Do Experience Points Serve a Mechanical Function Anymore?

[Amphetryon]

If so, what uses do Experience Points have in-game? Do folks want XP to serve a function as some sort of currency, in your experience?

If not, is there any reason not to switch to a system of, for example, '13 encounters and you go up a level?'

[Cosi]

No, XP doesn't do anything (good). The "13 encounters and level" model is still stupid, because it still encourages people to grind monsters and not to avoid fights. Just have people level up when appropriate for the narrative.

[AmberVael]

I've been in and seen quite a few games where tracking specific experience was handwaved or removed. Personally, I never liked it even in 3.5, so I'd be inclined to say its fairly obsolete.

Some kind of milestone system and or encounter count might not be a bad way to handle it if you want to really give it mechanics though - probably expand the definition of encounter, and what it means to overcome it, and you'd have a better system.

[Nerd-o-rama]

No, XP doesn't do anything (good). The "13 encounters and level" model is still stupid, because it still encourages people to grind monsters and not to avoid fights. Just have people level up when appropriate for the narrative.

Only if you don't read the multiple times the rulebooks say that an encounter overcome through other means is the same as an encounter defeated through combat as far as XP awards go.

That said I still do the latter because I hate bookkeeping.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I actually like the XP system. I don't mind the bookkeeping, and any time that would have been spent by me planning how and when the party would level is saved. Like many things in Pathfinder it's not perfect, but it's better than what has come before and suits me fine.

[Caedes]

I think it comes down to DM and group preference.

I play in two groups. One waves XP and the group just levels when the DM says too. They are fine with this. I will say the majority of players in this group are newer and do not have ties to the concept of XP.

The other uses XP and has vehemently fought against the idea of getting rid of XP. They see it as a reward of not just doing combat but any significant encounter. The majority of players in the group are more experienced and seem to have a stronger tie to XP.

I think both are valid and work. Depends on the target audience. If the giving out of XP brings joy to your players eyes and they get the look of a slavering wildebeest when the words "Time to award XP" are uttered. Then go for it. If, your players roll their eyes or seem like they just do not care, then don't.

________

Another, discussion around the type of player that wants/doesn't want is that some people really want to know what they have to do to "Succeed/Progress". It is like the marks on a door to show a child how much they have grown. accept instead of feet and inches it is measured in imaginary points awarded for killing imaginary dragons.

Yet, still just as emotional for some reason.

[Amphetryon]

No, XP doesn't do anything (good). The "13 encounters and level" model is still stupid, because it still encourages people to grind monsters and not to avoid fights. Just have people level up when appropriate for the narrative.

Only true if fights are the only thing defined as 'encounters,' which is generally incorrect.

[Cosi]

Only if you don't read the multiple times the rulebooks say that an encounter overcome through other means is the same as an encounter defeated through combat as far as XP awards go.

Depends where you draw the line of defeated. Maybe the adventure is "sneak into the Necromancer's fortress and rescue the princess". Did you "defeat" the patrols of skeletons you never encountered because you didn't cross paths with them?

[Segev]

I haven't played in a D&D game that used experience in years. This actually disappoints me, because I thought one of the cleverer things in 3e was using XP as a currency for high-end powers and making magic items (amongst other things). But it is largely unnecessary when we don't have different XP charts for different classes, and entirely unnecessary when XP is awarded equally and universally and nobody can do anything with it other than gain levels.

[Malimar]

I'm on the record as thinking that D&D 3.5e's experience system is "a work of sublime genius", and I stand by that. But I don't think that this carries over to Pathfinder.

The main genius about experience is that it catches people up when they fall behind. 3.5e provides many ways to fall behind: death (and being resurrected by any means other than true resurrection), spending XP on crafting magic items, casting powerful spells with an XP component, being level drained, and the obvious missing a session.

But in Pathfinder, only one of those applies. They changed level drain so you just keep a permanent negative level instead of ever losing a level. They changed death so that it just gives you permanent negative levels instead of taking away a level. They changed crafting and spells so they cost more gold and never cost XP. The only one that applies is missing a session -- and it turns out using "if you miss a session, you fall behind" doesn't actually work very well as a disincentive for missing sessions.

I level the party up every 14 encounters instead of every 13, because 14 more readily divides in two (I generally plan 7 encounters for a given dungeon, which the party generally gets through in one or two sessions, leading to level-up every two to four sessions). And yes, if you bypass all the encounters in a dungeon and still accomplish the goal of that dungeon, you still get (at least half) credit for the encounters.

[Toilet Cobra]

As a DM I've used both XP and milestone leveling, and I have to say I prefer the XP. This is partly due to the fact that I don't much care if everybody is evenly leveled or not. When one player solves an encounter on their own, I generally give them 50% of the total XP for the encounter and the rest of the party party splits the remainder. My group is constantly coming up with unorthodox, non-RAW plans to succeed so this comes up fairly often.

I also have issues with the milestone method, because my encounters tend to vary from simple to deadly fairly quickly and I have to resist going "Okay, those goblins are really only like a half a milestone... but this necromancer is like two milestones..." because then I'm just using dumbed-down exp.

I did NOT like the idea of using XP as a currency, but I preferred 3.5's experience table to Pathfinder's take on it. I didn't think 3rd's chart was that hard to use, and I personally think you shouldn't gain even trivial xp for a trivial encounter. I don't think there's much danger of a 10th-level player farming goblins until they hit 11th, but still.

I would like to explore the whole "Just level when the story calls for it" but I don't really know if I'd be able to tell when that should be.

[Segev]

As a side note, I still think going back to the 2e idea of different classes advancing at different rates might be an interesting way to attempt, if not to fix all balance problems, at least increase the balance between classes.

If a 5th level wizard is actually as powerful as a 10th level fighter (numbers chosen arbitrarily for example purposes), maybe the wizard should require as many XP to reach 5th level as the fighter does to reach 10th.

Wreaks havoc with the CR system, and makes multiclassing harder to adjudicate, though.

[Necroticplague]

As a side note, I still think going back to the 2e idea of different classes advancing at different rates might be an interesting way to attempt, if not to fix all balance problems, at least increase the balance between classes.

If a 5th level wizard is actually as powerful as a 10th level fighter (numbers chosen arbitrarily for example purposes), maybe the wizard should require as many XP to reach 5th level as the fighter does to reach 10th.

Wreaks havoc with the CR system, and makes multiclassing harder to adjudicate, though.

And kinda screws with the concept of what a level means anyway. As is currently, it doesn't represent a certain amount of power, but a specific amount of progression along a path. If a level no longer represents either a specific amount of power (because not all the levels are balanced), nor a specific amount of progression (because not all levels advance at the same rate), then what is the level representing?

[shadow_archmagi]

The question "Does XP serve a purpose?" is one of utilization and will vary at every table. Let's talk instead about what XP *can* do. XP is the ultimate thing that players want. Ergo, whatever you award XP for is generally the thing players will do at the table.

If you award XP for each monster killed, the group will kill as many monsters as possible. If you award XP for every teacup collected, the group will find exhaustively clever ways to obtain those cups. If you go the old school route of awarding XP for gold, then your characters are all treasure hunters, beyond all doubt. You might also award XP for, say, social status, and have players clawing their way to nobility and then the Iron Throne, for a very different sort of game.

