Quote from: robiswrong;964369You're not monster-slayers.  You're treasure hunters.  It's Indiana Jones, now Swordy McSwordfighter.

The monsters are, really, obstacles and not the goal.  If there's a monster in a room, and you know there's no treasure, you don't fight them, because why would you?  FIghting monsters isn't the goal.

(Note that I'm not saying this is some kind of platonic ideal of gaming - just that it's the logic that the system was designed around and works with).

Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, this.  Exactly precisely this.

Quote from: robiswrong;964381I know my ten-year-old self was far more interested in kicking large amounts of imaginary ass than in skulking around avoiding combat.

Exactly.  How many times have I talked about when TSR changed its marketing emphasis from adult wargamers to adolescent boys?

Quote from: Lunamancer;964366Maybe you see it that way. Players in general do not. I've yet to see PCs selling off their inventory of magic items. Redundant items, perhaps. But other than that, players understand unambiguously that they prefer to have the benefits associated with the magic item. Even though the figures are set such that there are tradeoffs either way and neither is objectively better.

Players who view their characters as the heroes understand unambiguously that it is better for their characters to do the good deed over cashing in. Players who view their characters as anti-heroes, on the other hand, understand that they're doing the jerky thing and it just adds to how cool and hardcore their characters are.

XP, gold, repute. None of these things are unilaterally indicative of what sort of actions are being "favored" or "encouraged" or which course is correct. They are trade offs. If the GM has done this properly, with the referee hat on, and kept it value-free, then it all comes down to preference. It's impossible to see that for what it is as long as you're analyzing it in a way that is not value-free.

I just want to give the same XP for getting the princess whatever the PCs then do with her. That seems more "value free" to me than me giving extra XP for doing bad things with her compared to returning her gratis to the king. I'm not punishing the PCs who do bad things.

Quote from: S'mon;964403I just want to give the same XP for getting the princess whatever the PCs then do with her.

So what's stopping you?

QuoteThat seems more "value free" to me than me giving extra XP for doing bad things with her compared to returning her gratis to the king. I'm not punishing the PCs who do bad things.

Value free indeed.

Quote from: robiswrong;964369You're not monster-slayers.  You're treasure hunters.  It's Indiana Jones, now Swordy McSwordfighter.

The monsters are, really, obstacles and not the goal.  If there's a monster in a room, and you know there's no treasure, you don't fight them, because why would you?  FIghting monsters isn't the goal.

(Note that I'm not saying this is some kind of platonic ideal of gaming - just that it's the logic that the system was designed around and works with).

That's not answering any of my points though.  And I'm honestly trying to understand here.  

Indiana Jones got into a LOT of fights, so did Conan, Fafrd, Grey Mouser, most of the Fellowship of The Ring and just about any Sword and Sorcery hero.  In fact, most of them were Swordy McSwordfighters as you tried to mock.  And can anyone answer me this?  If fighting is not the point then why is one of the first classes a FIGHTER!  Someone who goes and smashes things with a weapon?  If you're supposed to be 'treasure hunters' only, all you really need is to be a Thief, which showed up LATER in the game system.

And who's saying fighting is the goal, the goal is the treasure.  This much I get.  But the amount of gold/exp you get doesn't dictate the amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle'.  The amount of work needed to trick, fight, sneak, avoid a group of Orcs will be very different from the same number of Goblins, or Skeletons, or Vampire Spawn, or a Beholder, even if the the treasure remains the same amount for all of them.

Hell, you could have some really weird situations, where you have a single goblin guarding the main treasure room, and the Players found it by pure luck.  So they thump the poor lone greenie and get out with 10k gold!  But if they had gone right instead of left, they might have found the main monster (The Beholder) who only has a 100gp gem on his, uh, person, because he keeps his loot somewhere else?

Which would mean that the Goblin is worth more than the Beholder, because of an arbitrary solution the players came up with?

Or does the treasure have to be equal to the monster guarding it, so there are no side rooms where the 'real' treasure is kept?  I've played video games that have done this.  Admittedly, this was decades ago, because they have since evolved into something that made more sense.

