I am going to run a hexcrawl West Marches game soon, and as a way to motivate players to go exploring the wilderness, I thought I would bring back the old mechanic of gold being experience.
This is for D&D 5e.
What I noticed though was that you would need a fuck ton of gold to level up. In 5e, it takes just 300 experience to level up, which is 1-2 sessions. But for a party of 5 players to level up using gold, they need a whopping 1500 gp. Where are they going to find that at level 1?
So that makes me wonder how long it takes to level up in such games, be it AD&D or whatever other edition used this method. Was it common to just run into dungeons with 1500+ xp worth of gold (or whatever the equivalent was for level 2)? Or is it that leveling up required almost no experience? Or did it just take forever to level up?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;995904I am going to run a hexcrawl West Marches game soon, and as a way to motivate players to go exploring the wilderness, I thought I would bring back the old mechanic of gold being experience.
This is for D&D 5e.
What I noticed though was that you would need a fuck ton of gold to level up. In 5e, it takes just 300 experience to level up, which is 1-2 sessions. But for a party of 5 players to level up using gold, they need a whopping 1500 gp. Where are they going to find that at level 1?
So that makes me wonder how long it takes to level up in such games, be it AD&D or whatever other edition used this method. Was it common to just run into dungeons with 1500+ xp worth of gold (or whatever the equivalent was for level 2)? Or is it that leveling up required almost no experience? Or did it just take forever to level up?
It took 'forever', from what I've been told.
Do you mean requiring gold gained to be the only source of EXP? Or as an added source? If it is an added source then in 5e thats a bad idea as the EXP system is geared with that not in mind. If you do that then add a 0 to all the EXP needed.
DMG Page 131 has an optional rule for adding downtime to gaining levels.
levels 2-4 = 10 days + 20gp
5-10 = 20 days + 40gp
11-15 = 30 days + 60gp
16-20 = 40 days + 80gp
so about 490 days and 980gp used up total just in level training. (Personally I think the fee is too small. Possibly multiply the listed fee by 10.)
I meant using ONLY gold to gain experience.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;995910I meant using ONLY gold to gain experience.
If it is the only way to level up, and no version of D&D does that. (That I can recall) then in 5e levelling is probably going to go slowly for the simple reason that treasure is alot rarer in 5e. You might want to adopt something like AD&D's system of selling recovered magic items for gold and converting that to EXP.
individual monsters have very little to nothing on them CR 0-4 have an average of 17 cp or 12 sp on them. (30% and 30% chance.) only a 15% chance to have 10 gp on them. CRs 5-10 are the same pattern, but 1400 cp, 210 sp and a 10% for 70 gp and 15% for 140 gp.
You might be better off getting the PCs and players interested in rumours of lost cities or hired on to help reclaim a lost dwarven city for example. Adventure rather than gold.
So I ran this, basically.
I took the listed XP for monsters and reduced it to 10% of its original value, then I did the old chestnut of stocking dungeons with four times that new XP value's worth of gold.
Players leveled on average I would say every third session or so. I didn't have any significant hiccups.
Well okay, one; player character power curves are different than in old school play. They can kick serious ass out of the starting gate. Running it old school style, not a single player complained that they spent three sessions at level 1. But you've got to remember, old school style meant that a 2 HP thief got to be a viable character if played cleverly. The style that exists to allow such a character is very forgiving in the age of cantrips.
The way it worked in old school gold for XP games was, as you might expect, that you got a fuckton of gold. So much gold in fact that looking at that style of game now I am tempted to reduce the gold by a factor of at least 10 and do likewise with the experience.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;995904So that makes me wonder how long it takes to level up in such games, be it AD&D or whatever other edition used this method. Was it common to just run into dungeons with 1500+ xp worth of gold (or whatever the equivalent was for level 2)? Or is it that leveling up required almost no experience? Or did it just take forever to level up?
It is not directly comparable. The Xp requirements were different, the slope of Xp requirements was different, the assumptions regarding # of people in the adventuring party (and thus splitting up the xp) are different, and the treasure output was different. Overall, it did take longer. Xp requirements to reach 2nd level initially averaged 2000 xp (I'm using oD&D here strictly to control the # of classes we're talking about, and because I have those books available), and roughly double every level (so, if all things were held constant, it would take as long to advance from 7th level to 8th level, as the entire time it took to get from 1st level through 8th. But everything else isn't held constant). On the other hand, treasure outputs, particularly as you start facing greater opponents (and, again for oD&D, you have to face greater opponents if you ever want to get anywhere, because as you go up in level, orcs only give you a fraction of the gold they have in xp), become downright crazy.
