So in the majority of games you have been involved in, was combat not the predominate source of experience points for characters?
Considering the majority of games I've played, from the total pools of games played, 5th edition campaigns are barely even a blip, that's a question that is incredibly far from having any purpose. But the answer would be "No, it wasn't - most games don't even use combat-specific experience, as that's a D&D-ism. But even most D&D games I've been involved in the majority of experience came from things other than combat because I was following the rules of the edition in question and most of my D&D games have been Rules Cyclopedia games."
If you are asking about the majority of specifically 5th edition D&D games I've been involved in, the answer is still "No", only the reason has changed - that being that in those 5th edition games where I was actually tracking experience numbers I was providing rewards as suggested by the DMG, but I've also followed the DMG suggestions for leveling up without tracking experience in most of my 5th edition campaigns.
Not that my answer to this question, or what your answer to it would be, has anything at all to do with the discussion we've had up to this point.
We have had very different experiences then. I hope that most DM's follow your lead or had had the same experience of awarding XP through more than just combat. If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
@DelvesDeep " Balancing a campaign with a combination of roleplay and combat may slow level progression but develops a much richer game experience in the end." - Now, despite agreeing with this sentiment, I don't believe it is always true. Players (including DMs, who are still players) make a richer game. I believe that collecting and painting your own miniatures makes the game richer. I believe that researching various periods of history and different real-world cultures, and integrating that into the experience makes the game richer. I believe that going to the pub and discussing the game makes the game experience richer. I believe that when the characters are drawn into a mass battle, then setting up a full blown wargame with terrain and floppy rulers makes the game richer. Heck indulging in cosplay every session might make the game richer. Conclusion : anybody not using self-painted miniatures and 3D diaramas, taking a degree in history and anthropology, visiting the pub with the whole group and spending a fortune on even more figures then dressing up as their character is making their game poorer for the lack of effort.
Er...what!? Or should I say (raising voice) ER...WHAT!!!??? ;)
You lost me there. So you agree with what I'm saying about a more balanced game creating a much richer game experience but....then started discussing other obscure ways to make the game 'richer' and trying to link the two. It that correct? Seems to me you went a little off topic there Tombs.
I get that your saying many things make the game better, I do but I believe that balancing the game with more opportunities to develop characters and the campaign with combat sequences outweighs the examples you gave....but its becoming apparent that I am the only one around here
Trying? No, actually linking. You are saying that roleplaying adds to the richness and depth of a D&D experience. I am agreeing that most of the time it does. I am saying that expanding the hobby to include miniatures (a whole hobby all by itself) and additional reading will add to the richness and depth of a D&D experience.
I assume you agree with both statements.
Now the link is here: You can have a rich experience of D&D without miniatures and no knowledge of real world history and culture. They are just one aspect of the experience. I am also saying that you can have a rich experience of D&D without a great deal of roleplaying. Some people like a lot of roleplaying, some people like puzzles and mapping dungeons. Some people love to see their lovingly painted miniatures on colourful battlemats.
I would also go further by saying that spending half an hour haggling over the price of goods does not increase depth or richness - it is boring! What more are you or other people learning about your character, other than he likes to waste time? Characters in books may spend time haggling (Silk, from the Belgariad springs to mind) but the author rarely wastes more than a paragraph on this mundane activity (OK, Robert Jordan might, but that's why I would skip books 9 - "Thank god Brandon Sanderson has taken over and finished the series properly.") The 24 series with Kiefer "Raistlin" Sutherland stretches a single day out to almost 24 hours of real time; thankfully he nips to the bog while other characters are in the limelight. cheers Kiefer! Showing his ablutions would not have enriched the series.
As I get older, I enjoy the story telling aspect more - that is to say I agree with your viewpoint more - but 'getting into character' and developing relationships is not a 'better' way of playing D&D - it's certainly not the 'Right' way to play D&D.
When someone basically agrees with you, but continues to argue, they are either being difficult, or maybe, just maybe, they might also have a valid viewpoint.
But if you ever come round my house, you'd better be ready to roll initiative! :)
(Not for real, I basically don't like real fights if they involve me. Alignment: Neutral Coward.)
We have had very different experiences then. I hope that most DM's follow your lead or had had the same experience of awarding XP through more than just combat. If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
I never award XP at all. I tell players when they attain a new level, based on story goals, just like you suggest.
And yet, my campaign is (decreasingly) VERY heavily combat oriented.
