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

This is the value of GP = XP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds very video game-y to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few thoughts.

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

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

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

That sounds very video game-y to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sounds very video game-y to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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