An Older Experience System

[Umbran]

??
It's assumed right through 3e and 4e that PCs can buy and sell magic items by default.

For the entire length of 3e, we were talking about ways to avoid using a blatant market. There's been lots of success in that area.

The real assumption in 3e is that the PCs will have access to magic items, and that at a given level, they'll have in the neighborhood of a given amount of "wealth" of items. How you manage to get them those items is entirely up to the GM.

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).

...

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.

Any mid-stream change is apt to be a bit awkward.

If you've been giving out XP the normal way all along, and suddenly change to, "Sorry, no XP until you spend your cash", you're apt to see much the same resistance. The players will see, in no uncertain terms, that they're spending $$ for XP, when they didn't have to do that before, and they will feel equally robbed - "Hey, we beat the monsters! We earned the XP! Now you're telling us that we have to buy it off you, rather than spend the gold on stuff we want?!? What's up with that?"

Secondly, discovering huge hoards of treasure is cool.

Yes, it is. But even Bilbo realized that he didn't actually have use for all that much of it, nor could he effectively cart it around safely.

 

[Votan]

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.

Obviously, this approach is not appropriate to all campaigns. It is true that it won't work especially well in recent editions that make strong wealth by level assumptions.

But, in some versions of the game (BECMI, 1E, 2E), this approach can be used to create out of dungeon interests (which could occasionally drive plot) that mostly serve to add personality to a character. They don;t have to drive the plot so much as say things like: Joe the Fighter wants to become a petty noble whereas Jack the Fighter spends his money as fast as he can get it while Jill the Fighter is hoping to create a training school.

In my current 3E (Pathfinder variant) or 4E games, this approach would be inappropriate. In PF I have already made a quest-based XP system that fits the adventures better than this approach would. In 4E the focus is far more on interesting tactical encounters and any system that made fighting make less sense would be a step backwards.

But I've toyed with trying a dungeon crawl older edition. There are a couple of approaches that can work for these types of games but the XP for gold recovered mechanic is actually present in 1E AD&D (for example) and this would be a good replacement for it (in that context, in that game).

That it had some other very interesting incentives (avoid combat, make sure you get the loot, players are chronically broke) was a nice plus. I think it might work well in a game based on the TV show Firefly (where people prefer to avoid combat, focus on getting paid and yet always end up short of cash after spending it on "flair" -- like keeping a ship flying).

 

[Umbran]

I think it might work well in a game based on the TV show Firefly (where people prefer to avoid combat, focus on getting paid and yet always end up short of cash after spending it on "flair" -- like keeping a ship flying).

If the ship is also your source of income and home, I don't think keeping it flying counts as "flair". Keeping the ship flying is basic upkeep cost. They're getting paid, but they aren't getting paid much more than upkeep, so they never get rich.

The characters on the show mention a couple time that they, personally, aren't getting paid regularly.

 

[jmucchiello]

My problem with this system was that some players are constantly looking at everything you describe in terms of gp. Tear down the tapestries, cast Strength and carry the statues out of the dungeon. At the end of clearing out a dungeon, they would be casting shrink item on large objects so they can sell them later in town. One player would take secondary skills and NWPs to emulate knowledge of anatomy so he could autopsy every monster to sell its parts to men in robes and pointed hats. "How much do I get for spleen of bullywug?" "2 cp." "Each? I'll take it."

 

[Philosopher]

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?

First of all, this isn't the way I play, so I can't speak to how it works out in practice. It's just the context in which, as far as I know, these old XP systems were used.

But why, you ask, would someone want to do that in the first place? Some people may want to build strongholds for the same reason that some people want to write up detailed character backgrounds that don't get played out. It gives depth to the character that is otherwise played in a variant wargame. If you think of your character as a person with goals (which is when it become roleplaying and not merely wargaming), then these would likely be the goals they had.

Besides, having that political power allows one to attract henchmen and followers, some of whom can accompany you to the dungeon. That's one definite way to increase your power. In fact, if you look back at earlier editions of the game, many classes automatically gained followers at higher levels. It was as much a class feature for the fighter as spellcasting was a class feature for the magic-user. That was put in because that was the assumption of what the fighter was after - building a stronghold, attracting followers, ruling a land.

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.

