Troll Lord Games

Two of my fellow players, and they are both also CK's, got into a very nice discussion about "Why is loot also awarded as XP?"

I also have seen discussions about this before. One thing that was brought out ( I think) in our discussion is that even in 1E, treasure did not have to be awarded on a 1 to 1 gp to xp award.

In fact it seems that the whole hang up is that if there is 20,000 GP found, they get 20,000 XP, even when the game master thinks they should get only 2,000 xp for the encounter.

My view is that is not how it works, and that it was never meant to work that way. Its always been give them the 2000 XP you feel they deserve.

People are always quick to point out how rule "X" says "Y", but what they have always forgotten, at least up until 3E, is what Gary said in the 1E DMG, frequently said in various Dragon articles and editorials, and continued to be said into the days of 2E. Whats that? What am I talking about? People always forget that the rules, at least up until 3E, have always been guidelines, not hard and fast. That is why Gary kept saying, "Make the game your own." Thats why everyone should memorize first and foremost that blurb in the front of the 1E DMG.

The rules have always been recommended guidelines, but not the end all and be all. So many people have failed to hook up what Gary said so many times with what was written.

The end result of which is, when they get 20,000 GP worth of loot, but you think they only deserve 2000 XP for it, you are supposed to only give them the 2000 XP, not the 20,000!

So all along treasure as XP has just been a tool for the game master. It has never been meant as this rigid system of XP award. In fact it has always meant to be used as a variable reward vehicle with which to award XP in the amounts the GM felt were appropriate, not only for the encounter, but for the speed/pace at which any given GM wants their game to progress.

I mean, when you get down to it you are not getting XP because of the GP. It is a baseline for a GM to use to award XP based off of. The GP value is simply a recommended XP award that the GM is to use, and adjust from as they see fit.

So when you get down to the fundamentals the gold piece value of the loot is just that. Its XP value is totally separate. Its just a suggestion.

So when just used/viewed as a suggestion, rather than as hard and fast that the "rules" when isolated and taken by themselves mean in 1E and 2E, especially; you may find there is enough shift in the mental perceptions that alternative XP award rules are not, and have never been needed.

Treasure GP is only a XP suggestion, and are not even directly related. Even though I have seen plenty of good strong discussions as to how wealth does equate to power, etc... After all, its always been the rich who have consistently been the movers and shakers throughout history. So there is definitely a correlation between receipt of wealth equating to XP/levels.

So when stripped down to basics, ripping away all the confusing variant GP=XP, or not, rules, all that treasure means to us, as CL's is the suggested XP reward for the encounter. The XP values assigned in the M&T are created with their treasure types in mind as well. So if you ignore the treasure as XP you should also create an alternate system, which is what I have seen most GM's do.

So this idea of a random treasure is created because the thief found a buried chest, completely randomly, with no adventure to hunt it down, fight for it, etc... and then when the thief opens the chest they just found from pure luck, and there is 200,000 GP inside, does not mean that Theif gets 200,000 XP and gains 7 levels. How many XP received is entirely up to the CK, based on their sensibilities about how much skill and effort was put into finding that treasure chest, how much more powerful the CK wants to allow the Theif to be as a result. IF the decision is absolutely nothing, then its nothing.

Which is how its always been able to be used, ever since 1e. Just for whatever reason this simple fact has never been clearly stated as a "rule". It has always been a disconnected statement, somewhere else in the book, or in an issue of Dragon, that had to be connected to the rule in the book for the "Ah Ha!!" to happen.

So the next time you roll up a treasure and you think the GP value would give way more/less XP than you think the encounter/challenge overcome deserves, then by all means alter the XP award to fit the events.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

I've always assumed that any reward that comes without a challenge is a freebie -- it is enough on its own without earning even more benefits, so have never given XP for "found" treasure that is obtained without some sort of struggle. I believe the OAD&D DMG makes mention of this as well.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

serleran wrote:
I've always assumed that any reward that comes without a challenge is a freebie -- it is enough on its own without earning even more benefits, so have never given XP for "found" treasure that is obtained without some sort of struggle. I believe the OAD&D DMG makes mention of this as well.

Yep, a lot of people make that assumption, and yes the DMG's also cover it, but it is also one of those things that are somewhere else in the book, far enough away from the key sentence about the rule, that its disconnected.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

serleran makes a good point.

