I know I'm seeing this a year later, but I thought I'd chime in haha
First of all (and I'm not telling you how to do your thing, as you've been doing it way longer than I have), you control how much experience your players earn. These guidebooks are merely suggestions. If you think they're leveling up too quickly by encounter, then just reward them with less experience. Encourage downtime by maybe giving them increased proficiencies they want to improve upon if they take the time to do so. I've always thought it was kind of absurd that each class is only proficient in a set of skills and they can never improve upon them outside of feats. In reality, if you train at something diligently, you will ultimately get better at it.
Alternatively, there is milestone XP, which you mentioned not liking. There are ways to taper your players to a specific goal point, though while still having side quests and stuff to do out in the world. For instance, maybe there is a band of Orc Raiders besieging a nearby town. But maybe this encounter is very challenging for level 5 players. They could still do the mission and not get battle xp, but risk their lives to do so. If they think the risk is too high, then they can do a step in the campaign quest to level up and come back prepared. If the players do the encounter anyway and win, then you could provide them with unique non-xp rewards.
I really enjoy the 5E system for its approachability, but I don't think any edition has been totally perfect. There's always ways that you can modify or augment features to make them work for your table. That's what I love so much about D&D.
I hate milestones because it doesnt suit open worlds. I have a group with which i play twice a week... They barely go forward in the stories. Reason being they love freedom and while they do want stories they rather enjouy just walking around and interacting with my world. In that particular case its better to focus on actual role play then milestones.
Otherwise... The current 5e system of xp expect you to go from 1 to 20 in 40 sessions... Now lets take streamers... Critical role took 3 years to go from 1 to 20. Acq inc c team are now 3 years old and are not even level 11 yet. Dca has 5 years now and they are not passed level 13 yet. So one has to ask his players... Are you wanting that level 20 or not ?
I as a player totally hate playing a character for years without advancement. Sorry but i expect to hit 20 or at least level 15 after a year. Because you know what you hear the most from players? "Whats the point of planning a character beyond level 9 ? I'll never reach further anyway !" and i cant blame them. Most of the games i played in 20 years there is only ever just 1 who came to a close after 3 years.
Thats why i totally refuses to take that long. Now i am on campaign two with one group. Took us about 1 year and a half to get from 1 to about 17. I think that was fair. A campaign to me is a character from start to finish. A level 9 character is not finished !
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)
If your Players are having fun, at the rate they are progressing through the story, then it's a good rate of progression for your table.
You can't possibly say that you should be at level X after Y sessions, or that you should be at level Q after a year of play. You might have 6 hour Saturday sessions every week. I might have 2.5 to 3 hour weekday sessions 3 weeks out of 4. Even the number of hours is meaningless. Maybe you have a group of hardcore tactical wargamers, wading through seas of Monster blood, and racking up XP. Maybe I have a group of character actors who like sitting around and working on Character interactions 50% of the time.
Not everyone fixates on the level number as their metric for progress or success. A lot of Players I've known, if you asked them "Do you want that level 20, or not?" would answer "meh". They're happy so long as they are having fun, having meaningful adventures, and developing their characters.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Idk man. I run my own homebrew campaigns. The last one we played weekly with a few breaks in between. The campaign last 11 months in IRL and they started at 1st level made it to level 10 just before the TPK. Modules level you up at an accelerated rate with milestones to fit their story. My current campaign that started in January at 3rd level, the players will definitely level this next session to 6th level. Obviously I use EXP leveling. In game time for my last campaign was about 2 years and the current one I believe they're approaching 3 months.
Long story short, as a DM in your own campaign you control the pacing.
I hate milestones because it doesnt suit open worlds
I disagree completely with the above statement. Milestones are what you as the DM set, so you are free to let the party level up whenever you feel it's appropriate (ie they have completed enough content).
Thats why i totally refuses to take that long
Cool. You want to play a high level campaign, not everyone wants to. Also, at some point, players get tired of their characters and want to do something else. In my current game we are around 25 sessions (4 hrs each). This has lasted over a year (we play every two weeks). That means regardless of "in game" time (which has been a few months) the players know this has been a year adventure.
A campaign is the end of a good story, regardless of what level it ends at. In my opinion. Every game has a different style though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
Key sentence that apparently you did not see or read. So ill quote you instead...
[Quote] (ie they have completed enough content).[quote]
What if they dont complete anything and always flee or let the world save itself instead ? Thats what i mean by milestones do not work in open world. Milestone by definitions are break in the story where you give them the level up. But what if your players takes 5 sessions just to decide where to go because not everyone are interested by the same things.
As for premade adventures. They level up fast because as i said previously, the game right now is designed for you to reach level 20 in about 40 sessions ! From the dmg itself, leveling should be level 2 and 3 in the first two sessions then it should take you about 2 or 3 sessions per levels.
And as i also said yet it seems people only read what they want... I like playing a game fully which from level 1 to 20. Because again from the dmg...
Tier 1 - level 1 to 5. Local heroes
Tier 2 - level 6 to 10. Country wide heroes
Tier 3 - level 11 to 15. World heroes
Tier 4 - level 16 plus. Champions of the gods.
Now if everyone if fine always ending a campaign as lowly city heroes it is your call. But i dont think lord of the rings would of been great if it had stopped at just frodo throwing the ring outside of the city limit and going back to his old life in the shire.
My sweet spot as always been between level 5 and 9. But that doesnt mean all my games must finish there nor that i must use stupidly balanced gimmicks to make my character defeat cr 24 arch devils while they are just level 8. If there is one thing i hate its gimmicks used to make characters stronger without leveling. Thats what leveling is designed for to begin with.
But hey... If you preffer power leveling your players through items then why are you using xp or milestones to begin with.
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)
Now if everyone if fine always ending a campaign as lowly city heroes it is your call. But i dont think lord of the rings would of been great if it had stopped at just frodo throwing the ring outside of the city limit and going back to his old life in the shire.
LOL. To be fair, it might have been more like the story ending by them walking out of the Shire with the Ring and then Tolkien writing "And off they went, to attempt a grand quest. The end."
I am from the 1978-1982 time frame of playing and am just getting back to the hobby with 5e. With my limited experience with the new system, this is what I see.
D&D 1e is not the same game as D&D 5e. 5e has been cut down to make the actual table time fast and fluid. Gone are the days of heavy calculations and intricate rules. I think this is a good thing and necessary to compete with the MMO generation.
D&D 1e and D&D 5e are the same game. The game is dependant on the DM and players to make the experience fun for them. If your DM goes too light on the RP aspect of the game, downtime), then talk to the DM, find another table, or run your own campaign. D&D is what each table makes it be. Mechanics are a small thing in my mind. The group imagination is what makes the game fun.
For my taste, the DMs I am encountering and watching on Critical Role move too quickly through the world. There seems to be a rush to the "end game" as they say in the MMO world when I believe D&D should find the journey to be the key to fun. I have adapted. If the table I play at want the game to travel fast, that is okay. I still have fun.
I am from the 1978-1982 time frame of playing and am just getting back to the hobby with 5e. With my limited experience with the new system, this is what I see.
D&D 1e is not the same game as D&D 5e. 5e has been cut down to make the actual table time fast and fluid. Gone are the days of heavy calculations and intricate rules. I think this is a good thing and necessary to compete with the MMO generation.
D&D 1e and D&D 5e are the same game. The game is dependant on the DM and players to make the experience fun for them. If your DM goes too light on the RP aspect of the game, downtime), then talk to the DM, find another table, or run your own campaign. D&D is what each table makes it be. Mechanics are a small thing in my mind. The group imagination is what makes the game fun.
For my taste, the DMs I am encountering and watching on Critical Role move too quickly through the world. There seems to be a rush to the "end game" as they say in the MMO world when I believe D&D should find the journey to be the key to fun. I have adapted. If the table I play at want the game to travel fast, that is okay. I still have fun.
From the limited bit that I watch, I do think the Video DMs are having a particular impact on game play. So many people saying to new DMs "Watch CR, that's how you play", and so new DMs think that's the way to do it. I do think there are still people out there who are taking things at a more...sedate?...pace. It's just that the style of playing you are I got used to way back in the day (1982-3 beginning for me) would get maybe two people watching videos of :)
In order to get an audience of people who want to watch other people play a game, the game play itself has to be fast and gripping. What's maybe not getting communicated to new players enough is that you don't have to play it that way.
I'm from the AD&D days myself (late 70s). I just got back into the game at Christmas because my son said his club at school wanted to play D&D this semester and voted him DM. We got him the PHB, DMG and MM (5e) over Christmas. He had played 3e before and had dice and some figures, but he didn't have the books. I still have my AD&D books. We worked up a homebrew before he went back to school.
Since he went to school, I have been reading about D&D here and checking out stuff other places. I have also been recently watching some of the first Critical Role videos. Now in the first six hours of play those folks have had two combat encounters. It is clear they are something around level 9 characters but it doesn't seem they are anywhere near leveling. In my son's game, his players have been playing at the table about twelve hours and have just leveled from 1 to 2nd. It appears everything is on track for them to hit level 3 before the semester is over and about the time they finish the adventure he cooked up.
It actually seems to me the rules are much more complicated with all the subclass stuff going on. College of Lore or Swords, thieves that cast spells, three kinds of magic users, ...
First, it seems like everyone has some sort of spell ability. In the AD&D days, you had to be a magic user, illusionist, cleric or druid to case spells, except that rangers and paladins could cast them beginning about level 8. Oh, and Bards were a crazy sort of multi-class back then. Now almost everyone seems to have magic, and some darn powerful magic in the earliest levels.
I can see why this appeals to youngsters today. But in my opinion, there is a richer experience available if they would try it the earlier way. The slower pace of things created more opportunities to make relationships with NPCs. This in turn created opportunities to allow players to create their own quests. They could hear about a rumor of something sort of mundane but it helped the party acquire that thing they wanted to have to set out on their next really big quest. Training between levels allowed players to make contacts in their professions that they could draw on later. For my part I think it sounds more balanced to have to train about a month to settle in on a new skill level, learn spells, and stuff like that.
Consider how skilled was Frodo and Sam when they left the Shire? Level 1. And Legolas, Gimli and Strider were what about level 12? Gandolf, maybe 15 but probably better. And how far had they advanced over the course of the whole LOTR adventure? I'd say the hobbits were about level 3. Legolas and Gimli about the same as before. Gandolf, maybe +1 and Aragorn about level 13. Maybe you disagree on the established characters, but the hobbits are still only about two levels better.
If the average session is three hours on a weeknight, I'd expect to level up about once a month at first and once every three months before I got to level 20.
From the limited bit that I watch, I do think the Video DMs are having a particular impact on game play. So many people saying to new DMs "Watch CR, that's how you play", and so new DMs think that's the way to do it. I do think there are still people out there who are taking things at a more...sedate?...pace. It's just that the style of playing you are I got used to way back in the day (1982-3 beginning for me) would get maybe two people watching videos of :)
In order to get an audience of people who want to watch other people play a game, the game play itself has to be fast and gripping. What's maybe not getting communicated to new players enough is that you don't have to play it that way.
I think what many newer DMs and Players also miss, that that the success and appeal of many successful streaming gaming groups - especially Critical Role - is not only the result of Matt Mercer being a great DM ( although he is undoubtedly very talented and creative ), but is a combination of several different factors.
Matt Mercer's creativity
The Players creativity, and professional level acting ability ( as a result of professional training and years of experience).
A commitment on the part of every single player at the table to make the story a character driven one.
The social dynamic, and the deep and long standing real world friendships, of the group outside of the game.
So, if you came to me as a Player saying "I want to play like they do on Critical Role", or if a new DM aspires to run a game "just like Critical Role", then you'd better be prepared to a) have the Player put hours of work on your character between sessions ( as much as I put in as the DM ), make sure that everyone there is devoted to a character based game, and make sure that the whole group "clicks" socially enough to become really good friends outside of the game.
Since I think it's silly to think that most groups have all of this, it's silly to think that most groups should adopt the Critical Role style - or even should, or even want to. If you, as a DM, don't have a group like that, then you can't beat yourself up for not being able to replicate the "Matt Mercer Effect".
What you need to find is a group, and a style, that works for you.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'm from the AD&D days myself (late 70s). I just got back into the game at Christmas because my son said his club at school wanted to play D&D this semester and voted him DM. We got him the PHB, DMG and MM (5e) over Christmas. He had played 3e before and had dice and some figures, but he didn't have the books. I still have my AD&D books. We worked up a homebrew before he went back to school.
