D&D deserves a better XP system

[Olive]

p.s I apologize for the multiple posts. They were the results of browser problems and my inexperience with these boards. It was a mistake, not an attempt to “troll.”

Don't worry about that. When the server gets slow all kinds of crazy happens. Check out today's multiple threads on the front page!

 

[Haradim]

The next day, group B simply marches into the crypt without a plan or clue and are promptly ambushed by the mummies. They fight poorly and fail to use their spells and abilities effectively. As a result they are badly mauled but still manage to kill all the mummies.

The bold is the important thing.

How they got there is not terribly important.

Is this fair to group A?

Only if they are competing with the other group.

Which is probably a far more 'wrong' way to play the game than going hack and slash.

A system that valued the quality of play over quantity of kills would encourage more players to raise above the level of simple hack and slash.

No it wouldn't. People will play as they want to play. DMs will generally accomodate them, or find they have no players. I know this from first-hand experience. You can't force players into a new playstyle.

[EDIT: It should be noted again that 'smarter play' only works if the DM sets up the encounter to accomodate that. Many DMs, even long-time experienced DMs, aren't always looking for anything more complex than 'mummies meet PCs - battle ensues. Winner takes all.']

 

[Turjan]

A system that valued the quality of play over quantity of kills would encourage more players to raise above the level of simple hack and slash. Once players realized that thoughtful game play resulted in faster leveling, I believe the overall quality of play would improve.

Rule Zero . That's an official rule. You can dish out XP for whatever you want. You just have to be careful to keep the money level in the right range. Therefore, in your example, you could give the strategic group a XP bonus. On the other hand, I think the group that hardly survived had some more expenses. They might have lost some equipment during the harder fight.

That was the GM's perspective. Then there is the players' perspective. If they want hack'n'slash, they will do it that way and enjoy themselves. If they are fond of strategic approaches, they will enjoy when they succeed with their goals in the way you described. In the end, both groups will be happy. There is no direct competition between the two of them, and as lohg as everybody is happy, the game has achieved its goal .

And don't give such a weight to XP; D&D 3.x hands out XP fast enough. No need to speed that up .

 

[Geoff Watson]

A system that valued the quality of play over quantity of kills would encourage more players to raise above the level of simple hack and slash. Once players realized that thoughtful game play resulted in faster leveling, I believe the overall quality of play would improve.

Define 'quality of play'.

If it's just 'what Aethelstan likes' what's the point? You run your game the way you want.

Good tactics mean that the characters lose fewer resources in fighting them.
Do they need a bigger reward as well?

Geoff.

 

[Cyrik Skylark]

Define 'quality of play'.

Good tactics mean that the characters lose fewer resources in fighting them.
Do they need a bigger reward as well?

Geoff.

This is really the key point, the whole reason you use good tactics. Sure, the XP is the same, but group A wouldn't have to trek back to town, find an inn, rest up for the night, blow all their spell slots on healing, and then come back to the dungeon. Group A could simply lick their wounds and descend into the dungeon... so that by the time Group B shows up, the entire dungeon is cleared out. That's the reward for good tactics. You get the same XP with a lot less risk.

 

[Numion]

When the two groups next meet, the DM awards xp as prescribed by the D&D rules. Each group killed five mummies so each group gets exactly the same xp.
Is this fair to group A? They played the game far more skillfully than the slackers of group B, yet still get the same xp. What do both groups learn for this?

I don't know about your reasoning. Consider a RL event: Blackhawk Down.

If the operation had gone through as planned, there would've been no trouble, a quick in and out mission with no casualties. Objective reached (getting the clan leaders in custody).

In reality the mission was botched. Objective was eventually met, but with serious fighting and casualties.

So, the objective was met in both scenarios. Are you saying that the soldiers learned more from scenario A where it went without a hitch? I think it's exactly the reverse. Soldier learned a hell lot of more the way it actually went down, even though they made several mistakes.

Remember, you got to make mistakes in order to learn from them

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

First off, I like that D&D has levels. My problem is that the current system over values the kill and doesn't allow consideration of how skillfully the players handled the combat. Did they stumble into a trap they could have easily avoided, did the wizards brilliant use of just the right spells save the day? How well the players fight should factor into level rewards and the current system does allow that.
Also, I'm not anti-killing. Combat is a great part of the D&D experience.
But the current system encourages killing for its own sake. Players often think that if they're not killing something they're not making "progress."

Even in a killing-centric campaign, most DMs see ineptitude as its own penalty. The "cost" is that many of the PCs were one crit away from death, they had to drink the potions they were saving for an emergency, the wizard burned two scrolls, etc. There is no necessity to nickel and dime the players; their PCs will pay in spades if they have sloppy habits in the long run.

The penalties become even larger if you get away from classic dungeon-crawls-waiting-to-be-conquered and get into broader pictured stories with inherent timelines. Then you can't just march back to the inn and spend two leisurely days healing up.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So, the objective was met in both scenarios. Are you saying that the soldiers learned more from scenario A where it went without a hitch? I think it's exactly the reverse. Soldier learned a hell lot of more the way it actually went down, even though they made several mistakes.

Remember, you got to make mistakes in order to learn from them

It is actually a very good point. In real life, you are much more likely to learn important lessons from failures than successes.

In game, I do not like to see good play penalized, therefore I accept that bad play should not usually be rewarded.

 

[Majere]

OK let ME write a little scenario for YOU :

"Let me set up a scenario which illustrates my point. A DM runs a campaign for two groups of players of with characters of equal level. On different game days, each group is tasked with exploring a crypt guarded by mummies in order to find an entrance to a dungeon below it. Group A makes thoughtful preparations before entering the crypt and explores it cautiously. By scouting ahead, group A avoids an ambush set by the mummies and is thus able to battle them on more favorable terms. By uses sound combat tactics and thoughtful use of their spells and abilities, group A defeats the mummies handily, receiving only minor wounds. The next day, group B simply marches into the crypt without a plan or clue and are promptly ambushed by the mummies. They fight poorly and fail to use their spells and abilities effectively. As a result they are badly mauled but still manage to kill all the mummies. When the two groups next meet, the DM awards xp as prescribed by the D&D rules. Each group killed five mummies so each group gets exactly the same xp.
Only the group was followed in by an NPC party who now ambush the party on the way out to steal the minor atrifact they recovered. Party A ever professional spot the ambushers in time and being almost at full strength blow off the thieves who expected much weaker opposition. Party B died like dogs."

I see two problems with your arguments about leveling, well no 3:
1) Your not complaining about leveling your complaining about EXP awards.
2) The DMG specifically states EXP awards are for DEFEATING a situation, not for killing/disarming.
3) The DMG already covers Ad-Hoc EXP awards, but by the definition of being Ad-Hoc its clearly going to be a much fuzzier system.

Adressing number 2)
I have been through several long sessions where not a single dice was rolled, as it happened a character had be ploded to various planes and we had to negotiate a true ressurection for him. We got a very large EXP award for this, we defeated the problem, through inginuity and roleplaying.
That said a solution is a solution. If I choose to get around the pit trap by laying a plank across it how is that any better or worse than flying over it or disarming it ? If I get past the gaurd by killing him under silence how is that better or worse than assassinating him when he sleeps ? Good plans, like I showed above, are rewards in themselves, You have a greater chance to survive, you use less resources and generally do a better job. Sure party B might have got away with the zombies, but in the end their blundering got them killed. Parties who play badly dont need awarding less EXP, they will just die more if you are setting them appropriate challenges.
As It happens our group pretty much always now involves campeigns where all combats are long protracted and well abouve our AGL because we are veryvery strong tactically and if the DM didnt throw bigger mobs at us there would be no challenge. Conversely if we dont play well we die alot

As for non combat EXP, well that is clearly exp combat only groups arent going to earn. It is the DM's responsibility to make time well spent roleplaying as rewarding as time well spent dungeoning. If your DM cant cope with awarding EXP in this way its his fault and not the fault of the system

 

[Aethelstan]

Numion, you seem to be implying that players who act stupidly and thus end up nearly dying should get more xp than players who act wisely and soundly whip their foes. Is that your view? Also, I'm looking at the experience issue form the player level (i.e. real people) as opposed to their characters (i.e. imaginary people). Players who continually gain no xp advantage from playing intelligently will be less inclined to put forth the extra effort. Slackers who receive no xp penalities for playing stupidly will continue to do so.
In response to other replies, I'm a bit puzzled by the stiff resistance to the notion of including performance incentives into the D&D xp system. Why is the standard count bodies, crunch numbers system so appealing? Is it because it's been the "offical" system for three and half versions of D&D? Do people like the objectivity of it or do some of you just like math? This isn't a criticism, I'm just curious. If my idea of a more subjective, merit-based experience system doesn't appeal, what is it about the standard system that does?