XP as dated?

[Viking Bastard]

I gave up on XP a few years ago, and haven't looked back.

Consider thyself reported.

 

[Piratecat]

I haven't used xp for years. I like the idea, but don't actually have any interest in tracking the numbers.

 

[Janx]

i never saw XP itself in 3.x as that complicated.

300xp times CR of each monster divided by the number of characters seems to be the going rate.


1000xp times current PC level is how much they need to level up.


If you're feeling lazy, choose what percentage of a level you want to advance the party by, multiple by 1000 and by the average PC level, and give them that.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I haven't used xp for years. I like the idea, but don't actually have any interest in tracking the numbers.

I'm using XP for the first time in years. I don't really like XP, but my group loves it. So they get XP.

 

[Kzach]

I believe in the principle of XP just not the execution. IMO, it's far too fine a granularity to be anything other than an annoyance. It needs to be given a much larger granularity, somewhere in-between the current concept and the '13 encounters per level' ideology of 4e.

 

[Dordledum]

We've got a group of players who sadly are not always present at every session. I like to use xp in this instance for multiple aspects of the same reason:

* To promote an as-high-as-possible turnout for the game
* To reward those who do make it to every session

xp is really the best carrot stick we've found so far. No show? No xp!

The 3.5 xp system works fine for us.

 

[TKDB]

For a level-based game like D&D, XP really isn't necessary. I've played in games both using and ignoring XP, and really I prefer the games that don't use it. When the PCs just level up whenever it seems appropriate for the progress they've made, it makes the game flow more smoothly and helps make it a bit more immersive and less metagame-y.

It also makes things with XP costs a lot more interesting: When we play without XP, XP costs (unless they're so small as to be essentially negligible) are instead handled by needing to meet some kind of roleplaying requirement or complete a side quest of some sort. For example, in one game we wanted to use the Commune spell, and to cover the XP cost the DM said that we had to do something to earn a little favor with the god we were trying to Commune with.
We ended up meeting the requirements because our party barbarian organized a parade in honor of Tempus. And by "organized" I mean "instigated", and by "parade in honor of Tempus" I mean "impromptu stampede of rowdy warrior types running through the streets of Waterdeep in various states of undress screaming 'TEMPUS!' at the tops of their lungs."

Good times

 

[Lwaxy]

With the exception of one game, I don't do XP anymore. I level them up when appropriate.

The one group uses levels because the player prefer it, but it really is a hassle for someone allergic to numbers.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I believe in the principle of XP just not the execution. IMO, it's far too fine a granularity to be anything other than an annoyance. It needs to be given a much larger granularity, somewhere in-between the current concept and the '13 encounters per level' ideology of 4e.

Trivial Nitpick: 3.x uses the 13/level paradigm; 4e uses 10/level.

Anyway, I agree about the annoying granularity. I could go back to XP if the numbers weren't so pointlessly huge. For example, if each and every level required 100 XP. I wouldn't mind handing out semi-arbitrary sums of 10ish XP per encounter in such a system. If it makes the players happy, it's worth a moment of my time.

 

[mcbobbo]

Sean Reynolds from Paizo has an idea for nix-ing XP that still gives out carrots - http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/AlternativeLevelAdvancement.pdf

Basically each level is cut into quarters (steps) and you get one per four hours of play.