The XP System

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Because look at it this way. You've got a quest to do X in a cavern. If you move directly to X in the most efficient way possible, avoiding unneccessary encounters, you actually get less XP than someone who kicked the door down and fought everyone, wiping the place systematically. And that totally sucks, but taht's what happens when you play an encounter based XP system. It's one reason I think a success/failure objective based XP award system is a lot better. Because anything else really hoses characters who don't kick the door down.

This is a problem with the XP system as written, but it's fairly easily solved. All you have to do is institute a rule that accomplishing a "mission objective" automatically gives you the XP for everything you could have encountered along the way but didn't.

I have no problem with the idea of an XP system based exclusively on story awards and roleplayng. In fact, I think WotC should have provided more detailed alternate rules for this in the DMG. However, I see that the single worst problem with the standard XP system can be solved by minor changes like those mentioned above.

So what do the rest of you guys think? Does the XP system need to be overhauled, tweaked, or even (gasp) left as is?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Bypassing encounters grants you the exp you would have gotten for killing the thing.

I don't see any need to alter the EXP system at all.

[RandomCasualty]

1091020952[/unixtime]]Bypassing encounters grants you the exp you would have gotten for killing the thing.

Yes, and no.

Bypassing it when you actually encounter it does, however bypassing something before the encounter actually doesn't. In other words, if you've got a room with a sentry who is going to alert room B filled with guards, you can sneak past the sentry and only get XP for bypassing him, but the real experience is in that room full of guards. Of course if you let the sentry sound the alarm and then hack the guards up with your sword, then you get the full XP.

You can take a left instead of a right in a dungeon and bypass a big encounter, and get no XP for it. You can teleport somewhere instead of taking the road and get no XP for the random encounters you bypassed. If you start a scene with the town guard and kill them, you get XP. If you don't start the scene at all, you get nothing.

There are plenty of ways to indirectly bypass an encounter which get you no XP at all.

[Username17]

Um... no. If you sneak past the sentry, and therefore the guards, you are supposed to get full XP for the whole group of sentry + guards.

Now, this can get abusive if, for example, you are going to have to go through that area multiple times. This is one of the reasons I find it best to hand out XP only at the end of an adventure - as this way you can make sure the players don't end up getting double or triple XP from a group of monsters by exercising stealth.

---

Which is not to say that encounter XP is perfect, or that I even like it very much. It's just that it doesn't have this particular problem. It's actual problem is that you don't get XP for "roleplaying" at all. And that means that there are some very enjoyable sessions which are essentially "worth nothing".

That's a problem. But the "problem" of people not getting XP for not killing stuff isn't one, because you are in fact supposed to get full XP for stealth.

In total, I think I like objective-based XP a bit better, but not because encounter XP gives out too little XP for stealth. It's because encounter XP is a frightening amount of bookkeeping and doesn't grant rewards for non-challenge based accomplishments.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

I have yet to meet a DM who hands out full experience for a 20th level archmagi because you managed to sneak past a CR 1 guardsman who could have sounded an alarm.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

You're missing the point.

In Frank's example, the challenge was to get past the guards. There was one or two on sentry, the rest on standby.

If the challenge is "Get by all the guards", then any way you accomplish that, throguh stealth, bribery, sexual favors, or good ol'fashioned ass beatings will get you the exp.

If the challenge was "Get into the tower without alerting the 20th level archmage" then the DM better damn well give the player his EXP. (Although, I can't think of any 20th level archmage that would leave a single CR guard in charge of his security. So, since your example relies on the wizard being a completel and utter retard, I think we can ignore your hypothetical at this time, as I find it highly unliekly that it will come up.)

I think the fact that no DM would set up a challenge that requires you to get past a CR 20, and only have one inept guard there to get past means more than the fact that this hypothetical DM gives out no experiece. Heck, I could say that every time I sneak past a guard, the hot, female, huge tiitied porn star DM gives me the snarlin' of a lifetime, but that would mean nothing, it being equally fictitious. (Generally, any game in which my wife does not participate, the hugest titties in the room are usually mine.)

