I started playing D&D long before MMRPGs were popular, in other words I started playing D&D first, I'm in it for the story. Most of my players started playing MMRPGs first, then discovered D&D, they are in it for the little bags of xp that magically drop whenever you do something right. To them the story is secondary, they measure success not based on story, but on going up in levels.
I have had limited success in slowly changes those views over time.
D&D players take many forms and are as varied as the entire population is, and there are huge differences in how they play depending on when they entered the game and how.
It has been my experience that a milestone system, which was used by some long before that term was ever codified into the player's handbook, changes PC behaviour. Once the PCs realize that the 'side quests' have no effect on whether they level up or not, they will start skipping them. They start focusing on the central story only, and start ignoring the shopkeeper who's having trouble with the local thieve's guild or the caravan being harrassed by a monster - because they know there's no xp in it for them.
Some PCs are motivated by how much money their characters hoard. Some PCs are motivated by the story that is being jointly created. Some PCs are motivated by how much they can craft. Some PCs are motivated by how many baddies they can blast into dust in a single action. Some PCs are motivated by collecting xp as if it produced a contact high.
Maybe you are fortunate enough to have a group that's motivated by story, i'd love to find a group like that, but in 40+ yrs of gaming, of all the groups i've found, formed, and merged together - I have only found a couple of players motivated by story. Most, especially those who were introduced to the genre thru video games, are in it for the little magic numbers (and corresponding dopamine hit) that appear over their heads whenever they do something in-game.
For those players who approach the game like it's a video or board game, a milestone type of reward system leads to bad behavior and hurts the story.
I am playing in a campaign that technically uses xp, but there was one stretch of the campaign that seemed to switch to milestone. We knew that we would not level up until our PCs reached a destination that would take us months, in and out of game, to reach (long distance travel, well over a thousand miles). That DM's style is to never fast forward, and to play out EVERY day. Very quickly random encounters began to be seen by some as a hindrance to reaching that 'level up'. Optional side quests and exploration was routinely avoided, because that too would mean having to go more games before reaching the level up spot.
That is why I say the xp system is better than milestone. You can still make sure the PCs reach the appropriate level you want them at, simply by adjusting the xp you award, but it eliminates the problem of PCs skipping content because they know it doesn't come with the one thing they want - xp. Let's face it, although I don't like generalizing, there are certain generations that are kind of known for seeking immediate reward and lose interest in things that don't give a constant supply of rewards such as xp. There's a reason many products are designed to give frequent small rewards instead of less frequent larger rewards.
I just want to add another data point ... none of the groups I have played or run, post high school, were significantly motivated to make in game character decisions based on XP or on increasing the rate of leveling up. No one avoided quests because they would slow down leveling. No one advocated slaughtering everything to increase XP or leveling rate. The sample size here probably encompasses about 100 different players and DMs over the years. Most of these games used Milestone leveling of one sort or another.
There are a wide range of playstyles and possible motivations for players and XP is one of them. I can remember playing when I prioritized XP, gold and loot (though this was AD&D and used XP leveling). I'd also add that many DMs in that era did not equally reward non-violent solutions to encounters. Very typically, full XP was only awarded for killing all of the monsters, though it depended on the DM, but I don't recall any awarding full XP for clever avoidance of encounters.
These days, I use "Milestone" leveling where significant events or when a "reasonable" passage of time and actions in the story justify leveling up. I find it keeps things simple and limits players making decisions in character that are motivated by getting the next level up ... eg. manufacturing a bar fight so that they can gain the extra 100xp to level up. I also find that XP bonus points tends to create uneven advancement which can result in a separation of levels in the party which can lead to a disparity in capability and effectiveness. Unless the DM makes the bonus awards so insignificant that they don't really affect overall advancement. In that case, the players can easily see that and it loses effectiveness as a motivating factor.
