D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Oofta]

This sounds all well and good, but a game without goals and rewards strains the definition of the word game. Moreover, you may think that by eschewing XP, you’re not rewarding any particular kind of engagement, but really what you’re doing is not intentionally rewarding any particular kind of engagement, meaning the only play rewards are unknown and unintentional. But they’re there. You and your players may not notice, but your brains will.

The goals and rewards happen in the game, not the meta-game. There's a rumor of a roving band of ogres? The PCs save the day by defeating the ogres or working out something so they leave without combat? There's a celebration in their honor. They decide not to follow up on the rumors or run away instead of staying to fight? When they return to the village it's been destroyed and that nice bartender blames them for his wife's death.

On the other hand, I don't want to reward a particular style of play. I want the world and it's inhabitants to react to the PCs based on what I think is most logical from the inhabitant's perspective. Do they ambush the ogres? Bribe them? Figure out why they left their homeland and work out a deal? Help the villagers prepare better defenses? Not up to me to encourage one way or another.

I can't tell you whether our brains notice, but I view my job as DM to set the stage with interesting actors and props. What the players do with it is largely up to them. I've been doing this and it's worked well for the past couple of decades.

 

[Zardnaar]

Kender. Preemptively remove them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

This feels intuitively true, but our brains do all sorts of stuff without our conscious awareness. You may not notice what the reward of experience adds to the game, but your brain certainly does. Never underestimate how much human brains love watching progress bars fill up.

I won't argue that getting points feels good, but: it doesn't always feel better than the cost, and isn't always the most fun way to run a game. That's probably why so many people having stopped using them.

This sounds all well and good, but a game without goals and rewards strains the definition of the word game. Moreover, you may think that by eschewing XP, you’re not rewarding any particular kind of engagement, but really what you’re doing is not intentionally rewarding any particular kind of engagement, meaning the only play rewards are unknown and unintentional. But they’re there. You and your players may not notice, but your brains will.

The reward is the fun they have roleplaying, fighting, joking around, and otherwise playing the game. If the game itself isn't fun adding points won't fix that. If it isn't fun, points don't add much.

 

[Reynard]

Most players don’t know how much XP reward they’re going to get from visiting a precise location. They don’t know exactly what’s there, what it’s CR is and what else they might face. So I don’t believe XP does factor into PC decision making. As CR is arbitrary according to the DMs whim, so is XP.

I don't think that is an accurate representation of how most mega-dungeons and sandboxes work. The deeper levels and farther locations are, conventionally speaking, more dangerous. And because XP and treasure are tied to danger level, the rewards are commensurately greater. It may be true that the players don't know what EXACTLY is in that cave, but because it is miles from nowhere and the stench of death and brimstone emanates from it, they can guess at the risk and reward that lies within. The same goes for the stairs leading down one more level in the dungeon.

 

[nevin]

I think it's pretty easy to reverse that and say "Why systemize something that can be handwaved?"

I've never played in a game where the possible amount of XP we could earn drove any sort of decision making, even dating back to 2E. So the idea of risk and rewards driving play through XP is somewhat alien to me. As a group, we've always decided to do whatever portion of an adventure made the most sense in character to attempt. I just don't see how XP would impact that calculus, even a little.

Youve been lucky. Ive had groups set at the table and talk about ckearing the entire area because of xp. I will say i lose far more players over set in stone rules than dm fiat. Im a big fan of handwaving cause it's generally faster play.

 

[nevin]

Hey, if you don't want to engage with the idea, that's cool. I'm not being snarky, I'm really struggling to understand how XP incentivizes play. If it works in your game, maybe you understand the play priorities that drive it.

Did you study pavlov in high school. XP and magic items are the treats used to get the behaviors you want.

 

[TheSword]

Did you study pavlov in high school. XP and magic items are the treats used to get the behaviors you want.

Yeah, that’s why I don’t like XP rewards. Because D&D is geared towards extremely confrontational behaviours. Usually kill (or incapacitate) the enemy.

Particularly in a megadungeon where you’re clearing for loot and XP.

I’m not saying it’s bad fun, just that it doesn’t work as well in the mystery/intrigue game set in a city or small kingdom.

 

[ART!]

XP is redundant if the players are already doing stuff because it's fun. If players do stuff because playing the game is fun, the added reward of points for doing so adds very little, and requires a lot of bookkeeping.

This is especially true if the dm doesn't want to encourage any particular kind of play: I want my players to engage with the setting, but I don't care how. They can go for treasure or glory or power or justice or whatever they like. They can do this by fighting or talking or stealing or whatever clever plan they want. My players know that if they don't engage with the setting, no game happens, so I don't feel any need to make them act.

Therefore, for my style of play, any xp system would need to perfectly balance every possible approach - which in a ttrpg means I need good, balanced, non-arbitrary numbers for stuff I haven't thought of. How much xp should I give for a course action I can't imagine yet? It's much easier for me to simply give them a level once they hit some downtime, after they've had enough time to use all the new toys they got at the last level-up.

Now - that's still only one context. In open table games, I honestly can't think of an alternative to xp (in general) that could work. Do whatever you want with the numbers, you need a system to calculate when pcs advance.

I agree 1 million percent with this.

XP just gunks up the works, AFAIC.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think that is an accurate representation of how most mega-dungeons and sandboxes work. The deeper levels and farther locations are, conventionally speaking, more dangerous. And because XP and treasure are tied to danger level, the rewards are commensurately greater. It may be true that the players don't know what EXACTLY is in that cave, but because it is miles from nowhere and the stench of death and brimstone emanates from it, they can guess at the risk and reward that lies within. The same goes for the stairs leading down one more level in the dungeon.

Megadungeons are a very specific type of campaign that lend themselves to one style of play. A sandbox like this with clearly delineated areas where CR is geared by level may work allow this approach, I’m still skeptical. Rappan Athuk for instance trends this way but encounters vary wildly in CR.

Even then, I can’t think of any other kind of adventure or campaign where things are any way near clear like this.

 

[Reynard]

Even then, I can’t think of any other kind of adventure or campaign where things are any way near clear like this.

That may be true but those are the campaigns I was talking about -- ones in which players are given a sandbox and expected to self direct. XP and loot encourage them exploring the world, and in due course they will find other things to care about and motivate themselves in absence of a pre-determined plot.