EXP Points vs Milestones - Which Is Better? 

I run a sandbox campaign XP is the way to go for that

One of the biggest changes (pro or con depending on your pov) is the incentive for players to engage in optional combats. In a milestone game, these encounters give a lot less benefit for the players to engage in. Just as an example, if the players need to retrieve some treasure, then a milestone group is much less interested in fully exploring the dungeon it is in because they do not get rewards for dealing with the traps and enemies since they do not gain experience for doing so. The treasure is nice, but it basically cuts the rewards in half without exp. Something interesting in older D&D was essentially built in were class based bonuses to exp. TL:DR of it was fighters got more experience for killing enemies, priests for spells to further ethos of their deity, wizards by casting spells to overcome enemies or problems, rogues to getting more treasure.

An interesting video outlining the differences between systems. Great job Loki. Look forward to seeing more.

One way would be the real life way, the strength of the party is determined by the equipment. A medieval knight could buy a expensive set of plate armor and be a tank in the battlefield.

The beauty of being able to take charge of your game is you can mix out what you'd like for it. And that's what I do with level ups :) I have an EXP method and it's basically set around 5 XP per Level. You get 1XP for simply being around and participating in the session. And you can get another one for completing an objective or changing the position/balance of power somewhere or making a change in the world positively or negatively going into the adventure. These are just some examples, but the choices can be tailored for the game you're wanting to play.

I use both, experience points os really flexible, but milestone is good in sometimes. For example: experience points for Gold and Monsters, and milestone for Bad Guys or Really Hard Things.

I use XP and I take all things into account. Role-play. Killing or defeating enemies, but I don’t count gold or treasure. We play. 3.5 and I use the cr rating to a degree. I like the math.

3:19 I've never had jealousy at my tables. They all know some classes grow quicker than others. It's just a part of the game. Plus, early game, levels don't really matter that much when something can kill you in 1 or 2 d6 damage anyways. Levels are about the saves, slots, and To Hit bonuses.

As a veteran of many gaming systems, neither alone is ideal. XP from Kills = Players scouring the dungeon for every GP and foe. It has actually led to players getting annoyed and wandering into the woods looking for Random Encounters to level up. Milestone = Players doing everything to avoid doing anything that isn't Main Story Quest. You need rewards for Role-Playing, Rewards for Creativity, etc. The downside of these games, however, is that they delve into more and more paperwork on the PCs & DM, I have an XLS and a print-up where I can check off what's going on during the game and combine afterward. Personally, I use a system where the party gains XP, and we have an XP total for the party. So it is a synthesis between the two. Though as of late I have gone sour on D&D since the OGL fiasco, even PF games... and am playing other perennial games I love. And yes, it is a major issue when one player is one or more levels ahead of the other levels... 5E minimizes the differences in level compared to most games, especially say 3rd edition D&D (Or Pathfinder 1). It is argued that apart from HP there are only 5 levels in D&D 5E (Based upon proficiency bonuses and when the extra dice gained from cantrips and extra attacks).

100% the case that letting players level even one level ahead of the others can crush the balance depending on where they are in the levelling chart. Different between level 3 and 4 is massive. It also tends to roll out of control, with the higher leveled players finding it easier to accumulate EXP faster than the others, and once you get two or three levels ahead of the others, the lead gets near terminal in my experience. Might also be that min maxers tend to end up leveling faster as well when using EXP, and those issues compound in a nasty way. Throw in discouraged players who are more casual, seeing that they will never catch up unless they min max as well, and it becomes a pretty massive well of negativity unless managed closely.

As one of those Old Farts that have been playing since we used stone tablets and bone dice, I hate the idea of using milestone because "maths is hard". I use the old style treasure and monsters defeated (not just killed) system. One thing I do add is a 1-3% needed to next level bonus as a reward for good player engagement, and great ideas. The reward scales with the level so there is no disincentive.

I like the XP systems that give you 1-2 XP for doing the pillars the game wants you to do, and new level targets being fairly low (e.g 10 XP per level) Math is easy, good to reward desirable player behaviours, flexibility in deciding what those desired behaviours are.

It depends. Are you playing a long overarching campaign or more of a modular game? Overaching campaign, milestones. Modular, experience points.

We always knew that Magic Users needed more XP to level up, and since they became so very powerful at higher levels, that was a legitimate reason. Also, Multi-Class levels up slower because they split XP between their classes, but then they have a lot of advantages when they survive to higher levels. I mean, a Fighter with full Constitution Bonus could conceivably get 14 HP at Level 1, while a Magic User maxes at 4, unless they manage to get an exceptional Constitution roll, where they can get an extra point or two. But, that kind of encourages Fighters to handle the fighting, and MU's to find other ways to contribute while staying out of melee. Anyway, whatever everyone in your group is good with. We'll just keep going with XP, where you get XP for treasure, defeating (not necessarily killing) opponents, disarming or surviving traps, role-playing their way through an encounter, etc. Great video! Thanks for sharing!

Yeah I do think that doing big Milestones or XP systems in which you factor in X number of creatures with different CR or each gold piece is always an amount of XP - those aren't as good as the middle ground of using XP but awarding it freeform. You get the best of both worlds by awarding small amounts of XP for small accomplishments, as well as larger amounts for bigger goals. You don't need to follow a big table where players earn hundreds of thousands of XP, nor have characters suddenly become more powerful from just completing story arcs alone

1e exp all the way, thieves and fighters rush ahead of spell casters in advancement but when the spell casters catch up things find their own level

Back in the 80’s & 90’s, everyone was different levels and that’s just the way it was. Lower level PCs caught up quickly or died horribly… sure there was jealousy and “unfairness” at times but for the most part we just rolled with it. The higher level PCs were leveling slower and protected the lower level guys. When the higher level guys died or had down time their players rolled up first level PCs and then they were lower level. That and old school D&D PC classes all had different level xp requirements. Thieves leveled the quickest, and Mages took a while. Multi-classing meant that you divided your XP between two or three classes in real time, leveling was really slow. Almost no one was exactly the same level even if they all roll up first level PCs together.

I think the point in between is highly granular, slightly abstracted XP, like in DCC or Shadowdark, where you only need a few points to level up, so XP is granted in a sort of milestone-y way

I run 1e/2e AD&D. Never had any jealousy. Everyone knows thieves and fighters will advance quicker followed by priests then rangers, mages, paladins.

If the PCs level at the same rate, like at 5E, then I prefer milestone leveling. If they level at different rates, like in OSR, I prefer XP.

Is there a definitive answer? I guess not. Even for me I struggle to find and answer for that question. My game, the one I am GMing at the moment, gives every player 3 ways to gain EXP. And every player has 3 different ones. But it can be hard to track the EXP for players that aren’t so much interested in character getting mechanically stronger. I don’t know. Hard one. I played a few time without EXP. So no one gets mechanically stronger. That was fine too. We had fun. And we still play without EXP quite a lot. For us the sensation of getting more powerful is not as tempting anymore.

Both of the types of XP hain spoken in video are inferior to XP gain found in Dungeon World known as fail Forward combined with D100 Dungeons skill check XP gain. These look like as an example 1 XP for crit hits and 2 for survived fumble rolls.

what about XP that they can only cash in on at major settlements (where they can train/study). Sometimes they get to the city and they lack the XP to level up, and sometimes they have enough. Is that just milestones with more math?

If your players don't like combat you're probably playing the wrong game. And if I'm tracking fame points, why can't I track xp? As a forever DM I only use xp.

Milestones 💯. IMO i see no reason to track XP. The story will become about XP and that encourages out of character thought, broken immersion. I track rations and arrows, so its not a math or bookkeeping issue. I just feel leveling should be driven by story and player goals not an target number.

What? A 5e player liking the option with less math? I am shocked!