Awarding exp in a low treasure game

[bestialwarlust]

For those that are running or have run a "grittier" setting where treasure doesn't flow like water how do you award xp? monsters don't give a lot of points do you award xp for exploration? or other goals? do you have a set list that you use?

[derv]

Marching Song of Connacht

The men of the East are decked in steel,
They march with a trumpet's din,
They glitter with silks and golden scales,
And high kings boast their kin --
We of the West wear the hides of wolves,
But our hearts are steel within.

They of the East ride gallant steeds,
Their spears are long and brown;
Their shields are set with sparkling stones
And each knight wears a crown --
We fight on foot as our forebears fought,
And we drag the rider down.

We race the steed of the Saxon knight
Across the naked fen --
They of the East are full of pride,
Cubs of the Lion's den.
They boast they breed a race of kings --
But we of the West breed Men.

-R.E. Howard

gold & conquest

[Mike]

Place coins in accordance with the rules (and where you think they should be) the hand out XP per gp for reaching those areas but don't give out the cash, just gems, jewellery and magic items and what-not. That way you stay gritty and you don't destabilise the economy of your barony.

[derv]

What is sometimes missing from games is a player understanding of campaign incentives.

A GM has the option to make leveling up simple and easily obtained through minimal effort or he can make it obvious that the world is a dangerous and hard place. Leveling up requires work and much risk to those brave enough to venture into the dark places few care or dare to go. If you do not have the unction for adventure, then the peasant life might be a better option for you.

In such a world, gold is not strewn about on the first few levels of the dungeon. You must go deeper to find the greater rewards for life beyond the gutter. You must fervently seek out the danger of those monstrocities who are known to hoard the gold you seek.

Death comes easy in such campaign worlds and few are those who succeed in becoming lords.

That is my perspective on handing out gold and magic items too easily when you are trying to create a grittier campaign. That being said, gold is not so scarce that the first 3 levels are that hard to obtain. A 3rd level fighter needs 4000 xp, MU 5000xp, and cleric 3000xp. My players do not presume to level up each session and, as a result, 4th level is viewed as an achievement.

[Deleted]

Oct 30, 2015 20:18:02 GMT -6 bestialwarlust said:

For those that are running or have run a "grittier" setting where treasure doesn't flow like water how do you award xp?

I give out 50 XP per HD (EPT numbers, and a nice compromise). For treasure I give out full XP for all magic items found. The latter greatly reduces the amount of treasure I need for XP purposes. Most magic treasure are single use items like potions as well as spell components (XP awarded based on sales value)

do you award xp for exploration? or other goals?

While I don't mind goal or quest related XP (Castle White Rock is a good example of how it should be done), I'm not a fan of exploration XP. I don't want the PCs just wandering across a hex map for XP purposes. A trek in the wilderness should have a goal in mind. That could be treasure locations (i.e. ruins) or rare and exotic plants, such as a rare wood that makes great magic wands. IOW, there should be some sort of monetary value to what the expedition is seeking out and XP are awarded based on that value.

Another option is to pay the party in valuable objects instead of cash: cattle, horses, suits of armor, or land.

The overall goal is to give out enough treasure without giving out stacks of cash.

[tkdco2]

In addition to the suggestions above, you can also lower the xp requirement such that 1 sp = 1xp. Gold will be more valuable, and you can hand out fewer coins. Characters can also earn xp by capturing equipment and livestock from defeated enemies.

[oldkat]

100 cp/sp/gp (pick your poison) taken from a group of 8 goblins by 6 L1-2 characters shouldn't be (and isn't in my fantasy world!) the same xp value as...
100 cp/sp/gp taken from 2 ogres, or 1 giant.

IMO, that's always been one of the poorer mechanics of the game.
In monopoly, rent doesn't cost the same on the rich properties as opposed to the cheap properties. So why should gp=xp have the same value when the challenge can vary from none, to near impossible!?

Go outside the box to make the game work for you.

