How do you handle Experience Points?

Experience points and level advancement seem to be one of those rules sub-systems that is house ruled quite frequently - partially because it is so easy to do so. I personally

There seem to be three general variants:

1) Everyone gets XP individually, which may include individual awards.
2) Everyone gets the same number.
3) No XP are used and instead the DM levels everyone up when he or she thinks its appropriate.

In my last campaign, I started as 1, transitioned to 2, and then finally ended up in 3. While 3 was easiest, I found that something is lost - that there's something lost when you don't keep track of XP. Actually, it is somewhat similar to keeping track of rations or arrows or weight carried. Its a bit tedious, but adds a level of granularity that brings the game alive a bit more. So I'm voting for "individually."

There is also the matter of what XP is given for - old school GP value, monsters, quests, clever actions, etc. I personally don't give XP for GP, but do for combat (not just kills, but defeats, and even some for losses), specific actions (this is where individuals may get different amounts), and completion of a quest.

So as a DM, how do you prefer to give XP? I'm including a poll, but with only general answers - please pick the one that best aligns with your approach, or Other if you must, and explain in a reply.

Level up at DM discretion. It's too easy to lose track of XP otherwise, even if you use a wiki or other electronic tool. If someone misses a session, they might not record XP because they don't know how much was gained. I also don't like the idea of a player getting sick, missing a couple of sessions, and having their PC be much weaker. Different-leveled PCs in the same game brings madness.

Since I don't grant XP, that means things like quests, loot and so forth have to be their own reward. Hopefully the quest is interesting. You also don't lose XP for not fighting a monster, but you don't gain XP for slipping past it. The monster is just an obstacle. You level up because you've solved a problem of some kind. That problem could be "how do you conquer a city?", "kill Lord Foul" and so forth.

I'm not a fan of getting XP for loot. I understand why this was done, but I've completely lost interest in greedy PCs who are adventuring just for loot and couldn't care less about plot or the world around them. I've seen this create problems outside of D&D too. I've been in at least two non-D&D campaigns where other PCs refused to do anything unless they were paid up front. I've never seen such a group of greedy, incurious, risk-averse PCs who dodge every plot hook, so I ban such PCs in my game. I will also never again play Traveller as it expects such PCs.

I used to give out XP on an ad hoc basis, but it seemed too much like "keeping score" and was not appropriate for an open-ended, noncompetitive recreational activity. To me, the only really valid use for an experience system would be if it modelled learning in some way, but it doesn't do that. The RAW for experience tie in to a whole metagame system that is pretty much antithetical to naturalistic and emergent gaming, so those were never on the table. No XP. Haven't used it for quite a few years. Haven't missed it at all.

Usually more-or-less RAW by edition plus individual awards; often with a heaping of house rules of one sort or another.

For instance, in much of my 3e time, I used a system for awarding xp for roleplaying in four categories- race, class, alignment and personal concerns- along with half-standard xp for monsters.

I've also talked a great deal about running a game using an "ale and whores" xp system, where the only thing you get xp for is essentially throwing your money away- you get 1 xp per gp that you burn through with no return, so it might be gambling, drinking, feasting, entertainment, anonymous donations to the poor, etc, as long as you get nothing from it.

Mercurius said:

1) Everyone gets XP individually, which may include individual awards.
2) Everyone gets the same number.
3) No XP are used and instead the DM levels everyone up when he or she thinks its appropriate.

Click to expand...

I've done all these at some point in the past. Option 1) was the way I started with, but found out that I didn't like making decisions for individual awards, it was too subjective and hence there was a chance that I would be too much encouraging what I would have liked them to do. I am probably never going to use this approach again.

Option 3) worked fine, but as you say, there is something inherently satisfying in feeling your XP are "gained" depending on your actions. This option works best when the group is made of experienced players, who can just stop thinking about XP and focus on other aspects of the game.

Nowadays I very much stick with option 2) and then yes, I do include XP for social encounters, exploration, quests etc, definitely not only combat. Actually, in a regular campaign I would probably try to balance combat XP with non-combat XP, depending on whether that specific campaign should focus on combat a lot or not so much... Also, I typically got used to granting only half XP from random encounter, to discourage looking for them ("XP harvesting") and instead encourage focusing on quests.

But it's important for me that everyone coming to the game gets the same XP. Only those who aren't playing get no XP. If someone lags behind too much, and the edition doesn't support large level differences among PCs, then I can always fix that.

No XP, just leveling at player discretion.

PS

I answered #2, but it's a bit more complicated...

Even though I play 4e with a fairly reactive group of players, I've taken inspiration from a great littleRPG called Shadows of Yesterday when it comes to XP reward. In that system each player defines what gets their PC experience; for one it might be uncovering arcane secrets, for another it might be slaying great monsters.

What I do is design encounters using the 4e XP budgeting guidelines (NOTE: this does not mean all encounters are "level appropriate"!). These might be short random encounters, they might be social challenges, combats, puzzles, heists, etc. Then when the PCs get involved, I always ask myself two questions to determine whether or not the encounter is worth XP:

(1) Is there a challenge and meaningful risk of failure?

(2) Does overcoming this challenge advance the party's current quest? If not, does overcoming it suggest they are switching their focus to a new quest or adding an additional quest?

If I can answer "yes" to both questions then the encounter is worth XP. For example, just conversing with the king during an interlude, getting updated on the kingdoms affairs, and some witty roleplaying I don't award XP for. However, if it was the same scenario but there was some sort of stake like convincing the king they aren't murderers and are being framed...then that is definitely worth XP.

It also means that XP fishing by picking meaningless fights is not worth XP.

Generally this system works out to leveling the PCs once every 1-2 story arcs, so from the Player's side it probably feels very similar to #3.

I like to mess around with the XP system so that it supports the game I want to play ("we want to play" is probably a better way of saying it).

In the last 3E campaign I ran a lot of the XP came from pre-defined quest rewards: we were playing through a big module, and the 3E XP rules worked to limit the player's options; tying XP to these "quest" elements gave the PCs more options and bound the PCs more tightly to the module itself.

In AD&D we went with GP = XP; that created a different experience, but a nice one.

In the 3E game where I'm a player we use the XP rules as written. I really don't like that aspect of the game. "I'm planning a trip to the outer planes to kill some random bad guys so I can get better at spellcasting" is lame. (By comparison, planning a trip to steal some awesome treasure, is not lame.)

Ahnehnois said:

The RAW for experience tie in to a whole metagame system that is pretty much antithetical to naturalistic and emergent gaming, so those were never on the table.

Click to expand...

Naturalistic I get, but emergent? It seems to me that XP systems lead naturally to emergent gaming.

Maybe you're thinking of different XP rules.

Usually RAW, but for the current campaign DM discretion.

I just started a new campaign over two months ago. In real life, the group is scattered across northern California from Lake Tahoe to the SF Bay Area so we only we meet once a month for a 6-8 hour D&D marathon.

As the DM, I decided to make an automatic level per night with the caveat that the PCs will do their leveling business when they reach a good rest point (e.g. not in the middle of a dungeon). I plan stretch this level-up requirement to 2 nights when reaching 4th level.

This is the first time I'm using experience in this manner. Hope it works. The PCs are currently 2nd level.

LostSoul said:

Naturalistic I get, but emergent? It seems to me that XP systems lead naturally to emergent gaming.

Click to expand...

The idea of balancing to a particular level of challenge (in 3e, CR/EL) does not. It presupposes that players will face certain things, and suggests what the outcome should be. That stuff is tied into XP, because at least for a while various editions of D&D have dispensed experience based on some measure of the difficulty of challenges overcome.