D&D 5E Sacred Cow Bites The Dust.

[Lanefan]

Combat's so nice, you reward it twice. That's my kind of DM.

Except if you'd read the rest of Helldritch's post you might have noticed this bit:

Once exp is given for a given encounter, it won't be awarded again. They negociate with the goblins and come back 2 days later and kill them. No experience the second time. They had received their exp already. No need to give it to them twice and depending on the situation, it could even be a negative experience award.

So, no double-dipping.

I use xp and always will, mostly because I want those characters who get involved in an encounter to earn xp and those who stand back (or are elsewhere) to not. Xp are a character (as opposed to player) benefit, thus if a player misses a game their character keeps going as an NPC (our term for such is QPC - Quasi-Player Character) for that session and earns whatever xp it would normally get for what it does.

My main opposition to milestone level-ups and suchlike is that is in my view it unfairly rewards those characters who do less and-or who wait for someone else to do the dirty work (of which I've seen my share) and unfairly penalizes those who do more. Individual xp encourages all the characters to get on with it and get involved as best they can.

Keeping everyone's level the same isn't nearly as much of an issue in 0-1-2-5e as it is in 3-4e; and as there's enough things in the game that can cause level disparity anyway (e.g. level draining foes in 0-1-2e, level or xp-granting items/spells/effects/etc. in all editions) it's just not worth the bother of trying to force equality.

Lanefan

 

[Helldritch]

@Lanefan
Thank you for reading my response and showing it to Satyrn. It is much appreciated.

As for Mile stones defenders.

I would tend to agree that mile stones are not that "bad" in themselves. It might ensure that at some crucial part of the adventure; the adventurers will be of the appropriate level. But then again, experience award can do just that.

You give a mile stone for a particularly heroic act? I do the same with experience. And this time it is not the whole group or only one that will get it. It will reward those that actualy tried to do something heroic. Backbencher that are not actualy helping out with strats or are simply holding back in the hopes of getting rewards with little risks might be in for a nasty surprise.

I do give exp for playing your flaws. But that RP must not be detrimental to the group as a whole. Only to your character.

Experience is so much more flexible than mile stones, I simply do not understand those that are hating it.

Hemlock's post, Pming posts (and many others) all show how flexible exp point award can be. Mile stones are, for me, a lazy way to level and it also have the pernicious effect of encourage the 5mwd.

Now you can combine mile stones and experience award to ensure some desired effect that one or the other alone couldn't achieve alone.

Players played really well, but due to a streak of bad luck or whatever the cause; they do not reach the level they need for the next part of your campaing. A mile stone which raise the effective xp of all players by the minimum required by the lowest experienced characters would be a good way to do it.

Example: 6 characters each need 100xp, 200xp, 200xp, 250xp, 350 xp to raise in level and one need 450xp to do the same. I would make a mile stone worth 451 exp to all characters. This would ensure that poor play would not be rewarded but the story would be able to go on. The active players will keep the advance and the backbencher still has some catch up to do. Everyone is happy (save the backbencher) and the story can go on.

For some people, this is a form of punition to the backbencher. It is not. I want to encourage good roleplay and inventiveness. If everyone has the same mile stone, I am not encouraging good roleplay and inventiveness but merily compensating for the player that is only tagging along.

I should mentionned that xp for RP and inventiveness is awarded by players concensus. The case above occurs only rarely.

 

[Chaosmancer]

As for Mile stones defenders.

Backbencher that are not actualy helping out with strats or are simply holding back in the hopes of getting rewards with little risks might be in for a nasty surprise.

Mile stones are, for me, a lazy way to level and it also have the pernicious effect of encourage the 5mwd.

First of all, for me personally, yeah, it totally is a lazy thing to a large degree.


As it stands right now, when my players go into the Root, and I roll some random monsters, that is that and eventually we'll level up. As I understand the XP system, I'd have to look up their value, multiply by group modifiers, then divide that XP amongst the party members who participated.

If I decide a door is trapped, because it makes sense that the wizard would add a spell defense to it that... shoots 6 force blasts before running out of shots and its a dex save for 1d10 damage. Done, and eventually we'll level. With XP I have to assign an appropriate number to that trap, to make it worth something to the group.