But let's look at a first level scenario* (oD&D) -- fighting orcs. Orcs are treasure type D. That gives you (ignoring the possibility of selling any magic items which come up) -- a 10% chance of getting on 1D8x1000 copper pieces (avg. 4500 cp-90 gp value), 15% chance of getting 1D12x1000 silver pieces (6500 sp-650 gp value), 60% chance of 1D6x1000 gold pieces (avg. 3500 gp), 30% chance of 1D8 gems (averaging 233.5 gp each) and 30% of 1D8 jewelry (averaging 3410 gp each). So your simple encounter with orcs (mind you, that could be 30-300 orcs) could net you .1(90) + .15(650) +.6(3500) +.3(4.5)(233.5) +.3(4.5)(3410) = 9+97.5+2100+315.225+4603.5 = 7125.225 gp (and thus xp). In 5e terms, that's a whole lot of levels for 4 PCs. Mind you, 4 PCs aren't going to be going toe-to-toe with 30-300 orcs, so you see just how much of an apples-to-oranges comparison the thing is?
*I am going to assume that I've made at least 1d4 mistakes in this, please feel free to point them out and I will edit/update to match
Mentzer Classic DnD suggests 5 sessions to level and giving out enough gold to get that rate. Which in high level Classic is a rather unlikely 20,000 or so gp per pc per session; 100k per session with a 5 pc group.
Actually it was usually pretty quick to hit 5th or 6th, then it slows down dramatically after 9ths (in AD&D at least, OD&D has much lower xp tables for high levels)
Yes, there was a fair amount of loot given. As a general rule, I put 3-4x the amount of treasure in a dungeon/level as the xp value of monsters
Quote from: Omega;995918If it is the only way to level up, and no version of D&D does that.
I thought older editions of D&D used gold/treasure for experience? Looks like some of them did based on the replies.
Regarding what everyone else said: I wouldn't ensure players get a set amount of gold/XP a session because I want to run it as a sandbox, so that's up to them. But I am curious what older games with this model looked like. It sounds like you did have to haul a ton of gold after all.
Quote from: Azraele;995920So I ran this, basically.
I took the listed XP for monsters and reduced it to 10% of its original value, then I did the old chestnut of stocking dungeons with four times that new XP value's worth of gold.
Hmm, that sounds like a neat idea.
So if there are 10 goblins in a dungeon, and each goblin is worth 50 XP... 500 XP / 10 -> 50 XP again x4, 200 gold?
Maybe it would make sense to just put the exact (roughly) amount of gold that is worth the experience. So if a monster normally gives 2000xp, then spread 2000xp worth of gold around. And do that for every monster, or enough.
Long story short, I want to run a 5e West Marches hexcrawl/sandbox game using gold for experience and I want to do it in a way that works, and I'm assuming the old ways they were done worked fine, so I want to find out about those. Or find out if they totally wouldn't work.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996003I thought older editions of D&D used gold/treasure for experience? Looks like some of them did based on the replies.
All pre-
2nd edition AD&D TSR-era D&D versions included awarding 1 xp for every gp (and 2e included that in the optional rules), with some variation on the exact rules (oD&D for instance, the award was a ratio of the monsters who guarded the treasure compared to the level of the party who got the treasure, so 5th level PCs defeating/bypassing 3rd level monsters would only get 3/5th of an xp per gp). That where the xp=gp moniker comes from (because overall it is a 1:1 ratio).
However, no edition has the official rules where the
only way you get xp is by acquiring treasure. Each of them have a certain amount for monsters defeated, and possibly some other things (including a whole laundry list, again in the 2e optional rules).
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996003Maybe it would make sense to just put the exact (roughly) amount of gold that is worth the experience. So if a monster normally gives 2000xp, then spread 2000xp worth of gold around. And do that for every monster, or enough.
That's certain an easy way to do it, and if the gp value also lines up with how much gold you think the PCs should have, then go with that. That might give the PCs a little extra gold, and thus get those suits of plate mail a level or two early. But 5e already has a bit of the 'after a certain level, gold doesn't mean anything
except the xp you got acquiring it, right up until you are buying castles or armies or sailing ships' thing going on (and those are pretty easy to change the cost of, as a DM). So go ahead
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996003I thought older editions of D&D used gold/treasure for experience? Looks like some of them did based on the replies.
They did, but gold was not exclusive source of experience. You also got experience for defeating monsters. The big rewards were in the experience for treasure though. So much so that it was well worth figuring out ways to bypass dangerous combat and just grab the treasures.
I have over 20K in treasure value on the first level of my current dungeon. The minority of that is coin. There's a lot of valuable stuff though.
PCs usually get around 5X the XP from treasure (of all sorts) then they do monster XP. Selling a magic item is an XP mother lode, and it's often better to get to 2nd level than it is to be 1st level with a magic sword.
Also keep in mind that if you don't like the feel of lots of treasure (for whatever reason), you always switch to a silver standard for XP, and give out less treasure. It's not a bad option if you want treasure to drive leveling, but also want the characters to stay relatively poor (in gold and items). Really, anything will work, as long as you do some minor calculations and planning before you start. The answer to your subject question is, "How fast do you want them to level?"
