Game rewards and positions against

I have just read a post by Marcia which is derived by a post by Luke Gearing: if I understood correctly they both blame the XP model as a game reward for players. Their view is that XP system is a limiting solution: the character needs to meet some achievements (usually kills, loots and other ‘adventurous’ things - for a FRPG like D&D, needless to say) to get points which enables more powerful features. This ‘forces’ players to focus on certain aspects of the game leaving others in a secondary position, in other words players have constraints and are not free to decide their character’s actions.

Let me say in advance, I am not against Marcia and Luke (therefore against who is against) and I think that the reward system should evolve as the game evolves. However, to my eyes, the reason to rethink a reward system is not to ‘free’ players from some constraints. I have sound reasons to think that RPGs are, will and can not be freed by the presence of a GM, of a system (or rules) and subsequent constraints. It is not my intention to start a war against the ‘RPG freedom movement’, it is my simple, humble and personal opinion (let me add that since we’re talking about a game, I don’t see any serious reason to argue about this neither for subjective matters nor for objective ones).

Back to the main discussion then: it is natural from my position to think to my game for any post I read outside in the web about models, philosophy or approach in RPGs: that’s my ‘baby’ and I am prone to consider any thought I find on the web in the light of VI·VIII·X and the KUP model. So the overall concept of reward I aimed in my game was driven by the following prerequisites:

• Growth of a character cannot be only by level-up.

• XP cannot be generated without considering his morality, his purpose and other personal features which can hardly be generalized.

• The player has to be an active part in character’s achievements and, at the end of the day, he is the real creator of any point harvested in experience.

• Constraints are not always ‘bad’, if they are set to bring in the direction to show if and how actions improve characters, then I consider them a ‘good’ thing.

• The search for a definition of an universal standard of actions to measure a character’s growth is a really hard task (I’d say impossible but sooner or later someone will come with the perfect solution …and will grab the Nobel prize for RPGs!).

So, I made up a system based on both character and player measurement. An overall description is in this deep dive of the core rules. If you have not time to read it, then suffice to know that a character can grow according two ways:

1. like in videogames, by using (properly!) his skills; this grants a direct improvement in that skill;

2. as long as the player is able to understand in advance the outcomes of character’s actions, XP are granted to the player (and, on the contrary, XP are lost in case the player doesn’t understand them).

Last detail I’d like to add on the second option here above is that I am proud of the presence of a constraint in this mechanic: while XP are added (or subtracted) to the character according to the player’s understanding, the threshold to reach the new experience level is based on a simple formula (20 points per level) where the Morality score affects this value. The more aligned to his Path the character is, the lower is the threshold (thus the faster is the growth!). Apologies in advance with anyone against constraints but, like in any other explanation about Morality, this is a pillar for this game and therefore it has its role even in such a circumstance.