GP=XP

[squeen]

Just laying down a thread-marker here over to the great discussion going on in the comments on The Temple of the Blood Moth review (for future reference).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

DP disturbs more shit - News at 11.

 

[squeen]

@DP: I for one am thankful that you stir it up. I think we all enjoy hashing things out, but often sit silent out of fear or complacency. It's just tough (on you) that you frequently are arguing a "nouveau/alternate D&D" viewpoint without much support. I am sure you are not actually alone in your thinking, but "that crowd" must mainly hang elsewhere (or are afraid to speak up).

If it's any consolation, Bryce is actively courting the 5e folks with a good selection of his recent reviews. He's being inclusive (without coddling) and that's a good thing.

Please note, I'm trying not to pre-judge you, or pidgin-hole your play-style---honestly I can't without directly experiencing it. I'm pretty sure that no two DM's are alike and never have been in the history of the hobby. There was never One True D&D.

Because Bryce keeps putting himself out there---loudly and consistently proclaiming his beliefs on good advanture deisgn to the world---we are able to have these kinds of discussions. They reveal and clarify our thoughts, even if it doesn't budge anyone's opinion about what they like. I've learned a ton. DMing can be a bit of a secret society---despite all the material that's been published. It nice to get a glimpse into other folk's methods since most folks are bending the rules a bit (or a lot).

Hang in there. Us "fossils" will eventually fade away (and the OSR probably too)---then you can have the final word.

Cheers.

 

[Slick]

Hang in there. Us "fossils" will eventually fade away (and the OSR probably too)---then you can have the final word.

Maybe so, maybe no. I'm at Gencon and a pretty decent number of guys in my old-school games are other 20-somethings. The playstyle has appeal beyond nostalgia.

 

[squeen]

Maybe so, maybe no. I'm at Gencon and a pretty decent number of guys in my old-school games are other 20-somethings. The playstyle has appeal beyond nostalgia.

That is music to my ears.

Nice causal 'I'm at Gencon...'.
Lucky dog.

 

[Beoric]

Nuts, I missed that comments conversation at the time, I would have liked to have contributed.

We stopped using GP=XP decades ago, when we were still playing 1e, because as teenagers we were all about the simulation. We also played Rolemaster from time to time, so what the hell did we know.
I have actually come back to GP=XP even though it is harder to implement in 4e for a number of reasons.

• My players are very XP motivated. I started to find that combat=XP was actively discouraging non-combat solutions to problems.
  
  
• GP=XP Combat=XP is only simulationist when you don’t have a skill system. When you are also improving skills, it makes no sense to better at, for example, History because you are engaging in lots of combat.
  
  
• I have never seen a good system for awarding XPs for skill use, or for any other out-of-combat activities. 4e’s skill challenges, for example, are an abject failure at this.
  
  
• Because of this, I started looking for a way to award XPs for the whole suite of activities that adventurers can engage in, without trying to calculate XPs for each action. This led me to look at awarding XPs for goal achievement, so that they got the same amount of XPs for achieving a goal regardless of what combination of combat, strategy, skills, other resources and ingenuity they brought to the table. The assumption is that if they achieve a goal they have learned something.
  
  
• A lot of DMs would equate this to milestones=XP. The difference, at least for me, is milestones are often DM set, which doesn’t fit with my playstyle. Most of the time I would rather reward the players for achieving goals they set for themselves. Also, I really don’t like milestone levelling. As a player and a DM, I prefer to receive XPs incrementally, for the smaller steps I take along the way. I like the anticipation of inching closer to the next level. I am never satisfied when a DM just announces I have gained a level.
  
  
• For my players, most of the time the acquisition of treasure is a significant goal even if it isn’t the only goal in a given encounter. So most of the time, GP=XP is a decent proxy for achieving goals.
  
  
• I am flexible enough to vary the method of awarding XP when there is an obvious measure of progress that is not treasure related – like crossing a bridge or gateway that is guarded, for instance. But most of the time, treasure is as good a proxy as any.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

• Because of this, I started looking for a way to award XPs for the whole suite of activities that adventurers can engage in, without trying to calculate XPs for each action. This led me to look at awarding XPs for goal achievement, so that they got the same amount of XPs for achieving a goal regardless of what combination of combat, strategy, skills, other resources and ingenuity they brought to the table. The assumption is that if they achieve a goal they have learned something.

