GP=XP

bryce0lynch said:
5e emphasizing story and arc railroad that you get a little wiggle room in as a player with OSR representing the a free flowing style where the story is what the players create.
Click to expand...

This is strikes me more as subjective playstyle dependent on the DM, not the system.

For instance, I happen to have been running a "flowing style where the story is what the players create" game in 5e for the past 3 years... so to say that it's a playstyle limited to OSR is not correct. My session prep is literally zero for that campaign - it's all freestyle improvisation where I take player tangents and turn them into adventure. Likewise, I am certain there are more than a few OSR games out there that emphasize story arc, and are railroady.

I've brought it up before and I still stand by the statement that system dictates arbitration, but does not dictate the style of adventure in store for the party - the amount of player agency, or Monty Haul situations, or emphasis on freestyle play is entirely dependent on the playstyles of the people playing the game, not the ruleset they use to arbitrate actions or what the players chase to advance in level.
 
Sure, and Monopoly can be a roleplaying game, but the system doesn't encourage that. It encourages other behavior. Modern systems )is there a better word/phasing for this?) reward you for stabbing shit or doing what the DM wants you to do. Thus Rules Mastery and "Enduring Hardship, as Tales of the Arabian Nights would say, become the behaviors of the players.

This is further emphasized by the notables in the game (designers, etc, like Mearls) reinforcing these things and the official vendor adventures reinforcing the same. "This is how you play Monopoly" becomes the mantra. And thus all of the actual plays and product tend to this direction. Can you do otherwise? Sure.

Remind us, what's your XP mechanic? Stabbing, Milestones, or something else?
 
bryce0lynch said:
Sure, and Monopoly can be a roleplaying game, but the system doesn't encourage that. It encourages other behavior.
Click to expand...

Now you're just being pedantic. Monopoly is obviously less suited to be a roleplaying game than a literal roleplaying game. To make the comparison is absurd. I could say "yeah XP for gold can work, but you could say that XP for chicken nuggets could also work". You see how absurd that argument sounds?

I get you're trying to make a comparison about games being designed for a certain system encouraging that system, but it's a pretty weak argument (no offense).

bryce0lynch said:
Remind us, what's your XP mechanic? Stabbing, Milestones, or something else?
Click to expand...

I've run all three - they are chosen as they are applicable to the scenario.

For instance, I started running Dungeon of the Mad Mage, and opted for a milestone XP system when I saw that it had recommended character levels for each level of the dungeon. My players were fine with that. My normal campaign is more of what I'd call a "freeform XP" campaign - players awarded XP for kills as well as for achieving objectives. My players were fine with that. Back in the day, I ran OD&D, GP for XP. My players were fine with that. I noticed almost no change to the way my group approached situations and solved problems.

I dislike GP=XP because it sounds weird/unrealistic/immersion-breaking, that's all, not because it encourages parties to only take quests with pay, or to bypass interesting encounters with a simple Stealth check to swipe the gold without the fight (though I could argue it does by the same logic of your argument about the encouragement of combat). My party has done those things in all scenarios I run, whatever the source of XP. My point is players, like DMs, are not universal - different strokes for different folks, so to speak. If I have the option to pick a system (and I always do because I'm competent enough to make those substitutions on the fly), I'll pick whatever best suits the campaign, not enslave myself to the system.
 
squeen said:
Mearls, I have pieced together, is the 5e co-designer. If that was his expectation/intent, then all I can say is "merde".

Cheers.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of three "adventures" Mearls wrote without a co-author: Root of Evil from Dungeon 122, Salvage Operation from Dungeon 123, and Three Faces of Evil from Dungeon 125. If there is a theme to them, it is "the monster attacks, it fights to the death". Salvage operation is saved from being linear only because it is on a ship, and ships cabins aren't built in a straight line. The other two are so linear they don't bother with a dungeon overview.

@bryce0lynch , as hacks go, changing how XPs are awarded in a system is a pretty simple one, which can generally be done without breaking anything. So, yeah, the default may be to a Mearls-style hackfest, but its a pretty easy fix for someone who wants to use GP=XP with a different edition of the game.
 
Thanks Beoric for the info.

How in the world did this Mearls guy end up as one of the primary designers of modern editions?

Why can't corporations---with all their resources---ever seem to "get it"? Is the fundamental problem of design-by-committee? General risk adversion? Or is it surveying the consumer, asking them what they want, and then trying to please everybody?

It boggles the mind!
 
Last edited:
Squeen, so naive ...

The purpose isn't to make a good game. The purpose is to make money. D&D is WOTC. WOTC is Hasbro. Hasbro is a megacorp, straight out os Cyberpunk.
 
Agreed. Success brings the profiteers who are concerned with making money.

Unfortunately, that's most often the only thing they make---slowly sucking the vitality out of their host products.
Happened to GM in the 70's. Is happening (again) to Apple right now.

