How to fix experience points:

In this model where the adventure is the main reward, how do you reward roleplaying and side quests? Naturally you can hand out levels from side quests, and you can set it up so that they need to complete multiple in order to earn levels. That will encourage exploration and interaction with NPCs, so they can learn about and gain information to help them on these quests. My 'standard' for a campaign arc is about 20 hours, or 5 sessions for my group (given all the screwing around we do before and during game time), and my side quests usually only take one session, so I hand out a level every 5 side quests or so.

As for roleplaying, I've found that the best way to reward players for doing so is to hand minor non-level-based rewards to them for doing so. Friends, contacts, and other minor resources rarely imbalance the party and they make the dedicated role-players in the party feel like their efforts are not in vain. Just don't go overboard.

On the subject of imbalanced levels/points between characters, I just keep them all constant even if a player misses a session. Real life happens and it's unfair to punish a player because their boss made them come in and work on a Saturday.

Roleplaying bonus and a custom system that I use: Attribute / skill limits.

There is a hard limit on how high a character can keep their abilities without sacrificing experience points. Once they go over that limit, they pay a percentage of their experience points as upkeep to that ability.

This creates a dichotomy between getting more experience points and being ultimately useful.

Of course, my own system accommodates this by the fact that there is no skills, and attributes can be used in more ways than just one, if one explains it well enough. In skill-reliant systems it might go a little overboard.

Probably, but it isn't clear yet if the OP actually plays games

I really like the new delta green system.
It says that no dice roll should be made unless it's a "game changer" where you have to decide something VERY important or a life or death situation. So usually when you have to decide if a character can or cannot do something you just see if his skill high enough or not, no roll needed.

And here comes the "XP" part: a skill grows only if you have to roll for it and you fail, and even then it's a once per session thing.
The no roll until it's important thing prevents roll-spam pretty nicely

I just eschew EXP entirely and just give players a level up whenever it feels appropriate. I don't think it'd work for longer games, but my campaigns are never more than a few sessions anyways.

I hate the notion of using EXP as a reward like some GM guides tell you to, like when they roleplay particularly well or something. I feel like it just cheapens the game, and if you're playing TTRPG's to watch numbers go up, you should go play an MMORPG.

The part of the XP system that doesn't work well is the fact that it's a pain in the ass to calculate for not much benefit to the game. Does it really matter within 3 to 7 significant figures exactly how much XP a player has? Is the difference between a 2,000 XP and a 2500 XP encounter really that important, or between having 18,540 and 18,541 XP?

The solution is to do what PFS does: 1 XP per session, and you level up at 3 XP. If you want to make it more complicated you could give each player 1 XP per encounter (only those of meaningful difficulty) and level up at whatever number of encounters the GM thinks is appropriate. The key is to deflate the numbers and make it obvious how much XP each players receive without having to look up a bunch of values and do a bunch of needless math.

Ooh, that sounds nifty.

I like the Dungeon World XP system, where you get XP for failing a roll, and the whole party gets XP for end-of-session questions. It encourages being an active player, while helping the less active players keep up, to a degree. It also actively works against level disparity, because lower level characters advance faster.

>This is bad because you could get rewarded for doing nothing

You get rewarded for "participating" in combat, not for your actual contribution. So if you only missed you still get XP.

>This hurts the support characters

This isn't a thing

>So if you only missed you still get XP.

What if you go smoke a cigar outside and tell the other players to skip your turns? Should you get experience?

>This isn't a thing

My pacifist bard eunuch begs otherwise

>What if you go smoke a cigar outside and tell the other players to skip your turns? Should you get experience?

If players are regularly walking away from the table and just saying "skip my turns," your group has bigger problems than any game mechanic can help with.

Everyone gets the same but are all on different experience tracks. This works well for things like pathfinder, D&D (2E& 3E), or heroes unlimited. It does not work with games that have their shit together.

