The Theater Kids are fighting with what's left of the BroSR. Are "Milestone" leveling methods better than "gold-for-xp"? Or is there a third option?
If an XP system has points awarded under stated criteria and a threshold for gaining a level, then a milestone system is just a crippled version of that. You need one 'XP' to gain a level, and that one 'XP' is granted arbitrarily.
Large chunks of 'story award' XP fulfill a similar function anyway, if desired.
The bizarre demonisation by the militant rules lite brigade of tracking a few simple numbers gave me an allergy to milestones.
The original purpose of XP is to create addicting gameplay via a Skinner Box. This is why XP to next level historically grew by strange numbers. I am not a fan of this approach, and I generally think that any move away from it is good. "Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.
At the end of the day, I think that it's probably better in most circumstances to abandon the zero to hero trope and start with characters who are actually marginally competent and to flatten out character growth.
If I had to design an XP system, I would actually say it should be via player popularity. Each player automatically receives 1 XP per session, and you can vote for a player who isn't you to give them 1 more XP. Obviously, this creates intraparty balance concerns, so I would probably add a choice of restrictions, like cooldown after earning bonus XP, cooldown for the reasons you earned bonus XP, or a special shop you can only spend popularity contest XP on.
At the end of the day, you want to reward making the game enjoyable for other players most, and that is worth giving yourself a balance headache in the long run. Sometimes it's important to remember to not put the cart before the horse.
Gold-for-XP is a sacred cow because its the original design of the dungeon crawl game. It's certainly defensible in that case, but it becomes ludicrous for the reasons Pundit states in other games.
The big way to get XP in D&D- the standard in every version from AD&D 2e forward I believe- is XP for monster kills, with some optional rules in the DMG for rewards for other things showing up in some versions. In some cases the XP is determined by challenge rating- 3.X was set up so you couldn't "grind boars" to max level or whatever (a thing that most video games have prevented for decades as well).
The advantage of XP for killing monsters and bad guys is really simple- many kinds of games are progressed by killing monsters and bad guys, not just dungeon crawls. You can defeat the evil empire by killing enough of their elite soldiers maybe, so everything tracks.
It has one big advantage over all the other things as well- it makes random encounters actually have something players want. It encourages them to pick a fight sometimes perhaps, and actually engage in the combat minigame, which is usually the best designed part of the rules (and often the part that your character class or whatever is built to function a certain way in). This is less defensible in a game more oriented about the rest of roleplaying, but none of the other systems seem to rope progression to combat participation as well as this.
Best Pundit video I've seen in a while. The only thing I slightly disagree with is the notion that players have to be told how XP is calculated. I don't think I've ever done that, and it hasn't been an issue. The idea seems to stem from a belief that getting XP is "winning" the game and players need to be told the win conditions.
XP for gold serves no purpose to me. My players aren't very interested in loot, and I have no desire to make them more intent on it. To Venka's point, I also see no reason to further incentivize them to kill people. RPG players rarely need more incentive to kill or steal. What I want to incentivize in my games is players engaging with the game world and problem solving. That tends to lead me towards the idea that some kind of goal/objective based XP system is probably the best. In practice I usually mix in a bit of everything: some XP for finding hidden treasure (but not for stripping corpses), some for successful encounters (what that means will depend on the encounter), some for quest/adventure completion, and a small bonus for session attendance. I haven't given XP explicitly for location exploration in the past, but I might start in the future.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 22, 2025, 10:21:56 AMBest Pundit video I've seen in a while. The only thing I slightly disagree with is the notion that players have to be told how XP is calculated. I don't think I've ever done that, and it hasn't been an issue. The idea seems to stem from a belief that getting XP is "winning" the game and players need to be told the win conditions.
XP for gold serves no purpose to me. My players aren't very interested in loot, and I have no desire to make them more intent on it. To Venka's point, I also see no reason to further incentivize them to kill people. RPG players rarely need more incentive to kill or steal. What I want to incentivize in my games is players engaging with the game world and problem solving. That tends to lead me towards the idea that some kind of goal/objective based XP system is probably the best. In practice I usually mix in a bit of everything: some XP for finding hidden treasure (but not for stripping corpses), some for successful encounters (what that means will depend on the encounter), some for quest/adventure completion, and a small bonus for session attendance. I haven't given XP explicitly for location exploration in the past, but I might start in the future.
