Sell Me on Milestone-Based XP

[Grey Watcher]

So, I'm prepping to run Curse of Strahd, and reading the book (hooray for pre-orders!). They suggest using milestone-based leveling rather than accumulating XP the traditional way (ie, the PC's gain a level when they accomplish each of X, Y, and Z). While I get that this is easier for the DM (no need to worry about random encounters and the like giving the characters too much XP, less bookkeeping), it feels, to me, like it's taking too much agency away from the players. Leveling-up occuring by DM and/or publisher fiat would seem to take away the sense of accomplishment that the players earned that level.

What are people's thoughts on this? And is it even possible to convert an adventure written with milestone levelling to an earned XP model?

[DivisibleByZero]

We've been doing it for years. Yes, it reduces bookkeeping for everyone, but that isn't the main reason. The main reason is because it removes some of the Murder Hobo attitude. NPCs become RP encounters. When the BBEG speaks, you stop to listen instead of immediately attacking.
Basically, the idea that creatures are bags of HP filled with XP like a pinata left our table the moment we got rid of tracking XP and simply leveling up when it became appropriate.
(we don't even use ANY XP tracking to be honest, the DM just tells us when we gain a level, it really is that simple)
Everyone at our table has loved it for years, and we're never going back.
In our opinion, in five words: it makes the game better.

[Comet]

I'd think that you'd need to be pretty open about those milestones with this model. XP is only useful as a carrot for guiding action, I think, so the players need to have a pretty clear picture about the kinds of things they need to do to get it.

So I think milestones can work if you tell the players, either in game or out of it, what those milestones are in no uncertain terms. If they know that they get XP for opening a door or talking to a particular NPC then cool, they can plan out the way they play to pursue those goals and feel like they've earned their points.

But milestones do carry the risk of seeming arbitrary and unpredictable on the players' end, so I'd still probably revert back to a more traditional model of XP. Since it's Ravenloft we're talking about here I'd say that XP for killing monsters works just fine since destroying evil is what most heroes end up doing in Ravenloft anyway. Just need to do the math if you want to a fine level of control over progression, though I rarely worry about that kind of thing.

[JumboWheat01]

As a player, I enjoy the Milestone style myself, it's not just easier for the DM to keep track of, it's easier for some of us players too. Rather than checking and seeing if we're ready to level up for every single little thing we do, we can check at the end of the day (my DM likes to award any XP we get at the start of our long rests.) Since we're at a calm point in the adventure, its easier to look at the totals and see if we level up, and go through our routine of picking new things if we do get a level (which can be pretty funny at times.) It really stream-lines the adventure day, allowing us to do our encounters and exploration smoothly.

Of course, not every group is the same, and it's definitely a "Your Mileage May Vary" sort of thing. I'm sure you can switch a suggested Milestone over to a more traditional experience variant if you want. You might have to do a bit of personal research to see how the encounters and the like are built to determine the experience gained and so on.

[Reverse]

It is basically rewarding moving the story forward. They are called experience points not dead body points. Characters can grow and expand their skill set by just living life or in this case creeping through a creepers creepy crypt.
IRL your experience points from killing a car jacker and hiking across Spain would be very different, though both would be life altering.

[Finieous]

I'm not sure why it would take away from the sense of accomplishment that the players earned the level, unless the level were awarded whether or not the PCs actually accomplished X, Y and Z. Is that the case?

If so, it sounds more like session-based advancement, where the DM announces that the PCs will level up every, say, three sessions on average. They'll level regardless of what they do, as long as the players are roleplaying their characters and the heroes are engaged in the world, story, etc. This does reduce the sense of "accomplishment" somewhat, and leveling becomes more about campaign pacing. The tradeoff is that the players have a lot of freedom in what they want to do, without the XP mechanic pushing them in one direction or towards one type of activity (e.g. hacking). Good for sandboxes.

Anyway, in a story-focused "adventure path," milestone seems perfectly appropriate to me. If the players don't want to be rewarded for hitting story goals, you probably shouldn't be playing a story game.

[DivisibleByZero]

As a player, I enjoy the Milestone style myself, it's not just easier for the DM to keep track of, it's easier for some of us players too. Rather than checking and seeing if we're ready to level up for every single little thing we do, we can check at the end of the day (my DM likes to award any XP we get at the start of our long rests.) Since we're at a calm point in the adventure, its easier to look at the totals and see if we level up, and go through our routine of picking new things if we do get a level (which can be pretty funny at times.) It really stream-lines the adventure day, allowing us to do our encounters and exploration smoothly.

That's not what were talking about here.
That's just holding XP until the end of the day, which honestly I thought was a normal practice for regular XP usage (and actually we used to take it even further and hold it until the end of the session).
We're talking about Milestones, which means the players don't track XP. When they finish important story stages, they gain a level. For example, in a 9 chapter book, when they finish Chapter 1 they gain a level, when they finish chapter 2 they gain a level, etc etc etc.

[Tanarii]

it feels, to me, like it's taking too much agency away from the players. Leveling-up occuring by DM and/or publisher fiat would seem to take away the sense of accomplishment that the players earned that level.lordy if that's what it means when people say "player agency", I have no clue what those two words mean any more.

But as far as satisfaction that a reward was 'earned', that's exactly why I hate milestones as a player and avoid them as a DM. The best way to give that feeling is clear and consistent actions & consequences chain. (One reason I also hate RP XP, it's never consistent.)

If you really need to milestone, give the level with clear indication of why. Such as 'you managed to survive the deadly forest and enter the castle.' Just make sure the forest really seemed deadly! :)

[Regitnui]

I'm actually in favour of milestone XP, taking the system from FATE; there are three kinds of milestone, each worth a different amount of XP. Minor milestones are steps within a quest. "You've found the location of the prisoner's cell", for example. Significant milestones are quest completions, "You rescued the prisoner and got him home to his wife!" And the third type; major milestones, are the world-altering type. "You've defeated the warlord and freed the town from his men! The people are free for the first time in decades!"

[busterswd]

Pros:
-Sometimes these modules are poorly balanced, XP wise. Out of the Abyss gave you nowhere near enough XP to reach the recommended levels.
-Ensures players who miss a session aren't behind the others.
-Ensures players are of the intended power level to tackle challenges - some monsters are supposed to be unbeatable at the time the party meets them.
-Encourages players to come up with creative solutions to avoid fighting, such as diplomacy, sneaking, or even running.