And yet...I think we can mostly agree that 5e is an improvement over 4e. DP thinks it was solely the competition from Pathfinder and WoTC correcting their misstep. I don't know enough to have an opinion. There is however no denying the re-resurgence of D&D's popularity (and profitability). I wish I knew the true root cause(s).
 
squeen said:
There is however no denying the re-resurgence of D&D's popularity (and profitability). I wish I knew the true root cause(s).
Click to expand...

The reason for the new edition is simple: revenue stream. Sales of 4e topped out, 3rd party stuff was getting popular (Pathfinder), WotC naturally reacted by using the IP they owned and "rebooting" D&D as if it were a superhero film franchise. Difference being instead of making D&D gritty, they made it newbie-friendly to max out their customer base (people already playing D&D was a built-in product audience; more revenue to be had by onboarding new players/customers). Everything just so happened to coincidentally align in a market where geek stuff was getting popular/mainstream, and where there was an ongoing resurgence of board games (and by proxy, tabletop pen & paper gaming)

It's not especially complicated to see why 5e exists. There was a market for it, there was an opportunity for it, and they had the means to do it. 5e is their best-selling edition, so I guess they were right.
 
Also seems like 5e crossed the gender-gap.

DP, I like your summary---but, as always, I want to know why.

Why was geek-stuff going mainstream all of a sudden (techo-philia due to phones?)

Why has gritty (seemingly) fallen out of favor now after a decades-long trend? (e.g. Miller's 1985 Dark Knight --> DC hero-films)

Why are people turning away from computer games towards board-games? (tech burn-out? lack of social alternatives in a isolated digital age?)

Why are so many girls suddenly trying D&D for the first time? (geek-sheik?)

What are the elements of 5e that make it particularly newbie friendly? (first I've heard of that)

My head is full of questions lately, and I've become suspicious of all the old (easy) answers.
This, of course, has nothing to do with GP=XP, so my apologies for straying off topic.
 
squeen said:
1) Why was geek-stuff going mainstream all of a sudden (techo-philia due to phones?)

2) Why has gritty (seemingly) fallen out of favor now after a decades-long trend? (e.g. Miller's 1985 Dark Knight --> DC hero-films)

3) Why are people turning away from computer games towards board-games? (tech burn-out? lack of social alternatives in a isolated digital age?)

4) Why are so many girls suddenly trying D&D for the first time? (geek-sheik?)

5) What are the elements of 5e that make it particularly newbie friendly? (first I've heard of that)
Click to expand...

As best I can tell:

1) TV shows like The Guild or The Big Bang Theory (which has fallen out of favor now) used to be insanely popular. YouTube productions like TableTop and Critical Role brought more rookies into the fold. Geek-chiq was a genuine fad ~7 years ago. D&D being on Stranger Things, Community, and other mainstream outlets brought the hobby out of the shadows.

2) It became cliché. When a supposedly light-hearted hero movie like Superman becomes gritty for the sake of grittiness, then people stop caring for it. It worked with Batman and Deadpool, but it's not original anymore. I mean, Drizzt was once a pretty cool idea, but nowadays people would just accuse him of being some tryhard edgelord character.

3) There was a tabletop game renaissance a few years ago, right around the time Settlers of Catan and Munchkin got big. Board games are more social, and geek-chiq only worked if the geek activities were more "normalized" to society (ie. everyone has played board games before). It was something of an easy "baby step" for people dipping their toes into geek hobbies, because it was so approachable and a social thing with friends.

4) D&D is mainstream now, and half of that "stream" is women. There's nothing inherent to D&D that ought to be turning women away from it, so it makes sense that they too would be included in the new flux of players. Also, there' something of a "I'm so quirky, I even play D&D!" appeal that ladies like (see also: I'm a gamer gurl xoxox!)

5) The rules are condensed. Everything is "roll a d20, add a single modifier" for the most part. In other editions there were way more modifiers and conditional things (Ranger gets a +4, unless it's an ooze, in which case they get another +2 bonus, plus an additional modifier if the player succeeds at this skill check, plus the modifier for using this feat, etc.). That shit didn't jive with casual players and newbies. 5e makes it smooth. Situation is beneficial for your action? Roll TWO d20s and use the higher number. That's about as complex as it gets (barring some more situational class rules like wildshape and whatnot). People are quick to adopt what they can easily understand.
 
Last edited:
DangerousPuhson said:
I dislike GP=XP because it sounds weird/unrealistic/immersion-breaking, that's all, not because it encourages parties to only take quests with pay, or to bypass interesting encounters with a simple Stealth check to swipe the gold without the fight (though I could argue it does by the same logic of your argument about the encouragement of combat).
Click to expand...

