What is the essence of D&D

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
To me sounds like someone is claiming 4e takes over peoples minds and they cannot spend whole sessions exploring or using skills to solve problems ... where as interestingly enough it was the first edition which had solid tools to help enable that kind of adventuring in cooperative team effort and providing experience point gain based on the challenges faced. The first edition that encouraged DMs to allow character skill use as able to address the big problems as much as say a wizards spell and enabled it at many other levels.
 
Last edited:

Monayuris

Explorer
To me sounds like someone is claiming 4e takes over peoples minds and they cannot spend whole sessions exploring or using skills to solve problems ... where as interestingly enough it was the first edition which had solid tools to help enable that kind of adventuring in cooperative team effort and providing experience point gain based on the challenges faced. The first edition that encouraged DMs to allow character skill use as able to address the big problems as much as say a wizards spell and enabled it at many other levels.
I'd say this is incorrect.

The first edition to provide the experience you describe is probably OD&D or Basic / Expert.

It achieved this state well before 4E came out. It does so by way of its extremely detailed exploration procedures. These procedures put a lot of agency in the hands of the players. The choices you need to make in exploration are meaningful and impactful in ways not provided by any other game.

4E was not so great at out of combat situations (well no worse than any other edition). I found skill challenges to be awkward to utilize. I appreciated the effort to quantify and qualify the out of combat situation... but skill challenges were the wrong solution.

4E attempted to handle out of combat situations using an abstract skill challenge system... whereas B/X did the same by providing tangible and objective rules procedures. I prefered the B/X approach because they were understandable and relatable from a player perspective. Skill challenges were just arbitrary to me.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
B/X accomplishes the same goal by challenging player skill. It is the choices that the player makes that decides success or failure in any given endeavour.
Player social skill at tweaking the DMS knobs?

Because without a clear system of tactical differences etc there isnt a player skill. (except read the DM).
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Or was it player skill at reading from a sheet of step by step actions for entering through a door (avoiding the Thief skills as much as possible). Cause I saw that. Admittedly most of this was AD&D it might not be what you are thinking of.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
Player social skill at tweaking the DMS knobs?

Because without a clear system of tactical differences etc there isnt a player skill. (except read the DM).
Nope.

I can explain if you would like. I am talking about tangible, objective and procedural elements to the exploration game.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
Or was it player skill at reading from a sheet of step by step actions for entering through a door (avoiding the Thief skills as much as possible). Cause I saw that. Admittedly most of this was AD&D it might not be what you are thinking of.
Fair enough. There may be a disconnect here. I am most well versed in B/X. I played AD&D when I was young. We mostly played AD&D as B/X but with the cool classes and sometimes weapon vs AC and speed factor added in.

If there were elements of AD&D that you personally experienced that I didn't share then I can only submit to your experiences.

I'm talking about the game as written and the procedural elements in B/X dungeon and wilderness exploration rules and how they create an objective reality that players can manipulate and interact with.

I tried skill challenges when I ran 4E and I never felt comfortable running them. They felt awkward and I felt they were a little contrived. I was never able to run one in a way that was satisfactory. Honestly could just be me so maybe I was a little over wrought over this.

For that, I apologize.

I just feel the procedures in B/X achieve the idea of the player interaction with exploration and player teamwork in a more tangible way.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I just feel the procedures in B/X achieve the idea of the player interaction with exploration and player teamwork in a more tangible way.
My responses are all over the board and all are in detail ignorant of the B/X version.

Player teamwork? Classically always seemed like a spell caster going blink the party is now fully escaped from the scenario and basking at home or some other extreme effect because I pushed the win button. That is often a feature of spells in early edition and they brought it back in 5e. Of course only casters get those buttons or extreme benefits, because flank teamwork. But non caster abilities...nope cannot do it.

When we discuss character skills vs player "skill" as I said without very clear systematised effects it becomes playing the DM not the game which is what I seen in AD&D - that said I suppose its possible the same kind of clarity could be done that is done for combat ... i am not thinking it has been.

