Milestones vs. XP

[Ser Loras]

Which do people prefer?

Personally when I DM I prefer milestones, as I like to control the pace of character development and have the opportunity - whenever possible - to provide context and fluff for a character leveling up (so that a level 1 Paladin doesn't enter a cave, slay a bear, and come out knowing all these divine spells for no reason at all :D ).

[Easy_Lee]

Milestone. XP requires extra bookkeeping on my part, and when I DM I appreciate anything that lets me be lazy.

[alchahest]

We prefer milestones at my tables. much less bookkeeping, and the DM can reliably craft encounters far in advance, in anticipation of levels, without having to remove or add encounters to make sure xp lines up.

[Mjolnirbear]

Originally I did milestones because I hadn't yet learned the XP system.

Now I do milestones because it's easier, it makes more sense to me, and no one goes to the rest of the group "we're one more Orc away from levelling you guys, let's go find something to slay!"

I currently base it on chapters in the modules I use, but when I create my own material, I make it so that each level is basically this next chapter of the story.

[JackPhoenix]

Milestones. Leveling makes more sense and I can change the pace according to my needs (a section of a campaign with many battles won't result from PC's leveling too quickly from accumulated XP, while I can reward them with level for a longer "downtime" period with fewer battles, but more time spent on training and roleplay)

[Rogerdodger557]

I think milestones make more sense, but unfortunately the only games I play are AL, so I have to grind for XP. Campaigns aren't too bad, especially Storm King's Thunder, where giants show up as random encounters.

[Tanarii]

XP. It provides players with an obvious and above board reward structure. And provided you're clear what you're rewarding for, helps drive player (and thus indirectly PC) motivations.

IMX Milestone usually provides players the impression of one of three things when it comes to rewards:
A) My DM is arbitrary.
B) I'm rewarded the same no matter what I do.
C) I'm rewarded for staying on the railroad tracks.

Of course, B and C are often related / conflated.

If you make it clear that they're rewarded for 'surviving to this point, and sticking to mission goals', they might miss that it's just a variation on C. :smallamused: But not B, since surviving depends on what they do.

[hymer]

I prefer milestones, generally speaking. It lets the table control the pace of advancement, and it means PCs can turn down an encounter, secure in the knowledge they aren't losing out on XP.

I will say that there may be some charm to running a strictly XP-for-slain-foes sandbox, where the players get to choose a strategy of risk vs. reward. They could go raid the goblins, or they could try hunting down that wyvern they heard about. Whoever gets the wyvern first gets a boost, but the sooner you go, the more dangerous it is.

[Kryx]

We prefer milestones at my tables. much less bookkeeping, and the DM can reliably craft encounters far in advance, in anticipation of levels, without having to remove or add encounters to make sure xp lines up.
This. Milestones for me.

[Oramac]

As a DM, I prefer milestone. Less bookkeeping is always good, and it just feels better with the story.

The one downside to it, that I've noticed, is that it's harder to give characters extra bonuses for cool in-character actions. Things that deserve more than just Inspiration, but not a full level. With an XP system, you can give the player extra xp for playing in-character or doing some cool thing outside of killing goblins. With milestone, you can't do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I started with XP, then it was too much work to track. In addition, rewarding XP for non-combat things isn't really well laid out.

I don't really do milestone leveling either, because I don't have an overarching story arc. I make it clear that levels will be gained when they do something worth leveling for (or the next set of things they're trying to do wouldn't make sense at their current power level).

Usually this translates to a level every 2-3 adventuring days (which is right in line with the guidance in the DMG--if you divide the XP per level by the suggested XP per adventuring day, you get a mostly constant 2-3 (with deviations in mid/high tier 2, getting as high as 5-6). Not all days are adventuring days--this only counts when they're active doing things that would earn XP. Killing things. Raiding dungeons. Persuading NPCs. Discovering secrets. Travelling through peaceful countryside near a town doesn't count.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a DM, I prefer milestone. Less bookkeeping is always good, and it just feels better with the story.

The one downside to it, that I've noticed, is that it's harder to give characters extra bonuses for cool in-character actions. Things that deserve more than just Inspiration, but not a full level. With an XP system, you can give the player extra xp for playing in-character or doing some cool thing outside of killing goblins. With milestone, you can't do that.

I've found that boons work well for this. They can be 1-use things--"reroll a saving throw of your choice", "interpose yourself in front of an ally, taking the hit instead of them"--or they can be longer-term stuff (a skill, a spell, part of a feat).

[GlenSmash!]

Milestone for me.

In my mind It's leveling up for staying alive in a dangerous world.

I think XP is better in the hands of a really good DM, but I am not a really good DM.

[HandofBlades]

As a player I tend to not enjoy milestones over xp. Mainly due to the fact it can sometimes feel like a dm isn't giving the players a chance to get more powerful. A good example is in a recent game we had a dm throw our group of level 4s vs a group of assassins. Now we had been level four for a while (about three sessions) where we had fought a group of harpies griffins a manticore and a young red dragon. Beyond that we had just finished a fight against a series of thugs and a gun slinger with a powerful warlock backing them up from a ship after clearing a massive dungeon that got us from level 3 to 4. Now in the dms defense he was a new dm and he was throwing lots of combat at us which is fun but it was very much on the rails so trying to develop our characters ourselves felt second to the story we were caught up in. So the dm planning our milestones left us feeling pretty weak and we got slaughtered in the 3 assassin fight. We convinced the dm to switch over to xp and now we can see a goal for ourselves as have a sense of progression over the fact we are caught in this story over just oh you got to this town. You level.

My personal take when I dm is I do a bit of both. Milestones and xp. So I build all of my encounters normally and have major story beats. Normally what I do is as the players hit those beats I reward them with enough bonus experience to level. Gives them a sense of progress and gives me some control over beating the bad guy or reaching a certain place. Sides when they beat X boss the look on their faces when you tell the guys who started fighting this guy at 4 leveled to 5 in the dungeon and when they beat him they get 5k experience they have that omg yes moment. Now you know that for the next place they need to get they should be about level 7 so a few encounters to build to six maybe a mini boss once they reach about halfway or they show up and save the city town or blank from something big boom extra xp and level seven. If that makes sense.

Also sorry for any typos doing this on my phone and my texting kung fu is weak.

[Arcangel4774]

C) I'm rewarded for staying on the railroad tracks.

This is my main issue with milestone leveling otherwise I prefer it. On one hand milestone leveling encourages different problem solving; when sneaking by or diplomacy has the same xp reward as a fight, it can be better to talk your way through. It also keeps people at the same level, which may not always happen with xp leveling. On the other hand, when these milestones are only primary quest dependent, side quests become less interesting from a gamer stand point, and only matter to somebody immersed in the world. On the (confusing and unnatural) third hand, this allows for the dm to create cooler or more interesting rewards for side quests without need to rebalance much in the future, as the pcs won't be overleveling by not sticking to the main quest.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is my main issue with milestone leveling otherwise I prefer it. On one hand milestone leveling encourages different problem solving; when sneaking by or diplomacy has the same xp reward as a fight, it can be better to talk your way through. It also keeps people at the same level, which may not always happen with xp leveling. On the other hand, when these milestones are only primary quest dependent, side quests become less interesting from a gamer stand point, and only matter to somebody immersed in the world. On the (confusing and unnatural) third hand, this allows for the dm to create cooler or more interesting rewards for side quests without need to rebalance much in the future, as the pcs won't be overleveling by not sticking to the main quest.

I get away from this by not really having a "main quest" other than what the PCs are doing. There're lots of things happening, but the "main quest" is what they're focusing on. They level when they advance their goals or accomplish things that pass a (subjective) threshold. Of course, the things they're not focusing on still advance, so there is a balance here, but I've found it helps. It also helps when attendance is varied from day to day (as I play with teenagers and busy adults who can't always make it). Everybody still goes up when appropriate.

[alchahest]

XP. It provides players with an obvious and above board reward structure. And provided you're clear what you're rewarding for, helps drive player (and thus indirectly PC) motivations.

IMX Milestone usually provides players the impression of one of three things when it comes to rewards:
A) My DM is arbitrary.
B) I'm rewarded the same no matter what I do.
C) I'm rewarded for staying on the railroad tracks.

Of course, B and C are often related / conflated.

If you make it clear that they're rewarded for 'surviving to this point, and sticking to mission goals', they might miss that it's just a variation on C. :smallamused: But not B, since surviving depends on what they do.

I won't argue against your experience, as that's personal, but I will state that at my tables, we use milstones to show that the story is progressing, and with it, the scope and scale. The DM is arbitrary, because it's their job to be an arbiter, so that's never been a problem for us. For our tables, the reward isn't levelling, levelling is a thing that happens as the story progresses - the player rewards are the story and interesting encounters and characters. Milestones don't have to mean "in a straight line". think of them more as concentric circles than posts along a highway (I know the name milestone literally comes from the side of the road markers, but hey, theatre of the mind ;) ) If XP works for your table, that's awesome - I just wanted to point out how my table differs from the ABC you've provided.

[Haldir]

Milestones are in almost every way better. The only real issue is that experience gain can no longer be used as a carrot to train player behavior. It is very nice to say "Agamemnon the Destroyer gets 300 extra experience for choosing not to destroy the bunnies because he has grown as a character!"

[Pex]

At first I was against Milestones a long while ago for blatant bias on my part - my tendency to rant against tyrannical DMing. I felt it would lead to abuse because the players never knew how close they were to leveling. It would happen on the DM's whim. Then one day when starting up a new campaign of my own to DM I found that if I gave out XP according to the rules for the particular adventure I had set up the PCs would immediately gain a level right after and if not even two levels be close. It was way too much for a not that hard an adventure. It was just fighting zombies blatantly ripping off Night of the Living Dead in scene. I didn't want to constrain myself on XP calculations, so I went with Milestones for leveling trusting myself to let the party level in a reasonable amount of real world time and rate.

Not wanting to be a hypocrite I forced myself to reevaluate my stance of playing with a DM who uses Milestones. I accepted that if the DM was going to be tyrannical on leveling he would be tyrannical in the actual play of the game. The fault would lie with the DM not the concept of Milestones. Such a DM using XP would give a low XP value to prolong leveling as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if he forced expensive training rules too. Realizing the true source of my angst, I "forgave" Milestones and am now willing to play using either method. If I couldn't trust the DM I wouldn't be playing.

[Tanarii]

This is my main issue with milestone leveling otherwise I prefer it. On one hand milestone leveling encourages different problem solving; when sneaking by or diplomacy has the same xp reward as a fight, it can be better to talk your way through. This is not a 'problem' with XP. This is a 'problem' with what the DM is choosing to reward XP for. Defeated opponents in combat, instead of defeated encounters.


It also keeps people at the same level, which may not always happen with xp leveling.Personally I've never had any problems as a DM with level 2-4 in a group, nor level 5-8. So to me, this is a non-issue. YMMV as a DM, of course. For players, I'm aware it may cause dissatisfaction and perception of unfairness.


n the (confusing and unnatural) third hand,"On the gripping hand ..." :smallwink:


this allows for the dm to create cooler or more interesting rewards for side quests without need to rebalance much in the future, as the pcs won't be overleveling by not sticking to the main quest.This is dependent on their being a main quest, and it being (mostly) linear and level balanced. In other words, most modern series of modules or adventure paths. But if you're chaining standalone module or DDEX adventures, for a group you know the levels of, over leveled is only happening because you picked a module they're too high for in the first place. If it's a sandbox, there's no such thing as overleveled, only players that chose easy over hard.

And it feeds right back into reward structure C) ... you're trying to run a (cleverly disguised) railroad. Or at least, linear adventure that he players must either follow or ... what? What happens if they just walk from the main quest looking for something else to do? Of course, despite very negative connotations for the word railroad, it's not a problem if the players buy in, either explicitly, or by accepting the assumption they're here to play the main quest and playing accordingly.

(Edit: thinking more about it, I'm not really using 'railroad' correctly in applying it to mostly linear adventures. But my initial use in my first post was explicitly about negative player perception of lack of choices.)

[Emay Ecks]

I do milestones disguised as xp. After each session, I tell the group "Ok you get *quickly checks book to see what 40% of the next level is* 740 xp for clearing out the gnoll camp, saving the orphan girl from the bridge troll peacefully, and for finding the legendary lost lute of the bards in the secret tower"

I don't need to actually keep track of what things are worth, the group feels like they're making progress (and not like the xp is on a dm's whim), they know they get rewarded for solving encounters in creative ways (and not just murdering everything to get those sweet sweet xps), and they still essentially level up at major milestones. I also don't have to award xp for fights that shouldn't be worth experience (lets shoot firebolts for the next 3 hours from the top of this chasm at the zombies shuffling peacefully down below with no risk to ourselves).

