• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

OSR/older D&D and XP from gold - is there a "proper" alternative?

pemerton

Legend
So in 1e you only got experince for gold or treasure if the encounter was higher kevel than the party. If they faced level appropriate encounters they didnt get exp for that.
If this is intended as a statement of the rules for Gygax's AD&D, it is wrong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


CapnZapp

Legend
Thanks.

I take it we all understand that real mercenary companies or even groups of mercenaries were rather larger than the typical size of a roleplaying party.

That is, realistically, mercenary jobs and missions are jobs for 20 men. 50 men. Or maybe even a number in the low hundreds.

You simply don't take six men to confront a group of bandits, since you have no idea how many these are. If you take 50, however, you can assume with a fair degree of certainty that your unit cohesion will carry the day even if it turns out you're outnumbered since it is unlikely that a similarly large group of trained and equipped men could form without alerting your intelligence.

Of course, one D&D hero can do the work of a dozen men, so...
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
If this is intended as a statement of the rules for Gygax's AD&D, it is wrong.
I don’t know if the DMG is more specific, but the PHB does state the amount of XP awarded for finding treasure should be adjusted based on the challenge posed by its guardian. I can see how it could be interpreted like the OP says.

Player’s Handbook p. 106 said:
As a rule, one point of experience will be awarded for one gold piece gained by a character, with copper pieces, silver pieces, electrum pieces, platinum pieces, gems, jewelry, and like treasure being converted to a gold piece value. Magic items gained and retained have only a low experience point value, for they benefit the character through their use. Magic items gained and sold immediately are treated as gold pieces, the selling price bringing an award in experience on the stated one for one basis. Experience points awarded for treasure gained — monetary or magical — are modified downward if the guardian of the treasure (whether a monster, device, or obstacle, such as a secret door or maze) was generally weaker than the character who overcame it. A 4th level character versus a single orc is an overmatch, and only about 10% of the treasure value gained could count towards experience points; but if nine or ten orcs were involved, the experience points awarded would generally be on the one for one basis.
 

pemerton

Legend
I don’t know if the DMG is more specific, but the PHB does state the amount of XP awarded for finding treasure should be adjusted based on the challenge posed by its guardian. I can see how it could be interpreted like the OP says.
The DMG also states rules for adjustment (basically, dilute the XP from treasure if the PC was more powerful than the opponents). But there's no rule that allows modification to zero. And if the "level" of the encounter equals the party level, then - subject to a rule about extreme disparities of average levels - the PCs get full experience, not none which is what @nevin posted.
 

nevin

Adventurer
Sta
If this is intended as a statement of the rules for Gygax's AD&D, it is wrong.
I am wrong. a reread of the old rule makes it clear that ep given for gold should be adjusted by average HD of encounter. So taking a million gold from a tribe of orcs would net a small amount of experience for a high level party. This was the most abused rule in my experience. whether it was because most dms never read the whole book or simply because it was easier to not adjust it I dont know.

Also magic items kept and used only gave you a small ep gain by that section. Acording to the book thier value was in thier use.


characters or halved for henchman characters.
EXPERIENCE VALUE OF TREASURE TAKEN
Gold Pieces: Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in
gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device
fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience
is awarded on a 1 for 1 basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively
weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 x.P., 3 to 2,2 to 1,3 to 1, or even
4 or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. For example, if a
10th level magic-user takes 1,OOO g.p. from 10 kobolds, the relative
strengths are about 20 to 1 in favor of the magic-user. (Such strength
comparisons are subjective and must be based upon the degree of
challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure
taker.)
Treasure must be physically tak
 

nevin

Adventurer
Also it says somewhere in the book that the DM should award what they think is appropriate
For those replying to a 3 year old thread, I will note that I ended up using a milestone type XP system and it worked pretty well. I used this as a campaign generator:

My problem with milestone leveling is Ive never seen a DM apply it in any predictabke fashion. Generally they get upset if the party gets to the milestone by outhinking thier opponents they tend to skip the award and move on. experience per monster or encounter or by gold all have thier problems but they are up front and understandable.

