Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;936892I got my assumptions from reading all the "back in my day" from you guys on this forum lol

Well, I assume people want to level up. So -if- you only get EXP from gold, then it seems players would focus on the gold rather than questing. That's what I meant.

In my own 5e game to get around the experience forcing a certain game style, I just award a set level of experience every session no matter what. That way if they spend the night carousing in a bar, or hunting monsters, or negotiating deals with a baron, they get the same experience.

The gold the system always looked interesting though so I wondered how different mechanical incentives would affect player behavior.

1: Where? Even Gronan has noted several times that gameplay didnt fit any sort of pigeonhole. The PCs went on adventures and from what hes said and from my own gameplay as a player the idea was to explore and adventure. Not to level up level up level up up up.

2: Again this is an overall wrong assumption. Levelling up tends to not be the focus of gameplay unless you are with really low grade players or theres some reason in game to get stronger such as to face a threat that is currently outside their ability to handle. Sure there are players who are obsessed with levelling only. But they probably arent much fun to have around. The current group I DM for and the one Im gaming with both are totally unconcerned with levelling up.

3: How is it "forcing" a certain game style? Are your players obsessed with levelling up?

4: No more or less than anything else. Players will take their PCs on adventures and may or may not game the system or what they focus on accomplishing or not. Nothings changed.

Quote from: Omega;9369021: Where? Even Gronan has noted several times that gameplay didnt fit any sort of pigeonhole. The PCs went on adventures and from what hes said and from my own gameplay as a player the idea was to explore and adventure. Not to level up level up level up up up.

2: Again this is an overall wrong assumption. Levelling up tends to not be the focus of gameplay unless you are with really low grade players or theres some reason in game to get stronger such as to face a threat that is currently outside their ability to handle. Sure there are players who are obsessed with levelling only. But they probably arent much fun to have around. The current group I DM for and the one Im gaming with both are totally unconcerned with levelling up.

3: How is it "forcing" a certain game style? Are your players obsessed with levelling up?

4: No more or less than anything else. Players will take their PCs on adventures and may or may not game the system or what they focus on accomplishing or not. Nothings changed.

Most of the posts I see talking about older gaming is about how everyone would go for sneaking around to steal gold rather than fight monsters, etc. Which I don't find bad, just noted it.

And I don't mean that the players would be obsessed with leveling, but that ideally the rules should reflect the kind of game you want to play. So that means knowing what kind of behavior specific rules encourage, so you can pick the best rules for the kind of game you want.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;936892In my own 5e game to get around the experience forcing a certain game style, I just award a set level of experience every session no matter what. That way if they spend the night carousing in a bar, or hunting monsters, or negotiating deals with a baron, they get the same experience.

Yay! everyone gets a ribbon! you're all winners, kids! Goddamnit, we didn't spend half a century fighting communism just to have you slip it into gaming! What the fuck is wrong with you?!

Mind you, it's just 5e, so go ahead, nobody cares.

I can't be arsed to care about XP either.

Did you survive? Did you succeed? Great, here's a level.

I max my OD&D at 10th level and my adventures are high kill so live fast, die hard works perfect for me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;936892The gold the system always looked interesting though so I wondered how different mechanical incentives would affect player behavior.

Most players will chase what gives them XP.

In CoC and RQ, you get skill learning rolls from using skills in game. Thus, players will try to use lots of skills during the game.

If XP came from collecting magic mushrooms, that's what the PCs would quest for.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936924Yay! everyone gets a ribbon! you're all winners, kids! Goddamnit, we didn't spend half a century fighting communism just to have you slip it into gaming! What the fuck is wrong with you?!

Mind you, it's just 5e, so go ahead, nobody cares.

lolol

Believe me, I resisted it at first. But the way I did it before was milestone experience, and my players felt that they were like in a desert where they wouldn't gain anything for like 10 sessions, punctuated by an oasis now and then. Since we would only play once every 2-4 weeks I decided to bite the bullet and give them something each session so they felt a sense of progress.

Quote from: Omega;935177Anyone else track rations? How much? How long before you phase it into the background? How well did it go in use?

Yes. Every game. It never got phased out into the background. Pretty damn good once the players realized that you were taking rations, water, and encumbrance into account because it often forced them into more well-thought plans than just "CHARGE!!"