My usual approach is that this is the "attendance" value of xp. So I keep it rather low, maybe a tenth of what a typical combat encounter would award. And spread the values out by location. Even for an "empty" location. The players don't know that it's empty, and they get something for being willing to push forward.
Theres nothing storygamers wont lie about and try to ruin.
IDK I've only run games with "standard XP" for decades and never had an issue. I only play with people that create characters that are motivated to engage w/ the setting, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be of carrot/sticking them.
As is common for me, I find that Palladium Books did it best; big XP rewards for devising successful plans (particularly to save others) and engaging in potential self-sacrifice, moderate rewards for overcoming foes AND for avoiding unnecessary violence, and small rewards for successful skill use (that add up quickly over a session).
Combined with a relatively small growth curve and class XP tables designed for fairly quick early advancement (up to about level 6) and much slower progression after that (their games have advancement up to level 15, but I've never seen any campaign ever reach it... even long running ones tend to end somewhere between level 10-12... with less than a quarter of the campaign the level 1-6 part) and it just hits my sweet spot for game progression and power curves.
Milestone is for the "Everyone gets a trophy" crowd, the same types that are responsible for every class needing the same amount of XP to progress.
Quote"Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.
My experience with it is pretty bad. I implemented it several years ago in our local game while playing Gods & Monsters (https://www.godsmonsters.com/Game/) for the first time. After several sessions, I started hearing from the players that nothing was happening. It was very obvious that they weren't having fun and we would soon stop getting together. They wanted more excitement; more conflicts. Rather than argue with them about why they weren't taking advantage of adventure opportunities I "ignored" their complaints and in a completely unrelated move, I took apart AD&D's experience system (and others) (https://www.godsmonsters.com/Features/experience-advancement/) and put it back together as: (a) experience for defeating named encounters; (b) experience for gaining and then losing treasure; (c) experience for engaging named encounters.
I announced the change at the start of the next session. Within four sessions as they saw how XP happened, they were having more fun: talking to more NPCs and fighting more NPCs. The campaign lasted another seven years, until I moved to another state.
Pavlov lives in the hearts of men.
The XP system I'm modeling for my game is very inspired by Your work (Pundit) and Sandy Peterson's idea of leveling. I think the balance to strike is that leveling shouldn't be arbitrary but also shouldn't be restrictive or unclear.
Thus likewise I give 1 XP for showing up to the game, with different bonus XP for a broad set of defined things, dropping below 0 and surviving is 1 XP, slaying a foe with either greater HD or numbers is 1 XP, making new allies is 1 XP. discovering a clue or insight on a investigation is 1 XP.
I will say I do have a soft spot for gold = XP. I think if the goal or idea is domain level play, Gold for XP makes a lot of sense, since by the time you're the level that domain play matters, you have enough gold to afford domain resources.
Actually the gold for XP, and monster slaying for XP make the most sense in domain play, because clearing hexes and establishing civilization in those hexes requires gold and killing monsters.
I agree that the XP system should be tailored to the type of game play/advancement that you want to see. In my latest campaign, I wanted to see a variety of combat, social encounters, training, and goal chasing with the advancement not happening in the middle of an adventure. So, I went with milestones triggered by downtime between 'missions' after significant events.
Gold-for-XP doesn't interest me in the slightest. I use flat XP points earned by exceptional roleplay, or rolling natural 20's and 1's - we grow and learn by doing something excellently or horribly!
Quote from: zircher on March 22, 2025, 03:34:55 PMI agree that the XP system should be tailored to the type of game play/advancement that you want to see. In my latest campaign, I wanted to see a variety of combat, social encounters, training, and goal chasing with the advancement not happening in the middle of an adventure. So, I went with milestones triggered by downtime between 'missions' after significant events.
Two of my groups run the same way. XP tracking provides no value - it doesn't act as a reward to players who are already having fun. They already move the story along just fine. My other group doesn't play too many XP-based systems and we don't miss it.
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...