I do not have the nature skills (or atleast incredibly few) of my character I am not a fine singer nor expert swimmer and the procedural elements I seen brought int to AD&D came off eventually as memorizing or reciting from this laundry or shopping list to me I do not see any of that as functionally playing a role other than the role of "me", it is good when you can have things which help create the illusion of connectivity between my "game choices" and "game world effects", for instance am I direct or deceptive.. or analytic or just shooting from my gut am I taking a lot of risk to gain advantage later or now am I exploiting something now - and similar general choices and with actual methodical means, that might be one way of letting me influence the details of something neither I nor the DM really do not know.

Are you going to ask the player how his character swims which stroke for use in a storm and decide his character is going to drown because he didnt pick a side stroke attempting to get to that island, which btw takes very little energy? No that doesnt make too much sense.

And while me trying to guess the things the DM sees as important is never avoidable it happens in every version of the game (including those skill challenges) I think its better to reduce than encourage too much. I am utterly dependent on what the dm OR system provides with regards to what I see and even what the character can understand as important I can be given resources but when it gets down to it my game choices really just need to be symbolic of real choices of the characters in part because we cannot really know the details without being the character. Excess pretence that is the player being "tested" is just excessive pretense to me. AND its usually presented with a very haughty we are better than you attitude - not to mention gygaxian adversarialism... ooh you forgot to listen at the door this time shame on you die or you listened one too many times die from ear mites.

There is a certain amount of proxying of game for character success too, but unless that is regulated in interesting ways the higher abstraction can avoid tedium of laundry list behaviors.

A skill challenge is a structure for DM tracking progress towards a difficult to achieve goal and it encouraged DMs to make certain that some single spell (or even single skill) wasnt being allowed overwhelming benefits in the big picture, like a teleport trivializing what might be an interesting set of choices and skill applications. It is indeed mostly a back end element of the game a tool for DMs but it also in general encouraged thinking about how those character skills might be leveraged multiple ways while allowing them to be significant. I actually didnt start 4e till after they had ironed out some core elements of the mechanical kinks in skill challenges.

It tied advancement of the characters to challenging of the characters (with yeah that does your skill application make sense to us mixed it) and served as a basis for advancing characters (giving out experience points) for something other than greed or killing its how difficult is the adversary (in this case not a being). 2e actually implied with a grab bag of experience sub systems some sort of way to give experience for this non-combat stuff but to me it really wasn't really very clear and often seemingly utterly arbitrary *(you saved the princess here is some XP... how many shrug... some.) Oh and earlier than that you saved the princess this is the gold reward..and the XP to make sure that is what you do, but make it a barmaid you saved and meh.

I do not know the edition you are talking about and i have actually heard some positives but I am not familiar with a procedural approach that ends with positive results instead of tedium.
 
Last edited:

Monayuris

Explorer
My responses are all over the board and all are in detail ignorant of the B/X version.
You presented a lot to unpack. So I'll take them in order. I apologize for the LONG post.


Player teamwork? Classically always seemed like a spell caster going blink the party is now fully escaped from the scenario and basking at home or some other extreme effect because I pushed the win button. That is often a feature of spells in early edition and they brought it back in 5e. Of course only casters get those buttons or extreme benefits, because flank teamwork. But non caster abilities...nope cannot do it.

There are very few situations where a spell caster in B/X can blink the party home in an instant. You are thinking spells like teleport (which are both high level and also somewhat risky… it is possible to fail a teleport and end up lost miles from where you intended to go).

The closest spell I can think of that is accessible at low levels and acts as a win button would be Sleep. It is true; this spell can negate an entire encounter. But there are significant trade offs…
  1. A MU (Magic User) is likely only going to have one casting of the spell. A 2nd level MU could have 2, but they would have to memorize 2 copies of the spell and forgo the use of other potentially useful spells. MU's get very limited spells per day.
  2. Sleep is only effective on weaker creatures, at the point where a MU is powerful enough to afford multiple castings of the spell the threats they will face will likely be immune.
  3. Casting spells needs to be declared before initiative. If the MU loses initiative and takes damage, the spell fails and is lost. The act of casting in combat is inherently risky.

