Negative and positive XP versus only positive XP?

[NotAI]

I don't remember negative XP being used anywhere much.

Why not?

The Keynesian answer might be that people don't like numbers going down, but there's a way around that.

If XP is easy to earn, losing XP when bungling a quest, for example to gain a special item instead, seems natural. You still progress in the questline, maybe even faster than doing the quest correctly. For example, you recovered the magic sword but refused to give to the quest giver.

You gave a similar looking sword to the quest giver. Except the magic sword is necessary for the NPC to slay the Demon Lord. So he fails. The player knows this will happen when completing the quest like that. Consequences later revealed.

Certain actions when solving a quest give positive or negative XP, and some that give negative XP actually solve the quest faster but with side effects. The quest reward XP is higher with an extra zero so either way works?

[Val the Moofia Boss]

To me, losing XP only makes sense in a few scenarios. The first being that a character who once was a master swordsman (ie, Cassius Bright from Trails) who has been out of practice for over a decade. Thus, it would make sense that his sword skill proficiency has declined. Use it or lose it. Perhaps such a character could gain double exp/skill ups in that proficiency up until the point he left off at. The other case scenario is if your exp/level is a representation of a character's raw powerlevel, and at some point they start being literally drained of their power, ie Arthas racing back to the Frozen Throne and losing levels.

[J1M]

They have done studies that show that people experience losing money twice as intensely as getting money.

I would imagine that since the level of elation someone gets from XP is very low compared to money that this loss aversion phenomenon would be significantly more intense for XP.

That probably answers your question.

I will also add that I personally don't enjoy systems where you spend XP in order to craft items. In most games XP doesn't feel like a currency that should be convertible to other currencies. At the same time, I have no issues with temporary level caps being imposed for tailored challenges or narrative reasons.

[UltraFan123]

In some RPGs you lose a small percentage of EXP every time you die, I suppose that's a good way to encourage players to git gud.

[Wretch]

I lose xp every time i hear a woman speak.

[Norfleet]

I don't remember negative XP being used anywhere much.

Negative XP is typically used as a penalty for dying.

Why not?

Well, outside of it being used as a death penalty, it doesn't make that much sense. In the real world, you still gain experience even when negative outcomes occur. Arguably more so.

[Acrux]

In the real world, you still gain experience even when negative outcomes occur. Arguably more so.

Also in Grimoire, based on your Wisdom score.

[Roderick]

Going to jail

[loregamer]

Losing xp sounds weird. Reputation gains and losses are cool though

[WhiteShark]

I don't remember negative XP being used anywhere much.

Lots of older RPGs with level/XP draining undead. They can present an interesting problem: even when you're strong enough to fight them, is it worth fighting them? Can you tell whether they're guarding significant loot? Are you strong enough to annihilate them before they have a chance to drain you?

Certain actions when solving a quest give positive or negative XP, and some that give negative XP actually solve the quest faster but with side effects. The quest reward XP is higher with an extra zero so either way works?

Why not just make one solution give more xp and another less, but potentially with some other compensation (money, items)? Negative XP is highly unpleasant psychologically, but not getting as much is fine.

[Kain]

Replace negative XP with negative conditions > Everyone is happy.
Negative XP : **** it, I have to grind back.
Negative conditions: it sucks, but I can cure it.

[rusty_shackleford]

level drain in AD&D
many older MMOs have XP loss on death
I think you lose skill XP in TES games when you go to jail?

[quetzalcoatl]

Maybe the antagonist of the game is the one giving you objectives. The more ruthless and calculated you complete their objectives the higher the reward, but if you act against their wishes you begin to suffer consequences like losing XP

Middle of writing this I realized Undertale did this already

[pillbox]

Your character takes a mace to the head. They lose all motor function experience. You spend the rest of the game rolling around, essentially becoming an NPC. Maybe add a roguelike system where all the crippled characters you ruined can form a circus troupe.

[Brugmans]

Certain actions when solving a quest give positive or negative XP, and some that give negative XP actually solve the quest faster but with side effects. The quest reward XP is higher with an extra zero so either way works?

Why not just make one solution give more xp and another less, but potentially with some other compensation (money, items)? Negative XP is highly unpleasant psychologically, but not getting as much is fine.

Is it even a good idea to reward the player for choosing the developer's preferred solution to a problem? If you give more XP for finding the easier solution, it feels unjust, but if you give more for the harder solution, you're rewarding stupidity. At first blush I'd say It feels more fair to tie XP to results instead of methods.

[Norfleet]

Your character takes a mace to the head. They lose all motor function experience.

QWOP-RPG.

Your character takes a mace to the head. They lose all motor function experience. You spend the rest of the game rolling around, essentially becoming an NPC. Maybe add a roguelike system where all the crippled characters you ruined can form a circus troupe.

An adventuring party already IS a circus troupe. You've got the strongman, the magician, the acrobat, the mystic, the lion tamer, how is this NOT a circus troupe?

