Why I dislike Milestone XP

[iserith]

I've made those comments before and I'm here to make them again.

Once I saw the chart that should how much XP is expected over a typical adventuring day per level I immediately decided to abandon XP and just have the PCs level up passed on how many adventuring days had passed. It was the difference between me doing a little bit of Math once or a little bit of math over and over and over again. That seemed a simple choice to me.

It wasn't a matter of how hard it was as much as how much value XP was bringing to my game. To me the answer was not enough to justify doing that stupid simple math as often as is necessary to make it work.

As a bonus I no longer worry about making my encounters all that balanced. Some might be too easy, some too hard, but it will probably average out. Also some days might have too few encounters and some too many, but I don't have to sweat that either. It will probably average out too.

And while I think there are good reasons to use XP, as has been outlined by the AngryGM, I find that Inspiration does a good enough job of giving that type of reward for my game.

And speaking as one lazy SOB. I'll take good enough with minimal effort over better with more effort almost every time.

As I mention upthread, my understanding of the objection was to simple math in calculating and handing out XP during the session. This objection you lay out is outside the scope of my response.

How does your adventuring day per level advancement system work? What kind of play does it incentivize?

 

[fjw70]

I've made those comments before and I'm here to make them again.

Once I saw the chart that should how much XP is expected over a typical adventuring day per level I immediately decided to abandon XP and just have the PCs level up passed on how many adventuring days had passed. It was the difference between me doing a little bit of Math once or a little bit of math over and over and over again. That seemed a simple choice to me.

It wasn't a matter of how hard it was as much as how much value XP was bringing to my game. To me the answer was not enough to justify doing that stupid simple math as often as is necessary to make it work.

As a bonus I no longer worry about making my encounters all that balanced. Some might be too easy, some too hard, but it will probably average out. Also some days might have too few encounters and some too many, but I don't have to sweat that either. It will probably average out too.

And while I think there are good reasons to use XP, as has been outlined by the AngryGM, I find that Inspiration does a good enough job of giving that type of reward for my game.

And speaking as one lazy SOB. I'll take good enough with minimal effort over better with more effort almost every time.

I also chucked the encounter building/XP guidelines. I just eye encounters as close enough and let the players decide on how to handle the encounters.

I typically do session leveling. For my new campaign I have tweaked it so now I give out a certain amount of XP per session. The XP is strictly based on ho fast I want the PCs to level. My plan is to do 1 level each of the first couple sessions and the it will take two sessions to level afater that. I am hoping the XP will give the players some sense of advancement even f they don’t gain a level that session (I.e. they see they are getting closer to the next level). Only through the first two sessions so we will see how it goes.

 

[5ekyu]

"I think that you and I have very different definitions of the word "simple", my friend."

This is a common put down.

In hero system, complaints about the amount of math draw similar rebukes oft with "simple addition subtraction multiplication division - like 3rd grade stuff" follow-up.

Like 5e xp blah blah its "just" that 3rd grade stuff but as you ststed, its time.

Do i gain anthing from doing that, spending that time instead of more time on setting and scene?

Do my players gain anything from keeping track encounter after encounter or session after session?

Do i EVER want to hear players say "yes but if our characters do it this way we get more xp, so lets do it this way"? (Using it to incentivize the choices i want them to make)

My answer to all of those is no, so i dont do it and i dont do it to them.

I really want them to make in-character, in-game choices for in-game reasons, not meta-game where the xp boxes are.

Obviously other GMs feel differently.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Jumping in late, but it might help to look at exactly why XP was invented in the first place.

In the original D&D boxed set, you got XP for getting gold, and adventures were set in maze-like dungeons. It didn't matter whether you killed the monster or used cunning. It was also an incentive. You don't show, you don't get XP. It's a early customer-rewards, loyalty-based system. You show up, you get a perk. You play the game (as it was originally designed, dungeon crawls), you get a perk. If you show up and play a character, everyone (hopefully) has a good social outing.

When AD&D rolled out, this concept of robbery = experience went away under the idea it was the act of robbery, not the amount stolen, that increased the skill. And, this put an end to an unexpected style of play: players would backstab others, especially in tournament play, to get the gold and get the level. Anti-social play wasn't the point of a roleplay game.

So AD&D changed it to kill monsters & play your class, get XP. Ultimately, it gave the best advice for DMs as to how to dole out XP: "Let experience be your guide." Clever. If your players want a slow game, socializing and so on, then slow down the XP or alter how much it takes to get a level. Fast? Do the opposite. Does this sound more like milestone (level up whenever the heck you want?) Absolutely!

So fast forward to 5E and my "experience" with Out of the Abyss. In the 2nd half, there wasn't anywhere close to the XP amounts required for killing stuff and completing quests to get the finale levels. When you're on a major quest to save the world and you have to wander the Underdark hoping for random encounters to bump a level, it sucks. Milestone for completing a chapter & getting a step closer to stopping the bad guys made more sense. Others might artificially boost the story XP for getting the items, but all you're doing is fudging numbers to get players to a certain level. Which is Milestone.

When I tried PF society play, XP was rewarded for participation (e.g. 3 sessions = 1 level).

In summary, "let experience be your guide." It's a good saying. At its core, XP is a reward system for showing up and playing a certain way. So for a DM, it's not about the math; it's about finding what works and being consistent. If you were so inclined, you could use a "gold for XP" system, giving your players an incentive to explore every nook and cranny of every dungeon and ruin. If you all prefer playing an epic storyline, then perhaps milestone achievements (1 level for every artifact gem you find to close the portal Tiamat has opened..) works. It rewards you for showing and gives your incentive to achieve the storyline goal.