All of these things put the MU on par balance wise with the rest of the party. The MU can negate an encounter, once. They get the spotlight in this case, but once that is done, they are relegated to supporting roles in future encounters.

When we discuss character skills vs player "skill" as I said without very clear systematised effects it becomes playing the DM not the game which is what I seen in AD&D - that said I suppose its possible the same kind of clarity could be done that is done for combat ... i am not thinking it has been.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by playing the DM. Are you talking about trying to manipulate or trick the DM?

There are many clear elements in B/X where player skill at the game directly impacts the success of the session that don't require manipulation.
  1. Time management. Making skilled choices in deciding actions in the dungeon weighed against time it takes. Making good judgment on whether an activity should be attempted… weighing against risks such as depletion of light sources and wandering monsters.
  2. Encounter management. Choosing when to engage in combat and when to evade or attempt talking. Making judgments on the value of sacrificing treasure or food to avoid an unwanted encounter.
  3. Spell management. Making judgements on the best time to utilize limited resources like spells or wands.
These three items alone provide systematic game play that requires player skill and the skill of the player in this directly effects whether they are successful. There is zero playing the DM involved here.

I do not have the nature skills (or atleast incredibly few) of my character I am not a fine singer nor expert swimmer and the procedural elements I seen brought int to AD&D came off eventually as memorizing or reciting from this laundry or shopping list to me I do not see any of that as functionally playing a role other than the role of "me", it is good when you can have things which help create the illusion of connectivity between my "game choices" and "game world effects", for instance am I direct or deceptive.. or analytic or just shooting from my gut am I taking a lot of risk to gain advantage later or now am I exploiting something now - and similar general choices and with actual methodical means, that might be one way of letting me influence the details of something neither I nor the DM really do not know.
None of these are necessary. Your character is your avatar / playing piece in the game, not you, yourself. Player skill has nothing to do with this. The skill comes from making the choices as a player to use the abilities of your character. If this sounds very similar to the approach that 4E takes, it is because it is similar. Its just the mechanism is different.

Are you going to ask the player how his character swims which stroke for use in a storm and decide his character is going to drown because he didnt pick a side stroke attempting to get to that island, which btw takes very little energy? No that doesnt make too much sense.
No of course not. But if their character is a fighter and/or came from nautical background then its likely they'll have the skills to make it to the shore. Instead of a laundry list of skills or a massive suite of powers, I can work with the player to reach a reasonable judgement about the capabilities of a character.


And while me trying to guess the things the DM sees as important is never avoidable it happens in every version of the game (including those skill challenges) I think its better to reduce than encourage too much. I am utterly dependent on what the dm OR system provides with regards to what I see and even what the character can understand as important I can be given resources but when it gets down to it my game choices really just need to be symbolic of real choices of the characters in part because we cannot really know the details without being the character.
I agree that players are indeed dependent on the DM. I disagree on the approach to solution.

D&D is a game. Like any other game worth playing, it requires a certain amount of skill… both as a player and as a DM. People can be bad at D&D, they can lack skill. But like any other game, the more effort you put into the game the more skill you develop. At least for me, a significant part of any game is not just the experience of playing the game but the accomplishment of becoming better at it.

For me personally, instead of striving to reduce the influence of the DM, effort should be put into helping DM's improve their skill.

To be frank, if a DM is forcing you to guess at what they see as important, then they are not a skilled DM.

They should be providing clear choices and they should be clear about the consequences of your choices. A skilled DM will ask the player what their intention is and explain the risks and consequences in a manner that allow the player to make an informed choice.

Excess pretence that is the player being "tested" is just excessive pretense to me. AND its usually presented with a very haughty we are better than you attitude - not to mention gygaxian adversarialism... ooh you forgot to listen at the door this time shame on you die or you listened one too many times die from ear mites.
I'm not trying to make claims that I am better at anyone else.

To be honest the statements you make about the 'door situation' are just as perplexing and off base as statements about 4E being 'just a video game'.

No one who wants to run an old school game in good conscious and with honesty does that.