XP is useful because, carefully allocated, it aligns the player and the character's goals. There's nothing more awkward than the party standing next to a sleeping dragon like "Yeah, we could grab the gold and leave, but... you know... I wanna level and a dragon's worth a lot of XP..."

I think milestones are kinda clunky because they reward players for "progressing the plot" which, ideally, shouldn't be needed. There are any number of motivators you can use for story, but "Because its the story" is perhaps the least elegant. (I'm also the kind of DM who always makes the party have some kind of premise so that they exist as a consistent social unit, rather than just let the party metagame force total strangers to work together for no reason)

[Psyren]

Mechanically, it does nothing but determine when you level up, and you don't even need it for that. It's somewhat useful as a tool to assist you with making encounters more challenging (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nx-o8VAjhUwh3nnfzDQT-JA5eFLnN_BZJiBitGjBMDg/edit?usp=sharing), but that's about it.



If a 5th level wizard is actually as powerful as a 10th level fighter (numbers chosen arbitrarily for example purposes), maybe the wizard should require as many XP to reach 5th level as the fighter does to reach 10th.

The problem is that it's nearly impossible to encapsulate that in a system. Even if you manage to come up with some universally useful definition of "powerful" that you can apply to both of them in every situation, you'd still only be talking about potential power; realizing that potential would still depend on many choices that are more in the players' control than yours. What feats do they take? What spells do they prepare? What items do they buy? What items do they keep and which ones do they sell? What's their marching order? What actions do they take in combat, and in what order? What actions do they take leading up to combat? Etc. Any of those countless variables being out of whack can affect that PC's power, or at least their player's perception of it.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Mechanically, what do experience points do?

A. They allow characters to progress at different rates. A milestone system gives everyone the same level up rate (which is often desirable) but if you want to run side quests, give an in-game reward for hosting or bringing snacks, give people partial xp for sessions they miss, or run side quests for players who want to invest more time in the game, xp allows you to do that and milestones don't. (An encounter based system would also allow that).

B. Experience points are more granular than a simple 13 encounters per level system. They differentiate between a deadly encounter and several weak encounters. For example an APL +4 boss encounter with Thulsa Doom, his pet snake, and 10 of his cultist minions might be worth more xp than 4 APL -3 encounters with Rodents of Unusual Size. You could adjust an encounter/level system to have more granularity (this encounter is worth two encounters; this encounter is only worth 1/4 of an encounter) but then you are basically back to having XP, just with smaller numbers.

C. Experience points are more easily hybridized than encounters. For example, if you give a story award XP for reaching a certain milestone, it can be worth any number of encounters you want--4, 3.14159, 1, 0.75 encounters, whatever. A "13 encounters" system would lose some of its simplicity by such hybridization (you can no longer count the number of encounters and know what level you are), and offers less granularity due to the lower numbers involved. For that matter, hybridizing an encounter system by giving "free" encounters at milestones turns it into an experience system with lower numbers.

D. I think experience systems make it easier to award non-combat character advancement rewards than encounter based systems. In an encounter based system, you need to decide, "do only combat encounters count, or do non-combat encounters count as well?" And then you need to figure out how to define and count non-combat encounters. In an XP based system, the additional granularity lets you make non-combat encounters worth 1/200, 1/50, 1/pi, or 2.35149 combat encounters with ease. Though you still need to figure out which encounters count and how much, at least you have an easy way to make them worth fractions of a combat encounter without screwing things up.

E. At least in 3.0 and 3.5, XP allows you to expend some of your personal power/life energy in the creation of magic items. In Pathfinder, magic item creation just costs gold, but by costing gold and xp, 3.0 and 3.5 model a little bit of Sauron putting all of his power into the one ring and being diminished without it.

[Amphetryon]

A "13 encounters" system would lose some of its simplicity by such hybridization (you can no longer count the number of encounters and know what level you are)
This reads as exactly the opposite of my understanding of it. In any system where 'X encounters are needed to gain 1 level,' you absolutely should be able to count the number of encounters you've had and know what level you are, unless one of us is grossly misunderstanding how the other is using one or more of those terms.

[MilleniaAntares]

This reads as exactly the opposite of my understanding of it. In any system where 'X encounters are needed to gain 1 level,' you absolutely should be able to count the number of encounters you've had and know what level you are, unless one of us is grossly misunderstanding how the other is using one or more of those terms.
Basilisk speaks of having encounters count as more or less than an encounter for the purposes of gaining levels.

[Cosi]

As a side note, I still think going back to the 2e idea of different classes advancing at different rates might be an interesting way to attempt, if not to fix all balance problems, at least increase the balance between classes.

If a 5th level wizard is actually as powerful as a 10th level fighter (numbers chosen arbitrarily for example purposes), maybe the wizard should require as many XP to reach 5th level as the fighter does to reach 10th.

Wreaks havoc with the CR system, and makes multiclassing harder to adjudicate, though.

If you can actually figure out the number of Fighter levels that are equal to one Wizard level, you should do one of two things:

1. Divide the Wizard's class features over a number of levels equal to the Fighter.
2. Compress the Fighter's class features into a number of levels equal to the Wizard.

And then you can have level mean something, and not require people to do XP accounting. Great success!

[Knaight]

The 3e style of experience points are an accounting nightmare which incentivizes picking fights when you don't have to; I'd recommend avoiding them. Even if you don't avoid them, handling them in a way that requires less accounting is hardly a bad idea.

Plus, consider the 13 encounters scenario. Basically, every encounter gives 1 experience, at 13 experience you level up and reset your experience to 0. It's a much simplified, accounting light system of what's already there, and it suggests an intermediate method. As is, the system is designed for 13.33 encounters per level, on average. Harder encounters are worth more experience, easier encounters are worth less experience.

If you instead use 40 experience to level with the standard experience being 3 per encounter, you return the exact same 13.33 value for encounters per level. On top of that, it lets you reflect easier and harder encounters very easily. You could also recreate the catch up effect by having lower level characters get more experience. It's just that this way it's all really fast math you can do in your head, as opposed to somewhat slow mental arithmetic if you're good at keeping track of multiple digits, or outright requiring a calculator.

[Snowbluff]

"No."

-Snowbluff 2 years ago.

[Nibbens]

Two of my groups have differing opinions on this. (yes, I DM for three groups actually - don't judge)

Group 1, my old-school gaming group, sees the removal of XP from the game as a bad thing. For these guys, XP is a motivator. They love to see their characters grow, and that growth isn't represented by story arcs or milestones or equipment, but rather that lovely numerical pile at the top of their character sheet that says "Experience." For them, seeing the growth under that word is an enjoyable concept. This motivation, however, is also tempered by the concept of character death. They have no problem running from fights if it means that their character will be dead - which at high levels presents fewer problems than lower levels, but does take a large chunk of money from their GP - which is the main motivator for avoiding encounters that outclass them.

Group 2, my new-school gaming group, actually don't mind the "story arc" progression concept. A few of them find the XP accumulation as tedious, and the ones that don't mind it could take it or leave it. So when a few said that it bothered them, they all left it for the sake of the group. They have no problem with leveling up after the end of specific events - usually events that test them and push them to the limits. For them, that is enough of a motivator to expect the level-up.

So, IMO, XP serves a function if your PCs desire that function. That is what matters - and should be all that matters to the discussion. D&D is about fun - and if the group has more fun with one than the other, then that's what you should use.