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I think what RC is trying to say (Well, at least in the original, quoted statement) is that if a dungeon has twenty rooms, each with their own encounter, and you manage to complete your objective by going through only five of the rooms, you get about a quarter of the experience you'd have gotten by hitting all 20 rooms as you go by. But if this is an actual problem in your game, then you should just decide ad hoc how much XP completing various objectives will get the party.

-Desdan

[RandomCasualty]

1091035973[/unixtime]]I think what RC is trying to say (Well, at least in the original, quoted statement) is that if a dungeon has twenty rooms, each with their own encounter, and you manage to complete your objective by going through only five of the rooms, you get about a quarter of the experience you'd have gotten by hitting all 20 rooms as you go by. But if this is an actual problem in your game, then you should just decide ad hoc how much XP completing various objectives will get the party.

Right, there's lots of ways in which inefficient play can get you less XP than you would have had.

For the casual "beer and pretzels" style of game where people want to just bust into rooms and kill things, the XP system makes sense, but if you want to play a game based on avoiding combat, then objective based XP is the only way to go.

Also the whole guard plus sentry thing doesn't really always work. I mean suppose my objective was to sneak into a city, under the noses of the clerics of Bane, do I get full XP for each and every cleric in the temple, as well as each and every city guard for getting past the gates and getting back out? I mean seriously, just because an obstacle could potentially exist doesn't mean you automatically get XP for it. You simply can't link a sentry to all the guards he may alert and use the current XP system, because it just doesn't make any sense. A single 1st level city guard could be worth potentially tens of thousands of XP.

The only way to do stealth XP is to set an objective like "steal the great ruby" and then give them a fixed number of XP for doing that. That way there's no incentive to start fights, and sentries don't matter. If the PCs want to take on the whole city, they get the same XP as though they snuck in and killed no one. Under the current XP system, that's flat out impossible to do. The guys who sneak in will *never* get as much as the guys who kick the door down and try to slaughter everyone.

[Draco_Argentum]

1091020952[/unixtime]]Bypassing encounters grants you the exp you would have gotten for killing the thing.

But not the loot.

[Username17]

The guys who sneak in will *never* get as much as the guys who kick the door down and try to slaughter everyone.

Possibly not in the games you play, but according to the actual rules we are talking about, as written in the Dungeon Master's Guide - yes they do.

The only difference between these two scenarios is that the PCs will presumably take a lot more damage, use up a lot more spell slots, and get more treasure than if they just snuck by.

---

Seriously, the "problem" you are talking about is not with the XP system as written, but with its interpretation by your DM. Officially speaking, however many potential sentries and guards are there for the Ruby is supposed to be written up ahead of time, and the total XP thrown to the players regardless of how they get by.

That's how it really works.

That doesn't mean that the fact that you are missing out on all that body looting isn't a big deal (and substantial counter-incentive). It doesn't mean that the XP system covers everything. If you conduct heavy roleplaying sessions for three weeks in a row, and end up with your Wizard engaged to the princess, you quite possibly haven't gained any XP at all, for example.

---

But the specific problem you are ranting about exists only in your mind, because the actual DMG tells you explicitly not to do it that way.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1091112665[/unixtime]]
But the specific problem you are ranting about exists only in your mind, because the actual DMG tells you explicitly not to do it that way.

The DMG does not tell you to give CR 20 experience for sneaking past level 1 gate guards of a city, even though they could potentially bring the entire city down upon you, which may include several archmagi, high level clerics and what not. You simply cannot do that in a game and have it be anywhere near reasonable.

And what about starting trouble? Seriously... you walk into a tavern, you get information and you leave. There happens to be a level 15 fighter there. Do you get CR 15 experience? No, no you don't. If you happen to walk into that same tavern, start a brawl and end up killing that 15th level fighter, gain no information out of it and leave, then you do get the experience.

When you're in a dungeon you choose left instead of right. Left is obviously the better choice, because it takes you to your objective with less fighting, but by doing so, you are avoiding potential encounters with non-linked monsters, and therefore get no XP for it, since nobody would have alerted the carrion crawler in room 4 anyway, it's a fixed location encounter. The only way you're getting XP for the crawler is to actually go to room 4, and either sneak past it, or kill it.

Where would you draw the line as far as what grants you XP when you consider stealth and diplomacy to be ways to bypass encounters and you're giving XP indirectly for encounters that could potentially have happened?

