So are people being snobs to those who enjoy hack and slash more than roleplay - No, but they are saying that they are not getting the most out of D&D playing that way. There is so much more to this amazing game than powering up
The way that what you were saying came across as being a snob is where you drew a line between "the roleplay and shared story telling" and desiring a faster or more regular level-up pace. You basically made it sound like there are only gamers that like exactly what you like, and gamers that "enjoy hack and slash more than roleplay."
Meanwhile, the reality is that the vast majority of us - even those of us that prefer level-ups to happen more frequently (my group happens to like gaining a level after about 4 sessions which each happen to be 3-5 hours in length) - prefer variety in our campaigns so they include some combat, some exploration, some intrigue, making friends, living the characters' lives, and all those other bits-and-bobs... we just (effectively, as through milestones or arbitrary level-up timing, or actually) hand out experience points for all of that stuff (not just the hack-n'-slash parts) because gaining levels is a part (not the end-all-and-be-all) of the fun.
Roleplaying is an exercise of the imagination. Boardgames/wargames are an exercise of the logical mind.
D&D is a beautiful fusion of the two.
Now go and listen to Hemispheres by Rush. They get it.
D&D players are already a minority, let's not split the community up further by getting elitist.
@DelvesDeep "Sounding a little condescending there Tombs!" Damn, I was going for aloof and wise, like Anthony Hopkins in Thor. :)
Sorry Tombs - just came across as condescending :D. People can play D&D any way they like. Its flexibility is one of its strongest elements. My point is that by exploring all components of the game they may find they like it even more. Building a character beyond just its powers and abilities can often be even more rewarding. I suggest DM's promote this and see what happens
My point is that by exploring all components of the game they may find they like it even more. Building a character beyond just its powers and abilities can often be even more rewarding. I suggest DM's promote this and see what happens
It also comes across as condescending to make the implication that you continue to make - that the above quote applies to people wanting to level-up faster, rather than slower, in a general sense.
The reality continues to be that folks can explore all of the various bits of the game, build characters far beyond just powers and abilities, role-play deeply and consistently... and still want to get a level-up every few weeks rather than every few months.
I don't really get the arguments here, some people like to go fast, others like to go slow. My time in D&D has been awesome because it strongly pushed the fact that it doesn't matter how other people play, it matters how you/your group plays, because that's the game you're in.
If your group wants to level fast, level fast, if your group wants to level slow, level slow. Options can easily be changed (and in fact are often encouraged to be changed to tailor to your group) to allow for either -- you can increase/decrease the amount of XP needed to level, you can use milestone leveling, you can increase/decrease the amount of XP monsters give, you can give XP for social interactions and encounters other than combat, you can pull out a Deck of Many Things and cause someone to lose/gain 10000 XP, you can create a curse/magical power in your world that causes you to lose XP when you kill things, but gain it if you rescue someone, you can create a potion that causes someone to go back to being a child and causes them to lose all of their XP/abilities/class/etc. (Damn you DM who did this to me, I really liked being my 40 year old ranger).
Watched most of this last night... an interesting take on where some of the known names in the community feel that 5e has been taken and how it compares to previous versions.
My point is that by exploring all components of the game they may find they like it even more. Building a character beyond just its powers and abilities can often be even more rewarding. I suggest DM's promote this and see what happens
It also comes across as condescending to make the implication that you continue to make - that the above quote applies to people wanting to level-up faster, rather than slower, in a general sense.
The reality continues to be that folks can explore all of the various bits of the game, build characters far beyond just powers and abilities, role-play deeply and consistently... and still want to get a level-up every few weeks rather than every few months.
I guess its less about the pace you level up and more about the mix between hack' n' slash and roleplay. Many players don't feel comfortable roleplaying or see the need to worry about backstories, NPCs, how they fit into settlements or advance in organisations other than the possibility of the numerical rewards they could gain. What I'm trying to encourage is for DMs to promote a broader balance between the two, to expose players to all aspects of the D&D world and see if they enjoy the experience. One of my older groups favourite adventure was one I wrote up for the old Shatter City Campaign, called the Demonskar Ball. It was purely roleplay with skills checks threaded throughout. Not a sword or 'battle' in sight. The players enjoyed it because not only was it different but it allowed me to include a great deal of campaign foreshadowing and the characters to become far more connected to the personalities of the city/campaign. It meant that they cared what happened to the city, its people and their homes. Without this role play, my players would never have made this emotional connection.
