XP from treasure only

[Zulgyan]

How would D&D be is XP would be awarded by treasure only?

Some thoughts here, please add yours!

PROS:
1. PCs would try to avoid, sneak-by, talk-through encounters more often.

2. Aimless wandering would not be rewarded. PC must set up goals and follow them.

3. "Lets kill just for the XP" attitude would not rewarded.

4. You can use random encounters as much as you while keeping advancement controlled.

5. You can introduce bigger treasures and not limit yourself because you think they are advancing too fast.

6. PC will prefer to ally monsters rather than kill.


CONS:

1. Sometime the goal is to kill a particular person or creature and that would not be rewarded. This can be fixed with an ad-hoc reward.

2. Character goals would only be focused in wealth gaining. Not necessarily a bad thing in the S&S genre. But a Paladin would not work that well here.

3. Sometimes an encounter falls upon the PCs. For example, they are in a tavern and suddenly, so people there don't like strangers and attack them. Defeating them would not be rewarded.

Thoughts? What do you think?

[driver]

I actually like the monster XP awards from the 3LB. Characters can aid helpless villagers against marauding beasts, or clear out areas of a dungeon infested with oozes, vermin, etc., and still get a respectable amount of experience. And you don't have to come up with reasons why the dirt farmers can afford to reward them enough to make it worth their while, or the wolves have money. You also don't have to give low-level characters a lot of wealth to advance them.

Monster XP awards create their own set of problems. I like a mix, so if one adventure they're grinding out an ooze-infested area, and the next adventure they're hunting for a black pearl, they have a mechanical reason to adventure either way.

I think you're pretty much on the money with the pros and cons. It probably just comes down to the kind of campaign tone you want. The only genre I really simulate these days is "old D&D" so I'm fine with the 3LB awards.

[Bard]

I think that the pros and cons show that we need both, xp for treasure, and xp for monsters, and that we need more xp for treasure, and less for monsters... So I feel the OD&D version is quite appropriate...

I played AD&D 2ed, where there are no xp for treasure, but much xp for monsters. So naturally I liked the idea of xp for treasure. But leaving the monster xp entirely, would be too much. Both have their place in the game.

By the way, I like this "killing and looting" approach to experience, which is slightly animalistic way of looking at life, but if someone wants to play his character any other way, then he can, and it will be entirely his choice. Which is the best for free roleplaying.

And if any player happens to be having some bloodthirsty, or greedy instincts, then he won't be ashamed to play it, he has to do it for the xp... ;D So no one has to pretend anything. Which is also good for the game.

[dwayanu]

XP awards for monster slaying got cut back (at least up to a certain number of HD) significantly in Supplement I. EPT (IIRC) takes a middle way, awarding only 50 XP per HD.

The distribution of treasure affects matters. Going the 3 LBB way, most treasures are worth less than most monster encounters at low levels. On the other hand, hidden or trapped treasures may be less risky to acquire than those guarded by monsters -- and about half the monsters have no treasure. Optimal strategy is usually to seek the especially valuable hoards with gems, jewelry and/or magic.

Something like that remains the optimal course right through 1st ed. AD&D, by the books (not necessarily in all modules). The original scheme tends to give more rapid advancement through the first few levels without as much treasure.

Having to survive fewer fights to level up (however the difference is effected) makes a difference in how many characters get KIA before advancement.

Treasure as awards from third parties can be quite appealing. For one thing, they might be associated with more manageable risks than the usual dungeon expedition. For another, there's no need to haul the loot out of a dungeon. So, a rescue mission, diplomatic job or mystery to solve might be well worth investigation by canny players.

That also applies to monster slaying, even if there are no XP directly for killing and the monsters themselves have no treasure to plunder.

[oldgeezer]

I agree with Gary's assessment in the Greyhawk supplement that monsters should be worth only a fraction of the EPs of treasure.

Wandering monsters are supposed to be a hazard and a drain on party resources, not EPs on the hoof a la "Knights of the Dinner Table".

And special missions should include special rewards, obviously.

[Zulgyan]

So maybe awarding XP for planned encounters only excluding random ones could be a good idea.

