The Merits of XP vs Freeform Leveling

[inkmeister]

By the book, the main source of XP is treasure. Of course the game drifted towards XP mainly from monsters, and in some cases for other things like class specific actions and role playing. For my purposes here, I have no real interest in XP for monsters or for role playing. Instead, I am fascinated by the couple folks here (Fin and Geoffrey as I understand it) who do not go by the book, but instead employ a much more free form approach. I recall Fin saying something about leveling up arbitrarily whenever it seems right to do so, and Geoffrey's group leveling up after a predetermined amount of game time (play X hours, go up a level). Another gamer who posts on STory Games (Eero Tuovinen I think) has written a decent amount about his old style D&D game, and mentions only using XP for treasure under certain (mainly dungeoneering) circumstances, but otherwise devising rewards based on challenges the players choose to take on (in a heavily sandbox style game).

So the point of this post is to consider the merits of the by the book approach versus a more free-form approach, especially (but not limited to) in the context of a sandbox campaign.

It seems to me the XP for GP model is most appropriate in a highly dungeon focused game where the adventurers are assumed to be greedy treasure seekers. One advantage to this method is that it allows the GM to create a challenging scenario (ie a megadungeon) and leave it to the players to extract their reward based on their own skill, cunning, and luck. There is a certain pleasure in earning one's levels this way (perhaps because one does feel that the levels are earned - not given). This approach should also work fine for a hexcrawl, again where treasures and monsters are basically placed and the players must carefully navigate the world to earn their reward.

On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a much greater degree of flexibility in a system where levels are accumulated when it seems reasonable to everyone that this should happen. This makes more room for PC's that have goals other than looting and becoming rich. It makes wealth it's own reward, and not something sought out mainly for leveling purposes. It also frees the DM from some of the concerns that go with too much wealth in the game. A number of threads and conversations focus on the topic of how to handle the large quantities of wealth that are required to get players into the mid and high levels. That's not a problem if huge quantities of coins and gems are not required to reach the high levels. This approach frees players and DM to move to higher levels whenever it feels fun to do so, after the fun and possibilities of the current level have been thoroughly explored. Last of all, bookkeeping is significantly reduced and the game is simplified.

Thus, for my more dungeon focused games, I will probably continue to use the GP=XP approach, and for more open-ended sandbox style games, I will probably use a free-form leveling system. I'm curious what others here perceive as the merits of both approaches. It would be very nice to hear from Fin and Geoffrey what their experiences have been since changing to a more free method.

[Deleted]

There is a serious problem with "freeform" leveling that you have skipped.

Classes are balanced against each other in very large part by the fact that their XP tables are drastically different. Eliminating this eliminates a major design element.

The eventual outcome of this is the so-called "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" problem which game designers introduced into D&D by not knowing what they were doing. If you remove all the rules that balance the various classes, why are you surprised that everyone wants to play a spell user?

[tombowings]

Also, with XP, if your character dies, you'll only be more than a level or two behind for a short while because of the way the experience tables scale.

[inkmeister]

I'm not sure I agree that a free form approach will seriously imbalance the game. The biggest issue I see would be with Moldvay style race as class D&D, because elves would be basically gaining 2 levels for every level everyone else earned (being automatically dual classed). In OD&D that isn't an issue. Other than that, the 3 classes are not ever drastically far apart in level anyway. Some might argue the free form approach is even superior in this regard, because otherwise the cleric will at times have even more HP than the fighter with the same fighting capability, since he gains levels faster and has close to the same HD (WaysoftheEarth did a good post about this some time back). At any rate, a level of difference isn't huge. I think the quadratic wizard thing is something people complain about with regard to 3rd edition.

That said, I haven't run this way before, but others here have. I'm curious what their perception of the balance situation is.

[cooper]

The amount of treasure and the hit dice of the monster is a good indicator of how much XP a successful encounter with that creature is. There doesn't even actually have to be any treasure there at all. If PC's successfully negotiate, interact with, or befriend a goblin, I would think even in a free form game this is less rewarding than doing the same with a pack of werewolves.

So, how does a DM who doesn't give XP for gold or monster kills decide on how much the encounter is worth? Simple. There's no need to reinvent the wheel, or to be totally arbitrary. Just follow the guidlines in the book, but it isn't important if there is any gold. The reason powerful monsters have lots of gold in d&d is because they are challenging encounters, so one need only look at the treasure tables as indicators of a challenge rating and not literally as gold per se.