If you strictly enforce encumbrance rules and only give them experience for the loot they actually bring home from the dungeon that can have a dampening effect on leveling. Or else you see strings of pack mules and treasure bearers...
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996003I thought older editions of D&D used gold/treasure for experience? Looks like some of them did based on the replies.
75% of experience was from treasure (at 1gp=1xp), 25% was through combat in AD&D and OD&D if I recall correctly.
Yes, it was used, but far from exclusively.
QuoteMaybe it would make sense to just put the exact (roughly) amount of gold that is worth the experience. So if a monster normally gives 2000xp, then spread 2000xp worth of gold around. And do that for every monster, or enough.
What also played into this was the value of treasure. The weight of it is significant in that you have to make a choice between carrying only some of the high value treasure out, of burden yourself with the high and low value treasure. It's hard to run carrying those sacks of copper coins and brass candelabras back to the tavern. So, if there was 10K xp to be gained in an adventure, 2,500 came from combat, 7,500 came from treasure, and another 7,500 was present in low value treasure. If they take everything, then the party is too slow to avoid all of the monsters. They have to be choosy.
Unless they're clever. Then, the extra xp from the treasure is justly earned.
Quote from: EOTB;996009I have over 20K in treasure value on the first level of my current dungeon. The minority of that is coin. There's a lot of valuable stuff though.
PCs usually get around 5X the XP from treasure (of all sorts) then they do monster XP. Selling a magic item is an XP mother lode, and it's often better to get to 2nd level than it is to be 1st level with a magic sword.
How would selling a magic item work? Wouldn't that give you a huge pile of gold? Would you need to spend THAT gold to get experience? Or would you get experience just from selling the item? But then you have all this gold, and gold is experience too... so it's like getting 2x the experience...
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996036How would selling a magic item work? Wouldn't that give you a huge pile of gold? Would you need to spend THAT gold to get experience? Or would you get experience just from selling the item? But then you have all this gold, and gold is experience too... so it's like getting 2x the experience...
I can't speak for true old school stuff, but in ACKS any magic item that you use in the adventure in which you acquire it can't convert into XP. You can still sell it for gold, but only if you can find a buyer (ACKS also diminishes the secondary market value of "found" magic items, kind of like used cars).
So it's either a piece of equipment OR relevant XP, not both. Mind, it's a pretty big deal either way.
Actually, ACKS is what eventually replaced my 5th ed games, word of warning. In addition to putting a lot of thought into the GP=XP (they have a demographics section of national wealth VS character level which is nothing short of genius), they also have a lot of late-game sinks for all that wealth (castles and thieves guilds and magic items and and....)
The watchword for when to grant XP is also "when the wealth is brought out from the wilderness/dungeon back to civilization" which means that, as other have mentioned, transportation of the wealth is an element of the adventure. This is a somewhat metagame-y mechanic, but it makes for a great play experience.
I see, then I should check out ACKS at some point for inspiration.
So you don't actually need to spend your treasure? Just bring it to town and then that's that?
In general, yes. Once you hauled the treasure back to Civilization you "won", and the xp was yours.
Then, you spent it.
Does this mean some players (higher level or not) could give ALL the gold they find to one player with them to level him faster?
the habit in my club was, you can either keep the magic item to use, or cash the magic item in for cash or cash the magic item in for experience but you can only do one of those things. So also with cash--you can use the cash for upkeep or equipment, or bank the cash or swap it for xp. But only one of those things.
So, let's suppose that one member of the party dry-gulches Fred the Goblin when he is in the stall of the gentleman's room, and the only pity is that he is awake. Fred is worth 50 xp, if we are being charitable, and assume it was some sort of fair fight. Fred also has 4 GP. So, if the player swaps the cash for xp, then Fred is worth 54 xp. Id two of the party collaborated on this, then the easiest way to proceed is to say each gets 27 though there are probably more complicated ways to do that.
Yes, OD&D gave you experience for monsters, but it was chump change compared to treasure. Then dolts took out the "XP for Gold" without adjusting XP for other things and wondered why the game was a bloodbath.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;995904What I noticed though was that you would need a fuck ton of gold to level up. In 5e, it takes just 300 experience to level up, which is 1-2 sessions. But for a party of 5 players to level up using gold, they need a whopping 1500 gp. Where are they going to find that at level 1?
Level up in 1-2 sessions? :eek:
It usually took 3-5 sessions per level up to about level 4. After that it took 6-8 sessions till name level, assuming you were doing heavy treasure hunting. Not everything we did was for XP, by a long shot.
Once you hit name level, things slowed to a crawl. This was on purpose.
It took me not quite a year to hit Level 9 with Gronan, and I played a LOT.