But if you have Monsters worth a certain amount of XP, like let's say Snivel the Goblin guarding the treasure room is worth just 100xp.  You still have several options available.  If your players don't want to hurt Snivel all they have to do is sneak by him, and Ding!  100xp!  Or they thump him good, 100xp.  They bribe him with a bit of food and vague promises, and yup, still worth the 100xp.  Simply because the amount of tactics to get around Snivel is minimal.

But facing Z'narflalax the Beholder?  You outsmart him and you'll get buttloads of XP if you succeed, and by outsmart, I mean stealth, or finding another way to deal with him as an obstacle.  Fighting him would likely be a bad choice.

I'm trying to understand the logic here, I really am.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964409That's not answering any of my points though.  And I'm honestly trying to understand here.  

Indiana Jones got into a LOT of fights, so did Conan, Fafrd, Grey Mouser, most of the Fellowship of The Ring and just about any Sword and Sorcery hero.  In fact, most of them were Swordy McSwordfighters as you tried to mock.  And can anyone answer me this?  If fighting is not the point then why is one of the first classes a FIGHTER!  Someone who goes and smashes things with a weapon?  If you're supposed to be 'treasure hunters' only, all you really need is to be a Thief, which showed up LATER in the game system.

The thief showed up later because up until that point, everyone was a thief. Or at least the 'dungeon delver' type that most of the thieves' abilities actually are. The thief class is simply an addition of codified mechanisms to achieve what people were already doing-finding traps, climbing over things, picking locks with daggers, what-have-you. Why the fighting man is listed first, well I of course can't tell you because I'm not Gary. However, it does seem to be the default option in the three-class original concept--if you're not specifically wanting to be a spell-slinger, you would be a soldier or equivalent, which makes sense if you're deriving this game from Chainmail.

QuoteAnd who's saying fighting is the goal, the goal is the treasure.  This much I get.  But the amount of gold/exp you get doesn't dictate the amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle'.  The amount of work needed to trick, fight, sneak, avoid a group of Orcs will be very different from the same number of Goblins, or Skeletons, or Vampire Spawn, or a Beholder, even if the the treasure remains the same amount for all of them.

Hell, you could have some really weird situations, where you have a single goblin guarding the main treasure room, and the Players found it by pure luck.  So they thump the poor lone greenie and get out with 10k gold!  But if they had gone right instead of left, they might have found the main monster (The Beholder) who only has a 100gp gem on his, uh, person, because he keeps his loot somewhere else?

Which would mean that the Goblin is worth more than the Beholder, because of an arbitrary solution the players came up with?

Presumably each monster is guarding (right next to them or elsewhere) an amount of treasure dictated by their stated treasure amounts. In which case, entering a dungeon with a Beholder in it adds the 10k gp to the treasure available compared to a dungeon without one. So in a broad sense, if you get past the Beholder to their treasure, you are 'defeating' them via your own definition used earlier: "then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance." Regardless, beyond beating the Beholder, finding where they have their treasure, getting to it, and getting it out of the dungeon is all part of the 'amount of work' or 'obstacle' you seem to be looking for.

Each just incentivizes different things. If you make gp the goal, then the players are incentivized to "get the treasure and get out," regardless of whether they need the gold or not. If you make defeating monsters the goal, then you incentivize the players to, say, swing through the other wing of the dungeon, even if there is nothing there worth getting and the monsters aren't really harming anyone. Each one is an arbitrary measure of 'success' with clear and obvious benefits to individual scenarios we can contrive, but ultimately are both arbitrarily there to replace the game actually having a specified goal.

And I think that's key. Sometimes you want to have goals for your adventure. Sometimes you want to rescue Princess Buttercup or take the destroy the Ring or retrieve the sacred stones from the Temple of Doom. If you wanted an XP system that rewards Movement towards Goal (as opposed to the other main types like good roleplaying, or the TFT using-your-skills system mentioned earlier), you have to make a goal. Every adventure. And sometimes you don't want to. You just want to dive into this dungeon here and challenge yourself against ghosts and goblins and possibly come out with sacks of lute and maybe a new magic sword. In which case you use an arbitrary metric of success, which can be loot obtained or monsters defeated, both of which are just as arbitrary, but have different pros and cons.

