Milestones: Do players still go on side quests?

[xroads]

With current module I am about to run ("Descent into Avernus" if you're curios), I noticed that leveling is set up using the milestone method. From your experience, will players still participate in small side quests or openly explore?

I'm concerned that my players will now lack the incentive to do anything but stay on the tracks. Making the game less of an RPG and more of a video/board game.

If you had to use other incentives to explore, what did you do? Did you use more wealth? Magic item? Fame?

Thanks in advance.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I have a game where we are using milestones and the DM always ask us when do we always flip every stone on the way and do so much things that are not going deeper into the dungeon (we play Dungeon of the Mad Mage).

It depends on your players, how they play the game, what they find fun and what they like to do.

Every table is different and changing the rules don't change the players.

[Mutazoia]

The answer really depends on you. Do you offer your players optional side quests, or do you just jump from one module to another? Obviously, if you are not making side quests available, your players are not going to take them.

Since you are using the milestone method, players don't really have to worry about gaining enough XP to level up, but they will still be wanting better equipment (magic items) and cold, hard, cash to improve their chances of survival as they gain levels. The more quests they can take on, the more chances they have to do that, so I don't think they would turn down a side quest if it one turned up.

[Tanarii]

Milestones still provide XP, so they should.

Edit: or are you talking about "Leveling Without XP" instead of "Milestone XP"?

[nickl_2000]

My group is playing Dragonheist with milestone XP. I think we have gone on every single side quest, plot hook, and distractions presented to us (and a few that we made up as we went). So, I guess it depends on the group.

[xroads]

Milestones still provide XP, so they should.

Edit: or are you talking about "Leveling Without XP" instead of "Milestone XP"?

Leveling up without xp.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Your players don't know what milestones they must meet to level, it's entirely possible that skipping those "side quests" would mean skipping a milestone they would have levelled on.

For example, in our Dungeon of the Mad Mage game, we expect to be doing side quests for two reasons: We were payed to do them for a client and our DM requires some of them to be done for levelling.

[HappyDaze]

It's not hard to set milestones as:
Main adventure segment: 3 pts.
Side quests: 1 pt. each

Next level requires: 3-5 pts. determined by DM.

IOW, sometimes that leveling without XP might still require one or more side quests (but not all of them, or none are really optional).

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I've never used XP as a player or DM. I don't find it a big motivator in my experience (for myself or others). I think the best way to get people to commit to a side quest is to present it in an appealing or compelling way. Give the promise of discovering a long lost secret/location, being rewarded with a magic item, or resolving some kind of narrative stakes.

For example, "About 3 hours into your journey towards the city of water deep you crest a hill and see large, billowing clouds of smoke rising from the forest about two miles off of the road. You know that forest fires are rarely a natural occurrence in the area. Do you want to continue the long journey towards Waterdeep or check it out?"

That prompt gives them a potential side quest to pursue with immediate ramifications. If they pass by the fire, which is well out of their way, they do not know what the effects will be. It also piques their curiosity. Is the fire being set by Goblins? Did a controlled burn get out of hand putting people's lives in danger? Is there some sort of unique monster or creature roaming through the forest? They don't have all the information, so they are likely to be curious, and you can put whatever you want at the end of their trail. Maybe it is actually a natural forest fire after all and because they're rare in the area, the surrounding villages weren't prepared for it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Players that want to do side quests will do them regardless, and players that don't, won't. Only the promise of a ludicrous reward will convince the latter to do them, and that's always regardless of XP.

XP's a better incentive for behavior than questing style, really. Offer it only for killing monsters, and watch as your players murder everything that moves. Offer it for treasure, and your players will find every method in the book to avoid trouble while dragging back every last gold piece for miles, regardless of who owns it.

Offering it for quests completed, and only for quests completed, and you might be able to convince the non-side quest guys to do side quests. But I'm not sure if they'll like it more than see it as a necessary evil.

The people that like 'em will probably enjoy it, though. Check with your players.

[False God]

IME, you actually want to look to video game design for this. The "main quest" progresses the plot and story, while the side quests reward cool loot. Some side-quests will be too difficult to do at the level you first discover them, so you must complete more of the main quest, which itsself is made easier with the cool loot. So there's incentive to do both.