Divebombing you again, because there's a bunch of misconceptions here. A "simple stealth check to swipe the gold" hints at a very different playstyle and approach to things than what I'd take for granted. Stealing a mound of treasure should be about executing a plan (or failing to), not rolling a single die to resolve. The idea is that if you need to roll for it, you've already screwed up.

GP=XP allows for one more layer of interesting fail states before "Combat Lost" = "Death". Make too much noise stealing the dragon's hoard? Now you're facing the failure state of fighting a dragon. Failed Theft -> Combat -> Death level of failure states tends to be more interesting than plain Combat -> Death.

I'd also point out that no XP system is realistic, in any way.
 
Not sure what the stance on necroing threads here is -- if this is too old, then by all means just delete the post. I wanted to throw in my two cents into the discussion.

My ideal, and the ideal of most GMs, I'd assume, is for the players to play their characters to the utmost, and not be motivated by baser concerns like experience. But there are as many playstyles as there are players, and so we can't assume a specific mindset. The only thing we can look at for how a game is "supposed" to play, and what kind of play that will produce, is what the system rewards and encourages.

To that extent, gold = XP matters, and XP = XP matters. You can ignore the rules and system and play how you want, but at that point it's not saying anything about the system, just that you're ignoring it.

So the objection that gold won't motivate people to go investigate the farmer's problem rings true, unless there's more to be explored here about how the game would be affected. For instance, I could see potentially, that the encouragement of the players to invest in the world would further encourage them to care about these things, gold aside.
 
mAcular said:
So the objection that gold won't motivate people to go investigate the farmer's problem rings true, unless there's more to be explored here about how the game would be affected.
Click to expand...

We keep analyzing this from within a vacuum using a spherical party, but it's not so prescriptively clinical. There's an inherent social contract to the game that needs to be taken into account - one which requires a small suspension of disbelief from the players in order to perpetuate the game's adventure line.

If someone told me there was a million dollars at the bottom of a dark mineshaft filled with man-eating tigers, I wouldn't think the journey to get that money would be especially "fun" (I wouldn't even risk it, TBH). I'd be even less motivated if you told me that there was only a hundred bucks down there, and that going into a mineshaft full of tigers would make me into a tougher, more experienced person. Me the person is not cool with that idea. But me the character would totally think that delving into a mineshaft full of tigers for a million dollars was cool/a good idea, because I've suspended realism in order to generate a fun scenario.

Most competent, mature, non-edgelord players are about the same in this regard - "oh my character wouldn't go down into the mineshaft because he's not crazy" is the same line or argument you get from players who refuse to start the adventure because "their characters wouldn't associate with other people" or "wouldn't have been at the inn because they prefer to brood silently alone". Gold or XP, they know what their characters need, they're just refusing to go along because they think that adhering to the social contract of the adventure somehow means they're losing the game, or being robbed of their agency, or whatever excuse.
 
Ah, yeah, you also see that happen when accepting new party members or putting together the party -- a stranger walks up to you at a tavern and says a few words and suddenly you're all fighting back to back with your lives in each other's hands.
 
Remember this thread?!

So I finally got around to fully implementing Gold for XP with my 3.5 group while we wrap up 'Irradiated Paradox of the etc.' and it's been a mixed bag. There was grumbling from the players which died down when I gave them a look behind the curtain at the mechanics of it (looting over slaughter). They enjoyed being in more direct control of their advancement (choosing whether to spend money on it or equipment). Apart from directly awarding XP after every battle, which I find too much of a slow-down during our brief gaming time, this is probably as good as it gets for giving the players some agency in their character's advancement.

My question is: Magic Items. The old DMG didn't even list prices for magic items; just XP. If you cashed them in, that's what you got (correct?). The 3.5 DMG lists the Price of items as well as the cost in gold and XP to craft the item. (We all agree that charging one character in the party (probably the long-suffering support-caster) XP to build items is utter bullshit. Tell me I'm wrong.) Anyway, I devised a conversion that did not go over well, where they could sell the items for cash but only 20% of the cash could go to advancement. The argument from the players being that even if they go along with this idiocy, what's to stop them collecting the cash, throwing it into the pool of gold and waiting til next downtime to cash it in at full value with all the other gold? I'm obviously doing something wrong or missing something, working off a hazy memory of 1st ed. Any suggestions?
 
The 1e DMG has both: XP (lower, if you keep it) and the gp sale value (~5x). Crafting prices in AD&D are not cover but the implication is that it is extremely costly and requires many unique components---it's left to the DM to make it a unique (and memorable) experience.

In AD&D, you will go up levels faster if you sell all of your magic...but it's way better to keep most of them, because you aren't likely to be able to make them. Besides, going up levels if not a huge power boost past the first couple.

Since level advancement is every few games and requires a return to a safe haven for training. I don't even calculate XP at the table, just afterwards, on my own, and then I tell the players if they have enough to level up next session.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top