An Older Experience System

[delericho]

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.

Surely that's no more absurd than the notion that fighting orcs somehow makes you better at picking locks?

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.

Firstly: the DM allowed this because...? (If it was so easy to set up such a trade, everyone would have done it. If it's not easy, the DM should be assigning appropriate challenges, and those 1st level PCs are unlikely to be able to face off against the obligatory pirates/dragons/agents of Takhisis.)

Secondly: in 2nd Edition, not only was XP-for-treasure optional (and, indeed, not recommended), but the DMG also explicitly stated that PCs could not gain more than one level at a time. (I can't comment on 1st Edition, but Spelljammer was a 2nd Ed setting.)

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.

The beauty of the Arneson system (as opposed to BD&D XP-for-treasure) is that you gain XP only on money spent in achieving your goals, not just for getting the treasure, nor for spending it on that +5 sword. In fact, buying that +5 sword slows your progression, because all that gold has now not been spent on buying XP.

There is a certain heroic logic to the system: if we assume that heroes feed off the reverence of the masses (in the same way that some settings have the power of a deity dependent on their number of followers), then it makes sense that by spending their money on temple donations/having statues to their glory put up/hosting a major party for the great and good/hiring minstrels to sing their praises, the characters could become the major heroes they want to be.

Of course, that does make the PCs into their setting's equivalent of Britney Spears: they're gaining prestige off the power of marketting, and not because of any actual quality.

 

[delericho]

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.

If I were going to adopt such a system (and, actually, I'm planning on doing so), I would probably adopt the following rewards scheme.

1) XP-for-gold. At the end of the adventure, PCs can trade their gold for XP. This can be handwaved as temple donations, gifts for luminaries, hiring minstrels, or whatever, but the key is that the gold is spent on XP, and not on equipment. The rate would be 1 gp = 1 XP. I would also include a rule that gold cannot be 'banked' between adventures and spent on XP later - fame is a transitory thing, and so must be constantly fed. (This also prevents the players banking gol until they have enough to jump a level... and still having the gold available in the meantime in case of crisis.)

(I'm also probably going to a silver economy, so replace gp with sp above. Also, being evil, I intend to introduce a built in 'drain' on PC money reserves between adventures - if they don't spend it promptly, they may lose it (to thieves, to living the rock'n'roll lifestyle of the professional adventurer without heed to the cost, to being taken advantage of, or whatever.)

2) Some items, such as artworks, tapestries and the like can be donated directly to appropriate buyers (of course, it's up to the PCs to find "appropriate buyers"). In this case, they don't have to fence the items (and so get 20% of full value), but instead can convert the items directly to XP at full value.

3) The sandbox will include a number of "specified events". For example, "climb Mount Everest", "find the lost continent of Atlantis", "slay the great dragon Smaug", and so on. Each of these will give a stated XP award directly, but only to the first group to achieve the task. (It should be noted, therefore, that some monsters do grant XP. But it's only famous 'named' monsters, and not just any random orcs.)

4) If the PCs establish a stronghold (temple, castle, tower, thieves' guild), then they may claim XP for the final value of the stronghold (not necessarily the same as the cost to build). They gain no further XP for keeping it running, of course, and if they later sell it/lose it/see it destroyed, they can gain no further XP until they either rebuild or pay off the "XP debt". One additional advantage of a stronghold: PCs can then count themselves as "appropriate buyers" as in #2 above by adding treasures to their homes. (Of course, the same notes about then selling/losing the items apply to those too!)

5) If the PCs become prominent in local organisations, hold political or noble ranks, or otherwise become pillars of the community (or notorious crime bosses), that's worth XP.

6) I like your idea about crafting items, but I would suggest that merely crafting the item isn't enough - but if it's used in some great deed ("this is the sword that slew Ashardalon") then that should net the creator some XP.

Of course, PCs cannot gain XP anonymously under this system. They may elect to operate under assumed identities (Batman or Zorro, for example), but their persona will inevitably have some fame/infamy/notoriety. I'm sure a cunning DM can think of all sorts of ways to use that little wrinkle...

 

[Henry]

A couple of points:

It's a subtle distinction, but I don't see a real difference, unless the DM is dictating what expenditures are "appropriate." In that case, must all Fighters and Thieves spend treasure on training and carousing? What about establishing a school? What about funding a "Pathfinder Society" of sorts for the advancement of safety and knowledge of travelers in the dangerous wilds? What if the Wizard wants to spend it on research for a Staff of the Magi (or other most power item the DM will let him research or create)? Or, what if the Wizard wants to fund the Gladiator Academy in memory of his fallen sister, or the Fighter wants to research the Cauldron of Arawn to raise his long-dead great-grandfather?