If they spend the session haggling with a group of merchants because they want to buy cannons for their ship, and buy a crew of sailors, but need to sell off something to make it work. I can do all that and the players can have a lot of fun, and eventually we'll level. With Xp, I have to assign an appropriate number to those encounters, because they made progress and completed goals, so they should be awarded, so I need to decide which number they get.


It is frankly more work than I am willing to do for the average game, since our college games last 2 semesters tops, with breaks when everyone heads home, and people miss because of illness or massive projects worth 1/3 of their grade. I don't want to punish people for that, so I'd end up giving them XP anyways, and everyone at the table would agree with that policy, so everyone is earning just about the same XP anyways.


And lastly, it is incredibly strange to me to see so many people talking about how XP is useful for preventing slacker players from mooching off the group.... This is seriously a thing people are worried about? Who spends 4-6 hours sitting around with a group of people not playing a game, just to see imaginary numbers get bigger. If you just want to sit around and watch numbers go up, there are plenty of ways to do that with the computer.

At the end of the day, with regards to that, I will default to the advice I just recently heard about cheating on ability score rolls. If it is so important to that person to "win" D&D and it has a minimal impact on the group, just let them, because obviously they need it, and the rest of the group can continue having fun anyways. No need to go out of your way to make sure they are "contributing" enough. Just play the game.

 

[Helldritch]

Some min maxers are not about stats and strats alone. Some are looking for the maximum gain for the minimum effort possible.
There are individualistic players out there. You might not have seen the tournament era, but I did. Yep, there were slackers then as there are some now.

Old RPGers like me have seen all kind of things. And one of the most annoying is the slacker type of player. That player is generaly new to RPG and does not quite understand the principle that no one wins. If the player makes less exp by holding back, he/she will soon get more involve as the reward (exp) is quite tangible because exp can be either awarded on the spot or at the end of a session.

As for the difficulty of evaluating the exp worth of an RP goal, it's quite easy. Usualy worth about 10% to 20% of total adventure exp. Divided equaly between RP goals. I don't see where is the difficulty in that...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Some min maxers are not about stats and strats alone. Some are looking for the maximum gain for the minimum effort possible.
There are individualistic players out there. You might not have seen the tournament era, but I did. Yep, there were slackers then as there are some now.

Old RPGers like me have seen all kind of things. And one of the most annoying is the slacker type of player. That player is generaly new to RPG and does not quite understand the principle that no one wins. If the player makes less exp by holding back, he/she will soon get more involve as the reward (exp) is quite tangible because exp can be either awarded on the spot or at the end of a session.

So they want the most XP possible for the minimum effort. Unless the rest of the group is getting upset that they are not contributing to the game, or that rewards are being divided evenly for uneven work (which if no rewards are being divided then it doesn't necessarily come up in that context) then do we really need to care?

I guess this is kind of a philosophical point, but if they aren't terribly disruptive, and they get something out of sitting there on their phone and rolling a d20 every few minutes.... congrats on being boring and getting numbers on a sheet of paper, but you aren't playing the game. If they aren't interested in actually playing the game, I don't see how I need to make an effort to get them interested. I've got enough on my plate keeping the other people who want to be here entertained.

It's a minor point, but, it just seems to me that people either want to play the game or they don't. If they don't but they want to sit at the table to write down big numbers on a sheet of paper. That's them I guess.

As for the difficulty of evaluating the exp worth of an RP goal, it's quite easy. Usualy worth about 10% to 20% of total adventure exp. Divided equaly between RP goals. I don't see where is the difficulty in that...

How much is total adventure xp?

I've got 15 weeks before a major break, I have no idea where the story is going to end up, but I have hooks.

They run into a gypsy camp, spend an entire session trying to figure out if they are evil. Is that one RP goal, was it a goal, I just thought having other people around this ancient site would be cool, to my mind they just wasted an entire session chasing their tails, but they had fun doing it.

Next session they go into a creepy house that I mentioned for flavor purposes instead of the monster cave I was leading them towards. Okay sure, there is a ghost, some aberrations and a creepy library. 1 player uses stealth tactics and high rolls to kill 1/2 the stuff in the place before the rest of the party can catch up, in fact, they run from everything else, so he is the only one to kill anything. Divide XP evenly? MAke the guy who keeps insisting on solo running places more powerful and therefore making it easier for him to do? One person finds a creepy book and begins talking to demons. Is that worth XP? If they don't earn XP every session then it doesn't really allow better tracking.