[Segev]

And kinda screws with the concept of what a level means anyway. As is currently, it doesn't represent a certain amount of power, but a specific amount of progression along a path. If a level no longer represents either a specific amount of power (because not all the levels are balanced), nor a specific amount of progression (because not all levels advance at the same rate), then what is the level representing?

Actually, it would still represent progress along a path. Just not equal progress for the same number of levels.

[Arutema]

It's telling that Paizo's own organized play program operates on a system of 1XP per 4-5 encounter session, 3XP to level.

I've been running Iron Gods using the traditional XP system, and it's proving little more than an accounting headache to us.

[The Insanity]

Never did.

[The Random NPC]

I'd like to point out that the 13 encounters to level is for the fast track, the medium track is 20 encounters, and the slow track is 30.

Also the encounter method of leveling is really exactly the same as exp only with smaller numbers.

[Mechalich]

Also the encounter method of leveling is really exactly the same as exp only with smaller numbers.

Indeed. As long as you're using numbers of any kind you're giving out XP, and its just a matter of granularity provided by your system. I'd say 3.X's numbers are too large and 1 per encounter is too low, but that's simply a matter of numerical familiarity (completely absurd XP numbers without functionality loss are possible when using a computer, like in Disgaea where they reach into the billions).

The alternative to XP is that people gain levels (or abilities if using non-level systems) by narrative fiat, when the GM has decided it is time for this to occur. That's a very tricky system. It's workable for gaming utilizing a tightly constrained published adventure path, but very dicey anywhere else and pretty much inherently unfair in any game where you split the party under any circumstances since that means different characters will experience different narratives.

[Bucky]

I recall a certain campaign where the party was looking for pieces of a major artifact, and could only level up by finding one. It worked pretty well, but obviously wouldn't fit every campaign.

[Snappy]

That's actually an interesting concept. I would like to have plot-important level gains, since I love Eberron, and that's how Keith Baker explained his villains' levels. My only problem is I'm not sure what kinds of events would warrant a level-up.

On a personal note, I don't mind EXP, but not in Pathfinder. In 3.5, it's fairly easy to remember at which point a character will level up (from your last level-up, you need 1000xp * your current level). Pathfinder removed that easy-to-remember equation, and trying to make rhyme or reason of it hurts my brain.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Indeed. As long as you're using numbers of any kind you're giving out XP, and its just a matter of granularity provided by your system. I'd say 3.X's numbers are too large and 1 per encounter is too low, but that's simply a matter of numerical familiarity (completely absurd XP numbers without functionality loss are possible when using a computer, like in Disgaea where they reach into the billions).

I don't think numbers are just a matter of numerical familiarity. Depending upon how they are calculated, actual numbers involved make a difference and how the target numbers are arranged also makes a difference.

For an example involving calculation, let's imagine a party of five adventurers encounters a single creature. In low level pathfinder, that creature might be worth 200xp. Divide that by 5 adventurers and they get 40 each. Now, you could have 20 instead of 200xp for that creature so that each adventurer would get 4 xp, but if you go much lower than that, you'll stop arriving at handy whole numbers when you divide by 4 instead and you'll also start distorting the result more depending on which way you round your fractions. For a party of 3, the difference between 66 and 67 xp each from the 200xp monster is not a big deal. On the other hand, if the monster was worth 5xp, the difference between 1 and 2 xp is pretty significant.

On the other hand, if you have a system like the default 3.5 xp table that calculates xp based on encounter level and then gives xp to each party member, you don't have the same worries about how your numbers divide out.

The arrangement of the target numbers also makes a difference. 3.0 and 3.5's xp system is designed to give a fairly smooth progression of power so that getting from level 2 to level 3 takes about as long as getting from level 15 to level 16. Presumably that is because leveling is fun and the designers didn't want players to feel like progression slowed down. On the other hand, you might want to speed through some levels and slow down in others. For example in a campaign I'm running at the moment, I wanted to get the players to level 5 quickly (because that's where Red Hand of Doom is designed to start) but I wanted to give the players a chance to familiarize themselves with their characters and get invested in the world so I started them at level 1. To pull that off, I used the Pathfinder fast track xp table until level 3 and then switched to standard. To use a different example, in Pathfinder Society, I've started switching my higher level characters to slow track xp because I want to actually enjoy playing them through level 6-11 rather than have them level out of the adventures before I have much chance to actually play them. My memory of earlier editions is that the xp tables generally worked that way: the low levels went by quickly but the higher level you got, the more time it took to level. There's something to be said for that approach as well.

[NeoPhoenix0]

my players might like the change of pace. Especially since they are sometimes tracking thirds of an experience point. Though at the same time i wonder if some of my players like the sense of progress.

[Incorrect]

I use milestone leveling, and usually base the milestones on the players goals.

The plot calls for defeating an evil baron, and finding an ancient artifact. Each of those gives a level.
(and each may or may not contain ~13 encounters)

But that one player wants to avenge his fathers death based on his BG? That too gives a level for everyone.
(and that sidequest may or may not contain ~13 encounters)

I usually tell the players exactly what the milestones are, I feel it helps with keeping the focus.

[ahenobarbi]

If so, what uses do Experience Points have in-game? Do folks want XP to serve a function as some sort of currency, in your experience?

If not, is there any reason not to switch to a system of, for example, '13 encounters and you go up a level?'

Yes it does. It makes the process more transparent for all involved, which is important if you see leveling as a reward (many players do) because that let's you see if you're treated fairly. It allows for different pacing of the game (e.g. if players want to risk less and pick easier encounters it's easy to slow down leveling with XP system). It allows for differences between characters (it does come up in all games I play). It adds another way of rewarding characters (rewarding 1/13th of a level may be too big a reward for a bit of nice role play)(this worked better when characters were allowed to trade XP for spells/gp (and would be even better if non-casters were able to trade XP for benefits other than leveling)).

[Florian]

If so, what uses do Experience Points have in-game? Do folks want XP to serve a function as some sort of currency, in your experience?

If not, is there any reason not to switch to a system of, for example, '13 encounters and you go up a level?'

Depends on what you play, really. XP are based, amongst other things, with a reward mechanic. "Do this and you gain XP". This should encourage taking risks, engaging tougher enemies, gaining story-based XP rewards and other things. Without this, XP really are meaningless.

[Âmesang]

I don't mind XP at all; I even went so far as to make a 100th-level × CR 100 spreadsheet for determining 3e XP rewards. Besides, with various encounter calculators (such as at d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/)), I don't find that much difficulty with the bookkeeping.

…but then that's why I still have my old graphing calculator. :smalltongue:

My last major group played with "narrative level-up" without any real answer towards XP spending; the last character with a crafting feat had left long before we abandoned XP, and I think I was the only character with an XP component spell (limited wish). Granted, they also played fairly loose with the rules and probably would have allowed me "free" limited wishes if I had asked… but the balance-minded player in me doesn't like that, trying to come up with alternatives such as using material components ala Pathfinder or even devising a spell that trades magic item power for spell XP cost (similar to an artificer's retain essence ability).

When it comes to XP-costs from Wealth By Level for a fresh, high-level character I end up going with the "5 gp × XP" rule. So, for example, if a permanent arcane sight costs a character 1,500 XP, I deducted an extra 7,500 gp from his wealth (and went with 70% cost instead of 50% cost for typical self-created magic items). That caused one character to spell roughly a third of the starting wealth on permanent spells/clone/contingency.

[mauk2]

Mechanically, what do experience points do?