I'm in the same boat here. While combat encounters do award XP in my games, I also tend a lot of arbitrary XP awards for little accomplishments here and there. Successfully negotiated their way into a locked down quarantined city? 100 XP. Found and destroyed a stockpile of kuo-toa siege weapons? 250XP. Turned two enemy generals against each other to cause havoc in the enemy's ranks? 500XP. And so on.

My players seem contented with it, when there's a clear connection between finishing some kind of objective and getting XP for it, then they're less likely to think about how to kill a beast, and more likely to consider how they can use the encounter with this beast to accomplish some kind of goal at the same time (can they use the severed dragon head to intimidate the goblin tribes? can they steer this blob over to those gnolls? can they recruit these hillfolk to fight in the upcoming coup-d'état?).

 

[TerribleSorcery]

Wow! Just circled back to the conversation in the review thread. Although I am a more or less "Reformed Church of GP=XP" guy, I found lots of good points all round. Really good read.

 

[WrongOnTheInternet]

All of the below is assuming a sandbox or otherwise player-driven game.

Money=XP, all other things considered, is useful for players setting goals, in a way Murder=XP or Many Things=XP (rewards for combat, adventure completion, exploration) isn't. If I know there's a dragon hoard nearby, or a fleet led by a pirate queen, or the richest merchant in the land, then I can decide who to go after and balance risk/reward. Provided the adventure hooks are there to be found, I have a good idea of what adventure offers what reward, and how to go about getting that reward.

Murder=XP limits the kind of adventures you can have (I'm not fighting a dragon or taking on a pirate fleet at level 1) and the way you approach adventures. The limitations are so commonly known that lots of groups award the same XP for bypassing fights, but the assumption for "bypassing fights" has its own issues.

Many Things=XP (what DP is calling XP=XP) isn't awful, but it can and often does obscure the reward in an adventure. Unless you're stating up front the sort of things you award XP for in this format, and the amount that gets awarded, you'd usually be better off with levels for nothing.

Milestone leveling (in the sense of players accomplish a certain thing/plot point = level) is poison for a sandbox game. It only makes sense in the context of an adventure path or other somewhat railroady game style. I suspect DP may be advocating Levels for Nothing.

Levels for nothing is the absence of levels as a reward, turning them into an expected progression. The group plays three sessions, they level (or something equivalent). There isn't really anything wrong with this kind of play; but it can leave players feeling rudderless at times, since it gets rid of one of the more useful player motivating reward mechanics.

 

[Beoric]

Money=XP, all other things considered, is useful for players setting goals, in a way Murder=XP or Many Things=XP (rewards for combat, adventure completion, exploration) isn't.

Only true if the players want to use the acquisition of gold as their exclusive objective. If they want to do other things, and get credit for it, then you need to use some other system. As long as it is a system - the XP available needs to be predictable to the players in order to make risk assessments.

Where I use something other than GP as a proxy, I do so predictably. For example, I know what XP would be available for orcs guarding treasure. If the objective is something else, say, recovering intelligence of the orcs' battle plan, and an equivalent group of orcs is guarding it, I just assign the recovery of the battle plan the same XPs as I would if it was treasure instead. It is the same as saying the general will pay GP for the battle plan, without requiring the actual exchange of gold. And sometimes the exchange of gold is not realistic; if the objective is to cross a bridge, nobody is going to pay for that.

Like I said above, I don't do this often (usually the reward for crossing the bridge is access to the dungeon, and the GP it contains, on the other side). But why would I remove this tool from my arsenal? Especially since my players often set goals that have nothing to do with GP. At that point, the presumptions that underpin GP=XP have broken down, and if I don't find another way to award XP, then I am punishing their choice to pursue other goals. And then my "sandbox" is just a different kind of railroad.

 

[WrongOnTheInternet]

Only true if the players want to use the acquisition of gold as their exclusive objective. If they want to do other things, and get credit for it, then you need to use some other system. As long as it is a system - the XP available needs to be predictable to the players in order to make risk assessments.

I basically agree with the transparent systems being equally viable. I tend not to use adventure rewards because they require just that much extra work to throw together, when the treasure reward is already right there in most cases. This probably wasn't clear in my original post, but I consider the downside of Many Things=XP to be the obscuring effect when it's done without suggestion of reward potential or size.

There's nothing wrong with layering in a few rewards not strictly tied to a system. Muder=XP as a consolation prize in Money=XP games, where you were getting about 10% of your XP from combat and the rest from treasure comes to mind. My post was mainly about those experience systems in isolation from each other.

