Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 5842139" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Here I concur.  However, I don't agree that gold is inherently a superior metric to challenges overcome.  Characters can just as easily be focused entirely on the cash reward with no higher goals, and be just as dull a group as one chasing the next kill.  That doesn't mean "xp for gold" is inherently worse than "xp for combat", but I see no inherent superiority either.  It's not better or worse, just different.This depends on one's interpretation of the rules.  Some editions and games have been better than others at specifying xp is gained by overcoming challenges, and not by killing the monsters.  Parlaying, playing off factions, sneaking past the monsters, etc. all overcome the challenge - if the challenge was "get their loot".Let's pick a different challenge.  The problem is that these monsters are raiding nearby towns and villages, and the players' job is to make that stop.  Certainly,  "charging in to murder them" is one approach.  Parlay is another - can we negotiate a peaceful end to these raids?  Can we intimidate them - we can win a combat without slaughter of the opponents - will that persuade them to back off?  Setting them against one another is also a potentially workable approach.  But it does risk a unified group of raiders in the future.  Sneaking past them and stealing their treasure does nothing at all to accomplish the goal.  In fact, bribing them and leaving with LESS treasure than you arrived with is a viable and effective means of achieving the desired goal - but if gold is the xp measure, that's not really a viable option for character success, is it?I don't believe it's any more an exaggeration than claiming the combat-driven xp system only rewards characters for hunting down and killing every random monster.  Both are shortcut metrics.  Under a gold model, the characters aren't motivated to deal with the packs of wolves harrying the villagers unless the villagers are wealthy and pony up the cash.  A combat xp system gives them more motivation.In my preferred game style, however, the PC's are motivated intrinsically - they are of a heroic mindset, and they are prepared to deal with the wolves, or the goblins, or the dragon, in the best interests of the villagers.  They get some xp along the way?  Great.  But if they can solve the problem without killing anything, also great.  They get loot?  Nice side reward, and everyone needs to eat, but not the be-all end-all purpose of the characters.  They get xp?  That's nice - maybe I'll level up.  At the extreme edge, even if no one ever earns any xp, the PC's have the satisfaction of a job well done.I'd much rather be having a good, fun game with a 1st level character than a dull monotony with a highly effective 20th level cipher.  From that perspective, xp are merely a means to an end.  The characters become more powerful, so they have new and different abilities to face new and different challenges.  If I'm using combat as my xp measure, and the PC's cleverly resolve the challenge without combat, my approach is to award xp at the same level as if they had engaged the challenge in combat.  And if they run off killing everything in their path (the classic over the top example being killing the townsfolk), then any combat xp is offset by a "crappy role playing" penalty.  Persuading the Duke to commit more forces to the upcoming battle is worth xp.  Murdering him in his sleep and letting the Dukedom descend into chaos is not.  Assuming, of course, that the characters' goal was to muster more forces for the upcoming battle, and not to foment chaos and make it easier for the other side to win a victory!All of which I agree with, and none of which works intrinsically better whether gold or combat power is used as the xp measure.  In my example of the Duke, he could have 5 hp and no weapons, armor or spells.  Let's assume the Dukedom teeters on the edge of bankruptcy as well.  Persuading him may still be extremely challenging, and the xp for success should not be measured by his combat abilities or his gold, but by the difficulty of overcoming the challenge he presents.But not if he uses his carrying capacity to haul a fallen comrade out of the dungeon for a decent burial, leaving behind treasure he could otherwise have carried.Pretty much any simple calculation can be manipulated.  To the extent your players would focus on slaughter if xp is awarded for kills, they are equally motivated to focus on loot, even when that focus may not be compatible with the goals of their characters (or simply encourages homicidal maniac characters in the combat xp mode, and greedy mercenaries in the gold xp mode).The cold blooded machiavellian in me now sees the path to success - I will kill my weakened teammates near the exit from the dungeon - I get all the xp and all the loot!  That's my reward for being the sole survivor, right?  Self-sacrificing Paladins who will risk their own safety for the protection of their teammates are just a bunch of losers, but they do make for great meat shields!  [Mind you, I'll be needing a lead shield at a minimum if any Paladin is ever going to associate with me!]Again, while I don't disagree, it is not consistent with "you must earn your levels".  And a cowardly retreat leaving your teammates to die earns a superior reward to a heroic death.  That, too, motivates certain behaviours.So does the attack on the evil kingdom proceed, spearheaded by more powerful NPC's (who, I note, were handed their levels and gear - they didn't "earn" it), or does the mission simply get deferred until the PC's are powerful enough to deal with it?And if gold earned = xp = power, why doesn't His Majesty simply arrange to leave a pile of loot in some odd environment for his loyal servants to retrieve, return to him as a gesture of their fealty, and gain all that xp, becoming much more powerful servants of the realm?  The simple answer, at least to me, is that PC's don't know what gains them experience points.  They are an out of character measure of in game progress.My intent is not to be judgmental, and certainly no offense was intended.  As I said, your players are clearly enjoying your play style, so why would you change it?  But there are also other play styles that other groups enjoy.  I would hope that a player who doesn't enjoy your playing style might find a group with a DM with a different playstyle.  And different means just that - neither better or worse, but a better fit for a player who enjoys a different playstyle.Repeated for emphasis.  I think you are giving far too much credit to the xp system.  It is the GM who creates a varied,  fun, and demanding game, regardless of the xp system, or even if no xp system is used at all.  The players contribute - if their answer to every problem is "kill it and take its loot", a varied game is pretty tough to pull off.  But it's the GM who designs varied, fun and demanding encounters, and who makes accommodation for players approaching the problem from a different angle than he may have expected.  And it's the GM who adjusts the game to fit the players' favoured play style, by making scenarios where stealth or diplomacy are equally, or more, important than brute force because that's how the players wish to operate.  And it's the GM who decides that combat encounters, or gold, or whatever other measure you wish to use as a default isn't giving an appropriate reward in Specific Situation X, and varies from the default to achieve an appropriate result.</blockquote>

Verification