You are describing poor DM'ing or flat out a**hole behavior. It's not a game system problem.


There is a certain amount of proxying of game for character success too, but unless that is regulated in interesting ways the higher abstraction can avoid tedium of laundry list behaviors.
I'm not sure I understand this comment. I would welcome clarification if you would be interested.

A skill challenge is a structure for DM tracking progress towards a difficult to achieve goal and it encouraged DMs to make certain that some single spell (or even single skill) wasnt being allowed overwhelming benefits in the big picture, like a teleport trivializing what might be an interesting set of choices and skill applications. It is indeed mostly a back end element of the game a tool for DMs but it also in general encouraged thinking about how those character skills might be leveraged multiple ways while allowing them to be significant. I actually didnt start 4e till after they had ironed out some core elements of the mechanical kinks in skill challenges.
I am familiar with skill challenges. I've run 4E for over 5 years… so I understand the mechanic. I understand the primary vs. secondary skill and the complexity ratings.

I was never able to run skill challenge as its own encounter in a satisfying way.

I got better use out of them as a part of an encounter. For example: the party has to complete a skill challenge to deactivate an eldritch machine while its guardians attack them.


It tied advancement of the characters to challenging of the characters (with yeah that does your skill application make sense to us mixed it) and served as a basis for advancing characters (giving out experience points) for something other than greed or killing its how difficult is the adversary (in this case not a being). 2e actually implied with a grab bag of experience sub systems some sort of way to give experience for this non-combat stuff but to me it really wasn't really very clear and often seemingly utterly arbitrary *(you saved the princess here is some XP... how many shrug... some.) Oh and earlier than that you saved the princess this is the gold reward..and the XP to make sure that is what you do, but make it a barmaid you saved and meh.
Sure. You are talking about reward systems here and campaign tone.

Personally, I am a fan of XP for gold (as presented in B/X). I see XP for gold as an objective advancement tied to challenging the players. The choices and actions taken by the players result in the acquisition of treasure. Good choices lead to more treasure, poor choices don't.

But there some middle ground here. Players are not purely rational actors.

Just because you get experience for gold, doesn't mean that players will rob every living thing they come across and not save barmaids. In my experience running B/X for a decade, the game doesn't really turn everyone into murderous larcenous psychopaths.

Of course it does create a more cavalier approach to heroism. Characters aren't heroes they are adventurers.

If you want a campaign of heroes you don't use XP for gold.

I do not know the edition you are talking about and i have actually heard some positives but I am not familiar with a procedural approach that ends with positive results instead of tedium.
The game I am most familiar with is B/X.

I enjoy the procedural elements of the game, but I preface this in that they tend to be better suited to a dungeon delve / adventuring tone as opposed to a heroic tone.

But what I am talking about is the interactions between Turn based dungeon / wilderness exploration, wandering monsters, random reaction rolls, light source depletion over time. There is a lot of interesting game developments that happen just with the random procedural engine.

Some, examples…

Rolling an orc encounter with a friendly reaction result. Why are they friendly? Maybe they are being hunted by some even more powerful creature… maybe they will negotiate for help from the party.

Rolling a brigand encounter with No. Appearing 1. Why is one lone brigand wandering the dungeon? Perhaps he was the last survivor of his adventuring party. Perhaps he's wounded. Will the party help him? What can they learn from him?

A stuck door that is not able to be forced open. Does the party hack it open with axes? It will take time and the noise will call for possible encounters. Should they continue to explore, intead, and maybe find a way around it?

These are all examples of encounters that happen that are besides the set piece room encounters. Events that require some improvisation and willingness to let the session go in unexpected directions. To me they are like improvisational prompts that challenge me as a DM to read the 'tea leaves' and piece together something from some random events.

The game isn't fully known even to me. As a DM, I am playing along with the players and discovering the world with them. Sometimes a random encounter and the procedural element shapes the entire evening of play.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
There are very few situations where a spell caster in B/X can blink the party home in an instant. You are thinking spells like teleport (which are both high level and also somewhat risky… it is possible to fail a teleport and end up lost miles from where you intended to go).

