TheRPGSite

Which is better? Is one of them badwrongfun? :D

Over the past years I've mostly run adventure path type games where PCs are expected to be a particular level, and I've seen claims for those games that XP is not a reward mechanic, it's just for pacing (I've even seen claims that not giving XP to PCs whose players miss a session is punishing the player). Such games encourage things like fiat leveling, all PCs the same level etc. I've always given XP but sometimes I resorted to just giving a 'pacing award', eg with Mentzer D&D he recommends ca 20-25,000 XP per session, and I often just took to handing that out without calculating.

Recently though I'm running tabletop sandbox megadungeon game where all PCs start at 1st level & you get XP for the gold your PC has gained at the end of the session. I'm still getting my head around this a bit, the players seem happy enough.

If you use XP/Levels, do you have a preference? How do you do it? Do you vary it by campaign style?

I use XP as a reward for successful play, whether that means that the Players achieved their goals or not, but did try to plan and execute those plans. I've never just given out a set amount of XP per session while GMing, but have played in games where the GM does so. The games where a set XP reward is given out per session regardless just seemed somewhat hollow, all we had to do was show up to play and we really didn't have to achieve anything or sometimes even try to get the XP.

I don't really think either is badwrongfun, but I prefer earned XP. It comes down to the reaction at the end of a session. When the GM reveals the earned XP for a session, it is exciting. Maybe the amount is higher or lower than you expected, you might level when you didn't expect to or vice versa.

With flat XP, it's a also a flat moment. You know what you are getting. You know which sessions will end with leveling which won't. It is still nice to get XP, but there is no drama or uncertainty connected to it.

I don't know if I would even consider flat XP to be a pacing element. When I think of pacing a session, I think of varying the speed in a game. You have the fast, exciting moments and more careful deliberations and talky scenes. A sense of pacing requires variance. Having flat XP is a lack of pacing. It is just a uniform progression. I think earned XP provides more a sense of pacing because it changes from session to session.

I'm not utterly opposed to flat XP. It's a less work for the GM. Calculating XP can be a hassle. It also avoids players acting on weird meta motivations to harvest XP. It just isn't particularly exciting.

I'm of two minds on this.

Left brain likes XP as reward/progression. Earning a few levels every couple years of play. Sometimes a flat amount for each character, sometimes a base amount + individual accomplishments for each character (as debuted in AD&D 2nd-ED).

Right brain likes how Shadow of the Demon Lord does it. After every *successful* adventure, you gain a level. That's it. Bonk, new level. Cuts down on everyone's bookkeeping (and I haven't always had players I'd trust to keep their own XP tally - fortunately those were given the boot a long time ago).

Depends on how I feel like setting up the game, I suppose.

Quote from: S'mon;1008425Which is better? Is one of them badwrongfun? :D

If you use XP/Levels, do you have a preference? How do you do it? Do you vary it by campaign style?

I'm sure it varies by campaign style. I don't think there's badwrongfun involved.

It's never occurred to me to use it as a pacing mechanism (which seems to be a port over from Wow?)

What I think is valuable about XP for treasure (which is how I run my Lamentations of the Flame Princess game, which is cloned off of B/X D&D) is that that it keeps the game cleanly focused. As long as there are rumors of where the treasure is, the PCs have motivation to go. They then decide whether the risks that pile up are worth confronting, or whether they've gotten enough treasure to retreat and call it a day.

I've enjoyed this structure of XP so much I wrote a post about it (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/a-note-on-the-xp-system-from-lamentations-of-the-flame-princess/).

As for the pacing preference... I have to admit, when I read the title of the thread I didn't understand at first what it was. As it is, I now understand that there are modules/campaigns/adventure paths that work like this. But I also don't quite understand "get it" as in -- "Why do it that way?"

Quote from: S'mon;1008425(I've even seen claims that not giving XP to PCs whose players miss a session is punishing the player).

I've seen that. That guy is the definition of badwrongfun. Yeah him.

Experience is a reward for playing the game and doing well as well as other things that increase the fun @ the table (like, bring me beer=XP, a common enough house rule). Not playing is a non starter.

Personally I don't award experience points just for turning up, and especially don't award them if you didn't turn up. I award experience points for experience.

So, second session of Wilderlands today with xp for gp. The catfolk Rogue 'Bright Star of the East' truly became a Thief today, after the party had killed the kobold's 'dragon' (a ginormous gecko) she nicked the 1100gp ruby & gold circlet, the only big piece of loot in the whole session, then she talked the two dwarf Cleric PCs who had spotted her into each taking a 300gp cut to stay silent & screw the other 4 PCs out of their shares... :D  I thought the rest of the table took it quite stoically, considering that meant they also lost out on half the XP for the session - they got 0 for the circlet while the Rogue got 500 (leveling up in consequence) & the dwarves 300 each.

It's a far cry from the same player's selfless behaviour in my XP-for-kills Paizo Runelords game!

Quote from: jeff37923;1008427I use XP as a reward for successful play, whether that means that the Players achieved their goals or not, but did try to plan and execute those plans.

This is how I do it as well.

XP is for closers.

It's a reward either way.

If you hand out XP to people just for showing up, then you've incentivized showing up.

Unless of course you're one of those people who award XP to people that don't show up just to maintain the game's "pace"...

If you use XP, then give XP based on the theme of the campaign.

AKA, if your theme is about looting dungeons, then Gold = XP kicks ass, but Gold = XP doesn't work for a campaign about heroes questing for their king.

Personally, I find XP too fiddly to give a shit about tracking. For me, if you survive the adventure, you get a level. Boom. Done. My games are deadly enough to make survival a notable achievement enough.

This whole DM rewarding the players thing.  I don't think I like it.  If you have a specific type of game in mind say so.

If some one comes and falls asleep during the session either wake him up or let him sleep.  No need to punish him by withholding.  He clearly needs the sleep, and its not like he's depriving others of their chance to shine.  

If someone doesn't come at all don't give them experence unless ypu need them to be above a certain level to hang with the rest og the party.

A couple thoughts.

Like most of you, I've no use for the notion of awarding identical XP to everyone, even whether people show up or not.  (One wag, in a similar discussion on TBP where the majority went very much the other way, claimed that he'd been running a D&D game for years where no one had ever shown up to play, and all their characters were 11th level.)  I agree that XP is for achievement, not a participation badge; it's not that someone who gets less XP is being "punished," it's that those who get more are being rewarded.

But that being said, something that crops up in these discussions -- whether or not people buy into doing so -- is the premise that parties somehow need to be on an equal playing field, and that they broadly have to be about the same level.  This is a gaming folk belief far more often stated than examined, never mind demonstrated.

Who says, after all?  Alright, I play GURPS, not D&D, but.  Playing a campaign where for most of my GMing career I had multiple groups, people joining extant ones, old players wanting to bring their favorite characters back, and the usual "I'd like to try something new" tradeouts, the largest gap between most experienced/least experienced characters -- according to my records -- was 125 points.  

(I say "was," because due to a fresh tradeout, starting with the upcoming session, one player's trading out for a rookie.  The highest point character will be a whopping 161 points more.)

That's pretty huge; that's a couple years worth of XP.  And still they get to contribute and do their bits.

Is it so much different in D&D?  I don't think so; c'mon, what's the difference between a 3rd and a 5th level character?  A few more hit points, a slightly better chance of hitting, a few more spell slots.  Does that really make the lesser character a speed bump in any adventure the higher one takes on, or the higher one a buzzsaw that'd destroy any challenge the lower one could meet?

Doubt it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1008581Is it so much different in D&D?  I don't think so; c'mon, what's the difference between a 3rd and a 5th level character?  A few more hit points, a slightly better chance of hitting, a few more spell slots.  Does that really make the lesser character a speed bump in any adventure the higher one takes on, or the higher one a buzzsaw that'd destroy any challenge the lower one could meet?

Well 5e is designed so that PCs roughly double in power from 4th to 5th - fighter types go from 1 attack to 2, wizards get fireball, clerics get spirit guardians - massive damage area-effect powers - clerics can raise the dead (revivify), wizards can fly, both can do sending long-distance comms etc. There's a very definite tier break built in there.

Quote from: Headless;1008577This whole DM rewarding the players thing.  I don't think I like it.  If you have a specific type of game in mind say so.

If some one comes and falls asleep during the session either wake him up or let him sleep.  No need to punish him by withholding.  He clearly needs the sleep, and its not like he's depriving others of their chance to shine.  

If someone doesn't come at all don't give them experence unless ypu need them to be above a certain level to hang with the rest og the party.

Well, somebody "checking out" during the game does have a bit of a disruptive effect on everyone else, since it takes them out of the game. It's like when someone starts checking their phone -- it makes everyone else want to start to check. Especially since it's somewhat demoralizing to RP out a nice moment and realize half the table isn't paying attention. What's the point then?

Quote from: S'mon;1008425Which is better? Is one of them badwrongfun? :D

Nope. The only thing I'd say is be clear from the start and don't mix the two.

The very idea that characters are supposed to level up is an arbitrary game mechanism added because people like to fight orcs one month and liches another. Xp-as-reward could have just as easily just been like a pinball high-score mechanism in it having no purpose except to compare to others/your own previous best. There's literally no specific reason that character competency and PC achievement have to go hand in hand. But if you aren't rewarding success, then say so, and don't think of it as such. In that scenario, being 5th level isn't an accomplishment, it is just a change in ability to keep things varied.

There's no inherent problem with either approach. Just different purposes using the same mechanism.

Which one to use is dependent mainly on the player group dynamic:

If you are one of the rare player groups where every player shows up every week, then XP as a pacing mechanic works.

For the rest of us, XP as a reward is the best method. Players who show up get XP, no shows get nothing. Each session is a random mix of various PCs so there is no consistent party nor party level.  Adventure Paths don't work in this environment so sandbox type setups are the way to go.

It all works together. The early D&D campaigns of Arneson and Gygax were open table campaigns where players varied from session to session. That's why D&D originally was designed the the way it was, with individual XP awards and player determined difficulty.

I've done it both ways.  I'm fine with both ways, as long as the players are on board.  The players I have now overwhelmingly favor XP as reward--as in a few of them don't care, but the ones that care all want it that way. Therefore, we do that.  

It's not the same thing as using XP as a pacing mechanism, but I do prefer to have some idea of the expected leveling pace when I start a campaign.  It's not, "The characters will all be at level X by session Y so that we can go to Z and play there."  It's more, "Knowing how these players are, can probably expect to hit level X after about Y sessions for all the players that make every game, and thus they will probably be interested in Z by then."  From the outside, it probably looks about the same, but it makes a big difference in how I run the game, in that I'm perfectly happy to let the players tangle with Z anytime they feel like it, or run from Z if they prefer.  If they seek out information, they probably won't tangle with Z too early to have any chance of survival.

Quote from: S'mon;1008582Well 5e is designed so that PCs roughly double in power from 4th to 5th - fighter types go from 1 attack to 2, wizards get fireball, clerics get spirit guardians - massive damage area-effect powers - clerics can raise the dead (revivify), wizards can fly, both can do sending long-distance comms etc. There's a very definite tier break built in there.

Yeah, it seems like the power curve from experience is a lot steeper in all editions of D&D than GURPS pretty much any way you slice it. The most excessive PC I've ever run in GURPS (largely from the GM giving out "good roleplaying" points per 8-or-so-hour session rather than per adventure even if we mainly just socialized with other characters, for several years) was I think 300-something points (started as 25 points) and still had below average will/magic-resistance, no spells, and could be knocked out by an unlucky hit, a spell, or getting jumped by too many 40-point thugs at once in the wrong circumstances.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1008587Well, somebody "checking out" during the game does have a bit of a disruptive effect on everyone else, since it takes them out of the game. It's like when someone starts checking their phone -- it makes everyone else want to start to check. Especially since it's somewhat demoralizing to RP out a nice moment and realize half the table isn't paying attention. What's the point then?

Its fun.  

I don't rp so I can get an abitry number of pats on the head at the end of the session.  

I have a game where one of the players nods off.  It's fine.  

Phones I won't put up with.  I even try to prevent people jumping into the rule book.  

I also played a first level charcter in a 5 level adventure.  I could do stuff.  But I couldn't fight.  1 hit and I was down, and the tiny amount of damage I could do (if I even hit) was insignificant.

Nodding off, OK. What do you do if one player gets up to sleep on the couch? Knowing that it is late and they get tired earlier than others.

Playing that 1st level character, did you think it was fun? Would you recommend that to others?

If someone had to crash.   It would depend.  If they were an ass hole about it, or just rude and inconsiderate I would tell them to go home.  If they were someones ride and they apologized with out being disruptive ...

The first level game was fun.  I cast farie fire which turned the battle, (not sure if the DM read it correctly it seems to be very effective).  If I had played again I would have been level 3 to there 4, 5 &6 that would have been fine.   So it was just one session, but also there was no need of it.  I had a level 2 or 3 charcter ready to go, but it wasn't an adventure leage charcter so no go.  

Because I had spells and was clever playing an underpowered pc was ok.  If I was a fighter thief barb or any other class with no spells, I would have had no fun, cause I wouldn't have been able to do any thing.  And If I tried I would have been swatted down.  I got one shotted by an ogre after we took down the fire giant.

Both.
I use xp as pacing, and expect/budget the characters to run a level or two over if they play well.

I like having a character survive, prosper and learn to be rewards of successful play, including gaining abilities from experience.
   
What is this "pacing" you speak of? The only kind of "pacing" I tend to want for character improvement is one that models how characters' abilities improve as a result of their experiences, studies, practice, drills, training, etc. I want it to be more or less consistent with real human (and NPC) experience and development.

I don't like awarding XP for players attending sessions - I prefer XP to be a natural consequence of what happens to the PC in play.

I rarely play games with levels, and I would rather play a game world with situations that respond to what happens in ways that make sense, rather than the idea that adventures and future events are how play is organized. I like adventures to be what happens more or less organically and unpredictably during play, and I like the players to have most or all of the responsibility for choosing what dangers they want to take on.

I don't think either is 'heresy'.  When I do use standard XP (which I don't much, anymore), I prefer not to put limits in for the sake of pacing.

In the respect of granting experience, skill-based games are so different from class-level games that they should almost be two different threads because they are really two different things.  Something like GURPS or Mythras, even a large difference in skill is not a perfect defense against a lower opponent like it would be in a level-based game.  There really are no de facto tiers.

I dislike any system where the DM puts him/her self in charge of deciding how many EXP you get; they feel patronizing to me, and have an odor or indirect, campaign-scale railroading. I think rpg's don't feel very much like games if the players don't have clear, rule-defined ways of earning rewards. It doesn't really matter much what those rules are - EXP for treasure; check marks for skill use; etc. - the important point is that you know what it is you have to do if you want your PC to get better, and it's up to you, not the DM, to make that happen.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009130I dislike any system where the DM puts him/her self in charge of deciding how many EXP you get; they feel patronizing to me, and have an odor or indirect, campaign-scale railroading. I think rpg's don't feel very much like games if the players don't have clear, rule-defined ways of earning rewards. It doesn't really matter much what those rules are - EXP for treasure; check marks for skill use; etc. - the important point is that you know what it is you have to do if you want your PC to get better, and it's up to you, not the DM, to make that happen.

The GM can still declare whether a skill use is valid & can decide how much treasure to place, though.
But I do enjoy the session end in my new 5e Stonehell game where the players get to total up their session xp = gp, without my intervention. They still get some XP from me but it's only about 1/4 of their total.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1009130I dislike any system where the DM puts him/her self in charge of deciding how many EXP you get; they feel patronizing to me, and have an odor or indirect, campaign-scale railroading. I think rpg's don't feel very much like games if the players don't have clear, rule-defined ways of earning rewards. It doesn't really matter much what those rules are - EXP for treasure; check marks for skill use; etc. - the important point is that you know what it is you have to do if you want your PC to get better, and it's up to you, not the DM, to make that happen.

YMMV, though.  I'll turn that around to my LARPing experience.  I was in the LARP for fourteen years, and I was its second-oldest player the day I joined.  I reached the maximum number of spells the system would allow in 1994, at which point I was already 35 years old.  By the time I was 40, I was doing six hours of fighting practice a week just to keep my combat skills from deteriorating, fighting a lot of people half my age, and that was a battle that anyone who knows about athletics knows I was losing.  I was the leader of a major nation, the most powerful wizard in the game, no progress on those fronts either.  Somehow, I managed to have roleplaying fun without any character advancement at all, and none in prospect.  It was no less a game.

