Experience for Tricks/Puzzles/Traps

[philotomy]

Do you award XP for defeating, solving, or avoiding tricks, puzzles, and traps? If so, how big of an award do you give?

I've never done this in OD&D, but I'm considering it. I like the concept of rewarding clever play with XP, so this seems like a natural thing to do. I suppose one could argue that the treasure beyond these obstacles is the reward, but the same could be said of monsters, and you still get a small amount of XP for monsters.

What do you think?

[badger2305]

I do give out some experience for overcoming tricks/puzzles/traps and the like. I'm in the midst of rethinking this, mainly to decide if it is an individual level award or if the entire party benefits - I'm leaning towards the individual level award to include everybody that helped deal with the macguffin in question. I was also thinking about having some sort of rating system, which seemed a little complicated, and am tending towards simply assigning the potential XP amount on a case-by-case basis.

In general, though, the award is not that much - unless the trap is particularly deadly.

[Random]

When writing down encounter ideas, I generally assign a small XP value to puzzles. When the party gets out of the dungeon, any surviving members get a share of the XP for solving it.

Whenever players surprise me with clever ideas that really throw me for a loop, I'll toss out a small XP award as well, to be received by surviving PCs when they get out of the dungeon.

By "out of the dungeon", I mean safely back to civilization, or wherever their current base of operations is.

These rewards are generally small, with the bulk of XP coming from stumbling upon the big treasure hoard, and making it out with all the loot.

[bigjackbrass]

This is an intrinsic element of Tunnels & Trolls and I've never been able to resist carrying it over to D&D. For one thing I find it helpful in regulating the amount of XP and helping characters who are not combat specialists. Since I've never liked the idea of giving experience awards for treasure it makes sense to reward characters - and particular behaviours - in another way.

Still, I keep the awards relatively small and try not to toss them out too freely, 50 XP being my default for such things, and these are (depending on circumstances) almost always individual rather than party awards.

[ffilz]

I could see giving a small reward for a good idea (I'd give it instantly - to the player(s) with the idea). The main XP source should still be treasure though.

Frank

[WSmith]

Maybe level of difficulty of the trap x 100 /4.

A first level trap would be worth 25 XP.

A 2nd level trap would be worth 50 XP.

An 8th level trap would be worth 200 XP.

Needs some work but it is a start with.

[foster1941]

Avoiding a trap is like avoiding a wandering monster and shouldn't be worth any XP (not having to deal with the trap is its own reward). Actually disarming or disabling a trap should probably be worth the same as defeating a monster of the same level (100 XP/level using Vol. I; using Greyhawk I suppose you'd use the dungeon level as the hit dice and count complications as special abilities?). The same goes for solving a puzzle or trick that can actually be dealt with successfully (as opposed to just being an enigma or an annoyance).

[WSmith]

Aug 11, 2008 12:27:19 GMT -6 foster1941 said:

Avoiding a trap is like avoiding a wandering monster and shouldn't be worth any XP (not having to deal with the trap is its own reward). Actually disarming or disabling a trap should probably be worth the same as defeating a monster of the same level (100 XP/level using Vol. I; using Greyhawk I suppose you'd use the dungeon level as the hit dice and count complications as special abilities?). The same goes for solving a puzzle or trick that can actually be dealt with successfully (as opposed to just being an enigma or an annoyance).

That's pretty much the method I was proposing, except multiplying by 25% since there could conceivably be more traps than monsters and you wouldn't want to shoot up levels too quickly with disarming / disabling traps.

[foster1941]

I suppose you'd need to see how it worked out in actual play to determine the proper number -- my gut-feeling is that most traps will be either avoided or sprung (worth 0 XP in either case) and only a small percentage of traps will actually be disarmed or disabled. Attempting to disarm a trap is a much dicier proposition than just avoiding it (since most GMs will likely rule that a failed attempt to disable a trap triggers it) and attempting to do so as an XP harvest should be no more viable a tactic than deliberately fighting wandering monsters.

Of course if you're using the thief class things may be a bit different (making the lower XP value perhaps more appropriate).

[WSmith]

Foster, that actually makes me think that 100 XP/level might not be so bad, especially since we don't use thieves anyway. You are right in that most traps are either avoided or sprung and would yield 0 XP. Taking on a trap could be seen as fighting a wandering monster and maybe should reward as applicable. The only problem with this is being comfortable with the assumption that the referee comes up with a trap that correspond with the difficulty of the level they are located on. The easy way to declare this is how much damage the trap does, (1d6 = 100 XP, 2d6 = 200 XP, etc.) However, that doesn't work for traps that save vs. death or some other such feature (turn to stone, polymorph, lose points on an ability score, etc.)

