D&D 5E Why do we award Encounter XP instead of Adjusted XP?

[The Crimson Binome]

You run from room to room, "aggro" the goblins, "kite" them into a small area and then AOE them down? Maybe if the goblins were mindless zombies, sure. But goblins with half a brain aren't going to react like this.

Not in those actions exactly, but in general? It shouldn't be difficult for the players to outsmart the goblins. Even if they aren't running a simple computer script, they're still just idiot humanoids.

If they run, then you can shoot them. It's not important that you kill them all at once, as long as they all "count" toward the same encounter.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure if there is any good reason to award flat xp.

FWIW, I started out awarding adjusted XP and now just give out flat XP. My reasons for switching are a combination of game physics/simulationism (there's only so much life force available for the PCs to absorb) and exposure to alternative encounter balancing rules. For example, the DMG also says that fighting in unfavorable terrain increases difficulty in the sane way as fighting a large group. If you fought the goblins in their lair where they have traps set, they become a Deadly threat--would you now give 1400 XP? Conversely, if the party arranges to fight them in the forest outside where the patty has spread caltrops, they are only Medium, so would you reduce XP to 350?

It's easier for me to just ignore encounter balancing rules and give out flat XP per RAW. If the players want more XP they can go hunt down beholders instead of centauroids. They know where to find them.

 

[KarinsDad]

The way I see D&D, however, XP is a payment or a reward, and rewards are given for results, not effort. So, when the player characters muffled the bell that summoned the 40 skeletons and zombies waiting in the closet, they earned a ton of XP with a little foresight and a few ability checks.

Only at some tables.

In real life, a defensive football player learns what to do and not do based on experience and training, not based on the fact that the other team's quarterback sucks. He learns nothing from that, but the reward of winning the game is still there.


If the PCs overcome a monster challenge in my game, they do not always get full XP for it, especially if they overcame it with something minor like locking a door. In other cases where the deck is stacked against the PCs, they might get more XP than the challenge normally supplies.

 

[DaveDash]

Why assume we don't take that into consideration? If the group does something amazingly clever, I'll level them a session earlier than I intended to. For smaller rewards, I use inspiration and hero points, so there's still mechanical benefit.

But as far as the incentive? As far as why bother to be clever, why bother to pursue side quests? Because there are often IC reasons to do so, and because that's where the fun in the game is. As usual, no wrong way to play, but personally? I would never consider refusing to go along with an obvious plotline because it might not be worth the XP, and I don't often game with people who prefer to think/play that way.

You could factor it in, but you also might not factor it in. I'd rather you didn't have control over that aspect of my character.

I like the sandbox style of game, where the players have more control over their destiny, as opposed to a narrative style game where you're participants in the play the DM constructs.

To go back to HoTDQ it's horribly constructed due to the milestone leveling system. Sure, my character might help the town for IC reasons, but they also might not help the town for IC reasons. If they go the extra mile however from a player perspective it's a bit dull to get a pat on the back and a thumbs up. Why not just stay at level 1 forever then?
We as a group took great delight in screwing up the "carefully" woven "plot" in that adventure, with full blessing from the DM, by leveling when we deserved and killing NPCs that "weren't supposed" to die, due to milestone plot armour.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

We as a group took great delight in screwing up the "carefully" woven "plot" in that adventure, with full blessing from the DM, by leveling when we deserved and killing NPCs that "weren't supposed" to die, due to milestone plot armour.

That actually sounds like a pretty cool way to run railroadey modules: let the PCs off the rails (and also let the players know what was "supposed" to happen officially).

"Yeah, we actually captured the half-dragon alive, read his mind and learned of an upcoming meeting he had with Severin and buddies, and then smuggled in a box full of intellect devourers Animal Shaped into crickets where the meeting was happening. Now the dragon cult works for the illithids, and they're not at all interested in ACTUALLY summoning Tiamat, they just want the peons to think so so they keep sending slaves to sacrifice. It was a win-win situation for us and the illithids. What do you mean 'second-order problematic solution'?! It worked, right?"

 

[Paraxis]

I know this doesn't help, but I just use the encounter XP as a guide when building the encounters, and don't give out XP at all anymore, I just have them level up when it is appropriate for the story and when a few sessions have passed.

 

[pemerton]

Players will play in whatever manner is rewarded by the game. If you get bonus XP for fighting larger groups, then it encourages players to increase the number of enemies - run into the next room, and gather as many goblins as possible, because they're all going to die from one Fireball anyway, and each one gives you an XP multiplier.