Quote from: Omega;935177And any other RPGs besides D&D and Dragon Storm that have these sorts of rules? I know Star Frontiers introduces it as a factor in the Volturnus module and I believe Gamma World does too. (but dont have the book handy to check)

It works great in Traveller as well, especially when you start to include things like life support and fuel expenditures.

There is even a subgame of Traveller for colony building where you get a budget, an initial population, and a world survey to start. The group must buy equipment, including food and supplies, then use that as all they have to start a colony on a new world. The task of making the colony self-sufficient and detailed exploration of the world is one that is the focus for the first few games. It is less Adventure! and more survival story and thought problems, but makes for a nice change of pace.

I largely ignore encumbrance and rations but use the full Rolemaster experience system.  Go figure.

One good thing about the GP = XP experience system is that is gets everyone on the same page. Often if you have everyone write out a long backstory then you have one guy who wants revenge against the orcs who killed his family, another guy who wants to quest to find the sword of his ancestors and blah blah blahdy blah.

Much easier to have "bunch of guys who want money for various reasons" and then point them at place with money it in and then have more stuff emerge out of play. That way you also don't have to feel like you're cajoling players with quests, make them have to cajole people into giving them stories about treasure.

Money is also USEFUL.  Building castles and arming retainers is expensive, doggone it!  Medieval nobles were always short of ready cash... Edward III of England pawned the royal plate several times.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;937039Money is also USEFUL.  Building castles and arming retainers is expensive, doggone it!  Medieval nobles were always short of ready cash... Edward III of England pawned the royal plate several times.

Exactly! You need coin, and usually lots of it, to fund your projects. Be it that dream castle you desire built, that conquering army you crave, or just to fund your next expedition and delve. If my current 5e character hadnt started with a nice windfall of coin I would most assuredly have been looking for good paying quests to fund my usual desire to have a caravan mobile home.

In Star Frontiers the only reason two of the PCs went on the expedition was to garner funds towards their eventual goal of purchasing their own starship.

I wonder if the decision to shift away from xp=gp in 2e AD&D was because the perception was that people were moving away from the resource-management game or because of the perception that people were moving away from the keep and fiefdom late game (so there was less to spend the gold on), or something else.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;937120I wonder if the decision to shift away from xp=gp in 2e AD&D was because the perception was that people were moving away from the resource-management game or because of the perception that people were moving away from the keep and fiefdom late game (so there was less to spend the gold on), or something else.

One of the reasons some - perhaps many - gamers disliked Traveller back in the day is that improving skills was a chore and slow as molasses, and simply growing wealthy and powerful and influential wasn't as big a rush as bigger attribute or skill numbers on their character sheets.

When dice become your surrogate cock, then you want rewards to be your Viagra hit.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;937123When dice become your surrogate cock, then you want rewards to be your Viagra hit.

Funny, but not on point.

D&D beyond AD&D 1e - and really, beyond B/X - no longer had the "dungeon exploration -> wilderness exploration -> realm creation focus. BECMI still had it as a possibility (with Dominion and War Machine rules), but the real focus was on perpetual "adventuring."

The wargaming aspect was essentially a legacy that didn't fit with what the vast majority of new players were looking for.

Those are, in some respects, two (possibly three) distinct games, and did not appeal to everyone. Given that (and the almost complete lack of guidance in most of the books on transitioning from one playstyle to the next), it's not surprising that these were dropped in favor of "more of the same, but different" endless questing.

Like many early D&D rules, it seems to me that the DM's who don't have problems with the weird rules, do not use the weird rules, or adjust, overrule, or stop using them as soon as they become weird.

"Rule that makes no sense is fine because when we care that it doesn't make sense, the DM doesn't use that rule. Only am awful DM would actually use such a rule when it makes no sense."

It's interesting that this is used in replies as if it is a defense of the rules that make no sense.

Quote from: Skarg;937131Like many early D&D rules, it seems to me that the DM's who don't have problems with the weird rules, do not use the weird rules, or adjust, overrule, or stop using them as soon as they become weird.

"Rule that makes no sense is fine because when we care that it doesn't make sense, the DM doesn't use that rule. Only am awful DM would actually use such a rule when it makes no sense."

It's interesting that this is used in replies as if it is a defense of the rules that make no sense.

That's the Rule 0 Fallacy.  Since Rule 0 of every RPG either stated or implied is that the GM can change any rule, therefore all criticism of the RPG's rules is invalid.