Overall, I far prefer Milestone, even though I spent the first 10-20 years if not more using XP. However, each group is different and as long as whatever they choose works for their group then that is awesome :)
XP for me. I run a game for new players and I have found that XP is often a strong motivator and easier for new players to view progress towards goals. For example after they heist the villain's source of power and confront them I would award the villain's XP which wraps up the conflict cleanly, letting the players know that now is the time for their character's to relax a little and talk with their allies/ reap the rewards of their adventure. This is solely my experience for new players which have prior experiences with simpler action game XP systems. They understand how power should progress along a storyline but not how they should act to progress the storyline. So, XP rewards for reasonable problem solving with a goal in mind (roughly anything short of brutalizing an innocent or any other major action out of character) helps keep the game from stalling out due to lack of direction without DM intervention.
Your table has limited play time, or frequent absences. (Milestone means no character left behind).
Just want to mention that there's no reason that one can't keep the characters even even if using XP.
No, but it does make for extra work.
As someone who does this, not really. If during the last session, the party got 500 xp, then everyone gets it, if they were there or not. Easy-peasy.
I really don’t get everyone saying xp is so much work. We’re basically playing “Probability and Math: The Game.” Writing down 1 extra number is hardly a challenge. It’s certainly more than 0 numbers, I must agree. But it’s not at all complicated.
I have played D&D with a surprising number of people who were not good at addition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Your table has limited play time, or frequent absences. (Milestone means no character left behind).
Just want to mention that there's no reason that one can't keep the characters even even if using XP.
No, but it does make for extra work.
As someone who does this, not really. If during the last session, the party got 500 xp, then everyone gets it, if they were there or not. Easy-peasy.
I really don’t get everyone saying xp is so much work. We’re basically playing “Probability and Math: The Game.” Writing down 1 extra number is hardly a challenge. It’s certainly more than 0 numbers, I must agree. But it’s not at all complicated.
I have played D&D with a surprising number of people who were not good at addition.
Especially for rolling damage, ability checks, attack rolls…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Shoutout to the 2 Crew! - the cast of Not Another D&D Podcast
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden.
Ravenclaw, bookworm, Lego fanatic, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love K-pop Demon Hunters and the theatre. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
I absolutely love Korean mythology, so if you want to talk about that, feel free to!
Your table has limited play time, or frequent absences. (Milestone means no character left behind).
Just want to mention that there's no reason that one can't keep the characters even even if using XP.
No, but it does make for extra work.
As someone who does this, not really. If during the last session, the party got 500 xp, then everyone gets it, if they were there or not. Easy-peasy.
I really don’t get everyone saying xp is so much work. We’re basically playing “Probability and Math: The Game.” Writing down 1 extra number is hardly a challenge. It’s certainly more than 0 numbers, I must agree. But it’s not at all complicated.
I have played D&D with a surprising number of people who were not good at addition.
Especially for rolling damage, ability checks, attack rolls…
One of the players in the session I ran Friday night kept thinking that he was missing because he was trying to shoot an AC 15 hydra using Sharpshooter and couldn't correctly add 12 (what he rolled) +8 (his attack bonus) -5 (the penalty for sharpshooter).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Your table has limited play time, or frequent absences. (Milestone means no character left behind).
Just want to mention that there's no reason that one can't keep the characters even even if using XP.
No, but it does make for extra work.
As someone who does this, not really. If during the last session, the party got 500 xp, then everyone gets it, if they were there or not. Easy-peasy.
I really don’t get everyone saying xp is so much work. We’re basically playing “Probability and Math: The Game.” Writing down 1 extra number is hardly a challenge. It’s certainly more than 0 numbers, I must agree. But it’s not at all complicated.
I have played D&D with a surprising number of people who were not good at addition.
To be clear about my 'Milestone means no character left behind' comment. My intention was to truly and crudely encompass the range of DM decisions out there. I am aware of tables where DMs run XP and if your character wasn't there because you as a player weren't the XP doesn't get awarded. Obviously some DMs don't penalise their players for real life absences. Some do however. Crude I know, but even when everyone is present, I've occasions where DMs have not given XP after a party split where one group killed a monster and another didn't. There are many, many instances where XP can mean a character or characters are absent from the XP award situation that don't mean player absence. There are of course ways around this, but they aren't employed at every table running XP.
