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 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42311-What-was-wrong-wtih-AD-amp-D-2E&p=1138474&viewfull=1#post1138474) 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 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42311-What-was-wrong-wtih-AD-amp-D-2E&p=1138474&viewfull=1#post1138474) 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 (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?42311-What-was-wrong-wtih-AD-amp-D-2E&p=1138474&viewfull=1#post1138474) 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.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/72/ee/4072eebf5c9a3a995a0b2a7f85394690.jpg)
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.
Quote from: tenbones;1138749The 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.
Well, the good thing about it is that it gives the players an in-universe, quantifiable way to track their progress. XP as XP has no in-game equivalent, and goals give an ambiguous unknown amount of XP. Also, all types of characters can rally around getting gold for their own causes, good or bad, whereas they may not be interested in saving the orphanage by itself.
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138653In 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?
The D&D version I run is AD&D 1E. And even the other RPGs I play, I'm constantly borrowing ideas from 1E.
I will say that, yes, it is my experience that at higher levels the focus tends to shift towards building your stronghold and followers.
But I don't think that's connected to XP for gold.
Gold gets eaten up from training. In the early levels, it's not uncommon to hit XP caps (1 xp shy of jumping 2 levels) before you can afford the training. XP for gold effectively aligns incentives with goal-seeking rather than indiscriminate monster slaying.
Building up henchmen, hirelings, and followers is its own self-perpetuating reward. Gold comes and goes. And so do some hirelings. But to the extend you build loyalty with NPCs, that keeps stacking.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1138771Well, the good thing about it is that it gives the players an in-universe, quantifiable way to track their progress. XP as XP has no in-game equivalent, and goals give an ambiguous unknown amount of XP. Also, all types of characters can rally around getting gold for their own causes, good or bad, whereas they may not be interested in saving the orphanage by itself.
I'm curious, what do you do about economy?
Because I'm pretty careful about my "bog standard" D&D games. The *vast* majority of most citizenry are on a silver-standard. The assumptions of D&D are that most (at least in 1e/2e) made about 3gp a month in coin/goods for wages. So when my players come across "treasure" and it's hundreds of gold... it's a huge deal. It's funny because when new players that are used to the free-and-loose notion that everything is in these nebulous "Gold Pieces" - then start dropping gold around a village, and everyone starts bending over backwards... they love the attention... until they realize that sometimes they flood the area with gold and it starts "attracting attention".
It puts a social-face on the act of having hard-currency, and sometimes they don't realize that a casual tromp through town doing what they think is no big deal, is the equivalent to the everyday NPC's of rolling up in their Ferarri's and "making it rain" when they drop 2gp for a meal (that costs a copper). I get a lot of mileage out of enforcing the social and economic value of a "gold piece" without having to reward them for XP-per-GP.
I've done it in the past mind you - usually for Rogues and the PC's that help them pull off capers. But generally I don't do it.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1138694By 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.
Yes, this is the best approach IME. If I'm giving out a ton of non-gold XP, all I have to do is reduce treasure values a bit (some D&D gem & jewelry values especially seem OTT, so they make a good candidate), and advancement doesn't get too fast. Or I can get a bit faster advancement by doing both; IME not a problem in pre-3e D&D play.
The problem with gold for XP resulting in mega-rich characters can be trivially solved by awarding XP for the full purchase price of found magic items. That will vastly reduce the amount of spendable cash players end up with. There's no need, then, for any new rules like carousing or spending money for training.
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.
Of course you can, and that's the strength of the goal system. as Ratman_tf points out. But using XP for Gold, you can't really circle back to other types of goals. XP for Gold is just XP for Gold. But XP for Goals is also XP for Gold and XP for every objective that isn't gold.
However, to get nitpicky, I prefer XP for
Achievements myself. Because XP for Achievements includes XP for Gold (or at least the task of finding it, if that's the objective), XP for Goals/Objectives and XP for Overcoming Obstacles or any other type of accomplishment that comes up during play that characters did, but aren't necessarily a "goal". So XP for Achievements > XP for Goals > XP for Gold. ;)
Quote from: tenbones;1138749The whole Gold-as-XP thing always seemed meta and lazy to me.
That's another term and sticking point about XP for Gold I forgot about. The whole thing is just so meta, it's almost purely a game conceit rather than something that makes sense outside of "It's a game! Don't think about it too much!"
Quote from: VisionStorm;1138693Same 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.
With XP for accomplishments, you have to balance the XP awards based on how difficult they are and how long they will take to achieve. At that point, you might as well just award XP per session to set the advancement rate you otherwise would get.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1138866With XP for accomplishments, you have to balance the XP awards based on how difficult they are and how long they will take to achieve. At that point, you might as well just award XP per session to set the advancement rate you otherwise would get.
I don't like using DM fiat very much, I prefer the mechanics of the game determine how experience points are awarded.
I've used XP for GP for decades. It works well. The way I approach it:
- The broad idea behind adventuring is "fortune and glory." That's not set in stone, it's just a kind of default general rule.
- XP for GP is an abstract way of measuring success in the quest for fortune and glory. And it's a goal-oriented reward.
- The rules for XP (and even classes and levels, themselves) are not "laws of nature" that govern how everything and everyone in the game world develops and advances. They're just convenient game rules with PCs in mind.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1138864That's another term and sticking point about XP for Gold I forgot about. The whole thing is just so meta, it's almost purely a game conceit rather than something that makes sense outside of "It's a game! Don't think about it too much!"
The problem I see is that people are taking XP for gold out of context of the campaigns in which it was originally designed. Way back in the pre-AD&D days, the main focus of the campaign was on allowing the players to set they parameters of the adventure. Specifically, how much gold they wanted balanced with how much risk they are willing to take. The deeper in the dungeon they decide to go, the greater the rewards and the higher the risks. In this sort of campaign, the amount of treasure you extract from the dungeon is a direct measure of how successful your dungeon expedition was and, thus, matched perfectly with the awarding of XP.
Almost all modern RPG campaigns are setup using a different approach where the DM chooses the adventure and the players job is to complete that adventure. Here the XP awards are based on completing the assigned scenario and, if using XP for gold, you'd have to reverse engineer the gold awards to match the risk the players took to complete the scenario. Which is an unnecessary step.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1138866With XP for accomplishments, you have to balance the XP awards based on how difficult they are and how long they will take to achieve. At that point, you might as well just award XP per session to set the advancement rate you otherwise would get.
The Pathfinder Society gives a flat 1 xp per session, and characters gain a level every 3 xp. My brother picked up that idea for his home campaigns.
Personally, I don't like smoothing out xp that much. There's no incentive or reward for taking risks or exploring side quests. I sometimes get in the mindset of showing up to a society game to get my 1 xp and that feels wrong.
So for my approach to xp, I put a value on every encounter, say 50 for a simple encounter, 100 for an average encounter, and 150 for a challenging encounter. I then budget the session for how much xp I expect the characters to earn, on average.
I then include a few things outside the "golden path", like hidden loot, side-quests, interesting features, that kind of thing.
