I don't like the advancement curve in 5e when using the CR system and XP. It seemed like around 6th or 7th level, it got really slow. So i have switched to story.
But I am interested in hearing other's experience, what you use, and why.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
What I choose depends on the campaign at hand. My Rule #2 of DMing; Use the right tool for the job.
When I'm running a pre-planned campaign that has clear points where advancement would feel appropriate, I skip the XP tracking and go with story-based advancement.
When I'm running a published adventure (that invariably assumes how much XP the characters are going to have gained, and ramps the challenges up based on that assumed level), I have the players track XP, but I also bump the characters up in level if they've progressed in the adventure to a part that expects them to be higher level but didn't scour enough corners for XP to actually get their naturally. Because I don't want my players to feel like they have to deliberately behave in one particular way in order to achieve the highest possible XP rewards, especially not if that way of behaving is to intentionally arbitrarily side-track their own characters.
And when I'm running with little or no planning, I use XP tracking but also throw in rewards for accomplishing meaningful goals that the players set for their own characters (i.e. they pick out a quest to care about accomplishing, and I give out XP upon achieving success - and it's usually as much, or more, than the XP worth of opponents they had to face along the way to the goal).
The story advancement is simpler for the player, but requires a really good campaign design from the DM.
XP tracking can be a bit more annoying, sure, but it is more appropriate for "open" campaign (i.e., those campaign which includes several possibilities for the party to advance the story).
I only really track XP in games where it is a resource that can be spent (like WW/Onyx Path games).
I've started tracking XP in D&D games, but it tends to go by the wayside long term and I just save time by handing out levels when I feel the group is sufficiently accomplished. In 4e, I started handing out levels like candy when they were approaching the end of the paragon arc.
The published scenarios by WotC for 5E lend themselves well to the "landmark XP" method of advancement. The same is true with the Adventure Paths Paizo did for 3.5E and their subsequent Pathfinder Adventure Paths. If the adventure states the PC should be "level 8 by they time they enter Dungeon X", make sure they *ding* the night before they enter.
I personally have always awarded XP. Up through 3.5E it was a personalized reward system based on actions PCs did, the damage they dealt, the ideas they had, the roleplaying they exhibited, all noted on a 3"x5" card that acted as their Campaign Log. It was a lot of work but was the "fairest" system I had come up with after years of trail and error. Since PFRPG, I've gone more to standard "group XP" and award individual XP bonus ad hoc. Sometimes its seems like the PCs are advancing too fast, other times too slow, but overall the pace is right where it should be. At higher levels the PCs should be slowing down in their advancement. I've found that it takes (2 X Level) sessions to level up to be a good rule of thumb for my Saturday game that runs 6-9 hours.
Last year I did a different format called the "Ding Campaign". Players wanted to see how characters would advanced in a condensed manner so I designed an overall story arc, narrated much of it with some player input at key "story forks", and then we ran the *ding* encounters that would represent the "boss" fight to gain the next level. Running with the Rod of the Seven Parts story, 14 hours of play and they were at 8th level and having a hoot.
Bottom line, there's no wrong answer to XP. It's what appeals to the DM and the (majority of) players that matters most.
I used to be pretty die-hard on handing out XP directly for encounters, etc. but changed with 5e. Now I give out story based advancement.
Why? Because it's easier and allows me to grant the level when it feels right. Feels right may be defined either by a great story moment, or player inertia. I can hit hte momentum to keep the campaign feeling rewarding and to stave off boredom. Especially in a long slog of a storyline.
Neither system is inherently better than the other but for my purposes story is the winner. I run sandbox campaigns almost exclusively and it's still pretty easy to feel out when characters have closed a chapter and need a level up.
I give XP, specially because the Open World campaign, and I use the "daily XP" in the rules like a good mesure about tasks and participation, it's added many times, or it's gifted instead for not participating voluntarily in one encounter.
A person or two is sure to miss every week so the players that are there get their XP and if they level up before the milestone then that's their reward for not missing. At the milestone everyone will get bumped up.
