D&D General XP Awards for -- what????

[iserith]

No one that supports bounded accuracy gets to try and make this point. And the math BA was meant to take away had way more of a purpose than XP calculations.

What does it mean to "support" bounded accuracy? I don't even give it a second thought. It just is.

If you don't know when you've achieved a significant goal, there's more problems than just the leveling method.

It's not about realizing it after it's done, but knowing what to pursue before it's done. If I have to clear out the dungeon to level up perhaps because that's all the content the DM has, or because it's the only way to get to the next step in the DM's prepared plot, just say so, and that's what I'll do. Leveling up in these instances are ways to incentivize the players sticking to the limited content. No problem with that at all, but let's not beat around the bush about what it is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What does it mean to "support" bounded accuracy? I don't even give it a second thought. It just is.

Accepting its putrid curse on the game.

It's not about realizing it after it's done, but knowing what to pursue before it's done. If I have to clear out the dungeon to level up perhaps because that's all the content the DM has, or because it's the only way to get to the next step in the DM's prepared plot, just say so, and that's what I'll do. Leveling up in these instances are ways to incentivize the players sticking to the limited content. No problem with that at all, but let's not beat around the bush about what it is.

Again, if the group doesn't know their goals, both core plot and player generated, there's a larger problem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't even know any DMs IRL who use XP.

Between 3.5E and 5E, all of them have swapped to some sort of system which is either Milestones, Sessions, or something else. One of the DMs I know threatened to use XP in a campaign in 5E but the players were unenthusiastic about it so he didn't.

Personally when I run I use something which basically amounts to session-based, except it's maybe a bit more like hours-based because session length varies a lot. I do notice no-one in my game ever seems to complain that we're levelling too slow or too fast though, unlike some games I play in (I've never complained about either to be clear, but some players do). So I guess I've been doing it kind of right (I'm not running D&D 5E atm though).

 

[iserith]

Accepting its putrid curse on the game.

Seven years in and I haven't seen an issue with it. It doesn't mean I "support" it in any meaningful way.

Again, if the group doesn't know their goals, both core plot and player generated, there's a larger problem.

Then is sounds like we agree that if the DM is explicit about the "plot goals" needed to level then there's no problem.

 

[iserith]

Personally when I run I use something which basically amounts to session-based, except it's maybe a bit more like hours-based because session length varies a lot. I do notice no-one in my game ever seems to complain that we're levelling too slow or too fast though, unlike some games I play in (I've never complained about either to be clear, but some players do). So I guess I've been doing it kind of right (I'm not running D&D 5E atm though).

Curious if your pacing matches what is recommended in the DMG for "session-based advancement" (page 261) - 2nd level after first session, 3rd after another, 4th after two more, then 2 to 3 sessions per each subsequent level.

 

[M_Natas]

Few things suck more than unnecessary number crunching and uneven leveling.

XP is Hardly number crunching. If the players can add gold, they have no problems with adding XP.
And uneven leveling can be avoided by giving group XP instead of individual XP.

 

[hawkeyefan]

XP is Hardly number crunching. I'd the players can add gold, they have no problems with adding XP.
And uneven leveling can be avoided by giving group XP instead of individual XP.

I'm not bad at math. I can handle doing the calculations necessary to handle the XP system.

But it's boring and I don't want to spend even the few minutes it would take. I'd prefer a more engaging XP system. The games I've played recently have XP or advancement systems that turn into a discussion about play and the events of play, and involve input from everyone.

I'd much rather do something like that than sit and tally numbers and then divide the total and all that.

 

[pointofyou]

We have found that if XP serve as nothing more than a progress meter we'd rather do without. The only XP worth tracking are ones that can be used as some sort of resource in play whether that's just as character-build points or something more in-the-moment like some of the uses for XP in Cypher.

 

[Campbell]

Tracking XP is pretty much a waste if it's fundamentally a pacing mechanism (which it mostly is in modern D&D - you are pretty much going to get yours) and most content is curated to provide a challenge for these specific characters. It's fundamentally different if we're talking about static challenges or xp systems built to reward achieving objectives that are not mostly a given.

In Blades or Classic D&D my opposition does not get stronger as I do. I can seek stronger opposition, but that orc remains an orc and the Lampblacks will be Tier 2 unless something happens in the course of play that makes them stronger. Tracking progress matters more in such situations than it does in a more set piece adventure path style play.

 

[iserith]

It certainly is a pacing mechanism, but it's also something that, in part, drives my decisions when playing. I play in three games and DM one game. The three games are sandboxy, though the size and focus of the sandboxes varies a bit. Each one handles XP differently.

In the desert hexcrawl, we get XP for combat only, so we tend to beat things up a lot and take their stuff. Social only comes up when we think it might be amusing or puts off a tough challenge until we're in better shape to tackle it (then inevitably betray and kill them later).

In the West Marches style hexcrawl, we get XP for combat and for quests. So we choose the quests that will net us the most XP for the least amount of effort and fish for random encounters as much as possible between town and the quest location. I played in this one last night and went from 4th to 5th level in about 3 hours.

The third campaign is more of a town-to-megadungeon type setup, but we get XP more like Dungeon World End of Session move. The DM asks some questions and we have a conversation about it and get XP that way. One of the questions is "Did we battle any notable monsters?" The impact on play is that we don't actually seek out combats with as many things as possible like in the other two games, but rather just one notable thing then we're good (at least where that question matters - there are others).

So I guess whatever method you're using, consider what sort of play it's incentivizing because it will tend to have an impact on what your players actually do in your game. Story-based advancement incentivizes sticking to the prepared plot. It's not that great for games that don't have a plot. Session-based advancement incentivizes just showing up regularly and doesn't really incentivize playing any particular way. And so on.