TheRPGSite

I'm making a game.

Determining XP for monsters is easy because I can roughly calculate how difficult they are to fight relative to players and each other, more or less.

The most elegant way to do XP for non combat is to award it for recovering gold/treasure. Sounds good. But this requires treasure tables and standards for what you find in the world. I don't have that yet.

Until then, I want to award XP for skill rolls, but it's hard to conceptualize. Ideas? I would generally assume it's a combination of the roll's difficulty, the stakes, and maybe a way to put it on a curve relative to the player's level, maybe. Yeah, it's gamey, but there must be a game that does this well even if it's not people's first choice. Thoughts?

Yeah, part of this is incentivizing my play testers to invest skill points into non combat skills. Maybe that's dumb, there was a thread a while back about why using XP to encourage behavior is bad. But I'd like to try it and see for myself.

Quote from: Ashakyre;963123Yeah, part of this is incentivizing my play testers to invest skill points into non combat skills. Maybe that's dumb, there was a thread a while back about why using XP to encourage behavior is bad. But I'd like to try it and see for myself.

Well, the easiest way to do that is to reward the play testers for goals, and make the goals be such that combat is incapable or suboptimal at achieving some or all of the goals. Gp=xp is really just a very specific version of this.

But if you really want to hone in on the give bonus for using skills, I think Runequest does this.

Consider EXP based on for example talking to someone. Talking down a red dragon from attacking should garner as much EXP as slaying it.

With skill challenges work out a sort of table based on the DC or equivalent. and keep the rewards RARE. Very RARE.

I have a list from Salem World, I use this for most every situation.  The points are low because advancement of a character is done through point buy XP, and it keeps the progress slow.

Experience Rewards
1 - Using a skill / power (even failed)
3 - Playing ones Outlook (alignment)
5 - Playing true to character
3 - Creative ideas (that did or didn't work)
5 - Using a skill / power in unusual ways
8 - Causing harm to self for saving another
8 - Potential Self sacrifice
6 - Causing large effects for outlook play
3 - Playing class correctly
10 - Killing / defeating a powerful foe
5 - Killing / defeating a matched foe
2 - Solving a puzzle / riddle / maze
3 - Good / Evil / Neutral deeds that match Character personality

Just something that works for us

In a game where you're awarding xp for activities and not for session-showing-up, I generally prefer to tie it to goals rather than activities.  XP for GP is an early example of this.

So you get XP for rescuing the princess, but how you accomplish that is irrelevant.

I found the AD&D DMG discussion of "What is an Encounter?" to be tremendously useful in assisting what is a meaningful experience (XP).

Basically, was it a meaningful experience? Did casting that spell, or stealing that item, or using your professional skill, did it lead to a learning experience? Or was it just routine, even if it was a display of power?

Then, instead of designing things too much as a puzzle to be solved, all you have to do is offer complications and see if the PCs approach it in ways that add to their knowledge of the world and their capabilities within it. Or in other words, was it more than a routine expenditure of effort.

The idea of my game is that the hex map is basically a slow motion dungeon crawl. When I finalize rules for factions (which are analagous to monsters) I could award experience for damaging a faction. (Completely destorying one would be unrealistic.) That might be fun. And that would put all the game's skills on an equal footing.

Until then, some chart based in DC, stakes should do, I suppose.

Time.  Reward xp based on how long it took the to accomplish their goal plus the amount of time it took you to craft the puzzle/challenge.  

Or affect.  How much of the world did they shift × how intentional were those effects.  If they drop a torch and burn down an inn by accident which results in bankrupting a Duke by accident they get little xp.  If they know its his last venture and he's in debt up to his eyeballs and they burn it down then tonnes of xp.

Quote from: Ashakyre;963123I'm making a game.

Determining XP for monsters is easy because I can roughly calculate how difficult they are to fight relative to players and each other, more or less.

The most elegant way to do XP for non combat is to award it for recovering gold/treasure. Sounds good. But this requires treasure tables and standards for what you find in the world. I don't have that yet.

This encourages loot and scoot behavior. Which is neither good nor bad. Just something to keep in mind.

QuoteUntil then, I want to award XP for skill rolls, but it's hard to conceptualize. Ideas? I would generally assume it's a combination of the roll's difficulty, the stakes, and maybe a way to put it on a curve relative to the player's level, maybe. Yeah, it's gamey, but there must be a game that does this well even if it's not people's first choice. Thoughts?

I have settled on using the encounter as my base for xp awards. So if you have the amount of XP a combat encounter would be worth, you can use that as a baseline for all encounters. An easy non-com would be worth the low side, a critical non-com would be worth the full or even a little bit more than the usual combat xp award.

QuoteYeah, part of this is incentivizing my play testers to invest skill points into non combat skills. Maybe that's dumb, there was a thread a while back about why using XP to encourage behavior is bad. But I'd like to try it and see for myself.

Yeah, I would not award per skill, as that encourages players to rationalize using skills for solving problems ("I use Horsemanship to research the forgotten ruin...") instead of using the appropriate skill for the task at hand.

Otherwise, I personally like using XP to encourage behavior, you just have to put a bit of thought into what you're awarding xp for.

In D&D 5e I give out 50x the players level in XP for a pure RP session.  With bonuses, or outright monster XP if they negotiate (as in overcome or sidestep) through a potential combat.

But not knowing the OP's base system, I can't add more than that.

Quote from: Ashakyre;963123Determining XP for monsters is easy because I can roughly calculate how difficult they are to fight relative to players and each other, more or less.

The most elegant way to do XP for non combat is to award it for recovering gold/treasure. Sounds good. But this requires treasure tables and standards for what you find in the world. I don't have that yet.

Until then, I want to award XP for skill rolls, but it's hard to conceptualize. Ideas?

Conceptually, a key part of XP as a *game reward* is what the risk is. In combat the risk is typically death, permanent imprisonment, or other grievous outcome. In non-combat challenges, the risk varies a lot more. If players can get a bunch of XP from low-risk activity, then they will be motivated to keep doing that.

The XP system is really about what you want to encourage. A simple default is just to give fixed XP for every session that the player shows up. That only motivates showing up to play, not what to do. Other XP systems will instead motivate particular actions - like trying to get the most gold, for example. If you think that players won't try to get gold and you want them to, then rewarding XP for gold makes sense. However, players may be unwilling and/or unhappy if they consider helping some penniless farmers.

Another option is to award XP based on mission(s) completed - but if it is a fixed amount, then it may encourage the players to take on the simplest missions possible.

If you award them for each challenge, then it should be based on risk, but it potentially is just a lot of arbitrary decisions, and it might be better just to give them a reward at the end based on a subjective scale of the challenges and risks they faced.

I'm as hardcore "Old-school" as they come, yet I am totally in favor of this.

In my own campaign I give out "Exploration points" to PCS who go out of the way to visit that weird city, that obscure ruin in the corner of the map, that mountain that no one has ever climbed, etc. It really keeps things moving, vital, and alive.

In a game like 5e D&D I tend to give out an "Easy" or "Medium" or "Hard" combat challenge XP award for the non-combat equivalent challenge or quest completion, using the PCs' average level. In 5e I cap these awards at the level 10 line since the XP chart gets wonky after that and I'd prefer the PCs not to level up too fast.

Another thing I do in my 5e Pathfinders game is give a flat 100 XP per PC for every 'discovery' such as a new dungeon level, weird room etc.

I occasionally abstract it to "one Easy XP award per hour of play" if the PCs are active but the session doesn't break into clear quests/encounters/etc. A good rule of thumb for me is that if the PCs are active they should get at least 10% of the XP needed to level up in a 3 hour session, or above 10th level/name level in 5e make it 10% of what a level 11 PC would need to advance (ie 1500 XP).

I deliberately avoid giving XP for time spent OOC planning, book keeping etc, I don't want to incentivise not playing the game. But I might give XP for in-character planning sessions esp where NPCs are involved, persuasion attempts are required, etc.

Edit:  The 5e level 10 encounter XP line is:

Easy 600
Medium 1200
Hard 1900
Deadly 2800

If the level 10+ PCs spend the time not in combat I'll typically give 600 XP per hour of non-threatening active play, but a typical achievement gets them 1200 XP each. In practice my online text-chat group typically get around 1800 XP for a 3 hour session sans big combat whereas the tabletop group get more like 3600, mostly because tabletop play is faster and they get more done. I rarely use the Hard & Deadly lines for noncombat awards but I might give 2800 each for something really major.

For reference, level 10 5e PCs need 21,000 XP to level, level 11 need 15,000, and level 19 need 50,000 to reach 20.

For what it's worth, I tend to fall back on a reward system modeled closely after AD&D's. I'm looking at four factors mainly. Challenge, Gain, Loss, and Role.

Challenge is what monsters in D&D represent. You earn XP for killing them. I also award half XP for non-lethal defeat of monsters. Gain is like XP for treasure and magic items in AD&D. The formula for XP reward is Challenge + Gain. However, if there is no possibility for loss, it zeroes out all XP rewards. Role, as it manifests in AD&D, is the measure of how well you played to your character class and that effects training time and cost. When I play Lejendary Adventure (a skill-based RPG), Role comes in the form of skill-specific XP (they can only be used to raise that particular skill)--there is a minimum number of skill-specific XP required to raise the skill without training. So like AD&D, this influences training time (and thus cost).

A couple of other things I do (at the suggestions of the DMG)--XP for gain is capped at challenge. So if 1000 xp worth of monsters guards 20,000 xp worth of treasure, the most XP you can ever get from treasure is 1000 xp. If you kill the monsters and take their stuff, that's 2000 xp total. If you wait for the monsters to leave and steal their stuff, it's 1000 xp total. If you force the monsters to flee or surrender and take their stuff, that's 1500 xp total. Second, all XP values double if you're facing 10-to-1 odds.

So how does this apply to non-combat? Say you're picking a pocket. Well, there are consequences for getting caught, so loss is present, thus you can earn non-zero XP for this. What does it take? Just one pittily skill roll? 5 to 50 XP depending on any difficulty modifier. What's the reward, a 25 gp gem? Okay, that's 25 XP but it's capped by the challenge. Meaning, if it's an easy roll (say, you get a 20% bonus to pick pockets) you only get 10 xp, 5 for the challenge, 5 for the gain. Finally, how does this pertain to the role of your character? In a skill-based game, that might be a small reward for the skill used. In a class-based game, if this is fitting in with the class function and your role in the party, you get a smiley face sticker or a gold star or something.

Quote from: Ashakyre;963123...The most elegant way to do XP for non combat is to award it for recovering gold/treasure. Sounds good. But this requires treasure tables and standards for what you find in the world. I don't have that yet.

I think XP based on gold is pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate unless your game world for some reason always has gold rewards that are proportional to the learning available from accomplishing something, which seems bizarre and perversely capitalistic-minded to me. Seems to me that actual life experience has nothing to do with monetary value.

QuoteUntil then, I want to award XP for skill rolls, but it's hard to conceptualize. Ideas? I would generally assume it's a combination of the roll's difficulty, the stakes, and maybe a way to put it on a curve relative to the player's level, maybe. Yeah, it's gamey, but there must be a game that does this well even if it's not people's first choice. Thoughts?...

Like combat, it seems to me that experience should have something to do with how difficult and/or educational a task is. If a game has difficult success rolls to accomplish things, then the severity of the roll might determine experience for it.

I also like experience systems that somehow take into account the ability of the person doing it. For instance, I generally compare the ability of the learner to the difficulty of the thing, including bonuses. So using magic (or otherwise task-easy-making) tools reduces the experience because it made it easier. Another clever way to do this that I first heard invented by a GM was to give exp only on failed rolls, which naturally led to learning from difficulty and reduced learning when you're just doing something you've mastered, without having to do any additional math since it's built into the success system.

Quote from: Skarg;963313I think XP based on gold is pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate unless your game world for some reason always has gold rewards that are proportional to the learning available from accomplishing something, which seems bizarre and perversely capitalistic-minded to me. Seems to me that actual life experience has nothing to do with monetary value.

It's because XP was never really 'Experience.' That's just a moniker. It is just the reward. It rewards succeeding at the game. The earliest games had treasure as the goal. Thus gold = reward (xp) at a 1:1 ratio is a perfectly fine shorthand. Video games and pinball go a step more abstract and just gave you 'points' instead of 'experience points' but the concept is the same.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;963342It's because XP was never really 'Experience.' That's just a moniker. It is just the reward. It rewards succeeding at the game. The earliest games had treasure as the goal. Thus gold = reward (xp) at a 1:1 ratio is a perfectly fine shorthand. Video games and pinball go a step more abstract and just gave you 'points' instead of 'experience points' but the concept is the same.

So X doesn't stand for eXperience? It's X-factor points? Which determines ability levels why?

Experience points in TFT are EP - experience points, and are rewarded for points of damage done, DX of foes vanquished (since DX is how capable someone is in TFT), and points for success rolls based on how hard they were, and other representations of experience that would logically lead to improvement.

Which is where I'm coming from, the degenerate reward systems of  video games and the alternative designs of non-simulationist games seeming inappropriate from my heavily sim-oriented mindset. But ya, if a game is about swallowing power pills to be able to eat ghosts, then sure. ;-)

Quote from: Skarg;963790So X doesn't stand for eXperience? It's X-factor points? Which determines ability levels why?
Experience points in TFT are EP - experience points, and are rewarded for points of damage done, DX of foes vanquished (since DX is how capable someone is in TFT), and points for success rolls based on how hard they were, and other representations of experience that would logically lead to improvement.
Which is where I'm coming from, the degenerate reward systems of  video games and the alternative designs of non-simulationist games seeming inappropriate from my heavily sim-oriented mindset. But ya, if a game is about swallowing power pills to be able to eat ghosts, then sure. ;-)

Depends on what you mean by 'stand for.' In D&D it is called 'experience points' and is routinely called xp, although I can't tell you when that shorthand first appeared (I am AFB). My point is that any linkage between experience points and amount of experiencing of anything is tenuous at best. The points are, more honestly, a reward for success. In TSR-era D&D, the primary activity to be rewarded was gold pieces (or equivalent) you could haul back home. In WotC era, it switched mostly to what monsters you could defeat. However, in each case, it wasn't really how much of life or adventure or whatnot you experienced, but in how much of that time you've spent succeeding at that edition's primary goal (and to what intensity).
*excluding 2e AD&D

As to it determining ability levels, why not? It is a gamist mechanic. No argument. TFT has a simulationist mechanic. They are both much better at achieving their own goals than the other would be. There's no 'right' answer. A gamist mechanic is not inherently superior for an endeavor which is, by definition, a game. If you prefer one over the other, that's great, wonderful even-- but a different position than "pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate."

Quote from: Willie the Duck;963797... As to it determining ability levels, why not? It is a gamist mechanic. No argument. TFT has a simulationist mechanic. They are both much better at achieving their own goals than the other would be. There's no 'right' answer. A gamist mechanic is not inherently superior for an endeavor which is, by definition, a game. If you prefer one over the other, that's great, wonderful even-- but a different position than "pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate."

Right. I didn't mean to offend non-simulationist gamists. Apparently I'm still challenged to avoid doing that while also explaining the nature of my contrasting opinion. Should I be writing "Not to offend gamists, but from my simulationist perspective, gamist mechanics that don't make any simulationist sense often seem ridiculous and obviously inappropriate"? Maybe if I find the right wording for that, I can just put it in a signature block and then just post "Cough". ;-)

You have me mistaken for thin-skinned, and perhaps mistaken for a gamist, as opposed to an egalitarian.

I was simply disagreeing. You stated that, "I think XP based on gold is pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate unless your game world for some reason always has gold rewards that are proportional to the learning available from accomplishing something." I disagree because learning something was never an intrinsic part of the experience point mechanic*, despite the name. Specific games (like TFT) made mechanics that emulated learning through practice, and that's great for those who like it. However, it has no clear, obvious claim to being more appropriate. It's just one more choice amongst many in ways to determine when a character's power level should change.

*overall, across the RPG industry

Robert Louis Stevenson did NOT write Skill Challenge Island.

Quote from: Skarg;963313I think XP based on gold is pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate unless your game world for some reason always has gold rewards that are proportional to the learning available from accomplishing something, which seems bizarre and perversely capitalistic-minded to me. Seems to me that actual life experience has nothing to do with monetary value.

The fact that you don't understand XP for gold does not make it bad.  The fact that even if you did understand XP for gold, you don't like it, does not make it bad.

The only thing "pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate" is you confusing your opinion with fact.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;963922You have me mistaken for thin-skinned, and perhaps mistaken for a gamist, as opposed to an egalitarian.

I was simply disagreeing. You stated that, "I think XP based on gold is pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate unless your game world for some reason always has gold rewards that are proportional to the learning available from accomplishing something." I disagree because learning something was never an intrinsic part of the experience point mechanic*, despite the name. Specific games (like TFT) made mechanics that emulated learning through practice, and that's great for those who like it. However, it has no clear, obvious claim to being more appropriate. It's just one more choice amongst many in ways to determine when a character's power level should change.

*overall, across the RPG industry

Ok, so as a egalitarian rather than a gamist, you are upholding the equal rights of games to choose non-simulationist mechanics?

What about the assertion I was responding to, that

QuoteThe most elegant way to do XP for non combat is to award it for recovering gold/treasure

? Do egalitarian gamers also object to that wording because calling it "most elegant" also elevates its choice of mechanic above others?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;963924The fact that you don't understand XP for gold does not make it bad.  The fact that even if you did understand XP for gold, you don't like it, does not make it bad.

The only thing "pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate" is you confusing your opinion with fact.

Is there really something I don't understand about XP for gold?

Quote from: Skarg;964076Is there really something I don't understand about XP for gold?

Honestly, I don't understand it.  What makes it so great.  Picking up shinies doesn't strike me as the best way to hone your combat skills, or gain knowledge of arcane mysteries.

But what do I know, I didn't suckle at the teat of All Mighty Gygax.

Quote from: Skarg;964076Is there really something I don't understand about XP for gold?

Well... What do you think EXP for gold means?

The part of your post he quoted indicates that yeah, you dont seem to understand it?

QuoteI think XP based on gold is pretty ridiculous and obviously inappropriate unless your game world for some reason always has gold rewards that are proportional to the learning available from accomplishing something, which seems bizarre and perversely capitalistic-minded to me. Seems to me that actual life experience has nothing to do with monetary value.

Quote from: Skarg;964073Ok, so as a egalitarian rather than a gamist, you are upholding the equal rights of games to choose non-simulationist mechanics?

I don't need to. No one can, is, or is pretending to, force anyone else to choose any kind of mechanics. Why then would I be upholding anyone's in-no-way-in-jeopardy equal rights?

QuoteWhat about the assertion I was responding to, that ? Do egalitarian gamers also object to that wording because calling it "most elegant" also elevates its choice of mechanic above others?

I don't normally object to things people say, but I might have voiced some disagreement if I'd noticed it, as I disagreed with your assertion. There are some key differences. Elegant often means simple, which may or may not be a positive, and so I didn't notice it as an attempt to raise it above any other. Beyond that, I really couldn't care less if someone raises their own preference above others. That's fine. You didn't raise your own preference above others, though, you said that a different choice was inappropriate. I disagreed with that.

Quote from: jhkim;963168Conceptually, a key part of XP as a *game reward* is what the risk is. In combat the risk is typically death, permanent imprisonment, or other grievous outcome. In non-combat challenges, the risk varies a lot more. If players can get a bunch of XP from low-risk activity, then they will be motivated to keep doing that.

The XP system is really about what you want to encourage. A simple default is just to give fixed XP for every session that the player shows up. That only motivates showing up to play, not what to do. Other XP systems will instead motivate particular actions - like trying to get the most gold, for example. If you think that players won't try to get gold and you want them to, then rewarding XP for gold makes sense. However, players may be unwilling and/or unhappy if they consider helping some penniless farmers.

Another option is to award XP based on mission(s) completed - but if it is a fixed amount, then it may encourage the players to take on the simplest missions possible.

If you award them for each challenge, then it should be based on risk, but it potentially is just a lot of arbitrary decisions, and it might be better just to give them a reward at the end based on a subjective scale of the challenges and risks they faced.

If I read you correctly, this line of reason could be paraphrased: "Incentivize the behavior you want characters to display with progress towards character advancement"?

Assuming I've got that right, it certainly sheds some light on GP=XP from a game-structure and incentive perspective.

I have to agree with Omega here. It does seem like there are a lot of faulty assumptions flying around as to what "makes sense" when it comes to character advancement and improvement.

I see some people suggesting that what gets you better at swinging a sword or slinging a spell is practicing those particular activities, and so only those should contribute to advancement. And that certainly does make sense for some things. If you want to be able to do more push-ups, then do lots of push-ups. Here, practice is determinant.

I see others suggesting that taking on risk and challenge is the key. And that also makes a certain amount of sense. Someone who's seen real action has an advantage when it comes to keeping a cool head in tense and threatening situations. Here, risk and challenge are determinant.

But what about something like a businessman, where the skills involved are those of judgment and understanding of things that are not so well defined (like ever-changing consumer preference)? Much like performing at a high level when it comes to push ups requires practicing proper push ups, performing at a high level of judgment requires practicing proper judgment. But who's to say what is and isn't "proper" when it comes to judgment? The businessman makes this determination in large part by observing which directions are most profitable. Here, reward is determinant.

If you look closely at the AD&D advancement system in its entirety, you can see it covers the bases. There's XP for gold (reward-based advancement), there's XP for fighting monsters (risk/challenge-based advancement), and there's a training system that allows characters to advance much more quickly (and cheaply) if they actually make frequent use of the very skills that are to advance (practice-based advancement).

Now I do enjoy free-form XP systems. It's hard to go wrong there, especially because if I'm ever in doubt I can always draw from the AD&D system. It's a great basis to work from. And as far as systematic advancement goes, I can't think of a better way.

Quote from: Azraele;964116If I read you correctly, this line of reason could be paraphrased: "Incentivize the behavior you want characters to display with progress towards character advancement"?

Assuming I've got that right, it certainly sheds some light on GP=XP from a game-structure and incentive perspective.

First, it turns wandering monsters into a hazard, not XP on the hoof.
Second, it provides the base for building the stronghold and establishing the barony in the end game.
Third, since you get the gold whether you kill the monster, trick the monster, rob the monster, or bargain with the monster, it opens up the possibilities.
Fourth, since XP is gold multiplied by monster level/player level (if less than 1), it means that 11th level wizards mugging kobolds for coppers will only get 1/11th of an XP per gold.  This automatically puts the brakes on advancement at higher levels just because it's a huge problem to find that much gold, which will aim players more towards the end game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Third, since you get the gold whether you kill the monster, trick the monster, rob the monster, or bargain with the monster, it opens up the possibilities.

This is the value of GP = XP.

Quote from: Spinachcat;964246This is the value of GP = XP.

You get the same effect with "Quest = XP" and let the PCs decide what they're Questing for - can be Gold, True Love, Dead Monsters or whatever. Effect very similar to GP for XP with the modifier/divider Old Geezer mentioned - give a reasonable quest award, don't give a million XP if the PCs faced little opposition.

I started my Mentzer BECM campaign giving gold for xp as usual, but eventually I realised I didn't need to give out hundreds of thousands of gp per session (as Mentzer recommends for post-Name Level play) if I just followed his guideline that a typical high level session should generate around 20K-25K XP per PC, and modify from there according to the scale of player/PC accomplishments (so in practice so far I give out 10K to 45K).

Quote from: S'mon;964251You get the same effect with "Quest = XP" and let the PCs decide what they're Questing for - can be Gold, True Love, Dead Monsters or whatever.

That's true, and why I think of GP=XP as just a specific instance of a more basic 'success/achieving goals' mechanic. The advantage of this specific success metric (GP) is that your success is clear and obvious (did you get the gold?), discretely divisible (both in terms of dividing amongst the party, and in determining partial success-- e.g. 8,300 gp picked up out of 11,900 gp that was available to find is a lot easier to determine than a partial 'true love' scenario success), and means that the DM doesn't have to/get to arbitrate things like who roleplayed better or whether a using of a skill was challenging or routine or anything like that. Yes, it clearly works best for a gaming group that wants to go into the dungeon and pull out the treasure than it does for an epic quest where gathering treasure would be a distraction (to use literary examples, it is more applicable for the Hobbit than for LotR), but that is the style for which it was designed. In other gaming styles, a different success metric would be more appropriate.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964269That's true, and why I think of GP=XP as just a specific instance of a more basic 'success/achieving goals' mechanic. The advantage of this specific success metric (GP) is that your success is clear and obvious (did you get the gold?), discretely divisible (both in terms of dividing amongst the party, and in determining partial success-- e.g. 8,300 gp picked up out of 11,900 gp that was available to find is a lot easier to determine than a partial 'true love' scenario success), and means that the DM doesn't have to/get to arbitrate things like who roleplayed better or whether a using of a skill was challenging or routine or anything like that. Yes, it clearly works best for a gaming group that wants to go into the dungeon and pull out the treasure than it does for an epic quest where gathering treasure would be a distraction (to use literary examples, it is more applicable for the Hobbit than for LotR), but that is the style for which it was designed. In other gaming styles, a different success metric would be more appropriate.

Yup, agree entirely. For typical Gygaxian play, XP for Gold (with divider for trivial threats) makes perfect sense. For other sorts of play, comparable amounts of XP should be given out for comparable achievements - rescue the princess from the serpent cult, or steal their giant ruby eye of Set, get 10,000 XP either way.

Quote from: Spinachcat;964246This is the value of GP = XP.

Yup.

Quote from: S'mon;964251You get the same effect with "Quest = XP" and let the PCs decide what they're Questing for - can be Gold, True Love, Dead Monsters or whatever. Effect very similar to GP for XP with the modifier/divider Old Geezer mentioned - give a reasonable quest award, don't give a million XP if the PCs faced little opposition.

Of course, and that makes sense if you're not running a megadungeon-centric game.

Quote from: S'mon;964276Yup, agree entirely. For typical Gygaxian play, XP for Gold (with divider for trivial threats) makes perfect sense. For other sorts of play, comparable amounts of XP should be given out for comparable achievements - rescue the princess from the serpent cult, or steal their giant ruby eye of Set, get 10,000 XP either way.

I consider this to be a close analog to XP awards for magic items. You get more XP if you sell the thing because you get XP for gold. You still get some XP if you keep it, but it's a substantially lesser amount as the item itself presents an offsetting advantage.

You rescue the princess. You could ransom her or marry her off for some economic gain. And the XP for gold system still works perfectly. Or you could return her to her home and be rewarded with gratitude. This could come with a smaller XP reward, depending how much the GM deems the gratitude to be an off-setting advantage.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242First, it turns wandering monsters into a hazard, not XP on the hoof.

A combat system (and a non-trivial healing system) can also include hazards in fighting monsters. (I do get the interesting point that enough XP reward for hunting monsters may make them look desirable rather than like something to hunt, but it seems to me that risk & reward can be tweaked to suit without linking XP to gold, though doing so is a quick & easy way to do that in a dungeon loot adventure.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Second, it provides the base for building the stronghold and establishing the barony in the end game.

Gold and experience already have their own natural effects that can apply in that direction. What does calculating XP by gold add to that?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Third, since you get the gold whether you kill the monster, trick the monster, rob the monster, or bargain with the monster, it opens up the possibilities.

Yes, I can see that, though it seems to me that "gold is its own reward" (IIRC that's a motto of the Thorz, from TFT's first programmed adventure), which applies regardless of XP, and also that it seems to me to make more sense to award XP based on what was done rather than the cash value of the reward.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Fourth, since XP is gold multiplied by monster level/player level (if less than 1), it means that 11th level wizards mugging kobolds for coppers will only get 1/11th of an XP per gold.  This automatically puts the brakes on advancement at higher levels just because it's a huge problem to find that much gold, which will aim players more towards the end game.

The comparative level adjustment is cool and similar to what we developed for combat EP adjustments in TFT. But again, it seems like it's not actually a reason to have it proportional to the amount of gold taken.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242First, it turns wandering monsters into a hazard, not XP on the hoof.

Wait hold on, I'm going to stop that right here, because I'm seeing a fallacy in the argument.  Lemme give an example:  So 5 encounters with Skeletons.  One group is guarding a treasure room holding 1k gold.  Another (same numbers and composition) is wandering a tunnel, but has no treasure. A third group has 10gp on them in a pouch.  The fourth is carrying a chest of platinum (worth 10k) on their way to group 1.  And the last has 30 silver on them.

Using the GP for XP rule, if you don't engage with groups 2-5, probably in combat, you're not getting any XP.  

But if you use Monsters for XP, and if your DM is not a dick, then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance, you get the exp as if you did fight.  In fact, you'll get the SAME XP for all 5 groups because they're the same amount of skeletons, and they all have the same HP and AC and do the same damage.

In fact, I daresay that Gold for EXP would be a detriment to this style of game play.  Especially given that a lot of groups of wandering monsters probably have belt pouches and that only two character types (assuming the basic four of Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User and Thief) will be able to actually acquire the gold via subterfuge.  You'd still have to beat them, instead of bypassing them if the Cleric or Fighter to collect.

Or does EVERY monster guard a chest for players to collect in a nearby location so that after the players plan succeeds, they can collect it?

That sounds very video game-y to me.

It's clear I'm missing something here.  And I'm being sincere.  I'm not understanding how this works.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Second, it provides the base for building the stronghold and establishing the barony in the end game.

No it doesn't.  The amount of coin is what determines that, not that it gives XP.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Third, since you get the gold whether you kill the monster, trick the monster, rob the monster, or bargain with the monster, it opens up the possibilities.

All those options don't stop because you make the Monsters give XP, though. Unless your DM ONLY gives XP for the death of the monsters.  Then it's the fault of the DM, not the system.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964242Fourth, since XP is gold multiplied by monster level/player level (if less than 1), it means that 11th level wizards mugging kobolds for coppers will only get 1/11th of an XP per gold.  This automatically puts the brakes on advancement at higher levels just because it's a huge problem to find that much gold, which will aim players more towards the end game.

That sounds like the same thing as giving less XP because the monster isn't as much of a challenge to fight, trick, bypass anymore.

Quote from: Lunamancer;964332I consider this to be a close analog to XP awards for magic items. You get more XP if you sell the thing because you get XP for gold. You still get some XP if you keep it, but it's a substantially lesser amount as the item itself presents an offsetting advantage.

You rescue the princess. You could ransom her or marry her off for some economic gain. And the XP for gold system still works perfectly. Or you could return her to her home and be rewarded with gratitude. This could come with a smaller XP reward, depending how much the GM deems the gratitude to be an off-setting advantage.

Well the problem there is it feels to the players that the GM is giving more XP to PCs who act like jerks, and less XP to PCs who act decently. Message received "The GM wants us to act like jerks".  OK for a Cugel the Clever game. Maybe ok for a Fafhrd/Mouser game. Not good for a Conan game. Not good for a Lord of the Rings game. Not good for a John Carter of Mars game (talking of princesses!)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964339Wait hold on, I'm going to stop that right here, because I'm seeing a fallacy in the argument.  Lemme give an example:  So 5 encounters with Skeletons.  One group is guarding a treasure room holding 1k gold.  Another (same numbers and composition) is wandering a tunnel, but has no treasure. A third group has 10gp on them in a pouch.  The fourth is carrying a chest of platinum (worth 10k) on their way to group 1.  And the last has 30 silver on them.

Using the GP for XP rule, if you don't engage with groups 2-5, probably in combat, you're not getting any XP.  

But if you use Monsters for XP, and if your DM is not a dick, then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance, you get the exp as if you did fight.  In fact, you'll get the SAME XP for all 5 groups because they're the same amount of skeletons, and they all have the same HP and AC and do the same damage.

A few thoughts.

First, this set of example sets up 1 group of Skeletons without treasure, and 4 with varying amounts of treasure. What about treasures without monsters? Or a treasure chest set in the middle of a large room, off of which lots of groups of monsters may or may not come running, depending on player actions (such as making noise)? In that situation, how many of those monsters have you defeated/circumvented? Sometimes it's not going to be all that clear. This would be a case in my mind of the DM isn't trying to be a dick, but they might see the situation differently. Now, if the goal is the treasure, then you don't have to worry about that. It becomes 'did you get the treasure (y/n)?' That's one of the strong points of the gp=xp system.  

If the treasure is not the goal, and we do make it defeating the monsters (with pre-emptive clarity on what it means to 'defeat' them) be the goal, then we're just exchanging one arbitrary success metric for another. Both clearly are useful (D&D for instance has used both), but I'm not clear on why one is better than the other.

QuoteOr does EVERY monster guard a chest for players to collect in a nearby location so that after the players plan succeeds, they can collect it?

That sounds very video game-y to me.

Well, not at all. In fact the reverse. Monsters who aren't in between your party and their loot can be avoided completely (If possible). If combat is not the goal, then you don't need to deal with EVERY monster. And the treasure does not have to be in chests. I've played in a game where one night is was a genuine 'wild west in the middle ages' adventure and we were retrieving a herd of cattle from hobgoblin rustlers.

As to video games, video games (and in this case I'm thinking something along the lines of early Zelda/Ultima/Final Fantasy or something) are just simplified reality emulations, just like TTRPGs. They each have pros and cons, but I'm not sure what would make something inherently video game-y. Do you mean like 'a room with a treasure chest, guarded by 4 evil bats and 4 goo-monsters, defeat them to get the treasure?'

QuoteIt's clear I'm missing something here.  And I'm being sincere.  I'm not understanding how this works.

I for one want to say thanks on that sincerity. You are bringing up good points.

QuoteNo it doesn't.  The amount of coin is what determines that, not that it gives XP.

Such as this.
AFAIC, the primary advantage of having the money for the keep and the xp for the keep come from the same place is that you don't have to have two advancement methods.

QuoteThat sounds like the same thing as giving less XP because the monster isn't as much of a challenge to fight, trick, bypass anymore.

And this. You're right. IMO, this is more of a break from the basics of the rule to manage an issue with the game construction (namely that at some level, extremely weak monsters with low morale scores are simply 'too easy' to drive off from their treasure, and you shouldn't get full credit).

Quote from: S'mon;964355Well the problem there is it feels to the players that the GM is giving more XP to PCs who act like jerks, and less XP to PCs who act decently. Message received "The GM wants us to act like jerks".  OK for a Cugel the Clever game. Maybe ok for a Fafhrd/Mouser game. Not good for a Conan game. Not good for a Lord of the Rings game. Not good for a John Carter of Mars game (talking of princesses!)

Maybe you see it that way. Players in general do not. I've yet to see PCs selling off their inventory of magic items. Redundant items, perhaps. But other than that, players understand unambiguously that they prefer to have the benefits associated with the magic item. Even though the figures are set such that there are tradeoffs either way and neither is objectively better.

Players who view their characters as the heroes understand unambiguously that it is better for their characters to do the good deed over cashing in. Players who view their characters as anti-heroes, on the other hand, understand that they're doing the jerky thing and it just adds to how cool and hardcore their characters are.

XP, gold, repute. None of these things are unilaterally indicative of what sort of actions are being "favored" or "encouraged" or which course is correct. They are trade offs. If the GM has done this properly, with the referee hat on, and kept it value-free, then it all comes down to preference. It's impossible to see that for what it is as long as you're analyzing it in a way that is not value-free.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964339Wait hold on, I'm going to stop that right here, because I'm seeing a fallacy in the argument.  Lemme give an example:  So 5 encounters with Skeletons.  One group is guarding a treasure room holding 1k gold.  Another (same numbers and composition) is wandering a tunnel, but has no treasure. A third group has 10gp on them in a pouch.  The fourth is carrying a chest of platinum (worth 10k) on their way to group 1.  And the last has 30 silver on them.

Using the GP for XP rule, if you don't engage with groups 2-5, probably in combat, you're not getting any XP.  

But if you use Monsters for XP, and if your DM is not a dick, then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance, you get the exp as if you did fight.  In fact, you'll get the SAME XP for all 5 groups because they're the same amount of skeletons, and they all have the same HP and AC and do the same damage.

In fact, I daresay that Gold for EXP would be a detriment to this style of game play.  Especially given that a lot of groups of wandering monsters probably have belt pouches and that only two character types (assuming the basic four of Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User and Thief) will be able to actually acquire the gold via subterfuge.  You'd still have to beat them, instead of bypassing them if the Cleric or Fighter to collect.

Or does EVERY monster guard a chest for players to collect in a nearby location so that after the players plan succeeds, they can collect it?

That sounds very video game-y to me.

It's clear I'm missing something here.  And I'm being sincere.  I'm not understanding how this works.

You're not monster-slayers.  You're treasure hunters.  It's Indiana Jones, now Swordy McSwordfighter.

The monsters are, really, obstacles and not the goal.  If there's a monster in a room, and you know there's no treasure, you don't fight them, because why would you?  FIghting monsters isn't the goal.

(Note that I'm not saying this is some kind of platonic ideal of gaming - just that it's the logic that the system was designed around and works with).

I find the claims that gold for XP discourages combat and encourages finding another way of sneaking pass or negotiating to have never been true at the table. Now I played XP for gold as a kid and a teen so that may have had a lot to do with it but I never remember myself or any PCs I DM'ed taking this approach.

It was pretty much always a more-or-less full frontal assault hack n' slash.

Similarly I find the high lethality of early D&D and AD&D overblown. We played Keep on the Borderland several times and may have lost someone here or there but never came even close to a TPK. Maybe we were playing wrong but even when I DM'ed I didn't pull any punches and don't recall a single PC death. The idea that D&D is some nerdmacho 'high lethality' game didn't even occur to me until I started reading OSR rhetoric online. Cyperpunk 2020, CoC and even Top Secret S.I. were highly lethal games, not D&D.

Quote from: Voros;964371I find the claims that gold for XP discourages combat and encourages finding another way of sneaking pass or negotiating to have never been true at the table. Now I played XP for gold as a kid and a teen so that may have had a lot to do with it but I never remember myself or any PCs I DM'ed taking this approach.

It was pretty much always a more-or-less full frontal assault hack n' slash.

Well, the fact that a large swath of the gaming population wants the game to be a lot about kicking ass and taking names probably skews things a bit. And that's likely why WotC edition games have made it mostly 'opponents (and the power level thereof) defeated' as the arbitrary success metric. Whether that does or doesn't turn PCs into a kill-anything-that-moves type any more than gp=xp turned them into maximize-gp-input-per-risk-taken is a good question.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964376Well, the fact that a large swath of the gaming population wants the game to be a lot about kicking ass and taking names probably skews things a bit. And that's likely why WotC edition games have made it mostly 'opponents (and the power level thereof) defeated' as the arbitrary success metric. Whether that does or doesn't turn PCs into a kill-anything-that-moves type any more than gp=xp turned them into maximize-gp-input-per-risk-taken is a good question.

I know my ten-year-old self was far more interested in kicking large amounts of imaginary ass than in skulking around avoiding combat.

Quote from: robiswrong;964369You're not monster-slayers.  You're treasure hunters.  It's Indiana Jones, now Swordy McSwordfighter.