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d57vB3NK9iw/U7F6iqoGcRI/AAAAAAAAG8s/wELS2HKZBOU/s1600/Rifts+Experience+log+.jpg)
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 PMQuote 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 AMQuote 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 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 23, 2025, 08:55:53 AM2. 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".
OK, but do you require that there be
some goal? Or does a player get XP just for, say, being somewhere dangerous?
Quote from: BadApple on March 23, 2025, 02:55:06 PMI honestly think that XP for gold is the right way to go.
If you're only speaking of old-school style play of D&D proper, you might have a point.
But gold/money for XP makes zero sense in a superhero rpg. Do Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark just start at max level since they probably earn more from dividends in a day than most would earn in a lifetime? Is Clark Kent stuck leveling up at a crawl because of his reporter's salary unless he lands a book deal?
Similarly, it makes little sense for a modern military or spy campaign... do you just level up every X number of paychecks unless you take under the table side-jobs?
Nor does it make a lot of sense in a post-apocalyptic genre... maybe you could value the supplies acquired, but that gets pretty reductive pretty quickly as just gathering supplies is usually only a small part of overcoming the obstacles of the post-apocalyptic world.
Using gold for XP where you're playing the Rebels in a Star Wars campaign doesn't feel like a good fit at all.
Even some fantasy games wouldn't have gold for XP make much sense; ex. Ars Magica where turning lead into gold is just a thing you could learn to do wouldn't be a good fit for that model for example.
So, gold for XP is great for old school D&D style explore and conquer campaigns and using wealth for XP might make sense for certain campaign subsets in other genres (ex. sci-fi free traders), its not a one-size-fits all approach for acquiring XP in the way a system like Palladium's (broadly applicable regardless of genre) or the GM just deciding when you level up would.
Quote from: Zalman on March 23, 2025, 05:16:51 PMQuote from: Steven Mitchell on March 23, 2025, 08:55:53 AM2. 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".
OK, but do you require that there be some goal? Or does a player get XP just for, say, being somewhere dangerous?
Well, I don't require a goal. I don't even require that there be indirect goals in the form of random opportunities to meet de facto goals. Characters just going into a dangerous area and killing monsters get less XP for more risk than if there was something more going on, but I'm leaving that decision on their side of the screen.
As a practical matter, I don't really design any locations such that there aren't at least a few opportunities to score something else. For a heroic fantasy game, getting out with the big treasure haul is an accomplishment. I count that too, which is my nod to "gold for XP". OTOH, I'm also not shy about hiding such things in secret rooms or making it non-obvious. So sometimes players do fail to interact with anything that would generate bonus XP.
Really, the main way I handle this is in the explicit telling them what they got XP for. That encourages them to set goals, but leaves the motivation up to them. I find in practice that about half or a bit more of the players just kind of go along with whatever the more motivated ones do, since I have a lot of casual players. However, that's fine too in a large group. It doesn't take much of a carrot to get a few of the more active ones chasing something that interests them.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 23, 2025, 07:52:34 PMQuote from: BadApple on March 23, 2025, 02:55:06 PMI honestly think that XP for gold is the right way to go.
If you're only speaking of old-school style play of D&D proper, you might have a point.
But gold/money for XP makes zero sense in a superhero rpg. Do Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark just start at max level since they probably earn more from dividends in a day than most would earn in a lifetime? Is Clark Kent stuck leveling up at a crawl because of his reporter's salary unless he lands a book deal?
Similarly, it makes little sense for a modern military or spy campaign... do you just level up every X number of paychecks unless you take under the table side-jobs?
Nor does it make a lot of sense in a post-apocalyptic genre... maybe you could value the supplies acquired, but that gets pretty reductive pretty quickly as just gathering supplies is usually only a small part of overcoming the obstacles of the post-apocalyptic world.
Using gold for XP where you're playing the Rebels in a Star Wars campaign doesn't feel like a good fit at all.
Even some fantasy games wouldn't have gold for XP make much sense; ex. Ars Magica where turning lead into gold is just a thing you could learn to do wouldn't be a good fit for that model for example.
