[3.5] Static per session XP. The answers to my problems?

[Pika...]

Well, here is the basic story: I despise the XP system for I feel it is too fast paced and designed for A to Z modules. It prevents groups from having long-term campaigns and characters in my opinion (like in older D&D days).

A player of mine just decided to take the rings and start DMing the first time, and came up with the idea of "per session XP" and I am thinking of stealing it for myself.

I basically run goal achieved and accomplishments achieved (both personal and party-wise), and I love it because it forces players to do more than just dungeon crawl/kill and think of a reason for their PCs to exist in the world and then act on it. However, a player in particular is upset due to the slow leveling (I dislike this, because I feel he is missing the point of the game or is just not with the right group), and the same was true with my last group. There seems to always be one or two person(s) who just want that reward feeling of XP.

This got me thinking after the player/new DM for now told me his plan for per-session XP. What if I just static per session XP, which only those players who come get, and it is always going to be a static number no matter what happens in game. This way they get their reward feeling, the game/campaign/group can progress slow how I like it to focus on the "Epic Journeys of great heroes" instead of an A to B to C module, and I never have to worry about the issue.

The only down side I see is that there is no longer a motivation to achieve anything.

Anyway, my thought is 200XP per session. Never anymore, never any less.


Thoughts on this please?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Honestly? If I may offer a suggestion...

Unless you have PCs using XP cost spells or investing heavily in crafting, just ditch XP. It's far easier if you have them level up when you feel they should have leveled up. Hell...if PCs DO want to craft/cast XP cost spells, just tell them they level up an encounter or two after you tell the others.

[taltamir]

Honestly? If I may offer a suggestion...

Unless you have PCs using XP cost spells or investing heavily in crafting, just ditch XP. It's far easier if you have them level up when you feel they should have leveled up. Hell...if PCs DO want to craft/cast XP cost spells, just tell them they level up an encounter or two after you tell the others.

or just say that crafting costs extra GP... crafting just costs market price gp with the basic crafting feat, extra specialization allows you to reduce said costs, such specialization though should not be available to players or limited to players.
make it require several years apprenticeship to some master for example. So if a PC wants it he needs to take a few years off of adventuring.

and then there is absolutely no reason for XP cost... spells with XP cost? make them have a costly material component (GP) instead.

that way you can do away with XP altogether as suggested and just be whatever level you think is appropriate.

[FishAreWet]

This system ruins XP costs. Makes them FAR FAR worse.

XP is a river. You spend it then you gain it back faster. This drops that system.

[Kurald Galain]

Anyway, my thought is 200XP per session. Never anymore, never any less.

It's a good idea, but I think 200 xp is too low. I would aim for leveling up every three or four sessions. I would also consider giving an xp bonus for those players who roleplay their character well, just as an incentive.


(and no, xp is not intended to be a river; that's just a min-maxing trick thought up by character optimizers)

[Pika...]

Honestly? If I may offer a suggestion...

Unless you have PCs using XP cost spells or investing heavily in crafting, just ditch XP. It's far easier if you have them level up when you feel they should have leveled up. Hell...if PCs DO want to craft/cast XP cost spells, just tell them they level up an encounter or two after you tell the others.

That's what I do, but I just put a bit more effort into seeing when they "deserve" to level. basically a sign of their greatness/power/importance in the world, and/or due to the goals they achieved or the accomplishments they achieved (hence why I require a template of background for each PC from a player).

However, the issue with the one player keeps coming up in conversation, and I know there will always be a player or two who really dislike it. Hence why I am considering just saying:

"OK, every session you get exactly 200xp no matter what you do or what happens. This takes away any pressure to hack-and-slash OR roleplay. You will all eventually level even if we just sit there doing nothing but talking and eating while we crack jokes. So, NOW you are free to do as you feel your PCs would on this heavily worked on world and cosmology.

With 200xp a session you should get through level 1 quickly, but as levels get higher the leveling up will go slower."

