D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Lanefan]

Okay, fine. That ok.

I can enjoy a tour of Southern Europe in and of itself without the need to throw a Moroccan wildcard in.

Fair enough, but even the knowledge that you've got the freedom to chuck the tour and head for Morocco is a big difference than not having said freedom.

Calling an AP with checkpoints but massive flexibility within each segment a “hard-rail”. Is just plain hyperbole. Hard rail, is that you don’t have a choice how to get to point B, it takes one route. That isn’t how the Good APs work.

True, I did overstate that one a bit. Sorry 'bout that.

It’s why I would happily have agency as a law unto itself removed from the game.

If all you want to run are APs and all your players want to play are APs that's fine for you and your crew, but removal of agency - particularly over the players' own characters and what those characters do in the setting - from the greater game? That's a bit much to ask.

I also don’t want to DM for players if they get dirty-gutsed if they can’t screw the tour and head off on their own

Where I'd be rather disappointed in players who didn't try to head off on their own now and then; and I make sure I've a robust enough setting underneath it all to support them when they do. Vastly preferable over having to lead them by the nose from one adventure to the next.

 

[Charlaquin]

But how many can you put on the stack? Or is stack too new a term for interrupts. Is attack still used in modern MtG... it's been too long since I really spent time playing magic.

The stack was introduced in the 6th edition rules change (the largest and most significant change to the core rules to date). It replaced batches, which served a similar purpose to the stack, in that they governed the resolution order of various instant-speed effects, but functioned differently than the stack in a number of ways.

Interrupts were instants that were always resolved before anything else in the same batch. With the introduction of the stack, this function was no longer applicable, and all interrupts were erratad to be normal instants. However, in Time Spiral Block (7 years later, in 2006), they introduced a new mechanic called Split Second. When a spell with Split Second is on the stack, no other spells or abilities can be added to the stack until the Split Second spell is resolved. This is the closest you can get to reproducing the pre-6th edition function of Interrupts in the post-6th edition rules, and in fact they were an intentional reference to Interrupts (calling back to old cards, characters, and mechanics was a major theme of Time Spiral Block). Interestingly, no cards that had previously been interrupts got erratad to have Split Second, even though that would have made them functionally more similar to their pre-6th edition forms. There’s probably an article somewhere in the Wizard’s archives explaining that decision, but if there is, I haven’t read it.

 

[Lanefan]

Alas, I'm still not sure I follow. What does "pursuing XP effectively" look like at your table, in comparison to "not pursuing XP effectively"? In other words, can you describe the types of decision points where you want the XP system to tip the scales in a certain direction?

For me, this one's easy: it tips the scales in favour of going adventuring vs not going adventuring.

After that, it's all just fine-tuning.

Personally I wouldn't go quite that far. Empathize with my character's emotional state, yes; adopt it, no. Typical characters go through some pretty harrowing ordeals, and actually experiencing many of them would be outside the bounds of what I'm seeking from a TTRPG. My characters get angry all the time, but I certainly don't want to actually get angry at the table.

Hmmm...dunno 'bout that - I've often found roleplaying an angry character to be a great way to blow off some steam!

But you're arguing for the player wanting to be able to make IC choices to optimize their acquisition of XP. That's definitely not what the character wants in non-fourth-wall-breaking campaigns, because the character has no conception of XP. If there is a way what you're saying isn't contradictory, I'm not seeing it

I can certainly see situations where, while the characters wouldn't have a direct concept of xp as such, the concept of improving oneself through doing [x thing] is still quite achievable. The most obvious is in a system that gives xp for treasure. Less obvious but still quite believable is in a system where one has to train to gain a level: "Right, you've done the classroom theory, now get out there and put it into practice. Once you've mastered what you just learned, come back for the next round of study." could apply to every character class.

 

[Lanefan]

Great post! Just a few minor points and-or questions...

As a player, I’m fine with whatever XP system is available; as long as I know what I can earn XP for, I can make decisions that influence my character’s advancement. I can take on quests or encounters that will earn me XP, or decide not to, if I don’t think the risks are worth the potential for advancement. I have a degree of agency over my character’s advancement. If the DM is strongly opposed to using XP for some reason, I will settle for session-based advancement. Then I can still monitor my progress towards the next level (albeit in terms of sessions left to level up instead of XP), and I know that the most optimal way to pursue advancement is simply to come to as many sessions as possible. The one thing I don’t go in for is story-based advancement, where I really have no way of knowing how close I am to leveling up and no way of influencing it. All I can really do is follow the plot, maybe favoring things that seem likely to be on the critical path over side-content, and accept the level-ups whenever they come. No real agency there.