[Magicspook]

The players do whatever the fluff the players want. I give them a level every so often (3 sessions into the new campaign, I gave them 2 level ups so far so they are lvl 3 now. Of course, leveling will be slower in the future). I really don't see the problem.

Do the players play to earn levels or do they play to have fun (this is a rhetorical question)? In my experience, players do what players will without any regard for rewards.

[1Pirate]

For Avernus specifically, show them how valuable Soul coins are(or give them more value). They may(or might have to) take up side quests to get more.

[HappyDaze]

There may be times when it is hard or even impossible to determine whether a particular quest is "main" or "side" until later in the campaign.

[Keravath]

Keep in mind that the players do not know what you do ...

1) They don't know if any particular quest is a side quest, a main quest, a quest for a secondary objective, or not even a quest at all. The players interact with the world you create for them and choose the content they want to participate in. Unless you (the DM) specifically tells them, they won't know for sure what is important and what isn't from a main plot line perspective.

2) With Milestone leveling the DM awards the level when they want. This could be for accomplishing specific objectives. It could be for just spending a certain amount of time playing. It could be for covering a specific block of content. It could be because where they have decided to go next would benefit if they have another level. The players do NOT know what will trigger a level up. As a result, many will often explore content more naturally with milestone leveling than with XP.

As an example, with XP leveling, the characters KNOW that they usually need to kill things to gain XP to level. As a result, some players specifically go looking for things to kill and it doesn't matter whether they are important to the plot, extra NPCs or just an encounter you need to throw in spontaneously just to satisfy the murder hobo need for XP. The motivation to kill for XP is eliminated with milestone leveling, often allowing players to have their characters behave more in character ... they may still be murder hobos but if they are its because that is the way they want to play the character and not for scorched earth XP reasons.

Anyway, in terms of your original question, milestone leveling doesn't really affect whether players will do side quests or not. This has a lot more to do with the players and to some extent the characters they are role playing. Would the character want to explore? Do they want to help others? Is someone paying them? What does the character get out of it? Some players prefer to focus on the one immediate important thing while others, if there isn't time pressure are quite interested in following up on whatever crumbs you offer. So, for following side quests, milestone vs XP isn't really the issue, it is the particular group of players and what they like to do that is a much bigger factor.

[Bubzors]

I've never used XP as a player or DM. I don't find it a big motivator in my experience (for myself or others). I think the best way to get people to commit to a side quest is to present it in an appealing or compelling way. Give the promise of discovering a long lost secret/location, being rewarded with a magic item, or resolving some kind of narrative stakes.

For example, "About 3 hours into your journey towards the city of water deep you crest a hill and see large, billowing clouds of smoke rising from the forest about two miles off of the road. You know that forest fires are rarely a natural occurrence in the area. Do you want to continue the long journey towards Waterdeep or check it out?"

That prompt gives them a potential side quest to pursue with immediate ramifications. If they pass by the fire, which is well out of their way, they do not know what the effects will be. It also piques their curiosity. Is the fire being set by Goblins? Did a controlled burn get out of hand putting people's lives in danger? Is there some sort of unique monster or creature roaming through the forest? They don't have all the information, so they are likely to be curious, and you can put whatever you want at the end of their trail. Maybe it is actually a natural forest fire after all and because they're rare in the area, the surrounding villages weren't prepared for it.

My group is the same way. Havent used XP in about a decade (coming from 3.5 to 5e) and we do not miss it at all. XP was never really a good reward to us.

As others have stated, my experience is that the side quests interests one or more of the players and they do it... or they dont. If anything having XP leads to things feeling more video gamey as the players chase down every scrap of XP available vs just organically playing and taking quests that make sense and are in the interest of the party.

And I think this is for the better. The players have no idea what exactly is a "side quest" and what is the "main quest." If there is no dangling XP treats, the players usually play what is towards their characters motives.

I have been known to turn something that was supposed to be a side thing into a major facet of the campaign depending on how the players and characters interacted with the side thing. Therefore I never truly consider anything a side quest until the party has interacted with it.