[TaintedLight]

While I do think you have the right idea in mind with a slower, more epic game, I think 200 XP per session would be far too slow. Consider this:

It takes an amount of XP equal to your ECL x 1000 to get from your current level to the next level. So, a 1st level character needs to earn 1000 more XP to get to level 2, a 7th level character needs to earn an additional 7000 XP to get to level 8, etc. If you give 200 XP per session, you're going to end up with a situation where players level once every ECL x 5 sessions. Assuming you play once or twice a week, that means getting from level 2 to level 3 takes a month or two. At level 5, it takes three months to six months. Your games could potentially slow to a crawl as your players realize that nothing is changing. They are fighting the same enemies that they have been fighting for the last real-life year of gaming sessions, they are casting the very same spells that they have been casting for the last year, they are using the same magic items that they have been using for the last year, and that could get tiresome if you aren't careful. At 10th level, you need to have 50 sessions just to gain a level.

There's another reason to consider here. Fixed XP discourages not only "grinding" and the kick-in-the-door style, it kills all remaining incentive to actually roleplay. If you want your players to roleplay because they haven't been doing it before, forget about it now. They will be as machine-like as ever because there is truly no point in doing otherwise.

To close, you should seriously consider some caveats if you choose a system like this. Reward roleplaying with extra XP to encourage more of it, acknowledge risks that PCs take even though they didn't have to, and be prepared to adjust the amount of per-session XP. I'd go with something more like 800, but a scaling amount would be even better I suspect.

[Pika...]

It's a good idea, but I think 200 xp is too low. I would aim for leveling up every three or four sessions. I would also consider giving an xp bonus for those players who roleplay their character well, just as an incentive.


(and no, xp is not intended to be a river; that's just a min-maxing trick thought up by character optimizers)

Well, the thing is I want my games/groups to be like the old timer ones where they play the same PCs/party for years together, having a true adventure. Slow is what I want.

[Rixx]

Have you considered E6?

[Pika...]

While I do think you have the right idea in mind with a slower, more epic game, I think 200 XP per session would be far too slow. Consider this:

It takes an amount of XP equal to your ECL x 1000 to get from your current level to the next level. So, a 1st level character needs to earn 1000 more XP to get to level 2, a 7th level character needs to earn an additional 7000 XP to get to level 8, etc. If you give 200 XP per session, you're going to end up with a situation where players level once every ECL x 5 sessions. Assuming you play once or twice a week, that means getting from level 2 to level 3 takes a month or two. At level 5, it takes three months to six months. Your games could potentially slow to a crawl as your players realize that nothing is changing. They are fighting the same enemies that they have been fighting for the last real-life year of gaming sessions, they are casting the very same spells that they have been casting for the last year, they are using the same magic items that they have been using for the last year, and that could get tiresome if you aren't careful. At 10th level, you need to have 50 sessions just to gain a level.

There's another reason to consider here. Fixed XP discourages not only "grinding" and the kick-in-the-door style, it kills all remaining incentive to actually roleplay. If you want your players to roleplay because they haven't been doing it before, forget about it now. They will be as machine-like as ever because there is truly no point in doing otherwise.

To close, you should seriously consider some caveats if you choose a system like this. Reward roleplaying with extra XP to encourage more of it, acknowledge risks that PCs take even though they didn't have to, and be prepared to adjust the amount of per-session XP. I'd go with something more like 800, but a scaling amount would be even better I suspect.

Hmm...


What about a scaling amount that works out to the players knowing it will be X amount of time from level 1 to level 20? Say break it down for a planned two years of the PCs' "Epic Journey"?

However, that still does not fix the no incentive what-so-ever part.

[taltamir]

i always wanted to do a game where you actually get better by doing things... I think GURPS or WoD makes for a better system for something like that than DnD though.
You do a mission to earn a lot of money and invest it in a business? you gain wealth levels (costs skill points in WoD and gurps).
You join the army and go through bootcamp? at the end of training you get a bunch of bonuses
You perform some ancient ritual? gain bonuses and powers and points.
You join a gym and go for a few months? gain bonuses as appropriate.
You study spell books? gain bonuses / skills.

