• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E The Illusion of Experience Points that Everyone Disbelieves

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed, in D&D, whatever the level a group of PCs is, that group will only undertake adventures designed for that level. Not only that, but commercial D&D campaigns and adventuresd even calculate how many XPs the PCs are likely to earn during each adventure, and the level of each adventure is accordingly calibrated. Adventures would arguably not even be fun if undertaken by PCs of the "wrong" level.
Well, keep in mind that this is a somewhat evolved form of play, and not everyone plays this way even now. This would have been even less true in "the early days" when this tight correllation between level and "level appropriate challenges" would have been more or less nonexistant.

Even in commercially produced modules. All you've really managed to say is that for your playstyle, XP isn't very relevant. And you referred to a poll which suggested that a plurality (but not a majority) might have a similar playstyle and similarly find XP to be irrelevent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That only started when adventure designers decided D&D needed to be a railroad (sorry, "Adventure Path"). Obviously, if that's the game you're running, an XP system doesn't do the job. XP was designed for a sandbox game.

The problem is that (some of) the rules encourage a sandbox campaign, and (most of) the adventures encourage a linear campaign. The solution is to have advice to illustrate the different types of campaigns, and options to support whichever one you want to run.
That's pretty arguable. The adventure path is not a railroad, in spite of your cute little "Freudian slip"--it's simply linked modules. This has existed since the days of the D series (1977-8) and G series of modules at least.

Whereas sandbox hexcrawling wasn't really explored as an option for D&D until the Expert set in 1981.

Within the confines of a module in an adventure path, the game is no more or less railroady than in any of the old school modules "for which the game was designed." Or, at least, it isn't necessarily so (obviously exceptions can be found.)
 

Thanks to all those that took time to reply.

Interesting points all across.

I agree that playstyle has a lot to do with my OP. The recent 3E and 4E commercial adventures that I've read, had exclusively level-dependent challenges. Which doesn't mean that all 3E and 4E players have level-dependent games of course. I acknowledged that in my OP, stating however that it appeared to be the exception, but some people disagree and I will take that back, as I cannot speak for the majority without any numbers to back this. My statement was mostly based on the 3E and 4E modules that I bought over the years , where opponents and traps were pretty much aligned to an expected level of the party members. Even the 1E modules, although they were not calculated precisely like the 3E and 4E ones, still often had opponents that were meant to be appropriate challenges for PCs of the level indicated on the front or back page of the module. If that was not the case, why indicate PC leves on the front page?

Still, I realize that playstyles vary across the board. And that my own experience (relatively extensive, but far from reprensetative I'm sure) and my interpretation of what people play based on the commercial modules for sale, has teinted my impression of the "majority" style.

I'll note that some replies still confuse, in my humble opinion, use of XP and having (or not having) level-dependent challenges. You can still have level dependent or non-level dependent challenges, whether you use XPs or not. The different replies allow me to refocus my argument towards the more central issue: calculating XPs is more complicated than the advantages that it brings, IMO. (My other arguments of them being useless in challenges-calculated-as-level-dependent-campaigns, while not off-topic, perhaps deviated the mark.) Of course, this is only my opinion, I do not hold this to be the single truth.
 

(This thread was inspired by the recent poll on use of experience points.)

What is the purpose of experience points?

They measure and calibrate the advancement in the stepped power curve that are PC levels, over time. The PC levels in turn give access to new powers and give the player the satisfaction of seeing his or her PC evolve.

However, use of experience points is an illusion, in most D&D games and in many other RPGs alike. Level advancement is the only required mechanic for PC power advancement.

Indeed, in D&D, whatever the level a group of PCs is, that group will only undertake adventures designed for that level. Not only that, but commercial D&D campaigns and adventuresd even calculate how many XPs the PCs are likely to earn during each adventure, and the level of each adventure is accordingly calibrated. Adventures would arguably not even be fun if undertaken by PCs of the "wrong" level.

Consequently, tracking experience points is useless, since the PCs will be of a determined level at certain milestones of the campaign anyway. This is all that counts and it will be invariable whether XPs are tracked or not.

The alternate solution then becomes to have the PCs level up at determined milestones and ignore XPs altogether.

If XPs are tracked, then PCs might reach that level slightly before or slightly after that milestone, from one gaming group to the next, which changes nothing really. It's only an illusion that PCs evolve according to their own merits and achievements. This is an illusion since the adventure has the PCs evolve at a predetermined rate, which is honestly quite precise. Or, if in a homebrew without a determine level advancement rate, the DM still reacts by pitting the PCs against level-appropriate opponents, so the result is the same, only in this case the adventure level is chosen depending on the level of the PCs, and not the other way around; but the result is the same, i.e. the PCs are pitted against level-appropriate opponents.

Not only that, but everyone is aware of that illusion. No one believes that "it so happens" that the PCs encounter given monsters when they are level 1, and "it so happens" that the PCs encounter these other monsters when they are level 10. We all know that the DM and/or the adventure/campaign designers plan these things most precisely.

I recognize however that there are rare D&D campaigns, usually homebrews, and usually in the form of sandbox campaigns, where DMs allow PCs to freely roam a game world and meet monsters that are way too strong for them; and the players then need to identify that fleeing or otherwise avoiding combat is the proper solution. This is fine and I recognize that XPs can have much greater value in such campaigns. But this type of game is the exception. By and large, most campaigns pit the PCs against "level-appropriate" encounters.

