Dividing Experience points

[norse]

This may be just needlessly picky of me, but Picts were really not an English tribe. They were a people present in the British isles long before the Angles, Jutes and Saxons migrated here and the bit they settled became known as angle-land (and after a few variations finally England).

The modern descendants of the picts would get really, really pissed off if you called them an English tribe.

[tetramorph]

RAISING THREAD

I've been working on MY OWN rules summary document. Mainly because I have been slowly coming to realize that I have been playing things wrongly / house-ruling unnecessarily mainly because of one of two things: I didn't read the rules carefully enough or the rules were practically undecipherable (I'll blame myself mainly, of course).

Here is my condensed rules, as stated, to the best of my ability, for the section in MM "Experience Points":

XP for treasure = dungeon level/character level (never > 1:1 ratio) multiplied by gold piece value.
XP for defeated monsters = monster level/character level (never > 1:1 ratio) multiplied by 100.
Monster level = HD (round up or down per modifiers).

How accurate am I? (I'm looking at you, waysoftheearth , and others of similar rule-reading ilk.)

How did this work in the wilderness, where there is no dungeon-level to divide by? (I'd be really interested in @gronanofsimmerya's knowledge of this one.)

[waysoftheearth]

Hey tetramorph , nice work

I presume you want me to read what is literally printed on the page?  If so; sure, here goes:

• XP are awarded to players by the referee.

[/font]
[li]with appropriate bonuses for Prime Req. ability scores.[/li][/ul]
Note that XP is awarded to players. If you like to read that literally it sure could soften the blow of PC death


The referee should award XP to players when their characters:

[/font]
[li]meet monsters in mortal combat and defeat them[/li]
[li]obtain treasure (e.g., coin, gems, jewellery, magic items, and "etc.")[/li][/ul]
Note that monsters must be met AND defeated in mortal combat. So no XP for winning at riddles; it's explicitly mortal combat folks.
Note also that magic items are explicitly included as treasure worth XP, and that the "etc." implies that other valuables are also worth XP.


Moving right along... the Troll example is the core of it, and is quite subtle. Reading carefully I think it says:
1. An 8th level M-U is operating on the 5th dungeon level.
2. XP earned (kills+treasure) on the 5th dungeon level by an 8th level player would typically be 5/8ths.
3. BUT. If the player defeats a higher level monster (i.e., where Hit Dice equivalence > Dungeon Level) then use the "monster level" instead of the dungeon level to calculate the proportion of XP to be awarded. I.e., the 8th level M-U defeats a 7th level Troll on the 5th dungeon level, so the XP earned for that encounter is 7/8th rather than the typical 5/8ths for that dungeon level.

In dot point form:

• XP gained is relative to dungeon level

[/font]
[li]Except that XP gained is relative to monster level if it's greater than dungeon level[/li]
[li]Except that XP is never awarded above a 1:1 basis.[/li][/ul]

As a single line expression to calculate XP, it's something like this:

XP_gained = XP_earned * THE_LOWER_OF( player_level OR THE_GREATER_OF( monster_level OR dungeon_level) ) / player_level

"XP_earned" = 1 per GP + 100 per monster HD equivalent.

Nothing is said about how to calculate XP when multiple monsters of the same or different types occur. It is explicit that the single biggest monster is used to calculate the XP. Likewise, nothing is said about player_level for a mixed party. Again, it appears that the single, highest player_level present is used in the example.

That aside, could all get a bit tricky with multiple encounters occurring across dungeon levels during a single expedition, particularly with the player_level potentially varying due to attrition during the adventure.


And the final point:

[/font]
[li]It's recommended that no player be allowed to advance any more than one whole experience level in a single adventure.[/li][/ul]


Hope that helps some. Or at least doesn't hurt your XP gains too much

[Todd]

Has anybody allowed greater than 1:1 ratios for treasure XP? Has that changed how their party explores dungeons?

[scottenkainen]

Jan 22, 2018 9:45:01 GMT -6 Todd said:

Has anybody allowed greater than 1:1 ratios for treasure XP? Has that changed how their party explores dungeons?

I'd be interested in the rationale behind that. Would it be to allow level advancement at the same rate, without having to worry about the encumbrance issues of leaving the dungeon with so much gold...?

[Todd]

I was wondering if it would tempt parties to delve deeper than their level to chase higher rewards.

