An Older Experience System

[Umbran]

If you are giving XP for spending cash to attain specific goals, and the player figures out a clever way to achieve that goal without spending the cash, are you going to withhold the XP? Tell them that reaching the goal is impossible without spending the cash? Anyone who has a major problem with railroaded plots think carefully before you answer.

If you want to encourage a behavior, you'll generally get the most success if you reward the behavior as directly as possible.

If you want to reward a character for establishing a school, give them XP for establishing a school. How they go about it (by politics, conquest, spending raw cash, or some combination) isn't as relevant as their accomplishing the goal.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is the exact text of the RCFG material I am working on (now putting things into final order, crossing the "T"s, dotting the "I"s, and formatting, formatting, formatting). It is OGC if anyone wishes to use it:

Experience Points

Characters gain levels by amassing Experience Points (XP). When a character has enough XP to qualify for a new level, the character gains that level. See the table on page XXX for more information.

If a character loses XP, and that loss would place him below his current level, he doesn’t lose that level, nor does he gain any special benefit from reacquiring the XP needed to be his current level.

Experience Points are usually gained by defeating opponents and squandering treasure.

Every creature has an XP value, which is gained by defeating (but not necessarily slaying) the creature. Experience Points gained from defeating creatures are usually divided among all characters that faced that creature.

A PC can also squander treasure, gaining 1 XP per 1 gold piece (gp) so spent. The PC doesn’t spend this money on equipment, or gain any benefit from it – this provision is intended to simulate the Sword & Sorcery trope where the hero(es) gain some vast wealth at the end of one story, but has lost all that treasure by the beginning of the next. In fact, if the character gains any other in-game benefit from the treasure in question, it is not considered squandered.

In order to squander treasure for XP, the treasure must be recently earned through undertaking some form of adventure. In the event that the treasure is goods sold, the character may not have gained significant use of the goods prior to their sale.

Squandering treasure in this way may represent many things – largesse, foolishness, theft, drunken debauchery, or whatever the player desires. If a character is offered a reward, and meets the conditions of the reward, but refuses to accept it, the treasure she would have gained is also considered to be squandered.

The GM is permitted to demand an explanation for how any treasure squandered is actually lost, and may work the explanation into the fabric of the campaign milieu. While the player may not demand recompense for treasure squandered, it is perfectly acceptable for the Game Master to give the character a reputation for generosity, links to seedy gambling dens, or whatever else is appropriate.

The GM may rule on what “recently earned” and “significant use” mean on a case-by-case basis.

The GM may also grant XP for meeting story goals, role-playing, or whatever else he deems appropriate. Experience Points are usually granted at the end of a given session, or at the beginning of the next session. The GM may grant XP during a session, or wait several sessions before granting XP, if he deems it appropriate.

It is not generally possible for a character to gain more XP in a single session than is required to attain the next level, plus halfway to the level beyond that. Any additional XP are lost. Thus, a starting character can never gain more than 1,500 XP during his or her first session.

Experience Points may be used for other things in addition to gaining levels. Among them are:

• Boon Companions: A character may spend 10 XP to make a follower or animal attached to him into a boon companion. A boon companion becomes a Champion Class creature. The player is then able to expend additional XP to increase the creature’s Hit Dice or class levels.
  
  The creature is treated as though it were Level 1 to determine XP requirements, unless it already has class levels. Creatures can gain either raw Hit Dice, or class levels, as is deemed appropriate by both the GM and the player involved.
  
  For more information, see Chapter XXX, Section XXX: Henchmen, Hirelings, and Followers.
  
  
• Magic: Some spells, incantations, and rituals may require the expenditure of XP. See Chapter XXX: Magic and Spellcasting, for more details.
  
  
• Special Training: In some cases, the GM may allow characters to gain special training in exchange for a set amount of XP. Special training is always a unique reward, gained from access to some form of trainer. For instance, a fighting school might offer a bonus on a particular type of manoeuvre or fighting style, or a faerie creature might offer the means to alter how one or more spells are cast. For more information, see the RCFG Game Master’s Handbook.

Not exactly what existed in the early D&D campaigns, but of some use (perhaps) to those who like this sort of thing.


RC

 

[Votan]

If you are giving XP for spending cash to attain specific goals, and the player figures out a clever way to achieve that goal without spending the cash, are you going to withhold the XP? Tell them that reaching the goal is impossible without spending the cash? Anyone who has a major problem with railroaded plots think carefully before you answer.

If you want to encourage a behavior, you'll generally get the most success if you reward the behavior as directly as possible.

If you want to reward a character for establishing a school, give them XP for establishing a school. How they go about it (by politics, conquest, spending raw cash, or some combination) isn't as relevant as their accomplishing the goal.

