GP=XP

[Ice]

I'd like to hear how you came to that conclusion, because as I see it, you have it reversed. GP=XP I see as less useful for setting goals, because the players goals all become profit-driven.

Also, how can the party possibly know what treasure is involved in, say, figuring out who is haunting Farmer McGregor's field at night, or killing the giant feral hound that's eating village children? GP=XP party has zero motivation to look into that - Farmer McGregor is probably a broke peasant, and feral hounds aren't know to carry around gold and magic items. The party doesn't initially know they'll be rewarded with the Family Ancestral Sword, or that the feral hound has a potion merchant trapped in his den. They'll never know, because they aren't motivated to do the adventure.

Murder whodunnit? Nope, no money there, not interested. Tomb of Horrors? Nah, I heard there's not a lot of treasure to be had there. Why explore that dangerous old crypt when there's a dragon horde in the other direction with more money and only one real obstacle? And so on. Whereas if the party knows I award XP for completing significant events, then they're going to latch onto events, regardless of the financial gain to be had. If the party gets XP for killing monsters, they're going to hunt that feral hound to the ends of the earth and scour the Tomb of Horrors of all life.



You seem to be putting words in my mouth. What you think I call 'levels for nothing" is not at all what I'd advocate. levels for nothing implies... doing nothing. XP is given for accomplishments in a milestone system. The party has to solve the murder, or stop the bad guy, or rescue the princess, or whatever. That's not nothing; that's levels for adventuring... kinda the whole point of the game, really.

There's no expected progression because only I, the DM, knows when and how XP is going to be awarded, much like how only I know where all the gold is stashed if I were running GP=XP. The player's aren't privy to that - all they know is they'll see a goal and likely improve their characters if they accomplish goals with them.

In GP=XP, the finish line is GP. Guess you'll never meet a level 15 Druid who isn't a millionaire, or find a Level 12 Fighter who couldn't just hire an army to do the fighting for him.

In XP=XP, the finish line is undergoing the experience (hint - they are called "Experience points"). A level 15 Druid has seen some shit; he didn't just come across a treasure vault and suddenly gain new spells and abilities. A level 12 Fighter has wrestled with some serious foes; he didn't kill a single foe who happened to be fabulously wealthy.

I see where you are coming from here, but I think you are making some errors in your thinking. None of the players with which I play view XP as the 'finish line.' Most players don't. I certainly don't when I play. Getting XP is super fun and having a session where you get very little XP can be irritating, especially if you don't know why you didn't get much. But in the end, XP is just the gas your PC needs to accomplish whatever their objectives are. If I have a character that survives more than a few sessions, I always come up with some wacky scheme for them to pursue in the long run, for which XP is just the thing that helps them accomplish that goal.

Also, keep in mind that NPCs shouldn't follow the same rules as players. It's irrelevant how a level 15 druid NPC got to level 15, and he doesn't necessarily have to be a millionaire. A level 12 warrior NPC doesn't necesarily have to have an army. However, a level 15 PC druid probably spent lots and lots of money on his fancy garden or nature preserve and is quite pleased with his accompishments. A level 12 warrior PC should have an army unless he lost it doing something stupid.

Also, the game is more fun as a player if you know what you are getting XP for.

With that said, let me share my experience with different XP systems.

I've been DMing for about 5 years and I've used three systems for XP. The first system was not keeping track of XP and then leveling up the characters when I felt necessary. This is good if you are a total beginner and you are running Lost Mine of Phlandelver or something. This system also works very well if you have an episodic campaign where you switch DMs every few sessions, but other than that, it sucks and it has we don't need to go into that.

The current system I use is what you call XP=XP. At the end of each session, we do a quick recap of the session, during which I award XP. We currently play DCC so the experience points in the examples below much lower than traditional DnD. I award them 1-4 XP per based on three main things: risks, treasure and goals (sometimes knowledge too).

For risks, the bigger the risk, the more XP they get. If a PC actually dies, the survivors usually get the full 4 XP.