If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
Which is why this conversation between us started with me pointing out how assuming your advice wasn't already null and void for that very reason came across as condescending.
3) You didn't just break the DM's game. You broke the game for everybody at the table. Well done.
Yep you rolled a total nat 1 on that one, cause this is exactly what you said right there ! and to that i answered, i didn't break out my group, they were happy i found a way.
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)
We have had very different experiences then. I hope that most DM's follow your lead or had had the same experience of awarding XP through more than just combat. If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
I'm just gonna say this much to you... the main fault is that people see experience points on monsters CR so they think the only place they get experience is by fighting. but reading the books from my 1e and 2e manuals, as well as my 3e manuals and my 5e manuals... they all say the same thing in them... you should award players experience points on their role plays and their goals too. they just dont say how much. so this definitely goes the same way the beast master argument goes... you should first start reading before you talk experience points and how only combats does them. cause that one is not the editions fault, it is yours for not reading the book or ignoring the book because they are guidelines. to be clear here, i'm not targeting you precisely, i'm targetting those who did not read the book entirely or did not comprehend the guidelines. which by the way, guidelines or not, you should at least read the system you play in before you actually play in !
otherwise you get to play a very different game. Exemple of me learning pokemon TCG by someone i thought knew what he was talking about only to learn he hadn't even read the rules and simply looked at the card and imagined how it was playing off. when i read the rules afterward i was like, thats... well... you get the point !
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)
We have had very different experiences then. I hope that most DM's follow your lead or had had the same experience of awarding XP through more than just combat. If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
I'm just gonna say this much to you... the main fault is that people see experience points on monsters CR so they think the only place they get experience is by fighting. but reading the books from my 1e and 2e manuals, as well as my 3e manuals and my 5e manuals... they all say the same thing in them... you should award players experience points on their role plays and their goals too. they just dont say how much. so this definitely goes the same way the beast master argument goes... you should first start reading before you talk experience points and how only combats does them. cause that one is not the editions fault, it is yours for not reading the book or ignoring the book because they are guidelines. to be clear here, i'm not targeting you precisely, i'm targetting those who did not read the book entirely or did not comprehend the guidelines. which by the way, guidelines or not, you should at least read the system you play in before you actually play in !
otherwise you get to play a very different game. Exemple of me learning pokemon TCG by someone i thought knew what he was talking about only to learn he hadn't even read the rules and simply looked at the card and imagined how it was playing off. when i read the rules afterward i was like, thats... well... you get the point !
One mechanism for gaining XP is supported while one is not. One method has numerical values placed under each and every creature in the MM and again in tables within the DMG, one just has passing references or vague guidelines without any concrete values listed. They have lists for Skill DC's, tables for treasure, numerical guidelines for generating encounters but no hard and fast XP clarification for awarding XP for anything other than combat. For games such as mine or Tombs where the DM just informs the players when they go up a level, that's fine. There is no intrinsic encouragement to play a certain way. For games where DMs calculate XP though, they can either use the easy/reliable official Combat lists or spend time calculating how much XP they will award for non-combat related encounters. One they can use with confidence, one they have to make it up and worry they are awarding too much/little. One is done for you while the other is not.
My feeling is that there needs to be more examples, support or even some numerical tables included in the Rule Books (or failing this in online articles) about awarding XP for non combat related encounters or achievement to assist DMs. It would also encourage more encounters of this nature for those players who are only motivated by concrete rewards. Even for thise players who have enjoyed the games for decades, mixing up the type of encounters they undertake so it is not for combat related is a breath of fresh air. So if there was more support and examples of obtaining XP in this manner, it would add depth to the game.
If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
Which is why this conversation between us started with me pointing out how assuming your advice wasn't already null and void for that very reason came across as condescending.
If offering advice is condescending then I'll be doing that a lot I fear. I always assume that I'm speaking to a wide range of DM's with different styles, interests and levels of experience. I know there are many out there with greater creative talent and understanding of the game than me but I expect that they are secure enough in their ability that they won't take offense when I offer advice that they follow themselves already. For those who are newer to the game or are searching for extra ideas to make their games better (like myself), within all my drivel they may actually find a few hidden gems of knowledge. Maybe.
I didn't come on this forum to argue. I came on to try and get some new ideas to help my game and assist others with some ideas to help theirs. If you don't like my advice or ideas that's fine, but if that's being condescending in your opinion then that's certainly not my intention.