Level 1 to 2 in 5e takes 1-2 sessions. Level 2-3 takes 2-3 sessions. Level 3-4 might take 6, and 4-5 is a big jump, probably taking like 9.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996081Level 1 to 2 in 5e takes 1-2 sessions. Level 2-3 takes 2-3 sessions. Level 3-4 might take 6, and 4-5 is a big jump, probably taking like 9.
Is that using gp=XP? 5e DMG says 1 session to 2nd, 1 session to 3rd, then 2-3 sessions per level. I find in practice using RAW XP it's a bit slower. Highest PC IMC reached 17th in 58 sessions so 3.625 per level up.
No, it's just regular experience gain I noticed from running 5e games.
Though my own games tend to be much, much, slower. Players have been level 5 for like a year.
in the final analysis you as the GM can run the game as you see fit, including the pacing of leveling up. If it is too fast or too slow for your tastes and the game you want to run, you can and should adjust it accordingly. For something like experience, though, my inclination would be to discuss it with the players first thouroughly, as in the absence of explanation they will expect the rules as written.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996036How would selling a magic item work? Wouldn't that give you a huge pile of gold? Would you need to spend THAT gold to get experience? Or would you get experience just from selling the item? But then you have all this gold, and gold is experience too... so it's like getting 2x the experience...
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996058So you don't actually need to spend your treasure? Just bring it to town and then that's that?
Yeah, you don't need to spend it, you need to have kept it in your possession until reaching civilization/stronghold. Since most magic items are sold in these areas, it's pretty much a fait accompli at that point.
As mentioned, you can't sell items you've used for XP (but you get a lesser amount of XP for magical items you use). So if you use an item during the adventure you find it, selling it later might give you gold but not XP for that gold.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996066Does this mean some players (higher level or not) could give ALL the gold they find to one player with them to level him faster?
The smart ones do. I think it's wisest to level the clerics/druids first, then thieves, then M-Us, then fighters; always keeping an eye on whether or not XP would be wasted in those early levels by giving it to someone who would be unable to use/keep it. This solves a lot of issues presuming everyone is mature and cooperative - players can reward good play among themselves, and if they see someone who would be a handful of points shy of leveling with an otherwise equal split, they can adjust things to the party's best benefit.
A lot of DMs have a conceptual issue with not being in charge of all aspects of XP. but (at least in 1E) how treasure (and treasure XP) was divided was advised to leave up to the players.
Quote from: DMG pg. 85Division of Experience Points:
How treasure is divided is actually in the realm of player decision. Experience
points (x.p.) for slain monsters, however, is strictly your prerogative.
Other pertinent quotes to treasure and XP generally:
Quote from: DMG pg. 85EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN
Gold Pieces: Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in
gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device
fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience
is awarded on a 1 for 1 basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively
weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 X.P., 3 to 2, 2 to 1, 3 to 1, or even
4 or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. For example, if a
10th level magic-user takes 1,000 g.p. from 10 kobolds, the relative
strengths are about 20 to 1 in favor of the magic-user. (Such strength
comparisons are subjective and must be based upon the degree of
challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure
taker.)
Treasure must be physically taken out of the dungeon or lair and turned
into a transportable medium or stored in the player's stronghold to be
counted for experience points.
All items (including magic) or creatures sold for gold pieces prior to the
awarding of experience points for an adventure must be considered as
treasure taken, and the gold pieces received for the sale add to the total
treasure taken. (Those magic items not sold gain only a relatively small
amount of experience points, for their value is in their usage.)
I actually like the idea of players dividing the gold up as they see fit. It lets them pace the experience gain as they like.
Only problem I can see is some shitbag trying to steal everyone's gold to get XP or betraying them or other stuff causing friction.
Why don't you get XP for items you used? Even if they're still whole?
So a wand of fire is 45 XP per charge if you use it, 250 XP if you sell it before ever using it.
If you use a magic sword you get 400 XP in one big dump and then have greater capability so long as you keep it.
When you retain it and use it, then you have more hitting power to kill more monsters and get more treasure - so it all kind of levels out. But I still prefer selling some portion of found magic items to get everyone up to level 3 or 4 as quickly as possible so they're out of the fragile zone.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996081Level 1 to 2 in 5e takes 1-2 sessions. Level 2-3 takes 2-3 sessions. Level 3-4 might take 6, and 4-5 is a big jump, probably taking like 9.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996070Level up in 1-2 sessions? :eek:
It usually took 3-5 sessions per level up to about level 4. After that it took 6-8 sessions till name level, assuming you were doing heavy treasure hunting. Not everything we did was for XP, by a long shot.
Once you hit name level, things slowed to a crawl. This was on purpose.
It took me not quite a year to hit Level 9 with Gronan, and I played a LOT.
5e did something weird trying to address the whole 'flimsy 1st level characters' bit.
TSR-era/OSR D&D had the funnel, and part of the point was getting up to 2nd or 3rd level (and some things like Dungeon Crawl Classics revel in that bit)...but lots of people felt that that got old really quick, and did stuff like starting PCs at 2nd/3rd level (I think EGG even advocated that solution, at times).
