Why I dislike Milestone XP

[The Crimson Binome]

What if you don't win the combat?

That's not a 5E thing. At least, it's not a thing past level 3 or so. In any case, a TPK is also not an interesting outcome. (If everyone dies to some random encounter, then that's going to feel like everything leading up to it was a waste of time.)

As a general rule of game design, you don't want there to be a significant chance of TPK in most encounters, or else statistically a TPK will happen due to random chance. Most encounters are guaranteed wins for the party, with the only question being how much it costs them, because running out of resources means they have to run away and/or might actually die.

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.

If you remove free healing from the equation, then any fight matters as long as anyone takes any damage. If that goblin gets a lucky shot and your barbarian takes ten damage, then that reduces their margin of error against the end boss, later on. If the barbarian recklessly charges into every fight and takes a lot of unnecessary damage, then they will eventually need to hang back and start tossing javelins instead of swinging their greataxe; and you really don't want them to be reduced to that, if things start going badly or a boss shows up unexpectedly.

Unfortunately, while 5E is nominally built on the attrition model (compared to 4E, which was built on the above-mentioned every-encounter-might-possibly-kill-you model), they've thrown in so much free healing that attrition takes forever before anyone starts to feel it. You can have six encounters in a day, with the party taking damage in every encounter, and they'll still be at full power when they get to the boss.

 

[iserith]

I appreciate when a DM calculates XP for me. When I DM there is 0 chance of me doing so though, I have too many other things to pay attention to. You level when I say so!

It's a common way of doing things, I just don't prefer it myself as I like to know the things that will get me levels so I can orient my play in that direction, then be rewarded for doing so.

I DM most of the time and, while it's there's plenty to do in that role, I don't find calculating XP interferes with other DMing tasks. I tell the players, they record it on their sheets, and we move on. I don't keep track of anything - that's the players' responsibility.

 

[Caliban]

It's a common way of doing things, I just don't prefer it myself as I like to know the things that will get me levels so I can orient my play in that direction, then be rewarded for doing so.

I DM most of the time and, while it's there's plenty to do in that role, I don't find calculating XP to interfere with other DMing tasks. I tell the players, they record it on their sheets, and we move on. I don't keep track of anything - that's the players' responsibility.

That's why I don't use XP.

It incentivizes players to stop doing things because it's something their character would naturally do, and instead do things to maximize XP.

You stop role-playing your character and just follow a checklist of actions that will allow you to increment a few numbers on your character sheet faster.

Play to enjoy the game, not to update your character sheet.

 

[iserith]

That's why I don't use XP.

It incentivizes players to stop doing things because it's something their character would naturally do, and instead do things to maximize XP.

You stop role-playing your character and just follow a checklist of actions that will allow you to increment a few numbers on your character sheet faster.

Play to enjoy the game, not to update your character sheet.

Since I control my character and what my character "would" do is whatever I say it will do, I can both play my character and do the activities that are incentivized by XP. Those things don't have to be in opposition unless a player chooses them to be. And why would they? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

That's not a 5E thing. At least, it's not a thing past level 3 or so. In any case, a TPK is also not an interesting outcome. (If everyone dies to some random encounter, then that's going to feel like everything leading up to it was a waste of time.)

As a general rule of game design, you don't want there to be a significant chance of TPK in most encounters, or else statistically a TPK will happen due to random chance.

Hmm. Different experiences then. For example, just last session we had our wizard go from the age of 49 to the age of 89, which promptly caused them to drop out of play. They were still part of the group, but were weezing and coughing, generally acting traumatised. The party eventually succeeded, tho at great cost (party member) and in so doing, procured the support of a powerful asset (said ghost).

Before that, not too long ago, the cleric of another group decided to jump through an open portal mid-combat. I have no idea why (or rather, I do know why... I just don't understand why!) which meant the party went on the back foot and ended up retreating.

So, while most encounters are not designed to wipe the party, there seems to be enough swing in the system - and the sanity of our players, at least - to make a mess/challenge out of what some might call the mundane.

Should they have avoided these encounters? Maybe? Though they weren't 'combat' encounters, rather just encounters.. that ended up with some/in combat. In retrospect I'm sure they would have loved to done things differently!

But back to milestone experience - does it really discourage fights? I guess it depends on the milestones, and again, the expectations of the players. There's also something to be said about player-knowledge based actions and character-knowledge based actions, but that's another box of kaboodles altogether.

I guess it comes down to encounter design*. Personally, I'm not one for worrying too much about 'balance'. Challenge, sure, but that can consist of a variety of elements (including, apparently, open dimensional portals that only an idiot would.. ah never mind...) and be presented in with all manner of additional contexts.

Of course, if the point of a combat is to simply 'kill the thing' and the players have invested the time and resources into tipping things to their favour then sure, it can be a foregone conclusion. We've had groups sneak onto pirate ships and ghost everyone whilst sleeping. Did we make any dice rolls? Sure, a few but otherwise it was a given and the conclusion obvious. Job done, things move on and no xp awarded as it wasn't a challenge for this certain group**.

