Quote from: Christopher Brady;965294What a cool piece of history!

I know, right? I would recommend Playing at the World, even to those who could care less about Gary and co., just because it is a great look at a nascent movement/fad/next-big-thing forming organically.

QuoteThis situation is why I prefer a more flexible XP model than XP for Loot Only or Killing Only.

I agree. In my own campaigns, I prefer a DM-arbitrated reward for achieving goals and otherwise helping make a good gaming session. However, I understand why most games do not have that as their default mechanism (I think maybe GURPS has the 'give 1-x pts per gaming session, as the GM sees fit' model, which is close). It really assumes a competent GM to be able to do this. Gamebooks, almost as a necessity, have to assume that the reader is a first time RPG player. Therefore, the writers tend to aim* for a method clear, codified systems that are consistent, reproducible, and readily explicable to the novice GM. Could they add a section saying, "GMs who are confident in their Game Mastering will probably desire a less structured, more flexible xp system which focuses on achieving PC goals?" Absolutely! OTOH, GMs at that level of skill do not need the book's permission. Thus, all systems tend to include an xp metric that will eventually get discarded.
*well, do now. As Gronan pointed out, Arneson probably just picked something.

Quote from: Baron OpalI don't think D&D ever had those schemes. At base it was a mix of the two whose balance changed, and expanded, over time.

2e AD&D had a real melting pot/smorgasbord that was more than just loot or killing, and was certainly flexible. My impression is that most people also considered it kind of a mess as well.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;9653322e AD&D had a real melting pot/smorgasbord that was more than just loot or killing, and was certainly flexible. My impression is that most people also considered it kind of a mess as well.

As usual I suspect that was theorycrafting as it worked fine at the table.

Quote from: S'mon;965239How is chasing XP navel-gazing? Surely it's outward directed, towards the XP source? Basically the opposite?

Re actual navel-gazing playstyles, "Build" focus and focus on the character's internal life are the two types that come to mind.

It's navel gazing on the part of the GM.  "What do I want my PCs to do...when I decide I'll incentivize it to direct play that way."  

Or just let the players roleplay their characters and do your fucking job.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965441It's navel gazing on the part of the GM.  "What do I want my PCs to do...when I decide I'll incentivize it to direct play that way."  

Or just let the players roleplay their characters and do your fucking job.

What is the GM's job here?

Quote from: S'mon;965459What is the GM's job here?

The Players roleplay their characters.  You create then roleplay the rest of the world, and adjudicate rules if necessary.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;965275Soldiers and spell-slingers were never not sneaky until a specifically sneaky class showed up. There is nothing in the oD&D that says a dwarven fighter in plate mail can't sneak around (actually there isn't anything until 3e that says so*).
*I'm sure one of you guys who know the books by heart will find a contradiction somewhere.

Come up in AD&D and 2e. Cant sneak unless in certain types of armour.

In probably O and definitely BX though sneaking in anything was baked into the movement system. The group is moving so slowly because everyone is trying to be quiet and careful. Page b19 specifically says so. The Thief is just able to do it better, but is also in lighter armour.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965952The Players roleplay their characters.  You create then roleplay the rest of the world, and adjudicate rules if necessary.

Is the GM allowed to set a theme or premise for the campaign?

I think what you're arguing for is best supported by something like the Runequest/BRP skill system, where PCs advance in the skills they use, without regard to GM-set play goals. With Experience Point systems the GM is always giving XP for whatever goals the game supports, eg gaining treasure in 0e-1e D&D or killing monsters in 3e-5e D&D.

Quote from: Omega;965953Come up in AD&D and 2e. Cant sneak unless in certain types of armour.

Do you happen to have a page reference? I remember penalties for the 'move silently' ability in armor (probably for all armors somewhere in the 2e Complete Book of Thieves or Complete Book of Bards), but I don't remember really much of any rules on just normal sneaking. I haven't come back to AD&D for analysis the way I have BECM, B/X and OD&D, so I have no idea how much of my memory of them are based on our houserules/what-we-used vs. what is in the books in total.