It's a win-win.

[Master O'Laughs]

I prefer XP. I play in 2 different games, one using milestone and 1 using XP.

In the milestone, we barely ever fight anything because there is no reason too. Then we finally experience a fight and it takes forever since we are not used to fighting and are uncoordinated in our attacks.

The common complaint of our table is we do not fight enough, but when Demons are getting thrown around, we do not have any idea of our relative strength and so we avoid the fight.

In the XP game, we have several new players but overtime, combat is slowly quickening. Everyone is getting better and we are learning each others abilities and styles. To me it gives incentive to adventure because you feel more in control of your destiny and have the ability to gain strength. If you come across a troll, there is a reason to try and best it instead of skipping it altogether.

We do not digress into murder hoboism either. When we came across a bear, someone cast speak with animals and avoided the encounter.

All in all, I think the benefits of XP outweigh any negatives.

[Arcangel4774]

But if you're chaining standalone module or DDEX adventures, for a group you know the levels of, over leveled is only happening because you picked a module they're too high for in the first place. If it's a sandbox, there's no such thing as overleveled, only players that chose easy over hard.

You are probably right on the money here with dissecting my reasoning. My dm has been running our group through oota but included lots of side quests that he created himself. Im not certain how to create spoilers while mobile, but by time a certain group cought up with us, we mopped the floor with them.

[Tanarii]

We do not digress into murder hoboism either. When we came across a bear, someone cast speak with animals and avoided the encounter.
Personally, I reward XP for things like that. It's an 'encounter', and it's a potentially hostile / dangerous encounter, and the Pcs have prepped resources, and if not used as a ritual (which is hard to do in time to prevent combat if its a potential outcome) they've also expended resources. They've resolved an encounter by my book. XP rewarded.

[Contrast]

I won't argue against your experience, as that's personal, but I will state that at my tables, we use milstones to show that the story is progressing, and with it, the scope and scale. The DM is arbitrary, because it's their job to be an arbiter, so that's never been a problem for us. For our tables, the reward isn't levelling, levelling is a thing that happens as the story progresses - the player rewards are the story and interesting encounters and characters. Milestones don't have to mean "in a straight line". think of them more as concentric circles than posts along a highway (I know the name milestone literally comes from the side of the road markers, but hey, theatre of the mind ;) ) If XP works for your table, that's awesome - I just wanted to point out how my table differs from the ABC you've provided.

This.

Tanarii you seem to be suggesting milestone XP only works in a very specific way (so the DM decides at the start of the campaign that they will level when they beat the bandit camp and then again when they confront the mastermind and again when they uncover the conspiracy etc. and as such if the players never go to the bandit camp it is impossible for them to level up). That doesn't have to be the case - if you played a sandbox game using milestone leveling then yes if you choose to sit around doing nothing much of consequence you're probably never going to level (or level exceedingly slowly) but that's true of XP leveling as well. As long as you're going around doing things and being adventurers, the DM will choose a point that they feel it is appropriate for you to step up a level. It'll be more difficult to time the advancement in power with a thematically appropriate moment in a sandbox but again that seems true of XP leveling too.

I would also point out XP is not the only reward for completing tasks. Your characters aren't doing tasks for XP, they're doing it for gold or allies or respect or fame or etc. If you ignore plot hooks and do less things in an effort to optimise your nominal 'XP gain' you will have less of those (I would argue someone purposefully taking that approach is also missing the point of tabletop RPGs compared to computer games but that's a separate issue I guess :smalltongue:).

[Tanarii]

Tanarii you seem to be suggesting milestone XP only works in a very specific way (so the DM decides at the start of the campaign that they will level when they beat the bandit camp and then again when they confront the mastermind and again when they uncover the conspiracy etc. and as such if the players never go to the bandit camp it is impossible for them to level up).
I'm not. I'm suggesting the common feedback (ie perception of milestones) the times I've asked player which they'd prefer for a campaign when it'd be potentially possible to use milestones. (Ie not an open table.)

Also 'the DM chooses when it's appropriate' in a sandbox is seems to be what results in perception A) from my list.

Edit: okay, I'll also admit to personal interpretation of the why, based on my experience that these perceptions commonly exist. :smallwink:

[Knaight]

I favor milestones, or more accurately I dislike them less. XP adds a great deal of accounting to the game that I'd rather not deal with, and while I appreciate the idea of a concrete incentive structure I don't particularly like the actual incentives or the way the system goes about creating them. Milestones then wins by default - though I prefer either flat leveling on a per session basis (every session, every 2 sessions, every 3 sessions, a table for sessions to each level that keeps the pace of XP a bit better, etc.) that is known to the players ahead of time.

[Ixidor92]

Speaking from a DMs pint of view I much prefer milestones, albeit a rather as hoc one. I have a group of 6 in my campaign, so trying to set up encounters that are fun, challenging, and allow for decent xp gain is too much book keeping. I simply ask myself at the end of each session: "have the players done enough to reasonably grow in strength?" And if the answer is yes they level up. I have had no problems with characters avoiding encounters because of this, as everyone focuses on their character motivation rather than optimizing as a player

[Waterdeep Merch]

I started with milestones, then cautiously approached XP at my players' behest. Haven't looked back since.

It's to offer a tangible reward to the players that doesn't actually change anything that wasn't planned in the first place. It also means doing side quests, going down a different rabbit hole, and the like is sought out by the players even if there's no treasure involved. And as mentioned above, controlling what I give XP for can change the nature of the game by incentivizing certain types of play.

Recently I've developed a more interactive XP system I call Residuum (callback to one of the few things I liked about 4e), which basically means XP before it's XP, with the added benefit of being usable for spellcasting purposes and magic item crafting. By handling it this way, the players are more thirsty than ever for the stuff and I don't worry over much about people falling behind in level, since they did it of their own accord for a different boon. Harkens back to the old days when you could 'spend' XP on certain spells and crafting, just now intentionally part of the level/loot dynamic.

[Gorgo]

I prefer XP, in large part because of the sense of making progress after every session. The power gamer in me likes getting the reward-cookie every run as opposed to levels coming at less-predictable times.

Part of this is that, as a GM, you can see how the players are doing in terms of making progress towards the next milestone, whereas, as a PC, you often don't have that information until you get to what is clearly a climax point.

[alchahest]

I think part of the disconnect is that some people see "milestone" as "every x sessions" where at my tables it's always "Where it fits the narrative, such as after a particularly harrowing combat, or engaging social encounter"

leveling and xp aren't really seen as rewards at our table, advancing our characters' personal journey is. Working towards goals and making progress narratively is. I don't see xp as an incremental reward, because all it is is a number. I get much more satisfaction knowing that a particular NPC's scheming is stymied, if just until the next council meeting. When we level up, it's fun, but it's an abstraction of how we interact with the combat side of the world. It's a signal that we're moving the skinner box. and that's okay, but not required for me to feel rewarded.

I'm also vehemently against the idea of "killing as a job, xp as a paycheck". Players shouldn't have to 'earn' mechanical participation. One of our players had a kid, does that mean his character all of a sudden falls out of the skinner box? can no longer keep up while we're adventuring in our level appropriate realms, defending common folk from threats beyond their ability to combat? No, it means a friend of ours had a wonderful thing happen and they are going to miss some sessions of our game to spend time with family, and then return to us and get right back into the fold.

Leveling is a cool mechanical way to show character prowess. But it doesn't affect the characters' attitudes, ideas, personality. It only affects the numbers of and types of dice they can roll. I can't fathom punishing a player by making the dice rolling portion of the game less fun because they can't be there for every session.

[Tanarii]

I can't fathom punishing a player by making the dice rolling portion of the game less fun because they can't be there for every session.
That's interesting. I see leveling as a reward for participating AND overcoming obstacles successfully.

I can fathom not wanting someone who can't attend for personal life reasons to feel they're neing treated unfairly*. It is, after all, a game, even when / if it's one where the players often enjoy playing to win. But often 'win' has nothing to do with in-game goals or events, it's a meta thing. Sitting down with your friends to have a good time is winning for many people.

On the flip side, it's not fair* to those people that have put in time and effort into both developing their character (which takes gameplay) and progressing the campaign or adventures by actively participating.

Again, this comes down to player perception. If you 'reward' non-participation, you may end up engendering a perception of participation and actions not mattering. Or you may not.

For sure, it depends largely on the specific table / players, and their goals. I don't think milestones are inherently bad. Lots of good reasons for them have been brought up in this thread. What's important is knowing what the possible ramifications of each system are, and what the desired player/table goals are for participating in the game.

*fair is a perception thing, and often viewed differently by different people for the same situation.

[MxKit]

Neither, exactly. I use the Session-Based Advancement alternate rules from the Dungeon Master's Guide. I find it works a lot easier, keeping players leveling up at the same pace they would using either XP or Milestones, not interrupting the flow of gameplay at the table (no leveling up partway through a session! just adjust your character sheet at the very end of the session or between sessions and you're good to go), keeping the characters all at the same level, and giving a ton of freedom to the players. They don't have to combat or stay on the "main quest" or anything, they're going to level up after that session, or the next one, anyway, like clockwork. They can't affect it at all, so wanting to level up sooner rather than later doesn't affect their in-character actions in the least.

It's just absolutely the easiest method for me, and my players seem to really enjoy knowing they have guaranteed levels coming up, too. Like someone said, you can't award extra XP to someone for really, really good roleplaying or doing something amazing in-game, using this method, but that's okay. I like awarding players things like cantrips or feats -- not too often, of course, but giving a Fighter the Mage Slayer feat for free because he managed to take the lich out himself somehow when everyone else dropped, or giving the Ranger the Druidcraft cantrip for RPing her role as the taciturn but intensely skilled guide who likes animals more than humanoids incredibly well somehow, can feel great for them and not make them significantly overpowered or ahead of the other players.

[alchahest]

it's less that there's a reward for nonparticipation and more that going to a game and not being able to interact with the mechanics is not satisfying for the player. like if you were the only straight fighter in 3.5 and the rest of your party was CoDzillas, and you barely got to do anything - punishing a player for missing some games isn't going to make them eager to show up, it's just going to shrink your table.

Leveling would be an adequate reward if it only made you better in relation to the game, but as the challenge increases with level, all it does is keep parity with the game.

Leveling as a reward would be like adding the tanuki suit in to Mario 1. It gives you something over and above as a reward.
Leveling as it is presented in D&D is not a reward, it's getting the hookshot in Link to the Past. it's a cool trick but you need it in order to continue, as there are dungeons that can't be done without it.

I think it's also disingenuous to say that someone who has to miss some sessions is less invested in their character's story. We play narrative heavy and we have people in and out due to personal or work commitments often. but nobody is there just to roll dice, they're there to experience a collective story, and the reward is in the play. And someone missing sessions shouldn't mean that they no longer get to operate along with their friends and roll dice in a way that isn't just frustration or feeling inadequate.

Nobody at my table wants a friend to feel frustration when we get together to play a cooperative game. It can be a real table drainer if someone just can't roll a hit, or goes down over and over and can't participate because they're constantly unconscious/making death saves. D&D isn't work. Nobody is going to be fired if the goblin quota for the month isn't met, it'll just be a change in the narrative.

[Waterdeep Merch]

it's less that there's a reward for nonparticipation and more that going to a game and not being able to interact with the mechanics is not satisfying for the player. like if you were the only straight fighter in 3.5 and the rest of your party was CoDzillas, and you barely got to do anything - punishing a player for missing some games isn't going to make them eager to show up, it's just going to shrink your table.

Leveling would be an adequate reward if it only made you better in relation to the game, but as the challenge increases with level, all it does is keep parity with the game.

Leveling as a reward would be like adding the tanuki suit in to Mario 1. It gives you something over and above as a reward.
Leveling as it is presented in D&D is not a reward, it's getting the hookshot in Link to the Past. it's a cool trick but you need it in order to continue, as there are dungeons that can't be done without it.