For treasure, If they find a hoard of treasure, they get the full 4 XP. If they find bits and pieces of valuable treasure here or there, then they get XP for that too, but not the full 4. This is on top of risk. So, if they sneak into a dangerous dragon's lair, find their way to the hoard, fill their pockets, and then craftily bounce, 8XP.

As far as the goals go, they either come from me (the DM) or the players themselves, and I award XP based on how well or how close they came to accomplishing a goal. For example, if Granny (an NPC) asked the party to save some asshole child who got kidnapped by gnomes, and they succeed, they get 4 XP. But if they only found some clue as to where the child was, then 1 or 2 XP. If they made up their own goals, then I give them XP based on how well I think they did on those goals. For example, if their goal is recruiting more cult members, then they might get 1 XP for a handful of villagers, but 4 XP for converting the local warlord and his warriors. Again, this is all on top of how big the risk was. So, if they negotiated through a 3rd-party to have the aforementioned asshole child released by the gnomes, then no XP for the risk, but 4xp total. If they launched a full on surprise attack of the gnome warrens without scouting it out and one of the PCs is killed, 4XP for that, plus an additional 4XP if they managed to save the kid.

Here and there, I might award for other things too, such as getting a valuable or interesting piece of knowledge, or making some particularly interesting choices in role-playing, but this doesn't happen every session and it's usually a small amount of experience.

This system works well enough for my group, and incentivizes the type of play I like DMing. I haven't explicitly told the players this is how I am awarding them XP, but I think they sort of get it, and they really seem to like it.

However, I have run a few games with GP=XP and I was blown away how it changed the game for the better. First and most importantly, it gives you an objective measure of how well the party did (rather than just how the judge felt about it.) This makes getting XP a lot more rewarding, and not just feel like a byproduct of showing up to play. Second, it incentivizes the players to take risks and look for secrets, since gold is usually well protected or stashed in weird places, thus encouraging your players too try to explore for all of the content you prepped. Third, it generally de-incentivizes combat and hunting down the 'BBEG'. I love tactical combat, but one or two battles per session is more than enough for me. The concept of the 'BBEG' that is omnipresent in mainstream DnD also really gets on my nerves. Finally, if you implement the Dave Arneson rule ( GP≠XP, but rather GP spent=XP), it incentivizes the players to take ownership of the world they are in, which is what drives long-running campaigns forward.

Yes, Gold=XP might make the game more about profit and it might make certain types of hooks harder to convince the PCs to take (like helping some crusty farmer, or investigating a series of dissaperances) but these problems are fairly easy to mitigate and you get a lot of benefits that no other XP system can offer you. Having the players know how to get experience points makes the game significantly better (in my opinion), and GP=XP is the cleanest form of that. (Monsters killed=XP being the worst, but that is for the adventure leagues goobers)

The only reason I don't do GP=XP, is because last time I asked my players about it, they said they would rather do what the DCC rule-book says which is '1-4XP per accomplishment in a session.'

Bunch of rule-following squares, really.

I should edit this before I post a giant block of text that nobody will ready but fuck it, I am late for work.

 

[EOTB]

For inserting "Bismarkian real-politik" into a forum conversation, I would award you an XP bonus without question.

I will always take XP for whatever reason offered!

As far as the goals go, they either come from me (the DM) or the players themselves, and I award XP based on how well or how close they came to accomplishing a goal.

As one exception to the "gp=xp" rule, I will give out XP for goals in one circumstance - if it's the player's or players' self-conceived goal. I wouldn't give it out for taking some hook I threw out and following it to completion, but if the player(s) decided they wanted to do something completely apart from my nudging and executed that, I would give them some XP as it reflects a player's experience with the game translated into action. I do think that fits with the notion of experience points.

 

[Beoric]

I would like to suggest that if your players are pursuing their own non-monetary goals (and achieving them), then that is reward enough without XP. (...and signs of a healthy campaign!).

Yes, and it is something to be encouraged. Which is why you don't want a systemic discouragement of doing so by forcing them to choose between their goals and advancement.