The monsters are, really, obstacles and not the goal.  If there's a monster in a room, and you know there's no treasure, you don't fight them, because why would you?  FIghting monsters isn't the goal.

(Note that I'm not saying this is some kind of platonic ideal of gaming - just that it's the logic that the system was designed around and works with).

Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, this.  Exactly precisely this.

Quote from: robiswrong;964381I know my ten-year-old self was far more interested in kicking large amounts of imaginary ass than in skulking around avoiding combat.

Exactly.  How many times have I talked about when TSR changed its marketing emphasis from adult wargamers to adolescent boys?

Quote from: Lunamancer;964366Maybe you see it that way. Players in general do not. I've yet to see PCs selling off their inventory of magic items. Redundant items, perhaps. But other than that, players understand unambiguously that they prefer to have the benefits associated with the magic item. Even though the figures are set such that there are tradeoffs either way and neither is objectively better.

Players who view their characters as the heroes understand unambiguously that it is better for their characters to do the good deed over cashing in. Players who view their characters as anti-heroes, on the other hand, understand that they're doing the jerky thing and it just adds to how cool and hardcore their characters are.

XP, gold, repute. None of these things are unilaterally indicative of what sort of actions are being "favored" or "encouraged" or which course is correct. They are trade offs. If the GM has done this properly, with the referee hat on, and kept it value-free, then it all comes down to preference. It's impossible to see that for what it is as long as you're analyzing it in a way that is not value-free.

I just want to give the same XP for getting the princess whatever the PCs then do with her. That seems more "value free" to me than me giving extra XP for doing bad things with her compared to returning her gratis to the king. I'm not punishing the PCs who do bad things.

Quote from: S'mon;964403I just want to give the same XP for getting the princess whatever the PCs then do with her.

So what's stopping you?

QuoteThat seems more "value free" to me than me giving extra XP for doing bad things with her compared to returning her gratis to the king. I'm not punishing the PCs who do bad things.

Value free indeed.

Quote from: robiswrong;964369You're not monster-slayers.  You're treasure hunters.  It's Indiana Jones, now Swordy McSwordfighter.

The monsters are, really, obstacles and not the goal.  If there's a monster in a room, and you know there's no treasure, you don't fight them, because why would you?  FIghting monsters isn't the goal.

(Note that I'm not saying this is some kind of platonic ideal of gaming - just that it's the logic that the system was designed around and works with).

That's not answering any of my points though.  And I'm honestly trying to understand here.  

Indiana Jones got into a LOT of fights, so did Conan, Fafrd, Grey Mouser, most of the Fellowship of The Ring and just about any Sword and Sorcery hero.  In fact, most of them were Swordy McSwordfighters as you tried to mock.  And can anyone answer me this?  If fighting is not the point then why is one of the first classes a FIGHTER!  Someone who goes and smashes things with a weapon?  If you're supposed to be 'treasure hunters' only, all you really need is to be a Thief, which showed up LATER in the game system.

And who's saying fighting is the goal, the goal is the treasure.  This much I get.  But the amount of gold/exp you get doesn't dictate the amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle'.  The amount of work needed to trick, fight, sneak, avoid a group of Orcs will be very different from the same number of Goblins, or Skeletons, or Vampire Spawn, or a Beholder, even if the the treasure remains the same amount for all of them.

Hell, you could have some really weird situations, where you have a single goblin guarding the main treasure room, and the Players found it by pure luck.  So they thump the poor lone greenie and get out with 10k gold!  But if they had gone right instead of left, they might have found the main monster (The Beholder) who only has a 100gp gem on his, uh, person, because he keeps his loot somewhere else?

Which would mean that the Goblin is worth more than the Beholder, because of an arbitrary solution the players came up with?

Or does the treasure have to be equal to the monster guarding it, so there are no side rooms where the 'real' treasure is kept?  I've played video games that have done this.  Admittedly, this was decades ago, because they have since evolved into something that made more sense.

But if you have Monsters worth a certain amount of XP, like let's say Snivel the Goblin guarding the treasure room is worth just 100xp.  You still have several options available.  If your players don't want to hurt Snivel all they have to do is sneak by him, and Ding!  100xp!  Or they thump him good, 100xp.  They bribe him with a bit of food and vague promises, and yup, still worth the 100xp.  Simply because the amount of tactics to get around Snivel is minimal.

But facing Z'narflalax the Beholder?  You outsmart him and you'll get buttloads of XP if you succeed, and by outsmart, I mean stealth, or finding another way to deal with him as an obstacle.  Fighting him would likely be a bad choice.

I'm trying to understand the logic here, I really am.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964409That's not answering any of my points though.  And I'm honestly trying to understand here.  

Indiana Jones got into a LOT of fights, so did Conan, Fafrd, Grey Mouser, most of the Fellowship of The Ring and just about any Sword and Sorcery hero.  In fact, most of them were Swordy McSwordfighters as you tried to mock.  And can anyone answer me this?  If fighting is not the point then why is one of the first classes a FIGHTER!  Someone who goes and smashes things with a weapon?  If you're supposed to be 'treasure hunters' only, all you really need is to be a Thief, which showed up LATER in the game system.

The thief showed up later because up until that point, everyone was a thief. Or at least the 'dungeon delver' type that most of the thieves' abilities actually are. The thief class is simply an addition of codified mechanisms to achieve what people were already doing-finding traps, climbing over things, picking locks with daggers, what-have-you. Why the fighting man is listed first, well I of course can't tell you because I'm not Gary. However, it does seem to be the default option in the three-class original concept--if you're not specifically wanting to be a spell-slinger, you would be a soldier or equivalent, which makes sense if you're deriving this game from Chainmail.

QuoteAnd who's saying fighting is the goal, the goal is the treasure.  This much I get.  But the amount of gold/exp you get doesn't dictate the amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle'.  The amount of work needed to trick, fight, sneak, avoid a group of Orcs will be very different from the same number of Goblins, or Skeletons, or Vampire Spawn, or a Beholder, even if the the treasure remains the same amount for all of them.

Hell, you could have some really weird situations, where you have a single goblin guarding the main treasure room, and the Players found it by pure luck.  So they thump the poor lone greenie and get out with 10k gold!  But if they had gone right instead of left, they might have found the main monster (The Beholder) who only has a 100gp gem on his, uh, person, because he keeps his loot somewhere else?

Which would mean that the Goblin is worth more than the Beholder, because of an arbitrary solution the players came up with?

Presumably each monster is guarding (right next to them or elsewhere) an amount of treasure dictated by their stated treasure amounts. In which case, entering a dungeon with a Beholder in it adds the 10k gp to the treasure available compared to a dungeon without one. So in a broad sense, if you get past the Beholder to their treasure, you are 'defeating' them via your own definition used earlier: "then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance." Regardless, beyond beating the Beholder, finding where they have their treasure, getting to it, and getting it out of the dungeon is all part of the 'amount of work' or 'obstacle' you seem to be looking for.

Each just incentivizes different things. If you make gp the goal, then the players are incentivized to "get the treasure and get out," regardless of whether they need the gold or not. If you make defeating monsters the goal, then you incentivize the players to, say, swing through the other wing of the dungeon, even if there is nothing there worth getting and the monsters aren't really harming anyone. Each one is an arbitrary measure of 'success' with clear and obvious benefits to individual scenarios we can contrive, but ultimately are both arbitrarily there to replace the game actually having a specified goal.

And I think that's key. Sometimes you want to have goals for your adventure. Sometimes you want to rescue Princess Buttercup or take the destroy the Ring or retrieve the sacred stones from the Temple of Doom. If you wanted an XP system that rewards Movement towards Goal (as opposed to the other main types like good roleplaying, or the TFT using-your-skills system mentioned earlier), you have to make a goal. Every adventure. And sometimes you don't want to. You just want to dive into this dungeon here and challenge yourself against ghosts and goblins and possibly come out with sacks of lute and maybe a new magic sword. In which case you use an arbitrary metric of success, which can be loot obtained or monsters defeated, both of which are just as arbitrary, but have different pros and cons.

QuoteOr does the treasure have to be equal to the monster guarding it, so there are no side rooms where the 'real' treasure is kept?  I've played video games that have done this.  Admittedly, this was decades ago, because they have since evolved into something that made more sense.

In a broad sense, the treasure is equal to the monster guarding it, but not such that each monster is in a room with a treasure chest in it containing their own contribution to the dungeon's treasure total. Sometimes you defeat a monster and don't know where its treasure is, and you have to find it. That is absolutely part of the "amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle.'"

QuoteBut if you have Monsters worth a certain amount of XP, like let's say Snivel the Goblin guarding the treasure room is worth just 100xp.  You still have several options available.  If your players don't want to hurt Snivel all they have to do is sneak by him, and Ding!  100xp!  Or they thump him good, 100xp.  They bribe him with a bit of food and vague promises, and yup, still worth the 100xp.  Simply because the amount of tactics to get around Snivel is minimal.

That just incentivizes interacting with every monster (if avoiding/evading can be considered interacting), regardless of whether it makes sense. Same as gp=xp creating bizarre incentives.

QuoteBut facing Z'narflalax the Beholder?  You outsmart him and you'll get buttloads of XP if you succeed, and by outsmart, I mean stealth, or finding another way to deal with him as an obstacle.  Fighting him would likely be a bad choice.

I'm trying to understand the logic here, I really am.

And I for one appreciate the effort. While I understand you do not have a great relationship with either TSR/OSR games or the people who play/promote them, I see no reason why that should extend to this specific mechanic, and hope people can explain its value* to you.

*Not that it is the greatest thing ever and you should absolutely use it. simply why it exists, and why it isn't some ridiculous mistake of an idea for the types of gaming for which it was designed.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469If you wanted an XP system that rewards Movement towards Goal (as opposed to the other main types like good roleplaying, or the TFT using-your-skills system mentioned earlier), you have to make a goal. Every adventure. And sometimes you don't want to. You just want to dive into this dungeon here and challenge yourself against ghosts and goblins and possibly come out with sacks of lute and maybe a new magic sword.

Those all sound like goals to me. How could they not be?
I tend to think 4e D&D it best (heresy!) with its major and minor quest awards. Either GM or player sets goals; GM awards XP as they are fulfilled, typically based on the PC level (assuming it's an at-level challenge). So 1st level PCs get  ca 100 XP for major achievements (rescue Princess Buttercup), as well as for significant challenges (climb the Cliffs of Insanity, duel Inigo Montoya) ca 20-25 XP for minor ones (take out a minion guard, give a good speech) and level at 1000 XP. That would work just as well in 1e AD&D - it seems much the same to me as get the giant 500gp gem, 5 PCs get 100 XP each. Loot the ogre of 100gp, 5 PCs get 20 XP each.

Quote from: S'mon;964471Those all sound like goals to me. How could they not be?

Fine. We're replacing goals with goals. My main point is that you don't always want to have to dream up a story ('rescue the townsfolk'), figure out how to adjudicate success ('200 xp for rescuing each of the 20 townsfolk, 500 xp bonus if you get all of them, extra 50 xp penalty if a townsfolk is not just not rescued, but instead die because of your involvement...'), and so forth to be able to have an adventure, and therefor you use an arbitrary yardstick for success.

Depending on how you split your hairs, there are probably infinite ways to build a point system where the accumulation slowly improves your character, but I kind of see them as breaking down into just a few. You can do it with absolutely no reason just to change it up ("we're tired of playing level 1 characters, so now you are all level 2). You can reward specific actions ("100 xp just for showing up for gaming" or "50 xp bonus for good roleplaying"). You can make a 'true experience' system like the TFT example listed above, where your character gets better at the things the repeatedly do in the adventures (or Traveller where you actually study something to get better at it). Or you can reward success towards achieving ones goals (gp = xp, monster's faced = xp). Or of course you can mix and match (2nd edition AD&D with the optional xp rewards turned on, for instance, mixed monsters defeated with a TFT-like thing, where your fighter was rewarded for doing fighter-y things, the thief for doing theif-like things, etc.). I don't see that (without adding some not-universally-agreed-upon game design metric like '_____ is the most important thing for an RPG') any one of these types is inherently better than any other, so I certainly don't think two equally arbitrary choices (monsters faced versus treasure recovered) within one of these groups is inherently better than another. I think it would be more fruitful to say 'X is better as an xp system than Y, if your goal is Z.'

QuoteI tend to think 4e D&D it best (heresy!)

Well, the entire reason I'm taking this effort with CB is that I think one should be able to separate one's feelings for a given edition from one's feelings for its' xp mechanic. So I like this. :D

Quotewith its major and minor quest awards. Either GM or player sets goals; GM awards XP as they are fulfilled, typically based on the PC level (assuming it's an at-level challenge). So 1st level PCs get  ca 100 XP for major achievements (rescue Princess Buttercup), as well as for significant challenges (climb the Cliffs of Insanity, duel Inigo Montoya) ca 20-25 XP for minor ones (take out a minion guard, give a good speech) and level at 1000 XP. That would work just as well in 1e AD&D - it seems much the same to me as get the giant 500gp gem, 5 PCs get 100 XP each. Loot the ogre of 100gp, 5 PCs get 20 XP each.

