Variant XP for Defeating Monsters

[dwayanu]

I've found that I'm not really satisfied with either the original or the Supplement I schemes. I'm just starting to kick around other approaches.

One is to have an equation that roughly reflects how tough a fight actually was. A fairly simple basis would be to total HP dealt by both sides and then multiply by a figure chosen to give final values that feel right to me. There should also be values for effects such as paralysis, level draining, death from poison and so on. Note that all this is based not on potential but on what actually happened.

That leaves the question of awards for defeating monsters by trickery, spells such as sleep and charm, and so on. I'm inclined to consider the specific circumstances of primary importance, but think some benchmarks are in order. It might be felicitous if awards on average were greater for such exploits than for fights, except that I'm not fond of over-encouraging sleep. My players seem scarcely to notice that there are other first-level spells ... but that problem (and some potential game-variant solutions) is a topic for another thread.

[chgowiz]

Is there an echo? ;D Tao of D&D just posted an interesting article about something similar.

Uhhh... I bet I'm an idiot and you already knew this...

I guess I like formulas rather than trying to track damage through a game. Although "CR" as implemented felt too gimmicky and limiting, the idea of rating a group of monsters against a metric and adjusting XP isn't a bad idea. The point that one monster who is encircled and beat upon is an easier kill than facing a screaming horde of 25 orcs is a good one. I haven't found anything yet that I personally like that would take that into account, so I have a feeling I'm going to have to wing it.

[grodog]

Jan 22, 2009 15:01:23 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

That leaves the question of awards for defeating monsters by trickery, spells such as sleep and charm, and so on.

Very true, both of which seem to me to be the far-wiser course, along with avoiding the fight altogether (through movement, flight, bribery, etc.): kill them out of hand with no risk (sleep) or make them your ally and use them to infiltrate the complex (charm). That maximizes PC gain through the expenditure of the least amount of resources with the least amount of potential loss to the PCs.

That's smart play. It's not necessarily heroic play, or as much dice-rolling-fun play, but it feels smart to me.

[dwayanu]

In general, acquiring treasure XP is the great reward. One idea I'm considering is making that the only one!

That obviates any separate calculation of value for ways of dealing with monsters (just as there is no particular award for dealing with traps and other hazards).

I wonder what purpose the little (from Greyhawk on) awards for monster-bashing are supposed to serve? My suspicion is that game priorities had not yet crystallized when the original set was written, and that reducing (rather than eliminating) XP for monsters reflected a sort of "pack rat" attitude concerning rules. I note, for instance, that the supplement also adapted the weapon-versus-armor table from Chainmail.

Actually, I can see one purpose: Those few XP soften the blow slightly when characters have run-ins with wandering monsters, and provide some support for their pleasure in any victory. Their psychological effect can be greater than their objective value, without completely negating the lesson that big treasures are the goal.

Anyhow, my concern in the first post was strictly with awards for "combat" in a broad sense. Traditionally, just avoiding or negotiating with a monster brings no direct XP. At least that's how it's been interpreted in all my experience except when a DM gives "special" awards for "good ideas" and/or "good role-playing."

So, when I referred to trickery and spells, I had in mind things that lead to the killing or capture of monsters without involving Hit Point damage. It was basically more of the consideration given in the first part to paralysis and so on.

[sham]

Zulgyan suggested doing away with experience for monsters before. It's an idea which I do find great merit with. I think this thread speaks to the rationale behind the OD&D experience for gold rule. After all, most OD&D characters are risking their necks for treasure rather than hunting down monsters. The goal being to amass enough gold to build a stronghold and bring some order to the chaos of the land (or to flaunt your riches and throw your weight around).

I doubt I'd go to this extreme, but I would like to somehow emphasize the experience for treasure ideal.

[apeloverage]

If you found getting XP for treasure too illogical, you could say that you only got XP when it was spent on training (or donated to a temple, or spent on magical research).

Or adopt the 'sword & sorcery rule' that it has to be spent on carousing, which is illogical but fun.

[dwayanu]

"If ..." but I don't!

[dwayanu]

Reading Jeff's Gameblog got me back to where I started: good old 100 XP per HD.

I think my real problem was simply that the treasures in Quasqueton were too small!

The players almost got away with one without a fight, but even switching to the Greyhawk XP scheme would not make that quite as notable as it ought to have been.

The infrequency of sessions in this campaign is one reason I won't mind if character advancement is rapid. I'm also having second thoughts about my "not dead until negative 3" HP rule. Even with maximum HP, several PCs would otherwise have met their ends already. What may seem a lot of XP for winning fights at low levels makes more sense when just surviving them is chancy. The players used good tactics (and some help from Dave Arneson's "on a roll" rule) to take out a horde of kobolds. That could easily have been more costly.

[chgowiz]

Jan 25, 2009 17:16:17 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

(and some help from Dave Arneson's "on a roll" rule)

What is that rule?

[dwayanu]

From the Something for fighters? thread:

"If kills an opponent he gets another attack. When all opponents next to him are gone he gets no more attacks."

