| - | - | - | - | - |
| Dragon | - | AD&&D | - | Dragon 35 |
The basic Advanced Dungeons & Dragons
experience system
equates 1 gold piece with 1 XP; however, the way in
which that XP is gained by the character is where my
system differs from that of AD&D.
I contend that the actual award comes from “buying” an XP for 1 gold
piece
(plus or minus a few silver pieces) via
the act of <1 gp = 10 sp>
training instead of just giving characters a point because they defeat
a
monster who has 1 GP in his treasure.
The complete system,
detailed below, has a number of optional treatments to make it as simple
or as complex as the DM may wish.
A condensation of the system is as follows:
1. A character amasses at least <1/2 of the XP> he
or she needs to gain a promotion (level) (an option allows this
percentage to be as low as 30% for a 20th level figure).
2. He or she seeks a person (preferably) 2 or more levels higher
but of the same race and alignment,
to train him or her in the
skills needed to fully gain the new level.
3. The cost of this training varies from as little as 10
s.p. for 1 x. p. to
as much as 2 g.p. for 1 x.p.
4. The training Time is computed in days
or fractions of days, and
during that period the figures are bound in what amounts to a
sworn oath in the name of their Gods to be honorable, faithful
and loyal to one another.
Why are XP given to a character? The methods are:
1. For killing opponents (“monsters”), as per AD&D.
2. For defeating, subduing, enspelling opponents (“monsters”),
a
1/2 award. (Note: killing an enspelled monster still only
gains the 1/2 award unless the killing is done immediately and
not after questioning or having the figure perform some act )
3. For learning the use of magic items (per
the awards in the
Dungeon Masters Guide for magic items) by experiment and
experience, NEVER from the use of a spell or through magic in a
device.
4. From protracted use of an item (weapons and armor, etc. )
5. For certain one-time uses of an item in an “adventure situation.”
6. For acts directly related to a character’s profession.
Some of these 6 topics need elaboration. Killing a monster in
combat with weapons or spells is clear-cut,
and no discussion is necessary. However, when a figure is enspelled or
defeated without an
outright kill a full award is often not appropriate. For example, if
an
opponent is charmed, webbed,
held,
slept,
frightened
or subdued,
he/she/it has not been killed outright.
That opponent might even be back to fight later. If the party kills
the
opponent at the 1st opportunity then it should get the full award,
however, if there is a delay to question, imprison, or force the opponent
into service, etc., killing the figure then becomes an act of brutal
murder
and can seriously compromise many a character’s alignment.
Thus only
a 1/2 award is given if the figure is kept alive so that the party
can (it
hopes) gain from the figure in some way. It is possible for a single
“monster” to provide a party with multiple awards in this system, but
that is reasonable. For example, if a high priest fights a party but
is
defeated because he fails his saving throw versus FEAR,
he will likely be
back later to fight the party again. Thus an award for both confrontations,
if the party wins, can be given. There is never any award for
“gladiator” type situations unless the captured figure has a reasonable
chance to actually kill his opponent.
The party will find many magic items in its travels. Resorting to a
spell device to detect magic is
acceptable and still allows for experience to be gained from learning what
the item is. However, use of spells
like Identify, Commune,
Limited
Wish, Wish,
Contact
<Other> Plane,
etc., even if unsuccessful, negates any award for learning what an
item
is!
The rule must be that experience is only given for use and experimentation
with an item. Sometimes this requires protracted use, as in
the case of weapons and armor. Thus, gaining a +1 sword and learning
that it is magic will not give an award until the sword has been used
in an
entire adventure. Having a sword in its sheath for an adventure will
give
the player no award whatsoever. Some items also will give experience
for use, like a Ring of Controlling Fire Elemental <Ring
of Elemental Command>, a Potion
of Invisibility,
a Wand of Fire, etc. These devices
give experience for use in adventure
situations ONLY, thus, a figure cannot gain from doing these things
in
his/her back yard.
Finally you may wish to excercise the option of giving SMALL
awards for acts directly related to a character’s profession: picking
locks,
learning new weapons (Fighter types
only), learning new prayers/spells,
making magick items, researching spells, etc. These awards must not
amount to more than 100 points and if used they should only be
allowed for acts that have less than a 50% chance for success. If a
Footpad has a 29% to open
a lock, give him (100-29-71) points if
he makes it, but if he were a Sharper
his chance would be 52%, so given
him nothing if he picks it successfully. These awards can be considered
ONLY in an adventure situation (thus, The
Thief gains nothing from
practicing on locks to gain experience if he is safe when he does so)
and
only to give low-level characters a chance to reach upper levels more
rapidly. Once a figure is beyond 4th level, I would not give “profession
awards” any longer.
