D&D deserves a better XP system

[Silveras]

Translation: You didn't read my mind, so sucked in!

You only need one offensive character to screw up a negotiation, and unless the clues are really obvious, one of the players might miss it. And clues/puzzles seem simple when you already know the answer.

Geoff.

To quote a recent response from an 18+ year veteran player in my world: "D&D should be like comic books... lots of combat and light on the thinking in between."

I folded up that campaign shortly thereafter.

What it illustrates, though, is that no matter the style of the DM or the rules, some people want a game where the direct hack-n-slash method works. There is little or nothing you can do to change that.

AD&D 2nd Edition also emphasized role-playing and "overcome the obstacle" instead of "kill the obstacle" for xp. I have long given xp for non-combat solutions to the obstacles; and my players have long expressed a desire to kill things anyway. Things went well for the most part, until the more story-oriented players left my group. I could not make myself DM for the primarily combat-oriented players anymore, and folded the campaign. My point, though, is that the rules are not the source of that problem.

 

[Psion]

Out of interest (and since I don't have any books with me at present), what does this look like, how does your derived method work out?

It varies a bit game-by-game, but I use either

50 xp x APL per hour of play or
75 xp x APL^.5 per hour of play

APL = Average party level
(The hourly method in the DMG is 75 xp x APL per hour, but I like things a bit slower.)

Then, I add 0-100% for anything I feel like adding for - clever play, roleplaying, entertaining the group, difficult scenario, accomplishing adventure goals being typical things I give bonuses for.

 

[Liolel]

First of all I do not think that this thread is a troll, and I agree that some people are being far to harsh.

Now my opinion is that every system has it flaws and if it really doesn't work for you, then you can houserule it. I might not agree but its your game.

But think of your players before hand think of if they will enjoy whatever system you might come up with. Think if they are the type to abuse it.

A daily xp system might find the players taking a huge amount of downtime to abuse the system. But a different group might go on adventuring like normal and only take downtime when neccessary.

No one likes all systems and any system can be abused. If you keep those in mind any changes you make should work fine.

 

[francisca]

Some people have hit around the following point, but here goes my take.

Exactly how is a game designer supposed to build an objective, scalable system to reward such a subjective aspect of the game as "good skill use" or good roleplaying? With such variance in player and DM styles even within a single setting, how is a game designer supposed to intuit what a proper XP reward should be for using skills and roleplay? Seems to me the enterprise would be doomed to failure.

I mean really, should Monte have written several pages of text and charts which spell out how much XP to award to a player for using bluff to extract information from the barkeep?

In my opinion, telling the DM that it is OK to award XP based on such things is about as good as it can get. I don't want a chart which lists skill ranks on one axis and task ratings on another and cross-references XP. Can you imaging the hand wringing and bickering about how they botched it, because it doesn't work in "your" campaign?

I say the way the way it is now is a pretty good attempt. Quantify what can be quantified, give some suggestion for rewarding tough-to-quantify actions, and let the DM do his job. If you don't like it, change it or find a system which better suits your style of play (or write you own OGL supplement to handle what you want to do in an OGL/d20 system).

 

[Aethelstan]

Thanks to all those who spoke up in support of open, and non-confrontational, debate. There are a number of interesting and well-argued posts I'd like to respond but, alas, I don't have the time. Hope to post again soon. Aethelstan

 

[Nightfall]

Sagiciously I advise much thought in such matters.

 

[Aethelstan]

I just wanted to respon

 

[Conaill]

Exactly how is a game designer supposed to build an objective, scalable system to reward such a subjective aspect of the game as "good skill use" or good roleplaying? With such variance in player and DM styles even within a single setting, how is a game designer supposed to intuit what a proper XP reward should be for using skills and roleplay? Seems to me the enterprise would be doomed to failure.

I mean really, should Monte have written several pages of text and charts which spell out how much XP to award to a player for using bluff to extract information from the barkeep?

In my opinion, telling the DM that it is OK to award XP based on such things is about as good as it can get. I don't want a chart which lists skill ranks on one axis and task ratings on another and cross-references XP.

Hear, hear!

And for exactly the same reasons, I don't want a chart which lists CR on one axis, and cross-references XP.

Seriously, I really, really dislike the XP-for-killing-stuff attitude that is still pervasive in D&D. Yeah, it's "overcoming encounters" now, but everyone knows that's just a euphemism for killing critters and sucking out their XP glands.

My solution? Figure out how fast you want the party to level up on average. Adjust up or down depending on how well you judge the session went. Voila... should take all of 10 seconds.