3e had no consistent strategy to address this.
4e contracted the zero-to-hero bit, with people starting out more durable, but ending not quite so high.
5e starts you out somewhat close to as flimsy as TSR/OSR, but if you survive even a little bit (300 xp, and that feels very much like 300 old-school xp, even though the overall xp chart is completely changed up), you quickly get a tick up to level 2... but level 2 seems a bit like a partial level (5e level 3 seems more like level 2 feels for TSR D&D). Then you jump to level 3 at roughly where you'd get to level 2 in TSR era. So their solution is a half-tick-up when you've proven you and this character are working out.
Quote from: EOTB;996089Yeah, you don't need to spend it, you need to have kept it in your possession until reaching civilization/stronghold. Since most magic items are sold in these areas, it's pretty much a fait accompli at that point.
I've heard (
Playing at the World, perhaps) that there was some discussion in some circles that it
should be gold spent, or even gold spent on frivolities (beer and 'dancing girls,' etc.) to emulate the Conan/F&GM stories).
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996091I actually like the idea of players dividing the gold up as they see fit. It lets them pace the experience gain as they like.
Only problem I can see is some shitbag trying to steal everyone's gold to get XP or betraying them or other stuff causing friction.
If I may (and this is my own personal opinion) I really wouldn't do this -- for reasons you touch on. There is a lot of value in the way D&D XP worked in early editions, I think you might want to consider keeping them as is. (I write love letter to the XP system in Lamentations of the Flame Princess here (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/a-note-on-the-xp-system-from-lamentations-of-the-flame-princess/), which is a B/X XP system.)
The key point I want to make is that if the entire group is drawing on the same pool of treasure to be divided equally, then they have a vested interest in working together. And that pays off in spades for group cohesion and focus during play. The PCs become a team, and there is great value in that -- both in terms of game play and socially.
I believe (I might be wrong) that it was AD&D that introduced the notion the Thief could get separate XP bumps from stealing from his companions. This often led to annoyance. If a group of players is into that sort of thing then that's great, but it tends to distract from the whole explore/challenge based play in an environment if everyone is freaking out about what some PC might be doing behind their back if they're not paying attention. (Note that I love RPGs that have PC conflicts... but each type of play has its place, in my view.)
If everyone gets XP, divided equally, for bringing back treasure that is divided equally then everyone has a vested interest in helping everyone get that gold back. There's a power in that.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996091I actually like the idea of players dividing the gold up as they see fit. It lets them pace the experience gain as they like.
Only problem I can see is some shitbag trying to steal everyone's gold to get XP or betraying them or other stuff causing friction.
And then nobody plays with the shitbag any more. Problem solved!
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;996259I believe (I might be wrong) that it was AD&D that introduced the notion the Thief could get separate XP bumps from stealing from his companions. This often led to annoyance. If a group of players is into that sort of thing then that's great, but it tends to distract from the whole explore/challenge based play in an environment if everyone is freaking out about what some PC might be doing behind their back if they're not paying attention. (Note that I love RPGs that have PC conflicts... but each type of play has its place, in my view.)
My first wife used to love to play a thief and skim treasure. So my character would stand next to her and watch her open the chest and risk the trap too. Since I always played fighters, I always had more HP and better saving throws.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996003I thought older editions of D&D used gold/treasure for experience? Looks like some of them did based on the replies.
No edition of D&D has had EXP only come from loot. Its either been a mix, of monsters and treasure, or just monsters.
OD&D: both
BX: both
AD&D: both
2e: monsters (with an option for treasure too)
3e: not sure? Probably just monsters?
4e: not sure? Probably just monsters?
5e: monsters
Quote from: Omega;996288No edition of D&D has had EXP only come from loot. Its either been a mix, of monsters and treasure, or just monsters.
OD&D: both
BX: both
AD&D: both
2e: monsters (with an option for treasure too)
3e: not sure? Probably just monsters?
4e: not sure? Probably just monsters?
5e: monsters
But in the earlier editions, as has been noted, you were going to get much more XP for treasure than defeating monsters. You could level up almost as quickly with just treasure as you could with treasure and monsters.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;996259If I may (and this is my own personal opinion) I really wouldn't do this -- for reasons you touch on. There is a lot of value in the way D&D XP worked in early editions, I think you might want to consider keeping them as is. (I write love letter to the XP system in Lamentations of the Flame Princess here (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/a-note-on-the-xp-system-from-lamentations-of-the-flame-princess/), which is a B/X XP system.)
The key point I want to make is that if the entire group is drawing on the same pool of treasure to be divided equally, then they have a vested interest in working together. And that pays off in spades for group cohesion and focus during play. The PCs become a team, and there is great value in that -- both in terms of game play and socially.
