WotC Milestone leveling in WotC editions?

[payn]

I use the Buffalo Springfield milestone method.

There's something happening here (figure out whats going on-level)
But what it is ain't exactly clear (Unravel the conspiracy-level)
There's a man with a gun over there (Find the party responsible-level)
Telling me I got to beware (face them-level)

 

[Distracted DM]

There's a big difference between "level up only if-when the GM thinks it's appropriate" and "level up only if-when you reach a specific point in the story/module".

The GM has complete control over the first of these but no real control over the second. The players have very little control over either.

The term 'milestone levelling' has been applied to both but IMO it only means the second one.

And what would you call the first?

I'd disagree- those are close enough to be the same; the GM is awarding the levels in either case, whether they're following their own gauge of what's appropriate for a campaign, or a premade adventure's dictates.

If a GM writes an adventure beforehand and notes the places that level-ups occur, and during play changes it because it seems more appropriate at other places as well, that's now something different?

 

[Zardnaar]

If I were playing BX or AD&D with milestones now, I’d probably just pick arbitrary chunks of 1,000 xp or whatever, given the complexities of class xp tables, muliticlassing, dual classing, etc.

Basically what I did.

Milestone xp hand outs.

Currently you get 200xp per hex you explore (each).

 

[Mannahnin]

It's something I liked enough to bring into 5e. I have major and minor rewards, a major xp award is 10% of the xp needed to reach next level, a minor reward is 5%. I often use minor rewards for story elements that don't necessarily include combat encounters but are still significant. Major rewards are basically concluding what might be called a chapter.

In the last game I ran, when the PCs negotiated with the remaining orc tribe members to join them against the horde led by an ogre, they got a minor reward. Then, after they completed the battle, in addition to other xp earned, I gave them a major story reward. They earned few minor rewards when they travelled the through the feywild as well.

A couple of Angry GM's better articles talked about milestone awards like this.

Essentially he advised that you give xp equal to the Medium difficulty encounter award (DMG p82) for the party's level to each character for an accomplishment you judge to be significant. Beating a puzzle, a moderate combat encounter, rescuing someone, etc. Give double that award for accomplishing the main goal of a given adventure. Give half the baseline award for a pyrrhic or partial victory, or a minor side-job/accomplishment. So at 1st level that's 50xp for each PC for a baseline award, 100 for their main objective, and 25 for a minor/side award.

Optionally, for sweet, sweet, Dopamine hits/classical conditioning, you can pair this with throwing color-coded glass beads into a chalice mid-session whenever they get a win/xp award. Say that a white bead is a standard award, a black one a half award, and red one a double award. Whenever they get an award toss one in for a sweet "clink", then just count beads and multiply at the end of the session.

 

[Lanefan]

And what would you call the first?

GM-fiat levelling, maybe?

I'd disagree- those are close enough to be the same; the GM is awarding the levels in either case, whether they're following their own gauge of what's appropriate for a campaign, or a premade adventure's dictates.

Big difference, still.

GM-side: the difference is one of doing what you want to do (GM fiat) vs doing what you're told to do (milestone).

Player-side: the difference is one of freedom as to what the characters do. In a milestone setup the players know* they have to get to X-point in the story in order to level up and so they're highy likely to ignore anything that doesn't get them closer to X, while in a GM-fiat setup the players know* they can have their characters do all sorts of not-necessarily-goal-oriented things and they'll still level up.

The player-side difference is the more important one here as it not-always-subtly tells the players how they're expected to play in this campaign.

* - or will figure out soon enough, once a few levels have gone by, even if they don't know what-where that X-point is.

If a GM writes an adventure beforehand and notes the places that level-ups occur, and during play changes it because it seems more appropriate at other places as well, that's now something different?

Yes. She's switched on the fly from milestone levelling to GM-fiat levelling; which may or may not sit well with the players if, say, they'd been going off-goal because they liked the way play was going at the current level (or were still getting used to what their characters could do at that level) and she's decided to level them up regardless.

 

[Voadam]

Optionally, for sweet, sweet, Dopamine hits/classical conditioning, you can pair this with throwing color-coded glass beads into a chalice mid-session whenever they get a win/xp award. Say that a white bead is a standard award, a black one a half award, and red one a double award. Whenever they get an award toss one in for a sweet "clink", then just count beads and multiply at the end of the session.

As much as I prefer no tracking milestone levelling, when I played in a 3.5 Against the Giants game as an aasimar wizard who used the buying off LA option, had done crafting, and was a level behind everybody else it was really fun and rewarding to get that little bit of extra xp after each group award due to facing the same challenges a level behind.

"you've earned some XP! 686 xp (900 xp for Voadam)"

 

[Red Castle]

Maybe that’s because in my group we always favored low level adventure, but leveling up, while fun, is pretty much at the bottom of the reasons why we play. So even I were playing in a game where I would need to get to a particular moment in the story to gain a level, it would never stop me to do what I want and go where I want to… I just don’t care if I stay the same level a lot longer, as long as the game is fun!

But then again, there is absolutely nothing preventing the DM to reajust accordingly if the players decide to take a completely different route than the one the DM planned… rules are meant to be bent…

 

[Mannahnin]

As much as I prefer no tracking milestone levelling, when I played in a 3.5 Against the Giants game as an aasimar wizard who used the buying off LA option, had done crafting, and was a level behind everybody else it was really fun and rewarding to get that little bit of extra xp after each group award due to facing the same challenges a level behind.

"you've earned some XP! 686 xp (900 xp for Voadam)"

Yup. Our clerics and mages in 3.x often had this happen (especially the mages). The mages got rich off it, because they'd usually charge a bit above cost to compensate for the xp losses, but then they'd be getting more xp when they were a level behind. We used a phrase something like "xp is a river" for a reminder that xp is an ever-flowing resource.

We also often used some minor individual awards, including a 5% xp bump for being in your chair with your character sheet and dice on the table in front of you at the official start time.

 

[el-remmen]

I have not read this whole thread, so forgive me if anyone mentioned a system like this. but I knew several DMs back in 1E, 2E and BECMI days who did not bother with calculating XP. Either they let everyone advance a level at the end of each module (or in the middle, if a long module with distinct parts and a long range of appropriate levels) OR they awarded a median XP award to everyone. Thus, if they granted 2000 xp, it'd be enough for the fighter, rogue and cleric to advance to second level, but the paladin and wizard would have to wait for the next award to advance.

Not saying it is a good system, but one I saw variations of often enough.

Personally, I still calculate XP based on monsters killed and treasure gained and then modified by a percentage based on achieving in game goals and how well they were achieved.

 

[amethal]

Later-era Pathfinder modules / adventure paths specify what level the PCs ought to be for each bit. They also hand out plenty of story awards (typically, "if the PCs achieve X then award them XP for a Level-Y encounter").

When I run Pathfinder, the characters level whenever I feel it is appropriate i.e. pure GM fiat. This is because calculating and tracking XP is a chore that I can do without.

Each session ends with the traditional chorus of "Have we levelled yet?" (spoken more or less ironically, depending on how recently they last gained a level).

I'm a bit bemused by the idea of milestone levelling that some people seem to have - namely that if the milestone is "kill the Ogre that's been terrorising the village" then it's set in (ahem) stone and that's the only way the PCs can gain a level, forcing them to accept the quest. Surely nobody runs their games like that in practice? If the PCs decide to do something else then you come up with a new milestone.

And ultimately they'll level up just from passage of time, even if they haven't done anything particularly "milestone-y", provided they've been adventuring. (Again, does anybody actually run a game where the PCs level even if they just stay in the tavern - and who would want to play in such a game even if it were available?)