Wasn't attempting to suggest that there aren't ways around things, just trying to give some crude suggestions more than anything.
I do a gestalt/hybrid style. A rough (ie made up on the spot) XP for monsters, split into equal parts. Bonuses to INDIVIDUAL players for great role playing and strategy (I keep tick marks on my HP log). Large bonuses to each party member for completing story arcs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
Your table has limited play time, or frequent absences. (Milestone means no character left behind).
Just want to mention that there's no reason that one can't keep the characters even even if using XP.
No, but it does make for extra work.
As someone who does this, not really. If during the last session, the party got 500 xp, then everyone gets it, if they were there or not. Easy-peasy.
I really don’t get everyone saying xp is so much work. We’re basically playing “Probability and Math: The Game.” Writing down 1 extra number is hardly a challenge. It’s certainly more than 0 numbers, I must agree. But it’s not at all complicated.
I have played D&D with a surprising number of people who were not good at addition.
To be clear about my 'Milestone means no character left behind' comment. My intention was to truly and crudely encompass the range of DM decisions out there. I am aware of tables where DMs run XP and if your character wasn't there because you as a player weren't the XP doesn't get awarded. Obviously some DMs don't penalise their players for real life absences. Some do however. Crude I know, but even when everyone is present, I've occasions where DMs have not given XP after a party split where one group killed a monster and another didn't. There are many, many instances where XP can mean a character or characters are absent from the XP award situation that don't mean player absence. There are of course ways around this, but they aren't employed at every table running XP.
Wasn't attempting to suggest that there aren't ways around things, just trying to give some crude suggestions more than anything.
Yeah, I've played at tables where if you miss the session, you don't get the xp. At one table, you didn't get the gold, the level, anything. This is why I always play milestone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Shoutout to the 2 Crew! - the cast of Not Another D&D Podcast
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden.
Ravenclaw, bookworm, Lego fanatic, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love K-pop Demon Hunters and the theatre. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
I absolutely love Korean mythology, so if you want to talk about that, feel free to!
If someone has to miss a game because of work or family stuff, they always have the option in our group to let another player play their character. If so, they get a share of xp and loot. However, if they choose not to, then their character did not share the risk, so they do not share the gain. That's to keep people from intentionally missing games that they believe might pose a greater risk (yes, we've had players in our extended group over the years that have done that). Been doing it that way for over 40 yrs, it doesn't cause a problem. Also, there's nothing wrong with having someone a level lower or higher than the others in the group.
In fact, for most of the time we have played we had a rule that any new character coming in either came in one level lower than the lowest level person in the group. For one 5 yr campaign, the DM had a rule that if someone died and brought in a new character, they had to come in 2 levels lower. That was a bit steep, but we made it work.
One level really doesn't make that much of a difference. It really doesn't matter if the whole group goes up in level at the same time, or a session or two apart.
I just want to add another data point ... none of the groups I have played or run, post high school, were significantly motivated to make in game character decisions based on XP or on increasing the rate of leveling up. No one avoided quests because they would slow down leveling. No one advocated slaughtering everything to increase XP or leveling rate. The sample size here probably encompasses about 100 different players and DMs over the years. Most of these games used Milestone leveling of one sort or another.
There are a wide range of playstyles and possible motivations for players and XP is one of them. I can remember playing when I prioritized XP, gold and loot (though this was AD&D and used XP leveling). I'd also add that many DMs in that era did not equally reward non-violent solutions to encounters. Very typically, full XP was only awarded for killing all of the monsters, though it depended on the DM, but I don't recall any awarding full XP for clever avoidance of encounters.
These days, I use "Milestone" leveling where significant events or when a "reasonable" passage of time and actions in the story justify leveling up. I find it keeps things simple and limits players making decisions in character that are motivated by getting the next level up ... eg. manufacturing a bar fight so that they can gain the extra 100xp to level up. I also find that XP bonus points tends to create uneven advancement which can result in a separation of levels in the party which can lead to a disparity in capability and effectiveness. Unless the DM makes the bonus awards so insignificant that they don't really affect overall advancement. In that case, the players can easily see that and it loses effectiveness as a motivating factor.
