D&D deserves a better XP system

[Plane Sailing]

Edit: Excellent post, BTW, Plane Sailing!

Why thanks!

Aethelstan seems to be a relatively new poster here, and because of the encouragement I recieved when I first arrived posted I like to try and think positive and encourage in return (the degree to which I succeed may be another matter... )

Cheers

 

[Henry]

Oh, come on, guys. The man has a point, as Plane Sailing's post notes. D&D's XP system is built around overcoming challenges: "Challenges" being shorthand for monsters and traps. While it is possible to award role-playing or story XP, the system doesn't make it easy to do so in a balanced manner; paradoxically enough, the 3e XP guidelines, which are the most comprehensive to date, actually raise an objection to RP or story XP by noting that such XP awards distort the encounters-per-level-gain system established using challenge XP.

Actually, in my opinion it's a VERY good way to award things; I liken it to "doing it the easy way, or doing it the HARD way." The XP for overcoming a problem with diplomacy should be equal to the XP gained if they had to fight the forces arrayed against them should they fight. Even if the situation can ONLY be solved with diplomacy, the fight immediately avoided will provide a suggestion of the amount of XP received.

For the same reason, low-level PC's should not be out solving insurmountable challenges (stopping wars, making peace treaties between rival nations, etc.) Succeeding in insurmountable odds should have HIGH multiple DC diplomacy rolls, influenced by good or poor roleplay, and in the end will net boatloads of XP, similar to fighting a large battle and winning.

Aethelstan: You may wish to use the system I've been using since 1e. When designing an adventure, simply figure out the XP award that PCs will receive for each trap, monster, and other direct "challenge" they face, add those awards together, then divide in half. One-half normal XP will be awarded for each challenge overcome; the remaining half goes into a pool from which story and RP XP will be apportioned. (Try to restrict individual RP awards, though, as they distort the distribution of PCs' levels within a given party.)

A very good suggestion, especially since I myself find the by-the-book XP too fast for dedicated gamers who look at their D&D as a "building" experience and long-term goal; the default XP awards however are just fine for the majority of casual gamers who might game once a week or biweekly or even monthly, and want fast levelling because they don't play as often.

Ironically, all the fussing and debate I've seen about XP awards, and our group has only made above 11th level ONE time. Our games seem to fall just as quickly as they used to, before someone comes up with other campaign ideas or we take an extended break.

 

[DrZombie]

I can honestly and proudly say that in all my years of gamesmastering, be it D&D, AD&D, AD&D 3e, Rolemaster, whatever I have never, ever tried to figure out the XP-calculating system, because of too much headache and never enough time.

My solution : let the players write down evry significant thing they do, wich monsters they kill what skills they effectively use, and what they liked and disliked about the game. Solemnly collect them. Next game, hand out XP.

Never, ever give straight number XP's (500, 1000), allways give broken numbers. (512, 327.5)

The write-downs of the players make excellent souvenirs, i still got them all. I just give xp to level 'em just after each big encounter, and give each player a bit more in a different session, so that they all level up in approximately the same session. Simple, and my players don't complain.

The thing about awarding players for smart roleplaying : if they play smart, they live. Overly dumb characters don't survive, if they don't listen to the smarter characters, as in real life.

Recently we tried something new : I gave the group XP, and they're allowed to divide it themselves. Restrictions are that noone can be +2 lvls to anyone else. This is turning into a nice experiment,and the group discussions as to why someone should level first are quite entertaining. The big problem atm is spending xp for scrolls and such, but they spend it by using "leftover xp". This way evry session someone levels, and I think it brings 'em together as a group.

Have fun,

 

[Remathilis]

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. Onbattle 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 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 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. [...]

Okay, define "thoughtful preparations". Do both groups know about the mummies? How? Did one ask the local population about them? Did they use gather information and knowledge: religion to discern their foes and thus prepare for thier weaknesses? What if group B didn't have necessary ranks in those skills? What if the PCs botch thier skill roles and don't learn about the mummies in time?

What if group B lacks a rogue or suitable sneaky character? What if he fails his sneak roles? What if the cleric prepare Find Traps and not Detect Undead? What if they lack a cleric to turn the mummies or heal the mummy rot? What if the fighter rolls like poop and the mummy crits him twice? What if the wizard casts all his offensive spells to cover the fighter's retreat and then runs out of spells and ends up nose to rotting-nose with a mummy? What if he memorized charm person (for interogation) instead of magic missile? What if the rogue goes to set up flank and gets dropped?

What if party B consists of a ranger (FE: orcs), an enchanter, a druid and a bard, while party A is a fighter (tank), evoker, cleric (sun and good), and rogue?

What if the reverse was true? Party A's sound tactics fall to poor rolls and the mummies get lucky criticals, while party B takes them out with a direct approach hack and slash with heavy artilery spells and wins in one or two rounds?

