Why I dislike Milestone XP

[Oofta]

I haven't tracked XP for a long, long time as a DM and instead level up when it makes sense for the story and the group. Some groups level quickly, others dawdle at various levels because they're having fun with the types of challenges they are facing that are level appropriate.

What XP and leveling mean for your group is going to vary by group and DM. Some groups get plenty of sense of accomplishment by finally proving that the sheriff really was corrupt and skimming off the top of the tax collection while shaking people down for other goods and services. It doesn't matter if they were 2nd level while they were doing it - their level is secondary to the accomplishment.

Others like that feeling of growth by gaining a few extra HP, abilities or spells and there's nothing wrong with that.

Personally, I like to organize my campaigns into "chapters", groups of encounters and challenges usually broken apart by a period of time during which people level up. While I don't have a hard and fast rule, the breaks between chapters can be months or even years. To me it feels more natural that the PCs spend downtime in practice and learning instead of the wizard just figuring out how to cast fireball because the group just took out that group of ogres.

 

[iserith]

I dislike milestone XP because it requires characters to be the same level and be leveling together. That both limits the numbers of characters in play and hastens the approach of those asinine high-levels (which no RPG, much less any D&D edition, has ever done well). Although much has changed since the days of Lake Geneva, my groups and I’ve held to one maxim that the original Gygax players often write of having done (although we realized it ourselves twenty-five years ago): if each player keep subbing out interrelated characters over the course of the campaign, you can constantly change the focus of adventures while broadening a vast storyline that never actually has to end (the plotline of a given character is fulfilled while twenty others go on). Plus, that means you can keep things under level 12 or so because no one set of characters is constantly hogging XP like the usual d20 core four: just figure out what the XP is for whatever set of levels is at the table that night (which might run from 3-10 or something if those are the characters who naturally fit the story or whose characters fit together, but the low-level guys are getting a bonanza). Milestone XP is anathema for these situations, because you’re enforcing a system where a given character is always X levels ahead just to save you doing math (although you end up doing more math when you end up in the drudge of high-level play instead of semi-retiring those guys to domain-type guest-star status in lieu of other mid-level characters like St. Gary intended!).

I do the multiple-characters-per-player thing because I organize games with a player pool so that we don't often have scheduling issues. If the DM (me) can play, there's a game because of the 12 players in the group, at least 4 (max 5) can play. So that's at least a dozen characters, plus players usually have a backup character in case their main dies. They'll typically play the backup till at least 3rd-level, then focus mostly on the main. Character levels in the party can vary which makes for some interesting choices and tactics. This tends to mean that play stays under 10th level before the campaign ends. I don't like running a single campaign for more than a year.

Standard XP works well for this kind of setup. Everyone knows what they have to do in order to get their levels when they play and can go get after it!

 

[iserith]

Ha! I am with you! I am unabashedly old school. This is merely my OCD...but I want to really earn it. Grind it. I want levels to be hard fought and not guaranteed.

I want to scream Wheee! like a giddy school girl when I can actually cast a third level fireball for the first time!

Granted, we had a hell of a time getting above 9th level or so in first edition, but still. We switched characters too often as well...but not everyone had a high level character they actually advanced. Throwing flamestrike was hard earned and fun!

I have no particular opinion on adventure paths. I just want to know how I can get my XP (or levels) so I can go do that. I'm not at all keen on DMs just awarding levels when they feel like it. I want some goals and direction plus a tangible reward for achieving said goals.

I find in my own campaigns and in the ToA game I'm in, standard XP works great. We get a little dose right after a challenge is completed and it drives everyone onward as we get closer and closer to leveling up. In Friday's game, we were really pushing our luck to get to 6th level before the session ended and fell about 200 XP short dammit! But at least we'll level up after the first challenge next session...

 

[Bradley Hindman]

I dislike milestone XP because it requires characters to be the same level and be leveling together. That both limits the numbers of characters in play and hastens the approach of those asinine high-levels (which no RPG, much less any D&D edition, has ever done well). Although much has changed since the days of Lake Geneva, my groups and I’ve held to one maxim that the original Gygax players often write of having done (although we realized it ourselves twenty-five years ago): if each player keep subbing out interrelated characters over the course of the campaign, you can constantly change the focus of adventures while broadening a vast storyline that never actually has to end (the plotline of a given character is fulfilled while twenty others go on). Plus, that means you can keep things under level 12 or so because no one set of characters is constantly hogging XP like the usual d20 core four: just figure out what the XP is for whatever set of levels is at the table that night (which might run from 3-10 or something if those are the characters who naturally fit the story or whose characters fit together, but the low-level guys are getting a bonanza). Milestone XP is anathema for these situations, because you’re enforcing a system where a given character is always X levels ahead just to save you doing math (although you end up doing more math when you end up in the drudge of high-level play instead of semi-retiring those guys to domain-type guest-star status in lieu of other mid-level characters like St. Gary intended!).