But we used to divvy up the gold, and not always equally. If somebody was several levels behind the rest of the group we'd give them a larger share to get them an extra HD or two. So "the players dividing up the gold as they see fit" predates the publication of the rules. No, it's not in the rules, but we thought it was obvious.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;996290But in the earlier editions, as has been noted, you were going to get much more XP for treasure than defeating monsters. You could level up almost as quickly with just treasure as you could with treasure and monsters.
Right. Monsters were chump change, especially after Greyhawk made the lousy XP for monsters clear.
Gold is where the XP were. And if you could get the gold without fighting the monster, so much the better, because it meant your most vital resource -- hit points -- didn't diminish.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996069Yes, OD&D gave you experience for monsters, but it was chump change compared to treasure. Then dolts took out the "XP for Gold" without adjusting XP for other things and wondered why the game was a bloodbath.
2e. Though that is also where they started handing out EXP for non-combat deeds more. (it was in AD&D as well to a smaller extent) It should have balanced out the removal of gold for XP. But in practice it shifted the gameplay from Treasure Hunters to Monster Hunters. And the funny part is that it was in reaction to complaints of the proliferation of treasure. So the solution turned it into a bloodbath.
And of course then people complained the game was "murder hobos"... I despise that term.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;996259I believe (I might be wrong) that it was AD&D that introduced the notion the Thief could get separate XP bumps from stealing from his companions. This often led to annoyance.
There was no such thing in AD&D that I can find. They did I think get a EXP bonus for treasure stolen. But I cant find the entry. Thats different from "steal from the other PCs."
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996295Right. Monsters were chump change...
Gold is where the XP were. And if you could get the gold without fighting the monster, so much the better, because it meant your most vital resource -- hit points -- didn't diminish.
+1So yes, how the XP was awarded influenced the kind of play one finds at the table.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;996290But in the earlier editions, as has been noted, you were going to get much more XP for treasure than defeating monsters. You could level up almost as quickly with just treasure as you could with treasure and monsters.
You got more from gold. But it still wasnt "the only source of EXP"
Quote from: Omega;996302You got more from gold. But it still wasnt "the only source of EXP"
You are correct. And I wasn't trying to attack you. And I'm glad you clarified the point.
But given this is a thread someone started to ask about how XP is awarded in various editions, I wanted to clarify the proportions. The proportions matter.
Gold for XP works fine in any campaign where the primary motivation of adventurers should be to get treasure.
This is one of those rules that makes more sense if you breath into a paper bag, reciting the mantra 'D&D is a game...D&D is a game...'
The fact that treasure is worth experience points is basically the only reason anyone cares what they find in a dungeon. And it changes how you deal with various sorts of monsters, effectively differentiating them when they would otherwise be pretty similar (i.e., things with hoards are targets; things without hoards are just a pain in your ass). The game is basically about trying to make advantageous trades of resources (HP, spells per day, numbers of thieves in your paper) for treasure. If you mess with either the cost mechanic or the reward mechanic, you aren't playing D&D anymore. It would be like playing Monopoly without property or money.
Quote from: Omega;9962982e. Though that is also where they started handing out EXP for non-combat deeds more. (it was in AD&D as well to a smaller extent) It should have balanced out the removal of gold for XP. But in practice it shifted the gameplay from Treasure Hunters to Monster Hunters. And the funny part is that it was in reaction to complaints of the proliferation of treasure. So the solution turned it into a bloodbath.
And of course then people complained the game was "murder hobos"... I despise that term.
I doubt this narrative, I first played the game using gold=xp and it was all hack n' slash. We needed no encouragement to kill monsters, xp was never a consideration in that.
I also found that gold=xp lead to rapid advancement at low levels, I recall characters leveling up two levels after one adventure. Course we probably weren't playing the game 'properly' back then.
By the time 2e came in we were older and interested in more than just hack n' slash. Again, I never found the 2e rules around xp shaped play as much as so many claim. And as I recall they didn't remove xp for gold in 2e just made it optional. As I was never one for the slow grinding advancement model I used all four: monsters, gold, completing a goal or adventure and good rping.
Certainly mechanics can have an effect on play, that's the point isn't it, but it is never so one-to-one as these retroactive arguments make out in my experience.
Quote from: Larsdangly;997319If you mess with either the cost mechanic or the reward mechanic, you aren't playing D&D anymore. It would be like playing Monopoly without property or money.
As our English friends would say, what a load of bollocks. I guess everyone playing the game post-1e is deluded that they've been playing D&D all this time. Thanks for straightening them all out Lardsdangly.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: DavetheLost;995923The way it worked in old school gold for XP games was, as you might expect, that you got a fuckton of gold. So much gold in fact that looking at that style of game now I am tempted to reduce the gold by a factor of at least 10 and do likewise with the experience.
This is why I abandoned GP=XP decades ago. Gold is its own reward and doesn't need to count as XP also. My favorite system is to look at the Dragonlance SAGA game, which gives XP according to quests run. Essentially, give XP for completing modules or adventures instead of counting each monster kill.