People can play any way they want but in my humble opinion Dm's are doing their group (and themselves) an injustice by not allowing for time for players to flesh out their characters and Dms to flesh out their worlds. If this means slowing down leveling up then I feel it is more than worth it...imho opinion ;D
...in my humble opinion Dm's are doing their group (and themselves) an injustice by not allowing for time for players to flesh out their characters and Dms to flesh out their worlds...
That's the thing though - time enough to flesh out characters and worlds is not intrinsically more time spent at a particular level. You seem to be acting as though there is a spectrum upon which one end is "level up more rapidly" and the opposite end is "have a more developed world/story", when that is absolutely not the case - frequency of level gains is one spectrum, an depth of character/world development is a separate spectrum, each campaign having its own position on each spectrum, and the two spectrums have no direct relationship to each other (a campaign can be ultra-fast level-ups but still focus heavily on character/world development, or even literally never level-up but focus on hack-n'-slash dungeon crashing with next to zero plot anyways - though most campaigns are more moderate on both spectrums).
...in my humble opinion Dm's are doing their group (and themselves) an injustice by not allowing for time for players to flesh out their characters and Dms to flesh out their worlds...
That's the thing though - time enough to flesh out characters and worlds is not intrinsically more time spent at a particular level. You seem to be acting as though there is a spectrum upon which one end is "level up more rapidly" and the opposite end is "have a more developed world/story", when that is absolutely not the case - frequency of level gains is one spectrum, an depth of character/world development is a separate spectrum, each campaign having its own position on each spectrum, and the two spectrums have no direct relationship to each other (a campaign can be ultra-fast level-ups but still focus heavily on character/world development, or even literally never level-up but focus on hack-n'-slash dungeon crashing with next to zero plot anyways - though most campaigns are more moderate on both spectrums).
The majority of experience points are gained from combat is it not? So therefore if you spend more time investing in hack'n'slash type games you will go up faster. So, spending more time developing characters, roleplaying, interacting with NPCs will therefore mean that you level up slower. You following me here? So depending on your campaign focus (or which end of the roleplay v combat 'spectrum' you more heavily invest in) you will either rise rapidly through the levels or more slowly.
So, while most campaign sit somewhere in between, those that are predominately combat focused will have characters that power up much faster than those that invest more time on fleshing out a world and the characters within it. Balancing a campaign with a combination of roleplay and combat may slow level progression but develops a much richer game experience in the end.
Question: tell me how 20 session level 1 to 20 makes a good character development when your character starts level 1 and in one day of game time they reached level 5 gained new abilities and literally got recked by kobold and all of a sudden your players can wreck said kobold village ?
Fact of the matter is...
Leveling entirely depends on how fast your players advance in your story. Hack n slash, role play... Thats nothing to do with xp. Now if your players talk together and just buy stuff during your session. Why would you give them a level up for just playing everyday chores ?
If your group blows thru your adventures fast... They will level fast... If they take their time they will level slow... No sane dms would give a level or 1000 xp for a roleplay about buying a regular axe or buying a healing potion. Something the first edition literally allowed by the way.
Fun fact... In 2e i broke the dms game because once i found a way to make gold in cities i could just buy stuff and gain xp. Which meant i could just farm a city until level 20 and go save the world.
Again... Dms adventure is what says where you level up. And your players decides how fast they go through your story.
My 2 cents...
There is no way i will make them level every sessions if they just roleplay between themselves all night long. Ill reward them only if they do something that advances the story. My players knows that now. They are the one that have control over how fast they wanna get there now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The majority of experience points are gained from combat is it not?
No, it is not.
At least, not unless that's the way the DM/group have chosen for it to be - which is fine, but incentivizes choosing combat over other activities.
