D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

5ekyu · Dec 29, 2017

iserith said:
Would you provide citations so I can look them up? You mentioned XGtE, but I didn't see anything about experience points in the Table of Contents unless I missed it.

That misses the point. You objected to the system based on an unfounded claim about level disparity in D&D 5e. I disputed the claim. You may have other reasons you don't like experience points. Those are preferences I cannot dispute unless you voice them in the context of another unfounded claim. Tell me you don't like doing math or writing things down. To that I can only shrug and move on.

It seems nonsensical to posit that XP is somehow less of an incentive because the level disparity isn't as much an issue in D&D 5e than it is in other games. If players are interested in character advancement (and the game reasonably assumes they are) and earning XP by performing particular tasks is the means by which they can do it, then they'll tend to do those tasks to earn the XP. Such is the nature of incentives.

Ok so lets assume that all the people in a group want to have more money. lets assume we setup an incentive program that rewards them extra money for doing things a certain way - not taking shortcuts which will get the job done easier. (replace money with Xp and you may see a sort of parallel.)

In one test, we award bonuses of a dime.
in another test, we award bonuses of a dollar.
in another test, we award bonuses of twenty five dollars.

it would seem not nonsensical to assume that the greater the reward the more folks who will see the carrot as worth the extra time or such and take the carrot offered.

Well, Ok, so that is because a dime, and a dollar and 25 dollars have an assigned set value.

in an RPg for Xp say 5e, that is not the case. Even if the numbers are set, the "value" is in what you can buy from the numbers - IE the value of the next level.

Now, if one suggests that the difference in one level vs the other is less in 5e, that differences in level matters less, then one is also pointing out that the potential gains from XP-based incentives are also just as devalued.

In short, if being down a level or two does not matter much in 5e gameplay, then being up a level or two does not either and so an incetive -based system that dangle a carrot called "be up a level or two compared to your fellows after a while" has less draw.

of course, this assumes rational actors. if one of them just likes to feel like they are leveling quickly hey that carrot can work even if it makes no significant different in play... just like say a dime collector might prefer to get the dime award.

but hey, we dont agree and if you have players who know leveling up quicker isn't worth much but who still crave that extra Xp carrot, thats just great!

me, i have not found much in any system that changed this dynamic and as i said, i see nothing unique to 5e that says it would be different.

And if i didn't miss my guess, you chose to not provide that unique to 5e element that changes this all on its head?

Me, i dont have any illusion that 5e for all its goodness has somehow so changed the nature of the RPG that all my years of experience in a wide variety of games is somehow no longer relevant compared to the awesomeness that is the 5e RAW.

Do you?

5ekyu · Dec 29, 2017

Charlaquin said:
I could be wrong, but it sounded like they were referring to the Character Advancement section in Appendix A (Shared Campaigns). In short, players earn 1 checkpoint per hour that each session they complete is designed to take (regardless of the actual time it took to complete) and an additional checkpoint of they were under-leveled for the content that section. 4 checkpoints to level up until you hit 5th level, then it goes up to 8 checkpoints to level up.

yes, plus another reference to (i forget which - maybe in portal?) where they suggest specifically using milestones for advancement where like "every chapter except #5 they level up." Was that horde? Dont recall right off. heck they even have a couple others in the DMG iirc.

Oh yeah they were under the sections titled

Level Advancement without XP
Session-Based Advancement
Story-Based Advancement

So, lotsa options with WOTC cites aplenty.

As an aside: Long long ago i reached my basic core problem with DND experiences and its corresponding element in different games. this was part of the reason i just abandoned using XP calculated by value of challenges as a primary advancement mechanic but well before i also gave up on using rate of advancement as a carrot/stick.

basically at level x you need y xp to go up and your expected confrontations are scaled to provide Z Xp after a certain amount of activity. (5e makes this even more explicitly with its defined anticipated encounters per day and so forth.)

At level X+A you need Y+b Xp to go up and your expected confrontations produce Z+C...etc

Now any junior high math student can tell you that making the same changes to both sides of an equation does not change things up... with some exceptions for multiplying by negatives and other oddball cases.