My experience in how XP is typically gained in most games is obviously very different to your own. In every game I've been a part of, watched or helped with, combat has been the primal way characters have achieved experience points to level up.
I'll take your point though that obviously other games are different and I'm making an assumption on my own experiences. Though I can't say that I won't continue my 'condescending' advice, with other areas, though in other threads ;D I like to help.
One method has numerical values placed under each and every creature in the MM and again in tables within the DMG, one just has passing references or vague guidelines without any concrete values listed.
While that may be true of some editions, it is not true of all of them.
For example, 2nd edition had specific numbers assigned to certain activities like 100-500 XP for a clever idea, XP values assigned to magic items for creating them, and little rewards like 200 XP for successful relevant use of a class special ability (like opening locks) (I may be off on the numbers because I am going from memory here) - the only problem was those rewards were labelled as optional rules, and despite the XP value of defeating monsters significantly increasing relative to 1st edition it still meant a dramatically slower pace of level increases unless you engaged some or all of the optional XP rewards.
4th edition similarly provided specific numbers of XP for minor and major quests, though I suppose more could have been done regarding advice how to determine appropriate goals for each.
And 5th edition, the one that matters most when talking about the game on these forums at present, also uses concrete numbers - the same ones used for combat encounter building guidelines. Though I suppose there could be more examples provided to try and help DMs reading "As a starting point, use the rules for building combat encounters in chapter 3 to gauge the difficulty of the challenge. Then award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure." to be more confident in their estimations.
And 5th edition, the one that matters most when talking about the game on these forums at present, also uses concrete numbers - the same ones used for combat encounter building guidelines. Though I suppose there could be more examples provided to try and help DMs reading "As a starting point, use the rules for building combat encounters in chapter 3 to gauge the difficulty of the challenge. Then award the characters XP as if it had been a combat encounter of the same difficulty, but only if the encounter involved a meaningful risk of failure." to be more confident in their estimations.
It gives guidelines but no where near the same support or numerical direction they do for combat XP. They leave a lot of it up to the DM to work through and calculate themselves, whereas the XP awarded through battle is very specific and formulated through tables. More examples and tables calculating the value of specific actions and events would encourage more of this type of play in the average game.
Quote from AaronOfBarbaria>>You can offer advice without sounding condescending, you just have to use appropriate wording.
Isn't you telling me how to offer advice coming across as a little condescending in itself? ;p We're all equals on these boards and can choose to accept or ignore advice as we see fit I would suggest. How we view anything is a matter of perspective.
It gives guidelines but no where near the same support or numerical direction they do for combat XP. They leave a lot of it up to the DM to work through and calculate themselves, whereas the XP awarded through battle is very specific and formulated through tables.
The experience values are literally the same as those calculated for combat XP, so I don't get how there is supposedly "nowhere near the same support or numerical direction"
There is about as much direction for the non-numerical details as there are for things like how many encounters of what level of difficulty a DM should use in their adventuring day, or how strictly the DM should adhere to the encounter difficulty charts in the first place (example: should we treat the "deadly" encounter difficulty budget as a hard-limit on how hard of an encounter can be set up? Because we shouldn't, but that's not actually spelled out explicitly).
Isn't you telling me how to offer advice coming across as a little condescending in itself?
That depends. Is it rude for me to point out when someone does something that could be viewed as rude? Is it being a jerk to say "hey, that makes you sound like a jerk when you say it like that."? Because if it's not universally the same poor manners to point out when someone is coming across as having poor manners, then it really shouldn't be considered condescending for me to be saying what you said came across as condescending, since I'm talking to you as a peer and not saying things in way that suggests you are inferior in some way for not having already realized how you were coming across.
@delvesdeep first you start saying the guides are guidelines and shouldn't be used as is nor looked at too much, then you come to us saying the said ruling has faults and that based on them the game cannot be played right. what i suggest to you right now is to start by choosing an actual side instead of just changing side every post just to to be the devils advocate.
the reality is, the guidlines (DMG in this case) have been telling you since day one that not only monsters should give you XP. that alone should tell you that everything that is done in the game should be able to reward XP. they even go as far as saying XP is a very very suitable reward instead of money.
doesn't matter if values are there or not, the point was that it is actually said in the books that you should award XP for other things then combat. prooving your first point wrong, that the books only gives you the monser XP. which is false cause they literally tell you that everything can be awarded XP for.
now what i suggest is that one read the books entirely, once or twice if need be. that said, sure the books have obscure dealings, but that is expected in any games, i have seen no tabletop game that were very precise in everything, including those who wants to be precise like 3e or pathfinder. perfection in such gaming is near impossible to get. so one has to read between the lines and invent its own stuff. which is exactly what the book suggest right away from the first few pages.
so yeah, one has to play the game he/she wants. but one thing has always been true... its a group game, so no, the DM do not control the game. its not his game, its the game of the players and the DM, its a group game. so the group has to hold together and be ok with the ruling.