 

[squeen]

I would like to suggest that if your players are pursuing their own non-monetary goals (and achieving them), then that is reward enough without XP. (...and signs of a healthy campaign!).

High-level play is complicated. There should not be a requirement to have a constant and steady progression upwards.

 

[gandalf_scion]

There should not be a requirement to have a constant and steady progression upwards.

Ah, the timeless lamentation of many bureaucrats across the globe. Again we see that art mimics life.

 

[squeen]

Gandalf_scion, you wound me!

Let me amend that,

There should not be a requirement to have a constant and steady progression upwards in PC levels.

Seriously though, levels are not the only measure of player success. Too many abilities and they exit the realm of human and become super-human---potentially losing their place in a wider (and more mundane) world. They must delve farther, deeper, and well off the normal planes of existance to be challenged. It becomes a very different game---no need to rush there. If you postulate the need to level-up after each adventure (or 2), then (with GP=XP) the treasure hordes become mindbogglingly huge.

In my game, GP=XP, but my players twice chose to walk away from an unwieldy hall because it was too difficult to transport and backtracking got in the way of their self-driven agenda. (They of course thought it would be there when they came back later...)

Players can instead gain influence, allies, wondrous items (with inherent checks-and-balances that make them temporary or a double-edge sword to use), knowledge, etc. which can result in an equally satisfying sense of progression.

 

[gandalf_scion]

All true. We might then think of levels as a convenient shoe horn to get new comers into the right fit (frame of mind). After that, it's up to the referee and players to define "progress" in a way that fits their game. Allies, wondrous items, knowledge and others can deliver a sense of progression.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

All of the below is assuming a sandbox or otherwise player-driven game.

Money=XP, all other things considered, is useful for players setting goals, in a way Murder=XP or Many Things=XP (rewards for combat, adventure completion, exploration) isn't. If I know there's a dragon hoard nearby, or a fleet led by a pirate queen, or the richest merchant in the land, then I can decide who to go after and balance risk/reward. Provided the adventure hooks are there to be found, I have a good idea of what adventure offers what reward, and how to go about getting that reward.

Murder=XP limits the kind of adventures you can have (I'm not fighting a dragon or taking on a pirate fleet at level 1) and the way you approach adventures. The limitations are so commonly known that lots of groups award the same XP for bypassing fights, but the assumption for "bypassing fights" has its own issues.

I'd like to hear how you came to that conclusion, because as I see it, you have it reversed. GP=XP I see as less useful for setting goals, because the players goals all become profit-driven.

Also, how can the party possibly know what treasure is involved in, say, figuring out who is haunting Farmer McGregor's field at night, or killing the giant feral hound that's eating village children? GP=XP party has zero motivation to look into that - Farmer McGregor is probably a broke peasant, and feral hounds aren't know to carry around gold and magic items. The party doesn't initially know they'll be rewarded with the Family Ancestral Sword, or that the feral hound has a potion merchant trapped in his den. They'll never know, because they aren't motivated to do the adventure.

Murder whodunnit? Nope, no money there, not interested. Tomb of Horrors? Nah, I heard there's not a lot of treasure to be had there. Why explore that dangerous old crypt when there's a dragon horde in the other direction with more money and only one real obstacle? And so on. Whereas if the party knows I award XP for completing significant events, then they're going to latch onto events, regardless of the financial gain to be had. If the party gets XP for killing monsters, they're going to hunt that feral hound to the ends of the earth and scour the Tomb of Horrors of all life.

Many Things=XP (what DP is calling XP=XP) isn't awful, but it can and often does obscure the reward in an adventure. Unless you're stating up front the sort of things you award XP for in this format, and the amount that gets awarded, you'd usually be better off with levels for nothing.

Milestone leveling (in the sense of players accomplish a certain thing/plot point = level) is poison for a sandbox game. It only makes sense in the context of an adventure path or other somewhat railroady game style. I suspect DP may be advocating Levels for Nothing.

Levels for nothing is the absence of levels as a reward, turning them into an expected progression. The group plays three sessions, they level (or something equivalent). There isn't really anything wrong with this kind of play; but it can leave players feeling rudderless at times, since it gets rid of one of the more useful player motivating reward mechanics.

You seem to be putting words in my mouth. What you think I call 'levels for nothing" is not at all what I'd advocate. levels for nothing implies... doing nothing. XP is given for accomplishments in a milestone system. The party has to solve the murder, or stop the bad guy, or rescue the princess, or whatever. That's not nothing; that's levels for adventuring... kinda the whole point of the game, really.