[asf]

lose xp for being a ******

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

**** mechanic for **** people

[Lich]

Losing experience rarely makes sense. Gaining a negative trait with a bad experience could be more interesting.

[rusty_shackleford]

Going to jail

You can learn lots of things in jail.

[WhiteShark]

Certain actions when solving a quest give positive or negative XP, and some that give negative XP actually solve the quest faster but with side effects. The quest reward XP is higher with an extra zero so either way works?

Why not just make one solution give more xp and another less, but potentially with some other compensation (money, items)? Negative XP is highly unpleasant psychologically, but not getting as much is fine.

Is it even a good idea to reward the player for choosing the developer's preferred solution to a problem? If you give more XP for finding the easier solution, it feels unjust, but if you give more for the harder solution, you're rewarding stupidity.

The way @NotAI framed the scenario, I interpreted the XP system to be one that rewards moral behavior:

You gave a similar looking sword to the quest giver. Except the magic sword is necessary for the NPC to slay the Demon Lord. So he fails. The player knows this will happen when completing the quest like that. Consequences later revealed.

I know I've seen it done like that in other RPGs, though it was probably just out of pity: the developers didn't want the selfless players to miss out on all rewards, so they gave them bonus XP when they refused material compensation. So, it's not about hard vs easy, but moral vs immoral.

At first blush I'd say It feels more fair to tie XP to results instead of methods.

However, I must agree here: properly open-ended quest design is intentionally method-agnostic, so it wouldn't make sense for it to care how the player completed it.

[Ranselknulf]

Games should have it all.

Skill Decay, Armor Decay, Exp Loss, and Daily Quests to maintain faction standing.

If its too much for the average gamer, then they could easily buy boost items from the in game store.

[Brugmans]

You gave a similar looking sword to the quest giver. Except the magic sword is necessary for the NPC to slay the Demon Lord. So he fails. The player knows this will happen when completing the quest like that. Consequences later revealed.

I know I've seen it done like that in other RPGs, though it was probably just out of pity: the developers didn't want the selfless players to miss out on all rewards, so they gave them bonus XP when they refused material compensation. So, it's not about hard vs easy, but moral vs immoral.

Somehow having to choose between material and immaterial (XP) compensation makes sense to me, but morally good choices being rewarded with XP less so.

heroes 2 treasure chest.png

In the example given by NotAI (which I had probably forgotten about while posting ) I can see both working:
A) you deliver a fake sword, and get no XP because you haven't actually completed the quest;
B) you get experience, but your punishment comes in a different form more organic to the story, such as the Demon Lord razing your native village, or missing out on a sacred relic down the line which only the pure of heart can wield, or what have you.

[NotAI]

Re: moral.

Was thinking negative XP not so much in terms of moral versus immoral ("Ultima"), but rather good outcome versus bad outcome from the perspective of the goal itself.

You get negative XP because you didn't actually complete the quest. In this case, XP represented as subjective internal experience, something the PC knows but not any other character or gamemaster givers. The PC, who gave the fake sword, knows they didn't actually complete the quest, so is worried about possible consequences. Like if they stole a magical goblet from an important looking pedestal in a shrine devoted to holding up a shield to block out invading demons. Instead of positive XP, you get the magical item, negative XP. Then demons later show up in places they wouldn't and you can get positive XP by slaying them, it coming out, overall, the same.

E.g, negative XP for giving a fake sword to the questgiver (the "hero" of the story) only makes sense if it causes the demon lord not to be be slain by the NPC, which is then known in the game later, and yet later you, the PC, end up having to fix your own mistake by slaying the demon lord yourself (for a LOT of XP). That also gives a nice side story.

XP is usually a local variable. In which case it must be positive to make sense. At least not to annoy the player...

Even if the player messes up the quest, it it by the quest completion token that the quest is completed. Otherwise you get brittle quests that might never be completed and always remain in the journal, if it matters HOW the player completes each quest. Devs will never anticipate all the things players can to solve some quests...however...

If done carefully and well:

XP can be a global variable, in the sense you lose XP at time T and, for the same reason, have a chance to gain a lot of XP, at time T+N, versus gaining XP at time T and the story being different, so nothing special at time T+N.

Devs must put in twists to the story, in case of weird solutions they did anticipate, that notice how the quest was solved and change the story accordingly, just like in life. Since there is usually now a positive XP counterbalance later (it must be intentionally inserted), negative XP is feasible.

The basic notion is that it actually matters how quests solved, if we want more reactivity.

(It does force making side quests linked. Few games like Witcher or Gothic did that. More work. If you put in a quest at T, you must put a follow up with at least one more piece of content, for each case at T+N. As opposed to the usual way where side quests are isolated.)

Negative XP allows rewarding failure with more content as much as success with more content. (Total PC playthrough XP would be held nearly identical.)