Since he went to school, I have been reading about D&D here and checking out stuff other places. I have also been recently watching some of the first Critical Role videos. Now in the first six hours of play those folks have had two combat encounters. It is clear they are something around level 9 characters but it doesn't seem they are anywhere near leveling. In my son's game, his players have been playing at the table about twelve hours and have just leveled from 1 to 2nd. It appears everything is on track for them to hit level 3 before the semester is over and about the time they finish the adventure he cooked up.
It actually seems to me the rules are much more complicated with all the subclass stuff going on. College of Lore or Swords, thieves that cast spells, three kinds of magic users, ...
First, it seems like everyone has some sort of spell ability. In the AD&D days, you had to be a magic user, illusionist, cleric or druid to case spells, except that rangers and paladins could cast them beginning about level 8. Oh, and Bards were a crazy sort of multi-class back then. Now almost everyone seems to have magic, and some darn powerful magic in the earliest levels.
I can see why this appeals to youngsters today. But in my opinion, there is a richer experience available if they would try it the earlier way. The slower pace of things created more opportunities to make relationships with NPCs. This in turn created opportunities to allow players to create their own quests. They could hear about a rumor of something sort of mundane but it helped the party acquire that thing they wanted to have to set out on their next really big quest. Training between levels allowed players to make contacts in their professions that they could draw on later. For my part I think it sounds more balanced to have to train about a month to settle in on a new skill level, learn spells, and stuff like that.
Consider how skilled was Frodo and Sam when they left the Shire? Level 1. And Legolas, Gimli and Strider were what about level 12? Gandolf, maybe 15 but probably better. And how far had they advanced over the course of the whole LOTR adventure? I'd say the hobbits were about level 3. Legolas and Gimli about the same as before. Gandolf, maybe +1 and Aragorn about level 13. Maybe you disagree on the established characters, but the hobbits are still only about two levels better.
If the average session is three hours on a weeknight, I'd expect to level up about once a month at first and once every three months before I got to level 20.
I also remember leveling up much more slowly back in 1st/2nd. You of course could still do that in 5e--all you would have to do would be scale down EXP values across the board for monsters, RP, puzzles, etc. But the game isn't designed for that. It's designed for a shorter attention span--people who are going to play a character for a year, and then move on to another character.
When I got into AD&D, I clearly remember all of the "let me tell you about my character" people--and all of us people who were massively irritated by those people :) But it wasn't "let me tell you about one of my characters, or my latest character." It was let me tell you about my character. Because the odds were high that this person only had one character. And they'd been playing that character for multiple years. Decade or more, sometimes. (Which is partly why the "let me tell you" got annoying quickly, because they would have years worth of stories.) And the game catered to that quite clearly. When your character reached higher levels, they attracted followers, and you could build a castle (with tables and stats and such, all official), and you would clearly be establishing yourself into the game world in a very permanent way. You can do those things in 5e, but the game doesn't detail exactly how you do this, and doesn't clearly expect you to do it.
It's possible that desires have changed--that something like having a ton of RPG video games has made people want to have shorter, self-contained experiences as one character, followed quickly by a short span as another character, and etc. Like you would if you bought one vid, and played it through to the end, then bought another, etc.
But it's also possible that this sort of game play would have gone over just as big back then. I mean, think of the sheer number of people playing the game. The first year I attended GenCon (1984), wikipedia tells me that there were about 3,600 attendees. Granted that probably most of them were playing AD&D/D&D. Last year's GenCon attendance was over 60,000. Some of those people aren't playing RPGs--some come to play board games, video games, some come just for costuming, some come for seminars with writers, etc. But well more than half of those people are playing some kind of RPG, I'd easily estimate. So that's ten times the number of players of RPGs, going by those attendance numbers. Maybe there would have been even more if the games back then had been built like they are now.
I mean, app makers know what psychologists know--you get people to continue to play a game by giving them regular rewards. A little arbitrary number goes up on the corner of your screen, and you keep crushing candy :) That's not a recent development in people, I don't think. 5e rewards people more consistently. Every level, you get something cool. 1st ed, there were long spans of time where your rewards were dependent on RP and the DM. They could be cool rewards, don't get me wrong. But not as baked into the game.
I would still be hesitant to direct modern players to play 1st ed with a by the book set of rules. Nobody played with RAW that I ever met, and frankly I wouldn't want to either, not even back then. My 2hp wizard with one spell hobbling around for 3 or 4 game sessions isn't a great experience, and wasn't back then. People I know would frequently start at 2nd or even 3rd level, or would artificially jack up beginning hit points so a dying goblin weakly pawing at you wouldn't kill you outright. I might still recommend the heavily houseruled 1st/2nd ed we used to play (we houseruled spell schools before 2nd ed, and we kept using 1st ed homebrew classes and stuff pulled from Dragon magazine long into 2nd ed, so the two blended together).
But I think 5e is far, far better balanced than 1st ed ever hoped to be, and better than 2nd too. For that reason alone, and even though I'm sitting on a stack of 1st/2nd material as tall as I am, I'd probably choose to play 5e over 1st/2nd now if given the choice. Particularly if I can resurrect the homebrewed classes and such and update them.
I think what many newer DMs and Players also miss, that that the success and appeal of many successful streaming gaming groups - especially Critical Role - is not only the result of Matt Mercer being a great DM ( although he is undoubtedly very talented and creative ), but is a combination of several different factors.
Matt Mercer's creativity
The Players creativity, and professional level acting ability ( as a result of professional training and years of experience).
A commitment on the part of every single player at the table to make the story a character driven one.
The social dynamic, and the deep and long standing real world friendships, of the group outside of the game.
Solid point. Most groups I know sound more like this for a round of combat:
"Yeaaargh, no one sets fire to by beard and lives! Taste your own blood! I swing my ax!"
"My guy will run around behind the ogre and attack."
"Wait, Fred's guy is attacking? Okay. I'll attack."
"I could cast sleep. Or, wait. Is he 5' from anyone? I could cast Burning Hands. Or, hold on. I have my invisibility spell up. Do I? Is my invisibility spell still going? Can I cast a cantrip while I'm invisible?"
Solid point. Most groups I know sound more like this for a round of combat:
"Yeaaargh, no one sets fire to by beard and lives! Taste your own blood! I swing my ax!"