Or, as I'm doing, a hybrid in Curse of Strahd, wherein players get advancement towards levels for completing quests and defeating/solving major bad guys, minor advancement for exploring and finding unique magical items, and major advancement credit for finding major artifacts tied to the primary storyline. In this system, except for any loot, random encounters and many combats aren't worth anything at all. It's okay to run away, avoid, and circumvent, whereas a straight XP system could encourage the party to slaughter every foe they find.

 

[BookBarbarian]

As I mention upthread, my understanding of the objection was to simple math in calculating and handing out XP during the session. This objection you lay out is outside the scope of my response.

Fair enough.

How does your adventuring day per level advancement system work? What kind of play does it incentivize?

Broken down it takes between 33 Adventuring days to go from level 1 to level 20 based on the 5e guidelines. Typically between 1 and 3 days to go to the next level. So I mostly just inform my players when they have advanced to the next level. sometimes I might say, you're about one more adventure (my "campaign" is mostly one shots that take the course of an adventuring day) away from the next level, or something like that.

I'm not sure yet what play style it incentivises one its own, that can be heavily influenced by what I reward through other means. Survival Maybe? Except if a PC dies and isn't resurrected I have no problem just letting the Player roll up a new PC at the same level. Showing up maybe? But I'm not hard core about every player being their every time. I guess it just flatly rewards being a part of the game. So I have no idea what it incentivizes except that it incetivises me to not get burned out to tedious things I hate

I also chucked the encounter building/XP guidelines. I just eye encounters as close enough and let the players decide on how to handle the encounters.

I typically do session leveling. For my new campaign I have tweaked it so now I give out a certain amount of XP per session. The XP is strictly based on ho fast I want the PCs to level. My plan is to do 1 level each of the first couple sessions and the it will take two sessions to level afater that. I am hoping the XP will give the players some sense of advancement even f they don’t gain a level that session (I.e. they see they are getting closer to the next level). Only through the first two sessions so we will see how it goes.

Yeah this works too.

i could really just think of it as the other way from what I'm doing now. Just give the players the XP a typical adventuring day would have. They would probably enjoy writing the numbers down at least, and I still wouldn't being doing math i consider to be pointless or if not pointless not worth it to me (YMMV).

I'll try this next time.

 

[iserith]

I'm not a big video game player, but I bet many of you are. Do you know of any video games wherein you advance in the game by leaving the game cartridge or disc on the shelf and doing something else? Do video game producers get angry letters from their customers about how they are being punished for not advancing in the game when they're not actually playing it?

This isn't a criticism of leveling everyone up at the same time even if they don't play. That certainly works if you think there's value in having all the PCs be the same level. It's just perhaps a way to look critically at the assertion that not getting levels when you don't show up is some kind of punishment. Why might it be seen this way in D&D, but perhaps not in a D&D-like video game?

It seems to me there are good reasons to want to level everyone up even if they don't play and this supports particular play experiences. But to say doing otherwise is some kind of punishment seems like a very weak argument to me. I think you can make the case for your particular approach without it.

 

[Caliban]

I'm not a big video game player, but I bet many of you are. Do you know of any video games wherein you advance in the game by leaving the game cartridge or disc on the shelf and doing something else? Do video game producers get angry letters from their customers about how they are being punished for not advancing in the game when they're not actually playing it?

This isn't a criticism of leveling everyone up at the same time even if they don't play. That certainly works if you think there's value in having all the PCs be the same level. It's just perhaps a way to look critically at the assertion that not getting levels when you don't show up is some kind of punishment. Why might it be seen this way in D&D, but perhaps not in a D&D-like video game?

It seems to me there are good reasons to want to level everyone up even if they don't play and this supports particular play experiences. But to say doing otherwise is some kind of punishment seems like a very weak argument to me.

A) This is not a video game, so this is a false equivalency. It is completely irrelevant to people who don't want to treat D&D like a video game.

B) Yes. There are in fact video games where your character can be assigned tasks to be done while you are offline and not actively playing.

 

[iserith]

A) This is not a video game, so this is a false equivalency. It is completely irrelevant to people who don't want to treat D&D like a video game.

I know it's not a video game, nor do I suggest people should treat it that way. I still think the criticism of that particular argument stands.

B) Yes. There are in fact video games where your character can be assigned tasks to be done while you are offline and not actively playing.

And for those games that do not allow for that to be done, is it a punishment that you aren't getting ahead when you're not playing?

 

[Caliban]

I know it's not a video game, nor do I suggest people should treat it that way. I still think the criticism of that particular argument stands.

And I do not. So there.

And for those games that do not allow for that to be done, is it a punishment that you aren't getting ahead when you're not playing?

I'm not the one talking about "punishment". You and some other posters are.

But if it's a team based game and level advancement is tracked from session to session, then it would certainly seem to be less enjoyable for the person who cannot make every game session and falls farther and farther behind the rest of their team. Not a "punishment" per se, but certainly a less enjoyable play experience for both them, and possibly for their team.

Now if you are one of those hyper-competitive people who are always measuring themselves against their friends and teammates, then it probably is more enjoyable for you to be able to lord your extra progress over the people who can't play as often as you. Dealing with that could be seen as "punishment" for your lower level teammates, I suppose.

 

[5ekyu]

Two players get the flu.

One stays home for 2 session.
One comes to the group for two session anyway.
At the session, they do fun stuff and get loot and such.
Third week both those players are there... Others arent cuz they caught the flu...possibly at the game.

Play who stayed home now is also a level down.

Out loot, out fun, level down - made right call.

Well hey, lets not call that punishment but a feature???