D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[Lanefan]

I wonder why there is so much passion behind the milestone vs xp debate. When you think about it, in many cases they are functionally the same. For example; most DMs, that I know of, award XP out of combat which means XP is awarded by DM fiat. Milestone is awarded by DM fiat. Even if XP is only awarded for combat, the DM is in full control of that too. Even if following prescribed XP per monster, the DM controls the monsters. Murderhobo of innocents isn't going to be relevant XP source past the first few levels.

The biggest difference IMO is that xp can be awarded to individual characters, as in "you get 100 xp for that encounter while you get 50 xp for keeping watch and you don't get any because you weren't there" and thus characters advance at different rates (which makes it much easier to reward in-character risk-taking!) and level up at different times, while milestone sort of assumes everyone advances at the same rate and levels up at the same time.

 

[Lanefan]

This is a good question. I do very much like the idea of an adventuring day. PF1 is still my fantasy RPG of choice. I design my adventures to be completed with a minimum of encounters, but with a higher total possible. For example, lets say a 5 room dungeon with a swamp that leads up to it. 12 encounters total. A very savvy group with good luck gets through it in 6-8 encounters. An average group playing conservatively gets through it in 9-10. A fumbling group with bad luck encounters all 12. You would think folks would intuit that completing your goals in fewest encounters would net the best results. However, I found that to my players more encounters equals more XP and treasure so all 12 would be painstakingly encountered. Even to the point of retreat, rest, and return. Even if the goal was met, they would return to uncover every possible encounter!

IMO that's the way to do it: unless the party is on such a tight timeline that there's no time to do anything beyond get in, get it done, and get out, why not explore the place fully given that you're already there anyway?

I also like to put forks in the road and give the players challenging, but interesting decisions. Go right and stop the hobgoblins as you were tasked to do, or go left and save the princess which you just found out is being kept in an old abandoned keep. Now, the choice is between duty and the seemingly right thing to save a defenseless person, but not to my XP hunting players! They would have a long conversation about how "convenient" the princess happens to be. That, surely its a trap of an area too high level to handle. Surely the best route is to take out the hobgoblins so that the party can score enough XP so they can then handle saving the princess. Duty and/or honor who cares?

My lot would probably try to find a way to do both via splitting the party and having each half recruit some more adventurers.

Removing XP and going with milestone was the answer. It took a little time, but eventually the players began to focus on the narrative and goals before them. they also started caring what their characters thought about the situation and acted on it without fear of being behind or screwed out of treasure. It was much needed breath of fresh air and life into my RPG experience.

Why would removing xp have any effect on the characters' thirst for treasure? (unless you were still giving xp for gp)

This one is more mechanical for me. I put a lot of effort into bringing my games alive. Worrying about every piddly XP point collected was just cognitive load wasted in my opinion. That was one less interesting map, or one fewer NPC to play, or a less interesting intriguing mystery placed before the players. Also, having mixed level parties was a total PITA. I either made the encoutner challenging for the top level player, thus making mincemeat out of the lower level ones, or the whole thing was a cake walk. The mix was like 1/3 right, 1/3 too easy, 1/3 TPK in waiting. With everyone on the same level, encoutner and adventure crafting bcame much more managable. (Interesting enough, PF2 made mixed level parties suicide by design!)

I find this PF2 take incredibly sad.

Forcing everyone to be the same level removes so much design and play potential: you can't give a level to an individual character as a lucky bonus or reward, nor can you drain a level from someone. Decks of Many Things and their ilk are right out.

If the game's math is so tight that it can't handle a few levels disparity within the party, it's been far too greatly overthought. I'm not a big 5e fan but I will give it this: it can and does handle mixed-level parties quite well.

I really dont care if Billy comes late, or Suszie isnt brave enough with her character. I dont need to bait effort out of my players with XP. The rules are right before them. They pick locks because thats something a rogue can do. They convince NPCs because thats something bards can do. They kill tough monsters because thats what fighters do. etc... The mechanics are the toolkit for the players to engage the setting, the msyetieries, the political intrigue, the exploration! Lastly, I want them to work together and not worry about who gets what. Its a team game so group XP it is, and even better with milestone!

How lethal is your game to its characters?

This question is relevant as if your game is at all lethal and yet the rewards are entirely group-based, that's a huge incentive to hang back and let others take the risks.

 

[payn]

IMO that's the way to do it: unless the party is on such a tight timeline that there's no time to do anything beyond get in, get it done, and get out, why not explore the place fully given that you're already there anyway?