I don't know. That all starts to get complicated. Maybe just a simple 100 XP per level that the trap is on if successfully disabled (not sprung) is sufficient enough.

[longcoat000]

I'm of two minds for this with OD&D. On one hand, I agree with the premise behind giving XP for disarming traps, because they represent a character's ability to deal with traps and such. However, OD&D emphasizes player skill much more than character skill, and so there is no really appropriate XP reward for increasing player skill.

You also have to look at the reasoning behind earning XP. OD&D is 100 / HD for monsters, and 1 per GP of treasure. Thus, the game is designed to encourage you to kill things and take their stuff. At higher levels, you're encouraged to avoid killing things (because they can just as easily kill you) and find creative ways to take their stuff. The stuff is a bigger reward than the steps taken to get there.

[Stormcrow]

The lack of any real guidelines for awarding experience points in the original set tells me that XP was at first meant to be awarded by the referee using pure judgement. As such, XP could be awarded for anything that the referee felt fairly increased the player's "score."

Playing without any other specific guidelines, I would certainly award XP for clever plans to avoid or disarm traps.

[bigjackbrass]

Aug 20, 2008 17:12:27 GMT -6 Stormcrow said:

The lack of any real guidelines for awarding experience points in the original set tells me that XP was at first meant to be awarded by the referee using pure judgement. As such, XP could be awarded for anything that the referee felt fairly increased the player's "score."

It's interesting that Empire of the Petal Throne specifically excludes XP awards for anything other than killing monsters and finding treasure, even going so far as to state that magic-users get no XP for casting spells. I wonder if this was an attempt to avoid a perceived ambiguity in D&D?

[Stormcrow]

Aug 21, 2008 3:52:50 GMT -6 bigjackbrass said:

It's interesting that Empire of the Petal Throne specifically excludes XP awards for anything other than killing monsters and finding treasure, even going so far as to state that magic-users get no XP for casting spells. I wonder if this was an attempt to avoid a perceived ambiguity in D&D?

Not to avoid ambiguity; to get specific. Remember, when EPT was published there were no specific XP rules.

[bigjackbrass]

That's a fair distinction.

[Mordorandor]

Aug 10, 2008 5:01:34 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Do you award XP for defeating, solving, or avoiding tricks, puzzles, and traps? If so, how big of an award do you give?

I've never done this in OD&D, but I'm considering it. I like the concept of rewarding clever play with XP, so this seems like a natural thing to do. I suppose one could argue that the treasure beyond these obstacles is the reward, but the same could be said of monsters, and you still get a small amount of XP for monsters.

What do you think?

No, because, as you noted, the reward is the treasure it protects.

And unlike monsters, which one must put one's life at danger to get the XP, OD&D (or at least, me) allows for players to find traps if they simply take the time to look for them.

Still, it takes a turn per 10 x 10 to look and find traps, and there's the wandering monster roll every turn ....

(This doesn't address puzzles and such, but hey, my puzzles tend to be the dungeon layout itself.)

[dicebro]

Aug 10, 2008 5:01:34 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Do you award XP for defeating, solving, or avoiding tricks, puzzles, and traps? If so, how big of an award do you give?

I've never done this in OD&D, but I'm considering it. I like the concept of rewarding clever play with XP, so this seems like a natural thing to do. I suppose one could argue that the treasure beyond these obstacles is the reward, but the same could be said of monsters, and you still get a small amount of XP for monsters.

What do you think?

None, unless they find something of value that can be hauled out and then sold for gold pieces.  A deadly trap would probably protect something of great value.

[aramis]

Aug 10, 2008 5:01:34 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Do you award XP for defeating, solving, or avoiding tricks, puzzles, and traps? If so, how big of an award do you give?

I've never done this in OD&D, but I'm considering it. I like the concept of rewarding clever play with XP, so this seems like a natural thing to do. I suppose one could argue that the treasure beyond these obstacles is the reward, but the same could be said of monsters, and you still get a small amount of XP for monsters.

What do you think?

For a trap, if it's potentially lethal or majorly damaging, it's worth 5% of a level. (A number chosen by Mentzer and reüsed by Alston)

[doublejig2]

Jan 1, 2024 0:27:54 GMT -6 aramis said:

Aug 10, 2008 5:01:34 GMT -6 philotomy said:

Do you award XP for defeating, solving, or avoiding tricks, puzzles, and traps? If so, how big of an award do you give?

