-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D deserves a better XP system
- Thread starter Aethelstan
- Start date
ThoughtBubble
First Post
So, that's what I've been doing wrong all this time?
I'll have to try that next session.
And you know... A Gygaxian relic sounds like a cool item to base a campaign around. "You must collect the Gygaxian relics before it's too late, lest the world fall once more into chaos."
Ok, as far as leveling goes, here's one for you. No leveling. Everyone starts with a static amount of skill, and will only progress minutely as the game continues, expanding themselves through items (Given by NPCs, must be RPed for), blessings (given by NPCs must be RPed for) and plot moments.
What I did for xp was to request a list of everything the player thought that they did that was of some merit, or made the game better. It took a while, initially they were writing things like "critting 2 zombies in a row". But eventually, I got them to realize it was about decisions at the table, and got some things like "Tried really hard to curb my OOC comments" and "I didn't keep complaining about how stuipd our plan was" and "talked the princess out of running away". I also keep a list of notable things. Then, for each event, I assign a certian amount of xp. Typically, the lowest were 5 xp, and each other is worth some multiple of that (how much more is "Making sure the fighter didn't kill himself in the brothel" worth than "I got some pie"?) There were also shared story bonuses.
In one session, a particular character managed to double his xp through having a great session. And it wasn't htat he stole the show, but rather that he tried damn hard, and was always lending a supporting hand.
edit: Now in defense of D&D's leveling system, it is based directly off of the game's prime activites. Dungeoneering and slaying monsters. The fact that the game is able to be useed for so many other things is just a testament to one of two things:
1) The game is a well designed system, flexable enough for use in multiple circumstances
2) When you've got a hammer, every problem's a nail.
You be the judge.
I'll have to try that next session.
And you know... A Gygaxian relic sounds like a cool item to base a campaign around. "You must collect the Gygaxian relics before it's too late, lest the world fall once more into chaos."
Ok, as far as leveling goes, here's one for you. No leveling. Everyone starts with a static amount of skill, and will only progress minutely as the game continues, expanding themselves through items (Given by NPCs, must be RPed for), blessings (given by NPCs must be RPed for) and plot moments.
What I did for xp was to request a list of everything the player thought that they did that was of some merit, or made the game better. It took a while, initially they were writing things like "critting 2 zombies in a row". But eventually, I got them to realize it was about decisions at the table, and got some things like "Tried really hard to curb my OOC comments" and "I didn't keep complaining about how stuipd our plan was" and "talked the princess out of running away". I also keep a list of notable things. Then, for each event, I assign a certian amount of xp. Typically, the lowest were 5 xp, and each other is worth some multiple of that (how much more is "Making sure the fighter didn't kill himself in the brothel" worth than "I got some pie"?) There were also shared story bonuses.
In one session, a particular character managed to double his xp through having a great session. And it wasn't htat he stole the show, but rather that he tried damn hard, and was always lending a supporting hand.
edit: Now in defense of D&D's leveling system, it is based directly off of the game's prime activites. Dungeoneering and slaying monsters. The fact that the game is able to be useed for so many other things is just a testament to one of two things:
1) The game is a well designed system, flexable enough for use in multiple circumstances
2) When you've got a hammer, every problem's a nail.
You be the judge.
Last edited:
Sir Whiskers
First Post
Nightfall said:
Which is why I very carefully said that the rules encourage combat, they don't require it. This has been true since the ODnD days and isn't likely to change anytime soon. Personally, I threw out the standard method of calculating xp's before I ran my first 3E campaign, so I just ignore the DMG on this issue.
Stone Angel
First Post
See at first I thought that this would be a constructive thread. But once again it is a rant. I do not mean to offend but D&D is a game and hobby that I love. If there is a particular aspect of the game that bothers you whether it be role playing xp, high magic, uber npc's good lord just fix it. Or at least make the thread about different ideas so that we can aid you, which I am sure we collectively as a community would be happy to do.
The system that you proposed sounds...sound enough have you play tested it at all? Have you thought how "fast" this levelling system or rather experience system is compared to the normal "gygaxian" system. Or how the two would intertwine per encounter such as the fighter and the rouge need to roughup a certain noblemen for some information but must first overcome the two bodyguards while the bard must run interfearance with potential passerby and perhaps the city watch.
I thoughrouly hope that we didn't come down to hard on you, but some of us are quite happy with the current system and we love Sir Gygax. And your post came off a little rough. Well good luck.