The leveling of characters without the tracking of XP isn't necessarily antithetical to troop style play. In my current campaign, each player has multiple characters. One is designated the primary and the others as secondary. Like a TV show, I organize my campaigns as an inter-connnected series of sessions called seasons. At the end of each season or chapter in the story, every character levels up (primary and secondary). The secondary characters are simply two levels lower than the primaries. If a primary dies, then a secondary can be promoted.

Now, if your group views XP as a reward. This probably wouldn't work for you.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

XP all the way! Tried the "Level up when...", tried "Milestone..." and a couple other of those kinda wishy-washy methods. Every time we did, everyone felt 'cheated' somehow. I guess it came down to the whole "equality of outcome" vs "equality of opportunity" thing. Without using normal XP methods, it felt like equality of outcome; meaning it didn't matter who did what...the outcome was all pre-determined to be a certain amount for everyone, regardless of their actual accomplishment/quality of play.

I hand out XP a bit differently. I still give XP for monsters, but it's only about half. I give 1:1 xp for GP acquired. This is when I run pretty much all versions of "D&D" other than a pure Hackmaster 4e game where it's handled as per the HM GMG book (well, 97% anyway). The main reason why we do it the 'old skool way' is because we like seeing a reward for stuff that we do in game. It gives a sense of constant improvement and growth to the character. One thing to note is that XP is given out at the beginning of the next session, and not 'as it is earned'. At the end of the session but before the next I sit down and go through everything, total up XP and then at the beginning of the next session hand it out.

I agree with the OP overall. Just don't like the Milestone or "Chapter based" progression. It's like competing in a 100-m dash were no time is kept, and everyone who crosses the finish line is awarded "Finished!" but no Gold, Silver, or Bronze. Anyone who finishes has no idea if they beat their old personal best time and isn't recognized for where they placed vs others. Bleeaachh!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[MarkB]

Milestone Leveling is a time saver and gets the job done. There isn't a lot of doubt that it's become widely used especially in Adventure paths.

Even so I have a heavy dislike for it. See to me D&D is a role playing game and the PC's should have the freedom to play their characters however they want. This means that the DM shouldn't have preset notions and rewards for doing what the adventure requires.

If the pc's decide that Dragon flying over the town looks nasty and head the other way then they should have the freedom to do so.

I don't really get this example. If you're using a non-milestone-based XP system, would you award the players XP for not fighting the dragon?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In a game where there is no cost to combat - you're definitely going to win, and any damage you take will be removed after a nap - getting rid of combat XP means that playing through the combat is just a huge waste of time at the table. When there's no positive or negative consequence to combat, fighting is entirely meaningless.

I would be much more accepting of milestone-based XP if the healing rules were changed such that HP recovery was severely limited. It would mean the correct choice is to avoid combat whenever possible, because there's no real reward and the potential resource cost is high, but that's a fine way to play. (Likewise under default 5E rules, you should seek out every fight because there's no real cost and high potential rewards, and that's an alright way to play if you're into that sort of thing.)

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

In a game where there is no cost to combat - you're definitely going to win, and any damage you take will be removed after a nap - getting rid of combat XP means that playing through the combat is just a huge waste of time at the table.

What if you don't win the combat?

Unless its a sure win then, I mean, yes, obviously if there are, 'no pros or negative consequences', the fight is meaningless... ...for example, crushing rats in a barrel or the 14th level caster nipping off to the goblin village to murder everyone.

But they wouldn't get xp even if it was awarded on an individual or task basis, would they? Isn't the entire point to reward characters on overcoming level-appropriate challenges, or something in that area of thinking?

Either its done on a task by task basis or, with milestone, every... mile.. stone, after a bunch of tasks have been successfully overcome.

Not sure how healing out of combat comes into this. If the fight is meaningless - a sure win regardless - then why bother to play it out at the table? Just do it as a narrative blip. Akin to the 16th level Thief picking the lock to a noble's bedroom, or high-level barbarian winning a tavern brawl with some filthy commoners.

And certainly don't gain experience. At this level of power/encounter disparity, such actions are roleplaying fluff pieces.

 

[Inchoroi]

My players and I have done both; to a player, they prefer regular XP. I'm a little bit odd as a DM, though, in that I'll give XP for different quest completions, along with killing monsters, and there's a lot of different quests and side-quests for the players to explore.

 

[flametitan]

I generally use experience points, though I'll reward it for various tasks. My players went on an quest to find potatoes, an imported food in my setting, going to the big city and getting some. Since this task was easy, and they were level one, they only got 25 XP, but it's me dipping my toes into giving XP for things other than winning a fight or negotiating out of combat. (and no, I won't give out 25 XP every time they eat a potato, that's asinine)

If I were to skip XP, I'd either do the session based advancement in the DMG, or the "hours played" advancement provided in XGE (either as is or slowed down to better match the pace the DMG recommends for session based advancement).