I tend to take a bit of both. Making sure to reward them with so Exp for experiencing things as well and not only "murder". Which also means that if they decide to sit back for a session in a tavern or bar gathering information they wont suddenly get no Exp. I tend to use to curve back players who have a high aggression type of playing D&D (outside their character).
The way I approach this myself is by never telling them directly how much Exp they get from specific actions or "kills". Mostly trying to keep the pace smooth. Ofcourse taking into account how Exp a certain encounter should give. But slightly re-adjusting it for more or less Exp.
For example: Random bandits along a travel grant less Exp overall. But solving a problem these bandits cause will grant more Exp overall.
My reasoning for this relies on the fact that random "murder" isn't much of an experience. Where on the other hand solving the problem has more of a reward to it (besides loot).
BTW, I believe that 5e is intentionally designed to slow down around level 6-7. So that you go from a newbie to an adventurer quickly, but then spend a lot of time as a mid level adventurer before eventually moving on to super hero status in the higher levels.
Also BTW, Gygax (and Kask) always said that they never saw any point in wanting to play high level characters. To them, the fun was always being mid level, being a hero, but not a super hero. Specifically that the fun was that growing up process from level 1 to ~ level 10.
And, I'd add, that us younger dudes may see this differently, but I believe that is a function of having grown up on video games (specifically MMOs) where it seemed that the "game doesn't start until you're max level".
BTW, I believe that 5e is intentionally designed to slow down around level 6-7. So that you go from a newbie to an adventurer quickly, but then spend a lot of time as a mid level adventurer before eventually moving on to super hero status in the higher levels.
Also BTW, Gygax (and Kask) always said that they never saw any point in wanting to play high level characters. To them, the fun was always being mid level, being a hero, but not a super hero. Specifically that the fun was that growing up process from level 1 to ~ level 10.
And, I'd add, that us younger dudes may see this differently, but I believe that is a function of having grown up on video games (specifically MMOs) where it seemed that the "game doesn't start until you're max level".
Yeah I think leveling goes way too fast in the early stages. I feel like you should get two or three adventures at least out of each level. This is primarily because the game does tend to break down more at high level and also because unlike most games, even roleplaying games, D&D effectively end.
I was part of a shadowrun game that had gone on like six+ years. Where the d&d campaign would have to start over once reaching level 20.
D&D campaigns do not "have to start over once reaching level 20" any more than Shadowrun has to start over as soon as someone gets the highest possible skill or attribute rating in something. Especially not 5th edition, since besides the option of just continuing to play without any significant mechanical changes to the character (the equivalent of playing a Shadowrun character even though your karma is being spent mostly on stuff besides your go-to important skills), the DMG also provides the option of epic boons so you can get some cool mechanical treats for continuing to play.
I'm 100% for story advancement, but I also play a lot more fast and loose than I think a lot of people with xp. I'm not a huge fan of the "you must punch the thing until you level" kind of way of running things personally, so awarding xp would be honestly difficult for me if I followed what's set in stone. I set up story arcs, where my players essentially need to solve a variety of small problems and the overall plot problem, so I'd rather just reward them for however they solve those problems. When I set up the next story arc I generally have an idea of where they need to be skill and strength wise, so I'll just adjust them to that.
I'm not a huge fan of the "you must punch the thing until you level" kind of way of running things...
Oddly enough, that's actually almost never (and I only have to qualify that with an "almost" because of 2nd edition specifically labeling rules as optional) been how experience has worked in D&D.
In 1e and the D&D game that came in boxes and little booklets, accumulating treasure was actually the best way to gain XP, with the defeat of monsters representing only a fraction of total rewards.
2e did change the default rules to gaining XP only through defeating monsters, but also included all sorts of optional rules in the core books that provided ways to reward players for things like having good ideas and role-playing well, as well as goal- or story-based rewards.
3e kept the focus on gaining XP through "overcoming challenges", and mentioned rewards for methods other than violence toward monsters (just not in much detail, especially when compared to the detail provided to monster-based XP rewards), so a lot of folks didn't even realize that XP could come from something besides killing monsters - enough, in fact, that it became more common to encounter the misconception than the truth among the fan-base.
4e actually provided clear guidance as to how to award XP for things other than combat, and as the default rules rather than optional ones.