The XP system really doesn't work either way. Either you play it how every DM does, where you get no XP for linked encounters and things happen one at a time, or you play it like the book technically tells you to and you get 50,000 XP for not starting a bar fight, since there happened to be a 15th level character in there who happened to have a brother with ties to the local thieves guild who would send the entire guild after you if you killed his brother.

The system works much like the alignment system. If you don't think about it much, it works fine in most games, but if you really get people trying to scrutinize it, it falls apart.

[User3]

I've always been confused by the "brutality kill." In this model, the party kills the BBEG by not fighting the golem but by pushing it off a cliff, or kills the room of high level guards by casting a Wall of Fire into a room and locking them in, or floods the caverns with water to drown the giant ants.

It solves a problem that should have completely expended the party's resources at a negligable cost, and the swag for all that is completely recoverable.

One part of me says "that's clever, full XP," and the other half of me says: "you didn't do anything, partial XP or none at all."

I've always been partial to the d20 Omega World XP. its:

0 XP -- No adventuring: Was cautious, didn't do much or risk much, hid in a cave.

1000 XP -- Standard adventuring: Fought robots, tasted strange fruit, explored, etc.

5000 XP -- Amazing sucess: Lead deathbot into trap and destroyed it.

5000 XP -- Amazing failure: Lead death bot into town, destroying town, killing half of party.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1091078644[/unixtime]]

1091020952[/unixtime]]Bypassing encounters grants you the exp you would have gotten for killing the thing.

But not the loot.

I didn't think about that, becuase of my DMing style. (I never give much loot to mooks.)

That's a good point.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

The bypassing encounters rule in the DMG can be broadly interpreted to cover a lot of things, but RC is right about the incentive to kick in the door and mindlessly kill everything. That's why I added the provision to give full XP for every possible encounter not faced when the mission objective is completed. Of course, you do have to wait until the end of the adventure to give XP for this to work properly, so if that's not your style you'll have a problem with it.

I agree with Frank that there should be some alternate system that gives well-defined rewards for roleplaying and adventure goals instead of encounter XP. Something like the system in the DLCS, but more coherently written.

[User3]

Let's face it, XP is given not to represent learning curve or skill growth through practice, but to represent how cool your story was.

The Earthdawn Legend Points was the closest to an honest representation of XP. Do something cool,then get XP.

So bypassing an encounter by sneaking past it is cool, because its full of suspense and it looks good on camera, but avoiding all the traps and monsters in the Black Tower by throwing rocks at the archmagi's window until he decides to walk outside and see WTF is going on is not cool.

[The_Hanged_Man]

1091185719[/unixtime]]I agree with Frank that there should be some alternate system that gives well-defined rewards for roleplaying and adventure goals instead of encounter XP. Something like the system in the DLCS, but more coherently written.

I like the idea in theory, but how would that work?

Unlike killing monsters or defeating physical obstacles, there are so many variables for a goal-oriented XP system. IMO, it would be so complicated that in the end it would end up being "whatever the DM damn well feels like" when all was said and done.

I think about the "unusual encounter" XP mods in D&D. It's hard enough to adjuste EL for ambushes, odd situations/environments, unavoidable immunities, and so on. So hard that many people don't even know those adjustments are actually built into the system.

I think a more workable solution would be to give general (and pretty rough) guidelines for what story accomplishments are worth, and roleplaying accomplishments are worse.

[Draco_Argentum]

1091204129[/unixtime]]avoiding all the traps and monsters in the Black Tower by throwing rocks at the archmagi's window until he decides to walk outside and see WTF is going on is not cool.

Sounds like good tactics to me. Therefore it is cool.

[RandomCasualty]

1091204129[/unixtime]]Let's face it, XP is given not to represent learning curve or skill growth through practice, but to represent how cool your story was.

Yeah, this is more or less true, becuase both a objective oriented and encounter oriented system run into problems

One caters to the hack and slasher and the other caters to the tactical coward. And really the game isn't about either of these archetypes. Ideally it's the guy who is brave, risktaking and innovative without being foolish. And I'm really not sure how we single out and reward him.

[Username17]

IMO, it would be so complicated that in the end it would end up being "whatever the DM damn well feels like" when all was said and done.