Sneaking past a goblin is worth 106 xp, while sneaking past an ogre might be worth 600xp, or tricking him, or simply RPing with him, it doesn't have to be about taking his gold, but the XP is the same as taking his gold...

This is implicit in the game already. A wizard who kills a goblin with a magic missile gets 100xp for killing the goblin and 6 xp from the gold the goblin was carrying, well a wizard who casts charm person on the goblin is entitled to the same xp even if the goblin isn't dead and the wizard doesn't take the gold!

A 2nd level thief who kills a similar goblin gets 53xp, but so should the 2nd level thief that ops to sneak past the goblin instead--in both cases, the monster is successfully encountered.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 23, 2013 12:32:57 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

There is a serious problem with "freeform" leveling that you have skipped.

Classes are balanced against each other in very large part by the fact that their XP tables are drastically different. Eliminating this eliminates a major design element.

The eventual outcome of this is the so-called "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" problem which game designers introduced into D&D by not knowing what they were doing. If you remove all the rules that balance the various classes, why are you surprised that everyone wants to play a spell user?

2nd level: Magic-users need 2.5k (500 more than fighters).
3rd level: Magic-users need 5k (1k more than fighters).
5th level: Magic-users need 20k (4k more than fighters).
6th level: Magic-users need 35k (3k more than fighters).
7th level: Magic-users need 50k (14k LESS than fighters).
8th level: Magic-users need 75k (45k LESS than fighters).
9th level: Magic-users need 100k (120k LESS than fighters).

By the book magic-users require trivial quantities of extra XP (over fighters) up to 6th level. They then require substantially fewer XP than do fighters from level 7 upward.

If your game encompasses levels beyond the 6th, then eliminating the XP difference is actually a boon to the fighter more than it is an incentive to play a magic-user.

[aldarron]

Tossing a couple thoughts into the soup.

Experience points are a mechanic for the game, created as a means to solve the problem of how to model the growth of a character through their experiences adventuring, and provide rewarding goals for players.

When experience points are replaced by a simpler "good behaviour" formula or simple fiat, achieving a level is no longer an earned achievement, its simply to be expected. That cheapens level gains a bit for the players, IMHO.

Having said that, there are certainly conveniences to not fiddling with exp., and I've run arbitrary leveling up games too.

[talysman]

Mar 23, 2013 17:21:10 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Mar 23, 2013 12:32:57 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

There is a serious problem with "freeform" leveling that you have skipped.

Classes are balanced against each other in very large part by the fact that their XP tables are drastically different. Eliminating this eliminates a major design element.

The eventual outcome of this is the so-called "Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard" problem which game designers introduced into D&D by not knowing what they were doing. If you remove all the rules that balance the various classes, why are you surprised that everyone wants to play a spell user?

2nd level: Magic-users need 2.5k (500 more than fighters).
3rd level: Magic-users need 5k (1k more than fighters).
5th level: Magic-users need 20k (4k more than fighters).
6th level: Magic-users need 35k (3k more than fighters).
7th level: Magic-users need 50k (14k LESS than fighters).
8th level: Magic-users need 75k (45k LESS than fighters).
9th level: Magic-users need 100k (120k LESS than fighters).

By the book magic-users require trivial quantities of extra XP (over fighters) up to 6th level. They then require substantially fewer XP than do fighters from level 7 upward.

If your game encompasses levels beyond the 6th, then eliminating the XP difference is actually a boon to the fighter more than it is an incentive to play a magic-user.

This changes if you consider xp per *hit die* (old progression) instead of level. Compared to Fighters, M-Us pay:

2.5 times as much for their second HD,
5 times as much for their third HD,
6.25 times as much for their fourth HD,
4.6875 times as much for their fifth HD,
3.125 times as much for their sixth HD,
3.125 times as much for their seventh HD,
2.5 times as much for their eighth HD.

So, there's a narrowing of the gap at higher levels, but Fighters still have a significant lead over M-Us.

[Sean Michael Kelly]

Balance be d**ned, we use a "mostly" freeform approach, but slow.... 3-4 sessions per level. Primarily because neither I nor my players care for all of the accounting.

But again, it's your game, do what you want to do to enjoy it!