[aldarron]

Nicely done Ways. Another thing to toss in is that if you are going strictly by the book, there is no XP sharing. The MU who kills the troll gets the XP. In the Twin cities games - and you can see this in the EPT rules - the xp went to the character who made the kill. Period.

Same with treasure XP. You didn't get XP for treasure somebody else in your group was carrying around. Of course, one can turn to the Ryth Chronicles for an early, semi-official XP sharing rule.

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth , I've taken so long to respond because I've really had to work through the implications of your post.

One implication is personal. Am I really intelligent enough to play this game, or, at least, intelligent enough to play it as written? I don't feel like my summary was anywhere close to what you discerned although, once you explained it, I do see it in the text.

The next is an issue with form: many people criticize 0e exactly because of its rule books. Too unedited. Too convoluted. Too poorly organized. I have defended against this in the past. I do not feel I can defend against this criticisms any longer. (Not just as a result of this interaction per se, but because of my over-all project of attempted summation. This interaction shows as a kind of example case.) Why is the game I love so poorly presented? Unedited, poorly organized, unnecessarily prolix? I know that editors existed in the 1970s.

But that leads to another, more substantial issue: content. If your reading of the XP-division rules is correct, then it is no wonder that I and many feel that they must house-rule it. The rules as stated are often simply unnecessarily complicated. I realize that I've just stated my opinion and I own it as such. But I do not feel that my opinion is out of the bounds of reasonability. It feels like the rules as presented are often deliberately far more complicated than necessary for straight-forward play. "Darn it, Jim, I'm a once-a-week referee, not a computer algorithm!"

That said, thanks for the clarification and I will add your wording into my summary document.

I am afraid to share other issues (and especially my document as a whole) with you, Ways (and others), for fear that I have failed to read the rules accurately (my issue) or discern its convoluted mystery (its issue); and, in the end, I just would like my document to be complete!

Okay, I think that concludes my complaining.

Now on to the content of your post:

How do you read the way the rules as written state (or imply) that monster XP should best be determined?

How might one apply the principles discerned here (gp and HD value in XP) towards how to award XP for magic items (as there is no guide in the rules as written).

Thanks. And: Fight On!

[scottenkainen]

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

(snipped) How might one apply the principles discerned here (gp and HD value in XP) towards how to award XP for magic items (as there is no guide in the rules as written).

I'll be particularly watching for answers to this part. I know of no OD&D guidelines for magic item XP awards, and always had to look "ahead" to AD&D for those.

[waysoftheearth]

Hey tetramorph, thanks for your reply. There's quite a lot in your post, so I'll just cherry pick the parts I might be able to add to right now...

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

One implication is personal. Am I really intelligent enough to play this game, or, at least, intelligent enough to play it as written? I don't feel like my summary was anywhere close to what you discerned although, once you explained it, I do see it in the text.

I'm not sure anybody is compelled to play the game "as written". For me, I think it's valuable to understand what's written not to play it "exactly as", but to understand what you're really doing when you change things up.

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Why is the game I love so poorly presented? Unedited, poorly organized, unnecessarily prolix?

Better answers to this question are probably to be found in the various publications re: D&D's history. However, it may be that a subset of the various emulation games out there offer the better organised/edited revision(s) you're after? (email me).

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

If your reading of the XP-division rules is correct, then it is no wonder that I and many feel that they must house-rule it.

I think "correct" is ambiguous in the context of play; there's no, single "correct" way to do it. I may (or may not) have correctly parsed the printed word, but that's all. IMHO house ruling is not an obligation that detracts from the game; it is a presumed, integral part of the game that sets it apart from many others. I find it a compelling creative outlet, I don't believe I'm alone there. Have another read of the Introduction (M&M p4) and Afterword (U&WA p36)--I've underlined the house-ruling phrases in my beater copy so that I keep seeing them

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

I am afraid to share other issues (and especially my document as a whole) with you, Ways (and others), for fear that I have failed to read the rules accurately (my issue) or discern its convoluted mystery (its issue); and, in the end, I just would like my document to be complete!