So, gold for XP is great for old school D&D style explore and conquer campaigns and using wealth for XP might make sense for certain campaign subsets in other genres (ex. sci-fi free traders), its not a one-size-fits all approach for acquiring XP in the way a system like Palladium's (broadly applicable regardless of genre) or the GM just deciding when you level up would.
XP for gold may not be a universal solution but I still contend that it works best in most types of games. As of yet, I haven't run a game where it hasn't worked smoothly and it always seems to work better than other systems I've tried.
It works extremely well in a skills game like CoC or Traveller. The players can buy instructional material or training that gives you the skill increases. I have used this in Cyberpunk, Traveller, various fantasy games, and have even applied it to a zombie apocalypse game I ran. In all these games, it felt natural in universe.
In a military game, your performance would be a direct avenue of being offered training and promotions. This could be a simple milestone system or a meta currency of directly being paid bonuses in XP. I'd imagine this could work in a supers game as well. "Gold" in this case would be more of an abstract in these kinds of games; "reputation" might be traded for favors like intel, special access, or training.
Also, I'm expressing my opinion based on my personal years at the table. Anything I say is all about what I've seen makes rolling dice and having fun work. I'm not a ridged grognard demanding everyone do it my way, just saying that this seems to be what holds up the best in my experience. If I sit at your table as a player, I'm happy to just go with whatever you want to do.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 23, 2025, 07:52:34 PMEven some fantasy games wouldn't have gold for XP make much sense; ex. Ars Magica where turning lead into gold is just a thing you could learn to do wouldn't be a good fit for that model for example.
I'd read "relevant rare valuables" for "gold". I know Ars Magica is set up so that your wizards learn as the seasons pass, and IIRC get XP for participating in adventures however defined. It occurs to me that with "vis for XP", though, you might get something that feels a lot more like old-school domain play. The natural categories of adventure might be:
- the wizards defend their covenant (domain, accumulated power) against direct threats
- the wizards get involved in mundane or tribunal politics
- the wizards go on expeditions to get more vis
The first two are about diegetic goals that theoretically arise naturally in the sandboxy domain-game, and aren't about character growth; the third gives us more of a reason to go delving than curiosity. It's maybe already there implicitly, since adventure hooks are often new artifacts or sources of magic if they aren't threats to the covenant.
(This kind of analysis also seems apt for Arion Games' Sorcerers of Ur-Turuk, which is roughly Ars Magica in fantasy Mesopotamia; I love the concept, but am not sure I'm sold on either the rules or the particular setting...)
Quote from: Naburimannu on March 24, 2025, 05:22:09 AMI'd read "relevant rare valuables" for "gold".
That's how I meant it. It just seems that games I run are better when players are spending resources on PC progression that they have to balance with gear and other items. Games also seem to be more real to the players if the economy of the world is functional and that they can interact with it in different ways.
I 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. If the players don't know what those are then they can't pursue them. It doesn't have to be gold but whatever is used the players should know what it is so that they can make informed decisions on how to go after it.
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. If the players don't know what those are then they can't pursue them. It doesn't have to be gold but whatever is used the players should know what it is so that they can make informed decisions on how to go after it.
Amen.
Players tend to do what the game incentivizes them to do. I start by asking what do we want to do in this the current game/campaign/adventure? What is the feel or play style we're going for as a table? Then tailor the XP system (or choose the game system) that best facilitates that.
Personally I prefer running sandbox style games where the story emerges from the players' choices. For plot milestones to function as an incentive, they have to be both known and somewhat static. I don't plan more than one or two sessions ahead, so if I'm setting a milestone based on player choice it's harder to pivot when the players do.
I aim to reward characters for achieving their in game goals with in game rewards, and base the metacurrency of XP on things that reinforce the play style for that campaign but are not plot related.
Quote from: Festus on March 25, 2025, 12:48:11 PMQuote 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. If the players don't know what those are then they can't pursue them. It doesn't have to be gold but whatever is used the players should know what it is so that they can make informed decisions on how to go after it.
Amen.
Players tend to do what the game incentivizes them to do. I start by asking what do we want to do in this the current game/campaign/adventure? What is the feel or play style we're going for as a table? Then tailor the XP system (or choose the game system) that best facilitates that.
This. I usually go with the default rules for whatever games I'm playing, but if I do something else the first question is always "what do I want the players to do?"
