In older versions of D&D, your characters gained experience points for the gold Piece Value of the treasure he collected as well as for defeating his opponents. This created a different power arch for a character's climb to high levels, namely that if your character is high level, he is likely rich and probably spends as much time directing troops and giving orders to his hirelings as he does performing character actions. A character like Drizzt is unlikely in this scenario, that is a high level character going from place to place having adventures.

You have different adventures for powerful rulers than you do for high level characters going from place to place like Hercules and Xena.

How do you feel about this?

Ben (Questing Beast) has a quick (and good) analysis of this. I would definitely try it with some good carousing rules

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wib7T8AcPc

Also, Matt Finch!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHIcLcJ2QM

Playing in a Rules Cyclopedia game right now, works perfectly fine. Encourages you to use your brain and not get into unnecessary fights. When you're high level, all that treasure has likely been spent on a castle or magical research or whatever. It's still possible to have a high-level pauper if you spend the money Conan-style...maybe he gives up his kingdom for adventure?

Like I mentioned in the "What was wrong with AD&D 2e?" thread, where the topic came up, I never liked the idea of XP for Gold. My introduction to that rule wasn't the most conducive for me appreciating such a notion, but even if I had not experienced such an extreme use of it I still wouldn't like the idea at a conceptual level.

• Treasure is its own reward
• It implies that merely finding money makes you inherently more powerful, beyond just its buying power
• It skews the in-game economy by incentivizing the use of treasure to supplement XP gain beyond combat
• There are more effective ways to supplement XP, namely Achievement Awards (completing objectives, overcoming challenges, etc.)

Treasure is its own reward (that is why it's called "treasure"). Money can be used to buy new equipment, healing potions, magic weapons and a host of other stuff that facilitates undertaking and surviving new adventures and getting more XP and treasure. Eventually it can be used to buy property and hire retainers for additional benefits, including helping you transport and store more treasure, as well as establishing a more "political" foothold in the campaign.

Treasure as XP also implies that merely finding money somehow makes you more powerful, beyond just its buying power, which is a silly notion on the face of it. If anything moneyed individuals tend to have less skills--at least of the physical or adventuring variety--since they just tend to pay someone else with those skills to do their dirty job for them. If money equaled power in the adventuring sense then wealthy patrons wouldn't have to hire adventurers to hunt down dangerous monsters or criminals, they'd be able to do it themselves.

Using XP for Gold as the sole supplement to combat XP also incentivizes handing large amounts of treasure as a campaign standard, which causes inflation and skews the game economy. Since this is (presumably) the only type of non-combat XP characters can gain you have to award characters significant amounts of gold to demarcate their achievements every adventure and help them advance without relying entirely on combat XP. This means that characters eventually may have more gold than they can use, specially since equipment in D&D rarely breaks unless you encounter a rust monster or something to that effect. I've heard the argument that I could just adjust or inflate prices to make PCs part with more of their heaps of money, but I wouldn't have to do that if I wasn't handing out more money than should rightly exist in the first place.

Finally, there are more effective ways to supplement combat XP. You could hand out discretionary XP for achievements, ideas and good RP. This ensures that characters don't have to rely entirely on killing things to gain levels without being forced to give more treasure. Some things that could qualify for discretionary XP include the following:

• Completing Objectives (per objective, which could be personal, adventure-related, side quests, rescuing hostages, etc.)
• Overcoming Obstacles (avoiding traps, solving puzzles, crossing through treacherous terrain, etc.)
• Social Encounters (bluffing or bribing your way pass guards, negotiating deals, making new allies, intimidating enemies into avoiding battle, etc.)
• Battle Strategy (setting up ambushes, setting traps, luring enemies down a funnel, etc.)
• Subterfuge (sneak pass guards, pickpocket keys, sabotage enemy defenses, etc.)
• Good Ideas
• Noteworthy RP
• Completing Missions/Adventures (in addition to Completing Objectives)

Quote from: VisionStorm;1138664Like I mentioned in the "What was wrong with AD&D 2e?" thread, where the topic came up, I never liked the idea of XP for Gold. My introduction to that rule wasn't the most conducive for me appreciating such a notion, but even if I had not experienced such an extreme use of it I still wouldn't like the idea at a conceptual level.

