This is from a post on the bad rule thread, but I thought it was really it's own topic.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 05, 2023, 10:26:39 PM

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM
I remember having long arguments about this rule with a friend in the early 1980s. He hated the rule - I used it. He just gave out thousands of XP if players finished the adventure. I preferred the RAW as it made the players think about getting back to town or storing their loot if they needed to rest up in the middle of a dungeon. This became a concern for them when we played the A1-4 modules as it meant that they had to find ways to hide their gold in hostile territory.

But at the end of the day, either way works and the DMG gold for XP rule is just one way of doing it.

I use XP for gold (among other things) because it is a NEUTRAL reward system. Giving XP for "completing the adventure" is completely subjective and depends on the hoops the DM wants you to jump through to be able to level up. Now if your group doesn't mind being led by the nose through planned encounters culminating in a big boss fight, rinse and repeat then the per adventure method works.

I think the most neutral XP systems is get a fixed amount per session of play. The incentivized behavior is to show up and play, but it doesn't tell the players anything about what they should do. The players still have in-character motivations, but there isn't a game-mechanical incentive outside of that. (Alternately, original Traveller doesn't have any experience. At most, PCs can train skills by in-character training.)

I often tend towards that because I like the neutrality, especially as a player. Players do what players enjoy. Still, I go with other XP systems at various times. Different XP systems will incentivize different behavior, and there will be different influences including how much the GM controls it.

XP for gold obviously encourages players to chase after gold. In my experience, this is still GM-dominated. The GM decides how much gold is found at each stage of play, so the GM decides on each reward.

Treasure for opponent/monster hit dice is an odd one. If it is a fixed XP for a given opponent, then players are encouraged to get opponents in as disadvantageous a circumstances as possible. On the other hand, some GMs give a bonus for a tough fight (well-prepared opponents in a defensive position) and a penalty if the fight is easy (ambushing them off-guard). If the XP is adjusted, then that comes down to just fighting regularly. If it isn't, then tactics are encouraged -- but conversely, if an enemy is in a good position, the PCs might want to skip it and pick on easier targets instead.

I've used a lot of different XP systems over the years.  My favorite is tying XP to completing jobs (a la video game RPGs) and specific accomplishments.  Discover a big secret, find the lost shrine, defeat a boss in some way and other things will result in XP

XP for gold is great because it shapes a certain type of game play.  Particularly if you don't give XP for killing monsters.  Now players get really creative at finding ways to get to treasure. 

I can deal with almost anything, given players willing to go along.  However, my favorite way is that the base amount is neutral given some (at least partially) quantified challenge.  Then that is modified by the GM based on actions.

For example, the Dragon Quest experience award for starting characters is that you get 600 XP for an adventure that should take about 5 hours of play.  You get double that if the GM deems the adventure to have been a success. Characters with enough breadth and depth in skills get a title that can bump those base awards up (to account for more expensive abilities purchased with said XP), but the system is essentially the same.  Then the GM also has the option to award percentage adjustments for particularly good or bad play, with the rules written to discourage doing that very often.  Basically, only when something really sticks out.  Given the DQ skills-based approach, each adventure is either a boost to several minor or weak abilities or a boost to something major.

For a more D&D style, I prefer to examine the creatures in the area of the adventure, account for wandering monsters and traps but at a lesser rate, then set the XP possible for the area ahead of time.  You go in, do what you set out to do, and you get the XP, whether you fight none, some, or all of the monsters.  This tends to make wandering monsters unattractive as an XP magnet, and I do that specifically to discourage players from seeking out fights just to get XP. 

For my own system, I'm doing a mix of the above, with the additional tweak that there are some standard "Bonus XP" options for getting treasure, rescuing captives, and other such options.  The amount is based on the danger of the area but awarded separate from it.  If players are careful and thoughtful, they can get more XP from the bonuses than they can from the base--or at least match it with less risk to themselves.  So it's a way to cycle back to some of the benefits of "gold for XP" without using it directly.   

I replied to the post quoted in the OP. Including it here cuz it's tangentially relevant. But there is NO such thing as a "Neutral" XP system. ALL XP award is GM reliant--even handing a set amount per session relies on what the GM thinks is fair, and can't possibly take into account the precise degree of difficulty of any challenges faced throughout the session vs other sessions. XP for Gold only adds extra hoops to something that's inherently reliant on GM discretion, and limit the game's focus to treasure hunting and treasure hunting alone, as opposed to ANY other objectives that might be relevant in an adventure game.

