hawkeyefan
Legend
When you put it that way, it's amazing we spent so many hrs playing it!
And, typically only one character...
I can see how some table take a fair play message from encounter guidelines - and, hey, its not a dysfunctional style of play for the DM to essentially assemble foes for the party like building an army in a wargame, then playing that side intelligently, to win.
That's the sense I was going for....
Yes, I do find that idea compelling. It was just 1e treasure for XP as an example that threw me.
And, while I argued that the WotC eds have implemented some sub-systems that move the game towards more non-combat challenges, I have to acknowledge that none ever really succeeded. Skill Challenges were probably the closest, but they were still more abstract, and faster/less engaging than combat, unless the DM stepped up and elaborated on them to a degree that the game didn't tend to encourage.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that XP for GP was a solution. Just that it at least offered something for those who didn't fight their way to the treasure. Later editions certainly got other things right (skill systems, etc.) but got other things wrong.
I think the flatter math of 5E should have also been applied to XP. No need for hundreds and thousands of XP. Have each instance of a certain action grant an XP. Make them class and perhaps race and alignment specific. And it'd probably have been a good idea to connect the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws to the system, too. Limit how much XP a player can get for any individual action. If a Fighter can only gain XP twice for combat in any given session, he's not incentivized to resolve every challenge with a fight. Each PC would have very specific play goals, and could actively and clearly work toward obtaining those goals.
You'd have to couple this with other things, though. You'd have to make non-combat action resolution more engaging than:
Player: I try to sneak past the guards.
DM: Okay, make a Dex-Stealth roll.
Player: I got a 7.
DM: Not good enough. The guard sees you and charges.
This just doesn't really compare to the depth of combat in the game. I think that you'd need to increase the depth of non-combat actions and encounters. I also think that speeding up combat a bit would also help. Obviously, every table will have preferences, so you have to leave it adjustable, but I think that generally speaking, that's the route they should have gone if they wanted the game to genuinely be about 3 pillars rather than 1 pillar and a pair of support beams.