So the PCs can earn the bare minimum expected xp, even if they fail and flop around, they can earn the expected average if they do well, and they can earn above average if they take extra risks, find hidden stuff, and generally do exceptionally.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1138866With XP for accomplishments, you have to balance the XP awards based on how difficult they are and how long they will take to achieve. At that point, you might as well just award XP per session to set the advancement rate you otherwise would get.
All of this can be said about XP for Gold as well. The difference is that XP for Gold is a metagame mechanic that rewards you only for already having being rewarded with treasure and nothing else, while XP for accomplishments rewards you for actual stuff that you did (ALL the stuff that you did), even if no treasure was ever found. And it's not like balancing XP awards based on the significance or effort involved in the accomplishment is an insurmountable task.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1138872All of this can be said about XP for Gold as well. The difference is that XP for Gold is a metagame mechanic that rewards you only for already having being rewarded with treasure and nothing else, while XP for accomplishments rewards you for actual stuff that you did (ALL the stuff that you did), even if no treasure was ever found.
Because the players don't get any reward for accomplishments beyond XP...
Favors, assistance, social standing, fame and notoriety?
A lot of this spends better than gold.
There are different advancement tables, here are two examples:
Level : Experience points needed to reach
1 : 0
2 : 1,000
3 : 3,000
4 : 6,000
5 : 10,000
6 : 15,000
7 : 21,000
8 : 28,000
9 : 37,000
10 : 47,000
11 : 58,000
12 : 70,000
13 : 83,000
15 : 98,000
16 : 114,000
17 : 131,000
18 : 149,000
19 : 168,000
20 : 188,000
Here is another advancement table
Level : Experience points needed to reach
1 : 0
2 : 1,000
3 : 2,000
4 : 4,000
5 : 8,000
6 : 16,000
7 : 32,000
8 : 64,000
9 : 125,000
10 : 250,000
11 : 500,000
12 : 1,000,000
13 : 2,000,000
14 : 4,000,000
15 : 8,000,000
16 : 16,000,000
17 : 32,000,000
18 : 64,000,000
19 : 125,000,000
20 : 250,000,000
Now which table would you rather use for character advancement if the DM awarded 1 xp for each gold piece value for treasure?
I would pick the second. I think the second table would be a great one for the Dark Albion campaign as that is a low level campaign that the second table presents a soft ceiling to level advancement, as the character's wealth will greatly outweigh his level at high level, and he will have armies at his command to do his bidding at such high levels.
Quote from: Melichor;1138877Because the players don't get any reward for accomplishments beyond XP...
Favors, assistance, social standing, fame and notoriety?
A lot of this spends better than gold.
No, the vast majority of the time PCs literally don’t get any reward for accomplishments beyond XP (assuming XPs are even awarded for accomplishments). Overcoming challenges is largely meaningless as a social resource, unless that challenge was a social interaction to gain favors. And even then that misses the point that the larger discussion here is about effective means of awarding non-combat XP, and that even if we were going to accept this "argument" as an effective counter to what I said that still doesn't exonerate XP for Gold, it merely implicates some aspects (not even the whole of it) of XP for Accomplishments as well. And it does this only at a tenuous level, given that favors, fame, etc. are intangibles that are only a factor if the DM even remembers to bring that into play and PCs strike while the iron is hot rather than wait till a time when NPCs no longer care, while treasure is perfectly tangible and can be stored indefinitely for later use.
But what online discussion would be complete without nitpicking at the edges of an argument for apparent weaknesses that still don't support the other side of the argument, or fully address the argument being countered?
All this leaves out a few things. First we need to understand what Gygax means by equals or exceeds the value of the party to be awarded xp on a 1 for 1 basis. Just before this on the same page, he has an example of a fight where 2 characters DIED so the survivors got 400 xp for the encounter. His example of DM'ing an adventure, one of the party is DEAD within minutes of the players entering the dungeon (do NOT split the party). To me, and it seems to Gygax, an equal fight is where half the party is going to die, and one or all irrecoverably. He also has a example of encumbrance and carrying loot either in the PHB or DMG where two players (a fighter and a MU I think, 4th or 5th level) who enter a troll's lair and scrounge up 50 or more pounds of silver, copper a couple gold and a few other goods worth 800gp. as they are leaving, the troll comes back. 1st edition, that is going to be a T O U G H fight. I think if you are awarding treasure a5s Gygax laid out, the challenge to the 1 for 1 gp to xp level is going to be WORTH it. His tone, IMO was one where you would earn it every time if you came out of that dungeon with loot, and you would do it with wits, player skill, role playing, and knowing when to run the hell away. It will also create some ramp up on selling lower level magic items at higher levels, but many of the modules for higher level characters seem written at a level where the party needs hirelings, henchmen, and maybe a few followers to make it through the thing, so those low level magic items are likely to be gifts to underlings instead of gold sold xp bags. And given the 1st edition XP charts, people are going to be selling stuff for xp, and the way it was divided for encounters, they have to to advance. XP is given MUCH more freely in 5th edition.
I think gold to xp for 5th is way too much XP. Hell the first 4-5 levels in D&D now are one session each, and possible to hit 2 levels in the first session.
Quote from: oggsmash;1138915All this leaves out a few things. First we need to understand what Gygax means by equals or exceeds the value of the party to be awarded xp on a 1 for 1 basis. Just before this on the same page, he has an example of a fight where 2 characters DIED so the survivors got 400 xp for the encounter. His example of DM'ing an adventure, one of the party is DEAD within minutes of the players entering the dungeon (do NOT split the party). To me, and it seems to Gygax, an equal fight is where half the party is going to die, and one or all irrecoverably. He also has a example of encumbrance and carrying loot either in the PHB or DMG where two players (a fighter and a MU I think, 4th or 5th level) who enter a troll's lair and scrounge up 50 or more pounds of silver, copper a couple gold and a few other goods worth 800gp. as they are leaving, the troll comes back. 1st edition, that is going to be a T O U G H fight. I think if you are awarding treasure a5s Gygax laid out, the challenge to the 1 for 1 gp to xp level is going to be WORTH it. His tone, IMO was one where you would earn it every time if you came out of that dungeon with loot, and you would do it with wits, player skill, role playing, and knowing when to run the hell away. It will also create some ramp up on selling lower level magic items at higher levels, but many of the modules for higher level characters seem written at a level where the party needs hirelings, henchmen, and maybe a few followers to make it through the thing, so those low level magic items are likely to be gifts to underlings instead of gold sold xp bags. And given the 1st edition XP charts, people are going to be selling stuff for xp, and the way it was divided for encounters, they have to to advance. XP is given MUCH more freely in 5th edition.
I think gold to xp for 5th is way too much XP. Hell the first 4-5 levels in D&D now are one session each, and possible to hit 2 levels in the first session.
