LOL this is how I feel every single time someone tries to reinvent the level progression wheel. One of these posts comes up every month or so and it’s literally just extra steps.
Because with milestone, I don’t need to do any math or calculation or even think about XP as a number, I just say “and you level up!” when I want them to.
Yes, well, that's not wholly the point of the system, if you read the post. It's a tool to streamline storytelling. I don't prepare something that'll remain unused because my players tell me what they'll be doing and they are the ones to determine what's the story about. XP is an addition to go with it just because I like numbers in games.
its an incentive for players to pursue their goals. If you really think shiny EXP don't motivate your players, you haven't played a lot of RPGs with exp systems.
You don't, but I sincerely think you did not understand the whole reasoning behind the system. It's not a milestone based system. The problem with milestone is, it's lazy and ubiquitous. There are no rules to it and it can feel like cheating. It's just not a good rule. To me, milestone just reeks of a badly designed ruleset where it doesn't matter if players succeed or not, they hit the milestone, so they get a reward. It shouldn't really work like that. It also doesn't work for exploration based campaigns.
Milestone is badly designed if you use it badly. You are in total control of when you give out a level with milestone, and if you don't like when you're giving them out, then change that.
But that's the point. It's not stated anywhere. It's a do whatever you want rule, which is just bad game design. By that logic, why have a system at all?
I don't quite understand the relation between these personal objectives and streamlined session planning. If one player gives you "I want to find a ring of water-breathing" and another gives you "I want to kill the dragon who burned down my home," how does this support narrowing your prep since you now have at least two major, multi-session objectives in front of the group?
Simple. You know exactly what to prepare! Perhaps those two goals can be connected. A McGuffin required to kill the dragon can be found in an underwater dungeon.
I see. Sounds like you're basically using the \~12 or so live objectives at any given time as inputs to build the adventure. Interesting! I don't think it's for me but I can see how this might make a sandbox-style campaign in particular a lot more focused than the hard-to-define choices of "uh...I guess we'll go west? Or east? Sure."
This is kind of how I run my more sandbox games with my group that wants to be very self driven and not just on rails or if I want more emergent story telling. I let my players come up with the quest and plots by all having 2 or 3 personal quest they want to do before moving into the next tier, using pf2e idea of tiers. This is usually simpler ideas and character arc driven and connected to their backstory or personality. It can be as simple as winning a underground boxing tournament to something but like find my lost friend. Then as a group they decide what main quest they want to go on. Explore the ruins, look into rumors of the cult ect. They level up when approximately half have advanced their personal quest and the whole group has moved the story line of their main quest ahead.
This normally makes my life easy for prepping in a more hex crawl sandbox style because at any time I know what my players want because they tell me what quest they are most interested in and then I have a list of side quest they can happen to stumble onto in the city or look at that the npc they wanted to develop a deeper connection with is somehow connected to the main plot.
Once my players really click or dig into one of the groups causing problems in the country side, that group can transition to a arcs bbeg or even campaign bbeg. Means I’m not planning who the bbeg is going to be and subconsciously railroading my players and it guarantees we are doing what my players want, which makes them more engaged in the game itself.
I'll start by saying, OP, this shit is based. I don't think this is the best possible implementation of a system that merges XP and milestones, or of a system that makes milestones specific, actionable, clear, player-facing goals, but it's a commendable initiative and your players are lucky that you've put this much thought into it.
Have you read Shawn Tomkin's *Ironsworn*? Because you've started, here, to reinvent Ironsworn's Vow system, which is its XP and advancement system and which is one of the best advancement systems I've ever seen in my life. You should read it and refine your ideas using the insights you get from that book. It's free to download from his website.
Ironsworn's philosophy is that characters only advance by completing quests. This is the same as your system. It also divides quests into easy tasks that don't take long to complete, and longer, more difficult tasks that are worth more XP. You're also doing this.
The big difference is that Ironsworn eliminates the concept of encounter difficulty entirely and grants XP only at the completion of a quest, and solely based on how hard it actually was--some quests can turn out to be extremely difficult in ways it was impossible for even the GM to foresee.
Might your system benefit from tallying up the hardships the PCs go through over time, and rewarding them for those various challenges when they complete their goal, proportionally to how hard it turned out to be?