I am pretty much okay with anything when it comes to XP. It can function both as a reward system but also a pacing mechanism (i.e. it is hard to have a long campaign of D&D if you level every single session). But that also makes XP and how it operates very important. I generally favor XP that reflects growth of the PC and their skills. That can be challenging to abstract. But I've done it in different ways as well. Most of my games follow more of the reward given each adventure for achieving certain things (like killing a higher level foe, finding a manual, etc). But recently I wanted to run a special session of play, where characters advance more like in a Shaw Brothers movie. So I am going to advance the players from levels 1-6 over the course of a single adventure (probably 2-3 sessions, but it could even be done in 1 if things move very efficiently). So I want things to be more fluid to facilitate the players advancing enough to contend with a level 9 foe by the end of the adventure.
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.
For my eventually-upcoming run of Rappan Athuk, I decided to use milestones for a variety of reasons, but the method is going to be explained to the players. Every time they gain access to a new floor and return to base camp with that knowledge, they level.
Quote from: GnomeWorks on March 25, 2025, 05:33:26 PMQuote 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.
For my eventually-upcoming run of Rappan Athuk, I decided to use milestones for a variety of reasons, but the method is going to be explained to the players. Every time they gain access to a new floor and return to base camp with that knowledge, they level.
That works. The players know that XP is given for discovery of new territory and returning to report it. They can approach play knowing their goal is to find unexplored territory.
I left a similar comment on Pundit's video, but I have used milestone leveling for most of the time I've been a GM.
I don't find that milestone leveling necessarily leads to railroading or linear adventures. It may be that I am doing milestones "wrong". Players usually get a level (or an advance since I've been using savage worlds a lot) after completing a significant goal. Often that means "surviving the current scenario". Players pursuing their own goals within the scenario I promote through in-game currencies, which I know is a bit of a controversial debate in itself.
Additionally, my games, I argue, are not railroaded because the scenarios are built around the player choices and goals. I usually ask players to give me one or two concrete goals for their characters. Significant progress toward a goal is a milestone, and players all get levels for participating in the adventures, regardless of whose goal is being pursued since they are necessarily contributing by going on the adventure. I've been lucky enough that all the players in my games so far have been adults and know that there is no point in trying to game the system. I'm not giving you a level for the goal of "walk to the next town over". The goal should be something like "walk to the next town over to reconcile with an estranged father which is the beginning of an adventure about needing to avenge his untimely death two weeks ago which the character never heard about because they have been burning family letters unopened".
It should be said that I have mostly played with relative normies so tracking xp almost always ends with them forgetting or losing whatever it is they use to track their xp. So i end up tracking xp most of the time anyway and telling them when they level, which is functionally the same as milestones.
Quote from: Hzilong on March 25, 2025, 08:38:44 PMI left a similar comment on Pundit's video, but I have used milestone leveling for most of the time I've been a GM.
I don't find that milestone leveling necessarily leads to railroading or linear adventures. It may be that I am doing milestones "wrong".
Some things that some people think are milestone leveling are actually just very non-granular XP systems.
For example, let's say you only level up the PCs if they overcome something actually challenging to them; tasks that if left purely to dice in a direct approach they would likely fail (meaning they must typically use cleverness to exploit the circumstances).
That isn't milestone leveling, that's an xp system with a single broad condition and 1xp per level. If you wanted to make it more granular, you could make it distinct to the individual PC and maybe require they face challenges equal to their current level to gain one (a good choice for games that cap fairly low in levels (ex. level 10 would need 45 challenges overcome, level 15 would need 95).
A milestone is "the players have overcome 'chapter one' (the first dungeon where they uncover a greater plot, no matter how they do it) so are now level two. They'll become level three after they finish 'chapter two' travel to the wizard's tower (regardless of how much or how little they do in the meantime)."
In a milestone system what matters is hitting an important "plot point." In an XP system, regardless of granularity, PCs have to accomplish something general to gain xp/levels.
I actuallyndo really like XP for gold. In my own system thats what I use. I also give XP for domain income and mass combat stuff and a little for fighting monsters.