[premmy]

I think people are missing the obvious solution here:

Decide what you want the campaign to be about, and give XP for that thing.

It's really that simple.

-You still want the game to be about looting dungeons only with silver instead of gold? Give XP for the same things, only it should be 1XP=1SP, not 1GP. (Even though it sounds inherently contradictory to have a campaign about looting dungeons but also wanting it to be low on treasure.)

- Do you want the party to be monster hunters protecting filthy little villages and their mud farmer inhabitants? Multiply the XP you give for monsters.

- Do you want to have a campaign where the PCs are Early Middle Ages petty kings carving out domains for themselves? Give XP for conquering villages and having bandits and warlords swear vassalage.

- Do you want the game to be about exploring unknown, exotic lands? Give XP for finding, exploring and mapping new locations.

[derv]

Oct 31, 2015 17:18:08 GMT -6 oldkat said:

100 cp/sp/gp (pick your poison) taken from a group of 8 goblins by 6 L1-2 characters shouldn't be (and isn't in my fantasy world!) the same xp value as...
100 cp/sp/gp taken from 2 ogres, or 1 giant.

IMO, that's always been one of the poorer mechanics of the game.
In monopoly, rent doesn't cost the same on the rich properties as opposed to the cheap properties. So why should gp=xp have the same value when the challenge can vary from none, to near impossible!?

Go outside the box to make the game work for you.

This is not how gold is distributed or how xp's are rewarded for gold in OD&D. At most 8 goblins will have 48gp (6gp each). The very least Ogres will carry is 100gp each (200 gp). Giants carry 1000-6000gp's and 6 first level PC's will not survive the encounter to realize any xp's gained from his treasure. According to M&M p.18, experience is rewarded relative to the level of the PC to the defeated monster guarding the treasure. The maximum experience gained from gold is at a 1:1 ratio. This means your second level characters will only be getting half the golds value in xp from the goblins.

[derv]

I honestly don’t understand the problem with the system of advancement. U&WA gives us a general guideline that a dungeon expedition consists of a weeks time. This includes preparations, travel and one day descent into the pits. Let’s assume 9 hours of actual exploration. Let’s also assume a 1st level party of 4 characters descending a dungeon two levels with six rooms per level.

Random encounters are rolled after each turn on a d6 with a “6” indicating a wandering monster. This might result in an encounter 1 out of every 9 turns ( once every 1 ½ hours in the dungeon). This would give us an average of 6 random encounters (not including those creatures already determined to be present in the depths). We’ll also assume half of these monsters are met on each level.

Just rolling randomly on the tables of p.10-11 U&WA and referencing p.3-4 M&T, these are the results:
1st level: (6) T4, (3) T2, (3) T2
2nd level: (1) T1, (1) T1, (3) T3

1. 6HD Myrmidon (1) w/10 HF men at arms- Lawful
2. 1+1HD Hobgoblins (3)
3. 2HD Gnolls (2)
4. 1-1HD Goblins (6)
5. 1HD Spiders (4)
6. 2HD Giant Hogs (2)

Calculating xp for all the above minus the Myrmidon party (because that would be suicide), I come up with the following:

200 x 3= 600, 200 x 2= 400, 100 x 6= 600, 100 x 4= 400, 200 x 2= 400 Grand total= 2400/4= 600.

Let’s now rationally conclude that you could at most realize half of this total because you ran from the others. This gives us 300 xp rewarded to each character.

Onto Page 6 of U&WA Distribution of Treasure. Again, just for example, we will roll randomly for the presence of monsters and treasure for each room.

1st level: Rm1 M&T, Rm2 M/NT, Rm3 NM/NT, Rm4 M/NT, Rm5 NM/NT Rm6 M&T
2nd level: Rm 1 NM/NT, Rm2 NM/NT, Rm3 M&T, Rm4 NM/NT, Rm5 NM/NT, Rm6 NM/T

This resulted in less then half of the rooms being occupied and a third containing treasure. Let’s just use our random encounters above without figuring any additional occupants because it seems like enough encounters for the first two levels and I’m lazy. But, in this example there would really be more.