It does work just as well, because as I said, they are both success based systems. If you as the DM are okay with making them and adjudicate them (every adventure) than they are practically the same. There will be more variation between DMs, and questions of impartiality. Thus, I totally see why in the early days, with the idea of characters portable between DMs and the thought of tournament play, that they preferred the consistency and reproducibility of the system that they settled upon.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964481It does work just as well, because as I said, they are both success based systems. If you as the DM are okay with making them and adjudicate them (every adventure) than they are practically the same. There will be more variation between DMs, and questions of impartiality. Thus, I totally see why in the early days, with the idea of characters portable between DMs and the thought of tournament play, that they preferred the consistency and reproducibility of the system that they settled upon.

That's a great point about xp for gp giving consistency, esp w published/tournament modules.

To answer the OP...I feel like you're talking about apples and oranges.  Because when you talk about awarding PCs for killing foes, you're giving them XP for the challenge.  When you award points for skill rolls, you're giving them XP for the action.  After all, a character is making "skill rolls" when they hit something, even if you're not calling them that.

So instead of rating the skill roll, I'd rate the hazard.  Do you have a way of calculating XP for traps?  That's the sort of thing you want to do.  Then, you don't give XP for skill rolls.  Instead, you give XP for getting past dangers and challenges.  You might scale based on the approach e.g. there's a lot less risk trying to smooth-talk a bouncer versus sucker punching him, and if he's obviously gullible, then it's a lot easier, too.  But if you have a way of rating obstacles, then you have somewhere to start.

Another way to go is to keep things very abstract, awarding a small number of XP per obstacle overcome.  DCC is a good example of a game that does this.  A single encounter earns anything from 0-4 XP, so complex formulas are not required.

Personally, I don't bother with incentivization or simulation.  My approach was based on a suggestion that I saw on these forums, and it has worked well in practice: I give characters 1 XP per hour of play.  That's real-world time.  I find, in practice, that the players don't pay much attention to XP award systems if they are really into what's happening in the game.  And if they don't care, then why should I worry?  I just want progress to be reasonably paced.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964409Honestly, I don't understand it. What makes it so great. Picking up shinies doesn't strike me as the best way to hone your combat skills, or gain knowledge of arcane mysteries.
…
That's not answering any of my points though.  And I'm honestly trying to understand here.

I'll give it a spin.  

QuoteIndiana Jones got into a LOT of fights, so did Conan, Fafrd, Grey Mouser, most of the Fellowship of The Ring and just about any Sword and Sorcery hero.  …  Someone who goes and smashes things with a weapon?  If you're supposed to be 'treasure hunters' only, all you really need is to be a Thief, which showed up LATER in the game system.

Depending on edition, the XP ratio was about 25% Combat : 75% Loot. The key point, however, is that the significant majority of XP was from loot, and so it was to the party’s long term advantage to avoid combat when possible. Furthermore, if a particular adventuring party was able to significantly minimize combat through stealth, guile, magic, whatever, gaining 75% of the available experience would still allow significant advancement. You weren’t having to spend time and resources repairing or replacing the losses in combat. Choosing to avoid combat isn’t a mechanical penalty.

But, yeah, some people like hacking monsters with swords, so…

QuoteBut the amount of gold/exp you get doesn't dictate the amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle'.  The amount of work needed to trick, fight, sneak, avoid a group of Orcs will be very different from the same number of Goblins, or Skeletons, or Vampire Spawn, or a Beholder, even if the the treasure remains the same amount for all of them.

Certainly it does. The more powerful the monster, EHP, or situation the greater amount of loot there is. If there is 10,000 gp in one area, and 100 gp in the other, the expectation is absolutely that getting that 10,000 gp is going to be significantly harder. That’s why the treasure tables are tied to the strength of the monster.

QuoteHell, you could have some really weird situations, where you have a single goblin guarding the main treasure room, and the Players found it by pure luck.  So they thump the poor lone greenie and get out with 10k gold!  But if they had gone right instead of left, they might have found the main monster (The Beholder) who only has a 100gp gem on his, uh, person, because he keeps his loot somewhere else?

Possible, but unlikely. I do expect there to be some verisimilitude in the scenario construction. In the situation described, I could see some enslaved hobgoblins guarding the beholder’s treasure. The party can try to slaughter them all, or wait to raid the northern caverns until the beholder is in the southern caverns. The scenario you mention above is possible through purely random generation, but I would expect not from anyone experienced.

But, yes, if you wanted to set things up like that, where the players could get fantastically lucky, you could.

The point, however, is that the loot is in proportion to the challenge faced. The XP balance is such that if XP from combat is minimized the XP from loot is sufficient and satisfactory. “The challenge” can be defined broadly- the complex that is controlled by the beholder could have 80% of the loot in one place, well guarded. Or, it could be a complex of multiple factions with the wealth distributed throughout. It is dependent on the PCs to figure out what is going on and what to do about it.

Quote(Monsters worth XP, variant on strength, awarded when killed, bypassed, whatever.)

Yes. That’s why there is some XP from combat. However, with the focus on recovered loot it enables downtime play. You’ve got this money, what are you going to do with it? This is where construction of keeps comes in, as well as paying of bribes to other warlords, treating with djinns, paying off ransoms, paying sages to discover needed intelligence, &c. The increasing need of wealth spurs adventure, should more motivation be required.

Furthermore, there was something Gygax wrote in the DMG that stuck with me. It’s not any deep wisdom, but it was to the effect of “it would make sense to award XP to the thief for thief things, magicians for magical things, and so on. That would create a lot of tedious paperwork. Everyone is going to fight, and everyone needs treasure, and awarding XP for GP is a convenient abstraction for those other skills. If someone carried the team, award them more gold.”

That made a lot of sense to me, especially if you have a lot of situations where team play is rewarded.

QuoteI'm trying to understand the logic here, I really am.

And I appreciate that, which is why I took the time to answer.

Quote from: Edgewise;964520To answer the OP... So instead of rating the skill roll, I'd rate the hazard.  Do you have a way of calculating XP for traps?  That's the sort of thing you want to do.

I concur with this. XP in combat is based on the power of the monster. If you are going to be broader on XP awards, traps, puzzles, social contests, should have some award when overcome. For traps it could be 50 xp per d6 damage, +50% if the trap is hard to find, or whatever.

So, if you award 10 xp for a 1HD orc, you might award 5 xp for a trap that does 1d6 damage once, or 10 xp for a trap that could do 1d6 damage to the whole party once.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469The thief showed up later because up until that point, everyone was a thief. Or at least the 'dungeon delver' type that most of the thieves' abilities actually are. The thief class is simply an addition of codified mechanisms to achieve what people were already doing-finding traps, climbing over things, picking locks with daggers, what-have-you. Why the fighting man is listed first, well I of course can't tell you because I'm not Gary. However, it does seem to be the default option in the three-class original concept--if you're not specifically wanting to be a spell-slinger, you would be a soldier or equivalent, which makes sense if you're deriving this game from Chainmail.

But, soldiers and spell-slingers are not very sneaky by nature, both deal with a form of overt power. Soldiers are the Swordy McSwordfighter as Robiswrong calls them.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469Presumably each monster is guarding (right next to them or elsewhere) an amount of treasure dictated by their stated treasure amounts. In which case, entering a dungeon with a Beholder in it adds the 10k gp to the treasure available compared to a dungeon without one. So in a broad sense, if you get past the Beholder to their treasure, you are 'defeating' them via your own definition used earlier: "then because you 'defeated' the Skeletons by planning and avoidance." Regardless, beyond beating the Beholder, finding where they have their treasure, getting to it, and getting it out of the dungeon is all part of the 'amount of work' or 'obstacle' you seem to be looking for.

Each just incentivizes different things. If you make gp the goal, then the players are incentivized to "get the treasure and get out," regardless of whether they need the gold or not. If you make defeating monsters the goal, then you incentivize the players to, say, swing through the other wing of the dungeon, even if there is nothing there worth getting and the monsters aren't really harming anyone. Each one is an arbitrary measure of 'success' with clear and obvious benefits to individual scenarios we can contrive, but ultimately are both arbitrarily there to replace the game actually having a specified goal.

And I think that's key. Sometimes you want to have goals for your adventure. Sometimes you want to rescue Princess Buttercup or take the destroy the Ring or retrieve the sacred stones from the Temple of Doom. If you wanted an XP system that rewards Movement towards Goal (as opposed to the other main types like good roleplaying, or the TFT using-your-skills system mentioned earlier), you have to make a goal. Every adventure. And sometimes you don't want to. You just want to dive into this dungeon here and challenge yourself against ghosts and goblins and possibly come out with sacks of lute and maybe a new magic sword. In which case you use an arbitrary metric of success, which can be loot obtained or monsters defeated, both of which are just as arbitrary, but have different pros and cons.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469In a broad sense, the treasure is equal to the monster guarding it, but not such that each monster is in a room with a treasure chest in it containing their own contribution to the dungeon's treasure total. Sometimes you defeat a monster and don't know where its treasure is, and you have to find it. That is absolutely part of the "amount of work you may need to do to overcome the 'obstacle.'"

Again, that reminds me of old video games by the mid-80's.  You have a monster of a certain level which is a multiple of how much treasure is held by the monster.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469That just incentivizes interacting with every monster (if avoiding/evading can be considered interacting), regardless of whether it makes sense. Same as gp=xp creating bizarre incentives.

But aren't you?  I mean, you're dealing with the encounter, Snivel in this case.  No matter how you avoid/deal with him (or her, who knows.  I'm not checking) you are interacting with the...  I guess that 'encounter' is the best word.  And there's a lot of factors depending on what is guarding the 'treasure'.  But whether or not you're dealing directly with the Goblin, you are dealing with it.  It's like the no choice fallacy, by not making a choice, you HAVE made a choice.  Same thing here.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;964469And I for one appreciate the effort. While I understand you do not have a great relationship with either TSR/OSR games or the people who play/promote them, I see no reason why that should extend to this specific mechanic, and hope people can explain its value* to you.

*Not that it is the greatest thing ever and you should absolutely use it. simply why it exists, and why it isn't some ridiculous mistake of an idea for the types of gaming for which it was designed.

I've had a bit of an epiphany between the difference of play styles that people are having here playing D&D, and one thing I want to do, and that is to understand all sides.  I don't have anything against the TSR or WoTC, but also don't have anything for them either, they're companies that want(ed) my money.  And if they create something I want, I will give them my money.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964383Sweet Crom's hairy nutsack, this.  Exactly precisely this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964384Exactly.  How many times have I talked about when TSR changed its marketing emphasis from adult wargamers to adolescent boys?

Did you just contradict yourself in two consecutive replies?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;964563Did you just contradict yourself in two consecutive replies?

Welcome to Gronan.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;964563Did you just contradict yourself in two consecutive replies?

How so? In the first hes pointing out that the original playstyle was to go for the gold more than the monsters. In the second hes pointing out that over time TSR shifted its focus from the thinking player to the hacking player. Thus the shift eventually to EXP only for monsters.

Though by 2e you also had a more codified set of guidelines for giving EXP for non-com stuff, which was around in AD&D and older, just not as spelled out.

Quote from: Omega;964615How so? In the first hes pointing out that the original playstyle was to go for the gold more than the monsters. In the second hes pointing out that over time TSR shifted its focus from the thinking player to the hacking player. Thus the shift eventually to EXP only for monsters.

Though by 2e you also had a more codified set of guidelines for giving EXP for non-com stuff, which was around in AD&D and older, just not as spelled out.

If I remember correctly, they were 'optional' rules and class specific.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964680If I remember correctly, they were 'optional' rules and class specific.

Not in 2e. DMG page 45 and on had guidelines for things like EXP for events. Those are not optionals. Optional was EXP for gold and A variant for individual EXP. Though its blurs on what is and isnt optional as the class specific EXP rewards are not in the sidebar.

Quote from: Omega;964615How so? In the first hes pointing out that the original playstyle was to go for the gold more than the monsters. In the second hes pointing out that over time TSR shifted its focus from the thinking player to the hacking player. Thus the shift eventually to EXP only for monsters.

I can see that. I found the reply hard to parse there. Which is why I asked the question. I think my confusion came from Gronan mentioning wargaming, and I wasn't sure how wargaming equated to sneaking around in dungeons.

QuoteThough by 2e you also had a more codified set of guidelines for giving EXP for non-com stuff, which was around in AD&D and older, just not as spelled out.

Yep. I really like the 2E section on class specific awards, and try to work them into the game.

I guarantee that this thread contains more effort than went into Dave Arneson's decision in 1970 to base XP off gold.

Sometimes, the right answer is "it seemed a good idea at the time and worked okay."

Quote from: Omega;964713Not in 2e. DMG page 45 and on had guidelines for things like EXP for events. Those are not optionals. Optional was EXP for gold and A variant for individual EXP. Though its blurs on what is and isnt optional as the class specific EXP rewards are not in the sidebar.

So I was reversing them in my memory?  Wouldn't be the first time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;964724I guarantee that this thread contains more effort than went into Dave Arneson's decision in 1970 to base XP off gold.

Sometimes, the right answer is "it seemed a good idea at the time and worked okay."