My suggestion is to do away with experience points as the default assumption in D&D Next. Instead, level advancement occurs at determined milestones that are in turn determined either in the adventure or campaign, or decided by the DM or by the entire playing group. This would simplify the game for a vast majority of gaming groups.

If, in the rarer freeform campaigns (in which category my own campaigns fall), DMs need guidance on when to have PCs advance in level, simple guidelines can be provided. Myself, I like to have PCs level up when an adventure hook is completed (depending on the adventure of course), so I wing it. "Now seems like a good time" is my guideline. For those that like something a bit more structured, but still much simpler than tracking XPs, levelling up could occur at every given number of encounters. Or at every given number of game sessions. This is much simpler than have the DM and all players track, calculate and use an encounter-based XP system where each monster, plus other achievements such as disabling traps, social encounters (!), getting treasure, "good RP" (!), and other elements are rewarded on a regular basis and requires caculations that, in the end, have no in-game result.

An XP system could still be provided for those that wish to continue using XPs, as an optional rule. This would not be complex, since monster power level still needs to be measured, to facilitate encounter design. For example, monster power could established in levels, e.g. monsters leves range from 1-20, and monster types are either minions, normal, elite and solo (to take the 4E example). XPs could easily be calculated accordingly if an XP system is desired.

Ho..ho.. ho..

Ah, chicaboog noon-eeg Skyscraper. Tah keeng sa leeng ah pak dungeon master, peeska chatah: may now kung bantha poodoo!


Ya koon tacha poonoo nee sah, gee.
 

Ho..ho.. ho..

Ah, chicaboog noon-eeg Skyscraper. Tah keeng sa leeng ah pak dungeon master, peeska chatah: may now kung bantha poodoo!


Ya koon tacha poonoo nee sah, gee.

...

Are you trying to sound like one of the Worm Guys from "Men In Black"?
 

The different replies allow me to refocus my argument towards the more central issue: calculating XPs is more complicated than the advantages that it brings, IMO. (My other arguments of them being useless in challenges-calculated-as-level-dependent-campaigns, while not off-topic, perhaps deviated the mark.) Of course, this is only my opinion, I do not hold this to be the single truth.

What is difficult about 1 gp = 1 xp? Or 1 goblin = 15 xp? 3.x is the only edition that complicates xp calculation.
 


What is difficult about 1 gp = 1 xp? Or 1 goblin = 15 xp? 3.x is the only edition that complicates xp calculation.

1e had a fairly involved calculation for xp for new/altered creatures. The advantage was you only needed to calculate it once since creatures typically did not change from their base form too often.
 

I'll note that some replies still confuse, in my humble opinion, use of XP and having (or not having) level-dependent challenges. You can still have level dependent or non-level dependent challenges, whether you use XPs or not. The different replies allow me to refocus my argument towards the more central issue: calculating XPs is more complicated than the advantages that it brings, IMO. (My other arguments of them being useless in challenges-calculated-as-level-dependent-campaigns, while not off-topic, perhaps deviated the mark.) Of course, this is only my opinion, I do not hold this to be the single truth.

Personally, I miss the 1e xp chart days- not for different advancement rates for different classes so much as for the Gygaxianly complex "how much is this monster worth?" xp calculation chart.

I'm a little weird like that, though.

But if you look at (especially) the 4e system, where a monster of level x is worth Y xp (2Y if elite, 5Y if solo, Y/4 if minion) is pretty darn simple. Heck, other than 1e's (deliberately?) arcane system of figuring out xp for monsters and, arguably, 3e's "it varies according to your level AND the monster's level" chart, D&D has always had pretty simple xp values for monsters. Usually, it's "Look at this chart by HD; if the monster has a special ability, add this bonus amount, and if it has a REALLY special ability, then add this bigger bonus amount."

Again, I just don't see getting rid of xp doing anything positive. Those who like xp will be butt hurt, those who don't already ignore it. What gets better by alienating part of the fan base? I say, just keep on ignorin' what you're already ignorin'.
 

Without having read the last couple pages, I don't see why we need to relegate XP to an optional rule. First of all, its easier to get rid of them the to add them on; you can play the way you want - DM deciding when PCs level up - regardless of what the "official" rules say. That said, I don't see why both options can't be incorporated as alternate paths. You could even have different players taking different approaches.

As for whether XP are necessary, of course they aren't. But they're fun - at least for me and my group. Its another kind of detail that some like, some don't - like encumbrance or keeping track of rations or arrows (as I wrote in that other thread). Some groups don't care, some love that kind of detail.

I do use XP as a kind of incentive, but it isn't meant to inspire competition among players, but to reward cleverness, imagination, and good roleplaying. When a player does something out of the ordinary, I will give a reward in that moment. Its like saying, "good job." Of course we could say that this benefits more outgoing players, but the point is to reward things that anyone can do. Anyone can roleplay their character; if a shy player plays an outrageous character, they have the opportunity (and even "duty", I would say) to step out of their comfort zone and roleplay their character accordingly. If they play that character in a shy manner, then I won't give them roleplaying XP. But even then, that same player could accomplish a remarkable feat within the game - a crucial critical hit, figuring out a puzzle, that sort of thing.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top