Don't be afraid tetramorph. I'm sure most folks at this forum would love the opportunity for the discussion, and many (including myself!) would likely benefit

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 16, 2012 20:05:49 GMT -6 aldarron said:

From the SR FAQ:
"Low value should be placed upon magical items as far as experience is concerned, as such items will be highly useful in gaining still more treasure. Thus, in the Greyhawk campaign a magic arrow (+1) is worth a maximum of 100 points experience, a +1 magic sword with no special abilities is valued at a maximum of 1,000 points, a scroll of spells at either 500 or at 100 points per level per spell (so a 6th level spell is worth a maximum of 600 experience points), a potion is worth between 250 and 500 points, and even a genie ring is worth no more than about 5,000 points maximum."

The XP Gygax specifies here is related closely to the cost to manufacture (in GP) these items, and that can be used to infer the XP of items not mentioned.

M&M p7: enchanting 20 arrows at 1,000 gp.
FAQ: "a" +1 magic arrow at 100 XP.
Note that M&T's Miscellaneous Weapons table (p24) has either 10 or 3-30 magic arrows occurring.

M&M p7: spell scrolls at 100 gp per spell per spell level.
FAQ: spell scrolls at most 100 XP per spell per spell level.

M&M p7: potion of healing 250 gp, potion of giant strength 1,000 gp.
FAQ: potion at 250-500 XP.

M&M p7: X-Ray Vision ring at 50,000 gp.
FAQ: has genie ring at most 5,000 XP

Note literally by the book, but I tend not to give XP for magic items as it can be the root of undesired complexity. E.g.:
* Is it double dipping? (gaining the XP award + the benefit of having use of the item)
* If the players later sells the item for a load of gold is he triple dipping?
* Can a player get XP for owning an item he can't use?
* What if the player never uses the item?
* If the player later parts with the item for any reason should the XP be deducted?

If XP are awarded for magic items, I would prefer it be a genuinely "low value"; ~10% (per the rings example above) of the gp creation cost seems (to me) a "reasonable" reward for just recovering the magic item. Whatever other benefits are had from its subsequent ownership, sale, use (or not) can then be a totally separate matter without XP implications.

Just thinking out loud...

[graelth]

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

waysoftheearth , I've taken so long to respond because I've really had to work through the implications of your post.

One implication is personal. Am I really intelligent enough to play this game, or, at least, intelligent enough to play it as written? I don't feel like my summary was anywhere close to what you discerned although, once you explained it, I do see it in the text.

Man, of course you are. Playing it in the way that waysoftheearth described is only one way to play the game. It happens to be the way some of us (including myself) enjoy, but that is mainly because we've all been staring at these little books for decades and one of the many delightful things about the books is that you always find something new that surprises you when you read them again for the 100th time. After a while, you really enjoy going through the wording with a fine toothed comb as you build the repertoire of rules that becomes your own, personal way to play the game (adding in changes, modifications, corrections, deletions and alterations along the way).

That being said, it is extremely clear from interviews that Gary and Dave never intended for these books to be anything more than guidelines and the fact of the matter is that every gaming group played the game wildly differently in the 1970’s. AD&D added a great deal more clarity to the rules that I for one find sadly lamentable!!

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

The next is an issue with form: many people criticize 0e exactly because of its rule books. Too unedited. Too convoluted. Too poorly organized. I have defended against this in the past. I do not feel I can defend against this criticisms any longer. (Not just as a result of this interaction per se, but because of my over-all project of attempted summation. This interaction shows as a kind of example case.) Why is the game I love so poorly presented? Unedited, poorly organized, unnecessarily prolix? I know that editors existed in the 1970s.

And to me that is one of the many great features of the game. Read Roland Barthes essay "The Death of the Author." OD&D is a Gadamerian dreamland where the interpretive horizons of the reader are just as essential as the dried ink in the page. You are the one that makes the text complete. Case in point, waysoftheearth is inferring that XP is not shared amongst the party in the example, but an equally valid observation might be that the "party" in the example appears to only be a single character (and we know that Gary did indeed run 1-character adventures... in fact, some of the most famous Lake Geneva sessions were with a single player, such as many of those with Rob). Thus, there is nothing there in the example suggesting that XP wouldn't be shared. I believe Gary's last writing for (A)D&D was Castle Zagyg: Upper Works in 2007, where he mentions that he wrote his portion of the rules as if it were AD&D (Jeff ported some, but not all, of those elements over to Castles & Crusades), and he mentions at one point that XP for monster slaying should be handed out proportional to relative contributions of each player towards defeating that monster. That would suggest another fully Gygaxian way to do it, even though it came over three decades later, that nevertheless would not be at all in conflict with the OD&D experience example as written.

