The official 5e D&D experience point system is clunky, inflexible, and is just based around slaying monsters, but it is a fantastic reward for overcoming dangers. On the other hand, milestone systems tend to be simpler and more flexible, but they make the game more contrived. I’m designing a better XP system for Dungeons & Dragons, which keeps the spirit of rewards-for-accomplishments, yet is simple, flexible, and works for any format of campaign (including West Marches style).
Support the channel on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/EsperTheBard
📜 Free newsletter sign-up (Scrolls of the Bard): http://eepurl.com/dgJBb9
Check out my 5e book and modules: https://esperthebard.com/shop
—Social—
Discord: https://discord.gg/zZ3J2Hn
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Esper-the-Bard-645947038769607/
—Monstrous Heroes—
https://monstrous-heroes-5e-monster-classes.backerkit.com/hosted_preorders
—Music—
Music by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiijm2GhKAA&t=4874s
Bandcamp: https://karlcasey.bandcamp.com/
Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/m/5678689/posts
—Chapters—
0:00 Downsides of the GM declaring when characters level up
1:58 XP is a fantastic reward for accomplishments
2:44 Downsides to XP in 5e
6:11 My milestone system – PROS
7:31 My milestone system – CONS
11:17 New XP Approach
13:56 Adventure Density
17:04 Bonus XP
18:01 Advantages of this New XP Approach
21:57 Get These XP Guidelines / Newsletter
source
I like what Shadowdark did with XP:
– Smaller numbers, easy to keep track of
– XP for securing treasure, not for killing monsters. This encourages the core gameplay loop: you are a treasure hunter, but you want to get out of the dungeon alive. Sneaking past enemies, social encounters and combat are all basically equal
As a 5E DM I used milestones because it was easiest for me, but when playing Shadowdark I was surprised how much tracking XP enhanced the experience. I actually wanted to get the treasure we were looking for.
can i use my catapult?
You said when you have can even levelling system you can punish players who contribute more. I feel this is a glaring difference between how I play the game and you play the game. For me contributing more is the reward in and of itself, you get to play DnD and have fun. For you the goal isn't to play the game and have fun, it is to play the game to be more powerful than the other players, and that is where you derive your fun.
I award XP through encounters either social, combat, puzzle etc. I also award XP for quests but i also did the math for each chapter, so this many odds & ends plus this many quests would put them at so so level. There's wiggle room for them to exceed the optimal level for any given encounter but i think that's an award in of it's self.
Adopt the OSR Method. XP earned to treasure brought back to town. able to double dip treasure XP by spending that gold entirely on flavor things that don't make your character better at adventuring. for example, bringing back 2,000 gold pieces in treasure to the market is 2,000 XP. spending 1,000 of that gold to buy your niece the finest hand made spidersilk dress as a gift to wear at her wedding to the local goldsmith earns you an extra 1,000 XP. spending that 1,000 carousing at the tavern or donating to the church also earns 1,000 xp. what matters is the double dipped gold isn't spent gearing up or preparing for the next adventure. you can also spend gold on an ally's behalf to train them instead. spending gold on thier behalf for thier benefit.
I actually do something similar, that I call Training Points. I sometimes do 1 Training Point when a Player rolls a Nat 20 (there's a check tied to it), but nowadays, I'm starting to say: "Oh, yeah, you're pretty beat up, sure take 2 Training Points, oh, you solved the problem creatively? take 1 Training Point. Oh, you won the fight in a boring way without taking a hit? Yeah, no Training Points for you."
I tend to find few actually good points in Milestone's defence, other than "simplicity" and "ease of use", vs XP's "tedious" and "time consuming". But the intuition a DM needs is only really attained through the experience of DM-ing itself (running the game for a length of time).
I also like the idea that older editions award XP for gold successfully looted. I think both gold looted and monsters killed should have a place, just like monsters snuck past, roleplay encounters talked through, and traps disarmed, as any one of those can go wrong and then it's flight-or-fight.
I've always thought XP should be increased or decreased based on a few factors, like how much preparation the party does, how much stealth they employ, and the levels of characters relevative to the dungeon. I'm curious to see this system in full, so I've followed on Patreon for when that is published.
