Sacrosanct
Legend
Thought exercise
The other day I had heard something from Joe the Lawyer about how spells like knock, wizard eye, etc were important in TSR era D&D because they allowed you to get to that treasure, and it really resonated with me in the debate between OSR (TSR era) and "modern" (WotC) D&D styles.
XP for Treasure
Many of you who have never played TSR era D&D have still heard how you were awarded XP for treasure. This was true. You might get 100xp for the monster, but 500-1000 xp for the value of its treasure. This changed with WotC (well, started to in 2e, but was still an optional rule). People tend to act in ways that foster the reward. Basic human psychology. We do things at work that we are rated/rewarded on. Same for games.
Result
What I saw happening as result was that combat was not only done more often, but it was expected. I saw a shift from "not every monster should be beatable" to "every encounter should be beatable" in attitudes as modern DnD took hold. There was an increased expectation from players that every combat encounter should be winnable because that's how you got your XP. Contrasted with TSR DnD, where most of us had an expectation of play that you avoided combat whenever possible (because it was so dangerous) and found ways to bypass the combat and go to the treasure (where the XP was).
With this shift was the de-prioritization of the Exploration pillar in at least two very prominent ways:
Spells
In TSR era D&D, utility spells were important, and often more important than combat spells. Most old school players knows how only a newbie Magic User takes Magic Missile at first level, the real powerful spell to take was either sleep or charm person. Spells like levitate, knock, teleport, invisibility, and dispel magic were very important. Sure, you also had combat spells, but crowd control was more important than DPR: hold person, sleep, stinking cloud, etc. If I were to make a guess, I'd say over 50% of your memorized spells were utility spells. Again, bypass monsters and traps (which there were a lot of), and get to the treasure.
In modern D&D, I'd say close to 75% of cast spells are combat encounter orientated. That's the style of play. Along with a philosophy of "every character should be able to overcome any challenge" (as opposed to how TSR emphasized a team niche aspect), there isn't as much of a need to spend your spells on exploration or utility spells--some other class has a power to help with that.
The thief
I've seen, many times, how modern D&D players look at the AD&D thief and think it's a woefully underpowered class. From a modern lens, I can see how that might be, because it's being viewed through the "combat all the time" lens. If the AD&D was forced to fight in every encounter, they wouldn't last long. Their specialty was getting out of combat (finding secret doors, sneaking by, etc) and getting that treasure and XP (PP, OL, F/RT). In AD&D, the thief more than held their own in gameplay based on the style as explained above. So when modern D&D came about, with the emphasis on XP for monsters, the design team had to beef the thief up significantly (like applying sneak attack/backstab damage once a round).
Conclusion
Anyway, it's an interesting thought exercise to see how much of the game changed by shifting from XP for treasure to XP for monsters. That design philosophy had a huge impact on the exploration pillar, spells, and thieves, and I'm sure a lot of other things as well. And it appears to my eyes at least, a trend that is continuing to shift even further in that direction. Things like being able to identify magical items just by spending time with it (no longer needing the detect magic or identify spells), going to full HP after a long rest, and repeatable saves if you get a disease are some examples.
The other day I had heard something from Joe the Lawyer about how spells like knock, wizard eye, etc were important in TSR era D&D because they allowed you to get to that treasure, and it really resonated with me in the debate between OSR (TSR era) and "modern" (WotC) D&D styles.
XP for Treasure
Many of you who have never played TSR era D&D have still heard how you were awarded XP for treasure. This was true. You might get 100xp for the monster, but 500-1000 xp for the value of its treasure. This changed with WotC (well, started to in 2e, but was still an optional rule). People tend to act in ways that foster the reward. Basic human psychology. We do things at work that we are rated/rewarded on. Same for games.
Result
What I saw happening as result was that combat was not only done more often, but it was expected. I saw a shift from "not every monster should be beatable" to "every encounter should be beatable" in attitudes as modern DnD took hold. There was an increased expectation from players that every combat encounter should be winnable because that's how you got your XP. Contrasted with TSR DnD, where most of us had an expectation of play that you avoided combat whenever possible (because it was so dangerous) and found ways to bypass the combat and go to the treasure (where the XP was).
With this shift was the de-prioritization of the Exploration pillar in at least two very prominent ways:
Spells
In TSR era D&D, utility spells were important, and often more important than combat spells. Most old school players knows how only a newbie Magic User takes Magic Missile at first level, the real powerful spell to take was either sleep or charm person. Spells like levitate, knock, teleport, invisibility, and dispel magic were very important. Sure, you also had combat spells, but crowd control was more important than DPR: hold person, sleep, stinking cloud, etc. If I were to make a guess, I'd say over 50% of your memorized spells were utility spells. Again, bypass monsters and traps (which there were a lot of), and get to the treasure.
In modern D&D, I'd say close to 75% of cast spells are combat encounter orientated. That's the style of play. Along with a philosophy of "every character should be able to overcome any challenge" (as opposed to how TSR emphasized a team niche aspect), there isn't as much of a need to spend your spells on exploration or utility spells--some other class has a power to help with that.
The thief
I've seen, many times, how modern D&D players look at the AD&D thief and think it's a woefully underpowered class. From a modern lens, I can see how that might be, because it's being viewed through the "combat all the time" lens. If the AD&D was forced to fight in every encounter, they wouldn't last long. Their specialty was getting out of combat (finding secret doors, sneaking by, etc) and getting that treasure and XP (PP, OL, F/RT). In AD&D, the thief more than held their own in gameplay based on the style as explained above. So when modern D&D came about, with the emphasis on XP for monsters, the design team had to beef the thief up significantly (like applying sneak attack/backstab damage once a round).
Conclusion
Anyway, it's an interesting thought exercise to see how much of the game changed by shifting from XP for treasure to XP for monsters. That design philosophy had a huge impact on the exploration pillar, spells, and thieves, and I'm sure a lot of other things as well. And it appears to my eyes at least, a trend that is continuing to shift even further in that direction. Things like being able to identify magical items just by spending time with it (no longer needing the detect magic or identify spells), going to full HP after a long rest, and repeatable saves if you get a disease are some examples.