Quote from: Dumarest;1008463Personally I don't award experience points just for turning up, and especially don't award them if you didn't turn up. I award experience points for experience.

There you go, my opinion as well. Characters should not get experience for things the players do (roleplay, finish scenarios etc.) but rather as a product of time and energy put into developing their skills and abilities. Failing is often more of an impetus for personal development than success so 'rewarding' experience for many of the things common in RPGs doesnt make sense at all. Trying to track Xp per skill though is a nightmare and doesnt work in most systems so XP per time spent in relative activity is the logical way to handle it as far as Im concerned. Small amount for relative inactivity, more for increased activity and challenges. I award a certain number of XP per day based on the general challenges and skill use during that time. Its a small amount though so characters level in a matter of weeks typically.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1008637Nodding off, OK. What do you do if one player gets up to sleep on the couch? Knowing that it is late and they get tired earlier than others.

Hed be sent home, period. His character either handed off to another player or run by me as an NPC.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009144YMMV, though.  I'll turn that around to my LARPing experience.  I was in the LARP for fourteen years, and I was its second-oldest player the day I joined.  I reached the maximum number of spells the system would allow in 1994, at which point I was already 35 years old.  By the time I was 40, I was doing six hours of fighting practice a week just to keep my combat skills from deteriorating, fighting a lot of people half my age, and that was a battle that anyone who knows about athletics knows I was losing.  I was the leader of a major nation, the most powerful wizard in the game, no progress on those fronts either.  Somehow, I managed to have roleplaying fun without any character advancement at all, and none in prospect.  It was no less a game.

I agree that advancement is not a requirement to enjoy roleplaying. But I don't think your example counters Larsdangly's point. It sounds like you knew what it would have taken to advance, because you did that earlier in your LARPing experience. It wasn't a mystery or something decided by someone who was not you making a judgement call on how useful your six hours of fighting practice would be.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009149Hed be sent home, period. His character either handed off to another player or run by me as an NPC.

I'd add a note to his mom as well. :D

Quote from: Spinachcat;1008567If you use XP, then give XP based on the theme of the campaign.

AKA, if your theme is about looting dungeons, then Gold = XP kicks ass, but Gold = XP doesn't work for a campaign about heroes questing for their king.

Personally, I find XP too fiddly to give a shit about tracking. For me, if you survive the adventure, you get a level. Boom. Done. My games are deadly enough to make survival a notable achievement enough.

Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be. If a game is about looting dungeons to get rich, award XP for gold. If a game is about domain management and political intrigue, award XP for political/domain achievements. If a game is about saving the kingdom, award XP for overcoming encounters related to doing that. (Or award levels per adventure, as you say.)

I wish I knew this when I started gaming. I'm not sure whether my 2e AD&D DMG didn't explain this fact or if I just didn't take note of it, but I never thought about XP-for-gold in my teenage years. When 3e arrived I thought "This makes so much more sense, PCs should get XP for defeating monsters, why would they get experience points for looting gold?" Only years later after joining the online community and talking about topics like this -- and in part thanks to Gronan's presence on RPGnet -- did I realize that XP-for-defeats doesn't make all that much sense after all. In a for-gold-and-glory type game it incentivizes players to hack n' slash their way thru the dungeon rather than strictly getting the loot, and in a save-the-kingdom type game it incentives the same thing instead of saving the kingdom. XP-for-defeats only makes really good sense in a Diablo-style game.

...Which admittedly can be fun. But is not the intended default of many published games, I think.

Well there are also those of us who want increases in character ability to have some sort of in-world cause & effect. Great, you avoided risking your life by being clever and snagging the gold - have XP you can put into "cunning", but probably not into being better at fighting.

Quote from: Skarg;1009385Well there are also those of us who want increases in character ability to have some sort of in-world cause & effect. Great, you avoided risking your life by being clever and snagging the gold - have XP you can put into "cunning", but probably not into being better at fighting.

So, RuneQuest and other BRP games, isn't that?

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383I wish I knew this when I started gaming. I'm not sure whether my 2e AD&D DMG didn't explain this fact or if I just didn't take note of it, but I never thought about XP-for-gold in my teenage years. When 3e arrived I thought "This makes so much more sense, PCs should get XP for defeating monsters, why would they get experience points for looting gold?" Only years later after joining the online community and talking about topics like this -- and in part thanks to Gronan's presence on RPGnet -- did I realize that XP-for-defeats doesn't make all that much sense after all. In a for-gold-and-glory type game it incentivizes players to hack n' slash their way thru the dungeon rather than strictly getting the loot, and in a save-the-kingdom type game it incentives the same thing instead of saving the kingdom. XP-for-defeats only makes really good sense in a Diablo-style game.

It's one reason I'm not remotely a RAW devotee.  I cringe at all the terrible decisions and choices I made, back in the first couple years I was GMing, because the Rules Said So or the Circumstances Dictated It.  One of my original players rolled up a boffo set of fighter numbers, and rather than let her switch them around to do the wizard she always played and always *wanted* to play, I talked her into the stickjock, and she walked in five sessions.  She might have been in my game for years if I'd been more inclined to listen to what she wanted instead of shoehorning her into what I thought the game demanded.  And I always did think good RP was cool, but damn, did it have to take me *four frigging years* and switching to TFT to start to give more RP XP than combat XP?

Better late than never, but however much my gaming circles celebrated me as a great GM, I look back and think "No, it wasn't because I was that good.  Just less mediocre than some of the others."

Quote from: Dumarest;1009389So, RuneQuest and other BRP games, isn't that?

I don't know. I do it with house rules and/or GM rulings, but if there are good detailed published systems for modelling improvements based on actual experience, I'd be interested to check them out.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009095In the respect of granting experience, skill-based games are so different from class-level games that they should almost be two different threads because they are really two different things.  Something like GURPS or Mythras, even a large difference in skill is not a perfect defense against a lower opponent like it would be in a level-based game.  There really are no de facto tiers.

True, but there are similarities, too. And while Dragon Warriors is level-based, you can be killed by an opponent 5 levels below you, so not all level systems are the same:).
Not all point-based systems are the same, either.

Quote from: Skarg;1009385Well there are also those of us who want increases in character ability to have some sort of in-world cause & effect. Great, you avoided risking your life by being clever and snagging the gold - have XP you can put into "cunning", but probably not into being better at fighting.

What if I use the gold to purchase fencing instruction;)?

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009390It's one reason I'm not remotely a RAW devotee.  I cringe at all the terrible decisions and choices I made, back in the first couple years I was GMing, because the Rules Said So or the Circumstances Dictated It.  One of my original players rolled up a boffo set of fighter numbers, and rather than let her switch them around to do the wizard she always played and always *wanted* to play, I talked her into the stickjock, and she walked in five sessions.  She might have been in my game for years if I'd been more inclined to listen to what she wanted instead of shoehorning her into what I thought the game demanded.  And I always did think good RP was cool, but damn, did it have to take me *four frigging years* and switching to TFT to start to give more RP XP than combat XP?

Better late than never, but however much my gaming circles celebrated me as a great GM, I look back and think "No, it wasn't because I was that good.  Just less mediocre than some of the others."

"Less mediocre" is still "better", just with lower absolute values.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be.

Probably the worst "common wisdom" that exists in Roleplaying Games, period.

That statement is true only for games and players that never divorce themselves from a given level of meta-thinking.  It turns the game into a form of literary genre-emulation, which is one of the reasons most of the new games that come out these days are narrative shit shows (yes, I say that even about the ones I like and play).

For GMs and players who want to simply roleplay in a World in Motion, the GM has no business telling the players what the game or campaign will be about, the players will tell him - through their actions.

In such a campaign...
Killing gives XP? Sure.
Looting gives XP? Sure.
Building Reputation gives XP (or takes it away)? Sure.
Succeeding at their own goals (not the ones the GM mandates) gives XP? Sure.

There's no XP system on the planet that can't be exploited by players who act like (Gronan's phrase of the month) utter rampaging fuckmortons.  We all know that the way that makes the most sense is keep track of everything everyone does and give them proper XP for all of those actions.  We also know that's a Galactus-sized headache, except for a pure skill system like RQ, and even that is open to Rampaging Fuckmorton Abuse through Attempted Skill Spam.

Whatever system you use, it will be abstracted to a certain degree, and will be abusable or not be perfect somehow.

The answer is, don't play with dickweevils, and find a XP system that is abstract enough to not give you or anyone else a headache.

Oh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to, go cornhole yourself with a Morningstar then take a salt bath while drinking a can of Drano. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504Oh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to...

I'm more into constructing the XP system, then observing what effects it has on play - individual XP for gold has certainly had an interesting effect compared to xp for kills.

Quote from: AsenRG;1009478What if I use the gold to purchase fencing instruction;)?

That'd make all the difference to me, except of course that's not XP for gold, that's spending the gold on a trainer that exists in the world, taking the time to train, etc.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504Probably the worst "common wisdom" that exists in Roleplaying Games, period.

That statement is true only for games and players that never divorce themselves from a given level of meta-thinking.  It turns the game into a form of literary genre-emulation, which is one of the reasons most of the new games that come out these days are narrative shit shows (yes, I say that even about the ones I like and play).

It's funny how everything you don't like turns any game into the thing you hate most, a narrative game. The statement is true for early role-playing games, and specifically OD&D. D&D modified its XP system between the original books and Greyhawk, apparently to make hunting wandering monsters even less attractive, but either system leads to the same result. XP for adventuring, basically, whether gold or killing things, and leading to basic dungeon crawling in a game where you could do anything. The XP for a dragon's hoard of treasure made characters appropriately greedy for dragon treasure; level draining attacks made them appropriately fearful of undead.

QuoteFor GMs and players who want to simply roleplay in a World in Motion, the GM has no business telling the players what the game or campaign will be about, the players will tell him - through their actions.

Well, it's the game designer explaining the objectives of the game through a scoring mechanism; essentially victory points from wargames translated into a more open-ended game. It is probably better for the game just to explain what typical sessions look like rather than indirectly incentivizing it.

QuoteIn such a campaign...
Killing gives XP? Sure.
Looting gives XP? Sure.
Building Reputation gives XP (or takes it away)? Sure.
Succeeding at their own goals (not the ones the GM mandates) gives XP? Sure.

So either the GM is making judgements about the quality of the characters' goals or the degree of success at them, or the GM is implementing the "fixed amount of XP per hour spent in a gaming session" system of XP, where the characters can just binge watch TV and advance the same as the more ambitious PCs.

QuoteThere's no XP system on the planet that can't be exploited by players who act like (Gronan's phrase of the month) utter rampaging fuckmortons.  We all know that the way that makes the most sense is keep track of everything everyone does and give them proper XP for all of those actions.  We also know that's a Galactus-sized headache, except for a pure skill system like RQ, and even that is open to Rampaging Fuckmorton Abuse through Attempted Skill Spam.

Whatever system you use, it will be abstracted to a certain degree, and will be abusable or not be perfect somehow.

The answer is, don't play with dickweevils, and find a XP system that is abstract enough to not give you or anyone else a headache.

The answer is to make the game engaging enough that players don't care whether what they chose to do is worth 3% more or less XP than something else, because they're doing something that makes for an enjoyable experience. Ultimately, the salad is a metaphor for life (http://smbc-comics.com/comic/salad), even if it's just the life of an RPG character.

QuoteOh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to, go cornhole yourself with a Morningstar then take a salt bath while drinking a can of Drano. :D

:confused: Is it Channel Crüesader Week again? Where does the time fly?

Quote from: Skarg;1009415I don't know. I do it with house rules and/or GM rulings, but if there are good detailed published systems for modelling improvements based on actual experience, I'd be interested to check them out.

Runequest and BRP are reasonably detailed and reasonably good at doing exactly that.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504There's no XP system on the planet that can't be exploited by players who act like (Gronan's phrase of the month) utter rampaging fuckmortons.  We all know that the way that makes the most sense is keep track of everything everyone does and give them proper XP for all of those actions.  We also know that's a Galactus-sized headache, except for a pure skill system like RQ, and even that is open to Rampaging Fuckmorton Abuse through Attempted Skill Spam.

It also requires a GM who can't say no. And a GM who can't ever say no is a problem in every RPG system ever created.

Quote from: Bren;1009573Runequest and BRP are reasonably detailed and reasonably good at doing exactly that.

Thanks.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1009390It's one reason I'm not remotely a RAW devotee.  I cringe at all the terrible decisions and choices I made, back in the first couple years I was GMing, because the Rules Said So or the Circumstances Dictated It.  One of my original players rolled up a boffo set of fighter numbers, and rather than let her switch them around to do the wizard she always played and always *wanted* to play, I talked her into the stickjock, and she walked in five sessions.  She might have been in my game for years if I'd been more inclined to listen to what she wanted instead of shoehorning her into what I thought the game demanded.  And I always did think good RP was cool, but damn, did it have to take me *four frigging years* and switching to TFT to start to give more RP XP than combat XP?

Better late than never, but however much my gaming circles celebrated me as a great GM, I look back and think "No, it wasn't because I was that good.  Just less mediocre than some of the others."

You and me both, man, you and me both. I took the rules at unquestioned face value for a long time and some of the things I thought and did...well, I don't even like to think about them. :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504Probably the worst "common wisdom" that exists in Roleplaying Games, period.

That statement is true only for games and players that never divorce themselves from a given level of meta-thinking.  It turns the game into a form of literary genre-emulation, which is one of the reasons most of the new games that come out these days are narrative shit shows (yes, I say that even about the ones I like and play).

Oh yeah, that OS dungeon-crawling sandboxing stuff with the XP-for-loot, such a narrativist shitshow! :rolleyes:

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504For GMs and players who want to simply roleplay in a World in Motion, the GM has no business telling the players what the game or campaign will be about, the players will tell him - through their actions.

In such a campaign...
Killing gives XP? Sure.
Looting gives XP? Sure.
Building Reputation gives XP (or takes it away)? Sure.
Succeeding at their own goals (not the ones the GM mandates) gives XP? Sure.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009383Ayup, at their core XP are a statement about what a game is about -- it's an implicit message to players and GMs about what the PCs' primary goals are expected to be. If a game is about looting dungeons to get rich, award XP for gold. If a game is about domain management and political intrigue, award XP for political/domain achievements. If a game is about saving the kingdom, award XP for overcoming encounters related to doing that. (Or award levels per adventure, as you say.) If a game is about some combination of things, award XP for doing those things. If it's about doing whatever the players feel like doing on any given game day, award XP for doing anything and everything.

You know I thought about including the bolded bit in my original post, but I thought "Nobody could possibly be so obtuse and argumentative as to miss the implied statement, and go on a rambly rant based on a face-value reading of the previous comment."

Thank you for demonstrating once again why implications and implicit statements are not enough when writing for the general public.

One of the better system that I have seen was The Shadow of Yesterday's "Keys", which you could totally run next to an XP-for-Loot system. Beware the Goblin character would get double-XP for Gold tho. :D

XP  for meeting goals personally directed by the player (under GM approval, of course) is also interesting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1010000XP  for meeting goals personally directed by the player (under GM approval, of course) is also interesting.

Eh, I use the GURPS XP system pretty much straight.  If meeting his/her own goals involves good RP on the part of the player, XP is forthcoming.  Of course PCs are going to have their own agendas.

Quote from: rawma;1009561It's funny how everything you don't like turns any game into the thing you hate most, a narrative game. The statement is true for early role-playing games, and specifically OD&D. D&D modified its XP system between the original books and Greyhawk, apparently to make hunting wandering monsters even less attractive, but either system leads to the same result. XP for adventuring, basically, whether gold or killing things, and leading to basic dungeon crawling in a game where you could do anything. The XP for a dragon's hoard of treasure made characters appropriately greedy for dragon treasure; level draining attacks made them appropriately fearful of undead.

Was the level-draining added as a meta-control to instill a proper fear into the players that the characters would have or was the level-draining added to undead because undead drain life force?  Chicken vs. Egg matters.

I know you don't actually think Gary was sitting there saying "Ok guys, I don't think the current experience system is incentivizing our players into performing the type of behavior that matches the stories we want our DMs to tell."  Yet that's exactly the kind of thing you hear nowadays and it all stems from the meta-thinking that the game must be "about something", usually in terms of literary tropes, themes, etc, and the retrograde fallacy that the earliest games looked at XP the same way.

