An Older Experience System

[Votan]

A Paladin in Citadel has an interesting post on how experience points were awarded in the pre-D&D proto-RPG of Arneson. In particular:

"In the fantasy game originally played by Arneson, it was primarily through the recovery, and appropriate expenditure, of long-lost treasure hoards, that characters advanced in levels. Appropriate expenditure is a critical component for all classes, as it is only through the expenditure of gold (and the Wizard's case, both expenditure of gold for the spell-making materials, and time, in creating his spells) in ways meaningful to the character's motivations and interests that the characters can advance."


"If you have not taken note yet, let me draw something striking about this experience points system to your attention now. No experience points for monsters killed in D @ D."

I think that this approach has some advantages. One, is that it militates against the recovered treasure being used to shop for the newest and coolest magic item. To expend gold in this manner is to reduce the rate of character advancement. Two, it gives character's goals outside of their adventuring life and makes the creation of a game world a necessary part of character development. Finally, it allows the monsters to remain scary and difficult to fight (as a major goal is to avoid combat, especially if it is mostly risk with little reward).

In more recent edition of dungeons and dragons, advancement seems to be principally based on either defeating opponents or advancing the plot. However, plot advancement can reduce the options that players have and make them feel less in control of the direction of the game. On the other had, defeating monsters means that the monsters have to be relatively weak in every single combat. After all, with between 10 and 30 encounters per level, a high level character needs to be the victor of hundreds of combats. Not even the great duellists of history tended to manage that!

There is another (subtle) advantage to this approach -- high-level characters will tend to be accomplished in the world. High level wizards will run laboratories and teach apprentices because that is how they generate experience. High level clerics will have supported and developed churches. Even high level fighters will have connection to the world (perhaps as petty nobility) through their investment of their adventuring loot.

I wonder if it could be adapted to more modern versions of D&D or if it was a cool idea whose time has passed?

 

[Diamond Cross]

Actually in Basic and 1st Edition D&D they did have rules for awarding XP for treasure. I don't remember for 2nd Edition D&D. In fact, in Basic D&D they encouraged players to avoid combat for the treasure. In 1e they included it in the DMG as an optional XP award.

I think they stopped awarding XP for treasure because you often had huge amounts of treasure that would enable characters to skip levels. For example, in Basic d&D that was roughly 1xp per gp. That meant if you found a room with thousands of GP value in gold items and magic items, you could skip four or five levels.

 

[wingsandsword]

Personally, I don't like it one bit.

One of the best things that happened to later editions of D&D was getting away from the idea that finding money somehow made you inherently more powerful. Reminds me too much of hearing about how PC's jumped to 20th level in one session by buying bulk steel on Abeir-Toril and taking it via spelljamming to Krynn and trading that steel for gold ounce for ounce, then doing the math and seeing that the entire party had enough XP to jump a dozen levels or more.

Ascetic characters can never improve? I presume you could never have a Monk in this system. Do Clerics really need to spend fortunes on researching new prayers and exotic spell components just to get better? No matter how often you fight off wolves and skeletons and zombies and such you're never going to improve because they aren't carrying money? No point sparring, or engaging in target practice, just buy sharper swords and more arrows.

Just because you can afford a +5 Sword doesn't mean squat for your ability to use that sword. Having experience with using your weapon means more than the quality of your weapon.

If the real world worked like that, we wouldn't bother giving soldiers extensive training and strongly value combat experience, we'd just give new recruits cutting-edge equipment and ship them off.

 

[Votan]

Reminds me too much of hearing about how PC's jumped to 20th level in one session by buying bulk steel on Abeir-Toril and taking it via spelljamming to Krynn and trading that steel for gold ounce for ounce, then doing the math and seeing that the entire party had enough XP to jump a dozen levels or more.

I am not as familiar with Dragons at Dawn, but in AD&D did they not have a training rule that would have limited the levels gained to one (due to training requirements)?

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't like it, primarily because I don't see the gathering and spending of gold as relevant in the slightest to the game. You could very well play a game without the group ever using a single coin, and IMO, it would be a much better game than one where everyone is obsessed with finding gold.

Not to mention the system assumes that everyone is a mathematical genius and that their character has no personality flaws when it comes to gold. such as: hoarding, spendthrift, frugal, ect.

If I wanted to play a game that revolved around gold and buying and selling, I would go play the Stock Market.