[Zulgyan]

Here is the thread about XP for treasure only:

odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=1097

[Deleted]

I have always felt that monetary treasure should not be used for XP's. A while ago I tried to come up with a variant system for XP's in ODD. The three classes would gain experience in different ways.

All classes would get one point per day just for staying alive. This also helps players who do not participate in every adventure.

Fighters
Defeating any opponent in combat 100 x opponent level (HD) divided by the number of the same type opponent defeated during career. Rounded up. (How many of each type would have to be kept track of for each Character)
If leading a group (Highest Title, Highest Charisma ...) One XP for each group member for each encounter. Only awarded if the greater part of the group is engaged.

Magic Users
Defeating opponents as Fighters but only if the opponent was enchanted, conjured, or a Magic User.
XP's awarded for magic items acquired, new spells learned, and casting spells (I never worked out the details here).

Clerics
Defeating opponents as Fighters but only if the opponents are Evil Alignment (Good Alignment for Evil Clerics).
XP's awarded for converting faithful, constructing temples, and turning undead (again I have not worked out the details yet).

I have not used this system, it is just something I thought may work well in some games.

[badger2305]

Rabbit, what you've detailed is very similar to my first campaign, back in 1976-77. I'm with you in this regard - I think of gold as its own reward; better arms and armor, magical items, etc.

[dwayanu]

We're going off on a tangent here, but I for one am okay with that.

Treasure is its own reward. Going up a level is its own reward. Glory, exploration, problem solving, role-playing, story-telling, cracking jokes ... fun is its own reward!

Why score points? Because it's a game, and that's a way to "keep score."

Why for defeating foes? Because the formal game mechanics are overwhelmingly devoted to "war game" matters. OD&D without combat would be even less efficient a use of resources than AD&D without spells (which take up about half the Players Handbook).

Why for securing treasure? Because, as in any good campaign, there must be an objective beyond mere slaughter. Even short of strategic scope, other concerns help to make for more interesting scenarios than just wandering from one fight to another. Treasure made for an easily quantifiable and "tangible" objective.

If D&D sometimes seems like a video game, let's not get the comparison backwards: Video games are like D&D! Gygax and Arneson did it (as far as I could see) first.

That was the original context: a game fundamentally about acquiring the treasures distributed across the maps of Underworld & Wilderness. Instead of an army, you had one figure. Although the sources of points were defined, how one got them was wide open to the ingenuity of players. From that substrate, all sorts of emergent properties naturally evolved.

A few years later, the authors of RuneQuest were writing of "improvisational radio theatre." Interestingly, they also introduced an experience system that's utterly neutral concerning campaign goals or themes.

Metamorphosis Alpha and Traveller gave such short shrift to in-game "character experience" as D&Ders understand it as to make it largely irrelevant.

All sorts of approaches have found favor in various quarters, because different folks have different ideas of what their RPGs should be "about.". Forming a group that's on the same page is more important than the theoretical merits of any philosophy.

[badger2305]

Dwayanu: oh, sure - I very much agree: getting your group to agree on things is better than debating the philosophy incessantly (i.e. engaging in sado-necro-bestiality).

Mind you, having said what you've said, let me toss another monkey wrench into the works.

So, the 0e gave experience for treasure, right? We're all clear about that. And party size was...how big? Well, that's less clear:

• The example given in The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures suggests a minimum of six (nobody was mentioned as holding a lantern or torch)
  
• The ratio provides in Men & Magic is 1 referee to 20 players, but it is unclear if twenty players were expected to play all at once (probably not).
  
• The rules in Men & Magic provide for followers fairly readily, and they may get half-shares of treasure and therefore experience, right?
  

...so while party size was variable, it's probably fair to assume that a band of adventurers would be anywhere from six to ten characters (assume the six from the first example, and then have another three followers or so, plus someone to tend to the mule . What this means is that treasure rewards for experience are divided up amongst more characters. Example: Our party of ten divides up a Type D treasure:

1-8k Copper: 10% - rolled a 17 (nope)
1-12k Silver: 15% - rolled a 97 (nope)
1-6k Gold: 60% - rolled a 16 - then a 4 = 4000 gp
1-8 Gems and Jewelry: 30% - rolled a 36 (nope)
Any 2 Magic + 1 potion: 20% chance - rolled a 45 (nope)

Assume for the moment that all of the followers are on half-shares (okay, big assumption, but work with me), but the mule-tender is just paid wages. So that's six full shares, plus three half-shares, 7.5 shares total. Divide 4000 by 7.5 = 533 gp and therefore 533 xp, right?

But if they party were only four (the assumption in 3e, dunno about 4e), and no followers, that would almost double to 1000 gp and therefore 1000 xp. Nothing wrong with that, per se, just that monster encounters are even more risky, since the number of guards that can be posted is smaller, the chance of being ganged up on is greater, etc. I think what I am suggesting here is that if you use treasures as listed in Monsters & Treasure, then it is reasonable to use the number of monsters as listed, as well.