That's where we get the idiocy that some versions of D&D were about nothing more than killing things and taking their stuff because that's what gave you XP.  It was an abstraction.  Granted Gary didn't probably envision a Fighter being a Fishmonger or a Mage being involved in a 100% Diplomat campaign, but neither were they making an implicit statement about things the game could not do because the XP system didn't incentivize it.  Maybe TSR-mouthpiece Gary did somewhere in Dragon, but who ever listened to that guy? :D

Quote from: rawma;1009561So either the GM is making judgements about the quality of the characters' goals or the degree of success at them, or the GM is implementing the "fixed amount of XP per hour spent in a gaming session" system of XP, where the characters can just binge watch TV and advance the same as the more ambitious PCs.

Or the GM is abstracting it in a class-based system to stuff killed and looted, or the GM is using a skill-based system and is keeping track of what skills the PCs are using.  All have possible abuses by the players and all will have abstractions built into them.

Quote from: rawma;1009561The answer is to make the game engaging enough that players don't care whether what they chose to do is worth 3% more or less XP than something else, because they're doing something that makes for an enjoyable experience. Ultimately, the salad is a metaphor for life (http://smbc-comics.com/comic/salad), even if it's just the life of an RPG character.

I agree having the XP system fade into the background is important, but difficult, because players want to progress presumably just as much as their characters do.  Having a method that doesn't smack you across the face with literary tropes and flows naturally from IC roleplay and not from non-OOC metagaming is probably the way to do that.

How many Pirates are known for Buried Treasure?  How many went back and forth from Pirate to Privateer to joining the East Indian or Hudson Bay Companies or becoming Governor of an island or colony sometimes changing allegiance as the European Powers waxed and waned?  Yet we have How to apply experience mechanics to shape behavior (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38119-How-to-apply-experience-mechanics-to-shape-behavior) where you get XP for Burying Treasure, which means this game is about "Hollywood Pirate Legends".

The idea that you can shape player behavior through reward and get them to play the way you want them to so you can tell the kind of stories you want to by adjusting XP is a definite thing.  The idea that this should apply to RPGs in general as opposed to a single subset of RPGs is silly.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009598Oh yeah, that OS dungeon-crawling sandboxing stuff with the XP-for-loot, such a narrativist shitshow! :rolleyes:

You're missing the point that the original XP methods weren't declaring what the game was about and controlling PC behavior through XP incentivization.  The dungeon wasn't a Skinner Box to force "Appendix N Behavior".

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009598You know I thought about including the bolded bit in my original post, but I thought "Nobody could possibly be so obtuse and argumentative as to miss the implied statement, and go on a rambly rant based on a face-value reading of the previous comment."

Ok, I'll pretend for a moment that you actually meant to include that.  All that means is you still miss the entire point.  Saying the game is about "Anything the PCs do" is the same as saying the game is about "Nothing, as dictated by the game itself or the GM".  

In other words, the former is the exact opposite of the latter, to the point where throwing in "The game is about doing whatever the players feel like doing on any given game day" and including that as similar behavior to giving an implicit message to players about what their goals should be delivered by the GM or the Game Designer either shows a deep misunderstanding of the topic or a disingenuous argument.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1009598Thank you for demonstrating once again why implications and implicit statements are not enough when writing for the general public.

So since we're pretending you actually did want to add that and aren't a liar, which are you demonstrating, a deep misunderstanding of the topic, or a disingenuous argument?

I find there to be an almost schizophrenic divide when it comes to RPG mechanics and experience.

On one hand, you have people talking about assigning XP for the right reasons, the kinds of things players like, etc. On the other, every time you mention that someone says that none of this has any effect on their playing whatsoever, like CRKreuger.

How many times have we heard not to give players XP for killing monsters only if we don't want them to become murderhobos? And yet the idea that XP modifies behavior is somehow controversial.

Granted my players say they don't even think of XP while playing, but that's them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010474I know you don't actually think Gary was sitting there saying "Ok guys, I don't think the current experience system is incentivizing our players into performing the type of behavior that matches the stories we want our DMs to tell."  Yet that's exactly the kind of thing you hear nowadays and it all stems from the meta-thinking that the game must be "about something", usually in terms of literary tropes, themes, etc, and the retrograde fallacy that the earliest games looked at XP the same way.

Do you think "XP for Gold" was come up with for no particular reason at all? Also, why would you say that XP systems that encourage certain play are usually in terms of "literary tropes". I don't think an XP system encouraging certain behavior is somehow necessarily more narrativist than not. In the case of "XP for Gold" D&D, it seems to very much be about the Game part of RPGs. There is this clearly defined "Game" part of D&D around dungeon procedures & turns, random encounter checks, and the various trade-offs and gambles players might attempt in the dungeon. In addition, there are all of these... dungeons. People can play D&D however they'd like, but it strikes me as unbelievable to think someone would create a game with these fairly well defined dungeon procedures, and when it comes to XP and how characters level, it just is not meant to be in service to that core "game" part of the rules that are in there. These people were all familiar with non-RPG games, and rules, and exploiting rules. The implications of any given XP rules must have been considered. Seeing as D&D was the earliest of RPGs, it's not like the XP rules were unthinkingly copied "cargo cult" style from other RPGs.

Quote from: NeonAce;1010485it strikes me as unbelievable to think someone would create a game with these fairly well defined dungeon procedures, and when it comes to XP and how characters level, it just is not meant to be in service to that core "game" part of the rules that are in there.

Gygax is very clear in the 1e DMG that the XP system is in service to the game of dungeon-delving derring-do he envisages. He talks about how a simulationist XP system would be completely different. XP-for-GP is there to incentivise going down dungeons full of gp.

Quote from: NeonAce;1010485Do you think "XP for Gold" was come up with for no particular reason at all? Also, why would you say that XP systems that encourage certain play are usually in terms of "literary tropes". I don't think an XP system encouraging certain behavior is somehow necessarily more narrativist than not. In the case of "XP for Gold" D&D, it seems to very much be about the Game part of RPGs. There is this clearly defined "Game" part of D&D around dungeon procedures & turns, random encounter checks, and the various trade-offs and gambles players might attempt in the dungeon. In addition, there are all of these... dungeons. People can play D&D however they'd like, but it strikes me as unbelievable to think someone would create a game with these fairly well defined dungeon procedures, and when it comes to XP and how characters level, it just is not meant to be in service to that core "game" part of the rules that are in there. These people were all familiar with non-RPG games, and rules, and exploiting rules. The implications of any given XP rules must have been considered. Seeing as D&D was the earliest of RPGs, it's not like the XP rules were unthinkingly copied "cargo cult" style from other RPGs.

So then by your logic, once the Name-Level game takes off with building castles, raising armies of followers, and clearing demesnse, then the XP formula should completely change, right?

If the XP for Gold and Kills was, as you claim, implicit instructions as to what the game should be about, then once that game changes according to the DM's Guide, then there should be a completely different XP system in play to deliver these new implicit instructions, yes?

Except they don't exist, do they?

So XP for Gold/Kills remains the same no matter what level really, because it wasn't implicit instructions on what the game should be, but an abstraction.  

No matter what class, if PCs are doing things chances are these things will involve...
A. Killing things and taking their stuff
B. Just taking their stuff.

That is early TSR D&D XP, not a behavior adjustment, a natural result of practically any goal PCs will pursue that doesn't involve being a standard townie.

Quote from: S'mon;1010486Gygax is very clear in the 1e DMG that the XP system is in service to the game of dungeon-delving derring-do he envisages. He talks about how a simulationist XP system would be completely different. XP-for-GP is there to incentivise going down dungeons full of gp.

So then he completely expected all the PCs to completely toss aside the entire Wilderness and City based campaigns as well as the Name Level game, which take up a huge amount of that DMG because the XP doesn't change at all once you leave the dungeon?

Nope.

The entire problem is, you idiots are still locked in your meta-thinking.  Try for once to define "adventurer" as "not a townie" as opposed to "a literary protagonist who comes with implicit preconceptions of behavior to fit trope and theme".

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010489Try for once to define "adventurer" as "not a townie" as opposed to "a literary protagonist who comes with implicit preconceptions of behavior to fit trope and theme".

Quote from: Dungeon Masters Guide by Gary Gygax, p.86Experience points are merely an indicator of the character's progress towards
greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS
NEVER AUTOMATIC. Just because Nell Nimblefingers, Rogue of the Thieves'
Guild has managed to acquire 1,251 experience points does NOT mean that
she suddenly becomes Nell Nimblefingers the Footpad. The gaining of
sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible
to gain a level of experience, but the actual award is a matter for you, the
DM, to decide.
Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the
professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each
character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character
of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed
alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:
E -- Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S -- Superior, deviations minimal but noted = 2
F -- Fair performance, more norm than deviations = 3
P -- Poor showing with aberrant behavior = 4
Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity,
fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead,
magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could
employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or
refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity
presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight -- these
are all clear examples of a POOR rating.
Award experience points normally. When each character is given his or her
total, also give them an alphabetic rating -- E, S, F, or P. When a character's
total experience points indicate eligibility for an advancement in level, use the
alphabetic assessment to assign equal weight to the behavior of the character
during each separate adventure -- regardless of how many or how few
experience points were gained in each. The resulting total is then divided by the
number of entries (adventures) to come up with some number from 1 to 4. This
number indicates the number of WEEKS the character must spend in study and/
or training before he or she actually gains the benefits of the new level. Be
certain that all decimals are retained, as each .145 equals a game day.

You were saying something about "implicit preconceptions of behavior to fit trope and theme"? AD&D is a game about playing your character the way Gary thinks you should act or you will pay the penalty. Is that "narrative shitshow" enough for you, Krueger?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010489So then he completely expected all the PCs to completely toss aside the entire Wilderness and City based campaigns as well as the Name Level game, which take up a huge amount of that DMG because the XP doesn't change at all once you leave the dungeon?

No, he expected his XP system to support wilderness adventuring - clearing out lairs for  gp = XP - and warfare - conquering people for gp = xp. But there is a ton of behaviour the system doesn't support, and there is certainly an argument that wilderness hexcrawls and dominion play became less popular modes because the XP system did not adequately incentivise them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010489Try for once to define "adventurer" as "not a townie" as opposed to "a literary protagonist who comes with implicit preconceptions of behavior to fit trope and theme".

You're attacking some stupid strawman in your head.

Come to think of it, there were alignment penalties too right? If you don't stick to alignment you lose a level or whatever.

And gold for xp is the original experience shaping.

I think the problem is that CKRueger wants experience assigned based on realism.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010481You're missing the point that the original XP methods weren't declaring what the game was about and controlling PC behavior through XP incentivization.  The dungeon wasn't a Skinner Box to force "Appendix N Behavior".

Answer NeonAce's question: Why do you think XP-for-gold was the original XP system?

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010481Ok, I'll pretend for a moment that you actually meant to include that.  All that means is you still miss the entire point.  Saying the game is about "Anything the PCs do" is the same as saying the game is about "Nothing, as dictated by the game itself or the GM".

What I'm saying is that any given game's incentives should align with whatever that game is supposed to be about. Because presumably, the GM and players want to experience whatever the game is about and not be tempted to metagame for the sake of XP. And 'what the game is about' can be 'whatever the players feel like doing.' Everyone has a certain ability to ignore metagame temptations, but everyone has bad days too; so aligning game goals with XP rewards is just good sense.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010488So then by your logic, once the Name-Level game takes off with building castles, raising armies of followers, and clearing demesnse, then the XP formula should completely change, right?

Or added to. If anyone had awarded XP for domain management-related stuff, then maybe domain management wouldn't be the 'lost endgame' that some old-timers call it. Maybe more players would have found it fun enough to focus on, rather than "Let's go back to the dungeon*" or "Whelp, time to start over at 1st level..."

*Wasn't that a 3e slogan?

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1010503If anyone had awarded XP for domain management-related stuff, then maybe domain management wouldn't be the 'lost endgame' that some old-timers call it.

Mentzer Classic gives XP for domain tax income gp. This doesn't work very well, domains soon get so large the awards become excessive as written. So running it I tend to give out XP for doing stuff not for the tax money, pretty much the 20-25K/session Mentzer recommends but unrelated to the cash.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010484I find there to be an almost schizophrenic divide when it comes to RPG mechanics and experience.

On one hand, you have people talking about assigning XP for the right reasons, the kinds of things players like, etc. On the other, every time you mention that someone says that none of this has any effect on their playing whatsoever, like CRKreuger.

How many times have we heard not to give players XP for killing monsters only if we don't want them to become murderhobos? And yet the idea that XP modifies behavior is somehow controversial.

It's a kind of idealism, you see it in politics all the time. This is how things ought to be, this is how I am, all of my friends are too, anyone different is lazy or too bad for them, I argue from my ideal world rather than the real world."

:rolleyes:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010501I think the problem is that CKRueger wants experience assigned based on realism.

Yeah I'm getting that impression too.

And hey, realism is a valid goal and I can understand the appeal of skill-use based XP, or some other system someone might come up with to roughly simulate characters learning from practice. I think that's what WotC XP-for-defeats is intended to be, although that may be an assumption on my part. (And it is a very rough simulation, granted.) I just can't say I'm much interested in it at this point in my life.

Some people are capable of becoming absorbed into entertainment that has some relation to the expressed reality of that entertainment and also acknowledging and even enjoying the stylized conventions surrounding the thing.  Both at the same time, in world and meta.  If this were not so, no one would watch stage musicals.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010495You were saying something about "implicit preconceptions of behavior to fit trope and theme"? AD&D is a game about playing your character the way Gary thinks you should act or you will pay the penalty. Is that "narrative shitshow" enough for you, Krueger?

Uh Oh, Krueger said "Narrative Shitshow" and here comes Baulderstone.  What a shock.  Funny how you never come flying in when Spinachcat says the exact same thing. ;)

Let's pretend you're not smart enough to know the difference between a character acting like his character would within the setting and the character acting according to a literary trope.

If fighting if you're a Fighter, thieving if you're a Thief and acting like a Magic-User if you are one is "implicit preconception", then your definition of "implicit preconception" is "dictionary definition". :rolleyes:

Acting according to the alignment THAT YOU CHOSE either by picking alignment or class isn't Gary, or the DM incentivizing your behavior through XP, you incentivize your behavior through XP because, again, so it doesn't get lost: YOU PICK YOUR ALIGNMENT.

So the player picking their own class, then acting like it, and picking their own alignment and acting like it is the exact equivalent of "players can only be murderhobos because they get XP only for killings things and taking their stuff" or "you have to bury most of your treasure as a pirate to get XP from it because this game is about Pirate Tropes and Themes."  Yeah, no.

Please, you know you're not a moron, why act like one?  Oh yeah, because your favorite windmill to tilt at is me when you think I'm tilting at mine. ;)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010508Some people are capable of becoming absorbed into entertainment that has some relation to the expressed reality of that entertainment and also acknowledging and even enjoying the stylized conventions surrounding the thing.  Both at the same time, in world and meta.  If this were not so, no one would watch stage musicals.

...and yet, there's people who, while perfectly capable of enjoying the performance as well as the story, just don't like stage musicals all that much, preferring Opera and Plays to a kind of mixture.  Only arrogant fucktards assume "don't like" equals not capable of understanding, appreciating or being aware of the blend.

I might as well say you only blend the meta in because you've never really roleplayed without the meta-layer, so when talking about roleplaying without it, you have no experience on which to base anything.  But I don't. :D

Quote from: S'mon;1010505Mentzer Classic gives XP for domain tax income gp. This doesn't work very well, domains soon get so large the awards become excessive as written. So running it I tend to give out XP for doing stuff not for the tax money, pretty much the 20-25K/session Mentzer recommends but unrelated to the cash.

You mean the author of the best-selling version of D&D actually suggested that you got a set amount of XP per session with small variation instead of keeping track of XP and Kills once you leveled up enough?   You mean pretty much every version of D&D changed to some degree the exact mix of XP awards?  I thought it was obvious that all of D&D XP awards wasn't an abstraction trying to simply keep track of advancement because you have to somehow, based on what PCs are most likely to be doing.  I thought you guys are all saying it is Behavior Modification to force players to keep to a single vision of literary adventures...and yet it keeps changing.  Whoda thunk it? ;)

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010513You mean the author of the best-selling version of D&D actually suggested that you got a set amount of XP per session with small variation instead of keeping track of XP and Kills once you leveled up enough?  