Because, again, you can play the game with a heavy focus on combat and yet choose to not have characters ever level up, or you can play the game with a heavy focus on developing characters, role-playing, and interacting with NPCs and yet choose to rise in level every few sessions.
Even if we are talking about the game strictly "as written", the first thing the rule-book tells a player in regards to experience is "As your character goes on adventures and overcomes challenges, he or she gains experience, represented by experience points." Note that neither "goes on adventures" nor "overcomes challenges" have any inherent requirement for combat to be involved. And that is actually the only mention of experience other than how it applies to multi-classing made in the Player's Handbook, so there is no reason supported by the book for a player to believe combat to be the source of the majority of experience points.
Combat experience are the most easily quantified experience point rewards, but they are not the only experience point rewards, nor does the game assume them to be the default largest source.
Question: tell me how 20 session level 1 to 20 makes a good character development when your character starts level 1 and in one day of game time they reached level 5 gained new abilities and literally got recked by kobold and all of a sudden your players can wreck said kobold village ?
Fact of the matter is...
Leveling entirely depends on how fast your players advance in your story. Hack n slash, role play... Thats nothing to do with xp. Now if your players talk together and just buy stuff during your session. Why would you give them a level up for just playing everyday chores ?
If your group blows thru your adventures fast... They will level fast... If they take their time they will level slow... No sane dms would give a level or 1000 xp for a roleplay about buying a regular axe or buying a healing potion. Something the first edition literally allowed by the way.
Fun fact... In 2e i broke the dms game because once i found a way to make gold in cities i could just buy stuff and gain xp. Which meant i could just farm a city until level 20 and go save the world.
Again... Dms adventure is what says where you level up. And your players decides how fast they go through your story.
My 2 cents...
There is no way i will make them level every sessions if they just roleplay between themselves all night long. Ill reward them only if they do something that advances the story. My players knows that now. They are the one that have control over how fast they wanna get there now.
1) Please, for the love of Paladine, stop using the word "literally." 2) Do you see how you gave us a "Fact" and then contradicted that fact literally 2 paragraphs later? 3) You didn't just break the DM's game. You broke the game for everybody at the table. Well done.
@DelvesDeep "You following me here?" - No, try to speak slower and louder.
@DelvesDeep " Balancing a campaign with a combination of roleplay and combat may slow level progression but develops a much richer game experience in the end." - Now, despite agreeing with this sentiment, I don't believe it is always true. Players (including DMs, who are still players) make a richer game. I believe that collecting and painting your own miniatures makes the game richer. I believe that researching various periods of history and different real-world cultures, and integrating that into the experience makes the game richer. I believe that going to the pub and discussing the game makes the game experience richer. I believe that when the characters are drawn into a mass battle, then setting up a full blown wargame with terrain and floppy rulers makes the game richer. Heck indulging in cosplay every session might make the game richer. Conclusion : anybody not using self-painted miniatures and 3D diaramas, taking a degree in history and anthropology, visiting the pub with the whole group and spending a fortune on even more figures then dressing up as their character is making their game poorer for the lack of effort.
I have watched then listened (at work, I wouldn't waste my own time) to various streamed D&D sessions, and I can tell you now that I would not want to be involved in any of them. It seems none of the DMs can utter 7 words before having to pause to think! ~Perhaps they need more combat to help focus the mind?
Story telling or roleplaying? There is a big difference. I'll defend that statement later.
You said that and then interpretted my saying to give yourself a point. As for me breaking my group... Nope they actually were happy to do the same as to us all, that was a solution to an upcoming problems. This actually prooves what i said about the group deciding when to move on. It also prooves what me and the others been saying... That dms call is what makes fast or not based on his story. Because when allowed us the level ups... He did the same to the bosses leaving us with the same problems.
But hey think what you will... My point was that in the end... Its the group that decides... Not just the dm which is exactly what i said and showed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The majority of experience points are gained from combat is it not?
No, it is not.