Yes, that would be the more modern (quest-based) experience system. It has some real advantages, I would freely admit.

However, the XP for GP spent doesn't mean that you don't get XP for establishing the school -- merely that loot generates experience. Clever shortcuts can help but this sytem would encourage a focus on getting the loot. It encourages creativity in the dungeon but makes the external goals somewhat fixed (as people will care about having them more than anything else).

It's not a perfect system but thinking about it does grant some insight into how to reward players. In my current game (a PF adventure path), I have switched to milestone leveling. This allows the party to bypass things and still get rewarded of they achieve their overall goals. In terms of the RPG experience, this seem slightly better.

What I like about the GP for XP system of Arneson is that mimicked the chronically broke heroes of so much literary fiction. Players will keep found magic (not worth XP when sold) and powerful magic (Stormbringer) but not even consider a magic store.

 

[delericho]

If you are giving XP for spending cash to attain specific goals, and the player figures out a clever way to achieve that goal without spending the cash, are you going to withhold the XP? Tell them that reaching the goal is impossible without spending the cash? Anyone who has a major problem with railroaded plots think carefully before you answer.

That would depend on whether the purpose of the XP system is "have the PCs set and complete goals" or "keep 'em poor". In the former case, then of course they should get the XP. In the latter, they should not.

Of course, it's also worth noting that that goal may well have a gold-piece value associated with it. If it is to build a castle, then that castle has a value. Likewise the fencing school, the temple, etc etc. So the system may well work either way.

If you want to encourage a behavior, you'll generally get the most success if you reward the behavior as directly as possible.

Absolutely.

We have the slightly odd situation (now? or was it always thus?) where players seem to play the game to advance their characters, rather than the sheer fun of playing the game. I say "slightly odd" because of course the character is an entirely fictional construct, and really should just be a tool for playing the game. Still, I suppose we all like to 'win'.

Anyway, the consequence of this is that the DM should consider the sort of game he wants to run, the sorts of behaviours he wants to his PCs to engage in, and set the XP system accordingly. So, if it's "kill monsters", give XP for that. If it's "complete quests", then do away with XP for monsters, and instead give out enhanced Quest XP. If it's "complete personal goals", ditch XP for monsters and for quests entirely, have the players set their own quests, and then gain XP only for completing these (probably best with mature players this one; relatively inexperienced players may become overwhelmed with options).

At present, my tastes run to a somewhat old-school (fantasy, not D&D) setting, where the PCs are Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Conan, or even the Three Musketeers. They adventure for fame and fortune (mostly), and although they come by great wealth, they inevitably find themselves poor once again. With that in mind, this system seems to be a very good fit. (For me, for now. YMMV, of course... and mine probably will a year from now!)

 

[Umbran]

That would depend on whether the purpose of the XP system is "have the PCs set and complete goals" or "keep 'em poor".

If the goal is to keep the PCs poor, you shouldn't have given them the gold in the first place.

Of course, it's also worth noting that that goal may well have a gold-piece value associated with it. If it is to build a castle, then that castle has a value. Likewise the fencing school, the temple, etc etc. So the system may well work either way.

Yes, so you can tell the PCs, "One uncomplicated way to do this is to spend a couple hordes of gold." If they choose the gold-collecting path, that's fine.

The thing is that for adventurers, who live lives rather like brigands to begin with, taking gold to have something built is... inefficient and somewhat nonsensical. Why not just take the thing you want directly, and cut out all that tedious mucking about for gold? Find some evil warlord, beat the tar out of him, and take his keep!

I think Fafhrd and Grey Mouser are better modeled with an "overcoming challenges (by any means) gains you XP" model, rather than a wealth-spending model. While sometimes they do gain and spend wealth, several of their adventures wind up to be complete busts, economically speaking. They get better because they do exciting stuff. So, to emulate that, you give awards for doing exciting stuff.

This has the benefit that it keeps your XP system and your economic resource systems separate, and you don't have to do things like figure out the effective XP value of magic items or other resources, which is always a balance headache.

 

[Philosopher]

If you are giving XP for spending cash to attain specific goals, and the player figures out a clever way to achieve that goal without spending the cash, are you going to withhold the XP? Tell them that reaching the goal is impossible without spending the cash? Anyone who has a major problem with railroaded plots think carefully before you answer.

If you want to encourage a behavior, you'll generally get the most success if you reward the behavior as directly as possible.

If you want to reward a character for establishing a school, give them XP for establishing a school. How they go about it (by politics, conquest, spending raw cash, or some combination) isn't as relevant as their accomplishing the goal.

A good point. The way lots of us play now, this could be a problem.

But, unless I'm mistaken, the larger campaign setting was mostly in the background in these types of systems. At least, that's the impression I get from reading older rulebooks.

