OSR/older D&D and XP from gold - is there a "proper" alternative?

[CapnZapp]

It's because it's an old thread necromancy.

Morrus has repeatedly rearranged the forum structure, giving existing forums new names and new content.

In other words, this forum probably WAS appropriate... when the thread was started. Go look at the earliest threads (in this subforum) - you'll discover they are from back in 2002(!) when neither Pathfinder nor Starfinder even existed.

 

[CapnZapp]

The nice thing about both XP for treasure and XP for defeating monsters by CR is that they're clean and objective.

The XP for goals model I prefer requires the DM to determine (or negotiate) how much total XP any given goal is worth and what percentage of that total any specific achievement represents,

Any model that "requires" the DM to do much of anything really doesn't. Just wing it. XP is not the science you might think it is. Thinking XP is "objective" is a very common fallacy.

The secret is: the heroes are the level the GM or adventure needs them to be.

Calculating XP is just one giant elaborate smokescreen to hide that truth behind math to make it seem rational or "scientific". That's not bad in itself, but where it goes wrong is if the GM believes it too.

 

[CapnZapp]

For me, the reasons why I think Gold for Exp is so alluring has more to do with the knock on effects of making attaining treasure the primary focus of play, for context the version I'm looking at for our Pathfinder 2e West Marches would involve paying to level, rather than just getting exp when you acquire gold, or when you spend it on whatever.

Just beware: Pathfinder 2 is probably the least suitable D&D clone to use (without variant rules) for classic XP for Gold adventuring goodness. That is because it is always better to spend every piece of gold on leveling up than just about any other purchase imaginable.

XP for Gold works best when leveling up doesn't give THAT large of a power-up. Or when purchasing a magic item DOES give a very large power-up. Items in PF2 are designed to give modest benefits on top of a continuously leveled character. Your level is VERY decisive, your items (except possibly striking runes) are not.

XP for Gold works best when spending 100 gold towards leveling up and spending 100 gold on a shiny new magic item grants comparable benefits. Benefits that ideally aren't THAT great, so that spending 100 gold on wine women and song doesn't feel too stupid...!

Otherwise gold becomes just another name for XP. You lose the indirect quality of the original proposal - the fact that, you know, gold isn't XP but... gold. (=Gold that buys you stuff but also levels as opposed to XP that can only buy you levels).

 

[DammitVictor]

Calculating XP is just one giant elaborate smokescreen to hide that truth behind math to make it seem rational or "scientific". That's not bad in itself, but where it goes wrong is if the GM believes it too.

Nah. If the reward structure of the game is purely arbitrary, then you might as well just use milestones or straight up Oprah leveling. Tracking experience points is a whole lot of effort if you're only going to waste that effort by discarding the benefits. The whole point of the reward structure is to encourage the players to lean into the desired gameplay experience... more than anything else, by telling them what it is.

 

[kenada]

Tracking XP isn’t really worth it in trad play, which I think is the assumption being made here. XP makes more sense in OSR or Story Now where there’s not supposed to be a “GM’s story”, and the GM’s not supposed to want the PCs to be in any particular place. The reward structure is part of the loop that creates the intended experience, so it serves a vital role.

Just beware: Pathfinder 2 is probably the least suitable D&D clone to use (without variant rules) for classic XP for Gold adventuring goodness. That is because it is always better to spend every piece of gold on leveling up than just about any other purchase imaginable.

Given the namesake of this thread, the obvious solution is to do what most OSR games do, which is base their structure on B/X rather than AD&D. B/X does not award any XP for selling magic items. It’s quite explicit about that too.

When the adventure is over, the DM gives experience points to the surviving characters. Experience points (abbreviated XP, as ep stands for electrum pieces) are given for non-magical treasure and for defeating monsters. For every 1 gp value of non-magical treasure the characters recover, the DM should give 1 XP to the party (this will be divided among all the player characters). Experience points are not given for magic items.

See also: Awarding XP in the Old-School Essentials SRD.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm not worried about that, for a few reasons, most especially that the game is dangerous enough that trying to optimize by not having items is liable to get them killed, and because treasure scales exponentially so the money you don't spend now doesn't mean much next level. On a practical basis, going on lower level adventures than you already are, is monetarily a waste of time.

I'm learning OSR adventure structure for the explicit purpose of bringing out the potential in pf2e's systems. I don't think the system is better suited for trad play, although what I'm doing is arguably a new construction of neo trad, specifically.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not worried about that, for a few reasons, most especially that the game is dangerous enough that trying to optimize by not having items is liable to get them killed, and because treasure scales exponentially so the money you don't spend now doesn't mean much next level. On a practical basis, going on lower level adventures than you already are, is monetarily a waste of time.

You need to specify which exact system you're having in mind because while all of this might be true in one version of D&D it certainly is not in all of them.

Pathfinder 2 in particular. Having run the game as written almost nothing above is applicable.

Not having items = with the possible exception of Striking runes you need no items in PF2. Items are minor boosts that does not even come close to what a level-up grants you. This in sharp contrast to 5E or 3E, games that allow you to find items powerful enough to (re)define your entire character.

Not saying this because I think one approach is better (though I certainly do); saying this because every gold piece spent on items instead of XP is a bad decision. (Unless you inflate the level-up requirements to perhaps twenty times what a level-appropriate item costs)

The money you don't spend now = for items this is an accurate observation. Not sure how you figure it fits with an XP for gold scheme though?