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 23, 2013 18:20:04 GMT -6 talysman said:

This changes if you consider xp per *hit die* (old progression) instead of level. Compared to Fighters, M-Us pay:

2.5 times as much for their second HD,
5 times as much for their third HD,
6.25 times as much for their fourth HD,
4.6875 times as much for their fifth HD,
3.125 times as much for their sixth HD,
3.125 times as much for their seventh HD,
2.5 times as much for their eighth HD.

So, there's a narrowing of the gap at higher levels, but Fighters still have a significant lead over M-Us.

Not sure exactly what "changes" Talysman? If we eliminate the XP differences between fighters and m-us, then fighters attain their high level HD relatively sooner than they otherwise would. So eliminating the XP differences is still a boon for fighters.

[geoffrey]

Not only do I like the system of rewarding levels based on the number of actual hours the PC is played, but I also really like Kilgore's Roll to Advance system:
www.lordkilgore.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Roll-to-Advance.pdf

There are three main reasons why I prefer either of the above two systems over xp for treasure and defeating opponents:

1. I'm way too lazy to track xp.

2. I like a treasure-poor world. In my Isle of the Unknown campaign, even silver pieces are rare. Characters have to make do with tin, brass, bronze, and copper pieces. Even high-level characters have to count their coins to see if they can afford a replacement long bow, sword, or etc.

3. XP for treasure or defeating opponents can lead to some crazy stuff (though one might argue that this is a feature). I remember the time that a PC was just a few dozen xp short of a level, so he did what was most convenient: He raided the nearest farm and started attacking the chickens, dogs, cattle, etc. in a quest for more xp. Perhaps even sadder: One time a player was a mere TWO xp short of gaining a level. After unsuccessfully begging the DM for 2 gimme xps, this character then decided that he would acquire the 2 xp as swiftly and with as little risk as possible. He hit upon the idea of ALLEY-BASHING AN OLD LADY. He hid around the corner and conked her in the head with his shield. He then fished 2 gp out of her purse and congratulated himself on his success. Alignment written on character sheet: Neutral Good.

[Deleted]

Hmm. To preserve differential class rates of leveling, I might modify roll-to-advance as follows:

roll d30 per substantial session
30+ = advance a level
add "modifier" of Prime Requisite (if no modifiers, add 1 if PR normally grants an xp bonus)
add 1 at 1st level (or 0 level, if you're using DCC); subtract 1 to gain Name level; subtract 2 at higher than Name level
add "modifier" of Intelligence (M-Us add Int bonus twice; if no modifiers, add 1 if Int is 15+)
subtract 2 if M-U
add 1 if cleric or thief
If a modified roll of 30+ is impossible, then find the maximum possible. If the maximum possible is 29, on a natural 30 there is a 50% chance of levelling. If the maximum is 28 or less, on a natural 30 there is a 25% chance of leveling.

[zeraser]

When experience points are replaced by a simpler "good behaviour" formula or simple fiat, achieving a level is no longer an earned achievement, its simply to be expected. That cheapens level gains a bit for the players, IMHO.

In my campaigns, fiat has to be earned too! Levels are a reward not only for skillful operations of the mechanisms but also for skillful negotiation of the social field of play - being entertaining, being persuasive, being colorful, being fun to hang out with every week (or however often it is). What we do is not, as has often been pointed out, a computer or video game; it's a game whose successful carrying-out depends on interpersonal interactions. As a strong believer in freeform leveling, I like to reflect those interactions in the game's mechanical progress.

[talysman]

Mar 23, 2013 20:21:24 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Mar 23, 2013 18:20:04 GMT -6 talysman said:

This changes if you consider xp per *hit die* (old progression) instead of level. Compared to Fighters, M-Us pay:

2.5 times as much for their second HD,
5 times as much for their third HD,
6.25 times as much for their fourth HD,
4.6875 times as much for their fifth HD,
3.125 times as much for their sixth HD,
3.125 times as much for their seventh HD,
2.5 times as much for their eighth HD.

So, there's a narrowing of the gap at higher levels, but Fighters still have a significant lead over M-Us.

Not sure exactly what "changes" Talysman? If we eliminate the XP differences between fighters and m-us, then fighters attain their high level HD relatively sooner than they otherwise would. So eliminating the XP differences is still a boon for fighters.