Cons:
-Discourages exploration for a party that's not very story focused.
-Lack of carrot on the stick for finishing tough fight encounters (even if a monster doesn't drop treasure, XP is always a nice consolation prize for a tough encounter)


lordy if that's what it means when people say "player agency", I have no clue what those two words mean any more.

But as far as satisfaction that a reward was 'earned', that's exactly why I hate milestones as a player and avoid them as a DM. The best way to give that feeling is clear and consistent actions & consequences chain. (One reason I also hate RP XP, it's never consistent.)

If you really need to milestone, give the level with clear indication of why. Such as 'you managed to survive the deadly forest and enter the castle.' Just make sure the forest really seemed deadly! :)

I get what he's saying. Milestones in pregens tend to encourage a railroad plot where players have to visit certain waypoints or completely miss out on XP. "Sorry, you skipped the Village of Incontinent Birds, so you're a level behind."

[WickerNipple]

While I get that this is easier for the DM (no need to worry about random encounters and the like giving the characters too much XP, less bookkeeping), it feels, to me, like it's taking too much agency away from the players. Leveling-up occuring by DM and/or publisher fiat would seem to take away the sense of accomplishment that the players earned that level.

How could gaining xp ever be in the domain of player agency? You can't even find monsters to murderhobo if the DM doesn't want you to.

XP is an illusion of player agency, nothing more.


I get what he's saying. Milestones in pregens tend to encourage a railroad plot where players have to visit certain waypoints or completely miss out on XP. "Sorry, you skipped the Village of Incontinent Birds, so you're a level behind."

And that would be a terrible form of Milestoning. Practically a strawman of one.

[busterswd]

How could gaining xp ever be in the domain of player agency? You can't even find monsters to murderhobo if the DM doesn't want you to.

XP is an illusion of player agency, nothing more.



And that would be a terrible form of Milestoning. Practically a strawman of one.

Again, this is a pre-printed adventure, where they recommend you level at specific points. He's asking if he should adhere to that system.

[Regitnui]

You forget Curse of Strand is quite freeform, with the cards. When we talk milestone, we don't mean physical location, but story stages. Say you've got to rescue a prisoner. Make getting into the castle a milestone. Now however they get in; blast down the door, seduce the guard, airdrop from giant eagles or get thrown over the walls by the goliath; you've got your xp for getting in.

[Pex]

From a player perspective I'm finding I don't like the tracking of XP. After a tough session and accomplishing things when the DM announces the XP we get, either then or online a day or two later, I get a sense of "That's it?". It gets worse when the total XP we have comes to just a little over a 1,000 short of next level. Despite all we've been through we still have to do one more session to level. It sounds petty and I wouldn't argue against the accusation, but it's there. I don't like the feeling and want it to go away, but it's there. When a DM uses milestones or just tracks XP privately and then announces "Everyone levels!", the endorphins kick in and the process of leveling is more exciting. Not knowing when I level makes it better when I finally do. The risk is the stingy DM who makes leveling "take forever", but in that case such a DM is one I find lacking in other aspects of the game in which case I vote with my feet anyway. "Take forever" is subjective. I can't define it, but I conclude my own opinion of the DM long before it would come into play. Best scenario is I'm liking the DM and game well enough there's no sense of "taking forever" at all.

From a DM perspective I don't want to have to take XP into consideration. I just want to create encounters suitable for the adventure arc. I don't want to do algebra to figure out how much XP each player earns. I needn't worry about PCs leveling too fast or too slow.

[WickerNipple]

Again, this is a pre-printed adventure, where they recommend you level at specific points. He's asking if he should adhere to that system.

I haven't read Curse of Strahd, but everything I've read about it suggests this isn't really the case.

[Tanarii]

Again, this is a pre-printed adventure, where they recommend you level at specific points. He's asking if he should adhere to that system.thats what it sounded like to me too. Waystation/Checkpoint/zoned plots are the only time I can even see milestone levels being a useful concept anyway. Give that's how WoTC writes it's adventures (chapter oriented, like a novel) it could make sense to use milestone levels with them, if certain levels are needed for balance reasons.

But the DM does need to be careful not to make the levels feel unearned. The easiest way is just congratulate them for managing to make it that far. But that only has meaning if death or retreat were likely to happen.

[Final Hyena]

There are a couple of reasons, and it depends on the game you want to run.

Forced behaviour
When killing a monster gives Z xp then players, even the ones who are more RP focussed will focus more on killing stuff, because most people like leveling up. This means people act in a way to get xp rather than any other way. It results in that murder hobo attitude of killing everything. It also encourages people to search out combat rather than RP. To put it shortly, if you get 1/4 the xp you need to level in an hour fight, and then get 0 xp for the next 3 hours of RP players will tend to not care about anything but combat, and this turns your game into an xp grind.

Can I have some more xp sir?
Ever had your players whine and beg at you because they're so close to leveling up? It's annoying and time wasting and again focusses the next game on 'lets go kill a boar level up' and suddenly no one cares about the rest of that session anymore because they've levelled up.

Lets level up instead of playing
Providing xp from kills requires book management and often results in people just giving out the xp after a fight. Which often results in levelling up mid session. Given that you only play 4 or so hours a week losing an hour of that to level up is a loss in my eyes.

Why am I not the same level as him?
Giving out xp can result in some players getting ahead and it's never fun being a level behind. It also further encourages the murder hobo, 'lets kill to level/catch up' attitude.

How much xp do we have again?
People not keeping track of their xp correctly whether that be too little or too much bogs down the game.

Many of these problems are frequent with giving xp for killing a creature, but not necessarily indicative and can be worked around, the best solution I've encountered is hiding xp (keeping track of it secretly). However the alternative of milestones tends to have less of all of these problems and be easier.

TL;DR
If your game is focussed entirely on killing mobs to level up to kill mobs, then stick with giving xp for kills. If you want your players to engage in RP, change to milestones. This is because people gravitate towards the behaviour they're encouraged to do. When you remove that instant xp for kills feedback people tend to do what they want (in and ooc) which generally results in more fun.

[SMac8988]

I've been running games with a mix of this and traditional for a couple of years and my players like it.