QuoteOr does the treasure have to be equal to the monster guarding it, so there are no side rooms where the 'real' treasure is kept?  I've played video games that have done this.  Admittedly, this was decades ago, because they have since evolved into something that made more sense.

In a broad sense, the treasure is equal to the monster guarding it, but not such that each monster is in a room with a treasure chest in it containing their own contribution to the dungeon's treasure total. Sometimes you defeat a monster and don't know where its treasure is, and you have to find it. That is absolutely part of the "amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle.'"

QuoteBut if you have Monsters worth a certain amount of XP, like let's say Snivel the Goblin guarding the treasure room is worth just 100xp.  You still have several options available.  If your players don't want to hurt Snivel all they have to do is sneak by him, and Ding!  100xp!  Or they thump him good, 100xp.  They bribe him with a bit of food and vague promises, and yup, still worth the 100xp.  Simply because the amount of tactics to get around Snivel is minimal.

That just incentivizes interacting with every monster (if avoiding/evading can be considered interacting), regardless of whether it makes sense. Same as gp=xp creating bizarre incentives.

QuoteBut facing Z'narflalax the Beholder?  You outsmart him and you'll get buttloads of XP if you succeed, and by outsmart, I mean stealth, or finding another way to deal with him as an obstacle.  Fighting him would likely be a bad choice.

I'm trying to understand the logic here, I really am.

And I for one appreciate the effort. While I understand you do not have a great relationship with either TSR/OSR games or the people who play/promote them, I see no reason why that should extend to this specific mechanic, and hope people can explain its value* to you.

*Not that it is the greatest thing ever and you should absolutely use it. simply why it exists, and why it isn't some ridiculous mistake of an idea for the types of gaming for which it was designed.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469If you wanted an XP system that rewards Movement towards Goal (as opposed to the other main types like good roleplaying, or the TFT using-your-skills system mentioned earlier), you have to make a goal. Every adventure. And sometimes you don't want to. You just want to dive into this dungeon here and challenge yourself against ghosts and goblins and possibly come out with sacks of lute and maybe a new magic sword.

Those all sound like goals to me. How could they not be?
I tend to think 4e D&D it best (heresy!) with its major and minor quest awards. Either GM or player sets goals; GM awards XP as they are fulfilled, typically based on the PC level (assuming it's an at-level challenge). So 1st level PCs get  ca 100 XP for major achievements (rescue Princess Buttercup), as well as for significant challenges (climb the Cliffs of Insanity, duel Inigo Montoya) ca 20-25 XP for minor ones (take out a minion guard, give a good speech) and level at 1000 XP. That would work just as well in 1e AD&D - it seems much the same to me as get the giant 500gp gem, 5 PCs get 100 XP each. Loot the ogre of 100gp, 5 PCs get 20 XP each.

Quote from: S'mon;964471Those all sound like goals to me. How could they not be?

Fine. We're replacing goals with goals. My main point is that you don't always want to have to dream up a story ('rescue the townsfolk'), figure out how to adjudicate success ('200 xp for rescuing each of the 20 townsfolk, 500 xp bonus if you get all of them, extra 50 xp penalty if a townsfolk is not just not rescued, but instead die because of your involvement...'), and so forth to be able to have an adventure, and therefor you use an arbitrary yardstick for success.

Depending on how you split your hairs, there are probably infinite ways to build a point system where the accumulation slowly improves your character, but I kind of see them as breaking down into just a few. You can do it with absolutely no reason just to change it up ("we're tired of playing level 1 characters, so now you are all level 2). You can reward specific actions ("100 xp just for showing up for gaming" or "50 xp bonus for good roleplaying"). You can make a 'true experience' system like the TFT example listed above, where your character gets better at the things the repeatedly do in the adventures (or Traveller where you actually study something to get better at it). Or you can reward success towards achieving ones goals (gp = xp, monster's faced = xp). Or of course you can mix and match (2nd edition AD&D with the optional xp rewards turned on, for instance, mixed monsters defeated with a TFT-like thing, where your fighter was rewarded for doing fighter-y things, the thief for doing theif-like things, etc.). I don't see that (without adding some not-universally-agreed-upon game design metric like '_____ is the most important thing for an RPG') any one of these types is inherently better than any other, so I certainly don't think two equally arbitrary choices (monsters faced versus treasure recovered) within one of these groups is inherently better than another. I think it would be more fruitful to say 'X is better as an xp system than Y, if your goal is Z.'