A. They allow characters to progress at different rates. A milestone system gives everyone the same level up rate (which is often desirable) but if you want to run side quests, give an in-game reward for hosting or bringing snacks, give people partial xp for sessions they miss, or run side quests for players who want to invest more time in the game, xp allows you to do that and milestones don't. (An encounter based system would also allow that).

B. Experience points are more granular than a simple 13 encounters per level system. They differentiate between a deadly encounter and several weak encounters. For example an APL +4 boss encounter with Thulsa Doom, his pet snake, and 10 of his cultist minions might be worth more xp than 4 APL -3 encounters with Rodents of Unusual Size. You could adjust an encounter/level system to have more granularity (this encounter is worth two encounters; this encounter is only worth 1/4 of an encounter) but then you are basically back to having XP, just with smaller numbers.

C. Experience points are more easily hybridized than encounters. For example, if you give a story award XP for reaching a certain milestone, it can be worth any number of encounters you want--4, 3.14159, 1, 0.75 encounters, whatever. A "13 encounters" system would lose some of its simplicity by such hybridization (you can no longer count the number of encounters and know what level you are), and offers less granularity due to the lower numbers involved. For that matter, hybridizing an encounter system by giving "free" encounters at milestones turns it into an experience system with lower numbers.

D. I think experience systems make it easier to award non-combat character advancement rewards than encounter based systems. In an encounter based system, you need to decide, "do only combat encounters count, or do non-combat encounters count as well?" And then you need to figure out how to define and count non-combat encounters. In an XP based system, the additional granularity lets you make non-combat encounters worth 1/200, 1/50, 1/pi, or 2.35149 combat encounters with ease. Though you still need to figure out which encounters count and how much, at least you have an easy way to make them worth fractions of a combat encounter without screwing things up.

E. At least in 3.0 and 3.5, XP allows you to expend some of your personal power/life energy in the creation of magic items. In Pathfinder, magic item creation just costs gold, but by costing gold and xp, 3.0 and 3.5 model a little bit of Sauron putting all of his power into the one ring and being diminished without it.



Everything you said is awesome and excellent, and I like it. So I'm repeating it. :)


In all seriousness, you're probably going to make me look at the xp system in the game we're writing again. I personally dislike the idea of xp as currency for magic items, but some of the arguments in this thread are swaying me to this point of view.

Hrrrrm.

[MilleniaAntares]

Experience points can serve a mechanical function with houserules, like what this (http://easydamus.com/CustomCharacters.html) guy made with point buy.

[mauk2]

As a side note, I still think going back to the 2e idea of different classes advancing at different rates might be an interesting way to attempt, if not to fix all balance problems, at least increase the balance between classes.

If a 5th level wizard is actually as powerful as a 10th level fighter (numbers chosen arbitrarily for example purposes), maybe the wizard should require as many XP to reach 5th level as the fighter does to reach 10th.

Wreaks havoc with the CR system, and makes multiclassing harder to adjudicate, though.


This puts a finger on one of the big, deep imbalance issues in all D20 games, namely, spells are waaaaay too flippin' good.

Seriously. They're JUST A CLASS FEATURE. Why are they so ridiculously over strength? I mean, by tenth level a fighter will have ten feats, a barbarian will have five rage powers and five feats, a ranger will be able to shoot arrows real gud, and a wizard gets five feats and SIXTEEN spells, minimum! The Barbarian gets to pick from maybe a hundred, hundred and fifty rage powers, tops, and the wizard can pick from what, five hundred spells, and choose different ones every day. How the hell is that even close to 'balanced'?

Well, 4e tried to do away with the whole onerous mess, and yeah, that game was MUCH better balanced between the classes...but it was barely DnD any more. Love it or hate it, the spellcasting system in DnD/pathfinder is a whole lot of the flavor of the game.

I think the way to 'fix' this is to not nerf all the spell casting classes, but buff the ever-loving hell out of all the REST of the classes.

It's a whole lot of work, but it actually can be done and works well. (see sig for link where we did it.)

[Jack_Simth]

Depends where you draw the line of defeated. Maybe the adventure is "sneak into the Necromancer's fortress and rescue the princess". Did you "defeat" the patrols of skeletons you never encountered because you didn't cross paths with them?
You did if you spotted them while sneaking and went around. You didn't if you teleported past them directly into the throne room and never really became specifically aware of them.

[90sMusic]

I think experience points in a game like D&D are dumb. I mean you need it in computer game RPGs and the like because you have to have set rewards for set actions, etc. But in D&D everything is controlled by the DM. If he wants you to be a certain level, you are. If he wants you to get enough XP to level up, you do. If he wants you to be just barely short from leveling up, you are. It's all up to him.

Experience points are as arbitrary and pointless as House Points at friggin Hogwarts imo. Dumbledore is the DM and he just handwaves and adds points for no reason and boom, whatever he wants.

Ten points to Gryffindor!

Personally, i've always liked games where you never worried about XP and everyone in the party is the same level all the time.

[killem2]

God no. I don't know where this idea that experience points has become hated by everybody but it's so ingrained in my players way of doing role playing games that they really enjoy have it. If I were to do a game where they got no experience points and I just level them up at certain intervals they would certainly feel like the experience overall has been cheated and cheapend.

And if you really want a mechanical method of using experience in The Way of the Wicked I set all my players to be a slow progression and well this may seem like something harsh it really makes the world around them stronger and it feels like the world supposed to be, a world that is supposed to be against you evil people in the world of Talon guard are supposed to be outcast and rare because most of the population knows that serving an evil God can get you killed.

It also means that the group Works harder together and uses their resources to the absolute limit because they have to it makes for more exciting matches and progression. And when they get those levels because they take so long to get they are cherished and they feel like a real accomplishment.

[Amphetryon]

Yes it does. It makes the process more transparent for all involved, which is important if you see leveling as a reward (many players do) because that let's you see if you're treated fairly. It allows for different pacing of the game (e.g. if players want to risk less and pick easier encounters it's easy to slow down leveling with XP system). It allows for differences between characters (it does come up in all games I play). It adds another way of rewarding characters (rewarding 1/13th of a level may be too big a reward for a bit of nice role play)(this worked better when characters were allowed to trade XP for spells/gp (and would be even better if non-casters were able to trade XP for benefits other than leveling)).

Personally, I would call everything listed except for the aside about XP for spells/gp a metagame function, rather than a mechanical function.

[Knaight]

And if you really want a mechanical method of using experience in The Way of the Wicked I set all my players to be a slow progression and well this may seem like something harsh it really makes the world around them stronger and it feels like the world supposed to be, a world that is supposed to be against you evil people in the world of Talon guard are supposed to be outcast and rare because most of the population knows that serving an evil God can get you killed.

It also means that the group Works harder together and uses their resources to the absolute limit because they have to it makes for more exciting matches and progression. And when they get those levels because they take so long to get they are cherished and they feel like a real accomplishment.

Literally none of this requires experience points, and how half of it is even supposed to be related is a mystery.

[Tvtyrant]

I always used "sessions equal to the next level" for how lobg it takes, with a "+2" thrown in if we want to take a while in the early levels. Level 1 is basically in my games because one player whines if we start higher, but doesn't seem to mind it lasting only 3 or four hours.

[killem2]

Literally none of this requires experience points, and how half of it is even supposed to be related is a mystery.