Now that it is clearer why awards should be given (and you should
make up your own mind on this subject before you get too deep into
a
campaign), it is necessary to get
into some of the nitty-gritty of a
“teaching” system. Before we do that, however, we must understand
what, if anything, a figure can gain from pure experience, that is,
he or
she has amassed enough points to go up a level without resorting to
treasure at all. We will call this a Natural Level as opposed
to a Trained
Level.
From a Natural level a figure immediately gains these things:
1. HP appropriate to the level
2. A SAVE appropriate
to the level
3. The ability to attack as a character of that
new level
4. A larger spell capacity, range, duration, etc.,
based on level.
From a Natural Level a figure does NOT gain these things:
1. Use of new weapons
2. Use of new spells
3. Access to a new spell level
4. Special abilities
5. New languages
Once the Natural Level has been gained, the figure can only gain up
to 10% more experience (at a maximum) and at only 1/2 of the normal
rate. After that he or she must be trained, usually by a figure of
his or her
class, to gain the other advantages of the new level.
A figure cannot gain the use of a new weapon unless he or she is
trained in its use. Thus, someone who knows how to use it must show
the character how it is used. Some “cross training” is permitted in
this
area; thus, with many weapons, the figure does not have to seek
someone of his or her own profession (class) but the figure must be
able
to use the weapon at the same percentage chance to hit as the figure
being taught A Swordsman can hit
with a mace 65% of the time
versus AC 10. For a Cleric to show
this Fighter how to use the
mace, the Cleric must also be able to hit AC 10 with a 65% <footman's
or horseman's>
chance; for a Cleric this occurs at 4th level (Curate).
So this new swordsman
could ask any 4th-or-higher-level Cleric who knew how to use a mace
to
teach him how to use it.
The only exception to this rule comes from use of an unknown
weapon throughout an entire promotion at a minus to hit. Thus if the
Fighter named above used a mace at -2 (the “non-proficiency penalty”)
throughout this last promotion, from Warrior
to Swordsman, and <footman's or horseman's>
resorted to no other weapon, he could gain its use (assuming he is
allowed a new weapon at this new level).
A spell caster must learn the text of new prayers (Cleric/Druid/
Paladin/Ranger) or read new spells (Magic-User/Illusionist/Ranger)
before he or she gains them. Thus, unless a Cleric meets another who
knows a prayer, or a Magic-User meets another who will let him read
a
book, he or she can not cast it. Knowing the title of a spell is not
sufficient.
Each new spell level can only be employed after the key to that level
(in prayer or reading) is taught to the spell caster: Thus even if
a “natural
level” is gained by a Magic-User, for example-let’s say Evoker
to
Conjurer where he or she would
first gain a 2nd-level spell, he or she
could not understand a 2nd-level spell until the key to the level were
taught to him or her. (You might wish to make that rule optional but
I
highly suggest you use it. )
Special abilities must come from one’s own class, with few exceptions.
For example, the prayers needed to turn higher levels of undead
must be taught; a Druid’s extra languages,
identifications, immunities
and the ability to shapechange must be taught; a Paladin’s
ability to turn
undead or to use spells must be taught—ditto for the Ranger;
a Thief
must learn how to read new languages or to read magic; a Monk
must
have each of his special abilities taught to him or her.
If you wish to allow “cross teaching” it must follow the rule that the
teacher must already know how to do the required task with a proficiency
equal to or greater than that of the figure’s proficiency who is being
taught. Thus, a Murderer (4th-level
Assassin) could not teach a soon-to-become
Robber (4th-level Thief) anything
about picking a lock since the Assassin’s own
ability will not equal that of the Thief s. Of course, an Acolyte
(1st-level Cleric) who
knows how to Create Water could
teach that spell (prayer) to a high
priest without penalty.
After all of this introduction the topic of how the training occurs
has
finally come up. This is set out in a series of rules, and EVERY one
should be followed.
A. For a figure to be trained, the trainee must have at lest 1/2 of
the necessary experience already amassed. Thus,
if a Warrior
wants to be trained to become a Swordsman
he or she must
have at least 3,000 total points of experience to
his or her credit
All of that experience has to come from the sources
listed at the
beginning of this article, though magic can also
add experience
(a card from a Deck
of Many Things, certain manuals, books,
etc.). It should be noted that as a character gets
higher and
higher that that 1/2 necessary experience is harder
and
harder to gain from “natural” sources. Thus, you
might wish to
reduce that 50% by 1% per level so that an aspiring
10th
level Lord
would only need 40% from “natural” sources. This
reduction, if used, should be cut off at 20%. As far as I am concerned,
a character is awarded Demi-God status once he or
she becomes 21st level and is effectively out of the game—though
many DMs might disagree on that point I feel play
above 20th
level is just ridiculous.