Absolutely agree on this.

I just don’t see the value in trying to separate those things. Why not play a character who is motivated to make decisions that are a positive influence on others’ experience? It’s a cooperative game, shouldn’t my character be as invested in supporting their party members as I am in supporting the other players?

Maybe. Not all characters are going to be the supportive, positive type - even if they're played by a player who is normally supportive and positive in real life - and nor should they be expected to be. Playing against one's own type and-or being someone you just can't be in reality is a big reason why people play these games, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that.

Do you not want your character to get what they want? If not, I can only imagine that would lead to gameplay where you are constantly in conflict between trying to play your character faithfully and trying to avoid them getting what they want as a result. That sounds awful.

It can be awful, but very often isn't, says he who often finds himself in this very situation.

The trick, when they come in conflict, is to be true to the character and shove your own feelings and wants aside. I've roleplayed myself as a player right out of a game simply by following what my character would do, even though I-as-player didn't want to leave* and was otherwise quite enjoying it all.

* - rolling up something new wasn't a viable option as there was no real way of bringing it in. I rejoined later at the next downtime with a different PC.

As a player, I want to be striving to achieve my character’s goals.

Absolutely. My point is that the character's goals in the fiction and the player's goals at the table can and sometimes do directly clash, and one has to trump the other. It has nothing to do with the pursuit of xp.

Now, granted, if the player doesn’t want XP, that line of logic isn’t really sound. But I’ve never seen a new player who didn’t want XP. In my (heh) experience, players not caring about XP is a learned thing. Somewhere along the line, someone tells them they shouldn’t play D&D like it’s a “game” they can “win” and that they should compartmentalize their player motivations from their character’s motivations and act purely based on the latter. That they should focus on “role playing instead of roll playing.” That they should learn to love failure because it can be just as interesting as success. That’s all bologna in my opinion.

I think that failure can be just as interesting as success; moreover, I think that failure is a vital component of making success look like success. They might not have to learn to love failure but they'd better bloody well learn to accept it as part of the game.

The rest being bologna (though I'd use a stronger term ) is my opinion too.

Sure, and in my opinion a well designed roleplaying game should have mechanics that reward you for doing so, so that you don’t have to compromise between playing your character’s foibles and making decisions with the aim of leading to your character’s success. That’s why I actually love the idea behind 5e’s personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. I have quibbles over their execution, but the idea of rewarding players for portraying personality traits which may be detrimental to the characters’ immediate success with a currency that can be used to improve their chances of long-term success is excellent. If executed well, such a mechanic could help reduce the conflict between “how I imagine my character would act” and “what I as a player who is invested in my character’s success think would be the best thing to do.”

While excellent in theory, I've bolded the possibly-insurmountable problem here: how can this be executed well?

I categorically reject meta-mechanics such as Inspiration. Non-starter.

As for xp, any situation where the DM has to give xp for someone's roleplaying is problematic in that it a) isn't codifed and thus is done completely by DM fiat, and b) leaves a DM wide open to accusations of favouritism, whether warranted or not. I - and I suspect many others - take this risk anyway now and then, but for my part I make surethese type of xp are but a minor fraction of the total xp available thus if there is a problem in how I do it, it's not as big a deal.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe. Not all characters are going to be the supportive, positive type - even if they're played by a player who is normally supportive and positive in real life - and nor should they be expected to be. Playing against one's own type and-or being someone you just can't be in reality is a big reason why people play these games, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that.

Nothing wrong with playing a character who is very different than yourself; although it will probably be more challenging than playing a character similar to yourself, it is often very fun and rewarding to do. But (and I know you’re never going to agree with me on this, that’s ok, you are welcome to your opinion), D&D is a cooperative game, and there should accordingly be an expectation of cooperation between players, and therefore between characters. Unless of course everyone involved agrees that they want conflict between their characters. If the group is onboard, by all means play how you like.

It can be awful, but very often isn't, says he who often finds himself in this very situation.

