The characters may not change, but they certainly change the world around them.

It runs directly into the problem that advancement is expected, out of habit– even though they emphasize again and again that the PCs are the peak of humanity. (There’s also a good description about how you should handle upping the pyramid if you do decide to advance… and how the game should be a whole new level of play, not bringing the world with you. It’s a good couple of paragraphs.)

I’m going to go out on a limb and make some guesses, that the reason Wick made this proposition, and the reason Rafe attempted the experiment is that xp systems a) don’t work for everyone, since they don’t tied specific advancement to specific events, but rather generalize it, and b) level-based advancement in the D&D style is illusory advancement anyway, since as you get better, you are expected to take on enemies that have advanced just as much. The old rats->kobolds->goblins grind. And c) it’s a fun thought experiment.

Also, as the article says, as level-based characters grow in experience, they become cumbersome piles of stats and special rules. Characters who are “static” from this perspective don’t get harder to play well as time passes. That in itself might act as a replacement for the (illusory) power-growth over time, since you (the player) would learn to squeeze the most out of your (the character’s) skills and tricks.

Part of the fun of games is increasing in power, ability, and levels. These are integral in many games. They mirror advancing in life. As I advance in my career I gain in prestige which gives me more credibility even if I don’t change anything about how I do my job. I can’t measure it as easily as XP but I gain and I advance. XP is simply a mechanic that represents increases in power and ability and mimics what happens in real life.

In the Castles & Crusades campaign that I am currently involved in, our GM has a system of reward similar to this. Tokens are handed out for doing something the GM thinks is really worthwhile and the token can be traded in for an extra 1d8 added to any role of our choosing (skill, saving throw, attack, damage etc.). This is much like the favor dice concept and is really fun.

Many other reward ideas are out there and help make the games fun and different. None that I have seen yet (and there may be some out there) attempt to replace the XP type advancement. I like the XP reward system and don’t see a need to change it. Other reward concepts like the favor dice are great additions but do not really solve the issue that this article, as I understand it, tries to enlighten us to.

I particularly like his “dirty dungeons”. I essentially _only_ run that style of D&D now (when I run D&D at all).

I hadn’t made the BW connection, but it is true. I heartily recommend BW, although you basically _can’t_ pick up a copy and play. The rules are dense and not incredibly clear upon reading. A much better approach is to find someone who knows the game and let them run you through a few sessions. I am a big BW fan, but it is SERIOUSLY crunchy, colloquially-written (nice to read, but tough to understand), and not laid out ideally (why are Skills descriptions in the “rules” book and not in the “character” book? Why is there no master skills/traits index?).

Something else you might want to use favour dice for: henchmen! “The Nightmare Syndicate owes me one; I’ve called in my marker and they’re sending some initiates over to back us up.”

@Knight of Roses: That’s a good point. _Some_ form of character advancement is often necessary for long-term play. But Wick’s point seems to be that you don’t need to tie that advancement to XP. Maybe once per season of game time, everyone gains a bonus from a chart of your choosing… or if you are using a favour system like Rafe has proposed, maybe you can cash in favour to get “trained” in a new skill, feat, or spell.

One of Wick’s big design philosophies is to constantly tie game mechanics back into what the game is meant to be “about”. Experience points aren’t _prima facie_ about anything. If you want your game to be about gaining reward and reputation, then you should tie your character advancement to that as well. If you want it to be about “fighting for what you believe in” (one of BW’s taglines) then you make the roleplay of your beliefs necessary for advancement (in BW, you improve skills by use, but you can only reach the highest levels of skills by spending Artha points, which are earned by playing to your character’s beliefs, or against them in interesting ways).

Experience points are just mechanics and, in many ways, not a bad one for showing advancement. They are simple, easy to grasp in concept and they work. However, I agree that characters should be competent at the start of a game, though I think they should also change and progress through play.

Hope that all made some sort of sense.

There is something I also realized as I’ve been mulling over my own question. There may not be a fidelity to D&D, itself, but to the core d20 mechanic (though those two things may be synonymous for many). This may be due to people just plain liking d20, or because they dislike d6 or d10 or whatever systems.

Sorry, just really curious about this stuff. If you’re interested in BW, I think your fellow Gnome, Martin, is a long-time player. (Might be wrong about it being Martin…)

Curious to see what other sorts of reward systems other posters suggest.

I don’t know what Wick’s motives are — but he is good for the podcast. He’s very good in audio. He sounds interesting and doesn’t stumble. I think it’s healthy if someone with alternative views gets a chance to air them to the D&D faithful, even if he’s trying to sell product at the same time. Nearly everyone who’s got a rpg podcast these days is ultimately trying to sell something. I don’t begrudge that.

One thing. I think it’s interesting that d20 is so robust as a system that it allows this kind of alteration without falling apart. I’m not sure all rpg rules sets are so malleable. I don’t think d20 is truly universal — clearly other rules sets accomplish certain things better than d20. But d20’s strength is that it can withstand this kind of experimentation. For example, maybe D20 isn’t the best for cthulu style horror, but it can be pressed into service. That, in itself, allows players who are more conservative in their approach to experiment while still feeling they are in their element.

This seems to reinforce what I meant above about reinventing the game system wheel, so to speak.

Wick is also “down on D&D” and says so with some frequency (he says he doesn’t think it’s a “bad” game, just not one that suits his play [...] His point with this endeavour is that a lot of gamers never try anything else, and he’d just like to broaden their play experience any way he can.

I don’t know anything about Mr. Wick or his writings, attitudes, etc., so that’s interesting to know. Thanks, Deadlytoque!

This question is aimed at anyone: So his attempt is to introduce D&D players, through a modified D&D, to other systems and use those D&D hacks as stepping stones to transition?

Rafe’s point is valid. Wick is also “down on D&D” and says so with some frequency (he says he doesn’t think it’s a “bad” game, just not one that suits his play — he designed Houses of the Blooded to attach itself to every play principle that D&D doesn’t). His point with this endeavour is that a lot of gamers never try anything else, and he’d just like to broaden their play experience any way he can.

At this point [quoted below]…

His stated challenge to GMs and designers is to provide a reward system that encourages richer, more fully developed characters, not just some walking, talking example of rules bloat that keeps pace with the moving target that is “to hit” and difficulty class rolls.

…how much fiddling can you do without simply looking at other systems which are more conducive to the kinds of gaming you’re looking for? I’m not saying that to be “that guy” who’s down on D&D. (I am, but that’s not my angle here.)

It seems people are constantly attempting to make D&D into another game that already exists, and yet still call it d20 or D&D. So… I guess I’m simply confused as to why people simply don’t play a different system that caters more to their needs, both for roleplaying and mechanics? Is there really a sense of brand loyalty, or is it a matter of ignorance of what else exists out there? That was the case for me. I stuck with D&D because I didn’t know about anything else.

Is there not a greater issue here, namely that a game can only be altered so far before it’s simply smarter to look at entirely new systems as alternatives?