Jan 25, 2018 14:14:32 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

But that leads to another, more substantial issue: content. If your reading of the XP-division rules is correct, then it is no wonder that I and many feel that they must house-rule it. The rules as stated are often simply unnecessarily complicated. I realize that I've just stated my opinion and I own it as such. But I do not feel that my opinion is out of the bounds of reasonability. It feels like the rules as presented are often deliberately far more complicated than necessary for straight-forward play. "Darn it, Jim, I'm a once-a-week referee, not a computer algorithm!"

I use a spreadsheet to automatically calculate some things (such as encumbrance and ego-battles with intelligent swords). That said, it is important to remember the rules are guidelines. I just made a big long post about doing evasion "by the book" with the evasion table on page 20 of U&WA, but I ignored for the sake of discussion the line in the rulebook that clearly states "use the following table as a guideline." In reality, what you are supposed to do is come up with a reasonable percentage on the spot. The table teaches you what factors to consider and how heavily or lightly you may weigh them. By the literal wording, though, you are not meant to take that table as law.

Unless you have some sort of a spreadsheet, though, I recommend not using any rule at the table if it requires computation. You can figure out XP between sessions and just tell the players when you see them next. Stopping the game to calculate anything is a big, big, fundamental mistake in my view! If you need a number on the spot, just eyeball it, and save your players the boring pause and yourself the pressure and stress to "get it right," even though YOU are the referee and anything you say is "right" by default! You could also do it on a smokebreak, but the dungeonmaster (perhaps more than anyone else) deserves a break too.

[graelth]

Jan 22, 2018 4:59:00 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Note that XP is awarded to players. If you like to read that literally it sure could soften the blow of PC death

Yup, and that is actually the origin of my own practice of not giving XP to followers:

Jan 3, 2018 10:11:01 GMT -6 graelth said:

...all followers always require an equal share of the loot as the player characters... it's standard practice in my campaign world... but they don't earn any experience...

Followers are described in Men & Magic as "non-player characters", and since only players get experience (not the referee), non-player characters never gain experience on an adventure.

Jan 22, 2018 4:59:00 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

And the final point:

[/font]
[li]No player can move upwards more than one level in a single adventure[/li][/ul]
[/quote]This actually deserved a little more analysis, in my opinion. For one, my copy says "it is recommended," not "no player can" (although perhaps this is a difference in printings). Secondly, the last line furthermore suggests that the most experience points a 1st level character should get in a single session is 3,999 xp, which is a lot more lenient than simply giving a one level limit. The recommendation is actually to give no more than 1 xp shy of two levels! Put another way, the advice says you can give nearly 2 levels of experience (as near to it as you could possibly get with whole numbers).

But in any case, putting advice like this in the rules suggests to me very strongly that gaining enough experience for 2 or more levels in a single adventure is not only quite possible, but perhaps something that is assumed to happen not infrequently. Now, I'm not suggesting this happened at Gary's or Dave's tables, although presumably it happened at least once and Gary or Dave didn't like it enough to bother putting it in the rules. Heck, the rules don't even have stats for giant rats, which many now see as a quintessential D&D monster, but they found room for that rule! But the fact that the rules speak matter of factly about characters gaining 2 levels or more in a single adventure (which back then meant a single gaming session), suggests the text of the rules themselves accepts that this can happen.

It's also why I can hardly accept the argument on another thread that levelling can be "too fast," aside from the limit of gaining no more than one level per session. I mean, obviously it can be too fast for the preferences of the players and referee. But just from an academic perspective, the language of the rules do not suggest that!

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 26, 2018 14:58:35 GMT -6 graelth said:

Jan 22, 2018 4:59:00 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

And the final point:

[/font]
[li]No player can move upwards more than one level in a single adventure[/li][/ul]
[/quote]This actually deserved a little more analysis, in my opinion. For one, my copy says "it is recommended," not "no player can" (although perhaps this is a difference in printings). Secondly, the last line furthermore suggests that the most experience points a 1st level character should get in a single session is 3,999 xp, which is a lot more lenient than simply giving a one level limit. The recommendation is actually to give no more than 1 xp shy of two levels! Put another way, the advice says you can give nearly 2 levels of experience (as near to it as you could possibly get with whole numbers).
[/quote]

I agree that this rule is explicitly "recommended"; as are the entire rules described as "guidelines" (M&M p4).