• Treasure is its own reward
• It implies that merely finding money makes you inherently more powerful, beyond just its buying power
• It skews the in-game economy by incentivizing the use of treasure to supplement XP gain beyond combat
• There are more effective ways to supplement XP, namely Achievement Awards (completing objectives, overcoming challenges, etc.)

Treasure is its own reward (that is why it's called "treasure"). Money can be used to buy new equipment, healing potions, magic weapons and a host of other stuff that facilitates undertaking and surviving new adventures and getting more XP and treasure. Eventually it can be used to buy property and hire retainers for additional benefits, including helping you transport and store more treasure, as well as establishing a more "political" foothold in the campaign.

Treasure as XP also implies that merely finding money somehow makes you more powerful, beyond just its buying power, which is a silly notion on the face of it. If anything moneyed individuals tend to have less skills--at least of the physical or adventuring variety--since they just tend to pay someone else with those skills to do their dirty job for them. If money equaled power in the adventuring sense then wealthy patrons wouldn't have to hire adventurers to hunt down dangerous monsters or criminals, they'd be able to do it themselves.

Using XP for Gold as the sole supplement to combat XP also incentivizes handing large amounts of treasure as a campaign standard, which causes inflation and skews the game economy. Since this is (presumably) the only type of non-combat XP characters can gain you have to award characters significant amounts of gold to demarcate their achievements every adventure and help them advance without relying entirely on combat XP. This means that characters eventually may have more gold than they can use, specially since equipment in D&D rarely breaks unless you encounter a rust monster or something to that effect. I've heard the argument that I could just adjust or inflate prices to make PCs part with more of their heaps of money, but I wouldn't have to do that if I wasn't handing out more money than should rightly exist in the first place.

Finally, there are more effective ways to supplement combat XP. You could hand out discretionary XP for achievements, ideas and good RP. This ensures that characters don't have to rely entirely on killing things to gain levels without being forced to give more treasure. Some things that could qualify for discretionary XP include the following:

• Completing Objectives (per objective, which could be personal, adventure-related, side quests, rescuing hostages, etc.)
• Overcoming Obstacles (avoiding traps, solving puzzles, crossing through treacherous terrain, etc.)
• Social Encounters (bluffing or bribing your way pass guards, negotiating deals, making new allies, intimidating enemies into avoiding battle, etc.)
• Battle Strategy (setting up ambushes, setting traps, luring enemies down a funnel, etc.)
• Subterfuge (sneak pass guards, pickpocket keys, sabotage enemy defenses, etc.)
• Good Ideas
• Noteworthy RP
• Completing Missions/Adventures (in addition to Completing Objectives)

It allows the DM to put a wimp on the throne instead of King Conan the Barbarian. Do you want the rulers of nations to be wimps that inherited the throne or high level characters that fought to the top and seized the throne or built their own kingdoms, which is better?

I noticed that when they got rid of these rules, the types of high-level adventures they offered changed, they no longer assumed high-level adventures were rulers of kingdoms, which often happened under the old system. Battlesystems was born of this old system because there were so many players with characters running kingdoms, so challenges had to be offered to test the skills of these rulers in defending their kingdoms from all sorts of threats the DM can throw at them. Have you ever played in an adventure like that

Quote from: VisionStorm;1138664Treasure as XP also implies that merely finding money somehow makes you more powerful, beyond just its buying power, which is a silly notion on the face of it. If anything moneyed individuals tend to have less skills--at least of the physical or adventuring variety--since they just tend to pay someone else with those skills to do their dirty job for them. If money equaled power in the adventuring sense then wealthy patrons wouldn't have to hire adventurers to hunt down dangerous monsters or criminals, they'd be able to do it themselves.

"merely finding money" shouldn't be easy. It implies physical or social challenges (all the examples you listed at the end)

"If anything moneyed individuals tend to have less skills--at least of the physical or adventuring variety--since they just tend to pay someone else with those skills to do their dirty job for them" And what if only PCs gain XP by gold through adventures? What if NPC nor Monsters are affected by gold?

Gold per XP is a simple rule, but requires ruling.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138670It allows the DM to put a wimp on the throne instead of King Conan the Barbarian. Do you want the rulers of nations to be wimps that inherited the throne or high level characters that fought to the top and seized the throne or built their own kingdoms, which is better?