5e has gone back to the clear guidance on how to reward XP for "punch the thing", but still provides suggestions for rewards of other types (all right alongside where it mentions level advancement without XP). So while it is easy to see how someone might arrive at the conclusion that one has to fight monsters to gain XP, or change the rules, the conclusion is not actually accurate.
I've been running a campaign for about 5 months now and have a party ranging in lvs from 7-10 and it's quite fun since the higher lv ones were the original while the newer ones are lower, because of this I use Xp as well as because they have alternate rewards they can earn. Sometimes hanging out bonus Xp is a good way to not give to much money or power to your players. As for the slowing down, it's helped balance the higher from the lower lv players giving them ample room to catch up. I don't honestly see this as a problem. If it was here's a lv for being near this area it would be harder for my players because the older players would feel as if they were hardened adventures to the newer ones. Mind you this is also based on the players you have.
Combat is a little less common in my campaign than others so I give XP for story advancement, but I do it in a bit of an esoteric way.
I have a tradition of writing up a somewhat detailed recap of each session (since my group is rather large and its very rare that we have all players present, so this recap helps people to catch up ok adventures). The recap pretty much bullet points every single thing the players did, from killing monsters, to foraging for berries, and everything gets XP. Smaller activities get really small amounts like 10 XP, while plot significant achievements like cracking open the king's vault can fetch several thousand. It gives me a lot of flexibility in levelling up the players when I need to, while keeping the excitement of watching your XP increase.
As I'm running a homebrew and don't yet know all the story notes as I'm planning on discovering them based on party action, I prefer to use the XP method of advancement. But I think it depends on the style of play and whether or not you want to track encounter XP.
I also award XP for non-combat encounters if the party does very well in that encounter, and award XP for successful skill checks based on the skill check DC.
I prefer giving the players a level with their milestones. While it's very possible to hand out a balanced amount of XP for things besides combat, I usually find that I have a hard time finding that balance between non-combat and combat. It feels a lot easier for the players to just go through some combat encounters where there's a definitive amount of XP to be given than to try and accurately assess how much XP players receive for things like convincing a general to grant them access to a high security military base, for instance. It's a lot easier to just plan for the party to level up once X has been achieved, or even after X things have been done.
It also makes it easier to make dungeons more fun, for me. I don't feel like I have to "fill" it with more monsters and traps, or "downsize" the total number of things in a dungeon. I feel like XP encourages a lot more "kill the thing" than "overcome the challenge the thing presents" too, which there can be a huge difference between at times.
My group has reached 8th level and are nearing 9th. A lot of players like mathing the XP advances. It feels like the progress bar is filling up. I don't worry too much about it. When I think they've reached a milestone, I just add in a story award/ role-play award to bump them to the next level. I was first introduced to story awards by my dungeon master back in the 2e days. I guess it'd be appropriate to call it a milestone award nowadays. Anyway, the players in my group know that completion of an arc and excellent role-play interaction are just as important as kills.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't like the advancement curve in 5e when using the CR system and XP. It seemed like around 6th or 7th level, it got really slow. So i have switched to story.
But I am interested in hearing other's experience, what you use, and why.
--
DM -- Elanon -- Homebrew world
Gronn -- Tiefling Warlock -- Amarath
Slim -- Halfling Cleric -- CoS (future Lord of Waterdeep 😁)
Bran -- Human Wizard - RoT
Making D&D mistakes and having fun since 1977!
What I choose depends on the campaign at hand. My Rule #2 of DMing; Use the right tool for the job.
When I'm running a pre-planned campaign that has clear points where advancement would feel appropriate, I skip the XP tracking and go with story-based advancement.
When I'm running a published adventure (that invariably assumes how much XP the characters are going to have gained, and ramps the challenges up based on that assumed level), I have the players track XP, but I also bump the characters up in level if they've progressed in the adventure to a part that expects them to be higher level but didn't scour enough corners for XP to actually get their naturally. Because I don't want my players to feel like they have to deliberately behave in one particular way in order to achieve the highest possible XP rewards, especially not if that way of behaving is to intentionally arbitrarily side-track their own characters.
