D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

[Lanefan]

How do you quantify those steps is the trouble I am having with that, I guess. It feels arbitrary, and I am looking for something procedural and concrete.

Another, perhaps more out-there, option might be to try basing xp rewards on degree of individual risk taken, in whatever situations may occur.

So, for a combat where the fighter stands in and gets her face pounded while the wizard sits back and safely casts spells, the fighter gets more xp than the wizard. Where the thief takes risk disarming a trap, only the thief gets xp. Where the whole group is at about equal risk, equal xp for all.

The specific intent here is to encourage risk-taking - quite literally making the game a high-risk high-reward proposition.

A corollary here might be that you have to go 1e and vary the advancement charts by class if you find in general that some classes (e.g. Clerics) simply don't get exposed to as much risk as others.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Another, perhaps more out-there, option might be to try basing xp rewards on degree of individual risk taken, in whatever situations may occur.

So, for a combat where the fighter stands in and gets her face pounded while the wizard sits back and safely casts spells, the fighter gets more xp than the wizard. Where the thief takes risk disarming a trap, only the thief gets xp. Where the whole group is at about equal risk, equal xp for all.

The specific intent here is to encourage risk-taking - quite literally making the game a high-risk high-reward proposition.

While I wholeheartedly applaud the intent, I question the practicability of implementation.

This sounds like one of those ideas I have that sounds great away from the table, but which I completely forget about when busy adjudicating combat and trying to remember the monster's reactions.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I am running Rime of the Frostmaiden right now and the "sandbox with milestones" format does not work at all, in my opinion. It completely undermines the point of a sandbox and is presented, I think, to try and create a CRPG like structure for potential replayability. Or, at least, that's the only reason I can imagine someone doing it that way. In any case, there is no reason NOT to just use XP since that would reward the PCs for what they actually choose to do.

I feel the same way about Out of the Abyss. I decided to use chapter-based milestones, and it completely abolishes any reason to explore anything at all.

 

[Lanefan]

The best solution is XP for achievements. It’s like milestone but more granular and down to the players.

Award a set amount of XP per session for participation... taking action is an experience in and of itself, regardless of success or failure.

Award XP for achievements. As you see fit. As small or large as you want.

Ask players for short term goals (a few sessions) and long term goals (perhaps would take a whole tier of play) and award large XP based on these.

Set the XP gains at the rate of advancement you want

Awarding XP based in kills is barmy and is best left to CRPG like Baldurs gate. Though to be honest I’m not sure XP based on treasure is reinforcing any better behaviours.

What I don't see there is anything that rewards individual characters for what they actually do. Where's the reward advantage for the character who gets involved in everythng over the character who doesn't?

Having all xp be party-based vastly over-rewards individual risk aversion, leading to very conservative play and a lot of "You first" "No, after you" standoffs as there's no reward for being bold.

 

[Reynard]

I feel the same way about Out of the Abyss. I decided to use chapter-based milestones, and it completely abolishes any reason to explore anything at all.

I ran Avernus as a linear adventure because I could not figure out a way to make exploration worth the effort. So I was really hoping Rime would be better.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I ran Avernus as a linear adventure because I could not figure out a way to make exploration worth the effort. So I was really hoping Rime would be better.

I think the only way to make this kind of thing work is to make it clear in the introduction of a chapter that a party will find itself sorely underleveled and suffering from a paucity of magic items should it not seek out adventure in the given location, then provide some obvious places to go and do that. There's no shame in having Ye Olde Adventurer's Taverne where enterprising heroes might find work.

 

[Lanefan]

While I wholeheartedly applaud the intent, I question the practicability of implementation.

This sounds like one of those ideas I have that sounds great away from the table, but which I completely forget about when busy adjudicating combat and trying to remember the monster's reactions.

I do individual xp based on whether a character was involved in whatever earned said xp; and after every xp-earning event (usually but not always a combat) I-as-DM take ten seconds - which is trivial - to put a row of ticks next to the character names involved in gaining those xp. Direct involvement usually = full share, indirect involvement = half share, no involvement gets nothing.

Example: four Orcs attack a camped party. The Ranger and the MU are on watch; the Cleric, Fighter, Thief and Druid are asleep. The Ranger, MU, and Fighter (who wakes up in time to get into the fray but gets pounded) take down the Orcs, while the Thief manages only to wake up the Cleric whose cures after the battle save the Fighter. The Druid sleeps through the whole thing.

Full xp to the Ranger, MU and Fighter as they were directly involved in taking out the Orcs.
Half xp to the Thief and Cleric, who weren't directly involved and also didn't put themselves at any risk but who helped out.
No xp for the Druid, who did nothing.

On my sheet it'd look like (with the character names to the left and the ticks and 1/2s in a column for that encounter):

4 Orcs
=======
Cleric 1/2
Druid
Fighter \/ (that's trying to be a tick symbol)
MU \/
Ranger \/
Thief 1/2

Each xp-gaining event gets a column like this. Every now and then between sessions I do the math and work out the actual xp numbers for these encounters (here for example full might be 36, half might be 18) and write those next to the ticks or 1/2s; then once there's a bit of a backog built up I'll give 'em all out.

 

[TheSword]

I am running Rime of the Frostmaiden right now and the "sandbox with milestones" format does not work at all, in my opinion. It completely undermines the point of a sandbox and is presented, I think, to try and create a CRPG like structure for potential replayability. Or, at least, that's the only reason I can imagine someone doing it that way. In any case, there is no reason NOT to just use XP since that would reward the PCs for what they actually choose to do.

Well it’s a pre-written adventure.

Are you concerned that the adventure as written doesn’t assume that your party will want to explore every inch of IWD?

Surely by linking XP to goal achievements... helping the ten towns, dealing the major threats to the area they are making the game party dependent... which is not the same as repeatable.

I have a cannibal pirate, an escaped prisoner and a explorer for lost magic as PCs in this campaign. It makes sense for them to explore areas linked to these themes. Why on earth would they explore a hostile wilderness for the sake of it?

 

[Justice and Rule]

That logic works when you're making a lot of checks. But you can't assume it will all average out in a scenario that comes up maybe once every two sessions. "Arcane mystery" is not a particularly common occurrence.

Moreover, the wizard's likelihood to roll highest shrinks dramatically when you consider there are 3-4 other PCs. In a party of 5, even if the wizard has +9 and everyone else has -1, there is close to a 30% chance that someone else beats the wizard's roll.

When these unusual scenarios come up, they should be a chance for the relevant PC to step up and be awesome, not for them to fall on their face and look incompetent because they blew a roll.

To go back to something I said in another thread (or maybe it was this one? I dunno): When I had this problem, what I did was created "Trained Tasks" and "Untrained Tasks" like 4E, and you'd get advantage on Untrained Tasks if you had a skill, and you'd have disadvantage on Trained tasks if you didn't have a skill. I also think I halved proficiency bonus for skills to account for all the advantage getting tossed about, but I dunno if that is fully necessary by the numbers.

It did make people who had certain skills better at them, whether or not they had great ability scores in it.

 

[Nebulous]

In my experience all players want the same thing... As difficult as they can while still being successful. Pushed but not killed. With occasional easy or average encounters to show off their skills - because nobody wants Continuous, unrelenting super difficult fights.

I mean ask them. See what they say. “Challenging but not too difficult challenging” is the answer they’ll give. (Or
Possibly a mix they’ll say)

I think that is mostly true. They want to feel heroic and beat the crap out of the enemies. It also depends on the players though. When I ran my VERY experienced players through Forge of Fury I beat the snot out of them right of out the gate. PCs were downed constantly. 5 PC deaths by the end of the adventure. It was brutal. Did they enjoy it? Yeah, but they were glad when it was over and we switched to something less lethal.

Now, my other group in Strahd, they're newer players (one is 14) and I'm having to really take it easy on them. No one has died yet, hell, I don't think anyone has even made death saves! They're so desperate to always come out on top and win any given fight, although in many cases they're forced to flee because they can't handle the threat (and I usually let them run). They get very, very discouraged by this though, when they can't win a fight, and the first thing they want to do? Go fight something they CAN beat to boost their ego.