D&D General Experience Points & Leveling: A Brief Primer on XP in the 1e DMG, and Why It Still Matters

[Charlaquin]

I can't find where this was (I keep thinking it was in Mongoose's Conan d20 game, but I'm not able to confirm that), but I distinctly recall seeing an RPG where you received XP for GP, but only for GP that you spent. Furthermore, it had to be spent on inconsequential things, rather than stuff that had game mechanics.

So for example, if you spent 15 gp on a new longsword, then you gained 0 XP. But if you spent 50 gp on ale and whores, you gained 50 XP for that. The idea was that this kept driving the PCs to go adventuring for gold (rather than murderhoboing) and then immediately spend what they recovered so that they'd have to keep doing it. It was a great mechanic.

That’s awesome. I might use it if I run a sword and sorcery campaign.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, this is a pleasant side effect of having training in the game. That said, my training costs aren't quite as extreme as the originals you're referencing.

Yeah, I reference that costs between 150 GP/level and 300 GP/level actually aligns expected gold with training costs such that training will basically suck up right around 100% of treasure table treasure. Oddly enough, this casts 4e's 'fixed treasure per level' in a whole new light! In effect classic D&D is taking away 100% of the expected treasure, and leaving PCs with ONLY the residuals, which is whatever 'bonus' or 'adventure' treasure the DM is choosing to place. 4e is kind of doing the opposite, just assuming that there isn't really 'bonus' treasure at all, and you keep what you get, but probably have to spend it on consumables, rituals, and extra gear anyway (since it doesn't specify any other costs that is pretty much the only option, aside from 'story uses').

 

[Lanefan]

Because rewarding PCs for killing things or subduing them encourages PCs to go round looking to kill things or subdue them.

There is so much wrong with the way XP used to work.

Levelling up classes differently - eughhh

What's wrong with classes advancing at different rates? It's a hella fine balancing mechanism, why not use it?

Awarding XP to different plays differently - Oh lord no.

This doesn't parse - are you referring to the roleplaying bonus, or to the idea of individual xp in general, or ?

Xp for treasure - Wow, wealth as a synonym for power isn’t my idea of a heroic theme.

In real life I'd agree, but default D&D is modelling a different type of reality where wealth largely is power.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Because rewarding PCs for killing things or subduing them encourages PCs to go round looking to kill things or subdue them.

There is so much wrong with the way XP used to work.

Levelling up classes differently - eughhh

Awarding XP to different plays differently - Oh lord no.

Forcing players to start at lower levels when they die - Not on my life.

Xp for treasure - Wow, wealth as a synonym for power isn’t my idea of a heroic theme.

Shrug, your bug, my feature. different xp tables based on class was a balancing mechanism, so making all classes use the same table but changing nothing else? That would cause even more problems with how PCs were balanced.

Zero to hero is also a feature for me, not a bug. And it fits the living world preference I have.

that being said, xp rules in 1e were all over the place. Many of the reasons have already been given. It's pretty odd that you could look at XP values for monsters, look at the table that told you how to assign xp for monsters, and realize that the math almost never added up. shrug

As someone who played 1e as my go-to game from 1981 to 2012, I think somewhere around 1983 we ignored the training time frame requirements and costs (even though we understood that gold was meant to be spent, and that's a way to do it). We allowed leveling up when you got enough XP and there was a good break in the game to do so.

I am very much a fan of xp for treasure over monsters, because it fosters a more creative style of play. if most of your xp comes from monsters, then every encounter will be treated like you have to fight it. That gets boring and repetitive. By contrast, if you get most xp for treasure and mission accomplishment, and encounters have a high risk (which they did in 1e compared to later editions), it encouraged more creative ways to get past the monsters other than fighting them.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I reference that costs between 150 GP/level and 300 GP/level actually aligns expected gold with training costs such that training will basically suck up right around 100% of treasure table treasure. Oddly enough, this casts 4e's 'fixed treasure per level' in a whole new light! In effect classic D&D is taking away 100% of the expected treasure, and leaving PCs with ONLY the residuals, which is whatever 'bonus' or 'adventure' treasure the DM is choosing to place. 4e is kind of doing the opposite, just assuming that there isn't really 'bonus' treasure at all, and you keep what you get, but probably have to spend it on consumables, rituals, and extra gear anyway (since it doesn't specify any other costs that is pretty much the only option, aside from 'story uses').

My usual guideline is 1000 g.p. per level being trained into (thus, training for 7th would run about 7000); but I'm also not running those stingy Scrooge-like 5e modules that you are.

 

[TheSword]

What's wrong with classes advancing at different rates? It's a hella fine balancing mechanism, why not use it?

If you can arbitrarily balance classes with XP that means you’ve ascribed them a value. Use this value to instead balance the classes without it.

This doesn't parse - are you referring to the roleplaying bonus, or to the idea of individual xp in general, or ?

Should say different ‘players’. Ie. player A does more so gets more XP.

In real life I'd agree, but default D&D is modelling a different type of reality where wealth largely is power.

Nah. In D&D, power is power.

 

[TheSword]

Shrug, your bug, my feature. different xp tables based on class was a balancing mechanism, so making all classes use the same table but changing nothing else? That would cause even more problems with how PCs were balanced.

Zero to hero is also a feature for me, not a bug. And it fits the living world preference I have.

that being said, xp rules in 1e were all over the place. Many of the reasons have already been given. It's pretty odd that you could look at XP values for monsters, look at the table that told you how to assign xp for monsters, and realize that the math almost never added up. shrug

As someone who played 1e as my go-to game from 1981 to 2012, I think somewhere around 1983 we ignored the training time frame requirements and costs (even though we understood that gold was meant to be spent, and that's a way to do it). We allowed leveling up when you got enough XP and there was a good break in the game to do so.

I am very much a fan of xp for treasure over monsters, because it fosters a more creative style of play. if most of your xp comes from monsters, then every encounter will be treated like you have to fight it. That gets boring and repetitive. By contrast, if you get most xp for treasure and mission accomplishment, and encounters have a high risk (which they did in 1e compared to later editions), it encouraged more creative ways to get past the monsters other than fighting them.

Is every D&D game not zero to hero?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is very D&D game not zero to hero?

No.

 

[TheSword]

No.

Just out of interest which isn’t?

 

[Charlaquin]

Just out of interest which isn’t?

Games that start above 1st level. Also 4e was less zero to hero and more hero to demigod.