This is a cooperative game, not a competitive game. There aren’t very many games that are cooperative without competitive aspects. I think equal XP across the party is necessary or else players will be competing for xp/levels, you dont want that. Players who take risks and contribute more are more important to the game world which SHOULD be motivation enough.
Strict EXP to level was the way to do it when the game started.
Initially GP = EXP Earn a gold, get an EXP point too. You could look at your treasure and if you never spent ay, that was your EXP.
The change to EXP for kills in some ways was an improvement, in others, not so much. But it is mostly better.
Back in the days of 2E, I wrote a PC management program. PC creation, EXP tracking, and full database of equipment and encumbrance. I was about to contact TSR about it when they released the Core Rules CD. I still used my program for my campaigns until I jumped direct from 2E to 5E.
The early EXP to level tables were close to 1000 to make 2nd and double your EXP to make each level from there. Changing that was an error in my opinion.
I still use EXP and if the player doesn't show up, their PC does not get EXP. "How can you gain EXP if you didn't experience anything?" I have had games where a level 1 was in a party with a level 12. we all know the DM has to avoid the "minion of the high level" in the party to keep from killing them at this large a difference, but the game can still be enjoyed by all and the low level can make useful contributions in the social encounters.
I still track encumbrance. I still count arrows. I play using some rules dating back to 1977 when I first became a DM.
I have primarily use XP in my campaigns and try to give XP for none combat objectives. I like the idea in the video for simplifying and controlling XP progression.
I will add that as a player I feel cheated if we defeat a monster and don’t get the XP. I suppose you can use the XP amounts as a budget when building encounters. But it still might be frustrating for some players.
This is only for professional DMs. As a DM since over 30years at normal playing tables I daresay that for the most people playing with friends at home or online this is a bad idea. I already switched to milestones in 2nd e and it simply works. No normal dm running a longtime campaign has all encounters already prepared. This is for predesigned adventures only and still not flexible enough and tastes a little more railroady. For a normal dm the time/effort for this is simply not worth the potential gain in a group of friends.
Interesting, I look forward to hearing how this goes with longer play.
I'll probably use this method. If it doesn't fit perfectly, I could always adjust the numbers.
XP for gold is the best
The only campaigns I ever played in, we used a rule of "All characters level up at the end of each session". I still never saw a PC higher than level 9. Sometimes there were also rules that the characters of people who don't play don't gain that level, but sometimes they did. Sometimes characters brand new to the campaign started at the average level, sometimes they didn't. Personally I've grown nothing but distaste for artificial "fairness" rubber banding. Giving everyone the same starting point, like fixed ability score arrays or point-buy, that I can get behind, but some characters should in fact be advancing and improving faster as a reward for the risks they take to get there. There should always be opportunities for player behavior to either facilitate bonus experience or cause setbacks with their characters, so their agency means something.
If you're tossing a completely new player into a campaign, his character might not have to start at the same low level as everyone else, but it should at least be no higher than equal to the existing weakest member of the team. Lowest party member's level, minus one, minimum one rather than "average of the entire party". Me, I always prefer starting at first level.
XP for gold is the only way to go, lets the players self-direct their advancement. Fiat advancement makes players into whipped dogs.
Every game I play I change the rules a bit as an experiment. And leveling reflects the theme of the game.
The next campaign I plan — the players will all be Orcs. They will be part of a tribe where one's effectiveness and leadership and honor are reflected in how you gain levels.
So I think I'll do an XP system,, but change the numbers.
I'll do 600 XP per level. (No need to expand the numbers like the sourcebook. 600 is a nice even number with a lot of factors).
Each player gets 100 XP for showing in the session.
The leader gets 200 XP for being the leader. (Players can depose the leader through beating him up and getting him to yield the position — or knocking him out).
MVP gets 200 XP in the session. (Private ballot. The players will vote for MVP, and cannot vote for themselves).
Being deposed as leader drops 50 XP (not below zero, but will counteract other rewards earned).
Giving loot, food, money, weapons to the tribe earns a reward from 100 to 300.
Success in battle or adventuring earns 100 to 300 reward.
And that's the highlights.
I want it to give players incentives to blaze in glory in battle, to become leader, and overthrow a weak party leader.
Which I think would accurately reflect the mind-set of Orcs.
Excellent video as always! Thank you!
If you have a great group of players who are committed and are energized by the story, a simple milestone approach is sufficient IMHO.