"My guy will run around behind the ogre and attack."
"Wait, Fred's guy is attacking? Okay. I'll attack."
"I could cast sleep. Or, wait. Is he 5' from anyone? I could cast Burning Hands. Or, hold on. I have my invisibility spell up. Do I? Is my invisibility spell still going? Can I cast a cantrip while I'm invisible?"
"My ranger shoots his bow at something."
In other words, a 'mixed bag' :)
Hey! How the HELL did you get a recording device into our last game session??!?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Solid point. Most groups I know sound more like this for a round of combat:
"Yeaaargh, no one sets fire to by beard and lives! Taste your own blood! I swing my ax!"
"My guy will run around behind the ogre and attack."
"Wait, Fred's guy is attacking? Okay. I'll attack."
"I could cast sleep. Or, wait. Is he 5' from anyone? I could cast Burning Hands. Or, hold on. I have my invisibility spell up. Do I? Is my invisibility spell still going? Can I cast a cantrip while I'm invisible?"
"My ranger shoots his bow at something."
In other words, a 'mixed bag' :)
Hey! How the HELL did you get a recording device into our last game session??!?
It was that owl that was sitting outside the window. Plus an invocation.
I too disagree with the point that Milestones are not as useful in relation to open world games. In my opinion they're the only "perfect" system there is for such a game. Sure it still has its flaws, but its better than the alternative. Nowhere does it state that milestones must happen when a certain point in the story is reached. Milestone can be applied as fluid/dynamic as the DM and the table wants it to be.
If players decide to keep running away from encounters then it is their choice. However each decision made will have its effects on the world they live in. At my table the world doesn't cater to the players. Events happen even without them knowing. Factions fight among themselves in the background etc. Their choices will eventually lead them into a clash with someone and/or the organization backing that individual. Meaning that eventually a dramatic clash will happen, whether the players want to avoid it or not. How that clash presents itself can be in combat or social encounter. Which will proceed the situation/story and thus lead to a increment of abilities. Fleeing from events will only postpone a clash from occurring...stalling the time that you as DM can give out the rewards. In the end it is still the player choice. If they keep running well... then the world simply doesn't include them. However this also shows you need to make clear what kind of game you expect to run during Session 0. Fleeing is a viable option...to a point.
I also like the milestone leveling, because at my table it leads to the players trying out more ways to deal with situations. Being more creative instead of always opting for the easy combat clash with villains. It also lets me be more lenient when the players decide to go entirely into an opposite direction and do other things in the open world. I still know what level they're at and can create the situations accordingly. Moving the "milestone" around to where I want it to be and reward the players when I feel they did enough to earn it. It also requires trust between players and DM.
Another reason I enjoy Milestone's dynamic aspect is that I can create actual encounters without having to worry about xp budget. I've noticed that when I flesh out situations. Lots of things get added. Resulting in even the "medium" encounters to exceed the XP budget easily. If I were to use the XP method, even if I were to adjust it to giving players half the XP amount, they'd still level incredibly fast. My tactical encounters are often considered Deadly+++ or higher according to CR calculators. Which would mean the players could level up every other play session. Which just isn't fun imo.
I can also see why most people don't run 5e as written. At my table there is A LOT of homebrew where I've taken aspects from previous editions. Leaving out the tedious bits from those older editions. You can make it as brutal, realistic, harsh as you want it to be. Especially old timers, like myself -albeit a rusty one, will have a lot of older resources to draw from. I personally do not like the forced down time activity aspect. However in the current campaign I'm running the players felt drawn to an NPC that was a tinkerer and ran a shop that supplies the local government with arms/weapons. They felt naturally engaged and inspired to interact with the NPC, share an ancient weapon they had found, and spend 2 sessions to form a deal. A steady income from mass production once the NPC had figured out how this weapon functions. During that time other PC's spend the morning hours training at the barracks. Where they eventually gained a follower NPC that travels with them now. It's awesome and encouraging to have players find these down time activities fun and engaging enough. To the point they gravitate to it naturally without it becoming to mechanical because you need it to explain their level up abilities. I do ask my players that they roleplay, look into ways, to lay down the foundation in case they want to develop a certain ability through a feat or multiclassing. For example the rogue/bard made contact with the local (street) entertainers in order to learn Ventriloquism and such at a later point. Cleric got a dog and is training it as ground work for the ranger beastmaster MC later on.
My players and I also dislike a lot about modern video games. They're aimed to much at instant gratification and making you feel like a super hero. Giving you so much power that the second half of most games just get steamrolled without any form of challenge or reward. 5e feels very similar. From lvl 3 and onward PC's get exponentially, to the absurd, powerful with each level up. Once again something that can be fixed with a fair amount of homebrewing some elements of previous editions back into 5e. That is the beauty of 5e in my opinion. It is very modular and adjustable to cater to what you want it to be. By default you can be lvl 20 within 40 play sessions. Well we're at session 17 of 5-6 hour play each, in-game the PC's have spend a month of time and they're only lvl 4 at this point. I'm sure that pace can be slowed down even more if someone would desire it. With all the personal story development and such taking place later on...I'm sure we'll be slowing down more and more as we get further into things.
I agree with much of what you've said, however, I think there are few serious drawbacks to Milestones.
Leveling up is a surprise. In my experience, Players actually like being able to see concrete progress night-over-night even if they haven't leveled up.
You cannot customize your campaign to reward Player behavior that you want to encourage.
Related to that, all Players benefit equally, when not all Players contribute equally. The Player who spends the whole night on their phone, on Facebook, gets the same Milestone as the fully engaged, tactically thinking, and full character identified Player.
It sounds like you're having problems with XP budgets, and leveling rates - which is a legitimate complaint - but that can be fixed by tweaking the XP system, not necessarily throwing it out.
I'm actually gravitating recently toward the idea of a hybrid system.
Players are awarded XP at the end of every encounter or session.
There are XP bonuses for certain behaviors: for coming up with good tactics ( combat, or social ), for uncovering facts/lore about the wold, and for developing their character. There are even penalties for failing their way out of a situation. None of these bonuses are super significant. It might take 3-4 levels before you start seeing some Characters level up ahead of others. If you were playing a highly social/political game, you could dole out rewards for uncovering facts, and making alliances. You can tune this to your style.
