Story Awards
I use straight objective based xp....the CR system in imho too easy and to fast.
For the subject at hand….In years gone by, it took weeks if not years of play to advance characters to the point that they were higher on the food chain than a troll. At 10 experience points per orc, and 5 experience points per goblin, you had to kill one hell of a lot of them for Joe Platemail III, the veteran (level 1) fighter to advance to Joe Platemail III the warrior (level 2) fighter. Then it took twice as much experience to even get that level, and the geometric progression (rather than simply needing 1000 more xp than the previous level’s goal), made it even harder to progress to 3rd, 4th, 5th level, and beyond.
The bottom line is this…In previous editions of D&D, a fighter (assuming he did nothing else) would have to kill 200 orcs to advance from level 1 to level 2. In 3E, the same fighter needs only 7 (assuming an EL ½ for an orc) kills to gain that coveted extra d10 hit points and +1 to hit. 200 to 7. Only 3.5% of the previously required fights are needed to advance to 2nd level. Wow. I understand that 3E monsters are tougher than their previous edition counterparts, but then again, so are PCs. Even in role-playing based, combat poor games, advancement is far too easy. To progress from level 2-4 is even scarier…only 42 orcs are required for Joe to be a level 4 Fighter! Compare this with the 800 orcs needed in older editions! Joe is definitely happy he traded his way up to 3E! As a DM, I am not so happy.
I believe a great deal of player education occurs in the lower levels of power. Players learn how to use their wits, they learn how to avoid death, they learn how to run and most of all, they learn that experience teaches lessons…lessons that are invaluable invaluable at higher levels. Imagine taking on Tomb of Horrors after only 14 playing sessions!
In my TT group, the players get a great deal more xp from finding the lost city and exploring it than from fighting the hill giant that is in the first ruined building. Not that I shirk from combat (I am pretty old-school hack, actually). My players advance from being clever and creating innovative solutions more than anything else. They also get most of their xp from finishing adventures, epic end-games, and exploring (I play Wilderlands of course) new regions. Advancement tends to occur after 6-7 playing sessions (just like it did in 1E).
So what solution do I offer, do you ask? I myself have not really found one that is perfect to date, but, gentle reader (to coin a phrase), I do have several ideas. Three options I have been looking into are as follows:
Option 1—award experience as usual, but at 10% of the regular rate
Option 2—reinstate the geometric experience tables from 2E (2000 gets level 2, 4000 gets level 3, 8000 gets level 4, 16, 32, 64….etc)
Option 3—delete the whole EL/CR section from the game and apply story awards as means of advancement only
Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. I am sure our readership will come up with many I have missed, but here are what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of each.
Option 1—Advantages; slows advancement a great deal while still retaining a faster advancement rate than older editions (70 orcs vs. 200 in 2E), Disadvantages; The DM will be accused of being “unfair” and breaking the “rules”. This one really pisses players off.
Option 2—Advantages; low levels still progress rapidly, but not nearly as fast as 3E standard. Since all classes are essentially balanced, 2000 xp as a basis for the advancement range seems fair, the DM awards xp “out of the rulebook”. Disadvantages; again, accusations of “being too hard” or “unfair” could run rampant with disgruntled players.
Option 3—Advantages; its in the rule book, advancement can be gained at the DM’s discretion, when the DM thinks the players are ready, the focus is on the story rather than on the mechanics of the game. Disadvantages; arbitrary, no set standard, may be at the DM’s mood, not actual play. You really need to give xp at the start of each session so you can fairly evaluate what they did the previous week w/ out what I refer to as "adrenaline bias".
Anyway, those are my thoughts.