There's no expected progression because only I, the DM, knows when and how XP is going to be awarded, much like how only I know where all the gold is stashed if I were running GP=XP. The player's aren't privy to that - all they know is they'll see a goal and likely improve their characters if they accomplish goals with them.

In GP=XP, the finish line is GP. Guess you'll never meet a level 15 Druid who isn't a millionaire, or find a Level 12 Fighter who couldn't just hire an army to do the fighting for him.

In XP=XP, the finish line is undergoing the experience (hint - they are called "Experience points"). A level 15 Druid has seen some shit; he didn't just come across a treasure vault and suddenly gain new spells and abilities. A level 12 Fighter has wrestled with some serious foes; he didn't kill a single foe who happened to be fabulously wealthy.

 

[EOTB]

GP=XP I see as less useful for setting goals, because the players goals all become profit-driven.

It isn't profit driven per se; GP=XP makes the power gain explicit. The thematic dissonance in giving out XP for unraveling the mystery of farmer Guilden's haunted mirror without other reward is that if the players expect power increase for doing an altruistic service to farmer Guilden then they are asking for power and rewards instead of altruism. If power and rewards are what they truly want, then they shouldn't find increasing their resources distasteful. Likewise, if they want to help farmer Guilden that's fantastic - they shouldn't be discouraged for doing so, but then an amazingly fun game session within their current level of power that doesn't really increase that level of power should likewise be its own reward.

We play for the fun game sessions and not the levels, right?

Raking in massive amounts of resources into a PCs possession can also easily be altruistic. There's no rule that states such resources must be retained to the party or for their benefit after securing the resources. The grand druid assuredly took all that money gained over time and put it to good use in the communities they interacted with; the level 12 fighter probably should have a small army under their command as it is the pinnacle goal of the profession. They can then use that army to bring about the world view espoused and further their influence in the world at large. Any character that desires to help knows they need something to help others with. Their sword arm or spellcasting can't be everywhere at once, and to limit their reach to the length of their arm is to withhold the help they could bring to everywhere they are not.

I tell players all the time that they don't need to gain levels, and that focusing on levels is the opposite of a distaste for resources=power; it is a request that their desire is hidden in pretense.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

This might be just me, but I'd rather DM for a party that's altruistic because they want to level up, rather than for a party who refuses any quest that doesn't pay out money.

Then you can say "well sometimes parties want to do good, and aren't motivated by gold", to which I say "sometimes parties want to do anything, and aren't motivated by XP" - equally plausible. The nice thing about GP=/=XP is that players can be motivated by two things: gold OR experience. It's not like money has no use outside a GP=XP game...

 

[EOTB]

If the "altruistic" party won't take that no-gold quest without XP awarded by other means, then there's no difference in their motivation. It's all superficial; making the reward implicit rather than explicit. But it's still "I undertake 'X' for reward and not otherwise" on the part of the player. I'm all for heroic altruistic play, but then the experience around the table is going to truly be its own reward. But I am admittedly turned off as a DM by players who want the image of altruism combined with the Bismarkian real-politik of "but of course in exchange for more power as the game defines it". And I do make the cognitive dissonance between those conflicting positions clear at the table. No cheap "good" to be had IMC; good is the path of least reward for the greatest satisfaction in the doing; but with the soft advantage of respect and admiration wherever they're known. This is exactly why most are neutral - they are primarily interested in doing works for their own gain.

It's not exactly coinage=XP; it's value=XP. Perhaps their quest gains them some favor afterward that has value without a chest of coins exchanging hands; or the right to take goods into a town without an excise tax for a period of time; or service pledged for a period of time; or a claim granted to some hex of undeveloped land, somewhere. DMs can be creative within the gold=xp paradigm.

 

[squeen]

I play straight-up 0e/1e in terms of XP awards, but even there the 1e DMG (as pointed out here recently) grants the DM a wide berth with regards to XP multipliers (and divisors) for outstanding (or poor) play.

In a few places in my written campaign world, I have noted that certain difficult-but-altruistic actions might deserve an XP "grant". However, if the players don't know this advance---and its rare enough not to be expected---I don't think that introduces harm into the XP motivational equation. I think it's equivalent to just bumping up the multiplier.

Incidentally, thumbs way-up EOTB. For inserting "Bismarkian real-politik" into a forum conversation, I would award you an XP bonus without question.