I'm not seeing much of a functional difference between a GM oriented or player oriented plot point or goal. Not when it comes to earning levels. Either way, the players have achieved a goal. It would be a railroad if the GM only gave the players one specific course of events to completing "chapter 1" and level up. However,  at that point it's less a matter of the level progression mechanics and more that the GM is inflexible,

My main point was mostly about how milestones aren't inherently railroady. As mentioned by others, one of the purposes of xp is incentivizing certain behaviors. If a GM wants to encourage proactive play, I see no reason milestones couldn't be used to cap out a player driven adventure arc.

What you describe later in your post, Chris, is actually how I handle leveling. I don't actually care all that much how the characters reach the end of the adventure. If they live, that's good enough. All the other stuff of kill X monster or uncover Y clue, I handle through either changing later encounters (more dead minions means an easier boss fight) or awarding material loot (a player took the time to thoroughly investigate a room and rolled well? Congrats, you get a magic ring that may or may not be cursed.) To relate this to the idea of story plots, completing the adventure is the plot point which awards the milestone.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I just don't see much of a meaningful difference between milestones and broad xp conditions.

Quote from: Hzilong on March 26, 2025, 11:21:18 AMPerhaps I'm misunderstanding. I just don't see much of a meaningful difference between milestones and broad xp conditions.

If all your players are at (nearly) every session, and all of them are happy chasing the same goals at least most of the time, then in practice there will seldom be much of a difference--barring some nuance on exactly how the broad XP conditions are implemented.  Which is how, I think, that milestones systems get started.  If you jump through the same calculations with the same data every time and keep getting the same answer, then it makes sense after awhile to just jump to the answer or at least a good enough approximation of it.

In a way, this is similar to the distinction between sandbox players choose and mission-based hooks.  If you mix both into the same campaign, and players always chase missions, then in theory you are still running a sandbox, but in practice you aren't.

The problem isn't even with that result, either.  The problem is what happens when the conditions change, or even worse the pernicious inclination to force the conditions not to change so that the GM can keep using the simple milestones. So there's no direct cause and effect between milestones and railroads, but overtime there is some correlation.  A GM "addicted" to the simplicity of a milestone can take the next step of making sure you only do adventures that work well with milestones--and now we are hop, skip, and jump away from railroad territory.

I dislike milestones for the same reason that I dislike GM fudging the dice.  The advantages are all when you first start, because old habits and inclinations by GM and player alike are still living off the capital accumulated in earlier games.  However, as people get used to it, the bad influences start being felt gradually.  By the time a real problem arises, it will seem like something else.  Maybe some of the players just aren't very motivated anymore.  Maybe they start metagaming more in ways the group doesn't much care.  Maybe they get lazy about solving things as the character.  Hard to say, because some players will always play well no matter how you do XP, others gradually drift into whatever the system encourages, and others will try to exploit the system. 

Quote from: Exploderwizard on March 25, 2025, 07:15:06 AMI don't care for milestone XP because the players usually have no idea how to control it. XP method is how you communicate victory conditions.

I get your point but that has the whiff of metagaming. I want the players to decide what they want to do because that's what they want to do, not because they get XP for it. Maybe its my RuneQuest upbringing from back in the day but I don't really like any of the XP options for an urban sandbox game. Milestone leveling is the least worst.

Also my player are older and no longer hang over the DMs screen after the game demanding me to figure out the XP before they go home.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 21, 2025, 07:50:51 PM"Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.

No, it's fucking terrible.

Rewarding XP just because you just...showed up at the table?

No way. You don't play, you don't get XP. Either you participate in some fashion or don't bother showing up. I don't care if it's even just doing combat or disarming a trap. You participated.

But if you start fucking off at my table, then I will ask you to either DO SOMETHING or leave.

