D&D 5E EXP options That we use.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I like a system called "Sweet 20". I believe its google-able. Also there's nothing to prevent ripping off Dungeon World's XP System, which is similar, but lighter. Also, there's much to be said for Old School Hack's Awesome point system. Although that has a different impact on the game, since you can burn AP for bonuses.
In both the Sweet20 and DW systems, you pick certain activities or events. (Matched with motivations or alignments, etc.) You level up with far fewer XP than were used to. This can create a much more characters driven game, and even put some weight behind those social encounters.
The Awesome Point system has the players awarding each other points for being awesome. They turn into XP when you spend them. Everybody levels up when you've all spent 12.
In both the Sweet20 and DW systems, you pick certain activities or events. (Matched with motivations or alignments, etc.) You level up with far fewer XP than were used to. This can create a much more characters driven game, and even put some weight behind those social encounters.
The Awesome Point system has the players awarding each other points for being awesome. They turn into XP when you spend them. Everybody levels up when you've all spent 12.
Warunsun
First Post
So far in my new 5E campaign I have given out only XP for monsters beaten. Whether killed or role-played through the encounter I count it the same. I don't necessarily like this method but I wanted to get a feel for the leveling mechanic chosen as the core assumption. I am most curious as to how long it will take to advance. After two sessions they nearly each had enough experience points to advance to level 2 but were a little shy. After the third session they advanced and most have nearly enough experience to attain level 3. I definitely don't recommend giving XP based on coins or treasure in this system. It doesn't work with the magic item prices suggested in the DMG. I am coming from running Castles & Crusades where your characters do get XP for all the gold attained and treasure found like in first edition so I am used to doing that. I was even giving bonus experience for keeping notebooks and good track of your characters in C&C. But C&C like first and second edition used those exponential slow charts. This new 5E chart seems quite bizarre to me. So bizarre I even did some simple spreadsheets based on the award assumptions given in the DM's D&D Basic Rules. Based on what I seen in the numbers it doesn't make much sense from a traditional D&D viewpoint. It is harder to gain levels from the range of Level 4 to Level 10 then it is to gain the levels in the third and fourth tier. I understand that L4 to L10 is considered the sweet spot by many (and I would generally agree) but I think they designed the experience chart and awards very bizarrely.
I must be some kind of math prodigy, I guess. It takes literally less than a minute for me to add up XP at the end of a session and for the players to add it to their totals. I've never heard anyone grumble about gaining XP before.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Sounds like it's a issue at your table and you've found a way to deal with it. Gotta respect that. None of the games I run/play are that uneven in player engagement. Usually the characters doing more get rewarded with more spotlight time.
Without the need to use it as a carrot/stick we've been doing group XP or (more often), level at story appropriate times as told by the DM. To get our my old-fogey cane, when I was younger I really liked the anticipation of the XP counter ticking towards next level, but now I'm enjoying simpler. Many ways a DM can play for level gain to be in tandem with major plot milestones.
Skyscraper
Explorer
I haven't read through the thread beyond the first few posts, but here are my thoughts.
I would try to talk to your group about experience points and why they dislike the DM simply telling them when to level up, for example once every few game sessions. I think that's the best solution - according to my playstyle. And I'd try to convince my players accordingly if I were in your position. Here's why.
D&D is a RPG. Giving XP only for battles means the players will be looking for ways to always fight. I don't want that in my games, quite on the contrary. I want that one hour where the PCs spent time in the tavern of some back country village RP-ing to get some information out of reluctant towsfolk, to be as important as anything else.
Generally, I don't feel that a numeric reward in the form of XP for successfully battling opponents, gaining information or otherwise moving forward in the story that unfolds, is necessary for the game to be fun. Quite on the contrary, again. I think it is detrimental to the fun. I prefer a game session where the players will decide on actions for their PCs, simply based on fun around the table and some kind of logic with respect to the actions of their PCs and what they want them to achieve. I don't want their decisions to be warped by a meta-rule that awards XP for certain actions (e.g. for battles only); or worse, for certain decisions (e.g. parley instead of fight).
The purpose of XPs is to track the evolution of the PCs through levels. We all agree that PCs will level up because everyone likes PCs to gain new powers and battle new more powerful opponents. The question is only, do you track XPs with specific parameters? Do they gain XPs only when they defeat monsters, only when they accomplish X action, or only when they accomplish X action in a certain way? Indeed, some might say: you can award XPs for clever RP or for interesting in-game ideas, such as trying to pay a round of drinks to the tavern clients. I will reply: who am I to decide which action is more worthy than others? This is a slippery slope I'd rather keep out of. Ultimately, maybe the barbarian's decision to punch the arrogant bartender in the face, will mean more for the fun of the game and for the story, than paying a round of drinks.
In my game, the story isn't pre-set. No railroad. The players' decisions will dictate importantly where the story goes. What action is worth more than another, is simply not aligned with my way of playing. Any action, be that parleying, punching in the face, sneaking around, casting a divination spell, paying a round of drinks, is noteworthy, and who knows what that action will lead to. Maybe the bartender will become a long-winded vilain in the story arc. The story is simply the result of the decisions that are made. Why am I to award more XP to the group that decides to parley instead of bashing their way through a group of important diplomats, thereby causing war to erupt between two countries? For the sake of the story and the fun around the table, each avenue seems pretty interesting to me.
Consequently, I think that XPs are detrimental to the goal I wish to achieve according to my playstyle, because they predefine what actions are worthy of reward.