The trick, when they come in conflict, is to be true to the character and shove your own feelings and wants aside. I've roleplayed myself as a player right out of a game simply by following what my character would do, even though I-as-player didn't want to leave* and was otherwise quite enjoying it all.

* - rolling up something new wasn't a viable option as there was no real way of bringing it in. I rejoined later at the next downtime with a different PC.

This is another thing we just aren’t going to agree on. I mean, if that’s fun for you, knock yourself out. But personally I prefer as a player to strive for my character to succeed, and as a DM I want my players to do the same.

Absolutely. My point is that the character's goals in the fiction and the player's goals at the table can and sometimes do directly clash, and one has to trump the other. It has nothing to do with the pursuit of xp.

I think with good game design, that clash can be avoided.

I think that failure can be just as interesting as success; moreover, I think that failure is a vital component of making success look like success.

From an abstract, narrative-focused perspective, yes, failure can absolutely be as interesting as success. But from a practical gameplay perspective, success is what you should strive for. I don’t want my players striving to fail because they think it will be more interesting. Failure will come as a natural result of the difficulty of achieving success, and yes, it will be interesting when it happens. But pursuing it actively short-circuits the whole process. The players should pursue their characters’ goals, and the DM should place obstacles in the way of those goals. Success and failure will come as natural results of the players’ attempts to overcome those obstacles.

They might not have to learn to love failure but they'd better bloody well learn to accept it as part of the game.

Oh, of course!

While excellent in theory, I've bolded the possibly-insurmountable problem here: how can this be executed well?

I categorically reject meta-mechanics such as Inspiration. Non-starter.

Again, we just aren’t going to agree on this. You don’t like such mechanics, and that’s fine. I do, when they are executed well. Or I’ll say “when they are executed in the ways I prefer,” since saying “well” implies that the quality of execution can be measured objectively.

As for xp, any situation where the DM has to give xp for someone's roleplaying is problematic in that it a) isn't codifed and thus is done completely by DM fiat, and b) leaves a DM wide open to accusations of favouritism, whether warranted or not.

Oh, yeah, I find the practice of awarding XP for “good roleplaying” highly objectionable, to put it politely. That’s definitely not what I’m advocating for here.

I - and I suspect many others - take this risk anyway now and then, but for my part I make surethese type of xp are but a minor fraction of the total xp available thus if there is a problem in how I do it, it's not as big a deal.

You do you, but even in small amounts this practice is objectionable to me. Like, I actually find it worse than story-based character advancement. It has all the same problems and more for me.

 

[cbwjm]

The stack was introduced in the 6th edition rules change (the largest and most significant change to the core rules to date). It replaced batches, which served a similar purpose to the stack, in that they governed the resolution order of various instant-speed effects, but functioned differently than the stack in a number of ways.

Interrupts were instants that were always resolved before anything else in the same batch. With the introduction of the stack, this function was no longer applicable, and all interrupts were erratad to be normal instants. However, in Time Spiral Block (7 years later, in 2006), they introduced a new mechanic called Split Second. When a spell with Split Second is on the stack, no other spells or abilities can be added to the stack until the Split Second spell is resolved. This is the closest you can get to reproducing the pre-6th edition function of Interrupts in the post-6th edition rules, and in fact they were an intentional reference to Interrupts (calling back to old cards, characters, and mechanics was a major theme of Time Spiral Block). Interestingly, no cards that had previously been interrupts got erratad to have Split Second, even though that would have made them functionally more similar to their pre-6th edition forms. There’s probably an article somewhere in the Wizard’s archives explaining that decision, but if there is, I haven’t read it.

Well damn, I will admit that I didn't expect anyone to respond to that with an actual answer.

 

[TheSword]

If all you want to run are APs and all your players want to play are APs that's fine for you and your crew, but removal of agency - particularly over the players' own characters and what those characters do in the setting - from the greater game? That's a bit much to ask.

I don’t believe it’s a removal of Agency, it’s a reduction.

All players agree to some reduction of agency. If only because it’s a campaign set in Dark Sun or Greyhawk and not Ravenloft. Also that the party includes X characters that will affect how your character plays at the table.

Where I'd be rather disappointed in players who didn't try to head off on their own now and then; and I make sure I've a robust enough setting underneath it all to support them when they do. Vastly preferable over having to lead them by the nose from one adventure to the next.

