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...