Palladium had an actual sheet that detailed how to distribute experience points. Breaking down skill uses, clever and futile, clever but successful, self sacrifice, defeating foes, stuff like that. It was a good sheet.

I can see that creating some bad blood between players.
Honestly, distributing the points equally works fine, since you increase the total by participating, which means you increase your share, which means you've got incensives to participate (aside from, you know, the fact that playing a fun game with friends should be enough).

>Should you get experience?
No, you should get kicked out of the group.
Don't play with shitty people.

Why not just play freeform at that point?

If you use XP in your games, you are a shit DM.

Period.

There is no discussion on this topic. The fact that you don't know why you're shit, demonstrates the fact.

Le ebin bait m8

Wanna prove it wrong? Write me an explanation about why awarding XP has any useful value or utility when running RPGs.

You can't do it.

I could, but I'm not here to try and convince you my opinion is right/yours is wrong, and you are being a confrontational twat to start.

>I could, but I can't.

>I like the Dungeon World XP system, where you get XP for failing a roll

I gotta say I absolutely loathe DW's way of handling XP. I'm not terribly superstitious, but there are some nights when you're just not lucky, and in most of the DW games I've played the other players are either always hitting the 10+ result of "great success" or the 1-6 range of "you failed, but you get XP!" Meanwhile, I'm smack dab in the bell curve of the 2d6 and always rolling the 7-9 range of "you succeed, BUT......." and thus don't advance at the same pace as the others. Not to mention since failing rolls gets you XP, it actively rewards players for never increasing their dump stats.

Another really stupid asymmetrical exp system I've played was Monte Cook's The Strange (not sure if it's in other Cypher games). If you critically fail a roll or the GM intrudes on the story, you get XP and a point to give to ONE other player who in some way was involved with the failure. In a 3-player game I ran, this meant two of the PCs were frequently passing each other XP and leaving the third guy out.

Oddly enough, one of my favorite advancement systems is in Ironclaw. Players get their exp at the end of the session to spend on skill ranks and Gifts (the equivalent of Feats in other games) that they want, but they always have designated Goals that reward additional Gifts upon completion. The GM has to approve of the Goal and usually picks the rewarded Gift, but it still means one player gets the spotlight for a moment as they achieve a sidequest of sorts with a minor boon given to them. Since the GM arbitrates what are acceptable Goals and you can have a max of 3 at a time, it also stops players from going, "my goal is to get a drink at the tavern" and racking up Gifts.

Funny enough I've actually had a player tell me this in real life.

I explained that I run the games the way I do, and if she didn't like it she could chose not to play, or alternatively run a game the way she wants.

Then again this is pretty much my default response if a player goes on long enough about not liking the way I run. I always listen to their opinions, I just like the way I run and don't really want to change it unless I like someone's suggestion a lot.

>I explained that I run the games the way I do

Which is fine.

You should probably admit that you choose to be shit, though.

>hey, i think popular players should be able to level faster
are you dense or just a faggot., op?

I mean to be fair, I tell my players that I run how I do when they start.

Honestly, my players usually have fun. There is occasionally a person kinda like you but I really only care if the core group of my players is enjoying themselves.
I mean when 5 players are having a good time and 1 is complaining and arguing and fighting, its pretty clear to me where my players are having more fun.

But hey man, I'm glad you found something that works for you and your group. I sincerely hope you have many fun games using whatever you do in place of exp

delta green hates rolling dice now?

>unless I like someone's suggestion a lot
You ARE a shit GM. Listening to your players about their wants and preferences is necessary (you only "hear" them - listening implies understanding and will to change). Remember your goal is to be an entertainer for your crowd and if they get bored you fail.

>awarding XP
>award
You already gave the answer.

>Remember your goal is to be an entertainer for your crowd and if they get bored you fail.
le 'the GM's sole purpose is to entertain the players" philosophy
do people really still believe in this crap? enjoy your self-neglect, faget. GMs without a vision of their own ain't worth spit. and to think such assclowns walk around and call others shit GMs...

