Topic: Can failure be a good thing?

[providence13]

Negative Experience:
RMFRP pg 74.
RMSS pg 126.
The examples in the book are when someone finds a trap, forgets and then stumbles into it anyway. The GM docks them 100xp!

Glad I'm not the only one who just skipped over that part.

[markc]

 Speaking of bad things I often give a player a roll if they are going to do something their PC would know not to do. The higher the skill the lower they need to roll to still do what they know the PC should not do.
MDC

[Marc R]

Definitely thumbs up there. Turned "I hated that game where I spent most of the session unconscious" to "Remember the vision I had when I was knocked out?"

Negative XP would only seem to apply if you're forgetting something, not being stupid. . .it seems a poor lever to fix stupid, since the cure for stupid in RM is quite evidently built into the critical and fumble results.

[mocking bird]

Invariably,  one of the girls will use the phrase, "Man, I could use a Stumpy now!"  Boy, do we get strange looks!

A player of mine once had a rabbit he named Teebie.... short for "Trap Bait".

 

We had a character take the golem mastery list and dubbed his creation 'The Irish' from Braveheart for such instances as "The room might be trapped, send in the Irish"

[RandalThor]

Negative Experience:
RMFRP pg 74.
RMSS pg 126.
The examples in the book are when someone finds a trap, forgets and then stumbles into it anyway. The GM docks them 100xp!

Glad I'm not the only one who just skipped over that part.

So it is docking the character because the player messed up?!? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. As Marc R said, the game already has the punishment built in to it. (At most, I would just increase the effects of the trap - or whatever - to encourage the player to pay more attention.)

The example given just seems that the GM takes back what they gave for finding the trap in the first place. Instead of negative XP it should just be called: I take it back.

[GrumpyOldFart]

My objection to negative XP is the sheer illogicality of it. You dock the character XP for the player's foolish decision, which makes it take longer for the character to level up and learn more skills... while the only real person involved, the player, probably learned more about how to play his character from that foolish decision than he has from his successes. Even if it wasn't more, it's extremely unlikely that he learned less.

The only reasons I can see for awarding negative XP are:

1) The player/character makes a nearly identical foolish decision more than once, which suggests that the XP awarded for the first time was given in error, as he obviously didn't learn anything from it. (The "take it back" as stated above.)

2) The player insisted on acting completely at odds with the stated personality of the character. Even here that's a judgment call, the only place I can see it being a 'given' is if he has abilities granted him through worship of a God. I'm not going to say "out of alignment" because I have always considered the entire concept of "alignments" to be deeply flawed. But if the followers of the War God have a stricture that they never heal, and the player's cleric went and bought a bunch of healing runes to save a fellow party member, I expect God to make him pay the price of his 'heresy'. Considering it's a War God, he's lucky if negative XP is all it costs him.

[Marc R]

In this context, as I said, a pattern of foolishness or stupidity already has a built in feedback-response factor in the critical/fumble/failure results. . . .if you taunt fate enough times, you die, then XP ceases to matter.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Yes but

the critical/fumble/failure results

are governed by random d100 rolls, not by the logic of the scenario. Should XP be awarded by how well you rolled, or how well you played? The 2 conditions I gave above really could be shortened to

"Negative XP should only be awarded where the logic of the scenario demands it. Because XPs are expressed in the game mechanics as an abstract of the learning process, negative XP are only justified when:

1) The GM had awarded XP for a previous scenario which, in hindsight, it is obvious the character didn't get the benefit/learn the things the GM thought he had ("taking it back"), or

2) Some off-the-deep-end scenario where somehow the character has actually managed to become stupider, less skilled, and/or less powerful."

[markc]

 I might award negative EXP for the PC above who jumped off the tower just to EXP from the crit.
MDC

[Cormac Doyle]

Nah - leaving him with two broken legs for three game sessions taught him more

[intothatdarkness]

As I recall the negative XP stuff was optional. Meaning you don't have to use it.

Personally, I always figured if a character did something really stupid, you just let them suffer the consequences (up to and including being killed by their stupidity). Earning XPs doesn't help if you're dead and there's no chance of being revived.

[GrumpyOldFart]

As I recall the negative XP stuff was optional. Meaning you don't have to use it.

Personally, I always figured if a character did something really stupid, you just let them suffer the consequences (up to and including being killed by their stupidity). Earning XPs doesn't help if you're dead and there's no chance of being revived.

Sure. It's like the cherry on top of a sundae, something to notify all and sundry that this was not just some normal, everyday stupidity, but something special... and it's not there all by itself. If the cleric of the War God above gets nothing but some negative XP out of the deal, the GM didn't do justice to the guy's God.