There’s a risk of having to lead PCs by the nose. However, the big advantage of the AP format is that you can have a much tighter series of clues, events, threats, locations and NPCs because you have more time to weave the links between them. Mysteries and campaign wide threats can be more structured simply because you can plan more in advance.

I get that the freedom of a pure sandbox has benefits and one of those is increased Agency. I just think it’s a trade off.

 

[Xetheral]

No problem! I appreciate the earnestness with which you strive for clarity on others’ perspectives.


It depends on what XP is awarded for. In a game where you get XP for killing monsters, pursuing it effectively means approaching challenges with a kill first, ask questions later attitude, as killing is what earns you XP. Trying to seek peaceful solutions to problems would be an ineffective way to pursue advancement. In a game where you get XP for acquiring gold, effective pursuit of advancement means careful risk-reward management, taking on quests that offer the largest monetary reward proportional to the danger involved, and generally trying to circumvent challenges in order to acquire treasure with minimal conflict. Fighting dangerous foes with little money or selflessly offering to help poor villagers with their plights with no expectation of compensation would be an ineffective way to pursue advancement. In an adventure where you gained XP for discovering points of interest, effective pursuit of advancement would involve hunting for rumors of interesting locations and exploring uncharted areas. Sticking to well-known travel routes would be an ineffective way to pursue advancement. In a mystery campaign where you gained XP for discovering clues, effective pursuit of advancement would mean being very thorough in your investigations, even when you think you have the solution, because solving a case when there are still clues to be found would be ineffective pursuit of advancement.

In my own campaigns, my go-to is to award XP for completing objectives and overcoming encounters. Effective pursuit of advancement would mean taking on quests when offered, seeing them through to completion, and engaging with challenges whenever they arise, by the most efficient means possible. Refusing quests or trying to avoid conflict would be inefficient means of pursuing advancement in one of my typical campaigns. But I’ll use different systems for awarding XP for different campaigns, when I feel it’s appropriate.

As a player, I’m fine with whatever XP system is available; as long as I know what I can earn XP for, I can make decisions that influence my character’s advancement. I can take on quests or encounters that will earn me XP, or decide not to, if I don’t think the risks are worth the potential for advancement. I have a degree of agency over my character’s advancement. If the DM is strongly opposed to using XP for some reason, I will settle for session-based advancement. Then I can still monitor my progress towards the next level (albeit in terms of sessions left to level up instead of XP), and I know that the most optimal way to pursue advancement is simply to come to as many sessions as possible. The one thing I don’t go in for is story-based advancement, where I really have no way of knowing how close I am to leveling up and no way of influencing it. All I can really do is follow the plot, maybe favoring things that seem likely to be on the critical path over side-content, and accept the level-ups whenever they come. No real agency there.


Sure. Obviously I’m not going to feel exactly what my character feels, but empathizing with them is a good way to describe it. I come from an acting background, and specifically a Misnerian school of thought, so to me having a genuine emotional reaction to an artificial scenario comes pretty naturally, and is a huge part of what I’m after as a player. But, yeah, obviously you want to experience your character’s perspective in a safe way.


So... Let me use one specific means of awarding XP as an example. Let’s use XP for gold, because it’s an easy one to illustrate my point with. XP for gold is great for campaigns featuring morally ambiguous protagonists who are in it for the money. Conan-esque Sword and Sorcery, for example. Having XP for gold in such a campaign helps me immerse myself in the character by making the best way for me to get what I want (XP) the same as the best way for my character to get what they want (gold). Now, that’s a bit of an oversimplification, but it gets the point across. In such a campaign, the protagonists ought to be motivated primarily by a desire for gold. By tying the game’s primary player reward system directly to what ought to motivate protagonists in the setting, you encourage the players to create characters who fit the campaign’s themes. Not just through the social contract, but through their brain’s reward system. It’s easier to sync up my experience with my character experience when I get dopamine for pursuing the same things that motivate my character. Does that make sense?


I just don’t see the value in trying to separate those things. Why not play a character who is motivated to make decisions that are a positive influence on others’ experience? It’s a cooperative game, shouldn’t my character be as invested in supporting their party members as I am in supporting the other players?


That certainly could be. Though, I rather think not.


Hopefully it did, but to try to summarize: I’m trying to use the tool to incentivize through game mechanics the sort of play that is thematically and tonally suited to the campaign. To eliminate or at least reduce the disconnect between “what my character would do” and “what the game rewards me for doing.”


I think if the game is boring if you succeed as quickly and easily as possible, it has problems that milestone leveling won’t fix. In a well-designed game, “as quickly and easily as possible” and “long enough and difficult enough to be interesting” should be in the same ballpark at the very least.


Do you not want your character to get what they want? If not, I can only imagine that would lead to gameplay where you are constantly in conflict between trying to play your character faithfully and trying to avoid them getting what they want as a result. That sounds awful. As a player, I want to be striving to achieve my character’s goals. And as a DM, I want my players to strive to achieve their characters’ goals. In fact, it’s kind of necessary, so I can put obstacles in the way of those goals for them to strive against, creating the emergent gameplay and story in the process.


The player wants XP. The character wants... something. If the player gets XP when their character gets what they want, the gameplay goals and the narrative goals will be in concert. To use a somewhat pretentious bit of game-designery jargon, it creates ludonarrative harmony.

Now, granted, if the player doesn’t want XP, that line of logic isn’t really sound. But I’ve never seen a new player who didn’t want XP. In my (heh) experience, players not caring about XP is a learned thing. Somewhere along the line, someone tells them they shouldn’t play D&D like it’s a “game” they can “win” and that they should compartmentalize their player motivations from their character’s motivations and act purely based on the latter. That they should focus on “role playing instead of roll playing.” That they should learn to love failure because it can be just as interesting as success. That’s all bologna in my opinion. It’s a roleplaying game, it involves both roleplaying and game, and the game’s design should aim not to put those two things into conflict. Ludonarrative harmony should be the goal, but for some reason people on the internet actively push players towards fostering ludonarrative dissonance.


Sure, and in my opinion a well designed roleplaying game should have mechanics that reward you for doing so, so that you don’t have to compromise between playing your character’s foibles and making decisions with the aim of leading to your character’s success. That’s why I actually love the idea behind 5e’s personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. I have quibbles over their execution, but the idea of rewarding players for portraying personality traits which may be detrimental to the characters’ immediate success with a currency that can be used to improve their chances of long-term success is excellent. If executed well, such a mechanic could help reduce the conflict between “how I imagine my character would act” and “what I as a player who is invested in my character’s success think would be the best thing to do.”


For sure.

Thanks for the detailed reply! I think I have a better sense now of where you're coming from. I'm going to start collapsing the different topics we were discussing into a holistic response--if I miss replying to something you'd like a specific response to, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, there's going to be some repetition of points we've previously discussed as I try to summarize my current understanding and how I got there.

First, I think I've identified some of the stylistic and perspective differences that were making it harder to understand each other. Most notably, when I think of my character's "goals", my first thought is the long-term goals that drive them to adventure in the first place. Meeting those goals tends to take the character out of play! So, as a player, even as I make decisions that bring the character towards their goals, I am hoping for progress, rather than for the possibility of outright success. This usually isn't a practical issue, as my characters' long-term goals tend to be outside the scope of a given campaign. But I think this perspective on goals contributed to why I was having a hard time understanding your focus on aligning the player's goals with the character's goals. At a much more micro level, I agree that it is advantageous to have a game where the players' and characters' immediate objectives align, so that the player isn't trying to sabotage their character (with the agreed-upon caveat for appropriately making decisions to exhibit flaws and disadvantages, even when those don't advance micro-level goals).

Relatedly, if I remember correctly from previous discussions, my preferred playstyle tends to highlight strategic-level decisions, whereas yours tend to highlight lower-level decision-making. (With "high" and "low" referring strictly to scale, and not in any way meant to imply that one is intrinsically more important than the other.) The choices of which adventures to undertake or objectives pursue is critical at my table, because those are the decisions that most strongly determine the PCs' impact on the game world, and highlighting how the setting changes in response to the PCs' choices is a (if not THE) major meta-theme of almost all of my campaigns. Since all of the options on offer (including hooks dangled by the DM, or PC-initiated options stemming from the pursuit of the PCs' long-term goals) are within-scope for the campaign, the idea of using XP to incentivize some strategic choices over others didn't make much sense to me--why would I be dangling hooks that I wanted to disincentivize the PCs from selecting? By contrast, in a playstyle with a focus on lower-level decision-making, where the important PC decisions are of the "how do we address our immediate circumstances?" variety, I can see how it might be desirable to incentivize certain solutions/responses over others, at least if the campaign is strongly themed to focus on certain types of action (e.g., as you mentioned, a campaign themed around overcoming foes, or a campaign themed around the acquisition of loot.)