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)
I don't think I'm really going to change anyone's mind here. I don't believe anyone will admit that, for the majority of games played, most experience points are awarded through combat. I also don't expect anyone involved to see that encouraging more opportunities within a campaign to develop additional connections with NPCs, locations and character pursuits is a great idea either (because apparently everyone's already doing that equally with battles and being rewarded for it). Nor would I expect people to see that racing through the levels before these sort of connections and 'stories' can be developed is a bad thing (because that's being condescending - tough to suggest ideas around here with so many sensitive souls floating about).
In my games, if I find myself arguing or discussing rules too much, I stop it quickly. It takes away from the fun of the game. Some people love to argue rules, debate numbers, reference pages. I'm not one of them. Imho powering up characters is not what attracts me to the game. If I wanted that then computer games and Warhammer would be my game of choice. Its the social aspect that I enjoy. The evolution of characters and the world around them. I appreciate this is not what draws everyone to D&D but I feel blending elements of this between the combat sequences will make for a much more rewarding game for those who don't typically play in this manner (but of course everyone does and are gaining XP from it too so this is just being condescending even offering this advice - sorry!)
Anyway, I've spent too long debating rules and opinions which is not why I ever joined this forum. I was really just trying to share and gain ideas. This is not what I like to do for fun. I'll leave you to your chest beating and rules referencing and get back to what I enjoy - improving my game and helping others do the same.
3) You didn't just break the DM's game. You broke the game for everybody at the table. Well done.
Yep you rolled a total nat 1 on that one, cause this is exactly what you said right there ! and to that i answered, i didn't break out my group, they were happy i found a way.
I'm still not seeing where I said you broke the group. "You broke the game for everybody at the table." is what I literally wrote.
We have had very different experiences then. I hope that most DM's follow your lead or had had the same experience of awarding XP through more than just combat. If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
I never award XP at all. I tell players when they attain a new level, based on story goals, just like you suggest.
And yet, my campaign is (decreasingly) VERY heavily combat oriented.
I do the same thing. Players seem to enjoy it and i do a slow levelling campaign. Group just recently got to level 9, and its been about 1 1/2 years. now granted, we play ABOUT 1 /2 weeks, but for about 8 hours during those times. But as some other people, Im an older player. Ive been playing since about 1980.
Having just read through this entire thread, am I the only one that got a completely different angle from the Original Post? Rather than a question about how fast (in terms of game SESSIONS) players level up, I interpreted the post to be about how much time (in game TIME as experienced by the CHARACTERS, vice by the players)?
Without claiming my preference is the "right" way, I too have had players ask me after every session -- Do we level up now? Happened last week. The players are in the middle of a goblin cave complex, but because it was time to go home for the night, the question of "can we gain more power/skill/feats/spells/etc" came up.
Without telling others how to play the game, I have to wonder how a player "suddenly" has new spells "appear" in their spell book to "know"? I'm an old OD&D, AD&D gamer and DM now pressed into service as a 5e DM for my daughter and her friends. They have played under other DM's and have this sense of "it's supposed to happen this fast". My reading of the Original Post was that he was tracking "in game time" - how many hours/months/days of the CHARACTER'S lives leveling up took. Personally, I like the use of downtime - it allows for characters to work on "individual" plans/desires/training/research/shopping/etc without having to drag "the entire armor-clad team" to every place they need/want to go. The variant on DMG page 131 sounds like a good start to me, and would seem to begin to answer the Original Poster's desire for more TIME in the WORLD to pass, and for more NPC/Environmental exposure of the Characters to the world. No?
So if you don't like that idea, how do you explain the "sudden" new capabilities?
I should stop here, but no one ever said I was that smart, so let me also give my $.02 on the becoming heroes in 20 days... LOTR was mentioned as a "save the world in a short period of time" example. Ok, I'll give you that - so where was the "leveling up" in that story? I didn't see it, the characters finished that SINGLE ADVENTURE (albeit a world-shaping one) without leveling. (Or maybe the Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White might be a level increase, but he was gone for quite a while...)