And when I'm running with little or no planning, I use XP tracking but also throw in rewards for accomplishing meaningful goals that the players set for their own characters (i.e. they pick out a quest to care about accomplishing, and I give out XP upon achieving success - and it's usually as much, or more, than the XP worth of opponents they had to face along the way to the goal).
The story advancement is simpler for the player, but requires a really good campaign design from the DM.
XP tracking can be a bit more annoying, sure, but it is more appropriate for "open" campaign (i.e., those campaign which includes several possibilities for the party to advance the story).
I only really track XP in games where it is a resource that can be spent (like WW/Onyx Path games).
I've started tracking XP in D&D games, but it tends to go by the wayside long term and I just save time by handing out levels when I feel the group is sufficiently accomplished. In 4e, I started handing out levels like candy when they were approaching the end of the paragon arc.
The published scenarios by WotC for 5E lend themselves well to the "landmark XP" method of advancement. The same is true with the Adventure Paths Paizo did for 3.5E and their subsequent Pathfinder Adventure Paths. If the adventure states the PC should be "level 8 by they time they enter Dungeon X", make sure they *ding* the night before they enter.
I personally have always awarded XP. Up through 3.5E it was a personalized reward system based on actions PCs did, the damage they dealt, the ideas they had, the roleplaying they exhibited, all noted on a 3"x5" card that acted as their Campaign Log. It was a lot of work but was the "fairest" system I had come up with after years of trail and error. Since PFRPG, I've gone more to standard "group XP" and award individual XP bonus ad hoc. Sometimes its seems like the PCs are advancing too fast, other times too slow, but overall the pace is right where it should be. At higher levels the PCs should be slowing down in their advancement. I've found that it takes (2 X Level) sessions to level up to be a good rule of thumb for my Saturday game that runs 6-9 hours.
Last year I did a different format called the "Ding Campaign". Players wanted to see how characters would advanced in a condensed manner so I designed an overall story arc, narrated much of it with some player input at key "story forks", and then we ran the *ding* encounters that would represent the "boss" fight to gain the next level. Running with the Rod of the Seven Parts story, 14 hours of play and they were at 8th level and having a hoot.
Bottom line, there's no wrong answer to XP. It's what appeals to the DM and the (majority of) players that matters most.
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
I used to be pretty die-hard on handing out XP directly for encounters, etc. but changed with 5e. Now I give out story based advancement.
Why? Because it's easier and allows me to grant the level when it feels right. Feels right may be defined either by a great story moment, or player inertia. I can hit hte momentum to keep the campaign feeling rewarding and to stave off boredom. Especially in a long slog of a storyline.
Neither system is inherently better than the other but for my purposes story is the winner. I run sandbox campaigns almost exclusively and it's still pretty easy to feel out when characters have closed a chapter and need a level up.
I give XP, specially because the Open World campaign, and I use the "daily XP" in the rules like a good mesure about tasks and participation, it's added many times, or it's gifted instead for not participating voluntarily in one encounter.
Hombrewing and roleplaying a lot.
I do both.
A person or two is sure to miss every week so the players that are there get their XP and if they level up before the milestone then that's their reward for not missing. At the milestone everyone will get bumped up.
I prefer weaving in story elements and not being straight forward, so xp works better. Especially when you allow PCs to do anything.
I tend to take a bit of both. Making sure to reward them with so Exp for experiencing things as well and not only "murder".
Which also means that if they decide to sit back for a session in a tavern or bar gathering information they wont suddenly get no Exp. I tend to use to curve back players who have a high aggression type of playing D&D (outside their character).
The way I approach this myself is by never telling them directly how much Exp they get from specific actions or "kills". Mostly trying to keep the pace smooth. Ofcourse taking into account how Exp a certain encounter should give. But slightly re-adjusting it for more or less Exp.
For example: Random bandits along a travel grant less Exp overall. But solving a problem these bandits cause will grant more Exp overall.
My reasoning for this relies on the fact that random "murder" isn't much of an experience. Where on the other hand solving the problem has more of a reward to it (besides loot).
BTW, I believe that 5e is intentionally designed to slow down around level 6-7. So that you go from a newbie to an adventurer quickly, but then spend a lot of time as a mid level adventurer before eventually moving on to super hero status in the higher levels.
