For Fortune or Glory: XP for Gold versus Challenges

[Raven Crowking]

@ Bullgrit: For RCFG, you need to squander the gold to get the XP. This includes earning, but refusing, a reward. That's my answer to allow for altruistic PCs.

 

[Ariosto]

Good points, Cerebral Paladin!

I was going to offer some of them myself, but got too self-conscious about them seeming to go against (how I read) Reynard's stipulations in the original post.

As Reynard has expressed appreciation, I am glad that you raised those points!
==================================================

In the old game, the question of "what constitutes defeating an encounter" is just not germane. I think that very shift in perspective tends to run counter to the original game, not only the dungeon game but the whole. It seems to put in a pressure for the DM to decide what the players are "supposed to do".

"To analyze what the encounter is there for" is likely to be all about the DM's plan, not the players'. It starts right in shifting the connotations of 'encounter' away from something arising as a consequence of play to something the DM sets up "like its own game," as the 3.5 DMG puts it, "with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser."

It tends, from what I have seen, to make for rather a different game. The perspective seems more appropriate to a tournament scenario or similar "module" than to the original dungeon game. Tunnels & Trolls scenarios might come from an "old school" in some ways more closely aligned than the old (lately "mega") D&D dungeon.

 

[Ariosto]

But, and this is a legitimate "but," it does tend to mean PCs should have a greedy streak in their character.

It is up to the player what to do with treasure -- although a paladin who does not (a) give the tithe and (b) keep only enough to support his or her household "in a modest manner" is in danger of losing paladin status.

A party of thieves would be better xp-getters than a party of knights.

A party of thieves would be better x.p.-getters for the most cunningly treacherous thief, but that is all. If they were really so much better at getting x.p., I suspect their requirements would not be so much lower.

Knights ought not to spend so much time oppressing peasants (which is about all thieves are good for unless they are true Master Thieves) as in warring upon their peers and upon mighty monsters, either of which ought to possess great wealth if the game is -- as by the old rules it indeed is -- at least so true to the medieval era and the classic tales of folklore and romance.

Spoils are signs of glory, and the hero in tradition tends to earn renown not only for acquiring it but for largesse afterward. Thus, per 1st ed. DMG p. 25., the automatic deduction of 100 g.p. per level per month (admittedly a pittance to a Lord or Wizard).

But if they are, say, a rescue party sent into the dungeon to rescue the princess, then rescuing the princess should be what you reward with xp.

If there's no reward for that ... and it was some wimpy pauper who kidnapped the princess, rather than a Dragon or E.H.P. or such who needs killing and/or has some sweet loot ... then you may indeed have a problem! It's more an "unclear on the concept" kind of problem, though, to my mind.