The thing is making gold give experience instead of a mission basically is the final element in a "sandbox" type hexcrawl game, because it puts even gaining experience in the hands of the players. They can literally choose who gets what experience based on the gold they carry.
Though it also makes me wonder if a gold driven game wouldn't get boring after a while. It seems most of the game's fun would be in advancing your character level, getting better items, etc. But that kind of sounds like an MMO in a way... Wouldn't you get bored of getting the same stuff but a little better eventually?
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997378Though it also makes me wonder if a gold driven game wouldn't get boring after a while. It seems most of the game's fun would be in advancing your character level, getting better items, etc. But that kind of sounds like an MMO in a way... Wouldn't you get bored of getting the same stuff but a little better eventually?
If it's a straight curve, and no real penalty for death, and nothing you do changes the world, yes, and for much the same reasons as in an MMORPG. (Though some people would enjoy even that, same as an MMORPG, for the chat and tactical side. Takes all kinds.) Some setbacks (or at least the very real threat of them, if you don't get after it) compensated by changing the world (even if in your own little area)--there ain't no video game where you can get that.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;997447If it's a straight curve, and no real penalty for death, and nothing you do changes the world, yes, and for much the same reasons as in an MMORPG. (Though some people would enjoy even that, same as an MMORPG, for the chat and tactical side. Takes all kinds.) Some setbacks (or at least the very real threat of them, if you don't get after it) compensated by changing the world (even if in your own little area)--there ain't no video game where you can get that.
And we're back to "building a stronghold and becoming a Great Power" again.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997378Though it also makes me wonder if a gold driven game wouldn't get boring after a while. It seems most of the game's fun would be in advancing your character level, getting better items, etc. But that kind of sounds like an MMO in a way... Wouldn't you get bored of getting the same stuff but a little better eventually?
Levelling isnt the goal. Getting more treasure, and thus, more prestige is. Or just getting the job done. Or exploration. Its the same as with EXP for both, for kills for RPing, or none at all.
I've never been in a game or GMed for anyone whos goal was to level up. Levelling up has allways in my experience been a side effect of the PCs going out and doing stuff. Maybee that was different with Gronan or others games. But at every table I've been at its never been a factor.
One reason XP-for-gold D&D stays interesting is that the game changes as you level up, more activity options become available. Local dungeon(s) > wilderness exploration > territory development > politics & war > interplanar, for instance. And you can still do the previous things at higher levels. This 'opening up' effect can be very powerful in maintaining interest.
Quote from: finarvyn;997371This is why I abandoned GP=XP decades ago. Gold is its own reward and doesn't need to count as XP also. My favorite system is to look at the Dragonlance SAGA game, which gives XP according to quests run. Essentially, give XP for completing modules or adventures instead of counting each monster kill.
Gold (and monsters defeated) being the primary metric is a
convenience. Going into dungeons to defeat monsters and gather up treasure is what EGG figured players were going to do anyways (as evidenced by Dave's Blackmoor campaign, where they did so to the expense of their original goal), so why not base the advancement reward structure on that system? Now you are right, tying xp to gp means that you can't vary gp rewards based on the needs of the campaign. So (ex.) if you want set-in-stone costs for things like buying castles or sailing ships or other mid-late-game purchases, then those items will come into play at the same level each time.
Xp for accomplishment requires there to be a specific goal you are trying to accomplish, but otherwise is pretty straightforward and works pretty well... for the experienced GM. Determining how much to give per goal/module/adventure, and how to measure partial success is probably challenging to do as a beginner (and certainly hard to write up as rules for that beginning GM), so I understand why the rulebooks don't make that the default ruleset. Of course,
most of any RPG game rules are only really training wheels needed until GM and group are capable of 'taking it from here.'
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997378Though it also makes me wonder if a gold driven game wouldn't get boring after a while. It seems most of the game's fun would be in advancing your character level, getting better items, etc. But that kind of sounds like an MMO in a way... Wouldn't you get bored of getting the same stuff but a little better eventually?
First and foremost, I've never really understood the complaint that something sounds too much like a video game. Video games do a perfectly serviceable job of emulating most of the rules-based parts of TTRPGs. It's the fact that a video game has only a programmed set of modules (instead of being only limited by GM imagination), and that the computer can't improvise when the players get creative that makes TTRPGs more interesting to me.
That said, overall I'm not seeing the difference with gp=xp. Regardless of whether you are xp-rewarding gp acquisition, monster killing, or story accomplishments, you are rewarding successful adventuring with increased capacity to be a successful adventurer. Sure, if you separate gold from xp, you could create an alternative success path and "victory" metric (magic items and xp are rewards which allow you to better adventure, gold is a reward that contributes to the character's nest-egg. If get X gp, your character decides to retire and die fat and happy, regardless of what level they've achieved), but that seems like a minor increase in options.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997378Though it also makes me wonder if a gold driven game wouldn't get boring after a while. It seems most of the game's fun would be in advancing your character level, getting better items, etc. But that kind of sounds like an MMO in a way... Wouldn't you get bored of getting the same stuff but a little better eventually?