Trying to apply exact language to OD&D can get tricky, sure, but for me experience level is one player statistic, and accumulated experience points is another player statistic. Gaining anything from 2,000 to 3,999 experience points will advance a new Veteran's experience level from 1 to 2. In which case, the player has moved upward exactly one experience level. Nothing distinguishes the Warrior with 2,000 XP from the Warrior with 3,999 XP; in games terms they are both Warriors (unless we consider life energy level drain, in which case the Warrior with 3,999 XP has more to lose!). However, the rule in question "recommends" our Veteran not gain 4,000 experience points (or more) in that single adventure because this would advance his experience level from 1 to 3. I.e., that Veteran would advance more than one experience level in a single adventure.

I'll go back and edit my post above to clarify for future readers; thanks for the comment Graelth. (note also that a brand new Medium could gain up to 4,999 XP and remain within the recommended bounds).

I suppose the purpose of this rule would be to prevent low level PCs from "rocketing" up through the experience levels as passengers on a cake-walk with much higher level characters. I.e., if a bunch of 1st level players were escorted directly to a lower dungeon level by a 15th level wizard, and looted it mightily (for 1st level PCs), this rule would prevent them from becoming "overnight heroes"...

[hamurai]

We've had quite a few discussions about the questions Ways posted earlier and I'd like to share what we agreed upon back in the day:

Jan 26, 2018 2:26:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

* Is it double dipping? (gaining the XP award + the benefit of having use of the item)

Yes, it gets you XP and the magic item. That's the sweet joy of finding a magic item instead of "just" gold coins. For us, XP were mostly about discovering, about experiencing, for example, new mysteries.

Jan 26, 2018 2:26:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

* If the players later sells the item for a load of gold is he triple dipping?

We never awarded XP for gold when selling used items. In addition, we didn't award XP for gold when the item was not earned in an adventure or dungeon. They reason we ruled this is one of out thief players who wanted to sell his magic armor (for gold + XP), then steal it back (for gold + XP), then sell it again (for gold + XP)... and so on. So, if you find a magic armor in a dungeon or during an adventure and you decide to sell it, you get gold + XP once. If you keep it and use it, you have the XP for discovering item and the use of the item.

Jan 26, 2018 2:26:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

* Can a player get XP for owning an item he can't use?

Yes, we allowed XP for trophies. Note that the use of an item as a trophy would make it "used" and if sold later, only gold and no XP would be gained.

Jan 26, 2018 2:26:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

* What if the player never uses the item?

See above. As long as the character knew the item's purpose and worth (identified the item), XP were awarded.

Jan 26, 2018 2:26:43 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

* If the player later parts with the item for any reason should the XP be deducted?

No, as you can't take the knowledge about an item from the character (unless you can, like by level-drain). It's bad enough to lose a strong magic item for whatever reason, losing the XP would make it even worse.

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth, don't worry, I am still among the faithful who persevere unto the end. I was just letting out a little frustration that I am usually pretty good at setting aside. You know I agree with all that you said. All the work is worth it. There is nothing like the original edition. (In fact, really, IMHO, there is only one "version" of D&D. It was first commercially published in 1974. All the other enumerated "editions" are just someone's detailed house rules being presented as if they were complete and final.)

If anything I am, philosophically, a minimalist. And I think the prolixity of presentation together with the level of complexity of some of the rules just grates against my own aesthetic. (Hence the house-rules I developed a couple of years ago -- the ones you helped me with!).

hamurai, as with waysoftheearth, thanks for the encouragement. Don't worry, I am still numbered among the faithful.

All: what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it?

[scottenkainen]

Jan 27, 2018 9:14:06 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

All: what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it?

I take "adventure" to mean game session in this sense.

[hamurai]

Jan 27, 2018 9:14:06 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

All: what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it?

We've never bothered with that rule, as it was too vague for us. An adventure can span several months of real time or just one evening. Usually, in one evening the PCs can't achieve and loot as much as in a month or more, so there's a natural limit to leveling. We always gave out as many XP as were earned. I don't think we had more than one instance of getting more than one level per adventure, and that was a new character after the old one had died, so we actually were glad the new one got a chance to catch up more quickly.
Leveling needed rest, though. That was pretty much the only requirement in our group back then.