I also use a lot of money sinks. The armies, magical research, thieves guild stuff (including lawyers and bribes), building construction, retainers, all that kind of stuff. Having a lot to do with the money kinda feels, at least to me, like the characters level is also tied to an ability to make other influences on the world via the treasure they've amassed. It works really well.
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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: SHARK on March 26, 2025, 02:15:51 PMQuote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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.
Quote from: Chris24601 on March 22, 2025, 05:59:47 PMQuote 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...
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d57vB3NK9iw/U7F6iqoGcRI/AAAAAAAAG8s/wELS2HKZBOU/s1600/Rifts+Experience+log+.jpg)
Wow, that's similar to the system I use. I pretty much lifted the system from HM 4E:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/m5hfAkt_xl.GIF)
Quote from: PencilBoy99 on March 22, 2025, 11:34:46 AMIDK I've only run games with "standard XP" for decades and never had an issue. I only play with people that create characters that are motivated to engage w/ the setting, so I'm not sure what the benefit would be of carrot/sticking them.
If by "standard XP" you mean xp for gold/killing-monsters, then are we to surmise that you've never run a campaign where certain characters shouldn't be going around murdering everything in sight and taking off dead men's boots to check for copper pieces inside?
Quote from: capvideo on March 22, 2025, 12:01:07 PMQuote"Show up to receive XP" is certainly not a bad approach.
My experience with it is pretty bad. I implemented it several years ago in our local game while playing Gods & Monsters (https://www.godsmonsters.com/Game/) for the first time. After several sessions, I started hearing from the players that nothing was happening. It was very obvious that they weren't having fun and we would soon stop getting together. They wanted more excitement; more conflicts. Rather than argue with them about why they weren't taking advantage of adventure opportunities I "ignored" their complaints and in a completely unrelated move, I took apart AD&D's experience system (and others) (https://www.godsmonsters.com/Features/experience-advancement/) and put it back together as: (a) experience for defeating named encounters; (b) experience for gaining and then losing treasure; (c) experience for engaging named encounters.
I announced the change at the start of the next session. Within four sessions as they saw how XP happened, they were having more fun: talking to more NPCs and fighting more NPCs. The campaign lasted another seven years, until I moved to another state.
Pavlov lives in the hearts of men.
Why does the level of action vary depending on whether you're assigning XP for it or not? My campaigns are highly dangerous, and the PCs motivated to fight those dangers, without needing the calculation of xp for fighting.
Quote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PMQuote 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.
Players, as a rule, want to play. I don't quite get the notion people have that if their characters don't get experience points for gold, they won't want to get gold; much less that some theoretical player will show up at your house to game and then when they find out that they don't have to do something hyper-specific to get xp, they just won't do anything at all.
In years and years of running my games with "XP for showing up", I have never met a player who behaved that way. Instead, what DOES happen is that players stop feeling like they have to have their characters focused solely and entirely on getting as many GPs or Corpses as possible just to level up, and instead start doing a bunch of more creative things, based on what their character should actually do (for quite a lot of course, that still means getting as much money and killing as many monsters as possible).
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:16:26 AMIn years and years of running my games with "XP for showing up", I have never met a player who behaved that way. Instead, what DOES happen is that players stop feeling like they have to have their characters focused solely and entirely on getting as many GPs or Corpses as possible just to level up, and instead start doing a bunch of more creative things, based on what their character should actually do (for quite a lot of course, that still means getting as much money and killing as many monsters as possible).
That's been my experience too--except what most of the players want to do is not compatible with what anyone else is doing, and bores the hell out of me and the rest of the group. Yeah, they'll eventually get around to doing something useful, but only after playing Fantasy Medieval Sims for 4 hours. Or they want to play Fantasy Arts and Crafts. Or Fantasy Merchants and Traders. Now, I don't mind a little of that for flavor, but a game with no real conflicts doesn't do it for me. And the reality, is that it doesn't do it for them, either. They are
happier with the game when I don't let them pull that stuff, but not introspective enough to realize dragging their 5 minutes of flavor into 30-60 minutes of drudgery doesn't work when every player chases something different.