B. The instructor, almost always someone of the figure’s own class,
must be at least 1 level higher than the figure
to be trained, i.e.
already at the new level, or higher of course.
C. The trainee would prefer to find an instructor of his or her own
race and alignment if at all possible. If there
are racial and/or
alignment differences the DM might invoke a penalty
in the
“what can be taught” percentage given below (D).
That penalty
should be 0.1% for a racial difference. 0.1% for
a one-step
alignment difference, 0.2% for a two-step alignment
difference,
0.4% for a three-step alignment difference. Absolute
opposites
will not train each other. A one-step alignment
difference is LG
to NG or LN, a two-step is LG to CG, LE or N, a
three-step is LG
to CN or NE, absolute opposites are LG and CE or
LE and CG.
D. What can be taught. The instructor can impart 2% of the difference
between his current experience level and that of the
trainee if he is at least 2 levels above the trainee
(modified by
racial and alignment differences as given above),
1% if he is at
the level to which he is training the trainee, per
training day.
Examples: A LG elf_Swashbuckler
who currently
has 20,000 XP is to train a LG elf
Warrior who has
3,500 XP. Thus, per day of
training, the swashbuckler can impart 2% of (20,000
- 3,500)
= 330 XP. A day equals 8 hours of training.
No more than 8 hours per day can be used. Haste
has no effect
on training! Since this warrior needs 500 x.p. (4,000
- 3,500),
it will take 500/300 = 1.51 days, or 11/2
days rounded off.
A LG elf_Swashbuckler
who currently has 20,000
XP is to train a NG human_Hero
who
has 14,000 XP. The base is only 1% since the elf
is trying to teach the human to become the level
he is already at.
This 1% is reduced by 0.1% due to racial difference
and 0.1%
due to a one-step alignment difference, so it becomes
0.8%
imparted per day. 0.8% times (20,000 - 14,000) =
48 points!
Since the poor human needs 4,000 more points to
become a
swashbuckler himself, this will take 831/3 days!
As you can see,
this is very unprofitable for both figures.
E. What is the cost? The cost is roughly 1 GP = 1
XP,
but this can be bartered and modified to as little
as 1 x.p.
for 10 s. p. or as much as 2 x.p. for 1 g.p. The
best price would
only be given by figures of the same race
and alignment to their
close FRIENDS. Naturally,
cost can be measured by services rendered,
magic items given, etc. However, there is ALWAYS
a
cost-there is no such thing as free training!! This
is tied to the
fact that training is considered a church sacrament—this
will be
explained below—by all races and alignments!
F. The Training Contract. This is the heart of this
system and it must
be observed by the DM or the players will try to
get away with
getting training for nothing or next to nothing.
Prior to instruction the pupil and instructor swear
by their deities to protect one
another during the period of training and for 3
days thereafter, if that is necessary. Robbery
of one’s teacher (pupil) is
60% likely to invoke an immediate penalty (30% from
the god
of the offended party, 50% from the god of the offending
party,
and 20% from both gods!)! The student-teacher relationship
is
sacred regardless of class, alignment, race or any
other barrier. If
2 people agree to a training contract, they must
abide by it.
Killing one’s teacher (pupil) is 85% likely to invoke
an immediate penalty (20% from the god of the offending
party, 40%
from the god of the offended party, and 40% from
both gods!)!
Any attempt to subvert the oath will be dealt with
harshly. Use of
others to rob or harm the partner in the contract
will cause the
same penalty to all concerned. Note that this extends
to private
intervention also, so that if a teacher’s friend
tries to kill the pupil
without the teacher’s knowledge the friend will
be dealt with by
the God(s)! Gods always take direct interest in
such contracts
since their name is used in the bargain. Note that
the deity’s
Name need not be spoken aloud. If a character tries
to subvert
that rule by saying he swore by his God without
actually doing
so, the other figure’s God will act at once!
G. What treasure can be used to pay for training? Part of the oath is
to swear that all monies and items have come from
adventuring
in the name of the person’s God. Treasure gained
by inheritance, gambling,
taxes, training someone else, from day-to-day
business, etc. cannot be used. Note that if 10%
comes from
these random sources there will be no penalty, but
there is a 2%
chance for intervention for every 1% over that 10%
grace
portion. Thus if a figure tries to use treasure
amounting to 40%
of the training cost, the chance for his god invoking
a penalty is
(40 - 10) (2%) = 60%. Finally it should be noted
that trying to
pass off a bogus or “empty” magic item will also
invoke the
wrath of the God(s) with a 70% chance. All of this
precaution is
absolutely necessary to prevent the unscrupulous
player from
trying to cheat on the deal.
H. What will the Gods do? First, they will require full repayment to
the offended party, plus a large bonus. If the offended
party has
been killed the Gods will demand that he be
raised at the
offender's expense, or they just might kill the
offender and take
the body away. The gods must be played with a vengeance
in all
such cases. Taking their names in vain is no light
matter!!
Quests, Geas
and Atonements are also very likely
requirements
of the Gods. (Note: Demons
and Devils are considered as
deities (gods) in this case, as are very powerful
figures who
are worshipped, like Tiamat,
Bahamut,
some Ki-Rin, etc.)
I.. Major tasks. Learning a new language, learning how to make
weapons, learning pre magick (for a paladin,
ranger)
etc. are very
long events and will not fit the 2%/1% rule since
weeks are often
required. Cost for such training will be from 1
to 40 s.p. per day
per level the teacher has attained. Again, a contract
is involved.
“Cross-training” comes into this category. Whenever
there is a
doubt as to how much something should cost, always
charge
the higher amount.
High-ranked instructors. Those who are 1, 2 or 3
levels above
the pupil will enter the training contract often—remember,
it is
free choice! However, those 4 or more levels above
the pupil
will not usually lower themselves to train lessers.
This feeling of
superiority permeates all alignments, though LGs
are
a little less superior—but not much. In like manner,
such instructors always sell training for a minimum of 1½ g.p. per
x. p.!
These figures are honor bound to tell a figure where
he can
obtain training, if they refuse to do it. Training
at this level of
difference is always at the teacher’s convenience,
so that it can
be put off for days.
J. Physical condition of the teacher and pupil. Both must be fully
cured to enter a contract. Any damage during the
training must
be healed fully before training can go on.
Charmed or imprisoned
teachers can not convey information for
a training purpose. In like manner, taking the training
oath is
very likely to invoke intervention if it is taken
under charm or
duress (60% chance).
M. Inter-party training. It is not allowed for the purpose of giving
a
new level! If this rule is not used, then treasure
will “daisy chain”
itself around in a party and not leave the group.
The object of
this system is to get the treasure away from the
party!!
I'm writing this letter in
agreement with S.D.
Anderson's letter on XP for
magickal items (DRAGON
Magazine #122) and to
add a few ideas of my own.
Anderson was right
in being mad at the thought
of 2 adventurers
just sitting down and trading
magickal items back
and forth to go up a level.
Here's an example of
how and when I think XP for
magickal items should be
rewarded.
Cathy the Conjurer (3rd-level
magic-user,
INT 17, and 7,549 XP) kills
a violet fungus
(242 xp) and gets a treasure
of a ring of
jumping
(1,000 xp) and a sword +1 (400 xp).
She should not get the XP
for the
magickal items until she
uses them. She cannot
use the sword +1, so she
would get no XP
from it.
After travelling farther,
Cathy comes upon a
gorge 20' wide. It's
too wide to jump, so she
then uses her ring of jumping
to leap across.
She Now gets the XP for the
ring.
Cathy then kills a mobat
(250 xp) and gets a
treasure of a shield +2 (500
xp) and a wand of
lightning
(4000 xp). Having had enough adventure
for one day, Cathy returns
to train.
Cathy earned 242 xp for the
violet gruub, 1,000
xp for the ring of jumping,
250 xp for the mobat,
and 10% bonus due to her
17 INT. She got
no experience for the shield
+2 or the sword +1
because she can't use them,
nor for the wand of
lightning because she didn't
use it. She had 7,549
xp originally. This
brings the grand total to 9,190
xp, 811 xp short (242 + 1000
+ 250 + 149 +
7,549 = 9,190) of the next
level.
Another idea is to give XP
on
magical items gradually with
the use of the item.
Wilbur the Warrior has just
gotten a sword +2
(800 xp). He uses it
for the rest of the adventure
and gets 160 xp for it.
He gets 160 xp each
adventure afterward until
a grand total of 800
xp is reached.
Tim McNally
Edgewood KY
(Dragon
#127)
I know that a number of people
do not play
the AD&D®
game by the rules; a lot of people adlib.
I think this is good. People
who play roleplaying
games should supplement the
rules if
they don't agree with them.
I have been a player of the
AD&D®
game for
5 years and have supplemented
many rules.
My FRIENDS
and I change rules because the rules
don't seem as realistic as
possible.
For example, why should you
get XP for magical items? They help you get
XP in fighting monsters.
Another
question I have is about
gold.
