XP

[fectin]

Is there any reason to use the XP progression DnD does? I'm looking at 3.5 here, but it applies generally. Why is it better than just spending 1000 XP to level up every time?

I mean, the DM already has to do level-appropriateness calculations and normalizations (which generate an approximately linear progression), why not just fold everything into that?

[K]

Then there is no illusion of being bigger.

Remember, most of leveling is the illusion. I mean, for most people a new feat, +1, or spell level is not going to be a noticeable power increase.

[RobbyPants]

Well, the idea of it taking more each level is that you can slowly phase out weaker monsters, so you can't just keep grinding goblins to get to level 20. But you could have an identical progression to 3.x if you simply "spent" an amount of XP equal to your current level x 1000.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If you want to have combat XP (IMO a dumb idea), it makes sense to do one of two things:

1) Give each monster an XP value, and have level costs such that weak monsters give insignificant amounts of experience relative to the cost of a new level. Editions of D&D before 3e did this. It works decently as long as you understand that grinding thousands of 10 XP monsters to get to level 11 isn't usually that fun, and as long as XP values are actually reasonable.
Starting with a new system, it might make sense to give out XP values starting at 1, then 2, 4, 8, etc as appropriate challenges for characters of levels 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Intermediate values could be used for intermediate challenges, giving a bit more granularity than 3e, but that isn't actually necessary.

2) Scale experience gained while fighting such that the weakest combats (or combatants) that matter are worth 1 XP each, and then use some constant number of XP per level (hopefully not 1000, as that is a lot of fighting).


3e didn't do either of these, and as a result the XP structure seems arbitrary and needlessly complicated.

[hogarth]

Is there any reason to use the XP progression DnD does?

There's no reason to use XP at all, except in the sense of "you should go up a level every once in a while".

[Hieronymous Rex]

While playing SW:Saga, and using it's Destiny system, I realized that I much rather just use it rather than the book's XP system.

The idea is, you set a major goal for yourself, approved by the GM, and when you succeed, you advance. In Saga, it was so varying benefit unrelated to your level; in my variant, you simply level up.

Advantages of this is that players don't have track XP, GMs don't have to calculate it, and, perhaps most importantly, it creates a mechanical incentive to go and do something interesting.

It's probably a matter of taste, though; some people would rather go up periodically while they do things that would probably level them up in an XP system anyways.

[Maj]

The idea is, you set a major goal for yourself, approved by the GM, and when you succeed, you advance. In Saga, it was so varying benefit unrelated to your level; in my variant, you simply level up.

Advantages of this is that players don't have track XP, GMs don't have to calculate it, and, perhaps most importantly, it creates a mechanical incentive to go and do something interesting.

XP is a number on the character sheet in order to give players the illusion that they have some sort of control over the game that they actually don't. It takes advantage of humanity's tendency to love tools that measure shit - clocks, rulers, metal detectors, pedometers, thermometers, graduated cylinders, sphygmomanometers, spectrometers... Ultimately, the DM still controls when your character levels up, but because it's on the character sheet, players can watch the levelometer full up until "Huzzah! Level 3!"

In short, I'm with you, but players who don't/can't trust their DMs won't go for it.

[Fuchs]

In my games we level up when the group feels like it. No XP. Works well.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

If one doesn't use XP as a resource for crafting and such then (CR/CL)/# of 'level-appropriate' encounters per level, which we'd have go from 10-20 ad hoc on how much value we placed on story awards or gore, respectively. People seemed to get slightly more into being 85% of the way to the next level than needing to accrue 2800 more experience.

[Josh_Kablack]

There are several overlapping issues here.

I think the original question, was "why use the complicated 3e math involving a triangular summation of levels multiplied by a constant of 1000 to determine the xp total needed for each level, when that results in a pattern where 13.3333 lvl appropriate encounters result in a level up for a 4 person PC party instead of just giving out instead of doing something much simpler to get a similar result?"

And the reasons for that are

• Because that's the RAW
• Because that's what players expect
• Because you might make a mistake that has unintended results in trying to simplify it.

None of those are terribly strong reasons at this point, where we are 4 years past the end of the 3e cycle - people still playing 3e are people who have been playing it for a long time and are therefore more comfortable with houserule changes. And there are enough math nerds online who can catch most of the likely ramifications of any changes you propose

Off the top of my head, you could implement a system where an encounter of EL appropriate for the party's average level was worth 8%; for each point in EL relative to the party's level shifted added or subtracted 1% from that; each party member beyond the forth shifted that down by 1%, each party member less than 4 shifted that up by 1% and when the party accumulated 100% everyone leveled up. And you would be at least close to the existing system without having to do a bunch of chart lookups, divisions and multiplications to determine XP and how close the next level was.

(and a few calculations later, this system gives far more generous progression for PCs fighting CR below levels monster and far less generous progression for fighting monsters of CR greater than party level monsters than the logarithmic xp system in the DMG does)


The next question being discussed here is Why have XP instead of using some other method for advancing levels?

