D&D deserves a better XP system

[Geoff Watson]

If my idea of a more subjective, merit-based experience system doesn't appeal, what is it about the standard system that does?

People often don't like subjective systems, since it often turns into 'guess what the DM wants', or the DM plays favourites.
Also, what the Dm thinks may be 'bad tactics', the players thinks is 'good roleplaying' (eg playing a reckless character), or vice versa.

Geoff.

 

[Nightfall]

Agreed Geoff. Subjectivity is something that just makes for no fun for everyone.

Btw I also agree with Numion. I had more I wanted to write but the boards died...and there you go.

 

[Haradim]

Players who continually gain no xp advantage from playing intelligently will be less inclined to put forth the extra effort.

Demanding an advantage due to a certain playstyle would not go over well in most groups anyway.

Slackers who receive no xp penalities for playing stupidly will continue to do so.

If they defeat the encounter, they defeat the encounter *shrug* I don't care how smooth or sloppy it is, as a GM; they either survive and we move on, or they get defeated, and probably get killed.

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.

Most people don't respond well to such elitist standards. And most likely, I wager most DMs would do away with such incentives quite quickly, even if only to keep everyone at the same power level (as it becomes a pain to make adventures for mixed-power parties).

If my idea of a more subjective, merit-based experience system doesn't appeal, what is it about the standard system that does?

It works. That's all that matters. It is also fair to all players, many of whom are not (nor ever will be, nor *want* to be) your ideal of what players should be like.

 

[swrushing]

The standard D&D xp system rewards killing, not savvy gaming or good role-playing. Groups can play ineptly but as long as they don't die, they reap the full xp reward. This encourages players to view D&D as a tabletop version of Diablo (kill, kill, level…kill, kill, level...) In fact, the xp system punishes players who can think or talk their way out of pointless or avoidable conflicts.

This is, of course, incorrect.

As of 3.0 the criteria for earning experience switched from killing the monsters to overcoming the challenge.

Accomplishing the goal thru subterfuge and guile is just as rewarding in terms of Xp as doing it by brute force. if you look beyond just XP as the reward, then it may even be better to succeed by guile as you probably have less resources expended.

Can a game be run where all the solutions are simple brute force applications? Sure. A Gm can CHOOSE to make that the focus of his games and provide challenges which lend themselves to those approaches. However, a Gm can do it differently and make the "best choices" negotiation, subterfuge or guile based. i deally, if he is a marginally competent GM, whatever the "best solutions" are will be ones which coincide with the characters, their personality and ability, so that good roleplaying goes hand in hand with success.

All that said, I still see the use of XP thenselves as sort of an unnecessary middleman. 13-15 successful encounters/challenges is the behind the scenes level up benchmark, so it seems to me to be unnedded to convert successful encounters to Xp and then XP to leveling up by means of the table... just count encounters.

In my games, one DnD which wrapped up after three years and the stargate game i run now, leveling up occurs on a real world calendar... after three months of three sessions a month, you level up for stargate. In my DND game it was every two months more or less... levels 2-165 in just under three years.

No one balked at all at not having to track XP.

 

[Piratecat]

Aethalstan, one recommendation: please put hard carriage returns between every one of your paragraphs. It makes text on the computer screen much easier to read.

Thanks!

 

[swrushing]

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 my experience this is simply untrue.

In play the biggest reward for intelligent play and the biggest penalties for stupid play are the RESULTS of those actions. Intelligent play results in less loss or expense and more successful results IN PLAY.

Thst, in and of itself, has proven to be sufficient reason for players to strive for that level of play in every game i have ever ran or played in. I have never seen a player express an interest in or act in play stupidly just because he wont get XP for playing smartly.

have you really seen this occur? Have you truely seen players deliberately choose to play stupid because they wont get extra Xp for playing smartly?

I doubt it, but maybe so.

of course, there is one other aspect to this whole smart or stupid issue... that is the character. I have on occasions played character who were not as bright or savvy as i am or who have differenyt motivations. Playing the character might well mean playing less tactically astute than i would normally choose. i would really hate for a Gm of mine to put me in the situation where playing my character the way his nature would lead me to play him costs me XPs because it did not measure up to his standard of smart play.