The entire notion of a "Neutral" XP system is bunk nonsense. Even XP for combat falls apart as a true neutral arbiter, cuz actual opponent challenge is reliant on PC abilities vs Enemy abilities, as well as tactical circumstances, including not only player strategy, but what sort of environmental factors might be present that might affect the outcome of the encounter. "Neutral" XP system do not and cannot exist. It will always be reliant on GM discretion and guestimates.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2023, 06:36:28 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on October 05, 2023, 10:26:39 PM

Quote from: El-V on October 05, 2023, 08:33:16 AM

As to gold for XP, Gary explained it as an explicit scoring mechanism - i.e. DMG p.86:

'Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience) [...]. All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!'

I remember having long arguments about this rule with a friend in the early 1980s. He hated the rule - I used it. He just gave out thousands of XP if players finished the adventure. I preferred the RAW as it made the players think about getting back to town or storing their loot if they needed to rest up in the middle of a dungeon. This became a concern for them when we played the A1-4 modules as it meant that they had to find ways to hide their gold in hostile territory.

But at the end of the day, either way works and the DMG gold for XP rule is just one way of doing it.

I use XP for gold (among other things) because it is a NEUTRAL reward system. Giving XP for "completing the adventure" is completely subjective and depends on the hoops the DM wants you to jump through to be able to level up. Now if your group doesn't mind being led by the nose through planned encounters culminating in a big boss fight, rinse and repeat then the per adventure method works.

Using the per adventure method with early TSR D&D is an invitation to TPK central. Low levels are where the party learns to work together, and attempts to explore and obtain as much treasure as possible without risking their lives in combat unless conditions are favorable or they have no choice. Being paraded through a string of encounters that the DM thinks that they "should" go through before getting to level is often a death sentence.

Treasure based XP lets the party figure out how they want to seek their fortunes. Gold can be obtained by combat, stealth, trickery, and good old luck finding some in forgotten places. Fiat based XP means you level up whenever you do what the DM thinks you should be doing.

XP for Gold is NOT "neutral". Treasure and what sort of "hoops" you have to go through to get to it is still ultimately subject to the subjective whims of the DM. And is demonstrably more limited than XP through other methods (completing adventures is not the only one of them, any type of objective or achievement may work) because you're limited to treasure hunting as your sole means of progression. While other means of XP award can include absolutely anything, including securing treasure itself as a type of adventure objective, as well as any other objective that may seem appropriate for the group, their goals and the theme of the campaign.

All that XP for Gold does is turn something that's already it's own reward into even more of a reward. And an obligatory proxy for advancement that inevitably leads to inflation due to excess wealth. Which then leads to necessitating additional hoops for advancement, such as requiring training to advance through XP for Gold in order to get rid of that excess gold. When you could have simply given that XP directly, instead of jumping through various hoops to work an unrelated middleman (gold) into the equation.

XP for Gold is the most "dog chasing its tail" asinine nonsense thing ever to rear its head into D&D, other than Initiative and Vancian magic...

I really like Rolemaster's experience system that has very specific and precise awards for skill use, casting spells, kills, aportionment of kills, and travel.  I generally use the idea points to balance out things a bit.

Galaxies In Shadow gives out the same 3% per month that it gives out during character creation, with aptitude limitation and annual personal development limit intact.

Personally I like it because it's fixed, uniform, and utterly unbiased.

I like BRP's experience system in principle but dislike it in practice as it rewards cheaters.

I'm fine with gold for XP as long as it's spent on training.

I quite like the Chivalry and Sorcery 3e system where you level up after you've spent x experience on skills.  It's more organic.

I don't really like arbitrary xp awards at all.  Had a junior high DM who handed out levels that way because he couldn't be bothered to use the rules.  I hated it because everyone else was always being rewarded and I wasn't.

Any XP system is going to be subject to the GM, assuming this is a regular game that relies on GM judgement.

I like XP for gold in games where treasure hunting is central. It's a tidy way of rewarding all kinds of behavior that led to the gold. Killing monster, sneaking into the hoard room, teleporting, whatever. You get the gold, you get the XP.

I also like Free League's XP system. There are general criteria, such as did you explore a new location?, as well as personal criteria. In the latter, the player sets a goal and then gets XP when they advance towards that goal. In TW 2000, for example, you decide on a Big Dream for your character. If you made some progress towards your Big Dream during a session, you get 1 XP among other XP awarded for other things. You can change your Big Dream at the beginning of any session. You also get XP for taking a risk or sacrificing something for your Buddy, which fits the theme of the game. You can change your Buddy, too.