I'm not saying it is a bad system, I'm saying it is a bad system for me. I don't want to have to consider everything the party does through that lens, when I can have them do the same stuff and level them up when I feel we've made enough progress to warrant it.

I remember I was talking to another couple guys online a few weeks ago. They were horrified that I decided to level my players up once a month, about every 4 sessions, because they level up after every session and they couldn't imagine gaining levels at such a slow rate.

Different tastes and different hang-ups.

 

[Helldritch]

How much is total adventure xp?

Take xp/day or xp/level. Allow 10 to 20% of that amount whenever you feel it is appropriate. Remember that most of these exp will be awarded by the players (at least in my case).

Next session they go into a creepy house that I mentioned for flavor purposes instead of the monster cave I was leading them towards. Okay sure, there is a ghost, some aberrations and a creepy library. 1 player uses stealth tactics and high rolls to kill 1/2 the stuff in the place before the rest of the party can catch up, in fact, they run from everything else, so he is the only one to kill anything. Divide XP evenly? MAke the guy who keeps insisting on solo running places more powerful and therefore making it easier for him to do? One person finds a creepy book and begins talking to demons. Is that worth XP? If they don't earn XP every session then it doesn't really allow better tracking.

Depending on the circumstances it could even go into negative exp. Solo play is not to be encouraged unless it helps the story or the group. If that solo play is part of the group tactic, then by all mean share every single exp with the group. If it is part of a personal trip then it should not be encouraged.

I'm not saying it is a bad system, I'm saying it is a bad system for me. I don't want to have to consider everything the party does through that lens, when I can have them do the same stuff and level them up when I feel we've made enough progress to warrant it.

I remember I was talking to another couple guys online a few weeks ago. They were horrified that I decided to level my players up once a month, about every 4 sessions, because they level up after every session and they couldn't imagine gaining levels at such a slow rate.

Different tastes and different hang-ups.

You are right about that, to each his own.

PS: One level every 4 sessions? I don't see where is the problem it is even a fast and furious leveling speed for me. These players would be horrified to play with my groups. The first three levels might look like 2 to 3 sessions repectively but the other levels are more like 6 to 8 sessions each and can sometimes go higher because RP is a big part of my games.

 

[Lanefan]

And lastly, it is incredibly strange to me to see so many people talking about how XP is useful for preventing slacker players from mooching off the group.... This is seriously a thing people are worried about? Who spends 4-6 hours sitting around with a group of people not playing a game, just to see imaginary numbers get bigger. If you just want to sit around and watch numbers go up, there are plenty of ways to do that with the computer.

A big distinction needs to be made here: I'm not talking about slacker PLAYERS. I'm talking about slacker CHARACTERS in the party who are sometimes run by very engaged players who take a long-term approach to "winning". The sequence usually goes, over a series of adventures, something like this:

- hang back, stay safe, get involved in risky business only when it's essential (but be fully involved in all other aspects e.g. planning) right from the start
- where serious risks have to be taken (a reasonably frequent occurrence in adventuring) get others to take them
- each adventure one or two characters will probably die...but not yours, and you'll get to share in looting them along with sharing whatever conventional treasure the party accrues
- replacements for those characters often come in at lower level and invariably come in with lower wealth, making them a bit more vulnerable, so...
- lather rinse repeat until...
- after 6 or 8 adventures (or by the time the party has relatively easy access to revival-from-death effects) you're "ahead" of the party - in wealth and sometimes in level - enough that the DM can't seriously threaten you without probably slaughtering the rest of the party. Further, as you're now the big fish in the pond the party is probably built around you to some extent...maybe you're even its perceived leader...and now you're set. As a player, your main challenge now is to resist any calls for you to retire or otherwise weaken your character.

Needless to say, a party entirely made up of such "passenger" characters doesn't tend to get much done; be it by analysis paralysis, indecision, or simply getting stuck in a position where everyone is waiting for someone else to make the first (risky) move. I've seen this once or twice; eventually someone (as either player or character) gets bored and dives in and gets on with it, thus dooming him-herself as even if the current risk doesn't prove deadly he-she has now put him-herself in the position of risk-taker and will be looked upon to do it every time, inevitably leading to the character's death.