But what do you think of my second level advancement table, the first one is the one used for 3rd edition D&D and its premise is simple. You take the character level your character is currently at, multiply that level by 1000 xp and add it to the previous amount of xp you needed to attain your current level, so you need 1000 xp to attain 2nd level, 2000 xp more to obtain 3rd level and so on. Under this system characters only gain xp for defeating opponents in combat and for whatever else the DM decides.
In my second chart, you need 1000 xp to attain 2nd level and you double that requirement for 3rd level to 2000 xp, double it again for 4th level to 4000 xp and so on. Under this system, you still get xp for combat encounters for the listed amounts in the DMG as determined by the challenge of each creature defeated, buy you also get xp for each gold piece value of treasure collected. Advancement is quick at first, but then it slows down as the requirement for each additional level, while the CR tables are still being used for pure combat encounters where there is no treasure. So to advance quickly in this system, you need ever mounting piles of treasure, it is in your interest to defeat Intelligent creatures that are likely to have treasure over the dumb kind that don't. There is not much value in killing a T-rex because they don't have treasure, just a lot of teeth!
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138921But what do you think of my second level advancement table, the first one is the one used for 3rd edition D&D and its premise is simple. You take the character level your character is currently at, multiply that level by 1000 xp and add it to the previous amount of xp you needed to attain your current level, so you need 1000 xp to attain 2nd level, 2000 xp more to obtain 3rd level and so on. Under this system characters only gain xp for defeating opponents in combat and for whatever else the DM decides.
In my second chart, you need 1000 xp to attain 2nd level and you double that requirement for 3rd level to 2000 xp, double it again for 4th level to 4000 xp and so on. Under this system, you still get xp for combat encounters for the listed amounts in the DMG as determined by the challenge of each creature defeated, buy you also get xp for each gold piece value of treasure collected. Advancement is quick at first, but then it slows down as the requirement for each additional level, while the CR tables are still being used for pure combat encounters where there is no treasure. So to advance quickly in this system, you need ever mounting piles of treasure, it is in your interest to defeat Intelligent creatures that are likely to have treasure over the dumb kind that don't. There is not much value in killing a T-rex because they don't have treasure, just a lot of teeth!
I think it can work, and IMO if you like it roll with it. I like an idea I saw for this guy's campaign https://dungeonfantastic.blogspot.com/p/my-df-campaign.html where though it is GURPS and advancement is different ( a little all the time, versus level jumps) he awards zero experience to a session if the session awarded no profit. No matter how hard fought, or what you achieved. To me that is pretty rough, but his players agreed to it. I think a sliding scale on all XP based on profits earned could be interesting. When it comes to XP, I think many DM's have a "sweet spot" they and the players seem to have the most fun at with. So to me, XP is pretty subjective, I think SW now uses a GM fiat to bump players xp level (has a progression similar to GURPS) and even D&D has left it to the DM's discretion. I think whatever you and your players agree to and enjoy the most is what is best. Sometimes I think it takes experimenting to see what you and they like the most. I am pretty good with any. I just thought the Gygax way was there for a reason, if you got gold at a 1 for 1 xp award, you likely lost friends and left that adventure with some trauma.
In my 1e game I keep the standard XP tables and XP awards for gold finds over 100gp, but I give monster XP as follows - monster XP is increased for PCs level 1-8, then at roughly the BX book rate for PC level 9+. Very high level characters are usually more interested in ruling their domains and in acquiring more wealth than in killing yet more monsters.
Hit Dice: PC Level 1-8 - PC Level 9+
1/2 hd: 50 - 5
1-1 hd: 75 - 7
1 hd: 100 - 10
1+1 hd: 150 - 15
2 hd: 200 - 20
2+1 hd: 250 - 25
3 hd: 300 - 35
3+1 hd: 350 - 50
4 hd: 400 - 75
4+1 hd: 500 - 125
5 hd: 600 - 175
5+1 hd: 700 - 225
6 hd: 800 - 275
6+1 hd: 1000 - 350
7 hd: 1200 - 450
7+1 hd: 1400 - 550
8 hd: 1600 - 650
8+1 hd: 2000 - 750
9 hd: 2400 - 900
9+1 hd: 2800 - 950
10 hd: 3200 - 1000
10+1 hd: 3600 - 1050
11 hd: 4000 - 1100
11+1 hd: 4500 - 1150
12 hd: 5000 - 1200
12+1 hd: 5500 - 1250
13 hd: 6000 - 1350
13+1 hd: 6500 - 1400
14 hd: 7000 - 1450
15 hd: 8000 - 1500
16 hd: 9000 - 1700
17 hd: 10000 - 2000
18 hd: 11000 - 2100
19 hd: 12000 - 2200
20 hd: 13000 - 2300
21 hd: 14000 - 2500
+1 HD: +1000 - +200
Running PBP, after about 11 months of play the veteran PCs are 4th level.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1138864Of course you can, and that's the strength of the goal system. as Ratman_tf points out. But using XP for Gold, you can't really circle back to other types of goals. XP for Gold is just XP for Gold. But XP for Goals is also XP for Gold and XP for every objective that isn't gold.
However, to get nitpicky, I prefer XP for Achievements myself. Because XP for Achievements includes XP for Gold (or at least the task of finding it, if that's the objective), XP for Goals/Objectives and XP for Overcoming Obstacles or any other type of accomplishment that comes up during play that characters did, but aren't necessarily a "goal". So XP for Achievements > XP for Goals > XP for Gold. ;)
Yes so, in summary, I get XP for Gold, I get XP for having the Goal of getting the Gold and I get XP for the Achievement of getting the Gold.
I like it!
Quote from: oggsmash;1138929I think it can work, and IMO if you like it roll with it. I like an idea I saw for this guy's campaign https://dungeonfantastic.blogspot.com/p/my-df-campaign.html where though it is GURPS and advancement is different ( a little all the time, versus level jumps) he awards zero experience to a session if the session awarded no profit. No matter how hard fought, or what you achieved. To me that is pretty rough, but his players agreed to it. I think a sliding scale on all XP based on profits earned could be interesting. When it comes to XP, I think many DM's have a "sweet spot" they and the players seem to have the most fun at with. So to me, XP is pretty subjective, I think SW now uses a GM fiat to bump players xp level (has a progression similar to GURPS) and even D&D has left it to the DM's discretion. I think whatever you and your players agree to and enjoy the most is what is best. Sometimes I think it takes experimenting to see what you and they like the most. I am pretty good with any. I just thought the Gygax way was there for a reason, if you got gold at a 1 for 1 xp award, you likely lost friends and left that adventure with some trauma.
Murder hobos weren't so much a problem for the early editions, you focused then on gaining treasure and killing things was just on the way to gaining that treasure, now a murder hobo sits on the street looking for things that move so he can kill them and gain experience points for them.
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138986Murder hobos weren't so much a problem for the early editions, you focused then on gaining treasure and killing things was just on the way to gaining that treasure, now a murder hobo sits on the street looking for things that move so he can kill them and gain experience points for them.
I agree, Gygax actively encouraged players to get in and get out with as little conflict as possible, with long rests, slow natural healing, and wondering monster tables that could go from 0 to 60 in a heart beat.
