D&D 5E XP vs Story Line Progression Leveling model in 5th edition

[Ignominia]

One of the things I love about 5th ed is the flexibility WOTC gave us to change the way we play. One of the ways they have let us change up the formula is to do away with XP entirely, and let us dole out levels at story line specific moments. I was initially very impressed with this and adopted it quickly. However, Im finding it has its draw backs. It can lead to VERY long periods between level ups, for example. I found my group was struggling with a dungeon they were in. I didn't want to level them up until they reached the next level of the dungeon, so I gave them a side quest. I assumed this side quest would take an evening or two at the most... and we are now on our 4th session of this side quest... My group feels like they aren't getting anywhere and I kind of agree...


What are your experiences? Do you use the XP model? or the Story Line model? Which do you prefer?

 

[delericho]

Neither. We're going to level up from 1st to 2nd after the first session, from 2nd to 3rd after the third session, and every three sessions thereafter. That just fits our pattern of play better.

Assuming I still had my old group that would meet for 6ish hours every Saturday and were playing Adventure Paths, we'd certainly go with Story Line experience, though.

 

[akr71]

I use calculated XP. Are you remembering the multiple opponent multipliers? I only mention it because I did the math wrong yesterday - the big bad guy conjured a bunch of minor elementals bringing the multiplier from x1.5 to x2.5. It made a significant difference - once I corrected my math the party had enough XP to level up.

Also, if its a side quest, you can just give them an XP bonus for completing the quest.

 

[Gnashtooth]

We use story leveling, it has worked well. It's not like we have people missing several sessions in a row or anything, and none of us sees the need to punish people for not being able to show up, which is what missing out on XP becomes.

We've abandoned a lot of the 'overhead' rules like individual initiative too because it's just too much bookkeeping, and nobody in the group wants to deal with it.

 

[delericho]

I use calculated XP. Are you remembering the multiple opponent multipliers? I only mention it because I did the math wrong yesterday - the big bad guy conjured a bunch of minor elementals bringing the multiplier from x1.5 to x2.5. It made a significant difference - once I corrected my math the party had enough XP to level up.

I believe the multiplier applies only when creating the encounter - it doesn't apply to the XP award that the PCs get for completing the encounter. Which IMO is actually one of 5e's flaws, but since it doesn't affect me I don't mind too much.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I use what fits each campaign depending on how it is going to be run.

Published campaign? I hand out XP because some of my players like tracking it and seeing how close the next level up is getting, but if the party falls behind the level the author built challenges for (which usually happens because authors include optional parts that don't hook my players' interest because they are already hooked on the "main goal" and see them as unnecessary distractions, or because the author assumed a singular solution to a problem that clearly had more than one possible solution and my players came up with a solution that should work but isn't covered in the book) I bump them up to where they are intended to be.

Something I've personally done the planning for? I don't plan in great detail, basically just an outline that I fill in at the table with improvisation, but I'll include level increases at certain points in my plan specifically so that I don't ever come to a moment where I want to move on to the section that features a particular set of monsters, but have to "fill in" some more XP-gains beforehand in order to get the party to a level where the upcoming challenges are fair.

The bulk of my campaigns? I don't plan anything, and I don't use anything published. I give the players a few premises to choose from, they pick one that sounds interesting, we work together to build characters and begin the campaign, then my players are the ones in control because all I am doing is filling in the world as relevant to how they decide to interact with it. So I hand out XP based on accomplishment of goals the players set, because there is no "next part of the story" to require them being a particular level so whether they level up now or later isn't a big deal, since they are primarily in charge of the leveling pace (by setting goals they pick how much XP is on the table, and by working at their own pace to reach those goals, they pick how quickly the XP on the table is earned).

For no reason other than that I prefer being able to go from "What she we do tonight?" to the first events in-play during a D&D campaign in an hour or less, I prefer doling out XP for each thing accomplished - the only other option when improvising a campaign like I do is for me to just decide from time to time "it's time to level up," and I don't like the way that feels.

 

[jrowland]

What are your experiences? Do you use the XP model? or the Story Line model? Which do you prefer?

I am a bit confused:

Summary
1) You wanted them to wait to level up until they reached next level of dungeon.
2) They were struggling at this level.
3) You gave them a side quest expecting 2 sessions but are on session 4.
4) You and your players feel like progress isn't being made.

Why give them a side quest? That seems cruel to throw in a side quest when they could have simply plowed on and leveled in the dungeon. If the purpose os the side quest was to let them level "early", then it seems you gave them too involved of a side quest. A single big encounter would have been fine. Heck, forget the side quest, just level them and move on.

The alternate story XP is about pacing and challenges over technical amounts of xp. If your players feel overwhelmed (the challenges are too hard), feel the pacing is too slow, and YOU agree, then for let them level to bring the challenges on par where they need to be and the pacing to improve. Arbitrary level points (when you reach dungeon level 2) should be treated as guidelines, not dogma.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I believe the multiplier applies only when creating the encounter - it doesn't apply to the XP award that the PCs get for completing the encounter. Which IMO is actually one of 5e's flaws, but since it doesn't affect me I don't mind too much.

While my inclination is to agree with you, I noticed in the 2nd level pre-adventure for PotA that the module is convinced that the three fights in the mini-dungeon are enough to get a party of four to 3rd level (600 xp each) which would only be possible if the multiplier was applied to the encounters with 5-6 small creatures in them. So I'm currently unclear as to the actual rule intention.

Anyone else have any clarification on this point?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Anyone else have any clarification on this point?

DMG, page 82: "This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value's only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter's difficulty."

That sentence makes the intent either very clear, or exceptionally well missed by the words chosen.

Of course, the intent of this particular bit of language doesn't have to be treated as more important than the intent that the DM do what works for the game - so hand out more XP despite the lower level monsters if you want.

I don't, but only because I see most of these encounters end up being pretty easy because the party sees an opportunity to not have it be a real pain and takes that opportunity (like thinning numbers rapidly by using area attacks, or risking some serious damage coming their way by getting into position to use the cleave rules that we love).

 

[akr71]

DMG, page 82: "This adjusted value is not what the monsters are worth in terms of XP; the adjusted value's only purpose is to help you accurately assess the encounter's difficulty."

That sentence makes the intent either very clear, or exceptionally well missed by the words chosen...

That makes it both very clear and well missed (by me anyway). Actually, I'm confused as to why encounter difficulty is measured in XP, if one is not awarded difficulty XP.

I suppose in that case I award a hybridized XP/story line levelling. I also don't award XP for trivial encounters.