Sorry, I was specifically referring to this: "By the book magic-users require trivial quantities of extra XP (over fighters) up to 6th level. They then require substantially fewer XP than do fighters from level 7 upward." I took your outlook to be that by the book, experience awards are mostly balanced in favor of the magic-user; but I think if you take into consideration the hit dice per advancement, it's pretty obvious that the system is balanced in favor of fighters. Magic-users give up a hit die every other level (more or less) for the ability to cast spells.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 23, 2013 20:49:23 GMT -6 talysman said:

Sorry, I was specifically referring to this: "By the book magic-users require trivial quantities of extra XP (over fighters) up to 6th level. They then require substantially fewer XP than do fighters from level 7 upward." I took your outlook to be that by the book, experience awards are mostly balanced in favor of the magic-user; but I think if you take into consideration the hit dice per advancement, it's pretty obvious that the system is balanced in favor of fighters. Magic-users give up a hit die every other level (more or less) for the ability to cast spells.

I see what you're saying, Talysman. Yes, I agree; the system (of HD advancement) is balanced in favour of fighters.

But "number of HD per XP" is not a very good measure by which to compare fighters versus magic-users, is it? We instinctively expect that fighters should have more HD than m-us, because -- as you already mentioned -- m-u's trade off some of their HD for their spell casting ability.

All I was suggesting was that the "linear fighter, quadratic magic-user" problem goes way deeper than the difference between the XP the two classes require. In fact, the by-the-book XP requirements allow the m-u to advance faster than the fighter at high level and thus contribute to the problem, rather than mitigating it as was implied above.

[inkmeister]

I'm happy with the conversation thus far.

I was glad it was pointed out that magic users actually need LESS experience than fighters at the higher levels (around 7+), so a free form leveling system won't make wizards more powerful than they already are by the book.

I enjoyed Geoffrey's anecdotes about some of the weird behavior he has seen due to XP. The edition I began with - 2nd - specifically encouraged the DM NOT to give XP in the situations Geoffrey mentioned (an 8th level warrior, for example, needing 3 xp to level, going out and killing a single goblin).

I'm not really fond of the roll to advance. But I like the X hours = level up, and general free form. I think it is elegant and allows advancement to happen at the rate the group prefers. I don't at all think leveling has to happen quickly; if the group enjoys playing level 4 for 10 sessions, fine. Or if the general understanding is that it should take many sessions to level, that's fine.

My last thought on the subject at this moment is that the freeform approach in no way has to invalidate a challenge oriented game. In other words, I think some people worry that characters won't "earn" their levels if there is no XP mechanic in place. My assumption is different; I assume that if we are playing D&D, a big part of the point is to test your characters against various challenges the world has to offer - battling exotic monsters, rescuing hostages, seeking out dark secrets, looting old tombs, becoming kings, robbing golden palaces, becoming crime lords, visiting dark planes of existence. I also assume that the fun of the game IS engaging with other people, roleplaying well (whether thespian style or not), and choosing interesting paths through the game world. That's just part of the game - that's as much why people play as anything else; extra rewards are not necessary. My own games thus far have been significantly lethal, and I like it like that. If you survive a number of sessions, that in itself calls for you to level up.

At the end of the day, I like the by the book approach, but I don't see the need for it in all situations, and I intend to experiment in the freeform direction.

More conversation, pro, con, experiences, whatever, is welcome!

Nick

[Finarvyn]

Mar 23, 2013 12:32:57 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Classes are balanced against each other in very large part by the fact that their XP tables are drastically different. Eliminating this eliminates a major design element.

I suppose it comes down to how you look at it. To me, game balance requires that "the party" be somewhat balanced with "the encounter" as opposed to the notion that all characters within the party must be balanced. After all, didn't both Dave and Gary run games that mixed characters of vastly differing levels? And I think I remember that Dave ran a more freeform level-up process, deciding that when a character had done something significant he would advance from "flunky" to "hero."

Mar 23, 2013 10:20:46 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

I recall Fin saying something about leveling up arbitrarily whenever it seems right to do so, and Geoffrey's group leveling up after a predetermined amount of game time (play X hours, go up a level).

True enough, although the term "arbitrary" sounds a little random to me. Perhaps "when they reach a resting point" makes the point better.

I've played both ways, by counting XP and by estimation through adventure, and I find that the freeform method works best for me. I see several potential issues with XP:

(1) Counting things takes time and effort. The more characters involved, the more bookkeeping involved.