 

[Beoric]

I'm all for heroic altruistic play, but then the experience around the table is going to truly be its own reward. But I am admittedly turned off as a DM by players who want the image of altruism combined with the Bismarkian real-politik of "but of course in exchange for more power as the game defines it".

I fail to see why PCs who put all of the resources at their disposal into rescuing orphans would end up being less skilled than PCs who put all of the resources at their disposal into looting tombs. Equal challenges should receive equal experience. Its all about XP equity, dammit!

 

[squeen]

Yes, and it is something to be encouraged. Which is why you don't want a systemic discouragement of doing so by forcing them to choose between their goals and advancement.

The point I keep failing to convey is that character-ability/level is just not a focus of our (home) game, and I suspect that's not accidental. It's the world events. Not the character sheet. The players just want to monkey with things in the environment---start the dominoes failing, so to speak. Unravel the mysteries. Collect exotics. etc.

Since XP/Level is not a primary metric as to whether or not they are being "successful", nobody seems to care if action X or Y leads to more or less XP. So in that sense, there is no "forced-choice by game XP mechanic". It's a minor motivator---except at the lowest levels where it greatly determines session survival via the ability to weather a single melee-attack, and transforms magic-users from frightened children to functional adults.

I guess I am arguing that this is a fundamental feature of the original game---less focus on character abilities. Hence the flat level-curves. Fewer abilities to gain, etc. No mechanism to modify initial ability scores. Conan starts out pretty tough, but he never gains the ability to "wield the power cosmic". Indiana Jones doesn't gain the ability to leap tall buildings. I think video game designer grabbed the D&D level-up paradigm and then (because of their medium's inherent limitations) over-emphasized it as the success-metric. Video-gamers then brought it back to the hobby with a inflated sense of importance. Again, a sense of entitlement to a "steady upward progression". What is that upward progression suppose to be? Personal power/abilities, or prestige and influence in the world? The former follows the character into any environment, the latter requires a persistent campaign world. Sorry to be so one-note, but this circles back to my "Lesser" and "Greater" D&D epiphany. If you are solely playing a series of one-shot adventures (a.k.a. modules) and constantly transplanting your character into different scenes, then you aren't having the "full" D&D experience and the GP=XP a.k.a. minimal level-advancement looks like a broken metric that needs to be "fixed" in the next edition of the rules. But if you are in a persistent world---then everything "works" the way it evolved to during the hobby's formative years. Hauls don't need to get progressively bigger. Opponents don't need to get progressively more powerful (until you are fighting the King of the Tarasques!). Things remain longer in the scope of "normal humans" and yet are completely engaging (and grow in complexity).

GP=XP works because it creates a MacGuffin to get things rolling. Treasure is something that can be secreted away and is hard to obtain. It demands exploration and risk---and even permits partial-success. Once you get past that initial hurtle of "Why go into the dungeon? That's dangerous!", the game-world continues under its own momentum. After just one decent haul, you are 2nd-level, a local "rockstar" (and target), and most importantly...the game is afoot! Any other quibbling about which XP mechanism enables contiguous and virtuous level-gain is partially missing the point.

As the Ancient One said in the Dr.Strange movie, "It's not about [your character]."

Am I crazy for championing this?

EDIT: I am going outside the hobby---again to the MCU---for another example. The original Avengers were awesome but limited to just "being strong/skilled" (for the most part) and still vulnerable. More recently, take a look at what happened with Captain Marvel. She "leveled way the eff up" in her debut movie. Now what happens? The villains are just going to have to be god-like to even pose a challenge. The emotional impact of her beat-down revenge on Jude Law was vastly diminished by its obvious one-sidedness. In my opinion, Marvel shot itself in the foot there. They over-indulged in girl-power wish fulfillment (don't hate me---nothing universally wrong with that...kinda the point of super-hero movies) to an extent that diminishes the utility of a fictional character to participate in humanizing events by being placed in jeopardy. Captain Marvel wasn't the only one who got a major boost---I think they got a bit carried away with Iron Man's and Spiderman's nanotech abilities too. Power creep is going to complicate any and all future narratives they wish to tell (unless a means is contrived to gimp the protagonist). That's partially why Superman can be such a difficult character to build a compelling drama around and why the relatively weak Captain America and Black Window were such strong emotional anchors (...also why ORIGIN stories keep getting re-told).