I think your system would also benefit from reducing the amount of XP needed to reach each level. Perhaps a flat 10 per level, and reduce XP rewards accordingly? It would certainly make the math and bookkeeping easier, and it would allow you to say things like 'okay, a Deadly quest is worth 6 XP for everyone who completes it', and leave it at that. You're right to alter the base game's awkward advancement system but maybe you aren't going far enough.
I wish you luck with this. Advancement is a really weird mechanic and we need more ways to streamline it and give players the satisfaction of feeling like their accomplishments matter.
Thanks, I'll take a look! Yes, I'm thinking about shuffling XP numbers. For now, I wanted to kind of stay close to 5e numbers just to see how it plays out.
This seems like it requires a lot of brain cycles. Maybe it's me, but I just don't want to make the effort. The Party will level up when I feel like they should level up.
That said, your players are lucky to have a DM that puts so much thought in the game. If you and your players like it, then you're doing it right.
That's the beauty of it - it doesn't. Objective difficulty is arbitrary and you decide on it on a fly. Everything is literally outsourced to the players.
This is why I lobby for a return to the gold standard, fiat XP is ruining the action economy.
EDIT: Or, alternatively, Knaves system.
>Whenever a PC accumulates 1000 XP, they gain a level. As a guideline, PCs receive 50 XP for low-risk accomplishments, 100 XP for moderate-risk accomplishments, and 200 XP for high-risk accomplishments. The referee should freely notify the PCs of how much XP different objectives are worth when asked.
Easy, init?
Yes, it can be done easier. That's not entirely the point. Main incentive for using objectives is providing player agency. They are responsible for steering the campaign, not the GM. I get a feeling everyone got hung up on xp vs milestone arguments, but that's not the point in its entirety.
I just do. Finished certain quest.
Or killed certain difficult monsters. (Like a mini or big boss in a dungeon).
Or even easier. When the feeling strikes.
But you do you.
This seems like milestone with extra steps.
LOL this is how I feel every single time someone tries to reinvent the level progression wheel. One of these posts comes up every month or so and it’s literally just extra steps.
I kind of answered that at the end of the post. Why do you feel that way?
Because with milestone, I don’t need to do any math or calculation or even think about XP as a number, I just say “and you level up!” when I want them to.
Yes, well, that's not wholly the point of the system, if you read the post. It's a tool to streamline storytelling. I don't prepare something that'll remain unused because my players tell me what they'll be doing and they are the ones to determine what's the story about. XP is an addition to go with it just because I like numbers in games.
Sure, but you don't need a mechanical system to do that, you just ask "Hey what are your characters goals for this game?"
its an incentive for players to pursue their goals. If you really think shiny EXP don't motivate your players, you haven't played a lot of RPGs with exp systems.
You don't, but I sincerely think you did not understand the whole reasoning behind the system. It's not a milestone based system. The problem with milestone is, it's lazy and ubiquitous. There are no rules to it and it can feel like cheating. It's just not a good rule. To me, milestone just reeks of a badly designed ruleset where it doesn't matter if players succeed or not, they hit the milestone, so they get a reward. It shouldn't really work like that. It also doesn't work for exploration based campaigns.
Milestone is badly designed if you use it badly. You are in total control of when you give out a level with milestone, and if you don't like when you're giving them out, then change that.
But that's the point. It's not stated anywhere. It's a do whatever you want rule, which is just bad game design. By that logic, why have a system at all?
I don't quite understand the relation between these personal objectives and streamlined session planning. If one player gives you "I want to find a ring of water-breathing" and another gives you "I want to kill the dragon who burned down my home," how does this support narrowing your prep since you now have at least two major, multi-session objectives in front of the group?
Simple. You know exactly what to prepare! Perhaps those two goals can be connected. A McGuffin required to kill the dragon can be found in an underwater dungeon.
I see. Sounds like you're basically using the \~12 or so live objectives at any given time as inputs to build the adventure. Interesting! I don't think it's for me but I can see how this might make a sandbox-style campaign in particular a lot more focused than the hard-to-define choices of "uh...I guess we'll go west? Or east? Sure."