Penance is supposed to suck. 

[Marc R]

The dice matter, but much like gambling in a casino, over the long term luck is a small factor. If you persistently make foolhardy or stupid choices you die.

Like, how long does a character who refuses to ever put any OB into parry last? The dice may matter in any particular instance, but with a larger group of attack instances the odds of being killed for not parrying start to approach 100%. . .

It's like blindly crossing the street in a major city. . .if you close your eyes and just cross the street, you may or may not die based on the luck of the timing, and the responses of that specific group of drivers. . .but if you do that every time you cross the street, you're 100% absolutely going to get creamed by a car. . .With a sufficiently large sample of instances, luck ceases to be a major factor and the foolish choice itself becomes the major factor.

Luck is only a factor in the context of "If you keep that up, eventually your luck is going to run out."

Hence, RM already has a very clean and clear mechanism for "fixing" foolish/stupid behavior patterns. . .it's dangerous enough when you're not being foolish or idiotic, if you throw those factors into the mix, it's a death sentence.

[Cormac Doyle]

It's like blindly crossing the street in a major city. . .if you close your eyes and just cross the street, you may or may not die based on the luck of the timing, and the responses of that specific group of drivers. . .but if you do that every time you cross the street, you're 100% absolutely going to get creamed by a car. . .With a sufficiently large sample of instances, luck ceases to be a major factor and the foolish choice itself becomes the major factor.

You obviously have never been to Italy.

There - "luck favors the brave". UNLESS you close your eyes and start crossing, you will NEVER cross the street.

You just step out blindly, with the confidence of knowing that as long as you do not make eye contact with the drivers, they will assume that you have no intention of dodging, so they will swerve instead ... (if you make eye contact, you better learn to fly, coz' they'll accelerate!)

[Marc R]

(Bet you still keep an eye on them out of the corner of your eye, just in case. . . .lol)

[Cormac Doyle]

hehe - very true ...

Plus - I'd only try that if I already had a green crossing signal.

Much like in the US - cars can turn right through red ligths. Unfortunately, they really don't care if you are trying to corss the street ... so if they think you have seen them, you aren't crossing !

[GrumpyOldFart]

RM already has a very clean and clear mechanism for "fixing" foolish/stupid behavior patterns. . .it's dangerous enough when you're not being foolish or idiotic, if you throw those factors into the mix, it's a death sentence.

Sure, which is why I stated it in terms of the learning process. Natural selection and the luck of the dice will take care of foolish behavior patterns... eventually. Personally I don't like the idea of XP being solely a measure of success or failure, the dice and the tables do that quite well. I consider XP total an attempt to abstract the character's current place in the learning process that everyone goes through day by day. And as noted above, the circumstances I think would justify dropping that number are pretty unusual and extreme. Nonetheless, I think a slow learner's XP should reflect the fact that he's a slow learner, not whether or not he has been lucky enough to avoid the consequences of it thus far.

If someone grabs the knob of the door with the lightning bolt trap inscribed on it, I think he'll learn something. I can see the sense in giving him XP for eating that lightning bolt.

The second time he grabs the knob of a door with runework inscribed on it (especially if he can check and see whether or not it radiates magic), I not only won't give him XP for getting bolted again, I may take back the ones I gave him for the original lightning bolt, since he obviously didn't learn anything from it.

The third time he's in that situation if he doesn't act like an idiot, I may give them back. If he does act like an idiot, I may subtract that many again. Cos the fact is, he's actually being quite a bit stupider the third time than he was the first time.

[Marc R]

I'd agree with not giving it the 2nd time (though I don't use the old school XP for damage logic anymore) though I don't think I'd reverse and penalty them the 3rd time. . . .you don't learn (earn XP) for setting yourself up for damage on purpose through stupidity, but I'd leave the downside at the damage taken (or death) rather than dock XP.

This is another good example of why it's best to have at least a 1% 00 lethal result on A. . .especially if using the damage = XP system, to avoid the "C'mon, hit me with a Vacuum, it's not like an A can kill me!" variant of the semi-lethal sparring logic.

[bpowell]

This is another good example of why it's best to have at least a 1% 00 lethal result on A. . .especially if using the damage = XP system, to avoid the "C'mon, hit me with a Vacuum, it's not like an A can kill me!" variant of the semi-lethal sparring logic.

Makes me smile.  We were doing a playtest for that system that shall not be named.  When the fellow that was playing the Monk looked at the mage and said..."Go ahead through the lightening bolt.  I can dodge it."  He blew the RR badly *Saving throw in that system) and became a charred hulk.  We never let hom forget it.

[yammahoper]

Musn't of had evasion.