And what about that rule from Men & Magic on page 18, comparing level of character to level of dungeon (and toughness of monster) for experience point award purposes?

I'm beginning to suspect that if I go along with gold for XP, I'll want to go all the way and make sure these things are taken into account (I suspect this would get me labeled a devious and difficult GM - ).

[chgowiz]

Jan 25, 2009 21:23:23 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

From the Something for fighters? thread:

"If kills an opponent he gets another attack. When all opponents next to him are gone he gets no more attacks."

Oh, I like that. I use that for nat20s right now, if I decide the PC is going to get another attack/damage attempt. I'll tuck that away in my memory bank.

[dwayanu]

Badger: I'm not sure what the "monkey wrench" there is, but ... I look on all that (as I regard everything in the books) as an example primarily for inspiration, not a binding rule. At the end of the day, the Game Operations Director has the whole world in his hands.

Pardon me as I try (perhaps with some mistakes along the way) to sort out the issues you raise! Let's see:

A) There's no clear assumption as to party size to match the clear assignment of a range of values to Treasure Types. Somehow it follows that it's "reasonable" to use the monster numbers given in M&T to determine lair populations.

The logic loses me, but if the conclusion suits you then run with it. I've known DMs at least to take that as a start in adjusting treasures. The average value of a Type D treasure is 4000 GP according to Moldvay Basic (which uses a consistent decimal exchange rate, so figure a bit less in OD&D). Hobgoblins and gnolls are listed as appearing in numbers of 20-200, for an average of 110 or in the neighborhood of 36 GP per monster (apart from maps & magic). It's obviously a better return on investment if you don't have fight 'em all to get the loot!

If you use those numbers in conjunction with % in Lair, then you're going to have an exceptionally densely populated dungeon! Half of all encounters with orcs are thus with an average of 165, with goblins or kobolds 220.

The advice in Volume 2 is "Referee's option: Increase or decrease according to party concerned (used primarily only for out-door encounters)."

Using the sort of ratio above with much smaller groups can be problematic because it tends then to be less likely that players can avoid facing such a majority of them. So, one ends up with situations in which the value of treasure obtained is significantly less than the 100 XP/HD for monster slaying.


B) Adjusting XP awards based on relative level is suggested.

Just what the equation should be is open to interpretation. Early on, I used character level versus dungeon level regardless of what was encountered ... but what of encounters beyond the dungeon's neat divisions? AD&D dungeon encounter tables list not only type but number of monsters, and IIRC they don't consistently add up to some number of Hit Dice equivalents. However, the estimable Trent Foster appears to take HDe as the basis: a party of 8 HDe versus monsters of 6 HDe would get only 75% XP.

The book-keeping daunts me, and I have a hard time getting a grip on how that works when the players are divvying up XP along with treasure. Trying to track coins with peculiar identities (these from Encounter W, those from Encounter X) would be obviously (IMO) absurd.

That's retrofitting AD&D formalisms, though. OD&D does not say anything about how XP for treasure are apportioned, so (e.g.) it could be decoupled from treasure shares (as Gary suggested in Module B2). That the treasure must be carried off from the dungeon to some sort of home base is just common sense, I think.

For the most part, I have set aside adjustments for level. I don't mind 2nd level characters flexing their newly attained muscle on Dungeon Level One; getting to see in that way how much stronger characters have become is an encouraging pleasure. It's a hard road to 2nd, and an easier one to 3rd just gets the PCs more quickly into the range wherein I feel I really hit my stride as a DM. From then on, mounting XP requirements to level up have seemed in my experience to serve well enough as an incentive to press onward and (in the dungeon) downward. One factor is that I have groovier magical treasures on deeper levels.


A problem with Module B1 as designed (which means only to the extent of listing monster and treasure assortments, as opposed to having predefined encounters) is that it includes no proper "lairs" in the sense of the remarkably tough-to-get Big Haul. As an aside, the availability of henchmen/hirelings therein suggests an average party size of four or five, six being the largest generated with addition of such NPCs.

If the biggest treasures don't get enough bigger than the piddling amounts yielded by the table in Volume 3, then a key dynamic is lost. (It also takes a long time to level up!) The strategic challenge presented to players is supposed to entail identifying especially rich hoards and bypassing lesser ones -- not necessarily exclusively, but with an eye to optimizing the risk-to-reward ratio.

That's why lesser undead, "vermin" and Wandering Monsters in general lack treasure, as do (by the random stocking scheme in Volume 3) half of the other monsters. In the same vein, it is recommended that the Referee should "thoughtfully place several of the most important treasures, with or without monstrous guardians."

[gkaralunas]

A reminder - - All I ever played was LLB & 1E.

The General policy was XPs for Combat ONLY. No XPs for treasure. We were allowed to level-up during the adventure, but again most of our adventures were brutal and death was at our heels until we made to town, with or without any treasure.

Of course this worked for us, Your mileage may vary <grin>