It's an interesting idea, don't get me wrong, but it seems too restrictive to me to dictate what's right to spend the money on, and it doesn't seem to work well if you DO let your player pick what's appropriate.

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...

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...

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...

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

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Interesting idea, this expernditure vs. recovery of treasure for XP.

IIRC, B/X (and maybe 1E) had the rule that essentially you could only gain 1.5 levels at a time (the recommendation was that gaining XP to put you ahead two levels would instead place you at no more than the midpoint to the second level, and likewise for level drain). Collecting treasure only meant that eventually mid-level characters had piles of money they didn't use, while the exponential XP progressions ensured that level loss was even more greatly feared.

So perhaps requiring expenditure on anything non-material that might enhance one's reputation or training might work? So no +3 swords, but spell research, or a big party, or sponsoring gladitorial games all translate to equal XP for gold (silver).

Then if I decide to spend gold and adventure as my Batman alter-ego, does Batman gain XP, but my base character does not? I think that could be fun -- one character, multiple alter-egoes with different character classes, different levels in each based on their "notoriety". In this case of course skill isn't directly proportional to level ... you appear to be much more dangerous and effective not because you are, but because your reputation says you are.

I like it.

 

[Celebrim]

There are artifacts of the Arneson system to be found in a close reading of 1e AD&D. In particular, it's worth noting that in 1e AD&D, characters did not gain levels as a result of gaining XP. All that gaining XP did was give you the right to gain a level. But it was actually the between session training that caused you to gain a level, and this training cost money and was assumed to be one of the most considerable drains on the players funds. One way to demonstrate that was that by the rules, it was not possible to gain more than one levels XP at a time. If you gained enough XP to gain more than one level prior to training, all the excess XP was lost. You couldnn't actually gain enough XP to go up two levels (much less 19) regardless of what you did.

Gygax addresses the strengths and problems of this approach directly. He notes that it would be concievably possible and perhaps realistic to just level up by spending all of your time training (presumably that's what most leveled NPC's do). But he notes that this would make for a boring game. The problem with Arneson's system is that strictly speaking, the adventure because non-essential. So long as you provide yourself with a steady source of funds, you can spend the profits of your endeavors on your training and advancement and never 'adventure' again. So the Gygax system of awarding XP for treasure earned in the course of an adventure and gaining levels as the result of purchasing training is a comprimise with the Arneson system because it encourages you to actually go into the dungeon and adventure.

It's important to note then that several people on the thread have complained about problems that didn't exist. You couldn't gain levels by engaging in mere merchantile transactions. Money earned from a business venture didn't provide XP. Likewise, no matter how much money you pulled out of the dungeon, you couldn't level from 1st to 20th instantly. If a 1st level thief pulls a 1600 gp out of the dungeon, he's only eligible for 2nd level and if he pulls a 100,000 gp gem out of the dungeon (theoretically possible at 1st level) he's still only eligible for 2nd level. All the extra XP is lost. Likewise, after pulling the gem out of the dungeon, he doesn't instantly become 2nd level. Rather, he spends several weeks consolidating the lessons of his adventure and practicing his skills under the tutiledge of a higher level thief, and its this experience (not the abstract XP) that is actually responcible for his obtaining the higher level.

However, very early in my D&D career, I dropped the Gygax model. And in particular, I dropped its most realistic feature - that you could only advance in skill as a result of extensive, expensive and time consuming training. Instead, I kept only the XP awarded for treasure found in the course of the adventure. I did this despite the fact that at the time my biggest problem with the D&D system was I didn't feel it was 'realistic' enough. The reason was I felt that the Gygax model too tightly constrained the adventures I wanted to write. It was a fine model for a mega-dungeon nearby to a town so that at the end of every session you could end up back in town. But very early on I wanted to run exploration adventures where the PC's would spend months or even years of time before turning around and heading back to civilization. Under the Gygax rules, the entire time spent journeying in the howling wilderness only qualified you to advance a single level and the majority of the players efforts and experiences would not be rewarded. The Arneson rules have the same problem. I wanted to tell stories where there was no gaurantee that there would be a place to spend the money, and certainly not on a regular and scheduled basis. It was in effect, all dungeon and no haven.

