D&D 5E Blog of Holding Takes on Treasure Distribution and 1 XP/1 GP

[dd.stevenson]

But if you're just trying to get people to do things other than "Rah rah combat!" why not just give the experience value of the encounter if they manage to circumvent it? So if a monster would give 500xp, and they decide to trick it into running away so they can sneak by, give them the 500 (or a portion of it) for using their characters. They still gained "experience" from getting past the monster, but in this case no gold was gained, so in that sort of campaign they wouldn't have gotten any reward at all for circumventing the monster.

Awarding xp for encounters still encourages players to encounter monsters, rather than completely bypass them.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Awarding xp for encounters still encourages players to encounter monsters, rather than completely bypass them.

"Why not just give the experience value of the encounter if they manage to circumvent it?"

This is why, as a DM, I don't give out experience at all, but instead allow them to level up when it seems prudent. To each their own, but none of this makes sense to me.

 

[SilverfireSage]

But you aren't awarding XP for any of those things. You're rewarding them for finding large cashes of gold, regardless of what they had to do to get to it. There are more than a few monsters in the monster manual that aren't supposed to carry gold. How do explain to your players that they don't get any experience for defeating a rust monster horde because they ate all the treasure?

Clearly, this isn't an option for me, and it doesn't seem like I'll get it at all. *shrugs*

 

[dd.stevenson]

"Why not just give the experience value of the encounter if they manage to circumvent it?"

The thief nips in, steals the contents of the kobolds' treasure room and escapes from their warren. Does he get xp for defeating the kobold king and his guards? Does he get xp for defeating all the kobolds present at the warren? Does he get xp for defeating the halfling village which the kobolds recently plundered, and whose gold formed a large part of the stolen treasure?

Assigning xp by gold looted sidesteps these questions by not rewarding unnecessary interaction and instead keeps the focus on what matters: delving in dungeons for treasure.

I don't play this way, but it was how the game was played for quite a few years, and its how the millions of people introduced to D&D during that era likely still think the game is played. A person doesn't need to be into that style of play to see that it is a perfectly fun and functional approach to the game.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I could totally see running, or playing, a game that was gold for XP. It establishes a campaign where you don't adventure for adventure's sake. You're not in it for power, excitement, or a good story. It's all about gold. Could be fun.

 

[Daern]

I'm thinking if I go with gold = xp, then I'll divide all the monster xp by 10. I really like that Wine Women and Song article linked above. Spending gold earns XP, limited only by time and how much you want to have on hand for worldly things, like new suits of armor.
I think what I dig about it is that it makes a bit of sense in terms of tying adventurer's level to their status and renown in the world.
I also really like the idea of using XP budgets as a treasure guideline.

 

[SilverfireSage]

The thief nips in, steals the contents of the kobolds' treasure room and escapes from their warren. Does he get xp for defeating the kobold king and his guards? Does he get xp for defeating all the kobolds present at the warren? Does he get xp for defeating the halfling village which the kobolds recently plundered, and whose gold formed a large part of the stolen treasure?

I originally wrote up a long counterpoint to all of this, but it's clear that I will never understand why anyone would want to do this as their base. For those of you that like it, I'm sure there will be some little module in the upcoming Unearthed Arcana series that addresses it.

 

[The_Gneech]

I'm thinking if I go with gold = xp, then I'll divide all the monster xp by 10. I really like that Wine Women and Song article linked above. Spending gold earns XP, limited only by time and how much you want to have on hand for worldly things, like new suits of armor.
I think what I dig about it is that it makes a bit of sense in terms of tying adventurer's level to their status and renown in the world.
I also really like the idea of using XP budgets as a treasure guideline.

That's a cool idea. I'm liking the idea of "gold as currency for advancement of your choice"... if you want to invest it in leveling up, you can do that. If you want to spend it on crafting or acquiring gear, you can do that. If you want to use it to gain favor with social factions, you can do that. Then, the XP and benefits you gain from other activities (such as defeating enemies, finding a magic item on the boss, completing quests, etc.) become bonus "Cha-CHING" moments.

-The Gneech

 

[CapnZapp]

For those of you that like it, I'm sure there will be some little module in the upcoming Unearthed Arcana series that addresses it.

A reasonable assumption in 2014.

Unfortunately, by 2020 it's abundantly clear WotC has abandoned everyone wanting gold to matter in their campaign

 

[NotAYakk]

But you aren't awarding XP for any of those things. You're rewarding them for finding large cashes of gold, regardless of what they had to do to get to it. There are more than a few monsters in the monster manual that aren't supposed to carry gold. How do explain to your players that they don't get any experience for defeating a rust monster horde because they ate all the treasure?

Yes, rust monster hordes are worth (close to 0) XP.

This means rust monsters are a nuisance, something to be avoided, not something to be challenged. Fighting them, or encountering them, is a dead-weight loss.

In an XP-for-fighting system, if you where aware of a nest of rust monsters, going there and beating them up would be a way to gain power and gain levels. In an XP-for-treasure system, if you where aware of a nest of rust monsters, there would be no point in engaging them at all.

If you are in a dungeon and you see a nest of rust monsters, you might scout past them (say, with a familiar) and see if there was anything worth the bother behind them. If not, you'd leave them alone, or maybe you'd bait them into attacking the hobgoblins.

There would be zero reason to clear them out.

The things that the Characters are supposed to try to challenge or bypass? Those are things guarding treasure. The things that don't guard treasure? Things you want to minimize your interaction with; they are pure obstacles.

A wandering encounter with a griffon? All loss, no gain. So working out how not to encounter that griffon is part of the PC's goals.

Tracking down the pirate's buried treasure? Lots of incentive.