QuoteI tend to think 4e D&D it best (heresy!)

Well, the entire reason I'm taking this effort with CB is that I think one should be able to separate one's feelings for a given edition from one's feelings for its' xp mechanic. So I like this.

Quotewith its major and minor quest awards. Either GM or player sets goals; GM awards XP as they are fulfilled, typically based on the PC level (assuming it's an at-level challenge). So 1st level PCs get  ca 100 XP for major achievements (rescue Princess Buttercup), as well as for significant challenges (climb the Cliffs of Insanity, duel Inigo Montoya) ca 20-25 XP for minor ones (take out a minion guard, give a good speech) and level at 1000 XP. That would work just as well in 1e AD&D - it seems much the same to me as get the giant 500gp gem, 5 PCs get 100 XP each. Loot the ogre of 100gp, 5 PCs get 20 XP each.

It does work just as well, because as I said, they are both success based systems. If you as the DM are okay with making them and adjudicate them (every adventure) than they are practically the same. There will be more variation between DMs, and questions of impartiality. Thus, I totally see why in the early days, with the idea of characters portable between DMs and the thought of tournament play, that they preferred the consistency and reproducibility of the system that they settled upon.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964481It does work just as well, because as I said, they are both success based systems. If you as the DM are okay with making them and adjudicate them (every adventure) than they are practically the same. There will be more variation between DMs, and questions of impartiality. Thus, I totally see why in the early days, with the idea of characters portable between DMs and the thought of tournament play, that they preferred the consistency and reproducibility of the system that they settled upon.

That's a great point about xp for gp giving consistency, esp w published/tournament modules.

To answer the OP...I feel like you're talking about apples and oranges.  Because when you talk about awarding PCs for killing foes, you're giving them XP for the challenge.  When you award points for skill rolls, you're giving them XP for the action.  After all, a character is making "skill rolls" when they hit something, even if you're not calling them that.

So instead of rating the skill roll, I'd rate the hazard.  Do you have a way of calculating XP for traps?  That's the sort of thing you want to do.  Then, you don't give XP for skill rolls.  Instead, you give XP for getting past dangers and challenges.  You might scale based on the approach e.g. there's a lot less risk trying to smooth-talk a bouncer versus sucker punching him, and if he's obviously gullible, then it's a lot easier, too.  But if you have a way of rating obstacles, then you have somewhere to start.

Another way to go is to keep things very abstract, awarding a small number of XP per obstacle overcome.  DCC is a good example of a game that does this.  A single encounter earns anything from 0-4 XP, so complex formulas are not required.

Personally, I don't bother with incentivization or simulation.  My approach was based on a suggestion that I saw on these forums, and it has worked well in practice: I give characters 1 XP per hour of play.  That's real-world time.  I find, in practice, that the players don't pay much attention to XP award systems if they are really into what's happening in the game.  And if they don't care, then why should I worry?  I just want progress to be reasonably paced.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964409Honestly, I don't understand it. What makes it so great. Picking up shinies doesn't strike me as the best way to hone your combat skills, or gain knowledge of arcane mysteries.
…
That's not answering any of my points though.  And I'm honestly trying to understand here.

I'll give it a spin.  

QuoteIndiana Jones got into a LOT of fights, so did Conan, Fafrd, Grey Mouser, most of the Fellowship of The Ring and just about any Sword and Sorcery hero.  …  Someone who goes and smashes things with a weapon?  If you're supposed to be 'treasure hunters' only, all you really need is to be a Thief, which showed up LATER in the game system.