Gold is it own reward given the uses it can be put towards in-game.
I find players respond far better to milestone xp. However you have to give milestone award for personal as well as party goals for maximum effect.
The base I use is 100 xp time the character level per session. 200 xp per level for a minor goal achieve (personal or party). 400 xp per level for a major goal, and 1,000 xp per level for something earth shattering hard. My most recent example of a 1,000 xp award was for shutting down the Pit of Chaos in the Barrowmaze.
My concession to the original xp awards is that I tally up XP for monsters/NPCs overcome. That is because is a near universal expectation that you get something for the experience of killing creatures. The expectation for gold and magic items is nowhere near as common.
Since adopted this approach in the early 80s the only argument I get is about the base award. For example my current campaign is run for two hours per night per week due to the fact that half the player have real life commitments and can't start until 8pm. Originally I started out at the usual 100xp per level but after the first half dozen sessions we talked about it and I made the base award 200 xp per level.
The point of doing things this way is not to bias what the players want to do as their characters. I consider it of paramount importance that whatever overarching goal the players have in mind they should feel utterly comfortable in whatever THEY (not I) think is the best approach.
My job as referee is to present the setting as it inhabitants react to the schemes of the PCs.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997378Though it also makes me wonder if a gold driven game wouldn't get boring after a while. It seems most of the game's fun would be in advancing your character level, getting better items, etc. But that kind of sounds like an MMO in a way... Wouldn't you get bored of getting the same stuff but a little better eventually?
Boring? No. But it does get increasingly silly from an emulation standpoint. When you have PCs as lords with vast fortunes and royal responsibilities, still trying to go out to find increasingly larger hordes of gold just to level up, it just strains believability a bit.
Quote from: RPGPundit;998052Boring? No. But it does get increasingly silly from an emulation standpoint. When you have PCs as lords with vast fortunes and royal responsibilities, still trying to go out to find increasingly larger hordes of gold just to level up, it just strains believability a bit.
And we're back to "becoming a great Power of the Land" and the game shifting away from "Leveling Up."
"You're the Duke of Lessnard*. You have castles, vassals, lands, and an army. You are no longer a solo adventurer." The game was to change at that point, but that turns out to be not what most people wanted.
Also, don't forget the reduction in XP when you take gold from a lower level creature. What the hell does a 19th level wizard have to do to get enough gold to get 300,000 XP? He's got to destroy or rob literally dozens of dragons singlehandedly to get that much gold.
*Gary once added Lessnard to the map of the Great Kingdom. I wonder if I still have a copy of that...
Well, the 19th level wizard taking forever to level up makes sense. After a certain point you peak.
Right, and that was the intent. But lots of people apparently didn't take the hint (or, more accurately, didn't want that kind of game.)
If I ever get a PC that high again, I'll change what they get XP for. A 19th level Wizard will get XP for successfully researching new spells.
Which takes a ton of gold and materials, but he's too busy with his other experiments. So he sends his seneschal out to find somebody who will collect Xorn spleens for him.
If you're level 19, why even care about reaching 20 at that point. It's like having 10 billion dollars but mad you don't have 11 billion.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;998398If you're level 19, why even care about reaching 20 at that point. It's like having 10 billion dollars but mad you don't have 11 billion.
On some level, you probably don't. Or at least you are much more concerned about whether you have X magic item, Y army, or Z your most dangerous two enemies are busy fighting each other and not you.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;998398If you're level 19, why even care about reaching 20 at that point. It's like having 10 billion dollars but mad you don't have 11 billion.
Ted Turner donated a billion dollars to the UN.
A reporter asked him how much difference that would make to him.
He said, "I won't notice a billion dollars more or less. But I'm going to start earning it back, because that's how my friends and I keep score."
Besides, every wizard in the world wants to be the first one to develop a 10th level spell. And then an 11th level spell.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998121And we're back to "becoming a great Power of the Land" and the game shifting away from "Leveling Up."
"You're the Duke of Lessnard*. You have castles, vassals, lands, and an army. You are no longer a solo adventurer." The game was to change at that point, but that turns out to be not what most people wanted.
Also, don't forget the reduction in XP when you take gold from a lower level creature. What the hell does a 19th level wizard have to do to get enough gold to get 300,000 XP? He's got to destroy or rob literally dozens of dragons singlehandedly to get that much gold.
*Gary once added Lessnard to the map of the Great Kingdom. I wonder if I still have a copy of that...
Yeah, but gamers being gamers, to them the goal is almost always to become more powerful as characters. And for the most part, they see that in terms of leveling up.