Ack! Another long post.

 

[squeen]

Go Cubs!

(There!...That brings down my words/post average).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Squeen, I get your line of logic, but you're making a huge mistake with your reasoning... you're making some universal assumptions that are not universal.

When you say -

"Since XP/Level is not a primary metric as to whether or not they are being "successful", nobody seems to care if action X or Y leads to more or less XP. So in that sense, there is no "forced-choice by game XP mechanic". It's a minor motivator...",

- you are applying your headspace on the matter to everyone else who plays the game. Yes, I understand you are describing the mentality of your own group. But the problem arises because you are projecting your group as a sort of universal standard for all groups, and using it as justification for your position about GP=XP being superior. This is wrong, because I can tell you firsthand that I encounter many MANY players who feel the opposite way you do.

Your arguments make it sound like you are essentially saying "if you aren't playing it my/Gary's way, you're playing the game wrong", which is silly. Different people have different motivations, enjoy different things, have different viewpoints. I can assure you that my players have just as much fun playing my game as yours do in your games. There's nobody sitting at my table thinking "gee, I'm not so sure I'm having the full D&D experience"... that would be asinine. Yet your arguments seem to hinge very distinctly on "right" or "wrong" (or "greater" and "lesser") ways to play D&D. That somehow abandoning rules from the original game "muddies" D&D, which is again really bad logic because the game has changed CONSTANTLY since inception. Gygax was not perfect in his designs; OD&D had a ton of holes in the rules.

So when the arguments come up about motivators, or character priorities, or what it means to make progress as a character, I feel as though I should remind everyone that they need to view things through a more objective lens rather than through the lens of their own home game/groups.

 

[squeen]

@DP: Yes, you are right (and I've missed your frequent postings, BTW). I have put aside my objective-lens for the moment and am evangelizing. You are correct that there are many different ways to play and have fun---no argument there. However, I've learned a lesson that works for me, so I'm trying to share it.

What I'm preaching is for a DM to consider shifting/encouraging focus away from character levels/abilities and outward into the campaign world because it is a more workable game over the long-haul. What I am not sure of is if this message is generally known and discarded, or is a foreign concept. Do folks know there is another way to play? It's not clear to me that they do. We certainly are not all playing the same "D&D" in many ways, but I'm trying to get the word out about what I've discovered is "good" and "sustainable". For me, 2e was the pivot-point towards a ubiquitous character-centric thinking and I'm just trying to twist the needle back a tad.

When I talk about the "Lesser" vs the "Greater" D&D, that is (to me) a very different and specific point---and edition agnostic: "Are you playing in an on-going (heavily home-brewed) campaign-world or not?" It's that simple. I make that distinction because I think it's a massive dividing-line in terms of player experience and "what makes sense" in terms of house rules. The DM is doing different things, and the players will invariably have different goals. By analogy: are we dealing with character development through a single movie/novel versus an episodic serial TV-show/pulp-magazine?

So, I'm not really projection my group-dynamic (I know it's atypical), so much as advocating for a changed mindset for players, one that the DM can and should facilitate by de-emphasizing (retarding?) level advancement through design.

Heresy, right? But consider for a moment that XP and "levels" were probably originally just an outgrowth of the notion of "veteran" troops in wargaming. In D&D, a fighter achieves the Veteran title at 2nd level.

Once a new precedent is set (with regards to the success criteria), you might be surprised that many players will adapt. They just want to "win"...I believe a DM can influence what "win" means. With that in mind, it probably doesn't matter too terribly much WHAT=XP so long as the give-away isn't too liberally (but GP=XP does totally work, has some nice side benefits, and is in no-way broken).

Cool?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

but GP=XP does totally work, has some nice side benefits, and is in no-way broken

Cool?

Still debated. For instance, GP=XP doesn't jive with players who crave experience points but have a DM who wants to run an altruistic campaign. Yes you can say "players shouldn't be craving XP, they should be craving a fun game!" and I'd agree that they SHOULD be, but often they don't, and reality is sometimes a smack in the face like that.