That leads to the next of the stylistic differences that I think are making mutual understanding harder. I tend to prefer (both as a DM and as a player) campaigns that are not strongly themed to focus on certain types of action over others. I prefer when all options are always on the table, and for the choice of tactics to be determined by the PCs' values and their strategy for achieving their strategic goals with their available resources, rather than being influenced by a micro-level campaign theme.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you instead prefer more tightly focused campaigns that provide both IC (via in-game rewards) and OOC (via XP) incentives for picking strategies and tactics in line with the micro-level theme of the campaign. If so, it now makes sense to me why you would want those IC and OOC incentives to be in harmony--it would indeed would be counterproductive to have the micro-level IC and OOC incentives in conflict!

Am I understanding you correctly? And if so, does it make sense how, in a campaign whose themes are all at a much larger/broader scope, there isn't a need/desire to incentivize certain micro-level decisions over others, either IC or OOC?

I'm tempted to respond in detail on the subtopic of ludonarrative harmony vs dissonance, but I think I'm going to save that for another thread to avoid going any more off-topic. If my analysis above is on-point, however, then I would note that I suspect that the difference in scales at which we approach our campaigns likely also influences what we see as harmony vs dissonance.

 

[Xetheral]

For me, this one's easy: [XP] tips the scales in favour of going adventuring vs not going adventuring.

After that, it's all just fine-tuning.

That's fair. In my campaigns I find that encouraging adventuring over non-adventuring isn't an issue. Maybe it's just that I tend to include an exorbitant number of simultaneous plotlines, so the PCs are always scrambling to accomplish what they can before the opportunities are lost, or the situation worsens. Also, I may be using a broader definition of "adventuring" than you are, and thus have less need to focus the party on it.

Hmmm...dunno 'bout that - I've often found roleplaying an angry character to be a great way to blow off some steam!

Totally cool. I'm not really a blowing-off-steam type myself.

I can certainly see situations where, while the characters wouldn't have a direct concept of xp as such, the concept of improving oneself through doing [x thing] is still quite achievable. The most obvious is in a system that gives xp for treasure. Less obvious but still quite believable is in a system where one has to train to gain a level: "Right, you've done the classroom theory, now get out there and put it into practice. Once you've mastered what you just learned, come back for the next round of study." could apply to every character class.

Likely due to the issue of the number of simultaneous plotlines that I described above, characters don't often in my games have the time to focus on self-improvement. So even if the nature (or effect) of XP were in some way deduceable in-game, the PCs are usually far too busy with more-immediate priorities to make IC decisions based on what would provide the most XP.

 

[Lanefan]

That's fair. In my campaigns I find that encouraging adventuring over non-adventuring isn't an issue. Maybe it's just that I tend to include an exorbitant number of simultaneous plotlines, so the PCs are always scrambling to accomplish what they can before the opportunities are lost, or the situation worsens. Also, I may be using a broader definition of "adventuring" than you are, and thus have less need to focus the party on it.

Fair enough. As a player I do find it frustrating when there's simply too much adventuring to do and not enough time - both in-game and out-of-game - to get to it all.

Multiple ongoing plotlines - and I've hit this one as DM - also carry the risk of varying levels of interest in each one between players, where for example one player is really keen on following up plotline A, another would rather follow B and isn't the least bit interested in A, and a third isn't interested in either one and would rather just go beat up Giants in the woods. Here it becomes a juggling act.

Likely due to the issue of the number of simultaneous plotlines that I described above, characters don't often in my games have the time to focus on self-improvement.

They have to in my game, at least now and then, as I have downtime training as a requirement in order to get the benefits of a new level.

So even if the nature (or effect) of XP were in some way deduceable in-game, the PCs are usually far too busy with more-immediate priorities to make IC decisions based on what would provide the most XP.

The xp themselves aren't visible in-game, but the long-term effects sure are. We-as-players call them xp, the characters would call it simple improvement through practice.