Quote from: oggsmash;1138988wondering monster
(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/search/canvas-print/mirror/break/images/artworkimages/medium/1/pondering-monster-douglas-barnett-canvas-print.jpg)
:)
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1138991(https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/rendered/search/canvas-print/mirror/break/images/artworkimages/medium/1/pondering-monster-douglas-barnett-canvas-print.jpg)
:)
LOL oops.
Quote from: oggsmash;1138915First we need to understand what Gygax means by equals or exceeds the value of the party to be awarded xp on a 1 for 1 basis. Just before this on the same page, he has an example of a fight where 2 characters DIED so the survivors got 400 xp for the encounter.
If you are going to refer to a quote, at least tell us what you are quoting.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1138993If you are going to refer to a quote, at least tell us what you are quoting.
Page 85 1st edition DMG.
I think the tone through out in examples in the book and the PHB (can not remember where the troll encounter was) that a 1 for 1 gold to xp ratio was not so straightforward. But the DMG is sort of full of things like that, where he says to use your judgement, but then shows his judgement to be.....harsh. My bad.
Quote from: Shasarak;1138983Yes so, in summary, I get XP for Gold, I get XP for having the Goal of getting the Gold and I get XP for the Achievement of getting the Gold.
I like it!
And XP for any significant non-combat non-gold related thing you did while getting the gold. :p
Quote from: Tom Kalbfus;1138986Murder hobos weren't so much a problem for the early editions, you focused then on gaining treasure and killing things was just on the way to gaining that treasure, now a murder hobo sits on the street looking for things that move so he can kill them and gain experience points for them.
I often see this sort of claim made, but that was not exactly my experience from being introduced into the hobby by a group of munchkins who only played Basic D&D (and also Robotech and RIFTS, but that came after). My campaigns were the first somewhat RP focused campaigns that went beyond killing things and taking their stuff in my old circle, and I played 2e (also the first from that circle to step beyond Basic).
Gaining gold for XP in OD&D was genius, especially when you combine the concept with wandering monsters. The game instantly evolves from just having "encounter after encounter" to tactical and strategic thinking about how to steal the most treasure by using the least resources.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1139068Gaining gold for XP in OD&D was genius, especially when you combine the concept with wandering monsters. The game instantly evolves from just having "encounter after encounter" to tactical and strategic thinking about how to steal the most treasure by using the least resources.
Yep. The platonic ideal dungeon sortie of OD&D is entering the dungeon, robbing everyone blind, and exiting it, without having a single round of combat.
Quote from: Luca;1139080Yep. The platonic ideal dungeon sortie of OD&D is entering the dungeon, robbing everyone blind, and exiting it, without having a single round of combat.
The dungeon consists of one room with one million gold pieces in it, but to get that, you have to get past the goblin guarding the treasure, he is armed with a dagger and a sling shot, once you deal with that threat, somewhere buried amongst the pile of gold pieces is a mouse trap which inflicts 1 hit point of damage if sprung. To disable this trap a Rogue needs to make a DC check of 11 or higher, otherwise he springs the trap and needs to make a reflex save to avoid taking 1 hit point of damage.
Quote from: tenbones;1138788I'm curious, what do you do about economy?
Because I'm pretty careful about my "bog standard" D&D games. The *vast* majority of most citizenry are on a silver-standard. The assumptions of D&D are that most (at least in 1e/2e) made about 3gp a month in coin/goods for wages. So when my players come across "treasure" and it's hundreds of gold... it's a huge deal. It's funny because when new players that are used to the free-and-loose notion that everything is in these nebulous "Gold Pieces" - then start dropping gold around a village, and everyone starts bending over backwards... they love the attention... until they realize that sometimes they flood the area with gold and it starts "attracting attention".
It puts a social-face on the act of having hard-currency, and sometimes they don't realize that a casual tromp through town doing what they think is no big deal, is the equivalent to the everyday NPC's of rolling up in their Ferarri's and "making it rain" when they drop 2gp for a meal (that costs a copper). I get a lot of mileage out of enforcing the social and economic value of a "gold piece" without having to reward them for XP-per-GP.
I've done it in the past mind you - usually for Rogues and the PC's that help them pull off capers. But generally I don't do it.
Well, most of my games take place in the Forgotten Realms. If they roll up to a small town, I emphasize how the townspeople see them as a big deal, but if they're in a city the power level is such that a lot of people are slinging a lot of money around. So I don't really worry about that part -- though my games are almost always levels 1-5, so there isn't THAT much gold being acquired.
When it gets higher levels I understand the amount of gold you need to have to level up can get astronomical, but I'm pretty much never there.
Though if you're worried about that, you could just make it Silver for XP or even copper for XP and downscale the worth of treasure they get. Instead of a vase worth 100 gp that gives them 100 XP, they find a vase worth 100 silver that gives them 100 XP.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1139068Gaining gold for XP in OD&D was genius, especially when you combine the concept with wandering monsters. The game instantly evolves from just having "encounter after encounter" to tactical and strategic thinking about how to steal the most treasure by using the least resources.
Agreed. Warning: Long post to follow!
I think one of the overlooked factors in the frequent arguments over player agency in RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, is its representation in the rules. Some DMs may be gifted with players who, as soon as the rolling of characters is completed, have an idea of what their characters want and a plan as to how to gain it in the game world. I most frequently see this happen among players who have played in a campaign for a long period of time, or at least in the same game "world" for a long time. This is most probably because their familiarity with the fictional world gives them a set of expectations as to how the world works and where the solutions of their problems can be found.
For example, imagine that you pulled up your online bank statement and discover that someone had fraudulently charged your account for a large sum of money. Because you live in this real world, you know that you should contact the bank and possibly the police. You know that most banks have contact information available on their websites. You know that most police departments have units assigned to investigate financial crimes. You know the minor steps to take in order to make major steps possible (recovering your money and having the responsible person arrested).
Now imagine your characters discover that some of their wealth has been stolen from the bank that they have been using. Without a lot of handholding from the DM (or a familiarity with the game world that comes from long term engagement in the setting with a lot of different background material having been imparted), the characters will probably have no idea how to recover their money. Does the bank offer any magical services to help find the culprits? Is there a relevant law enforcement agency to help? What steps should they take, and in what order, to help with this problem?
So, you see, in most cases, even "player generated" adventures (and by this, I mean adventures that come from the players deciding what their characters will pursue) are still mostly bound by what information, strategies, tactics, and guides can be imparted by the DM. It may not be as "railroady" as a published adventure or "save-the-world" type adventure, but it is still dependent on the DM providing a framework for the goals to be achieved, including the steps taken to do so. A character who desires a magic sword, for example, and researches how to gain one is basically asking the DM, "Tell me what steps I need to take in order to get X." Even hex crawls are not immune to this, as no matter what the players choose to do, they are bounded by the world the DM has created around them.
So, what tends to happen (in my experience), is that the players would rather just get rid of the middle man, and wait for the DM to provide a motivation for their characters, since he's going to have to get you from point A to Z, anyway. Even my players who are very good roleplayers and have a specific character goal in mind generally just give me the overaching goal and expect me, as the DM, to give them the step-by-step instructions as how to get there.
I think this is a reaction to the changing mechanics of D&D, especially in the new editions. Honestly, what most of the players want is for their characters to progress, and that is usually defined by gaining levels. While you might play with the unicorns who would be perfectly fine if they stayed 3rd level for the entire multi-year campaign, my group (most of whom I've been playing with for 35+ years) would revolt. Because D&D doesn't have a defined "winning" condition, I would say that the vast majority of the people I've played with (both in my home group and in various "organized play" leagues) see "winning" as synonymous with "gaining power and levels." This undefined win-condition is also behind the growth of published adventure paths and the like. It gives the players a motivation for their characters to do the things that earn them experience. Think about it. If you discovered a world-shaking power was threatening the very lives of you and your friends, the vast majority of us would run like hell! But running from danger, becoming a shopkeeper, and any other path to wealth and/or power doesn't "win" D&D. So players are looking for reasons to do the dangerous things that DMs put in front of them in order to justify gaining xp in order to get closer to "winning." Hence the "murder hoboes" who wander around looking for reasons to fight (for xp) and solve other people's problems (for xp).
I think the real benefit of the original gold to xp rule was that it solved both of the previous problems I've talked about. First, it gives a clear connection between an activity characters can perform in the game world and the meta-game gaining of power conferred by experience points. If I want to "win," find treasure and take it (and maybe spend it, depending on the rules). This solves the extended sophistry necessary to justify many of the illogical responses necessary by a character to put themselves in a position to gain xp ("Sure, king, I'll volunteer to go down into the cave no one has every returned from and solve your problem, rather than just riding off and starting a haberdashery in order to make my fortune")
Secondly, it helps bridge the knowledge barrier of the steps to take in order to reach the characters' goals. Most players can come up with methods of getting money, especially if the setting is full of monsters with treasure, dungeons with treasure, banks and wealthy nobles to rob, etc. They actually have more choice as to how to go about getting rich than they do in "defeating the dread lich X," which is likely to come with a list of necessary steps that the players are dependent on the DM to provide.
This is one of the greatest weaknesses in 5e, in my opinion. Treasure is completely superfluous in 5e, unless the DM comes up with their own mechanics and/or money-sinks. There's no reason to seek wealth, other than the most basic motivation most people have to become wealth, and certainly no reason to risk much for it. The lack of use for treasure in 5e has narrowed the focus of the game down to dutifully following the plot the DM hands to you. Sure, you can play the game differently, but not without the DM reinventing the rules to give the treasure and its acquisition some reason.
So I think that people dismiss the genius of gold = xp too quickly. They get caught up in the apparent "metagaming" aspect to realize that all of the other solutions to lack of player/character motivation are just as metagamey, but with less mechanical support in the game. The more games I play, the greater the genius of the pioneers of RPGs seems to be...
2e had all the options, and also suggested you could cap XP per session so as to avoid massive level skips (such as from high lvl arties power leveling new members from Big Mobs or Big GP). It really was/is a discussion of table preference and campaign best practices over strict system. I could see a GM running that GP=XP to its logical conclusion, without training (also a mentioned option), because they think it is fun!... only to have a few players chafe against the mixed expectations.
This is why "Same Paging" the table (getting everyone on board; clarifying the expectations) is useful. :) Can this too end up a mired slog through social politics? Of course, especially as we've seen with the rise of the "X Card" (which is the exact opposite of clarifying expectations beforehand, too passive for my tastes).
That said, I recommend people try Standard Rules (Rules as Written, RAW) at least once to see whether they enjoy it. That baselines helps when adjusting later.
Quote from: Luca;1139080Yep. The platonic ideal dungeon sortie of OD&D is entering the dungeon, robbing everyone blind, and exiting it, without having a single round of combat.
Which is fun for a while. But I think a lot of groups eventually move past that, and add more variety to their campaigns. Basic, for example, was built on the idea that you move from the Dungeon sortie, to overland adventures, to domain management.
Basic D&D had such a strong focus on robbing monsters blind without ever initiating combat, if possible, it didn't even have rules for stealth initially on its first printing. And when it finally added them, it was just one single class that could move about undetected, and it only had a piss poor chance to do it initially, until higher levels.
And before anyone brings it up, no, the existence of the Invisibility spell does not prove that therefore the focus of the game was to avoid fights and steal stuff, even if such spells could technically be used to such ends, since not everyone had access to them, even if they could potentially learn to cast them eventually. Could you make that the focus of the game in your campaign? Sure, but the system itself wasn't particularly geared to support that style of play.
I think people are projecting their own interpretation of the game into it, and presenting old D&D as this cornucopia of ingenious strategy built around just one thing, when in reality it wasn't particularly good at doing that one thing (at least stealthily, while avoiding a fight), and plenty of people used it to play hack n slash (which was far better supported by the system). Just because that's the way you played it, and XP for Gold particularly rewarded it, that doesn't mean other styles of play weren't also prevalent, possible or desirable. And it also doesn't prove that XP for Gold was an adequate tool to supplement XP out of combat, since that doesn't support anything but treasure hunting specifically (which is NOT the only thing that you can do in the game) and there's no guarantee that you would even find it.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1139774Basic D&D had such a strong focus on robbing monsters blind without ever initiating combat, if possible, it didn't even have rules for stealth initially on its first printing. And when it finally added them, it was just one single class that could move about undetected, and it only had a piss poor chance to do it initially, until higher levels.
And before anyone brings it up, no, the existence of the Invisibility spell does not prove that therefore the focus of the game was to avoid fights and steal stuff, even if such spells could technically be used to such ends, since not everyone had access to them, even if they could potentially learn to cast them eventually. Could you make that the focus of the game in your campaign? Sure, but the system itself wasn't particularly geared to support that style of play.
I think people are projecting their own interpretation of the game into it, and presenting old D&D as this cornucopia of ingenious strategy built around just one thing, when in reality it wasn't particularly good at doing that one thing (at least stealthily, while avoiding a fight), and plenty of people used it to play hack n slash (which was far better supported by the system). Just because that's the way you played it, and XP for Gold particularly rewarded it, that doesn't mean other styles of play weren't also prevalent, possible or desirable. And it also doesn't prove that XP for Gold was an adequate tool to supplement XP out of combat, since that doesn't support anything but treasure hunting specifically (which is NOT the only thing that you can do in the game) and there's no guarantee that you would even find it.