So, net result is all that higher xp need, higher xp gained etc... was useless extra effort. in spite of all their popping the hood in 5e (showing you encounters per "day" underpinning and talking about how its really about overall encounters per level and even the other non-xp options) they still went back to the core old school DnD higher Xp to gain higher level but higher Xp for those higher challenges so... net a wash silliness.

5e has certainly come a long way from the old school "troll in a box insert sword for Xp" jokes but it still hangs onto some of its original sins, even if only in name (given the many different options they provide for advancement.)

iserith · Dec 29, 2017

5ekyu said:
Ok so lets assume that all the people in a group want to have more money. lets assume we setup an incentive program that rewards them extra money for doing things a certain way - not taking shortcuts which will get the job done easier. (replace money with Xp and you may see a sort of parallel.)

In one test, we award bonuses of a dime.
in another test, we award bonuses of a dollar.
in another test, we award bonuses of twenty five dollars.

it would seem not nonsensical to assume that the greater the reward the more folks who will see the carrot as worth the extra time or such and take the carrot offered.

Well, Ok, so that is because a dime, and a dollar and 25 dollars have an assigned set value.

in an RPg for Xp say 5e, that is not the case. Even if the numbers are set, the "value" is in what you can buy from the numbers - IE the value of the next level.

Now, if one suggests that the difference in one level vs the other is less in 5e, that differences in level matters less, then one is also pointing out that the potential gains from XP-based incentives are also just as devalued.

In short, if being down a level or two does not matter much in 5e gameplay, then being up a level or two does not either and so an incetive -based system that dangle a carrot called "be up a level or two compared to your fellows after a while" has less draw.

of course, this assumes rational actors. if one of them just likes to feel like they are leveling quickly hey that carrot can work even if it makes no significant different in play... just like say a dime collector might prefer to get the dime award.

but hey, we dont agree and if you have players who know leveling up quicker isn't worth much but who still crave that extra Xp carrot, thats just great!

The problem so far as I can tell (your posts are hard to read) is you're comparing level advancement between players when I'm comparing the desire a player has to advance his or her own character regardless of the others. It was you making the claim that level disparity was the reason you don't like XP, not me. If level disparity isn't much of a problem in D&D 5e, then who cares if the player next to me has more or less XP? I only care about the XP that I'm earning so my character can advance. That does not mean the incentive value is somehow diminished.

5ekyu said:
me, i have not found much in any system that changed this dynamic and as i said, i see nothing unique to 5e that says it would be different.

And if i didn't miss my guess, you chose to not provide that unique to 5e element that changes this all on its head?

Me, i dont have any illusion that 5e for all its goodness has somehow so changed the nature of the RPG that all my years of experience in a wide variety of games is somehow no longer relevant compared to the awesomeness that is the 5e RAW.

Do you?

Seriously, what are you on about? Maybe someone can translate your posts for me because they are getting increasingly nonsensical so far as I can tell. I don't mean that pejoratively. I try to imagine that the people I'm talking know something that I don't which will be of value to me. It's very hard to find that in your posts.

Once more: You made a statement of preference based on an unfounded claim. I disputed the claim. I make no claims as to D&D 5e being special in regards to experience points as an incentive or that you are wrong to not use experience points in your game. My objection was based solely on your unfounded claim. Do you understand that?

iserith · Dec 29, 2017

5ekyu said:
yes, plus another reference to (i forget which - maybe in portal?) where they suggest specifically using milestones for advancement where like "every chapter except #5 they level up." Was that horde? Dont recall right off. heck they even have a couple others in the DMG iirc.

If you're going to cite the rules to support your arguments, it would be very helpful if you provide at least some concrete direction on where to find those rules.

5ekyu said:
Oh yeah they were under the sections titled

Level Advancement without XP
Session-Based Advancement
Story-Based Advancement

So, lotsa options with WOTC cites aplenty.

Yeah, some of those were exactly the rules I cited when I challenged your notion of what milestone XP was upthread. You still don't appear to realize that what you described was not milestone XP as described in the DMG. It's something else. And even that's not particularly clear because if I recall you did not elaborate on the method you use, only that you've used lots of methods in the past.