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 27, 2018 9:14:06 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it?

The "adventure" reference pops up a few times. E.g.; experience is awarded for "any single adventure" (M&M p18); spells can be remembered for "any single adventure" (M&M p19); "The time" (Dungeon expedition = 1 week) "for dungeon adventures considers only preparation and a typical, one day descent into the pits." (U&WA p36). There are probably others.

In my mind an "adventure" is any period of in-game activity between safe havens. I.e., the period while players are "on adventure" and at risk of misadventure. It doesn't matter whether one or many real-world gaming sessions are required; "the adventure" continues until the players make it back to a safe haven (of whatever sort the referee allows).

[hamurai]

Jan 28, 2018 1:11:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

In my mind an "adventure" is any period of in-game activity between safe havens. I.e., the period while players are "on adventure" and at risk of misadventure. It doesn't matter whether one or many real-world gaming sessions are required; "the adventure" continues until the players make it back to a safe haven (of whatever sort the referee allows).

Does that mean your group couldn't level when they were exploring dangerous wilderness for weeks or months of in-game time? A "safe haven" requirement always sounds like they need to get back to civilization. That's why we agreed on a "rest" requirement, so even in the wilderness and the unknown, or during a military campaign, as long as you got a good night's/day's rest, you could level up.

[graelth]

Jan 28, 2018 1:11:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Jan 27, 2018 9:14:06 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it?

The "adventure" reference pops up a few times. E.g.; experience is awarded for "any single adventure" (M&M p18); spells can be remembered for "any single adventure" (M&M p19); "The time" (Dungeon expedition = 1 week) "for dungeon adventures considers only preparation and a typical, one day descent into the pits." (U&WA p36). There are probably others.

In my mind an "adventure" is any period of in-game activity between safe havens. I.e., the period while players are "on adventure" and at risk of misadventure. It doesn't matter whether one or many real-world gaming sessions are required; "the adventure" continues until the players make it back to a safe haven (of whatever sort the referee allows).

I agree with your definition, waysoftheearth . I didn't mean to say there couldn't be multiple adventures in one gaming session (it depends how long you play!) and it is conceivable to me that a single adventure could stretch over two or more gaming sessions, although that typically doesn't happen in my group. There's just something nice about starting and finishing an adventure in a single session, whether dungeon or wilderness. It gives the the players a tangible measure of what they've accomplished (including XP and treasure totals that they can bank and apply), gives an opportunity to fully regroup and restrategize for the next session (because they have the opportunity to rest, memorize spells and purchase new hirelings and equipment) and sets expectations for how much will happen each get-together. Plus, if you play a weekly game, you can say the downtime is simultaneous to real-world time, so the characters have a week to do things in the city as well (if a player comes to you two days before the game with an idea, then they have two in game days before the next adventure to do it). This is when high level characters can develop their barony and continue construction on their castle as well.

On a tangentially related note, I've never had OD&D players who have slept the night in the dungeon. Indeed, it hardly makes any sense to... magic-users and clerics cannot rememorize spells without their spellbooks, you cannot heal hit points and wandering monster checks will probably wipe out the party (unless you can wizard lock the door, although that may just summon the most powerful magic-user in the dungeon to see what the intruders are doing).

[tetramorph]

waysoftheearth, that’s my interpretation as well.

hamurai, in the wilderness, they’ve got to find at least a village or stronghold where someone is friendly to them.

[scottenkainen]

Jan 28, 2018 6:13:16 GMT -6 graelth said:

On a tangentially related note, I've never had OD&D players who have slept the night in the dungeon. Indeed, it hardly makes any sense to... magic-users and clerics cannot rememorize spells without their spellbooks, you cannot heal hit points and wandering monster checks will probably wipe out the party (unless you can wizard lock the door, although that may just summon the most powerful magic-user in the dungeon to see what the intruders are doing).

I've never played with a gaming group that didn't. Magic-users can memorize from their traveling spellbooks. Clerics do not need spellbooks, by the rules (though I did make that a house rule for one campaign). Hit points are restored by time spent, not degree of comfort, so they can heal, and wandering monsters can't do much if you spike the doors shut and pile furniture in front of them.