[Waterdeep Merch]

The *proper* use of XP, as best I can tell, is to make the players play the game in certain ways. I consider leaving it attached to monster fights sloppy at best since it makes murderhobos the correct manner of play. Once I started granting XP for handling situations, regardless of if there was a fight or not, I saw a dramatic increase in players willing to negotiate with enemies or avoid them entirely. Once I made quests grant bounties of the stuff, people became more focused on getting through them efficiently. And in games where I eliminated it entirely, I saw players refocus on the things they could have instead, like gold and treasure.

XP's one of many knobs you can be cranking, and not necessarily the best one for whatever job. Before you decide to use it, consider why you need it at all. And then ask if a box filled with money would work just the same.

[Meichrob7]

I think exp is a bad system to learn DMing with. It lets you get lazy with motivation and hooks because it encourages the players to always explore every option even if their characters wouldn’t or even if it doesn’t seem fun to them, because they’re afraid of missing exp.

I think milestone keeps the DM honest and forces you to either make story hooks that would entice the characters in a role play heavy group, or to make the challenge look fun to the players for a more casual group. In the end there will be some things the players might skip that they otherwise wouldn’t, but if the players were only doing things for exp then you probably have larger systemic issues to address that you shouldn’t just bury under the handicap of the exp system.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Your players don't know what milestones they must meet to level, it's entirely possible that skipping those "side quests" would mean skipping a milestone they would have levelled on.

For example, in our Dungeon of the Mad Mage game, we expect to be doing side quests for two reasons: We were payed to do them for a client and our DM requires some of them to be done for levelling.

I have to say that I never noticed a client for the side quests (or more accurate to say we ignore them, sometimes kill them and sometimes help them without the rewards).

We just turn every stone and present to the other PCs reasons to do so.

To tell the truth I never saw a player that just wanted to blitz the campaign(even in the few months were I played AL in a club near my working place).

Our DM level us by the level of the dungeon and a character action that fit the character fluff(that is why I was stuck at level 7 in a level 9 party, now everyone is 9).

[micahaphone]

I've been doing Out of the Abyss in Milestones, and my players have done 90% of the sidequests, with only 1 or 2 that they didn't pursue. Some of them they completed above and beyond what is required to get the reward per the book! In my experience, if the side quest is interesting or is tied to an npc they like, or something for them to get invested in, they'll jump on it.

The only quests they didn't take were when the Neverlight Grove government says "come by this cool new garden tomorrow. In the mean time, you could hunt this shambling mound to the east or some gricks to the north".
I believe the book basically tells the DM that these are good xp filler missions, if the players didn't get enough xp while travelling between cities. My players didn't have much connection to the npcs of neverlight grove, and saw no reason to go out hunting, especially as they didn't necessarily trust the npcs. I had the shambling mound (and some plant-dog minion things from MToF) attack them as they left, as they didn't clear that up ahead of time.

[HappyDaze]

In my experience, if the side quest is interesting or is tied to an npc they like, or something for them to get invested in, they'll jump on it.


And those are by far the best reasons to do a side quest. I far prefer them to "well, we need XP, so let's do this thing that no one really cares about just so we can level up a bit faster" that comes with XP tracking.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I have to say that I never noticed a client for the side quests (or more accurate to say we ignore them, sometimes kill them and sometimes help them without the rewards).

We just turn every stone and present to the other PCs reasons to do so.


I know some side quests do involve a client potentially reaching out to you but in our case specifically we retooled Trollskull Tavern into an adventurers guild. The players (which I am) liked my idea to do so and the DM was able to more easily integrate those NPC reaching out.

AFAIK you end up interacting with most things that end up being a "side quest" naturally on your way down. It's the resolving part that tends to change if you mistakenly muck it up since you didn't know that someone wanted it done a certain way.

[EggKookoo]

My group is the same way. Havent used XP in about a decade (coming from 3.5 to 5e) and we do not miss it at all. XP was never really a good reward to us.

I've used XP up until my most recent campaign. For this one (starting all at 1st), I'm just having the PCs level when they resolve certain sections of the campaign. Or at least I plan to, we're only four sessions in and they're still 1st level. I'm going to ballpark it -- level them after a certain number of encounters at X CR -- but also massage it so they're the appropriate level when moving on to tougher stuff. I know some folks bristle at that but it works.


