D&D 5E Poll: Experience, Leveling, and Groups

[Ahnehnois]

I think campaigns that push the game aspect of the game really benefit from XP as an explicit score-keeping mechanism -- they're just not the ones I run (but I'd be game to play in one).

I think we're in agreement in the end. I used to be more in that vein, but became less so. So I can see why someone would use XP to keep score in a more competitively minded game, but I (we) prefer not to do that.

 

[Cadence]

One thing a DM of ours did in a 3.5 game was to use modest amounts of XP (its been a while, I want to say 100 or so) to encourage out of session character development: bringing in some pictures of the character for everyone to have as a reference, fleshing out something in their background, etc... with a max of one award per session. IIRC half the party really jumped on it and the other half didn't.

Positive, negative, or indifferent?

 

[Lanefan]

Quite true. I have long perceived of xp as a PLAYER reward rather than something that is owed to a character because the character was simply created. Part of that had to do with repeated insistence of certain people on having NPC's "earn" their xp in the same way as player characters - going on adventures, hoarding loot, killing monsters.

Without earning xp just as PC's earn xp NPC's could not/should not level up. DM's were supposed to be able to explain what an NPC did to become x level in their class just as a player would be able to recount his PC's adventures.

But XP doesn't work like that. A DM ASSIGNS levels to an NPC, the NPC only "earns" xp when he is adventuring with player characters.

You're making a rather big assumption with all this: that adventuring is the only way to earn XP in the game world...see below...

Player characters earn XP and advance in level not by simply existing at the same game time as other player characters but by the player conducting the character THROUGH actual game play. As Gary mentioned in the DMG the sensible way for a PC to earn xp would be for MU's to sit in a library and just read books of magical theory and practice casting. A fighter would improve in his abilities not by killing a few orcs, but by training. A thief would improve not based on the amount of money he stole, but on his practicing repeatedly at picking pockets.

Of course they can, and there's nothing wrong with it. But it's slow. Very slow. A stay-at-home MU might earn 5 levels worth of XP in 20 years of study...but could earn that same 5 levels worth by spending three months in the field. To paraphrase one of my players of old, adventuring is simply the church of fast-tracking level bumps.

A player who is not there to run his PC makes that character, virtually by definition a NON-player character. I'm not going to tell anyone they're wrong (as such) for awarding xp to a character who isn't being run by a player, but... that's just not how I understand D&D xp to work.

Do you not give XP to party-member NPCs for what they do?

Just because a character has a player attached doesn't mean it deserves any more or any less share of the XP for the Giant it helped kill.

Lanefan

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Just because a character has a player attached doesn't mean it deserves any more or any less share of the XP for the Giant it helped kill.

If the player is running the PC and helping kill the giant, sure the PC gets his fair share of the xp. MAYBE if the player is NOT there but the player authorizes someone else to run his PC for him, then the PC still earns xp. If the PC is considered to be "watching the horses" while the other PC's delve into the dungeon because the PC's player is absent - not a chance of xp at all, which was what the OP was suggesting, yes? The PC earning xp even though the PC is not actually doing anything, assumedly on the principle that the PC's all NEED to stay very close in xp/levels.

NPC's with the party earn xp just as the PC's do. But at any time, any place, for any reason (most especially including the reason of "because I want it to be so") then I, as DM, will assign whatever xp total or whatever level regardless of xp as I see fit to that NPC. Just because the NPC "plays by PC rules" for earning xp while with the PC's doesn't mean that it ceases to be an NPC in any other way/shape/form. When I want an NPC to level up - he does. When an NPC accumulates enough actual xp from adventuring with PC's to level up - he does. Rules, requirements, procedures regarding xp are not the same for PC's and NPC's alike.

The xp awards really are a system meant just for the PC's, and so, for practical purposes, xp is really meant just for the PLAYERS as a reward and control mechanism for their participation. Given the suggested use of xp loss as punishment for alignment transgressions, or disruptive player behavior points its purpose even more at being intended as a player-participation tool.

Just realized that I should state that I see all this in terms of 1E rules. Other editions will, of course, vary but I personally STILL assign 1E ideals to later edtions. This probably invalidates my opinion for a lot of people.

 

[Hussar]

I see that I'm way in the minority on this, but, I don't fuss it too much. Everyone gets the same share of xp, regardless of whether you came to the session or not. Then again, I play with pretty dedicated players who only miss if something serious came up, so, it's not a big issue. Players who miss several sessions without giving prior notice get the boot, so, I suppose in that sense they don't get xp.

But, yeah, I'm nowhere near as hard core about it as I used to be.

 

[pemerton]

XP and treasure are a reward, not an entitlement

That depends almost entirely on playstyle, as reinforced by mechanics.