I think it's also disingenuous to say that someone who has to miss some sessions is less invested in their character's story. We play narrative heavy and we have people in and out due to personal or work commitments often. but nobody is there just to roll dice, they're there to experience a collective story, and the reward is in the play. And someone missing sessions shouldn't mean that they no longer get to operate along with their friends and roll dice in a way that isn't just frustration or feeling inadequate.

Nobody at my table wants a friend to feel frustration when we get together to play a cooperative game. It can be a real table drainer if someone just can't roll a hit, or goes down over and over and can't participate because they're constantly unconscious/making death saves. D&D isn't work. Nobody is going to be fired if the goblin quota for the month isn't met, it'll just be a change in the narrative.
I've had the opposite experience with players, seeing them drop games with another DM that uses milestones whenever they feel like it but making sure to attend mine unless something's absolutely preventing it because they don't want to miss out on the XP.

Which is especially weird considering I often offer players that have to drop my games special sessions at their convenience to help them keep up. They're only not ascending alongside their friends if they're both not attending and ignoring me, both of which would make them a non-player anyway.

This is before we get into slightly different levels (outside of the very first few) not really mattering all that much in terms of party strength, especially in 5e. XP requirements for levels rise exponentially. If you're three levels behind the party but fighting the same threats that would be more appropriate for them, you 1.) can still keep up and contribute, and 2.) will gain levels very quickly and catch up.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Pretty sure the thread is too long at this point for anyone to really bother reading, but sure.

I like to use xp, but play it fast and loose. I don't worry overly much about it, because if the players feel like they haven't leveled in awhile, I just give it to them, when it seems appropriate, anyway. I don't like milestone because I think it's too easy for a forgetful or stingy dm to leave the players hanging, and I feel like xp is a clear sign for the players that they did something each session, not just at the end of an arch. It also allows players to feel out how far from their next level they are, instead of just telling them "you'll get there when you get there."

[Honest Tiefling]

As a DM, I prefer milestone. Less bookkeeping is always good, and it just feels better with the story.

I was going to type a response but why do so when Oramac already said what I was going to say? If the DM feels more comfortable with it, then that's another reason to do it as I'd rather hold off a level or two then overwhelm a DM.

I also don't agree with the idea of a reward for participating. It's a game. The reward for participating should be the game itself, because it should be fun. When people miss games, it's usually due to work or family concerns, so they don't really have a choice there and probably don't want to be missing the game. If the issue is that the player doesn't show up because they're flaky, then it's probably better to discuss with them expectations then to have them be able to contribute less to the story and game.

[Tanarii]

I think it's also disingenuous to say that someone who has to miss some sessions is less invested in their character's story. Good thing I never said nor implied that then.

Edit:

Nobody at my table wants a friend to feel frustration when we get together to play a cooperative game. It can be a real table drainer if someone just can't roll a hit, or goes down over and over and can't participate because they're constantly unconscious/making death saves. D&D isn't work. Nobody is going to be fired if the goblin quota for the month isn't met, it'll just be a change in the narrative.Circling back to this: 5e isn't 3e. A difference of a level isn't going to make the game unplayable for a character, unable to effectively participate. Even a difference of 3 levels won't do that once you hit Tier 2. It is worth dividing player groups by Tier (1-4, 5-10, etc), but that's because 5e has explicitly created break points with a relatively huge jump in power at those points. So unless you're trying to run cross-Tier groups (a levels 2 or 3 in a group of 5-6s for example), this shouldn't be a problem. The game math does not require that the group advance in lockstep.

It might cause a perception issue for the player who is a level behind. But it won't cause a huge system math problem.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I was going to type a response but why do so when Oramac already said what I was going to say? If the DM feels more comfortable with it, then that's another reason to do it as I'd rather hold off a level or two then overwhelm a DM.

I also don't agree with the idea of a reward for participating. It's a game. The reward for participating should be the game itself, because it should be fun. When people miss games, it's usually due to work or family concerns, so they don't really have a choice there and probably don't want to be missing the game. If the issue is that the player doesn't show up because they're flaky, then it's probably better to discuss with them expectations then to have them be able to contribute less to the story and game.
It's more about game theory. People do things when they either enjoy them or believe that something will happen that they will enjoy later if they do something else now. By creating incentive, you can guide your party to do something other than live in the moment. XP is a way of doing this, though it's not the only one. Treasure, a strong story, likeable characters- there's a lot of different types of incentive you can use in an RPG.

I had a player decide to try DMing for the first time about two weeks ago. It was a disaster, and mostly because they botched incentive. We went into it knowing there would be no XP. Not a problem, we've done this before. At the start of the game, he decided to completely hand-wave any and all character motivations we may have in an attempt to give a fairly generic opening about waking up in a tavern, before introducing every NPC as basically a huge sanctimonious jerk. Next, we were forced to accept some insanely stupid quest to... go to a fair. For real. That was it.

In character, we each tried rationalizing why we wanted to go to the fair in the first place. By the time we had some sort of quasi-believable reasoning, he then had two of his unlikeable jerkbag NPC's drop us off at a haunted mansion that we protested, in character, made zero sense. This is where he expected us to spend the session. The fair was a shaggy dog story. We never got there. So the poor incentive we were given at the start meant nothing because nothing happened.

The mansion was mostly empty, with a pitiful amount of treasure, no interesting sights, and a grand total of three fights total that again had no reason for being there and were insanely boring (he made up for the lack of difficulty by grossly inflating HP and AC. Giant crabs topped over 120 HP with 18 AC). Then we left, annoyed that there was absolutely no point to going there. Then the NPC's were jerks again and we all openly talked about killing them in character, so the DM decided to narrate that they died before we could kill them in what could be best described as a raging plot accident. Then we fought a water elemental at a random lake for some reason with way too much HP. Then a completely random player got a +1 magic hammer. Cue credits. The DM apologized and thanked us regular DM's for the hard work he never realized we had to do.

Here's the funny thing- we mostly enjoyed the session. Not the fights, not the exploration, and not the NPC's. We had all crafted really interesting characters with complex motivations that played off each other in really amusing ways. So the DM had the worst time getting us to do anything other than talk to each other. We had no serious incentive to play his game, and the cool stuff was all about us anyway.

I'm not saying XP would have saved that train wreck. But maybe we would've cared some iota for it had there been something to gain/cool to do.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'm not saying XP would have saved that train wreck. But maybe we would've cared some iota for it had there been something to gain/cool to do.

Hrm. That's a fair point, but I think the idea that the game itself as a reward still has merit. Experience can be used as a carrot, but not with games more focused on story and plot.

There is also the issue that if someone falls behind, it's easier/better to simply make a new character or quit the game. It's hard, even in 5e, to always keep up and feel like you have the spotlight if you are too many levels behind. I would argue that loot or interesting combat (AKA, doing something cool) are probably better carrots to encourage interest.

[Ixidor92]

What I'm seeing from all the arguments is that whether XP or Milestones are better seems to depend entirely on the table in question. If the players have incentive in progressing the narrative and building relationships within the world, milestones seem to be a much simpler way to do so. If the players are more mechanically minded, or continually want to see the rewards for their deeds, XP seems to be better.

[FreddyNoNose]

I can see use in both. Running 1st edition, I use xp but not by the book as I don't give xp for say gold. Running bushido has a combo advancement of honor and xp.

Milestones could be use in games that needed that type of progression. Even 1st edition if you were running a series of specific modules that require specific levels to play.

Also, games without xp could certainly be done this way. For example, The Rules with No Name had advancement from Citizen -> Gunman -> Shootist -> Legend.

[alchahest]

Good thing I never said nor implied that then.


Sorry, I got that implication from this, here:



On the flip side, it's not fair* to those people that have put in time and effort into both developing their character (which takes gameplay) and progressing the campaign or adventures by actively participating.

the implication that someone who misses sessions is less invested / put less "work" into playing a game because they have other things that can take up their time. And while I agree 5e is significantly better than 3.x for scaling, you're still restricting their interaction with the mechanics. the difference between a level 4 fighter and a level 5 fighter is huge - you get literally twice as many attacks when you hit level five. Combat is very different for you.

I guess I'll pose a question, then - what does holding back a character's advancement add to the plot, add to the gameplay for all players? What is the value you get from punitive action against a player who cannot be there for sessions?

-edit-

I just realised that I'm being defensive about this - I am not trying to change the way your table plays, and I'm sorry for being defensive/agressive in my wording.

I'm curious about the value that punitive treatment of players adds to a table - can you shed some light on how keeping players back (who've already had to miss sessions) increases the fun at your table?

[Sigreid]

That's interesting. I see leveling as a reward for participating AND overcoming obstacles successfully.

I can fathom not wanting someone who can't attend for personal life reasons to feel they're neing treated unfairly*. It is, after all, a game, even when / if it's one where the players often enjoy playing to win. But often 'win' has nothing to do with in-game goals or events, it's a meta thing. Sitting down with your friends to have a good time is winning for many people.

On the flip side, it's not fair* to those people that have put in time and effort into both developing their character (which takes gameplay) and progressing the campaign or adventures by actively participating.

Again, this comes down to player perception. If you 'reward' non-participation, you may end up engendering a perception of participation and actions not mattering. Or you may not.

For sure, it depends largely on the specific table / players, and their goals. I don't think milestones are inherently bad. Lots of good reasons for them have been brought up in this thread. What's important is knowing what the possible ramifications of each system are, and what the desired player/table goals are for participating in the game.

*fair is a perception thing, and often viewed differently by different people for the same situation.

In our group, we switch off the DM responsibility. We've agreed to level lock the characters together in order to ensure that the person who DMs for a while doesn't find themselves effectively punished and behind the others because of it.

[BRC]

I prefer Milestones.

XP inevitably leads to some gaming of the system. If you get XP for killing things, you'r discouraged from doing anything that doesn't involve maximum carnage. If you get XP for "Overcoming" encounters, then you're discouraged from bypassing those encounters.

It depends whether or not you see leveling up as a reward for the players succeeding/doing good stuff, or as a way to mark points in the story, shake up gameplay, and represent the characters becoming more powerful.

[Theodoxus]

XP. It provides players with an obvious and above board reward structure. And provided you're clear what you're rewarding for, helps drive player (and thus indirectly PC) motivations.

IMX Milestone usually provides players the impression of one of three things when it comes to rewards:
A) My DM is arbitrary.
B) I'm rewarded the same no matter what I do.
C) I'm rewarded for staying on the railroad tracks.

Of course, B and C are often related / conflated.

If you make it clear that they're rewarded for 'surviving to this point, and sticking to mission goals', they might miss that it's just a variation on C. :smallamused: But not B, since surviving depends on what they do.

I use Milestones. I see what you're getting at, and how I avoid it is by subdividing the plot development. If a chapter has a Milestone at the end, but the group only hit 3 of the 5 chapter objectives, yet also did 2 side quests, I'll reward the Milestone.

It did come up last night; the group did about 75% of the work of where I felt the Milestone should be, but they used ingenuity to avoid a TPK with a dragon they're not quite ready to face. The session ended as they're about to storm a castle. The Milestone for 4th level was surviving the dragon and unlocking the megadungeon they're trying to enter. Well, they didn't get the key to the last puzzle piece, but skipped ahead to the castle that in the next chapter. The players pleaded for their 3rd Milestone (to get to 4th) - using the dragon and exploration as their proof.

I acquiesced, mostly because their being 4th level will let me run the castle as planned rather than having to dumb down the encounters, or have them take multiple attempts at clearing it.

If I were using XP tracking, they'd be no where close to 4th level... unless I offered generous quest xp - and at that point, I might as well use Milestones.

[Tanarii]

Sorry, I got that implication from this, here:



the implication that someone who misses sessions is less invested / put less "work" into playing a game because they have other things that can take up their time. They have put in less "time" than the person who was there. This is a fact. They have definitely had less opportunity for character development, because that can only happen during game play. (They may actually have more development overall of course, because the rate of development during play varies, and not just as a group.) These are both facts.

That has nothing to do with how invested they are in their character, unless you're referring to Time invested instead of Emotional investment. And those two things are not necessarily causal. (They may correlate however.)


And while I agree 5e is significantly better than 3.x for scaling, you're still restricting their interaction with the mechanics. the difference between a level 4 fighter and a level 5 fighter is huge - you get literally twice as many attacks when you hit level five. Combat is very different for you. lol I notice you focused on the biggest break point in 5e, despite the fact I called it out. Meanwhile you can have a 3rd play with 4th without major issue. Or a 5th with 8ths or 9ths. Easily.


I guess I'll pose a question, then - what does holding back a character's advancement add to the plot, add to the gameplay for all players?

