Quote from: Hague on March 22, 2025, 11:59:26 AMthe same types that are responsible for every class needing the same amount of XP to progress.

That's not even remotely related to the topic at hand.

Currently in my game the players are in a city playing one faction off against another. There is combat but not a ton of it. There is treasure but not a ton of it. Without milestone leveling they'll never advance which seems a bit lame.

Quote from: Ruprecht on March 22, 2025, 05:07:38 PMCurrently in my game the players are in a city playing one faction off against another. There is combat but not a ton of it. There is treasure but not a ton of it. Without milestone leveling they'll never advance which seems a bit lame.

Seriously, use Palladium's xp awards.

Here's a summary...

Greetings!

Hmmm...the whole "Milestone" thing seems irrelevant to me. I use the basic Experience system in ShadowDark, modified by material from Rolemaster. Essentially, a chart and access points for rewarding various experience point rewards for everything from gaining treasure, fighting monsters, developing skills and professions, exploration of unknown or new territory, exploring mysteries, roleplaying, and so on. Generally comprehensive and robust.

I have never had any difficulty in determining Experience Point rewards in the past, and don't have any problems now, even when using a basic system like what is presented in ShadowDark.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GnomeWorks on March 22, 2025, 05:07:28 PM

Quote from: Hague on March 22, 2025, 11:59:26 AMthe same types that are responsible for every class needing the same amount of XP to progress.

That's not even remotely related to the topic at hand.

Disagree.  It is quite relevant.  One method of scaling in older D&D and (some OSR) was not just class levels, but also the rate at which classes level up.  Rogues could be weaker mechanically at equivalent levels than other classes because they were more likely to be a higher level than the other party members based on their XP requirements.  Milestone advancement generally negates this possibility, as I've never seen it structure such that one character earns two levels while another just earns one under milestone leveling...

my new fav Index Card RPG uses milestones instead of XP.

it seems ok, its very arbitrary, the book suggesting a milestone award every 2 or 3 sessions.

at least the players arent pecking you about the XP value of this or that, or having to keep track of it all.

then again I havent run a campaign yet, just a bunch of one shots.

Well, milestone leveling assumes that you want to keep all the characters at the same level--which I don't, since I designed my system to tolerate a slightly wider level discrepancy than even mid-level AD&D does.  That's especially important for me, since my groups tend to have high variations in attendance, which is also an expected thing when playing with a large party.  You may be able to get 4-6 people to show up for a regular game, but it can't be done with 8-12.

I go with "XP for danger risked and accomplishments made."  Danger risked is based on the difficulty of the monsters, traps, and environment in the area being explored--whether encountered or not.  Accomplishments made is anything else obviously heroic in the terms of the game or a goal the players have set for themselves.  There are no direct rewards for wandering monsters, but the kind of wandering monsters influences the overall danger.  It just doesn't matter whether you fight 5 groups of them or none, you get the same points for exploring that area.

I went with this because even though I like the effects of XP for gold, I don't like tying the income to level.  Furthermore, I actively despise players chasing wandering monsters for XP.  It just leads to some kind of tactics game instead of exploration, and it also tends to take the players out of the mindset of the characters.  Plus, single player video games do that style better. 

Finally, milestones suck as a risk/reward mechanic. I give a lot of leeway on recruiting help.  It's up to the players to hire mercenaries (funds permitting) or persuade others to help.  That's engaged in the world.  However, I don't want to pay Paychecks and Mercenaries either. So I use the early D&D style of the number of characters divides into the XP pool for the party. Therefore, instead of me deciding the risk/reward, the players decide.  Is it worth doing this alone to get the rewards alone? Or is it better to go the safe route, get help, and have to share the reward?  They find a balance that suits them.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 22, 2025, 11:16:59 PMWell, milestone leveling assumes that you want to keep all the characters at the same level--which I don't, since I designed my system to tolerate a slightly wider level discrepancy than even mid-level AD&D does.  That's especially important for me, since my groups tend to have high variations in attendance, which is also an expected thing when playing with a large party.  You may be able to get 4-6 people to show up for a regular game, but it can't be done with 8-12.

I go with "XP for danger risked and accomplishments made."  Danger risked is based on the difficulty of the monsters, traps, and environment in the area being explored--whether encountered or not.  Accomplishments made is anything else obviously heroic in the terms of the game or a goal the players have set for themselves.  There are no direct rewards for wandering monsters, but the kind of wandering monsters influences the overall danger.  It just doesn't matter whether you fight 5 groups of them or none, you get the same points for exploring that area.