How does it help
you fight better? In my campaign,
when we get
the required XP for a new
level,
we don't train. You learn
by experience in
combat. You can <pay>
to get further training for
more XP or pay to train on
a new
weapon.
We give magic-users 50 xp
per level of the
spell cast times 2, if the
spell is purposeful.
Magic-users also get XP for
killing
monsters but pay to acquire
new spells. We do a
similar thing with thieving
abilities. We have a
lot of other variations on
the game, but we must
still see the rules from
the DMG and Players
Handbook
most of the time.
What I would really like people
to do is to
change rules a little for
their own enjoyment.
It's their game and they
should do with it what
they think is right. In this
way, DMs can make
their game more exciting
and enjoyable for
their group.
Ed Kruse
Strongsville OH
(Dragon
#134)
The current XP system for
the
AD&D®
game is very well thought out, but
unrealistic. 1st I would
like to know why
XP are given for finding
treasure.
It's not very logical to
say that all treasure must
be guarded by powerful monsters.
Perhaps it
was lost by long-ago guards
or the guards have
died. An entire party could
advance a level by
accidentally stumbling on
a treasure (not to say
a DM would unbalance the
game like that).
Another problem is the way
XP
are given out for killing
monsters. It is crazy to
say that an 18th-level party
could gain experience
from slaying a band of kobolds
but not
from 6 months of training.
And what about that
fighter locked in the demilich's
dungeon for 2
years. Characters should
study their skills for at
least 30 minutes a day or
lose XP
equal to their level ×
10 unless this takes them
below the level they are
currently at. Also,
those who study excessively
for 2 days should
receive the reverse effect.
David Choi
Etobicoke, Ontario
(Dragon
#134)
I believe that I have developed
the solution to
the
thief's "experience points for theft" problem.
You simply take the experience
level or HD
of the being from whom something
was stolen
and multiply it by 100. In
cases of victims with
less than 1 level or HD,
then simply
award the thief 50 xp. The
DM may wish to
modify the XP award due to
difficulty or simplicity.
For example, Dougal, a Thief
(9th-level thief), successfully
picks the pocket of a Swordsman
(3rd-level fighter).
Thus, Dougal will receive
300 xp from the theft.
Later, Dougal steals a necklace
from the lair of a
huge
ancient red dragon.
Dougal receives 1,100
xp from the theft. The necklace
he stole was
later sold for over 5,000
gp. (This system does
not use monetary value to
determine XP, nor should it.)
Finally, Dougal steals a
small treasure box from a
kobold.
He is awarded
50 xp for the theft (though
there were only
200 cp in the box).
Hopefully, this system will
help all the referees
and players having trouble
with XP
awards for theft.
Rick J. Federle
Fairfield OH
(Dragon
#135)
Despite the critics, there
are good reasons
why we give experience for
magick and treasure.
The primary one is that we
need some source of
experience besides killing
monsters. If a fighter
gained experience just from
battle, he would
have killed about 150 orcs
by the time he
reached 2nd level (Warrior).
That is an obvious impossibility
when we consider that those
we could
classify as real-life, high-level
fighters may have
killed a score or 2. Another
comparison
comes from the world of boxing;
the longest
such career without a loss
(death in AD&D
game terms) among major fighters
is 49 fights --
far short of 150, much less
the thousands needed
to reach name class. We could
increase the
experience per monster to
more reasonable
levels, but we still end
up with a dull game in
which the only matter of
interest is killing
monsters. In real life, money
is a major motive,
and we don't want to slight
its power in AD&D
games, either.
Training is sometimes suggested,
but training
is dull, to be kept in the
background where it
won't interfere with the
game. By giving XP for money, we can merely assume
much of the money is used
for training which
occurs off-camera where we
are not bored by
it. Giving XP for various
actions
(spells cast, locks picked,
etc.) can be tremendously
complex and still greatly
favors one class
over another. Try to
dream up a system that
wouldn't ruin a druid
if all his time was spent in
the city, or keep a thief
down if he lives in the
forest.
Again, experience for money allows the
party to remain at a common
level (or to
advance a particular player
if the party chooses
to split the loot that way).
"Money-experience" is not
a perfect system,
but the alternatives are
worse.
David Carl Argall
La Puente CA
(Dragon
#136)
Over the years, several people
have expressed
a desire to create an XP
system
for thieves
(see issue #135, page 43). Building on
a previously suggested idea
in an article from
this magazine, I propose
assigning a level of
difficulty (as per the XP
chart in
the DMG, page
35) to the building to be looted. <Experience,
DMG>
For every 10' a building
has, assign 1 HD,
rounded to the lowest number.