I have to admit I have not played any of the hard-bound books that apparently aren't supposed to be an "adventure" as us old-timers used to use, but as full campaigns, or close to it.
And that they are aimed at ending the "campaign" and moving on to another when done.
I guess that's just not my goal when I do "world-building" as a DM. But then, I have never used "campaign worlds" either, so I want mine to "live on" past a year of game SESSIONS.
Without telling others how to play the game, I have to wonder how a player "suddenly" has new spells "appear" in their spell book to "know"? I'm an old OD&D, AD&D gamer and DM now pressed into service as a 5e DM for my daughter and her friends. They have played under other DM's and have this sense of "it's supposed to happen this fast". My reading of the Original Post was that he was tracking "in game time" - how many hours/months/days of the CHARACTER'S lives leveling up took. Personally, I like the use of downtime - it allows for characters to work on "individual" plans/desires/training/research/shopping/etc without having to drag "the entire armor-clad team" to every place they need/want to go. The variant on DMG page 131 sounds like a good start to me, and would seem to begin to answer the Original Poster's desire for more TIME in the WORLD to pass, and for more NPC/Environmental exposure of the Characters to the world. No?
So if you don't like that idea, how do you explain the "sudden" new capabilities?
My table only.
In my game - so far - new abilities that can "just appear" without causing logical problems - Action Surge, Second Wind, etc. - do "just appear". My fighter just got physically fit enough that he can now just do this stuff.
New abilities where it doesn't make sense for them to "just appear" - I actually tell the players they can't use them, until I can get a story reason presented as to why they suddenly have a new ability, but I fast-track events that allow them to acquire those abilities as soon as I possibly can.
E.g. my human Ranger went "gloom stalker", and acquired dark-vision. That makes no sense logically, so I threw in possession by a "shadow spirit" ( a homebrew creature ), in which he had to do internal battle with the creature, defeat it ( in the process getting information that advances his personal story arc as the reward ), and since he "consumed" a "night creature" was able to incorporate some of it's abilities into himself. Presto - human dark-vision.
In a similar fashion, my Paladin had a whole complex symbolic religious vision when he attained 3rd level, where he had to choose to take his final Oaths, or turn back and become a regular fighter ( class change, without penalty ).
I don't allow spells in casters spellbooks to "just appear" - but I might slant the treasure a bit upwards so that the players can purchase access to spell records to copy into their own grimoire. Or, I might make a local mage more agreeable to allow player-characters to copy from their spell library ... in exchange for a favor - and presto, I have a story/adventure hook as well. Caster classes that don't have a spellbook, may need to find a mentor - but I make such available as soon as possible, perhaps again with story hooks involved.
In short, I won't deny the player their new abilities ( other than temporarily ) - but I "skin" their acquisition of abilities in aspects of the story-line so they make logical sense "in world".
Downtime training would just be another flavor of this.
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.
In my tables i also use the downtimes. It is expected that a character actually trains such ideas. but unlike what people think, training do not requires weeks or days of training. i think the people who think that only want to make the game last longer because of a problem coming from players. which is they literally wanna do solve all problems in one single day. without having to let the players slow down. i think a regular 8 hour long rest is what a player need to train its new found abilities. because maybe those ideas or techniques came into their mind while battling others. but now they need to to put those ideas into coherent techniques. thus taking time outside of combat to teach themselves what they have in mind.
when it comes to spells, it is even explained in the books that those who wants to add more spells to their spell books needs to a few hours and the a few golds in items to do so. written in the wizard section mind you. but still explains the actual process. so int eh case of wizards, it is expected for them to have a few times off to do so. in the case of sorcerers, those spells comes innately. but again much like a mutant in the xmen... they require training in order to use it. and thus i expect training during downtimes. those are just exemples written int eh books. sure you could say i read what i wanted to read in between the lines. but the reality is... when it comes to leveling... it is written in the very leveling sections that each levels is the actual exepected training for the next.
let me rephrase that for you... level 2 of a charcater isd the result of his training and experiences actually experienced as is during his level 1. thus, while a character is level 1, he is learning that level two already. so by definition if a character gains the abilities, he doesn't get them instantly... it is explained that these new found abilities, are the result of his research and experiences during his level 1.