5ekyu said:
As an aside: Long long ago i reached my basic core problem with DND experiences and its corresponding element in different games. this was part of the reason i just abandoned using XP calculated by value of challenges as a primary advancement mechanic but well before i also gave up on using rate of advancement as a carrot/stick.

basically at level x you need y xp to go up and your expected confrontations are scaled to provide Z Xp after a certain amount of activity. (5e makes this even more explicitly with its defined anticipated encounters per day and so forth.)

At level X+A you need Y+b Xp to go up and your expected confrontations produce Z+C...etc

Now any junior high math student can tell you that making the same changes to both sides of an equation does not change things up... with some exceptions for multiplying by negatives and other oddball cases.

So, net result is all that higher xp need, higher xp gained etc... was useless extra effort. in spite of all their popping the hood in 5e (showing you encounters per "day" underpinning and talking about how its really about overall encounters per level and even the other non-xp options) they still went back to the core old school DnD higher Xp to gain higher level but higher Xp for those higher challenges so... net a wash silliness.

5e has certainly come a long way from the old school "troll in a box insert sword for Xp" jokes but it still hangs onto some of its original sins, even if only in name (given the many different options they provide for advancement.)

And if this is a description of the XP system you use now, I invite you to make it less opaque.

iserith · Dec 29, 2017

Charlaquin said:
I could be wrong, but it sounded like they were referring to the Character Advancement section in Appendix A (Shared Campaigns). In short, for each session a player completes, they earn 1 “checkpoint” per hour that session was designed to take (regardless of the actual time it took to complete) and an additional checkpoint if they were under-leveled for that session’s content. 4 checkpoints to level up until you hit 5th level, then it goes up to 8 checkpoints to level up.

Its worth noting that the Appendix in question is specifically about how to run AL-style open table games. Which makes sense, because the system uses checkpoints as a carrot to incentivize coming to as many sessions as possible.

So far as I can tell, this method incentivizes simply showing up to the game. It's a more fiddly version of Session-Based Advancement from the DMG.

Is that what you use [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION]?

Charlaquin · Dec 29, 2017

5ekyu said:
yes, plus another reference to (i forget which - maybe in portal?) where they suggest specifically using milestones for advancement where like "every chapter except #5 they level up." Was that horde? Dont recall right off. heck they even have a couple others in the DMG iirc.

Oh yeah they were under the sections titled

Level Advancement without XP
Session-Based Advancement
Story-Based Advancement

So, lotsa options with WOTC cites aplenty.

Yup, that one was Horde of the Dragon Queen. It’s interesting that a lot of people use the term “Milestone XP” for what HotDQ calls level advancement without XP. Milestone XP, as defined in the DMG, simply awards XP for hitting certain milestones, whereas story-based advancement directly levels PCs up for hitting (less frequent) milestones. But for whatever reason, the term “Milestone XP” seems to stick in people’s heads better, and gets used for various forms of non-XP-based advancement. Memory is weird like that.

5ekyu said:
As an aside: Long long ago i reached my basic core problem with DND experiences and its corresponding element in different games. this was part of the reason i just abandoned using XP calculated by value of challenges as a primary advancement mechanic but well before i also gave up on using rate of advancement as a carrot/stick.

basically at level x you need y xp to go up and your expected confrontations are scaled to provide Z Xp after a certain amount of activity. (5e makes this even more explicitly with its defined anticipated encounters per day and so forth.)

At level X+A you need Y+b Xp to go up and your expected confrontations produce Z+C...etc

Now any junior high math student can tell you that making the same changes to both sides of an equation does not change things up... with some exceptions for multiplying by negatives and other oddball cases.

So, net result is all that higher xp need, higher xp gained etc... was useless extra effort. in spite of all their popping the hood in 5e (showing you encounters per "day" underpinning and talking about how its really about overall encounters per level and even the other non-xp options) they still went back to the core old school DnD higher Xp to gain higher level but higher Xp for those higher challenges so... net a wash silliness.

