D&D deserves a better XP system

[Wormwood]

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'm a dedicated player, and have been since 1980.

As far back as I can remember, the heart of D&D has always been killing things and taking their stuff.

A quick glance at the old 1e modules will verify this.

While many rolepayers have moved on to different gaming styles with different rewards and challenges, D&D remains essentially true to it's history.

That may explain some of the reaction you have elicited: the feeling that the system isn't broke---so don't fix it.

 

[diaglo]

I'm a dedicated player, and have been since 1980.

As far back as I can remember, the heart of D&D has always been killing things and taking their stuff.

for many, but not all.

A quick glance at the old 1e modules will verify this.

i disagree. a quick glance will show you that the good stuff is held by guys you want as your friends. or those you can't overcome easily. or stuff you won't discover easily. hardly about killing and taking their things.

That may explain some of the reaction you have elicited: the feeling that the system isn't broke---so don't fix it.

i agree the system is in place to have your cake and eat it too. you don't need to fix/castrate it.

 

[Davelozzi]

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?

Sure it's the easiest way, but that doesn't make it the best game design. There have been a number of good systems proposed on these boards, not to mention in other RPGs. For that matter, the XP award rules in 2nd edition were better at encouraging more creative play than the default 3e rules, at least for the groups that I've played with.

 

[Aethelstan]

This discussion of the D&D xp system has raise some interesting issues about the nature of the game and how people percieve it.

I pose this question:

Which sentence best describes D&D.

(A) a tabletop combat game with role-playing elements.

(B) a combat oriented role-playing game.

(C) a role-playing game which allows players to develop and advance their characters through a variety of means, one of them being armed conflict.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Not answering your immediate question, but following up on thoughts of mine from further up the thread...

I think that one of the problem areas (or holes) in the existing D&D system is a means for making skill based contests as meaningful and dynamic as combat is.

Combat involves many attacks, manouevres, degradation of hit points, spells, boosts to offensive or defensive stats etc. 4 rounds of melee can easily last an hour (it did in our game last Sunday!).

By the book there is no comprehensive guidance or support for making skill use as meaningful and dynamic. To take Henrys example... making a peace treaty between two nations - how do you arrange that as a scenario? Is it a single DC35 diplomacy check (I would hope not, but *higher DC's is the only way that core D&D handles increased difficulty* as far as I can see). Now perhaps solving that scenario would need a combination of gather information, diplomacy, bluff, sense motive and knowledge(history) amongst others.... but it still is hampered by the "make or fail a DC check" rule which is standard for most skills. Ideally the system would benefit from some variation or derivation of the craft skill, to enable PC's to "craft" their diplomacy, or research or gathering of information. Those with good skill ranks will complete their objective more quickly, those without will be more slow and with false starts.

You may be thinking "why is Plane going on about this kind of variant? Too complicated! Leave it like it is!".

The reason is this. As a DM I find that I baulk at the idea of giving the PC's full experience for making a single move silently check and bypassing the minotaur, since so much has depended upon the roll of a single die. If skill based solutions to problems involved more interaction and sense of gathering victory/doom then I'd be much happier with it. I have to wonder whether there might be other DM's who feel the same way...

Cheers

(thinks: I wonder if it would be worth turning the above principle into a fully developed article for one magazine or another?)

 

[Angcuru]

I see it this way.

Situation:

Party has to get into a castle surrounded by a bunch of thugs, stop a wedding, kill a count out of vengeance, and quickly escape alive and (hopefully) intact. All in the space of 30 minutes.

Resources:

- A really huge strong guy with not a whole lotta wits.
- A really good swordsman with some wits, but not a whole lot.
- An even better swordsman who in the past whipped both the other guys in their respective fields, but is now paralyzed from the neck down and very slowly recovering. Has a whole lotta wits.
- a wheelbarrow
- a cloak of fire resistance
- a candle
- knowing about a very famous and terrifying raider who leaves no survivors

Plan -
Half-dead smart guy sets an idea for psychological warfare. Big guys stands in wheelbarrow with cloak draped over him, covering wheelbarrow. Gets set on fire. Swordsman wheels him forward towards assembles thugs. Big guys screams that he's the famous raider, and there will be no survivors. Thugs run. Big guy will kill gatekeeper unless he gives them the key. Gatekeeper gives key. Party enters castle. They run into four guards and the count. Swordsman dispatches guards while strong guy holds up smart guy. Swordsman challenges count. Count flees. Swordsman gives chase. Swordsman runs into locked door. Strong guy sets smart guy against wall, breaks down door for swordsman. Swordsman chases down count, gets stabbed a few times, kills count. Smart guy can't stop the wedding (which is a farcity, really, and doesn't count as a marriage), but out-bluffs the groom with his fancy smarts, and escapes with the bride out into the courtyard, where the strong guy has found a horse for each of them. They all escape. The end.