To me, the ideal game wont let XP be dependent on character actions at all. As soon as you start saying "this type of choice is worth less Xp than that type of choice" you are getting in the way of running the character. You are trying to make the Xp system encourage certain styles of play, certain choices, and unless you have a very narrow set of "allowed PC character types" its likely someone at some point will be put in the "play character my way, not your way, or lose XP." An "out of game" consideration, how much XP, interferes with "in game" decisions and choices.

Thats why i just level everyone up after so many sessions (three months real time) and thus the "encouragement" and "rewards" and results for choices remain all in game. Success reaps its own reward IN GAME. failure sees is its own deterrent IN GAME.

If you want to encourage your players to roleplay their characters, design scenarios where those character traits are relevent and make a difference IN GAME. Don't try and bribe/extort them with outside of the game sticks and carrots.

If you want your players to play smartly and not always rely on brute force, provide them with challenges where those types of things produce real in game rewards and losses. Don't try and bribe/extort them with outside of the game sticks and carrots.

 

[swrushing]

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? Just muddle through and kill things, you’ll level up just as fast regardless.

this is VERy fair to group A.

group A ends the events in much better state than group B. Group B is badly mauled and probably, if my experience tells me anything, expended a lot more expendable resources.

The reward for group A is being safer, in better health and with less loss. They can continue on the followup immediately. Group b's downside is the loss of gear and not being in a state ready to go further. They must rest and even then have less stuff with which to press forward.

I cannot imagine two actual groups of players looking at their two relative groups and going "unfair" at all there. The differences are clear and the reason why playing smartly is a reward is obvious.

Now, if the Gms's scenarios end there, and suddenly they all trek back to the city all safely and have unlimited time to heal up and he never has scenarios that continue on, then HE HAS CHOSEN to not have the brute force guys see all of the downsides of their choices and he himself is causing what may well be seen as an imbalance. On occasion, he probably needs to have scenarios where the party does not have enough brute force to get thru and succeed. if he always throws challnges that can be met by brute force and little else and succeed, its HIM not the Xp system, thats telling hs players to play that way.

Maybe, just maybe, some of your strong perceptions on this stem from your own local grpoups playing styles?

 

[Nightfall]

Aethalstan, one recommendation: please put hard carriage returns between every one of your paragraphs. It makes text on the computer screen much easier to read.

Thanks!

Yeah well some how I don't see it happening just yet PC. But we can hope.

Btw swrushing, some very good points! I had something like that in a previous thread in mind...but then the whole SWOOSH with the messageboards...and I'm back trying to think exactly what it was I wrote...

Other than I think I like Numion's point and that in the case of people experiencing hardships learn more, it is true. You take a person of wealth and influence, drop him/her in the Saraha with another guy that's live there all his life. Who is going to survive? Thus just because it seems that we favor combat, there's a reason for it. This doesn't mean the other guy is useless just not as useful AND having a system that favors them only makes for more disgruntled players in the long run.

Maybe, just maybe, some of your strong perceptions on this stem from your own local grpoups playing styles?

I agree.

 

[eryndel]

I'm actually sick and tired of how D&D actually rewards diplomatic solutions to encounters over sheer brutality. I mean, imagine our intrepid party armed to the teeth wanders down the hall and encounters 6 hobgoblins. In the good old days, that would be a few rounds of combat, 210xp, and 6 bodies for the dungeon's janitorial staff to clean up later. But now, the 3.5 DMG (pp 36-37) is all about vague terms like "defeating an encounter" or "overcoming a challenge." Now, the party can bring out the bard to regale them, talk to them, and, even befriend them. Now a party can reap in the XP for "overcoming the challenge" without even breaking into the wand of cure light and might even walk away with a few allies in the process.

What happened to the body count????

Man, now I've failed my wisdom check.

(as an aside, this is how my wife used to roleplay [1st edition] as a kid. Her mom would run a dungeon crawl, and she'd befriend all the monsters. They even team up, and the whole lot would clear out the dungeon. Mom had a tough time giving her good challenges after a while. )

Werner

 

[Nightfall]

Werner,

You wanna a body count, just come over to my games.