Ill set big bosses, or major events that will give them levels and then as rewards for good choices, maintaining being in character, or doing something epic ill give additional xp. I keep a little post it more on my dm screen with all their names and just tallie as needed. Then based.on level multiply it, and they get a bump.

been working really well, it encourages people to maintain their characters, and makes my "better" players a bit stronger in the long run.

I'm a fan of set xp due to, as someone said above, it keeps the group from spending 3 sessions hunting boars so they can get n new spells, also makes them not consider genociding a small town for a feat....

[Once a Fool]

My players' characters earn their levels through the completion of goals that they set as a party.

That last part is very important, because it ensures that the players set their own pace (and methods) and, thus, determine their own sense of accomplishment, while still keeping all of the many benefits of milestone leveling.*

Of course, that might be less easy if you aren't running a sandbox, but I don't think it would be too hard to adapt. Just make sure that the significance of goals accomplished is on par with the milestones/expected goals of the the adventure and you should keep things consistent.



* Such as: incentivizing players to move the adventure forward, incentivizing players to use whatever approach accomplishes their goal best, incentivizing players to bite on plot hooks, and eradicating unnecessary gaming-time-consuming XP bookkeeping, to name a few.

[DivisibleByZero]

In the games that I run, it takes one session per level in order to level up.
For the first session characters are level 1.
On the second session they are level 2.
After two sessions at level 2, they become level three. After three sessions at level 3, they become level 4.

I don't keep track of XP, I keep track of how many session each character has played.
This promotes players showing up to game, and with bounded accuracy it means that those players who miss a few sessions aren't handicapped because they can still contribute.

[Anonymouswizard]

As a player, I enjoy the Milestone style myself, it's not just easier for the DM to keep track of, it's easier for some of us players too. Rather than checking and seeing if we're ready to level up for every single little thing we do, we can check at the end of the day (my DM likes to award any XP we get at the start of our long rests.) Since we're at a calm point in the adventure, its easier to look at the totals and see if we level up, and go through our routine of picking new things if we do get a level (which can be pretty funny at times.) It really stream-lines the adventure day, allowing us to do our encounters and exploration smoothly.

Okay, to start, I'm going to outline what I see as traditional XP:

Throughout the adventure the GM keeps track of the challenges overcome, and totals up the XP. At the end of the session/adventure (whichever comes first) the GM says 'congratulations, take X experience points'.

That is what the editions of D&D I began with ran with. Most other games I own suggest only handing out XP at the end of the session, and to average 3XP (although these games are skill-based rather than class and level). For me, giving out XP at the end of every encounter or adventuring day is a weird new system that seems to have popped out of nowhere. Even though my current GM uses roleplaying XP (I prefer handing out other bennies), it's only ever a point and we make sure to double check the total XP at the end of the session.

To me, milestone XP simply moves the handout XP stage from the end of the session to the completion of objectives, which I don't really mind. I personally prefer to just dump the XP at the end of the session, at around a new level or two (more if they completed several important milestones), but I wouldn't complain if a GM did it, I just have to adjust my XP totals a bit more often.

The advantage milestone XP has over other methods is that in a pre-planned campaign it should theoretically ensure the party is strong enough for a certain part of the story. I don't see the point in it as I run homebrew adventures I adjust on the fly, but other people like it a lot.

[Grey Watcher]

How could gaining xp ever be in the domain of player agency? You can't even find monsters to murderhobo if the DM doesn't want you to.

XP is an illusion of player agency, nothing more.

True, an important distinction that I glossed over, but was aware of nevertheless. Whether I say "You've reached Chapter 2 so you're all level 2 now" or whether I budget out the XP such that they happen to have enough to hit Level 2 as they reach Chapter 2, it's ultimately me pulling the strings. But the illusion of player agency is important, too.

Similarly, I'd let characters roll to persuade an NPC to do something, even if I know the NPC would never consent short of magical compulsion. Yeah, ultimately the player's roll doesn't matter, but it's a lot better to feel like you tried and failed than to just have the DM flatly tell you "That doesn't work". (Pet peeve of mine with an otherwise fine DM I've played under: if said I wanted to make an Insight check to see if the NPC was being honest, he'd flat out tell me, without rolling, that the NPC was being truthful. It broke my suspension of disbelief that I only ever had to roll when actively being lied to.)

I've been reading the replies and will formulate some responses later. But thank you, everyone, for your input (and a pre-emptive thank you to those who have yet to respond!). :smallsmile:

[mephnick]

I guess you could say I use "milestone" XP, but I don't actually award anything outside of full levels. We got rid of XP completely years ago and haven't missed it since. To us it feels more natural for the in-game world. The goal is not to reach level 12. Or kill 20 orcs. The goal is to "kill the dark priest terrorizing the town of _____." You stop the priest and your standing in the world improves, both from a power and social level. If you have to kill 20 orcs on the way to ______ then cool. If you find a way to do it without killing 20 orcs then cool. If I'm going to reward you for killing or bypassing encounters equally (like you should), then XP simply becomes a rigid but also arbitrary tracking system. I get rid of it and you'll probably level up around the same rate as you would with XP, but it will just happen when you defeat the priest, not when you move from orc kill #18 to orc kill #19.

[busterswd]

I haven't read Curse of Strahd, but everything I've read about it suggests this isn't really the case.

Well, I've read the introductory module, and it has this exact system in place. The OP suggests the rest of the book has similar recommendations. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Addaran]

Similarly, I'd let characters roll to persuade an NPC to do something, even if I know the NPC would never consent short of magical compulsion. Yeah, ultimately the player's roll doesn't matter, but it's a lot better to feel like you tried and failed than to just have the DM flatly tell you "That doesn't work". (Pet peeve of mine with an otherwise fine DM I've played under: if said I wanted to make an Insight check to see if the NPC was being honest, he'd flat out tell me, without rolling, that the NPC was being truthful. It broke my suspension of disbelief that I only ever had to roll when actively being lied to.)


Letting the player roll can also have some problems. He sees he rolled a 20 and now he's sure that the NPC will listen to him, especially since his character also have persuasion trained and good cha. Never mind that he's trying to make a paladin kill an innocent child or something like that.... :smallannoyed:

[Thrudd]

We've been doing it for years. Yes, it reduces bookkeeping for everyone, but that isn't the main reason. The main reason is because it removes some of the Murder Hobo attitude. NPCs become RP encounters. When the BBEG speaks, you stop to listen instead of immediately attacking.
Basically, the idea that creatures are bags of HP filled with XP like a pinata left our table the moment we got rid of tracking XP and simply leveling up when it became appropriate.
(we don't even use ANY XP tracking to be honest, the DM just tells us when we gain a level, it really is that simple)
Everyone at our table has loved it for years, and we're never going back.
In our opinion, in five words: it makes the game better.