Also BTW, Gygax (and Kask) always said that they never saw any point in wanting to play high level characters. To them, the fun was always being mid level, being a hero, but not a super hero. Specifically that the fun was that growing up process from level 1 to ~ level 10.
And, I'd add, that us younger dudes may see this differently, but I believe that is a function of having grown up on video games (specifically MMOs) where it seemed that the "game doesn't start until you're max level".
Be careful what you Wish for... your DM may just give it to you!
D&D campaigns do not "have to start over once reaching level 20" any more than Shadowrun has to start over as soon as someone gets the highest possible skill or attribute rating in something. Especially not 5th edition, since besides the option of just continuing to play without any significant mechanical changes to the character (the equivalent of playing a Shadowrun character even though your karma is being spent mostly on stuff besides your go-to important skills), the DMG also provides the option of epic boons so you can get some cool mechanical treats for continuing to play.
I'm 100% for story advancement, but I also play a lot more fast and loose than I think a lot of people with xp. I'm not a huge fan of the "you must punch the thing until you level" kind of way of running things personally, so awarding xp would be honestly difficult for me if I followed what's set in stone. I set up story arcs, where my players essentially need to solve a variety of small problems and the overall plot problem, so I'd rather just reward them for however they solve those problems. When I set up the next story arc I generally have an idea of where they need to be skill and strength wise, so I'll just adjust them to that.
I've been running a campaign for about 5 months now and have a party ranging in lvs from 7-10 and it's quite fun since the higher lv ones were the original while the newer ones are lower, because of this I use Xp as well as because they have alternate rewards they can earn. Sometimes hanging out bonus Xp is a good way to not give to much money or power to your players. As for the slowing down, it's helped balance the higher from the lower lv players giving them ample room to catch up. I don't honestly see this as a problem. If it was here's a lv for being near this area it would be harder for my players because the older players would feel as if they were hardened adventures to the newer ones. Mind you this is also based on the players you have.
Combat is a little less common in my campaign than others so I give XP for story advancement, but I do it in a bit of an esoteric way.
I have a tradition of writing up a somewhat detailed recap of each session (since my group is rather large and its very rare that we have all players present, so this recap helps people to catch up ok adventures). The recap pretty much bullet points every single thing the players did, from killing monsters, to foraging for berries, and everything gets XP. Smaller activities get really small amounts like 10 XP, while plot significant achievements like cracking open the king's vault can fetch several thousand. It gives me a lot of flexibility in levelling up the players when I need to, while keeping the excitement of watching your XP increase.
You're doing a bang up job
As I'm running a homebrew and don't yet know all the story notes as I'm planning on discovering them based on party action, I prefer to use the XP method of advancement. But I think it depends on the style of play and whether or not you want to track encounter XP.
I also award XP for non-combat encounters if the party does very well in that encounter, and award XP for successful skill checks based on the skill check DC.
I prefer giving the players a level with their milestones. While it's very possible to hand out a balanced amount of XP for things besides combat, I usually find that I have a hard time finding that balance between non-combat and combat. It feels a lot easier for the players to just go through some combat encounters where there's a definitive amount of XP to be given than to try and accurately assess how much XP players receive for things like convincing a general to grant them access to a high security military base, for instance. It's a lot easier to just plan for the party to level up once X has been achieved, or even after X things have been done.
It also makes it easier to make dungeons more fun, for me. I don't feel like I have to "fill" it with more monsters and traps, or "downsize" the total number of things in a dungeon. I feel like XP encourages a lot more "kill the thing" than "overcome the challenge the thing presents" too, which there can be a huge difference between at times.
My group has reached 8th level and are nearing 9th. A lot of players like mathing the XP advances. It feels like the progress bar is filling up. I don't worry too much about it. When I think they've reached a milestone, I just add in a story award/ role-play award to bump them to the next level. I was first introduced to story awards by my dungeon master back in the 2e days. I guess it'd be appropriate to call it a milestone award nowadays. Anyway, the players in my group know that completion of an arc and excellent role-play interaction are just as important as kills.