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

[RedShirtNo5.1]

As with a lot of the rule system, it depends on the type of campaign and players.

On the one hand, if I'm running a west marches style sandbox with a large player base of whom only a limited number will show up for a given day, I will absolutely assign xp on a session by session basis.

On the other hand, if I'm running an adventure path with a limited number of players who show up consistently, I will almost certainly assign xp regardless of whether the player attended (and it is likely that the character was run by one of the other players anyway, so was exposed to some degree of risk), and may dispense with calculating xp entirely.

 

[Li Shenron]

Isn't the fundamental question what you, as a DM, see XP to be?

Yes precisely, and this is the reason why I really think the designers should NOT give us their view as a default.

They should put XP in the game for those who want to use them, because they are traditional in D&D, but try not to link them to other mechanics of the game (such as in 3e magic item creation) so that it remains very easy not to use XP at all by groups that don't like them.

 

[S'mon]

The best treatment of XP depends as much on the campaign as on the ruleset. If you run 3.5/Pathfinder in Old School style with variable player and PC group, open world, tentpole megadungeon, etc, then individual PC XP is best. If you run it Adventure Path/Epic Quest style, with a single group of 4-6 PCs expected to go through eg 15 levels of play together, then a single XP tally for the party is best. Same goes for other rulesets, though the older editions tend more towards individual XP and 4e tends more to party XP as the most desirable default.

Edit: For instance, my 4e D&D game has a single XP tally that I track. Every PC is the same level. My Pathfinder GM running Rise of the Runelords does the same. My Pathfinder Beginner Box game has every PC start at 1st level and earn individual XP. Both approaches work well in their respective games.
I wouldn't like not having XP and having all the pressure on me to decide when a fair or reasonable point to level up was by GM fiat. I like that XP rewards greater achievements with faster levelling.

Edit 2: A compromise approach that works well IME is to have individual XP by PC, but a set starting XP tally above 0 for new PCs. This should be whatever the GM thinks is needed for PCs to be able to function in the environment. Eg in my AD&D online Yggsburgh game, PCs currently start with 5,001 XP. This seems to work better than 'lose 2 levels on death' or a floating start level based on average or lowest party level.

 

[Hautamaki]

I don't agree with any of the poll options. I'm a bit of a gamist, and I see xp as a rather vital reward mechanism. I award XP whenever the characters get to a safe area, no matter if this is close to the beginning of the session or the middle, or the end. Characters occasionally level up in the middle of the session this way but the players know how to deal with it: players are instructed to have planned ahead of time what they want to do with a level up so they can take care of it quickly while the other players have a smoke break or whatever.

Which leads to my second point: only characters that contributed to accomplishing whatever goal led to the xp gain get a share of the experience. Characters that died, that were off on a tangent somewhere, that had absent players, whatever, are outta luck.

I use a homebrew system with geometric xp advancement and flat math. I specifically designed it so that players that lose a character at level 7 can start over again at level 1, still contribute to combat, and reach level 7 around the same time the other players reach level 8 (every level requires slightly more than double the previous level's experience)--and then of course level 8 before they get to level 9.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I see no reason to give xp to people not attending in a game where to-hit/defenses don't move around too much. It's not really satisfying to get xp while not attending IMO, but something I have done because of the rapid scaling and how boring it will be for a character to miss a lot (or be hit too often).

 

[Jester David]

Yes, because it feels good to gain a level, and it feels bad to gain a level a week later than everyone else. It's bad enough you didn't get to play that one time; now you have to have less fun when you come back?

But when their character levels that week later, aren't they having *more* fun than everyone else then?
And you feel left out when everyone levels, but that's less of a problem if everyone leveling at different times is the norm.

It's not fun to have less treasure and fewer magic items than the rest of the table. Should absent players also received gold and items?

 

[Jester David]

On the other hand, if I'm running an adventure path with a limited number of players who show up consistently, I will almost certainly assign xp regardless of whether the player attended (and it is likely that the character was run by one of the other players anyway, so was exposed to some degree of risk), and may dispense with calculating xp entirely.

But as long as the party has an appropriate average level does that matter?

 

[Cadence]

And you feel left out when everyone levels, but that's less of a problem if everyone leveling at different times is the norm.

Which is how it was in 1e and 2e...

It's not fun to have less treasure and fewer magic items than the rest of the table. Should absent players also received gold and items?

Every party I've ever had a character in has done equal shares for gold (minus what the theif or evil member swiped). So if the character is "ghosting along" with the party while their player has an "excused absence" they'd get a share. If the magic item was obviously best for the absent character in terms of party survival, they'd probably get that as part of their share too.

If you lean towards not giving it, should how XP works out for absent players relate to the policy for cancelling sessions if someone lets you know in advance they can't be there? Maybe it isn't a big deal for a "standard night of adventure", but what about the big boss fight at the end?

 

[GreyICE]

The player who missed the session was already punished - they missed the session.

If that's not enough punishment, then the player isn't engaged with the campaign.

 

[Obryn]

Should absent players also received gold and items?

From personal experience, my group is happy to hold items that would work well for an absent player's PC. (If it's generally useful for several people, someone present usually claims them. Which is fine - they also get to make all the other decisions about the campaign's direction.)

-O