I would try to talk to your group about experience points and why they dislike the DM simply telling them when to level up, for example once every few game sessions. I think that's the best solution - according to my playstyle. And I'd try to convince my players accordingly if I were in your position. Here's why.
D&D is a RPG. Giving XP only for battles means the players will be looking for ways to always fight. I don't want that in my games, quite on the contrary. I want that one hour where the PCs spent time in the tavern of some back country village RP-ing to get some information out of reluctant towsfolk, to be as important as anything else.
Generally, I don't feel that a numeric reward in the form of XP for successfully battling opponents, gaining information or otherwise moving forward in the story that unfolds, is necessary for the game to be fun. Quite on the contrary, again. I think it is detrimental to the fun. I prefer a game session where the players will decide on actions for their PCs, simply based on fun around the table and some kind of logic with respect to the actions of their PCs and what they want them to achieve. I don't want their decisions to be warped by a meta-rule that awards XP for certain actions (e.g. for battles only); or worse, for certain decisions (e.g. parley instead of fight).
The purpose of XPs is to track the evolution of the PCs through levels. We all agree that PCs will level up because everyone likes PCs to gain new powers and battle new more powerful opponents. The question is only, do you track XPs with specific parameters? Do they gain XPs only when they defeat monsters, only when they accomplish X action, or only when they accomplish X action in a certain way? Indeed, some might say: you can award XPs for clever RP or for interesting in-game ideas, such as trying to pay a round of drinks to the tavern clients. I will reply: who am I to decide which action is more worthy than others? This is a slippery slope I'd rather keep out of. Ultimately, maybe the barbarian's decision to punch the arrogant bartender in the face, will mean more for the fun of the game and for the story, than paying a round of drinks.
In my game, the story isn't pre-set. No railroad. The players' decisions will dictate importantly where the story goes. What action is worth more than another, is simply not aligned with my way of playing. Any action, be that parleying, punching in the face, sneaking around, casting a divination spell, paying a round of drinks, is noteworthy, and who knows what that action will lead to. Maybe the bartender will become a long-winded vilain in the story arc. The story is simply the result of the decisions that are made. Why am I to award more XP to the group that decides to parley instead of bashing their way through a group of important diplomats, thereby causing war to erupt between two countries? For the sake of the story and the fun around the table, each avenue seems pretty interesting to me.
Consequently, I think that XPs are detrimental to the goal I wish to achieve according to my playstyle, because they predefine what actions are worthy of reward.
So far I've been using the D&D 3.5 XP chart for level advancement, but using the 5e MM XP for monsters killed, and rewarding XP for GP on a 1-to-1 basis. Since it's a sandbox campaign built around exploring, this gives the players incentive to search for treasure. The players that managed to take over a pirate ship all leveled up, and a few leveled up and came within 1 xp of leveling up again (I don't allow characters to gain two levels in one session).
We have PCs that range from level 1 to 6 right now. It means that the low level characters need to be careful or get hirelings to help protect them. A level one bard got eaten by a T-Rex in one bite when the party decided to go dinosaur hunting on the Isle of Dread, but the reward for those who survived was very lucrative (the T-Rex was worth a good amount of XP on its own for a mostly low-level group, plus its hide was valuable in the village). This type of campaign can be dangerous, but the players enjoy the danger and are super psyched about gaining a level. I'm sure this approach wouldn't work with every group.
We have PCs that range from level 1 to 6 right now. It means that the low level characters need to be careful or get hirelings to help protect them. A level one bard got eaten by a T-Rex in one bite when the party decided to go dinosaur hunting on the Isle of Dread, but the reward for those who survived was very lucrative (the T-Rex was worth a good amount of XP on its own for a mostly low-level group, plus its hide was valuable in the village). This type of campaign can be dangerous, but the players enjoy the danger and are super psyched about gaining a level. I'm sure this approach wouldn't work with every group.
Right now, I'm running Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and just having PCs level at the end of the chapter. This does not seem to bother my players, as this is how we've been doing it for awhile.
However, after reading an Angry Rant, I am debating getting back into tracking XP. But, I kinda want to make XP more granular and less about tracking large numbers. I like the idea of 10 or 12 point systems where you only need 10 XP to level, regardless of your level.
However, after reading an Angry Rant, I am debating getting back into tracking XP. But, I kinda want to make XP more granular and less about tracking large numbers. I like the idea of 10 or 12 point systems where you only need 10 XP to level, regardless of your level.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Not directed at you, Vael; I know you didn't write it. But...
Wow. What a load of egotistical bovine excretion that column is. I particularly enjoy the part where the writer automatically knows what other DMs are thinking or what they've tried in the past, or what other players are going to enjoy. Nothing sways me to a point of view faster than being told what my friends and I think, or what my motives are.
Oh, wait, no. Not "nothing," but that other thing. Kinda means the opposite? Starts with "every," I think?
Lol, fair enough. I've been reading his stuff for awhile, and just ignore the self-aggrandizement and general ranty "my way is the only way" nature. The part of the article I found useful was that XP is a form of player reward, and a way for players to measure their progress. Which is something that is lost when you just have leveling at campaign milestones.
Also, one can use XP to reinforce the themes of one's campaign. So, yes, gain XP for defeating monsters and challenges. But if you're running a political intrigue campaign, XP can be granted when the players do stuff "politically", every favour earned, every rival denounced, and so on.
Similar Threads