Your mistake is in assuming that Old School RPGs needed rules for something in order for it to be viable. This is a purely modern take on RPGs (there must be a
rule, or it can't be done!). Rules existed for two purposes back then: limits (how much can you carry, how many enemies are affected by this spell?) and probabilities (how likely is this to succeed, how hurt is he?). Most of the things we did in game had no rules or rolls attached to them. If you wanted to sneak up to the monster, you explained to the GM how you moved, to where, with what precautions. If it seemed a sure thing, it happened. If the DM thought there was a chance of failure, he told you to roll ("you've got a 2-in-3 chance of succeeding, so roll a d6..."). The need for stealth rules is a sign of how much hand-holding the modern gamer wants, not how much sneaking we did in D&D or AD&D. I shudder when I get to a 5e table and ask the DM to describe the room so I can figure out where to search, and the DM responds with "roll perception and you find everything on a 14+". Over-codification has its own dangers to role-playing...
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139794Your mistake is in assuming that Old School RPGs needed rules for something in order for it to be viable. This is a purely modern take on RPGs (there must be a rule, or it can't be done!). Rules existed for two purposes back then: limits (how much can you carry, how many enemies are affected by this spell?) and probabilities (how likely is this to succeed, how hurt is he?). Most of the things we did in game had no rules or rolls attached to them. If you wanted to sneak up to the monster, you explained to the GM how you moved, to where, with what precautions. If it seemed a sure thing, it happened. If the DM thought there was a chance of failure, he told you to roll ("you've got a 2-in-3 chance of succeeding, so roll a d6..."). The need for stealth rules is a sign of how much hand-holding the modern gamer wants, not how much sneaking we did in D&D or AD&D. I shudder when I get to a 5e table and ask the DM to describe the room so I can figure out where to search, and the DM responds with "roll perception and you find everything on a 14+". Over-codification has its own dangers to role-playing...
Yes, I've heard such defense of early D&D rules before. Yet in this very post you tell me that:
QuoteRules existed for two purposes back then: limits (how much can you carry, how many enemies are affected by this spell?) and probabilities (how likely is this to succeed, how hurt is he?).
But conclude that:
QuoteI shudder when I get to a 5e table and ask the DM to describe the room so I can figure out where to search, and the DM responds with "roll perception and you find everything on a 14+".
...which deals with handling probabilities for success.
So this really isn't about modern games "hand-holding" players, but about modern games doing things differently from what grognards are used to.
These additions in the rules didn't come about from a need for hand holding, but from the need to define a character's talents and the impact that their abilities could have on their capacity to succeed in certain actions (because otherwise WTF was the point of ability scores?). Which was an issue that often came up in play when I played Basic (my 1st RPG) and the reason I couldn't run away from it fast enough when I discovered more elaborate games, including AD&D 2e--which still had the problem of treating stealth like some exclusive ability only thieves or rangers could attempt, but at least had better options for defining character talents, as well as more options for customization.
And games featuring skills aren't even a modern thing, because they already existed since the early 80s (if not late 70s) all over the place in games other than D&D. It was only D&D that always lagged behind in these areas.
But none of this really addresses the issue of whether old D&D truly supported such styles of play all. All that saying that a DM could (arbitrarily) assign me a 2 in 3 chance on a d6 tells me is that DMs could house rule it by DM fiat. Which barely places old D&D a notch above Cops & Robbers.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1139774Basic D&D had such a strong focus on robbing monsters blind without ever initiating combat, if possible, it didn't even have rules for stealth initially on its first printing. And when it finally added them, it was just one single class that could move about undetected, and it only had a piss poor chance to do it initially, until higher levels.
And before anyone brings it up, no, the existence of the Invisibility spell does not prove that therefore the focus of the game was to avoid fights and steal stuff, even if such spells could technically be used to such ends, since not everyone had access to them, even if they could potentially learn to cast them eventually. Could you make that the focus of the game in your campaign? Sure, but the system itself wasn't particularly geared to support that style of play.
I think people are projecting their own interpretation of the game into it, and presenting old D&D as this cornucopia of ingenious strategy built around just one thing, when in reality it wasn't particularly good at doing that one thing (at least stealthily, while avoiding a fight), and plenty of people used it to play hack n slash (which was far better supported by the system). Just because that's the way you played it, and XP for Gold particularly rewarded it, that doesn't mean other styles of play weren't also prevalent, possible or desirable. And it also doesn't prove that XP for Gold was an adequate tool to supplement XP out of combat, since that doesn't support anything but treasure hunting specifically (which is NOT the only thing that you can do in the game) and there's no guarantee that you would even find it.
I think that you are trying to look at DnD through a very progressive lens that does not reflect the actual play experience very well.
For example. The current POV of many players is that if it is not written on your character sheet that you can not do it, so in that case if you do not have a stealth skill then you would be right that you can not 'move silently' through the dungeon.
However in DnD the challenge was actually to the Player rather then the Character. So if a Player wants to get past a guard dog then what can he think up that would let him sneak past. Can he throw the dog some meat from his rations? Can he go around the dog and climb in through the back window? Can he activate his Mini Magic Castle item that grows into a real castle and use it to squash the dog? The whole point was, the dog does not have any treasure so is there a way to by pass it without losing any hp rather then lets all run in together and have the guard dog fight.
Quote from: Shasarak;1139829I think that you are trying to look at DnD through a very progressive lens that does not reflect the actual play experience very well.
For example. The current POV of many players is that if it is not written on your character sheet that you can not do it, so in that case if you do not have a stealth skill then you would be right that you can not 'move silently' through the dungeon.
And those players would be wrong, even according to the very rule books that include such skills, since Stealth is one of many actions that could be attempted without training--in basically any game from any system that includes them. Being skilled in it merely improves your chances when attempting such actions rather than being a requisite for them. This is an issue of player stupidity rather than the rules being an impediment for play.
Quote from: Shasarak;1139829However in DnD the challenge was actually to the Player rather then the Character. So if a Player wants to get past a guard dog then what can he think up that would let him sneak past. Can he throw the dog some meat from his rations? Can he go around the dog and climb in through the back window? Can he activate his Mini Magic Castle item that grows into a real castle and use it to squash the dog? The whole point was, the dog does not have any treasure so is there a way to by pass it without losing any hp rather then lets all run in together and have the guard dog fight.
I've had people attempt stuff like this all the time. Doing stuff like this is practically the point of playing tabletop instead of video games, which are more limited in what you can do. People will often ask me about the environment to weigh their options, in case there's something they could use or somewhere they could climb to avoid obstacles or fights, or at least get into a better position before a battle. Of course, if one of the characters is a druid or ranger they would almost invariably try to use Animal Empathy on the guard dog, but even then they would probably use up one of their rations to improve their chances.
Having skills in the game does not prevent this, it merely expands your options or improves your chance to do stuff (such as climbing) you often could have attempted anyways.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1139825So this really isn't about modern games "hand-holding" players, but about modern games doing things differently from what grognards are used to.
These additions in the rules didn't come about from a need for hand holding, but from the need to define a character's talents and the impact that their abilities could have on their capacity to succeed in certain actions (because otherwise WTF was the point of ability scores?). Which was an issue that often came up in play when I played Basic (my 1st RPG) and the reason I couldn't run away from it fast enough when I discovered more elaborate games, including AD&D 2e--which still had the problem of treating stealth like some exclusive ability only thieves or rangers could attempt, but at least had better options for defining character talents, as well as more options for customization.