The treasure randomly generated amounted to the following:

Level 1: Rm1 100sp, 20gp; Rm6 200sp
Level 2: Rm3 700sp, Rm6 1100sp, 100gp, 1 gem=500gp
-no magic items

Grand total= 830gp/4= 207.5gp(xp)

Again, let’s assume you found half or 104gp(xp).

I don’t really use any of the random treasure generation tables in my games. I prefer to purposefully distribute it and magic items are extremely rare. But, these results do not seem far off from what I would expect.

The final tally is then 404xp per character (if they survived) for a weeks expedition. This does not take into consideration any hirelings or the prime requisites of the PC’s.

This would mean the Fighter would have to go on four more expeditions to reach level 2, the Magic User five more, and the Cleric three more.

Does that seem troublesome or slow? If so, an option is to skip low level play and start your players at higher levels with greater chance of survival right from the get go. I personally enjoy low level play and it’s challenges.

[oldkat]

The maximum experience gained from gold is at a 1:1 ratio. This means your second level characters will only be getting half the golds value in xp from the goblins.

Yes. I know this. It is close to, if not the same, for Advanced 1E D&D.

And it works fine for me when determining if the challenge was too easy for the characters. (Reduce the xp)
But the "maximum 1:1" ratio is, imo, bogus. It does not truly reward characters for stepping up and facing challenges that would generally be acknowledged as beyond them.
It is the stuff of the heroic, the fighting man facing down a dragon, or two thieves defeating a giant guarding a chest full of gold, that OD&D aspires us to embrace. If we do not, our games then become very similar to those where the heroic is a nonconsideration.

Just my 2 cents.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 31, 2015 19:05:42 GMT -6 derv said:

I honestly don’t understand the problem with the system of advancement. U&WA gives us a general guideline that a dungeon expedition consists of a weeks time. This includes preparations, travel and one day descent into the pits. Let’s assume 9 hours of actual exploration. Let’s also assume a 1st level party of 4 characters descending a dungeon two levels with six rooms per level.

Random encounters are rolled after each turn on a d6 with a “6” indicating a wandering monster. This might result in an encounter 1 out of every 9 turns ( once every 1 ½ hours in the dungeon). This would give us an average of 6 random encounters (not including those creatures already determined to be present in the depths). We’ll also assume half of these monsters are met on each level.

I don't understand why you would not expect to see, on average, one encounter per six turns? Therefore, one random encounter per hour in the dungeon, or an average of 9 encounters in nine dungeon-going hours. Of course you might actually get none, or as many as 54 encounters (both being fantastically unlikely).

It is, I believe, a bit misleading to presume that four 1st level PCs would "work their way through" all these encounters. Far more likely they would want to retire, or would be captured/destroyed, after facing just a few.

It's interesting that derv suggests generally small numbers such as: four 1st level PCs, two dungeon levels, six rooms per dungeon level, three hobgoblins, two gnolls, etc. Are these intended to be realistic numbers, or are they intended only to be a trivial example?

(In my mind the players would bring around a dozen figures, dungeon levels would have scores of rooms--if they are bounded at all, and man-type monsters would occur in larger groups).

[derv]

If we do not, our games then become very similar to those where the heroic is a nonconsideration.

I'm sorry that I'm not following your line of reason. OD&D already has a method of checks and balances that rewards such heroics.

A party of 2nd level characters can expect the following:

(8) 1-1HD goblins carrying up to 6gp each will yield 848/2= 424xp

(2) 4+1HD ogres carrying 100-600gp each will yield 1200 to 2200xp

(1) 9HD stone giant carrying 1000-6000gp will yield 1900 to 6900xp

[derv]

Oct 31, 2015 22:43:47 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I don't understand why you would not expect to see, on average, one encounter per six turns? Therefore, one random encounter per hour in the dungeon, or an average of 9 encounters in nine dungeon-going hours. Of course you might actually get none, or as many as 54 encounters (both being fantastically unlikely).