The closest spell I can think of that is accessible at low levels and acts as a win button would be Sleep. It is true; this spell can negate an entire encounter.
5e teleport... is an example of such and going home is indeed fail safe.
But yes sleep was winning the spell lotto in ADnD too. AND it doesn't matter low or high level non-casters do not get that degree of impact at any level. You do get that?

I disliked random goo with a passion and found it uninspiring. (and anything bad DMing might do yes I know the door example was that - a random could do better or should I say worse - on a roll of 5 or 6 you get an ear mite killing you if you cannot get to a high level cleric within 48 hours (i think)... oh wait this is 2 weeks from generic town)

IF I wanted however I could recast that scene In 4e. Now you might get the ear mite trap 2 weeks journey out but there would be established ameliorating circumstances that made success possible = (note even in this circumstance this could still be trivialized by a caster for instance that party had a caster who knew teleport ritual or remove affliction - boring and not so worthy of story however one little scenario difference and we have skill challenge possibilities like if they do not have all the ingredients or maybe there was some sort of interdimensional shortcut of unknown destination which the ritualist might bend to make the teleport work with fewer ingredients, and require various skills to get there faster, they might be making nature and dungeoneering skill uses to gather the ingredients for that adjusted ritual fast enough (endurance checks strewn throughout for speed) or they might even use another skill check to think of a location about where the ritual could be cast with fewer ingredients (it could have just been a player idea creating a new ingredient in the story - perhaps relating to that magical rift the seen earlier now it has a function) they might be interrupted in the process by monsters (because it would make good story not because of random encounter charts) the historian in the party might remember that there was a high level priest who could help near another secluded monastery which is less time to get to and so on and much of that player driven ideas exploiting character abilities.

This is an intense scenario so the stakes are high and you need a lot of possible routes towards a success in my opinion.

The above is probably more than a bit incoherent and i didnt spend any time thinking of it (...but sometimes on the fly skill challenges turn out very good) AND in my experience the players Ideas are one huge ingredient beyond any planning you make.

EDIT The best skill challenges are things where progress is easily visualized like the chase scene and the likes. So death by parasite is less so but you can use the victims condition to track it. Additionally even the victim could have his endurance resisting the disease to help stages with delirium etc determining progress. ETC, Other characters making successes speed the process yes all can be abstractly inter connected, so he has to in effect make fewer checks. (The victim might be the one best at one of the skills that would help but have to overcome delirium temporarily to contribute)
In 4e the time isnt exact hours it might be a disease track.

Note how knowing the 5e teleport pretty much totally prevents the scenario AND many other similar ones entirely.

And undermines many chase scenes unless you are doing the chasing.
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Personally, I am a fan of XP for gold (as presented in B/X). I see XP for gold as an objective advancement tied to challenging the players.
Why it could be just as challenging rescuing that peasant girl as the princess. ie even in your paradigm can be incredibly challenged and logically get no gold. It was entirely about setting a tone of greed motivation AND yes it wasnt the story any of my players or myself wanted to play.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
But what I am talking about is the interactions between Turn based dungeon / wilderness exploration, wandering monsters, random reaction rolls, light source depletion over time. There is a lot of interesting game developments that happen just with the random procedural engine
Some, examples…
The questions rising from random encounters like those arent even intriguing to me AND that is a huge problem its the wrong kind of story dungeon clearing sheesh with characters having the wrong kind of motivations and so on. It was obvious that there was a game implied in that morasse that I wanted and the hit point mechanism alone showed it was possible Not to mention discussions by Gygax about how a random arrow from a mook couldn't kill Conan and so on. It was that potential for larger than life that made it better than RuneQuest. Not the pedestrian pest killing on a random timer.
 
Last edited:

Monayuris

Explorer
Why it could be just as challenging rescuing that peasant girl as the princess. ie even in your paradigm can be incredibly challenged and logically get no gold. It was entirely about setting a tone of greed motivation AND yes it wasnt the story any of my players or myself wanted to play.
That is actually an inaccurate statement.

