EXP Free is the way to be...

[clockworkjoe]

I am using experience points in WT but that's easy since you only get 3-5 points a session and they are spent like normal character points.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I use the experience systems in my current games. World of Darkness doesn't have levels and XP costs get really high for the good abilities. Since players don't get extra XP for combat and I give out extra XP for every goal they accomplish the players are motivated to keep the game moving so they can get as much done as possible.

Same thing in Exalted, though they get more XP than a World of Darkness character and they use it to learn how to punch mountains.

Shadowrun uses Karma for XP. The sytsem is basically the same as World of Darkness, you pay an increasing cost for new ranks in skills or abilities, except that money is part of the leveling system since gear gives you skill and ability bonuses. Mages need karma to learn new magic but "Fighters" need cash to buy new cybernetic enhancements. It's strange trying to balance two different leveling systems.

[jonnygadfly]

I run D&D and I just just say...

Hey you guys go ahead and gain a level!

I like it, it stops people from starting fights just for the XP and they like it because, well, last time I gave them 2 levels.

Does anyone else do this or am I a freak?

You are not a freak; this is the way I run all games regardless of the system.

[Fizban]

You are not a freak; this is the way I run all games regardless of the system.

So how do you run non-level based games like WoD or Shadowrun - do you just say, "Ok, you have been using your driving skill enough.  You get a third dot in drive now"?  I'm curious, because that is certainly an interesting way of doing it. 

And another question, do you XPless people find that your players get a bit petition-y about "It's time we got a level", or "Hey, I've been using magic for ages now, give me more occult skill"?

[Flawless P]

Every Once in a while they will petition for a level, and usually it's just hazing, if they ever in all seriousness feel like they should level it's usually one guy approaching me through text or before the others get there, I have deferred to their judgement before after having them make a case of "What has your character learned since his last level." Thats happened twice in all the times I have been playing this way and I was stringing them along for a solid 6 session past my usual 5 sessions...so it had been 11 4 hour game sessions since they leveled.

[doctorscraps]

4th Edition DnD has a house rule that you can use saying that they can gain a level after every 8 encounters...what counts as an Encounter clearly up to DM/GM discretion.
I like this rule, and want to use it in other games like Star Wars and D20 Modern, but there's an underlying niggling that it might put the campaign on a sort of Fast Forward.

[Nictusempra]

I haven't bothered tracking XP for more than a session or two in my last four or five long campaigns, and I've never missed it in the least no matter what system I'm in (primarily D&D of various editions).

Instead, I prefer to give them levels in rhythm with the pace of the narrative; they come quicker when the sessions are packed with plot-heavy climaxes, and slower when we take a few off for some sidequest.  It's less bookkeeping for the players, better narrative control for me, and I really can't even begin to see wanting to do things differently.

[malyss]

Fizban:
Yeah, I get a half-hearted "so we leveled, right?" at the end of each session. I usually just scowl and they go away. For me it all depends on where I need them to be for the story. If I want them to have a certain kind of encounter, I get them to the level I need them to be to stand a chance. It's all about story. The players need to feel like they are moving forward, but the real sense of accomplishment isn't in the level they are; it's what the character has accomplished in the game world. If their actions had impact, level isn't as important.

Listen to the New World games - the players accomplish stuff - even when they are low level. That is the real art of the story. At some points Ross just waves his hand and they jump a couple of levels. Because that is what the story needed. And they were all happy, because they had contributed to that story, so it felt natural (at least that is how it comes across on the podcast).

Doctorscraps:
It might put it on fast forward, but really, you guide the story, so level them as fast as you need to. You know your group better than anyone, and you know your story - make them fit however you need to. In all of the roleplaying guides I have read, they always say the first rule is have fun. If having them not level is not fun, don't do it. If having them level would be not fun, wait.

I played in one game (AD&D... decades ago...) where we got about 5xp a session. You needed a lot to level back then... we played for over a year without leveling, but it was still fun. The best games are the ones where I had fun playing, not drafting a higher level character.

[Ezechiel357]

I guess, this whole discussion is specific to games with levels. Gaining a level gives you more hit points, better chance to hit, better resistance, better etc. So each level is a quantum leap that have a rather big impact: an encounter which was rather difficult becomes suddenly easier.