[rusty_shackleford]

You gave a similar looking sword to the quest giver. Except the magic sword is necessary for the NPC to slay the Demon Lord. So he fails. The player knows this will happen when completing the quest like that. Consequences later revealed.

I know I've seen it done like that in other RPGs, though it was probably just out of pity: the developers didn't want the selfless players to miss out on all rewards, so they gave them bonus XP when they refused material compensation. So, it's not about hard vs easy, but moral vs immoral.

Somehow having to choose between material and immaterial (XP) compensation makes sense to me, but morally good choices being rewarded with XP less so.





In the example given by NotAI (which I had probably forgotten about while posting ) I can see both working:
A) you deliver a fake sword, and get no XP because you haven't actually completed the quest;
B) you get experience, but your punishment comes in a different form more organic to the story, such as the Demon Lord razing your native village, or missing out on a sacred relic down the line which only the pure of heart can wield, or what have you.

What are you getting XP for? What does it represent?

[Brugmans]

I know I've seen it done like that in other RPGs, though it was probably just out of pity: the developers didn't want the selfless players to miss out on all rewards, so they gave them bonus XP when they refused material compensation. So, it's not about hard vs easy, but moral vs immoral.

Somehow having to choose between material and immaterial (XP) compensation makes sense to me, but morally good choices being rewarded with XP less so.





In the example given by NotAI (which I had probably forgotten about while posting ) I can see both working:
A) you deliver a fake sword, and get no XP because you haven't actually completed the quest;
B) you get experience, but your punishment comes in a different form more organic to the story, such as the Demon Lord razing your native village, or missing out on a sacred relic down the line which only the pure of heart can wield, or what have you.

What are you getting XP for? What does it represent?

It should depend on the game but generally you get XP from winning battles, acquiring wealth and completing quests, the typical heroic activities.

[Tweed]

You gave a similar looking sword to the quest giver. Except the magic sword is necessary for the NPC to slay the Demon Lord. So he fails. The player knows this will happen when completing the quest like that. Consequences later revealed.

I know I've seen it done like that in other RPGs, though it was probably just out of pity: the developers didn't want the selfless players to miss out on all rewards, so they gave them bonus XP when they refused material compensation. So, it's not about hard vs easy, but moral vs immoral.

Somehow having to choose between material and immaterial (XP) compensation makes sense to me, but morally good choices being rewarded with XP less so.





In the example given by NotAI (which I had probably forgotten about while posting ) I can see both working:
A) you deliver a fake sword, and get no XP because you haven't actually completed the quest;
B) you get experience, but your punishment comes in a different form more organic to the story, such as the Demon Lord razing your native village, or missing out on a sacred relic down the line which only the pure of heart can wield, or what have you.

This is a trick too, always take the money. You'll have more than enough xp for your main hero/heroes, but you'll always be hurting for cash to get your castle built, troops recruited, and extra heroes hired for the troop train.

[rustys-name-is-kumar]

if giving gold away like a goof is how you level up then the setting is a simp empowerment fantasy

and thats all i gotta say about that

[Tweed]

XP loss only makes sense in cases where the game is going to go on for a very long time. Thus, in online games it makes sense to find ways to delay player progress and give them incentive for grouping up and being more powerful before taking on harder areas. In some games there is no XP, just skill rust, but in a single or party RPG, the party is constantly using their skills so there's no reason for them to forget anything. Experience almost always represents knowledge, you cannot unlearn something and making mistakes teaches you things as well so finishing a quest in an unoptimized way should give you xp as well, not take what you have away.

The only possible way to remove XP from the player is through supernatural means which people have already mentioned, like level drain I.E. reload the game time. In older games the level drain was often permanent, forcing hours upon hours of work to gain them back which most people didn't want to put up with so they just reloaded, or yanked the disk out before it could write, or whatever. In nearly every case it's the opposite, the player gets some other penalty for gaining a lot of xp. In Might and Magic World of Xeen reading the books of the dead unnaturally ages you in increments of 25/50/and then 75 years (or something like that) forcing you to stop and deal with the magical aging if you want to read them all, trying to read too many books at once kills you. There's a book of ultimate experience in one of the towers there's a book that gives a million xp, but removes every single skill you know. There's also specialized xp gains limited to races and classes, but there's never any way to lose experience.

[rusty_shackleford]

Somehow having to choose between material and immaterial (XP) compensation makes sense to me, but morally good choices being rewarded with XP less so.





In the example given by NotAI (which I had probably forgotten about while posting ) I can see both working:
A) you deliver a fake sword, and get no XP because you haven't actually completed the quest;
B) you get experience, but your punishment comes in a different form more organic to the story, such as the Demon Lord razing your native village, or missing out on a sacred relic down the line which only the pure of heart can wield, or what have you.

What are you getting XP for? What does it represent?

It should depend on the game but generally you get XP from winning battles, acquiring wealth and completing quests, the typical heroic activities.

But why do you get xp for refusing money?