Quote from: rgrove0172;1002123THey are alternative way points towards earning experience. A destination reached, a piece of information gained etc. Or in the line of a story when the party reach a certain point in the action.. when they clear the monestary or land at the Port City they are headed to or whatever. Its an attempt to make experience fit more narratively into the game when occasional priorities are met, rests are taken and that sort of thing. I havent used it yet but Im really considering something along those lines. I can see many advantages and havent seen a downside yet.

Hmm. I guess I have no objection to awards for achieving a goal but for me it would need to be a goal the players/PCs have set for themselves...not sure what the best way to gauge value would be.

I mostly am playing Traveller, DC Heroes, and hopefully Ghostbusters if the stars align, so I'm not doing a lot of experience --> levels --> increased powers these days.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1002123I can see many advantages and havent seen a downside yet.

There's really only one disadvantage to be aware of.  (The rest will be very obvious, and will cause pushback from players almost immediately.)  Sometimes players will continue to run along as if they were getting experience in the traditional way.  Everything works fine, and then there is a delayed reaction 6 months, a year, or longer after the switch.  The players change behavior to match the new methods.  This can be subtle.  Sometimes people don't like the result, but it sneaks up on you.  If you aren't watching for it, you can run along with everyone getting increasingly disgruntled, and not realize why for some time.  Many players will say they are fine with this, but only later learn they are not.

That's not academic.  I've personally witnessed it in over 10 players in multiple groups.  (But not all players in those groups.)  For that reason, it's not a bad idea to take stock every few months or so to explicitly see if players are fine with the method you are using.  Listen in particular for comments such as, "Don't feel as if my actions matter to advancement," or similar things not even that plain.  Absent that, as I said earlier, it really doesn't matter how you do it.  Just do something that works with minimal fuss.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1002123THey are alternative way points towards earning experience. A destination reached, a piece of information gained etc. Or in the line of a story when the party reach a certain point in the action.. when they clear the monestary or land at the Port City they are headed to or whatever. Its an attempt to make experience fit more narratively into the game when occasional priorities are met, rests are taken and that sort of thing. I havent used it yet but Im really considering something along those lines. I can see many advantages and havent seen a downside yet.

What happens if the players fail?  What happens if Good King Nutsack DOESN'T get put back on the throne?  What happens if they are hunting down Celerus the Nutpuncher and decide to join him and his Squeaky Men instead?

Essentially, I'm opposed to anything that ties XP to something that's "supposed" to happen.

In my case I really don't use xp, as it traditionally is/was used in D&D, any more. I much prefer milestones these days, and will advance them a level based upon the set number of goals achieved. Most of my current Tekumel campaign is political intrigue, back room deals, etc. It's hard to assign an xp value for convincing someone to do this, or for hiring an assassin, or administering a beating to the sod who owes the clan money, etc... Normally, I decide when designing a specific scenario or "dungeon" what I feel the reward should be based upon its difficulty, relatively speaking, and how many goals they attain with regards to the "big overall picture" in my game. Some other things that I watch is how they interact with NPC's, do they play by the rules or are they running roughshod and alienating themselves and behaving in an ignoble manner -something very important in a setting like Tekumel where the notion of "face" is quite similar to what it would be in Japan. Going forward I probably will eventually eliminate xp altogether.

Shemek

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002138What happens if the players fail?  What happens if Good King Nutsack DOESN'T get put back on the throne?  What happens if they are hunting down Celerus the Nutpuncher and decide to join him and his Squeaky Men instead?

Essentially, I'm opposed to anything that ties XP to something that's "supposed" to happen.

Hmm, yeah, our PCs still get experience whether or not they fail...that's why I had those questions up above about how they're setting goals and how you gauge awards. Eh, I'll just keep doing as I've been doing and award experience based on what happens in the game  and what the characters do.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002138What happens if the players fail?  What happens if Good King Nutsack DOESN'T get put back on the throne?  What happens if they are hunting down Celerus the Nutpuncher and decide to join him and his Squeaky Men instead?

Essentially, I'm opposed to anything that ties XP to something that's "supposed" to happen.

This for me is the most difficult part of not using xp as it's presented in the rules. In the case you mention above I would fall back on how Tsolyani they were being and take it from there. I'm relating it to Tekumel b/c that's the only gaming I do these days. My players are Vriddi, you know better than I do what this means. Do they act like Vriddi. Let's say Good King Nutsack doesn't get put back on the throne, but my players decide we will put one of ours on the throne instead. This will benefit the clan, score us some points with the elders, and give us some influence we can trade in on down the road. If it played out this way I really would have to give them something, as ultimately they were looking after the clan's interests which supersedes anyone or anything else's interests, save for Vimuhla. Something still did happen, not what was "supposed to," but something positive from a certain perspective.
Honestly I mostly wing it these days. If I feel that it makes sense for the group to increase in power, whether in HP or influence, then I increase them. I'll give you an example from a recent game. The two warriors were given an Imperial Commission to Hereksa issued directly from the Chancery in Avanthar, and the Priest was advanced to 4th Circle with the approval of the High Priest of Vimuhla in Fasiltum. In the game these were major events, but the characters didn't get to roll new HP, or get a new spell, or a magic sword. They are now marked in certain circles as up and comers, people to keep an eye on. Their power has grown in the game.