It does if your players use experience points as a method of achievement. I know a lot of DMs love being in absolute control and part of that is being in control of when your player's level up. I'm not like that. Leveling up should be in the hands of the players. Which is why we use experience points. You know, so players can gauge their in-game experience. So they can roleplay their characters into directions to gain more experience. If they have to constantly ask, "Hey what can I do to insure I level up?" that seems like a good way to split immersion WIDE open.

So no. It literally requires experience points to accomplish this. *mic drop*

[Psyren]

It does if your players use experience points as a method of achievement. I know a lot of DMs love being in absolute control and part of that is being in control of when your player's level up. I'm not like that. Leveling up should be in the hands of the players. Which is why we use experience points. You know, so players can gauge their in-game experience. So they can roleplay their characters into directions to gain more experience. If they have to constantly ask, "Hey what can I do to insure I level up?" that seems like a good way to split immersion WIDE open.

So no. It literally requires experience points to accomplish this. *mic drop*

*pics up mic*

But your way causes them to ask "which route gets us more XP?" which is just as immersion-breaking. Unless they don't actually care how fast they level up, in which case, "you level up at {story point}" works just as effectively as tracking XP.

[martixy]

If so, what uses do Experience Points have in-game? Do folks want XP to serve a function as some sort of currency, in your experience?

If not, is there any reason not to switch to a system of, for example, '13 encounters and you go up a level?'

It does. It serves as an unambiguous RAW approach to character advancement.
So it must continue to exist, if solely for that reason.

Also what Mr. Basilisk said, though some of his points might be considered arguments against the XP system for some types of games.
I myself keep agonizing over do-or-don't.
I like the different-than-gold economy this creates, but I dislike the disparity it creates between characters, the additional bookkeeping and the way it affects player behaviour, no matter how subtly.

[Bohandas]

If so, what uses do Experience Points have in-game? Do folks want XP to serve a function as some sort of currency, in your experience?

One of the appeals of Pathfinder for me is that leveling up is the only thing that xp is for. It eliminates the paradox of practice making you worse at some things (such as (magic item) crafting)

[Knaight]

It does if your players use experience points as a method of achievement. I know a lot of DMs love being in absolute control and part of that is being in control of when your player's level up. I'm not like that. Leveling up should be in the hands of the players. Which is why we use experience points. You know, so players can gauge their in-game experience. So they can roleplay their characters into directions to gain more experience. If they have to constantly ask, "Hey what can I do to insure I level up?" that seems like a good way to split immersion WIDE open.

Oh for sure, because playing a bunch of characters who are just trying to increase some numerical stat so that they can get stronger is the be all end all of role playing. That's why it's impossible to have a role playing game where there's no advancement. Plus, the experience system is such a beautiful simulation of in game reality, how can we not have players roleplaying characters killing goblins so that they can get better at swimming. Then there's the matter of the players working harder together, which obviously is based on the experience system. Things like the extent to which the characters are threatened by the setting clearly aren't the causes here.

This is before we get into how there's no reason to assume that they do have to constantly ask "Hey what can I do to insure I level up" if experience is used, along with completely ignoring how immersion gets just as split open every time the game grinds to a halt to distribute experience points.

[Florian]

Oh for sure, because playing a bunch of characters who are just trying to increase some numerical stat so that they can get stronger is the be all end all of role playing. That's why it's impossible to have a role playing game where there's no advancement. Plus, the experience system is such a beautiful simulation of in game reality, how can we not have players roleplaying characters killing goblins so that they can get better at swimming. Then there's the matter of the players working harder together, which obviously is based on the experience system. Things like the extent to which the characters are threatened by the setting clearly aren't the causes here.

This is before we get into how there's no reason to assume that they do have to constantly ask "Hey what can I do to insure I level up" if experience is used, along with completely ignoring how immersion gets just as split open every time the game grinds to a halt to distribute experience points.

Stuff like XP and leveling-up are all tied to positive reward circles that should, optimally, be a gentle push to shove people to do in-game what they are expected to do without having to make a big speech on what it is all about or handing out an effing manual.

That in itself has nothing to do with role-playing but with the content of the specific game.

[Elder_Basilisk]

*pics up mic*

But your way causes them to ask "which route gets us more XP?" which is just as immersion-breaking. Unless they don't actually care how fast they level up, in which case, "you level up at {story point}" works just as effectively as tracking XP.

It's not as immersion breaking to ask "which route gets us more XP?" than "which route lets us level up?" because the latter question is a lot more significant in an arbitrary/milestone system.

For example, you might look at the question, "should we teleport to Greyhawk or do the long trek through the Mistmarsh?" obviously there are strong in character reasons to teleport though there might be a few in character reasons to deal with the ghouls, stirges, and crocodiles instead. Maybe you have a brother at Marsh keep and you'd like to visit but have not studied that location well enough to teleport. Maybe you want to see if you can make contact with a lizardman tribe and teach them to revere Pelor. However, either way, the amount of xp is not likely to be all that great. A 9th level character isn't going to get many XP points by going through the Mistmarsh so unless you as a player know something specific like your DM gives something like 1/3 of his XP from "random" encounters, XP is not a very compelling reason. (The reason players in Living Greyhawk would typically windwalk rather than teleport--so they didn't miss the XP and loot from those "random" encounters--was active precisely because they knew that the campaign had a lot of "while you are traveling" encounters and that sometimes the entire adventure's worth of treasure was tied up in them). With a good DM, the "which way grants us more XP" question should prove to be a minor distortion.

On the other hand, if you look at the question, "should we bypass the strongpoint and go straight to the boss?" from a milestone perspective, the "is the strongpoint a milestone?" question is a much more compelling out of character reason. In the first scenario, you gain or miss out on a little XP that might or might not put you over the next level a half-session earlier. In the second scenario, you risk missing out on an entire level by skipping the milestone.

A good DM should make the XP/milestones line up with in character objectives and a good game flow either way but the gamesmanship question is a lot more significant when it comes to missing a milestone that is a whole level every time than it is when you might miss some XP that might be a small portion of a level.

[dascarletm]

If they have to constantly ask, "Hey what can I do to insure I level up?"*

Wouldn't this be more common in experience point games than in non-experience point games? :smallconfused:

I only have my experiences to judge, I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I've seen more of this behavior in XP games. I've never seen someone debating if they should attack X because doing that would get us to level up faster in a non-XP game, only in XP games. To each their own though.

[Florian]

Wouldn't this be more common in experience point games than in non-experience point games? :smallconfused:

I only have my experiences to judge, I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I've seen more of this behavior in XP games. I've never seen someone debating if they should attack X because doing that would get us to level up faster in a non-XP game, only in XP games. To each their own though.

The issue with Milestone mechanics is that they tend to be keyed to an overarching storyline, mostly by way of preplanned plot.
That means the focus will shift to advancing the plot as fast as possible while avoiding taking detours to actually reach the Milestone and claim an advancement. That leaves no time to actually engage in simple role-playing, some idle exploration or running of in the wrong direction.

If you decouple Milestone from the story and use them session-based instead, you create the opposite dilemma by rewarding "slow" play.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Wouldn't this be more common in experience point games than in non-experience point games? :smallconfused:

I only have my experiences to judge, I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I've seen more of this behavior in XP games. I've never seen someone debating if they should attack X because doing that would get us to level up faster in a non-XP game, only in XP games. To each their own though.