Depending on edition, the XP ratio was about 25% Combat : 75% Loot. The key point, however, is that the significant majority of XP was from loot, and so it was to the party’s long term advantage to avoid combat when possible. Furthermore, if a particular adventuring party was able to significantly minimize combat through stealth, guile, magic, whatever, gaining 75% of the available experience would still allow significant advancement. You weren’t having to spend time and resources repairing or replacing the losses in combat. Choosing to avoid combat isn’t a mechanical penalty.

But, yeah, some people like hacking monsters with swords, so…

QuoteBut the amount of gold/exp you get doesn't dictate the amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle'.  The amount of work needed to trick, fight, sneak, avoid a group of Orcs will be very different from the same number of Goblins, or Skeletons, or Vampire Spawn, or a Beholder, even if the the treasure remains the same amount for all of them.

Certainly it does. The more powerful the monster, EHP, or situation the greater amount of loot there is. If there is 10,000 gp in one area, and 100 gp in the other, the expectation is absolutely that getting that 10,000 gp is going to be significantly harder. That’s why the treasure tables are tied to the strength of the monster.

QuoteHell, you could have some really weird situations, where you have a single goblin guarding the main treasure room, and the Players found it by pure luck.  So they thump the poor lone greenie and get out with 10k gold!  But if they had gone right instead of left, they might have found the main monster (The Beholder) who only has a 100gp gem on his, uh, person, because he keeps his loot somewhere else?

Possible, but unlikely. I do expect there to be some verisimilitude in the scenario construction. In the situation described, I could see some enslaved hobgoblins guarding the beholder’s treasure. The party can try to slaughter them all, or wait to raid the northern caverns until the beholder is in the southern caverns. The scenario you mention above is possible through purely random generation, but I would expect not from anyone experienced.

But, yes, if you wanted to set things up like that, where the players could get fantastically lucky, you could.

The point, however, is that the loot is in proportion to the challenge faced. The XP balance is such that if XP from combat is minimized the XP from loot is sufficient and satisfactory. “The challenge” can be defined broadly- the complex that is controlled by the beholder could have 80% of the loot in one place, well guarded. Or, it could be a complex of multiple factions with the wealth distributed throughout. It is dependent on the PCs to figure out what is going on and what to do about it.

Quote(Monsters worth XP, variant on strength, awarded when killed, bypassed, whatever.)

Yes. That’s why there is some XP from combat. However, with the focus on recovered loot it enables downtime play. You’ve got this money, what are you going to do with it? This is where construction of keeps comes in, as well as paying of bribes to other warlords, treating with djinns, paying off ransoms, paying sages to discover needed intelligence, &c. The increasing need of wealth spurs adventure, should more motivation be required.

Furthermore, there was something Gygax wrote in the DMG that stuck with me. It’s not any deep wisdom, but it was to the effect of “it would make sense to award XP to the thief for thief things, magicians for magical things, and so on. That would create a lot of tedious paperwork. Everyone is going to fight, and everyone needs treasure, and awarding XP for GP is a convenient abstraction for those other skills. If someone carried the team, award them more gold.”

That made a lot of sense to me, especially if you have a lot of situations where team play is rewarded.

QuoteI'm trying to understand the logic here, I really am.

And I appreciate that, which is why I took the time to answer.

Quote from: Edgewise;964520To answer the OP... So instead of rating the skill roll, I'd rate the hazard.  Do you have a way of calculating XP for traps?  That's the sort of thing you want to do.

I concur with this. XP in combat is based on the power of the monster. If you are going to be broader on XP awards, traps, puzzles, social contests, should have some award when overcome. For traps it could be 50 xp per d6 damage, +50% if the trap is hard to find, or whatever.

So, if you award 10 xp for a 1HD orc, you might award 5 xp for a trap that does 1d6 damage once, or 10 xp for a trap that could do 1d6 damage to the whole party once.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469The thief showed up later because up until that point, everyone was a thief. Or at least the 'dungeon delver' type that most of the thieves' abilities actually are. The thief class is simply an addition of codified mechanisms to achieve what people were already doing-finding traps, climbing over things, picking locks with daggers, what-have-you. Why the fighting man is listed first, well I of course can't tell you because I'm not Gary. However, it does seem to be the default option in the three-class original concept--if you're not specifically wanting to be a spell-slinger, you would be a soldier or equivalent, which makes sense if you're deriving this game from Chainmail.