I prefer non-neutral XP systems because they tell you what the game is supposed to be about. If you don't like it, you as GM can change it or you as player can suggest a change to the GM.

When you dig down to the finer details, 1E's XP system has a lot of nuance. And the nuance makes it not really so distinct and also works towards, if not outright over-turning, a lot of conclusions people draw about how the system works and what the incentives are.

XP for monsters, for example, is to be adjusted according to relative challenge. If the party fights 10 orcs at once, they earn more XP than ganging up on a single orc 10 times. Does that mean they are penalized for using divide-and-conquer tactics? Not necessarily. The party might not be able to kill as many if taking them on all at once. The relative risk-reward is obscured enough in most cases, it cannot really be accurately said to incentivize one sort of behavior or another.

XP for gold, likewise, is NOT necessarily at the rate of 1 XP = 1 GP. That's the base rate. But there are provisions for adjusting downwards if the encounter is too easy, enumerating the following suggested ratios: 5gp:4xp, 3:2, 2:1, 3:1, 4 or even more to 1. Even more. No limit to how low that ratio can go. People who claim that in 1E the majority of your XP comes from gold, as if it's objectively the case, probably missed this rule.

When I was running in observance with this rule 20-30 years ago, I wasn't 100% comfortable back then making the judgement call. But I understood the general idea perfectly well. As challenge approaches zero, so does the actual XP you earn from gold. And so it occurred to me I could make it more formulaic, more objective, more "neutral" by taking a huge short-cut and just saying the XP value of the challenge itself (monster XP) also acts as a cap on treasure XP. That "rule" is legit guidance for executing the Rule-as-Written, it's 100% consistent with the rules as written, it matches the spirit of the rules as written. But you know what it doesn't do? Give out more XP for gold than it does for monsters.

Those are just a few bubbles I like to burst. But here's where it gets really interesting.

Quote from: Dungeon Masters GuideTricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure.

This makes it clear that despite the rules being very clear that the XP awards for monsters is specifically for killing monsters--not capturing, routing, or tricking them--that actually, yes, you do get XP for tricking and outwitting monsters. It's just not the same XP award as for killing the monster. Seems reasonable. Some monsters are harder to outsmart than others, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to how tough the monster is. The bigger idea here, though, is that you get XP for overcoming challenges. It's not just for killing monsters. Any sort of challenge bested earns XP. It's just killing monsters is one of the more easily objectively quantifiable. And that's why there's a lot of detail on that and why it tends to get the spotlight.

Given this, I immediately have to ask if XP for gold itself isn't the same situation. Just like you get XP for overcoming ANY challenge, not just killing monsters, maybe it's also the case that you get XP for accomplishing ANY goal, not just getting gold. It's just gold is more objectively quantifiable. Unfortunately there is not an equally clear smoking gun for backing this idea. But there is this I find interesting:

Quote from: Dungeon Masters GuideAll 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.)

Creatures sold is interesting. So you mean if I rescue the princess and "sell" her back to the king to collect a 1000 gp award, then I actually get 1000 xp for achieving the goal of rescuing the princess and safely returning her. Normally some dude just handing me 1000 gp wouldn't be worth any XP per the above cited rule about t XP for Gold being adjustable by challenge. No challenge, no XP. But, suddenly it does count if I've completed the quest of rescuing the princess. There's at least a foot in the door with any number of applications for XP for completing quests being in the Rules as Written.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2023, 07:10:52 PM
But there is NO such thing as a "Neutral" XP system. ALL XP award is GM reliant--even handing a set amount per session relies on what the GM thinks is fair, and can't possibly take into account the precise degree of difficulty of any challenges faced throughout the session vs other sessions.

Quote from: VisionStorm on October 06, 2023, 07:10:52 PM
The entire notion of a "Neutral" XP system is bunk nonsense. Even XP for combat falls apart as a true neutral arbiter, cuz actual opponent challenge is reliant on PC abilities vs Enemy abilities, as well as tactical circumstances, including not only player strategy, but what sort of environmental factors might be present that might affect the outcome of the encounter. "Neutral" XP system do not and cannot exist. It will always be reliant on GM discretion and guestimates.

I think this is a clash over the use of the term "neutral". If as GM, I give 5 XP to players each session, then that is neutral with respect to player behavior. Players aren't incentivized to do anything other than show up.