But none of this really addresses the issue of whether old D&D truly supported such styles of play all. All that saying that a DM could (arbitrarily) assign me a 2 in 3 chance on a d6 tells me is that DMs could house rule it by DM fiat. Which barely places old D&D a notch above Cops & Robbers.
"Old D&D" did support that kind of play, because we played it that way.
So, if the rulebook says you have a 2-in-3 chance of succeeding, that's somehow different than the DM saying it? I don't get this whole "DM fiat" complaint. I'd much rather trust the judgement of the person sitting at my table listening to my plan to evaluate my chances than to simply have the rules declare that my chance of doing X is based on my perception skill. And before you start off with DMs adding modifiers, that's as much DM "fiat" as setting the chance.
The modern game IS different, though the entire point of WoTC talking about "rulings, not rules" is a recognition that changing the game has lost something it used to have. The increase in consistency from having everything follow the same mechanical pattern has also destroyed some of the immersion of the game. If you think "I'm rolling Investigation to search the room" is the same as "I see if I can move the idol to see if there is a secret compartment," then your definition of "role playing" is light-years away from mine (besides, why should my skill affect whether or not I can find the false bottom of the drawer when I say I'm looking for a false bottom, any more than it should help me find the false bottom when I haven't even said what I'm searching). That might be "Cops and Robbers" to you, but a D&D where every event is determined by a roll against a previously determined value
is a boardgame... just without the board.
I don't know why you think the term "grognard" is some kind of insult. Not all old people are wise, but young people almost never are wise. Wisdom takes experience. Hell, half the problems in this world are caused by ignorant young people, who don't even know how ignorant they are, telling everyone who has lived a lot longer to shut up and move aside. Then, after whatever dumbass thing they are attempting blows up in their face, they come running back to get bailed out and crying that we didn't protect them from their own stupidity.
Now get off my lawn! :D
Quote from: VisionStorm;1139844Having skills in the game does not prevent this, it merely expands your options or improves your chance to do stuff (such as climbing) you often could have attempted anyways.
I disagree, like Eirikrautha mentioned, having skills shifts the game from the Player to the Character. If you have a Perception skill that determines what you can find when you are searching then players are just going to roll their Perception skill. If you dont have that skill then the Players have to think about how their characters are going to search the room.
Sure you can do exactly what you would do playing DnD when you are playing something with Perception but how does that help you if you have already rolled 14+ on your Perception skill? The DM can only give you the relevant information once.
Quote from: Shasarak;1139872I disagree, like Eirikrautha mentioned, having skills shifts the game from the Player to the Character. If you have a Perception skill that determines what you can find when you are searching then players are just going to roll their Perception skill. If you dont have that skill then the Players have to think about how their characters are going to search the room.
Sure you can do exactly what you would do playing DnD when you are playing something with Perception but how does that help you if you have already rolled 14+ on your Perception skill? The DM can only give you the relevant information once.
You can always go with the Dragon Quest technique of having the ability but explaining it in a rather non-standard way. There's a whole section of the rules about it (4.3) that talks about some of the narrow cases where it is expected to be used. The section ends with an injunction that the GM should not use a perception check more than once per hour. That check is limited to a single character that the GM picks as most suitable to make it. The last paragraph is this gem:
QuoteThe GM will stint those players who constantly request use of the Perception roll when it comes times for experience awards ... A player who allows dice-rolls to usurp his mind deserves no better.
Ha! Plus on all that, Perception is an ability score like strength, not a skill in DQ. So everyone has it, but not necessarily to a great degree. It is mainly in there to provide boost to other abilities (spotting an ambush, seeing someone pick your pocket) which are detailed elsewhere in the rules and usually more defensive in nature than something the player rolls. Basically, it exists for those times when the GM thinks he doesn't have a good way to give you the information your character would know in the game world but your player does not. Or the GM thinks that giving you that information is slightly important but not really all that interesting to play out. Using it as an actual perception check is a secondary function, almost an afterthought.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139861"Old D&D" did support that kind of play, because we played it that way.
Sure, and AD&D 2e also supported modern firearms, because I once house ruled one into the game, used by a trench coat wearing plane-hopping dimensional travel who came from the modern world (it was the 90s, gotta have a gun totting guy in a trench coat somewhere :p). So AD&D 2e is a game about modern firearms despite not having anything about them in the core rules.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139861So, if the rulebook says you have a 2-in-3 chance of succeeding, that's somehow different than the DM saying it? I don't get this whole "DM fiat" complaint. I'd much rather trust the judgement of the person sitting at my table listening to my plan to evaluate my chances than to simply have the rules declare that my chance of doing X is based on my perception skill. And before you start off with DMs adding modifiers, that's as much DM "fiat" as setting the chance.
No, the rules saying that you have a 2-in-3 chance of succeeding is the game providing actual supporting material for that type of action. If you have to make it up, and the system doesn't even provide guidelines for how to handle that specific type of thing, then by definition the game doesn't support it. Even if you somehow bring it into the game. You having a sports car in D&D because you house ruled one into the game doesn't make D&D a car racing game.
And no, I'm generally not the trusting type (in or out of the game). I've had plenty of DMing who didn't know WTF they were doing, which is one of the reason I usually prefer taking that job. But that's beside the point.
And yes, the DM adding modifiers to your skill rolls (or setting a difficulty number) is a type of DM Fiat (one usually based on guidelines provided by the game). But the issue isn't the existence of DM Fiat, the issue is complete and utter reliance on it for almost anything to even exist in the game.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139861The modern game IS different, though the entire point of WoTC talking about "rulings, not rules" is a recognition that changing the game has lost something it used to have. The increase in consistency from having everything follow the same mechanical pattern has also destroyed some of the immersion of the game. If you think "I'm rolling Investigation to search the room" is the same as "I see if I can move the idol to see if there is a secret compartment," then your definition of "role playing" is light-years away from mine (besides, why should my skill affect whether or not I can find the false bottom of the drawer when I say I'm looking for a false bottom, any more than it should help me find the false bottom when I haven't even said what I'm searching). That might be "Cops and Robbers" to you, but a D&D where every event is determined by a roll against a previously determined value is a boardgame... just without the board.
Oh boy...there's a lot of unpack here. And almost none of it mentioned anywhere in my post. Basically you're laying out a straw scenario where you (hypothetically) attempt a very specific action (move an idol), hoping to get a very specific outcome (find a hidden compartment; which you have no way of knowing even exists) which somehow is an indictment of skills, because some DM somewhere could hypothetically make you roll Investigate for that. Except that it entirely depends on the situation.
If the idol can be easily removed and there in fact is something hidden below it, or whatever, then
obviously you should not have to roll for it. But that's the way skill systems are supposed to work, and EVERY single game that uses skills specifies that somewhere in the section dealing with skill rolls. You're not supposed to make rolls for automatic stuff (EVER! In ANY game) and if the DM makes you roll (assuming it's truly an automatic thing, and there isn't more to it) then the problem is with the DM, not the rules that already tell you not to make fucking skill rolls unless they're necessary.