Here's a question about that type of play: if the player does attack the bbeg instead of listening, do they miss out on leveling? Can the players fail to reach a milestone? Does that system really reward any particular style of play, or would it apply regardless of how the players acted?
As I see it, it's basically just removing character advancement as an objective of the game. Gaining levels becomes part of a story that is being told by the GM, totally divorced from player input and choices.

[mephnick]

As I see it, it's basically just removing character advancement as an objective of the game. Gaining levels becomes part of a story that is being told by the GM, totally divorced from player input and choices.

I don't use linear story lines and milestone XP works fine. Players choose one of dozens of paths/sidequests they encounter and when they achieve the goal of that path or a big event happens they get "milestone XP". You're not removing any choices, in fact you're adding to choices because the players aren't pressured in a certain direction by a reward system the encourages certain interactions over others.

[Comet]

It feels like you should probably just hand out levels when you deem it appropriate for the story or the drama or whatever if you want to get away from handing out XP per kill or coin.

Counting XP for milestones feels like a weird half-way thing where you're distancing the players from playing the game but you're still counting points because...?

So, yeah, maybe just do away with XP entirely in that case. The players are going to follow the story no matter what if they're invested, you don't need to pat them on the head and tell them that they get 250 points for following along with your tale.

These things are tricky because XP is such an abstract thing. It's not going to make perfect within the fiction no matter what you do so doing away with it makes sense if you don't want to use it to motivate particular actions (killing, looting, exploration etc.)

[mephnick]

Counting XP for milestones feels like a weird half-way thing where you're distancing the players from playing the game but you're still counting points because...?

Yep, we came to the same conclusion. If you're going to do milestone XP, just get rid of XP all together. Level up when characters accomplish something important.

It's easier of a switch than you think and no one will miss it, unless you play a style of game that requires it (which I'm not sure exists).

[foolinc]

Letting the player roll can also have some problems. He sees he rolled a 20 and now he's sure that the NPC will listen to him, especially since his character also have persuasion trained and good cha. Never mind that he's trying to make a paladin kill an innocent child or something like that.... :smallannoyed:

That's an issue with people not understanding the skill check system though. Rolling a 20 on a skill check isn't a "critical success." It's just 20 + your mod. So, people should only be rolling the dice if 20 + mod would actually work.

[Once a Fool]

Similarly, I'd let characters roll to persuade an NPC to do something, even if I know the NPC would never consent short of magical compulsion. Yeah, ultimately the player's roll doesn't matter, but it's a lot better to feel like you tried and failed than to just have the DM flatly tell you "That doesn't work". (Pet peeve of mine with an otherwise fine DM I've played under: if said I wanted to make an Insight check to see if the NPC was being honest, he'd flat out tell me, without rolling, that the NPC was being truthful. It broke my suspension of disbelief that I only ever had to roll when actively being lied to.

I've found the opposite to be true. My players hate "waisting" good rolls (and especially natural 20s) on checks that don't mean anything. If I actually had one of them make a check I knew they couldn't succeed at and followed up their natural 20 with "you fail," I'm pretty sure the session would end right there.

As it happens, I am a big believer in disseminating information through passive checks, so if I were the DM in your example, and if the Deception check was lower than your character's Passive Intuition (and it would be, if the other character wasn't even trying to be deceptive), then, absolutely, no check would be required, nor called for.

[Once a Fool]

Here's a question about that type of play: if the player does attack the bbeg instead of listening, do they miss out on leveling? Can the players fail to reach a milestone? Does that system really reward any particular style of play, or would it apply regardless of how the players acted?
As I see it, it's basically just removing character advancement as an objective of the game. Gaining levels becomes part of a story that is being told by the GM, totally divorced from player input and choices.

Telling a story is not the DM's job. It is the DM's job to provide the setting and conflict with which the other players can create a story. Gaining levels is no more, nor less, a part of that story-creation as it always has been.

[Thrudd]

I don't use linear story lines and milestone XP works fine. Players choose one of dozens of paths/sidequests they encounter and when they achieve the goal of that path or a big event happens they get "milestone XP". You're not removing any choices, in fact you're adding to choices because the players aren't pressured in a certain direction by a reward system the encourages certain interactions over others.

So in this case, the game must be formatted to have missions or quests with distinct goals and clear "win" conditions. That isn't a bad way to go, but it does have room for ambiguity. If the characters go on a quest and don't succeed at the end goal, do they not get a level? Is there a clear and objective milestone on which their advancement hangs, or is it actually just an automatic thing for participating in the game?

[MaxWilson]

Milestone-based levelling was a good idea in AD&D sometimes, because a major selling point of milestoning is that you don't have to play through every single gold piece looted and every kobold killed. You can just say, "now it's twenty years later and you're all fourteenth level."

Milestone-based levelling in 5E is largely unnecessary because advancement is so fast, but if you want to run Out of the Abyss in a milestone style you can either handwave a bunch of Underdark encounters (e.g. tell the players they're fighting off Underdark monsters multiple times a day, but since that adds up to several hundred fights in the course of their journeys you're only having them play through 10% of the fights; have them do their fights at partial HP/spell slots/etc. instead of full, but then award 1000% of normal XP) or just straight-up give them a big chunk of XP when they hit each milestone, enough to get them most of the way to the next level (the monster XP they've earned should cover the rest).

Or, bolt on a different XP system entirely, like the systems discussed in Tanarii's thread here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?479820-Conversion-rate-for-earned-XP-from-Gold

[raspin]

Milestones every time. Why? Because then the players, even the min/maxers, can stop thinking about how to earn xp to progress and instead just play the game, engage with the story and make choices about who lives or dies based on factors other than what xp they might get. As stated previously, "it makes the game better".

Also, from a dms point of view, who does homebrew adventures, its a lot easier to make cool encounters that are really tough when you know the level pcs will be when they hit it. I don't level them up as fast as maybe they would with xp leveling but it seems to make leveling more special and no-one has yet complained; they all seem to be more concerned with the plot, their characters ambitions and generally staying alive.

