yet another SIMPLE experience point system

[Geoffrey]

I am too lazy to calculate, add, and divide experience points based on monsters slain and loot obtained.

There are a number of simple experience point systems that I find attractive (most recently Kilgore's Roll-to-Advance system: http://www.lordkilgore.com/roll-to-advance-pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). Here's another that is just as simple, but it takes the uncertainty out of gaining levels.

First, the DM decides how fast he wants the PCs to gain levels. For the sake of discussion, let's suppose our hypothetical DM wants the PCs to gain ON AVERAGE 1 level after 4 sessions.

Now of course some classes take longer to rise in level than others. Paladins, for example, require a lot of x.p., while thieves require relatively few x. p.

Look at the fighter's x. p. table in your preferred rulebook. (I have the C&C Players Handbook, so I'll use that for my example.) Divide the number of x. p. to gain each level by 4, and that's the x.p. total for each PC at the end of each session. Thus:

At the end of the 1st session, each PC has 501 x.p.
At the end of the 2nd session, each PC has 1,001 x.p.
3rd session... 1,501 x.p.
4th session... 2,011 x.p.
...
20th session... 34,001 x.p.
etc.

This way classes such as the thief will still progress more quickly than do classes such as the paladin. The only calculations required are the initial calculations done before the campaign begins. After that, no more calculations! Easy.

[Thorkhammer]

Personally, I prefer an adventure/quest centered determinator to XP. I don't much like the idea of the players go along, and whereever they go and whatever they come across and slay, feeds the pot style of playing. That's just me, and I respect those that do like that kind of openness.

I've been toying with a system for such XP distribution that would go kinda like this...

Should the party only explore/finish 1/3 of it (the adventure/quest), then they would get 1/3 of the XP they need to gain the next level; and so on. This lets characters gain levels according to class, with their XP actually varying from class to class (a L2 ftr needs 2000 xp to make L3, so 1/3 of that would be 667 xp; the L2 thief needs 1250 to make L3, so he would get 417; and so on).

Don't know if this would work, but it is certainly adaptable to most systems.

The OP suggested XP seems "classic" centered, and would need adjusting, would it not, Geoff?

[Spinachcat]

Give it to thy laziness and just give everyone a level when they "complete an adventure" - however you want to define that. This worked so easy for my group that met x2/month. After a year, the survivors were all 14th-19th and onward to the next campaign we went.

If you still want XP points and a glacial progression, then do 500 XP times the number of sessions that character has survived. He gets 500 XP on the first session and 5000 XP on the 10th, etc. Or make it 1000 XP to speed things up.

[chris107]

How does this reward good play though? We use an experience points system from (I think) an early White Dwarf, where characters get XP for what they do. I'm not in favour of the 'pot' to be divided idea either, it will just encourage lazy players to get a free ride from the more pro-active ones.

Best

Chris

[Lokathor]

Give it to thy laziness and just give everyone a level when they "complete an adventure" - however you want to define that. This worked so easy for my group that met x2/month. After a year, the survivors were all 14th-19th and onward to the next campaign we went.

My question for this style is: How do you attempt to balance the classes with faster and slower XP against the idea of 'everyone gains a level', and also how would you balance humans if you were playing BFRPG (where the human racial bonus is faster XP gain).

[Oxlar]

How does this reward good play though? We use an experience points system from (I think) an early White Dwarf, where characters get XP for what they do. I'm not in favour of the 'pot' to be divided idea either, it will just encourage lazy players to get a free ride from the more pro-active ones.

Best

Chris

Exactly! EXP provides a really good incentive for players to try and be more involved in the game.

[Elfdart]

How does this reward good play though? We use an experience points system from (I think) an early White Dwarf, where characters get XP for what they do. I'm not in favour of the 'pot' to be divided idea either, it will just encourage lazy players to get a free ride from the more pro-active ones.

Best

Chris

Good play should be rewarded by surviving to have a share of the loot.

[Travis]

You will only know once you have tried it out with your players. I predict that making risk taking voluntary will have a dulling effect on how they play. Otherwise rewarding risk taking with gold and so on, as most of us do, would be a useless gaming procedure but I think it has the proper effect.

They may end up adopting the strategy of one fat hobbit, 'Good morning! We don't want any adventures here thank you!'.

[Saunatonttu]

I give out bonus experience for wearing a poncho.

No, seriously, I really do.

[talysman]

I give out bonus experience for wearing a poncho.

No, seriously, I really do.

Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?

[Saunatonttu]

I give out bonus experience for wearing a poncho.

No, seriously, I really do.

Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?

[Grim]

BITD I gave a level if you lived through an entire level of the dungeon. I don't think anyone ever got above 4th or 5th and the dungeon never ended. It was pretty gonzo though.

[Stronghold]

This is pretty much what our system for leveling up evolved in to. We kept hitting the problems of taking way too long to figure exp, arguing over how much exp a monster or campaign was worth, and then having one or two characters always a few exp from leveling up at the end of the day; all of which is just annoying.

But, the best campaigns always allowed for the unexpected boon (or bust... or death) to happen so figuring that in because an art.

[Geoffrey]

Fortunately, it would never occur to my players to NOT explore dangerous places in D&D Land. That's what makes the game fun for us.

[ken-do-nim]

Fortunately, it would never occur to my players to NOT explore dangerous places in D&D Land. That's what makes the game fun for us.

You're definitely fortunate. If I were playing in a game where my characters got the same xp for bumming around in the Inn as they would going to the dungeon, I'd bum around the inn until my character was 20th.

[Oxlar]

This is pretty much what our system for leveling up evolved in to. We kept hitting the problems of taking way too long to figure exp, arguing over how much exp a monster or campaign was worth, and then having one or two characters always a few exp from leveling up at the end of the day; all of which is just annoying.

But, the best campaigns always allowed for the unexpected boon (or bust... or death) to happen so figuring that in because an art.

I just don't understand this mindset. 10 min out of a game session is too long to figure exp and level up if warranted?

[Geoffrey]

Fortunately, it would never occur to my players to NOT explore dangerous places in D&D Land. That's what makes the game fun for us.

You're definitely fortunate. If I were playing in a game where my characters got the same xp for bumming around in the Inn as they would going to the dungeon, I'd bum around the inn until my character was 20th.

Ken, assuming it took an average of 4 sessions to gain a level, it would take 76 sessions to reach 20th level. My sessions are usually about 4 hours long. Wouldn't you be bored out of your head bumming around in inns for that long? I don't think I could make it through even ONE such session.

[phantasm72]

Fortunately, it would never occur to my players to NOT explore dangerous places in D&D Land. That's what makes the game fun for us.

You're definitely fortunate. If I were playing in a game where my characters got the same xp for bumming around in the Inn as they would going to the dungeon, I'd bum around the inn until my character was 20th.

Ken, assuming it took an average of 4 sessions to gain a level, it would take 76 sessions to reach 20th level. My sessions are usually about 4 hours long. Wouldn't you be bored out of your head bumming around in inns for that long? I don't think I could make it through even ONE such session.

Thats funny, 76 sessions to get to level 20 sounds incredibly quick for me
We all play differently, thats for sure...
no xp for ponchos in my games

[Scalydemon]

I don't think the math is that hard , especially with a calculator. Just do it!

I agree with the other posters as to why the proposed method would't work very well.

[Geoffrey]

Thats funny, 76 sessions to get to level 20 sounds incredibly quick for me
We all play differently, thats for sure...

For me, a big factor is how often you get to play D&D. Assuming one session per month, it would take over 6 years to get to 20th level. And that's assuming that there are no set-backs (character death, level drain, etc.).

[NN]

Does D&D xp actually work as a reward system? Its really a pacing system, isnt it?

[Oxlar]

Does D&D xp actually work as a reward system? Its really a pacing system, isnt it?

Not in my games. Its a reward system. The more involved a player is the more exp and thus goodies he gets. Now I may set the pace by determining what creatures and such go into the game. But the players have a lot of control over what they do to earn exp as well. We have a rather dynamic system that awards exp for using skills and performing other things during the game session, as well as good ideas (similar to paladium).

[Geoffrey]

One of the things I like about my proposed system is that it doesn't penalize the players for doing whatever it is that they most enjoy in D&D. Imagine, for example, a group that would like nothing better than to attend elven/goblin fairs (see Matthew Finch's great module, the Goblin Fair, for an example: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewt ... 38&t=27626" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) and engage in the "carnival politics". In such a campaign there would be very little combat and very little loot. Thus, it would take forever to get to 2nd level by the standard "gold and killing yield xp" system.

These hypothetical players would still want to rise in level. The higher level magical spells (chiefly of the divinatory and illusory sort) would be invaluable in a goblin fair. Thief skills would also be very useful. So why not give full x. p. to the PCs for spending an entire session examining the vendors' wares, engaging in intrigue, chatting and gossiping, drinking elven wine, listening to and telling tales, etc? Why "force" the players to do what they don't want to do (i. e., loot and slay)?

