Take it away!
cheers,
Meshon
I've both run and been in games where it wasn't used.
We just levelled when it seemed right by the dm. We would say something along the lines of 'you're feeling antsy, like you want to study something, you feel more confident about it now' and players would get the hp then, and learn the skills and feats over the next few sessions, or between them depending on the feat and context. Sometimes we took quests just to reach a certain swordmaster to learn a particular feat.
The times it doesn't work at all are usually part of a larger 'control freak' problem.
The times it works well are generally those where the adventure favors it. One example from 3E was the Red Hand of Doom adventure - you could fairly easily ignore XP and have the party level up on the completion of each chapter.
Most of the time it falls in between those two extremes; generally it'll work out at least somewhat as long as you're not facing an antagonistic DM-player situation, but it will be awkward in some games due to the adventure structure.
In 3.5 not having XP has many flaws, primarily because so many spells and magic item creation feats require the expendature of XP, , of course these costs could be waved, but if so I would consider other costs for spells like Wish.
In truth I award the players Xp because it makes them happy, but in reality it is very arbitrary and I never give them enough to level untill they reach the point where I want them to. In reality XP is meaningless, The Players will level every 13-15 Encounters, or upon reaching certain points in the game, either the DM measures them out in small portions, or he saves himself the calculations and just levels the PCs when appropriate.
There is of course one benifit of awarding XP the conventional way, and that is the feeling of award and advancement. Players get excited and derive great satisfaction from being given numbers. You can even drag the excitement out by deliberately giving them uneven numbers (like 587 instead of 900) which forces them make calculations and even dig excitedly for calculators. But in all seriousness, it does get them to plan on what they are going to do for their next level when they get close to leveling, and gets them to look forward to the next game if they feel they are close to leveling
How did he do it?
He massively reduced the XP system (and this was 3.5) down. To level up, you needed your level +1 xp. You got 1 point for a week of good roleplaying, 1 point for completing an adventure, and 1 point for doing something really extraordinary (holding a doorway for five rounds while your friends escaped and then escaping yourself is one example I remember).
The game was on a play by post forum, so a week was senisble. In person I make it 1 point for a session of really good roleplaying. It's a lot easier than tracking fractions and small numbers.
(At least a few; maybe some of the others wouldn't really mind... but enough mind that I hand it out)
Personally I don't really care for it, but it doesn't bother me either. Whatever makes the other players happy.
I've been seeing DMs posting about running D&D without awarding experience and I was just curious about the player perspective. Has anyone played in a game where xp was no longer on the table? How did it go, and what did you like and dislike about it? Or do you have any thoughts about the idea of xp-less D&D in general?
Take it away!
cheers,
Meshon
I play in a 3.5 ECL 22 Campaign where no XP means just that.
We found out when someone got 5 Bonus XP.
I still play, becuase the campaign is epic
The main reason I don't use exp is because of the firm believe in group exp. All players should always be the same level for balance reasons. Removing a player's exp because he/she wasn't there isn't going to help when they start lagging in levels and aren't having as much fun because they can't compete with the rest of the group. If a player's attention is really really bad they shouldn't even be at the table. At least not playing a character with any depth or story compass.
The penalty for not showing up shouldn't be exp, it should be the fact that the player didn't get to play. Role-playing rewards and fun (and sometimes loot) should be what the don't get.
All the groups I play in and run don't really use exp (unless your spending it in 3.5).
The main reason I don't use exp is because of the firm believe in group exp. All players should always be the same level for balance reasons. Removing a player's exp because he/she wasn't there isn't going to help when they start lagging in levels and aren't having as much fun because they can't compete with the rest of the group. If a player's attention is really really bad they shouldn't even be at the table. At least not playing a character with any depth or story compass.
The penalty for not showing up shouldn't be exp, it should be the fact that the player didn't get to play. Role-playing rewards and fun (and sometimes loot) should be what the don't get.