(2) XP done "by the book" requires adjustment for character level and monster level (e.g. a 2nd level character beating on 1st level monsters only got 1/2 XP) and this adds additional bookkeeping.

(3) OD&D is somewhat vague about how XP earned is divided. I've seen some folks rule that the guy with the "kill shot" gets all of the XP, or others say that anyone who hit a particular monster gets a share of the XP, and still others say that anyone in the party gets a share of the XP.

(4) XP done "by the book" means that some folks level up at different times from other folks. That can mean several different "wait time" breaks, depending upon how familar the player might be with the level-up process.

None of this is insurmountable; I've played with those rules for decades. I just like my newer XP philosophy better.

As always, just my two coppers.

[inkmeister]

Good points Fin. I think you were the first old schooler I heard from that did advancement free form, and the idea immediately intrigued me.

A further thought is that XP by the book only rewards success. I think we often learn as much from failure as success, and so as long as characters are doing adventurous things, taking risks, playing as well as they can, it makes sense that they should level up periodically.

I also really like Geoffrey's point about running low wealth games. Not that every campaign would want to work that way, but I think a lot of people would want to do something like that at least on occasion.

Nick

[tombowings]

I wrote this up as a sketch a few years ago. As an alternative to gold = XP, but still rewarding skill-based play:




Here's a new idea. Rather than awarding character's based on the gold they've collected, why not award it based on what the character has accomplished. A beginning character would have no accomplishments. Once a character completes a certain number of accomplishments, the character's level increase.

Here are some example accomplishments I thought up (most of which are class based):


GENERAL EXPERIENCE AWARDS

Taking part in a dangerous expedition that returns without casualties
Being the sole survivor of a disastrous expedition
Recovering a magical artifact
Dying and being brought back to life
Being gaining a title and lands
Joining a specific organization related to your class
Being promoted or rising in the hierarchy of that organization
Become head of that organization
Establishing an organization related to your class


CLERIC EXPERIENCE AWARDS

Recovering a relic of your chosen religion
Leading a pilgrimage to the holy land
Taking part in a crusade
Leading a holy crusade
Converting a follower
Converting a village
Converting a town
Converting a city
Converting a kingdom


FIGHTER EXPERIENCE AWARDS

Taking part in an organize battlefield regiment
Commanding an army of 10 or more men to victory
Commanding an army of 100 or more men to victory
Commanding an army of 1,000 or more men to victory
Commanding an army of 10,000 or more men to victory
Winning a duel or joust against a ordinary man
Winning a duel or joust against a man of arms
Winning a duel or joust against a master of arms
Winning a tournament of arms
Defeating a monster of legend


MAGE EXPERIENCE AWARDS

Creating a spell of 1st or 2nd level
Creating a spell of 3rd or 4th level
Creating a spell of 5th o 6th level
Brewing a potion
Creating a magic artifact


THIEF EXPERIENCE AWARDS

Thieving a single item worth at least 10 gold coins
Thieving a single item worth at least 100 gold coins
Thieving a single item worth at least 1,000 gold coins
Taking part in a heist
Leading a team of 3 or more thieves in a successful heist
Leading a team of 5 or more thieves in a successful heist
Leading a team of 10 or more thieves in a successful heist


Here's how I see this working. Character's go out into the work and below it to collect gold to fun their various operations that earn them fame and accomplishments.

Now, This isn't something I intend on using, but it was a fun exercise that I though someone might appreciate.


swashbucklershideout.blogspot.com/2010/09/accomplishments-new-way-of-awarding.html

[Stormcrow]

Mar 23, 2013 10:20:46 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Of course the game drifted towards XP mainly from monsters, and in some cases for other things like class specific actions and role playing.

Not until AD&D Second Edition.

It seems to me the XP for GP model is most appropriate in a highly dungeon focused game where the adventurers are assumed to be greedy treasure seekers.

I very much disagree with this characterization. The game requires neither dungeons nor greedy adventurers to be based on treasure-gathering.

The goal of the game is to rise from nobodies into rulers. The yardstick for progress on this journey is gold, in part because the literary sources of the game tend to emphasize treasure, in part because becoming an adventurer-ruler requires throwing treasure around, and in part because gold value is easy to measure.