Thus in 4e, despite the misleading title to DMG chapter 7 ("Rewards"), XP clearly are a pacing mechanism, to make the game move forward through "the story of D&D" - starting with kobolds, ending up with Orcus. And treasure is even more obviously not a reward but a central element of PC building (complete with the "wishlist" advice to support it). The 4e GM is in charge of exactly where and how treasure is found, but is, in effect, breaking the rules if treasure is not found. (Unless inherent bonuses are being used intead.)

The only consequence of not awarding XP or treasure to a PC whose player was absent is to create a mismatch between the PC's mechanical abilities, and the mechanics of the story elements which will be occurring in the situations that PC will be confronting (as the story moves on through the tiers to the final confrontation with . . . whichever epic cosmological entity is the focus of the campaign). That would be punishment.

I mean, suppose you had a walking group, and every weekend you're going to increase the distance walked by 5 kilometres, until over the course of two months you work up to 40 km in a day. If a member of the group misses the week 3 walk, it would make no sense to have him/her turn up for the next weekend's walk with only enough water and snacks for a 15 km rather than 20 km hike.

In default 4e, at least, XP and treasure are analogous.

 

[pemerton]

The xp awards really are a system meant just for the PC's, and so, for practical purposes, xp is really meant just for the PLAYERS as a reward and control mechanism for their participation. Given the suggested use of xp loss as punishment for alignment transgressions, or disruptive player behavior points its purpose even more at being intended as a player-participation tool.

Just realized that I should state that I see all this in terms of 1E rules.

I think you're correct about how 1st ed AD&D (and B/X too) views XP. As I stated in my post just above this one, I think in 4e XP plays a very different role.

I don't really understand how XP are meant to work in 2nd ed AD&D or in 3E.

 

[Li Shenron]

That depends almost entirely on playstyle, as reinforced by mechanics.

Thus in 4e, despite the misleading title to DMG chapter 7 ("Rewards"), XP clearly are a pacing mechanism, to make the game move forward through "the story of D&D" ...

In which case they are neither a reward nor an entitlement however. But neither they are really necessary in that playstyle, because if advancement is totally predetermined/railroaded (I guess that you still have to win battles, so that if you retreat and run away you don't get XP, but then I also guess that the DM then won't really move the story forward yet) there is truly no need for XP but just levels.

 

[pemerton]

In which case they are neither a reward nor an entitlement however. But neither they are really necessary in that playstyle

<snip>

there is truly no need for XP but just levels.

Well, like I said upthread:

In 4e, I think it should be roughly one level per 10 hours of committed play. Despite the relative transparency of this, I still use XP in my 4e campaign. Mostly for aesthetic/nostalgic reasons, I think, but also perhaps on the assumption that the designers thought that their own XP suggestions would achieve goal (i) above, of giving players a good amount of experience with their current PC build.

Or, in other words, what Mallus said

 

[Lanefan]

If the player is running the PC and helping kill the giant, sure the PC gets his fair share of the xp. MAYBE if the player is NOT there but the player authorizes someone else to run his PC for him, then the PC still earns xp. If the PC is considered to be "watching the horses" while the other PC's delve into the dungeon because the PC's player is absent - not a chance of xp at all, which was what the OP was suggesting, yes? The PC earning xp even though the PC is not actually doing anything, assumedly on the principle that the PC's all NEED to stay very close in xp/levels.

Agreed completely that a character who does nothing gets no XP. But keep in mind that most of the time we end our sessions in mid-dungeon and start up next week right back there, thus if someone doesn't make it to the session their PC is still present in the party and expected to pull its weight. And it gets XP when it does.

NPC's with the party earn xp just as the PC's do. But at any time, any place, for any reason (most especially including the reason of "because I want it to be so") then I, as DM, will assign whatever xp total or whatever level regardless of xp as I see fit to that NPC. Just because the NPC "plays by PC rules" for earning xp while with the PC's doesn't mean that it ceases to be an NPC in any other way/shape/form. When I want an NPC to level up - he does. When an NPC accumulates enough actual xp from adventuring with PC's to level up - he does. Rules, requirements, procedures regarding xp are not the same for PC's and NPC's alike.

Pretty much what I do too, though when a party NPC leaves the party at level x and comes back later at level y I usually try to produce at least a quasi-rational explanation for it.

The xp awards really are a system meant just for the PC's, and so, for practical purposes, xp is really meant just for the PLAYERS as a reward and control mechanism for their participation. Given the suggested use of xp loss as punishment for alignment transgressions, or disruptive player behavior points its purpose even more at being intended as a player-participation tool.

Just realized that I should state that I see all this in terms of 1E rules. Other editions will, of course, vary but I personally STILL assign 1E ideals to later edtions. This probably invalidates my opinion for a lot of people.

I also see it in 1e terms but I long ago intentionally chose to ignore the player-control mechanisms suggested by EGG. Ditto for alignment change; alignment in my game is much less hard-and-fast than original 1e would have it.

To me, XP are a character reward; and while players enjoy seeing their characters get 'em I very much try not to use them specifically as a player reward.

Lanefan