Encounters ( combat or social ) have a set XP "milestone" - which scales according to their level, and the relative difficulty of the encounter. A medium encounter has a set amount, a Hard another, etc. These set amounts could easily be scaled to control the relative rate of advancement to suit your table.
Major story points have an XP "milestone" all their own.
It's kind of an amalgamation, which I think retains many of the Milestone benefits, but allows you to shape Player behavior, give them a concrete sense of progress, and reward active & engaged Players over lethargic ones.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You cannot customize your campaign to reward Player behavior that you want to encourage.
Related to that, all Players benefit equally, when not all Players contribute equally. The Player who spends the whole night on their phone, on Facebook, gets the same Milestone as the fully engaged, tactically thinking, and full character identified Player.
Not arguing for one system over another; just addressing your concern with milestones. There are myriad ways that a DM can reward players individually for behavior, creativity, engagement, etc. Inspiration is a baked in method to reward individuals for roleplaying well.
Nothing's stopping you from giving players things like minor boons, land ownership, NPC contacts, discounts on certain item(s), greater resources, etc. In fact, there's even an entire section of the DMG dedicated to suggested rewards. Something from the "Charms" table would be perfect to use as a reward for good behavior; individualized, beneficial, and temporary.
If the disparity between player conduct at your table is a serious problem, there's also nothing stopping you from having your problem players reach their "milestone" later than the rest (or good players reaching a milestone sooner). It's the exact same concept as handing out (or withholding) EXP based on merit.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I also like the milestone leveling, because at my table it leads to the players trying out more ways to deal with situations. Being more creative instead of always opting for the easy combat clash with villains. It also lets me be more lenient when the players decide to go entirely into an opposite direction and do other things in the open world. I still know what level they're at and can create the situations accordingly. Moving the "milestone" around to where I want it to be and reward the players when I feel they did enough to earn it. It also requires trust between players and DM.
Another reason I enjoy Milestone's dynamic aspect is that I can create actual encounters without having to worry about xp budget. I've noticed that when I flesh out situations. Lots of things get added. Resulting in even the "medium" encounters to exceed the XP budget easily. If I were to use the XP method, even if I were to adjust it to giving players half the XP amount, they'd still level incredibly fast. My tactical encounters are often considered Deadly+++ or higher according to CR calculators. Which would mean the players could level up every other play session. Which just isn't fun imo.
Not to disagree or 'convince' you. Just wanted to say that EXP models can be used in the above cases too. For the first, you just need to make sure to award EXP for 'dealing with' a conflict or problem, not just for fighting and killing things. If the party has to get through a mountain pass that's guarded by a band of ogres, and they find a way to bluff/sneak/magic their way past rather than fight, there's no reason they can't get a full EXP result from having dealt with that encounter.
For the EXP budget, you just need to fudge the numbers per monster, that's all. What you're saying by using milestone the way you are is essentially "these monsters aren't worth that amount of level increase for my players". And you can do that very same thing with EXP, but just adjusting the EXP of the monsters. :)
Again, not to convince, just to point out that EXP can be used to do the same things in a lot of cases. It just may be that different DMs find it easier to work with different systems to achieve the same results, which is cool.
Agreed - no need to argue the "universal merits" of one approach over another. Different tables, different groups, different "best fits".
I find that Inspiration is almost never used by Players. Perhaps I'm not doing it correctly; maybe I'm not stressing it enough. But a "reward" which isn't valued is useless for encouraging Player behavior.
As for "in game" rewards for Player behaviors ( coming up with a clever idea, developing their Character, etc. ) it's tricky as I now meed to come with an "in world" reason why the Character is receiving a boon for something the Player did.
I'm not sure how "staggering" milestone rewards would work, since milestone are supposed to be tied to story events. By staggering milestone to when the Player "deserves it", you are tying rewards to the level based on Player effort. There's already a system which directly ties Character effort to Character reward: XP. You are correct "It's the exact same concept as handing out (or withholding) EXP based on merit" - so why not just use XP?
I've played with a number of approaches. I just find that XP as a universal currency is something simple that the Players understand easily.
I find it easier to alter the XP system to subsume the benefits of Milestones, than to try to alter Milestones to subsume the benefits of XP.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know I'm seeing this a year later, but I thought I'd chime in haha
First of all (and I'm not telling you how to do your thing, as you've been doing it way longer than I have), you control how much experience your players earn. These guidebooks are merely suggestions. If you think they're leveling up too quickly by encounter, then just reward them with less experience. Encourage downtime by maybe giving them increased proficiencies they want to improve upon if they take the time to do so. I've always thought it was kind of absurd that each class is only proficient in a set of skills and they can never improve upon them outside of feats. In reality, if you train at something diligently, you will ultimately get better at it.
Alternatively, there is milestone XP, which you mentioned not liking. There are ways to taper your players to a specific goal point, though while still having side quests and stuff to do out in the world. For instance, maybe there is a band of Orc Raiders besieging a nearby town. But maybe this encounter is very challenging for level 5 players. They could still do the mission and not get battle xp, but risk their lives to do so. If they think the risk is too high, then they can do a step in the campaign quest to level up and come back prepared. If the players do the encounter anyway and win, then you could provide them with unique non-xp rewards.
I really enjoy the 5E system for its approachability, but I don't think any edition has been totally perfect. There's always ways that you can modify or augment features to make them work for your table. That's what I love so much about D&D.
I hate milestones because it doesnt suit open worlds. I have a group with which i play twice a week... They barely go forward in the stories. Reason being they love freedom and while they do want stories they rather enjouy just walking around and interacting with my world. In that particular case its better to focus on actual role play then milestones.
Otherwise... The current 5e system of xp expect you to go from 1 to 20 in 40 sessions... Now lets take streamers... Critical role took 3 years to go from 1 to 20. Acq inc c team are now 3 years old and are not even level 11 yet. Dca has 5 years now and they are not passed level 13 yet. So one has to ask his players... Are you wanting that level 20 or not ?
I as a player totally hate playing a character for years without advancement. Sorry but i expect to hit 20 or at least level 15 after a year. Because you know what you hear the most from players? "Whats the point of planning a character beyond level 9 ? I'll never reach further anyway !" and i cant blame them. Most of the games i played in 20 years there is only ever just 1 who came to a close after 3 years.