I disagree. Listening does not imply changing. It implies that I will hear what you're saying and take it into consideration.
I've been running the same way for about 30 years. I've had the same group of players for 15 years now. Occasionally we have someone new come in and want me to change the way I run to what they want or how they think I should be. They usually excuse themselves when they come to the realization that they are the only person at the table complaining. Although one guy eventually realized that and just accepted the way I run. Said I tell complex and engaging stories. Didn't have the heart to tell him how much I make up on the fly.
The reason I offer everyone who complains about my way of running is so they could give me an example of how they think the game should be run. In 30 years I've had exactly 3 players agree to run when I told them they where welcome to run however they wanted.

See I think the problem here is that each of us has a different belief about running games. I think I should run the way that makes most of my players happy and let new people adjust instead of getting to change everything when they join.

You feel that using experience, even if the players are having fun, is wrong.

tl;dr: Run what your players enjoy, not what one guy says you should be doing.

>the reason I offer everyone who complains a chance to run.
My bad.
Remember kids, looking over your work is important.

XP only needs fixed to the extent that it was broken in the first place by people who didn't get it.

>Quit awarding XP for quests, goals, plot points, anything to do with the way your class or alignment is supposed to behave

>Definitely quit awarding significant XP for participating in combat, winning combat, killing things

>Awarding XP for treasure is the way to go, but 1 XP = 1 GP leads to ridiculous, impossible piles of gold that make no sense and wreck economies

>1 XP for 1 SP is better, especially if you base your setting's economy on a silver standard, like in the Middle Ages

I run my games in Industrial Age settings and use 1 XP for 1 CP, making copper the standard for equipment prices. That way, silver and especially gold become real treasures that motivate the PCs.

because we aren't faggots

it not hates it it just minimizes the unwanted dice rolling, combat is still rolled, same with sanity. It's just not endless diplomacy burocracy and search rolls. Those aren't a must have

>My pacifist bard eunuch begs otherwise
No, experience per kill isn't a thing.

>What if you go smoke a cigar outside and tell the other players to skip your turns? Should you get experience?

No

>implying anyone on Veeky Forums actually plays games

As other people have mentioned, that's similar in premise to how ____ World games work. It's generally a good philosophy in any game to say Yes to players when they want to do something, and only force them to roll if it's actually important. Or, if you're running a horror game, force them to roll when it's not important but make it so they can't fail anyway, just to mess with them. And if they roll low, say they fail but get an ominous feeling in the back of their head, or gooseflesh for no discernible reason.

Dungeon World does indeed incentivize dump stats. I feel like that's part of the design, and in the games I've participated in it's never been a problem. In fact it's kinda fun having dump stats because failure makes the game more interesting than success. GMs get to intervene more directly in the story, players get XP, it's a win-win. Sorry to hear about your rotten luck regardless.

The Strange's XP system is indeed terrible, but so is the entire Cypher System. Finding problems with those games is like finding a needle in a stack of needles.

Having a group that likes the way you run games is excellent. Completely ignoring the constructive suggestions of people who join your group makes you an asshole. Your way of GMing is not perfect and if you can't adapt to the needs of your players you have failed them.

How to fix experience points:
>Complete an objective - get experience.
>Combat, puzzle-solving and socializing with NPCs don't matter - only completing the objective does.
>Two objectives are decided beforehand at the start of the session - one by GM, and one by the players themself.
>Players are free to pursue both objectives. Player-created objective can be vetoed by the GM. XP value of objectives is decided by the GM.
>If the players don't complete the objective during the session, it is either carried over to the next session, or adjusted by player or GM - depending on who issued the objective. The decision of whether to carry it over to the next session is made by the players.

Hmmm.. I think I disagree still. If one person isn't having fun but most of the group is, am I really a bad GM? What about when I change something that the new player complains about and the rest of the group now is not having fun? Am I a better GM for accommodating that one player? What about when I try to find a middle ground and no one is happy? Am I a better GM for compromising? What about when I keep trying to find a middle ground and changing things for an entire year until everyone threatens to quit unless they get what they want? What about when all but one of the players wants to go back to what we did before and says they will quit unless I bend and stop trying to accommodate Nathan?

