D&D General XP: How Do You Like To Earn It?

[Tonguez]

Obstacles/Milestones - I like to have a steady progression of Adventure Acts, with rewards coming as obstacles are overcome and an Act completed

Fiat/1983 - year XP rewards can be fun, but XP accounting is meh and sometimes its fun to stay at the same tier forever

 

[Yaarel]

How do you know which encounters your GM will award XP for?

There are no xp.

An encounter counts if - afterward in hindsight - it proved to be moderately difficult and worked out successfully.

(Cakewalks are only worth half, and near TPKs one-and-a-half.)

The sweet levels 5 thru 12 require fifteen encounters to reach the next level.

The encounters can be combat, social, or exploration.

 

[Reynard]

There are no xp.

A encounter counts if - afterward in hindsight - it proved to be moderately difficult and worked out successfully.

(Cakewalks are only worth half, and near TPKs one-and-a-half.)

The sweet levels 5 thru 12 require fifteen encounters to reach the next level.

The encounters can be combat, social, or exploration.

That just seems like "xp for overcoming challenges" with smaller numbers.

 

[pukunui]

As a player, I prefer milestones over XP. I'm a power gamer by nature, and I find that when the DM uses XP, it's almost like a drug. I just want more so I can keep leveling up. Milestones, however, are more story-based. They make it so leveling happens when you achieve a goal in-game. I find this helps me focus on the story and the game more.

 

[Yaarel]

That just seems like "xp for overcoming challenges" with smaller numbers.

But in hindsight. An encounter that the DM expected to be hard but turned out easy, is only worth half an encounter.

 

[Reynard]

But in hindsight. An encounter that the DM expected to be hard but turned out easy, is only worth half an encounter.

That must have an interesting knock on effect where certain kinds of players might self-nerf to make the encounters harder.

 

[Blue]

As a GM, I tend to aim for "XP for overcoming challenges" aka giving XP for figuring stuff out and not necessarily having to fight or whatever. But as a player, i want to XP for concrete things like treasure and defeating monsters. And I want to know or at least have a clue as to the relative value of those things. I want to be able to gamble higher risks for higher rewards, and concrete XP is much better for that as a player, IMO.

Let me start with I think you have a perfectly good answer. I'm not trying to debate it, I gave it a like.

It did bring up an interesting point I wanted to explore though. Others have commented from the GM side (and I do this myself) that leveling is more of a pacing mechanism. As a GM I also try to give my players lots of freedom in the goals they pick and how they overcome them. But I just realized I could marry the leveling-as-pacing GMing and risk-for-reward player strategizing by making the riskier paths also the shorter ones leading to the next increases in scope and issues (that is, the pacing).

But would that satisfy? As a player who likes to be able to decide to gamble or not for those bigger rewards, would it throw you off to know that doing so would be hastening the next chapter of what the party is trying to accomplish, so in terms of the challenges to overcome you aren't getting in front of them by taking riskier choices now, just that the riskier path is likely shorter than the safer-per-challenge but with less challenges.

 

[Charlaquin]

That just seems like "xp for overcoming challenges" with smaller numbers.

Well, yeah. That’s basically what “milestones” are. Less granular XP awards.

 

[Yaarel]

That must have an interesting knock on effect where certain kinds of players might self-nerf to make the encounters harder.

Players know if a challenge feels genuine. Normally the players too reach a consensus about how difficult it was. Usually a planned encounter is worth one. An easy encounter tends to be obvious, and likewise a near-TPK.

 

[Reynard]

Let me start with I think you have a perfectly good answer. I'm not trying to debate it, I gave it a like.

It did bring up an interesting point I wanted to explore though. Others have commented from the GM side (and I do this myself) that leveling is more of a pacing mechanism. As a GM I also try to give my players lots of freedom in the goals they pick and how they overcome them. But I just realized I could marry the leveling-as-pacing GMing and risk-for-reward player strategizing by making the riskier paths also the shorter ones leading to the next increases in scope and issues (that is, the pacing).

But would that satisfy? As a player who likes to be able to decide to gamble or not for those bigger rewards, would it throw you off to know that doing so would be hastening the next chapter of what the party is trying to accomplish, so in terms of the challenges to overcome you aren't getting in front of them by taking riskier choices now, just that the riskier path is likely shorter than the safer-per-challenge but with less challenges.

Well, as a player, I don't want "chapters" and I don't expect pacing to be the purview of the GM (outside of things like con events). Player agency is key, and so as a player I want to know or be able to find out where the risks and rewards are, and decide with my fellow players what we are willing to try. I am not interested in the kind of adventure that necessitates milestones* or GM pacing.

*except personal milestones the player sets for themselves with some concrete XP reward attached. "Reforge my heirloom sword" or some such thing.