Not exactly, he actually said to hand out 20-25,000 GOLD :D per PC per session, in order for the PCs to advance at a steady 5 sessions per level. I just cut out (most of) the gold and awarded XP in that ballpark - well I awarded between about 15K and 35K typically depending on how the session went. So Mentzer took a system intended to incentivise the hunt for gold, and said "Oh, just give them the gold". Mentzer was more into Palaces & Princesses type play than Gygax's grubby treasure hunters, so there was a bit of friction between Gygaxian XP and Mentzer's idea of play - you see this in 2e too. I wanted to run it P&P style too so I took the next step.

Conversely I want my new 5e game to be focused on grubby dungeon delving for loot, so I replace 5e XP system with Gygaxian XP for GP. If the players didn't want to play that, we could change the XP system to something else. I might well do that if the campaign evolves at higher level, I already intend to reduce GP XP to 1/10 at 11th level and give XP for territory development, stronghold building etc. I'd like a metric like gp though rather than have it be arbitrary - maybe 1 XP per GP spent on construction might work.

Obviously this has nothing to do with literary genre emulation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010513I thought you guys are all saying it is Behavior Modification to force players to keep to a single vision of literary adventures...

I think you thought wrong.

Quote from: S'mon;1010515Not exactly, he actually said to hand out 20-25,000 GOLD :D per PC per session, in order for the PCs to advance at a steady 5 sessions per level. I just cut out (most of) the gold and awarded XP in that ballpark - well I awarded between about 15K and 35K typically depending on how the session went. So Mentzer took a system intended to incentivise the hunt for gold, and said "Oh, just give them the gold". Mentzer was more into Palaces & Princesses type play than Gygax's grubby treasure hunters, so there was a bit of friction between Gygaxian XP and Mentzer's idea of play - you see this in 2e too. I wanted to run it P&P style too so I took the next step.

Conversely I want my new 5e game to be focused on grubby dungeon delving for loot, so I replace 5e XP system with Gygaxian XP for GP. If the players didn't want to play that, we could change the XP system to something else. I might well do that if the campaign evolves at higher level, I already intend to reduce GP XP to 1/10 at 11th level and give XP for territory development, stronghold building etc. I'd like a metric like gp though rather than have it be arbitrary - maybe 1 XP per GP spent on construction might work.

Obviously this has nothing to do with literary genre emulation.

Why don't you just give XP for Kills and Gold no matter WHERE or WHY the kills were made or the treasure looted?  You know, like how AD&D1 actually worked.

* stations archers covering the exits *
* sets thread on fire *
* sifts through the ashes for loot *
* levels up *

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1010501I think the problem is that CKRueger wants experience assigned based on realism.

Nah, just what the characters do, as opposed to what you want them to do would be enough.

But I doubt we'll ever play at the same table, so it doesn't matter, except that your way is shit. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010522Nah, just what the characters do, as opposed to what you want them to do would be enough.

But I doubt we'll ever play at the same table, so it doesn't matter, except that your way is shit. :D

I play both ways.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010512...and yet, there's people who, while perfectly capable of enjoying the performance as well as the story, just don't like stage musicals all that much, preferring Opera and Plays to a kind of mixture.  Only arrogant fucktards assume "don't like" equals not capable of understanding, appreciating or being aware of the blend.

I might as well say you only blend the meta in because you've never really roleplayed without the meta-layer, so when talking about roleplaying without it, you have no experience on which to base anything.  But I don't. :D

Yes, which is why it is all a question of taste, and thus your point is a category error.

Quote from: S'mon;1010505Mentzer Classic gives XP for domain tax income gp. This doesn't work very well, domains soon get so large the awards become excessive as written. So running it I tend to give out XP for doing stuff not for the tax money, pretty much the 20-25K/session Mentzer recommends but unrelated to the cash.

Wow, I guess there's all kinds of things hidden in D&D's history.

Aside from excessive XP, how do you and your players find domain management? Do/did you play a roughly even mix of domain management and other stuff, or mostly just domain stuff? Are there many domain rules to speak of, or is it mostly freeform guidelines?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010521* stations archers covering the exits *
* sets thread on fire *
* sifts through the ashes for loot *
* levels up *

You better be playing a Thief. Otherwise I am giving a grade of P for that kind of underhanded behavior, and you won't get to level up or gain XP for 4 weeks.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010550You better be playing a Thief. Otherwise I am giving a grade of P for that kind of underhanded behavior, and you won't get to level up or gain XP for 4 weeks.

* tosses talking skull aside *

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010533Yes, which is why it is all a question of taste, and thus your point is a category error.

His "points," buried in his lectures on how to play correctly, usually are.:rolleyes:

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1010548Wow, I guess there's all kinds of things hidden in D&D's history.

Aside from excessive XP, how do you and your players find domain management? Do/did you play a roughly even mix of domain management and other stuff, or mostly just domain stuff? Are there many domain rules to speak of, or is it mostly freeform guidelines?

It's pretty freeform & designed to run in the background. No 'domain turns' or 'domain actions'. The War Machine abstract combat system is nice.
I like the rules and use them running BECM in Mystara for a couple years recently.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010520Why don't you just give XP for Kills and Gold no matter WHERE or WHY the kills were made or the treasure looted?  You know, like how AD&D1 actually worked.

In the case of my BECM campaign (which ended earlier this year), because if I did XP by RAW the PCs would only have got around 5K per session of adventuring on average and needed around 24 sessions to level*. Or if I gave XP for tax income as per RAW they would have levelled at wildly variable rates depending on the size of their dominions - the high priestess had a small Karameikan lordship of ca 3,000, one Fighter had a wealthy Karameikan coastal barony Vorloi with 30,000, the MU had the entire nation of Alasiya plus Karameikan holdings, maybe 300,000.  The Dwarf had nothing.

*Or the PCs could have redirected their activities solely to loot hunting, having the XP system determine their behaviour, which you claim to be against.

S'mon, I was replying to:

Quote from: S'monI want my new 5e game to be focused on grubby dungeon delving for loot, so I replace 5e XP system with Gygaxian XP for GP.

Quote from: S'mon;1008425Which is better? Is one of them badwrongfun? :D

Over the past years I've mostly run adventure path type games where PCs are expected to be a particular level, and I've seen claims for those games that XP is not a reward mechanic, it's just for pacing (I've even seen claims that not giving XP to PCs whose players miss a session is punishing the player). Such games encourage things like fiat leveling, all PCs the same level etc. I've always given XP but sometimes I resorted to just giving a 'pacing award', eg with Mentzer D&D he recommends ca 20-25,000 XP per session, and I often just took to handing that out without calculating.

Recently though I'm running tabletop sandbox megadungeon game where all PCs start at 1st level & you get XP for the gold your PC has gained at the end of the session. I'm still getting my head around this a bit, the players seem happy enough.

If you use XP/Levels, do you have a preference? How do you do it? Do you vary it by campaign style?

I prefer awarding levels at the end of adventures rather than XP during them. I find that in most games players dont really get a chance to experience their character 'as is' long enough. Constantly upgrading and changing your character may seem exciting but I believe it interrupts the flow of the game and cheats the players of a real feeling of accomplishment when they eventually really do earn that next progression. Besides, Ive always believed there should be some In Game logic to gaining new skills etc. I rather like the "down time" approach wherein characters only actually level between adventures when they have time to reflect, train, rest, learn etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010644I prefer awarding levels at the end of adventures rather than XP during them. I find that in most games players dont really get a chance to experience their character 'as is' long enough. Constantly upgrading and changing your character may seem exciting but I believe it interrupts the flow of the game and cheats the players of a real feeling of accomplishment when they eventually really do earn that next progression. Besides, Ive always believed there should be some In Game logic to gaining new skills etc. I rather like the "down time" approach wherein characters only actually level between adventures when they have time to reflect, train, rest, learn etc.

That was the feeling when we played D&D 3E. The group was continually sprouting new, gimmicky powers. It almost gave the sense they were playing new characters every month. My group at the time was had a number of new roleplayers as well, and they were getting advancement fatigue at having to keep up with it all.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010644I rather like the "down time" approach wherein characters only actually level between adventures when they have time to reflect, train, rest, learn etc.

I tend to agree with that (depending on game genre) - my 5e game uses 1 week Long Rests where PCs can recover spells & hit points and train to level up. For the tabletop game they normally do a 1 session, 4 hour dungeon delve, followed by a week to recover. So an adventure is a session, as in the old D&D texts like Moldvay Basic.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010657That was the feeling when we played D&D 3E. The group was continually sprouting new, gimmicky powers. It almost gave the sense they were playing new characters every month. My group at the time was had a number of new roleplayers as well, and they were getting advancement fatigue at having to keep up with it all.

Yeah, I noticed that especially when GMing Pathfinder using an adventure path, PCs were levelling every 2 sessions & doubling in power every 2 levels.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010657and they were getting advancement fatigue at having to keep up with it all.

"Advancement Fatigue" - that's a good term.

Looking at a 3.5/Pathfinder type PC or NPC without a high level of System Mastery makes me feel like going back to an MMO I haven't played for years and wondering what all the buttons and abilities do. :D

The worst thing is, I find most of them have changed so it doesn't matter what I do, soloing or small group play is mindless in nearly all MMOs these days, only instanced "dungeon play", or some type of PvP actually requires skill.  That's another rant though.

Quote from: Tequila Sunrise;1010548Wow, I guess there's all kinds of things hidden in D&D's history.

Aside from excessive XP, how do you and your players find domain management? Do/did you play a roughly even mix of domain management and other stuff, or mostly just domain stuff? Are there many domain rules to speak of, or is it mostly freeform guidelines?

I've said this before; those rules were written by wargamers for wargamers.

Take half a dozen wargamers, give each one an army, a castle, a fee, and a treasury, and stand back.  Wars WILL happen.

Quote from: Baulderstone;1010657That was the feeling when we played D&D 3E. The group was continually sprouting new, gimmicky powers. It almost gave the sense they were playing new characters every month. My group at the time was had a number of new roleplayers as well, and they were getting advancement fatigue at having to keep up with it all.

That's one of the things I hate about Pathfinder.  But that's a game problem, not an XP problem.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010685The worst thing is, I find most of them have changed so it doesn't matter what I do, soloing or small group play is mindless in nearly all MMOs these days, only instanced "dungeon play", or some type of PvP actually requires skill.  That's another rant though.

I thought it was only me.  I've gotten a hobbit hunter to Level 51 in LOTRO by basically noodling around.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010705I thought it was only me.  I've gotten a hobbit hunter to Level 51 in LOTRO by basically noodling around.

Not only you.  That last big update they did in LOTRO where they standardized all the classes ended up killing my interest.  I'd played every class up into the 40s, and most of them up past the 70s, and nearly all of it was doing the same thing you were doing.  Kept playing, but my heart wasn't in it.  Pushed one class up to 100, and then quit cold turkey within a month.

Maybe I should stop awarding XP per session... I give XP just for showing up, and then extra for accomplishments. I didn't want to endorse one play style over another, so that way they could spend the session RPing in a tavern and still get XP.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1010713Not only you.  That last big update they did in LOTRO where they standardized all the classes ended up killing my interest.  I'd played every class up into the 40s, and most of them up past the 70s, and nearly all of it was doing the same thing you were doing.  Kept playing, but my heart wasn't in it.  Pushed one class up to 100, and then quit cold turkey within a month.

I ignore a lot about that game.

I just realized their "Aria of the Valar" lets you jump straight to maximum level.

You can now pay money to avoid playing the game.  The fetishization of "end game content" has brought us to this.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1010521* sets thread on fire *

I'll be over here, looking for some marshmallows.

Quote from: S'mon;1010515Conversely I want my new 5e game to be focused on grubby dungeon delving for loot, so I replace 5e XP system with Gygaxian XP for GP.

So, you're leaving out the Gygaxian XP for Kills portion, then?

Quote from: Baron Opal;1011071So, you're leaving out the Gygaxian XP for Kills portion, then?

Monster kill XP was always chump change compared to treasure.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011072Monster kill XP was always chump change compared to treasure.

Not for wandering monsters, animals or any other creature without a lair or one that you don't fight anywhere near their lair...like every single extraplanar creature you meet on the Prime Material Plane.  Think that Type VI Demon keeps his entire hoard in a portable hole just for you? ;)

Quote from: Baron Opal;1011071So, you're leaving out the Gygaxian XP for Kills portion, then?

I cut kill XP to 20% of 5e standard, so eg 5 for a kobold, 10 for a goblin, 20 for an orc, 20 for a gnoll.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011074Not for wandering monsters, animals or any other creature without a lair or one that you don't fight anywhere near their lair...like every single extraplanar creature you meet on the Prime Material Plane.  Think that Type VI Demon keeps his entire hoard in a portable hole just for you? ;)

You'll still only get a few hundred XP, maybe a thousand to 1200 tops, to SPLIT among you.  For wandering monsters the XP isn't worth the HP you lose.  This is not a bug, it is a feature.

I know you know this, but many seem not to.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011092You'll still only get a few hundred XP, maybe a thousand to 1200 tops, to SPLIT among you.  For wandering monsters the XP isn't worth the HP you lose.  This is not a bug, it is a feature.

I know you know this, but many seem not to.

Yeah but there's a difference too going to AD&D1 as opposed to O or B.  A Hill Giant is worth 1400+12/hp, an Iron Golem is 10 times that.  You kill Demogorgon on his home plane, he's worth 740,000xp.  Granted, that's probably still not worth it, but on his home plane you might also get out with some treasure. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010474Was the level-draining added as a meta-control to instill a proper fear into the players that the characters would have or was the level-draining added to undead because undead drain life force?  Chicken vs. Egg matters.

I don't think undead draining life force was much of a thing before D&D, and equating life force with experience is an odd idea.

QuoteI know you don't actually think Gary was sitting there saying "Ok guys, I don't think the current experience system is incentivizing our players into performing the type of behavior that matches the stories we want our DMs to tell."  Yet that's exactly the kind of thing you hear nowadays and it all stems from the meta-thinking that the game must be "about something", usually in terms of literary tropes, themes, etc, and the retrograde fallacy that the earliest games looked at XP the same way.

OD&D uses XP to incentivize behavior (beyond only being for killing things and acquiring gold and therefore making these the focus of players' efforts). XP is prorated if the character's level is higher than the dungeon level (so that higher level characters slow even beyond needing more XP to advance unless they go to ever deeper dungeon levels). And Greyhawk reduced the XP for killing a monster, so that low level characters killing 1 hit die monsters with no treasure (e.g., wandering monsters) became a less viable strategy for advancing; I'd be interested in hearing some other explanation for that change.

QuoteOr the GM is abstracting it in a class-based system to stuff killed and looted, or the GM is using a skill-based system and is keeping track of what skills the PCs are using.  All have possible abuses by the players and all will have abstractions built into them.

Either the GM makes a judgement on what the players do as more or less worthy (as measured by XP given) or gives the same XP for whatever they do. It doesn't matter if the judgement is on killing or looting or using diverse skills or roleplaying or speaking in character or whatever.

QuoteHaving a method that doesn't smack you across the face with literary tropes

It's very sad that you are so obsessed with narrativism and hate yourself for it so much. Accept the narrativist in yourself and get on with your life, or let narrativism go and get on with your life.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1010474Was the level-draining added as a meta-control to instill a proper fear into the players that the characters would have or was the level-draining added to undead because undead drain life force?  Chicken vs. Egg matters.

One day he said "I've decided that undead level drain should be permanent instead of temporary."  We all thought it was awesome.

Quote from: rawma;1011106I don't think undead draining life force was much of a thing before D&D, and equating life force with experience is an odd idea.

Across all of pulp and all of folklore/mythology, ghosts seem to have just about any ability, but yeah.

Quote from: S'mon;1010497No, he expected his XP system to support wilderness adventuring - clearing out lairs for  gp = XP - and warfare - conquering people for gp = xp. But there is a ton of behaviour the system doesn't support, and there is certainly an argument that wilderness hexcrawls and dominion play became less popular modes because the XP system did not adequately incentivise them.