I don't think you really have enough information on the subject to really declare if I'm a shit GM or not.
You are always welcome to run a game the way you think a game should be run, however. I promise I'll play in it and not complain

Not sure if anyone in the thread has mentioned it yet but;

Some of the new new NEW game systems and DMs out there have been talking about phasing out experience points entirely as well as levels. Your characters can, instead, simply gain strength from what they encounter in the world. They don't always grow upwards, but they grow outwards, as well as having unique and organic improvement.

Instead of Wizards just getting more and more powerful as they level, they gain more spells during the course of their adventures and eventually get invited to join a coven which brings with it political drama but also the potential to gain allies and more power. Warriors learn new combat techniques and train their bodies to be a bit stronger, but they also gains a squire who gets kidnapped constantly but can fight alongside them. The ranger's animal companion grows from being a wolf into a dire wolf after getting bitten by another dire wolf, but now has a taste for human flesh.

These things are typically much more interesting then flat +1 increases to stats, skills, attacks or spells. I like the new direction.

>If one person isn't having fun but most of the group is, am I really a bad GM?
>I don't think you really have enough information on the subject to really declare if I'm a shit GM or not.
As you said previously, "Occasionally we have someone new come in and want me to change the way I run to what they want or how they think I should be. They usually excuse themselves when they come to the realization that they are the only person at the table complaining."

That's not saying that you changed your game to find a middle ground and only made every player unhappy. That's you saying "My Way or the Highway" and forcing players to either give in or leave. If you actually have been adjusting your game, only to repeatedly have players wish for it to go back to how it was (as you imply with your 'Nathan' example) then you certainly did not state or even imply as much in the post I replied to. So, I'll assume you did not until you describe otherwise.

I'd also ask that you consider the following: are your players actually, genuinely 100% happy with everything in the game? Or, do they simply think that you are inflexible and any attempt to change your GMing style and performance would be a waste of time? Are they truly satisfied with your performance, or are they simply -settling- for what you offer them? How often do you ask for constructive criticism? How often do you try something new or different, and then ask them what they liked and disliked about that mechanic/encounter/session? Do you even do a post-mortem after a campaign to see what worked and what didn't? When a new player joins the group and proposes something, or offers constructive criticism, how long do you consider their point of view, and how do you resolve their request/suggestion?

I don't feel that using experience, even if the players are having fun, is wrong. I just think that maybe you'd have made more friends, and be playing with more people, if you'd bothered to accommodate the new members.

>This is bad because you could get rewarded for doing nothing
Your problem is that you view XP as a reward that has to be earned.

Do it like Cyberpunk 2020. Make such a tedious experience system, so no one wants to use it.

Not him, but I'd nonetheless like to know your point of view on this. What are XPs if not a reward that has to be earned?

Hey guys um just wanted to say this is the most retarded thread I've read in my life, ok fuck you thanks bye

Just use point buy instead desu

People are talking about Dungeon World's XP system, but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Apoc World's XP system.

At the beginning of a session, you find the person that you have the highest History stat with (as in, you know their character the best), and ask them to tag one of your 5 abilities. The MC tags another one, at their whim. Every time you roll one of those stats, you get XP. That's it.
This is the only regular means of getting XP, as the other means (fringe rules and History advancement) are incredibly situational or slow. Therefore, the best way to build up XP is to have your character go out and roll dice at things. Now, this might sound shitty to people experienced with other games, but in Apocalypse World, the actions performed by a dice roll tend to be both broad and explicit. They tend to move the action forward, whether by succeeding (and the player getting what they want) or failing (and the GM getting what they "want", which is usually to make things more interesting).
The only issue I've had with it so far in years of playing is that if a couple players coordinate to consistently have highest Hx stat with each other, they can keep tagging each other's best stats and just milk XP for winning. That only works so far, though, and it's easy to anticipate.
Oh, and there's also people spamming Sharp checks whenever they please, but that's just Search/Perception spam, every game has that.