The only ways* a DM can mitigate this if she sees it happening are to either specifically (and, too often, unrealistically) target only that character; or to make sure the risk-takers somehow get individually rewarded for what they do - and this is where individual xp can come in very handy, though from experience I can say it's not a complete fix.

* - well, another (awful) way is to make all the characters death-immune; but that way lies gonzo madness and-or complete loss of realism.

Lan-"if EnWorld ever does another battle-of-the-bards we have a song for it about this issue"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I remember I was talking to another couple guys online a few weeks ago. They were horrified that I decided to level my players up once a month, about every 4 sessions, because they level up after every session and they couldn't imagine gaining levels at such a slow rate.

Different tastes and different hang-ups.

Not just different tastes; I'd go so far as to say entirely different reasons for playing the game.

If those players are expecting to level-bump every session and think one bump a month is too slow I'd hazard a guess that their main reason for playing at all is merely to see those levels go up and up and up. Fine for them, I suppose, but it's on the diametrically-opposite side from my view that says a level bump should be no more than a very occasional (albeit pleasant) side-effect of the playing you're going to do anyway.

[MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] even your once-a-month bump rate is (by our crew's standards) frighteningly fast. At a very rough guess I'd say the average character in our games bumps maybe twice a year at best (exception: 1st-2nd levels tend to go by somewhat faster), and sometimes less than that.

Driving this (and maybe also driving your bump rate) is how long overall you-as-DM want the campaign to last. If, for example, you're on a clock where your plan is to get from 1-20 in a school year then yes, you'll be bumping every few weeks. But if you want the campaign to last 10 years or more, like I do, then you'll want to use every trick in the book to slow the advancement down in order to keep the game in the "sweet spot" level range for as long as possible. (though the actual "sweet spot" level numbers vary a bit from edition to edition, the concept is common to them all)

Lan-"but beware: an unwelcome knock-on effect to extremely slow level advancement can be widely-unbalanced PC wealth accretion over the long run"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Depending on the circumstances it could even go into negative exp. Solo play is not to be encouraged unless it helps the story or the group. If that solo play is part of the group tactic, then by all mean share every single exp with the group.

I couldn't disagree more.

What did the rest of the group do to earn those xp other than...well, nothing? They sat around and let the risk-taker go and explore the mansion, then ran away when any danger threatened. THEY are the ones who should get negative xp, if anyone!

And in this example there's nothing at all wrong with the risk-taker hogging the DM's time - the risk-taker is the only one doing anything meaningful...and should get whatever xp he earns for doing so without having to share them with his cowardly comrades. (see my post #57 above for more on this)

If it is part of a personal trip then it should not be encouraged.

The party splitting up is sometimes quite realistic and logical e.g. the stealthies scout ahead while the heavies stay hidden; and other times is forced by the adventure at hand e.g. two PCs go through a teleport trap while the others see them vanish and stop. Whether it's due to this or a PC doing their own thing it's a fact of life, and as DM I just have to deal with it.

Lan-"herding cats, anyone?"-efan

 

[Helldritch]

@Lanefan
As I said, to each his own. I did say that I would do that only If the character was in a personnal quest for power and willingly let the other players in the dust. I would share the experience just to show him that teamwork should be the way to go.

On the other hand I have seen a paladin going alone in a dragon's den while the others were safe behind a curve. He had high AC, was protected by one of the clerics with Warding Bond. The other cleric was concentrating on protection vs evil and the paladin himself was using shield of faith. The wizard was concentrating on Haste. The Battle master was safe behind cover using a bow and ordering the paladin to attack during his turn. The only one not doing much was the ranger. He had drank a potion of invisibility and was waiting for the paladin to make the dragon move in a position where he could not use its breath weapon on the ranger. By the time it happened, the paly had slain the dragon. Officialy, the ranger did nothing. The mage was only concentrating on haste and the clerics did no damage. The battle master hit four times with his bow. Did I punished the ranger? nope, it was part of the tactic that was decided. Should I give exp only to the paly and the battle master? Nope again. It was group play.

It is a fine line that defines solo play for solo advancement and solo play to further the group. Of course it is possible that a party split up (willingly or not). The only time where I will punish is when the player do it only to further the agenda of his character to the loss of the other players. This kind of play will get a stern warning from me as I don't want that kind of player at my table.

I have nothing against a thief that occasionaly takes a small (relatively speaking) token from a treasure for all the risks he's taking. After all, he is taking heavy risks.