almost never returns them to the world above.

Between the dictates of Haeron, the chief god of the mannish pantheon, there is to be no bestowing of spontaneous miracles and priests are to be rewarded for their devotion. This is one reason why dedicated priests cannot access high level magic as soon as it would benefit their patron; the other is that their minds are physically unready for that level of power, and were a god to dump it onto them it may very well annihilate them in an orgasm of glorious light and energy.

But what about the High Priests of the faiths? Can they attain this station even if they're of low level? It would suggest a failure to align oneself properly with the Godhead as well as the inability to channel the most potent forces of the god. However, the appointment to high offices of faith is generally a political matter at least as much as it is a religious one. Could a reformer with little practical experience in enacting miracles hold that office?

It seems to me that there must be a way for non-classed priests to gain experience through service to the temple. However, it also seems that yes, non-casting priests should be able to hold high office, though it may not be the solution that deity would desire. After all, isn't it worth having a prime servant who can manage and save your temple, even if he can't manifest potent miracles? This relies, of course, on the assumption that the priest must be mentally and physically capable of achieving the higher ranks of magic before they are unlocked to him. If this precept were false, any god could grant any spell to any one at any time (but doesn't because of various reason). This would mean that the leader of any faith would be a de-facto level 15 mythos priest in addition to any other class he might have.

I reject this as a matter of both worldbuilding as well as class sense. I don't want a level 12 fighter who is also an ordained priest to be elected to be High Lawkeeper and suddenly rocket up to the powers of a level 15 Peaceward. Which means, then, that I don't want any god to grant any spells to anyone, so I'll keep the dictate stating that priests must grow into the use of powerful divine magic or it will eat them alive from the inside.

Still, doesn't it make a kind of sense that classed priests can gain experience by going about mundane jobs in the temple? The other option (that classed priests can only gain xp by killing people and/or fulfilling their dogma with magic) would limit high level priests to adventuring to get to their rank. I can't imagine that ever level 3 or level 6 priest had to go out and kill monsters (or fight in a war, or something of that nature) to gain access to his magic. Therefore, it must be true that they can garner xp in some way other than by exercising their powers on the road.

Even as I typed that I think I may have found an equitable solution that doesn't bend any rules and doesn't add any ones. Priests receive 200xp (by the 2e DMG guidelines) for casting spells that "further their dogma." One would assume that casting these spells for the service of their temple would count as doing this in the pursuit of the god's dogma—thus, any time a priest were to cast a spell for his temple, he would receive 200xp. After all, shouldn't the ability to cast higher level priestly spells be predicated on the use and exercise of the very "muscles" (in this case the flexing of the things which allow the priest to contact the divinity at all)?

Of course, I might supplement this with experience for NPCs from meditation and deep study of the holy mysteries. After all, it takes gads of experience for a mythos priest to reach level 15—for the sake of the argument and because I'm at work, let's say 45,000xp which would necessitate a lifetime casting of 225 spells all of which directly furthered the work of the god. Granted that a sedentary priest might cast, say, 1 spell a month and perhaps half of those would actually count, that leaves an average of 37.5 years before they reached level 15...

Actually, that's not all that bad. Jigger the numbers a little, and there might be something to that.