I usually just give my players little rewards for roleplaying and stuff.
like the bard in my group performed a song in a tavern for gold. He did this by playing a mandolin recording on his laptop and attempting to "sing". it was all good fun, so I had the tavern patrons keep giving him gold and begging for encores.

>2,000 XP and a 2500 XP
What kind of hot shit are you playing? I only have seen such numbers in vidja.
It's a meta resource to improve characters.
"reward that has to be earned" should be something valuable in-game, such as new allies, knowledge or items that can't be normally bought.

> meta resource
I agree with you, but isn't this awarded too? Shouldn't it be the result of certain actions and not certain others?

I give experience points based on investment in the game.
If you don't give a shit, you get nothing.
I also enjoy CofD's system whereby most experience points are PC generated, through creating drama, failing rolls, and gaining and resolving conditions.

What if someone wants to play a character not motivated by money?

I do something similarly goal based, but still use XP.

Players set goals, subject to my approval. If they complete one of these goals they get one XP. Also you can't declare and complete a goal in the same session and get the XP. It's basically there so I can prep around the party's goals between sessions.

Players level up by spending XP equal to the level they'd attain. So it takes longer to level the higher level you are, smoothing out the potential for level gaps over time.

>No, experience per kill isn't a thing.

He's clearly /v/ and bitter that he's playing objective matches

If playing D&D, reward players one XP for each gold piece worth of treasure they can get back to civilization.

Money earned from business or mundane endeavors doesn't count.

Make XP super arbitrary
Give out an amount each game that would have the party level up at the pace you need it to.

-10% for phone checking
+20% for moments of awesome and RPing
+10% for tryhard noobies to help them catch up
x2 for GF
x3 for blowjobs
done.

I always enjoyed that it rewarded clever ideas, playing in character, and finding alternative solutions more than than simply killing a threat.

D&D has exponentially increasing XP requirements for higher levels and evenly-divided combat xp for this reason.

The XP requirement increase is pretty steep, and the result is that it usually doesn't take long before someone is within 1-2 levels of the rest of the party.

For example, AD&D multiclassing was basically just that you needed about twice as much XP to level up, and you'd still very rarely lag behind by more than one level.

People still use exp? Get that video game shit pout of here.

In my games, you gain levels for doing shit your supposed to do, and at milestone moments. The rogue dosnt pick locks, do stealth shit, or generally roguish acts? Why the fuck should he be getting better at it? Does the paladin shun all fighting, only heals and cast spells and forgoes armor? Hes going to get a level in cleric/priest.

You need to level the actions, not the character. The character is just a person, the profession is what gets better.

>Palladium had an actual sheet that detailed how to distribute experience points. Breaking down skill uses, clever and futile, clever but successful, self sacrifice, defeating foes, stuff like that. It was a good sheet.
Do you have that sheet by chance? Sounds neat.

Money is solid, concrete proof of your deeds. Plus it funds your adventuring career, puts a roof over your head, puts food in your belly, and numerous other things.

Even if you're not motivated by money, you still need it to a certain extent.

Then that character is not an adventurer, and thus not a *player* character.

>I feel like it just cheapens the game, and if you're playing TTRPG's to watch numbers go up, you should go play an MMORPG.

1: Explain what is wrong with enjoying a gamey part of a roleplaying game.

2: What's there to cheapen? It's a bunch of grown men drinking beer and playing pretend around a table.

3: Where do rpg fans get this strange sense of elitism over other hobbies? Like I see it all the time in Veeky Forums. Stuff like
>if you want good combat mechanics go play a tabletop wargame
>DnD is not an RPG it's a wargame
as if both tabletop games weren't inextricably intertwined in the first place. The second one is specially telling. Being a wargame is an insult to some people.