I agree. It's why I devoted a section to ACKS and ACKS Domains of War to explaining how XP was earned from domains, magic research, and warfare. The GP Threshold mechanic works to "encourage" rulers to constantly be seeking to rule larger domains, the spoils of battle mechanic encourages you to plunder and pillage and ransom off prisoners, etc.

Whereas if you take a bunch of wargamers, give them lands, castles, armies, and treasuries, those things will happen spontaneously.

Quote from: amacris;1011129I agree. It's why I devoted a section to ACKS and ACKS Domains of War to explaining how XP was earned from domains, magic research, and warfare. The GP Threshold mechanic works to "encourage" rulers to constantly be seeking to rule larger domains, the spoils of battle mechanic encourages you to plunder and pillage and ransom off prisoners, etc.

Interesting... I was wondering Alex, would ACKS Domains of War systems for XP, dominions & warfare etc be useable in my 5e campaign? Since it looks like I'll be running mostly that for the foreseeable future, but 5e doesn't really have much scaffolding for high level dominion & war play. With 5e taking a 0 off the end of Classic D&D XP awards (or divide by 5) looks about right for levels 11+. BTW what happens with level 14 characters in ACKS - do they cease to get any benefits from XP?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011130Whereas if you take a bunch of wargamers, give them lands, castles, armies, and treasuries, those things will happen spontaneously.

Very true. And that was indeed the original audience for the game. OTOH, if there was a goal of maintaining the hexcrawl and dominion game after the game audience shifted away from wargamers, it is too bad that something akin to ACKS Domains of War was not added.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011130Whereas if you take a bunch of wargamers, give them lands, castles, armies, and treasuries, those things will happen spontaneously.

Which brings us back to the question: were the first few sets of D&D consciously trying to steer player behavior through XP awards or were "XP for GP" and "XP for GP & Kills (later modified by roleplay)" just ways to keep score based on character's success in the setting?

There's an awful lot of people I think looking back at the first game with the ideas of 40 years of systems, designers, criticism and theory looking to apply it all to early D&D.  Today we have RPGs where you play diplomats, or Icelandic farmers, or dogs & cats, or mice.  Back then you had...wargames and Diplomacy and Braunstein.

Of course you kind of assumed players were going to go out and adventure, it's only with those games in place that games with other focuses even become likely.

You have playstyles and systems you like, cool, be confident enough to let them stand on their own merits, you don't need to fall back on "D&D did it too".

Quote from: rawma;1011106It's very sad that you are so obsessed with narrativism and hate yourself for it so much. Accept the narrativist in yourself and get on with your life, or let narrativism go and get on with your life.

Damn, someone got triggered.

Nah, we'll just keep doing what we do:  I'll call bullshit whenever someone declares general assumptions that are really only specific to their playstyle, and you or someone else will come in screeching. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011171Which brings us back to the question: were the first few sets of D&D consciously trying to steer player behavior through XP awards or were "XP for GP" and "XP for GP & Kills (later modified by roleplay)" just ways to keep score based on character's success in the setting?

Does it matter whether the XP-for=gold design was conscious? It worked. It works very well. There were tons of subsequent RPGs that lacked these reward feedback loops and were/are much less popular than D&D. D&D itself lost XP for gold and replaced it by lots more XP for kills, possibly to the detriment of the game and resulting in a drift to freeform levelling.

Quote from: S'mon;1011174Does it matter whether the XP-for=gold design was conscious? It worked.

That's what some people are arguing and/or refuting.

I think.

It's getting hard to tell with the incredulity and snark in the air.

Quote from: S'mon;1011174Does it matter whether the XP-for=gold design was conscious? It worked. It works very well. There were tons of subsequent RPGs that lacked these reward feedback loops and were/are much less popular than D&D. D&D itself lost XP for gold and replaced it by lots more XP for kills, possibly to the detriment of the game and resulting in a drift to freeform levelling.

Actually YES it does, that's the whole point of the argument I'm clashing with.   People who defend consciously adjusting XP awards to steer PC behavior instead of reward PC success driven by their goals, always point back to D&D as the original example of XP awards as direct incentivization, thus making the game "about something" with implicit behavior contructs enforced through XP mechanics.

That's the problem, it did work, in the various incarnations and remains a perfectly fine method if you assume it's an abstracted way of handling PC improvement.  Those who want more simulation, like Alex, can give more specific rewards for new types of play.

If you don't assume it's an abstracted method and is a conscious decision to mold and steer behavior, then you get idiotic shit like "D&D is only about killing things and taking their stuff", or "D&D enforces colonial behavior through violence against orcs, which are obviously PoC" and all that ridiculous crap.

This flavor of "D&D did it too" is also a main argument of the Distinction Deniers who claim things like there's no difference between XP for Gold and "you have to bury treasure to get XP for it because this is a pirate game".

So yeah, kind of matters.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011176If you don't assume it's an abstracted method and is a conscious decision to mold and steer behavior...

It seems to me that Gygax flat out says in the 1e DMG (quoted upthread) that the 1e XP system is to get PCs doing fun adventurous stuff for advancement, rather than playing out simulationist but boring magical research and martial training.

And obviously the XP system does affect player behaviour, whether intended or not - no XP for gold and the players will put less emphasis on seeking gold. If all XP is from kills, players will focus on that. XP for spent gold = PCs spend all their gold.

Isn't it ok to be aware that the reward mechanisms do affect behaviour?

Wow he is really triggered over that pirate game.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011206Wow he is really triggered over that pirate game.

Can't help the Hulk rage. Cue lecture on the right way to play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011176This flavor of "D&D did it too" is also a main argument of the Distinction Deniers who claim things like there's no difference between XP for Gold and "you have to bury treasure to get XP for it because this is a pirate game".

I like the burying treasure idea because everybody knows pirates bury treasure, and like I said upthread, chasing enemy pirates who stole your treasure to recover lost XP is hilarious.

I don't see what the big deal is with a game being "about" something. It's not like you're supposed to ambush people with it. If you're all playing a "pirate game" then chances are everyone is agreed and wants to do it.

Quote from: S'mon;1011179Isn't it ok to be aware that the reward mechanisms do affect behaviour?

I think it's OK. I think it is also OK to be aware that there are reward mechanisms that have nothing to do with the XP or advancement mechanism. After all, that dillweed who does something stupid or annoying every time he plays is getting (or thinks he will get) some emotional reward for his behavior even though the experience system does not have an entry like "100 XP each time you really piss off the GM and the other players by your stupid comments or your PC's annoying action."

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011176If you don't assume it's an abstracted method and is a conscious decision to mold and steer behavior, then you get idiotic shit like "D&D is only about killing things and taking their stuff", or "D&D enforces colonial behavior through violence against orcs, which are obviously PoC" and all that ridiculous crap.

Serious question, but are you saying that there are people out there who actually say and believe this? This isn't some "internet thing,"  is it? Something written on a blog that a few people read?  Perhaps I have had a sheltered gaming life, but I can say that I have never heard anyone say this in person. In fact, other than the devil scare in the 80's, I have never heard anyone ascribe anything to D&D, except that it's a good way to kill a few free hours with some friends.  Sorry if I'm derailing this thread, but I really am curious.:confused:

Shemek

It's a popular viewpoint online.  I've run into it a bit in real life, mostly from people who were wankers in other ways too.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;1011220Serious question, but are you saying that there are people out there who actually say and believe this? This isn't some "internet thing,"  is it?

"Is it wrong to kill orc babies?" (and it's extended corollary, "Is it appropriate to make a designated villain race, and if they are always evil, do they instead have no agency, and thus aren't actually evil at all?") have been gaming wheel-spinning thought experiments since before the internet. Great for hours of BS, hurt feelings, accusing one another of real or imagined thought failures that may or may not be corollaries/analogies to real world issues, and generally patting ones selves on the back for being such brilliant armchair philosophers and how foolish that no one else on the forum recognizes it (they must be intellectually inferior). It would be generally surprised if anyone had an example the further research didn't show to be such a navel-gazing expedition.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011232It's a popular viewpoint online.  I've run into it a bit in real life, mostly from people who were wankers in other ways too.

Well, yes. But I stand by the idea that most of it is just online dinking around. I have met some truly amazing individuals upon occasion that violate my general "these people don't exist" beliefs. But these people are few and far between and I don't think are really representative of anything except that this hobby has the occasional nutjob.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011171Which brings us back to the question: were the first few sets of D&D consciously trying to steer player behavior through XP awards or were "XP for GP" and "XP for GP & Kills (later modified by roleplay)" just ways to keep score based on character's success in the setting?

You keep asking this question when I already quoted Gary on this very matter. And not in some obscure interview or anecdotal conversation someone had with him. I am not divining his intent from tea leaves. I am quoting the fucking Dungeon Masters Guide. It's not even some appendix. These are the standard AD&D rules for experience.

Quote from: Dungeon Masters GuideExperience points are merely an indicator of the character's progress towards
greater proficiency in his or her chosen profession. UPWARD PROGRESS IS
NEVER AUTOMATIC. Just because Nell Nimblefingers, Rogue of the Thieves'
Guild has managed to acquire 1,251 experience points does NOT mean that
she suddenly becomes Nell Nimblefingers the Footpad. The gaining of
sufficient experience points is necessary to indicate that a character is eligible
to gain a level of experience, but the actual award is a matter for you, the
DM, to decide.
Consider the natural functions of each class of character. Consider also the
professed alignment of each character. Briefly assess the performance of each
character after an adventure. Did he or she perform basically in the character
of his or her class? Were his or her actions in keeping with his or her professed
alignment? Mentally classify the overall performance as:
E -- Excellent, few deviations from norm = 1
S -- Superior, deviations minimal but noted = 2
F -- Fair performance, more norm than deviations = 3
P -- Poor showing with aberrant behavior = 4
Clerics who refuse to help and heal or do not remain faithful to their deity,
fighters who hang back from combat or attempt to steal, or fail to boldly lead,
magic-users who seek to engage in melee or ignore magic items they could
employ in crucial situations, thieves who boldly engage in frontal attacks or
refrain from acquisition of an extra bit of treasure when the opportunity
presents itself, "cautious" characters who do not pull their own weight -- these
are all clear examples of a POOR rating.
Award experience points normally. When each character is given his or her
total, also give them an alphabetic rating -- E, S, F, or P. When a character's
total experience points indicate eligibility for an advancement in level, use the
alphabetic assessment to assign equal weight to the behavior of the character
during each separate adventure -- regardless of how many or how few
experience points were gained in each. The resulting total is then divided by the
number of entries (adventures) to come up with some number from 1 to 4. This
number indicates the number of WEEKS the character must spend in study and/
or training before he or she actually gains the benefits of the new level. Be
certain that all decimals are retained, as each .145 equals a game day.

Seriously Krueger, if a GM told you that he was penalizing your advancement because your fighter actually stole something, or your magic-user didn't employ magic items when the GM thought you should have, or you decided your thief wasn't going to steal some particular item, you wouldn't see that as attempting to "consciously steer player behavior".

This is about as heavy-handed player steering as I have ever seen.

AD&D is 'the later stuff'.  OD&D said no such thing.  The game was already 5 years old and in its fourth iteration when Gary wrote that.

Well, he said "first few sets of D&D." 4th definitely sounds like first few. And it's from the man himself.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011246AD&D is 'the later stuff'.  OD&D said no such thing.  The game was already 5 years old and in its fourth iteration when Gary wrote that.

Sure, but it is a sure sign that he thought of XP as a way to enforce behavior, even if he had a lighter hand in how he used it in earlier editions. And we are talking about his opinion only five years into the published era of D&D. This book also reached a lot more gamers than OD&D ever did if we are talking about Gygax's influence on the hobby.

His tendency to bombastic writing doesn't help.  Essentially, he's just saying what was always the rule of thumb; you get XP for doing things.

I remember my first ever D&D adventure.  I was one of two 1st level characters in a group of 4th and 5th level.  We hit a room with monsters.  I swapped places into the front line with somebody, and fought until I scored a hit.  Then I swapped back into the middle of the party so I would survive, and went back to holding a torch.  But I was a fighter, so fighting is what I had to do to get XP.  We saw it less a matter of "shaping behavior" then a matter of "No, you don't become a better magic user if you didn't cast any spells."

Also, the 70s were the great age of "Hire a mess of first level types and use them as cannon fodder," hence the references to "hanging back" as a bad thing.  If the NPCs do all the work, the PCs don't get experience.

As early as 1976 Gary, Rob, and Tim Kask were already talking about the "piles of stupid questions" they were getting.  Rob and Tim are both online, ask them.  Personally, I already see the anger and weariness in that section you quoted.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011206Wow he is really triggered over that pirate game.

That's just an easy example of the idea, because it popped up at the same time.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;1011220Serious question, but are you saying that there are people out there who actually say and believe this? This isn't some "internet thing,"  is it? Something written on a blog that a few people read?  Perhaps I have had a sheltered gaming life, but I can say that I have never heard anyone say this in person. In fact, other than the devil scare in the 80's, I have never heard anyone ascribe anything to D&D, except that it's a good way to kill a few free hours with some friends.  Sorry if I'm derailing this thread, but I really am curious.:confused:

Shemek

Do some searches, we had a whole thread here on the "Colonial" topic alone.

Quote from: Dumarest;1011208Can't help the Hulk rage. Cue lecture on the right way to play.

Don't you have a couple dozen useless posts to write declaring you have no knowledge of a particular game and no interest in buying one since you haven't bought a game in 30 years or something? :rolleyes:

Don't know how typical my experience is, but I find that players run the full range from "completely oblivious to any character behavioral incentives" to "will form their character around whatever the game rewards, no matter what."  And that's good players that I'm willing to spend some time playing with.  The bad ones have an even greater range.  This best way to get a game I will enjoy tends to be a few incentives that are rough but clear, while still leaving some room for GM judgment on rewards.  Then even players from the opposite side of the range will go along with the others at times merely because we are all having fun at the table.  A bad player will screw it up no matter what we do.  Thus the only fix there is to exclude him.

Quote from: S'mon;1011179Isn't it ok to be aware that the reward mechanisms do affect behaviour?

There's a difference between "They can affect behavior." and "Affecting behavior is what they are there for."  The end is not the means and the intent matters especially when it's the difference between:

"You get XP for doing things that people like you are doing."
and
"This is what I want you to do and so I'm going to force you to do it by not giving you exp for anything else."

Personally, I think the Pavlovian/Skinner Box approach is horseshit, but if everyone is on board, knock yourselves out and get down with your bad meta-layer selves.  Me saying I think it's shit is not telling you you're engaging in BadWrongFun.

But, that's not the only thing XP is for, that's not what it's always been designed for, and believing that's all it's there for is incorrect.

So what is it there for?

Quote from: Baulderstone;1011241You keep asking this question when I already quoted Gary on this very matter. And not in some obscure interview or anecdotal conversation someone had with him. I am not divining his intent from tea leaves. I am quoting the fucking Dungeon Masters Guide. It's not even some appendix. These are the standard AD&D rules for experience.



Seriously Krueger, if a GM told you that he was penalizing your advancement because your fighter actually stole something, or your magic-user didn't employ magic items when the GM thought you should have, or you decided your thief wasn't going to steal some particular item, you wouldn't see that as attempting to "consciously steer player behavior".

This is about as heavy-handed player steering as I have ever seen.

Look, man, it's a Class system.  Everything wrapped up into one broad archetype.
Someone who fights.
Someone who thieves.
Someone who casts magic.
etc.
You have to have some measure of success, so if you're succeeding, you're probably getting gold and killing things, so there's your XP.
You have to have some way of determining if you're getting better as a Class, so if you're doing Class Stuff, you get XP.
It's not "steering behavior" to say you take an XP hit as a Fighter because you were stealing, it's because you were probably stealing instead of fighting.  You roll up a Thief with 18 Dex and 18 Str, so you take the front rank and start deathmopping, you're not gaining as a Thief as much as if you ambushed them and backstabbed them.

Again, it's a very abstract system meant to reward you for doing things...modified by your Class and Alignment.

It's a far from perfect system, but it works...until you try and assume more about it then what it actually is, and then start assuming that all other games need to have Designers and GMs force behavior by instituting XP awards.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011264So what is it there for?

Determining how PCs get better at things. Finito. Period. Full Stop.  

Anything else (like practically every new school or narrative aspect of gaming) is ADDED to the original reason, and was never the original reason.

Therefore what you incorrectly see as one reason, is actually two or more.