now i guess the problem some DM have with it, is how fast leveling might be. exemple of players begining level 1 and ending level 3 during first session of play. now the speed at which you play your game shouldn't be the problem... so what i suggest, is that you ask yourself... can someone teach himself the arts ? can he learn from past experiences ? can he learn new things out of the blue by experimentation ? the answer to all of these is the same... yes, yes he can ! and thus a player could get new abilities suddently.... not because he just thought of it.... but because his previous experiences led him to that point. meaning previous levels is the experiences he learned.
now to me, at my table. to reflect those new abilities.... they require a long rest (8 hours) to put some more thoughts on the things they just got out of nowhere. the wizard needs time to write them down in his spell books, the sorcerer needs time to train such new spells he just manifested. The fighter needs some katas to learn his newest techniques. so on and so forth. even a barbarian needs training in raging in order for it to make more damage. do i require them to be taught by some trainers... no because they can learn this stuff on their own. after all, some masters learned that stuff on their own.
the only thing i ask my players to give me a reason to learn are the archetypes... my reasoning is that archetypes actually define their socials. and thus they require a reason to actually follow that path. may it be because they saw a man do these shits when they were young, may it because they want to be in on that assassins guild. the archetype is pretty class defining. and that must be a very valid reason to go on that road. most often though, my players will have chosen that road ahead of time and told me it was mostly because of a man or woman in their village who was doing it.
all in all... i do think players whould get new abilities "suddently" because mostly i dont think they are that suddent. its just that they weren't able to do it before that point. but i do think the players needs a stop int he story in order to actually make their level up. and that break is a great way, as a dm, to force a stop in the story in order for everyone to think on the matters. as a DM, i dont think more then a long rest is needed.
i can easily see a fighter doing the sword styles near a tree during a night watch. i can easily see a wizard during a night watch writting and trying to cast a new spell he remembers from his old days at the academy. i can easily see a rogue imagining a man and him stabbing at the air thinking its a kidney just to be that more precise with his sneak attacks. i can easily see druid watching that bear near the pool where the players camp just to see and mimic the actions.
that's what i think about that.
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We have had very different experiences then. I hope that most DM's follow your lead or had had the same experience of awarding XP through more than just combat. If they have then my advice is null and void as it is already occurring.
You are saying that roleplaying adds to the richness and depth of a D&D experience. I am agreeing that most of the time it does.
I am saying that expanding the hobby to include miniatures (a whole hobby all by itself) and additional reading will add to the richness and depth of a D&D experience.
Some people like a lot of roleplaying, some people like puzzles and mapping dungeons. Some people love to see their lovingly painted miniatures on colourful battlemats.
Characters in books may spend time haggling (Silk, from the Belgariad springs to mind) but the author rarely wastes more than a paragraph on this mundane activity (OK, Robert Jordan might, but that's why I would skip books 9 - "Thank god Brandon Sanderson has taken over and finished the series properly.")
The 24 series with Kiefer "Raistlin" Sutherland stretches a single day out to almost 24 hours of real time; thankfully he nips to the bog while other characters are in the limelight. cheers Kiefer! Showing his ablutions would not have enriched the series.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
and to that i answered, i didn't break out my group, they were happy i found a way.
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)
Exemple of me learning pokemon TCG by someone i thought knew what he was talking about only to learn he hadn't even read the rules and simply looked at the card and imagined how it was playing off. when i read the rules afterward i was like, thats... well... you get the point !
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)
You can offer advice without sounding condescending, you just have to use appropriate wording.
The experience values are literally the same as those calculated for combat XP, so I don't get how there is supposedly "nowhere near the same support or numerical direction"
There is about as much direction for the non-numerical details as there are for things like how many encounters of what level of difficulty a DM should use in their adventuring day, or how strictly the DM should adhere to the encounter difficulty charts in the first place (example: should we treat the "deadly" encounter difficulty budget as a hard-limit on how hard of an encounter can be set up? Because we shouldn't, but that's not actually spelled out explicitly).