It's interesting that derv suggests generally small numbers such as: four 1st level PCs, two dungeon levels, six rooms per dungeon level, three hobgoblins, two gnolls, etc. Are these intended to be realistic numbers, or are they intended only to be a trivial example?

1 random encounters in 1 1/2 hours is a low average because I did not want to inflate the results of xp rewarded for defeated monsters. I am favoring the low end of things. All encounters were randomly generated with dice and following Gary's advice in U&WA as referenced on p.6-7.

Do you find 12 rooms in 9 hours unrealistic with a 10 minute exploration turn and a 1 minute combat turn?

As you may have noticed, at the end I also cut all the rewards in half-- again favoring the low end of likelihood.

The final results are not far from what I find to be average.

What do you find to be average in your games Ways?

We are considering a low level game here. Venturing beyond the second level of a dungeon becomes more risky- but the rewards may be greater as well (which is also one of my points).

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 31, 2015 23:10:17 GMT -6 derv said:

What do you find to be average in your games Ways?

That is a very interesting question. I haven't kept detailed records--particularly regarding number of dungeon exploration turns to cover x many room--so I can't give an absolutely correct answer.

However, in recent years I've run D&D games of two main types: 1) play by post, 2) face to face. My subjective impression is:

The PBP games tend to be for larger groups; 8-10 simultaneous players at any time is very common--I think I had 16 players on the go in one game for a while. The face to face games tend to be one-shot games for test-plays or conventions, and tend to be for smaller groups; 6 players would be the norm.

My dungeon levels tend to be of unspecified size; I'm frequently creating "new" dungeon territory just ahead of the players, and sometimes on the fly during play. I rarely have time to completely prepare fixed dungeons ahead of play, and I often find when I do prepare content in advance, the players will invariably choose to go elsewhere or otherwise skip it. Even for convention games I'd usually have a one page map with stairs or various routes going off the edge into uncharted space.

The "typical" numbers of man-type monsters occurring is an interesting question too. I realise there is a passage in U&WA, but--as it says--there are too many variables to make a hard and fast rule. In my games around 2-12 man-types appearing would be pretty typical.

I appreciate that it's plausible to determine statistical averages from the game tables and rules, but one of the brilliant things about D&D is that "statistically unlikely" things do happen in play. These are what can often make the game great fun, and what will throw the averages right out the window.

Not sure if any of that directly helps the discussion here, but it was fun to recollect for a moment

[derv]

Certainly, the unlikely is actually "likely" to happen at some point.

As can be seen, for the first encounter I rolled on the first level of the dungeon the outcome was a Myrmidon. In my mind this is not a bad thing. I can picture the PC's possibly partnering up with his party and possibly going deeper into the dungeon. But I did not want to entertain that possibility since it would only complicate the point I was trying to make. Ultimately, I feel the advancement system works just fine.

My illustrations are not meant as mathmatically precise proof of this. Instead they are meant as an example of what I would consider average for a one day delve of 1st level characters, assuming the best of luck was on their side.

I am not trying to say people should not do what they want and reward experience however they want, though. But, I do not think the standard method is broken.

My feeling is that many GM's avoid killing off their PC's, skew die rolls, and do not even calculate xp as originally intended. In essence they are already inflating the advancement of characters. And as your answers to my questions bear out, you run a norm of 6 players with encounters running from 2-12 in numbers. This would result in 3:1 to 1:2 results. Not much different from my "low" results.

Solutions such as rewarding xp for sp does not resonate with me. You might as well just say gp's are worth 10xp. The reason one would choose to run a campaign with low treasure is to create that grittier feel, which involves slowing down progression. With Super Heroic games, you would probably want the opposite-- bountiful treasure and quicker progression. So, if you quicken the advancement while attempting to make a game grittier, you may experience a weird feeling that you are not achieving that goal.