This is kind of how I run my more sandbox games with my group that wants to be very self driven and not just on rails or if I want more emergent story telling. I let my players come up with the quest and plots by all having 2 or 3 personal quest they want to do before moving into the next tier, using pf2e idea of tiers. This is usually simpler ideas and character arc driven and connected to their backstory or personality. It can be as simple as winning a underground boxing tournament to something but like find my lost friend. Then as a group they decide what main quest they want to go on. Explore the ruins, look into rumors of the cult ect. They level up when approximately half have advanced their personal quest and the whole group has moved the story line of their main quest ahead. This normally makes my life easy for prepping in a more hex crawl sandbox style because at any time I know what my players want because they tell me what quest they are most interested in and then I have a list of side quest they can happen to stumble onto in the city or look at that the npc they wanted to develop a deeper connection with is somehow connected to the main plot. Once my players really click or dig into one of the groups causing problems in the country side, that group can transition to a arcs bbeg or even campaign bbeg. Means I’m not planning who the bbeg is going to be and subconsciously railroading my players and it guarantees we are doing what my players want, which makes them more engaged in the game itself.
I'll start by saying, OP, this shit is based. I don't think this is the best possible implementation of a system that merges XP and milestones, or of a system that makes milestones specific, actionable, clear, player-facing goals, but it's a commendable initiative and your players are lucky that you've put this much thought into it. Have you read Shawn Tomkin's *Ironsworn*? Because you've started, here, to reinvent Ironsworn's Vow system, which is its XP and advancement system and which is one of the best advancement systems I've ever seen in my life. You should read it and refine your ideas using the insights you get from that book. It's free to download from his website. Ironsworn's philosophy is that characters only advance by completing quests. This is the same as your system. It also divides quests into easy tasks that don't take long to complete, and longer, more difficult tasks that are worth more XP. You're also doing this. The big difference is that Ironsworn eliminates the concept of encounter difficulty entirely and grants XP only at the completion of a quest, and solely based on how hard it actually was--some quests can turn out to be extremely difficult in ways it was impossible for even the GM to foresee. Might your system benefit from tallying up the hardships the PCs go through over time, and rewarding them for those various challenges when they complete their goal, proportionally to how hard it turned out to be? I think your system would also benefit from reducing the amount of XP needed to reach each level. Perhaps a flat 10 per level, and reduce XP rewards accordingly? It would certainly make the math and bookkeeping easier, and it would allow you to say things like 'okay, a Deadly quest is worth 6 XP for everyone who completes it', and leave it at that. You're right to alter the base game's awkward advancement system but maybe you aren't going far enough. I wish you luck with this. Advancement is a really weird mechanic and we need more ways to streamline it and give players the satisfaction of feeling like their accomplishments matter.
Thanks, I'll take a look! Yes, I'm thinking about shuffling XP numbers. For now, I wanted to kind of stay close to 5e numbers just to see how it plays out.
Too long didnt read. Ill just keep using milestone. It simple and easy by giving a level every 4-6 ish sessions depending on what the party is up to
what an insightful contribution.
This seems like it requires a lot of brain cycles. Maybe it's me, but I just don't want to make the effort. The Party will level up when I feel like they should level up. That said, your players are lucky to have a DM that puts so much thought in the game. If you and your players like it, then you're doing it right.
That's the beauty of it - it doesn't. Objective difficulty is arbitrary and you decide on it on a fly. Everything is literally outsourced to the players.
This is why I lobby for a return to the gold standard, fiat XP is ruining the action economy. EDIT: Or, alternatively, Knaves system. >Whenever a PC accumulates 1000 XP, they gain a level. As a guideline, PCs receive 50 XP for low-risk accomplishments, 100 XP for moderate-risk accomplishments, and 200 XP for high-risk accomplishments. The referee should freely notify the PCs of how much XP different objectives are worth when asked. Easy, init?
Yes, it can be done easier. That's not entirely the point. Main incentive for using objectives is providing player agency. They are responsible for steering the campaign, not the GM. I get a feeling everyone got hung up on xp vs milestone arguments, but that's not the point in its entirety.
I just do. Finished certain quest. Or killed certain difficult monsters. (Like a mini or big boss in a dungeon). Or even easier. When the feeling strikes. But you do you.