Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 8255061" data-attributes="member: 15700">Shrug, your bug, my feature.&nbsp; different xp tables based on class was a balancing mechanism, so making all classes use the same table but changing nothing else?&nbsp; That would cause even more problems with how PCs were balanced.Zero to hero is also a feature for me, not a bug.&nbsp; And it fits the living world preference I have.that being said, xp rules in 1e were all over the place.&nbsp; Many of the reasons have already been given.&nbsp; It's pretty odd that you could look at XP values for monsters, look at the table that told you how to assign xp for monsters, and realize that the math almost never added up.&nbsp; shrugAs someone who played 1e as my go-to game from 1981 to 2012, I think somewhere around 1983 we ignored the training time frame requirements and costs (even though we understood that gold was meant to be spent, and that's a way to do it).&nbsp; We allowed leveling up when you got enough XP and there was a good break in the game to do so.I am very much a fan of xp for treasure over monsters, because it fosters a more creative style of play.&nbsp; if most of your xp comes from monsters, then every encounter will be treated like you have to fight it.&nbsp; That gets boring and repetitive.&nbsp; By contrast, if you get most xp for treasure and mission accomplishment, and encounters have a high risk (which they did in 1e compared to later editions), it encouraged more creative ways to get past the monsters other than fighting them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 8255061, member: 15700"] Shrug, your bug, my feature. different xp tables based on class was a balancing mechanism, so making all classes use the same table but changing nothing else? That would cause even more problems with how PCs were balanced. Zero to hero is also a feature for me, not a bug. And it fits the living world preference I have. that being said, xp rules in 1e were all over the place. Many of the reasons have already been given. It's pretty odd that you could look at XP values for monsters, look at the table that told you how to assign xp for monsters, and realize that the math almost never added up. shrug As someone who played 1e as my go-to game from 1981 to 2012, I think somewhere around 1983 we ignored the training time frame requirements and costs (even though we understood that gold was meant to be spent, and that's a way to do it). We allowed leveling up when you got enough XP and there was a good break in the game to do so. I am very much a fan of xp for treasure over monsters, because it fosters a more creative style of play. if most of your xp comes from monsters, then every encounter will be treated like you have to fight it. That gets boring and repetitive. By contrast, if you get most xp for treasure and mission accomplishment, and encounters have a high risk (which they did in 1e compared to later editions), it encouraged more creative ways to get past the monsters other than fighting them. [/QUOTE]

Verification