Thats why i totally refuses to take that long. Now i am on campaign two with one group. Took us about 1 year and a half to get from 1 to about 17. I think that was fair. A campaign to me is a character from start to finish. A level 9 character is not finished !
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)
If your Players are having fun, at the rate they are progressing through the story, then it's a good rate of progression for your table.
You can't possibly say that you should be at level X after Y sessions, or that you should be at level Q after a year of play. You might have 6 hour Saturday sessions every week. I might have 2.5 to 3 hour weekday sessions 3 weeks out of 4. Even the number of hours is meaningless. Maybe you have a group of hardcore tactical wargamers, wading through seas of Monster blood, and racking up XP. Maybe I have a group of character actors who like sitting around and working on Character interactions 50% of the time.
Not everyone fixates on the level number as their metric for progress or success. A lot of Players I've known, if you asked them "Do you want that level 20, or not?" would answer "meh". They're happy so long as they are having fun, having meaningful adventures, and developing their characters.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Idk man. I run my own homebrew campaigns. The last one we played weekly with a few breaks in between. The campaign last 11 months in IRL and they started at 1st level made it to level 10 just before the TPK. Modules level you up at an accelerated rate with milestones to fit their story. My current campaign that started in January at 3rd level, the players will definitely level this next session to 6th level. Obviously I use EXP leveling. In game time for my last campaign was about 2 years and the current one I believe they're approaching 3 months.
Long story short, as a DM in your own campaign you control the pacing.
DM of Amnian Nights: The Blackmore Saga
Homebrew Listings: A Fine Mustache (Magic Item), Icicle (magic item), Malice (magic item), Restore Undead (spell), Hex Bolt (spell), Healing Salve (consumable)
I disagree completely with the above statement. Milestones are what you as the DM set, so you are free to let the party level up whenever you feel it's appropriate (ie they have completed enough content).
Cool. You want to play a high level campaign, not everyone wants to. Also, at some point, players get tired of their characters and want to do something else. In my current game we are around 25 sessions (4 hrs each). This has lasted over a year (we play every two weeks). That means regardless of "in game" time (which has been a few months) the players know this has been a year adventure.
A campaign is the end of a good story, regardless of what level it ends at. In my opinion. Every game has a different style though.
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
Key sentence that apparently you did not see or read. So ill quote you instead...
[Quote] (ie they have completed enough content).[quote]
What if they dont complete anything and always flee or let the world save itself instead ? Thats what i mean by milestones do not work in open world. Milestone by definitions are break in the story where you give them the level up. But what if your players takes 5 sessions just to decide where to go because not everyone are interested by the same things.
As for premade adventures. They level up fast because as i said previously, the game right now is designed for you to reach level 20 in about 40 sessions ! From the dmg itself, leveling should be level 2 and 3 in the first two sessions then it should take you about 2 or 3 sessions per levels.
And as i also said yet it seems people only read what they want... I like playing a game fully which from level 1 to 20. Because again from the dmg...
Tier 1 - level 1 to 5. Local heroes
Tier 2 - level 6 to 10. Country wide heroes
Tier 3 - level 11 to 15. World heroes
Tier 4 - level 16 plus. Champions of the gods.
Now if everyone if fine always ending a campaign as lowly city heroes it is your call. But i dont think lord of the rings would of been great if it had stopped at just frodo throwing the ring outside of the city limit and going back to his old life in the shire.
My sweet spot as always been between level 5 and 9. But that doesnt mean all my games must finish there nor that i must use stupidly balanced gimmicks to make my character defeat cr 24 arch devils while they are just level 8. If there is one thing i hate its gimmicks used to make characters stronger without leveling. Thats what leveling is designed for to begin with.
But hey... If you preffer power leveling your players through items then why are you using xp or milestones to begin with.
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)
LOL. To be fair, it might have been more like the story ending by them walking out of the Shire with the Ring and then Tolkien writing "And off they went, to attempt a grand quest. The end."
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I am from the 1978-1982 time frame of playing and am just getting back to the hobby with 5e. With my limited experience with the new system, this is what I see.
D&D 1e is not the same game as D&D 5e. 5e has been cut down to make the actual table time fast and fluid. Gone are the days of heavy calculations and intricate rules. I think this is a good thing and necessary to compete with the MMO generation.
D&D 1e and D&D 5e are the same game. The game is dependant on the DM and players to make the experience fun for them. If your DM goes too light on the RP aspect of the game, downtime), then talk to the DM, find another table, or run your own campaign. D&D is what each table makes it be. Mechanics are a small thing in my mind. The group imagination is what makes the game fun.
For my taste, the DMs I am encountering and watching on Critical Role move too quickly through the world. There seems to be a rush to the "end game" as they say in the MMO world when I believe D&D should find the journey to be the key to fun. I have adapted. If the table I play at want the game to travel fast, that is okay. I still have fun.
From the limited bit that I watch, I do think the Video DMs are having a particular impact on game play. So many people saying to new DMs "Watch CR, that's how you play", and so new DMs think that's the way to do it. I do think there are still people out there who are taking things at a more...sedate?...pace. It's just that the style of playing you are I got used to way back in the day (1982-3 beginning for me) would get maybe two people watching videos of :)
In order to get an audience of people who want to watch other people play a game, the game play itself has to be fast and gripping. What's maybe not getting communicated to new players enough is that you don't have to play it that way.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I'm from the AD&D days myself (late 70s). I just got back into the game at Christmas because my son said his club at school wanted to play D&D this semester and voted him DM. We got him the PHB, DMG and MM (5e) over Christmas. He had played 3e before and had dice and some figures, but he didn't have the books. I still have my AD&D books. We worked up a homebrew before he went back to school.
Since he went to school, I have been reading about D&D here and checking out stuff other places. I have also been recently watching some of the first Critical Role videos. Now in the first six hours of play those folks have had two combat encounters. It is clear they are something around level 9 characters but it doesn't seem they are anywhere near leveling. In my son's game, his players have been playing at the table about twelve hours and have just leveled from 1 to 2nd. It appears everything is on track for them to hit level 3 before the semester is over and about the time they finish the adventure he cooked up.
It actually seems to me the rules are much more complicated with all the subclass stuff going on. College of Lore or Swords, thieves that cast spells, three kinds of magic users, ...
