This is a good point, BTW. Especially with regard to 3e, which coupled rapid advancement with paradigm-shifting gameplay changes at certain (ie every few) levels.
Why Calculated XP is Important
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
FireLance
Legend
My nitpicky side wants ask how you know you would enjoy playing a game at 30th level if you've never played any other level of the game and would like to suggest that it is more likely that you just like the idea of playing the game at level 30. My more easygoing and casual side would like to say that if you are able to jump into the game at 30th level, go ahead (and if you're not, you will at least learn that you can't).
I was agreeing to a post that suggested that individual XP awards for doing things that pleased the DM were bad. In retrospect, it does seem quite a leap from that to believing that players don't need to do anything to play at higher levels. Not that there's anything wrong with the latter, of course.
I wonder how "player XP" would go over? For example, if you were playing 1E in a big open sandboxy setting and whatever XP total the player had applied to every character he might have littered throughout the setting. So, Bob has been playing with the group for a little while and has amassed 10,001 experience points. He's got a 4th level magic user in the midst of training, a 6th level thief caught up in a dungeon crawl and a fighter (4th? I don't have my 1E PHB handy) in transit to the next adventure locale. If the thief dies during the dungeon crawl, Bob gets the XP penalty (say, 20%?) and all of his characters suffer because of it.
Great point! When I'm DMing, I'm much more interested in my own performance (i.e. did the players have fun) than I am in measuring my friend's performance. And in the few cases I do measure their performance, the metric is always how much they contributed to the fun we all had, rather than how strictly they played their role or how much butt they kicked.
I don't award individual XP or any XP at all for that matter. I simply tell my players that they level whenever I think it is appropriate. I find that this works very well for my group for several reasons:
1) It saves me a lot of time and annoyance having to calculate CRs, ELs and XP awards.
2) It encourages cooperative play in the group, rather than competition for more XP.
3) It encourages other activities than overcoming 'encounter challenges'. Yes, I could make a system where I award XP for these other activities to achieve the same goal, but through abandoning the XP system I don't have to bother with that at all.
4) It allows me to postpone or accelerate the advancement of characters depending on whether I feel the players have learned and internalized all of their currently available abilities without worrying about whether they have 'earned' their level advance in terms of the XP system. In fact, it allows me to control the pace of leveling in general, based on whatever factors I consider important.
5) The legacy XP system is essentially based on character advancement dependent on hitting things. This may logically work for the fighter, but for other classes, such as the wizard or the cleric, it is wholly inappropriate even if tied to the use of the abilities or spells of those classes. How the heck is a wizard supposed to learn a fireball by casting invisibility more often in combat? Sure, he is assumed to be studying and researching in between combats, but in that case combats being the determining factor in advancement don't make sense. Changing the XP system to one based on time spent in the library and the research laboratory would make more sense, but would probably not make for a very exciting game. As such, I find it more simulationist to just abandon the entire system and let myself decide when I feel the characters have learned enough and/or done enough to earn a level, but taking other circumstances into account (player learning of abilities, time that has passed, progression of the plot in the backround and so on).
6) My players love my system of advancement.
That said, I would never argue for the removal of the XP system from the official rules. It suits many groups and I can easily ignore it, so I see no advantage for me or anyone else in removing the system officially. Indeed, this is also my feeling about other subsystems that many may find complex - if they are ignorable and many others like them, there is no reason to remove them from the game.
1) It saves me a lot of time and annoyance having to calculate CRs, ELs and XP awards.
2) It encourages cooperative play in the group, rather than competition for more XP.
3) It encourages other activities than overcoming 'encounter challenges'. Yes, I could make a system where I award XP for these other activities to achieve the same goal, but through abandoning the XP system I don't have to bother with that at all.
4) It allows me to postpone or accelerate the advancement of characters depending on whether I feel the players have learned and internalized all of their currently available abilities without worrying about whether they have 'earned' their level advance in terms of the XP system. In fact, it allows me to control the pace of leveling in general, based on whatever factors I consider important.
5) The legacy XP system is essentially based on character advancement dependent on hitting things. This may logically work for the fighter, but for other classes, such as the wizard or the cleric, it is wholly inappropriate even if tied to the use of the abilities or spells of those classes. How the heck is a wizard supposed to learn a fireball by casting invisibility more often in combat? Sure, he is assumed to be studying and researching in between combats, but in that case combats being the determining factor in advancement don't make sense. Changing the XP system to one based on time spent in the library and the research laboratory would make more sense, but would probably not make for a very exciting game. As such, I find it more simulationist to just abandon the entire system and let myself decide when I feel the characters have learned enough and/or done enough to earn a level, but taking other circumstances into account (player learning of abilities, time that has passed, progression of the plot in the backround and so on).
6) My players love my system of advancement.
That said, I would never argue for the removal of the XP system from the official rules. It suits many groups and I can easily ignore it, so I see no advantage for me or anyone else in removing the system officially. Indeed, this is also my feeling about other subsystems that many may find complex - if they are ignorable and many others like them, there is no reason to remove them from the game.
Last edited:
Ourph: With objective standards, the game rules provide the metric -- as in any other game. It's part of the context that makes (e.g.) playing baseball different from just playing "catch."
To some people, that context is part of the fun!
But I can understand that to others it is not. I can see the greater "pure game" appeal of, for instance, the complexities of 3E or 4E over the old D&D I prefer. More of the "game" aspect can be a distraction from the "role-playing" aspect.
To some people, that context is part of the fun!
But I can understand that to others it is not. I can see the greater "pure game" appeal of, for instance, the complexities of 3E or 4E over the old D&D I prefer. More of the "game" aspect can be a distraction from the "role-playing" aspect.
Only if your legacy is of more recent vintage! The older system is essentially based on securing treasure.
Curiously, though, character advancement primarily means getting better at hitting things (whether with sword or with spell) -- regardless of how new levels are attained.
Last edited:
I don't think, I'll bother with calculating xp when I start playing 4E. Certain concepts, like minions, story awards and skill challenges seem to work better to me if they are unfettered from xp awards.
Since a pc also no longer loses anything (except money) if she dies and gets resurrected, I don't see any point of still keeping track of xp.
Since a pc also no longer loses anything (except money) if she dies and gets resurrected, I don't see any point of still keeping track of xp.
Raven Crowking
First Post
I have run games in which players may award any XP gained to any character they wished. This in a game in which the PCs have a "stable" of characters. It is something I am going to include as a suggested option in RCFG.
Yes, you are correct when speaking about the pre-3E days (though already then I was learning to ignore the XP rules). Thanks for reminding me that it was even worse before!
Similar Threads
