Why I dislike Milestone XP

[iserith]

Are there 2 iseriths here? It's like you're describing a completely different guy than the one I see.

The thing is, one can be in total control of one's character, be relentlessly pursuing the things that allow the character to advance, and still be making the game fun for everyone, and helping to create an exciting, memorable story in the doing. These things don't have to be in opposition. With the right advancement system in place, everything can be moving in the same direction towards the goal of winning D&D as the rules define it.

 

[Caliban]

The thing is, one can be in total control of one's character, be relentlessly pursuing the things that allow the character to advance, and still be making the game fun for everyone, and helping to create an exciting, memorable story in the doing. These things don't have to be in opposition. With the right advancement system in place, everything can be moving in the same direction towards the goal of winning D&D as the rules define it.

See? Even he agrees. Just do things to his liking and you won't have any problems.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the good things about a game that is about storytelling and shares elements with childhood games of make-believe is that the fiction is very mutable. It's therefore typically very easy in my experience to come up with a plausible in-game reason a PC is absent, if you need one, or how the PC fades to the background and is still making the odd comment and helping in various scenes, but isn't mechanically impacting anything (or being impacted mechanically).

Due to using a player pool system to run my campaign, my player roster can change from week to week as can the characters. So I have a lot of experience dealing with this. Tonight, in fact, the insane dwarf clown bard who was with the party last session will not be with the party this session and his seat was taken by a paladin who thinks he's becoming a god. So the clown, Bo Low, will either fade to the background or we'll just say he couldn't stand another moment in the idyllic pastoral community of Ecstasy and had to get back to grimy Sigil. Carl Lagerbelly, the paladin, meanwhile will just turn up from Sigil having caught up with the party and he'll have a reasonable excuse for why he was delayed and missed the debate and battle in the Philosopher's Court. Bo Low will earn no experience tonight, but he also has no chance of being slain by the lurking villain in Ecstasy, nor any of the bad guys and monsters in the Gate-Town of Curst, while the player has no control over him.

If you're doing a weekend-warrior episodic sort of thing where the party ends up in town at the end of each session then sure, this works well and is easy to explain in-game, as you've done here.

But if you're in a game where each adventure takes multiple sessions and they'll only hit town every few real-world months or so, it ain't so easy to explain in the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

The thing is, one can be in total control of one's character, be relentlessly pursuing the things that allow the character to advance, and still be making the game fun for everyone, and helping to create an exciting, memorable story in the doing. These things don't have to be in opposition. With the right advancement system in place, everything can be moving in the same direction towards the goal of winning D&D as the rules define it.

'Winning' D&D?

That's a thing now?

Did I miss a memo somewhere?

 

[iserith]

'Winning' D&D?

That's a thing now?

Did I miss a memo somewhere?

Basic Rules, page 2: "There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

So yeah, you can "win D&D." You just have to make sure everyone had a good time and created a memorable story. Which is certainly possible while being in control of what your character does and pursuing the things that allow you character to advance. And can even be possible in the face of the characters being defeated or killed trying.

 

[iserith]

If you're doing a weekend-warrior episodic sort of thing where the party ends up in town at the end of each session then sure, this works well and is easy to explain in-game, as you've done here.

But if you're in a game where each adventure takes multiple sessions and they'll only hit town every few real-world months or so, it ain't so easy to explain in the fiction.

Eh, I've done it in games that are like the ones you describe, too. There are plenty of fictional "outs," if you want them, though I'm not saying you have to.

 

[Oofta]

If you're doing a weekend-warrior episodic sort of thing where the party ends up in town at the end of each session then sure, this works well and is easy to explain in-game, as you've done here.

But if you're in a game where each adventure takes multiple sessions and they'll only hit town every few real-world months or so, it ain't so easy to explain in the fiction.

I've hit that once or twice. I decided there was a terrible curse and people were randomly transformed into small forest animals until the next session they were able to attend. One guy missed several sessions in a row and was followed around for quite a while by a particularly noisy squirrel ... and then by a noisy squirrel with baby squirrels in tow.

One of the goals of the campaign became breaking the curse.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I agree with the OP. I think AP's are the bane of RPGs. I am very much in favour of unrelated, episodic adventures, and letting the PCs roam free in a sandbox (well, you can pull parts of an AP out and drop them into a sandbox, that's cool, but actually running them from level 1 - 20 is just nope nope nope).

As for leveling I like incremental advances/session advances the best. Ie at the end of a session (or every couple of sessions or whatever), the PC gains (choose or determine randomly) one increase from their next level.

Otherwise I prefer milestones, or xp for gold. And last xp for monsters (only because, ultimately, it encourages killing everything).

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't really understand the conflict here. If the PCs decide to hare off and do something else, you can let them, and then you can provide milestone rewards for whatever they do achieve.

This.

I don't know the details of milestone XP rules but obviously if the PCs don't pick up a quest, they'll get XP from another.

It's also definitely possible to use both milestone XP and monsters XP in the same game, in case the PCs are giving up too many quests.

 

[Delazar78]

Got rid of XP a few years back, can't be bothered with the fiddly math. When I run an AP, I give levels as mentioned in the AP. When I run sandbox, I give a level every X sessions. It works for us.

level 2 after 1 session
level 3 after 2 more sessions
level 4 after 3 more sessions
then it's one level every 4 sessions, until level 20
then it's one epic boon every 4 sessions