So why dungeons? Because it's easier for low-level nobodies to manage their risk in an environment where they can control the strength of the challenges they face. Towns and the wilderness provide no such mechanism. But if players would like to try their luck in towns or the wilderness, they're free to do so. If they survive they'll still haul back plenty of treasure—remember that the treasure tables assume monster lairs in the wilderness.

How about adventurers being greedy? Not necessary. If you're playing in a game where progress toward your goal is based on accumulating treasure, then you're going to accumulate treasure whether you're greedy or not. In fact, greedy characters are in danger of letting their greediness get them into trouble, when their lust for gold directs them to take unnecessary risks.

What justifies changing the gold-basis of experience points? Changing the goal of the game. If you were playing in a game where the goal was, say, to save the word from the Dark Lord, gathering treasure probably wouldn't make sense, and wouldn't help you progress toward your goal. Experience points would have to be based on something else—for instance, defeating the servants of the Dark Lord.

Dungeons & Dragons is open-ended enough to support such a change in goals, but it does not provide you with advice on how to do it.

[Deleted]

Stormcrow, great point. Going for a "low wealth" game totally removes the 'End Game' of OD&D, where a 9th level fighter is called a "Lord" for a reason.

And at some point we get into territory of "how much can you change before D&D stops being D&D, no matter what you call it?"

[inkmeister]

Thanks for contributing some good points Stormcrow. You are right that a lot of folks emphasize the "becoming a Lord" aspect of D&D, and I think it is a really cool part of the game that kind of got lost in later editions. On the other hand, there is no reason that aspect of the game couldn't be pursued vigorously without an XP system. Though, I don't believe D&D must be about becoming kings.

In response to Gronan as to what is D&D and what isn't - I'm a fan of the idea that D&D is a big mess of a game that really can't be pinned down, but rather is decided in the act of play among people who collectively agree that whatever they are doing is "playing D&D." To me it seems that the D&D that can be written is not the true D&D. Even the people who made D&D didn't stick to one consistent set of rules, and I don't think that the authors really originally intended to be the final say on what is or is not D&D (though perhaps that changed as the hobby grew and changed). The 3LBB's encourage individual referees to make the game exactly as they want it to be. In that light, I see every new edition and revision as a different take on what D&D could be, but not necessarily what it is.

In my recent game where I had XP=GP, I decided to have a single XP progression (not unlike 3rd edition) based on whatever table was most favorable for a given level (cleric, then ultimately wizard). This allowed me to keep the gold levels down a little bit. Other folks double (or more) the XP value of a GP to get the same effect. I am not worried about my particular choice affecting balance between classes. I only have two classes anyway.

[geoffrey]

Mar 24, 2013 13:50:12 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Stormcrow, great point. Going for a "low wealth" game totally removes the 'End Game' of OD&D, where a 9th level fighter is called a "Lord" for a reason.

And at some point we get into territory of "how much can you change before D&D stops being D&D, no matter what you call it?"

I've been playing D&D with the same core group of people since 1980. We dabbled a couple of times in D&D's "end game" of having strongholds and all the rest. We didn't care for it, and we've thus ignored this aspect of play in virtually all of our games. I'm certain we've been playing D&D for the last 33 years. I do not think the end game is essential to D&D.

[Stormcrow]

Mar 24, 2013 15:01:57 GMT -6 inkmeister said:

Thanks for contributing some good points Stormcrow. You are right that a lot of folks emphasize the "becoming a Lord" aspect of D&D, and I think it is a really cool part of the game that kind of got lost in later editions. On the other hand, there is no reason that aspect of the game couldn't be pursued vigorously without an XP system. Though, I don't believe D&D must be about becoming kings.

I'm not talking about how people play D&D; I'm talking about how D&D is presented in the rulebooks. Like I said, it's open-ended enough that plenty of people change the become-a-ruler aspect of the game, and this is perfectly fine. It's just that whatever you choose as the goal of the game, your experience system should logically support that goal. D&D presents exactly one setup: accumulate treasure to eventually become a ruler. Other scenarios are possible, but they are not presented in the rules. I don't believe XP-for-GP was ever meant to be a one-size-fits-all solution, but it does fit D&D.

Let's put it another way, to get away from what's in the rulebooks. What is the goal in your game? Define what adventurers in your game are striving toward, and we can perhaps advise you on the best experience system to support it.