That depends. Is it rude for me to point out when someone does something that could be viewed as rude? Is it being a jerk to say "hey, that makes you sound like a jerk when you say it like that."? Because if it's not universally the same poor manners to point out when someone is coming across as having poor manners, then it really shouldn't be considered condescending for me to be saying what you said came across as condescending, since I'm talking to you as a peer and not saying things in way that suggests you are inferior in some way for not having already realized how you were coming across.@delvesdeep first you start saying the guides are guidelines and shouldn't be used as is nor looked at too much, then you come to us saying the said ruling has faults and that based on them the game cannot be played right. what i suggest to you right now is to start by choosing an actual side instead of just changing side every post just to to be the devils advocate.
the reality is, the guidlines (DMG in this case) have been telling you since day one that not only monsters should give you XP. that alone should tell you that everything that is done in the game should be able to reward XP. they even go as far as saying XP is a very very suitable reward instead of money.
doesn't matter if values are there or not, the point was that it is actually said in the books that you should award XP for other things then combat. prooving your first point wrong, that the books only gives you the monser XP. which is false cause they literally tell you that everything can be awarded XP for.
now what i suggest is that one read the books entirely, once or twice if need be. that said, sure the books have obscure dealings, but that is expected in any games, i have seen no tabletop game that were very precise in everything, including those who wants to be precise like 3e or pathfinder. perfection in such gaming is near impossible to get. so one has to read between the lines and invent its own stuff. which is exactly what the book suggest right away from the first few pages.
so yeah, one has to play the game he/she wants. but one thing has always been true... its a group game, so no, the DM do not control the game. its not his game, its the game of the players and the DM, its a group game. so the group has to hold together and be ok with the ruling.
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)
I don't think I'm really going to change anyone's mind here. I don't believe anyone will admit that, for the majority of games played, most experience points are awarded through combat. I also don't expect anyone involved to see that encouraging more opportunities within a campaign to develop additional connections with NPCs, locations and character pursuits is a great idea either (because apparently everyone's already doing that equally with battles and being rewarded for it). Nor would I expect people to see that racing through the levels before these sort of connections and 'stories' can be developed is a bad thing (because that's being condescending - tough to suggest ideas around here with so many sensitive souls floating about).
In my games, if I find myself arguing or discussing rules too much, I stop it quickly. It takes away from the fun of the game. Some people love to argue rules, debate numbers, reference pages. I'm not one of them. Imho powering up characters is not what attracts me to the game. If I wanted that then computer games and Warhammer would be my game of choice. Its the social aspect that I enjoy. The evolution of characters and the world around them. I appreciate this is not what draws everyone to D&D but I feel blending elements of this between the combat sequences will make for a much more rewarding game for those who don't typically play in this manner (but of course everyone does and are gaining XP from it too so this is just being condescending even offering this advice - sorry!)
Anyway, I've spent too long debating rules and opinions which is not why I ever joined this forum. I was really just trying to share and gain ideas. This is not what I like to do for fun. I'll leave you to your chest beating and rules referencing and get back to what I enjoy - improving my game and helping others do the same.
Thanks for the discussion.
Just one question DnDPaladin - Where did I say you broke the group?
I looked, but must have rolled a 1 on my perception check.
"You broke the game for everybody at the table." is what I literally wrote.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I do the same thing. Players seem to enjoy it and i do a slow levelling campaign. Group just recently got to level 9, and its been about 1 1/2 years. now granted, we play ABOUT 1 /2 weeks, but for about 8 hours during those times. But as some other people, Im an older player. Ive been playing since about 1980.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOk folks, enough arguing please -at this point you're just going to get another thread locked.
If I see any further argumentative posts on this thread of the nature "but you said this" they'll be removed and you'll get a formal warning.
By all means, continue to discuss the topic and your differences of opinion, but I don't want to see any personal attacks on people for their opinion.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Having just read through this entire thread, am I the only one that got a completely different angle from the Original Post? Rather than a question about how fast (in terms of game SESSIONS) players level up, I interpreted the post to be about how much time (in game TIME as experienced by the CHARACTERS, vice by the players)?
Without claiming my preference is the "right" way, I too have had players ask me after every session -- Do we level up now? Happened last week. The players are in the middle of a goblin cave complex, but because it was time to go home for the night, the question of "can we gain more power/skill/feats/spells/etc" came up.
Without telling others how to play the game, I have to wonder how a player "suddenly" has new spells "appear" in their spell book to "know"? I'm an old OD&D, AD&D gamer and DM now pressed into service as a 5e DM for my daughter and her friends. They have played under other DM's and have this sense of "it's supposed to happen this fast". My reading of the Original Post was that he was tracking "in game time" - how many hours/months/days of the CHARACTER'S lives leveling up took. Personally, I like the use of downtime - it allows for characters to work on "individual" plans/desires/training/research/shopping/etc without having to drag "the entire armor-clad team" to every place they need/want to go. The variant on DMG page 131 sounds like a good start to me, and would seem to begin to answer the Original Poster's desire for more TIME in the WORLD to pass, and for more NPC/Environmental exposure of the Characters to the world. No?