I don't see how this follows. Part of what I suggested, if this older system were to be used today, is that this be discussed between the players and DM to help settle the tone of the game. If they can't decide on something specific, if it's less clear for them, then they wouldn't bother with it. Could you explain what you mean?

 

[the Jester]

My problem with this system was that some players are constantly looking at everything you describe in terms of gp. Tear down the tapestries, cast Strength and carry the statues out of the dungeon. At the end of clearing out a dungeon, they would be casting shrink item on large objects so they can sell them later in town. One player would take secondary skills and NWPs to emulate knowledge of anatomy so he could autopsy every monster to sell its parts to men in robes and pointed hats. "How much do I get for spleen of bullywug?" "2 cp." "Each? I'll take it."

There's a point of diminishing returns- if it takes ten minutes to carefully organ-harvest each bullywug and there were twenty of them, that's over three hours of work... for 40 cp.

Most pcs would rather spend that three hours killing another two dozen goblins for the 3d6 sp in pocket change each one has- a much better reward for the same time spent.

 

[Votan]

If the ship is also your source of income and home, I don't think keeping it flying counts as "flair". Keeping the ship flying is basic upkeep cost. They're getting paid, but they aren't getting paid much more than upkeep, so they never get rich.

The characters on the show mention a couple time that they, personally, aren't getting paid regularly.

That is what I would hope would be the net result of the system (poor characters with a cool goal of keeping a ship running). Players would gladly pour money into Mal's dream of being indepedent and having a ship to fly (even if it might be cheaper, strictly speaking, to travel around in as a passenger) as that would reward them with character incentives (more XP and progression).

Maybe it wouldn't work out as well as I would expect in a real game (although trying it out could be fun). But I thought the XP for GP expended appropriately was a nice twist on the old XP rules and worth thinking about. If nothing else, it gave insight into why these rules evolved.

 

[Haltherrion]

I wonder if it could be adapted to more modern versions of D&D or if it was a cool idea whose time has passed?

It can certainly remove treasure from the game and for some classes makes a certain amount of sense. You can use almost any XP system you like with any version of D&D so I don't see why you couldn't use it for 4E or anything else.

I find it very problemmatic myself and ditched it before it was removed from the rules (IIRC, it's been ages).

I think it's one pro in favor, IMHO, is that it can be a stand in for a "level by practice/study" system which I find more realistic. I don't think such systems are all that playable but it seems to fit RL better: your average soldier would have to fight a lot of live battles to learn as much as he learns in drill and practise (for one, the average soldier spends a tiny amount of his life in battles, the ones who fight a lot die sooner or later.)


Some issues I have with it:

• Not all classes would consume gold at the same rate. Seems like wizards might consume the most followed by clerics with warriors and rogues consuming a lot less. Opens up fairness issues.
• Lots of things other than leveling a class ought to consume gold (like certain skills).
• The referee controls the treasure and the monsters. Assigning XP based on the monsters, rather than the treasure that the monsters has removes a level on indirection (and error/unintended consequences).

With the right group that doesn't mind some class inequities (for example, a wizard needing more gold to level up than a rogue) and also willing to spend a lot of in-game time leveling (spending lots of gold ought to take lots of time), it might be an interesting twist on things and also be a good way to force lots of time to pass.

But in the end, it isn't something that I personally would want to spend a lot of time on. I don't think my players would see any attraction to any variant of gold for leveling and I'd rather spend my gaming capital elsewhere.

 

[jmucchiello]

There's a point of diminishing returns- if it takes ten minutes to carefully organ-harvest each bullywug and there were twenty of them, that's over three hours of work... for 40 cp.

Just because there's a point of diminishing returns doesn't stop some players from interrupting every room description with inquiries like "is there paper in the desk? how many sheets? is it good quality? is there ink? how many jars? any blank ledgers? bookbinding materials? surely there's some expensive vellum for important documents?" and don't put those players anywhere near an alchemist or wizard laboratory.

 

[Philosopher]

Just because there's a point of diminishing returns doesn't stop some players from interrupting every room description with inquiries like "is there paper in the desk? how many sheets? is it good quality? is there ink? how many jars? any blank ledgers? bookbinding materials? surely there's some expensive vellum for important documents?" and don't put those players anywhere near an alchemist or wizard laboratory.

But how is this different from when you let them use gold to buy magic items?