Of course, this isn't an accurate assessment of the level of challenge that PC's face. There is no neutral measurement of level of challenge, I'd agree. If one wants a measure of player challenge to be the XP given, then there is no neutral choice for challenge-based XP.

When it comes to neutral xp, I strongly prefer the Aberrant model and like to use it in other low xp games as I find it rewards good play without having a grind-able xp mechanism.

Quote
The categories below describe areas in which characters can win experience. Each category is worth one experience point. No character should ever fulfill every single category at one time, although multiple characters may qualify for the same award.

•   Automatic — Each character receives one point at A end of every story.
•   Discovery— The character understands something new and significant about himself, his fellow novas or them.
•   Exceptional Roleplay — The player roleplayed his character particularly well. This behavior should be appropriate to the character; points should not be awarded for outlandish, out-of-character antics.
•   Heroism — The character risked life and limb to save the day. Only the most dramatic situations qualify for this award — stupidity does not count.
•   Wisdom — The character discovered a way out of a trap or learned the truth behind a mystery. The group often deduces solutions together, in which case everyone should be awarded. However, if one character pieces everything together by himself, only he gets the award.
•   Creativity— This pone is reserved for players who add to the story's enjoyment without detracting from the game. This includes. but is not limited to, well-developed backgrounds. character journal or introducing new story elements. This bonus Is highly discretionary and should be awarded infrequently.
•   Cohesion — The characters worked exception¬ally well together, defeating their opponents or strategically investigating all avenues of information.

My preference is objective-oriented rewards.  If the PCs know they are supposed to end the orc attacks on the town, recover the McGuffin, and rescue the princess, then they get X xp for ending the orc attacks on town, y xp for recovering the McGuffin, and Z xp for saving the princess.  This orients play towards completing goals, which is what I like.  It also encourages flexibility and clever thinking with regard to how the goals are accomplished.  If the adventure is about acquiring wealth, then that can be one of the objectives too.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 05:10:30 PM
XP for gold obviously encourages players to chase after gold. In my experience, this is still GM-dominated. The GM decides how much gold is found at each stage of play, so the GM decides on each reward.

If I can quibble, I think both in theory and in my experience, the GM decides how much gold is available to be found at each stage of play, but it's the players' actions (& the simulated world) that determine how much of that gold is actually found. And ideally the GM has offered several different opportunities, and the players have chosen one; although they may be chasing plot, they have at least the opportunity to choose risk/reward.

My current 5e players forgot all about all their other plans when they got a lead on a vault said to contain three powerful magic swords *and* a route past some of the vault's traps, even knowing the lead is coming from a witch of dubious morality in league with a dragon they intend to oppose and they've made all sorts of compromises to get the information from her.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 06, 2023, 08:54:03 PM
When you dig down to the finer details, 1E's XP system has a lot of nuance. And the nuance makes it not really so distinct and also works towards, if not outright over-turning, a lot of conclusions people draw about how the system works and what the incentives are.

XP for monsters, for example, is to be adjusted according to relative challenge. If the party fights 10 orcs at once, they earn more XP than ganging up on a single orc 10 times. Does that mean they are penalized for using divide-and-conquer tactics? Not necessarily. The party might not be able to kill as many if taking them on all at once. The relative risk-reward is obscured enough in most cases, it cannot really be accurately said to incentivize one sort of behavior or another.

XP for gold, likewise, is NOT necessarily at the rate of 1 XP = 1 GP. That's the base rate. But there are provisions for adjusting downwards if the encounter is too easy, enumerating the following suggested ratios: 5gp:4xp, 3:2, 2:1, 3:1, 4 or even more to 1. Even more. No limit to how low that ratio can go. People who claim that in 1E the majority of your XP comes from gold, as if it's objectively the case, probably missed this rule.

When I was running in observance with this rule 20-30 years ago, I wasn't 100% comfortable back then making the judgement call. But I understood the general idea perfectly well. As challenge approaches zero, so does the actual XP you earn from gold. And so it occurred to me I could make it more formulaic, more objective, more "neutral" by taking a huge short-cut and just saying the XP value of the challenge itself (monster XP) also acts as a cap on treasure XP. That "rule" is legit guidance for executing the Rule-as-Written, it's 100% consistent with the rules as written, it matches the spirit of the rules as written. But you know what it doesn't do? Give out more XP for gold than it does for monsters.

Those are just a few bubbles I like to burst. But here's where it gets really interesting.

Quote from: Dungeon Masters GuideTricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure.