If that's all there was to it, I can see why it got changed.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong or it's bad, or whatnot, you do you, but FOR ME, it opens up too many weird situations that to fix would require to turn D&D into more of a video game than it already is (well, truth be told, it's the other way around.  D&D has a lot of blame to take for what it did to Video Games, both good and bad.)

My little brain dun work that way.

Happy Gaming.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;963923Robert Louis Stevenson did NOT write Skill Challenge Island.

That made me laugh out loud.

However, I'm very over treasure-for-xp in anything OTHER than a vanilla D&D fantasy-setting game. It's a useless concept to use for something like Dark Albion, for example, and I won't be using it as the XP system in Lion & Dragon.  Likewise, it's not really a very good fit in Arrows of Indra, even though I did use it there. If I did AoI again I wouldn't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;965019That made me laugh out loud.

However, I'm very over treasure-for-xp in anything OTHER than a vanilla D&D fantasy-setting game. It's a useless concept to use for something like Dark Albion, for example, and I won't be using it as the XP system in Lion & Dragon.  Likewise, it's not really a very good fit in Arrows of Indra, even though I did use it there. If I did AoI again I wouldn't.

Thenkew, thenkew.

There's lots of good reasons to use other things than treasure for XP.  It's all the handwringing and yodeling that astounds me.  "Just do it," as they say.

Quote from: jhkim;963168The XP system is really about what you want to encourage.

From the frequency of half races (half elves, half orcs, half ogres, half dragons, cambions, genasi, and so on*), one strongly suspects that at one time the standard D&D setting awarded XP for miscegenation, and particularly to human characters.

(* Struggling to resist the temptation to add half-ling to the list.)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;963923Robert Louis Stevenson did NOT write Skill Challenge Island.

How many fantasy classics actually involve that much seeking after treasure as a primary objective or motivation? The Hobbit, yes, but not the Lord of the Rings; Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; Conan, although he often seems otherwise motivated. Thinking back on what I was familiar with when I started playing D&D in the 1970s, I can't think of a lot of others.

Perhaps the emphasis on treasure is mostly a game thing; number of gold pieces is an easy thing to measure, in tabletop or computer games. And as with pinball machines it's easy to just add a zero at the end to make it more impressive.

Quote from: rawma;965090How many fantasy classics actually involve that much seeking after treasure as a primary objective or motivation? The Hobbit, yes, but not the Lord of the Rings; Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser; Conan, although he often seems otherwise motivated. Thinking back on what I was familiar with when I started playing D&D in the 1970s, I can't think of a lot of others.

Perhaps the emphasis on treasure is mostly a game thing; number of gold pieces is an easy thing to measure, in tabletop or computer games. And as with pinball machines it's easy to just add a zero at the end to make it more impressive.

Maybe that's why I can't wrap my brain around Gold=XP.  I grew up reading fantasy stories, starting with the Conan short stories and then moving to others as I found them, and even when Conan was out looking for loot, something else came along and distracted him, like The Tower Of The Elephant.  And most of my gaming has been influenced by fantasy literature.

However, it's pretty clear Conan himself enjoyed the reputation he has among the Black Corsairs, the Red Brotherhood, the Barachan Pirates, the thieves of Zamora.  Many times he boasts of the riches that have passed through his hands surpassing all he's dealing with and marking him their better.  Money is a way of keeping score, always has been, especially among criminals, pirates, mercenaries, ie. people who aren't landed and titled.

Most of my D&D was playing 1e, so I used the standard gold, treasure and monsters for xp so basically anything.  If I play 1e again, I'll do the same.  For other games I tend toward milestones, fiat, by skill use, or simple time spent playing and not worry about what biscuit I want my players to chase for exp.  That navel-gazing shit can go die in a fire.

Quote from: CRKrueger;965206not worry about what biscuit I want my players to chase for exp.  That navel-gazing shit can go die in a fire.

How 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.

Well, this thread has gone places since Friday. I don't think I can reply to everything I've seen, so I'll focus on a few.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964733If that's all there was to it, I can see why it got changed.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong or it's bad, or whatnot, you do you, but FOR ME, it opens up too many weird situations that to fix would require to turn D&D into more of a video game than it already is (well, truth be told, it's the other way around.  D&D has a lot of blame to take for what it did to Video Games, both good and bad.)

Well good. I for one was not trying to get you to accept gp=xp as the one true way or anything, but merely show that it makes sense in context and was not showing blind obedience to 'St. Gary.'

I'm genuinely confused by the video game reference, because I've never seen a video game that rewards xp based on gp, but instead almost always is xp for monsters killed. Is it because it does things like incentivize you to clear out the rest of the dungeon, even though you've already rescued to villagers or whatever your story goal was? Because that's true for gp=xp, monsters defeated=xp, and a true experience/tft style. Pretty much anything except 'xp for actual goal.'

Quote from: Willie the DuckThe thief showed up later because up until that point, everyone was a thief. Or at least the 'dungeon delver' type that most of the thieves' abilities actually are. The thief class is simply an addition of codified mechanisms to achieve what people were already doing-finding traps, climbing over things, picking locks with daggers, what-have-you. Why the fighting man is listed first, well I of course can't tell you because I'm not Gary. However, it does seem to be the default option in the three-class original concept--if you're not specifically wanting to be a spell-slinger, you would be a soldier or equivalent, which makes sense if you're deriving this game from Chainmail.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;964557But, soldiers and spell-slingers are not very sneaky by nature, both deal with a form of overt power. Soldiers are the Swordy McSwordfighter as Robiswrong calls them.

Soldiers 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*). Soldiers (as I put it) are everything from Swordy McSwordfighter to Conan to Indiana Jones to Grey Mouser's non-wizard training up until the thief class was invented and would be a better fit. It was the invention of the thief that made people believe that the other classes couldn't do these things.

I didn't play LBB w/o GH back in the day, but in BECMI and 2e we absolutely had fighters and clerics and wizards hiding (behind things, or in those ubiquitous empty rooms, not in shadows), and stealthing (not of course 'Move Silently,' and often with the thief looking for when the coast was clear).

*I'm sure one of you guys who know the books by heart will find a contradiction somewhere.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965138Maybe that's why I can't wrap my brain around Gold=XP.  I grew up reading fantasy stories, starting with the Conan short stories and then moving to others as I found them, and even when Conan was out looking for loot, something else came along and distracted him, like The Tower Of The Elephant.  And most of my gaming has been influenced by fantasy literature.

And while D&D was influenced by fantasy literature like Conan, it was really created as an outgrowth of Arneson's castle games*. The players decided to mine, and he built dungeons with treasure in them for them to encounter. And they decided that going into the mines to look for treasure was more fun than the battle going on up above. So treasure being the goal came in before the game was even invented.
*this is all coming from Playing at the World, and from memory

As to situations where treasure isn't the goal, yes, those situations arise. They actively changed the xp system (to the 2e mish-mash) when it became clear that the go into the dungeon model was insufficient for what players were trying to do; but when the game was conceived, it made perfect sense.

The Tower of the Elephant is actually a great way to highlight the different systems. The first part of the story (Conan hears about gem, goes looking for gem, fights spider, doesn't get gem) The situation looks like this:
true experience system: uses skills --> would get xp
defeat monster for xp: kills spider --> would get xp
gp=xp: doesn't get gem --> would not get xp
goal based: doesn't get gem (which is his goal) --> would not get xp

As to the second part of the story, he doesn't defeat much (unless mercy killing Yag-kosha counts, which I hope not), gets no treasure, uses some skills I guess, and accomplishes a goal made up in the moment (deciding to help Yag-kosha). The xp reward is murkey, as it probably should be.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;965275I'm genuinely confused by the video game reference, because I've never seen a video game that rewards xp based on gp, but instead almost always is xp for monsters killed. Is it because it does things like incentivize you to clear out the rest of the dungeon, even though you've already rescued to villagers or whatever your story goal was? Because that's true for gp=xp, monsters defeated=xp, and a true experience/tft style. Pretty much anything except 'xp for actual goal.'

I meant the idea of the greater the monster the more treasure it drops after defeat, thus the amount of gold received scales in response to the threat level.  MMO's still do it, for example, with lower level 'mobs' dropping copper coins (or the equivalent) to high end ones dropping handfuls of gold to whole treasure chests of loot.

And IF I remember correctly, Rogue gave out XP that more or less equaled the amount of coin that dropped every time you killed a monster.  But I could be mistaken that.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;965275And while D&D was influenced by fantasy literature like Conan, it was really created as an outgrowth of Arneson's castle games*. The players decided to mine, and he built dungeons with treasure in them for them to encounter. And they decided that going into the mines to look for treasure was more fun than the battle going on up above. So treasure being the goal came in before the game was even invented.
*this is all coming from Playing at the World, and from memory

What a cool piece of history!

Quote from: Willie the Duck;965275As to situations where treasure isn't the goal, yes, those situations arise. They actively changed the xp system (to the 2e mish-mash) when it became clear that the go into the dungeon model was insufficient for what players were trying to do; but when the game was conceived, it made perfect sense.

The Tower of the Elephant is actually a great way to highlight the different systems. The first part of the story (Conan hears about gem, goes looking for gem, fights spider, doesn't get gem) The situation looks like this:
true experience system: uses skills --> would get xp
defeat monster for xp: kills spider --> would get xp
gp=xp: doesn't get gem --> would not get xp
goal based: doesn't get gem (which is his goal) --> would not get xp

As to the second part of the story, he doesn't defeat much (unless mercy killing Yag-kosha counts, which I hope not), gets no treasure, uses some skills I guess, and accomplishes a goal made up in the moment (deciding to help Yag-kosha). The xp reward is murkey, as it probably should be.

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

Quote from: Christopher Brady;965294This situation is why I prefer a more flexible XP model than XP for Loot Only or Killing Only.

I 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.

The only scheme I don't care for personally is XP for time, but other than that I'm flexible.

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."

Quote from: CRKrueger;966075... just have the balls to run the railroad to get what you want from the players instead of doing a Pavlov number on them.

It isn't about railroading. And it isn't like the players don't know what is going on. They understand the reward system that is in place. It is about creating a fairly consistent style of campaign. Players can go wherever they want, but if you reward certain behavior, that behavior is likely to come up. If that sort of thing bothers you, then certainly don't play those kinds of games (or ignore that kind of XP system in games you do like) but for me, I am fine with this with certain games as either a player or a GM, and I think it can help a campaign get a certain feel.

Again, if you don't like it, that is fine. But plenty of people enjoy it man.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966076I 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."

That can work too. My point is there is room for all kinds of approaches and reward systems here.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966078That can work too. My point is there is room for all kinds of approaches and reward systems here.

Well, sure.  The "right" one is "the one that maximizes fun for your particular group at your particular table."

Quote from: CRKrueger;966070Premise? 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.

You're rewarding "defeating the guy" with XP. You've incentivised this behaviour with the XP reward.  Clearly your game is about overcoming challenges to gain XP. :p

As far as I can tell, you do it the exact same way I do, but it's not the goal-less game you seem to think it is. You necessarily decide what is a challenge worth XP and award accordingly. As soon as you start making that decision you are not merely doing "The Players roleplay their characters. You create then roleplay the rest of the world, and adjudicate rules if necessary".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;966082Well, sure.  The "right" one is "the one that maximizes fun for your particular group at your particular table."

That is what I am trying to say. Also, what works for your table can vary over time or by the game you play. I think if we only have a limited number of acceptable XP progression methods, that really limits the conversation to what a handful of posters have decided is the perfect way to play.

Not saying those choices don't have both upsides and downsides. Incentives do have downsides, they also can be fun and encourage behavior that makes the game better for the group. If the point of the game is exploration and adventure, I can enjoy being rewarded with XP when I successfully pursue that premise.

To me that is hardly a railroad. It certainly narrows the scope and encourages me to go into dungeons. Which can help keep a game on track and sustain it over time. Doesn't mean I have to go on the adventure the GM has in mind that night, and it doesn't mean I always have to play according to my desire for more XP. Again, not the only way to do it.

Quote from: S'mon;966115You're rewarding "defeating the guy" with XP. You've incentivised this behaviour with the XP reward.  Clearly your game is about overcoming challenges to gain XP. :p

As far as I can tell, you do it the exact same way I do, but it's not the goal-less game you seem to think it is. You necessarily decide what is a challenge worth XP and award accordingly. As soon as you start making that decision you are not merely doing "The Players roleplay their characters. You create then roleplay the rest of the world, and adjudicate rules if necessary".

Good try, but no.

In dealing with versions of D&D, the game gives the XP amounts you get.  Most RPGs give guidelines based on how their system works for XP advancement.

Here's a quick test.  Do you give your PCs experience for killing only certain NPCs but not others or not other PCs in PvP?  If not, then you're attempting to control their behavior through XP Awards.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966116To me that is hardly a railroad. It certainly narrows the scope and encourages me to go into dungeons. Which can help keep a game on track and sustain it over time. Doesn't mean I have to go on the adventure the GM has in mind that night, and it doesn't mean I always have to play according to my desire for more XP. Again, not the only way to do it.

Ironic that you claim it's hardly a railroad, yet in the next sentence want to keep the campaign literally "on track".  On what track exactly.  If the PC are following their goals, and doing what the characters want, then how could the campaign possibly be off track?  The only way it could possibly be off track is if from the beginning you had decided there was a direction to go in, a focus, a goal, a path.  Someone, by definition, cannot get off track, if there is no track.