In summation:
Now, from a D&D standpoint. The smart guy was already really good at killing stuff and being smart, but in this case he had to use his smarts. he came up with the plan to scare off the thugs, outwit the groom, and escape with the pretty lady. Smarts-based EXP. Strong guy helped scared off the thugs, helped get the count, and provided escape mounts. All-around EXP, but not that much for smarts. Swordsman helps scare off the thugs, kills a few inept guards, and kills the count. Mostly combat-based EXP, a few for smarts. The tactics and planning group was able to think it through, kill a few guys, accomplish the goal, etc. Fun, yay.


Now, if they had charged in and flailed big arms and sharp swords, they would be slaughtered and not accomplish their objective. End of game. No exp.
The combat-minded group would have had fun killing a few guards, and have good characters to remember, but the game would be over. Time to roll up new characters and start up a new game. Fun, yay.

My idea: have a exp progression for combat & spellcasting, and another for skill use. Success in combat lead to combat exp. Success in skill use adds to skill exp. Follow current leveling guide, but divide it up as you like.

END RESULT : The system works, but If you don't find it to your tastes, use a different system. Or design one for yourself. D&D is a mostly combat game that can also be good for role-playing, if all involved are capable and willing. You want more of a universally role-playing centered game, play with a different system. Exalted is nice.

 

[ciaran00]

The first post makes zero sense. Look at the rewards of gaining a level: ALL combat based. Therefore, combat improves combat abilities. This is perfectly sound.

ciaran

 

[Hypersmurf]

The first post makes zero sense. Look at the rewards of gaining a level: ALL combat based.

Well, not necessarily.

On levelling, someone might gain ranks in Diplomacy, Perform, Profession, and a bunch of Knowledge skills; take Skill Focus: Craft; gain a non-combat-related class ability like Trackless Step or Woodland Stride; learn a new spell like Rope Trick... all without gaining anything in BAB or Saves.

"ALL combat based" is something of an exaggeration.

-Hyp.

 

[eryndel]

A few points:
1) Going over the thread again, my post stands out as one of the more snarky. I apologize for that and will retract at least the tone of the statement. (The example I still feel serves well to describe my point of view.)

2) I still strongly disagree with the thesis statement of the post. I do not feel that the current system for XP awards is inadequate nor does is encourage one single type of play, and thus I don't see a need in a new one. You can come up with a new one if you like, whip it up in a thread title something like, "Here's my new system for XP awards," and shove it in House Rules or something, but the need for a new system still hasn't been proven to me.

The "lack" of story/RP awards in D&D 3.x is an often heard criticism and one, I feel, has the least basis in fact. I'll grant that in 3.0 the story award system felt like it was an afterthought but IMO this really isn't so for 3.5. The system is very vague on what constitutes a challenge, and leaves the determination of what "dealing with an encounter" really entails up to the DM. Thus, it is DM, not the game, that decides how to distribute these awards and thus it is the DM that encourages one type of play over the other. My games really don't have a lot of combat in them and I get by with what is printed in the DMG just fine.

I think why D&D gets this sort of indictment is because they do have a very nice and tidy, formulaic way to determine XP for Traps and Creature Encounters. These things tend to only deal with two variables (CR and Party Level.) However, dealing with other sort of encounters with creatures is a little more vague (I generally give some fraction of the CR - requesting a (CR 16) king to grant you a foef is generally less challenging the defeating him in combat.) These deal with alot of variables. It gets even worse with story awards, where stories vary greatly with different campaigns.

In the end, D&D (3.5) seems to me to have the stance where it comes to XP of "here's some nice pretty table to determine XP for some situations, use this as a guide but really give out what you think is appropriate." If you ask me, this solution appeals to the broadest range of people. Adding more complications will appeal to some while irritating others (for being to railroading). Some people might want to add more details, which the 3.5 system accomodates nicely with the "give what you think is appropriate." Really, more power to you, and I'm certain there are several already in House Rules.

And I still really don't see how the above message encourages a specific sort of game. But maybe it's just me.

YMMV
Werner

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

For PC's, the system seems OK to me. However, Angcuru raises an interesting idea in terms of levelling in regards to certain categories: combat, magic and skills. The following example demonstrates the anomalies in the system as it stands:

A Metalsmith works his entire life producing works of metal. How does he get better (go up in level)?

I suppose you could say that as he produces certain quality items, he gains an XP bonus here and there. However, this would seem a very slow process. He could work for years before hitting 5th level in Expert. Little does he know that he could have short-circuited this regimen of craftwork by purchasing a sword and cutting up infidels. However, if he did do the hard slog of craftwork for numerous years, at the end of that time, he would be quite a bit better at hitting infidels than when he started - almost as good as a warrior of the same level.

I suppose what I'm trying to highlight is that the three categories that Angcuru mentioned: combat, magic and skills would be better seperated in some way rather than heaped together when characters go up levels.

I would be interested in others peoples views of this apparent anomaly.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise