The basic tenet of the Wizard: More

[Jack7]

Very nice post, by the way.

I'll second that.
And very well argued and written as well.

You should write up things like this more often.

 

[Mallus]

...many of the design elements of AD&D were based on balance, but that balance was seen at the campaign scale, not the individual encounter or even adventure scale.

When you put it that way... I agree!

 

[xechnao]

You mean the Kingpriest? (the cleric)

I think so yes. I found this
Dragonlance Nexus: Beldinas Pilofiro - Dragonlance Lexicon

 

[Mallus]

She was placed in a situation where an obsessive drive, a maniacal drive, for MORE, was the ONLY way she could make it, could survive. Content with what she had - Nothing - she was dead. Only if she was ruthlessly driven to seek for More, and willing to do what was required to obtain More, could she hope to survive, to where she was a viable character ... and by that time, More was her Way of Life.

So D&D should support a single way to play a wizard?

What if a player wants to emulate a fictional character like Elric, or, god help me, Harry Potter?

 

[xechnao]

So D&D should support a single way to play a wizard?

What if a player wants to emulate a fictional character like Elric, or, god help me, Harry Potter?

Find a roleplaying game that emulates this sort of thing that we wants?

 

[The Ghost]

A good reminder about what I love about early edition gaming. This desire to acquire more, as you call it, contrasted against the desire to survive made our characters act very cautiously. They were also forced to be more creative in how they overcame challenges. With so much of the experience coming from acquiring loot it was not always best to actually fight monsters. Trickery, stealth, and guile were very good strategies.

A little part of me grows sad every time I hear "kill monster and take his stuff."

 

[Jack Colby]

What is the point of this? Seriously.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A good reminder about what I love about early edition gaming. This desire to acquire more, as you call it, contrasted against the desire to survive made our characters act very cautiously. They were also forced to be more creative in how they overcame challenges. With so much of the experience coming from acquiring loot it was not always best to actually fight monsters. Trickery, stealth, and guile were very good strategies.

A little part of me grows sad every time I hear "kill monster and take his stuff."

I don´t know about 4th edition, but in 3.0 there was somewhere hidden, that xp is gained for overcoming the challenge, not for killing the monster. I.e. no killing required per rules...

This is actually the best approach: xp when it makes sense. Often you only leveld up when the DM will let you find a dragons treasure hoard...

and to bring this post back to topic:

and to add insult to injury, when the mage needs double the xp to achieve 2nd level as the thief, thieves get 2 extra xp for each 1gp they find... which is the main source of xp in later levels...

 

[Mallus]

What is the point of this? Seriously.

My guess would be romanticizing a certain kind of previous edition play.

 

[Mallus]

Find a roleplaying game that emulates this sort of thing that we wants?

D&D has a long tradition of people using it for different kinds of play, despite the existence of less-well supported niche games that might, at first, seem more appropriate.