And again, the reasons are largely player expectation and tradition. However, there is a pavlovian component here. By giving out xp awards for various actions, types of actions, or playstyle a MC can provide rewards that encourage the type of game they want to run. Sadly, most games' practice complex xp calculations deferred to the end of session or downtime between sessions mean that the instant gratification reward needed for pavlovian conditioning really doesn't work - to actually encourage whatever sort of behavior you want at the gaming table you're better off handing out physical objects like XP coupons during the session immediately after a PC performs a reward-worthy action (whether that's killing a monster, acting especially in-character, figuring a puzzle, or what-have-you)


And of course there is the final question Why have advancement at all? - the Tomes go into some detail on this, and John Tweet took a bunch of flak when Everway didn't include PC advancement. But it boils down to a combination of expectations, reward system and a way to add new elements into an existing game.

[TheFlatline]

And of course there is the final question Why have advancement at all? - the Tomes go into some detail on this, and John Tweet took a bunch of flak when Everway didn't include PC advancement. But it boils down to a combination of expectations, reward system and a way to add new elements into an existing game.

Static characters that never change are boring. Even Traveler has a way to add skills onto your PC: You total up all the levels of skills that you have, and it takes that many weeks plus one to learn a point in an existing skill or a new skill. That being said, having a skill at rank 0 meant you were a professional, so learning to pilot a starship competently in 6-7 months isn't that big of a deal.

Static characters that never change in a powers based system like D&D is fundamentally broken. In a no-advancement system your starting character needs to be competent against all theoretical challenges the MC will throw at you. A game like D&D would be a terrible idea for a no-advancement system unless you're running a short, contained adventure.

In fact, I don't see any no-advancement system working for long term campaigns and the ilk.

[Maj]

And of course there is the final question Why have advancement at all? - the Tomes go into some detail on this, and John Tweet took a bunch of flak when Everway didn't include PC advancement. But it boils down to a combination of expectations, reward system and a way to add new elements into an existing game.

Static characters that never change are boring.

I totally agree with this. We give out points here and there in Everway for exactly that reason. For me in D&D, though, the static-ness extends to characters who just get +1 to an ability when they level up. There's no change in the character, they just get bigger numbers for dealing with bigger foes. So even though there's a technical level, the character isn't any more dynamic.

[Ravengm]

And of course there is the final question Why have advancement at all? - the Tomes go into some detail on this, and John Tweet took a bunch of flak when Everway didn't include PC advancement. But it boils down to a combination of expectations, reward system and a way to add new elements into an existing game.

Static characters that never change are boring.

I totally agree with this. We give out points here and there in Everway for exactly that reason. For me in D&D, though, the static-ness extends to characters who just get +1 to an ability when they level up. There's no change in the character, they just get bigger numbers for dealing with bigger foes. So even though there's a technical level, the character isn't any more dynamic.

+1

Most of the reason I play RPGs is for the feeling of growth anyway. It's fine to play "Gardakan, Sorcerer of the Seventh Hour" at the exact same power level for a few play sessions, but after a while it gets to the point where you're scripting your interactions and just go play Smash Bros. instead.

"Unlocking" more options is a good way to keep interest if nothing else.

[shadzar]

just like any arbitrary scale, XP works to give graduation from one point to another.

you can use any amount for anything you want.

take AD&D for example as compared to 3.x and 4th edition...The last two use some sort of fixed scale to figure out what type of monster you should see. 3.x with the ECL and whatever, and 4th with the encounter budget.

AD&D did have this somewhat with HD, but it really wasnt used that often as the organic design of most home games said that a monster makes sense to be here so it is. monsters were more about resource depletion and slowing the party down so it isnt just going on to the prize by walking through a couple of doors.

other than that, levels mean really nothing, and only ever had to do with monsters, as any ability or what have you gained at a level is jsut to help deal with more monsters of higher strengths. you could effectively play without levels, and pick one for your character, even level one, and jsut play without XP, and a good DM can make it work with the plethora of monsters out there, so long as you dont get bored, or need new gadgets for your character in order to play or keep playing.

[tussock]

The reason 3e went with L*1000 XP per level was that they wanted to use XP costs for things. Not so much to penalise players (though it did, a little), but to have a game-world reason for why things that happened quickly didn't happen all the time.

So no infinite raising of the dead, or making +1 swords. But +7 swords had to cost more, so you needed to be getting more XP to make that cost negligible too. All got turned into gp costs over time because players hate spending XP.

[Hieronymous Rex]

Spending XP is pretty bad idea, really: by RAW, you might get it back (because XP is a River, or so I'm told), but usually DMs either don't fully know the rules or don't want the extra work adjusting for loss of XP.

Not sure about anything else that spends XP, but magic item crafting would do well as a once in a lifetime thing (or perhaps once in a century, for long lived beings). In OD&D, magic-users of at least L11 could make magic items (Men & Magic pg6-7). So, you might go with "At Level 11 and higher may make a magic item, of your own design if you desire, but may only do so once.". You would be allowed to make multiple lesser items, and a group of crafters would be needed for greater items. Consumables can still be made at lower levels, though; not sure about those. Note that this assumes that magic items a less common than 3.5 standard.