And lest you think it just me, I usually have 2 to 3 players in the group who are aware that this is a potential problem. You'd think that would be a enough to keep it moving, except these players are not very assertive. And you'd also think after years of teaching them that they actually prefer the way I do it to the way they naturally want to go, they'd learn. But nope, give them the reins, they go right back to chewing the cud in a field all day and watching the world go by.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:16:26 AMQuote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PMQuote 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.
Players, as a rule, want to play. I don't quite get the notion people have that if their characters don't get experience points for gold, they won't want to get gold; much less that some theoretical player will show up at your house to game and then when they find out that they don't have to do something hyper-specific to get xp, they just won't do anything at all.
In years and years of running my games with "XP for showing up", I have never met a player who behaved that way. Instead, what DOES happen is that players stop feeling like they have to have their characters focused solely and entirely on getting as many GPs or Corpses as possible just to level up, and instead start doing a bunch of more creative things, based on what their character should actually do (for quite a lot of course, that still means getting as much money and killing as many monsters as possible).
As you can see, I largely use the XP rewards table from HM4E. XP rewards are base upon:
-class achievements
-monsters killed/defeated
-individual rewards
this doesn't factor in XP for magic items.
I'm currently using Adv LL for my rules, which doesn't have XP for magic items. I therefore use XP for gold and gold value of items sold, along with the aforementioned list.
So far, I haven't had any issues.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:16:26 AMPlayers, as a rule, want to play.
This is what happens at my table. My players want to do cool things: have fun battles, solve tough mysteries, beat a bad guy they hate. They don't play to earn XP, they play to have fun. Now, XP is part of a lot of the systems we play, so I can't withhold it - they eventually want their wizard to be able to cast fireball - but it's not the currency that works at my table to have fun. So milestone has worked pretty successfully.
Quote from: Shteve on March 28, 2025, 01:07:14 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:16:26 AMPlayers, as a rule, want to play.
This is what happens at my table. My players want to do cool things: have fun battles, solve tough mysteries, beat a bad guy they hate. They don't play to earn XP, they play to have fun. Now, XP is part of a lot of the systems we play, so I can't withhold it - they eventually want their wizard to be able to cast fireball - but it's not the currency that works at my table to have fun. So milestone has worked pretty successfully.
There's very solid research that incentives work in just about any field of human endeavor. People do what they're rewarded to do because they like being rewarded. It feels good. In D&D it makes the game more fun. And as a DM its an opportunity to move play towards something that's fun for you without impinging on player agency
Quote from: Mishihari on March 28, 2025, 03:38:58 PMThere's very solid research that incentives work in just about any field of human endeavor. People do what they're rewarded to do because they like being rewarded. It feels good. In D&D it makes the game more fun. And as a DM its an opportunity to move play towards something that's fun for you without impinging on player agency
Yes. Every player I've ever encountered who wasn't motivated by the particular XP system was motivated by getting kudos from the other players or by driving the game aggressively towards something he wanted. Often, it's both motivations working in concert, which is extremely powerful. Invariably, they were socially assertive but not obnoxious about--quite the opposite, charismatic even. I had a game once where 3 of the players were like that, and willing to effectively negotiate on the fly to get what all of them wanted. The game always went where they took it, which was fine by me and enjoyed by the rest of the players.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:16:26 AMQuote from: blackstone on March 26, 2025, 01:36:49 PMQuote 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.
Players, as a rule, want to play. I don't quite get the notion people have that if their characters don't get experience points for gold, they won't want to get gold; much less that some theoretical player will show up at your house to game and then when they find out that they don't have to do something hyper-specific to get xp, they just won't do anything at all.
In years and years of running my games with "XP for showing up", I have never met a player who behaved that way. Instead, what DOES happen is that players stop feeling like they have to have their characters focused solely and entirely on getting as many GPs or Corpses as possible just to level up, and instead start doing a bunch of more creative things, based on what their character should actually do (for quite a lot of course, that still means getting as much money and killing as many monsters as possible).
I suppose it really comes down to should PC development be an in-game reward or given by the GM as a reflection of natural growth.
Because of the nature of my employment, long term multi year campaigns are extremely difficult. When I get on a ship and get a handful of players together, I can use "xp for gold" as shorthand for "here be the adventure." I can then offer up multiple types of adventures they can go on like bounty hunting, running trade routes, and taking on contracts to clear out vermin. Players can tell me that they are looking for certain kinds of jobs too.
