Quote from: Exploderwizard;579699Changing XP to defeating encounters instead of treasure denies players these options. A low level group might try and steal treasure from a bunch of trolls but if they had to defeat them in combat to earn any XP it wouldn't be much of a choice at all.

.

But in this scenario why is the figther getting better at fighting and the Cleric getting better at clericing. If you created a diversion, snuck in and stole the treasure then shouldn't you really get better at sneaking and stealing?

Quote from: jibbajibba;579701But in this scenario why is the figther getting better at fighting and the Cleric getting better at clericing. If you created a diversion, snuck in and stole the treasure then shouldn't you really get better at sneaking and stealing?

In the fighting scenario how does the cleric, magic user, and thief improve at their respective arts? This was explained in the AD&D DMG.

Recovering treasure is something all adventurers can do using whatever talents they have to do it.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;579703In the fighting scenario how does the cleric, magic user, and thief improve at their respective arts? This was explained in the AD&D DMG.

Recovering treasure is something all adventurers can do using whatever talents they have to do it.

Not only that, but fighters often do "fightery" things, and clerics often do "clericy" things during an adventure that doesn't have an XP reward mechanic tied to it.  So it all balances out in the end.

Quote from: Skywalker;579580FWIW I have some sympathy with that comment, but again it raises the question brought up by jibbajabba above as to who actually runs their D&D games with no reference to PC power/level.

The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

RPGPundit

Quote from: Peregrin;579597Last I checked MMOs didn't have a set number of encounters per day.

Actually, yes, they absolutely do at the end-game and the gear-up phases prior to the end-game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;579677I would think the paladin and ranger should totally get xp for treasure in that scenario.  We always played that the characters all got an equal share, and all got xp for their share.  What they did with the treasure afterward was after the fact.

You're actually describing the 3e system of reward.  An encounter is worth Y amount of XP, regardless of how you overcome it.  If you lump 'mosters, situation, and treasure' all together under an 'encounter' umbrella, you're on the same page in both systems.  The only possible gap between the two approaches would be if you penalized for treasure left on the ground.  Or, in the 3e PoV, you'd need to make hidden treasures, e.g. a gem under the alter, a separate encounter with its own CR.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

RPGPundit

 The absurdity of your own answer nullifies your prune-facedness about encounters/level based encounters.

I know my knee-jerk reaction to it was "Why haven't these low-level dungeons been cleared out already? Surely the PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world."

One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the "verisimilitude! sandboxes!" crowd is that their ideal setting is just as absurd and incoherent if you look at it too closely, it's just absurd and incoherent in a different way than whatever they're throwing their little pantswetting hissyfits about.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579751I know my knee-jerk reaction to it was "Why haven't these low-level dungeons been cleared out already? Surely the PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world."

Some have been, repeatedly over the years.

Megadungeons (in two of my world, at least) are very different. They are manifestations of Chaos and their deeper levels connect directly to the planes of Chaos, corrupting the entire complex and allowing its constant growth and repopulation. The "laws" governing a megadungeon are not those that govern the normal world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

RPGPundit

I actually make sure I tell players this before joining up.  That in-setting logic is the determinate factor.  I will also admit to tryong to make sure that players will learn about major threats or have some chance to escape or choose a different path if they are smart and prudent.

ANd this shows up in play a lot.  A group of adventurers in my Igbar game ran into a Bone Golem in the second level of a tomb they were investigating.  Vigor Sheering, the eldest member of that family, had created the golem, which was within his abilities, but this was far tougher than anything the group had run into before.  This was about 3-4 years ago in real time,  and the group wisely took one look at it, realized they were tired and low on resources, and outclassed anyways.  They beat a hasty retreat.
Two sessions ago, the same group, with a few different members, went back to the same second level, encountered the same creature, and narowly defeated him.

welcome to Sandboxing.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579751One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the "verisimilitude! sandboxes!" crowd is that their ideal setting is just as absurd and incoherent if you look at it too closely, it's just absurd and incoherent in a different way than whatever they're throwing their little pantswetting hissyfits about.