[Waffle_Iron]

(One reason I also hate RP XP, it's never consistent.)

As an aside, our group uses the personality traits to award role playing xp. During play, if the player feels he's hit one of the five traits, he puts a check next to it. At the end of the session, we tally, and award xp.

One hit= xp for an easy, level appropriate encounter. Two=medium, three=hard, and four or five=deadly.

It's nice for me as a DM, because no one can claim I'm playing any favorites, and the players get RP xp based on their self perceived skill, which, being personal, and can vary based on IRL concerns, means they always feel as though the xp is fairly awarded.

[djreynolds]

“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.”

― Bruce Lee

DMs this is for you, award players are you see fit. Sometimes battles are hard, reward them. Easy fights, keep track but move on.

You have to play it by ear, we use both. A good DM will know when its necessary to give out perks for good game play, it shows you at least recognize the work players have put in.

Players should allow for teammates to shine and back-off. Exp awards say, "hey, that was cool of you to buff up the barbarian and stand back and let him fight the BBEG without too much help. Here you go."

[raspin]

Yes but sometimes the reward is in the playing of the game itself and not treating players like performing monkeys, feeding them xp when they dance.. Let them dance, or not, and live with the consequences.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee. "Xp is like a finger pointing at the moon, if you are not careful you focus on the finger and miss all the heavenly glory".

[Serket]

it feels, to me, like it's taking too much agency away from the players. Leveling-up occuring by DM and/or publisher fiat would seem to take away the sense of accomplishment that the players earned that level.

I don't understand this idea. To me, the difference is this:

DM:
you killed some goblins. You gain (does some maths) 43 xp each.
you killed some zombies. You gain (does some maths) 52 xp each.
you killed some more goblins. You gain (does some maths) 34 xp each.
you killed some rabid wolves. You gain (does some maths) 72 xp each.
you picked a lock. The rogue gains 15 xp. The rest of you gain the ability to scowl at the rogue.
you killed some orcs. You gain (does some maths) 64 xp each.
you talked your way through an encounter without killing anyone! (does some maths) You gain 50 xp each.
Players:
(does some maths)
Yay, we levelled!

Or...

DM, after an appropriate juncture is reached: you level!
Players: Yay!

Ultimately, player "agency" in gaining xp is a lie. The xp only exists to be gained because the DM puts it in the game to be acquired. You can't go out and grind random encounters until you hit the cap because this isn't a CRPG. So however it's done, you level when you need to. The difference is that if you level according to fiddly maths, the DM has to do fiddly maths to make sure the encounters give the right numbers. Whereas if you level according to milestones, it happens either when it mechanically needs to to move on, or at good story points, and either is better than fiddling around with numbers.

If the next stage of the story really requires you to be L3 for some reason, then you can either level and get on with it or the DM can pad out your game runtime with non-story-related encounters until you level and get on with it. One of those is a waste of everyone's time.

[Serket]

XP is only useful as a carrot for guiding action, I think,

This is not all XP does. XP is levels, and levels change the way the game works. Most obviously via spell advancement, but to a lesser extent also through higher skills. At L1 you rest by finding somewhere reasonably safe and setting watches. At higher levels you can cast a spell to make a safe spot. At L1 a ravine means an impossible barrier, or some scary skill checks, or the right tools and some time. At higher levels you fly over it, or teleport. At L1 you have to fight your way through a big monster. At higher levels your sneak skills have improved faster than the monsters perception, and you also have Pass Without Trace, so you just waltz on by.

The game changes flavour as you level and unlock new tools. Plotlines, barriers, challenges can start relevant and become trivial or start impossible and become relevant. This isn't actually a bad thing - the game would be less interesting if the numbers changed but everything stayed the same! But it is something GMs need to bear in mind when they're writing.

[MaxWilson]

I don't understand this idea. To me, the difference is this:

DM:
you killed some goblins. You gain (does some maths) 43 xp each.
you killed some zombies. You gain (does some maths) 52 xp each.
you killed some more goblins. You gain (does some maths) 34 xp each.
you killed some rabid wolves. You gain (does some maths) 72 xp each.
you picked a lock. The rogue gains 15 xp. The rest of you gain the ability to scowl at the rogue.
you killed some orcs. You gain (does some maths) 64 xp each.
you talked your way through an encounter without killing anyone! (does some maths) You gain 50 xp each.
Players:
(does some maths)
Yay, we levelled!

Or...

DM, after an appropriate juncture is reached: you level!
Players: Yay!

Ultimately, player "agency" in gaining xp is a lie.

That's because if you do it this way, the players don't have much agency. Agency requires the ability to predict the outcome of your (potential) actions and to choose between them, and in your example the DM is the only one doing math here.

An example of player agency in action will look more like this:

DM: "There's six goblins here guarding the gate, and you hear canine snarls coming from the pen behind the gate. Might be two or three worgs there, maybe more."
Player A: "I say we go for it. We're fifth level, we can take 'em. Free XP, right?"
Player B: "I dunno. Aside from the troubling moral aspects of murdering your way through the gate, bear in mind that we're actually here for the Duke's daughter and the reward. That's a cool 5000 gold for the three of us, which means 5000 XP split three ways. Is the 100 or so XP we'd each gain by killing the gate guards really worth jeopardizing our mission? Let's try to sneak our way past."
Player C: "It's not about the free XP. I don't like leaving live enemies behind me, cutting off our escape route. I say we hit them hard now, on our way in, so we don't have to hit them on our way out."
[Players A, B, and C argue it out, not knowing all the facts but aware of the general outcome of their actions]

Now, you could, as a DM, simply yoink their choice and fiat declare that rescuing the Princess is worth a level up. That works well for a railroad, but less well for a sandbox-type environment where you want the players to have some freedom to choose their own goals. Maybe they decide to steal the princess from the goblins and ransom her themselves for even more money and XP, after killing all the goblins and looting their treasure. 10,000 gold is better than 5000, right? Or maybe they just want to explore the goblin warrens for a bit and steal some treasure while they're there--milestone levelling makes that detour pointless because it's just a flat "level up when you hit X objective" as opposed to something they can actively control.

Milestone levelling works okay under some circumstances, but it's not a playstyle I'd want to indulge in. To me, D&D is all about choices and the consequences thereof; and milestones don't support choices very well or with very much agency.