QuoteIn probably O and definitely BX though sneaking in anything was baked into the movement system. The group is moving so slowly because everyone is trying to be quiet and careful. Page b19 specifically says so. The Thief is just able to do it better, but is also in lighter armour.

Exactly!

Quote from: Omega;965953Come up in AD&D and 2e. Cant sneak unless in certain types of armour.

In probably O and definitely BX though sneaking in anything was baked into the movement system. The group is moving so slowly because everyone is trying to be quiet and careful. Page b19 specifically says so. The Thief is just able to do it better, but is also in lighter armour.

And in near impossible situations... climb a SHEER wall without special equipment, hide in SHADOWS rather than darkness, etc.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966034And in near impossible situations... climb a SHEER wall without special equipment, hide in SHADOWS rather than darkness, etc.

Ninja!

Quote from: Willie the Duck;965976Do you happen to have a page reference?

In the AD&D PHB it states the PCs are making some noise while moving but does not single out or even mention armour. I dd not see anything specific on a glance through. But elf and halfling sneaking is limited to non-metal armour. Thieves of course are also limited in armour but thats a different matter. But past that seems no restriction. Much like O and BX.

Page 120 of the 2e PHB though comments on the PCs moving quietly. But like BX seems no specific penalties based on type of armour. Rangers were though limited to studded leather if they wanted to do sneaky stuff. Thieves suffer penalties based on the type of armour worn
2e does though have penalties for climbing in various types of armour.

Quote from: S'mon;965954Is the GM allowed to set a theme or premise for the campaign?

I think what you're arguing for is best supported by something like the Runequest/BRP skill system, where PCs advance in the skills they use, without regard to GM-set play goals. With Experience Point systems the GM is always giving XP for whatever goals the game supports, eg gaining treasure in 0e-1e D&D or killing monsters in 3e-5e D&D.

Premise? Sure.  Theme?  Now you're by definition in OOC territory if the players have their characters act Heroically because they know "Heroism" is what this campaign is "about".  If the GM wants to address themes, he should do it through the world, not by what path he allows the PCs to advance on.

I've played and ran just about every game without regard to "GM-set play goals".  This guy's worth X exp. Defeat him by sneaking past him and escaping, killing him, getting him to surrender, setting him up and getting him arrested and out of the way, embarrass him in a war of words in front of the King...you defeated him, collect X.

Awards for doing something should be static and binary, you either get them or you don't.  Whether the GM thought you should do it, wanted you to do it, or planned for you to do it shouldn't matter.

I am with S'mon on this one. There is definitely room for rewarding behavior that fits the campaign style. If you have a treasure hunting campaign mind, giving XP for successful treasure hunting is fine by me. It is a very easy way to maintain a campaign style or keep things in genre. Not the only way to do things. But it is just as viable as something based more on realistic progression of skill. If the players don't like it, then of course it is a problem. But I have been in plenty of groups who prefer this sort of reward system.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966072I am with S'mon on this one. There is definitely room for rewarding behavior that fits the campaign style. If you have a treasure hunting campaign mind, giving XP for successful treasure hunting is fine by me. It is a very easy way to maintain a campaign style or keep things in genre. Not the only way to do things. But it is just as viable as something based more on realistic progression of skill. If the players don't like it, then of course it is a problem. But I have been in plenty of groups who prefer this sort of reward system.

Lots of people always "roleplay" with one foot firmly OOC thinking about Genre, style, theme, whatever.  Nothing wrong with it, I'll play a one-shot or short story arc like that myself and enjoy it.  It just won't replace IC roleplaying for me.  However, no matter how OOC the game is, the GM steering behavior through XP rewards, just have the balls to run the railroad to get what you want from the players instead of doing a Pavlov number on them.

I simply tell players "This is what the campaign will be about.  If you don't like it, don't play."  "This," in my case, is "exploration and adventure."