So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;495281So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?

Not really.  That's how a lot of older editions of D&D worked too.  The XP for gaining treasure was much higher than the XP for killing monsters.

The kill 'em all for XP mentality is more or less a feature of modern editions.

If you want to cut the idea of giving xp for treasure then you just need to boost the xp for killing. and considering the high mortality rate amongst low level adventurers, killing monsters is for lunatics.

Quote from: misterguignol;495283Not really.  That's how a lot of older editions of D&D worked too.  The XP for gaining treasure was much higher than the XP for killing monsters.

Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.

Quote from: Benoist;495288Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.

This is a perfect example of how plot structure is actually built into the game.

As far as Aos' signature goes, it fits every time with Antony's threads. Tell me i'm wrong.

If I'm trying to get rich robbing a pyramid; you damn well know that I'm going to try and avoid fighting the mummy.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;495281So, the LotFP rulebook seems to discourage fighting monsters (going so far as to brand those that do so as 'lunatics') but the main method of getting XP seems to be recovering treasure from 'abandoned' or 'uncivilized' areas. Isn't this a bit bizarre?

This is one of those OSR-tinted versions of old school gaming that tend to remind me of this guy.

While it's true that (a) treasure was the bigger source of XP if you played RAW and (b) this does have an impact on the psychology and approach players have to the game, the idea that this was achieved by groups largely avoiding combat doesn't seem to be true in any contemporary accounts or adventures.

Quote from: Benoist;495288Ratios are about 2/3 for treasures and 1/3 killing enemies in AD&D First Ed in practice, if memory serves.

For example, this ratio -- often quoted by the same people holding up the "combat was always avoided at all costs" meme simultaneously -- is derived entirely by analyzing the amount of treasure you get from the monsters you've defeated.

We played pretty much according to the "Successful Adventures" section, pp 107-109 in the AD&D PHB. It sets expectations fairly well, and we have had fun with it for several decades.

One paragraph heading was: Avoid unnecessary encounters.

The intended style of play is explicitly laid out. If a group didn't play that way, it's not because the game encouraged the way they did play.

In my experience, small children tended to play that way when D&D came out - they latched on to fighting the monsters as the point of the game, rather than as the main obstacle to progress. Kind of like little kids will latch on to dessert as the point of the meal, rather than simply one part of it. Kids want every course to be dessert, and only later do they discover that ruins the meal.

Some kids don't discover that - and more power to them. If you want to play D&D as all combat, all the time - no problem - no badwrongfun. If you want to eat meals as all candy and icecream all the time - again, I have no problem. I think you'll eventually get sick of it.

Problems arise when the munchkins either grow out of it, and bash the system for supposedly encouraging their munchkinry, or they don't grow out of it, and push the system towards their 'combat is the most important thing in the whole game' playstyle.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;495316This is one of those OSR-tinted versions of old school gaming that tend to remind me of this guy.

While it's true that (a) treasure was the bigger source of XP if you played RAW and (b) this does have an impact on the psychology and approach players have to the game, the idea that this was achieved by groups largely avoiding combat doesn't seem to be true in any contemporary accounts or adventures.



For example, this ratio -- often quoted by the same people holding up the "combat was always avoided at all costs" meme simultaneously -- is derived entirely by analyzing the amount of treasure you get from the monsters you've defeated.

At first level, if you don't plan well and get as much treasure as possible without fighting for it, there will be little chance of any contemporary accounts of reaching 2nd level.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;495344At first level, if you don't plan well and get as much treasure as possible without fighting for it, there will be little chance of any contemporary accounts of reaching 2nd level.

Bingo.

Early-level D&D is all about risk-management.

Quote from: misterguignol;495347Bingo.

Early-level D&D is all about risk-management.

exactly...back when there were no Challenge Ratings/Levels where the DM was encouraged to delicately craft an encounter to avoid Mary Sue getting her head lopped off by a rabid Gnoll.

Quote from: kregmosier;495353exactly...back when there were no Challenge Ratings/Levels where the DM was encouraged to delicately craft an encounter to avoid Mary Sue getting her head lopped off by a rabid Gnoll.

We snipe the gnolls from cover > We charge the gnolls

Old-school D&D rewards playing smart and rewards immersion in your character's own invest in staying alive.  Riddle of steel and all that.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;495316This is one of those OSR-tinted versions of old school gaming that tend to remind me of this guy.

While it's true that (a) treasure was the bigger source of XP if you played RAW and (b) this does have an impact on the psychology and approach players have to the game, the idea that this was achieved by groups largely avoiding combat doesn't seem to be true in any contemporary accounts or adventures.

I agree with Justin.  The "never fight monsters" meme has rose-colored glasses that are so thick they are nearly opaque.

Yes, the game isn't 100% about slaughtering monsters.  Yes, XP is primarily from treasure.

But that's treasure you get from defeating monsters.  Treasure just lying around with no traps or monsters guarding it was piddly amount.  The real money was from things like defeating a dragon.

The problem that started to occur with D&D in the 80's was that everyone forgot treasure was supposed to be the focus of XP, leading to a case where you had to fight everything in sight to ever gain a level.  The problem was not that everyone forgot you weren't supposed to fight at all.

D&D always had a pretty big expectation that you'd be killing stuff (big hint - it was originally a wargame).

Quote from: kregmosier;495353exactly...back when there were no Challenge Ratings/Levels where the DM was encouraged to delicately craft an encounter to avoid Mary Sue getting her head lopped off by a rabid Gnoll.

So playing D&D the "wrong way" means you're some kind of pansy who is too attached to his Mary Sue character, but if you play D&D the "right way", you're clever and resourceful and tough. Is that about right? Hold on, I got something for you...

Quote from: RPGPundit;82274The Swine are any people for whom RPGs have, as their primary purpose, the conveyance of some kind of sense of personal self-worth.

Just sayin'.