In my experience, I find that some players love this and will simply do the contract for pay loop and others will branch out and really explore the setting and events happening in it. I do my best to make sure that both types have a good time. I like to make sure the setting is something worth growing into for those that want to do so. So far, players respond well with some even keeping in contact to try and get in on new campaigns via Discord.
Quote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:10:13 AMWhy does the level of action vary depending on whether you're assigning XP for it or not?
It confused me too. I assumed they were choosing the level of action that they wanted, until they complained about the level of action. Perhaps they independently decided to stop avoiding more challenging encounters and locations at the same time I made the change. But that seems unlikely to me.
The last game I played in with this group was a 5e game where the DM gave out level increases when he felt it was time. I got to see the effect from a player perspective. The other players often complained about how long it took to do things, yet still tried to plan well past the point where more planning helped and avoid well past the point when a little initiative would have brought great reward. There were times, of course, when events took over and avoidance/overplanning was impossible, and those tended to be the times when everyone got engaged and seemed to be having more fun.
My character was generally the one who would open the door, or step onto the platform, or whatever, when that kind of action was possible to get us moving again, which got me a reputation as headstrong and a loner.
That game is currently on hiatus. Has been for over a year.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 28, 2025, 09:32:24 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:16:26 AMIn years and years of running my games with "XP for showing up", I have never met a player who behaved that way. Instead, what DOES happen is that players stop feeling like they have to have their characters focused solely and entirely on getting as many GPs or Corpses as possible just to level up, and instead start doing a bunch of more creative things, based on what their character should actually do (for quite a lot of course, that still means getting as much money and killing as many monsters as possible).
That's been my experience too--except what most of the players want to do is not compatible with what anyone else is doing, and bores the hell out of me and the rest of the group. Yeah, they'll eventually get around to doing something useful, but only after playing Fantasy Medieval Sims for 4 hours. Or they want to play Fantasy Arts and Crafts. Or Fantasy Merchants and Traders. Now, I don't mind a little of that for flavor, but a game with no real conflicts doesn't do it for me. And the reality, is that it doesn't do it for them, either. They are happier with the game when I don't let them pull that stuff, but not introspective enough to realize dragging their 5 minutes of flavor into 30-60 minutes of drudgery doesn't work when every player chases something different.
And lest you think it just me, I usually have 2 to 3 players in the group who are aware that this is a potential problem. You'd think that would be a enough to keep it moving, except these players are not very assertive. And you'd also think after years of teaching them that they actually prefer the way I do it to the way they naturally want to go, they'd learn. But nope, give them the reins, they go right back to chewing the cud in a field all day and watching the world go by.
If you're running a sandbox game, the world shouldn't just 'go by'; there will be events happening around them, some of which presumably will either have enough of an interest level or danger level to oblige the PCs to take some kind of action.
Quote from: capvideo on March 28, 2025, 10:20:32 PMQuote from: RPGPundit on March 28, 2025, 06:10:13 AMWhy does the level of action vary depending on whether you're assigning XP for it or not?
It confused me too. I assumed they were choosing the level of action that they wanted, until they complained about the level of action. Perhaps they independently decided to stop avoiding more challenging encounters and locations at the same time I made the change. But that seems unlikely to me.
The last game I played in with this group was a 5e game where the DM gave out level increases when he felt it was time. I got to see the effect from a player perspective. The other players often complained about how long it took to do things, yet still tried to plan well past the point where more planning helped and avoid well past the point when a little initiative would have brought great reward. There were times, of course, when events took over and avoidance/overplanning was impossible, and those tended to be the times when everyone got engaged and seemed to be having more fun.
My character was generally the one who would open the door, or step onto the platform, or whatever, when that kind of action was possible to get us moving again, which got me a reputation as headstrong and a loner.
That game is currently on hiatus. Has been for over a year.
It sounds like you need a different group of players. Or maybe a different kind of campaign; one where the SETTING provides players with motivation. If your characters are all servants of a noble, or crusaders of some kind, or investigators, etc. where they have a built in motivation for their characters.