Overall, I far prefer Milestone, even though I spent the first 10-20 years if not more using XP. However, each group is different and as long as whatever they choose works for their group then that is awesome :)
XP for me. I run a game for new players and I have found that XP is often a strong motivator and easier for new players to view progress towards goals. For example after they heist the villain's source of power and confront them I would award the villain's XP which wraps up the conflict cleanly, letting the players know that now is the time for their character's to relax a little and talk with their allies/ reap the rewards of their adventure. This is solely my experience for new players which have prior experiences with simpler action game XP systems. They understand how power should progress along a storyline but not how they should act to progress the storyline. So, XP rewards for reasonable problem solving with a goal in mind (roughly anything short of brutalizing an innocent or any other major action out of character) helps keep the game from stalling out due to lack of direction without DM intervention.
I have played D&D with a surprising number of people who were not good at addition.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Especially for rolling damage, ability checks, attack rolls…
Shoutout to the 2 Crew! - the cast of Not Another D&D Podcast
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden.
Ravenclaw, bookworm, Lego fanatic, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love K-pop Demon Hunters and the theatre. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
I absolutely love Korean mythology, so if you want to talk about that, feel free to!
One of the players in the session I ran Friday night kept thinking that he was missing because he was trying to shoot an AC 15 hydra using Sharpshooter and couldn't correctly add 12 (what he rolled) +8 (his attack bonus) -5 (the penalty for sharpshooter).
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To be clear about my 'Milestone means no character left behind' comment. My intention was to truly and crudely encompass the range of DM decisions out there. I am aware of tables where DMs run XP and if your character wasn't there because you as a player weren't the XP doesn't get awarded. Obviously some DMs don't penalise their players for real life absences. Some do however. Crude I know, but even when everyone is present, I've occasions where DMs have not given XP after a party split where one group killed a monster and another didn't. There are many, many instances where XP can mean a character or characters are absent from the XP award situation that don't mean player absence. There are of course ways around this, but they aren't employed at every table running XP.
Wasn't attempting to suggest that there aren't ways around things, just trying to give some crude suggestions more than anything.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I do a gestalt/hybrid style. A rough (ie made up on the spot) XP for monsters, split into equal parts. Bonuses to INDIVIDUAL players for great role playing and strategy (I keep tick marks on my HP log). Large bonuses to each party member for completing story arcs.
Velstitzen
I am a 40 something year old physician who DMs for a group of 40 something year old doctors. We play a hybrid game, mostly based on 2nd edition rules with some homebrew and 5E components.
Yeah, I've played at tables where if you miss the session, you don't get the xp. At one table, you didn't get the gold, the level, anything. This is why I always play milestone.
Shoutout to the 2 Crew! - the cast of Not Another D&D Podcast
Roomba Knight, Architect of the Cataclysm, Foxy Lunar Archpriest. Dubbed The Fluffy Bowman by Golden.
Ravenclaw, bookworm, Lego fanatic, mythology nerd, pedantic about spelling. I also love foxes, cats, otters, and red pandas!
I love K-pop Demon Hunters and the theatre. If you want to ask me about something, send me a PM!
I absolutely love Korean mythology, so if you want to talk about that, feel free to!
If someone has to miss a game because of work or family stuff, they always have the option in our group to let another player play their character. If so, they get a share of xp and loot. However, if they choose not to, then their character did not share the risk, so they do not share the gain. That's to keep people from intentionally missing games that they believe might pose a greater risk (yes, we've had players in our extended group over the years that have done that). Been doing it that way for over 40 yrs, it doesn't cause a problem. Also, there's nothing wrong with having someone a level lower or higher than the others in the group.
In fact, for most of the time we have played we had a rule that any new character coming in either came in one level lower than the lowest level person in the group. For one 5 yr campaign, the DM had a rule that if someone died and brought in a new character, they had to come in 2 levels lower. That was a bit steep, but we made it work.
One level really doesn't make that much of a difference. It really doesn't matter if the whole group goes up in level at the same time, or a session or two apart.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.