XP for goals only

[Libramarian]

This is a deeply bad idea.

The game should do something out of the box.

New players should be able to start playing right away without having a discussion about character backgrounds and goals.

Experienced players can ditch XP or move to a goal-based XP system easily enough. New players need the game to come with a default reward cycle.

It should be this easy: players make characters, DM draws a map. Players move around from room to room, DM rolls on tables for the monsters and treasure in the rooms. DM says what the players see, the players say what they do, the DM and the rules say what happens.

If that's not fun enough to stand on its own as a play experience, make it more fun.

Don't just say: here's the concept of XP, do something fun with it.

 

[Christopher Hawkins]

I like it. Fantastic idea.

 

[CM]

Since day 1 in 4e my campaigns have ignored xp and the characters level up as a group when appropriate, often immediately before or after (and sometimes even during) the final objective of each adventure.

It can be a good way to give a group that is beat up a shot in the arm in order to carry on the fight without needing to retreat for rest.

Usually, expended powers remain expended, but any new powers and feats gained from levelling are granted immediately. I'm sure this isn't to every group's taste, however. I think XP will probably remain the default rule, with a sidebar on level-ups at the DM's choice.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like the OP's suggestion. I think it should definitely be an option in D&D Next as it promotes goal setting and accomplishment. The players tell the DM what they want XP for and then get it or not depending upon game play.

My own way does not reward this as I see accomplishing goals as their own reward. I also see treasure as its own reward as well, so no XP is given for it either. I give XP based upon successful class actions for each class. These overlap enough to encourage common goals, yet differ enough to include trading off goals and assisting others in non-self-interested ways. Encounters, whether they lead to combat, confrontation, chases, diplomacy, or trade, can usually mean XP depending upon the results.

But then I don't have XP = Character power. It's strictly class related for gaining class abilities for performing the class. Lots of other stuff can be used to gain power besides those (like the aforementioned treasure).

 

[Hassassin]

XP for encounters is a good default, as long as it isn't implied it's only for combat encounters. XP awards for goals should also be mentioned, but giving guidelines for it is more difficult, so I think encounters are a better default. Experienced DMs and groups will use whatever they like in any case.

 

[tlantl]

This is one of those I like it like this and everyone else needs to too threads, ain't it.

I imagine for some people or groups this adds to their game, for others it's an unnecessary complication. For me, this idea isn't one of the most promising that I've seen.

When I learned to play D&D we got experience points for everything, even good role playing if the DM wanted to use this slightly unfair method of rewarding players for their contributions to the game.

When I write a scenario I usually set party goals that earn extra experience and always give awards for successfully completing tasks. I also never award experience until the group has returned to their base where they can get rest recuperate from their ordeal and train for their next level if they have the required experience points.

I really can't see the problem with giving xp to players for fighting creatures as this is primarily how they get better at what they do. I really wouldn't expect a fighter to get better at fighting things if he spends 80% of his time sucking up to the lord or delivering packages, although he could complete a goal by influencing said lord in the group's favor or by getting some urgently needed supplies to the orphanage down the block. But, he ain't fought nothin', and ain't gettin' any better at beating on things, so how could he improve any of his class abilities other than his diplomacy skill.

As I see it, things like this and the plethora of other "lets get rid of this part of the game 'cause I don't like it" proposals is going to keep D&D right where it is, a dying sport no one really wants to buy because it's not a game worth playing.

I don't need a new game I got three versions of it already and it won't be long before I have brand new copies of my oldest. If things keep going away to be replaced by something unappealing or by nothing at all, then why am I going to want to buy it.

 

[Mattachine]

This discussion came up in my own group this past Thursday. The previous adventure had these flocks of chaos-plagued seagulls that were tough . . . but not too tough, especially if you could retreat and then return. The players were half-joking, but the idea was out there--go back to fight more evil birds for more xp. I wasn't laughing.

The "kill stuff for points" idea is common to many videogames, but it started with D&D. I don't think, actually, it's a good system. Quest/mission awards are better.

As others have mentioned, defeating a particularly tough, powerful, or important monster is simply a "quest", whereas defeating mooks and random monsters is not.

 

[Rhenny]

XP helps DMs to design encounters, but basically I award XPs in my game based on encounters (which as far as I'm concerned are mini-goals along the path to completing a more important quest or mission). I tell the PCs how much each session was worth, but only to let them know that they are making progress toward a goal. I let them know when they level up, so it really is based on the story and roughly how much they've experienced. I think all this needs to be in the game even if some DMs and players want to ignore it.

 

[LostSoul]

I run XP like this and I find it works well for the type of game I want to play.

There is a pitfall - you have to with conflicting goals. That can be a feature, but if you're not aware of it, it could cause problems within the group.

I can see this failing badly in a true sandbox campaign where the party have no specific goals (well, other than survival) and are simply exploring and dealing with what they find as they fnd it.

I think that's an interesting point of view. Isn't one of the features or requirements of sandbox play that the players determine their own goals for their PCs, and then attempt to follow through on them? The "XP for goals" system seems set up to provide this, and work in a real reward cycle (as Crazy Jerome noted above) into sandbox play:

Set a goal for yourself -> adventuring to achieve goal -> XP for completing goal -> completing the goal changes the relationship of the PC to the setting -> set a more interesting goal for yourself based on the new relationship -> adventure to achieve more interesting goal -> etc.

Since the goal and the actions you take to complete it are your own, how the setting changes is - at least in some part - in your hands.

 

[RHGreen]

I like the idea of getting rid of XP all together and replacing it with session boons that can be used in the next session only. The basic boon would be for turning up at all and better boons would be gained through good play. Just have level go up as and when it needs to, because that is what generally happens anyway.