I went with this because even though I like the effects of XP for gold, I don't like tying the income to level.  Furthermore, I actively despise players chasing wandering monsters for XP.  It just leads to some kind of tactics game instead of exploration, and it also tends to take the players out of the mindset of the characters.  Plus, single player video games do that style better. 

Finally, milestones suck as a risk/reward mechanic. I give a lot of leeway on recruiting help.  It's up to the players to hire mercenaries (funds permitting) or persuade others to help.  That's engaged in the world.  However, I don't want to pay Paychecks and Mercenaries either. So I use the early D&D style of the number of characters divides into the XP pool for the party. Therefore, instead of me deciding the risk/reward, the players decide.  Is it worth doing this alone to get the rewards alone? Or is it better to go the safe route, get help, and have to share the reward?  They find a balance that suits them.

Greetings!

Yeah, Steven. I like that as well. I divide the XP amongst how many ever Characters there are in the group--Player Characters, Hirelings, Henchmen, and so on. They all end up getting some XP, so they all make progress. I also like that using that dynamic sets up the Player Characters to consider their forces, their abilities, and the likely opposition to be faced throughout the adventure. Is it worth the risk? *Laughing*

Honestly, though, most of my Players have grown rather fond of having extra swords, extra knowledge, extra muscle around to do a dozen different things. They more or less assume the XP will come along the way, and don't worry about it very much. They like having a Cook, a dozen skilled archers to guard the camp, some mule-handlers, an experienced Engineer, a Physician, a Quartermaster, and a few strong swordsmen to travel alongside them during their journeys. They also have a Guard Sergeant, a philosopher, and a Carpenter. The Philosopher, while perhaps seemingly less than useful, provides expertise in linguistics, translating written works, and also as something of an interpreter. Thus, he ultimately earns his pay from his diverse and esoteric contributions. Of course, some of the time, the Philosopher can seem to get in the way and be more or less an annoyance--but at other times, he provides knowledge, insights, and skill that really elevates the group's performance and accomplishments.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 22, 2025, 11:16:59 PMI go with "XP for danger risked and accomplishments made."

This is solid. So a goal achieved despite greater danger is worth more XP. How do you treat:

 1. A failed attempt to achieve a goal, dangerous or not?
 
 2. An attempt to seek danger, with no particular goal?

Quote from: Zalman on March 23, 2025, 06:52:17 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 22, 2025, 11:16:59 PMI go with "XP for danger risked and accomplishments made."

This is solid. So a goal achieved despite greater danger is worth more XP. How do you treat:

 1. A failed attempt to achieve a goal, dangerous or not?
 
 2. An attempt to seek danger, with no particular goal?

1. A failed attempt gets half the normal danger XP.  Or to be more precise, since all the formulas are set up to keep the numbers and calculations as simple as possible while allowing this to work--the base calculation assumes failure, and then partial success gives +50% and success gives +100%.  The various hirelings and henchman don't get these multiples, because they weren't the ones making the decision.  They just get the base "failure" award no matter how it goes.

Then when designing adventures, it's typical to have multiple areas calculated separately.  Area A has Tier 1 danger while Area B has Tier 2 danger.  If you have full success in Area A and failure in Area B, then I calculate them separately.  Which is another reason for doing the base on failure, as all I need to do is calculate that, then apply any modifiers.

2. For accomplishments, that's where the "anything else obviously heroic in the terms of the game or a goal the players have set for themselves".  I want the players to go as sandbox as they want, not how I choose.  So I'm littering the world with opportunities that fit the tone:  Rescue a prisoner, grab a treasure, discover something new, unravel a mystery, etc.  Sometimes what I put in places spawns additional goals.  Sometimes something else in the game triggers one.  Sometimes they just take whatever inherent accomplishments are laying around as a side effect of doing whatever else they are doing.  I do explicitly tell them what they got XP for.

Yesterday they found a traumatized, orphan elf child. They talked her into coming with them out of a dangerous area and then protected her until they could get back from their main goal.  That was a minor reward in a dangerous area (for them) which translated to about 5% of what they need for the next level (after doubling for success).  If they left it there, that's all they'd get for it. However, I don't think they are going to leave it there, as they unravel the situation around her, and will probably set their own additional goals.  I just don't know what or for sure what those will be yet.  If they don't, and just decide to set her up somewhere safe, and then wash their hands of the rest, well, they still got that small chunk of XP.

BTW, the idea of doubling is taken straight out of Dragon Quest, which uses a much simpler system for handling base awards.  You get one of three chunks as a base award, depending on which tier your character is in.  It's assumed that you are always going on adventures appropriate to what you can handle or dying because you picked poorly.  Then you get double if you succeed, which the way things scale is the difference between slow progression and steady progression.  I rather like the dynamic, even though a base that simple doesn't translate so well from a mostly skills-based game to a mostly level-based game.