Lower level adventures = same assessment, same question

 

[CapnZapp]

Rereading the OP I find it slightly ironic the OP intended this thread to discuss anything BUT XP for gold...

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Wasn't asking for advice in the first place Zapp, I know the system roughly as well as its currently possible to know it. Ignoring items to level up as quickly as possible because levels are strong isn't a concern because as you level your needs in terms of wealth go up, and the gold you need to do anything increases exponentially. My adventures for this have a designated level, so leveling up for more power means taking lower pay ln the job because the purchasing power of the gold matters less.

Meanwhile, its a West Marches, players who play more have more opportunities to get wealth, while they could level as quickly as possible, they have a social incentive to have adventuring partners for content meaningful to them. Further, items can provide outlets for crisis situations, or allow them to show off more powerful builds. Even in the context of ABP, property runes, more spells per day, and various other forms of utility are rigorously useful. The threat of losing a character is likely enough, I have a retreat subsystem to facilitate "in over your head" scenarios after all.

In turn, we have gold sinks like ships and hireling crew planned and being adjusted as partial necessity.

 

[nevin]

Hello

So I'm looking into the Spiked Gobling Punch system (itself based on GLOG, itself based on older editions of D&D, a simple yet very intriguing system, esp magic) and one of the (to me) striking elements is that you don't get XP for killing monsters, but from gold. The logic is that your characters aren't going in the dungeon (or other adventurish things) to kill monsters - they are going in there to get treasure. This encourages the players to favor cunning over brawn and leads to better play. I'm given to understand that this feature is not unique to GLOG but is how it was done in older editions (I started playing with 2nd ed).

I really do agree that killing the monsters shouldn't be the objective. And I really think that cunning over brawn is good. There is no need to force battle, it will happen sooner or later anyway. Monsters as XP can really distort the game.

buuuuut

I'm kind of bothered by gold as the source of XP, because it too can distort the game! It encourages PCs stealing and hiding treasure from each other - if you palm that golf-ball-sized diamond and don't share it, you might have just gone up 2 levels. Not all adventuring should be about money. And what you learn from an adventure isn't just about the reward.

It can also lead to logic-defying situation. If two groups go into an identical barrow, and at the end of one there is a small copper bowl worth 5 gp, the party made xp... but if the other groups - having faced the same traps and the same monsters - find at the end a 50 pound bejeweled golden bowl worth 10 000 xp, they somehow learned 2 000 more than the unlucky people who found the dinky bowl? A group of hero that repels a week long zombie siege in an abandoned tower might gain nothing, while others who rob a fat merchant might bet 500 XP for a lazy heist. This isn't right.

Lastly it can put odd constrains on the GM, as the power and advancement of the heroes is now directly tied on monetary reward. If the GM wants to run some kind of gritty game with low monetary reward where the heroes are constantly poor... they won't level up. Conversly, if the party is going to find a huge sum for plot reason... probably a bad idea too.

So... what why I don't like it. What I would like to learn is if there are good alternatives that are "osr/old school appropriate" to gold as XP out there?

thanks,I played with gave ex for gold. It was experience for encounters and in my games i gave experience for completion to everyone and gave individual awards for things I thought deserved it. But

Hello

So I'm looking into the Spiked Gobling Punch system (itself based on GLOG, itself based on older editions of D&D, a simple yet very intriguing system, esp magic) and one of the (to me) striking elements is that you don't get XP for killing monsters, but from gold. The logic is that your characters aren't going in the dungeon (or other adventurish things) to kill monsters - they are going in there to get treasure. This encourages the players to favor cunning over brawn and leads to better play. I'm given to understand that this feature is not unique to GLOG but is how it was done in older editions (I started playing with 2nd ed).

I really do agree that killing the monsters shouldn't be the objective. And I really think that cunning over brawn is good. There is no need to force battle, it will happen sooner or later anyway. Monsters as XP can really distort the game.

buuuuut

I'm kind of bothered by gold as the source of XP, because it too can distort the game! It encourages PCs stealing and hiding treasure from each other - if you palm that golf-ball-sized diamond and don't share it, you might have just gone up 2 levels. Not all adventuring should be about money. And what you learn from an adventure isn't just about the reward.

It can also lead to logic-defying situation. If two groups go into an identical barrow, and at the end of one there is a small copper bowl worth 5 gp, the party made xp... but if the other groups - having faced the same traps and the same monsters - find at the end a 50 pound bejeweled golden bowl worth 10 000 xp, they somehow learned 2 000 more than the unlucky people who found the dinky bowl? A group of hero that repels a week long zombie siege in an abandoned tower might gain nothing, while others who rob a fat merchant might bet 500 XP for a lazy heist. This isn't right.

Lastly it can put odd constrains on the GM, as the power and advancement of the heroes is now directly tied on monetary reward. If the GM wants to run some kind of gritty game with low monetary reward where the heroes are constantly poor... they won't level up. Conversly, if the party is going to find a huge sum for plot reason... probably a bad idea too.

So... what why I don't like it. What I would like to learn is if there are good alternatives that are "osr/old school appropriate" to gold as XP out there?

thanks,

So in 1e you only got experince for gold or treasure if the encounter was higher kevel than the party. If they faced level appropriate encounters they didnt get exp for that.