The game I am DMing does not have level, but XP are used to purchase characteristic, competencies level, spells and whatnot. So it is a constant improvement, and it is relatively easy to pace the progress and evolution of the player without giving them the feeling that they are stagnating.

[doctorscraps]

@Malyss
For some reason that reminds me of an arguement I got into with an atheist, which culminated in them stating that I could take on all the virtues and ideals I admired without having to adhere to a religion or outright theology, to which my response was...rather curtly..."It provides context, you chimp!"
Which is why, while I know I am within my right to just wave my hand and say "You all advance to the next level" whenever I damn well please, the rules usually come with guidelines for such that provide context and flow that makes it less chaotic and archaic.

Then again some people like things to be Archaic. These are usually people I want to force feed a chair.

[+1 Hat]

Just had a bit of a (narrow) epiphany, regarding 4e.
One of the things I recall Ross railing about during the epic tier was the refresh on dailies wrecking the divide between plot and fights. That is, unless he pushed us into more fights per day of story than he wanted, our dailies recharged and anything resembling a balanced encounter on paper was a cakewalk.
However, this thread crystallized a thought I'd been having about that. Much like abstract XP/leveling, a GM would be quite well served to toss the 'daily' part out of dailies. That is, limit extended rests to GM caveat. Hopefully, we all run with understanding tables who would accepts this, especially since the extended rest assumes 6 (8?) hours of downtime.
That said, if you've got a table of rules lawyers who like there RPGs GM v. PC, a simple plan would help. Simply inform the overeager-for-sleeping players that they're not in a place where they could reasonably set up camp without fear of attack. If they insist, BAM! encounter. No extended rest for you! Repeat as necessary, sprinkled liberally with reminders of your previous statement about safety, etc.
Simply remove the semantic loading of 'daily'. Hell, I'd venture a guess that calling them such could be considered a major foul-up on the part of the designers, save that 'Daily' is a bit cooler, more understandable than any alternative I can come up with. High Mama-jama? Big Kablooies? F'em-up-goods?

Thoughts?

[Moondog]

Just had a bit of a (narrow) epiphany, regarding 4e.
One of the things I recall Ross railing about during the epic tier was the refresh on dailies wrecking the divide between plot and fights. That is, unless he pushed us into more fights per day of story than he wanted, our dailies recharged and anything resembling a balanced encounter on paper was a cakewalk.
However, this thread crystallized a thought I'd been having about that. Much like abstract XP/leveling, a GM would be quite well served to toss the 'daily' part out of dailies. That is, limit extended rests to GM caveat. Hopefully, we all run with understanding tables who would accepts this, especially since the extended rest assumes 6 (8?) hours of downtime.

That said, if you've got a table of rules lawyers who like there RPGs GM v. PC, a simple plan would help. Simply inform the overeager-for-sleeping players that they're not in a place where they could reasonably set up camp without fear of attack. If they insist, BAM! encounter. No extended rest for you! Repeat as necessary, sprinkled liberally with reminders of your previous statement about safety, etc.

Simply remove the semantic loading of 'daily'. Hell, I'd venture a guess that calling them such could be considered a major foul-up on the part of the designers, save that 'Daily' is a bit cooler, more understandable than any alternative I can come up with. High Mama-jama? Big Kablooies? F'em-up-goods?

Thoughts?

Cool. Are they going to come across a horde of Bags of Devouring, Dust of Sneezing/Choking, and Necklaces of Strangulation, too?

[Fizban]

I think it's a great idea.  Instead of "Dailys", call them "Plot Reserved Ass-Kickings" (PRAKs), and mark some combats as non-PRAK encounters, as a note that the difficulty level of the encounter is not sufficient to warrant cracking open the PRAKs.

I might even suggest this to our 4E DM, as he's managed to push us into a stupid dungeon where we don't need to eat, and can basically sit inside it for as long as we want, and there is no reason for us not to rest after every piddly encounter.

Should the players exercise some of their own restraint and not rest every 30 minutes as if they all have post-combat narcolepsy?  Of course.  But failing it, marking encounters as not worthy of the heroes cracking out their mega attacks on grounds of story seems like a pretty reasonable control.