My only real interest in a system is in story emulation. If it lets me tell stories in the style I want to tell, I'm happy with it and I'll happily pass over the problems resulting from taking the system's abstractions too concretely. Ok, it's wierd and unrealistic for a rogue to get better at picking locks if he picks no locks over the course of an adventure. But so what. We seldom worry about such things when reading a novel, and they shouldn't get too much in the way of are RPG stories either. And if your game challenges are sufficiently varied and skill testing, it's an edge case anyway. My PC's are not yet even 3rd level, and I've already called for or had the players actively choose to use pretty much every single skill in the game on multiple occassions. It may not be fully believable that these tests are resulting in more capable individuals, but its certainly 'story believable'.

 

[fanboy2000]

If I were going to adopt such a system (and, actually, I'm planning on doing so), I would probably adopt the following rewards scheme.

1) XP-for-gold.

2) Some items, such as artworks, tapestries and the like can be...convert[ed] the items directly to XP at full value.

3) The sandbox will include a number of "specified events". For example, "climb Mount Everest", "find the lost continent of Atlantis", "slay the great dragon Smaug", and so on. Each of these will give a stated XP award directly, but only to the first group to achieve the task.

4) [Establishing a stronghold]

5) If the PCs become prominent in local organisations, hold political or noble ranks, or otherwise become pillars of the community (or notorious crime bosses), that's worth XP.

6) I like your idea about crafting items, but I would suggest that merely crafting the item isn't enough - but if it's used in some great deed ("this is the sword that slew Ashardalon") then that should net the creator some XP.

Of course, PCs cannot gain XP anonymously under this system. They may elect to operate under assumed identities (Batman or Zorro, for example), but their persona will inevitably have some fame/infamy/notoriety. I'm sure a cunning DM can think of all sorts of ways to use that little wrinkle...

Sorry to snip so much, but I wanted to reply to your system without it dominating the whole post.

1) I probably wouldn't do this. Nor would I adopt your drain scheme. There are a few reasons for this: 1) the straight gold (or silver) for xp seems like that's what would become the default for most players, rather than anything more interesting; 2) I do want my players to save their gold and spend it wisely, they don't have to live the rock-and-roll lifestyle if they don't want to; 3) I also want players to have the option of remaining anonymous, if they so choose.

2) I like the idea of selling artwork for full xp value. Actually, what I would do is let them sell the artwork for 20%, but they would get it's full gp value in xp. I like including artwork in my treasure, and this makes it more interesting.

3) This I would adopt.

4) I'm with you here.

5) Maybe.

6) Being an artist, I believe in the value of making things. It seems to me that making something, rather just destroying something, is worth experience in itself. Requiring it be used in a great deed can engender disagreement on what a great deed is and ignores the inherent value of creating something yourself.

What I would do in 4th edition is, at the beginning of every tier, I would have each player turn in a list of things they want their PC to accomplish.

So, for example, a fighter could have on their list:

1. Stop the raides on local farms
2. Get lessons from [insert name of famous figther hear].
3. Recover lost idol.

While a cleric could have these on their list:

1. Donate money to church.
2. Recover lost religious artifact.
3. Make pilgramiage.
4. Lead services at the "main" temple.

Each task would be worth enough xp to get the PC to the next level. This would allow the player to craft their character trajectory through the world, with approval of the DM.

 

[Woas]

I think it's a great idea. I've experienced it first hand and it works well too, as the recent Barbarians of Lemuria game uses this setup in a way.

 

[Jhaelen]

Personally, I don't like it one bit.

[...]

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.

But wouldn't this system mean that a monk character would simply donate his part of the treasure gained to, say, found a new monastery somewhere?

I wouldn't want to use such a system these days (having basically removed xp from the game, letting the pcs level up when the story calls for it), but it sure makes a lot more sense than the official xp system they actually used in D&D (i.e. xp for treasure gained).

My admiration and respect for Mr. Arneson is growing with everything I'm learning about him.

 

[Votan]

A couple of points:

It's a subtle distinction, but I don't see a real difference, unless the DM is dictating what expenditures are "appropriate." In that case, must all Fighters and Thieves spend treasure on training and carousing? What about establishing a school? What about funding a "Pathfinder Society" of sorts for the advancement of safety and knowledge of travelers in the dangerous wilds? What if the Wizard wants to spend it on research for a Staff of the Magi (or other most power item the DM will let him research or create)? Or, what if the Wizard wants to fund the Gladiator Academy in memory of his fallen sister, or the Fighter wants to research the Cauldron of Arawn to raise his long-dead great-grandfather?