I've never done this in OD&D, but I'm considering it. I like the concept of rewarding clever play with XP, so this seems like a natural thing to do. I suppose one could argue that the treasure beyond these obstacles is the reward, but the same could be said of monsters, and you still get a small amount of XP for monsters.

What do you think?

For a trap, if it's potentially lethal or majorly damaging, it's worth 5% of a level. (A number chosen by Mentzer and reüsed by Alston)

And relayed by Aramis!

[aramis]

Jan 1, 2024 23:34:12 GMT -6 doublejig2 said:

Jan 1, 2024 0:27:54 GMT -6 aramis said:

For a trap, if it's potentially lethal or majorly damaging, it's worth 5% of a level. (A number chosen by Mentzer and reüsed by Alston)

And relayed by Aramis!

You can read it for yourself in TSR-1071.

[hamurai]

Some 20-ish years ago, I compared traps with monsters from the monster manual (AD&D 2e), looking at the damage and number of attacks especially. For example, a Hippogriff has 3 attacks with 1d6, 1d6 and 1d10 damage. I would translate that to 3d8 damage on the trap and use the 175 XP value. That was for those "generic traps" which didn't take players to spend a lot of time to disarm.
"Story traps", which would be a form of puzzle to overcome, and which were basically "scripted" (PCs had no other way but to overcome the trap to proceed) were different and granted more XP depending on the difficulty. Those traps were usually pretty deadly and my players knew they'd not get away with a thief's dice roll.
The same is true for puzzles in general, but I had no specific way of calculating the XP.

Later, when I found the Rules Cyclopedia, I read the bit about good role-playing being worth about 1/20th of a level, I applied that to puzzles and traps, too. Those which needed to be solved by clever player interaction, not the roll-the-dice traps.

[xerxez]

In olden days when I designed dungeons I took into consideration level of characters/party and desired level progression on a pace with the campaign story progression and how often we met up.

I would calculate a treasure hoard needed to achieve a g.p. value needed to come near this, taking into account monster XP that would be involved. I would basically ask "What do they need to get midway to next level?" and make sure that if every treasure in the dungeon was attained, they would get there. Give or take, depending, again, on pace of campaign.

Of course I would always already have a dungeon theme and plot of sorts in mind but leveling goals were instrumental in actual crafting of the dungeon (or other adventure) to keep our campaign moving on an upward arc and facilitate progression within reasonable perimeters.

Anyway, to topic at hand...if you took a dungeon's GP snd monster XP value as a measure, you could derive an XP percentage for each such puzzle/trap/riddle from it based on difficulty level of said trap.

Probably with an upper limit of 10% for extremely challenging traps and puzzles but probably usually in the 5% or lower range for the common ones.

I feel like knowing a dungeons G.P/X.P. value is really important.

I also made sure that some of that G.P. value was not in coinage but in items of value like tapestries, figurines, lavers, candlesticks, incense etc. Then players would have to sell said items and I had a bit of further control over XP and wealth based on exchange rates.

All with the players in mind, I add. And a basic philosophy on level progression of "Not too fast, not too slow."

[GRWelsh]

I've done it differently over the years, and at times I've given XP for overcoming traps, solving puzzles, clever play, and achieving goals. There is nothing wrong with any of that. But I also don't think there is anything wrong with sticking to XP for defeating monsters and acquiring treasure. One of my players who is also a DM once said to me: "It never made sense to me that 1 gp = 1 xp. One should be able to gain experience independently of whether one gets treasure. And some fool stumbling upon a huge pile of treasure is 'experiencing' nothing that should make him more competent or mightier!" He had a point. He made xp independent of treasure and mostly ran 2nd edition AD&D and I noticed in many of his games he kept the player characters poor. I found that to be very annoying! Some aspects of the game are abstract but functional, if not always logical. There is something mythically resonant about the hero getting the pile of treasure after defeating the dragon... To me, that is what is at the heart of D&D! Also, it serves a function to have 1 gp = 1 xp. In such a system, the main driver of advancement is treasure, so that encourages the DM to keep dishing out treasure, which is something players enjoy! Why shouldn't they get to be fabulously wealthy in their fantasy lives, since real life is often a struggle? And players never seem to grow tired of finding new magic items! This simple system keeps the DM player-centric when planning XP awards.

[Red Baron]

Puzzles/tricks/traps should give experience by allowing access to treasure - either directly (treasure protected/hidden by puzzle/trick/trap), or indirectly (trick/trap gates access to new level/sublevel, treasure map, etc).

The gold/gems give experience, but dealing with the trick/trap yields gold/gems.

[makofan]

I agree with Red Baron