PCs have many shared experiences, but each PC does have experiences not necessarily shared by the group. So when it comes to XP, I divvy it out accordingly. Group XP is given out for monsters/encounters defeated and for some goals that have been reached. Possibly monetary treasure too. Individual PC XP is rewarded for class specific accomplishments (crits for fighters, disarming traps for thieves, bringing a PC back to life for a cleric, researching a unique spell for MUs, just to cite a few examples). That's how I always done it and I had no problems at all. Nor do I see it as "Wrong" and I will never be convinced otherwise.

To give a real world analogy: we all have jobs. A bunch of people go to the same office/workplace and get the end goal done, whatever that may be. That, IMO, is the "shared" experience portion. But when it comes down to our individual jobs, each of us got to the shared goal a different way. Where I work, the mechanical engineer designing a new MRI unit is having a different experience than say the guy in accounts payable. Yes, their end goal is to both make money for the company, but how each of them got there is entirely different. That's their "individual" experience.

This is also why a shared XP chart for all classes makes no sense to me. This was one of the things that drove me away from D&D when 3e came out. A wizard should have different XP values for leveling than a fighter. They're entirely different skill sets and the XP charts for each class reflects this.

Now, are milestone XP systems bad? If you mean that when the party gets to a certain point they all level, then yes. IMO, it's lazy DMing and it gives zero incentive for lazy players to contribute.

Quote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 21, 2025, 07:50:51 PM"Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.

No, it's fucking terrible.

Rewarding XP just because you just...showed up at the table?

No way. You don't play, you don't get XP. Either you participate in some fashion or don't bother showing up. I don't care if it's even just doing combat or disarming a trap. You participated.

But if you start fucking off at my table, then I will ask you to either DO SOMETHING or leave.

Greetings!

OMG, right? Getting XP rewards for just showing up at the game? *Laughing*

I would fucking shit can any smug, entitled Player that acted like that. Geesus. If these people aren't fucking eager to show up to game, then fuck them. I have people waiting, eager, to play in MY GAMES. Fuck, people have traveled across the fucking country to PLAY WITH SHARK. If someone doesn't take showing up at my table seriously, then I fucking smoke them fast. Fuck that. Have some respect for the DM, and the other players you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on March 26, 2025, 02:15:51 PM

Quote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 21, 2025, 07:50:51 PM"Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.

No, it's fucking terrible.

Rewarding XP just because you just...showed up at the table?

No way. You don't play, you don't get XP. Either you participate in some fashion or don't bother showing up. I don't care if it's even just doing combat or disarming a trap. You participated.

But if you start fucking off at my table, then I will ask you to either DO SOMETHING or leave.

Greetings!

OMG, right? Getting XP rewards for just showing up at the game? *Laughing*

I would fucking shit can any smug, entitled Player that acted like that. Geesus. If these people aren't fucking eager to show up to game, then fuck them. I have people waiting, eager, to play in MY GAMES. Fuck, people have traveled across the fucking country to PLAY WITH SHARK. If someone doesn't take showing up at my table seriously, then I fucking smoke them fast. Fuck that. Have some respect for the DM, and the other players you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't think the "XP for showing up" is meant to reward disrespect. Rather it is a generic reward for participation without putting preconditions on what form that participation takes. By all means get rid of disrepectful or distinterested players. The question is whether you're giving XP for gold, or killing monsters, or exploration versus for general participation. I think the actual participation is implied.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 26, 2025, 12:06:01 PMHard to say, because some players will always play well no matter how you do XP, others gradually drift into whatever the system encourages, and others will try to exploit the system. 

Players tend to do what the game rewards them for doing. It could be argued that playing a given game well is literally defined as mastering the things the game rewards you for doing.

Quote from: SHARK on March 26, 2025, 02:15:51 PMI have people waiting, eager, to play in MY GAMES. Fuck, people have traveled across the fucking country to PLAY WITH SHARK.

I'm one of 'em! If you are ever in my neck of the woods (Cleveland/Akron), let me know.

Quote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:54:52 PMThis is also why a shared XP chart for all classes makes no sense to me. This was one of the things that drove me away from D&D when 3e came out. A wizard should have different XP values for leveling than a fighter. They're entirely different skill sets and the XP charts for each class reflects this.