For DnD I don't think it would translate well... maybe if you did a harry potteresque "magic academy" campaign where everyone is a wizard, you could actually award XP for binding your familiar, award XP for every new spell you learn and scribe into your book (primary source of XP), award XP for "practicing" (aka, casting spells), and you get 0 XP for actually killing things. (well, you still get the XP for the "practice" of casting the spells.. mmm, maybe double XP for casting a spell in combat)...

I figure it would be an interesting game.

Hmm...


What about a scaling amount that works out to the players knowing it will be X amount of time from level 1 to level 20? Say break it down for a planned two years of the PCs' "Epic Journey"?

However, that still does not fix the no incentive what-so-ever part.

if you wanted to scale the before mentioned amount, you could make XP be 200 * your level per session. That way you level every 5 sessions. I would recommend something like 400 per level, so you level a little faster (about every 3 sessions)...

still not a recommended plan methinks.

[akma]

The simple rule of 200 XP per session will seriously slow down leveling. To go from level 1 to level 21, it would take 1050 sessions. From level 1 to level 10 it would take 225 sessions, and from level 1 to level 5 it would take 50 sessions. I have a feeling that`s slower then you have imagined.
From what you described, I would suggest great rewards for story XP, while the rest are minor. For exemple: if there would be an adventure where the adventurers would need to slaughter the evil villain that is in a certain castle, do very little XP gains for killing specific monsters, and big XP gains for advancing the story (for exemple, the party of adventurers might find out the big villain is under mind control, that he is the good guy or maybe the whole castle is just an illusion). That way, the party could go up a level every adventure/2-3 adventures, without the players waiting many months to level up.

[TaintedLight]

Hmm...


What about a scaling amount that works out to the players knowing it will be X amount of time from level 1 to level 20? Say break it down for a planned two years of the PCs' "Epic Journey"?

However, that still does not fix the no incentive what-so-ever part.

I'm sure a scaling factor of some kind could be worked out to determine how much experience to grant per session if you wanted to stretch 20 levels across so many sessions, but it's 1:20 am here :p.

If you did 1000 XP per session, the game moves at a very brisk pace early on, but it takes much, much longer later. Assuming you play one last session upon reaching level 20, there will be 211 game sessions. Taking it at one session per week, that's a four year campaign. Simple math gives you the adjusted length if you up the frequency of play or decrease it even. The point is that 210 discrete chunks of XP get handed out over the course of the adventure.

[Alleine]

However, that still does not fix the no incentive what-so-ever part.

Well ideally the campaign itself and the things they get for questing(notoriety, money, favors, etc.) would be enough to tide someone through the levels.

If its that big of a problem, you could steal something from D&D Online. Between each level there are several ranks that each time you reach gives you points to spend on things that make you better, change some of your powers, and give small bonuses to certain rolls. Now I wouldn't advise doing the exact same thing considering how much unnecessary work that would entail, but give them mechanical rewards for doing something awesome. Small bonuses to certain rolls or skills because a character has been introduced to something so often. For example, a character pretty much gets hit by fire all the time no matter what. They just manage to get hit by that fireball, pushed into a fire trap, smacked with a torch or what have you. For all that, give them some fire resistance. One or two points at first, and gradually ramp it up if it continues. This way they naturally gain small rewards and incentives to continue doing what they do without making them too powerful.

Along a similar vein, the rewards could always be some of the weaker feats out there that no one takes. AKA the skill boosting feats.

[Tyndmyr]

The only down side I see is that there is no longer a motivation to achieve anything.

Anyway, my thought is 200XP per session. Never anymore, never any less.


Thoughts on this please?

Well, progression through the levels will rapidly slow to a crawl. This may or may not be a problem, depending on what levels you like to play at. Adjust the static number as necessary to determine what level you mostly stop leveling at.

Tack on modifiers based on party level. I'd say an extra 20% xp for every level behind the highest leveled player. This basically sorts out crafters, people who got unlucky and died, etc.

The lack of motivation is an issue...it might not be so much for an extremely long termed, slow paced game, and players will still want treasure, so they can be rewarded that way. WBL guidelines will quickly cease to apply in this situation though. Not really a bad thing.

