WotC Milestone leveling in WotC editions?

[aco175]

Remember when you had a 16 in your primary ability, you got +10% XP. I do not recall many PCs not having the 16, but I guess there was some. Does any 1st level PC not start with 16 in the primary stat? Redundant, but you get my point.

 

[Voadam]

That would do the exact opposite of encouraging/driving characters to adventure!

"Guys, we can go out and risk our lives adventuring for five sessions and level up, or we can sit safe in town and quaff ale for five sessions and still level up........... bartender!"

Tying the accruement of xp to the taking of risk - and further, only giving xp to those who actually take those risks - is what drives them to adventure.

As I said, I never felt the xp system drove people to adventure.

Playing in milestone D&D games and in systems that gave xp for other things (Palladium, GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.) most of which I can't remember what we got xp for, we still adventured.

I feel it is generally inherent in playing D&D that people want to adventure and explore and interact and do things.

 

[MNblockhead]

Back in the 80s, playing OD&D and 1e, we never did anything like milestone leveling, but we would frequently create characters and level them up to the appropriate level of a module we wanted to play. I'm sure we did that with existing characters as well, which would be milestone leveling in the sense of the milestone being having finished a lower level module and now getting ready to play a higher-level module. But that style of "milestone" leveling would also involve level skipping in some instances.

 

[Lanefan]

As I said, I never felt the xp system drove people to adventure.

Playing in milestone D&D games and in systems that gave xp for other things (Palladium, GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, Shadowrun, WFRP, etc.) most of which I can't remember what we got xp for, we still adventured.

I feel it is generally inherent in playing D&D that people want to adventure and explore and interact and do things.

I find it generally inherent in playing D&D - and just about any other type of game - that people want to win.

A system that lets them win just as often when doing nothing (and thus can't lose) as when doing something (and thus are at risk of losing) would seem to encourage doing nothing.

 

[Lanefan]

The other problem with milestone levelling is when you have different levels within the party, the lower-level characters can never catch up.

 

[Staffan]

I find it generally inherent in playing D&D - and just about any other type of game - that people want to win.

A system that lets them win just as often when doing nothing (and thus can't lose) as when doing something (and thus are at risk of losing) would seem to encourage doing nothing.

Milestone leveling is generally not about just showing up and doing nothing. It's about actually hitting milestones – e.g. when you stop the bandit attacks, when you find the thingamabob and bring it home, when you get through Moria. It does reward being goal-oriented over being completionist, but I find that to be a feature and not a bug – if you want to reward exploration, make sure the exploration itself is worth it in the rewards it brings. It also lends itself more to quest-based games over self-directed looters, but that's a matter of taste.

The other problem with milestone levelling is when you have different levels within the party, the lower-level characters can never catch up.

Generally you don't have different levels within the party because everyone levels up at the same time and new PCs come in at the same level.

 

[cbwjm]

Generally you don't have different levels within the party because everyone levels up at the same time and new PCs come in at the same level.

Exactly how I run my 5e campaigns, though we used xp, everyone had the same xp total, players didn't need to track anything. New players have the same level but only basic gear.

 

[Voadam]

I find it generally inherent in playing D&D - and just about any other type of game - that people want to win.

There have been competition modules for D&D with scoring where you can win a competition, but generally I agree with Moldvay in the B/X Basic set on the baseline of D&D.

"The D&D game has neither losers nor winners, it has only gamers who relish exercising their imagination. The players and the DM share in creating adventures in fantastic lands where heroes abound and magic really works."

A system that lets them win just as often when doing nothing (and thus can't lose) as when doing something (and thus are at risk of losing) would seem to encourage doing nothing.

I don't consider gaining levels as winning, but even if I did a system that let characters just "win" periodically instead of for specific things would just mean there was no encouragement or disincentive for any particular play style or specific goals. Players could start a criminal gang to do heists, they could be street vigilantes patrolling, they could answer the call to be heroes, they could be mercenaries, they could be political operatives, whatever. They would just develop over time.

 

[Composer99]

Eh, XP are just thousands of mini milestones that ostensibly get handed out for treasure or monster killing, and if the mid-80s can teach us anything, it's that what XP incentivises isn't the full picture of what motivates players to send their characters off on adventures. (E.g. by then modules such as DL are quest focused, regardless of what earns XP in the Basic or AD&D lines at the time; I'm away from my books so might be missing some nuances.)

If you're worried about milestones encouraging the playing of "Tavernkeepers and Tallow-makers" instead of Dungeons and Dragons, I'd suggest at least adding a minimum caveat that milestones are rewarded for going adventuring. But as @Voadam says there are plenty of ways player characters can do things that aren't optimizing the fun out of the game without actually going out and dungeon delving. You just have to treat "gaining a level" as a means to an end - that end being "have a broader range of adventures available to you because of your greater survivability and capabilities" - instead of an end in itself.

 

[Lanefan]

Milestone leveling is generally not about just showing up and doing nothing.

I was replying to someone's suggestion that levelling be based on number of sessions played. i.e. gain a level per x-number of sessions.

It's about actually hitting milestones – e.g. when you stop the bandit attacks, when you find the thingamabob and bring it home, when you get through Moria. It does reward being goal-oriented over being completionist, but I find that to be a feature and not a bug – if you want to reward exploration, make sure the exploration itself is worth it in the rewards it brings. It also lends itself more to quest-based games over self-directed looters, but that's a matter of taste.

Also opens the door to the game becoming a railroad, though, in that if the milestones are at set points in the story and the players know where they are they've little to no reason to do anything else. Left-turning or changing tack won't be rewarded. Ditto for side quests, or doing anything else that doesn't get you to that next milestone point.

Sorry, but...bleah.

Generally you don't have different levels within the party because everyone levels up at the same time and new PCs come in at the same level.

None of that applies in my game. New characters come in a level behind. Level-drainers exist, along with occasional effects that can give extra xp or a level. I use different advancement tables for different classes. And not every character is involved in every adventure; they cycle in and out irregularly and sometimes unpredictably, based on a combination of the whim of the player and what the character would do.