As a group you could change any rule, focus on any aspect or give experience points out for every time you expelled wind at the table if you choose to but you might as well call it FartD because its straying too far from the original rules. For 99% of games, the majority of experience points are gained through combat. It is the fundamental mechanism for leveling up. Now I'm sure that you'll find some obscure statement somewhere where it proves that this is not 'explicitly' true, but it has been the reality of the game since its inception. Could you point me to the table that explains how many XP you gain for roleplay and storytelling? Where's the XP table for creating character backgrounds, NPC interaction or town exploration? There may be some reference or example of 'possible' XP rewards but there is multiple tables and multiple explanations in multiple rule books about gaining XP in combat. So lets not pretend otherwise can we?
A combat heavy game is going to level up characters far more than a more balanced game.
Question: tell me how 20 session level 1 to 20 makes a good character development when your character starts level 1 and in one day of game time they reached level 5 gained new abilities and literally got recked by kobold and all of a sudden your players can wreck said kobold village ?
Fact of the matter is...
Leveling entirely depends on how fast your players advance in your story. Hack n slash, role play... Thats nothing to do with xp. Now if your players talk together and just buy stuff during your session. Why would you give them a level up for just playing everyday chores ?
If your group blows thru your adventures fast... They will level fast... If they take their time they will level slow... No sane dms would give a level or 1000 xp for a roleplay about buying a regular axe or buying a healing potion. Something the first edition literally allowed by the way.
Fun fact... In 2e i broke the dms game because once i found a way to make gold in cities i could just buy stuff and gain xp. Which meant i could just farm a city until level 20 and go save the world.
Again... Dms adventure is what says where you level up. And your players decides how fast they go through your story.
My 2 cents...
There is no way i will make them level every sessions if they just roleplay between themselves all night long. Ill reward them only if they do something that advances the story. My players knows that now. They are the one that have control over how fast they wanna get there now.
@DelvesDeep " Balancing a campaign with a combination of roleplay and combat may slow level progression but develops a much richer game experience in the end." - Now, despite agreeing with this sentiment, I don't believe it is always true. Players (including DMs, who are still players) make a richer game. I believe that collecting and painting your own miniatures makes the game richer. I believe that researching various periods of history and different real-world cultures, and integrating that into the experience makes the game richer. I believe that going to the pub and discussing the game makes the game experience richer. I believe that when the characters are drawn into a mass battle, then setting up a full blown wargame with terrain and floppy rulers makes the game richer. Heck indulging in cosplay every session might make the game richer. Conclusion : anybody not using self-painted miniatures and 3D diaramas, taking a degree in history and anthropology, visiting the pub with the whole group and spending a fortune on even more figures then dressing up as their character is making their game poorer for the lack of effort.
Er...what!? Or should I say (raising voice) ER...WHAT!!!??? ;)
You lost me there. So you agree with what I'm saying about a more balanced game creating a much richer game experience but....then started discussing other obscure ways to make the game 'richer' and trying to link the two. It that correct? Seems to me you went a little off topic there Tombs.
I get that your saying many things make the game better, I do but I believe that balancing the game with more opportunities to develop characters and the campaign with combat sequences outweighs the examples you gave....but its becoming apparent that I am the only one around here
Show me the rule I am changing with how I have described experience points not being mostly gained from combat. Combat experience are the most readily quantified by the game, yes, but they are not the only reward provided nor is there any mandate that says they should be the most numerously or frequently gained type of reward.
As I already highlighted, there aren't even any rules pertaining to experience gaining that are in the PHB. And if you go to the DMG, you see not just how to give out experience rewards for combat, but also how to reward non-combat challenges, and how to reward reaching particular points along the adventure/campaign plan - alongside suggestions of session-based (example: level up every 4 sessions) and story-based (example: level up once you've dealt with the first major challenge your characters must face). All of that without anything saying that one or the other bit of suggestions is more or less optional to follow than the others.
So yeah, seriously, show me what rule is being changed if combat XP aren't the majority of gained XP but isn't just as equally being changed if they are.
For 99% of games, the majority of experience points are gained through combat.
Site your source for that information, and I'll consider believing the claim to be anything but you assuming as people often do that your own opinion is the majority opinion.
Now I'm sure that you'll find some obscure statement somewhere where it proves that this is not 'explicitly' true, but it has been the reality of the game since its inception.
