XP as dated?

[the Jester]

I like (and use) xp, but see the merits of other systems as well.

This makes me think that 5e will include multiple options for awarding xp, as well as "dials" for quick and slow advancement.

 

[GhostBear]

Put it this way, would a pit fighter who did nothing but fight for his very life for a year solid somehow not discover the methods for killing with ease?

Maybe I didn't communicate effectively enough. I didn't say that someone wouldn't get better - that one would is obvious. But someone wouldn't go from zero to epic hero, either. That is where I have a problem.

 

[Lanefan]

I've always hated XP. It seems that it only serves to take people out of the game mentality. It makes me feel like I am in a very slow video game.
It rewards what you want it to reward so instead of keeping up with a bunch of numbers to kill creatures or count money I would rather have them focus on playing their characters.

I could spend all of my time adjusting numbers of creatures to match a certain amount of XP per session to have them level at the rate I wish or I could write a story.

Putting it as "have them level at the rate I wish" makes it sound like the players don't have much choice in the matter.

Because, as an odd but significant side effect, using XP gives the players some choice in how fast they level or whether they level at all, in that they can choose to do things that earn more or less XP, or choose to cycle out a higher-level character and bring in a lower-level one (thus lowering the average level of the party), and so on.

The game has a sweet spot, regardless of edition (though it's at a slightly different level range for each); experienced players know this and may - for any variety of reasons - want to keep the game in that range.

You're also assuming they're going to get to all those creatures in that session.

It's simple and it means that when you choose to kill a monster then it is because you need to and not because you want to level. The choices are only for in game reasons.

This is valid, and speaks to a need for an XP system that is not so dependent on combat*. I'm hoping 5e somehow has an XP system that works equally well with all three pillars, though I'm not holding my breath.

* - 1e's XP-for-treasure was one such, but the treasure part was so high that if used as written they bumped every time they sneezed.

Lan-"I'd type more, but I have a date with some XP"-efan

 

[Kzach]

Nowadays I award PCs a new level every 5 games. We play every other week so this levels them up 5 levels a year, exactly what I want for a 30 lvl, 6 year campaign.

I've tried similar but in almost every case, players preferred XP.

This is why I think a compromise could be used where the granularity is a lot larger so that players still get the feeling of micro-advancement and constant achievement without burdening the DM with calculus every session.

 

[Piratecat]

Kzach, it works well for us because we often have games with no fighting. This way I don't have to "force" my PCs into combats that they'd rather talk or think their way out of.

 

[am181d]

I rarely use the standard XP system. Generally, my group levels up characters between levels.

I'd be interested t oknow what percentage of Enworlders actually use the XP rules as written (either in 3e or 4e).

 

[Kzach]

Kzach, it works well for us because we often have games with no fighting. This way I don't have to "force" my PCs into combats that they'd rather talk or think their way out of.

Oh, I agree that XP for monsters is silly but I felt that was a separate discussion. My point was simply that players seem to prefer XP rather than no XP.

Personally I advocate a system that rewards success of objectives. I find that if I base levels on sessions that players lose motivation to go anywhere or do anything and just end up fudging around and then expect to level. And if I give XP for every little thing like picking locks, finding secret doors, convincing the guards to let them in, killing alley cats, etc. then they tend to do every, tiny, minute, little, annoying, time-wasting thing in order to GET that XP.

But if I just say, "Ok, you'll get 1 point of XP for succeeding in getting the princess out of the dragon's den alive," and there's something like 10 points per level, then players tend towards being very imaginative, inventive and creative and more importantly, move the game forward without me having to push them. It has the tendency to result in more spontaneous action and thoughts of cunning rather than brute force since KILLING the dragon isn't necessary to achieve the objective.

But again, I just thought that was a separate discussion

 

[Daztur]

Kzach, it works well for us because we often have games with no fighting. This way I don't have to "force" my PCs into combats that they'd rather talk or think their way out of.

Hence GP = XP. This does often result in the PCs acting like members of the Black Company, but for me that's more of a feature than a bug...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

As a player, I'm probably in the extreme minority, but XP and levels just aren't a big deal to me. I'd rather enjoy playing my character and trust my GM to provide encounters appropriate to my party's capabilities. Going 20 sessions without any mechanical advancement is fine with me if the game is fun.

I can sympathize about not caring for XP; I can't be bothered to keep track of it. If it's not a neat multiple of 100 (or 1k at higher levels), just tell me when to level up!

But I do love leveling up, and long periods between level-ups do drive me a bit crazy. It's a level-based game, for pete's sake! If you don't like PCs gaining tens of levels levels in a few short months, insert more down time between adventures!

Just don't take away my levels. It's for the children!

/rant

Tolerance to math seems to vary greatly. I think it's a fair system, and dead easy to calculate in Excel. Other don't use Excel all day long like me, though.

Yeah, tolerance is weird that way. I'm just finishing up my fourth calculus course -- differential equations -- and yet I can't be bothered with the simple but tedious operations involved with XP.

 

[Dordledum]

Kzach, it works well for us because we often have games with no fighting. This way I don't have to "force" my PCs into combats that they'd rather talk or think their way out of.

I give xp for encounters overcome, not necessarily through combat, as well as bonus xp for good roleplaying.

However, I still like to use xp.