D&D General An alternative to XP

[Charlaquin]

It's not just lazy folks who dislike XP. It can have an undesirable effect on how players engage the game. For some, its a matter of preference.

I definitely don’t think it’s just lazy folks who dislike it. I just think the benefits, though significant, are easy to overlook, and the drawbacks, though minor, are very obvious. But of course, everyone has their own preferences, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just count encounters.

It takes about 4 standard encounters to gain enough experience points to reach level 2.

6 by my count. 6 medium encounters, anyway; it would be fewer if you mix some hard and/or deadly ones in there, and more if you mix in some easy and/or trivial.

So just count the encounters instead. Now it can be any kind of encounter, combat, nonlethal combat, social, exploration, chase, puzzle, whatever.

It can be any kind of encounter with or without XP. And counting encounters functionally is XP, it’s just a less granular XP system.

Number of Encounters: To Reach Next Level

4 encounters: level 1 to 2
7 encounters: level 2 to 3
10 encounters: level 3 to 4
13 encounters: level 4 to 5

16 encounters: levels 5 thru 12

8 encounters: levels 13 thru 20

My count is 6 to get to levels 2 and 3, 12 to to level 4, 15 to get to levels 5 through 11, and 10 to get to levels 12 through 20. Assuming all Medium encounters for the party’s level. The benefit of the more granular XP system of 5e compared to this is that it takes more encounters if they’re easier and fewer if they’re hard.

 

[Yaarel]

Personally, I’ll die on the hill of XP. It isn’t right for every campaign, but I think most campaigns can benefit from it. Sadly, the benefits are not obvious and people really hate having to do math, so here we are.

Even tho I feel it is better to count encounters for the purposes of players leveling, I still use creature rating as a DM to estimate a level appropriate combat encounter.

I can determine after the fact whether a standard encounter really is standard. If it takes the players a standard amount of effort, it counts as 1 encounter. If it turns out to be trivial, it is only worth 1/2 an encounter. And if it turns out to be difficult, 1 and a 1/2 encounters. An ingeniiius solution might get an extra 1/2 encounter bonus.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I just think the benefits, though significant, are easy to overlook, and the drawbacks, though minor, are very obvious.

Could you elaborate on some of those obvious benefits and drawbacks? I'm drawing a blank.

 

[Yaarel]

6 by my count. 6 medium encounters, anyway; it would be fewer if you mix some hard and/or deadly ones in there, and more if you mix in some easy and/of trivial.

Surprisingly, the results of the math can vary slightly, depending on method. But all approximate each other well enough that the ballpark is clear. And the DM can and should modify the number of encounters according to taste. We like to zoom thru level 1 and the apprentice tier. But stretch out tiers 5-8 and 9-12.

It can be any kind of encounter with or without XP. And counting encounters functionally is XP, it’s just a less granular XP system.

Yes, exactly, counting encounters is effectively counting xp.

But despite encounter counting being easier and better for noncombat, it is more accurate because whether an encounter turns out to be easy, standard, or hard is decided after the encounter is over.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm sorta amused by all the responses (and the OP) that call XP gamey but then turn around and totally dig on levels. I mean, I get not wanting to deal with XP, it's just the argument that XP is gamey but levels.. aren't?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not just lazy folks who dislike XP. It can have an undesirable effect on how players engage the game. For some, its a matter of preference.

We kinda talked about this in the other game -- if you have XP triggers that are misaligned with what you want from the game, it will be, well, misaligned. Realign your triggers and you'll see better results. It's all about the incentives.

 

[Charlaquin]

Even tho I feel it is better to count encounters for the purposes of players leveling, I still use creature rating as a DM to estimate a level appropriate combat encounter.

I can determine after the fact whether a standard encounter really is standard. If it takes the players a standard amount of effort, it counts as 1 encounter. If it turns out to be trivial, it is only worth 1/2 an encounter. And if it turns out to be difficult, 1 and a 1/2 encounters. An ingeniiius solution might get an extra 1/2 encounter bonus.

Yeah, that definitely works. I still like the greater granularity of XP, but this is a solid alternative.

 

[payn]

We kinda talked about this in the other game -- if you have XP triggers that are misaligned with what you want from the game, it will be, well, misaligned. Realign your triggers and you'll see better results. It's all about the incentives.

For me, it's "for best results, remove XP entirely."

 

[payn]

I'm sorta amused by all the responses (and the OP) that call XP gamey but then turn around and totally dig on levels. I mean, I get not wanting to deal with XP, it's just the argument that XP is gamey but levels.. aren't?

Im cool with jettisoning levels too. They are great for that good ol D&D feeling, but not necessary.