Now, on the other hand...if there's some sort of trick to moving the idol, or if it's not the idol itself but some other related thing that triggers the hidden compartment (assuming one even exists), then yes, that might require an Investigation roll. But if fiddling with the idol is along the right track to find whatever is there then you should get a bonus (or low difficulty number), since you're already in the right area, you just need to figure out how to trigger the mechanism or whatever.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139861I don't know why you think the term "grognard" is some kind of insult. Not all old people are wise, but young people almost never are wise. Wisdom takes experience. Hell, half the problems in this world are caused by ignorant young people, who don't even know how ignorant they are, telling everyone who has lived a lot longer to shut up and move aside. Then, after whatever dumbass thing they are attempting blows up in their face, they come running back to get bailed out and crying that we didn't protect them from their own stupidity.
Now get off my lawn! :D
Nothing about your loaded post is an indication of wisdom. :p
Quote from: Shasarak;1139872I disagree, like Eirikrautha mentioned, having skills shifts the game from the Player to the Character. If you have a Perception skill that determines what you can find when you are searching then players are just going to roll their Perception skill. If you dont have that skill then the Players have to think about how their characters are going to search the room.
Sure you can do exactly what you would do playing DnD when you are playing something with Perception but how does that help you if you have already rolled 14+ on your Perception skill? The DM can only give you the relevant information once.
I disagree with your disagreements. Sometimes skill checks are necessary and sometimes they're not. And sometimes specific player actions are supposed to negate the need for skill rolls.
If you specifically try to move an idol and there in fact is a hidden compartment beneath it--with NO special trick to reveal it (just lift the idol and it's there)--then you're not supposed to need a skill roll and the DM that asks for one is an idiot. And the players that insist on a skill roll in lieu of maybe lifting up the idol right in their face are also idiots. These are user problems, not bugs in the software.
To quote your original statement (which is where this tangent started):
QuoteBasic D&D had such a strong focus on robbing monsters blind without ever initiating combat, if possible, it didn't even have rules for stealth initially on its first printing. And when it finally added them, it was just one single class that could move about undetected, and it only had a piss poor chance to do it initially, until higher levels.
You are wrong about this. Rules were not a necessary indicator of the game's actual play. Everything else you have said (and I have responded to) is irrelevant next to this point. No matter what other things you try to throw out to obfuscate this point, it does not matter. Your initial statement is incorrect on its face.
D&D evolved from an expanded wargame to a role playing game. It did so with the expectation that the players would describe their characters' response to situations in the game world and the DM would adjudicate the results. Because of its chassis was built on a wargame, the combat of the game was more formalized than some other parts of the game. That formalization did not preclude the other parts of the game from being important, commonplace, or even more prominent than the combat. This is the game that I played in the early eighties, and I am willing to bet it's mostly the same as the way the game was played by many of the other "grognards" on this board.
I'm sorry that you have had bad DMs ("Show me on the doll where the DM touched you..."). That in no way means that DM judgment is a bad thing, or that formalization of the rules can prevent bad DMing. This was one of the ideas behind 3e, and it was just as stupid then as it is now. You can have any opinion you want about how games can be structured or what kind of gameplay is most fun for you. But assertions that D&D and AD&D players back then had or didn't have certain strategies, tactics, or playstyles simply because the rules did not formalize those styles is wrong. Period. I can tell you that my groups spent far more time trying to avoid combat or rig it in our favor than we actually spent fighting. It was far safer and more profitable. Many of the published adventures of the time would have been unplayable by characters of the "expected" levels if stealth, subterfuge, NPC interaction, and logistical planning, none of which was codified to any appreciable degree compared to the rules for combat. So even TSR expected that style of play...
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139895To quote your original statement (which is where this tangent started):
You are wrong about this. Rules were not a necessary indicator of the game's actual play. Everything else you have said (and I have responded to) is irrelevant next to this point. No matter what other things you try to throw out to obfuscate this point, it does not matter. Your initial statement is incorrect on its face.
I'm not the obfuscating anything here. You responded to my post and I replied to what you responded. That you were WRONG about those responses does not mean that I was obfuscating anything. You bringing it back to my original point, however (which is fair enough, in and of itself), then failing to acknowledge you were wrong, and implying that I'm somehow obfuscating anything (which is not as fair)...obfuscates things.
I'm also not sure how making a technically accurate statement (Basic D&D didn't have stealth originally; thieves, once introduced, were the only class that could do it) is incorrect on its face.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139895D&D evolved from an expanded wargame to a role playing game. It did so with the expectation that the players would describe their characters' response to situations in the game world and the DM would adjudicate the results. Because of its chassis was built on a wargame, the combat of the game was more formalized than some other parts of the game. That formalization did not preclude the other parts of the game from being important, commonplace, or even more prominent than the combat. This is the game that I played in the early eighties, and I am willing to bet it's mostly the same as the way the game was played by many of the other "grognards" on this board.
To this I would add that the fact that D&D evolved from wargames is precisely the reason why many of these rules (such as non-combat skills) didn't exist in the first place. Wargames didn't need those rules. So it took the experience of playing RPGs for people to discover a need for them. And the fact that there was such widespread demand for them is the reason most other early RPGs that followed D&D had them, as well as the reason why later editions of D&D eventually included them.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139895I'm sorry that you have had bad DMs ("Show me on the doll where the DM touched you..."). That in no way means that DM judgment is a bad thing, or that formalization of the rules can prevent bad DMing.
It's a good thing I never argued this. And even clarified that in my last post. But, OK.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139895This was one of the ideas behind 3e, and it was just as stupid then as it is now. You can have any opinion you want about how games can be structured or what kind of gameplay is most fun for you. But assertions that D&D and AD&D players back then had or didn't have certain strategies, tactics, or playstyles simply because the rules did not formalize those styles is wrong. Period.
It's a good thing I didn't argue this either. I said that the rules didn't
support those styles of play, and also that people were projecting their own interpretations into the game. Not that no one ever played that way.
Quote from: Eirikrautha;1139895I can tell you that my groups spent far more time trying to avoid combat or rig it in our favor than we actually spent fighting. It was far safer and more profitable. Many of the published adventures of the time would have been unplayable by characters of the "expected" levels if stealth, subterfuge, NPC interaction, and logistical planning, none of which was codified to any appreciable degree compared to the rules for combat. So even TSR expected that style of play...
OR maybe TSR didn't know how to properly gauge the recommend levels for their published adventures. Particularly given that this was a new style of game.
D&D covers stealth and perception with the Surprise mechanic, which defaults to a 2 in 6 chance of success. An awful lot of stuff in early D&D defaults to 2 in 6 chance of success; 1 in 6 if particularly hard.
D&D was originally a Semi Free Kriegsspiel, so heavily reliant on GM referee 'fiat'. If you don't trust the GM (for good or bad reason) this isn't going to work well. If you do trust the GM then it tends to play better than more rules-bound games IME.