> It's not "steering behavior" to say you take an XP hit as a Fighter because you were stealing, it's because you were probably stealing instead of fighting.

But right there, you're saying you've set some behaviors they have to follow to get XP. They have to act like a Fighter and "fight," not steal.

It's a class system, sure, but that just makes the encouraged behaviors built into the system. Imagine if there was a Pirate class and they got XP from burying treasure, just like the thief gets XP for stealing. It's the same thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011232It's a popular viewpoint online.  I've run into it a bit in real life, mostly from people who were wankers in other ways too.

Wow. :eek: I'm glad that I haven't had the misfortune of running into people like this.

Shemek

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011257Do some searches, we had a whole thread here on the "Colonial" topic alone.

I'll take yours and Gronan's word for it. I was just shocked that anyone could be so stupid. It's just a bloody game, and nothing more. UFB!

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011173Damn, someone got triggered.

Nah, we'll just keep doing what we do:  I'll call bullshit whenever someone declares general assumptions that are really only specific to their playstyle, and you or someone else will come in screeching. :D

The someone who got triggered was clearly you.

On the subject of narrativism, you really do sound like those fundamentalist preachers and conservative senators who rail against homosexuality, but make it sound like that's what they'd be doing if it weren't so sinful, only to be caught cruising for sex in some men's bathroom.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1011206Wow he is really triggered over that pirate game.

Just a matter of time before CRKrueger is found deep in a narrativist campaign in the backroom of some seedy creative writing workshop.

Quote from: rawma;1011306On the subject of narrativism, you really do sound like those fundamentalist preachers and conservative senators who rail against homosexuality, but make it sound like that's what they'd be doing if it weren't so sinful, only to be caught cruising for sex in some men's bathroom.

Projecting?

The clear difference is, not many Homosexuals claim everyone is a Homesexual and there is no such thing as Heterosexuality.

Quote from: rawma;1011306Just a matter of time before CRKrueger is found deep in a narrativist campaign in the backroom of some seedy creative writing workshop.

Yay, more cheap trolling instead of argument. *shock*

I GM as well as play, have no need to mix the two.

Quote from: S'mon;1011134Interesting... I was wondering Alex, would ACKS Domains of War systems for XP, dominions & warfare etc be useable in my 5e campaign? Since it looks like I'll be running mostly that for the foreseeable future, but 5e doesn't really have much scaffolding for high level dominion & war play. With 5e taking a 0 off the end of Classic D&D XP awards (or divide by 5) looks about right for levels 11+. BTW what happens with level 14 characters in ACKS - do they cease to get any benefits from XP?

I haven't tried it with 5e, but I used it with 3e and it worked just fine once I adjusted the awards to match up proportionately. So I think you could do the same with 5e, too.
Once you hit 14th level in ACKS, you stop advancing, yes, and no longer get benefit from XP.

Again, if you look at OD&D with gold=XP and XP = gp * (monster level/player level), you start to need more money than there is in the world to level up.  So there is no hard limit, but there is an effective limit.

Quote from: amacris;1011318I haven't tried it with 5e, but I used it with 3e and it worked just fine once I adjusted the awards to match up proportionately. So I think you could do the same with 5e, too.
Once you hit 14th level in ACKS, you stop advancing, yes, and no longer get benefit from XP.

Thanks! :)

Quote from: Baulderstone;1011241You keep asking this question when I already quoted Gary on this very matter. And not in some obscure interview or anecdotal conversation someone had with him. I am not divining his intent from tea leaves. I am quoting the fucking Dungeon Masters Guide. It's not even some appendix. These are the standard AD&D rules for experience.

There is another section in that area that, paraphrased, says "Yes, fighters should get xp for fighting, magic-users get xp for casting, thieves for thieving, and so on. However, generating and standardizing those rules is a pain as would be the bookkeeping. Awarding xp for gold (i.e. success) is a useful abstraction, combined with that gained from defeating foes."

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011309Yay, more cheap trolling instead of argument.

No, that's snark. You declined to engage with the arguments offered, and instead decided to go with your own trolling: "triggered", "projecting", etc.

And pretty unsurprisingly; your belief that some XP systems that judge players' actions are bad and some are good seems to entirely depend on which games you like, not what the rules say; arguments and counterexamples you ignore, because they don't engage with your likes and dislikes.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011323Again, if you look at OD&D with gold=XP and XP = gp * (monster level/player level), you start to need more money than there is in the world to level up.  So there is no hard limit, but there is an effective limit.

I don't think OD&D gave any indication that there was any bound on the amount of gold in a D&D world; the whole idea of expanding or restocking worn dungeon levels seems to argue against that. Certainly a DM could bound the number of dragons (and dragon hoards) in the game world, or impose any other limits, but the mechanics described pretty clearly don't suggest players could exhaust a dungeon's loot, let alone the world's.

The more common limit in my experience of OD&D to AD&D1 was that any likely adventure (with significant XP) would necessarily force save-or-die* saving throws on high level PCs, and players chose not to do that. But we also had a very open multiverse so there was always another dungeon or game world available, and maybe that was not a common style.

* Not just dying; DMs created ways of getting annihilated, banished, disintegrated, etc that even a wish could not undo. And raise dead or any other way to undo ordinary deaths was bounded in our campaigns by Constitution score, which would eventually run out.

Quote from: rawma;1011970I don't think OD&D gave any indication that there was any bound on the amount of gold in a D&D world; the whole idea of expanding or restocking worn dungeon levels seems to argue against that. Certainly a DM could bound the number of dragons (and dragon hoards) in the game world, or impose any other limits, but the mechanics described pretty clearly don't suggest players could exhaust a dungeon's loot, let alone the world's.

It's not "exhausting loot," it's "how many damn dragons can you find, anyway."  Been there done that.  Even soloing you have to singlehandedly kill something like six or seven lairs of dragons singlehandedly to level from, say, 14th to 15th.  Singlehandedly.  No NPCs, no friends, no nothing.

By that time the single minded pursuit of XP becomes boring.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011983It's not "exhausting loot," it's "how many damn dragons can you find, anyway."  Been there done that.  Even soloing you have to singlehandedly kill something like six or seven lairs of dragons singlehandedly to level from, say, 14th to 15th.  Singlehandedly.  No NPCs, no friends, no nothing.

By that time the single minded pursuit of XP becomes boring.

Well, that's different than running out of treasure; from the wandering monster tables, it looks like there'd be a dragon encounter in every other barony (or more, depending on the terrain). We gave up on it because it got too risky, but I started after Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes, and DMs extrapolated out to some very deadly encounters. The motivation to make 16th or 18th level as a Magic-User or 17th level as a Cleric given Greyhawk expanded spell levels (Permanence and Wish, Raise Dead Fully and Gate) was there, but I can see there would be little reason to continue much 13th in the original books, when extra levels added little.

I have some questions about how the rules were interpreted then:

• What level was wilderness treated as? (That is, what were you dividing the XP by?) I don't think there's anything specific in the rules.
• Did experience accrue from the income of a barony, and if so, was this divided by anything? (The amounts involved wouldn't lead to level increases, but might have reduced the dragons needed by one over several game years.)

Barony income didn't give you XP.

In wilderness it was monster level.  So a 10 HD dragon would be oh, say 12th level.

And don't forget to look at the "in lair" percentages.  Again, wandering monsters have no treasure!  Most encounters in wilderness are with wandering monsters, which makes XP hunting even worse.

No treasure? Ever? That seems unlikely. How are the orc patrols going to pay their toll to the wandering ogre if they don't carry cash? Ogre's don't take American Express.

That's "loot" not "treasure".

hm, my previous group of players and I jkust ditched XP and after 2-4 sessions (depending on circumstances) they were granted a level, it simplified things a lot, except for one single player character who was heavily focusing on crafting and that mage required XP for crafting some stuff so I made sure I added 'crafting xp' scrolls, potions, tomes to the loot

To be honest, having a nice master crafter also made loot easier to handle, they just sold off everything they didn't want and the paladin paid for the mage to make a full proper armor + shield and axe in the same style/design and material simply to have a 'set' instead of a weird mix of gear found and looted from various places. (his char had a special hatred for a black, skull decoration despite it being the most powerful/pricey item they found)

I liked that player, the crafter one I mean, he often focused on possible economic aspect of settings, like running an inn or becoming a wandering dwarven brewer looking for new recipes and materials.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1011323Again, if you look at OD&D with gold=XP and XP = gp * (monster level/player level), you start to need more money than there is in the world to level up.  So there is no hard limit, but there is an effective limit.

Not before it leads to 30th level characters hunting dragons to extinction for their Treasure Type.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013479Not before it leads to 30th level characters hunting dragons to extinction for their Treasure Type.

Even a level 36 character is presumably getting 1/3 xp from a 12 hd equivalent dragon, so I'm not seeing this 'all the gold in the world' issue unless levels are in the hundreds.

I think I've come round to preferring a hard level cap, like 20th level in 5e or 2e (pre High Level Campaigns), 6 in E6 or 14 in ACKS. 10th is also a nice level to cap at. Hard level caps encourage (semi) retirement of maxed out PCs and maintaining a stable of characters across a range of levels rather than focus on infinite levelling; it also makes world-building easy since I can scale NPC demographics around the cap.

... never had any game with characters of over level 17, except if I include video games (which I don't in this case)

Playing at level 20? or over 30?

I imagined what that would be like, probably the character would be something like the ruler of a nation, a prophet, or the best assassin in the world, maybe a demigod

Quote from: joriandrake;1013512... never had any game with characters of over level 17, except if I include video games (which I don't in this case)

Playing at level 20? or over 30?

I imagined what that would be like, probably the character would be something like the ruler of a nation, a prophet, or the best assassin in the world, maybe a demigod

There's a Barbarian-20 PC imc 5e Wilderlands, yes he is indeed a ruler/prophet/demigod. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1013518There's a Barbarian-20 PC imc 5e Wilderlands, yes he is indeed a ruler/prophet/demigod. :)

imc?

Quote from: joriandrake;1013521imc?

In my campaign. I gm Wilderlands sandbox with various groups of pcs from 1st to 20th level

Quote from: S'mon;1013529In my campaign. I gm Wilderlands sandbox with various groups of pcs from 1st to 20th level

oooh, that sounds like fun

Quote from: joriandrake;1013534oooh, that sounds like fun

It IS!!! :cool:

Edit: Dunno if I annoy the first level PCs when half the NPCs they meet are raving about the AWESOME COOLNESS of Hakeem the level 20 PC who (repeatedly) has conquered fear, conquered hate, turned their night into day...

If you are a 5e D&D Facebook group member, you can bask in Hakeem's awesomeness at https://www.facebook.com/groups/DnD5th/permalink/872491276261714/

Quote from: RPGPundit;1013479Not before it leads to 30th level characters hunting dragons to extinction for their Treasure Type.

Only if dragons are common as head lice.  We stalled out around 11th or 12th level just because of the amount of time it took to find enough treasure to matter.  The fact that Robilar made it to 14th level was extraordinary.

Quote from: S'mon;1013546It IS!!! :cool:

Edit: Dunno if I annoy the first level PCs when half the NPCs they meet are raving about the AWESOME COOLNESS of Hakeem the level 20 PC who (repeatedly) has conquered fear, conquered hate, turned their night into day...

If you are a 5e D&D Facebook group member, you can bask in Hakeem's awesomeness at https://www.facebook.com/groups/DnD5th/permalink/872491276261714/

Not using facebook, didn't play 5thEd yet, but you made me consider to try it and join. (not Facebook, the campaign)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013547Only if dragons are common as head lice.  We stalled out around 11th or 12th level just because of the amount of time it took to find enough treasure to matter.  The fact that Robilar made it to 14th level was extraordinary.

Even with dragons only 60% in lair, the standard wandering monster tables still result in a dragon treasure per three baronies cleared; and that's ignoring the use of magic items and spells that may locate the next dragon lair more quickly or clearing terrain types where dragons are more frequent. Yes, it's tedious, but getting from 1st to 2nd level was also tedious and probably riskier. Once Greyhawk introduced 7th level and higher spells, there was certainly motivation to reach higher levels. We stopped around 14th level because the encounters got too deadly (at least with any referee worth playing with), not because it was too slow to advance.

Given the average gold value of a dragon treasure in OD&D, it takes something like 24 dragon lairs cleared to accumulate enough XP to go from 13th to 14th level.  And that assumes SOLO; you are the ONLY one getting any of the treasure/XP.  So no friends, no NPCs, no nothing.  You all by yourself go clear two dozen dragon lairs.

Yeah, I'll wait.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013637Given the average gold value of a dragon treasure in OD&D, it takes something like 24 dragon lairs cleared to accumulate enough XP to go from 13th to 14th level.  And that assumes SOLO

Wow, so, OD&D dragons are really poor compared to 1e MM dragons or Classic dragons? Just a green dragon lair with type H treasure I remember produced well over 150,000gp IMC (was using Classic rules but 1e MM); I only gave 0.2 XP to the PC who nicked it though because I'm a mean dad :D - was my son's MU PC who located and stole the treasure of Chloridia, a green dragon who had been his  vassal until then. She swore revenge, and was heard of occasionally thereafter working for the villains.

A red dragon lair with  H S T produces even more; or looking at Mentzer Classic proper it specifically says Type H treasure averages 60,000 gpv and all small dragons have Type H (d4 dragons); large have Hx2 & I (average 127,500gp, d3 dragons); Huge have Hx3 & Ix2 average 195,000 gp  (d2 dragons).

A Classic Fighter needs 120,000gp to level and has no listed reduction for being over-levelled vs threat AFAIK.

So as written it's very practical to hunt dragons for their treasure & level up on it all the way to 36.
I do think D&D (all editions) works best in the 1-10 or 1-12 range though, so it's interesting that the original rules effectively soft capped around 12-14.

Quote from: S'mon;1013641Wow, so, OD&D dragons are really poor compared to 1e MM dragons or Classic dragons? Just a green dragon lair with type H treasure I remember produced well over 150,000gp IMC (was using Classic rules but 1e MM); I only gave 0.2 XP to the PC who nicked it though because I'm a mean dad :D - was my son's MU PC who located and stole the treasure of Chloridia, a green dragon who had been his  vassal until then. She swore revenge, and was heard of occasionally thereafter working for the villains.

A red dragon lair with  H S T produces even more; or looking at Mentzer Classic proper it specifically says Type H treasure averages 60,000 gpv and all small dragons have Type H (d4 dragons); large have Hx2 & I (average 127,500gp, d3 dragons); Huge have Hx3 & Ix2 average 195,000 gp  (d2 dragons).

A Classic Fighter needs 120,000gp to level and has no listed reduction for being over-levelled vs threat AFAIK.

Okay, OD&D (w/o GH) Dragons --
number appearing: 1-4
60% in lair,
treasure type H*
Stats: Gold are 20% 10HD, 60% 11 HD, 20% 12 HD, every step down (red, blue, green, black, white) reduces that spread by 1. Maturity is a D6 toss (the result being the amount of hp per hd, with corresponding breath weapon damage), however, if # appearing =2, then they are a mated pair of age cat. 4+, and if 3-4 showing, it's the same mated pair with 1-2 age cat. 1 hatchlings. This pertains to treasure thusly: "Very Young and Young Dragons are unlikely to have acquired treasure. Sub-Adult Dragons will have about half the indicated treasure for Dragons. Very Old Dragons can have as much as twice the indicated amount."
Additional cost/value/xp considerations include that if you are higher level than the encounter, you receive only an xp amount equal to the relative value ("thus an 8th level Magic-User operating on the 5th dungeon level would be awarded 5/8 experience" ), that subdued dragons can be sold for 500-1000 gp/hp, and that "Metal is melted to solid lumps by fire or lightning. Fire will not destroy Gems (optionally 10% chance of destruction) but lightning will. Both will devalue Jewelry by 25%."
*Treasure type H: 25% chance of 3-24x1000 cp (worth 0.02 gp each), 50% chance of 1-100x1000 sp (worth 0.1 gp each), 75% chance of 10-60x1000 gp, 50% chance of 1-100 gems**, 50% chance of 10-40 jewels***, of magic items 20% chance of any 4 + 1 Potion + 1 Scroll
**Gems: Base prices are as follows: 10% chance of being 10gp, 15% of being 50 gp, 50% of 100 gp, 15% of 500 gp, and 10% of 100 gp. However, roll 1D6 for each gem (or do in batches), a roll of 1 indicates it being kicked up a categorical notch (categories above 1000 are: 5k, 10k, 25k, 50k, 100k, and 500k; it's unclear from the book how you get above 5000-- perhaps you keep rolling for exploding value)
***Jewelry: 20% are 3d6x100 gp, 60% are 1d6x1000 gp, 20% are 1d10x1000 gp.