This makes it clear that despite the rules being very clear that the XP awards for monsters is specifically for killing monsters--not capturing, routing, or tricking them--that actually, yes, you do get XP for tricking and outwitting monsters. It's just not the same XP award as for killing the monster. Seems reasonable. Some monsters are harder to outsmart than others, but that doesn't necessarily correlate to how tough the monster is. The bigger idea here, though, is that you get XP for overcoming challenges. It's not just for killing monsters. Any sort of challenge bested earns XP. It's just killing monsters is one of the more easily objectively quantifiable. And that's why there's a lot of detail on that and why it tends to get the spotlight.

Given this, I immediately have to ask if XP for gold itself isn't the same situation. Just like you get XP for overcoming ANY challenge, not just killing monsters, maybe it's also the case that you get XP for accomplishing ANY goal, not just getting gold. It's just gold is more objectively quantifiable. Unfortunately there is not an equally clear smoking gun for backing this idea. But there is this I find interesting:

Quote from: Dungeon Masters GuideAll 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.)

Creatures sold is interesting. So you mean if I rescue the princess and "sell" her back to the king to collect a 1000 gp award, then I actually get 1000 xp for achieving the goal of rescuing the princess and safely returning her. Normally some dude just handing me 1000 gp wouldn't be worth any XP per the above cited rule about t XP for Gold being adjustable by challenge. No challenge, no XP. But, suddenly it does count if I've completed the quest of rescuing the princess. There's at least a foot in the door with any number of applications for XP for completing quests being in the Rules as Written.

Some excellent observations here. I will add that these are just the base XP rules and the DM may add addition XP for whatever is appropriate for the campaign. I like to award added XP for player driven goals that are achieved such as discovering the entrance to a lower dungeon level, or finding a specific item and returning it for a reward. In the game I just ran last night the party was investigating a series of caves down in a chasm. A cleric had approached them in town and asked them to return with a particular holy relic should they find it. The party will receive bonus XP if they do happen to find and return the relic. The players can make searching for the relic their primary goal or not as it suits them.

All of these treasure/challenge based XP rules that I prefer are used only with D&D type games. I have run and played in other types of games where treasure isn't a factor.I certainly do not use such a system when running GURPS , CoC, or other games.

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 05:10:30 PM
XP for gold obviously encourages players to chase after gold.

Which makes it definitley not-neutral. XP gain is weighted towards gaining gold, whether the character or player wants gold or not.

In systems that use XP, I've come to a system where I assign an expected xp award for a typical session, then divide that amount by the number of encounters I expect the adventure to take. I tweak the values from there, depending on the type of encounter and it's difficulty, and I try to toss in some bonus xp for good play, memorable encounters, finding hidden stuff, and taking on optional challenges that are more risky. Once I determine that baseline value, it's pretty easy to eyeball xp awards during play.

XP for gold is cute in that beer & pretzles dungeon crawl way, and I might actually plan an adventure around that if it's appropriate. But not as a general rule.

Quote from: Naburimannu on October 07, 2023, 09:55:00 AM

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2023, 05:10:30 PM
XP for gold obviously encourages players to chase after gold. In my experience, this is still GM-dominated. The GM decides how much gold is found at each stage of play, so the GM decides on each reward.

If I can quibble, I think both in theory and in my experience, the GM decides how much gold is available to be found at each stage of play, but it's the players' actions (& the simulated world) that determine how much of that gold is actually found. And ideally the GM has offered several different opportunities, and the players have chosen one; although they may be chasing plot, they have at least the opportunity to choose risk/reward.

My current 5e players forgot all about all their other plans when they got a lead on a vault said to contain three powerful magic swords *and* a route past some of the vault's traps, even knowing the lead is coming from a witch of dubious morality in league with a dragon they intend to oppose and they've made all sorts of compromises to get the information from her.

I don't think this is disagreeing with my point. Exploderwizard's claim was the XP for gold was neutral, and that GM-moderated XP for completing goals was the GM putting the PCs through hoops.

But in both of these, there will be different rewards based on different player actions, and the players can choose based on this.

For example, in a game with GM-moderated awards, the players could hear that there is a particularly perilous quest that could do great good for the land. And the players would understand that there is a lot of XP if they took such a difficult quest.

In GM-moderated rewards, the GM can and should communicate what the awards are for - so the players have some idea about what choices lead to greater rewards. It isn't exact, but then, the players don't know exactly how much gold is in a given stage for how much risk either.