[mephnick]

I don't give my players goals though. They level up when they do something noteworthy. I don't tell them "to level up you must kill the necromancer." They explore and kill things and follow sidequests just like any sandbox campaign. Inevitably something important happens (because that's what happens with a good group) and they level up. It just so happens that it generally coincides with the end of a quest arc or the death of a strong monster. I suppose it may not work well if you play with robots obsessed with mmorpg xp systems, though I bet our sessions look pretty similar to yours at the end of the day.

[Mjolnirbear]

An example of player agency in action will look more like this:

DM: "There's six goblins here guarding the gate, and you hear canine snarls coming from the pen behind the gate. Might be two or three worgs there, maybe more."
Player A: "I say we go for it. We're fifth level, we can take 'em. Free XP, right?"
Player B: "I dunno. Aside from the troubling moral aspects of murdering your way through the gate, bear in mind that we're actually here for the Duke's daughter and the reward. That's a cool 5000 gold for the three of us, which means 5000 XP split three ways. Is the 100 or so XP we'd each gain by killing the gate guards really worth jeopardizing our mission? Let's try to sneak our way past."
Player C: "It's not about the free XP. I don't like leaving live enemies behind me, cutting off our escape route. I say we hit them hard now, on our way in, so we don't have to hit them on our way out."
[Players A, B, and C argue it out, not knowing all the facts but aware of the general outcome of their actions]

Now, you could, as a DM, simply yoink their choice and fiat declare that rescuing the Princess is worth a level up. That works well for a railroad, but less well for a sandbox-type environment where you want the players to have some freedom to choose their own goals. Maybe they decide to steal the princess from the goblins and ransom her themselves for even more money and XP, after killing all the goblins and looting their treasure. 10,000 gold is better than 5000, right? Or maybe they just want to explore the goblin warrens for a bit and steal some treasure while they're there--milestone levelling makes that detour pointless because it's just a flat "level up when you hit X objective" as opposed to something they can actively control.

Or:

Player A: Let's kill stuff! Kill all the things!
Player B: Let's avoid the murderhoboing and do what we're here to do, ok? That job reward for the rescue is why we're here
Player C: Although, leaving enemies behind you is generally not a safe thing to do...

You still have choices. But the players use character reasons, not XP. In your example, their choice is based on the gain of the XP... Or at least significantly influenced by it. With milestones, the players decide based on what is fun, or on their skills, or by potential consequences, or by character personality, or by reward; eliminating XP does not eliminate any of these other choices and in fact using XP to make decision may prevent may make other choices less appealing because they think the reward is less.

Side note: campaigns are not binary. It's not railroad or sandbox. There's a spectrum between linear and sandbox and railroad is not on that spectrum because railroad is taking away player agency. You can railroad with both a linear, or a sandbox campaign.

[goto124]

Even in a milestone campaign where the milestones are fixed, there can be plenty of freedom in between. You can do anything to get to the princess, as long as she's rescued alive and brought back to her parents.

Do you sneak into the camp, or charge in with flaming swords, or something else?

[Regitnui]

Even in a milestone campaign where the milestones are fixed, there can be plenty of freedom in between. You can do anything to get to the princess, as long as she's rescued alive and brought back to her parents.

Do you sneak into the camp, or charge in with flaming swords, or something else?

That was something I found odd; why are we assuming that a milestone of "rescue the princess" stops them having a choice in how to do so? It's like claiming that me asking you to fetch a book order prevents you from doing other errands for yourself on the way, or browsing the shelves and buying some books for you. I just asked you to get the book for me, and I'll be grateful if you do.

[Retief]

For that matter, you could easily include milestone xp without requiring the princess be rescued at all. Resolving the princess quest is worth a level. The pcs could sneak in and steal her away with a minimum of fighting, they could charge the front gates and murder their way through the compound, they could hold her for ransom, they could sell her to a rival kingdom, they could kill her, or they could pick something I can't imagine. If they resolve the quest in some way, they get a level. At that point, the conversation is risk vs money vs morals vs whatever. The players can focus on the issues that their characters are actually facing instead of worrying about a game mechanic.

[raspin]

That's because if you do it this way, the players don't have much agency. Agency requires the ability to predict the outcome of your (potential) actions and to choose between them, and in your example the DM is the only one doing math here.

An example of player agency in action will look more like this:

DM: "There's six goblins here guarding the gate, and you hear canine snarls coming from the pen behind the gate. Might be two or three worgs there, maybe more."
Player A: "I say we go for it. We're fifth level, we can take 'em. Free XP, right?"
Player B: "I dunno. Aside from the troubling moral aspects of murdering your way through the gate, bear in mind that we're actually here for the Duke's daughter and the reward. That's a cool 5000 gold for the three of us, which means 5000 XP split three ways. Is the 100 or so XP we'd each gain by killing the gate guards really worth jeopardizing our mission? Let's try to sneak our way past."
Player C: "It's not about the free XP. I don't like leaving live enemies behind me, cutting off our escape route. I say we hit them hard now, on our way in, so we don't have to hit them on our way out."
[Players A, B, and C argue it out, not knowing all the facts but aware of the general outcome of their actions]

Now, you could, as a DM, simply yoink their choice and fiat declare that rescuing the Princess is worth a level up. That works well for a railroad, but less well for a sandbox-type environment where you want the players to have some freedom to choose their own goals. Maybe they decide to steal the princess from the goblins and ransom her themselves for even more money and XP, after killing all the goblins and looting their treasure. 10,000 gold is better than 5000, right? Or maybe they just want to explore the goblin warrens for a bit and steal some treasure while they're there--milestone levelling makes that detour pointless because it's just a flat "level up when you hit X objective" as opposed to something they can actively control.

Milestone levelling works okay under some circumstances, but it's not a playstyle I'd want to indulge in. To me, D&D is all about choices and the consequences thereof; and milestones don't support choices very well or with very much agency.

In your example only two of the players seem to be playing the game; the one who wants to get on with the quest and the one who wants to kill them so they aren't a threat later. The third player would raise a few eyebrows when he began making his argument about what the pcs should do next based on metagamey things like xp and leveling up. This example, to me is a strong argument for milestone leveling. A player talking about xp and levels, as a factor in characters decision making, would not be encouraged in any game I've played.

Also, I think you are assuming milestones have to be set in stone and predetermined. For me it's more about leveling when appropriate. If, in a sandbox, the players go off doing 100 things off the overarching plot why can't they still level? Milestones might be used more like chapters in more linear published adventures but in sandbox, especially, the DM can decide when you ding based on what you have done.