And I think this is for the better. The players have no idea what exactly is a "side quest" and what is the "main quest." If there is no dangling XP treats, the players usually play what is towards their characters motives.

Heck, sometimes I don't know what's a main quest and a side quest.

Right now my players are acting as temporarily deputized members of the local watch in order to investigate reports of missing people at a work site. However, they're really doing it to gain access to the site so they can find a hidden chamber, something completely unrelated to the missing people. The players are fully aware that "missing people" isn't their main goal, but they've gotten caught up in it and so far seem like they fully intend to solve that problem. It's become the "main quest," at least for now.

[Corsair14]

I use milestones but give it in the form of exp. This allows me to run side quests if the PCs take the bait, I have them all over the main campaign path. I predict they might go for 25% of my side quests.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

My group is the same way. Havent used XP in about a decade (coming from 3.5 to 5e) and we do not miss it at all. XP was never really a good reward to us.

As others have stated, my experience is that the side quests interests one or more of the players and they do it... or they dont. If anything having XP leads to things feeling more video gamey as the players chase down every scrap of XP available vs just organically playing and taking quests that make sense and are in the interest of the party.

And I think this is for the better. The players have no idea what exactly is a "side quest" and what is the "main quest." If there is no dangling XP treats, the players usually play what is towards their characters motives.

I have been known to turn something that was supposed to be a side thing into a major facet of the campaign depending on how the players and characters interacted with the side thing. Therefore I never truly consider anything a side quest until the party has interacted with it.

All of this ^

[Sigreid]

If they dont care enough to do the sidequests anyway it's probably not good for the table that they do things they dont want to or dont care about just to get a little xp.

[HappyDaze]

If they dont care enough to do the sidequests anyway it's probably not good for the table that they do things they dont want to or dont care about just to get a little xp.

Sometimes they find the side quests more interesting than the main quests. I discovered this in a Pathfinder series once. Nobody cared about the main plot after book 2 (of 6), but they kept hoping there would be some interesting side quests to keep them entertained along the way.

[Waterdeep Merch]

As a counterpoint to not using XP or equivalents, I was in a game where you leveled whenever the DM said so instead of using XP, where you never really earned gold or items, they were just handed to you, and the plot was essentially a railroad with phantom choices where you could accidentally screw up and get punished (with arbitrary, roll-less death, no less) if you didn't figure out what the DM wanted you to do.

It was hard paying attention to or caring about anything. I couldn't even tell you if the story was any good, keeping your eyes open was a chore. Since you never really earned anything and any guess for moving forward was as good as any other, even the parts that got deadly were just mind-numbingly boring instead. Might as well play a shell game while someone tries to read Tolkien fan fiction. It wouldn't have fixed every problem, but being able to earn XP or something would have helped tremendously.

D&D's built around a system of rewards and increasing power, be it from levels or gold and loot. Milestone leveling is fine, but please, please don't be arbitrary about it. Players like leveling. It's so fun that there are people that build characters they'll never play all the time. If levels feel like they're completely out of their hands, they'll stop caring.

[Nagog]

I run a very chapter-based campaign, and sidequests along the way help add to the overall story through the subplots they introduce/further/conclude. OVerall, however, there are 20 total chapters including Sidequest chapters. Occasionally I'll lead them into a sidequest involved in a subplot related to a character if that player seems disconnected or is having trouble getting invested into their character, and for the most part it doesn't change the overall plot, but at the end of every chapter and subplot is a level up, so there is that to incentivize it as well.

[EggKookoo]

As a counterpoint to not using XP or equivalents, I was in a game where you leveled whenever the DM said so instead of using XP, where you never really earned gold or items, they were just handed to you, and the plot was essentially a railroad with phantom choices where you could accidentally screw up and get punished (with arbitrary, roll-less death, no less) if you didn't figure out what the DM wanted you to do.

This is a mix of a bunch of different problems, none of which is directly connected to the others.

[Waterdeep Merch]

This is a mix of a bunch of different problems, none of which is directly connected to the others.
Many, and there were many more in that campaign besides. But a key problem across the board is a lack of player involvement. Incentive is just one thing that could have made things a little better.