Where's the incentive to even risk your characters lives on some of those side quests if you're automatically going to level anyway because the plot says so?

If I struggle through a battle slaughtering dozens of foes, rescuing two of the party from death, and barely surviving myself, I don't want to be rewarded 400 xp and a 'see you next week, guys, where you'll get another 400 xp!"

These posts make me curious about how your games actually play at the table.

For me, the number one constraint on RPGing is time. And so the main issue with levelling is "how many sessions per level?" If "kiting" the goblins earns more XP but takes more time, then nothing has been gained as far as acceleration of levelling is concerned. If breaking the goblins into smaller, more digestible parcels takes time, and reduces XP earned, then it has been counterproductive because it reduces the rate of levelling. So for me, the issue is "What XP system (if any) provides a steady and satisfactory rate of levelling?", which needs to have regard to how the system for awarding XP interacts with the time it will take at the table to earn those XP (given how the action resolution, encounter building, and similar rules work).

The issue of "struggling through a battle" and "risking my PC's life on a quest" doesn't really come up, because that's what will be happening anyway. For me, that's just playing the game!

 

[DaveDash]

These posts make me curious about how your games actually play at the table.

For me, the number one constraint on RPGing is time. And so the main issue with levelling is "how many sessions per level?" If "kiting" the goblins earns more XP but takes more time, then nothing has been gained as far as acceleration of levelling is concerned. If breaking the goblins into smaller, more digestible parcels takes time, and reduces XP earned, then it has been counterproductive because it reduces the rate of levelling. So for me, the issue is "What XP system (if any) provides a steady and satisfactory rate of levelling?", which needs to have regard to how the system for awarding XP interacts with the time it will take at the table to earn those XP (given how the action resolution, encounter building, and similar rules work).

The issue of "struggling through a battle" and "risking my PC's life on a quest" doesn't really come up, because that's what will be happening anyway. For me, that's just playing the game!

Well because I am not using milestone levelling, it appears the designers have put some consideration into this already.

For example, after my players hit level 11 they actually started racing through levels. This is by design apparently, in order to get you through to the higher levels (which was something that never happened in earlier editions of D&D). I actually feel it's a bit too fast, but I'm rolling with it now to see how it works out.

1-3 is fast. 3-12 is slow. 12-17 is fast. 17+ slows down again.

But basically if you do things by the book, you'll go from level 1-20 in roughly 140ish encounters, which works out to be also about 32 days of constant adventuring. Assuming 2-3 encounters per session, this works out to a years worth of gaming to get from 1-20 (assuming once a week).

Edited for clarity.

 

[Psikerlord#]

FWIW, I started out awarding adjusted XP and now just give out flat XP. My reasons for switching are a combination of game physics/simulationism (there's only so much life force available for the PCs to absorb) and exposure to alternative encounter balancing rules. For example, the DMG also says that fighting in unfavorable terrain increases difficulty in the sane way as fighting a large group. If you fought the goblins in their lair where they have traps set, they become a Deadly threat--would you now give 1400 XP? Conversely, if the party arranges to fight them in the forest outside where the patty has spread caltrops, they are only Medium, so would you reduce XP to 350?

It's easier for me to just ignore encounter balancing rules and give out flat XP per RAW. If the players want more XP they can go hunt down beholders instead of centauroids. They know where to find them.

I do add extra xp for traps (did it just last session in fact, a trap/fight together). I also give xp for adventure and personal goals, etc.

I mean, ultimately in my games, you will level up at the end of an adventure, if not before then if its a long one. Exactly how the xp comes out doesnt matter too much for me. But I know some players who like tracking xp amounts, so I give the numbers. And I do find calculating xp budgets a rough guide on how dangerous an encounter is going to be.

 

[pemerton]

Well because I am not using milestone levelling, it appears the designers have put some consideration into this already.

<snip>

Assuming 2-3 encounters per session, this works out to a years worth of gaming to get from 1-20 (assuming once a week).

In 4e, for a 5 person party the maths works out roughly to one level per 8 or so "encounters" ("encounters" here a notional parcels of level-appropriate XP). Each "encounter" takes around an hour to play, longer if your table is slack and/or if PCs are higher level. So it's roughly a level per 10 to 12 hours of play.

The 4e DMG (p 121) estimated 18 months at 4 to 5 hours per week to get to 30th level: that's around 320-odd hours, which is relatively consistent with my previous paragraph.

My group plays for around 60 hours a year, and have been playing our campaign for around 6 years and are at 28th level. So we're a bit behind the curve (we're old and lazy and normally have young kids with us at our sessions), but not by much.