First, it seems like everyone has some sort of spell ability. In the AD&D days, you had to be a magic user, illusionist, cleric or druid to case spells, except that rangers and paladins could cast them beginning about level 8. Oh, and Bards were a crazy sort of multi-class back then. Now almost everyone seems to have magic, and some darn powerful magic in the earliest levels.
I can see why this appeals to youngsters today. But in my opinion, there is a richer experience available if they would try it the earlier way. The slower pace of things created more opportunities to make relationships with NPCs. This in turn created opportunities to allow players to create their own quests. They could hear about a rumor of something sort of mundane but it helped the party acquire that thing they wanted to have to set out on their next really big quest. Training between levels allowed players to make contacts in their professions that they could draw on later. For my part I think it sounds more balanced to have to train about a month to settle in on a new skill level, learn spells, and stuff like that.
Consider how skilled was Frodo and Sam when they left the Shire? Level 1. And Legolas, Gimli and Strider were what about level 12? Gandolf, maybe 15 but probably better. And how far had they advanced over the course of the whole LOTR adventure? I'd say the hobbits were about level 3. Legolas and Gimli about the same as before. Gandolf, maybe +1 and Aragorn about level 13. Maybe you disagree on the established characters, but the hobbits are still only about two levels better.
If the average session is three hours on a weeknight, I'd expect to level up about once a month at first and once every three months before I got to level 20.
I think what many newer DMs and Players also miss, that that the success and appeal of many successful streaming gaming groups - especially Critical Role - is not only the result of Matt Mercer being a great DM ( although he is undoubtedly very talented and creative ), but is a combination of several different factors.
So, if you came to me as a Player saying "I want to play like they do on Critical Role", or if a new DM aspires to run a game "just like Critical Role", then you'd better be prepared to a) have the Player put hours of work on your character between sessions ( as much as I put in as the DM ), make sure that everyone there is devoted to a character based game, and make sure that the whole group "clicks" socially enough to become really good friends outside of the game.
Since I think it's silly to think that most groups have all of this, it's silly to think that most groups should adopt the Critical Role style - or even should, or even want to. If you, as a DM, don't have a group like that, then you can't beat yourself up for not being able to replicate the "Matt Mercer Effect".
What you need to find is a group, and a style, that works for you.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I also remember leveling up much more slowly back in 1st/2nd. You of course could still do that in 5e--all you would have to do would be scale down EXP values across the board for monsters, RP, puzzles, etc. But the game isn't designed for that. It's designed for a shorter attention span--people who are going to play a character for a year, and then move on to another character.
When I got into AD&D, I clearly remember all of the "let me tell you about my character" people--and all of us people who were massively irritated by those people :) But it wasn't "let me tell you about one of my characters, or my latest character." It was let me tell you about my character. Because the odds were high that this person only had one character. And they'd been playing that character for multiple years. Decade or more, sometimes. (Which is partly why the "let me tell you" got annoying quickly, because they would have years worth of stories.) And the game catered to that quite clearly. When your character reached higher levels, they attracted followers, and you could build a castle (with tables and stats and such, all official), and you would clearly be establishing yourself into the game world in a very permanent way. You can do those things in 5e, but the game doesn't detail exactly how you do this, and doesn't clearly expect you to do it.
It's possible that desires have changed--that something like having a ton of RPG video games has made people want to have shorter, self-contained experiences as one character, followed quickly by a short span as another character, and etc. Like you would if you bought one vid, and played it through to the end, then bought another, etc.
But it's also possible that this sort of game play would have gone over just as big back then. I mean, think of the sheer number of people playing the game. The first year I attended GenCon (1984), wikipedia tells me that there were about 3,600 attendees. Granted that probably most of them were playing AD&D/D&D. Last year's GenCon attendance was over 60,000. Some of those people aren't playing RPGs--some come to play board games, video games, some come just for costuming, some come for seminars with writers, etc. But well more than half of those people are playing some kind of RPG, I'd easily estimate. So that's ten times the number of players of RPGs, going by those attendance numbers. Maybe there would have been even more if the games back then had been built like they are now.
I mean, app makers know what psychologists know--you get people to continue to play a game by giving them regular rewards. A little arbitrary number goes up on the corner of your screen, and you keep crushing candy :) That's not a recent development in people, I don't think. 5e rewards people more consistently. Every level, you get something cool. 1st ed, there were long spans of time where your rewards were dependent on RP and the DM. They could be cool rewards, don't get me wrong. But not as baked into the game.
I would still be hesitant to direct modern players to play 1st ed with a by the book set of rules. Nobody played with RAW that I ever met, and frankly I wouldn't want to either, not even back then. My 2hp wizard with one spell hobbling around for 3 or 4 game sessions isn't a great experience, and wasn't back then. People I know would frequently start at 2nd or even 3rd level, or would artificially jack up beginning hit points so a dying goblin weakly pawing at you wouldn't kill you outright. I might still recommend the heavily houseruled 1st/2nd ed we used to play (we houseruled spell schools before 2nd ed, and we kept using 1st ed homebrew classes and stuff pulled from Dragon magazine long into 2nd ed, so the two blended together).
But I think 5e is far, far better balanced than 1st ed ever hoped to be, and better than 2nd too. For that reason alone, and even though I'm sitting on a stack of 1st/2nd material as tall as I am, I'd probably choose to play 5e over 1st/2nd now if given the choice. Particularly if I can resurrect the homebrewed classes and such and update them.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Solid point. Most groups I know sound more like this for a round of combat:
In other words, a 'mixed bag' :)
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Hey! How the HELL did you get a recording device into our last game session??!?
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
It was that owl that was sitting outside the window. Plus an invocation.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I too disagree with the point that Milestones are not as useful in relation to open world games. In my opinion they're the only "perfect" system there is for such a game. Sure it still has its flaws, but its better than the alternative. Nowhere does it state that milestones must happen when a certain point in the story is reached. Milestone can be applied as fluid/dynamic as the DM and the table wants it to be.
If players decide to keep running away from encounters then it is their choice. However each decision made will have its effects on the world they live in. At my table the world doesn't cater to the players. Events happen even without them knowing. Factions fight among themselves in the background etc. Their choices will eventually lead them into a clash with someone and/or the organization backing that individual. Meaning that eventually a dramatic clash will happen, whether the players want to avoid it or not. How that clash presents itself can be in combat or social encounter. Which will proceed the situation/story and thus lead to a increment of abilities. Fleeing from events will only postpone a clash from occurring...stalling the time that you as DM can give out the rewards. In the end it is still the player choice. If they keep running well... then the world simply doesn't include them. However this also shows you need to make clear what kind of game you expect to run during Session 0. Fleeing is a viable option...to a point.