In B/X, the rules for Giving out Experience are on page B22:
Experience points (abbreviated XP, as ep
stands for electrum pieces) are given for non-magical treasure and
for defeating monsters. For every 1 gp value of non-magical
treasure the characters recover, the DM should give 1 XP to the

party (this will be divided among all the player characters).
Note the award is for 1 gp value of non-magical treasure the characters recover. The reward gold would not grant experience.

I posit two scenarios

1. A barmaid was abducted by goblins. Her father, a local farmer offers 50gp (the entirety of his savings) to return her safely.

2. A princess was abducted by goblins. Her father, the king of the land, offers 20,000gp (a fraction of his royal coffers) to return her safely.

The goblin abductors, in both scenarios, are exactly the same in composition and loot that they possess.

In a game with XP for killing monsters: 3rd edition, 4th edition, 5th edition. The party would receive the same experience for choosing to rescue the barmaid as they would for choosing to rescue the princess. The only difference is the gold rewards. The players have the choice to be motivated by heroism to save the barmaid or by greed to save the princess.

In a game with Xp for gold: B/X, OD&D, AD&D. The party would receive the same experience for choosing to rescue the barmaid as they would for choosing to rescue the princess. The only difference is the gold rewards. The players have the choice to be motivated by heroism to save the barmaid or by greed to save the princess.

In essessene the games are exactly the same.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
5e teleport... is an example of such and going home is indeed fail safe.
But yes sleep was winning the spell lotto in ADnD too. AND it doesn't matter low or high level non-casters do not get that degree of impact at any level. You do get that?
It is an impactful spell that can turn the tide of one maybe two encounters. There will be other encounters where the fighter tears through the enemy and single handedly wins a fight, or when the thief Moves Silently and backstabs and instant kills a creature. There will be situations where the thief will shine and where the fighter and cleric will shine.

Balance isn't uniform in B/X. It isn't about everyone being equal in every situation, it is about each character having a situation where they excel and the classes take turns excelling in their areas in contribution to the overall group's success.

IF I wanted however I could recast that scene In 4e. Now you might get the ear mite trap 2 weeks journey out but there would be established ameliorating circumstances that made success possible = (note even in this circumstance this could still be trivialized by a caster for instance that party had a caster who knew teleport ritual or remove affliction - boring and not so worthy of story however one little scenario difference and we have skill challenge possibilities like if they do not have all the ingredients or maybe there was some sort of interdimensional shortcut of unknown destination which the ritualist might bend to make the teleport work with fewer ingredients, and require various skills to get there faster, they might be making nature and dungeoneering skill uses to gather the ingredients for that adjusted ritual fast enough (endurance checks strewn throughout for speed) or they might even use another skill check to think of a location about where the ritual could be cast with fewer ingredients (it could have just been a player idea creating a new ingredient in the story - perhaps relating to that magical rift the seen earlier now it has a function) they might be interrupted in the process by monsters (because it would make good story not because of random encounter charts) the historian in the party might remember that there was a high level priest who could help near another secluded monastery which is less time to get to and so on and much of that player driven ideas exploiting character abilities.

This is an intense scenario so the stakes are high and you need a lot of possible routes towards a success in my opinion.

The above is probably more than a bit incoherent and i didnt spend any time thinking of it (...but sometimes on the fly skill challenges turn out very good) AND in my experience the players Ideas are one huge ingredient beyond any planning you make.

EDIT The best skill challenges are things where progress is easily visualized like the chase scene and the likes. So death by parasite is less so but you can use the victims condition to track it. Additionally even the victim could have his endurance resisting the disease to help stages with delirium etc determining progress. ETC, Other characters making successes speed the process yes all can be abstractly inter connected, so he has to in effect make fewer checks. (The victim might be the one best at one of the skills that would help but have to overcome delirium temporarily to contribute)
In 4e the time isnt exact hours it might be a disease track.

Note how knowing the 5e teleport pretty much totally prevents the scenario AND many other similar ones entirely.

And undermines many chase scenes unless you are doing the chasing.
That's a really interesting scenario. I like it.