All systems have their pros and cons; on that, I think we can agree.

 

[EOTB]

I fail to see why PCs who put all of the resources at their disposal into rescuing orphans would end up being less skilled than PCs who put all of the resources at their disposal into looting tombs. Equal challenges should receive equal experience. Its all about XP equity, dammit!

Because it's a unicorn campaign of taking the exception and trying to turn it into a rule. I've never once in decades of gaming seen players who didn't want to get treasure. And if players want to do a good deed for a session, let it be a good deed or don't do it. That's my take/table and seats are voluntarily pulled out by those who sit down.

I wouldn't ever expect someone who wants to run campaigns with a "Highway to Heaven"-like premise to adopt gold for xp. It absolutely presumes a S&S theme.

 

[Ice]

One thing that we don't want to forget is that it is fun to get XP as a player. At the end of a session or a delve, it's fun to find out how much XP you got. It feels good to get XP, extra good if you feel like you earned it. I think the ultimate point of DnD(or DCC[or any RPG]) is to be engaging, and experience points definitely make it more engaging, at least for me (when I play).

Gold for XP is interesting because it is the most objective method of giving out XP. However, getting rewarded for 'encounters' (combat or not) is fun and engaging too. My players expect to get XP from doing things, be them good things or bad things, so I give them XP for it. I enjoy being as objective and as judge-like as possible when I DM, so it's more fun for me to dole out XP if I use a metric (detailed above).


From a player's view, a very fun part about DnD is having your character advance and become more powerful. A campaign would be less engaging if you were not advancing. XP is cool because it lets you feel like you are earning the advancement.

With all of that said, I really don't think it's a unicorn campaign if the characters like doing exclusively good deeds. This is exactly what many WoTC products are about. If you go play DnD at a random game store, a lot of times, that is exactly what you are doing. I feel like this style of play is actually the baseline for many people. As a DM and a player, I am not a huge fan, but if you like it, so be it.

The players that I DM like being rewarded for their actions and nothing is wrong with that. I just try to be as objective as possible about it.

 

[EOTB]

Just for clarity's sake, when I say "unicorn" I mean campaigns where players and DM want to do good deeds without their being sullied by accompanying rewards of monetary value. Not merely campaigns where good deeds were the goal. The example pulled out is always an outlier of some good deed for which no reward is possible, and I've never seen a single long-standing campaign where players went session after session declaiming treasure rewards; good deeds or no, XP for GP or no.

I haven't seen any recent WOTC adventures but if they've stopped handing out treasure in them I'll take people for their word.

 

[Ice]

Just for clarity's sake, when I say "unicorn" I mean campaigns where players and DM want to do good deeds without their being sullied by accompanying rewards of monetary value. Not merely campaigns where good deeds were the goal. The example pulled out is always an outlier of some good deed for which no reward is possible, and I've never seen a single long-standing campaign where players went session after session declaiming treasure rewards; good deeds or no, XP for GP or no.

I haven't seen any recent WOTC adventures but if they've stopped handing out treasure in them I'll take people for their word.

lol, I see what you mean now. From what I've heard, the current Adventure's Guild set-up is that you get magic items after finishing the modules based on where the module is in the sequence of modules. I've played a few random Adventure's Guide type things around the city I live in and they were quite bad, but I haven't experienced this phenomena myself.

 

[squeen]

I wanted to throw out a DMing biscuit by way of example: rival NPCs.

My players were at a relatively low level (2 or 3), but starting to feel like Hot Stuff when I brought in an outside party of NPCs to "take control of matters". This group was locally famous and referred to themselves as the "Fabulous Five". They came to this podunk locale after word got out about some of the hauls the PC were bringing back with them from the dungeon. They proceed to take charge of the situation and treated the PC in much the same manner as PCs treat hirelings, e.g. meat-shields, horse-watchers, no role in decision making, flat-fee (vs. share of the treasure), tried to intimate them whenever the PCs complained, and generally claimed all the credit while minimizing their own risk.

