What different ways have you awarded XP? Why? How did they affect your games?

[Puh Laden]

The most frequently traded out subsystem of 5e (not just outright ignored) is probably the experience points/leveling system. I know I've fiddled with all sorts of different systems:

0. The normal XP system (or rather its equivalent from D&D Next). Only used when I ran the playtest.
1. Leveling up with the completions of adventures / when it felt right.
2. Leveling up whenever the party got a certain number of experience points (like 7) that were tied to them doing particularly heroic things such as freeing an enslaved orc tribe, taking on tough fights, killing a boss, finding clues to a conspiracy, or completing an adventure.
3. The normal XP system but with XP per creature replaced with XP per encounter by difficulty (sometimes random encounters are worth XP, sometimes they aren't) (with occasional rewards for successful social and environment encounters). XP is awarded based on "defeating" an encounter rather than killing.
4. I'm thinking of doing an adventure where 1 gp = 1 XP and trading in treasure is the only way to gain XP.

I used the first method (1 not 0) at first because I was new to the system and a lot of adventures I wanted to put the party through were based on their backstories and not very combat-heavy.

I used the second one because I was running an AD&D adventure in 5e and didn't want to have to change the number of monsters. I also wanted to reward them for acting heroic and to make them feel like they were rewarded for exploration and discovering the plot.

I used the third one because I finally became acquainted with the math behind 5e's adventuring day and wanted to try it out, but I didn't want to have to do the math. I also didn't quite trust the math yet and had 6 players with rolled stats, so it was somewhat hard to balance for, so I sometimes awarded XP per "perceived difficulty" (if a fight felt easy, I gave them easy XP). I also felt it was easier to plan an adventuring day with the number of encounters and difficulties involved than worrying about the exact XP reward of all the monsters involved.

I'm thinking of using the fourth one because I want to make and run an old-school dungeon crawl adventure with backfill, wandering monsters, and random encounters (possibly entirely rolled encounters) but still want a nice trackable progression. Tying loot to XP I think brings that in and makes it so that random encounters are still things to avoid.

I'll admit, I haven't actually seen there be all that much of a difference between these, other than the third one does tend to encourage fighting more often than not (as opposed to sneaking or diplomacy), though that's probably because I'm writing the adventure in a such a way as to justify the fights.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've done benchmarks (when the players completed a part of the adventure), and they were fine, but arbitrary.

I've recently moved on to using session-based experience. That is, you need to attend a number of sessions equal to your level to level up.

So to go to level 2 requires you to play 1 session. To go to level 3 requires you to play 2 sessions. To go to level 4 requires 3 sessions. And so on. It really incentivizes people to actually show up when they end up a level behind.

[Wryte]

I strictly use milestones. It:

* Keeps players on the same level
* Frees me up from having to math out experience modifiers
* Gives me a non-loot method to reward completing stuff
* Lets me plan challenge levels farther in advance
* Prevents frustration with a big encounter leaving you juuuuust short of leveling up
* Makes leveling up more narratively appropriate

None of my players have ever complained about it, and it's the method I prefer when I'm a player, myself.

[nickl_2000]

I like milestones personally. It really encourages players to solve issues without combat. Avoiding or resolving a conflict without killing should be worth the same XP in theory , but it never seems to be in practice.

[Sigreid]

Honestly, at our table the characters level up together whenever the DM feels like it. Usually based on his or her feelings about what they've accomplished.

[Skallewag]

I like to use a mixed bag so I award XP for all sorts of things.

* Killing stuff.
* Milestone xp
* Tricking/negotiating enemies to avoid fighting them.
* Disarming traps.
* Finding secrets or figuring out something clever about the plot
* Coming up with clever solutions to problems I present. (Especially if I hadnt thought of it.)

Also I use multipliers on monster XP based on how many I use at once. 10 koblds at once is a lot more taxing on the groups resources than 10 different fights with 1 kobold.

[Imbalance]

I've done benchmarks (when the players completed a part of the adventure), and they were fine, but arbitrary.

I've recently moved on to using session-based experience. That is, you need to attend a number of sessions equal to your level to level up.

So to go to level 2 requires you to play 1 session. To go to level 3 requires you to play 2 sessions. To go to level 4 requires 3 sessions. And so on. It really incentivizes people to actually show up when they end up a level behind.

This seemed like a bad idea at first glance, but then I did the math and I think I really like it. A dedicated player needs to survive every week for four years to see level 20, while a newb makes rapid progress their first 15 sessions.

[IIzak]

I actually like using XP a lot because it gives the players another number that goes up that they can see increasing.