I don't need "obscure" statements, as the completely not obscure ones have managed just fine to show the truth... but I have to say this: Combat from XP being the largest presented source of experience is absolutely and unquestionably not "the reality of the game since its inception."
It wasn't until AD&D 2nd edition in 1989 that experience gained from combat was elevated above experience gained from accumulating treasure. In OD&D, AD&D 1st edition, and the famous boxed sets version of the game that would later become the Rules Cyclopedia, the basic 1 XP per 1 GP value of treasure claimed by a character far outstripped all other methods of experience gain used - just as treasure continues to be found in values that are easily higher than the combat experience gained (though gaining XP for treasure accumulation got demoted to an optional rule in 2nd edition, and didn't even get mentioned in the editions after that point).
Could you point me to the table that explains how many XP you gain for roleplay and storytelling?
It's not a chart, but if you turn to page 261 of your DMG, or look here under Noncombat Challenges, you'll see it. Sorry that it's not a chart, but I don't think it'd be any easier to follow the guidance given if it were.
There may be some reference or example of 'possible' XP rewards but there is multiple tables and multiple explanations in multiple rule books about gaining XP in combat.
If you knew they were there, why were you pretending they weren't and asking me to point them out for you? That seems really disingenuous.
As for your apparent claim that it is how many words and tables full of numbers it takes to explain how to find the reward's value that establishes it's importance and/or mandatory nature, I'll point out these two things:
1) None of those charts actually say you must reward experience for combat. In fact, the only sentence I can find on that particular topic just says that experience points are the most common reward of combat encounters (read: winning a combat encounter usually gets you an XP reward, but may actually get you some other reward instead, according to the rules - that sentence is on DMG p.260 and the above linked compendium section as the first sentence under the heading "Experience Points").
2) Since the guidelines for XP reward value for noncombat challenges and milestones use the same charts that combat encounters do, but take additional words to describe doing so, they are what would actually have a heftier weight according to your reasoning for believing combat XP are treated any differently by the rules and suggestions in the DMG than other "possible" XP rewards.
So lets not pretend otherwise can we?
I'm not sure if you are aware, but... being extra condescending when doubling down on arguments you aren't offering evidence to support doesn't actually make your arguments stronger - it actually makes them seem even less reasonable.
It really depends on the DM and the group. They decide what noncombat experience will be Some groups might have little non combat experience and that pushes the game to a combat focused game. Others will try to give even amounts of experience to combat and non-combat events. Some might even run a game with lots of non-combat challenges for the players to overcome and so players advance more from their non-combat experience.
So you're suggesting that in most games the majority of XP gained by characters in not from combat?
No.
I'm not making any suggestion at all about what is true for the majority of campaigns because I don't have appropriate information to support such claims.
I'm only stating (it's not a suggestion, it's an observation of what the books actually say) that the 5th D&D rule books do not present combat as being the source of the majority of experience points gained, and actually are as strong in their support of not tracking XP at all as they are in their support of tracking XP and having the majority of it come from combat (by which I mean the choice is left entirely to the reader, without one of the options being listed as the default and other options marked explicitly with text like "Variant:..." a la using point buy to generate ability scores or "optional rule" a la the various things found in the Dungeon Master's Workshop section of the text).
So you're suggesting that in most games the majority of XP gained by characters in not from combat?
No.
I'm not making any suggestion at all about what is true for the majority of campaigns because I don't have appropriate information to support such claims.
I'm only stating (it's not a suggestion, it's an observation of what the books actually say) that the 5th D&D rule books do not present combat as being the source of the majority of experience points gained, and actually are as strong in their support of not tracking XP at all as they are in their support of tracking XP and having the majority of it come from combat (by which I mean the choice is left entirely to the reader, without one of the options being listed as the default and other options marked explicitly with text like "Variant:..." a la using point buy to generate ability scores or "optional rule" a la the various things found in the Dungeon Master's Workshop section of the text).
So in the majority of games you have been involved in, was combat not the predominate source of experience points for characters?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't really get the arguments here, some people like to go fast, others like to go slow. My time in D&D has been awesome because it strongly pushed the fact that it doesn't matter how other people play, it matters how you/your group plays, because that's the game you're in.