The PCs (who originally sucked up to them because they were famous and powerful) quickly learned to seriously DESPISE those jerks. Even now, years later, if anyone mentions a rumor of the "Fab Five", the party goes ballistic.

I present this an example of the world creating its own motivation (revenge on those bastards!), that is engaging and is unrelated to treasure or XP. I think its something we need to be mindful of as DMs. It's our responsibility to suck the players in to something beyond a formulaic routine of Fight-Treasure-XP/Level-Up---especially at higher levels when it breaks world-balance. We want to instead get under the player's skin and keep the brass-ring dandling just barely out of reach. It's not having a thing that is fun, it's chasing it. D&D should never become a game of driving around in a limo with a hot-tub in back and a girl on each arm like some 90's rap video. If and when that starts to happen, it's truly game-over.

For sake of quotable hyperbole I will stick my neck out further and make the following (hopefully controversial) blanket statement:

A good experience point system is one that motivates players to take major risks and begin exploring the world, by rewarding active play sufficient to achieve 5th-level (zero-to-hero/magic-user-gets-fireball) over the course of many months of adventuring. Beyond that point, it is irrelevant that the same mechanism that worked in the early game is by-and-large useless and/or broken, because the momentum of world-play will carry the action forward, and should (rightly) shift the focus away from character-level advancement and acquisition of XP as the primary motivator towards other (self-selected) goals.​

​

In his review, Byrce frequently chides an adventure for being too low on treasure in a GP=XP system. What I'll suggest is that he should instead focus on "Does this adventure provide sufficient motivation for the appropriate-level PCs to undertake the risk?". Screw the actual reward---in my book it's even better if the players think they are going to "make out" and end up getting hood-winked in the end. (Well...at least half of the time. Gotta keep them guessing.) It's better in a campaign if they always "stay hungry", even if they are a bit better off over time than they used to be. The have to have problems. They have to have unfulfilled desires and lots of obstacles to overcome---with no guaranty they will ever overcome them. Hope, not success, is what should keep bringing them back to your table.

There. Hopefully that stirs things up a bit. If not, I'm going to passive-aggressively insult newer editions again.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

What's to stir up? The post essentially amounted to "players can be motivated by many things" - you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with you on that point.

Being said, I don't care much for the quote you've included, mainly because I take issue with people who automatically assume their way of play is the "one true D&D". Different folks like different styles, ya dig?

 

[squeen]

The post essentially amounted to "players can be motivated by many things"

No. I'm trying to go one step beyond that and say, "as time progresses, a DM should strive to move the focus away from level-advancement and character-stats". Wean them from the XP-drug (and obsessing over their character) in order to sustain long-term play.

With non-level routes to power, you can giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other. With levels it's an infinite supply of renewable-power, and the only mitigating tool you have you have is level-drain---not something you'd want to over-use.

Personally, I kind of like that outside of "dungeons" magic is rare and valuable---but Beyond the Veil in the Mythic Underworld, magic comes much easier and is used up just as quickly. The characters get to briefly manipulate awesome forces---but don't get to walk away with the ability "for keeps". Potions are nice that way. So are devices that tend to get smashed up during combat. Magical servants with limited periods-of-service are another great temporary power-boost that spice up the low-level game. Let's not forget the old-reliable "temporary hit-points" that don't heal.

Being said, I don't care much for the quote you've included, mainly because I take issue with people who automatically assume their way of play is the "one true D&D". Different folks like different styles, ya dig?

I understand, and certainly don't hold (nor seek) the power to impose my preferred style on anyone else. But the problem with just falling back into the catch-all of "different strokes for difference folks" so quickly is that it stifles debate and doesn't help us---the small group of practitioners known as DMs (or GMs if you are afraid of a lawsuit?)---to learn, and hone our craft. It presupposes that we are all perfect and immutable. It's an escape-hatch that allows us all to be "right" without self-examination or a pursuit of "better". That said...for every rule, there is an exception.