I understand how you can leverage the skill challenge framework for this. You are creating an adventure/scenario for how teleportation works in your world.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
The questions rising from random encounters like those arent even intriguing to me AND that is a huge problem its the wrong kind of story dungeon clearing sheesh with characters having the wrong kind of motivations and so on. It was obvious that there was a game implied in that morasse that I wanted and the hit point mechanism alone showed it was possible Not to mention discussions by Gygax about how a random arrow from a mook couldn't kill Conan and so on. It was that potential for larger than life that made it better than RuneQuest. Not the pedestrian pest killing on a random timer.
You're welcome to your opinion and I wouldn't expect everyone to be interested in the same things I am.

I find those interactions and the stories and situations and role-playing that develop from open ended and spontaneous gameplay to be what I consider the essence of the game.

I just find heroic save the world quests to be uninteresting. I prefer running and playing in open sandbox worlds where there are multiple possibilities and adventure is driven by the player and their choices as opposed to some quest.

If I were running that kind of game, though, I wouldn't use XP for Gold. I use XP for Gold because it best suits the style of game I want to run.

As far as motivation goes. For me it has nothing to do with greed. The motivation is to seek adventure and overcome threats... wherein the reward is the treasure acquired.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I just find heroic save the world quests to be uninteresting. I prefer running and playing in open sandbox worlds where there are multiple possibilities and adventure is driven by the player and their choices as opposed to some quest.
When I mentioned that improvised sometimes are the best on skill challenges I didnt follow through and say my adventure paradigm is based on character goals it was why I have hardly ever bought modules.

Some examples I have had from players, Free the Slaves, Reintroduce my Recluse People to the World at Large, I did have one who was being sent on "suicide missions" to get rid of her by her Organization but get this the idea for the organization and why she was questing came from the player. Shrug.
 
... where as interestingly enough it was the first edition which had solid tools to help enable that kind of adventuring in cooperative team effort and providing experience point gain based on the challenges faced. The first edition that encouraged DMs to allow character skill use as able to address the big problems as much as say a wizards spell and enabled it at many other levels.
3e certainly presented skills that, sufficiently optimized, could address problems like spells could. Some of 'em, anyway. Diplomancers being the most over the top example.
But, yes, challenges engaging the whole party, resolved taking character skills into account, and yielding corresponding exp for the challenge, not, say treasure gained or foes overcome, sure, 4e was alone in that.
I'd say this is incorrect.
The first edition to provide the experience you describe is probably OD&D or Basic / Expert.
0e didn't even have character skills, per se until the Thief. Let alone for all characters. Exp was for looting and/or killing, not overcoming challenges in other ways that did not involve material gain.

. It does so by way of its extremely detailed exploration procedures. These procedures put a lot of agency in the hands of the players
Thats the famed Gygaxian Skilled Play, sure. Not related to what Garthanos was talking about in the bit quoted, above.
 

Monayuris

Explorer
When I mentioned that improvised sometimes are the best on skill challenges I didnt follow through and say my adventure paradigm is based on character goals it was why I have hardly ever bought modules.

Some examples I have had from players, Free the Slaves, Reintroduce my Recluse People to the World at Large, I did have one who was being sent on "suicide missions" to get rid of her by her Organization but get this the idea for the organization and why she was questing came from the player. Shrug.
Thats cool. I apologize if my post made an incorrect assumption about your gaming.

My experiences with those kinds of adventures have always been poor. I played in a lot of those style campaigns and as a player and I always felt lost and lacked agency. Sounds like your approach is more of my style.

Personally I don't agree with your statements that classic games promote greed and bad motivations and your characterizations of classic D&D game play simply don't match my own experiences.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
. wherein the reward is the treasure acquired.
So why double up... on gold its already in story a valuable resource which you can gain followers or many other things. Why make it experience when it means not getting experience sometimes when the character really did accomplish a lot? Like that skill challenge which allowed them to save their ally I gave. In 1e if they figured out how to get him back the only experience they would get is???? In 4e they would be getting experience for overcoming the challenge (OK they did get a live ally if they succeed)
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top