All true. The highly touted sandbox is just another type of illusion-ism. It's a game framework, designed to provide adventures to the players. Nothing more.

Quote from: Skywalker;579628So, what RPGs actually include "suggested Encounters per Day" then?

I'm really curious; are you trying to argue that there's no group of gamers who play like this or advocate this?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;579697I don't remember if that is explicitly in the 4e books from the one time I read them; but I DO remember the 4e DMG explicitly stating that you should make both encounter levels and treasure found scale according to PC level always (ie. a DM has to determine beforehand and non-randomly what creatures are in an "encounter area" based not on anything that has to do with the setting but on the PCs' level; and player characters are basically entitled to x amount and type of magic items at each level).

OK. So we are no longer talking about "suggested Encounters per Day". You seem to have shifted to "required Encounter Level by PC Level" and "required Treasure by PC Level".

In terms of the first, this is not accurate. In 4e, a DM is free to choose whatever Encounter Level he or she wants. What 4e does provide is a a pretty accurate estimate of how difficult that Encounter will be and it does provide "suggested Encounter Level by PC Level" as a logical result of that.

I personally don't see this as being that offensive. It provides me with a good indication of challenge but I am free to choose whatever Encounters I desire. If you don't want to take into account the idea of the level of challenge explicitly, don't.

The danger here is really only for newbie GMs who may feel compelled by the suggestions. However, any GM with some experience shouldn't have any issues.

As for "required Treasure by PC Level", that's a fair call and its a good reason why it is probably the universally disliked part of 4e On saying that, there is flexibility built into that system which can help alot, such as Relics and the way Treasure Parcels are undefined. But I agree the way its mechanically driven makes it a poor idea.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579706The short answer: anyone who runs a sandbox.

The long answer: sandboxes and other old-school games aren't about 'making no reference to the PC power/level', but they don't do this in a mechanistic way, rather in an organic fashion in accordance with the setting; ie. starting the PCs out in a relatively safe area of the world, having less dangerous dungeons more closeby; nothing then to stop the PCs from wandering off into the deep wilderness or even intentionally going to Dragon Mountain in a suicidal fit of pique, but also nothing regulating "well, you've encountered 4 orcs today so that's your limit, whether or not you're in orcville you're not running into anything else until you've had a chance to regain your per/day powers".

But old school gaming and AD&D don't require running a sandbox, right? The beauty of AD&D was its flexibile playstyle and TBH I find the suggestion that it can only be played in one way to be a ridiculous assertion. I have played as many non-sandbox campaigns as sand-box campaigns with AD&D. Hell, I even played in a sand-box D&D4e campaign.

I am getting a little confused as to what your point in this thread has become. It seems to be that "mechanics that drive the flow of play are an abomination to a sandbox style of play".

If that's your point, then I agree. You are blindingly obviously correct.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579751I know my knee-jerk reaction to it was "Why haven't these low-level dungeons been cleared out already? Surely the PCs aren't the only adventurers in the world."

One of the reasons I don't pay much attention to the "verisimilitude! sandboxes!" crowd is that their ideal setting is just as absurd and incoherent if you look at it too closely, it's just absurd and incoherent in a different way than whatever they're throwing their little pantswetting hissyfits about.

Really?
Let me get this straight.
So...a setting that tries to use setting-internal logic instead of non-related systemic derived placement is equally 'absurd and incoherent'?

I must be missing something.

And in many games, there are reasons why adventures may not have been found or are remote enough or the challenge was not there until recently...believe it or not, other people have thought of this.

Quote from: RPGPundit;579763I'm really curious; are you trying to argue that there's no group of gamers who play like this or advocate this?

I am sure there are RPG groups that try and determine a benchmark for how much challenge the PCs can handle in a set period of time. Some RPGs make this easier to determine given the transparency of mechanics, but the concept is not inherent or exclusive to those RPGs. I know DMs who took this exact matter into consideration when running AD&D.