Its no longer interesting and a waste of time.

My lot would probably try to find a way to do both via splitting the party and having each half recruit some more adventurers.

No thanks, im not interested in running two games at once.

Why would removing xp have any effect on the characters' thirst for treasure? (unless you were still giving xp for gp)

Wealth by level baked into the system leads to these ideas about wasting time looking in every crack and corner. It was a secondary habit to break after expecting XP awards for just playing the game.

I find this PF2 take incredibly sad.

Its wildly popular with its fans. The CR system is accurate and its very easy to design adventures for GMs.

Forcing everyone to be the same level removes so much design and play potential: you can't give a level to an individual character as a lucky bonus or reward, nor can you drain a level from someone. Decks of Many Things and their ilk are right out.

This style of play has become very unpopular. Its wasted effort on parts of the game that dont matter to many folks.

If the game's math is so tight that it can't handle a few levels disparity within the party, it's been far too greatly overthought. I'm not a big 5e fan but I will give it this: it can and does handle mixed-level parties quite well.

5E doesnt do anything great, but does lots of things ok.

How lethal is your game to its characters?

Typical campaign of 4-5 players has about 3-8 PC deaths in a campaign.

This question is relevant as if your game is at all lethal and yet the rewards are entirely group-based, that's a huge incentive to hang back and let others take the risks.

So what?

 

[Lanefan]

Its no longer interesting and a waste of time.

No thanks, im not interested in running two games at once.

And yet if it's what the players decide to have their characters do, what choice do you have? (when this happens, if I don't have time to run two games a week I ask which sub-party they want to play first, run that to the conclusion of that adventure, then put that group on hold and run the other group)

Wealth by level baked into the system leads to these ideas about wasting time looking in every crack and corner. It was a secondary habit to break after expecting XP awards for just playing the game.

Wealth by level as a baked-in thing is a 3e-ism, and can happily be ignored.

Character greed as a baked-in thing goes back to the last ice age, irrespective of whether or not the system gives xp for treasure.

Typical campaign of 4-5 players has about 3-8 PC deaths in a campaign.

So what?

So, if I'm playing a wise character it won't take long for me to realize that my best and most rewarding long-term course of action is to talk other characters into taking risks (and maybe dying) while at the same time finding ways to contribute that minimize or even eliminate any risks I might face. My goal is to survive, and to keep on surviving; and as there's no reward for taking risks it's clearly in my better interests not to take any.

Result: while in your system I might not end up higher-level than everyone else, I'll sure end up richer: I'm getting full share from every treasury we bring back, while others are dying only to be replaced by new (and usually wealth-poorer) recruits; meanwhile the survivors' share (incuding mine) is further increased by what we loot off our dead companions.

That's the sort of play you're not-bery-subtly incentivizing here.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you want an EXP vs milestone topic, please go fork it. Let's get back to ignoring rules please?

I never saw a meteor swarm spell, so I've basically ignored that. What other high spells did you never cast and therefore ignored??

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I often ignore stat generation during character creation.

If you are in a group of trusted players, who all have similar goals. It is incredibly freeing, to let them free pick their ability scores. In fact, in narrative centered groups, this largely just works. Abuse is rare, most players seem to pick some high and some low scores and they generally average around 80 total. I generally just set a cap of nothing over 18 at level 1, but that is, normally, the only restriction.

It's important to make clear that player power level relative to the DM is irrelevant. As a DM, the only power level that matters to me, is player power relative to each other. I can always up the power of enemies to match. So concerns about, "but they players will be too strong" are kind of red herrings, they can't be.

 

[SpeedyCreek]

There are a lot of rules that I have tossed out but the biggest one currently is the monster stat blocks as written.
I DM and participate in games that are with very experienced gamers (20+ years each) and with 5e or PF1 or PF2 games I have found the design to be underwhelming over time. Additionally there is a lot of metagaming that comes with playing with experienced players whether it is intentional or not.

I never played but really liked some of the design from 4e so I have just adapted some of the ideas from it to my in game play when DM'ing. Both I and the players have found combat and interactions to be more interesting as they no longer conform to long standing design. For example I like the idea of Elite creatures and minions and have brought those into games. Another example is giving a large creature like a giant or an ogre a sweep attack that can hit multiple targets or push them around. Effects that can be added on the fly without unbalancing the game while giving it some spice.

There are many rules implemented over the various versions of DnD and PF, that in my opinion were put in place to make adventuring less gritty and dangerous, so in my grittier style sandboxes they come out to make the world a much more dangerous place for the characters and NPC's alike.