In non-XP games, it's more likely to be a story thing choice rather than a single encounter. So rather than asking, "should we sneak by the bullywug guards or kill them for the XP?" it's a question of, "do we have to stop and take care of this village's bullywug problem? If this is one of the milestones, we can't afford to miss it?"

You can see both kinds of behavior in video games/CRPGs--especially if you think of major story award XP as a kind of variant milestone. Maybe you fight a random encounter with some kobolds for your 200xp. But if there's a major milestone type story award (or an auto-level up) every strategy guide will tell you to "do this before you encounter the boss/go the end of act 2." Asking how to maximize your XP by fighting encounters you could otherwise avoid is analogous to grinding which is often optional. Story award style milestones distort play less often but when they do, they do so big time because the stakes are much higher than 50xp and a few copper pieces.

[dascarletm]

The issue with Milestone mechanics is that they tend to be keyed to an overarching storyline, mostly by way of preplanned plot.
That means the focus will shift to advancing the plot as fast as possible while avoiding taking detours to actually reach the Milestone and claim an advancement. That leaves no time to actually engage in simple role-playing, some idle exploration or running of in the wrong direction.

If you decouple Milestone from the story and use them session-based instead, you create the opposite dilemma by rewarding "slow" play.
I've just had it where the DM tells the players to level up when he thinks the characters have done enough stuff. Perhaps the inherent trust in my groups between players and DMs skews my thinking, that is I've never had any sort of player vs DM situation.

Have you played in non-XP games and is what you say your observation, or is this conjecture? I've never had a non-XP game drive players towards trying to get more levels. I have only ever seen the opposite. Since they know that they will probably just level in a few sessions there is no need to worry about when I will level, I don't really influence it too heavily. Those games tend to foster more character driven game-play.

Our groups have decoupled milestones from the leveling and no one has ever expressed a desire to slow the game down. I guess we don't have people who play to game the system, so luckily our group is mature enough to use this system I suppose.:smallsmile: I can't imagine someone crippling their own fun just to get a level edge for... idk some sort of gain.:smallconfused:

In non-XP games, it's more likely to be a story thing choice rather than a single encounter. So rather than asking, "should we sneak by the bullywug guards or kill them for the XP?" it's a question of, "do we have to stop and take care of this village's bullywug problem? If this is one of the milestones, we can't afford to miss it?"

Is this your experience or is it your conjecture? Ive seen the former happen, but never the latter. In non-XP games not once have I heard someone think about how they will level up. This however is just my group.

[Florian]

Have you played in non-XP games and is what you say your observation, or is this conjecture? I've never had a non-XP game drive players towards trying to get more levels. I have only ever seen the opposite. Since they know that they will probably just level in a few sessions there is no need to worry about when I will level, I don't really influence it too heavily. Those games tend to foster more character driven game-play.

I play a lot of different game systems with a lot of different mechanics involved. Actually, Pathfinder and Adventurer, Conquer, King are pretty much the only ones I still play that sport a traditional class and level structure.

My observation so far is, that when a strong pre-defined plot is absent and folks have to set their own goals, they also look for steady reward mechanism to have a tangible feeling of accomplishment on the road to their set goal. This is doubly true when failure is a tangible option and gm fiat absent.

Should a strong pre-defined plot be present, the main goal mostly is advancing the plot and "getting the story told". Character advancement is not as important as story advancement, unless it affects the ability of the character to actually contribute directly to the story by gaining new options.

It is, for example, interesting to watch how the "Endeavor"-system in Rogue Trader works: The players actually announce their campaign goals to the gm, including the concrete steps how they want to reach that goal, then put a "price tag" on each step, telling the gm how much XP they want to earn by successful completion of that goal, influencing the difficulty.

[AnimeTheCat]

I DM two games on alternating weeks, one is milestone/story driven and the other is XP reward. The XP reward game has been going on longer, about 4 months/2 sessions a month. They started at first level and are now all third or fourth level, depending on what they chose to do (all the characters are either very early fourth or very close to fourth). In the other game, they all started at fifth and after about 3 sessions they've leveled to sixth. Both groups have 3 people who are the same and one who is different each week.

Out of these two games, I see better problem solving, better roll play, better teamwork, and overall "better play" out of the group that receives XP as a reward. They are the same people, so why do I experience such a difference in play with the XP deal? So I asked them. They said that the XP serves to put them in to character better. Kind of a "What would Galadreal do?" sort of complex. And it even leads in to in character interactions that are STELLAR! Everything that I would award XP for. It also puts a very soft power cap on casters and magic item creation. Does the group mage REALLY want to spend the XP on that wand?

What I've seen in the group is exquisite in character conversation that is them discussing the merits of a plan for infiltrating a bandit camp where the rogue has one plan, but needs a scroll from the wizard. Well the wizard explains that it takes quite a bit of time and concentration and its something they have to put their soul in to (trying to, in character, describe the XP cost for it). When the PCs really get in to it like that, I can't resist giving them both 5-10 XP. It isn't enough to level them outright, but it subtly rewards good role play AND it covers the cost of the scroll for the wizard so he isn't falling behind.

In the story driven game, everyone has fun, but I see so much less character interaction and role play because they know that after a certain point, they'll receive their level anyway (their words not mine in this case).

Bottom line of my experience, the players will want what they want and they will have fun as long as you are creating the environment for them to do so. My players know they'll be rewarded for doing things that their character would do and that's how they like to play.

[Psyren]

For example, you might look at the question, "should we teleport to Greyhawk or do the long trek through the Mistmarsh?" obviously there are strong in character reasons to teleport though there might be a few in character reasons to deal with the ghouls, stirges, and crocodiles instead. Maybe you have a brother at Marsh keep and you'd like to visit but have not studied that location well enough to teleport. Maybe you want to see if you can make contact with a lizardman tribe and teach them to revere Pelor. However, either way, the amount of xp is not likely to be all that great. A 9th level character isn't going to get many XP points by going through the Mistmarsh so unless you as a player know something specific like your DM gives something like 1/3 of his XP from "random" encounters, XP is not a very compelling reason. (The reason players in Living Greyhawk would typically windwalk rather than teleport--so they didn't miss the XP and loot from those "random" encounters--was active precisely because they knew that the campaign had a lot of "while you are traveling" encounters and that sometimes the entire adventure's worth of treasure was tied up in them). With a good DM, the "which way grants us more XP" question should prove to be a minor distortion.

You really need to reread what you just wrote here. Then think about this same situation in-universe. What group of heroes, sound of mind and trying to save the world, would say "hey, screw magic - we should walk there, because we might get attacked much more frequently than if we travel instantaneously through the Astral Plane, and also the trip will take several orders of magnitude longer"? :smallconfused: It makes no sense.

All other factors being equal, teleportation is by far the smarter option - which is why teleportation has hooks built into it for the GM to keep it from being the automatic go-to in every situation. It's a 5th-level spell, it doesn't work if there's strong energy, not being familiar with the destination puts you off-target etc. They literally have to find reasons you can't use it. "We'll get more XP for walking" isn't one of them.

[Jay R]

The system of 13 encounters and then you go up a level isn't eliminating experience points. It's just changing to a more simplistic system of one xp per encounter and 13 xps to the next level.

Similarly, any system that has players gain more abilities every once in awhile is equivalent to an xp system, even if the players (and often the DM administering it) don't really know what it is.

I am more-or-less in favor of simplifying any gaming mechanic if and only if it can be shown that the simpler method is just as good.