It isn't a very popular system anymore, but I always preferred both the XP and alignment systems from Palladium over D&D's versions.
XP for defeating a foe (whether you kill them or defeat them in some other way)
XP for using skills
XP for playing in character
XP for avoiding unnecessary violence
XP for clever ideas (even when they don't work)
XP for self-sacrifice
…
Just use gold instead of XP
My current system consists of a small participation reward (10xp for making it to the session) and a bigger xp reward for meeting goals and fulfilling objectives (30-50xp per goal usually). This works best in a long-running sandbox campaign.
Here's an idea/method I've been trying out for games. I use XP as normal, but have specific criteria for awarding it. I award it at the end of a session after doing my mental recap of the session for notetaking purposes. There are three criteria:
Encounters
I award XP for encounters (combat, social, and environmental) based off of how "satisfying" the encounter is, applying either a percentage bonus or reduction to a base XP value.
For example, a combat encounter where the party completely shuts down and steamrolls a powerful enemy will give significantly less XP then a combat where the party just barely pulls through by the skin of their teeth after the powerful enemy gets to showcase all their cool moves.
Plot Milestones
Additionally, if this is a game with an intended world state or story progression, I will award XP to the players based on milestones reached in the progression of that story.
Personal Milestones
Finally, and I think rather uniquely, I will reward XP based on personal character milestones created or given to me by players of those characters, as well as character development and interesting roleplay moments.
Something that one of my DM does is excellent: he figures out what behavior he wants his players and their characters he wants to incentivise, and then explicitly rewards XP for that behavior. E.g., after every session he asks each player if their character: a) Learned about the Campaign world (encouraging exploration); b) Learned about other characters (encouraging interparty RP); and c) Embodied the values and/or accomplished the goals of their character. Answering yes to each question gets you a scaling amount of XP based on your current level.
TL;DR Incentivise the behavior you want by awarding XP for it!
I´m using the XP based on the chalenges+roleplaying and not based on combat, since early 3.5, it works realy good (I algo give a bonus for snacks)
Flavor Text Adventures… KS Seriously, if DnD fan.
THe best xp system is in 1e. You give xp for gold, and they have to spend gold to go up a level!
One of my favorite experience/leveling systems is the alternative "Oddity" system in the CRPG "Underrail" that encourages exploration and emergent gameplay. The thing i never liked about traditional xp systems is that really encourages mindless slaughter and "farming" for XP.
Anyways look up the "Oddity System" from Underrail if you're looking for an idea to reward players in a way that encourages something other than persuasion and/or combat skills.
Some people are very very concerned about every single PC being on the exact same playing field…and a part of me gets it…but another part of me remembers the hundreds of other game systems I've played that just don't have levels, everyone is constantly on a different playing field in a non intrusive way, and new PCs start completely fresh and have to catch up. So yeah I think it depends on the group and if that frustrates players don't use it, but if it successfully insentivises cool moments and teamwork and the like, hell yeah.
I remember in 5e for a group, getting the last hit on a boss and getting to narrate how you kill them was like the pinnacle of gaming…and they all meta turned on eachother in a really obtrusive way that frustrated me as a GM. So I introduced a "rule" where no matter who dealt the last point of damage, everybody got to describe how they helped take the boss down working together. After a while, without my prompting, the player who killed a boss or even a mini boss or random strong monster, would describe the enemies death and bring up how another PC helped in a cool team up attack.
Use a classic milestone. But I also reward inspiration, and let my players stick up with it, and at different levels they can buy proficiencies, feats, and eventually levels. Those stages of using inspiration stay with the party, and costs are tied to character level
I've never seen players feel like they weren't being rewarded for being daring without xp. Level shouldn't be the only thing driving characters foward.
I've been working on a XP system where failed rolls gain you XP. It incentives players to be honest about their rolls and has fast leveling at low levels that slows down the higher you get. Plus it keeps a balance for players. A min/max character will level slower than a regular character which equalizes things out.
Xp is bar non the best. the original system from Ad&D first ed, xp= treasure+ monsters defeated+ dm bonuses+ any other bonus from stats or magic or RP.
Also xp system is a reason your players will actually search around after the "Goal" is found on the first day of lucky gameplay in a castle the dm fleshed out way more!.