Slowing Advancement and Other Arbitrary Restrictions

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I used to play DragonQuest back in the day, and it awarded XP per session based on success or failure. It was our first point we experienced XP awards other than the 1st Ed. D&D way, and it was quite a revelation. All of a sudden kills became less important than planning, and it was hard to go back to the old way, so much so that we eventually adopted that method to a lot of other games.

But I'm hesitant to institute a blanket 'you level when I say so' system. Although I like levels occurring at plot-appropriate times, I find awarding the XP and requiring training time or some other significant event takes care of that. For example, I once had a fighter player with enough XP to level, but they were deep in enemy territory and I hadn't let them train yet. In the next encounter, that fighter ended up taking on the brigand leader in essentially single combat (the rest of the party was dealing with the mooks). After he was victorious, I let him count that as his 'training time' and he leveled. A similar situation happened with a mage that touched an artifact and had a mind-altering experience.

I just find that being a little more 'by the book' in terms of XP awards gives the players a greater feeling of accomplishment, a little more sense that how well they do in any given session has a direct impact on their advancement. I use enough plot or story XP to pace things pretty much anyway; if the party levels at 80%of the way through an adventure instead of the end, it really doesn't matter to me that much. And I think its important to have these ebbs and flows in a party's power relative to their foes, so if they level a tad faster and get to act like badasses for a session, that's cool too. And they'll pay for it eventually

 

[Mark CMG]

In some campaigns, I just pick certain milestones where leveling up seems like a natural thing.

 

[Reynard]

In some campaigns, I just pick certain milestones where leveling up seems like a natural thing.

Before, or after? What I mean is, do you predetermine those milestones? if so, what happens if they don't reach them? What happens if the players zig instead of zag? If you mean after, I suppose that is a reasonable way to do things, but one reason I like XP awards is that not everyone makes it to every session. By giving out XP instead of levels, those that show up are rewarded.

 

[Mark CMG]

What I mean is, do you predetermine those milestones? if so, what happens if they don't reach them?

I will build in an extra encounter or two that can be added to offset experience and treasure not gained due to failures or left turns taken by the party. It works out to approximately the same as what it would take if I kept meticulous track of exact experience.

 

[painandgreed]

One thing you could do is give out a set XP value per game. Gives you slowing advancement and a good idea where people will be later. Issues with this is that PCs will plan accordingly, ie "We'll go attack the fort two games from now because we'll be higher level." The possible good thing, especially for how I think Reynard runs his games, is that it does remove that forced behavior to gain XP from the PCs. They are then actually free to do what they want to do rather than what they have to do. Works out for role players because they are rewarded in XP as much for RP as for killing things and taking their stuff. For sandbox play, it works out because it allows the PCs to work on their own goals and desires rather than moving from battle to battle only because it's the sole way to make XP. Completion of adventures or personal goals can always be rewarded with ad hoc XP which helps out but the PCs don't end up getting screwed if they decide they want to go a different direction.

V:tM is like that. It's a hard transition for some people to handle. Most players aren't used to RPGs where combat gains you nothing and money is effectivly worthless. Once they do settle in it works out ok, and for those players that want combat, there's nothing stopping them.

 

[Treebore]

I have been re-reading a lot of previous edition books lately, and been seriously considering going back to 1E. However, my current campaign is 3.5 and I don't want to create headaches by converting it. So, there's some things I would like to do to make 3.5 more condusive to me as a DM.

First off, I have already tossed out the grid and minis. We still use AoOs and such, but base it on intent, description and quick, not-to-scale sketches. It has vastly improved my game.

But the other night the PCs were victorious in a hard fought battle, using smart tactics and good teamwork and more than a little moxy. When I counted up XP, though, this one fight gave them half of what they needed to raise a level. In fact, based on the way I build encounters, they have gained 3 levels in about 5 sessions (and about 3 days, game time). it is too fast. I want to slow it down.