The "D&D of hard knocks", "perpetual carrot-on-a-stick", or "XP-lean" type of game I am advocating that keeps levels lows and challenge high is one of the few life-lessons I learned both as a player 30 years ago, and as a DM now. To me. it's a more mature, and saavy mindset---so it's worth sharing and "banging a drum" about (to steal Guy's metaphor). I don't think its obvious---because I know I've made the mistake of making things too easy. I believe it's a coorallary principle to the "lethal-ity (especially) at low-levels" that's a characteristic of old-school play.

Is it absolute TRUTH? No, but its a small truth I've learned. It's a technique. A sleight-of-hand trick. A school of thought, like "method acting"---one I believe will help others who choose to go that route and keep it in the forefront of their mind. It's the kind of tip I'm looking for as I scour the blog-o-sphere looking for things that will help me improve my game.

Maybe, as you say, it's not discussed because it's so obvious. How can I know, unless I bring it up?

NOTE: Many edits.

 

[squeen]

Gosh, I could go on and on...(and usually do)

I could totally see running a game where the ONLY way to go up levels beyond 5th was to find magical grimoires/manuals, being training by fantastical creatures, undergoing a life-changing transformation, drinking from a fountain, or obtaining powerful artifacts.

Talk about motivation for risky adventures!

On a related note, another thing I want to mention---and have fallen totally in love with---is artifacts that bestow power proportional to the level of the user. This is the One Ring in Tolkien, but is fun to apply for most major items. The more powerful you are, the more you can do with a particular talisman.

Wait...I think I've totally veered off course.

What was my point again? Oh yeah!

Checks and balances on player-power are essential to a healthy game.

(Wait. That's it? DP was right, that doesn't sound too exciting. Poop. Thought I had something there...)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Wait. That's it? DP was right, that doesn't sound too exciting. Poop. Thought I had something there...

I'm always right; it's just that the subjective applicability of my truth is always open to (mis)interpretation.

 

[Beoric]

Can someone start writing summaries of Squeen's posts? I have a nine-year-old yammering in my ear while I read and I lose my place a lot.

A word on, *ahem*, unicorn campaigns, as defined by EOTB. Doing good has never been a motivation of players or GM in any campaign I've played in. That said, I've been playing with the same people since the 80s, and none of them are motivated by nonmagical treasure except in terms of what it can buy you - which in a traditional old school campaign where you can't buy magic items means they pretty much aren't motivated by it at all. They are spit between those who are motivated by the acquisition of personal power (levelling and gaining magic items) and those just want to do stuff in the world and don't really care about personal power. All my players are motivated by various in-world power trips like revenge, prestige or glory.

When I use GP=XP (and we rotate DMs, and I'm the only DM who uses it), it drastically changes the behavior of the XP-motivated players. If I instead use killing=XP, those same players will act in a very different way (and the game gets a lot less bloody if I instead use winning=XP). I am therefore very conscious of the way different reward systems can alter the way people play the game. If the system you are using disproportionately rewards one mode of play, it clearly less suitable to other modes of play; and while players can accommodate the lack of flexibility by choosing not to value that reward system, this does not negate the fact that the system in fact lacks that flexibility.

What I am advocating is developing systems that are flexible enough to accommodate other modes of play – particularly for groups which, like mine, include players with different motivations. If some of my players like conquest, and some like XPs, I would prefer a system that does not require me to choose between them.

 

[EOTB]

I will say that if players are in a campaign where modules are frequently used, particularly those where completing the module after having been "hired" or otherwise in the service of some 3rd party, they often don't need the gold to gain prestige or glory.

As I run campaigns, the way to prestige, conquest, and glory requires the accumulation of money.

Also keep in mind - I don't respond because GP=XP is for everyone; I respond to those who say it's a bad mechanic, full stop...because it isn't. But GP=XP as a benefit presumes the overall style of play in the 1E DMG from which the GP=XP mechanic is drawn. This is a player-driven exploratory style where the characters aren't going from module to module and playing something the DM basically chooses for them. Dropping the exploratory style of play will certainly impact the utility of the GP=XP mechanic, because they won't have much to spend their money on as they transition from module to module, gaining soft benefits from having solved other people's problems.