I don't have time to crunch an average xp award right now, but I probably will later, if anyone really wants it.

"75% chance of 10-60x1000 gp"

Looks even more generous than 1e MM which is 55% for gp I think.

Quote from: S'mon;1013675"75% chance of 10-60x1000 gp"

Looks even more generous than 1e MM which is 55% for gp I think.

Well, remember that in 1e you don't have to multiply by your level-to-challenge ratio (right? 1e is actually where I'm weakest with the rules).

If a 12th level fighter can solo a lair of (average) 2.5 dragons successfully, your referee sucks.  (The average of 1-4 is 2.5)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013747If a 12th level fighter can solo a lair of (average) 2.5 dragons successfully, your referee sucks.  (The average of 1-4 is 2.5)

As I recall my group had a tough time vs 2 greens at around 10th level yup. But I can imagine a 20th level PC soloing them easily enough.
In the case of Chloridia with the 150,000gp loot, it was actually a theft (from an employee!), Chloridia wasn't there at the time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013637Given the average gold value of a dragon treasure in OD&D, it takes something like 24 dragon lairs cleared to accumulate enough XP to go from 13th to 14th level.  And that assumes SOLO; you are the ONLY one getting any of the treasure/XP.  So no friends, no NPCs, no nothing.  You all by yourself go clear two dozen dragon lairs.

Yeah, I'll wait.

I did crunch the numbers for treasure type H; using only a single die roll to advance the gem values (see Willie the Duck's post for the details), I got an average value of 80252 gold pieces for dragon treasure. And sometimes there will be the value for subdued dragons (500-1000 gold pieces per hit point); an average single subdued dragon, lair or not, is worth over 20000 gold pieces (average of 8.5 dice, average of 3.5 HP, average of 750 GP per HP). The levels we're talking about are not going to average over half the XP (average of 8.5 dice, and Gronan indicates that a dragon with 10 dice might be treated as 12th level -- the effective level is higher than the hit dice -- but that may only apply to higher age categories), so the party that takes out a dragon lair should share 40K XP (more for the very old, and not counting any subdual value realized, although that's hard to realize in the three fourths of cases with more than one dragon). That's less than 10 such hoards solo, even for the highest XP required between levels (for a wizard). But I would still expect the usual size of party, so more slowly than suggested above, but not much more slowly than first to second level if approached cautiously.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013747If a 12th level fighter can solo a lair of (average) 2.5 dragons successfully, your referee sucks.  (The average of 1-4 is 2.5)

Well, which is it? Did players give up leveling up because it was too dull or because it was too deadly? But it's never more than 2 dangerous dragons, since the 1 HP per die young are going to die pretty quickly. What motivated anyone to go from 11th to 12th, which would only be modestly easier (about 20% more XP for monsters or dungeon levels below character level)?

Quote from: rawma;1013883I did crunch the numbers for treasure type H; using only a single die roll to advance the gem values (see Willie the Duck's post for the details), I got an average value of 80252 gold pieces for dragon treasure. And sometimes there will be the value for subdued dragons (500-1000 gold pieces per hit point); an average single subdued dragon, lair or not, is worth over 20000 gold pieces (average of 8.5 dice, average of 3.5 HP, average of 750 GP per HP). The levels we're talking about are not going to average over half the XP (average of 8.5 dice, and Gronan indicates that a dragon with 10 dice might be treated as 12th level -- the effective level is higher than the hit dice -- but that may only apply to higher age categories), so the party that takes out a dragon lair should share 40K XP (more for the very old, and not counting any subdual value realized, although that's hard to realize in the three fourths of cases with more than one dragon). That's less than 10 such hoards solo, even for the highest XP required between levels (for a wizard). But I would still expect the usual size of party, so more slowly than suggested above, but not much more slowly than first to second level if approached cautiously.

I think you're saying very politely that Gronan's claim re levelling speed & dragons (24 solo dragon lairs/level) was a big pile of bullshit? :D

Okay, yeah, I got it wrong.

But that's still a hell of a lot of time hunting for dragons.  They don't live in Dragon Condos.

I don't remember the random encounter tables, but dragons aren't a guaranteed encounter by any means, and dragons aren't always in their lair by any means.  And there's a hell of a lot of other shit you will encounter.  Oh, goody.  You've just been surprised by four wandering Balrogs.  And since they're wandering, they have no treasure.

For that matter, dragons are most common in mountains, and I seem to remember you can also get undead in mountains.  "That night your camp is attacked by wandering Specters."  Whee.

And "ONLY" having to solo 10 dragon lairs to level up still sounds like a hell of a slog.  And depending on the age category of the dragon, don't forget that XP for GP is calculated by multiplying GP * (monster level/player level), but never more than 1 XP per GP.  So a 15th level wizard will get 12/15 = 4/5 XP per GP for ancient red dragons.  So instead of 10 ancient red dragon lairs, a 15th level wizard needs to solo 12.5 ancient red dragon lairs.

Seriously, this isn't a self imposed limit on leveling?  Whether because of the tedium or the difficulty.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1009504....

Oh, and if you're trying to construct an XP system to have your players act like you want them to, ....

Well yes, that is exactly the point.

Get the GM some chips: 100 xp
Get the GM a cold beer: 1000 xp
Bring the GM a sandwich: 5000 xp

...etc.

So suppose you're playing a dynamic sandbox 0D&D campaign with XP from gold, and multiple parties. One PC party is about 10th level and attacks a lair of dragons head-on and happens to almost totally die in the process, and the surviving PC is attacked by wolves and dies on his way out due to an unlucky roll while only having a few HP left. Then a 1st-level PC or two come upon his dead body and unattended wagon full of loot. They get a dragon-lair worth of XP for happening to be in the right place at the right time, yes?

Or if you were playing the events of the book The Hobbit, the dude who slays the dragon gets some XP for killing it, but the people who made it mad and happen to be where a dwarf city's worth of priceless treasure is, including a novice adventurer, suddenly get umpteen-billion XP for the loot and gain all sorts of mad combat ability, yes?

Or in a theoretical competitive game, a wizard might sneakily follow an adventuring group and let them clean out a dungeon, but then teleport their wagon of gold home to his wizard tower so he gets most of the XP for what they did, and based on the amount of gold he stole, gets to learn new spells and have more magic powers, yes?

Now, I realize that if the DM doesn't like these outcomes, his approval is needed for any leveling up, so he can just tell such players their PCs don't get to level up yet for reasons. I don't want to argue about it, but I am curious what players who like XP-for-gold think or feel about these sorts of situations?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013962So instead of 10 ancient red dragon lairs, a 15th level wizard needs to solo 12.5 ancient red dragon lairs.
Seriously, this isn't a self imposed limit on leveling?  Whether because of the tedium or the difficulty.

Well, comparing your OD&D stats to Classic, which explicitly expects advancement to 36 and has no XP divider:

Classic BECM Wizard needs 150,000 XP/level from 9-36.
Type H treasure averages 60,000gp (says the book).
A typical small dragon lair of 2.5 greens (better than white & black, weaker than blue & red) = 4,250 monster xp.
Total 64,250.

So a bit under 2.5 lairs/level.

A typical OD&D dragon lair with 80,000gp(per above) and 2.5 12hd-equiv dragons is 83,000 XP by my count, taken down by level 15 PC is 12/15 x83,000 = 66,400 XP, almost exactly the same XP. (A 1e Wizard though would get full XP since enemy total threat hd exceeds his level).

OD&D wizard I believe needs 300,000 XP/level same as AD&D, so works out at 5 lairs/level.

Not 10. Not 24. 5.

No, as written that does not look to me like it's going to stall out a campaign. If PCs are still advancing at 10th level, the much more powerful 15th level PCs should still be advancing too, probably at a similar rate.

Classic expects 5 sessions/level after 9th. OD&D and 1e should, on the rules, expect about 10 sessions/level in a similar campaign.

Quote from: Skarg;1013965Now, I realize that if the DM doesn't like these outcomes, his approval is needed for any leveling up, so he can just tell such players their PCs don't get to level up yet for reasons. I don't want to argue about it, but I am curious what players who like XP-for-gold think or feel about these sorts of situations?

There are within-the-rules ways of addressing some of those situations. For example, the 0 xp first level character who happened to get the super windfall could only advance to 1xp short of 3rd level. But the overall ethos of the TSR/xp=gp era is that the book shouldn't have to come up with a rule for every extremer outlier scenario.

Still, you asked for what we feel, so you are asking about opinions. My opinion is that the gold in gp=xp is only supposed to represent accomplishment in the avenues that the game presumes the players want to judge their success. Going into underground tunnels seeking fortune is the type of game Dave Arneson discovered spoke to his players best (so much so that they abandoned/neglected their original goals to pursue them). If (and only if) you find that the accumulation of gold deviates from being synonymous with success, you need to break away from awarding xp for gp. The purest example I can think of is a Robinson Crusoe situation--character washes up on an island with no other people (or so few that a monetary system is unfeasible)--does that mean that no xp can be acquired? Of course not! You just have to find an alternative metric to measure success. Your examples are a little harder, as they are more along the lines of 'this character doesn't deserve their xp, since they didn't really earn it, even if they got the gold.' Well, that's sort of true, but hey, getting someone else to do your dirty work for you is a tried and true way to 'succeed' at something.

Quote from: Skarg;1013965So suppose you're playing a dynamic sandbox 0D&D campaign with XP from gold, and multiple parties. One PC party is about 10th level and attacks a lair of dragons head-on and happens to almost totally die in the process, and the surviving PC is attacked by wolves and dies on his way out due to an unlucky roll while only having a few HP left. Then a 1st-level PC or two come upon his dead body and unattended wagon full of loot. They get a dragon-lair worth of XP for happening to be in the right place at the right time, yes?

Or if you were playing the events of the book The Hobbit, the dude who slays the dragon gets some XP for killing it, but the people who made it mad and happen to be where a dwarf city's worth of priceless treasure is, including a novice adventurer, suddenly get umpteen-billion XP for the loot and gain all sorts of mad combat ability, yes?

Or in a theoretical competitive game, a wizard might sneakily follow an adventuring group and let them clean out a dungeon, but then teleport their wagon of gold home to his wizard tower so he gets most of the XP for what they did, and based on the amount of gold he stole, gets to learn new spells and have more magic powers, yes?

Now, I realize that if the DM doesn't like these outcomes, his approval is needed for any leveling up, so he can just tell such players their PCs don't get to level up yet for reasons. I don't want to argue about it, but I am curious what players who like XP-for-gold think or feel about these sorts of situations?

Short answer: Yes, gold for XP encourages success over process. Lucky/skilled guy gets the XP.

Longer answer: D&D does have controls in place, though.
a)Gronan has discussed OD&D's divider - numerator = monster hd, denomintor = PC level. If you acquire gold without risk there is no threat so the  numerator is 0, the calculation for 1 million gp and a level 1 hobbit is 1 millon x 0/1 = 0 XP.
1e AD&D has a similar but more generous approach, adding up total monster levels for the numerator. The multiplier never exceeds x1.
b) In versions without this divider, there is still an XP award cap. PCs may not advance more than 1 level at a time, though they may get to 1 XP short of that amount. I find the "You're 1 XP short!" a bit unpleasant so I tend to cap at 1 level's worth of XP, or at midway to the next level, but the principle is the same.

Quote from: S'mon;1013959I think you're saying very politely that Gronan's claim re levelling speed & dragons (24 solo dragon lairs/level) was a big pile of bullshit? :D

No, I was initially boggled by the assertion that there's not enough gold in the world for leveling past whatever. But then I got really curious as to why they stopped leveling; it doesn't seem much harder to level at higher levels than from 11 to 12th. So what was it? DMs got tired of running such stuff? Players didn't think anything past 12 was that valuable (I see that with straight OD&D ;* but with Greyhawk, the siren song of 7th and higher level spells would surely motivate some)? Too deadly (sooner or later save-or-die will get you)? A general recognition that 14th level and up was kinda broken? We were grinding at 1st level, so why wouldn't we grind at high level?

I think he underestimated the book value of a dragon hoard, yes, but I agree with a variant of his point; any DM that just generates a lot of sessions of by-the-book encounters without throwing craziness at the players does indeed suck. If you can't come up with crazy undead dragons appearing 5-30 or cyborg demons or whatever, you really shouldn't be a DM for high level PCs. Maybe that was why psionics was invented? Anyway, in our OD&D with supplements moving toward AD&D1e campaign, we didn't play very high level characters unless the DM declared the world in danger from some nigh unstoppable force. So despite still pressing some points, I'm actually mostly in agreement with Gronan, although I want to understand the reasons why; we didn't have that many people pushing to 14th level, but in hindsight I think our campaign was pretty unusual in a lot of ways.

I do always try to be polite, though. I think this site could use a little more of that, but I don't always succeed, and when I do my politeness seems more often to be interpreted as trolling.

---

[/HR]
* I just discovered that I get the non-English character warning if I put a semicolon right after D&D, but not if there's a space in between. So please disregard the space. I blame the site upgrade AND I miss the popcorn smiley.

Quote from: S'mon;1013998Short answer: Yes, gold for XP encourages success over process. Lucky/skilled guy gets the XP.

Longer answer: D&D does have controls in place, though.
a)Gronan has discussed OD&D's divider - numerator = monster hd, denomintor = PC level. If you acquire gold without risk there is no threat so the  numerator is 0, the calculation for 1 million gp and a level 1 hobbit is 1 millon x 0/1 = 0 XP.
1e AD&D has a similar but more generous approach, adding up total monster levels for the numerator. The multiplier never exceeds x1.
b) In versions without this divider, there is still an XP award cap. PCs may not advance more than 1 level at a time, though they may get to 1 XP short of that amount. I find the "You're 1 XP short!" a bit unpleasant so I tend to cap at 1 level's worth of XP, or at midway to the next level, but the principle is the same.

a) We viewed stealing someone's kill was pretty risky, so we didn't view the divider as 0 (and you would have to travel in the dangerous wilderness to get it, just as treasure in empty rooms of the dungeon still counted as being that level of the dungeon).
b) We always went proportional; if you were X% between N and N+1, then excessive XP would put you at X% between N+1 and N+2 levels, and the rest was wasted.

Quote from: rawma;1014061I agree with a variant of his point; any DM that just generates a lot of sessions of by-the-book encounters without throwing craziness at the players does indeed suck. If you can't come up with crazy undead dragons appearing 5-30 or cyborg demons or whatever, you really shouldn't be a DM for high level PCs.

I agree with your point, but I think it's close to the opposite of Gronan's claim, which is that OD&D stalls out around 12th-14th because there are no more decent sources of XP.

Really I think EGG's Greyhawk game closed out around 12th-14th simply because it didn't run for very long, only a few years. On the rules 20th level PCs could still have been advancing at half the rate of 10th level PCs, unless the DM simply declared there was no more gold in the world because the PCs now had all of it, which sounds both lame and unlikely.

Quote from: rawma;1014061a) We viewed stealing someone's kill was pretty risky, so we didn't view the divider as 0 (and you would have to travel in the dangerous wilderness to get it, just as treasure in empty rooms of the dungeon still counted as being that level of the dungeon).

This is how I do it - if there is risk there is XP. So I gave 30,000 XP for betraying Chloridia and nicking her 150,000gp hoard.
But the question was about undeserved XP so I wanted to show how RAW handles the no-risk situation.

Quote from: S'mon;1013995Well, comparing your OD&D stats to Classic, which explicitly expects advancement to 36 and has no XP divider:

Classic BECM Wizard needs 150,000 XP/level from 9-36.
Type H treasure averages 60,000gp (says the book).
A typical small dragon lair of 2.5 greens (better than white & black, weaker than blue & red) = 4,250 monster xp.
Total 64,250.

So a bit under 2.5 lairs/level.

...

Not 10. Not 24. 5.

So, you're not dividing the experience among the party? If you are, then it's 5 lairs per character, and then you don't level up until nearly everyone else does. That's 20-30 sessions for a group of 4-6 PCs. And then, it's 20-30 lairs of that quality. Or, are we assuming that a lone PC can take out the 2.5 dragons?