I go back and forth on this one.  On the one hand, I appreciate that having a different chart for each class gives the options to have each class progress differently.  On the other hand, if you deliberately design the classes to progress similarly, and express the differences in other ways, then I'm not sure it buys all that much. It becomes a vestigial appendage.  So makes sense for B/X and AD&D because those games were designed for the classes to not match up level by level. 

It's a bit like the whole 5 unique and original saving throw types versus Fortitude/Reflex/Will versus one unified saving throw versus whatever else a game might use for saving throws.  I can make a case for any of them, but only when used in a game designed for it.

Quote from: Festus on March 26, 2025, 02:38:59 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 26, 2025, 02:15:51 PM

Quote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 21, 2025, 07:50:51 PM"Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.

No, it's fucking terrible.

Rewarding XP just because you just...showed up at the table?

No way. You don't play, you don't get XP. Either you participate in some fashion or don't bother showing up. I don't care if it's even just doing combat or disarming a trap. You participated.

But if you start fucking off at my table, then I will ask you to either DO SOMETHING or leave.

Greetings!

OMG, right? Getting XP rewards for just showing up at the game? *Laughing*

I would fucking shit can any smug, entitled Player that acted like that. Geesus. If these people aren't fucking eager to show up to game, then fuck them. I have people waiting, eager, to play in MY GAMES. Fuck, people have traveled across the fucking country to PLAY WITH SHARK. If someone doesn't take showing up at my table seriously, then I fucking smoke them fast. Fuck that. Have some respect for the DM, and the other players you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't think the "XP for showing up" is meant to reward disrespect. Rather it is a generic reward for participation without putting preconditions on what form that participation takes. By all means get rid of disrepectful or distinterested players. The question is whether you're giving XP for gold, or killing monsters, or exploration versus for general participation. I think the actual participation is implied.

Greetings!

Thank you, Festus! That is a good point!

Sometimes I get too excited. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 03:19:57 PM

Quote from: SHARK on March 26, 2025, 02:15:51 PMI have people waiting, eager, to play in MY GAMES. Fuck, people have traveled across the fucking country to PLAY WITH SHARK.

I'm one of 'em! If you are ever in my neck of the woods (Cleveland/Akron), let me know.

Greetings!

Outstanding, my friend! Akron, Ohio, heh? Nice!

It would be great to get together, Blackstone!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I've given xp for play-by-post participation. But that's in part because it encourages investment in posting. And those games are hard to keep momentum in.

I've also given xp just for showing up, but only really in games where I know folks will show up and play towards their goals regardless. Else it encourages folks taking too long on a given adventure just to bank xp. If I use it, it's because I trust my players to be driven, perhaps a little too driven.

I used to give XP for all kinds of out of game things. Now I never do.  Characters get XP for doing things in the setting, full stop.

I don't like when players try to "game the GM" instead of playing the game. Despite not being afraid to say, "No," I don't want to have to do it repeatedly for the same useless behavior. Fortunately, I've consistently made this so clear in my games over the last decade or more that the only time it comes up now is when someone pretends to do it as a joke on me.

There are some players who are gonna play the way they are gonna play without regards to how XP is awarded.  But I haven't played with a majority group of such players since the late 80's.

I find XP works a lot better than no-XP, but the precise method of awarding doesn't seem to matter much. In my Cyberpunk Red campaign it was something like 30-80 XP for a session depending on level of achievement, which to a large extent came down to how I as GM felt about the session. That seemed to work fine. I've run 5e with 20 XP to level and 3-8 XP per session, likewise, and it worked fine. What doesn't work so well IMO is arbitrary level up by GM fiat, or level up when you complete The Adventure. The advantage of XP seems to be in a number on the sheet that goes up.
That said, "XP for kills" as in 3e-5e D&D does seem to be about the worst possible way of doing it, leading to a game entirely centred around combat - 4e probably the worst offender.