>OP feels that players getting XP for not contributing is a bad thing
that's dumb, but
>every other retard on this thread trying to solve the problem by removing XP and instead making players level up whenever the group acomplishes something

how is this addressing his problem at all? Giving the entire group a level still fucking leaves the "problem" of people who don't contribute getting xp.

Some variations on quest based XP give players distinct objectives from each other, or could be read that way. See:

was just a table

You realise we're talking about more than just D&D right?

>How to fix experience points:
Each player contributes according on his ability and each player gets experience points according to his needs.
C'mon, it's fantasy, we can pretend it works.

I would take it as a personal challenge to reach new level solely by coming up with clever, but futile ideas.

Because it is necessary for character progression. Buying new abilities and enhancing existing ones costs XP.

That's how I handled it back when I DMed D&D, but I added a little something extra: if the players split from the story I had planned to pursue goals that make sense from an IC perspective (even if that just means helping another PC with there goal), I count progress towards that goal in the same way I was previously counting their progress towards the old goal.
It's basically the same, but instead of rewarding staying on the rails, I rewarded actually pursuing your character's motivations.

>Get that video game shit
>xp
>video game shit
also leveling the actions is more video game shit than xp, I'm pretty sure morrowind was made before any other RPG ever tried this idea.

but then again, why is "this is video gamey" even an insult anyway?

>I only have seen such numbers in vidja.
have you literally never even looked at a D&D 3.5 book in your life? I mean, I know it's a shit system but come on.

There's tons of other games where you need money (Shadowrun, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, etc.) Basically, as long as you're playing a criminal (and most PCs are criminals anyway) your main goal is to get rich.

It does work with small groups though. It just fails for large groups. Now I'm off to make a game where the PCs and their minions form the entirety of an anarchist commune and have to fight LE EVUL CAPITALIST PIGZ!

>more than just D&D
>implying

kekkerino

>This is bad because you could get rewarded for doing nothing
If your character is doing nothing odds are they are shit and need the xp more than anyone else

>This hurts the support characters
Do you not give xp for misc. actions that help advance the party's goals?

>Use diplomacy to do something importance
XP
>Use your powers in mundane ways that either make sense for your character or benefit your party (cleric going around a random shithole village the party is at healing people, rogue who is obsessed with stealing from the rich and giving to the poor robs a local nobleman and uses the wealth to buy shit for the villagers or village)
XP
>Do something that your character would probably do which isn't actually beneficial
XP
>Help think of the plan for something
XP

It isn't hard. For DnD at least I just have everyone level up at once, in games where XP is used directly to buy character upgrades than I dole it out individually but mostly evenly with bonuses particularly for great roleplaying, character development, or storytelling.

My group regularly plays a 3.xpf clone. We ignore xp entirely and the gms just give out levels when they consider it appropriate.

Honestly, I mostly just handwave experience points. Everyone levels up at the same time in games with levels, everyone (mostly) gets the same experience points in games with point buy. Maybe slight bonuses for roleplaying, but nothing significant.

Every group I've ever played with has done it this way. You're attempting to solve problems that literally don't exist.

Tim Denee's Final Stand to the rescue, once again.

Have players each designate one reward per session/adventure, with the DM offering up one more. Players earn points based on how well they do their job.

Player with the most points at the end of the session/adventure gets to pick their reward from the list first, and crosses it out. Second-best gets to pick, all the way down to the last player.

This allows players to nominate awards they know they won't benefit from, but which may directly benefit another player.

Some people, myself included, don't think of XP as being a reward so much as a method for advancing the power level of the game. As such, I hand out XP based on completing missions (or whatever), or occasionally just have them level up every X number of notable challenges.

I tend to give people bonuses for things in the form of slightly better gear, or fate points (If I'm playing with them or something equivalent), or other minor bonuses like that.

