GP=XP

[squeen]

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.

You guys are killing me. DP already did ("players can be motivated by many things") which was painful.

Short attention spans abound.

All my players are motivated by various in-world power trips like revenge, prestige or glory.

MIne too. Maybe an underutilized motivator in adventure design.

 

[squeen]

A quote from the Hack & Slash blog about high-level play:

5th Edition: I've run several fifth edition games to levels 15+. 5th edition characters require about the same amount of experience for each level, making leveling very consistent. Characters will reach 2nd level after one session, and third level by their third session. After that they will level about every 3 sessions. Many, many fifth edition players remove player motivation and use milestone experience to control the rate of advancement.

5th edition characters do not stop increasing in personal power. The curve is more suited to a B/X style game, but the endless gain of personal power provides a very different endgame.

For an example, my ex-wife played a barbarian during Horde of the Dragon Queen. Her standard procedure after level 10 was to jump to reach whatever dragon was flying nearby and grapple it while hitting it with her axe several times each round until it died. Once a dragon lived through two rounds of this. At the end of the campaign, she had upwards of over 300 hit points, and during her endless rage only took half damage from anything but psychic attacks. Not counting healing or other defenses, this generally required doing 700+ points of damage before she even felt threatened in combat. Considering the bard could heal everyone for hundreds of hit points every round, it often required many hundreds more points of damage.

Our battlemaster fighter wore heavy armor that provided damage reduction. I could only manage to hit him, with anything but the most powerful monsters, 5% of the time. Since he also had the lucky feat, he could nullify 3 of those hits every game session. He also had over 100 hit points.

Do you know how many times you have to attack a person before you hit with a 20? A lot. The fact that the first 3 important hits could be waved away with lucky made him almost invulnerable.

High level 5th edition play, with its focus on constantly and steadily increasing personal power feels very anime, very Final Fantasy. Everything is very elastic, you're up, you're down, the power levels are very high, and the threat to the characters is very low. Combat runs amazingly quickly, considering the complexity of the game. It's extremely well designed. Often the most time consuming part of combat is doing three column subtraction of hit points.

Is this hyperbole or is it really typical for 5th edition---the super-fast leveling at low levels and the demi-god like abilities at higher levels?
Or is this just modern-day Monte-Hall-DMing-strikes-again?

 

[bryce0lynch]

You guys are killing me. DP already did ("players can be motivated by many things") which was painful.

Short attention spans abound.


MIne too. Maybe an underutilized motivator in adventure design.

Hand of Vecna.

Older D&D plays style hits a sweet spot between boardgame and indie RPG. It can be quite light on rules but there's this "winning" thing attached to it. XP, power, etc. Power trip fantasy.

 

[bryce0lynch]

A quote from the Hack & Slash blog about high-level play:


Is this hyperbole or is it really typical for 5th edition---the super-fast leveling at low levels and the demi-god like abilities at higher levels?
Or is this just modern-day Monte-Hall-DMing-strikes-again?

Tangentially ... Mearls thinks you should level once a session, iirc.

 

[squeen]

Tangentially ... Mearls thinks you should level once a session, iirc.

Hey Bryce! Always nice to hear from our benevolent overlord benefactor. You certainly practice what you preach---it takes me a bit to unpack your terse prose.

Mearls, I have pieced together, is the 5e co-designer. If that was his expectation/intent, then all I can say is "merde".

I guess I belong to a austerity-appreciative minority. I love the struggle. Both as a player and now as a DM. Don't get me wrong. I also love big in-game fireworks after the PC's have set off the gonzo powder-kegs, but I believe there is something essential in the players never feeling "powerful" or "in control". In my experience, everything awesome comes with a small flaw to keep things balanced and grounded. A reset switch that keeps players hungry for more (like life). Wish-fulfillment/omnipotence/guaranteed-success is not fun---quite the opposite, I find it boring. Like playing with the cheat-codes.

Lastly, I haven't successfully decoded your cryptic reference to "Hand of Venca". I mean, I know the 1e DMG artifact, but beyond that your reference is lost on me. Care to elaborate?

Cheers.

 

[bryce0lynch]

Goes to show you that 5e is a completely different beast and playstyle. Both OSR and 5e are, I think, story games, but in wildly different ways. 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.

The Hand is, I think, the best representation of power trip gaming. Something so lustful that you'll chop off your own hand for. Power/Prestige/XP.

These things all make perfect sense in my head ... which I guess shows the importance of context. But don't fucking tell Derrida that!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

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.

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.

 

[bryce0lynch]

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?

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Sure, and Monopoly can be a roleplaying game, but the system doesn't encourage that. It encourages other behavior.

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).

Remind us, what's your XP mechanic? Stabbing, Milestones, or something else?

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.

 

[Beoric]

Mearls, I have pieced together, is the 5e co-designer. If that was his expectation/intent, then all I can say is "merde".

Cheers.

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.

 

[squeen]

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!

 

[bryce0lynch]

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.

 

[squeen]

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).

 

[DangerousPuhson]

There is however no denying the re-resurgence of D&D's popularity (and profitability). I wish I knew the true root cause(s).

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.

 

[squeen]

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.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

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)

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.

 

[WrongOnTheInternet]

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).

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.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

I'll consider myself checked

 

[mAcular]

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.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

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.

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.