A friend of mine actually uses what our whole group thinks is a pretty sweet system. We use what he calls "Goal XP." What we do is prior to the session each person comes up with 1-3 goals they want to try to accomplish. These goals can be short or long term. The DM assigns those goals a difficulty based on the scaling difficulty in the DMG (Easy, Medium, Hard, Deadly) and then play continues on through the session. Once the session is completed, the DM goes to each character and figures out which goals they completed and which goals they attempted to work on in the session. Normally working on a goal means that you actively pursued it and typically means that you made a roll that had some effect on that goal. If a goal is accomplished, the character receives full XP for that goal based on the chart in the DMG on pg 82 I think? If they failed to accomplish that goal or if they only worked on it, they get 50 * Character Level for XP. We have adopted it for all of our games because we find that it drives people to play their characters more actively in the game when they explicitly have stated what they want to do, and it also helps as a DM bc you sort of get an idea of where the session will go and what stuff you need to prepare when you have that information in advance.

In this system you can also choose to award Full Monster XP, 1/4th Monster XP, or no Monster XP depending on how you want to do things. If you do award it, I recommend requiring a monster to die in order to obtain their XP award. Also, If you do full XP, your players would probably level really quickly. Its more work on you as a DM, but as players, we've all really enjoyed it.

Alternatively, with the idea of an old-school d&d dungeon, the Angry GM did a pretty good XP breakdown of adventuring day XP as well as wandering monsters and stuff like that in his Megadungeon Mondays series, so you might be interested in checking that out and see if you can use any of the work that he already did.

[crookedtree]

I'm running Dragon Heist right now with milestone xp and it feels arbitrary and slow with the Wotc recommended milestones. They spend an abnormally long time at level 1.

[Bubzors]

I use milestone leveling and no one seems to mind. We have been doing it for years. Mainly for all the reasons other people have listed. No one in my group wants to track XP and they like it to feel rewarded by leveling after big successes in the game.

Personally I really dislike using XP. Also i am not a fan of people being different XP amounts or levels. If a player cant make it one week I dont punish him by having them miss out on the XP. Everyone just levels at the same time. We are all adults who have busy schedules, not going to treat it like attendance affects their grade type of thing

[Bjarkmundur]

So many good points here!

Sessions to level, players love watching numbers go up and goal based xp are amazing ideas.

I'd love to try the goal based XP. Maybe in a group of more experienced players. It also opens up the possibility of retirering characters more frequently.
Achieving your goals, retire that character and make a new character with new goals to complete sounds pretty fun.

[manyslayer]

When I DM I almost exclusively use milestones. It makes my job easier and keeps everyone together.


4. I'm thinking of doing an adventure where 1 gp = 1 XP and trading in treasure is the only way to gain XP.
What happens to the gold? Does it just vanish in a ritual of leveling? I see a few potential problems but some depend on the types of player/characters you have.

If a character is a stereotypical steals-from-the-party thief, that character is now taking two things from the party (their gold and their ability to level up).

Some classes have higher costs associated with their daily operations. Monks have little they need to buy, fighters have their armor and such but once gotten is fine. Spellcasters may have spells with expensive components. Now, those spells essentially also have an XP component like some spells in 3.5. This could cause spell-casters to lag behind if the party insists on an even split of all treasure regardless of party usage.

Players that play altruistic characters now have to choose between using the gold for leveling or helping those in need. At least if using the gold to buy magic items and such the money is still going into the community.

It could lead to player frustration if something happens to their gold stash just before they had enough to level up.

With a particularly cooperative group, they may pool to level one character up faster to achieve some level-based ability before the adventure assumes they would have it.

[Bjarkmundur]

I have some questions regarding the goal based XP system.

Does this mean that until a goal is completed, the group is stuck on one level?

Does this mean that you ask them to make "one level 1 goal, one level 2 goal and one level 3 goal" to ensure each goal is achievable?

Does this mean the whole group gains a level, or just one character?

Assuming that each goal takes 1 or more sessions to achieve, does that mean that the last person to reach their goal is sitting at level 2 for at least 4-6 sessions?

Please tell me more, this sounds like such a good idea :)

[Pex]

XP or milestone is fine with me, but the one thing I hate a DM to do when awarding XP is when the entire session or two or three consists of an epic battle where the players have to run multiple NPC allies in addition to their character fighting against scores of bad guys and monsters, but the DM counts the NPC allies against the players in awarding XP such that your PC only earns 200 XP.

In my opinion players earn XP, not the characters. It's the players who spend the time and energy playing the DM's game. They get the rewards. Naturally be mindful if you do run such an epic battle that the XP awarded doesn't level up the PCs several levels at once, but they darn sure deserve more than a measely 286 XP fighting against 3 bugbears, 5 hobgoblins, 10 orcs who can cast Darkness and see in that darkness, a drow wizard, a goblin rogue, and a Vrock.

Oh, did I rant that out loud?