Seems doable, let us know how it works out.

[akma]

What about a scaling amount that works out to the players knowing it will be X amount of time from level 1 to level 20? Say break it down for a planned two years of the PCs' "Epic Journey"?

I guess a formula could be built around that, but it depands on a few factors. You said two year campaign, so at a rate of one meeting per week, it`s 104 sessions, but at a rate of two meeting per week, it`s 208, but some people play only once per 2 weeks... How often does your party meets and plays?
Do you want a static amount of sessions needed to gain a level, or do you want an increasing amount of sessions to gain each level? Would you be comfrotable with going from level 19 to 20 would take *19 more sessions then it would take to go from level 1 to 2?

[FishAreWet]

(and no, xp is not intended to be a river; that's just a min-maxing trick thought up by character optimizers)

Oh? Says... you?

[Satyr]

THere is little more unfair than giving every player the same amount of XP. Experience Points are a reward, not a matter of course and thus should depend on the actions and contributions of the player. A flat XP bonus for everybody ignores the amount of contribution of any players to the game.
I would suggest to base the gain of XP on what people actually do, and use the difference as a motivation for the players to actually do more to further the game.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh? Says... you?

That "xp is a river" was introduced on the charop boards is a matter of fact. That this is not found in any of the rulebooks is also a matter of fact.

That characters who pay xp costs are intended to regain that xp faster is a matter of opinion, specifically yours. Good luck in getting any DM to agree with you on that.

[Yuki Akuma]

That "xp is a river" was introduced on the charop boards is a matter of fact. That this is not found in any of the rulebooks is also a matter of fact.

That characters who pay xp costs are intended to regain that xp faster is a matter of opinion, specifically yours. Good luck in getting any DM to agree with you on that.

But... by the XP rules, they do, because if you're a lower level then the rest of the party you get more XP...

So once the other guys level up, you stat to catch up.

[Kurald Galain]

But... by the XP rules, they do, because if you're a lower level then the rest of the party you get more XP...

Yes, but the question is (1) whether this is intended by the developers, (2) whether your DM will let you do this, and (3) whether the OP's suggestion is bad because it counteracts this.

[Grumman]

Yes, but the question is (1) whether this is intended by the developers, (2) whether your DM will let you do this, and (3) whether the OP's suggestion is bad because it counteracts this.

Page 42 of the DMG, "Behind the Curtain: When a PC Falls Behind". It explicitly states that this is an intended behaviour of the CR system.

[FishAreWet]

Yeah you just got called out.

[Yuki Akuma]

Yes, but the question is (1) whether this is intended by the developers, (2) whether your DM will let you do this, and (3) whether the OP's suggestion is bad because it counteracts this.

1) I can't imagine why they'd implement such a rule if it wasn't intended and anyway it's spelled out pretty explicitly that it is

2) If the DM doesn't let me do this, hey, fine, it's a house rule. Every DM I have ever had has played the XP rules completely straight, though.

3) That depends on his players.

[Kurald Galain]

Page 42 of the DMG, "Behind the Curtain: When a PC Falls Behind". It explicitly states that this is an intended behaviour of the CR system.

We're talking about the crafting system, though, not the CR system.

1) I can't imagine why they'd implement such a rule if it wasn't intended and anyway it's spelled out pretty explicitly that it is

"Pretty explicitly" is an oxymoron. It wouldn't be the first time that WOTC didn't do the math on their own rules.

2) If the DM doesn't let me do this, hey, fine, it's a house rule. Every DM I have ever had has played the XP rules completely straight, though.

Oh, of course everyone who disagrees with your interpretation simply must be houseruling and "not playing straight".

[Grumman]

We're talking about the crafting system, though, not the CR system.

We're talking about the concept of XP being a river. No matter what causes you to fall a level behind, be it level drain, missing games or crafting, the CR system gives you more XP to compensate.

[FishAreWet]

XP flows like a river. The math says so. The DMG reference verifies that Wizard's knows this which implies that it was on purpose.