EDIT: Hmmmmm... the problem is that PCs don't differentiate them.

[dwayanu]

IMO, wandering monsters as a rule should not bear significant treasure. Even if treasure adds only 20% or so to the XP for an encounter, that makes a notable difference. That's especially true when PC hit points are so low that any hit has at least a 1/6 chance of being a kill!

When I use higher XP awards for monsters, I tend to spread around some of the value of the richest rolled treasures. That reduces the extremes (and thereby the element of luck). Again, the overall effect is to speed advancement at low levels. An alternative is to consolidate, so that the treasures are fewer but richer. That puts an even greater premium on choosing fights carefully.

I think some XP directly for defeating monsters is meet, but I see how one could go "treasure only."

[philotomy]

One way of cutting down on "extra" XP from wandering monsters is to have the wandering monsters deplete the numbers in the planned encounters. How well this mitigates the problem depends on the nature of your dungeon, though. If you have a "lair type" dungeon, almost all the wandering encounters could deplete a keyed encounter. If you have a megadungeon/campaign dungeon, you're more likely to have true wanderers that aren't associated with a keyed encounter at all.

I've been using the LBB XP awards, and it definitely does increase the speed of advancement. I haven't reached a final decision on which approach I prefer. Actually, I may end up going for something similar to the LBB award scheme (nice and simple), but with slightly smaller awards. That is, somewhere in between LBB and Greyhawk. I don't know, yet.

[dwayanu]

Speaking of simplicity:

Most of the time, I have not bothered to adjust XP awards for character level relative to dungeon level. That rule can make book-keeping pretty tricky!

In practice, I've found that the magnitudes of awards without such adjustment are plenty of incentive not to spend too much time on challenges that are beneath one's league. The main thing is to distinguish treasure values a bit more (especially between levels 2 and 3) than the table in Vol. 3 does. By level 4, the frequency of Treasure Type hoards (which I do not determine by rolling "% in lair" for each encounter) becomes significant.

If players do go on a spree, the monsters are likely to band together -- presenting tougher fights for no greater treasure.

[geoffrey]

In Gamma World you get 1 xp per 1 gp, just like in D&D.

But in Gamma World you get only 1 xp per 1 hp of opponent defeated. That's right: A 60 hp balrog will get you...

60 xp

(Divided by six members in the party... d**n! 10 xp!)

[Zulgyan]

LOL ;D, not even worth calculating... just add a 60 gp gem to the treasure.

[blackbarn]

It sounds like you might be happy with a middle-ground solution, such as awarding XP based on "goal" attained, whether that goal is recovering a big treasure or finishing off a particular foe. You as DM would have to set these goals. Personally, I like the idea of awarding major XP for recovering the treasure and minor XP for the enemies killed on the way.

[Zulgyan]

It sounds like you might be happy with a middle-ground solution, such as awarding XP based on "goal" attained, whether that goal is recovering a big treasure or finishing off a particular foe. You as DM would have to set these goals

Yeas, I will do it this way. But I'll let the PCs set their own goals and give XP if the fulfill them! ;D

[akiyama]

The way I see it, XP in D&D is a reward for attaining goals. Gaining treasure is a goal. Surviving an encounter with a monster that might kill you is a goal. But killing a monster that is no threat to you is not a goal. So if the players get into an easily avoidable fight through their own stupidity or bloodthirstiness, consider awarding no XP for that encounter. You could even make PCs suffer an XP penalty in some situations, for example, if they kill a "monster" whose purpose in the adventure is to help the PCs!

[coffee]

Jul 4, 2008 2:14:25 GMT -6 akiyama said:

The way I see it, XP in D&D is a reward for attaining goals. Gaining treasure is a goal. Surviving an encounter with a monster that might kill you is a goal. But killing a monster that is no threat to you is not a goal. So if the players get into an easily avoidable fight through their own stupidity or bloodthirstiness, consider awarding no XP for that encounter. You could even make PCs suffer an XP penalty in some situations, for example, if they kill a "monster" whose purpose in the adventure is to help the PCs!

This, I like. It's simple, it's sweet, and it conditions the party to do what you want them to do, rather than just run amok and kill everything.

[akiyama]

I also like the idea that different classes might get different XP awards. For example, Magic Users and Thieves might get no XP for combat, but Thieves get double XP from treasure, while Magic Users get additional XP from finding or researching new spells and creating magic items.

[coffee]

Jul 4, 2008 2:23:26 GMT -6 akiyama said:

I also like the idea that different classes might get different XP awards. For example, Magic Users and Thieves might get no XP for combat, but Thieves get double XP from treasure, while Magic Users get additional XP from finding or researching new spells and creating magic items.

That's getting close to Gary's house rules. I know there's a thread or two around here somewhere on them, but it's very late where I am so I'll leave that linkage as an exercise for the reader.

[sham]

Now that I've run my first truly OD&D game session, I find I like the synergy of the original LBB experience rules.

I think that this topic is worthy of discussion, but in the end I prefer a balance of the experience rewards of both Monsters and Treasure.

I hope to promote the notion of survival and treasure seeking vs. killing all the monsters. If the monsters are dangerous enough, and there is a reward for treasure (other than it's inherent one), I think the end result will be the same; that of players using logic and creativity to attain their goals and not simply hunting down monsters for the sake of experience.

[calithena]

XP for treasure only would be great for certain kinds of games. However, there are two issues I would want to address if I were doing it.

1) No XP for magic items, only for gold, gems, and jewelry. This puts a clear and important emphasis on the shiny. Magic items are useful because they help you get the shiny, not a goal in themselves.

2) The big drag of 'treasure for xp' (only or as part of a mix) is the thing where people search every corner, loot every dead goblin body, etc. etc. Even when I was playing in the seventies I thought this was No Fun and I think the irritation of this was one of the things that made me switch away from the whole treasure-based XP system. Possibly, the thing to do would be to only have 'substantial' treasures count for XP, with awards say under 100 not counting.

The thing I like about treasure for XP is that it puts the emphasis on the goal, not the method. What I really dislike about dominantly fight/conflict-based XP systems is that they reward just going through the motions.

[coffee]

Jul 8, 2008 19:16:33 GMT -6 calithena said:

XP for treasure only would be great for certain kinds of games. However, there are two issues I would want to address if I were doing it.

1) No XP for magic items, only for gold, gems, and jewelry. This puts a clear and important emphasis on the shiny. Magic items are useful because they help you get the shiny, not a goal in themselves.

2) The big drag of 'treasure for xp' (only or as part of a mix) is the thing where people search every corner, loot every dead goblin body, etc. etc. Even when I was playing in the seventies I thought this was No Fun and I think the irritation of this was one of the things that made me switch away from the whole treasure-based XP system. Possibly, the thing to do would be to only have 'substantial' treasures count for XP, with awards say under 100 not counting.

The thing I like about treasure for XP is that it puts the emphasis on the goal, not the method. What I really dislike about dominantly fight/conflict-based XP systems is that they reward just going through the motions.

These are some very good points.

1) Agreed; Magic should be it's own reward. I never liked the AD&D system where one guy gets a potion and a couple hundred XP whereas the next guy gets a sword and several thousand; didn't seem fair.

2) I am uncomfortable with the whole "now we pry out the goblin's gold tooth -- how much is that worth?" thing. I don't like it; I find it distasteful.

And I saw it a lot in the old 3.5 game I was in, where XP was only for kills.

But you needed a bunch of cash to buy magic items (as opposed to finding them, which didn't happen as often because you could just make them...) Also, that particular player was cheap in real life, too.

I think the DM should say that the goblins either have money or not, but that their stuff will not be something any self-respecting adventurer would want to carry around. ("Sure, you can take the goblin weapons -- but you won't get any money for them!")

That should thwart the "every nook and cranny" folks, at least as far as the corpses of their foes.

[Zulgyan]

I give XP for finding magic treasure. By the reward is divided among all party members, not the one who keeps the item.

[Deleted]

I give out rather minimal XP for killing monsters, on the other hand, in addition to XP for treasure I also give XP for creative thinking. Defeating traps, outsmarting, or avoiding monsters, etc. all are ways to garner XP IMC.