In original D&D and AD&D, the experience point system allows lower-level PCs to level up much faster than higher-level ones. In 3.5e, it provides a metric for how much growth it costs to make your own mag0ic items. And in all games, it makes a hard encounter worth more than an easy one.

Changing to a simpler system eliminates these intentional effects. Do it only if those effects have no value to you or your players.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Is this your experience or is it your conjecture? Ive seen the former happen, but never the latter. In non-XP games not once have I heard someone think about how they will level up. This however is just my group.

My experience with semi-milestones is mostly in CRPGs/games. It's been a while but I seem to recall that there were a few "quests" in Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate II and Neverwinter Nights that basically had to be done in a certain order due to big story award XP even though there was no particular in character reason to handle them in that order (or at all). I think there were a few similar things in Fallout III though I'm less sure of that since my memory of Fallout III is hazier and I played it less.

In tabletop, games my only experience as a player is things that are analogous to milestones like the game I'm currently playing in where the DM decided that, when a bunch of bandits stopped our fourth level party on the road to Hommlet, defeating them in combat was worth a few hundred xp but resolving the problem peacefully (presumably by paying their "toll" but perhaps also by intimidating them) would have been worth 1500 or so. (It's analogous to arbitrary/milestone advancement because when story advancement breaks down as it did in that case, it turns into a game of "guess what the DM/writer wants" with major consequences for advancement). As a DM, I never went full milestone, but in my last campaign, I did hand out XP on a rather arbitrary basis that was similar to milestones in effect. (What you killed didn't didn't really determine when you leveled--the DM did). It worked, but I went back to a more RAW XP approach for my current campaign which is good because my players seem to be a lot less reliable right now and being able to vary XP for individual who show up, etc is a good fit for the game. (I've also been pleasantly surprised at how having players with varying levels at the table works out).

[Elder_Basilisk]

You really need to reread what you just wrote here. Then think about this same situation in-universe. What group of heroes, sound of mind and trying to save the world, would say "hey, screw magic - we should walk there, because we might get attacked much more frequently than if we travel instantaneously through the Astral Plane, and also the trip will take several orders of magnitude longer"? :smallconfused: It makes no sense.

All other factors being equal, teleportation is by far the smarter option - which is why teleportation has hooks built into it for the GM to keep it from being the automatic go-to in every situation. It's a 5th-level spell, it doesn't work if there's strong energy, not being familiar with the destination puts you off-target etc. They literally have to find reasons you can't use it. "We'll get more XP for walking" isn't one of them.

I'm not an idiot. I know what I wrote. The point is that it took some serious campaign specific situations for that to actually happen to a significant extent.

1. Since it was a living campaign, it was not flexible. The adventure was whatever the adventure was, so if you missed encounter 1, that meant you didn't play one encounter and finished early with less xp/gold rather than "you just get a little further and play a different encounter that you otherwise would not have had time for."

2. It was also a player written campaign meaning that after the first or second year the writers were not paid for their work and sometimes didn't have much experience. (And sometimes they had lots of experience but didn't seem to have learned anything from it--I remember being very happy when a couple writers took positions at non-WotC game companies and weren't permitted to write for Living Greyhawk anymore). Especially when the game started transitioning to mid- and high level play, there were a lot of writers who didn't realize and account for the PCs' abilities.

3. Sometimes the entire adventure was supposed to trigger on a chance happening on the road (perfectly fine at level 5, but if you're level 12 and teleporting, you miss the adventure).

The point is that in a non-organized play campaign, you would have to really work hard in order to create those kind of compelling incentives. "We could get 250 xp each for whacking those goblins" is not a significant player incentive in most games. "Walk or you miss the adventure" is. So is, "do X or you might miss the milestone."

[Florian]

The point is that in a non-organized play campaign, you would have to really work hard in order to create those kind of compelling incentives. "We could get 250 xp each for whacking those goblins" is not a significant player incentive in most games. "Walk or you miss the adventure" is. So is, "do X or you might miss the milestone."

I rather think that this has to do with linear story design / pre-planned plot rather than how incentives work and is also the root cause for the tier system, that actually deals with how the linear story can be "broken".

[Elder_Basilisk]

I rather think that this has to do with linear story design / pre-planned plot rather than how incentives work and is also the root cause for the tier system, that actually deals with how the linear story can be "broken".

That too. I think people learned a lot about how to organize and write for an organized play campaign over the course of Living Greyhawk. Not all stories work for all levels of characters was one of those things. Until that happened (and even now to some degree in PFS), "don't break the module you're here to play" (or at least not too badly) was something players learned.

[Florian]

That too. I think people learned a lot about how to organize and write for an organized play campaign over the course of Living Greyhawk. Not all stories work for all levels of characters was one of those things. Until that happened (and even now to some degree in PFS), "don't break the module you're here to play" (or at least not too badly) was something players learned.

As a side note to that: The most widely played RPG in Germany has a long history of wanting to "tell narratively sound high quality stories", coupled with an evolving meta-plot that has being ongoing for more than 20 years.

The result of this are beyond being funny anymore: The level of railroading involved is so high that a lot of players have given up trying not to simply play along or change anything once the story has started. It has become a recurring joke to play the equivalent of a PB10 Commoner that will only take Skill Focus for feats at to not be frustrated when your high-powered archmage (again!) is not able to do anything to circumvent or prevent anything in the story. Most of the time, players are really happy in the time in-between the adventures, when they can actually have their characters do something they want.
Naturally, I need not add that combat is handled in a similar way. Some rolls just to show that its serious business, then further told as story.

It´s beyond frustrating that most available players have been socialized to the hobby with this system (mostly followed by Vampire) and have to actually learn to formulate own aims and goals or accept failure along the way.

[jjcrpntr]

As a DM i like the idea of using experience as it's easier to reward players for doing things sometimes. I don't really care if they are all the same level or not as long as there isn't too much of a disparity.

That said, in the game I run we don't use XP I just tell them when they level. Reason being most of the players preferred that method. Only problem with this is I get "did we level?" After every single freaking game. Even if they just leveled the session prior.

[ahenobarbi]

I think experience points in a game like D&D are dumb. I mean you need it in computer game RPGs and the like because you have to have set rewards for set actions, etc. But in D&D everything is controlled by the DM. If he wants you to be a certain level, you are. If he wants you to get enough XP to level up, you do. If he wants you to be just barely short from leveling up, you are. It's all up to him.

Experience points are as arbitrary and pointless as House Points at friggin Hogwarts imo. Dumbledore is the DM and he just handwaves and adds points for no reason and boom, whatever he wants.

Ten points to Gryffindor!

Personally, i've always liked games where you never worried about XP and everyone in the party is the same level all the time.

Exactly. Everyone knows Dumbly is cheating the system because there is a transparent way to determine the victor and when the victor turns out not to be what he likes he has to hand out a bunch of points for no good reason. It would be much less obvious if house-point system wasn't there. D. would just say "Gryffindor wins and it would be hard to argue with that.

The same is with XP - if DM is giving you very little XP for hard encounters it's easier to notice (and deal with the situation in some way) than it would be if you advance on DMs word.

For good DMs / players XP are probably not necessary but I think they're very useful for beginners (and many others too - I personally don't want to spend my time thinking about when I would like PCs to advance and appreciate it happening semi-automatically).


Personally, I would call everything listed except for the aside about XP for spells/gp a metagame function, rather than a mechanical function.