What is the value you get from punitive action against a player who cannot be there for sessions?What plot? This is a TRPG, not a novel. :smalltongue: (I know we're gonna disagree on this vehemently, so it's a throwaway joke. Let's just assume we disagree completely on this.)

The viewpoint is that its not holding back advancement, nor punishing anyone. Those who have participated, or overcome in game obstacles, are rewarded by advancing.

Obviously this depends on your perspective. :smallwink:


I just realised that I'm being defensive about this - I am not trying to change the way your table plays, and I'm sorry for being defensive/agressive in my wording.Thats fine by me. Defensive away! :) But I can see if you felt that somehow you were being accused of badwrongfun for allowing players to level and/or gain XP despite not being at the table, you might end up being defensive.


I'm curious about the value that punitive treatment of players adds to a table - can you shed some light on how keeping players back (who've already had to miss sessions) increases the fun at your table?at my table, its not punishment. It's just a failure to be there to get a reward. It increases fun by giving a extra feeling of accomplishment to those who participated in, and struggled and fought to overcome, challenges.

If you guys get your rewards from something else, and increase fun in other ways, good on you.

[FreddyNoNose]

Sorry, I got that implication from this, here:



the implication that someone who misses sessions is less invested / put less "work" into playing a game because they have other things that can take up their time. And while I agree 5e is significantly better than 3.x for scaling, you're still restricting their interaction with the mechanics. the difference between a level 4 fighter and a level 5 fighter is huge - you get literally twice as many attacks when you hit level five. Combat is very different for you.

I guess I'll pose a question, then - what does holding back a character's advancement add to the plot, add to the gameplay for all players? What is the value you get from punitive action against a player who cannot be there for sessions?

-edit-

I just realised that I'm being defensive about this - I am not trying to change the way your table plays, and I'm sorry for being defensive/agressive in my wording.

I'm curious about the value that punitive treatment of players adds to a table - can you shed some light on how keeping players back (who've already had to miss sessions) increases the fun at your table?

Well if you are not there to play because of "reasons" it only makes sense that you don't get the rewards/penalties of it. It sounds like entitlement to me.

[alchahest]

Well if you are not there to play because of "reasons" it only makes sense that you don't get the rewards/penalties of it. It sounds like entitlement to me.

That makes it sound kinda like an MMO. Like a high level raid. We play D&D as if it were a cooperative role playing game. But if you see play as work and levels as a reward, that is entirely valid, and I hope you have a good time with it.

anyway, we use milestone because it makes sense for our tables.

[Desteplo]

I used xp
-now I use the UA xp system
-I have 5 quests going for my players to do though. So it's their choice where they want to go
-want to find a hidden coven of witches? Crawl your way through a mind flayer space ship? Lost ruins of an ancient city? Explore?
-I have random tables galore

[Contrast]

Snip

It's worth saying people missing sessions being at the same level isn't necessarily an issue in an XP based level up system. If the DM just rules that everyone has the level same of XP then the system is basically just used to show you what percentage you are towards the next level and anyone who misses a session just automatically catches up.

In the same way that someone who misses the session when you milestone level up is likely to be leveled up. I agree with you that I don't personally see much point in punishing people in game because they couldn't make a session (or if their character died or whatever). The punishment is that you missed out on playing the game. :smalltongue:


It's more about game theory. People do things when they either enjoy them or believe that something will happen that they will enjoy later if they do something else now. By creating incentive, you can guide your party to do something other than live in the moment. XP is a way of doing this, though it's not the only one. Treasure, a strong story, likeable characters- there's a lot of different types of incentive you can use in an RPG.

...Snip...

I'm not saying XP would have saved that train wreck. But maybe we would've cared some iota for it had there been something to gain/cool to do.


I'm not. I'm suggesting the common feedback (ie perception of milestones) the times I've asked player which they'd prefer for a campaign when it'd be potentially possible to use milestones. (Ie not an open table.)

Also 'the DM chooses when it's appropriate' in a sandbox is seems to be what results in perception A) from my list.

Edit: okay, I'll also admit to personal interpretation of the why, based on my experience that these perceptions commonly exist. :smallwink:

I'm not going to argue that milestone leveling isn't arbitrary because it clearly is. That said, in the XP system your DM has complete control over how much XP you get as well (for any non-combat encounter its entirely up to the whim of the DM how much XP you get and for combat encounters its up to them if they follow the guidelines or award reduced or bonus XP for reasons of their own invention). If you don't trust your DM to do it 'properly' you're screwed in either case.

I'll agree in a situation where the game is otherwise completely uninteresting or you don't trust your DM to be competent that XP leveling may keep you hooked in when you're close to leveling. I'd argue that's like putting a rug over the hole in your floor and announcing the problem fixed. If I'm playing in a game that is uninteresting/with a DM I don't trust then I need to fix those two things or I should stop playing. Suggesting a swap to XP leveling doesn't change that.

One of the issues with milestone leveling is that its most attractive to DMs with little experience (avoid complexity of figuring out XP awards, simple and quick) but they're probably the ones least likely to have a good grasp of when the best times to step things up are and they really should be calculating XP anyway to check hypothetically how challenging fights will be. So if you've got a more experienced player I'd suggest they give a new DM a hand. But again, I'd say the same for the XP system too so :smalltongue:

[rollingForInit]

It's to offer a tangible reward to the players that doesn't actually change anything that wasn't planned in the first place. It also means doing side quests, going down a different rabbit hole, and the like is sought out by the players even if there's no treasure involved. And as mentioned above, controlling what I give XP for can change the nature of the game by incentivizing certain types of play.

I don't really understand this criticism against milestones. I don't mind that others use XP, but you can totally have milestones and still encourage players to go on side quests and exlore and whatever. If a DM has set milestones in a way that discourages this, then that's just a bad use of milestones. If my players got side-tracked by some side quest they'd found fun, I'd just have a milestone at the end of it (or at the end of several, depending on how long they take). It just means that, as opposed to using XP, the DM will decide when it's been long enough, and can let players level up at good points in the story.

[Tanarii]

the DM will decide when it's been long enough, and can let players level up at good points in the story.
This is the biggest problem I have with milestones, and the biggest perceptual break I see in other players. They associated with DMs that believe that Story has anything to do TRPGs, and all the negative stuff that generally comes with that belief. In particular, railroading and a loss of meaningful player agency.

[alchahest]

I think one obfuscating fact is that we see the story as being built by the players based on prompts and information in the world created by the DM - we decide what to do, how to do it, etc, and our DM adjudicates and ensures a compelling narrative and NPC interactions. There's no railroad beyond occasional "If you flee there is a good chance that the chimera will devour the human prisoners" - situational stickiness, rather than a a guided "you have to do this, then this, then this, then this". We often end sessions with brief decisionmaking on the player side, telling the DM where we're going, what we're planning,etc, to give him an opportunity to create challenges / rewards / story hooks before next session.

Milestones don't just mean "you level up when you kill NPC1, then when you retrieve treasure2, then when you beat encounter x". It's usually "after a particularly intense challenge (either combat or otherwise)" or "you've got downtime before you enact the next portion of your plan, you level up during preparation". This is predicated on the idea that story and roleplaying do matter, of course. It's different table to table

[Tanarii]

This is predicated on the idea that story and roleplaying do matter, of course.
And story is the antithesis of roleplaying. The former requires plot, or possibly fate. The latter requires making decisions for your character in the fantasy world that meaningfully affect things.

'Energent story' is a different thing from 'story'. Emergent Story is merely something written after all the meaningful decisions have been made and had results, with the narrative and underlying plot back-filled to create an apparent meaning from events. Story has plot to begin with, and instead of roleplaying / making meaningful decisions with meaningful results, you have narrative results that bind to the desired plot. It undermines Roleplaying.

Edit: to be clearer
roleplaying play is making decisions based on the desired results for your character
Story or narrative play is maki decisions based on the desired resulting story.

[Atalas]

As a DM, I prefer milestone. Less bookkeeping is always good, and it just feels better with the story.

The one downside to it, that I've noticed, is that it's harder to give characters extra bonuses for cool in-character actions. Things that deserve more than just Inspiration, but not a full level. With an XP system, you can give the player extra xp for playing in-character or doing some cool thing outside of killing goblins. With milestone, you can't do that.

My DM gives arbitrary boosts. fighter ended up listening to an old Druid tell of the history of Silverymoon? Well, now they have advantage on History checks in relation to Silverymoon. Cleric and wizard are given ancient Netherese books to read during downtime to obtain boosts of various types at certain points (custom spells, ie spells from old editions not in 5e made on 5e level). DM is creative, waiting to see what he does for the newly-joined Paladin. Rogue is coasting along on natural Rogue abilities after they were given a rapier that can extend so they can melee attack at extreme range AND use the blasted thing like a hookshot.

[Bubzors]

And story is the antithesis of roleplaying. The former requires plot, or possibly fate. The latter requires making decisions for your character in the fantasy world that meaningfully affect things.

'Energent story' is a different thing from 'story'. Emergent Story is merely something written after all the meaningful decisions have been made and had results, with the narrative and underlying plot back-filled to create an apparent meaning from events. Story has plot to begin with, and instead of roleplaying / making meaningful decisions with meaningful results, you have narrative results that bind to the desired plot. It undermines Roleplaying.

Edit: to be clearer
roleplaying play is making decisions based on the desired results for your character
Story or narrative play is maki decisions based on the desired resulting story.

Wow couldn't disagree more with you. For any good campaign or adventure you need some kind of story, otherwise it's just a string of unrelated combats/encounters.

I do not think it's railroading for a DM to have a general idea of how things will progress. Having believable villains, allies and factions with different resources, goals and motivations makes the game more interesting. When the party does something, like destroying an enemy base for example, the DM then can use those resources/goals/motivations to logically determine the next steps a faction would take.

To the original post, my table uses milestone leveling and has since the early days of 3.5. XP is a hassle, more bookkeeping and if used by the book only good for killing things. I'm of the opinion that XP is best left out of the game, like alignment

[Tanarii]

For any good campaign or adventure you need some kind of story, otherwise it's just a string of unrelated combats/encounters.

I do not think it's railroading for a DM to have a general idea of how things will progress. Having believable villains, allies and factions with different resources, goals and motivations makes the game more interesting.This has nothing to do with Story or Narrative. That's just a coherent (imaginary) reality, with creatures that have plans and try to do things outside of the players.

None of those have to have anything to do with story: the player making decisions on how they want the story to progress, or the DM resolving their declared action based on what makes the most sense for the narrative / story.

They can easily exist in roleplaying: players making decisions based on how they want their characters to succeed, or the DM resolving their declare action based on what makes sense in the coherent (imaginary) reality.


When the party does something, like destroying an enemy base for example, the DM then can use those resources/goals/motivations to logically determine the next steps a faction would take. Resolving results of character actions 'logically', what makes sense to the DM within the coherent (imaginary) reality, is the exact opposite of resolving them to advance 'story'.

[Twizzly513]

I used to use milestone simply because I didn't know how to appropriately award XP for doing things. Eventually, though, I began to use XP as a reward. Milestone is good for simplicity, but for some reason my characters like to keep track of XP. Probably because even when they don't level or get items, it gives them a sense of progression. This also makes me feel better about when they haven't leveled up in a while, because I know they are progressing.

[Sigreid]

Wow couldn't disagree more with you. For any good campaign or adventure you need some kind of story, otherwise it's just a string of unrelated combats/encounters.

I do not think it's railroading for a DM to have a general idea of how things will progress. Having believable villains, allies and factions with different resources, goals and motivations makes the game more interesting. When the party does something, like destroying an enemy base for example, the DM then can use those resources/goals/motivations to logically determine the next steps a faction would take.

To the original post, my table uses milestone leveling and has since the early days of 3.5. XP is a hassle, more bookkeeping and if used by the book only good for killing things. I'm of the opinion that XP is best left out of the game, like alignment

I would say that the story forms around the players actions. When I DM I usually don't know where the bunny trail goes. I have a few hooks, a few things that are happening, then the story forms around what the players do or do not do. The players are writing the story, not just advancing it.

[Contrast]

This is the biggest problem I have with milestones, and the biggest perceptual break I see in other players. They associated with DMs that believe that Story has anything to do TRPGs, and all the negative stuff that generally comes with that belief. In particular, railroading and a loss of meaningful player agency.