The system that you proposed sounds...sound enough have you play tested it at all? Have you thought how "fast" this levelling system or rather experience system is compared to the normal "gygaxian" system. Or how the two would intertwine per encounter such as the fighter and the rouge need to roughup a certain noblemen for some information but must first overcome the two bodyguards while the bard must run interfearance with potential passerby and perhaps the city watch.
I thoughrouly hope that we didn't come down to hard on you, but some of us are quite happy with the current system and we love Sir Gygax. And your post came off a little rough. Well good luck.
DWARF
First Post
I usually run my games with an openly "non-combat directed" system. I'll let them know that if they can perform whatever mission/quest they have chosen or are appointed to they'll earn X amount of Xp. If they slaughter their way through 1000 orcs and free the princess, X points. if they trade with the orcs and get her free X points. If they sneak in and free her, X points.
Add to this the fact that they also know I'm running a world and not a campaign, and that sometimes a given challenge will be simplistic, and other times impossible for them at that time/level, but I'm not going to handle them and their decisions with safety gloves, tends to keep the combats to a minimum.
Why risk a big battle when it is possible for you to sneak past? Heck, sneaking might be your only option since the combat might be TPK level at that time.
Making sure your players know that the world is a dangerous place and "suitable" combats are never assured; as well as mission based Xp instead of kill based, will bring about a much more dynamic game.
Then, start handing out roleplaying bonuses as well and you'll have a great game set up!
Add to this the fact that they also know I'm running a world and not a campaign, and that sometimes a given challenge will be simplistic, and other times impossible for them at that time/level, but I'm not going to handle them and their decisions with safety gloves, tends to keep the combats to a minimum.
Why risk a big battle when it is possible for you to sneak past? Heck, sneaking might be your only option since the combat might be TPK level at that time.
Making sure your players know that the world is a dangerous place and "suitable" combats are never assured; as well as mission based Xp instead of kill based, will bring about a much more dynamic game.
Then, start handing out roleplaying bonuses as well and you'll have a great game set up!
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
... and the other GD thread merged in as well.
Aethelstan, we'd appreciate it if you'd stick to one thread on the topic.
-Hyp.
(Moderator)
Aethelstan, we'd appreciate it if you'd stick to one thread on the topic.
-Hyp.
(Moderator)
I think it's reasonable that killing things should make you better at killing things, the original justification for the XP system. The problem is that killing things now makes you better at riding horses, basket weaving and all kinds of things unrelated to killing. The purity of the original system has been lost. I would rather like to see an XP system that distinguished between 'power XP' and 'skill XP' - this would work fine for fighters & rogues, but perhaps causes problems with classes like wizards whose killing power is based on knowledge. I guess characters could have a 'Power Level' for combat & spellcasting and a separate 'Skill Level' for skills use.This would allow the creation of eg very skillful NPCs who couldn't fight, or talented youngsters with a lot of power but not much skill yet.
Aethelstan
First Post
After reading some of the replies to my post, I’d like to offer some more comments and clarifications. I have, of course, read the experience section of the 3.5 DMG. Yes, it does allow for xp bonuses for role-playing.
However, these rules are only an optional add-on to the core system which awards xp based solely on the number and power of bad guys bested. In my option, the xp for role-playing rule does not address the underlying problem of the official experience system, namely that playing well often does not earn players any more xp than playing poorly. As long as the monsters are dead and you are alive when the dust settles, you get all the xp. An RPG experience system should reward players for more than racking up a good body count.
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.
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. Want I am proposing is an experience system that would factor in the skill level and quality of game play in all its facets, combat, role-playing, player-driven interaction with the campaign setting, etc. The current system simply does not do that very well. An alternative experience system that was more subjective and less numbers oriented could address the aforementioned shortcomings of the current system. 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.
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.”
However, these rules are only an optional add-on to the core system which awards xp based solely on the number and power of bad guys bested. In my option, the xp for role-playing rule does not address the underlying problem of the official experience system, namely that playing well often does not earn players any more xp than playing poorly. As long as the monsters are dead and you are alive when the dust settles, you get all the xp. An RPG experience system should reward players for more than racking up a good body count.
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.
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. Want I am proposing is an experience system that would factor in the skill level and quality of game play in all its facets, combat, role-playing, player-driven interaction with the campaign setting, etc. The current system simply does not do that very well. An alternative experience system that was more subjective and less numbers oriented could address the aforementioned shortcomings of the current system. 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.
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.”
Similar Threads