With the exception of primitive warrior cultures the king is rarely the greatest or even amongst the best fighters in a kingdom. Hereditary titles are the norm.

This is also a backwards mindset that assumes that you have to include XP for treasure in order for every ruler in your world to be an individually powerful figure, if that is what you want for your world, or for powerful individuals to be able to wrestle the throne from a weak ruler. Neither of those things are the case.

It also assumes that this is an either/or proposition when both can be true at the same time. Some rulers can be wimps who inherited their throne while others could be made rulers who built their own kingdom or seized their throne from a weaker ruler. These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138670I noticed that when they got rid of these rules, the types of high-level adventures they offered changed, they no longer assumed high-level adventures were rulers of kingdoms, which often happened under the old system. Battlesystems was born of this old system because there were so many players with characters running kingdoms, so challenges had to be offered to test the skills of these rulers in defending their kingdoms from all sorts of threats the DM can throw at them. Have you ever played in an adventure like that

Not exactly, and neither did anyone from my immediate cycle who played primarily or exclusively Basic D&D (and some of them played pretty high level characters). Including XP for treasure is neither a guarantee nor a requirement for characters building their own fortresses or becoming rulers of their own kingdoms. And as far as I know Battle systems were born out of D&D originating from war games, and they fell out of favor because people simply didn't use them that often or focused on that type of play, favoring more personal adventures instead. Managing a kingdom or other high-level enterprises, like temples, orders or wizarding academies is a lot of bookkeeping that requires more attention from both, players and DMs, but does not require XP for treasure if that's the type of campaign they want to play.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1138664Like I mentioned in the "What was wrong with AD&D 2e?" thread, where the topic came up, I never liked the idea of XP for Gold. My introduction to that rule wasn't the most conducive for me appreciating such a notion, but even if I had not experienced such an extreme use of it I still wouldn't like the idea at a conceptual level.

Treasure as XP also implies that merely finding money somehow makes you more powerful, beyond just its buying power, which is a silly notion on the face of it. If anything moneyed individuals tend to have less skills--at least of the physical or adventuring variety--since they just tend to pay someone else with those skills to do their dirty job for them. If money equaled power in the adventuring sense then wealthy patrons wouldn't have to hire adventurers to hunt down dangerous monsters or criminals, they'd be able to do it themselves.

1: er? In 2e they actually phased out treasure as EXP and relegated it to optional I believe.

2: Except... not.

In O and AD&D The EXP you got from treasure was increased or decreased based on how much trouble you went through to get it. No effort-No EXP. There is an older thread on this from a year or two ago here. Ever so often someone gets the bright idea of trying to add EXP from Treasure to 5e and we have to shoot it down in various ways either because someone lacks actual understanding of how it originally worked. Or is just trying to shoehorn it willy nilly into a system that allready levels you up fairly fast.

EXP for gold works only when there is a system in place to make sense of it. Otherwise it can and likely will begin to fall apart if used badly. Such as just an arbitrary flat one-for-one EXP for all Gold. Thats stupid. Dont do that. Also note that depending on the edition. You had to actually turn in the gold or treasure or items to get the EXP. If you kept the gold or magic sword you didnt get that EXP.

X: Also keep on mind that older editions of D&D, even 2e had suggestions for awarding EXP for non combat endeavors.

Quote from: Rithuan;1138679"merely finding money" shouldn't be easy. It implies physical or social challenges (all the examples you listed at the end)

That is the reason why all of the examples I listed in the end should be the actual means of gaining non-combat XP, rather than the gold value of treasure. That way only the characters who put in the effort get the XP and characters who put in the effort only to find little or no treasure still get the XP.

Quote from: Rithuan;1138679"If anything moneyed individuals tend to have less skills--at least of the physical or adventuring variety--since they just tend to pay someone else with those skills to do their dirty job for them" And what if only PCs gain XP by gold through adventures? What if NPC nor Monsters are affected by gold?

And what if no one gets XP for gold, but everyone gets XP based on their accomplishments?

Quote from: Rithuan;1138679Gold per XP is a simple rule, but requires ruling.