And XP is associated with DMs who's only focus in a campaign is the next combat encounter with little to no benefit, consideration, effort or thought given to other aspects of game play.

I'll give your hypothetical XP DM the benefit of the doubt if you'll give my hypothetical milestone DM the benefit of the doubt :smalltongue:

[Findulidas]

Sometimes Im amazed how even the simplest of things like what people like the most out of xp or milestones can devolve into few pages of arguments.

Im for milestones if anyones wondering, but what is best is subjective the more I think about it. Milestones are simpler though and its a system that really doesnt have to be complex in 5e.

[Tanarii]

And XP is associated with DMs who's only focus in a campaign is the next combat encounter with little to no benefit, consideration, effort or thought given to other aspects of game play.

I'll give your hypothetical XP DM the benefit of the doubt if you'll give my hypothetical milestone DM the benefit of the doubt :smalltongue:
Hahahha yes well put. My negative Story bias and associations with other aspects of the game are a separate perception issue from the benefits and drawbacks of milestones vs XP in general.

[JBPuffin]

I have to use XP for designing an encounter (usually stick to harder fights) for balance, and I'll use XP once I have a consistent game I'm DMing because every other DM I've had has used milestones, and honestly? I've had it modeled well enough before that I'm kind of done with it.

[Foxydono]

Although milestones are easier for the DM, I still prefer an xp-based approach. One of the main reasons is that I find milestones suffocating. It's like you walk down a fixed path and you always end up at the level you need to be to do a certain thing within the adventure. Maybe the characters end up being lvl 14 to defeat a boss they would otherwise face at lvl 10 with milestones. Or maybe they are lvl 7 and it's a total party kill. I'm not saying that's a prefferable outcome, but I want the sense of that it could happen.

For me d&d is a world were anything is possible and I feel milestones are blocking this because they control the pace of the adventure. At least that's how it feels to me.

[BW022]

Neither... fixed XP per session.

Give 250xp per session plus up to 50xp for good roleplaying. Scale it up as soon at the first character reaches 4th, then 8th, 12th, etc.

Easy to track, works well in non-linear campaigns, keeps people who miss sessions from falling behind too much, allows the DM to easily predict when characters will leave and if the campaign is on track, etc. It doesn't penalize characters for roleplaying, doesn't encourage attacking things for XP, nor does it run the risk of leveling too fast if players avoid combats and reach milestones through other means.

I'd use milestone only for set adventures.

[Contrast]

Although milestones are easier for the DM, I still prefer an xp-based approach. One of the main reasons is that I find milestones suffocating. It's like you walk down a fixed path and you always end up at the level you need to be to do a certain thing within the adventure. Maybe the characters end up being lvl 14 to defeat a boss they would otherwise face at lvl 10 with milestones. Or maybe they are lvl 7 and it's a total party kill. I'm not saying that's a prefferable outcome, but I want the sense of that it could happen.

For me d&d is a world were anything is possible and I feel milestones are blocking this because they control the pace of the adventure. At least that's how it feels to me.

Situation A
Players: We don't fancy taking on this boss, we're gonna go do other stuff for a bit

Milestone
*level up if they do much of significance, return and stomp the boss*

XP
*level up if they fight a lot of encounters, return and stomp the boss*

Situation B
Players: Hey lets immediately head to a boss encounter we're not ready for!

Milestone
...welp you died. Sucks to be you.

XP
...welp you died. Sucks to be you.


So really the only difference if that milestone leveling encourages players to do 'significant things' rather than murder people in the face (of course this being D&D 'significant things' will often be murdering people in the face). Even then it only encourages that if you as a player are trying to finish the game in the minimum amount of real world time. Milestone vs XP is a separate issue from story vs sandbox which seems to be where your real gripe lies.

[guachi]

Milestone. When the players reach a milestone of so much XP, they level up.

Wait... doesn't that mean XP *is* a milestone and XP or milestone is a false choice? Yes, it does.

I use XP because it makes it easy to have players of different character levels or differing ability to attend sessions.

[Findulidas]

Wait... doesn't that mean XP *is* a milestone and XP or milestone is a false choice? Yes, it does.

Well then you havent been paying attention. Infact you have basically ignored most, if not all, of this thread. The systems do differ in some ways.

[ChampionWiggles]

I haven't done a whole lot of campaigns with 5e. I'm currently taking part in two.

Campaign #1 uses XP to track leveling and is railroaded to the plot quite hard. But the DM doesn't individually track XP and just keeps group XP, so honestly he could just use milestones and nothing would change.

Campaign #2 started with XP, but the DM kept it known only to himself so that the group wouldn't try to grind for levels. Later he figured that leveling was taking a long time (Especially around that dreaded lvl 5 - lvl 6 gap) and decided to switch to milestones. He does an open world campaign and awards with a level or two when we've done something significant and completed a big quest of ours. Leveling seems to have gone a lot faster and morale seems to have improved because there's obvious and significant progression for our characters.

From my two experiences, I can say that I prefer campaign #2 with the milestones. That's not to say that I don't see the merits of XP. Both systems have pros and cons, obviously.

I feel like XP leveling can promote murder-hoboism in parties, because it creates a visible barrier that the party will want to get through and they know that combat and killing gets through that barrier. That was kind of the point of the Undertale Genocide run. You become a mindless killing monster that's just obsessed with numbers increasing and actual roleplay kind of takes a back seat. At least...that's the case if you have a BAD DM. If you have a good DM, XP can be a system that works out. XP should be awarded for a character attempting special tasks, passing hard challenges, and even finding alternate solutions to combat. So you didn't murder the werewolf, but you removed his curse, which still "defeats" him, so you get full XP. If the DM still gives full or 1/2 or 1/4 XP by talking down an encounter with good persuasion or sneaking by one completely, then that's a good way to prevent murder-hobo party. They could even take the Deus Ex route and award bonus XP for non-lethal victories, but at that point, you'd create the same problem but with mercy-hobos.

I kind of prefer milestone XP, but my experience has been limited and more favorable towards it. But milestone XP makes it easier to be invested in the story, since you are rewarded for progressing the story. It can also take less time to level up, since you jump great gaps in XP just by progressing the story. In campaign #1, my character is lvl 5 and he has BEEN lvl 5 for the past 6 months because it takes forever between lvl 5 and lvl 6 and at this point I'm just so tired of being at the same lvl forever that it's affecting morale (for me, at least). So it's kind of nice if you have a DM that goes "You guys have been lvl 5 for a while and you've accomplished some great things, so you're now lvl 6." Granted, with milestones it probably feels like characters are more railroaded and less invested in doing side quests since they don't level up from them. But as others have said, you can reward side quests with magical items the group wouldn't have gotten otherwise or with gold or favors from NPCs.

Personally, I would like to make a campaign that would implement both systems, as weird as it sounds. It would be an open world campaign that HAS a "main quest" storyline, which is where milestone levels would take place. But with it being open world, the party could easily not do that main quest and do their own thing and lvl up via XP. The main quest would still progress, in a sense, because the antagonists would obtain something or do something that the party could have prevented but didn't, because they were doing their own things. This would play later to where the antagonists accomplished enough of their plans that maybe the party couldn't really ignore them anymore.

[Tanarii]

my character is lvl 5 and he has BEEN lvl 5 for the past 6 months because it takes forever between lvl 5 and lvl 6 and at this point I'm just so tired of being at the same lvl forever that it's affecting morale (for me, at least).
That's a campaign specific problem though. There is no significant 5 --> 6 gap if you're facing level appropriate challenges (module adventures), or pushing on to handle what you're capable of handing in a sandbox. It takes 2.15 adventuring days in that case. That's less that 4 --> 5 at 2.23 adventuring days, and less than 6 --> 7 at 2.25 adventuring days.

This plays out IMX. If Tier 2 (ie level 5) characters start doing Tier 2 stuff instead of Tier 1 stuff, they advance plenty fast. There is some slowdown near the middle and end of Tier 2 in XP progression, but that's by design.

This is definitely YMMV depending on campaign and what you choose to do / what challenges your DM makes available.

The only difference would be if you're facing lesser challenges, and an XP DM gives you the lower XP, whereas the Milestone DM gives you a level despite lesser challenges. Which could just mean he's using a different metric than 'appropriate challenges' to determine a new level is appropriate.

[TrinculoLives]

I prefer XP right now because I've been using a system where I reward XP for various accomplishments on top of defeating monsters. I am not entirely consistent, but I use the XP combat guidelines from the DMG and award an Easy, Medium, Hard or Deadly on-level amount of XP for things like spending time crafting, exploring new areas, making friends, etc.

Sometimes only the individuals gets the XP, so what with players missing some sessions I have a couple PCs who are about 3/4 levels higher than the others.

Anyway, that's my current system and I'm sticking to it for now.

[Thrudd]

I think XP only or mainly for killing monsters is not great. However, the milestone levelling system can be far too subjective (as is DM awarding XP for "role playing" and other immeasurable metrics).

I prefer that the players know exactly what will gain them levels, and have the ability to pursue those goals on their own initiative. Milestones can work for that if the milestones are known objective things - such as defeat the dragon and claim it's hoard, or rescue the captives and return them to town. There should be things the players can choose to engage with that gives them some control over where and how they achieve level milestones - different quests to choose from or somesuch.

For XP, there should be some reward for defeating monsters, but it should not be as much as accomplishing tasks. What tasks reward XP should depend on your setting and what sort of things adventurers are expected to do to be considered successful.
The original version of this is XP for gold, of course. Adventurers are rewarded for retrieving treasure from dungeons, and to a lesser extent for defeating monsters. To gain levels, players know they need to go seeking places where treasures are thought to be. Killing monsters when you can is a bonus, but the real objective is getting away with as much treasure as you can carry.

Instead of just milestones, awarding major XP for finishing quests, and minor XP for defeating foes along the way, might be a good compromise. There are still objectives which are guaranteed to reward XP (a fact that should be communicated to the players at the beginning of the game), so the players know what they need to do to progress - accept quests and see them carried through. Looking for monsters to grind for XP should be a very inefficient way to gain levels - the amount required for level up should either be vastly increased, or the amount awarded for monster kills vastly decreased. The only sure way to gain enough XP to level is to succeed at the quest's objective at all costs - even if that means running away from monsters or making friends with monsters, or whatever.

Role playing, having social encounters and making friends, overcoming environmental hazards, don't need XP awards because those are things which should be a part of accomplishing the task that will earn you the big XP - all those things can be considered rolled up into that big award at the end. The benefit you get from befriending the orcs is not XP, but the fact that you have made allies that can help you finish a quest, and possibly be of use in the future, too.

[Kobard]

I prefer milestones, both as a GM and as a player for similar reasons. There is less bookkeeping and micro-managing. There is less focus on encounters designed for killing random things for XP. On the whole, there is less focus as a player on leveling and more on roleplaying. While higher level cool stuff is indeed cool, I have learned not to be in a mad rush to the top, but enjoy the journey for what it is.

[rollingForInit]

This is the biggest problem I have with milestones, and the biggest perceptual break I see in other players. They associated with DMs that believe that Story has anything to do TRPGs, and all the negative stuff that generally comes with that belief. In particular, railroading and a loss of meaningful player agency.

I'm not sure that I follow. How does story not have anything to do with TRPG's? I mean, sure, D&D is more on the dungeon crawling side of things, but it surely seems as if most people enjoy playing campaigns with some sort of plot and depth, beyond slaughtering monsters.

But even if you do some sort of 100% improvised campaign with no planned elements, I don't see why milestones wouldn't work. You could simply have milestones that go "players will level about once every X number of sessions", or "players will level up whenever they finish x number of quests" or even "the players will level up when they've achieved something of significance".

[DarkKnightJin]

I prefer Milestones.

XP inevitably leads to some gaming of the system. If you get XP for killing things, you'r discouraged from doing anything that doesn't involve maximum carnage. If you get XP for "Overcoming" encounters, then you're discouraged from bypassing those encounters.

It depends whether or not you see leveling up as a reward for the players succeeding/doing good stuff, or as a way to mark points in the story, shake up gameplay, and represent the characters becoming more powerful.

You could give out the same XP as winning the encounter would've granted if they find a diplomatic, or other creative solution to avoid the fight from happening.
Maybe even give out a bit of bonus XP if they are particularly in-character while doing so, or have an idea the entire table enjoys and has fun with.

Doing it like that might dissuade them from going murderhobo on everything because they want XP.

Note: This does not mean they can get XP for doing something like burning down a village for the XP the townspeople would give.