Once the basic value is established,
treat every
guard
or trap as 1 special ability. If you feel
the guard or trap is especially
tough, treat it as
an exceptional ability. Proximity
to strong support
(e.g., the sheriffs office)
or special construction
(e.g., a greased
tower wall) could also
be treated as a special or
exceptional ability. For
every 3 secret receptacles
for treasures
(e.g., a hidden safe), add
1 more special ability,
rounded to the lowest number.
Then add the
experience given for any
treasure gained,
adjusting for difficulty.
Using this system, a moneylender's
10'-high
shop with 4 guards, 3 hidden
treasure
receptacles, a pit trap,
and 500 gp in treasure
would be worth 534 xp to
a pair of Rogues (Apprentices) escaping
with the loot.
This system can also be converted
to dungeon
use, treating every 10' of
depth as height
Joseph
Goldlust
Caldwell NJ
(Dragon
#138)
About XP for treasure: Experience
should be given as follows:
1) If the treasure
is integral to the adventure;
2) If a person
is progressing, level-wise,
slower than everyone
else is, through no fault
of his own; or 3) If the
character is a thief
and takes the treasure
without violence.
Jim Amos
Whitehouse
TX
(Dragon
#142)
I agree with David Argall?s
statement in issue
#136 that some source of
PC experience besides
monster-bashing is needed.
However, I cannot
agree with his defense of
the "gold equals experience
" system. Why should ascetic
monks,
scholarly sorcerers, and
pious clerics be forced
to act like materialistic
money-grubbers? The
money-related experience
system makes the
game revolve around the idea
that only treasure
is worth adventuring for.
The paladin who
undertakes a holy quest
to destroy an evil foe is
out of luck unless said enemy
has a rich treasury
to loot.
If adhered to, this system
also results in huge
amounts of cash
in the hands of PCs. The DM,
of course, wants to take
the cash away from the
PCs. Consequently, we have
massive inflation
problems, with every service
or item that PCs
might want being ridiculously
overpriced (DMG
training
costs come to mind).
In short, the "gold
equals experience"
approach -- far from being
a useful though
illogical simplification
-- generates more problems
than it solves and does not
solve any problems
well. In some campaigns,
including my
own, it has been replaced
by a system which
increases the experience
award for defeating
monsters. I also give XP
for
clever play, problem-solving,
and the accomplishment
of goals or tasks. Most of
these systems
are vaguely defined and rely
heavily on
DM judgment rather than hard-and-fast
rules.
However, they're still an
improvement.
Alan Clark
Vienna VA
(Dragon
#142)
I am writing in response to
David Argall's
letter in issue #136. His
"Forum" article gives
"good reasons why we give
experience for
magic and treasure." The
only "reason" he gives
is for "some source of experience
besides killing
monsters." He describes in-play
training as "dull,
to be kept in the background
where it won't
interfere with the game,"
and that such training
should be "off camera where
we are not bored
by it." He goes on to say
that giving experience
for other actions can be
tremendously complex
and would favor one class
over another. This, all
of it, is absurd!
When we speak of other sources
of experience,
we should broaden our VIEW
of the question
to look at the whole picture.
Why would
giving XP for casting spells,
picking pockets, opening
locks, or successfully
using skills unbalance the
game or favor one
class over another? A fighter
fights; that is
where the majority of his
experience comes
from. Thieves, clerics, and
magic-users would
be at an extreme disadvantage
when traveling
solo and not counting on
that "group experience
for monsters killed." A fighter
fights; a thief
opens locks, picks pockets,
and finds traps; a
magic-user
casts spells and applies his greater
intellect to difficult situations;
a cleric casts
spells and often acts as
a secondary fighter for
the party or (as quite often
occurs) is almost as
protected as the magic-user
because of his
ability to heal. The druid
is in the same boat as
the cleric.
But why limit experience allocation
to those
aspects of the game? There
are other areas in
the game that challenge the
player as well as the
character, like the solving
of problems and
riddles, and the quality
of role-playing. These
things are worth consideration,
and since there
is an infinite amount of
possible situations to
consider, it would not be
feasible to construct a
method of distributing those
XP.
It must be left up to the
impartiality of the
individual GM.
The simple fact that we are
playing a RPG must be kept in mind when we
term things as boring or
not. The fact that
something is boring is a
problem for that M and the way he runs his game. How can
one spend the money
for training and not spend
the time for training? While
I do not want to get
into an argument over realism,
I must insist that
this hardly seems realistic.
I have been playing the AD&D®
game for 10
years and have in that time
played so many
different role-playing games
that I don't care to
count them, but my real love
has been and
always will be the AD&D
game. I have found
that money is its own reward,
not to be given
out in unbalancing proportions.
