D&D General An alternative to XP

[Charlaquin]

It goes back to getting a Hummel figurine. If I don't value overpriced porcelain, there will be no dopamine release.

That’s not how brains work. Again, getting a Hummel figurine isn’t even a dopamine trigger; it might be a seratonin trigger. If you won it in some kind of contest, the winning of the contest is a dopamine trigger. Is the dopamine and the figurine (and the potential seratonin) enough to make you want to enter the contest? That’s a more complex topic that I don’t care to weigh in on. You’re trying to argue with me that the contest isn’t worth it for you, but that doesn’t actually contradict what I’m saying at all, and I don’t care.

But again... we're not going to agree. Have a good one.

I agree that a Hummel figurine isn’t rewarding to you. The problem is that that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. So no, we aren’t going to agree, because we’re arguing about completely different things!

EDIT: I'm sure a lot of people enjoy XP. I simply don't and don't remember ever seeing it as a reward.

This is irrelevant to what I’m arguing.

 

[payn]

So, catch me up. Are we now saying giving XP is like having a cup of coffee or a cigarette?

 

[Charlaquin]

So, catch me up. Are we now saying giving XP is like having a cup of coffee or a cigarette?

No. Getting XP is like seeing a progress bar fill up a little bit when you push a button.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

So, catch me up. Are we now saying giving XP is like having a cup of coffee or a cigarette?

Yes. We should expect more options like XP Lights, XP 100s, XP Decaf, and XP Zero (now with 20% more flavor).

 

[Oofta]

That’s not how brains work. Again, getting a Hummel figurine isn’t even a dopamine trigger; it might be a seratonin trigger. If you won it in some kind of contest, the winning of the contest is a dopamine trigger. Is the dopamine and the figurine (and the potential seratonin) enough to make you want to enter the contest? That’s a more complex topic that I don’t care to weigh in on. You’re trying to argue with me that the contest isn’t worth it for you, but that doesn’t actually contradict what I’m saying at all, and I don’t care.

I agree that a Hummel figurine isn’t rewarding to you. The problem is that that has nothing to do with what I’m saying. So no, we aren’t going to agree, because we’re arguing about completely different things!

This is irrelevant to what I’m arguing.

You're the one who keeps saying things like

...People like to see progress bars fill up when the do a thing. They just do. That’s why idle clicker games are so popular. Motivation is a much more complex subject though.

Maybe you don’t consciously recognize the impact, but seeing a visual indicator of progress being made still triggers a release of dopamine in your brain. ...

Triggering dopamine was the phrase you used, I was just echoing your terminology. But I don't care about the progress bar filling up no matter how much you insist that everyone does.

In any case, I agree that XP works great for some people. In other cases the external rewards are detrimental to the intrinsic rewards without even realizing it. But it's largely a matter of preference and choice. If getting XP is how you level, and the source of XP is transparent then people are more likely to pursue the source of XP than play their character. Along with I don't see that extra accounting adds value, I'd rather have people do what makes sense for their character, not what gives them the most shiny XP.

But barring a long term in depth psychological study that proves that everyone agrees with your assumption over the long term in the
context of something as complex as playing D&D, I'm never going to agree and simply don't understand your obsession with this.

People should do what makes sense to them. I've given my reasons for not using it, you have yours.

 

[Lanefan]

Great, they are ready for the classroom...

So what?

If the adventure is time-sensitive then they go back and finish before going to the classroom. At which point other PCs can likely join them.
If the adventure is not time-sensitive then they go to the classroom and the others can relax or whatever while they wait. In which case they return to the adventure with some stronger PCs.

As an example, look at what is happening:

A-B can train to gain level 2
C-E are all still level 1
F-G are possible new PCs at level 1

You go back with 5 PCs at level 1, even though 2 can't earn more XP OR
You go back while they train with 5 PCs (adding F-G) that are all still level 1

Indeed, and that's a choice I don't at all mind the party/players having to make.

I'm also mostly ignoring character deaths here, which is often a far more significant cause of character turnover; and merely focusing on training*. I'm also assuming no player turnover in this case.

* - and-or any other reason a still-alive character might have to leave for a while e.g. going to a different city to report to its superiors.

Either way, if you continue the adventure immediately, you have 5 PCs at level 1, but in the first case you are playing the same PCs because those are the ones you are playing for the game. In the second case, you are forced to bring in two new PCs to fill in the gap just so A-B can train. Now, you are starting your merry-go-round of PCs and juggling act of who can go on which adventure when because so-and-so needs to train but others want adventure and XP.

And loot. Don't forget the loot!

Sure, it can happen for story reasons or player interest, but it isn't because you need them while others train...

I don't think you get it: some characters having to take time out to train is the story reason.

It's only an issue if your goal in the game is to gain XP. If your goal is to play the adventure, it isn't an issue.

Also, XP is awarded when you return from the adventure. The DM is not meant to calculate XP and award it on-the-fly, but at the end, when they can look at all the creatures defeated, tally the treasure recovered, etc. and adjust it against the difficulty of the adventure. PCs can adventure as long as they want, but as soon as they return and are awarded XP, they can't earn any more.

I've always given xp on the fly, in theory each morning when the PCs wake up and in practice whenever I get around to it; though I'll monitor it more closely if I know someone's close to bumping. Bumping gets you a few immediate benefits but most of what you gain occurs at training.

For example, if your 1st level PCs return from an adventure, and the DM tallies it so each PC earns 3250 XP, they can train. But the cleric and thief will each train for 2 levels (needing 3001 and 2501 XP, respectively to each 3rd level), while the others train for 1 level to become 2nd level, before moving on to the next adventure.