[Malbrack]

As a DM, I don't keep track of experience. I use an "X number of sessions equals a level up" method and I think it leaves things more open ended. Some sessions are more RP heavy and others are more combat heavy, and the players can adjust based on what they want to do at the moment without having to consider how it will affect their leveling progression. It also saves me a lot of unneeded bookkeeping.

In my current campaign, I had levels 1 and 2 last 1 session each. Levels 3 and 4 lasted 2 sessions each. And levels 5 and on lasted 3-4 sessions each. My reasoning was that characters start to feel powerful and differentiated by level 5, so I wanted the PCs to get there quickly, but once they were there, it was okay to slow things down. I told my players at the beginning that this was my plan for leveling, and they all agreed with it.

[The Kool]

I think the most unconventional system I've worked with is one where XP is rewarded based on the session participation. We actually track XP, so it's not 'level up after X many sessions', but it's a 3.5 group so it's not much point in sharing our numbers. We start with a base amount determined by your level, and adjust by percentages for everything from participation/distraction to bringing snacks to share. Simply put, the more you contribute to the table's enjoyment of the session, the more XP you'll get. The first couple levels are usually one session each, but it slows down to 10-15 sessions per level at the higher levels. For perspective, most of our sessions are actually fairly well contained one-shots.

[Man_Over_Game]

This seemed like a bad idea at first glance, but then I did the math and I think I really like it. A dedicated player needs to survive every week for four years to see level 20, while a newb makes rapid progress their first 15 sessions.

It does get a bit extreme, with it taking 20 sessions to go from level 19 to 20, with 210 sessions total.

You can chop it down by saying that you need to attend a number of sessions equal to your previous level, and then leveling the players midway through their first session to level 2. This is the difference of level 6 to level 7 after 15 sessions, and it'll take 20 fewer sessions to reach max level (190 down from 210).

Or, put another way, to level up from level 3 to level 4, you need to attend 2 sessions as a level 3 character.

[Puh Laden]

When I DM I almost exclusively use milestones. It makes my job easier and keeps everyone together.


What happens to the gold? Does it just vanish in a ritual of leveling? I see a few potential problems but some depend on the types of player/characters you have.

If a character is a stereotypical steals-from-the-party thief, that character is now taking two things from the party (their gold and their ability to level up).

Some classes have higher costs associated with their daily operations. Monks have little they need to buy, fighters have their armor and such but once gotten is fine. Spellcasters may have spells with expensive components. Now, those spells essentially also have an XP component like some spells in 3.5. This could cause spell-casters to lag behind if the party insists on an even split of all treasure regardless of party usage.

Players that play altruistic characters now have to choose between using the gold for leveling or helping those in need. At least if using the gold to buy magic items and such the money is still going into the community.

It could lead to player frustration if something happens to their gold stash just before they had enough to level up.

With a particularly cooperative group, they may pool to level one character up faster to achieve some level-based ability before the adventure assumes they would have it.

Disclaimer: I'm in university now, so my campaigns tend to last as long as a semester or term and then get rotated out for a new one -- potentially with new players. But I've also made quite a few friends through the game, who have different ways they like to play. So if I have a certain game I want to run, I ask the players I think would enjoy it most or would be the most open to it.

Since the idea is sort of a throwback to old school stuff, the gold goes to "training." Although honestly having it being spent on whatever makes just as much sense in the abstract system that is experience and leveling. So it goes to training, carousing, gaining political power, paying tithes, giving to the poor, funding a nature preserve, whatever. They'd only be able to level-up outside of the dungeon is the main point.

I typically ban intra-party stealing (EDIT: or rather characters who WOULD steal from their comrades) unless everyone's okay with it, but since treasure would be so much more important, I'd probably ban it regardless -- or run a different kind of campaign -- for a group that wanted it.

Being one level off isn't too big of a deal, and the differences in XP needed for leveling is big enough I doubt it'd go beyond that. Especially since if my players knows the treasures distributed for them to be able to level evenly, they probably will. Though if it was a trade-off for a little bit of early power I think that'd be fine too. I'd let the players know beforehand that in addition to gold needed to level up, I'd be throwing in a little extra gold for purchasing components / armor upgrades, possibly a few magic items that I curate into a special magic item shop. I'd also of course be distributing components and magic items along with the treasure. (And probably a little fullplate a little later than it could be bought).

I'm planning to use this for a (EDIT: sandbox-) dungeon crawl I'd be writing myself, and getting a feel for when you should pull out and that sort of tension would be one of the core engagements.

[Malbrack]

It does get a bit extreme, with it taking 20 sessions to go from level 19 to 20, with 210 sessions total.

You can chop it down by saying that you need to attend a number of sessions equal to your previous level, and then leveling the players midway through their first session to level 2. This is the difference of level 6 to level 7 after 15 sessions, and it'll take 20 fewer sessions to reach max level (190 down from 210).

Or, put another way, to level up from level 3 to level 4, you need to attend 2 sessions as a level 3 character.