It's an interesting idea, don't get me wrong, but it seems too restrictive to me to dictate what's right to spend the money on, and it doesn't seem to work well if you DO let your player pick what's appropriate.

I think the point of this system is to force the players to decide what it is that they want to do in the world. That way they can spend their loot on doign the things that matter to them.

So building a stronghold counts. As does establishing a fencing school. Or being like Conan and trying to find a way to spend the cash partying. Or seeking out rare components and doing arcane research. Or builidng an observatory to learn the patterns of the heavans.

But the key is that the cash goes to PC goals and not PC power. What I thought was interesting about this is that it forces PCs to articulate goals in the world that they'd like to accomplish and this helps define character. it wouldn't be as useful in a plot driven game, but in a classic dungeon sand-box it adds depth to the characters.

Plus, as the sums get larger, the characters will take on projects that might actually generate adventures. Establishing the keep on the borderlands and paying for the upkeep would be a great way for a high level character to continue to gain XP.

In any case, it seemed to be a better alternative to the XP for treasure approach of AD&D. And I liked how it made the goal to "get paid" or "recover treasure" rather than fight every opponent. It reminded me of Firefly (the television show) where the characters would dodge a fight if they could but got really focused on the loot.

 

[Philosopher]

A couple of points:

It's a subtle distinction, but I don't see a real difference, unless the DM is dictating what expenditures are "appropriate." In that case, must all Fighters and Thieves spend treasure on training and carousing? What about establishing a school? What about funding a "Pathfinder Society" of sorts for the advancement of safety and knowledge of travelers in the dangerous wilds? What if the Wizard wants to spend it on research for a Staff of the Magi (or other most power item the DM will let him research or create)? Or, what if the Wizard wants to fund the Gladiator Academy in memory of his fallen sister, or the Fighter wants to research the Cauldron of Arawn to raise his long-dead great-grandfather?

It's an interesting idea, don't get me wrong, but it seems too restrictive to me to dictate what's right to spend the money on, and it doesn't seem to work well if you DO let your player pick what's appropriate.

Good questions. As I said, I haven't used this system myself yet, so I haven't fully thought it through.

I don't know what Arneson did, but I think it could work if the DM and players agree on the details for a particular campaign. The decisions on what sorts of expenditures result in XP can set the tone. Or it could be different for different characters, depending on individual goals. Perhaps my Chaotic Good fighter will get XP for giving his money away to the poor, while your Lawful Good fighter will get XP for founding a martial order dedicated to protecting civilization.

I agree that it wouldn't work if the DM imposed a way of spending on the players, or if it were completely up to the players themselves ("I get XP for buying magic items!"). But if the group is mature about it and all collaborate on the details and how they contribute to the feel of the campaign, then I think it could work out well. I'd say that the players could choose something related to the PC's goal, but spending the money, while it gives the PCs fame, prestige, honour, etc., could not be spent on anything that gives a mechanical advantage (as magic items do). There would be real advantages, but they would be from the roleplaying side. (I don't think there's a clear distinction between roleplaying and game mechanics, but I still think it could be made to work, if everyone is mature about it.)

Thanks for the questions, Henry, I'm liking the sound of this.

It's important to note then that several people on the thread have complained about problems that didn't exist. You couldn't gain levels by engaging in mere merchantile transactions. Money earned from a business venture didn't provide XP. Likewise, no matter how much money you pulled out of the dungeon, you couldn't level from 1st to 20th instantly. If a 1st level thief pulls a 1600 gp out of the dungeon, he's only eligible for 2nd level and if he pulls a 100,000 gp gem out of the dungeon (theoretically possible at 1st level) he's still only eligible for 2nd level. All the extra XP is lost. Likewise, after pulling the gem out of the dungeon, he doesn't instantly become 2nd level. Rather, he spends several weeks consolidating the lessons of his adventure and practicing his skills under the tutiledge of a higher level thief, and its this experience (not the abstract XP) that is actually responcible for his obtaining the higher level.

Correct. The assumption is that is that if you get 1000gp worth of treasure, you should have faced 1000XP worth of challenges.