But, soldiers and spell-slingers are not very sneaky by nature, both deal with a form of overt power. Soldiers are the Swordy McSwordfighter as Robiswrong calls them.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469Presumably each monster is guarding (right next to them or elsewhere) an amount of treasure dictated by their stated treasure amounts. In which case, entering a dungeon with a Beholder in it adds the 10k gp to the treasure available compared to a dungeon without one. So in a broad sense, if you get past the Beholder to their treasure, you are 'defeating' them via your own definition used earlier: "then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance." Regardless, beyond beating the Beholder, finding where they have their treasure, getting to it, and getting it out of the dungeon is all part of the 'amount of work' or 'obstacle' you seem to be looking for.

Each just incentivizes different things. If you make gp the goal, then the players are incentivized to "get the treasure and get out," regardless of whether they need the gold or not. If you make defeating monsters the goal, then you incentivize the players to, say, swing through the other wing of the dungeon, even if there is nothing there worth getting and the monsters aren't really harming anyone. Each one is an arbitrary measure of 'success' with clear and obvious benefits to individual scenarios we can contrive, but ultimately are both arbitrarily there to replace the game actually having a specified goal.

And I think that's key. Sometimes you want to have goals for your adventure. Sometimes you want to rescue Princess Buttercup or take the destroy the Ring or retrieve the sacred stones from the Temple of Doom. If you wanted an XP system that rewards Movement towards Goal (as opposed to the other main types like good roleplaying, or the TFT using-your-skills system mentioned earlier), you have to make a goal. Every adventure. And sometimes you don't want to. You just want to dive into this dungeon here and challenge yourself against ghosts and goblins and possibly come out with sacks of lute and maybe a new magic sword. In which case you use an arbitrary metric of success, which can be loot obtained or monsters defeated, both of which are just as arbitrary, but have different pros and cons.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469In a broad sense, the treasure is equal to the monster guarding it, but not such that each monster is in a room with a treasure chest in it containing their own contribution to the dungeon's treasure total. Sometimes you defeat a monster and don't know where its treasure is, and you have to find it. That is absolutely part of the "amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle.'"

Again, that reminds me of old video games by the mid-80's.  You have a monster of a certain level which is a multiple of how much treasure is held by the monster.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469That just incentivizes interacting with every monster (if avoiding/evading can be considered interacting), regardless of whether it makes sense. Same as gp=xp creating bizarre incentives.

But aren't you?  I mean, you're dealing with the encounter, Snivel in this case.  No matter how you avoid/deal with him (or her, who knows.  I'm not checking) you are interacting with the...  I guess that 'encounter' is the best word.  And there's a lot of factors depending on what is guarding the 'treasure'.  But whether or not you're dealing directly with the Goblin, you are dealing with it.  It's like the no choice fallacy, by not making a choice, you HAVE made a choice.  Same thing here.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469And I for one appreciate the effort. While I understand you do not have a great relationship with either TSR/OSR games or the people who play/promote them, I see no reason why that should extend to this specific mechanic, and hope people can explain its value* to you.

*Not that it is the greatest thing ever and you should absolutely use it. simply why it exists, and why it isn't some ridiculous mistake of an idea for the types of gaming for which it was designed.

I've had a bit of an epiphany between the difference of play styles that people are having here playing D&D, and one thing I want to do, and that is to understand all sides.  I don't have anything against the TSR or WoTC, but also don't have anything for them either, they're companies that want(ed) my money.  And if they create something I want, I will give them my money.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964383Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, this.  Exactly precisely this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964384Exactly.  How many times have I talked about when TSR changed its marketing emphasis from adult wargamers to adolescent boys?

Did you just contradict yourself in two consecutive replies?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;964563Did you just contradict yourself in two consecutive replies?

Welcome to Gronan.