Besides, the players do need to support themselves and occasionally buy new gear or hire henchmen. Such things cost gold. Unless a person is going to switch everything over to a silver system. In that case, we are then talking significs

[Finarvyn]

I've run many campaigns over the years where I don't bother to track XP, so there are easy ways to make this work. For example, an easy solution is to level up characters at the end of a module or a quest. (It's up to you what counts as a "quest." It could be a stopping point in a module, a la Rivendell, or the conclusion of a full plot arc, or something in between.)

You can level them up each time they finish a quest or set up a fancy chart that makes experience harder to with time obtain.

For example:
Level 1 = 0 quests
Level 2 = 1 quest
Level 3 = 2 quests
Level 4 = 4 quests
Level 5 = 8 quests
Level 6 = 16 quests
Level 7 = 32 quests
Level 8 = 64 quests
and so on.

[Mike]

Nov 1, 2015 5:37:49 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

I've run many campaigns over the years where I don't bother to track XP, so there are easy ways to make this work. For example, an easy solution is to level up characters at the end of a module or a quest. (It's up to you what counts as a "quest." It could be a stopping point in a module, a la Rivendell, or the conclusion of a full plot arc, or something in between.)

You can level them up each time they finish a quest or set up a fancy chart that makes experience harder to with time obtain.

For example:
Level 1 = 0 quests
Level 2 = 1 quest
Level 3 = 2 quests
Level 4 = 4 quests
Level 5 = 8 quests
Level 6 = 16 quests
Level 7 = 32 quests
Level 8 = 64 quests
and so on.

Or go one step farther and make a call on when a character should "level up".

I always use XP as the character improvement currency but gold coins is an issue because I've they've given up their value as XP, they still have value as coinage.

Some games only give XP for gold coins spent rather than earned but the impact of thousands of coins on a local economy strains the credibility of the campaign - one-offs are no problem.

AD&D gets rid of  your cash by making you pay for training but again, where does that cash go?

[howandwhy99]

Award XP for roleplaying. Each class gets a separate XP total as each tracks a separate journey of awards for actions.

Fighters gain rewards for combat and all its elements, Magic-Users for magic use like items and spells, Clerics for clericism like creature behaviors and cultures, and Thieves for thieving treasure from others.

Encounters are like the Dungeon Boardgame rooms. But each is rated by class difficulty. If you negotiated, magic, attack, or rob the encountered creatures, there are different difficulties involved.

Dungeon Levels are rated areas of Encounters averaged into a similar ranking. A ranking which corresponds to the average game difficulty for each class level. Class abilities are not attributes, but basic abilities to sufficiently perform in each level at the marked difficulty.

Each class overlaps with the others. Fighters have some magic use, some clericism, and some ability for theft. But all to a lesser degree than their ability for combat. Trying others paths during a dungeon delve is important as sometimes they are easier even as one class's goals are different from another.

XP then directly represents player gained mastery for their roleplaying, their playing of a particular role. Switching classes means looking at the entire situation from a different point of view and with different means and goals.

D&D is a cooperative game not just because its design rewards cooperation over competition in over coming game challenges. But instills and rewards cooperation among players with orthogonal game objectives to each other.

[spacelem]

I use the silver standard and award 1 XP for 1 sp (so down to 1/10th of the the treasure). I also stick with the 100 XP per HD / special feature, which means a lot of XP comes from dealing with monsters (in any manner, not necessarily killing them), reducing the need for treasure (plus it's much easier to remember, and better for low level characters). Finally I've thought about dividing all XP requirements by 20 or 100, with a corresponding reduction in treasure or monster XP (so a fighter might go from needing 2,000 XP for level 2 down to say 100, then just give everyone involved in combat 1 XP per monster HD).

Nothing original there, but it's quick and easy to implement.