5e has certainly come a long way from the old school "troll in a box insert sword for Xp" jokes but it still hangs onto some of its original sins, even if only in name (given the many different options they provide for advancement.)

Well, if you actually do the spreadsheet, you find that different levels do take different numbers of appropriately-balanced encounters to reach. That’s because 5e doesn’t adjust both sides of the equation equally; it adjusts both sides, but in different amounts at different times to create a very specific leveling curve under the assumed encounter math. As for why they adjust the equation at all, it’s largely so that as you level up, you get diminishing returns for encounters that are below the appropriate difficulty for your level. Sure, this could be done by adjusting how much XP you get for an encounter based on its CR relative to your level, rather than keeping XP by CR consistent and adjusting the amount of XP required to level up, but that would make encounter-building math harder. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to go about it, but the way 5e handles it by default is not without good reason.

Here’s that spreadsheet, by the way. In case anyone is curious.
https://i0.wp.com/theangrygm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Building-Spreadsheet-2.png

Lanefan · Dec 29, 2017

iserith said:
Not at all. I'm telling players that nobody is to sit in judgment, including the DM, of what considerations they do ultimately make or how they manifest in play since there is no settled rule for how a given ability score should or must be portrayed. Now, given the absence of such a rule, one could establish a table rule for that and ask the players to buy in, but I do not. The reason I do not is because how a character is portrayed is handled by way of personal characteristics in D&D 5e (trait, ideal, bond, flaw) which are spelled out, as opposed to some nebulous idea of what, for example, a Charisma 8 means exactly.

If the trait-ideal-bond-flaw combo chosen or determined by the player at least vaguely lines up with the stats, all is good.

If the basis of your preference comes from some other game where there is a specific prescription for portraying a particular ability score, it is not germaine to this game which has no such prescription. The Basic Rules are free and available in PDF form online. I welcome you to look for yourself.

I have them, obtained the day after their release. I also have the three core 5e hardcovers (DMG,PH,MM), along with various other 5e products and adventures.

Just because I don't run an edition doesn't mean I know nothing about it.

Yes, I don't quite remember D&D 1e or AD&D 2e when it came to level disparity (too long ago), but in D&D 3e and D&D 4e it definitely mattered. I recall D&D 4e even had a hack in the rulebook for increasing the attack and defense of a lower-level PC adventuring with a higher-level group. The game's math demanded it. That is not so in D&D 5e.

Quite true. 5e hews much closer to 0-1-2e in the amount of in-party level disparity it seems able to handle. I've found that a disparity of about 4 levels, with the party average roughly in the middle, is pretty much the most 1e can reasonably take (ignoring henches and hirelings).

So for example, if the party average is 7th-ish and the range is 5th to 9th, you're probably good.

Can't really speak to 4e on this but in 3e such a disparity would likely be something of a disaster...at least it was IME when I played it.

Lanefan

5ekyu · Dec 29, 2017

Charlaquin said:
Yup, that one was Horde of the Dragon Queen. It’s interesting that a lot of people use the term “Milestone XP” for what HotDQ calls level advancement without XP. Milestone XP, as defined in the DMG, simply awards XP for hitting certain milestones, whereas story-based advancement directly levels PCs up for hitting (less frequent) milestones. But for whatever reason, the term “Milestone XP” seems to stick in people’s heads better, and gets used for various forms of non-XP-based advancement. Memory is weird like that.

Well, if you actually do the spreadsheet, you find that different levels do take different numbers of appropriately-balanced encounters to reach. That’s because 5e doesn’t adjust both sides of the equation equally; it adjusts both sides, but in different amounts at different times to create a very specific leveling curve under the assumed encounter math. As for why they adjust the equation at all, it’s largely so that as you level up, you get diminishing returns for encounters that are below the appropriate difficulty for your level. Sure, this could be done by adjusting how much XP you get for an encounter based on its CR relative to your level, rather than keeping XP by CR consistent and adjusting the amount of XP required to level up, but that would make encounter-building math harder. Of course, there are plenty of other ways to go about it, but the way 5e handles it by default is not without good reason.

