D&D 5E Sacred Cow Bites The Dust.

[pemerton]

shouldn't PCs get XP based on their class? Warriors kill, thieves steal, wizards learn, and priests proselytize.

From the AD&D DMG, p 85:

Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be
deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

From this we can work out what, in Gygax's view, made for an interesting and playable game - namely, raiding dungeons trying to extract gold.

More generally, if gaining levels is meant to be a significant element of the game, then it makes sense that the trigger for gaining levels should be doing whatever it is that is worthwhile in playing the game.

For Gygax, that was getting loot. (And if you were unlucky or unskilled at getting loot, well, you didn't level - AD&D was meant to be a game of skill.)

In 4e, as long as you're engaging the game (via combat encounters, non-combat encounters or free roleplaying) you earn XP, at a largely constant rate (of approx one level per 10 to 12 hours of engaged play) - this is why that system lends itself well to "milestone" or "per session" levelling instead of XP.

XP-for- combat makes sense if you think that what is worthwhile in playing the game is having fights; but not otherwise.

 

[Jeffrey Malcolmson]

I had forgotten to track (first time DM'ing in 20 years). I looked down at my notes, looked back up at them and said...
"we're using milestones!"
They said "COOL!!"
*whew*

Smooth!

Anyways, I've used all sorts of character advancement schemes.

I have found that XP systems make the most sense when players are able to compete for XP, and the group is allowed to have characters of varying level. If you distribute XP evenly and scheme to have everyone level at the same time, you're already running milestones, you're just doing it the hard way. As such, it seems to work better in more decentralized playstyles. Crawls of the dungeon or hex variety, and other types of decentralized or free-roam games, especially those with an emergent narrative strategy, tend to benefit from an XP system the most.

Meanwhile, any railroady or narrative-focused game, ones where the heroes are generally a group who move and work together in nearly all things, who are generally expected to triumph over evil, do best with milestones, because they simply don't have much use for that type of competitive element.

I played a few games with reduced level caps, like Epic 6. Those are good for certain types of stories, but those groups never lasted.

 

[GMMichael]

Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be
deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

Nice catch! This could be the thread that was used to weave the...800 pound gorilla's bad Christmas sweater. "Why is D&D all about combat?" "Because that's how it's supposed to be!"

Wonder how the OP is doing on this particular sacred cow...

 

[Igwilly]

Right now XP for treasure makes perfect sense to me. XP is supposed to reward certain achievements. Finding treasure is an achievement. Even paladins in my table are happy when they see it.

Also, people are forgetting one important thing: XP for roleplay in 4e was optional. And in every other edition, too, I guess.

 

[Helldritch]

Right now XP for treasure makes perfect sense to me. XP is supposed to reward certain achievements. Finding treasure is an achievement. Even paladins in my table are happy when they see it.

Also, people are forgetting one important thing: XP for roleplay in 4e was optional. And in every other edition, too, I guess.

Yep it was and has always been. Never stopped me from doing it though.

 

[Igwilly]

Yep it was and has always been. Never stopped me from doing it though.

That’s not the problem. The problem is people arguing about it as if it was standard rules.

 

[Sunseeker]

From the AD&D DMG, p 85:

Players who balk at equating gold pieces to experience points should be gently but firmly reminded that in a game certain compromises must be made. While it is more "realistic" for clerics to study holy writings, pray, chant, practice self-discipline, etc. to gain experience, it would not make a playable game roll along. Similarly, fighters should be exercising, riding, smiting pelts, tilting at the lists, and engaging in weapons practice of various sorts to gain real expertise (experience); magic-users should be
deciphering old scrolls, searching ancient tomes, experimenting alchemically, and so forth; while thieves should spend their off-hours honing their skills, "casing" various buildings, watching potential victims, and carefully planning their next "job". All very realistic but conducive to non-game boredom!​

From this we can work out what, in Gygax's view, made for an interesting and playable game - namely, raiding dungeons trying to extract gold.

More generally, if gaining levels is meant to be a significant element of the game, then it makes sense that the trigger for gaining levels should be doing whatever it is that is worthwhile in playing the game.

For Gygax, that was getting loot. (And if you were unlucky or unskilled at getting loot, well, you didn't level - AD&D was meant to be a game of skill.)

In 4e, as long as you're engaging the game (via combat encounters, non-combat encounters or free roleplaying) you earn XP, at a largely constant rate (of approx one level per 10 to 12 hours of engaged play) - this is why that system lends itself well to "milestone" or "per session" levelling instead of XP.

XP-for- combat makes sense if you think that what is worthwhile in playing the game is having fights; but not otherwise.

I have no general issue with XP-for-gold except that I worry it promotes selfishness and inter-party conflict if you do not assign it as group XP. I don't care who gets the gold in a game. My characters (even the selfish ones) buy things for others because at least on a fundamental level they understand that more effective team-mates makes everyone stronger. I don't care if I have 10 gold, 100 gold, a billion gold or none at all. What I do care about is that teamwork gets rewarded with team rewards. I don't want to sit down and debate with the party who gets the loot. I don't want to fight with party members over catching them slipping an extra ruby in their pocket and denying the rest of the party the XP from it.

So any system that inherently encourages greed and division I cock an eyebrow at and ask what it's adding to a group game?

 

[Igwilly]

I have no general issue with XP-for-gold except that I worry it promotes selfishness and inter-party conflict if you do not assign it as group XP. I don't care who gets the gold in a game. My characters (even the selfish ones) buy things for others because at least on a fundamental level they understand that more effective team-mates makes everyone stronger. I don't care if I have 10 gold, 100 gold, a billion gold or none at all. What I do care about is that teamwork gets rewarded with team rewards. I don't want to sit down and debate with the party who gets the loot. I don't want to fight with party members over catching them slipping an extra ruby in their pocket and denying the rest of the party the XP from it.

So any system that inherently encourages greed and division I cock an eyebrow at and ask what it's adding to a group game?

It doesn't

 

[pemerton]

XP for roleplay in 4e was optional.

It was presented in the DMG2. And it wasn't XP for "good RP". It was XP for engaging the ingame situation via free roleplay, at the rate of one party-level creature worth of XP per 15 minutes.

 

[pemerton]

I have no general issue with XP-for-gold

I haven't used it since the late 80s. It makes sense in a game where the goal of play is to accumlate treasure; but not otherwise.