I also like the milestone leveling, because at my table it leads to the players trying out more ways to deal with situations. Being more creative instead of always opting for the easy combat clash with villains. It also lets me be more lenient when the players decide to go entirely into an opposite direction and do other things in the open world. I still know what level they're at and can create the situations accordingly. Moving the "milestone" around to where I want it to be and reward the players when I feel they did enough to earn it. It also requires trust between players and DM.
Another reason I enjoy Milestone's dynamic aspect is that I can create actual encounters without having to worry about xp budget. I've noticed that when I flesh out situations. Lots of things get added. Resulting in even the "medium" encounters to exceed the XP budget easily. If I were to use the XP method, even if I were to adjust it to giving players half the XP amount, they'd still level incredibly fast. My tactical encounters are often considered Deadly+++ or higher according to CR calculators. Which would mean the players could level up every other play session. Which just isn't fun imo.
I can also see why most people don't run 5e as written. At my table there is A LOT of homebrew where I've taken aspects from previous editions. Leaving out the tedious bits from those older editions. You can make it as brutal, realistic, harsh as you want it to be. Especially old timers, like myself -albeit a rusty one, will have a lot of older resources to draw from. I personally do not like the forced down time activity aspect. However in the current campaign I'm running the players felt drawn to an NPC that was a tinkerer and ran a shop that supplies the local government with arms/weapons. They felt naturally engaged and inspired to interact with the NPC, share an ancient weapon they had found, and spend 2 sessions to form a deal. A steady income from mass production once the NPC had figured out how this weapon functions. During that time other PC's spend the morning hours training at the barracks. Where they eventually gained a follower NPC that travels with them now. It's awesome and encouraging to have players find these down time activities fun and engaging enough. To the point they gravitate to it naturally without it becoming to mechanical because you need it to explain their level up abilities. I do ask my players that they roleplay, look into ways, to lay down the foundation in case they want to develop a certain ability through a feat or multiclassing. For example the rogue/bard made contact with the local (street) entertainers in order to learn Ventriloquism and such at a later point. Cleric got a dog and is training it as ground work for the ranger beastmaster MC later on.
My players and I also dislike a lot about modern video games. They're aimed to much at instant gratification and making you feel like a super hero. Giving you so much power that the second half of most games just get steamrolled without any form of challenge or reward. 5e feels very similar. From lvl 3 and onward PC's get exponentially, to the absurd, powerful with each level up. Once again something that can be fixed with a fair amount of homebrewing some elements of previous editions back into 5e. That is the beauty of 5e in my opinion. It is very modular and adjustable to cater to what you want it to be. By default you can be lvl 20 within 40 play sessions. Well we're at session 17 of 5-6 hour play each, in-game the PC's have spend a month of time and they're only lvl 4 at this point. I'm sure that pace can be slowed down even more if someone would desire it. With all the personal story development and such taking place later on...I'm sure we'll be slowing down more and more as we get further into things.
I agree with much of what you've said, however, I think there are few serious drawbacks to Milestones.
It sounds like you're having problems with XP budgets, and leveling rates - which is a legitimate complaint - but that can be fixed by tweaking the XP system, not necessarily throwing it out.
I'm actually gravitating recently toward the idea of a hybrid system.
It's kind of an amalgamation, which I think retains many of the Milestone benefits, but allows you to shape Player behavior, give them a concrete sense of progress, and reward active & engaged Players over lethargic ones.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Not arguing for one system over another; just addressing your concern with milestones. There are myriad ways that a DM can reward players individually for behavior, creativity, engagement, etc. Inspiration is a baked in method to reward individuals for roleplaying well.
Nothing's stopping you from giving players things like minor boons, land ownership, NPC contacts, discounts on certain item(s), greater resources, etc. In fact, there's even an entire section of the DMG dedicated to suggested rewards. Something from the "Charms" table would be perfect to use as a reward for good behavior; individualized, beneficial, and temporary.
If the disparity between player conduct at your table is a serious problem, there's also nothing stopping you from having your problem players reach their "milestone" later than the rest (or good players reaching a milestone sooner). It's the exact same concept as handing out (or withholding) EXP based on merit.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Not to disagree or 'convince' you. Just wanted to say that EXP models can be used in the above cases too. For the first, you just need to make sure to award EXP for 'dealing with' a conflict or problem, not just for fighting and killing things. If the party has to get through a mountain pass that's guarded by a band of ogres, and they find a way to bluff/sneak/magic their way past rather than fight, there's no reason they can't get a full EXP result from having dealt with that encounter.
For the EXP budget, you just need to fudge the numbers per monster, that's all. What you're saying by using milestone the way you are is essentially "these monsters aren't worth that amount of level increase for my players". And you can do that very same thing with EXP, but just adjusting the EXP of the monsters. :)
Again, not to convince, just to point out that EXP can be used to do the same things in a lot of cases. It just may be that different DMs find it easier to work with different systems to achieve the same results, which is cool.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Agreed - no need to argue the "universal merits" of one approach over another. Different tables, different groups, different "best fits".
I find that Inspiration is almost never used by Players. Perhaps I'm not doing it correctly; maybe I'm not stressing it enough. But a "reward" which isn't valued is useless for encouraging Player behavior.
As for "in game" rewards for Player behaviors ( coming up with a clever idea, developing their Character, etc. ) it's tricky as I now meed to come with an "in world" reason why the Character is receiving a boon for something the Player did.
I'm not sure how "staggering" milestone rewards would work, since milestone are supposed to be tied to story events. By staggering milestone to when the Player "deserves it", you are tying rewards to the level based on Player effort. There's already a system which directly ties Character effort to Character reward: XP. You are correct "It's the exact same concept as handing out (or withholding) EXP based on merit" - so why not just use XP?
I've played with a number of approaches. I just find that XP as a universal currency is something simple that the Players understand easily.
I find it easier to alter the XP system to subsume the benefits of Milestones, than to try to alter Milestones to subsume the benefits of XP.
Just my $0.02 :)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.