I don't necessarily want to just say 1/2 or 1/5 normal XP -- although it may come down to that. I am looking for ways to slow advancement without having to give up the fun, desperate battles and the twisted, evil traps and puzzles. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

Also, the "magic shop" thread has made me realize that the Wealth By Level guidelines are way out of whack for how I view D&D. I am cautious just tossing it out entirely, however, because character gear is a factor in character power, and therefore challenge ratings and XP. Of course, if I come up with an XP solution, it might not be an issue.

So why didn't you like Castles and Crusades? The varied xp tables? Or have you not even checked out C&C? If you haven't and are interested better take advantage of their sale. Each book is $10 plus about $5.50 shipping, so $25.50 for both of the main rule books. The CKG will cover optional rules, not anything "core". Plus cncplayer.net has a whole bunch of house rules and other cool tools to help you get started.

Not to mention a bunch of helpful and friendly people on the C&C messageboards.

As for awarding xp's, don't. Just have them advance however fast you want them to. As long as you don't do it too slowly they should still enjoy the game. After all, its mainly about killing stuff and taking their stuff. Gaining power is just a side effect.

 

[Reynard]

So why didn't you like Castles and Crusades? The varied xp tables? Or have you not even checked out C&C? If you haven't and are interested better take advantage of their sale. Each book is $10 plus about $5.50 shipping, so $25.50 for both of the main rule books. The CKG will cover optional rules, not anything "core". Plus cncplayer.net has a whole bunch of house rules and other cool tools to help you get started.

Not to mention a bunch of helpful and friendly people on the C&C messageboards.

My biggest "problem" with C&C is that it just doesn't *do* anything Ican't do wth 1E. It's not so much that C&C is bad, it is just that if I am going to go for that "old school" feel, I'll run 1E.

As for awarding xp's, don't. Just have them advance however fast you want them to. As long as you don't do it too slowly they should still enjoy the game. After all, its mainly about killing stuff and taking their stuff. Gaining power is just a side effect.

See my previous post about why "just handing out XP at Y intervals" is not something I consider to be good DMing.

 

[Treebore]

My biggest "problem" with C&C is that it just doesn't *do* anything Ican't do wth 1E. It's not so much that C&C is bad, it is just that if I am going to go for that "old school" feel, I'll run 1E.



See my previous post about why "just handing out XP at Y intervals" is not something I consider to be good DMing.

I played 1E for 6 years. I loved it. So I think you still don't "get" C&C. Plus C&C makes it very easy for you to still use your 3E and 1E stuff, together. Which I have found extremley enjoyable, not to mention using my 2E stuff again.

Doesn't really matter though. Like I said, I played 1E for 6 years, so I know your still going to have fun.

As for handing out xp's at "Y" intervals, its good DMing if your keeping your players happy. If your players aren't staying happy then you need to adjust the frequency. Thats the difference between being a good and not so good DM. A subtle but critically important distinction.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I love the Internet, where a difference of opinion must mean that one person cannot actually be understanding the facts.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Before, or after? What I mean is, do you predetermine those milestones? if so, what happens if they don't reach them? What happens if the players zig instead of zag? If you mean after, I suppose that is a reasonable way to do things, but one reason I like XP awards is that not everyone makes it to every session. By giving out XP instead of levels, those that show up are rewarded.

Some DMs prefer keeping everyone on parity power-wise and giving out different awards. For example, I arbitrarily advance my group every x sessions (they seem to enjoy this), I've radically slowed down advancement, and I hand out glory points (like hero points) for attendance and good role-play instead of XP.

If you prefer XP to be your reward system, I'd just recommend cutting the advancement rate. It's really, really easy to do, and the designers point out quite clearly in the DMG that the suggested rates are just guidelines. If you prefer a level to take 40 encounters instead of 13.33, just divide XP awards by 3. You may also want to consider using the Unearthed Arcana XP variant.

Really, though, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to do. Would you like to slow level advancement? Somehow change the pace of level advancement? Fiddle with the wealth-by-level guidelines? What exactly is the goal here? Tell us, and I think we can help you.