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh, of course everyone who disagrees with your interpretation simply must be houseruling and "not playing straight".

...Yeah not giving lower-level PCs more XP is a house rule.

And hey, house rules are fine. But don't kid yourself into thinking they're not house rules.

And yes I know "pretty explicitly" is technically an oxymoron but in this case it was for emphasis. You do know that English grammar is somewhat flexible, yes?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The simple rule of 200 XP per session will seriously slow down leveling. To go from level 1 to level 21, it would take 1050 sessions. From level 1 to level 10 it would take 225 sessions, and from level 1 to level 5 it would take 50 sessions. I have a feeling that`s slower then you have imagined.
From what you described, I would suggest great rewards for story XP, while the rest are minor. For exemple: if there would be an adventure where the adventurers would need to slaughter the evil villain that is in a certain castle, do very little XP gains for killing specific monsters, and big XP gains for advancing the story (for exemple, the party of adventurers might find out the big villain is under mind control, that he is the good guy or maybe the whole castle is just an illusion). That way, the party could go up a level every adventure/2-3 adventures, without the players waiting many months to level up.

To hammer the point home, here's a chart of how long each level is going to take gaining 200 XP per session, generously assuming ~1 session per week for 50 weeks out of the year.

{table=head]Level | # Sessions | Years to Level | Years to Next Level
1 | 0 | 0 | 0.1
2 | 5 | 0.1 | 0.2
3 | 15 | 0.3 | 0.3
4 | 30 | 0.6 | 0.4
5 | 50 | 1.0 | 0.5
6 | 75 | 1.5 | 0.6
7 | 105 | 2.1 | 0.7
8 | 140 | 2.8 | 0.8
9 | 180 | 3.6 | 0.9
10 | 225 | 4.5 | 1.0
11 | 275 | 5.5 | 1.1
12 | 330 | 6.6 | 1.2
13 | 390 | 7.8 | 1.3
14 | 455 | 9.1 | 1.4
15 | 525 | 10.5 | 1.5
16 | 600 | 12 | 1.6
17 | 680 | 13.6 | 1.7
18 | 765 | 15.3 | 1.8
19 | 855 | 17.1 | 1.9
20 | 950 | 19 | ...
[/table]

I don't know about you, but a (minimum) 19 year, 950 session rp is a bit more epic than... well, than I've ever heard of a D&D game going ever. Granted, not all campaigns (not even epically-long campaigns) go to the higher levels, but the chart shows that you start running into serious problems by level 4. For real, who plans out 50 sessions to end at level 5? Instead, suppose you ditch XP, give crafters and the like a lesser version of the artificer's XP reserve, and have everyone level once per 5 sessions (which is slow in my book). The chart becomes much prettier:

{table=head]Level | # Sessions | Years to Level
1 | 0 | 0
2 | 5 | 0.1
3 | 10 | 0.2
4 | 15 | 0.3
5 | 20 | 0.4
6 | 25 | 0.5
7 | 30 | 0.6
8 | 35 | 0.7
9 | 40 | 0.8
10 | 45 | 0.9
11 | 50 | 1.0
12 | 55 | 1.1
13 | 60 | 1.2
14 | 65 | 1.3
15 | 70 | 1.4
16 | 75 | 1.5
17 | 80 | 1.6
18 | 85 | 1.7
19 | 90 | 1.8
20 | 95 | 1.9
[/table]

Two years, assuming 50 sessions a year. NINETY FIVE sessions should be long enough for your characters to have gone through more campaigns than you've dreamed of, let alone planned for. Nine hundred fifty sessions... that's more sessions of roleplaying than I'll ever do.

How is going so slow that you never see 6th level going to solve the problem of some of your players wanting an XP reward, anyway?

[Grifthin]

Actually we do xp by session. DM wings it adding More or less xp depending on opponents fought and how long it's been since we levelled. I've never actually played with getting xp for encounters or which ever way the PHB recommends.

We just get xp at the end of every session. Good Roleplaying is awarded more xp. Good encounter solving is granted bonus xp (usually 50-150). Important Encounters are granted a bit more. It seems to work really well.