And you'd be right (but tone of the thread is "abandon XP, it's useless" so I felt giving reasons I see for keeping it was on-topic).

[Psyren]

I'm not an idiot. I know what I wrote.

I never said you were.



1. Since it was a living campaign, it was not flexible. The adventure was whatever the adventure was, so if you missed encounter 1, that meant you didn't play one encounter and finished early with less xp/gold rather than "you just get a little further and play a different encounter that you otherwise would not have had time for."

The point of a plot-leveling paradigm is that you level when things happen that are plot-related. Random encounters, by definition, are not.



2. It was also a player written campaign meaning that after the first or second year the writers were not paid for their work and sometimes didn't have much experience. (And sometimes they had lots of experience but didn't seem to have learned anything from it--I remember being very happy when a couple writers took positions at non-WotC game companies and weren't permitted to write for Living Greyhawk anymore). Especially when the game started transitioning to mid- and high level play, there were a lot of writers who didn't realize and account for the PCs' abilities.

3. Sometimes the entire adventure was supposed to trigger on a chance happening on the road (perfectly fine at level 5, but if you're level 12 and teleporting, you miss the adventure).

The point is that in a non-organized play campaign, you would have to really work hard in order to create those kind of compelling incentives. "We could get 250 xp each for whacking those goblins" is not a significant player incentive in most games. "Walk or you miss the adventure" is. So is, "do X or you might miss the milestone."

If the entire pot of a module depends on a random encounter that can be easily bypassed, then that is a badly written plot, end of. Not the GM's fault, but still, something they need (and have the tools) to handle. What it's not, is an excuse to lambast an XP-less playstyle as a whole.

[Abithrios]

It is, for example, interesting to watch how the "Endeavor"-system in Rogue Trader works: The players actually announce their campaign goals to the gm, including the concrete steps how they want to reach that goal, then put a "price tag" on each step, telling the gm how much XP they want to earn by successful completion of that goal, influencing the difficulty.

Knowing nothing else about the game, what I am imagining is a player asking for too many experience points for something that shouldn't be very hard, leading to an epic, worlds-spanning, decades-long crusade to go buy groceries...

That sounds hilarious...

[Florian]

Knowing nothing else about the game, what I am imagining is a player asking for too many experience points for something that shouldn't be very hard, leading to an epic, worlds-spanning, decades-long crusade to go buy groceries...

That sounds hilarious...

Not really how it works.

Let´s say, the players announce their goal as: "We want to find an exploit a star cluster with a pre-fall human civilization. This should be an overall challenging but profitable task. We see it at 5000 XP and 10 Profit Factor". Based on this, you plan the rough steps to this together: "Find the Cluster, Map the Cluster, Engagige in First Contact, Burn all Heretics, Kill the Princess, Dominate the Region" and distribute the 5K XP and Profit Factor between those stages. "Nobody found that lost cluster before, that must be a hard thing to do, but even if nothing comes out of it, its data worth selling, so I´d say that first step is 1500 XP and 3 Profit Factor"

As gm, knowing the stakes now, you begin to break down those overall steps into smaller pieces. Missions, Scenes, Adventures, Encounters, Set-Piece Battles, you name it, based on the data your players gave you.
Along the way, you begin adding "themes" to the details you work out. Characters or equipment can work well with a given scene (example: Your Ship being equipped for orbital bombardment makes any "war" themed thing easier, giving a bonus to XP), while creating an Opposition that makes failure a real option without making the whole campaign fail, baring TPK.

So yes, what you jokingly wrote can happen in a sense, when after a high-stakes sequence with added bonus XP the follow-up sequence seems a bit meek, but generally, that often leaves a sense of "smooth sailing".

[Efrate]

I played in both, and I much prefer XP, as do the players in my games. I am pretty mathematically minded, so there is that, I like that it shows at least roughly how I am progressing, and I can judge encounters a bit better. If something come out of left field in a game I'm playing in, and its a very rough encounter, I like seeing a dececnt chunk of XP for that. If its rough but I get little XP, that means it wasn't as much of a challenge, and I should think more about tactics and approach.

The milestone game I played it was hard to judge. Get the McGuffin get a level, but what about if we do something else? I get nothing for an in character side quest that had a decent bit of encounters because it wasn't time yet or it really didn't matter, and if we had gotten a level from that it throws off the rest of the milestones because we are too strong. That could likely have been bad DMing (it likely was) but it never felt like progress was actually being made if we did anything but the primary quest.

I much prefer XP when I DM. For a variety of reasons. I award small bits of XP for things like if someone buys snacks for everyone, or just for me (cause I'm shameless), or anything bribe related. Nothing super serious but a little bump is a little reward which players like. If someone RPs well I award them a bonus of X experience, which is on top of what everyone gets for combats and the like, which serves to encourage that. Again unless its huge it doesn't have a major impact, but the party gets 1k XP for encounters for the day but one person played their character stupendously and really made them come alive they might get an extra 50,100, even 200 XP. I scale it with level so a lvl 14 character and a lvl 4 character get proportionally a similar amount. I generallly ere on the lower side but sometimes its worth a lot more. My players like it and it reinforced future good behavior. I do the same for creative solutions to non-combat encounters though usually on a lesser scale. Its a nice way to reward individual effort and foster good stuff in the future.

If it lets someone get a level an encounter or so before someone else, so be it. They have a brief one or two session advantage then, and I have no problem with multiple different levels in a party. It can be a great RP springboard as they veterans take newer recruits under their wings, and helps immersion. Works similarly with character death, when they go back a level or so and aren't as good the rest of the team works to help make up that difference and keep them safe.

[graeylin]

I hardly use EXP anymore, although some of my DM's do, I suspect it's more of a "oops, I need to bump these guys up for the next fight, so... Here's enough EXP to level" calculation.

As a DM, I prefer to simply design an adventure, and when it's done, everyone levels up. If it's a really long adventure, then there are some natural breaks to level up after a bit.

When I first started playing DnD, EXP was everything! This was back in the Gygaxian days, when rot grubs and mimics would kill you every third night of gaming, so grabbing and earning EXP was important. We also never tried to keep all our players "about the same level", which seems to be much more normal these days. If you died, and started a new PC, you started at level 1, and joined the group. Even if they were level 5, or 7, or... whatever. It was not uncommon to have a level 7 fighter, level 4 cleric, level 3 wizard/2 thief, and a level 1 druid in the same group. That's just how it was... you didn't start "high", because half the time, everyone else would die in a game session or two, and you'd be the high level survivor.

One thing I miss about our old way of doing EXP (our homebrew rule) was that each class kind of fought for their own EXP. As a thief, I gained EXP for picking locks, for being stealthy, for backstabbing, etc.. The more I did, the more EXP I got. Fighters got it for killing things, clerics got it for casting spells, etc.. I remember at the end of each session, going over our calcs with the DM: I cast two 3rd level spells, that 600 EXP. I healed that fighter, that's another 100. And I helped kill the Wigdet, so I get 50 for that.

The fighter, meanwhile, gets 500 for killing the Widget, cause he did most of it...

And, way back then, if you picked a lock, your thief side got the EXP... not your Wizard (or cleric, or fighter). So you could advance one side far beyond the other.

To me, that really made me focus on my class: wizards were supposed to cast spells and research spells, and clerics were supposed to heal and buff, and so on.

Oh well... my meds are here, and I get time on the rocking chair porch this afternoon, so....