I understand lots of people like having direction, focus, certain OOC themes and assumptions we all agree on at the Player level. I understand a lot of GMs decide to passively enforce this through XP awards as a way to get Genre or Theme into the game without explicit Genre or Theme mechanics.  I understand exactly what they're doing, and why.  I also understand that it is the GM choosing an OOC method to influence PC behavior.  Do you?

Gronan talks about "exploration and adventure" but he means that in the most broad manner possible, because if his PCs want to fortify the old fort they've discovered and start moving into a "castle and king building" phase, is he going to tell them no, because they're not done dungeoneering yet?  I kind of doubt it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966149Ironic that you claim it's hardly a railroad, yet in the next sentence want to keep the campaign literally "on track".  On what track exactly.  If the PC are following their goals, and doing what the characters want, then how could the campaign possibly be off track?  The only way it could possibly be off track is if from the beginning you had decided there was a direction to go in, a focus, a goal, a path.  Someone, by definition, cannot get off track, if there is no track.

I think it is pretty obvious I didn't mean a railroad track. I was just talking about the campaign having momentum and the players have some sense of direction (or just sticking to some kind of a premise). If giving people XP for things like going into dungeons or taking gold is railroading, then you've expanded the term so much it hardly has any real meaning. You don't have to like this approach, you can think it is stupid. None of that makes it a railroad. The players have absolute freedom to do what they want, they just get rewarded if they choose to the kinds of things that the campaign is supposed to be about.

QuoteI understand lots of people like having direction, focus, certain OOC themes and assumptions we all agree on at the Player level. I understand a lot of GMs decide to passively enforce this through XP awards as a way to get Genre or Theme into the game without explicit Genre or Theme mechanics.  I understand exactly what they're doing, and why.  I also understand that it is the GM choosing an OOC method to influence PC behavior.  Do you?

I don't really care if it is out of character. All I care about is it works, is fun and some groups seem to like it. Like I said, I enjoy this for certain games myself as a player. But I am not interested in where this falls on the IC versus OOC, line.

QuoteGronan talks about "exploration and adventure" but he means that in the most broad manner possible, because if his PCs want to fortify the old fort they've discovered and start moving into a "castle and king building" phase, is he going to tell them no, because they're not done dungeoneering yet?  I kind of doubt it.

That is is totally fine. That kind of campaign can be a lot of fun and I run them myself. But a campaign that is more focused can also be fun. And using XP as a way to maintain the focus isn't bad-wrong-fun or some big evil.

Do what you want man. The approaches to XP you've mentioned are ones I quite like. But they are not the only ones that work and I am not going to change my play style or avoid certain games because you think it is OOC or because you have a weird new definition of railroad. I am not asking you to like these things though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966149because if his PCs want to fortify the old fort they've discovered and start moving into a "castle and king building" phase, is he going to tell them no, because they're not done dungeoneering yet?  I kind of doubt it.

As a side note, I think I'd die from sheer joy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966150The approaches to XP you've mentioned are ones I quite like. But they are not the only ones that work and I am not going to change my play style or avoid certain games because you think it is OOC or because you have a weird new definition of railroad. I am not asking you to like these things though.

I'm not asking you to dislike them.  If you want to pretend they're not OOC though, for some reason, go right ahead.

As for definition of railroad...of course the general definition of railroad is much more limiting and heavy handed.  But...in the end...it's the GM influencing or limiting character behavior to obtain a desired result, yes?  It's a difference in degree, not in kind.

You're steering.  Gently, but your hand is there. Period.  They may not want to play any other way.  That doesn't mean you are not steering.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966155I'm not asking you to dislike them.  If you want to pretend they're not OOC though, for some reason, go right ahead.
.

You were the one who brought up OOC. I already said, I am not terribly concerned where it falls in that respect. If the approach itself bothers me, then I would wonder if there is too much OOC stuff going on. But if it isn't troubling me, I see no reason to dig into whether it is In Character or Out of Character (not saying I am particularly convinced it is, just I don't particularly care either).

Quote from: CRKrueger;966155As for definition of railroad...of course the general definition of railroad is much more limiting and heavy handed.  But...in the end...it's the GM influencing or limiting character behavior to obtain a desired result, yes?  It's a difference in degree, not in kind.

You're steering.  Gently, but your hand is there. Period.  They may not want to play any other way.  That doesn't mean you are not steering.

It is the GM positively rewarding playing into the premise. That still affords lots of options. Railroading is when you have an adventure and it is going to happen no matter what (Or when you simply don't permit certain courses of action by having the game world obstruct them until they do what you want). It is by definition heavy handed, not gentle. This is not railroading in any way shape or form. Your just saying it is Railroading and OOC because those are the two big bad things on this forum. But if we are now at the point that just rewarding PCs for doing things the game was meant to do is bad wrongfun, not sure what to say.

As to whether the players want to play that way, I never said you should be a jerk to the group. If they don't want to play that way, then we don't play that way. But the point you are missing is plenty of people like it this way. Like I said, I can quite enjoy it as a player.

But if you want to call it railroading and OOC, that is fine by me. My point is, I don't really care what you think. If I enjoy it, I am going to do it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160It is the GM positively rewarding playing into the premise. That still affords lots of options. Railroading is when you have an adventure and it is going to happen no matter what. It is by definition heavy handed, not gentle. This is not railroading in any way shape or form.

Railroading is a heavy-handed way for the GM to steer things to obtain a specific result he wants.
The GM positively rewarding playing into the premise is a light-handed way for the GM to steer things to obtain a general result he wants.

Degree, not kind. Simple fact, whether you like it or not.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160Your just saying it is Railroading and OOC because those are the two big bad things on this forum.

Now you're questioning my logic and motives.  You've been here for 8 years and this is what turns you into a forum warrior?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160But if we are now at the point that just rewarding PCs for doing things the game was meant to do is bad wrongfun, not sure what to say.

Ahhh, badwrongfun, that old "I don't like what you're saying about my playstyle, so I'll defend it by dismissing your rationale." argument.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160As to whether the players want to play that way, I never said you should be a jerk to the group. If they don't want to play that way, then we don't play that way. But the point you are missing is plenty of people like it this way. Like I said, I can quite enjoy it as a player.

I really don't think I'm missing that point since I've said I understand a lot of people like to play that way, oh about 4 times now.  Whether anyone likes to play that way or not does not change the definition of what they are doing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966160But if you want to call it railroading and OOC, that is fine by me. My point is, I don't really care what you think. If I enjoy it, I am going to do it.

If you'll recall I did NOT say you were railroading.  I said since you are steering you might as well railroad, as it's similar, just a passive version.

The fact is Brendan, you just can't seem to stand that I am classifying what you like to do as being under the same umbrella heading as railroading.  GM steering is GM steering.  One may be heavy and active and the other light and passive, but they are both the GM attempting to obtain a result in player behavior, period.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966148Good try, but no.

In dealing with versions of D&D, the game gives the XP amounts you get.  Most RPGs give guidelines based on how their system works for XP advancement.

Here's a quick test.  Do you give your PCs experience for killing only certain NPCs but not others or not other PCs in PvP?  If not, then you're attempting to control their behavior through XP Awards.

By your argument, isn't having an XP price tag over the head of every NPC an incentive to kill them? Why does killing someone give you a reward but exploring hex 0835 or translating an old book doesn't? All RPGs that give XP for anything other than showing up are creating artificial incentives.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966162Now you're questioning my logic and motives.  You've been here for 8 years and this is what turns you into a forum warrior?
.

Questioning your logic or guessing at your reasons for posting something make me a forum warrior now? Someone disagreeing with you, or thinking you are using bad rhetoric, doesn't make them a forum warrior. You were the one questioning peoples motives by saying they should come out and have the balls to just run a railroad.

I disagree with you strongly on this topic. Nothing to have a meltdown over.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966162The fact is Brendan, you just can't seem to stand that I am classifying what you like to do as being under the same umbrella heading as railroading.  GM steering is GM steering.  One may be heavy and active and the other light and passive, but they are both the GM attempting to obtain a result in player behavior, period.

It does bother me. Because it isn't railroading, and because it seems like you are just doing it to shame people from playing a particular way.

You keep moving the goal posts here. First its railroading. Then it is a kind of railroading. Now it is GM steering (whatever that is). I don't know. All I know it is pretty common, lots of people seem to like it. Suddenly it feels like we aren't allowed to anymore because Krueger decided it is OOC and Railroady.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966162Ahhh, badwrongfun, that old "I don't like what you're saying about my playstyle, so I'll defend it by dismissing your rationale." argument.
.

First, I think I did address some of your rationale. I engaged you on the point about railroads. I also pointed where I am not interested in addressing your rationale (OOC isn't something I am too worried about here for example). But I also think it is worth mentioning badwrongfun when a poster seems to be suggesting if we don't play his particular way, we are playing wrong (or being manipulated by a railroady GM).

Quote from: Baulderstone;966163By your argument, isn't having an XP price tag over the head of every NPC an incentive to kill them? Why does killing someone give you a reward but exploring hex 0835 or translating an old book doesn't? All RPGs that give XP for anything other than showing up are creating artificial incentives.

Which, btw, is why I'm starting to use that method more and more.

When we play AD&D, we're all sitting down knowing the rules, knowing the assumptions, knowing how the game works.  We're all buying in to the idea of "Playing AD&D" in which experience is given out for defeating things and gaining gold.

Is that then incentivizing those actions?.  In a way, it's just as OOC as a Genre, Theme, or Premise we all agree to address.  However, the assumptions come from the game and it is the players who determine how they get that gold, or who they kill for exp.  They can gain exp while playing in any Genre, addressing any Premise, following any Theme, while being Heroes, Scoundrels, or Blackguards.  See the difference?  The GM isn't saying "XP is like AD&D standard, except you don't get any XP for killing PCs or L/G NPCs." or "XP is gained for doing Heroic actions (the unspoken inference being of course what the GM thinks is Heroic)."

That's the trap people frequently fall into, they assume that because AD&D gives XP for killing and looting and not studying or exploring, then the game is about murderhobos because it incentivizes being a murderhobo.  The thing people miss about the "Gold and Kill" method of XP is, like a lot of AD&D rules, is meant to be an abstract shorthand.  Could Gary have placed in the DMG 64 pages of charts and tables listing every action that each class could do to get "Supplemental Experience Awards" as well as the time and cost involved.  Yeah, just like he could have made a more detailed HP system, a more detailed armor system, etc.

I don't run AD&D anymore, but when I ran other games that are based on Goal Awards,  I don't base exp on what I decide the goals are.  I base exp on what the players decide their goals are.  They don't get exp for saving the princess because I wanted them to.  They get exp for saving the princess because they succeeded in what THEY wanted to do.  If the PCs are secretly working for Jafar the Vizier and while being hired by the King to save his daughter, they let her die because that was their true mission, they get the exp for that.  If they fail in their goal to let her die and actually save her, they get the in-characetr awards from the King, and any exp that comes from skill use depending on system, but they don't get the "Goal Award" because they failed.  If they had planned beforehand to betray Jafar and make it seem like they were actually going to let the princess die, yet make it seem like they barely saved her so Jafar isn't suspicious, then they probably get a bonus because the characters set a goal for themselves that was especially difficult and managed to pull it off.

These days it's usually set amount based on how long we play with a bonus if they accomplish personal goals.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966166It does bother me. Because it isn't railroading, and because it seems like you are just doing it to shame people from playing a particular way.

You keep moving the goal posts here. First its railroading. Then it is a kind of railroading. Now it is GM steering (whatever that is). I don't know. All I know it is pretty common, lots of people seem to like it. Suddenly it feels like we aren't allowed to anymore because Krueger decided it is OOC and Railroady.

Lets go back to the post that torqued you off.  Here's what I actually said.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966075Lots 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.

You'll please reread and note several things.
1. I admit nothing is wrong with it.
2. I admit I can play that way and enjoy it on occasion.
3. I start with the term GM steering first.
4. I then say if you are going to steer, you may as well then go to the railroad.  So.
a. I started with GM steering, I am not shifting goalposts.
b. By saying you may as well go to the railroad, it is clear what I am talking about is not a railroad, it is a similar thing, both are GM steering.  Difference of degree, ie. level of steering.  

I have not changed my position, or shifted my goalposts, the text is clear on that point, and I would appreciate it if you didn't mischaracterize what I'm typing because you're getting a little upset.

I'm sorry I don't much like something you do.  I guess I shouldn't be able to express an opinion on it?  Are you really doing the "subjectively criticize equals objective judgement" number here?

For a long-term, enjoyable roleplaying campaign, the players should have as much freedom as possible in playing their characters.  360 degrees of motion lets call it.  Declaring a Theme, Genre, or Premise, for that particular campaign just made that less than 360 degrees.  The more the GM steers, the less degrees of motion the characters will have.

This idea to focus (ie. limit) PC action through XP rewards the GM sets is the GM influencing character behavior through player knowledge.  If I know I will not gain exp for doing X yet will gain exp for doing Y, then conveniently my character will end up doing more Y than X.  The character's actions are determined by factors known only to the player.  It's the oldest and most subtle OOC metagaming mechanic.