Here’s that spreadsheet, by the way. In case anyone is curious.
https://i0.wp.com/theangrygm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Building-Spreadsheet-2.png

Actually in HotDG

"Character Advancement. At your option, you can use the milestone experience rule. Under this rule, you pick certain events in the campaign that cause the characters to level up."

So yeah, memories are funny about wjy folks might call what HotDQ uses as "milestone XP", huh?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

5ekyu · Dec 29, 2017

iserith said:
The problem so far as I can tell (your posts are hard to read) is you're comparing level advancement between players when I'm comparing the desire a player has to advance his or her own character regardless of the others. It was you making the claim that level disparity was the reason you don't like XP, not me. If level disparity isn't much of a problem in D&D 5e, then who cares if the player next to me has more or less XP? I only care about the XP that I'm earning so my character can advance. That does not mean the incentive value is somehow diminished.

Seriously, what are you on about? Maybe someone can translate your posts for me because they are getting increasingly nonsensical so far as I can tell. I don't mean that pejoratively. I try to imagine that the people I'm talking know something that I don't which will be of value to me. It's very hard to find that in your posts.

Once more: You made a statement of preference based on an unfounded claim. I disputed the claim. I make no claims as to D&D 5e being special in regards to experience points as an incentive or that you are wrong to not use experience points in your game. My objection was based solely on your unfounded claim. Do you understand that?

Last first, my claim was that i dont like Xp rewards as incentives because they impact the party as a whole as far as actualy effect and don't end up targeting a given player for his/her choices. That is different from the restated claim you keep attributing to me.

I did qualify it as "assuming rational actors" latewr which i assumed was a given at first but now realize cannot be assumed.

As for it being hinged on differences between characters, YES OF COURSE.

if there is no difference in leveling rate between characters, if basically everybody gets the bonus or the bonus is so small it does not create level differences, then its no longer an incentive (for a rational actor.) there is no actual gain in capability, just a change in the number on the Xp box. if everyone gets the bonus, its no longer a bonus, just the XP everyone gets.

If the difference in leveling rate due to the XP creates actual leveling differences, but, as you seem to imply in your 5e level disparity minimal claims, that in itself does not create actual power differences that are impactful, then again its function as an incentive is fairly weak (assuming rational actors.)

But, if we do not assume rational actors (IMO but YMMV)... if we assume the player is really focused on what number appears in his XP or level box and on what date on the calendar it changes to a higher score - regardless of what or how much a difference that makes, then yes, in that case, any XP award will serve as an incentive.

I myself dont consider putting players in a "sofie's choice " type of condundrum where they have to choose between "higher number in the Xp box" or achieveing higher success rates as you described earlier, so even with the possibility that it might motivate this third set, it still remains a net "not gonna do much good" for me.

But hey, YMMV, of course. You know your players better than i do.

5ekyu · Dec 29, 2017

iserith said:
If you're going to cite the rules to support your arguments, it would be very helpful if you provide at least some concrete direction on where to find those rules.

Yeah, some of those were exactly the rules I cited when I challenged your notion of what milestone XP was upthread. You still don't appear to realize that what you described was not milestone XP as described in the DMG. It's something else. And even that's not particularly clear because if I recall you did not elaborate on the method you use, only that you've used lots of methods in the past.

As for the bold, let me see if these comments can help you see that i have observed the difference between the DMG and the other cites, since it seems to have eluded you...
On page 6...
"As for your somewhat limited view of milestone Xp... in XGtE it is described as based on the amount of hours a part is supposed to have taken, hours of expected play. In other products it was described more simply "At your option, you can use the milestone experience rule. Under this rule, you pick certain events in the campaign that cause the characters to level up." "

Then on page 7 i said...
"ok last first, my posts about milestone were taken from two other 5e wotc products so... yay for us both.
EDIT TO ADD: BTW the DMG reference to rewarding Xp for milestones is not the same as the "milestone" system referenced in some Ap or the milestone-like "checkpoint system in XGtE. those other two (which were what i was referring to) do not use Xp as a go between. But i can see where they could be confused easily enough."

Now i get that doubt storming the poster you disagree with's knowledge is a thing you like to do, but come on.