Tony Vargas
Legend
D&D grew out of a wargame, yeah, it's about killing stuff, or, at least, winning battles. The /very/ first version of D&D, itself, gave a lot of exp for killing monsters, that was changed quite early on, in Greyhawk (the 0D&D booklet, not the setting).
In 1e, yeah, you /could/ get a lot more exp for treasure than for killing monsters, depending on the treasure types of the monsters and how the DM ran things, but you got less exp for magical treasure relative to it's putative value. (My personal recollection is that exp-for-gold was one of the many things that consistently drew a lot of criticism. In contrast, for instance, RuneQuest characters didn't gain exp and levels, they improves specific skills by actually using them.)
In 2e, exp for treasure was optional.
In 3.0, it was gone.
It hasn't come back, AFAIK.
Morale checks, OTOH, were very much a part of the wargame heritage - winning a battle rarely means killing /everyone/ on the other side!
Getting experience for killing enemies was standard in 1e. I recall DMs having variations on that - I know I did (1/2 exp for avoiding a monster, 1/4 for repeating it, the balance for killing it, if you ever got around to it). 2e and 3e had suggestions for rewarding exp for dealing with potential enemies in other ways, and for awards for other objectives, including 'story awards' for accomplishing objectives. In 4e, you could earn the same experience for completing a Skill Challenge as fighting an Encounter, and could gain the same exp for defeating, bypassing, or otherwise coping with an enemy rather than killing it. 5e is back to the 2e/3e model, AFAIK.
Anyway, I don't see the picture of rising dedication to violence that blogger does. I think he's just polishing his rose colored glasses.
In 1e, yeah, you /could/ get a lot more exp for treasure than for killing monsters, depending on the treasure types of the monsters and how the DM ran things, but you got less exp for magical treasure relative to it's putative value. (My personal recollection is that exp-for-gold was one of the many things that consistently drew a lot of criticism. In contrast, for instance, RuneQuest characters didn't gain exp and levels, they improves specific skills by actually using them.)
In 2e, exp for treasure was optional.
In 3.0, it was gone.
It hasn't come back, AFAIK.
Morale checks, OTOH, were very much a part of the wargame heritage - winning a battle rarely means killing /everyone/ on the other side!
Getting experience for killing enemies was standard in 1e. I recall DMs having variations on that - I know I did (1/2 exp for avoiding a monster, 1/4 for repeating it, the balance for killing it, if you ever got around to it). 2e and 3e had suggestions for rewarding exp for dealing with potential enemies in other ways, and for awards for other objectives, including 'story awards' for accomplishing objectives. In 4e, you could earn the same experience for completing a Skill Challenge as fighting an Encounter, and could gain the same exp for defeating, bypassing, or otherwise coping with an enemy rather than killing it. 5e is back to the 2e/3e model, AFAIK.
Anyway, I don't see the picture of rising dedication to violence that blogger does. I think he's just polishing his rose colored glasses.