If your group wants to level fast, level fast, if your group wants to level slow, level slow. Options can easily be changed (and in fact are often encouraged to be changed to tailor to your group) to allow for either -- you can increase/decrease the amount of XP needed to level, you can use milestone leveling, you can increase/decrease the amount of XP monsters give, you can give XP for social interactions and encounters other than combat, you can pull out a Deck of Many Things and cause someone to lose/gain 10000 XP, you can create a curse/magical power in your world that causes you to lose XP when you kill things, but gain it if you rescue someone, you can create a potion that causes someone to go back to being a child and causes them to lose all of their XP/abilities/class/etc. (Damn you DM who did this to me, I really liked being my 40 year old ranger).
Remember, the rules are just guidelines anyway
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Watched most of this last night... an interesting take on where some of the known names in the community feel that 5e has been taken and how it compares to previous versions.
That's the thing though - time enough to flesh out characters and worlds is not intrinsically more time spent at a particular level. You seem to be acting as though there is a spectrum upon which one end is "level up more rapidly" and the opposite end is "have a more developed world/story", when that is absolutely not the case - frequency of level gains is one spectrum, an depth of character/world development is a separate spectrum, each campaign having its own position on each spectrum, and the two spectrums have no direct relationship to each other (a campaign can be ultra-fast level-ups but still focus heavily on character/world development, or even literally never level-up but focus on hack-n'-slash dungeon crashing with next to zero plot anyways - though most campaigns are more moderate on both spectrums).
Question: tell me how 20 session level 1 to 20 makes a good character development when your character starts level 1 and in one day of game time they reached level 5 gained new abilities and literally got recked by kobold and all of a sudden your players can wreck said kobold village ?
Fact of the matter is...
Leveling entirely depends on how fast your players advance in your story. Hack n slash, role play... Thats nothing to do with xp. Now if your players talk together and just buy stuff during your session. Why would you give them a level up for just playing everyday chores ?
If your group blows thru your adventures fast... They will level fast... If they take their time they will level slow... No sane dms would give a level or 1000 xp for a roleplay about buying a regular axe or buying a healing potion. Something the first edition literally allowed by the way.
Fun fact... In 2e i broke the dms game because once i found a way to make gold in cities i could just buy stuff and gain xp. Which meant i could just farm a city until level 20 and go save the world.
Again... Dms adventure is what says where you level up. And your players decides how fast they go through your story.
My 2 cents...
There is no way i will make them level every sessions if they just roleplay between themselves all night long. Ill reward them only if they do something that advances the story. My players knows that now. They are the one that have control over how fast they wanna get there now.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
No, it is not.
At least, not unless that's the way the DM/group have chosen for it to be - which is fine, but incentivizes choosing combat over other activities.
Because, again, you can play the game with a heavy focus on combat and yet choose to not have characters ever level up, or you can play the game with a heavy focus on developing characters, role-playing, and interacting with NPCs and yet choose to rise in level every few sessions.
Even if we are talking about the game strictly "as written", the first thing the rule-book tells a player in regards to experience is "As your character goes on adventures and overcomes challenges, he or she gains experience, represented by experience points." Note that neither "goes on adventures" nor "overcomes challenges" have any inherent requirement for combat to be involved. And that is actually the only mention of experience other than how it applies to multi-classing made in the Player's Handbook, so there is no reason supported by the book for a player to believe combat to be the source of the majority of experience points.
Combat experience are the most easily quantified experience point rewards, but they are not the only experience point rewards, nor does the game assume them to be the default largest source.
2) Do you see how you gave us a "Fact" and then contradicted that fact literally 2 paragraphs later?
3) You didn't just break the DM's game. You broke the game for everybody at the table. Well done.
@DelvesDeep " Balancing a campaign with a combination of roleplay and combat may slow level progression but develops a much richer game experience in the end." - Now, despite agreeing with this sentiment, I don't believe it is always true. Players (including DMs, who are still players) make a richer game.