Do you really have such a problem with attendance that you are willing to have your PCs at different levels? Are you DMing for friends or strangers? I can see this system if you're DMing for a rotating door of strangers, but not with friends. I prefer to keep the characters all at the same level.

Also, how often do you play? Even at once a week, this is years of major commitment. Do you really want to run a single campaign for 200 sessions over 4 years?

I don't see why can't do something like 2 sessions to level 2, 3 to 3, 4 to 4, and then 5 sessions for every additional level. Or something like that. 20 sessions for a level is slower than just earning the experience for the level, right?

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you really have such a problem with attendance that you are willing to have your PCs at different levels? Are you DMing for friends or strangers? I can see this system if you're DMing for a rotating door of strangers, but not with friends. I prefer to keep the characters all at the same level.

Also, how often do you play? Even at once a week, this is years of major commitment. Do you really want to run a single campaign for 200 sessions over 4 years?

I don't see why can't do something like 2 sessions to level 2, 3 to 3, 4 to 4, and then 5 sessions for every additional level. Or something like that. 20 sessions for a level is slower than just earning the experience for the level, right?

That's a valid point, my games haven't ever ran past level 10, but something akin to what you're describing would work fine. My tables run twice a month, so that's still about 90 sessions, 45 months, or 4 years. But that's still half as much as my original example.

[Malbrack]

That's a valid point, my games haven't ever ran past level 10, but something akin to what you're describing would work fine. My tables run twice a month, so that's still about 90 sessions, 45 months, or 4 years. But that's still half as much as my original example.

The campaign I am about to finish up has run 20 sessions over 2 years, and they just hit level 9. As I mentioned above, levels 1 and 2 were 1 session each, levels 3 and 4 were 2 sessions each, and levels 5 and on were 3-4 sessions each. We thought the progression felt just about perfect. With your pace of twice a month and this progression, you could run a 1-10 campaign in 1 year. That sounds pretty great.

[Imbalance]

The campaign I am about to finish up has run 20 sessions over 2 years, and they just hit level 9. As I mentioned above, levels 1 and 2 were 1 session each, levels 3 and 4 were 2 sessions each, and levels 5 and on were 3-4 sessions each. We thought the progression felt just about perfect. With your pace of twice a month and this progression, you could run a 1-10 campaign in 1 year. That sounds pretty great.

It would scale nicely for starting at a higher level, too. It works out the same as a goal-driven rate of one milestone per session, or you could adjust the number of milestones per session where there are no attendance issues.

As far as characters on different levels, is it really that bad in D&D? I'm asking because I've seen it work by design in video games but have no experience with level disparity among players at the table.

[Man_Over_Game]

It would scale nicely for starting at a higher level, too. It works out the same as a goal-driven rate of one milestone per session, or you could adjust the number of milestones per session where there are no attendance issues.

As far as characters on different levels, is it really that bad in D&D? I'm asking because I've seen it work by design in video games but have no experience with level disparity among players at the table.

It's not a major difference in terms of power that's a concern, it's the fact that the problem usually gets worse rather than getting better.

Someone who has less experience than others likely misses sessions, and will likely be the person who misses more sessions in the future. Unlike video games, that player will have no means of catching up. He will always be missing that experience, and may even miss more.

This might also make him feel like he has less incentive to show up while playing an underleveled character with no means of repair, making the situation worse.

So if you plan on your players having higher or lower experience, and this is a concern you have, I'd consider having some kind of "homework" option, maybe doing a side scenario when the party is taking some downtime, where you work him through a threatening scenario that he has to manage by himself.

[ChildofLuthic]

So I told my players I'd keep track of their XP but let them know it so they can know when they're approaching level up. This led to my players not knowing or caring about XP and just waiting for me to say their characters are ready for level up.

So on my end, the game is "XP per monster, level ups happen at the end of an adventure" but to my players it feels like "milestone except it doesn't always feel like the best milestones are where we get level ups."

[BW022]

We typically use fixed XP per session.

I found most other systems have flaws which end up exploited.

Milestones force players to hurry or rush adventures and has a massive penalty for failing -- which forced the DM to softball encounters so they don't fail and get nothing. Failing should be a part of D&D.
Gold creates economy issues and alters how players play -- a selfless monk who gives away gold vs. a group of thieves. Helping a poor woman vs. doing a quest for gold.
Standard methods tend to be too much book-keeping and again favour different types of play styles. i.e. we need to kill X to get the XP.

I've found fixed XP per session is simple, controls the pace of leveling, and doesn't unduly force the players into playing a certain way. If they wish to go off the 'story' and explore... they can. If they wish to set up a business... they can. If they wish to roleplay the entire session, they can. If they fail at a mission, it isn't the end of the world -- and they can a chance to experience failure or get really motivated to try to recover from it.