Same as XP for accomplishments. Except that XP for accomplishments doesn't require using treasure as a middleman (and making characters rich) in order to award non-combat XP through DM rulings.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138653How do you feel about this?

I'm going to stake out a position, and say that xp is the most important resource in leveling games like D&D. Wasting it (yes, I said waste) on xp for gold is a terrible missed opportunity.
Xp incentivises action. Players will wisely try to maximize the risk/reward of any system, and xp for gold heavily incentivises the one activity of collecting huge piles of gold and then possibly spending it if the GM uses a "spend it for the xp" system.
Which isn't bad, if you want your game to revolve around the accumulation and spending of cash.



Very early on, (even in Basic and 1st Ed Advanced) I used xp for goals. A goal, and I'm including gathering and spending gold, incentivizes all kinds of activities, even ones you can't put a cash value on. By giving out xp for gold, and for exploring and interacting and solving problems, incentivises all the kinds of activites that you might include in your game.
Instead of giving out huge lumps of xp for a pile of gold, or even a huge lump of xp for beating a monster, I give out smaller but steadier amounts for anything and everything interesting the PCs may do.

Now, the biggest advantage of the xp for gold system is that it's dead simple to understand, and clear to the players. You know the best way to get xp is to accquire gold and 1 gold = 1 xp. A player can plan around those bits of information.
With xp for goals, you have a bit more muddiness about how much xp carousing at the tavern is worth, for example. If everything is worth some xp, then there is no "Jackpot!" xp to seek out.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1138693That is the reason why all of the examples I listed in the end should be the actual means of gaining non-combat XP, rather than the gold value of treasure. That way only the characters who put in the effort get the XP and characters who put in the effort only to find little or no treasure still get the XP.



And what if no one gets XP for gold, but everyone gets XP based on their accomplishments?



Same as XP for accomplishments. Except that XP for accomplishments doesn't require using treasure as a middleman (and making characters rich) in order to award non-combat XP through DM rulings.

The Murder Hobo is the 3rd+ edition version of the Monte Haul campaign, in the older editions Murder Hoboism wasn't a big problem as characters concentrated of collecting treasure as opposed to killing everything in sight to gain experience.

First edition required thousands of gold pieces to be spent on training to level up.  In Dark Passages I bridged the gap and just gave 1 XP per SP spent on training.  I increased the value of a gold piece by ten to make copper and silver a little more meaningful.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1138694Very early on, (even in Basic and 1st Ed Advanced) I used xp for goals.

When I was reading this I mentally inserted gold for goals and then I realised that I could have a character who had a goal to get gold and therefore complete the circle back to gold for XP.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138670It allows the DM to put a wimp on the throne instead of King Conan the Barbarian. Do you want the rulers of nations to be wimps that inherited the throne or high level characters that fought to the top and seized the throne or built their own kingdoms, which is better?

Show me a wimp with money that wants to protect their throne, I'll show you 20-Conans willing to fight for him, just to get a taste of that gold. It's not binary.

Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138670I noticed that when they got rid of these rules, the types of high-level adventures they offered changed, they no longer assumed high-level adventures were rulers of kingdoms, which often happened under the old system. Battlesystems was born of this old system because there were so many players with characters running kingdoms, so challenges had to be offered to test the skills of these rulers in defending their kingdoms from all sorts of threats the DM can throw at them. Have you ever played in an adventure like that

Being "high level" doesn't mean you *should* be the ruler of a Nation. As you pointed out in your own point above - wimps inherit. In King Conan, his son Conn was definitely no Conan, (I wouldn't call him a wimp) and he certainly wasn't "high-level".

The point being, you as the GM set the conceits of the setting. Level is a measure of individual experience. The whole Gold-as-XP thing always seemed meta and lazy to me. In 1e/2e it was trivially easy to control the progress of your PC's. It still is.

Quote from: Shasarak;1138727When I was reading this I mentally inserted gold for goals and then I realised that I could have a character who had a goal to get gold and therefore complete the circle back to gold for XP.

Sure can. That's the strength of the goal system.

*Edit* With the caveat that having a goal of getting gold under the goal system isn't going to net you the same amount of xp as the xp = gold system. It should be comparable to other goal awards.