I believe that collecting and painting your own miniatures makes the game richer. I believe that researching various periods of history and different real-world cultures, and integrating that into the experience makes the game richer. I believe that going to the pub and discussing the game makes the game experience richer. I believe that when the characters are drawn into a mass battle, then setting up a full blown wargame with terrain and floppy rulers makes the game richer.
Heck indulging in cosplay every session might make the game richer.
Conclusion : anybody not using self-painted miniatures and 3D diaramas, taking a degree in history and anthropology, visiting the pub with the whole group and spending a fortune on even more figures then dressing up as their character is making their game poorer for the lack of effort.
There is a big difference. I'll defend that statement later.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I didnt contradict myself...
You said that and then interpretted my saying to give yourself a point. As for me breaking my group... Nope they actually were happy to do the same as to us all, that was a solution to an upcoming problems. This actually prooves what i said about the group deciding when to move on. It also prooves what me and the others been saying... That dms call is what makes fast or not based on his story. Because when allowed us the level ups... He did the same to the bosses leaving us with the same problems.
But hey think what you will... My point was that in the end... Its the group that decides... Not just the dm which is exactly what i said and showed.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Just one question DnDPaladin - Where did I say you broke the group?
I looked, but must have rolled a 1 on my perception check.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Show me the rule I am changing with how I have described experience points not being mostly gained from combat. Combat experience are the most readily quantified by the game, yes, but they are not the only reward provided nor is there any mandate that says they should be the most numerously or frequently gained type of reward.
As I already highlighted, there aren't even any rules pertaining to experience gaining that are in the PHB. And if you go to the DMG, you see not just how to give out experience rewards for combat, but also how to reward non-combat challenges, and how to reward reaching particular points along the adventure/campaign plan - alongside suggestions of session-based (example: level up every 4 sessions) and story-based (example: level up once you've dealt with the first major challenge your characters must face). All of that without anything saying that one or the other bit of suggestions is more or less optional to follow than the others.
So yeah, seriously, show me what rule is being changed if combat XP aren't the majority of gained XP but isn't just as equally being changed if they are.
Site your source for that information, and I'll consider believing the claim to be anything but you assuming as people often do that your own opinion is the majority opinion.It wasn't until AD&D 2nd edition in 1989 that experience gained from combat was elevated above experience gained from accumulating treasure. In OD&D, AD&D 1st edition, and the famous boxed sets version of the game that would later become the Rules Cyclopedia, the basic 1 XP per 1 GP value of treasure claimed by a character far outstripped all other methods of experience gain used - just as treasure continues to be found in values that are easily higher than the combat experience gained (though gaining XP for treasure accumulation got demoted to an optional rule in 2nd edition, and didn't even get mentioned in the editions after that point).
It's not a chart, but if you turn to page 261 of your DMG, or look here under Noncombat Challenges, you'll see it. Sorry that it's not a chart, but I don't think it'd be any easier to follow the guidance given if it were.As for your apparent claim that it is how many words and tables full of numbers it takes to explain how to find the reward's value that establishes it's importance and/or mandatory nature, I'll point out these two things:
1) None of those charts actually say you must reward experience for combat. In fact, the only sentence I can find on that particular topic just says that experience points are the most common reward of combat encounters (read: winning a combat encounter usually gets you an XP reward, but may actually get you some other reward instead, according to the rules - that sentence is on DMG p.260 and the above linked compendium section as the first sentence under the heading "Experience Points").
2) Since the guidelines for XP reward value for noncombat challenges and milestones use the same charts that combat encounters do, but take additional words to describe doing so, they are what would actually have a heftier weight according to your reasoning for believing combat XP are treated any differently by the rules and suggestions in the DMG than other "possible" XP rewards.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but... being extra condescending when doubling down on arguments you aren't offering evidence to support doesn't actually make your arguments stronger - it actually makes them seem even less reasonable.So you're suggesting, that in most games played, the majority of XP gained by characters in not from combat?
It really depends on the DM and the group. They decide what noncombat experience will be Some groups might have little non combat experience and that pushes the game to a combat focused game. Others will try to give even amounts of experience to combat and non-combat events. Some might even run a game with lots of non-combat challenges for the players to overcome and so players advance more from their non-combat experience.