D&D 5E (2014) My D&D Next Wishlist: Bring back XP for GP!

[Zaukrie]

Why do you all use xp at all?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mattachine]

The games I ran throughout middle school and high school were just like that, "greyhawking". Many of the early published adventures fostered that style of play, as did traditional dungeon crawls. It can be quite fun, and leveling ends up being pretty fast.

In later editions, xp for gp went away.

 

[Scribble]

In 3e I remember they talk about awarding experience even if they didn't fight the monster... like if they snuck past it or something.

The biggest detractor from this though was the amount of prep-work an encounter took... Sneaking past a monster that took the DM 3 hours to prepair is.. well... An incentive for the monster to notice the PCs.


They need to:

1 switch it from monsters to challenge... Whatever the challenge is that's how much XP you get.

2. Make sure prep is as easy/quick as possible for the DM so even if a monster/challenge is avoided then it doesn't feel like a huge waste of time prepping.

 

[Umbran]

Why do you all use xp at all?

In general, because many players like to see a tie between activity and reward. To such folks, the GM just saying, "You've done enough, time to level up," can be a touch too arbitrary/GM-subjective. There's something to be said for a reward system that encourages the kind of play you want to see in the game.

Stepping into the larger view - many games use the same resource to drive advancement as they do other things. Classic Deadlands, Shadowrun (older editions, at least), Old School Hack, and other games link their "action point" mechanic to their advancement mechanic.

Some editions of D&D use XP to support the magic item construction system, so you'd have to at least think about how to handle that otherwise before you can toss XP away.

 

[imurphy943]

I'd like to point out that while XP for gold does not help your playing of any character that is disinterested in said gold (e.g. maniacs, Pro Bono monster slayers), basing XP on monsters as in 3e and 4e makes it more difficult to play Indiana Jones, assassins, or Haley from OotS. How about just using a page in the rulebook to point out the ups and downs of each system? Trying to make a new XP system to unite all seems to me to be another example of "how standards proliferate".

 

[Doug McCrae]

If play is intended to be both gamist and simulationist, then I think gold for xp only works for certain types of character, those who would be motivated by treasure. It works for PCs who resemble sword and sorcery protagonists, such as Conan, but not high fantasy heroes such as Frodo or Sir Galahad.

If play isn't simulationist then you don't care about how inappropriate it is that the cleric of Apollo is scrabbling about in the muck, looking for silver pieces.

EDIT: Though I think I detect quite a cynical attitude towards members of the priesthood in Gygaxian D&D. Vance, Clark Ashton-Smith, to a lesser extent Robert E Howard, all present a cynical view of humanity. It's common in sword and sorcery. So maybe the Apollonian cleric's behaviour is not so inappropriate after all.

 

[Derren]

Please no. Or at least, not with a direct GP = XP conversion.

Awarding XP for finding a legendary treasure is fine, but when the value of the treasure directly affects the XP gain then it will be very hard to hand out higher than normal rewards and have "filthy rich" PCs or have games where PCs barely have any money.

I didn't like money as secondary XP in 4E because it prevented role playing when it involves spending gold (a character who spends frivolously till he is down to the next copper? Not possible in 4E as he needs gold for his item progression). I admit XP for gold wouldn't be as bad but I still don't like to see money being tied to advancement.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Why do you all use xp at all?

It gives a precise measure of achievement in gamist play, that is play in which the main aim is to challenge the players. Players who have overcome tough challenges like to have some sort of marker, or badge of honour, like a medal. Traditionally in D&D, level ups, along with magic items, have been the means by which achievement is measured.

Xp could also be used in more realistic play, to represent characters getting better at what they do as a result of experience in the field fighting, casting spells, using skills and generally adventuring, and also from training.

Awarding a whole level is usually too much in D&D, as play is supposed to be long term, lasting for months or years. A smaller scale reward system is needed, to measure progress towards the next level.

 

[imurphy943]

It works for PCs who resemble sword and sorcery protagonists, such as Conan, but not high fantasy heroes such as Frodo or Sir Galahad.

Frodo was never a professional adventurer, did very poorly in combat, and never really got better at anything other than overcoming his fears. Note also that gold is still immensely useful, even without experience tied to it. I bet that everybody in the Fellowship would totally love to have some gold, but didn't stop for any because if they did, they would probably die painfully along with thousands of other people.

Sir Galahad probably earned tons of money doing what he did. As a knight, he got land, forfeit from anybody that he beat during a tournament, and whatever money his various foes had. Whether he kept that money or gave it all to charity, he still earned money for being good at his job, and therefore gained XP. If you wanted to emulate that even more closely, you could use the XP for GP spent rule to encourage charity.

Listen, I don't think that any way but the one I use is wrong, but I do really like XP for gold, it isn't broken, and if WotC wants me to buy their game they ought to take a paragraph and explain it as a viable option.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

XP for gold as the primary experience driver works pretty well for certain styles of play, such as dungeon crawls. It is terrible for other common styles of play.

It would be, using today's terms, rather "videogamey".

That said, I think XP for largesse is a more promising idea because it allows players who are not just into optimizing equipment a simple means of keeping up with the Jones (or at least not falling far behind). At the gamist theory level, the PC is giving up one kind of mechanical advantage for another.

"Smart and cautious" sounds all lovely until you have to sit through 3 hours of Samwise Gamgee and Frodo Baggins tallying every last rusty dagger in Caer Ungol, so they can level up before getting around to saving the world.