[Easy_Lee]

There's no reason milestones have to be all or nothing. You can break them down into four pips per level, for instance, if you want to show the players that they are improving at a consistent rate.

I think experience works best in games where it can be tracked automatically. On paper, adding up numbers and checking to see when you'll hit the next level isn't hard, but it's extra work, especially for the DM who has to remember how far away from leveling the players are.

Tiers of play should have helped with this. The trouble is that a level 1 and level 4 player are worlds apart, while a level 11 and level 14 player are not as different. As a result, the DM really does need to track players on a level to level basis, especially for the first tier and keep encounters at an appropriate CR. Milestones make that much easier.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's no reason milestones have to be all or nothing. You can break them down into four pips per level, for instance, if you want to show the players that they are improving at a consistent rate.


I was thinking about implementing a system like this. I'd probably do the following:

* 3 pips per level (except at 1st and 2nd, where you'd need 1 and 2, respectively. This compresses the first few levels).
* One pip per session where any of the following occurred:
** A significant foe defeated (either through combat, diplomacy, or sneakiness). Temporary evasions don't count.
** A significant treasure hoard returned to town.
** A minor story arc chunk completed.
** A significant personal milestone (character growth).
* Two or more pips for completing a major story arc chunk.

The significance of an event would be judged by the DM. XP would be roughly calculated for encounter balance, but not directly tracked. Since my players set the story arcs based on what they do (the arcs only appear retroactively--they're not fixed in advance), as long as they're busy doing something useful, they'll gain levels at about one per 3 sessions or so.

Thoughts anyone?

[Gurifu]

I was thinking about implementing a system like this. I'd probably do the following:

* 3 pips per level (except at 1st and 2nd, where you'd need 1 and 2, respectively. This compresses the first few levels).
* One pip per session where any of the following occurred:
** A significant foe defeated (either through combat, diplomacy, or sneakiness). Temporary evasions don't count.
** A significant treasure hoard returned to town.
** A minor story arc chunk completed.
** A significant personal milestone (character growth).
* Two or more pips for completing a major story arc chunk.

The significance of an event would be judged by the DM. XP would be roughly calculated for encounter balance, but not directly tracked. Since my players set the story arcs based on what they do (the arcs only appear retroactively--they're not fixed in advance), as long as they're busy doing something useful, they'll gain levels at about one per 3 sessions or so.

Thoughts anyone?

It takes about 5 CR-Appropriate encounters per level for 1>2 and 2>3, about 15 per level from 3>4 through 10>11, and then about 10 per level from 11>12 to 19>20. If you want to follow the same progression as 'official' D&D, I'd recommend following that trend.

[Easy_Lee]

It takes about 5 CR-Appropriate encounters per level for 1>2 and 2>3, about 15 per level from 3>4 through 10>11, and then about 10 per level from 11>12 to 19>20. If you want to follow the same progression as 'official' D&D, I'd recommend following that trend.

A bit of support for this comment: http://oldguygaming.com/5e-encounters-per-level

Like the author of that article, I have no idea why the progression is so weird. I wonder if WotC employed a mathematician when designing 5e. Regardless, the average across all levels is about ten (10.6) encounters. Obviously this depends on party size, as a very efficient two-member party could average five encounters per level. But that just goes to show how much easier it is to use Milestones.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A bit of support for this comment: http://oldguygaming.com/5e-encounters-per-level

Like the author of that article, I have no idea why the progression is so weird. I wonder if WotC employed a mathematician when designing 5e. Regardless, the average across all levels is about ten (10.6) encounters. Obviously this depends on party size, as a very efficient two-member party could average five encounters per level. But that just goes to show how much easier it is to use Milestones.

I once calculated the expected number of adventuring days per level (XP/level divided by XP/day, both from tables). It was nearly constant (varying from about 1.5 at level 1 to about 3 at the top of tier 2, then settling back to the 2.X range). The number of encounters varies (because the difficulty and XP vary).

This is intentional.

Levels 1-3 are supposed to be the training wheels but the characters are squishy (and so the levels go quickly). Then things slow down a little (4-5) and then a lot (5-10). That's because people (from observed experience) play more at those levels, so let them take their time there. After level 11, things speed back up to let those that wish get through those (and to high levels) fast.

There is no "right" mathematical answer. This was an intentional decision based on how people actually play.

My goal is to provide a relatively even pace of leveling: ~3 days spent adventuring per level (more or less). This allows my players to not be tied to "must kill monsters for XP" (I hate grinding) while also keeping things easy for myself. I DM for 3 separate groups--two of brand new teenagers (0 game experience) and one of adults. The attendance for the teenage groups is spotty (and not always under their control). Also, those sessions tend to be short (~1 hr, not including setup). As a result, I always follow all the guidelines. I'd rather have them move through to T2 pretty fast so they can experience some of the iconic creatures/locations/etc (rather than fighting goblins and orcs for the whole campaign). Thus, I've intentionally sped things up.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Milestones, I guess.

I generally gave a level up every one or two sessions.

I found using XP to be a waste of my time as a GM. XP was just ticker until the next level, and the party all leveled up together anyway, since there wasn't a difference in the amount of XP awarded, and setting up encounters to make them award the right amount of EXP in the right amount of time just got in my way. Using milestones, I can make encounters as difficult or as easy as I desire.

[Tanarii]

It's worth noting that under the DMG definitions of an Encounter, they don't have to be Combat Encounters. But any Non-Combat Encounters are AT BEST worth Easy encounter XP if they aren't expected to require any resource expenditure. So while 'XP = combat' isn't a valid complaint because it explicitly isn't, it certainly biases against any kind of Encounter that isn't expected to require resources to resolve.

IMO that's working as intended for 5e D&D, and D&D in general. My belief is D&D has always been intentionally designed as a game of resource management (the G side of TRPG). So I like it being there. But if you're sitting down to play 'TRP without G', stripping this aspect out is probably the first thing you're going to want to do. Be it via Milestones or XP.


It takes about 5 CR-Appropriate encounters per level for 1>2 and 2>3, about 15 per level from 3>4 through 10>11, and then about 10 per level from 11>12 to 19>20. If you want to follow the same progression as 'official' D&D, I'd recommend following that trend.I go by adventuring days, then look at encounters per adventuring day, which are pretty static.
1->2 & 2-->3 = 1 adventuring day
3->4 = 1.5 adventuring days
4->5 thru 10--> 11 = ~2.2 adventuring days each
11-> 12 = 1.4 adventuring days
13-> 14 thru 19->20 = ~1.6 adventuring days each

As I said, the number of encounters per adventuring day is fairly static, except for Medium Encounters:
12 Easy or 6-8 Medium* or 4-5 Hard or 3 Deadly

* Medium encounters are 6 / day at levels 1-3, 7-8 /day at levels 7-11, and 6 /day at 12+

By the way, this simple analysis gives lie to the DMG statement that the normal amount of encounters is 6-8 Medium or Hard encounters.

[Easy_Lee]

It's worth noting that under the DMG definitions of an Encounter, they don't have to be Combat Encounters. But any Non-Combat Encounters are AT BEST worth Easy encounter XP if they aren't expected to require any resource expenditure. So while 'XP = combat' isn't a valid complaint because it explicitly isn't, it certainly biases against any kind of Encounter that isn't expected to require resources to resolve.

This is an interesting point. Almost every class has resources. If you aren't expending those resources, you could make a case that you aren't being challenged. So what to do with the fighter outside of combat? Ask him to action surge on a social check to try to convince the king? I can imagine a purple dragon knight doing that, maybe. But there aren't really rules for it.

[Crusher]

Milestone as sort of a "back of the envelope" XP system.

But I disguise it as XP. Before the characters go into an adventure I ballpark out how much xp is available and keep in mind how far they have to go to level (5k to next level, next adventure is worth ~6k) then when they wrap up I do some quick mental math on how much of it they'd earned ("Ok, they cleared about half the dungeon, but they hit most of the tough fights and achieved their goal, so they get ~70%". Cleverly bypassing an encounter or resolving it through non-combat means will generally get them credit for beating it). If they achieve a major story-goal I'll give them a bonus, especially if they were just short of leveling.

Then at the end, I'll give the characters a ballpark idea of where they stand (just barely into the next level, solidly into it, getting close to leveling, etc) so they have an idea of where they stand. Everyone's seemed happy with it.

[Azgeroth]

somewhere between the two,

milestones are good, but as others have pointed out it revolves around the rail road.. if a party spends a week in chapter one, being the little completionists they are, with out ever resolving a single 'thread' it can seem like it takes forever to get a level, only to get the next one really quick because they 'skipped' the rail road and got to checkpoint 2 quickly and unwittingly.

xp, can be a pain to track, annoying to calculate, and overall be finicky and frustrating..

instead, i use 'achievements' combat,RP,Exploring just about any action that gives some form of progress to the characters or the world nets them an achievement, x amounts of achievements gain them a level. (very similiar to the 3 pillar experience UA)

benefits to this, i dont have track xp, they dont have to stick to the rail road, it rewards more than just murder-hoboing but doesn't punish it.

[Gurifu]

My thoughts:

XP serves a useful purpose because it ties reward directly to challenge and danger. It should be consistently applied: when the party does something difficult with consequences that they care about, they should get XP.

The idea of resource expenditure charting encounter difficulty is a bad one. If D&D is based around that*, it's based on a bad idea that's not born out by the way it actually plays. You as the DM should move on with better ideas. The mechanical and narrative framework of D&D is strong enough to stand on its own; considerations of its foundation don't matter.

*Entirely possible, given the nonsense about how you're "supposed" to have 7 to-the-death combat encounters per day, none of which actually pose a risk to the party. Yawn.


XP can be safely removed in two circumstances:

First, if you replace it with something else that ties reward to challenge. This could be XP by another name (percent level progress, pips, etc); in-game rewards like fame, treasure, political power, or plot development; feel-good moments; or perhaps mechanical rewards like Inspiration.

Second, if you have a party that doesn't require rewards to be committed to the game and a DM who doesn't scale monster level to match the characters, but lets the monster level match what's appropriate for the scene and setting.

[Karsalem]

As a DM I prefer milestone as it makes it easier book keeping wise.

As a player I like the XP since I can see how close or far I am from getting to the next power level.

[apepi]

I personally don't like xp, sometimes like my last session all we did was rp, we got no exp for roleplaying because we fought nothing.

[Easy_Lee]

I personally don't like xp, sometimes like my last session all we did was rp, we got no exp for roleplaying because we fought nothing.

More DMs need to learn how to create non-combat encounters that require resource expenditure and reward experience.

[Jamesps]

More DMs need to learn how to create non-combat encounters that require resource expenditure and reward experience.

It'd have helped if the martials had more noncombat resources to expend. For casters it's a pretty easy task since most of what they do requires resources.

[Lawful Good]

It'd have helped if the martials had more noncombat resources to expend. For casters it's a pretty easy task since most of what they do requires resources.

It's worth noting that the resources don't have to be class mechanics.
It could be something like food, torches, etc.

[Tanarii]

I personally don't like xp, sometimes like my last session all we did was rp, we got no exp for roleplaying because we fought nothing.


More DMs need to learn how to create non-combat encounters that require resource expenditure and reward experience.
Either that or need to create a new definition of challenge (and commensurate reward of XP) that they then use to create non-combat encounters.

Or need to throw 'challenge' out the window and reward XP for non-challenge situations that fill up play time. Assuming e group wants that.

There's no way to know if the entirely rp session apepi experienced included significant challenges to the characters or not.

I mean. The way I use the word roleplaying to mean "making decisions for your character in the fantasy environment" (with a preference for significant / meaningful decisions), every single session I have is largely RP. Especially ones chock full of puzzles, traps, combats, and other challenges to overcome. Those things bring RP right to the fore, as far as I am concerned, as well as reward it with XP.

Clearly the context wasn't that. Whether or not it included challenges to overcome is an open question.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Not the first to point it out, but it does seem like one basic mentality is milestone = group levels together while XP means individual rewards.

Back in AD&D, individual XP gains was the rule. Each class leveled at different rates, and there were class specific ways to gain bonus XP. Theves got more XP for getting treasure, as I recall.

3rd edition made D&D more streamlined and uniform. Such as making each class need the same XP to level.

At that point, I switched to giving the whole party the same XP. Run off and solo a fight? Same XP to all as if the entire group worked together on the encounter. Life prevented table time? That sucks, but is no reason for your character to fall behind.