Quote from: Dumarest;1002133Hmm. I guess I have no objection to awards for achieving a goal but for me it would need to be a goal the players/PCs have set for themselves...not sure what the best way to gauge value would be.

I mostly am playing Traveller, DC Heroes, and hopefully Ghostbusters if the stars align, so I'm not doing a lot of experience --> levels --> increased powers these days.

Yes, this is how I understand Milestones to be. You declare something that drives or defines your character (say, "I'm a ladies man") and everytime you do it successfuly during game ("I roll to flirt with the queen... success") you gain xp. Usually it's implied that it only works on relevant situations for the adventure (so the ladies man don't bang all ladies in village just to pile up xp ).

I seem to recall the ballyhooed Marvel Heroic RPG had "milestones" for experience, but I was baffled because it was like "Gain a level if Wolverine loses his temper" simultaneous with "Gain a level if Wolverine keeps his temper in check" and "Win big if Iron Man resists drinking" simultaneous with "Win big if Iron Man goes on a bender." I was like, "Wait, what? How do I fail?"

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1002134There's really only one disadvantage to be aware of.  (The rest will be very obvious, and will cause pushback from players almost immediately.)  Sometimes players will continue to run along as if they were getting experience in the traditional way.  Everything works fine, and then there is a delayed reaction 6 months, a year, or longer after the switch.  The players change behavior to match the new methods.  This can be subtle.  Sometimes people don't like the result, but it sneaks up on you.  If you aren't watching for it, you can run along with everyone getting increasingly disgruntled, and not realize why for some time.  Many players will say they are fine with this, but only later learn they are not.

That's not academic.  I've personally witnessed it in over 10 players in multiple groups.  (But not all players in those groups.)  For that reason, it's not a bad idea to take stock every few months or so to explicitly see if players are fine with the method you are using.  Listen in particular for comments such as, "Don't feel as if my actions matter to advancement," or similar things not even that plain.  Absent that, as I said earlier, it really doesn't matter how you do it.  Just do something that works with minimal fuss.

I suppose and will consider your warning but I really dont see how a backlash is possible unless they relish the superficial and metagamey aspect of the original system. To use your example how much more their actions matter to advancement if they are pointed in the exact direction of their own goals instead of an arbitrary sideline like killing stuff. Point taken though.

My favourite of all is incremental increases. You choose 1 thing from next level and get it at the end of a session. By the end of the adventure you have levelled up completely (generally max 1 level per adventure). If you want slower advancement, or use a system with few increases, just make it every 2 sessions or 3.

Next favourite, milestones.

I do also like xp however.

Quote from: Dumarest;1002154I seem to recall the ballyhooed Marvel Heroic RPG had "milestones" for experience, but I was baffled because it was like "Gain a level if Wolverine loses his temper" simultaneous with "Gain a level if Wolverine keeps his temper in check" and "Win big if Iron Man resists drinking" simultaneous with "Win big if Iron Man goes on a bender." I was like, "Wait, what? How do I fail?"

I think the idea was to incentivate players to act like Wolverine and face his dilemmas. It was like a "track" if I remember right: 1xp when Wolvie acted with violence, 5xp when he lose control and create a problem for his team; 10xp when Wolvie reached a point in the story where he deals with his violance issues once and for all, either by adhering to his violent ways, or changing and renegating it permanently. I remember this because I played Wolvie in a session of MHR.

Being honest though, I'm not a fan of the way MHR implemented milestones. Felt too on rails.

Quote from: Itachi;1002161I think the idea was to incentivate players to act like Wolverine and face his dilemmas. It was like a "track" if I remember right: 1xp when Wolvie acted with violence, 5xp when he lose control and create a problem for his team; 10xp when Wolvie reached a point in the story where he deals with his violance issues once and for all, either by adhering to his violent ways, or changing and renegating it permanently. I remember this because I played Wolvie in a session of MHR.

Being honest though, I'm not a fan of the way MHR implemented milestones. Felt too on rails.

That leads me back to the "Wow, this game is badly arranged and edited" issue I had with trying to learn the rules.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1002155I suppose and will consider your warning but I really dont see how a backlash is possible unless they relish the superficial and metagamey aspect of the original system. To use your example how much more their actions matter to advancement if they are pointed in the exact direction of their own goals instead of an arbitrary sideline like killing stuff. Point taken though.

From asking players afterwards, I think there are a variety of reasons, and most they would not be able to articulate until they had some experience using an alternate method.  It's not a big deal really, just something to keep an eye on until everything settle down nicely.

I hate XP.

I far prefer milestone/story arc/per adventure. AKA, go forth, do shit, and if you don't die, you get a level.

BUT...some players love XP.

Thus, I am happy to figure out an advancement scheme based on my players. AKA, how fast do they need to level to feel forward momentum?

I have found the SAME group will have DIFFERENT answers depending on the game system. For instance, my old crew needed D&D levels to be cranking, but they couldn't care less about advancement in Traveller, Star Wars or Gamma World.

In my OD&D game, you get a level if you survive the adventure. It's max 10 levels and then PCs become NPCs and we sing the Circle of Life song.

Quote from: Voros;1002050A milestone is XP for what you do.

No. Not really.

You could slay 10 orcs or defeat just 1 and it wont matter with the milestone method. You still level up.