So if you don't like that idea, how do you explain the "sudden" new capabilities?
I should stop here, but no one ever said I was that smart, so let me also give my $.02 on the becoming heroes in 20 days... LOTR was mentioned as a "save the world in a short period of time" example. Ok, I'll give you that - so where was the "leveling up" in that story? I didn't see it, the characters finished that SINGLE ADVENTURE (albeit a world-shaping one) without leveling. (Or maybe the Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White might be a level increase, but he was gone for quite a while...)
I have to admit I have not played any of the hard-bound books that apparently aren't supposed to be an "adventure" as us old-timers used to use, but as full campaigns, or close to it.
And that they are aimed at ending the "campaign" and moving on to another when done.
I guess that's just not my goal when I do "world-building" as a DM. But then, I have never used "campaign worlds" either, so I want mine to "live on" past a year of game SESSIONS.
Thoughts?
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.
In my tables i also use the downtimes.
It is expected that a character actually trains such ideas. but unlike what people think, training do not requires weeks or days of training. i think the people who think that only want to make the game last longer because of a problem coming from players. which is they literally wanna do solve all problems in one single day. without having to let the players slow down. i think a regular 8 hour long rest is what a player need to train its new found abilities. because maybe those ideas or techniques came into their mind while battling others. but now they need to to put those ideas into coherent techniques. thus taking time outside of combat to teach themselves what they have in mind.
when it comes to spells, it is even explained in the books that those who wants to add more spells to their spell books needs to a few hours and the a few golds in items to do so. written in the wizard section mind you. but still explains the actual process. so int eh case of wizards, it is expected for them to have a few times off to do so. in the case of sorcerers, those spells comes innately. but again much like a mutant in the xmen... they require training in order to use it. and thus i expect training during downtimes. those are just exemples written int eh books. sure you could say i read what i wanted to read in between the lines. but the reality is... when it comes to leveling... it is written in the very leveling sections that each levels is the actual exepected training for the next.
let me rephrase that for you...
level 2 of a charcater isd the result of his training and experiences actually experienced as is during his level 1.
thus, while a character is level 1, he is learning that level two already. so by definition if a character gains the abilities, he doesn't get them instantly... it is explained that these new found abilities, are the result of his research and experiences during his level 1.
now i guess the problem some DM have with it, is how fast leveling might be. exemple of players begining level 1 and ending level 3 during first session of play.
now the speed at which you play your game shouldn't be the problem... so what i suggest, is that you ask yourself... can someone teach himself the arts ? can he learn from past experiences ? can he learn new things out of the blue by experimentation ? the answer to all of these is the same... yes, yes he can ! and thus a player could get new abilities suddently.... not because he just thought of it.... but because his previous experiences led him to that point. meaning previous levels is the experiences he learned.
now to me, at my table. to reflect those new abilities.... they require a long rest (8 hours) to put some more thoughts on the things they just got out of nowhere.
the wizard needs time to write them down in his spell books, the sorcerer needs time to train such new spells he just manifested. The fighter needs some katas to learn his newest techniques. so on and so forth. even a barbarian needs training in raging in order for it to make more damage. do i require them to be taught by some trainers... no because they can learn this stuff on their own. after all, some masters learned that stuff on their own.
the only thing i ask my players to give me a reason to learn are the archetypes... my reasoning is that archetypes actually define their socials. and thus they require a reason to actually follow that path. may it be because they saw a man do these shits when they were young, may it because they want to be in on that assassins guild. the archetype is pretty class defining. and that must be a very valid reason to go on that road. most often though, my players will have chosen that road ahead of time and told me it was mostly because of a man or woman in their village who was doing it.
all in all...
i do think players whould get new abilities "suddently" because mostly i dont think they are that suddent. its just that they weren't able to do it before that point.
but i do think the players needs a stop int he story in order to actually make their level up. and that break is a great way, as a dm, to force a stop in the story in order for everyone to think on the matters.
as a DM, i dont think more then a long rest is needed.
i can easily see a fighter doing the sword styles near a tree during a night watch.
i can easily see a wizard during a night watch writting and trying to cast a new spell he remembers from his old days at the academy.
i can easily see a rogue imagining a man and him stabbing at the air thinking its a kidney just to be that more precise with his sneak attacks.
i can easily see druid watching that bear near the pool where the players camp just to see and mimic the actions.
that's what i think about that.
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)