This sums it up pretty well.
I think it matters less in 4e especially since level drain/xp drain isn't an issue and the system seems to be designed around everyone being the same level anyway.
Some people like XP because it gives them a reward, and let's them know how far it is till they level.
Some people don't like XP because it distacts from RPing, allows more freedom for encounters/story, and it's another thing to keep track of.
But the larger reason that XP can be detrimental is for party balance reasons. I prefer to have the entire party level up at the same time.
I've been seeing DMs posting about running D&D without awarding experience and I was just curious about the player perspective. Has anyone played in a game where xp was no longer on the table? How did it go, and what did you like and dislike about it? Or do you have any thoughts about the idea of xp-less D&D in general?
No XP? Best move you could make! {If your Group plays like that} I don't use XP in the traditional sense, I keep track of it myself as the GM, but my Players are never told, nor allowed to know, how much XP they currently have. I let them know when they've reached an appropriate milestone to level-up, and go from there. I use this simple method:
Minor Adventure Completion = loot, weapons, titles, allies, etc.. / Major Adventure Completion = Level-Up
My Player's highly enjoy this method, as it is one less option to have to worry about, and keeps their minds in the game. I've been designing an XP system that lets players trade in XP for bonuses, skills, feats or even powers, and so far so good. XP isn't for everyone, even though the game might say otherwise.
Minor Adventure Completion = loot, weapons, titles, allies, etc.. / Major Adventure Completion = Level-Up
That is a pretty neat system and also manages to deal with the trick of rewarding loot when you don't have xp-based encounters to measure your treasure. Parcels.
Do you find it artificially affects how long adventures need to be, or is it not an issue? I supppose if you had a really epic campaign arc you would divide it into several major adventures.
cheers,
Meshon
Do you find it artificially affects how long adventures need to be, or is it not an issue? I suppose if you had a really epic campaign arc you would divide it into several major adventures.
Not so much artificial, as it is more organic in my opinion. My Players are less worried about gaining XP, {since it technically "doesn't exist"} and therefore spend more time adventuring, exploring and conversing then they would otherwise. Perhaps. I couldn't judge every case, but from the feedback I get from my Players, they feel that my tracking of XP and allowing the party to level-up when it's more appropriate, helps deal with metagame thinking and just keeps the flow going.
In many cases, I've divided larger arc's into smaller segments, which helps deal with Minor/=Major issues as far as Loot/=Level-Up.
I was really wondering how it would turn out. In the past, I've always been something of a character accountant, myself. My players are really liking it, though.
If Exp was a currency, like it is in a game of my own design, then the exp reward would be more valuable. Since it is a currency you actually spend exp to learn new abilities and such, then it is probably important to reward exp regularly (at least at the end of sessions).
Also, just tradition.
But currently I'm leaning to an extremely loose form of XP tracking. How fast do I want the characters to be leveling in this kind of campaign (of course I've discussed this with them)?
If it's normal, if it's "on average" like 8-10 encounters, why bother with the math (addition, division, formulas to fit in XP budgets). So when you're an 1/8 of the way to leveling, you can just get whatever number would be 1/8 to the next level.
This is more like, "OK, I want them to level up by the end of this part of the adventure. 6 or 7 encounters feels about right for what I'm doing here. XP can be roughly divided into those amounts if somebody asks."
Try to stay generally to the guidelines for building encounters (the slight balance concerns are valid) but the "literal" XP value really isn't so important. 276 XP each member can easily just be made 200, 300 or even 400 XP for completing that encounter.
Heck, the players never see all the math and grinding planning and thinking you do, so it's all the same to them as long as they're gaining what feels like appropriate rewards. Don't give like 10 XP for a boss fight and 2,000 for a simple social encounter, and it's acceptable enough at the end of a session to just give them 1/2 way to next level.