Let's say the adventure begins and ends at the entrance of the dungeon. It's stipulated that the PCs go back to town, heal up, replenish supplies, etc., but the actual game is played in the dungeon. If what goes on outside the dungeon isn't played out, then the system of equating the spending of cash with the achievement of goals would work.

Just as gaining XP for treasure gained assumes that you met certain sorts of challenges along the way, gaining XP for treasure spent is also making assumptions, this time relating to achieving goals. But the same could be said about gaining XP for defeating monsters. Do PCs really deserve the XP if the cleric wins initiative and destroys all the undead right away with lucky rolls? Unless XP is entirely ad hoc, these problems will always come up.

 

[noffham]

I did something like this in most of my earlier edition games. You could spend treasure for training/research/religious goals, etc. on a 1gp=1xp basis, up to 50 GP/day and for no more xp than halfway to the next level.

This kept treasure levels down, caused real time to pass in game and provided plenty of opportunity for hooking adventures to trainers, research assistants, locating famous libraries/archives, etc.

The players liked it and as noted it gave me opportunities to advance the game.

 

[delericho]

If the goal is to keep the PCs poor, you shouldn't have given them the gold in the first place.

And give up on glorious hoards of gold and gems? Never!

And here's the rub: if I want to eliminate the market in magic items (which I have come to detest), but still want to be able to give out 'real' treasure, then I need some mechanism for getting the PCs' hard-won loot out of their hands. If I simply hit them with absurd taxation, endless thieves, and the like, they will (rightly) cry bloody murder. Moreover, they will move heaven and earth (and bog the game down) to put means in place to make sure this never happens to them again.

But if I have them buy experience, they'll do the job for me. Even better, in doing so, they'll add depth to my world for me, detailing just how they squander their wealth, the political favours they will buy, and so on. They'll be self-motivated to go get that treasure (important in a sandbox). And the players will even be able to set their own rate of advancement - if they want to spend money on upgrading their equipment (masterwork and beyond) then they'll necessarily have less money to spend on advancement.

Obviously, your mileage varies.

 

[Umbran]

Let's say the adventure begins and ends at the entrance of the dungeon. It's stipulated that the PCs go back to town, heal up, replenish supplies, etc., but the actual game is played in the dungeon. If what goes on outside the dungeon isn't played out, then the system of equating the spending of cash with the achievement of goals would work.

If what is going on outside the dungeon isn't played out, why are the PCs spending cash on things outside the dungeon? You figure the players won't notice their money being poured into things that don't matter? Why on Oerth am I building a stronghold if the fact that I'm now controlling and protecting land doesn't matter, because all the play is in the dungeon?

I'm not saying it would not work. I'm saying that having the indirection muddies the waters somewhat, so it is less clear what behavior you're really trying to encourage.

And here's the rub: if I want to eliminate the market in magic items (which I have come to detest), but still want to be able to give out 'real' treasure, then I need some mechanism for getting the PCs' hard-won loot out of their hands.

What market in magic items? A market requires two things - a source, and consumers. The PCs cannot buy them if there's nobody making them for sale. The PCs cannot sell them if there's nobody with extra funds to buy them - especially if the buyer actually thinks in terms of the actual value of the item's utility.

"You have a +1 sword you no longer need. Hm, what's that worth to me? 2000 GP? You have got to be kidding! It's just a little sharper than normal, is all, a fraction better. I don't care how much it cost to make! I'll give you 30 GP for it."

What counts as "real" treasure is, in my experience, entirely relative to local scale: the costs of what the players want. If you can't buy magic items then the price of normal arms and armor is "real treasure" - especially if normal arms and armor tend to break from time to time.

 

[delericho]

What market in magic items?

??

It's assumed right through 3e and 4e that PCs can buy and sell magic items by default. This is implied in the 3e DMG, strongly implied in the 3.5e DMG, and outright stated in the 4e DMG (which goes so far as to suggest an appropriate merchant should 'just happen' to be in town when the PCs want to trade items, and uses the residuum concept to handle the oddity of him 'just happening' to have whatever the PCs want).

This is not objectively bad design, but I do not like it. However, if I just eliminate it at a stroke, PCs will very quickly have too much money (as defined by me).

What counts as "real" treasure is, in my experience, entirely relative to local scale: the costs of what the players want. If you can't buy magic items then the price of normal arms and armor is "real treasure" - especially if normal arms and armor tend to break from time to time.

Again, I simply don't want to change out the amounts of treasure given. Firstly, if I start giving out tens of silver where before I was giving thousands of gold, I will very rapidly have a mutiny on my hands, arguments about 'relative amounts' notwithstanding.

Secondly, discovering huge hoards of treasure is cool. Just reading the details of Dragotha's hoard in Dungeon #134 was awesome. I want to find a way to avoid losing that.