However, such a setup was still interesting and meaningful. They put a lot of resources and effort into the planning. The win was hard earnt. And I'm not sure how either a milestone or otherwise experience reward system would have influenced the party's desire to engage with said encounter.

I do agree that many modules and adventures seem to be designed around attrition and that designing around attrition is a tool in the designer's tool box. I wouldn't say its inherently a bad or good thing, mind - just a tool, though obviously, like any tool, if its used too often it can become tired and worn. Its also not a tool that is unique to 5E, being a narrative technique in many a book and awesome movie. Die Hard would be my classic example. John McClane whittled down those terrorists and was whittled down in turn, leading to a fantastic showdown. Did he try to avoid fights? Sure.. until he couldn't or had the upper hand. I'm not sure if John was clocking up the xp per terrorist kill or if he was awarded it per arc but hey!

Hmm. Where we at? Fighting = bad? Ye..ah. Sure. If resources, such as time, health or what have we are not tight supply, totally agree. Tho I believe its also a matter of play style - if players are lead to believe that an adventure will follow a series of combats, each designed to whittle down their resources, before encountering a BIG BAD, then yeah, this will naturally lead to fights being avoided. But this is also a failure on the designer's part. They have used one tool, and in a certain pattern, too often. And now have a great oppertunity to challenge expectations.


*And as I mentioned in my original post, we don't award experience based on.. anything other than a general consensus, so naturally my experience is going to be coming in at a different angle.

**Tho the 'milestone' of removing the pirates from the bay? Sure, recognition and rewards!

 

[Mistwell]

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.

You don't have to do it for what the "adventure requires" however. In the homebrew campaign I was running, it was when the players achieved a major goal THEY set out to achieve.

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.

Sure. And if they head to the great dwarven enclave of Baklava and encounter a series of challenges along the way and finally make it to the enclave in one piece after facing adversity, then they've achieved a milestone. Because that was their goal - to get out of that other place with the dragon and to this place without the dragon.

Adventure paths in general are horrible for just that reason. The adventurers lives shouldn't be set and railroaded only on the path the DM sets before them.

WOTC has been really good for the past couple of years to NOT create railroad driven adventure paths however.

For example, we're going through Strahd right now...and nothing about this adventure is a railroad. We're free to go and do whatever we choose, and there are quest opportunities all over the place and massive variation everywhere we go and nothing so far felt required by the adventure. So it's not "adventure paths" that do this, it's "the railroad heavy adventure paths". And WOTC seems to have handled this objection really well lately (even if they did not earlier in the edition's cycle).

 

[Caliban]

Since I control my character and what my character "would" do is whatever I say it will do, I can both play my character and do the activities that are incentivized by XP. Those things don't have to be in opposition unless a player chooses them to be. And why would they? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Whatever floats your boat. Some people play for the enjoyment of the game, others enjoy competing with their fellow players ( and getting more XP is one way if competing), others get addicted to the small pulses of dopamine their brain produces when they get to increment a number on their character sheet (gold, XP, a new magic item, a new level - anything that indicates progress or improvement).

Everyone has their own way of enjoying the game.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Everyone has their own way of enjoying the game.

BEGONE DEVIANT!!1

 

[iserith]

Whatever floats your boat. Some people play for the enjoyment of the game, others enjoy competing with their fellow players ( and getting more XP is one way if competing), others get addicted to the small pulses of dopamine their brain produces when they get to increment a number on their character sheet (gold, XP, a new magic item, a new level - anything that indicates progress or improvement).

Everyone has their own way of enjoying the game.

Sure, let me put it another way to clarify what I meant. I probably wouldn't create, say, a pacifist homebody with crippling social anxiety disorder if the game I'm playing tied level advancement to combat, exploration, and social interaction. That doesn't seem like it would be a very good adventurer who bolt confronts deadly perils on the regular. Instead, I would create the sort of character who gets after it, who goes on adventures and overcomes challenges in order to advance in capability while pursuing character goals. This, to me, seems like a better fit for that sort of game. My character and the means of advancement would thus not be in conflict.

 

[Caliban]

Sure, let me put it another way to clarify what I meant. I probably wouldn't create, say, a pacifist homebody with crippling social anxiety disorder if the game I'm playing tied level advancement to combat, exploration, and social interaction. That doesn't seem like it would be a very good adventurer who bolt confronts deadly perils on the regular. Instead, I would create the sort of character who gets after it, who goes on adventures and overcomes challenges in order to advance in capability while pursuing character goals. This, to me, seems like a better fit for that sort of game. My character and the means of advancement would thus not be in conflict.

But when presented with a choice between killing someone and negotiating with them, you naturally choose to fight because that is how you get XP and magic items.