The D&D XP system is designed to cover the essential randomness of combat by rewarding everyone mostly equally. Even the best laid plans fail, and the worst plans have remarkable success. The reverse ALSO holds true, but entering every dungeon/situation like SWAT members requires a certain type of player, group and mindset. Don't hate D&D's XP system for the fact your players are better lucky than good.

Lastly, set up encounters that require brainpower, such a traps, puzzles, hostage scenarios, difficult terrain, or multiple simutaneous objectives. Reward PCs for these, not the orcs/mummies/whatever set up as distractions. A few dead hostages later, they'll wise up and change their tactics.

 

[Remathilis]

Burp. Double Post

 

[Davelozzi]

I agree with ruleslawyer and Plane Sailing. Folks are being unnecessarily harsh on Aethalstan. We all know about rule zero, and most of us are aware of the story awards section of the DMG. But as he points out, these are thrown in there as an afterthought, and the recomendations are generally for minimal awards. The core system does emphasize killing over anything else, if for no other reason than because it's the most straightforward way of getting the XP. Sure your DM may give you XP for other solutions but it's generally more subjective.

That said, I think there are advantages to the straightforward core system, mainly being that it's not subjective and therefore good for a wide range of groups, and especially for RPGA and other sanctioned tournament events where fairness is paramount and there's not one DM in charge of the whole campaign to make sure that things even out.

In my game, I have definately noticed an improvement in the play since we abandoned the core XP system. My game was very hack and slash for quite a while, despite my attempts to interject other kinds of play, and when I asked my players why they thought this so, the main answer was that they felt like if they weren't fighting they were wasting time not earning XP.

Aethalstan, in my opinion, this thread has gone beyond the point where you're likely to get a lot of good variant XPs as it's already become three pages of what's better. You'll have more luck getting such systems in a thread that asks for the ideas without criticizing the current rules, as that will rightfully make people reactive and defensive.

My system was cobbled together from a combination of past experience and ideas from other board members when similar threads have come up in the past. Basically, I award XP based on a variety of categories, some general like "combat, magic, or roleplay", and some that vary depending on the character involved. Email me if you'd like more info.

 

[Aethelstan]

Thanks to some of the recent posters who have been more open to the idea of making D&D's xp system more subjective and performance based. I confess I've been a bit put off by the testiness and/or condescending tone of some of the replies. My original post was designed to provoke thought and discussion. it was not intended as a bash or rant. I'm not out to "get" Gygax or D&D. My point is this: The standard D&D xp system rewards "defeating" foes, nine times out of ten this means killing them. To a novice gamer learning the D&D rules this conveys the message that D&D is a game where you earn "points" by killing. Thus how do you "win" at D&D? By killing. [if you like hack & slash, stop reading now] Again, I'm not anti-killing. It's fun and, as we all know, some guys just need to die. My concern is that the standard xp system gives the unmistakable impression (to impressionable newbies) that killing its the engine that drives the D&D experience. This has contributed to a "Diablo"-like mindset (i.e. kill, kill, level...) within the D&D community, particularly among newbies and younger gamers. At its heart D&D is not - or at least shouldn't be - a game about killing things.
I think most dedicated players would agree. I return to my original assertion. Why does D&D have a experience system that rewards killing above all other player actions? Role-playing and playing the game well (there's that dreaded "subjectivity" again) are given only token (or no)consideration. A more balanced xp ststem would make it clear to those entering the game that D&D is much more than a slaughter contest. Feel free to disagree with me, but please, don't be snide about it.

 

[Pants]

I agree with ruleslawyer and Plane Sailing. Folks are being unnecessarily harsh on Aethalstan. We all know about rule zero, and most of us are aware of the story awards section of the DMG. But as he points out, these are thrown in there as an afterthought, and the recomendations are generally for minimal awards. The core system does emphasize killing over anything else, if for no other reason than because it's the most straightforward way of getting the XP. Sure your DM may give you XP for other solutions but it's generally more subjective.

Or maybe because it's the easiest way to objectively define a challenge. It's hard to create objective rules for such a thing as roleplaying encounters. What are the guidelines for such a system?

 

[Aethelstan]

Avatar test

 

[pogre]

Feel free to disagree with me, but please, don't be snide about it.

You know, I do not think folks have really been snide about anything.

I agree the xp system as it stands encourages killing things. That's a bad thing for your game. You have received a lot of suggestions on how to alter the system to make your game better. I like to reward alternative play and I have built in story awards, but that does not make my game better than someone else's. It makes a better game for me and my group. That's really your task - how to change your game into a more satisfying experience, not how to change the rules for everyone.

I disagree that rewarding killing things as a goal is a bad thing for newbies. I would argue in fact that is usually the best way to hook people - give them lots of action including lots of combat and loot. Most players move past this and appreciate other aspects of the game - but the dungeon delving, door smashing, monster killing, heavy looting of D&D is what draws a lot of people to the game.

and that's ok...