[Comet]

This is not all XP does. XP is levels, and levels change the way the game works. Most obviously via spell advancement, but to a lesser extent also through higher skills. At L1 you rest by finding somewhere reasonably safe and setting watches. At higher levels you can cast a spell to make a safe spot. At L1 a ravine means an impossible barrier, or some scary skill checks, or the right tools and some time. At higher levels you fly over it, or teleport. At L1 you have to fight your way through a big monster. At higher levels your sneak skills have improved faster than the monsters perception, and you also have Pass Without Trace, so you just waltz on by.

The game changes flavour as you level and unlock new tools. Plotlines, barriers, challenges can start relevant and become trivial or start impossible and become relevant. This isn't actually a bad thing - the game would be less interesting if the numbers changed but everything stayed the same! But it is something GMs need to bear in mind when they're writing.

That's what levels do and, as has been said in this thread quite a few times, everyone is free to just hand out levels as they see fit if they are great DMs and have read all the Dragonlance novels and know how to pace out a gripping narrative arch that will surely enchant any player at their table. XP, though, is assigning points to things and I just think it's fundamentally a bit silly to assign point values to things that are utterly arbitrary.

Sure, you can tell the players that they level up since they took part in the game session and that's a cool thing to do but telling them that rescuing this particular princess is worth three hundred and seventy points is not useful information for the players unless they can seek out other princesses and count on them also being worth that many points. I still think XP, as in literal experience points, are only useful if you can frame them in a way that is consistent enough for the players to make decisions about how they want to play the game based on those points. If you're just following along a great story where the Game Master decides when it's appropriate for the heroes to gain more strength, there's really no need to count points.

I might be getting too stuck on the difference between levels and XP, but I think it's an important distinction to make in this case.

[Douche]

I personally like the feeling of adding up experience points. In our games, the party all gets experience whether they were there or not, so we avoid the number one complaint of everyone having different totals. But I like knowing that I'm going to level up soon. It's like in a video game with an experience bar, you get a feeling of satisfaction every time you ding, and the anticipation of watching it fill up motivates you to keep killin' stuff.

I would like milestones more if you could actually see them coming. Like, in the game I play with milestones, the DM seems to just arbitrarily give us levels when people start wondering about it. I played in that game once a week for like 2 months at level 3. One day I said "Man, I've been playing in this game for 2 months and we haven't leveled" so he gave us a level at the end of the session. Then, when we actually reached a milestone (we were travelling through the underdark, and finally reached our destination) I said "Wow, that sure seems like a milestone" and we didn't level.

I'm sure it can be done well, but I don't think it's very rewarding when the DM just goes "btw, you guys leveled or whatever. Whoopdie freakin doo". So in conclusion, it'd be better if there were clear cut milestones instead of whenever the DM feels like it (cuz he's too lazy to keep track of XP)

Also, in another game, the DM forgot to tell us we leveled up from a milestone, so we were stuck at level 3 fighting level 4 encounters. Last session he said we were level 5 now. We said, "from 3? We skip a level?" Then he realized why we kept getting our butts handed to us... cuz he never told us we were level 4.

[raspin]

I the anticipation of watching it fill up motivates you to keep killin' stuff.

...it'd be better if there were clear cut milestones instead of whenever the DM feels like it (cuz he's too lazy to keep track.

You quote examples of people doing milestones badly like No-one could ever do xp distribution badly. Comparing the worst cases of milestones against an ideal is not very even handed. In one example the dm forgot to level you up. That's not indicative of milestones though is it? That's a forgetful dm.

The bits I quoted. Many people don't need an mmo type level bar to encourage them to grind kills. If a system encourages you to play in one way, killing stuff, over others that erodes choice as who wants to knowingly gimp themselves. Milestones allow you to not kill stuff without feeling you missed out by not beating the xp out of them.

Also, I don't use milestones because I can't be bothered to track xp. It's because it removes something from the game which is an unnecessary distraction from, hopefully, the more interesting stuff going on.

[Douche]

You quote examples of people doing milestones badly like No-one could ever do xp distribution badly. Comparing the worst cases of milestones against an ideal is not very even handed. In one example the dm forgot to level you up. That's not indicative of milestones though is it? That's a forgetful dm.

The bits I quoted. Many people don't need an mmo type level bar to encourage them to grind kills. If a system encourages you to play in one way, killing stuff, over others that erodes choice as who wants to knowingly gimp themselves. Milestones allow you to not kill stuff without feeling you missed out by not beating the xp out of them.

Also, I don't use milestones because I can't be bothered to track xp. It's because it removes something from the game which is an unnecessary distraction from, hopefully, the more interesting stuff going on.

You should get experience regardless of how you pass the encounter. If there's a troll under a bridge who won't let you cross, you should get the experience whether you kill him or distract him with tasty puppies or whatever. One way or the other, you passed the encounter.

I simply think that milestones aren't great based on my experience, which is why I said they "could be done well" but "in my experience" they haven't been. If it has the circumstances that I said would be cool, like actually being able to see the milestone. That's what they were for IRL, right? They didn't hide them on the road from Athens to Sparta or whatever. They were visible so people actually knew how many miles they have to travel to reach their destination.

I also don't see how you could do XP badly. The game has pretty clear rules for distributing experience. It's not open to interpretation.

[shadow_archmagi]

Player ABC decision making


This is a good point!


Or:

Player A: Let's kill stuff! Kill all the things!
Player B: Let's avoid the murderhoboing and do what we're here to do, ok? That job reward for the rescue is why we're here
Player C: Although, leaving enemies behind you is generally not a safe thing to do...

You still have choices. But the players use character reasons, not XP. In your example, their choice is based on the gain of the XP... Or at least significantly influenced by it. With milestones, the players decide based on what is fun, or on their skills, or by potential consequences, or by character personality, or by reward; eliminating XP does not eliminate any of these other choices and in fact using XP to make decision may prevent may make other choices less appealing because they think the reward is less.

Side note: campaigns are not binary. It's not railroad or sandbox. There's a spectrum between linear and sandbox and railroad is not on that spectrum because railroad is taking away player agency. You can railroad with both a linear, or a sandbox campaign.

This is also a good point.