This also goes
for magic. The fact that
a fighter gets a magical
sword doesn't make him a
better fighter; in fact,
if he used that sword at
all times, he could quite
possibly become dependent
on that sword to
give him the edge in a battle
instead of working
on his own personal edge,
so why give him
experience? Does a dagger
+2 make a thief
better at opening locks or
finding traps? It
would be absurd to think
so.
Robin D. Brock
Columbia MD
(Dragon
#142)
Up to a POINT,
David Carl Argall's case [in issue
#136] is quite accurate.
That POINT comes in
games in which XP are almost
exclusively generated by
combat. In such games,
experience is the only thing
that matters; money
exists for new weapons,
spells, armor, and
training
to go up in level.
I personally think the additional
spells, training,
armor,
and weapons are sufficient to almost
eliminate the risk of a character
getting killed
before he can acquire sufficient
XP, but I concede that even killing a Duke of
Hell provides scant XP when
divided up among a party
of 8 PCs and 4
henchmen.
If a DM wants to boost the overall
experience a party gets by
adding in treasure,
it's his campaign.
The problem is that more sophisticated
campaigns
shouldn't be locked into
a fight-treasure-experience
cycle. Any campaign that
encourages creative thinking,
role-playing,
teamwork, or tactical planning
over monster-bashing
should find ways to reward
such things
or reduce the rewards for
successful mayhem.
Actually, David Argall hurt
his case with the
comparison to Joe Louis.
The record of unbroken
heavyweight boxing victories
is irrelevant.
What is the typical survival
rate of PCs who
fight appropriate level monsters
going by the
rules? Excellent to incredible.
Realistically, losing
an individual combat doesn't
result in the death
of a character. Most characters
are in negative
HP and heading toward death
-- but not
dead -- when they drop. Only
the dumbest
monsters will finish off
downed opponents
while other party members
are still attacking
them. Unless the party fights
for an awfully
long time after that, someone
will get to the
fallen member(s) in time
to provide some sort of
healing.
Add the fact that most PCs end up with
the best armor and weapons
they can get ASAP,
and the PCs soon become the
few beings of
their own levels who can
hit their own ACs!
When I wrote my earlier letter,
I didn't
include any of my own solutions
to the problems
I brought up, like changing
the weight of a
coin from 10 to a pound to
100 to a pound, so
the coin weighs a little
more than twice the
weight of a dime and has
few of the problems
found with the standard gold
piece. I also look
at the adventure before the
players go through
it and calculate a ballpark
figure for the experience
the PCs would get individually
if they fare
as expected (call it a passing
grade). That figure
becomes the base experience
reward for that
adventure. Individual members,
or the whole
party in some cases, may
receive higher or
lower amounts depending on
how well or how
poorly they did.
Characters who are not supposed
engage in
direct combat
aren't penalized because they
didn't fight this or that
monster; they weren't
supposed to fight under this
system anyway. If
your character is there and
doing his job competently,
he has earned the passing-grade
amount of XP.
Players have incentives to
try and do more
than the bare minimum here,
and have a better
chance of doing it just by
being in character.
Nor is a party that
is somewhat large over-penalized
because a fixed number of
XP are added for slaying monsters; gold and
magickal items are divided
by the number of
characters. I'd adjust the
base value down if
more characters were involved
than I had
anticipated, but the bottom
line is: "This is the
amount of experience points
your character
earned, based on what he
was able to do, -- not
"This is your share of all
the experience points
my calculator says you guys
got."
S. D. Anderson
Whittier CA
(Dragon
#142)
The DMG says [DMs should]
give out XP for GP on a 1-for-1
basis if the value of the
guardian equals or
exceeds that of the party
which took the treasure.
The DMG then says
that this is a compromise,
and a more realistic system
would be too
boring and would disrupt
the game flow. Then
it gives a system for level
advancement that has
the characters spend gold
to gain levels.
I believe a better system
wouldn't give experience
for gold
at all unless that gold were spent
on training.
In one stroke, you could provide for
level advancement with no
training and also
TAKE
the gold, with the players feeling that they
are getting a valuable exchange.
Thus, if Ned Nimblefingers
the thief is stealing
without the Thieves'
Guilds knowledge, he
would be foolish to try and
go to the Guild to
buy training. In that case,
he would only earn
experience for performing
his jobs, and it would
take longer for him to gain
a level, though he
would have more money.
If Ned was a member
of the Guild, then he could
add as many XP
to his total as he paid on his Guild
dues. This would simulate
[his association with]
the older, more experienced
thieves and [use of
the] training devices that
the Guild owns.