Want to give out Bonus XP for good role playing or coming up with a clever idea or whatever? That bonus XP is shared with the group. Each player can get the group bonus XP once per session.

This method of giving out XP is to encourage both teamwork and sharing the spotlight. (And to help transition AD&D players to 3rd edition thinking.)

As to my pref to Milestone vs classic XP? Meh. Either works. If one works better for you and your group, great.

As a player, I'll go with DM choice. When DM'ing, I'll pick the method that seems to best suit my players, and change things around as needed.

[Xetheral]

And story is the antithesis of roleplaying. The former requires plot, or possibly fate. The latter requires making decisions for your character in the fantasy world that meaningfully affect things.

'Energent story' is a different thing from 'story'. Emergent Story is merely something written after all the meaningful decisions have been made and had results, with the narrative and underlying plot back-filled to create an apparent meaning from events. Story has plot to begin with, and instead of roleplaying / making meaningful decisions with meaningful results, you have narrative results that bind to the desired plot. It undermines Roleplaying.

Edit: to be clearer
roleplaying play is making decisions based on the desired results for your character
Story or narrative play is maki decisions based on the desired resulting story.

I think it's pretty clear that you're defining the word "story" quite differently from any of the other posters in this thread. To me, "story" in the context of a TRPG generally refers to the sequence of what happens IC at the table. So (e.g.) when a poster says that they reward milestone levels whenever it seems like a suitable time in the story, I interpret that as meaning they select times for the player to level based on what's happening IC in the game. (I assume that normally would mean leveling in lulls after what the players consider important happenings, but preferences may vary.) As my stilted "happenings" language suggests, english doesn't have specific vocabulary to refer generally to such phenomena, so it's common to borrow the terminology of storytelling. Accordingly, I often see terms like "story", "climax", and "plot" often merely referring to elements of the gameplay, rather than, as you seem to assume, invoking a specific style of play regarding the framework the players use to make decisions for their PCs.


Role playing, having social encounters and making friends, overcoming environmental hazards, don't need XP awards because those are things which should be a part of accomplishing the task that will earn you the big XP - all those things can be considered rolled up into that big award at the end. The benefit you get from befriending the orcs is not XP, but the fact that you have made allies that can help you finish a quest, and possibly be of use in the future, too.

What about roleplaying and interaction either between the PCs or with the world that doesn't help accomplish any major task at all? Some of the best sessions I've ever seen had long (usually spontaneous) stretches of pure interaction delightful for the same reasons such aimless interactions are in the real world, with the addeded novelty of participating from an IC (i.e. usually foreign) perspective. In campaigns where I use XP, I reward such occurences heavily. Under your approach it sounds like you would not? May I ask why?


IMO that's working as intended for 5e D&D, and D&D in general. My belief is D&D has always been intentionally designed as a game of resource management (the G side of TRPG). So I like it being there. But if you're sitting down to play 'TRP without G', stripping this aspect out is probably the first thing you're going to want to do. Be it via Milestones or XP.

Without rehashing our ongoing disagreement about the primacy of resource management in D&D, I think it's worth pointing out that there are numerous other "game-like" elements to D&D that also contribute to the "G" into TRPG. It can still be a game even if one does try to strip out resource management.

[Thrudd]

What about roleplaying and interaction either between the PCs or with the world that doesn't help accomplish any major task at all? Some of the best sessions I've ever seen had long (usually spontaneous) stretches of pure interaction delightful for the same reasons such aimless interactions are in the real world, with the addeded novelty of participating from an IC (i.e. usually foreign) perspective. In campaigns where I use XP, I reward such occurences heavily. Under your approach it sounds like you would not? May I ask why?


Delightful IC interactions are great, but they would be fun for their own sake, an adjunct or side-trip from the game. Definitely no XP. XP is for overcoming challenges and accomplishing the tasks of an adventurer. I choose to see XP in an abstract way as something that is actually being done or collected by the characters in the world. They are gaining prestige, renown, divine favor, power, due to their experiences overcoming dangers. The treasure they bring back to civilization increases their notoriety and influence with increasingly powerful people. The tales of their monster slaying and other accomplishments heaps glory and prestige (or notoriety and infamy) upon their names, and people see them as legends or heroes or fearsome terrors. By surviving again and again, they have proven that the fates, or the gods or both, favor them.

Roleplaying - making decisions as your character - is the method by which the game is played, not the means of advancement in the game. It is simply expected.

This isn't to say that it is wrong to take the approach that XP or levels should be rewarded just for showing up to the game and spending the time participating - I understand some people like to do that. And that is what rewarding XP for time spent sitting around chit-chatting IC amounts to - participation award.

I run the game like a challenge, XP is awarded in various degrees for succeeding at the challenges and goals placed before them - not just for participating, not even just for trying. Success is rewarded. There is plenty of room for personality and individual desires and goals and fun interactions during the course of facing the game's challenges and planning for adventures.

[Nu]

It's worth noting that the resources don't have to be class mechanics.
It could be something like food, torches, etc.

Most tables I've played at stopped tracking such things after a while, because it was boring and annoying. It doesn't really fit into the fantasy hero roleplaying genre well (which is frankly what most of the DnD games I've played in are structured as). Now if you're playing a survival-focused wilderness-based game, sure.

Anyway, that stuff quickly becomes irrelevant if the party is making gold at any reasonable rate, or has a character with a good Survival modifier.

[Xetheral]

Delightful IC interactions are great, but they would be fun for their own sake, an adjunct or side-trip from the game. Definitely no XP. XP is for overcoming challenges and accomplishing the tasks of an adventurer. I choose to see XP in an abstract way as something that is actually being done or collected by the characters in the world. They are gaining prestige, renown, divine favor, power, due to their experiences overcoming dangers. The treasure they bring back to civilization increases their notoriety and influence with increasingly powerful people. The tales of their monster slaying and other accomplishments heaps glory and prestige (or notoriety and infamy) upon their names, and people see them as legends or heroes or fearsome terrors. By surviving again and again, they have proven that the fates, or the gods or both, favor them.

Roleplaying - making decisions as your character - is the method by which the game is played, not the means of advancement in the game. It is simply expected.

This isn't to say that it is wrong to take the approach that XP or levels should be rewarded just for showing up to the game and spending the time participating - I understand some people like to do that. And that is what rewarding XP for time spent sitting around chit-chatting IC amounts to - participation award.

I run the game like a challenge, XP is awarded in various degrees for succeeding at the challenges and goals placed before them - not just for participating, not even just for trying. Success is rewarded. There is plenty of room for personality and individual desires and goals and fun interactions during the course of facing the game's challenges and planning for adventures.

Thank you for the explanation!

[poolio]

XP

With xp there's more to gain from random encounters and you can reward/be rewarded for things non combat related.

I'm currently playing with an amateur friend dming and he's using milestone, and we've killed so much stuff it feels like we should be at least two levels higher, which makes things feel less rewarding and slow, like others have pointed out, I've started to avoid unnecessary side stuff like chasing down escaping baddies and whatnot.

[Laurefindel]

Most tables I've played at stopped tracking such things after a while, because it was boring and annoying. It doesn't really fit into the fantasy hero roleplaying genre well (which is frankly what most of the DnD games I've played in are structured as). Now if you're playing a survival-focused wilderness-based game, sure.

Anyway, that stuff quickly becomes irrelevant if the party is making gold at any reasonable rate, or has a character with a good Survival modifier.

It's only boring and annoying if it's altogether meaningless. We bother tracking hp and spell slots because they are a meaningful resource in the game, and running out has meaningful consequences. I will agree with you that D&D, in its ruleset, does not put much emphasis on food or light.

I don't think it has to do with the genre so much as the multiple shortcuts and bypass that D&D has concerning food, light and comfort in general, making them ultimately meaningless (and therefore annoying and boring to track).

[Nu]

It's only boring and annoying if it's altogether meaningless. We bother tracking hp and spell slots because they are a meaningful resource in the game, and running out has meaningful consequences. I will agree with you that D&D, in its ruleset, does not put much emphasis on food or light.

I don't think it has to do with the genre so much as the multiple shortcuts and bypass that D&D has concerning food, light and comfort in general, making them ultimately meaningless (and therefore annoying and boring to track).

I don't think I agree, I mean technically there are penalties for not eating and the like, I just rarely see them enforced (regardless of how easy they are to overcome). It's because it's simply something that I think a lot of DMs and players don't care to deal with, because it's largely irrelevant to fighting fantasy monsters and taking their stuff. And the other kinds of things you do in a campaign, like intrigue or whatever. A lot of the time things like tracking food simply doesn't interact with the main focus of the campaign, and only serves to distract from the fun stuff, so yeah, I think it gets left out not because of lack of consequence, but because a lot of people just don't care.

[furby076]

We recommended to our DM milestone over XP. It's so much less work for him. In this case it's less work for us too. Our DM requires us to keep a log of notable things we did, kills we had, etc. I think that's extra paperwork that's not necessary.

I'm also a fan of the group levelling up at the same time (yes, you can miss a session without losing XP, though good luck getting that ring of protection) :)

[Kalashak]

I prefer XP as a player, with milestones it's always felt like I'm getting the same reward no matter what I do.
I like to use XP as a DM but it really depends on the group. I have a few players I'd never use XP with because they have some video gamey tendencies and will want to grind XP then get mad when I don't let them.

[Tanarii]

Speaking of XP and "participation", here's a bigger situation for me. Since in an open table, you can't really give not-showing-up rewards. What happens if a character dies before the adventure is over (meaning session, the way I use it), but is taken back and raised after successful completion?

In order of worst to best for the character:
A) 0 XP. XP are given to those successfully completing the adventure, divided equally.
B) their share of XP up to the point of death, not including the combat they died in. XP after that point is divided among the survivors.
C) all XP for completing the adventure is divided equally among all survivors and raised characters.

Edit:
D) other. Explain please. :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Speaking of XP and "participation", here's a bigger situation for me. Since in an open table, you can't really give not-showing-up rewards. What happens if a character dies before the adventure is over (meaning session, the way I use it), but is taken back and raised after successful completion?

In order of worst to best for the character:
A) 0 XP. XP are given to those successfully completing the adventure, divided equally.
B) their share of XP up to the point of death, not including the combat they died in. XP after that point is divided among the survivors.
C) all XP for completing the adventure is divided equally among all survivors and raised characters.

Edit:
D) other. Explain please. :smallwink:

For me, an open table is a different beast entirely. There, I would have to give XP (or pips equal to 1/4 of a level if I wanted to be less granular, but I'd have to quantify it the same way). In the case of a character dying and being raised, I'd give XP equally (option C) with the caveat that only those that were alive during a non-trivial amount of the adventure get any XP. If you walk out of your door, challenge that dragon (at level 1) and die instantly, no XP for you until you're raised. If you participated at all during the session, you get an equal amount.

Reasoning: Biggest is that it's much easier for me to track. If I try to track it by encounter I'll lose something somewhere. Also, taking someone back to be raised changes the adventure for everyone else, especially if they stop what they're doing to do that. Thus, the dead person is participating (shaping the game) for everyone. It's also kinda brutal (in my opinion) to deny someone all XP if they're crit to death on the first turn of the first encounter. I'm too nice for that.

[Thrudd]

Speaking of XP and "participation", here's a bigger situation for me. Since in an open table, you can't really give not-showing-up rewards. What happens if a character dies before the adventure is over (meaning session, the way I use it), but is taken back and raised after successful completion?

In order of worst to best for the character:
A) 0 XP. XP are given to those successfully completing the adventure, divided equally.
B) their share of XP up to the point of death, not including the combat they died in. XP after that point is divided among the survivors.
C) all XP for completing the adventure is divided equally among all survivors and raised characters.

Edit:
D) other. Explain please. :smallwink:

B. is my preference, it seems the most fair. You should be keeping a running tally of the monsters that have been killed and the treasure they have found anyway, so it isn't that hard to calculate. I just make a mark with the character's name at that point, and start a new tally from that time onward. Even if XP is being awarded for subjective things like role playing, or more general goals like "save the captives" - you'd be keeping a tally of who had received what awards - a character's tally would just end when they died and only be applied if they get rezzed. If they died before the captives were saved, they obviously do not get the XP award for that event.

I believe the way the old rules were written, it would be A. XP only for surviving characters. Not losing the character is the only reward you get after being resurrected. It certainly is a big incentive to keep the character alive and play carefully in spite of the existence of resurrection magic - which is appealing to me, though it is a bit more hard core than what most players would like, I think.

C. is nicer, and if I were doing it that way I would say any expenditures related to the resurrection to be taken out of the XP share of the resurrected character. However, I'd leave it up to the players - if they wanted to each contribute from all shares equally to get someone undeaded, so the dead character isn't as far behind, I'd be fine with that, too. This really only works when using XP for gold.

Since whether or not a dead character gets resurrected at all is decided by the survivors, both B and C really depend on how nice the other players want to be to you - they could choose not to bring someone back at all and keep all the loot/XP for themselves, regardless.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Speaking of XP and "participation", here's a bigger situation for me. Since in an open table, you can't really give not-showing-up rewards. What happens if a character dies before the adventure is over (meaning session, the way I use it), but is taken back and raised after successful completion?

In order of worst to best for the character:
A) 0 XP. XP are given to those successfully completing the adventure, divided equally.
B) their share of XP up to the point of death, not including the combat they died in. XP after that point is divided among the survivors.
C) all XP for completing the adventure is divided equally among all survivors and raised characters.

Edit:
D) other. Explain please. :smallwink:
A.) I usually don't do this. Adventurer's League makes me do this when I DM for it, and I hate it. While it's great that the players usually had fun anyway, having fun AND getting a reward for your efforts feels a lot nicer.
B.) Usually how I do things. My groups tend to worry about missing party members for this reason, since I play with good friends, and will make every effort to resurrect them before doing anything else. They'll go to great lengths to protect vulnerable party members, too. This is a place where I use XP to incentivize good roleplaying, and it's worked so far.
C.) Quest XP is gained when the party completes their quests for me, even if a character is still dead. They were an important component, and I won't short-change them like that. Especially relevant because in combat-lite games of mine, I tend to hand out extra beefy quest rewards to spike level growth when appropriate.

D.) In my current game, players lose a portion of their XP on death if they can't be resurrected by other means. Then they get a freebie resurrection back at their home base. This loss cannot bring them under their current level, leaving them at exactly where they were when they last leveled up if there isn't enough to pay for it. I don't give them back their gear, however- the party will have to bring that stuff back if it's retrievable. The formula is simply 100 x level in XP loss.

[Demonslayer666]

Milestones. It encourages teamwork and fun above efficiency.

[Easy_Lee]

What I'm reading from this thread is that DMs like milestones for the control and reduced bookkeeping, but AL and some players prefer experience since it can be given out consistently and shows progress.

I wonder if a hybrid approach with X pips per level would solve all of these problems.

[90sMusic]

Milestones are superior for me.

Keeping track of how much XP you have, how much each monster is worth, and so on just isn't worth the trouble, especially if you award different amounts of XP to different players and the end up being different levels.

I find it is more enjoyable, more fun, and more reliable to use milestones.

There are other ways and better ways to motivate your players than by giving them more XP. If they feel like they're on rails, like nothing they do matters, etc that is a problem with the DM's method of running the game and has nothing to do with how much or how often they acquire experience points.

[Thrudd]

What I'm reading from this thread is that DMs like milestones for the control and reduced bookkeeping, but AL and some players prefer experience since it can be given out consistently and shows progress.

I wonder if a hybrid approach with X pips per level would solve all of these problems.

There isn't necessarily a problem. Pips would not solve anything for me, for example - I want, if anything, a more fine-grained approach to XP than 5e already provides, not less. Bookkeeping and characters at different levels are not concerns in the slightest.

I agree that the pips method is better than milestones and could possibly promote a bit more objectivity in some DM's. It gives more flexibility in how to award levels that could be more fair than milestones for an open table or inconsistent player attendance.

[Tanarii]

Yeah. I've never understood the 'characters at different levels' complaint. Must be because I started with BECMI/AD&D. And even after 3e standardized levels, I heavily players and run official play / open tables.

Characters being different levels is, like, totally the norm for D&D in my experience.

[ZorroGames]

Started with White Box D&D and while I appreciate standardized XP prgression it is normal to have players at different leveks in a session.

Not all Tier 1 characters are first level, not all Tier 2 are seventh, etc., teamwork is each character contributing, not necessarily equally.

[Zalabim]

I mainly stopped by to be the ******* that has to point out that milestones still use XP. The non-XP leveling methods listed are "story-based" and "session-based."

So using Milestones as the book lists it would actually look more like this:
I do milestones disguised as xp. After each session, I tell the group "Ok you get *quickly checks book to see what 40% of the next level is* 740 xp for clearing out the gnoll camp, saving the orphan girl from the bridge troll peacefully, and for finding the legendary lost lute of the bards in the secret tower"

I don't need to actually keep track of what things are worth, the group feels like they're making progress (and not like the xp is on a dm's whim), they know they get rewarded for solving encounters in creative ways (and not just murdering everything to get those sweet sweet xps), and they still essentially level up at major milestones. I also don't have to award xp for fights that shouldn't be worth experience (lets shoot firebolts for the next 3 hours from the top of this chasm at the zombies shuffling peacefully down below with no risk to ourselves).

It's a win-win.

So as not to just come in and basically correct grammar, milestones, non-combat challenges, any type of "quest" XP is important in the standard XP setup. The DMG suggests a certain number of adventuring days for each level (effectively), suggests a certain amount of combat "difficulty" xp faced in a typical adventuring day, and has to make up any difference between "difficulty" xp and "monster" xp because of enemy encounter size with either more days and more encounters, or other XP awards like non-combat, milestone, roleplaying, session, or anything else the GM wishes to use.

Pretty sure the thread is too long at this point for anyone to really bother reading, but sure.

I like to use xp, but play it fast and loose. I don't worry overly much about it, because if the players feel like they haven't leveled in awhile, I just give it to them, when it seems appropriate, anyway. I don't like milestone because I think it's too easy for a forgetful or stingy dm to leave the players hanging, and I feel like xp is a clear sign for the players that they did something each session, not just at the end of an arch. It also allows players to feel out how far from their next level they are, instead of just telling them "you'll get there when you get there."
I feel bad because I caught the first line while skimming then went on skipping the rest of the post anyway.


I prefer XP right now because I've been using a system where I reward XP for various accomplishments on top of defeating monsters. I am not entirely consistent, but I use the XP combat guidelines from the DMG and award an Easy, Medium, Hard or Deadly on-level amount of XP for things like spending time crafting, exploring new areas, making friends, etc.

Sometimes only the individuals gets the XP, so what with players missing some sessions I have a couple PCs who are about 3/4 levels higher than the others.

Anyway, that's my current system and I'm sticking to it for now.
This is also very similar to the Milestones style listed in the book.

Either that or need to create a new definition of challenge (and commensurate reward of XP) that they then use to create non-combat encounters.
I think the non-combat challenge XP is supposed to be based on danger faced, based on the consequences of failing rather than resources actually used, assuming you'd actually let them fail and face those consequences. Basically the equivalent to talking/sneaking past a combat encounter, except the hazard of the encounter isn't necessarily combat, as seen with the Chasm of Doom example. I backwards-ly presume this means the "tense negotiation" is very tense and the "surly dwarves" are very surly, to the point of "clap them in irons/trial by combat/I demand satisfaction" if you were to screw it up.

If there's no danger or they can't actually or can't hardly fail, it might still be a milestone instead. This is where a framework for adjudicating difficulty, like Skill Challenges, would be handy though. It would assess penalties or hazards for failure as well as chance to fail in order to gauge difficulty.

[Tanarii]

I think the non-combat challenge XP is supposed to be based on danger faced, based on the consequences of failing rather than resources actually used, assuming you'd actually let them fail and face those consequences.Thats a fair preference. And what I was talking about. Unfortunately, it's not what the DMG tells you to do.

DMG 261
NONCOMBAT CHALLENGES
You decide whether to award experience to characters for overcoming challenges out ide combat. If the adventurers complete a tense negotiation with a baron, forge a trade agreement with a clan of surly dwarves, or successfully navigate the Chasm of Doom, you might decide that they deserve an XP reward.
As a starting point, use the rules for building combat encounters in chapter 3 to gauge the difficulty of the challenge. Then award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure.

Combat Encounter difficulty is defined by expected resource expenditure, per chapter 3. (Except for Easy challenges.) The chance of failure is required as well.

-----------------------

Good note on Milestones ARE XP, which makes this entire thread hilarious.

Guess everyone needs to go back and edit their posts to replace "Milestones" with "Level Advancement Without XP." Assuming that's what they meant. :smallbiggrin:

-------------------------

(Not in response to Zalabim's post )

Worth noting on DMG 260 specifically calls out Absent Players, and spends two paragraphs saying that they won't get XP and levels will differ and "Nothing is wrong with that". Then it promptly says you can award them XP anyway, so clearly they are also saying nothing is wrong with that.

The more I love the DMG Chapter 8, the more I like it, and consider it required reading for anyone that wants to DM.

[furby076]

Speaking of XP and "participation", here's a bigger situation for me. Since in an open table, you can't really give not-showing-up rewards. What happens if a character dies before the adventure is over (meaning session, the way I use it), but is taken back and raised after successful completion?

In order of worst to best for the character:
A) 0 XP. XP are given to those successfully completing the adventure, divided equally.
B) their share of XP up to the point of death, not including the combat they died in. XP after that point is divided among the survivors.
C) all XP for completing the adventure is divided equally among all survivors and raised characters.

Edit:
D) other. Explain please. :smallwink:

First C
Second B
Third A

THough really, my preference, and what I convinced my DM at our table - everyone gets the same XP no matter if they are in game or not. No matter if they died, and got raised later (death is the ultimate experience). Essentially, the group is the same level. This keeps things equal, and makes all the players happy. It has zero negative impacts on the campaign. People have lives, and can tend to that without losing out. Frankly, my DM hasn't announced XP in 3 sessions (we've been level 5 for about 5 or 6 sessions) and I couldn't care less. We adventure, we have fun, we get loot. Yes, I eventually want to level, but I'm having so much fun, the DM can take his sweet ole time.

In our game, if a character dies, the DM usually has them do something to not get bored. Also, we get bonus XP for writing up session stories. The session story XP would go to the player who wrote it (me and one other player), but I am ok with splitting it with the group. I have, on two occasions, solo'd creatures where the rest of the group was sleeping somewhere else (they didn't want to do what i was doing). They got a piece of the XP...My response, "how funny would it be if we were on the edge of levelling, and while you were sleeping, you levelled up"

[Waterdeep Merch]

It seems like both sides are busy trying to say the other ones are making crazy assumptions and playing D&D in weird ways that practically no one does. I like big numbers because then I can give smaller numbers and tickle that part of the brain that likes gaining things. Smaller numbers are cool because then you don't need to do much math to see progress. And no math is fine if you just really, really don't want to do a bunch of math or would prefer to openly ignore it. These are really the only differences that matter between XP and milestones.

[Easy_Lee]

When not using milestones, I also like the approach of keeping track of how much experience everyone has and awarding portions of the next level based on what players do. The main things for me are keeping everyone in the same tier of play and rewarding players for every encounter they solve, regardless of how.

On a related note, when does everyone reward experience points? I usually give mine out at the end of each encounter.

[Thrudd]

When not using milestones, I also like the approach of keeping track of how much experience everyone has and awarding portions of the next level based on what players do. The main things for me are keeping everyone in the same tier of play and rewarding players for every encounter they solve, regardless of how.

On a related note, when does everyone reward experience points? I usually give mine out at the end of each encounter.

XP is awarded when the party returns to their home base location with their loot. Levelling can only happen when the characters are able and willing to spend some weeks of downtime in training and research.

[Asmotherion]

I mix both into my system.

I know my players, and they are responsible for their character's book-keeping. I give xp, and they keep their xp. When they are about to level up, I shedule about half a session (or perhaps a full session) of downtime to give them their respective levels, features etc through Role Playing, as nothing is free, and they have to earn it. When they reach a milestone, and I feel they are too low level to keep the game interesting, I may instead include a "time-skip" of several years in the campain, were they have to role play a general course of action (one day per month for example) and I tell them the level I want them to reach.

[Laurefindel]

I like to use milestones as simplified XP (need three milestones to get to level 3, etc)

I use a very egalitarian approach; when someone does something significant for the story, the group gets a milestone. That gives large groups more opportunities to gather milestones, but smaller group usually can pack more action in the same period of play time, so it comes out to be about the same.

'findel