You're interpreting that bit of 1e RAW far differently than I would. The way I've always read it, that poor Thief would lose every xp after 1250 as it simply cannot normally gain further xp without first training into 2nd level. There's no "double training" like what you posit here.

That said, I can see one obvious reason why a by-the-book 1e DM wouldn't give out xp until the adventure's done: such a DM would be giving xp for treasure (something I've never done) and the PCs don't and can't know what their treasury shares are worth until they get it evaluated and divided.

 

[Lanefan]

Milestones are, according to the DMG, a thing the DM can grant XP for. “Milestone- based but still using XP” is redundant, because milestones do use XP.

Probably worth pointing out here that in a 3e-4e-5e system where all classes advance at the same rate milestone levelling and milestone xp work out to being pretty much the same thing in practice.

In a 0e-1e-2e system where classes advance at different rates, milestone xp and milestone levelling would be very different beasts.

Other than that language nitpick, I agree with you on just about everything here. Some campaigns I will use individual XP, but not most.

Being able to break it down by individual is to me about 95% of the reason for using xp in the first place.

An example from last night's session (and @DND_Reborn will like this as it involves training! ): on completing a mission a PC Cleric needed to train but as he's an Elf operating in Human lands the nearest place he could train was Elven lands, about three weeks journey away. The rest of the PCs agreed to stay put and wait while this PC and another went off to train.

However, when that Elf PC arrived at the Elven lands he walked face-first into a local religious conflict (VERY long story behind this!) and spent several days helping sort that out before he could start his training.

Why should anyone else other than that one Elf get any xp for what that Elf did while three weeks away from the rest of the party?

 

[DND_Reborn]

You're interpreting that bit of 1e RAW far differently than I would. The way I've always read it, that poor Thief would lose every xp after 1250 as it simply cannot normally gain further xp without first training into 2nd level. There's no "double training" like what you posit here.

Yeah, I thought you might. But my reading is supported by the text here (see highlight):

If you stop the XP the moment a PC reaches XP for the next level, such as in your example of stopping the Thief at 1251 XP for level 2, they would not have added the qualifier "OR GREATER THAN", which indicates it is certainly possible to earn XP sufficient to gain more than one level. Once the adventure is done and the DM calculates XP and awards it, then you cannot earn more until you train. You cannot, once XP is awarded, go back out (prior to training) to earn more XP for the sake of convenience to train for two levels at once.

The difference arises (as you note) when XP is awarded. If you award it daily (as you indicate?) then you are capping your PCs and restricting them more than necessary. If you award XP when the adventure is done (or has a significant break maybe?) then PCs can level accordingly, sometimes (albeit rarely) gaining more than one level if they gained sufficient XP and train for both. (FWIW, this only happens, if at all, typically in the first few levels...)

And loot. Don't forget the loot!

Well, that is really just tangible XP... never forget the loot!

 

[DND_Reborn]

An example from last night's session (and @DND_Reborn will like this as it involves training! ): a PC Cleric needed to train but as he's an Elf operating in Human lands the nearest place he could train was Elven lands, about three weeks journey away. The rest of the PCs agreed to stay put and wait while this PC and another went off to train.

However, when that Elf PC arrived at the Elven lands he walked face-first into a local religious conflict (VERY long story behind this!) and spent several days helping sort that out before he could start his training.

Ah, yes, this is a nice example! Me likey very much.

This is a perfect example of story related to training (which is totally good!). And how you choose to handle this as DM is up to you, but this would have been my approach...

Elf PC heads out and others are waiting. Why wait? Is there nothing for them to do in the area for a minor side-adventure while they wait? The player of the Elf PC could bring in another PC, but IMO that just complicates things. I would offer that player an NPC or (a favorite of mine) ask them to play the bad guys and get them involved on my side of the DM screen!

We play out a bit of that and everyone has fun.

Returning to the Elf PC now, we see his journeys are interrupted as you said by local conflict. Depending on the extent of this, it is a chance to play out a different side-adventure as a solo, have other players join as NPCs (unless you really want the whole multiple PC thing...) or as bad guys, etc. It could go many different ways.

Why should anyone else other than that one Elf get any xp for what that Elf did while three weeks away from the rest of the party?

They shouldn't of course, they should get XP for something they did while the Elf was away. There is no reason they literally have to do nothing unless you choose that as DM...

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I thought you might. But my reading is supported by the text here (see highlight):

View attachment 152583
If you stop the XP the moment a PC reaches XP for the next level, such as in your example of stopping the Thief at 1251 XP for level 2, they would not have added the qualifier "OR GREATER THAN", which indicates it is certainly possible to earn XP sufficient to gain more than one level. Once the adventure is done and the DM calculates XP and awards it, then you cannot earn more until you train. You cannot, once XP is awarded, go back out (prior to training) to earn more XP for the sake of convenience to train for two levels at once.

Yet the sentence immediately prior to that, partly cut off, specifically states you can't gain two levels at once.

In any case, I haven't done it this way ever and thus I don't have to worry about it.

The difference arises (as you note) when XP is awarded. If you award it daily (as you indicate?)

In the fiction the PCs get xp each morning after having had a chance to "sleep on it" and take in the previous day's events and experiences.

At the table I give out xp less frequently than that, unless I know someone's close to bumping in which case I will do them daily.

Well, that is really just tangible XP... never forget the loot!

If one gives xp for treasure. Otherwise, loot is merely its own reward.