 

[Henry]

It's not a new idea, it's been around since at least AD&D if not before. I can't say as I like it, because it's more incentive to lie, cheat and steal as much money and treasure as possible, as opposed to levelling by overcoming challenges and performing heroic actions. (Yeah, I'm not so much into the evil or just plain mean parties and PCs theme.)

Besides, it doesn't really stunt players spending gold for power items, unless you simply say that someone's goal CAN'T be to gain a certain item.

 

[nedjer]

Mission based is a good compromise option. Sometimes the mission rewards a rescue, sometimes a treasure is the reward and sometimes the mission demands an assassination or takedown.

 

[Philosopher]

The earlier editions of the game had the rule that you gain 1 XP for each gp of treasure gained. This is not the system Arneson used. As far as I know, Arneson awarded XP for money that was spent, not gained. This minor difference had some interesting consequences.

I just get back from an adventure in which I earned a chest full of coins. If I spend it all now (donating it to my church, researching new spells, carousing at the tavern), then I get to make use of it. The only problem is that I never have enough at any one time to spend on something grand. If I don't spend it now, I can save towards building my own castle and putting together an army. (This was a common goal back then. Power means so much more than being able to win in a fight.) The only problem is that if I don't spend the money now, it might all be stolen while I'm off on the next adventure.

While I agree that an increase in personal power simply for finding treasure makes little sense, gaining power through spending can make sense. A simple way of understanding this is by having the the PCs spend the money on training in order to gain levels. But there are other ways.

Clerics may be required (or at least strongly encouraged) to give all of the money they find (aside from a meager stipend to meet their basic needs) to their church. This is not unreasonable, given that clerics seems to be modeled on the Knights Templar, who justified their vows of poverty by having all of their possessions belong to their order rather than belonging to individual knight-monks. How would the donation to the church make the cleric more powerful? Their god would would grant a blessing to those who contribute large sums to the church. The blessing, for those who have already devoted themselves to the god (i.e., clerics), would come in the form of more granted spells.

Wizards would need to spend all of their money on researching new spells, and paying for instruction on advanced magical theory, allowing one to understand the intricacies of spells, and thereby memorize spells more efficiently (i.e., prepare more spells per day).

Fighters and rogues could spend the money on training, of course. But think to stories about Conan or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser. While they practiced their skills, one thing they often did with their money was spend it on carousing. Even this could be used to justify gaining in XP. Perhaps Lady Fortune, the patron of adventurers, smiles upon those with a devil-may-care attitude, those who live for the moment. Those who throw caution to the wind and put their faith in Lady Fortune are more likely to have a deadly blow turn into a glancing one (more hit points), have guards coincidentally distracted by something when trying to sneak by (better chance at moving silently), and so on.

I've never actually played this way myself, but it seems like it would make for a fun alternative.

 

[Verdande]

This is actually the way I run my game, and it's pretty fun. The players tend to blow their money on parties and stuff, especially since there's no "magic item economy" where players can buy +3 halberds or whatever. They're forced to host giant parties, or invest in land, or otherwise become attached to the world somehow.

It's an extremely subtle and interesting way to reward smart play, and helps make the game less about killing things and more about smart play and tactics, by information and by skill. You're rewarded exactly the same if you kill the orcs, avoid the orcs, or parley with them and scare them into giving them your treasure and becoming your hirelings. As long as you get the loot, nothing else matters.

 

[fanboy2000]

"In the fantasy game originally played by Arneson, it was primarily through the recovery, and appropriate expenditure, of long-lost treasure hoards, that characters advanced in levels."

I like this idea a lot.

Appropriate expenditure is a critical component for all classes, as it is only through the expenditure of gold (and the Wizard's case, both expenditure of gold for the spell-making materials, and time, in creating his spells) in ways meaningful to the character's motivations and interests that the characters can advance."

The only problem with this system is that the DM and the players have to trust each other. This isn't a problem for people who have known each other for a long time, but for a DM and player who just met, there could be issues.

But I like this for a few reasons.

1. It explains how characters get new abilities. The either pay for better equipment or training.

2. The appropriate expenditure requirement means the player has to balance the money needed for survival (a place to sleep, stabling fees, food) and the money necessary to become better at what you do.

3. The spending of lost treasure makes the getting of that treasure more exciting, because the character is going to sped it meaningfully.

I think this could be worked into something like D&D 4e. For example, training could cause a certain value per hour, and you have pay your trainer to go up. If you want to buy a lot of hours, you need a lot of money.

Buying well crafted weapons and equipment could be a big part of this as well. For example, your first magic weapon could take you from 2nd to 3rd.