I guess it's a personal pet peeve that people who will haul out the pitchforks and torches against the evil railroaders for steering players through Plot, think nothing of steering players through Theme.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966171Lets go back to the post that torqued you off.  Here's what I actually said.


You'll please reread and note several things.
1. I admit nothing is wrong with it.

Yes, right before you say people who use XP incentive should "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 am sorry, but that doesn't sound like you think there is nothing wrong with it.

Quote3. I start with the term GM steering first.

Fair enough, I missed that usage. But you are still trying to equate it with railroading. I mean I get that you prefer a campaign where players have total freedom to do whatever they want, and are not incentivized for anything but their own goals. That is fine. But suggesting anything to the left of that extreme is on the railroad end of the spectrum is a BS argument.

Quote4. I then say if you are going to steer, you may as well then go to the railroad.  So.
a. I started with GM steering, I am not shifting goalposts.
b. By saying you may as well go to the railroad, it is clear what I am talking about is not a railroad, it is a similar thing, both are GM steering.  Difference of degree, ie. level of steering.  

I think we could be here all day parsing this. To me it sounds like you are trying to fold XP incentives into railroading by suggesting it is on the spectrum of it. If so, I guess, okay, but so what? Why does it even matter then?

Quote from: CRKrueger;966171For a long-term, enjoyable roleplaying campaign, the players should have as much freedom as possible in playing their characters.  360 degrees of motion lets call it.  Declaring a Theme, Genre, or Premise, for that particular campaign just made that less than 360 degrees.  The more the GM steers, the less degrees of motion the characters will have.
.

This I simply don't agree with. I mean it is a fine way to structure a campaign. I think it is fun, I do it myself sometimes, but it isn't the only way to have a long term successful campaign. A game where you reward people XP for sticking with some kind of focus can still be long term. And a game with total freedom can just as easily go off the rails if the players are not into it. I am not advocating making players do things they don't want. It is a matter of fitting things to your group and GM style. If you don't  want genre or theme, that is cool. That is super okay. Does it limit things to try to stick more with genre? I suppose, but then even in a 360 degree full freedom campaign, you are limiting things with the setting details themselves (and genre is often little more than setting detail and physics of the setting). Sometimes setting focus is simply a matter of giving the GM a sense of direction. For example deciding to have a campaign that occurs within the parameters of a single city.

I guess I just don't see the big deal here.Sometimes I might want that 360 degrees, sometimes I might want gentle nudging through the reward system. Other time I might want actual genre mechanics. I don't think that has a big impact on the long term viability of the campaign.

Anyone who has players showing up every week, is by definition, doing it right, because...they have players showing up every week.

But, Grove could be GMing 16 hours a day, 7 days a weeks with 4 groups a day, and he still wouldn't be running a sandbox campaign.  He has a very heavy hand on the steering wheel and his players have less degree of motion than, say Tenbones' players do.

The only way to really get some type of guaranteed experience from a roleplaying session is to limit degrees of motion.  Most players do this instinctively.  If we say we're doing a sandbox campaign in the Forgotten Realms North, the first thing the players do usually isn't hop the first boat to Kara-Tur.  They limit themselves just for the sake of sanity and to not be a dick to the GM.  That's most definitely an OOC decision, but it hardly impacts character freedom.

We say we're playing a "Heroic High Fantasy" campaign, we're limiting degree of motion, paying that price for more enjoyable Heroic High Fantasy.
We say we're doing "Investigative Noir in Greyhawk", we're limiting degree of motion, paying that price for more enjoyable Investigative Noir.
The shorter the campaign will be, the more you need to focus to get the payoff you're looking for, which is why one-shots and short campaigns tend to be quite focused with a stronger premise we all buy in to.

However, for a standard method of granting exp, in an open, long-term campaign, having the GM decide what does and doesn't give exp is different, especially if that changes based on what the GM wants to happen next.  For open, long-term sandbox gaming, degree of motion is more important than focus.  I know not all agree.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966174However, for a standard method of granting exp, in an open, long-term campaign, having the GM decide what does and doesn't give exp is different, especially if that changes based on what the GM wants to happen next.  For open, long-term sandbox gaming, degree of motion is more important than focus.  I know not all agree.

I think changing it mid campaign would be a bad idea (unless it is to reflect some decision by the group that whatever the GM was using as a metric before wasn't working, or that they wanted to focus on something different----like a shift from dungeon delving to intrigue). But I don't think having the GM lay out sensible XP goals based on some kind of campaign focus is harmful to long term play. I think the more important thing is what the focus happens to be, if people enjoy it, and whether the focus lends itself well to regular sessions. Something that rewards going into dungeons and taking gold, is a pretty easy focus to sustain (whereas a reward system that gives xp for things like interpersonal family drama would probably be a lot harder). For instance if someone was running a police focused game and gave us XP rewards for arrests or preventing crime, I think that would work just fine, provided there was sufficient player buy in to the premise (and I know I'd probably enjoy getting an XP reward for doing those things).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966172Yes, right before you say people who use XP incentive should "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 am sorry, but that doesn't sound like you think there is nothing wrong with it.

There's never anything wrong with it as long as all like it.  That's always true of gaming.  Ok, I tossed in some snark, I guess I see a little bit of hypocrisy in it from some, in that a lot of people in different threads I see lambasting railroaders are also those who see nothing wrong with steering things through more subtle methods.  It's like a guy screaming at people for putting a harness and leash on a dog because you can control them just fine through verbal commands.

BTW, I know you're not one of those people, you've said if people like the structured adventures and a more railroady, entertainment-like experience, good for them.  You don't really yell at anybody.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966172Fair enough, I missed that usage. But you are still trying to equate it with railroading. I mean I get that you prefer a campaign where players have total freedom to do whatever they want, and are not incentivized for anything but their own goals. That is fine. But suggesting anything to the left of that extreme is on the railroad end of the spectrum is a BS argument.

Look, I'll admit 5% steering is a far cry from 95% steering, and if you normally cruise at 5%-10%, you might consider 50% a completely different thing.  However, I hope you can agree that there is actually a difference between No Steering and Any.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966172If so, I guess, okay, but so what? Why does it even matter then?

It matters when you're expressing the opinion that it's possible to not be on that spectrum, and having to be somewhere on that spectrum, always, which is pretty much what Smon was implying, is incorrect.  Remember this side discussion didn't start with us, I was responding to Smon when you came in, that's where the train of thought started.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966177Look, I'll admit 5% steering is a far cry from 95% steering, and if you normally cruise at 5%-10%, you might consider 50% a completely different thing.  However, I hope you can agree that there is actually a difference between No Steering and Any.
.

I do see the difference, but I think this is an odd way to frame it because it makes it sound like anything that isn't 100% free of any hint of steering is somehow on par with the GM making players go on a railroad adventure. I guess it is a spectrum but if something is only 5% on the spectrum, I'd classify it on the 'free' side, not on the 'railroad' side. It is the difference between a pinch of salt and a whole salt shaker. A modicum of salt in your food doesn't make it 'salty'.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;966178I do see the difference, but I think this is an odd way to frame it because it makes it sound like anything that isn't 100% free of any hint of steering is somehow on par with the GM making players go on a railroad adventure. I guess it is a spectrum but if something is only 5% on the spectrum, I'd classify it on the 'free' side, not on the 'railroad' side. It is the difference between a pinch of salt and a whole salt shaker. A modicum of salt in your food doesn't make it 'salty'.

We're where we always get to on any discussion involving a spectrum.  In the end, everyone makes their own dividing line which just happens to be where their own comfort level is.  The argument always starts when someone (usually my dumb ass) points out you can, in fact, be off that spectrum just fine.  At which point the wheels come off the wagon.  Why some people (not necessarily you Brendan) refuse to accept that, I'll never figure out, but there it is.  These types of spectrum arguments, which usually start around an OOC spectrum or narrative spectrum, are like 95% of the classic rpgsite 4e and story wars of the 2009's-10s.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966148Good try, but no.

In dealing with versions of D&D, the game gives the XP amounts you get.  Most RPGs give guidelines based on how their system works for XP advancement.

Here's a quick test.  Do you give your PCs experience for killing only certain NPCs but not others or not other PCs in PvP?  If not, then you're attempting to control their behavior through XP Awards.

Personally I give XP for overcoming any challenge, so that could include killing any NPC. I can imagine not giving XP for the degenerate case of "We only need 10 XP to level, let's murder those peasants" - but that doesn't normally happen in my games since players know I'll give some "just doing stuff" XP and I only award XP at end of session, so normally they'd level up at the end of the session either way.

But anyway, if you give XP for killing people you are incentivising killing people, AFAICS. If you don't then you are discouraging that activity. One of the few things I don't give XP for is players sitting around planning OOC, because I hate seeing sessions wasted (from my POV) on that stuff - I want to discourage endless planning. (I don't see how the game's own guidelines make any difference to this point - the game designers probably have listed XP awards for behaviour they want to encourage).

Quote from: CRKrueger;966155I'm not asking you to dislike them.  If you want to pretend they're not OOC though, for some reason, go right ahead.

I've never heard of an IC XP award. All XP awards are OOC. Even a Runequest style tick in a skill box is OOC.

Quote from: CRKrueger;966170I don't run AD&D anymore, but when I ran other games that are based on Goal Awards,  I don't base exp on what I decide the goals are.  I base exp on what the players decide their goals are.  They don't get exp for saving the princess because I wanted them to.  They get exp for saving the princess because they succeeded in what THEY wanted to do.  If the PCs are secretly working for Jafar the Vizier and while being hired by the King to save his daughter, they let her die because that was their true mission, they get the exp for that.  If they fail in their goal to let her die and actually save her, they get the in-characetr awards from the King, and any exp that comes from skill use depending on system, but they don't get the "Goal Award" because they failed.  If they had planned beforehand to betray Jafar and make it seem like they were actually going to let the princess die, yet make it seem like they barely saved her so Jafar isn't suspicious, then they probably get a bonus because the characters set a goal for themselves that was especially difficult and managed to pull it off.

These days it's usually set amount based on how long we play with a bonus if they accomplish personal goals.

I like this way to do it. That's pretty much what I tend to do too. If I don't want PCs being villainous I tell the players that, it's not something I address via XP awards. BUT I don't give XP for sitting around doing OOC planning, and I probably give reduced XP for stuff that bores me, like the minutiae of running a mundane business, & may give no XP for OOC shopping, number crunching & such. I might give decent XP for carousing in taverns, attending noble balls, and other stuff that gives opportunities for interesting (to me) character interaction. IC shopping & bargaining may be worth XP if it doesn't get tedious.

I guess "XP for not boring the GM" & "XP for not doing nothing" makes me a horrible railroader, but I don't care.

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.

Well, see, what I want to incentivize in my players in Dark Albion (and Lion & Dragon) is for them to:
a) show up
b) play their fucking characters without consideration to metagaming where they feel they have to bring home barrels of loot not because that's what their character would do, but because that's the only way they'll get to go up in level

So the  XP system I have is one where the Players don't have to think at all about "what do I have to do in the game to get my guy to level up", because the answer is "show up" and "roleplay".

Quote from: S'mon;966201I've never heard of an IC XP award. All XP awards are OOC. Even a Runequest style tick in a skill box is OOC.

The original Traveller had only roughly in-character learning. If you wanted to improve a skill, you went and spent time and money to get trained in that skill.

Quote from: jhkim;966487The original Traveller had only roughly in-character learning. If you wanted to improve a skill, you went and spent time and money to get trained in that skill.

And that one is hard to categorize. Money and time (or the ability to spend it, since time is money in a universe where everyone has monthly expenses, docking fees, and a mortgage on their ship) are the primary rewards in the Traveller system.

Quote from: jhkim;966487The original Traveller had only roughly in-character learning. If you wanted to improve a skill, you went and spent time and money to get trained in that skill.

The Traveller skill levels are (obviously) OOC but like Runequest the skill-raising IC activity maps directly to the game stat increase, so these are simulationist systems. Whereas XP systems all seem non-simulationist, with a single bundle of XP from various sources that gives a Level or similar boost.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;966491And that one is hard to categorize. Money and time (or the ability to spend it, since time is money in a universe where everyone has monthly expenses, docking fees, and a mortgage on their ship) are the primary rewards in the Traveller system.

I would say that money and time are clearly in-character rewards. Of course, the GM could give out money for out-of-character reasons - but the reward itself is in-character.

Quote from: S'mon;966524The Traveller skill levels are (obviously) OOC but like Runequest the skill-raising IC activity maps directly to the game stat increase, so these are simulationist systems. Whereas XP systems all seem non-simulationist, with a single bundle of XP from various sources that gives a Level or similar boost.

You can also track experience for skills used in play, and only let it apply to what you used, which is more IC, except inasmuch as the player might know how the system works, be the record-keeper for it, and/or modify what they do to try to efficiently increase their skill based on any gamey aspects of that system.

Though it seems to me that the less gamey and more verisimili... the system is, the less OOC it is, to the point where a player might make the same decisions based on the same logic their PC would. i.e. Fighters do choose to spend time training, and see training and fighting with skilled opponents as valuable and effective exercises that lead to their fighting skills improving.