Let me hasten to add that I have no disrespect for the standard x. p. system. It's a fine system. It's just not my favorite system.

[Travis]

These hypothetical players would still want to rise in level. The higher level magical spells (chiefly of the divinatory and illusory sort) would be invaluable in a goblin fair. Thief skills would also be very useful. So why not give full x. p. to the PCs for spending an entire session examining the vendors' wares, engaging in intrigue, chatting and gossiping, drinking elven wine, listening to and telling tales, etc? Why "force" the players to do what they don't want to do (i. e., loot and slay)?

You are quite convincing however rewarding the players for showing up every week by increasing the *power* of their characters can only make all power in your campaign seem arbitrary or unearned. This is fine for an Alice in Wonderland campaign but less for any campaign with an intricate hierarchy of influence based on accomplishments. Tom Bombadils would outnumber Elronds.

If as you say your players enjoy exploring and interacting with the environment then what need any increment in power for so doing? The two are decoupled in my view.

[ken-do-nim]

Fortunately, it would never occur to my players to NOT explore dangerous places in D&D Land. That's what makes the game fun for us.

You're definitely fortunate. If I were playing in a game where my characters got the same xp for bumming around in the Inn as they would going to the dungeon, I'd bum around the inn until my character was 20th.

Ken, assuming it took an average of 4 sessions to gain a level, it would take 76 sessions to reach 20th level. My sessions are usually about 4 hours long. Wouldn't you be bored out of your head bumming around in inns for that long? I don't think I could make it through even ONE such session.

True, true, I would probably have my characters see the world, go to the Grand Canyon, see the big cities, but I can't see going anywhere really dangerous without a strong incentive. I guess a legendary magic item could be that incentive.

[Saunatonttu]

The problem I see with the level per X sessions type of advancement is that it doesn't take in any way account a) adventure difficulty and b) individual effort. I think if one wants to simplify, an arbitary Quest Reward for everyone based on the relative difficulty of the upcoming adventure compared to other possible adventuers the players can "choose" from plus individual bonuses for good play (or wearing a poncho and/or making cool one-liners) would be the way to go.

Clean the granny's chimney from spiders - 50XP to everyone.
Slay Trogdor the Burninator - 2500XP to everyone.
Go to the Lowest Layer of Hell and Rekill Hitler & Stalin - 10000 XP.
Wearing a poncho +25XP.

[Spinachcat]

How does this reward good play though? We use an experience points system from (I think) an early White Dwarf, where characters get XP for what they do. I'm not in favour of the 'pot' to be divided idea either, it will just encourage lazy players to get a free ride from the more pro-active ones.

Good play is its own reward. In my campaigns, being smart and daring is key to survival. Poor play equals dead character which equals no new level.

All players are different. I prefer vocal pro-active players, but I realize that some people are passive followers in real life and that carries over to the gameplay. Turns out that these people are having lots of fun too when you ask them, but just quietly.

My question for this style is: How do you attempt to balance the classes with faster and slower XP against the idea of 'everyone gains a level', and also how would you balance humans if you were playing BFRPG (where the human racial bonus is faster XP gain).

I would start humans at 2nd level in BF. Sure, the math doesn't play out 20 levels, but most campaigns and characters don't last that long. And more importantly, the player feels very good about the race choice in the short run due to the survivability.

If XP charts are really skewed between classes, then I alter the classes. Years ago, the AD&D Thief was such a problem for our group. The low XP didn't make up for the useless skills at low levels. But the solution was easy - we just remodified the charts.

I am also a Palladium gamer. Balance is much more than XP charts, but having the world interact with the character based on their race and class. AKA, if Dwarf Paladins are an uber-class, then foes will target them accordingly. If Human Thieves are a weak class, then that character will be underestimated and not made a priority target. It's why "kill the mage!" is not just a player phrase.

The problem I see with the level per X sessions type of advancement is that it doesn't take in any way account a) adventure difficulty and b) individual effort.

Difficulty all averages out in the end. If an adventure takes multiple sessions, then you get multiple levels out of it. Also, how the players confront the adventure is real issue of difficulty.

I am focussed on teamplay so the efforts of each individual is not about advancing themselves, but the cause of the team. But the consistent individual reward is survival to continue adventuring.

[Nagora]

I am too lazy to calculate, add, and divide experience points based on monsters slain and loot obtained.

That's pretty lazy all right.

[Geoffrey]

I am too lazy to calculate, add, and divide experience points based on monsters slain and loot obtained.

That's pretty lazy all right.

I'm the World's Laziest DM.