In the 1st case, Ned could
earn 1,000 xp and
2,000 gp in 5 jobs. In the
2nd case, Ned
could have earned the same
amount but might
also have had to pay out
25% of his TAKE to the
Guild, which would be 500
gp (adding another
500 xp to his experience
total).
Clerics
and wizards would gain experience for
each new magickal spell
they research, successful
or not, and each magickal
item they create that
they have never created before.
Fighters
would gain experience on the money
spent for training and on
the number of troops
they command (everybody respects
a man with
1,000 men
at his beck and call).
You get the idea. The characters
get experience
for doing the things their
classes are noted
for. A magic-user isn't going
to get any experience
for running an army, and
a fighter won't
get any for trying to research
a spell.
Finally I come to the point
of getting experience
for magickal items. I don't
understand how
picking up a wand,
pointing it, and saying the
right word is going to gain
any experience.
Maybe figuring out the right
word to say will
gain experience for the person
who figured it
out, if the problem was hard
enough. Making
the wand in the 1st place
would have been
hard, but the way the DMG
is written, you don't
gain any experience for that.
I have been playing the AD&D
game since
January 1982 and had a DM
who had been
playing since the very beginning.
He had
worked it out so that PCs
didn't get experience
for gold
and didn't have to train for level
advancement. Other groups
I played in would
give experience for gold
but no training for
level advancement. I believe
that my system will
balance out some of the problems
and fairly
award experience for actions
performed by the
characters.
James M. Rogers
McConnelsville OH
(Dragon
#144)
YES,
the standard method of distributing
experience according to monsters
slain and
treasures won is fairly well
balanced and fair.
YES,
it is much better than methods using training
or class-related activities
or even [giving
experience only for slaying]
monsters.
So, do I use the standard
XP
system? Of course not!
My old DM did, and he spent
a few hours
after every adventure adding
up the XP
from all the monsters
killed, then letting
us add in the treasure
and any special bonuses
or penalties. I am
simply too lazy for that.
Before I START
an adventure, I decide approximately
how many XP I want the
characters to get when the
adventure ends. If
they did well and defeated
all the challenges,
they get that many XP, plus
any
bonuses I award. If they
did poorly, they only
get part of it. The final
result has more to do
with how long I want it to
be until they hit next
level than how many monsters
they killed and
how much treasure they found.
This lets me control just
how fast they rise in
levels. If I have an adventure
ready for next
time that is a little too
tough for them, I award
[more XP].
Sometimes simpler is better.
Tommy Sronce
Fort Worth TX
(Dragon
#144)
I would like to throw my 2
cents worth in
on an item I noticed in "Forum"
in issue #136,
from David Carl Argall, which
was the latest
comment in a continuing discussion
regarding
the accrual of XP.
In my 8-year career as a DM,
I have never given any XP
for
magickal items found, and
at present, I give no
experience for gold.
(I used to give some experience
points for GP gained, in
a ratio of 1
xp per 10 gp obtained. I
no longer do even this.)
Further, with only 1 lamentable
exception,
no DM I have ever played
with
ever gave his players points
in this manner. In
that exception, I took a
human_thief
character
from 6th level (Filcher)
to 14th (14th level Master Thief) in
only 10 weeks! I freely
admit that we played a lot,
2 to 4 sessions
per week and 6 to 8 hours
per session, and
we had some incredible hauls
of treasure, but I
maintain that giving XP for
magickal
items and gold is neither worthwhile
nor balanced.
As an example, I am currently
running a
campaign
that is 6 scenarios old. Most of the
characters have crossed their
thresholds for
2nd level and now await an
opportunity to
train.
I believe that this rate (5 to 6 adventures
to go from 1st to 2nd level)
is a reasonable
and balanced progression
through the ranks. I
give XP for actions other
than
combat,
such as spell-casting, thieving functions,
and actions in accordance
with the character's
alignment. I admit that this
system is a bit
complex, but if you keep
on top of it, the
accounting is not that bad.
Mr. Argall states that training
is dull and is to
be kept in the background.
I must disagree with
him yet again. As a DM, it's
a real
trip at training time to
watch the players huddle
over their sheets, calculating
whether they can
afford to train, buy new
equipment, and still eat
on the funds they have. When
the player of a
1st-level character in my
world discovers that it
will cost 1,800
gp to be trained to 2nd level, the
expression on his face is
priceless! I use training
as a major method (along
with taxes) of siphoning
off
a party's wealth, and it works like a
charm. The shoe fits on the
other foot as well.
As a player, many times I
have squirmed over
my calculator and had to
finagle loans from
other characters to finance
my character's
training.
Nelson E. Hemstreet
Brick NJ
(Dragon
#144)