When it comes to people potentially getting stuff for free, I think of it this way: I want everybody to be able to compete (not necessarily to the exact same degree in every situation, but I don't want anyone feeling shafted because they don't have big enough numbers to keep up).

Also, it helps that everyone in my group is invested in the game and they all try to be involved in it. If you run into a situation where one or more players just aren't bothering with much stuff, you should probably just talk to them and see whether or not they're actually interested in the same things as everyone else. If not, you might be able to shift the focus of your game slightly to get them more involved, or you might have to ask them to leave the group if they're bringing things down.

Not really. You save a hundred poor people and you'll have less money than saving a single rich person. Cash earned is an incredibly poor metric for measuring accomplishments.

By your own admission, experience serves to reflect your deeds. For some reason, though, you've decided not to simply directly reward players with experience for those deeds, but instead according to how much wealth they've accumulated. It's unnecessary level of separation.

>Plus it funds your adventuring career, puts a roof over your head, puts food in your belly, and numerous other things.
Survival skill or any number of spells can put food in your belly and a roof over your head. You might also stay with friends/relatives or belong to a religious order that provides lodging around the country. Much of your equipment can be found or looted during your adventures.

Play characters aren't adventurers. They are whatever the player is playing as. This is trivially true.

>This means the players can choose any reasonable approach to overcoming the obstacles in their way, without worrying about lost XP because they used stealth or took the diplomatic route (or even avoided challenges with planning or foresight).

Except by RAW you should give players the same XP for defeating foes in combat and bypassing them with stealth and diplomacy. Most DM's were just stupid and thought that Dnd should be a video game.

...

...

> Innitiative

I can't use these.

>Explain what is wrong with enjoying a gamey part of a roleplaying game.
Nothing, but I just feel that if you wanted to play the numbers game, there are better avenues for it than DnD. You can have fun the way you want, but I never claimed my method was the proper way to do it, or even that it's very effective.

If you wanted to get immersed in the game even a little bit, any chance of that is ruined when your friend gives a heroic speech and your GM says "wow that's pretty good, here have 50 XP". There are better ways to reward players, ways that make the player feel even more rewarded than "1 step closer to levelling up".

>What's there to cheapen? It's a bunch of grown men drinking beer and playing pretend around a table.
That game of pretend can carry a lot of weight, if people become invested emotionally to it. You can make anything sound stupid if you describe it like that.

I don't even know what you're trying to say in the third bit.

>there are better avenues for it than DnD
Not really. Please point to me a single video game (that isn't already D&D anyway like baldurs gate, and that requires the entire trilogy) where you can go from random loser to a literal god. Not "god-like". Literal godhood.

>If you wanted to get immersed
first of all, please refrain from using "muh immersion" argument because
1: The line of immersion is different for everyone.
2: Immersion isn't necessary for enjoyment of the game. In fact, I'm willing to be the vast majority of role-playing game players never really get immersed ever.

>any chance of that is ruined when your friend gives a heroic speech and your GM says "wow that's pretty good, here have 50 XP".
You get xp after the adventure is over. No one interrupts the game to count xp. Derp, do you even play games?
On another note, there are plenty of games that don't use XP that stop the middle of the game to give a player a mechanic reward anyway, like fate, shinra banshou, and so on.

>That game of pretend can carry a lot of weight, if people become invested emotionally to it. You can make anything sound stupid if you describe it like that.
It is a fundamentally silly hobby, and you are in massive denial if you don't think so.

>>This means the players can choose any reasonable approach to overcoming the obstacles in their way, without worrying about lost XP because they used stealth or took the diplomatic route (or even avoided challenges with planning or foresight).
It has been THIRTEEN YEARS (13) since D&D 3.5

how the fuck do you faggots still get the basic fucking rules wrong
you always fucking get the xp for bypassing an encounter, always
this has been on the dm handbook from day fucking one

>tell players I'll take care of experience so they don't have to worry about it
>don't actually tally the points and decide that the group levels up when dramatically appropriate.
quite trying to force videogamisms into tabletop