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, 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, 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.

+1

So 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.