I kind of would prefer to just tell them when they level and leave XP as just a marginal tool for determining "normal" progress, but I think a lot of players are strongly attached to some "level meter." Myself included sometimes.
In video games and such (yes, MMOs primarily but they are ubiquitous now), players usually focus more on the "bars" than the numbers these days; so calculating XP point by point is almost old fashioned. If you want to relate how close you are to leveling up, you don't say the exact numbers, you say the bars: Because that's understandable information without being overly complicated. Especially for characters of different levels (like I remember the required numbers for past levels, or future ones?). The sense that is transmited is a general understanding of how much "stuff" has to be done.
As a player, I don't "really" care if I get X number of experience points. What I as a player care about is how close I am to leveling. (I might care about exact numbers if I'm really close to leveling and know the exact amount I need, but otherwise no.)
What having some indication does, is it gives another marker for "accomplishment" which can be interpreted as heroism, and it adds to the player goal of "gaining power" in a visible way even if no level is gained or significant magic gear.
It also can act as a bit of insurance for just: "It didn't seem like much happened this particular session; but don't worry you're really making progress on something. Those annoying encounters were worthwhile." Not all sessions are filled with 100% fun after all (things don't go as DM or Players planned, horrible rolls lead to bad fights and whatever).
I'll count individual GP, but I'd rather not deal with individual XP so much. It's not directly applicable to anything related to my character, it's all abstract metagame stuff.
Time and again, following normal XP rules, we came to the end of a session with, "OK you get X experience points." Then the players add it up and whine, "Aw come on, we're like 10 XP to level!" and maybe try bargaining that what they did was worth more XP. I don't want to deal with that. It's dang close enough, and I kind of expected them to be a certain level by that point anyhow.
Somewhat related, I'd prefer to not really deal with Ritual Component costs. Just too ... something. It takes away from your GP. It might be because the rituals are "overpriced" for what they do. I don't really have a good answer for that though other than including "free" (not necessarily known to the players) spell components when I DM.
Also, just tradition.
Eeeeew.
I'm just teasing you though, no ill will. "Tradition" is one of the reasons why I oppose so many things in life; especially harmless things like an imagination game. Just because something is "traditional", does not always mean one should feel beholden to following it. If such was the case... well, I think we all know how backwards thinking we would all still be.
You made an excellent post though, I like the way you're thinking of handling your own personal situation. You've made some excellent points!
In my current 4e campaign, our DM does not give out XP. He levels us up when he feels it is right. It hasn't been an issue with our group. His logic is sound enough, he says that the game is designed to level up after a certain number of encounters of certain types, and tracking XP is just a chore. Plus it lets him design his encounters without worrying if they will become unbalanced by an unexpected level up of the group. Makes sense to me. I like leveling up, but I like just playing too, and I've gotten to where I just ignore the whole leveling thing and level up when he tells us to. It's sorta nice not tracking XP.
After running 2nd ed, 3.5 and many other campaigns and done the XP thing I don't do it anymore. I generally tell the players they have reached the next level when it feels right.
I've seen other DM's who've done all the basic work with them knowing that they want to get the players to the next level over two game sessions. So they half the XP between the levels and work out the encounters with the XP's for each session but this falls apart if the game doesn't get finished and the dropped encounters need to be put over to the next session.
Way too much trouble, I'd rather work on the storyline and the encounters with time saved on not working out XP's. My players seem happy with it.
So I don't use it.
I tell players when to level up. In my case they level at the end of each "story" I tell. A story is usually 3-4 sessions and runs around 6-8 encounters plus a bucket of skill-challenges. If we're nearing the end of a story I'll warn folks to bring a leveled up character sheet to the next session for my pile. (I collect character sheets for each character for each level)
It simplifies things for them. It removes the incentive to fight everything in sight. And it means I don't need to figure out XP or encounters in advance.
Seems to get favorable responses from my players so far, and I know it makes my life easier.
(and as a pure-improv DM that last one is REALLY important to me)
-abs