Milestones done wrong can feel like arbitrary brakes to keep you where the DM wants you. Not a fun thing
 

Ath-kethin

Elder Thing
So I realize this is an old thread, but something I didn't see brought up was just awarding a set amount of XP per adventure or encounter. That's the system Dungeon Crawl Classics uses, and I love it. It's easy, it's intuitive, and it's fair. You can bump the amount up or down based on the difficulty of the encounter, but the basic idea is survive the encounter, get <X> XP.

It rewards simple survival over anything else, really, but it also rewards exploration (the more encounters you survive, the more XP you gain).

I dig it.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
I am using a goal-based system where the players set (individual and group) goals and get XP if they complete them. I defer to group consensus to determine whether they complete them. This gives us flexibility to adapt when the gameplay loop changes*, and it avoids the issue described above where the PCs though they accomplished their goal (achieved the milestone), but the GM decides otherwise.



* My campaign is a sandbox campaign. The group’s aspiration is to loot the old capital ruins of a fallen country. It’s a huge megastructure, and they aren’t sure how/if they can get inside. If they decide they need to spend a few sessions back in the capital of its neighbor doing research, they can set their goals accordingly. Instead of getting nothing because they weren’t looting dungeons (the presumed default loop), they get rewarded for doing something that is arguable more important towards their ultimate objective.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
My problem with milestone leveling is Ive never seen a DM apply it in any predictabke fashion.
Not sure what you expect. Do you by predictable mean objective?

Milestone leveling means leveling at the speed of plot. Not sure how anyone can expect that to be predictable, except in meta terms "you level up when you complete the chapter"...
Milestones done wrong can feel like arbitrary brakes to keep you where the DM wants you. Not a fun thing
Oh, milestones is absolutely meant to keep you where the DM needs you to be, no doubts about it!
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Milestones done wrong can feel like arbitrary brakes to keep you where the DM wants you. Not a fun thing

It should be noted - the GM (possibly in consultation with the players, possibly not) determines the pace of leveling. If the GM wants a slow advancement, it's their right - they are doing most of the work after all, and know things you do not (like possible plans for the campaign).

If you don't like it, talk with the GM. If that doesn't fix things, you are perfectly free to find another game.
 

nevin

Adventurer
It should be noted - the GM (possibly in consultation with the players, possibly not) determines the pace of leveling. If the GM wants a slow advancement, it's their right - they are doing most of the work after all, and know things you do not (like possible plans for the campaign).

If you don't like it, talk with the GM. If that doesn't fix things, you are perfectly free to find another game.
That advice would follow for any system. Nothing you said changes the fact that milestone leveling is an in your face arbitrary way of controlling what level you keep players at.
 

nevin

Adventurer
Not sure what you expect. Do you by predictable mean objective?

Milestone leveling means leveling at the speed of plot. Not sure how anyone can expect that to be predictable, except in meta terms "you level up when you complete the chapter"...

Oh, milestones is absolutely meant to keep you where the DM needs you to be, no doubts about it!
no what I mean is every DM I've ever played with that uses milestone leveling runs the milestone leveling one a sliding scale. If they feel the party "outsmarted" thier milestone and completed it too easily they just skip the level up and keep playing at that level. Honestly it's negative reinforcement to punish the players for being creative, demoralizing, and if your going to play that way you might as well play a game without levels.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
That advice would follow for any system. Nothing you said changes the fact that milestone leveling is an in your face arbitrary way of controlling what level you keep players at.
but you control the pace of advancement anyway! (you are controlling what encounters the PCs have). So why bother with all this math? I have better things to do with my prep time.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
no what I mean is every DM I've ever played with that uses milestone leveling runs the milestone leveling one a sliding scale. If they feel the party "outsmarted" thier milestone and completed it too easily they just skip the level up and keep playing at that level.
Yeah, but see, that's not a problem with milestone leveling, that's a problem with your DMs.

Honestly it's negative reinforcement to punish the players for being creative, demoralizing, and if your going to play that way you might as well play a game without levels.
I agree.

That's bad DMing.

What it is not, however, is an inherent flaw with milestone leveling.

Take one of Paizo's 2nd Edition Adventure Paths for instance. You're the GM. You begin chapter 1 with freshly hatched level 1 characters. Then when they move over to chapter 2, you tell them they level up to 2.

Milestone leveling. No bad GMing.

That is just one quick simple example.

I realize you prefer good old xp because you feel that's the only way you can avoid getting cheated out of your advancement.

But boy is that a pessimistic way of looking at things...
 


Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top