On "nutsy" XP/HD progression...

[foxroe]

So I was reading/rereading these threads and a thought came to me.

While I understand some of the head-scratching that goes into trying reason out the progression in the HD and experience tables, I can’t help but think that any disparity in progression is at least partly assuaged by an often glossed-over rule with respect to how experience points are earned.

From page 18 of M&M, experience earned is fractional based on the ratio of the monster’s level to the character’s level. (Note that the passage always refers to the character and not the party. Is this contradicted elsewhere?)

So while it may be true that a Cleric or a Thief can advance to the next level more quickly than the Fighting-Man and the Magic-user, those characters’ XP award will thereafter be reduced when the party defeats a creature with HD equivalent to the lower-level Fighting-Man and Magic-User. The award will be even less if the party faces even weaker foes.

Further, Fighters can take on several 1HD monsters at once, and thus gain more XP than non-Fighter–types for a given encounter. Even Magic-users can blast several targets at once, and thus gain a greater XP award than the other party members. Clerics (and Thieves) don’t really have these “subtle” XP-garnering benefits.

Of course, I’d take this all with a grain of salt. This is just a brain-barf exercise in numbers and likely doesn’t reflect true progression that comes about through actual play. This also doesn’t take into consideration XP from gold…

Thoughts?

[tombowings]

I've never dealt much with dividing experience points for lower level monsters. It's just too much math for my to do at the gaming table.

On the other hand, I like how it encourages a party of mixed 1st and 2nd level characters to delve into deeper dungeon levels if those clerics (and possibly thieves) want to earn full experience points for their time spent risking their lives for the sake of greed and gold.

[Deleted]

In practice, Gary would at the end of the game give us an XP number based on our GP take.

Monster XP was always peanuts anyway.

Also, notice that our parties were NEVER all the same level, so yes, it's monster HP vs CHARACTER level.

[foxroe]

Ah you see, that's another interesting point (or maybe the beer just makes it seem that way): I'm so used to being in games where every character is essentially the same level. I've never experienced a game where there was a wide spread of levels in the party. I think that the experience rules would be even more "essential" in such a situation.

However, I'm not too surprised to hear that Gary was very "hand-wavy*" with the experience, using gold as the primary reward meter.

(*-Sorry, that may not be the best term...)

[mgtremaine]

The earliest games I played it had big level ranges it only became more mono-leveled as we got older, playing time became more rare and the rules got more structured. I think part of it was that in the beginning parties were fluid and whoever was around got run, the differences between 5th and 10th was not that significant in the "party". As we got older and there was a "game night" and most people showed up the levels tended to stay closer. Death became less "permanent" and the party tended to be less fluid. But maybe that was just my experience (haha that's a joke)

-Mike

[Harbinger]

I've just been awarding 100XP per monster in our monthly game. I find the divide by level too finicky. Players get a lot more XP from monsters compared with treasure, but not too bad. We currently have 2nd, 4th, and one 6th level character. The doubling of XP required for each level evens things out over time.

[Alex]

I had never played the old school way until recently. This year I've been involved in an OD&D/SWWB campaign and whoever shows up plays. Last session we had half +/-1 the characters in the 5-6 level range, and the other half were level 1 (some were experienced L1 with magic items, others were newly rolled). And it was tons of fun, though my 1st level MU spent most of the day pointing out brainy ideas and cowering in the 3rd or 4th rank. Usually the group consists of 8-10 randomly selected players of which quarter to half of them are bringing in 1st levels and the remainder are experienced (2-6). Haven't seen any survivors past 6th level yet.

It also doesn't surprise me about Gary ignoring monster XP completely. He bad mouthed it so much in Greyhawk and crippled the XP table to the point of people making jokes and "hundreds of orcs to 2nd level" calculations, that it seems natural that he actually didn't want monster XP in his game at all but printed it first for Dave and then only modified it since removing it completely would be somewhat of a large change for owners of the core game buying later supplements.

To me, the fractional XP for level difference is too much bookkeeping in an already accounting-heavy system. Plus people make a big deal about the differences in XP tables between classes (though I don't feel the same way), but if you use this scaling method those differences fade away, as who-ever reaches 2nd level first will be earning half XP against most of what other group members are earning from being 1st level still. Thus their progression slows for the other characters to catch up. Take three 1st level characters at 0 XP: FM, C, and MU. At 1,500XP C starts getting a half share of 1st level monsters and treasure, while FM and MU continue to get full awards. At 2,000XP only MU is still getting full shares and C now has only 1,750XP. Finally MU reaches 2nd level at 2,500XP while FM is at 2,250XP and C is at 2,000XP. Notice that gap closed. MU needs 2,500XP to reach 3rd level, FM needs 1,750XP to reach 3rd level, and C needs 1,000XP to reach 3rd level. Not as much as a straight XP advancement where FM would need 1,500XP and C would need 1,000XP. This continues to happen as we follow the three through their careers up to Name Level and we see fewer mixed-level points in the adventuring timeline than in the AD&D method.

[jacar]

In using that rule there is a double bonus/penalty at work. XPs by monster are based on the relative strength of the monster. As a character climbs in level, he will naturally slow down with the (nearly) exponential expansion to get to the next level. So, when you fight lower level monsters, you won't be leveling at a good clip anyway. Similarly, higher level monsters are worth more XP and if you fight outside of your weight class and win, you will be awarded handsomely. Adding extra rules for fractional level difference is not only a PITA, it also really does not make any sense.

[Harbinger]

Dec 6, 2011 10:29:51 GMT -6 jacar said:

In using that rule there is a double bonus/penalty at work. XPs by monster are based on the relative strength of the monster. As a character climbs in level, he will naturally slow down with the (nearly) exponential expansion to get to the next level. So, when you fight lower level monsters, you won't be leveling at a good clip anyway. Similarly, higher level monsters are worth more XP and if you fight outside of your weight class and win, you will be awarded handsomely. Adding extra rules for fractional level difference is not only a PITA, it also really does not make any sense.

This got me curious as to what it looks like in terms of # of monsters needed to level up.

For simplicity's sake, let's assume a fighter against 1 HD foes, and ignore treasure and sharing XP with other party members.

Level 1 - 2000XP needed -> 100 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 20 kills to level up.
Level 2 - 2000XP needed -> 50 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 40 kills to level up.
Level 3 - 4000XP needed -> 33 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 120 kills to level up.
Level 4 - 8000XP needed -> 25 XP earned per 1 HD foe -> 320 kills to level up.

So this really gives the PC a strong motivation to seek out monsters of their level.

I'm currently playing the rules such that I don't divide by the player's level. The progression in that case is 20, 20, 40, 80 which is a huge difference and I've seen at the table that higher level characters are perfectly happy to wander around easier levels. Time to change that. ;D