Is that really so bad though? The unified computer-game style of XP rewards from 3rd edition was interesting only in that it was the first such system that worked at all. I mean, does anyone remember the official rules for AD&D where you got 1 XP for every GP you recovered from dungeons? If you actually attempted to institute those rules the game went into crazy town pretty much instantly when you started rolling on the gems chart (each Gnoll is quite likely to personally have 1-4 gems, making them the best risk/XP source in the game).

The current 3rd edition system is remarkable in that it works well enough that people don't instantly throw it out the window - but only just. After all, just because it doesn't immediately cause the game to collapse into a singularity when used, doesn't mean it's a good idea. How many people do you hear complaining that people advance too quickly (or that they have too much power, or that characters have too many abilities, all of which are really exactly the same thing)? How many people find that character advancement is too slow?

As long as all of the players are getting XP and levels at the same rate, it absolutely doesn't matter how fast they are going up in level from the standpoint of balance. You could be going up a level every session, or once a year, it's just not important from a balance point of view.

So who cares? For all I care, the players could simply write down how much XP they thought they deserved and everyone could get the average - it just doesn't make any difference. The only thing that really matters is preference. That is, if characters advance too quickly they will have a difficult time appreciating (or even understanding) their abilities, and if characters advance too slowly they will feel frustrated by their perceived lack of advancement.

What the line actually is, will necessarily be in radically different places for different groups. That being said, why have XP at all?

I'm serious about this. Since we dropped the idea that certain classes should be "inferior but advance faster", everyone is supposed to go up a level at the same time. That being said, why not just have everyone advance a level between "story arcs".

A story arc might be just a single session in games where rapid advancement is prized, or it might take several months of roleplaying in games where it is not. And that would be a decision made by each individual group. And it would completely drop one entirely useless, yet extremely long number off the character sheet.

-Username17

[canamrock]

*nods* I agree fully. XP seems intrinsically arbitrary, so that if we're not using a point-buy system, there's no major need to track anything. Abilities that use XP for a cost always seem retarded, anyways...

It's better to just give out levels after a significant story arc for 'realistic' games, or to occassionally allow mid-adventure (or even mid-combat, if the players are fast enough) levelling to represent sudden bursts of power a-la anime or some action movies.

[Maj]

The system already is whenever the DM feels like leveling you anyway - considering s/he's the one dishing out your XP to begin with. If the DM doesn't want you to level, you won't. If the DM thinks it's OK, you will.

As far as I can tell, the only purpose the number on the character sheet serves is granting players the illusion that they actually have a modicum of control over something they don't really control at all. It's like sticking a thermometre into a pot of water set to boil. The water doesn't actually boil faster or slower, but because you can see the progress of the increase in temperature, you can plan your meal slightly better because you improve the timing... Which really doesn't improve your control on how good your cooking is. It just seems like it.

[RandomCasualty]

The only real reason we need an XP system is when we have people of varying levels. Ideally we want the lower levels to catch up eventually, and that's generally tough to do with an ad hoc exp system.

[Sma]

But is there a reason why the players should be playing characters of vastly different power ?

Apart from someone wanting to be the stableboy to Knight shining, I have difficulties imagining a traditional adventuring party being of different levels for any amount of time.

Sma

[User3]

1091293368[/unixtime]]

As long as all of the players are getting XP and levels at the same rate, it absolutely doesn't matter how fast they are going up in level from the standpoint of balance. You could be going up a level every session, or once a year, it's just not important from a balance point of view.


-Username17

Thats a nice fantasy. If characters were balanced against each other the same at every level, it would even be true.

In reality, when everyone goes up a level the primary spell casters are cheering over a new spells gained, while the Fighter-types are crying as the power gap widens by yet another level.

All builds have both strong and 'dead' levels, so the rate of XP gain has a huge effect on inter-party balance.

[RandomCasualty]

1091402790[/unixtime]]But is there a reason why the players should be playing characters of vastly different power ?

Not vastly, but a 1-2 level gap is common, especialy at mid levels where resurrection costs you a level. And people who have lost the level want to start making that level up, as 3.5 normally lets them gain more XP than everyone else so they can gradually catch up. If everyone gained levels at the same rate, then they'd never catch up.