Quote from: Baron Opal;1014155So, you're not dividing the experience among the party? If you are, then it's 5 lairs per character, and then you don't level up until nearly everyone else does. That's 20-30 sessions for a group of 4-6 PCs. And then, it's 20-30 lairs of that quality. Or, are we assuming that a lone PC can take out the 2.5 dragons?

Gronan said solo, so I went with that. It does not take 4-6 level 15 PCs to take out a typical dragon lair, maybe 2. And no reason a lair should take a whole session.

In reality of course, while dragons are particularly lucrative, few PC groups will spend their careers hunting them. I think the important point is that 15th level PCs still earn 2/3 the XP as 10th level PCs,  and are at least 50% more powerful than 10th level PCs, so I'm not sure why advancement rate should slow much.

I think at that level of the game, the Dragon comes looking for you to steal your gold. Also, the bigger threats are the armed baronies/kingdoms around yours. If you don't manage your "base" correctly, and it is only safe from these outside threats while the PC party is "at home".... well, be prepared for a hostile and armed "welcoming party" the next time you are traveling back from a ransacked Dragon's Lair. In most of the early editions, you don't get the XP until the treasure is "secured".

Quote from: S'mon;1014170Gronan said solo, so I went with that.

Oh, missed that bit. Carry on then.

QuoteIt does not take 4-6 level 15 PCs to take out a typical dragon lair, maybe 2. And no reason a lair should take a whole session.

We have different expectations regarding dragon lairs. But, I do not dispute your math.

Quote from: Telarus;1014185I think at that level of the game, the Dragon comes looking for you to steal your gold. Also, the bigger threats are the armed baronies/kingdoms around yours. If you don't manage your "base" correctly, and it is only safe from these outside threats while the PC party is "at home".... well, be prepared for a hostile and armed "welcoming party" the next time you are traveling back from a ransacked Dragon's Lair. In most of the early editions, you don't get the XP until the treasure is "secured".

I definitely find that the key skill for high level PCs is alliance building. You want the surrounding dominions to be friends and allies - preferably they at least suspect you're a god, though of course you politely demur. :D

Quote from: Baron Opal;1014187We have different expectations regarding dragon lairs. But, I do not dispute your math.

I'm going by the OD&D, 1e MM, BX and BECM/RC dragon stats as written. BECM/RC Large & Huge dragons are much tougher, but have a lot more treasure. 2e dragons are a lot lot bigger & tougher. 3e dragons are more like "Sorcerer with side order of Dragon" - their design is terrible.

As I think about it, the last big game series I ran my friends through before we all went to college was against Tiamat and her consorts. And, there was a significant draconic theme throughout the 4-5 years of gaming we did together. So, what I remember probably isn't a valid basis for comparison. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1014092....., unless the DM simply declared there was no more gold in the world because the PCs now had all of it, which sounds both lame and unlikely.

Well then, time to journey off-world.     Or turn to a gem based hordes....gold so plebian.

Quote from: S'mon;1014092I agree with your point, but I think it's close to the opposite of Gronan's claim, which is that OD&D stalls out around 12th-14th because there are no more decent sources of XP.

Really I think EGG's Greyhawk game closed out around 12th-14th simply because it didn't run for very long, only a few years. On the rules 20th level PCs could still have been advancing at half the rate of 10th level PCs, unless the DM simply declared there was no more gold in the world because the PCs now had all of it, which sounds both lame and unlikely.

My experience is that high level PCs in D&D campaigns do stall. I guess I jumped in (mostly) not to nitpick at Gronan but to find out if we were doing OD&D "wrong" because we advanced somewhat further than they did. I have thought of several possible reasons for stalling:

• The game world runs out of resources/opponents. This might be a principled outcome of the design decisions the GM made, but is more likely that the GM is just tired of the campaign.
• There are no worthwhile challenges left (in the extreme case, if you can't get any XP for an encounter below your level; Adventurers League works a little like that, because it is hard to find high level games, and you can't join an adventure if you're outside the official range of levels it's for).
• The challenges available for high level PCs are too deadly.
• The challenges available for high level PCs are too boring.
• The game imposes some absolute limit (20th is the highest possible level in D&D 5e) or makes advancement eventually less attractive (in OD&D, the highest level spells were already available at 12th level, and additional levels added relatively little except a few hit points).
• The group drifts apart in the real world.
• The campaign is generational, and the most powerful PCs of one generation become NPCs for the next generation.
• The campaign is not generational but middling levels are just more interesting, so powerful PCs retire from active play.
• The campaign shifts to a domain management mode where character advancement is not important.

I think #3 and #4 can both be true; if everything hinges on whether a PC misses consecutive saving throws of 2, then it's both deadly (it's gonna happen eventually) and boring (if no choice of strategies can improve on this, every fight is the same rolls to see if you miss your saving throws). Wizards suffer from this; damage spells scale up in damage and non-damage spells have less effect because opponents get better saving throws and buffing spells are supplanted by magic items, so eventually spell choice moves toward damage spells and reduced variety.

Late in playing Out of the Abyss,

Spoiler

the demon princes were all summoned to one place in the Underdark, and fought until one was left standing for the PCs to finish off. The DM had each player take a different demon prince and play it through the demon prince fight. It was not that interesting; they had lots of hit points but the unusual powers they had were all largely ineffective against other demon princes (either immunities or legendary saves). It was fun because it was unique; repeating it would not have been fun.

Quote from: S'mon;1014093This is how I do it - if there is risk there is XP. So I gave 30,000 XP for betraying Chloridia and nicking her 150,000gp hoard.
But the question was about undeserved XP so I wanted to show how RAW handles the no-risk situation.

The Fantasy Trip rule should apply universally to any RPG with advancement by XP; if the players figure out how to get undeserved XP, the GM should congratulate them on their cleverness and disallow it. Betraying someone and stealing their gold is not undeserved XP, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1011259Don't you have a couple dozen useless posts to write declaring you have no knowledge of a particular game and no interest in buying one since you haven't bought a game in 30 years or something? :rolleyes:

Nah, I've stepped back and let you handle the useless posts since you're so good at it and seem to have lots of empty time to fill trying to prove yourself right to strangers online.

Touched a nerve, eh? :D

Quote from: rawma;1014231My experience is that high level PCs in D&D campaigns do stall...

• The game imposes some absolute limit (20th is the highest possible level in D&D 5e)

I guess I'm a bit unusual in having run my original AD&D campaign from 3rd to 117th level, in the case of Thrin the highest level PC - only one to reach Lesser God using my Worship Points system, but there were a few Demigod PCs using the Manual of the Planes stats. I never had trouble challenging the PCs, I had Legends & Lore for a monster manual after all. :D

These days though I do prefer a level cap; I like how 5e caps at 20 but you can still get Epic Boons, feats and/or stat points after that. So Hakeem the Barbarian-20 in my Wilderlands has a couple epic boons from defeating the demigod Kainos the Warbringer, son of Ares-Bane, and then Kainos' master the Arch-Necromancer Borritt Crowfinger, Last Prince of Neo-Nerath. Thus defeating the Black Sun and ending 13 years of war (game time; ca 6 years real-time, or 9 years counting the pre-war buildup from early 2009). When it started I was running Labyrinth Lord, then 4e, now 5e. I like 5e best.

Quote from: Skarg;1013965So suppose you're playing a dynamic sandbox 0D&D campaign with XP from gold, and multiple parties. One PC party is about 10th level and attacks a lair of dragons head-on and happens to almost totally die in the process, and the surviving PC is attacked by wolves and dies on his way out due to an unlucky roll while only having a few HP left. Then a 1st-level PC or two come upon his dead body and unattended wagon full of loot. They get a dragon-lair worth of XP for happening to be in the right place at the right time, yes?

No.

Divide monster level by PC level and multiply it by GP to get XP, as explained in Post 171 and elsewhere.  So if you find a million gold pieces unguarded, you have fought a 0 level monster.  Even if you are only a first level character, 0/1 = 0 XP.

Quote from: Skarg;1013965So suppose you're playing a dynamic sandbox 0D&D campaign with XP from gold, and multiple parties. One PC party is about 10th level and attacks a lair of dragons head-on and happens to almost totally die in the process, and the surviving PC is attacked by wolves and dies on his way out due to an unlucky roll while only having a few HP left. Then a 1st-level PC or two come upon his dead body and unattended wagon full of loot. They get a dragon-lair worth of XP for happening to be in the right place at the right time, yes?

Or if you were playing the events of the book The Hobbit, the dude who slays the dragon gets some XP for killing it, but the people who made it mad and happen to be where a dwarf city's worth of priceless treasure is, including a novice adventurer, suddenly get umpteen-billion XP for the loot and gain all sorts of mad combat ability, yes?

Or in a theoretical competitive game, a wizard might sneakily follow an adventuring group and let them clean out a dungeon, but then teleport their wagon of gold home to his wizard tower so he gets most of the XP for what they did, and based on the amount of gold he stole, gets to learn new spells and have more magic powers, yes?

Now, I realize that if the DM doesn't like these outcomes, his approval is needed for any leveling up, so he can just tell such players their PCs don't get to level up yet for reasons. I don't want to argue about it, but I am curious what players who like XP-for-gold think or feel about these sorts of situations?

Now you're just being an asshole and trolling with "Ha ha XP for gold is stupid," because all these things have been addressed before on this very site.

Number 1 is addressed in my post 2 posts above yours.  XP = gold * (monster level defeated/ PC level).  If you find a bajillion gold unguarded, you have fought a 0 level monster.  Zero divided by ANYTHING is still zero.  So you get ZERO XP.  This is made plain TWO POSTS BEFORE YOURS.

Second case is same as the first.  They fought nothing, they get no XP.

The third example, the wizard MIGHT get some XP, depending on the level of the adventuring party he robbed.  Yes, robbery will earn you XP.  But in OD&D at least, TELEPORT doesn't work that way.  This is on purpose.  Now, if he's at least 10th level, yeah, he could have 2 TELEPORT spells and get away with it.  And he'd get XP.  And what happens when the people he robbed decide to hunt him down would be very, very fun.

Jesus.  If you're going to snark, at least be well informed when you snark.  This just makes it obvious you aren't even fucking reading the other posts in this thread.

Quote from: rawma;1014061I think he underestimated the book value of a dragon hoard, yes, but I agree with a variant of his point; any DM that just generates a lot of sessions of by-the-book encounters without throwing craziness at the players does indeed suck. If you can't come up with crazy undead dragons appearing 5-30 or cyborg demons or whatever, you really shouldn't be a DM for high level PCs.

Look at dragons.  They live for centuries, are cunning and evil, and at least in OD&D there's a chance they can use magic spells.

Why would every entrance to their lair NOT be guarded by Magic Mouths, just for a START?  Pits, traps, shriekers, yellow mold... how many ways can you think of to guard your lair after a few hundred years?  So the dragon will probably never be asleep.

And even if it's "only" 5 lairs you have to SOLO... how long can you be that fucking lucky?  The average 11th level Wizard in OD&D has 29 hit points.  In GREYHAWK he has 27.5.  A 15th level wizard will average 32 1/2 HP in OD&D, and 31 1/2 in Greyhawk.

An ancient red dragon does 88 points of damage with his breath; half if you save.  That's 44 points of damage.  And it can breathe three times a day.

All I can say is, "Good fucking luck in soloing five dragon lairs."

XP for gold is in no way stupid; on the contrary, it's genius. But only if you want the PCs to be assiduously obtaining gold.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014263Now you're just being an asshole and trolling with "Ha ha XP for gold is stupid," because all these things have been addressed before on this very site.

Number 1 is addressed in my post 2 posts above yours.  XP = gold * (monster level defeated/ PC level).  If you find a bajillion gold unguarded, you have fought a 0 level monster.  Zero divided by ANYTHING is still zero.  So you get ZERO XP.  This is made plain TWO POSTS BEFORE YOURS.

Second case is same as the first.  They fought nothing, they get no XP.

The third example, the wizard MIGHT get some XP, depending on the level of the adventuring party he robbed.  Yes, robbery will earn you XP.  But in OD&D at least, TELEPORT doesn't work that way.  This is on purpose.  Now, if he's at least 10th level, yeah, he could have 2 TELEPORT spells and get away with it.  And he'd get XP.  And what happens when the people he robbed decide to hunt him down would be very, very fun.

Jesus.  If you're going to snark, at least be well informed when you snark.  This just makes it obvious you aren't even fucking reading the other posts in this thread.

Sorry if that's how my post seemed to you. It wasn't my intention.

And thanks to the others who weren't offended and shared your thoughts. My take-away is that my examples were sloppy and the numerator can be zero resulting in no XP from gold, but that in the case where something minor (but non-zero) ends up defending a huge pile of loot, there's a max gain of +1 level, and also the DM is free to make exceptions or award XP in other ways if/when he likes.

My apologies for overreacting.

XP for gold is a guildeline, not an absolute.  If 2 players say "I'm going to sleep with a bag of gold tonight and he's going to steal it and tomorrow he will sleep with it and I will steal it and we'll do this until we level up", the correct response is not "The rules say X;" the correct response is "That's an asinine idea."

The spirit of the rules is ALWAYS more important than the letter.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1014494XP for gold is in no way stupid; on the contrary, it's genius. But only if you want the PCs to be assiduously obtaining gold.

Well, yeah.  If you want your PCs to clear lands, build huge expensive castles, hire armies, and fight wars to steal each others' treasure piles, it works a treat.  If you have different long term goals, you may need to rethink that.

But one other advantage it has is wandering monsters are pure pain and no reward.  That can be useful.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014553Well, yeah.  If you want your PCs to clear lands, build huge expensive castles, hire armies, and fight wars to steal each others' treasure piles, it works a treat.  If you have different long term goals, you may need to rethink that.

But one other advantage it has is wandering monsters are pure pain and no reward.  That can be useful.

I like how xp for gold in D&D encourages trickery over combat, afterall you just want the money.  That said, we never player xp for gold.  I'd like to say it was a well thought out choice, but rather I think it was just the way we learned to play and an oversight.  Once we learned about the rule, at that point it was gp are their own reward, but I think we started using the xp for magic items.  On the greater concept of leveling, you can get to high level (15th-18th) in AD&D if play 20+ hours per week, ahhh the days of junior high weekend marathon sessions; where you get through G1 and into G2 in a single weekend.

I'm of the camp xp should line up with the game you and your players are looking for.  For example, I like exploration, and most of the players as well, so I give xp for each "dungeon room" explored, on top of anything else that may yield xp.   It rewards/encourages exploration, looking for secret doors, and the like.

In the Earthdawn system, XP ("Legend Points") are awarded based on a few categories: achieving goals, conflicts and obstacles, acquiring treasure, and individual deeds and roleplaying.

Normally, "loot" is defined in Earthdawn as "stuff you took", while "treasure" is defined as "stuff you took that is worth important or magical enough to be worth Legend Points".

I've decided that large piles of Loot count as Treasure as long as the players defeated conflicts/obstacles to get it.

Quote from: Skarg;1014544in the case where something minor (but non-zero) ends up defending a huge pile of loot, there's a max gain of +1 level, and also the DM is free to make exceptions or award XP in other ways if/when he likes.

Yes, per RAW. GMing yesterday the low level PCs were incredibly lucky (& quite skilled), wiped out the orc tribe and got a lot of treasure. Per the RAW I should have capped XP at 1 under the amount needed to level twice, but that felt chintzy so I just let those in line for it (2 of the 5 PCs, a Ftr-1 and Bard-2) level twice, capping XP at the minimum for the second level.

ie I gave them +1 XP. :)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1014551If 2 players say "I'm going to sleep with a bag of gold tonight and he's going to steal it and tomorrow he will sleep with it and I will steal it and we'll do this until we level up", the correct response is not "The rules say X;" the correct response is "That's an asinine idea."

Everyone knows that instead of a bag of gold they should be stealing a hat every night which they then sell back the next day to the other guy for gold.

And they should really add in a third PC so that A steals hat from B and sells it to C. B steals hat from C and sells it to A. C steals hat from A and sells it to B. That way the transactions are arms length and thus acceptable. ;)

In my experience, if gold=xp AND killing monsters=xp, then EVEN if monsters are worth a lot less xp than gold, players will still be trying to steal all the gold they can AND kill every monster they see.