Quote from: SHARK on March 23, 2025, 12:34:56 AMYeah, Steven. I like that as well. I divide the XP amongst how many ever Characters there are in the group--Player Characters, Hirelings, Henchmen, and so on. They all end up getting some XP, so they all make progress. I also like that using that dynamic sets up the Player Characters to consider their forces, their abilities, and the likely opposition to be faced throughout the adventure. Is it worth the risk? *Laughing*

Honestly, though, most of my Players have grown rather fond of having extra swords, extra knowledge, extra muscle around to do a dozen different things. They more or less assume the XP will come along the way, and don't worry about it very much. They like having a Cook, a dozen skilled archers to guard the camp, some mule-handlers, an experienced Engineer, a Physician, a Quartermaster, and a few strong swordsmen to travel alongside them during their journeys. They also have a Guard Sergeant, a philosopher, and a Carpenter. The Philosopher, while perhaps seemingly less than useful, provides expertise in linguistics, translating written works, and also as something of an interpreter. Thus, he ultimately earns his pay from his diverse and esoteric contributions. Of course, some of the time, the Philosopher can seem to get in the way and be more or less an annoyance--but at other times, he provides knowledge, insights, and skill that really elevates the group's performance and accomplishments.

Yeah, I think that works because you gave them the opportunity to do it that way, but they were the ones that decided to do it.  Another game could have the exact same situation imposed from the GM. Bet the player would be balking at all those extra hangers on eating up their treasure and XP.

I give an xp bonus for arriving at game night ON TIME.  It is not big, but will usually amount to a 20 percent bonus on whatever goes on that night.  I also think a big milestone/achievement reward is just fine.  I also will give ZERO experience if a group has what I regard an unprofitable night (no loot, burn resources and end up spending more than they made).  So I have no issues with using flexible reward systems.  So long as all the players are on board, or at least understanding the rules we are using its all good.

I honestly think that XP for gold is the right way to go.  The trick is to control how the party gets paid. 

In the game I run, it's extremely rare for the party to come across a random treasure.  Generally, if the party wants to earn money (and by extension PC development), they need to do something that someone else is willing to pay them for.  Now I can introduce multiple NPCs that are willing to hire then that offer all kinds of jobs with a variety of payouts.  On the other end, I can have in game ways for PCs to seek employment or contract work.

Quote from: BadApple on March 23, 2025, 02:55:06 PMI honestly think that XP for gold is the right way to go.  The trick is to control how the party gets paid. 

In the game I run, it's extremely rare for the party to come across a random treasure.  Generally, if the party wants to earn money (and by extension PC development), they need to do something that someone else is willing to pay them for.  Now I can introduce multiple NPCs that are willing to hire then that offer all kinds of jobs with a variety of payouts.  On the other end, I can have in game ways for PCs to seek employment or contract work.

The issue I have with this is that it depends on characters doing things for other people rather than doing things for themselves. The CRPG "quest" problem, where all the motivation comes from other people's goals. "Fetch me 20 bear asses for my ass collection."
Doing stuff for other people has it's place, but I also like for player characters to be accomplishing goals  they set for themselves. (Besides get paid so they have more money...)

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 23, 2025, 03:45:50 PM

Quote from: BadApple on March 23, 2025, 02:55:06 PMI honestly think that XP for gold is the right way to go.  The trick is to control how the party gets paid. 

In the game I run, it's extremely rare for the party to come across a random treasure.  Generally, if the party wants to earn money (and by extension PC development), they need to do something that someone else is willing to pay them for.  Now I can introduce multiple NPCs that are willing to hire then that offer all kinds of jobs with a variety of payouts.  On the other end, I can have in game ways for PCs to seek employment or contract work.

The issue I have with this is that it depends on characters doing things for other people rather than doing things for themselves. The CRPG "quest" problem, where all the motivation comes from other people's goals. "Fetch me 20 bear asses for my ass collection."
Doing stuff for other people has it's place, but I also like for player characters to be accomplishing goals  they set for themselves. (Besides get paid so they have more money...)

That's a very valid argument.  Here's my counter.

As a GM, I have the responsibility to work with what they give me.  If they want to do something I didn't have a job for then it's on me to help them look for the type of work they want.  They can essentially make their own "services offered" ad.  Also, PCs are always able to look for other forms of income; resource gathering, trade and barter, and transportation are all on the table.  My primary objective is to tie earning money in with a functional economy and upgrades to successful contributions.  It's up to the players how they want to enter the economy.