You want the players to have some freedom to choose their own goals. Maybe they decide to steal the princess from the goblins and ransom her themselves for even more money and XP, after killing all the goblins and looting their treasure. 10,000 gold is better than 5000, right? Or maybe they just want to explore the goblin warrens for a bit and steal some treasure while they're there--milestone levelling makes that detour pointless because it's just a flat "level up when you hit X objective" as opposed to something they can actively control.

Milestone levelling works okay under some circumstances, but it's not a playstyle I'd want to indulge in. To me, D&D is all about choices and the consequences thereof; and milestones don't support choices very well or with very much agency.





I think it's fair to say that milestone XP is, for most intents and purposes, flat out better than pure monster-killing XP. Whether it beats a more complex system of treasure/exploration/whatever XP is arguable. XP for treasure is nice because treasure is granular, so there are an infinite number of ways for your players to ask "This could be profitable, but risky. Do we do it?"


That said, I did milestone XP before it was a thing (I always just told my 3.5 players when they levelled up) and it worked just fine. Players pursued their own goals and or the story at a good ratio.

Someday I'll run a game where I award XP for neither treasure nor combat. You level up by building houses or something, and then PCs will desperately scrounge for concrete and nails. It'll be a weird game.

[Once a Fool]

I also don't see how you could do XP badly. The game has pretty clear rules for distributing experience. It's not open to interpretation.

Some might argue that following the rules is exactly how to do XP badly.

At any rate, the entire argument that milestone leveling takes away player agency is silly; bad DMs* do that, not milestones. Milestones can and should be set to correspond with the party's goals. If the party has agency in setting those goals, they also have agency in gaining levels by achieving them. And as an added bonus, this gives players incentive to invest in the world and get things done--at whatever pace they want.

If a DM is too lazy to tie milestones to party goals (and, instead, just wings it), that DM is being very inefficient--in other words, working too hard at being lazy.



*And keep in mind, all DMs start off as some degree of bad DM. It's an important step in becoming a good DM.

[Addaran]

You should get experience regardless of how you pass the encounter. If there's a troll under a bridge who won't let you cross, you should get the experience whether you kill him or distract him with tasty puppies or whatever. One way or the other, you passed the encounter.


Problem with exp vs milestones is that the exp way encourage the players to see everything as an enemy. If you need 100 more exp to level, you'll go fool around in the nearby forest until you've found enough bears to kill ( why are you killing bears when you have important goals to do?). Or you'll decide to start a bar-fight, then murder the guards that try to stop it (free exp!).

The trolls that won't let you cross gives exp if you succeed at passing, even by not killing them. The random adventurers that invite you to their lunch and were meant to tell you rumors about *plot hook* weren't supposed to be en encounter, but the murderhobos will make it so just for exp.

Likewise, if you get exp for treasure like old-school game, when you see a merchant, you'll want to kill him and rob all his stuff. The fighter lost his weapon in the last dungeon? Your DM can't even be nice and put a travel merchant without him having "EXP" on his forehead.


Of course, all that depends on your players. Some will play their roles and do logical things instead of just fallowing the exp.

[Tanarii]

You should get experience regardless of how you pass the encounter. If there's a troll under a bridge who won't let you cross, you should get the experience whether you kill him or distract him with tasty puppies or whatever. One way or the other, you passed the encounter.Yup. Not only that, 5e DMG encourages DMs to hand out XP for any encounter, even if its no chance of being a combat encounter, based on it's equivalent difficulty to a combat encounter (Easy, Medium, Hard, Deadly) in terms of challenge and resource depletion. That means players should reasonable expect XP after each and every encounter overcome.

The biggest problem with XP hand-outs is when DMs don't divide their non-combat game up into Encounters. D&D is designed to be a set of encounters, or scenes containing challenges to overcome. They don't need to be combat to be encounters, but if you don't have clearly delineated encounters or scenes, it causes all sorts of decision making problems for players. XP-gain expectations and resource management, and related decision making implications, are just the start of them.

Angry-DM related article titled "Every Adventure's a Dungeon"
http://theangrygm.com/every-adventures-a-dungeon/

[Tanarii]

I think it's fair to say that milestone XP is, for most intents and purposes, flat out better than pure monster-killing XP. Whether it beats a more complex system of treasure/exploration/whatever XP is arguable. XP for treasure is nice because treasure is granular, so there are an infinite number of ways for your players to ask "This could be profitable, but risky. Do we do it?" I think it's fair to say that a DM wants to put careful thought into WHAT he is awarding XP for, because XP awards drive player motivation, which in turn drives PC motivation. The advantage of XP awards for Creature or treasure recovered is it's easy for players to translate X (power of creature overcome, or amount of treasure gained) into Y (XP gained). So they can make decisions based on it clearly. The advantage of quest-type or milestone XP is it clearly rewards quests or milestones. The advantage of in-character XP is it clearly rewards playing in-character.

And don't kid yourself, player motivation is MORE important than character motivation. Another Angry DM motivation on player vs character motivation titled "How to Motivate a Bunch of Lying Liars":
http://theangrygm.com/how-to-motivate-a-bunch-of-lying-liars/


The advantage 5e's "overcoming an encounter of difficulty X, which per the DMG drains Z resources, rewards Y" XP is players know overcoming an encounter of any kind will reward about Y XP if it should have cost them Z resources (assuming they played with average skill). And that's technically how XP is supposed to be awarded in 5e. Not killing creatures for XP.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's fair to say that milestone XP is, for most intents and purposes, flat out better than pure monster-killing XP. Whether it beats a more complex system of treasure/exploration/whatever XP is arguable. XP for treasure is nice because treasure is granular, so there are an infinite number of ways for your players to ask "This could be profitable, but risky. Do we do it?"


That said, I did milestone XP before it was a thing (I always just told my 3.5 players when they levelled up) and it worked just fine. Players pursued their own goals and or the story at a good ratio.

Someday I'll run a game where I award XP for neither treasure nor combat. You level up by building houses or something, and then PCs will desperately scrounge for concrete and nails. It'll be a weird game.

Good points. I agree.

[djreynolds]

Yes but sometimes the reward is in the playing of the game itself and not treating players like performing monkeys, feeding them xp when they dance.. Let them dance, or not, and live with the consequences.

To paraphrase Bruce Lee. "Xp is like a finger pointing at the moon, if you are not careful you focus on the finger and miss all the heavenly glory".

Very cool interpretation.