[graelth]

Jan 28, 2018 12:29:16 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

Jan 28, 2018 6:13:16 GMT -6 graelth said:

On a tangentially related note, I've never had OD&D players who have slept the night in the dungeon. Indeed, it hardly makes any sense to... magic-users and clerics cannot rememorize spells without their spellbooks, you cannot heal hit points and wandering monster checks will probably wipe out the party (unless you can wizard lock the door, although that may just summon the most powerful magic-user in the dungeon to see what the intruders are doing).

I've never played with a gaming group that didn't. Magic-users can memorize from their traveling spellbooks. Clerics do not need spellbooks, by the rules (though I did make that a house rule for one campaign). Hit points are restored by time spent, not degree of comfort, so they can heal, and wandering monsters can't do much if you spike the doors shut and pile furniture in front of them.

Really? My printing is pretty clear that Clerics do use spell books. Might be a difference in printings, though! It sounds like an interesting way to play the game... do you find if it gives the cleric any advantage over magic-users?

In any case, if the rules are taken literally, while you can bring your spellbooks along on the adventure, you can't do much with them anyway. The number of spells you may cast is "per adventure". Moreover, replacing lost spell books (any area effect fire would destroy them, although I forget if this is mentioned in the 3LBB or in a supplement) would be either very expensive or prohibitively so, depending on how you interpret the wording. That is, whether the cost of replacement is per spell book (one per spell level) or per spell level in the spell books (where you fall on that interpretation means that a 7th level magic-user is either spending 30,000 gold pieces or 52,000+ gold pieces, which would be about all of the gold he's earned up till then).

[waysoftheearth]

Jan 28, 2018 4:12:30 GMT -6 hamurai said:

Does that mean your group couldn't level when they were exploring dangerous wilderness for weeks or months of in-game time? A "safe haven" requirement always sounds like they need to get back to civilization. That's why we agreed on a "rest" requirement, so even in the wilderness and the unknown, or during a military campaign, as long as you got a good night's/day's rest, you could level up.

As per tetramorph's reply above; I believe it's implied that players should reach a safe haven before they can rest (and potentially level up) between adventures. Safe havens occur less frequently in the wilderness, but considering the so-called wilderness really consists of unexplored land, cities and castles (any of which might prove benign toward the players) they do exist.

Take "The Hobbit or There and Back Again" for example. Here the safe havens were: The Hill/Bywater, Rivendell, the House of Beorn, and Lake Town. Everything else was presumably, therefore, the adventures in between. There was a risk that Beorn may have been hostile. The Elves of Mirkwood might have been friendly. As it was... it worked out they way it did.

It's also implied (IMV) that castles encountered in the wilderness are non-player strongholds (the inhabitants of these strongholds are determined at random...), and might reasonably be surrounded by 2-8 villages just like player strongholds. Any of which might prove friendly toward players.

All told, wandering about a medieval-France-like setting, one is likely to find safe havens about the place. Crawling across a Saharan desert is something else. In the latter case, I think finding a safe haven is less likely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[hamurai]

Jan 29, 2018 3:53:32 GMT -6 @waysoftheearth said:

Crawling across a Saharan desert is something else. In the latter case, I think finding a safe haven is less likely, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

That's what I had in mind, I remember us playing sort of a Dark Sun/Ancient Egypt setting where crossing deserts was part of the challenge. We allowed leveling up on the journey back then and adapted the rule for future campaigns, too.
I guess in the end it depends on the type of campaign and if it makes sense in the campaign's pace when you allow to level.

[howandwhy99]

Jan 27, 2018 9:14:06 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

All: what does it mean that you can't level more than once per "adventure." Does that mean: between delves in the same dungeon or once the entire dungeon is "cleared." I've always don't it that when folks make it back to rest and safety they may gain XP from successful encounters and acquisitions. How do y'all read it / actually do it?

Agreeing with the others that an "adventure" means a single delve. Whether it be in a dungeon, a wilderness escapade, clearing out a corrupt area in town, and so on. (And a module = a design within the larger campaign; one which never really "goes away" after the PCs do.)

We originally had (and I still use) a training requirement, which needs to be fulfilled before characters can advance. However PCs can pre-train.

What this offers is a rationale for what Experience means and how it is incorporated into improved  class abilities later once those experiences can be reflected upon.