I also feel that the treasure for XP, and the fact that it could be "adjusted" (per the DMG) was EGG's way to give DM's total control on how fast the PCs could level up.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

OK, I never had any old D&D books, but in Castles & Crusades it does state that

Quote:
Although not all Castle Keepers do so, some award xp for non magical treasure

and then goes on to suggest the 1xp for 1gp. (I only have the first printing of the player's book, but I assume this hasn't changed)

In keeping with Treebore's posts this, to me, suggests that this is a guidline, as xp for treasure is an option (recommended in the rules, but still an option) and as such open to 'tweaking' as required. It also states at the beginning of the experience rules section

Quote:
The Castle Keeper is free to award experience points in whatever manner desired, but the following is a recommended general method

I don't want to start an old rant, but I do wish that people wouldn't quote old D&D rules for C&C (after all some of us aren't old D&D players, but like the siege system and C&C's version of a fantasy RPG)

D.

EDIT - sorry, just re-read the above and it reads a bit defensive! Basically just waanted to agree with giving out XP to suite the encounter/ game etc., and point out that this is in keeping with the rules as written

I award XP for treausure but don't consider it in the context of encounters at all. I don't award XP until the end of the session, not the end of an encounter. Some encounters may be overladen with treasure, but others will definitely be underfunded as well so I see no point in judging the amount per encounter. At the end of the session, as long as the risk vs. reward factor is acceptable for the session as a whole, no tweaking needed.

Also, if awarding XP for treasure, I do not award story rewards. To me, the XP for treasure is already doing that.

Yeah, my OP isn't just in the context of C&C's rules, its basically how it was done in 1E and 2E and how the 3 of us who had the discussion felt about awarding XP for treasure found. Don't think we were unanimous on it either, my opinion was as pretty much stated in my OP, the others saw where I was coming from, and I them, but we certainly didn't agree 100% as to exactly how it should be done.

I do think after our discussion we definitely would be able to CK for each other from a bigger common ground, though.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

I'd give em the 20,000 gp as XP, since, it was generally assumed, that that money was spent on equipment and training of various sorts.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

I've always considered this a topic with too diverse a stance.

_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Well, in Frank Mentzer's D&D, which is the version I'm most familar with, it is pretty much an uncircumventable rule that GP -> XP. However, Mentzer strongly suggests that the DM decides the amount of treasure, therefore retaining total control of the flow of XP. It even suggests that if the DM wants the PCs to have, say, 3 adventures before leveling up, he'd just calculate how much XP=gold they need in each adventure, and decide the amount of treasure that way. This is exactly what I often do.

Also he gives a rule that you can only go up 1 level in an adventure, so if your 1st level PC finds a gemstone worth 100000 GP, you go up to level 2 and your total XP ends up as 1 point short of level 3. It's a neat rule and saw much use 20 years ago when I was a young and inexperienced DM, at times when I'd given too much treasure.

I've always given the PC the standard amount of XP from gold, from each and every copper piece that they ever found. I've found that this motivates the PC's to really go for the loot, as they know that they'll always get the full value in XP. But of course, if your game is less loot-motivated, there's no point having a rule like this, or even giving XP from treasure at all.

Xaltotun

Personally I like to give XP for GP spent on training or similar. Horses for courses and all, but it helps keep the accumulation of wealth lower in my games (which is in keeping with the setting etc). In fact the more I think of this, the more it seems that the way to deal with this is more important in reflecting the 'feel' in a game than anything (as Xaltotun says above, the XP for cash motivates PC's towards loot, and is best for that game)

So, in a way everyone is right! It depends on the atmosphere and feel that the CK is going for.

D.

Grey wrote:
Personally I like to give XP for GP spent on training or similar. Horses for courses and all, but it helps keep the accumulation of wealth lower in my games (which is in keeping with the setting etc). In fact the more I think of this, the more it seems that the way to deal with this is more important in reflecting the 'feel' in a game than anything (as Xaltotun says above, the XP for cash motivates PC's towards loot, and is best for that game)

So, in a way everyone is right! It depends on the atmosphere and feel that the CK is going for.

D.

Yeah, the whole point I was trying to make is that all of the rules are a guideline, that it has always been about the game master doing things however best fit what they are going for.

I think the problem came from how the rules are "stated", and how because when you found the rules people took them as literal because they forgot, or didn't understand, to modify that rule by what was said in other parts of the books, which essentially said, "Take these rules and modify them as needed to give you the kind of game you want."
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames