tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-771954385358383237.post6943077140029271211..comments2023-10-28T06:06:38.677-07:00Comments on Old School Psionics: The Importance of Persistent Conflict - and implications for XPJustinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01023125641719686613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-771954385358383237.post-10413254211697366642011-03-02T00:10:38.530-08:002011-03-02T00:10:38.530-08:00"This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of..."This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of the original XP reward system."<br /><br />I'll start with a potentially bad assumption on my part: By "original XP reward system", you're talking about the OD&D Supplement I Greyhawk through AD&D and BEMCI rule, where about 75-80% of xp comes from treasure acquired and 20-25% comes from monsters defeated.<br /><br />"If XP is only earned for monsters slain and treasure looted, the type of game design I am talking about is highly discouraged."<br /><br />I disagree. Given the above ratio, players hopefully discover (and *do* discover, in my campaign) that for level advancement, gold is the target, not monsters. After all, gold generally doesn't try to eat your face.<br /><br />Now of course there are probably some monsters in the vicinity that add to the challenge of acquiring the gold, and that's exactly where your game design fits in perfectly.<br /><br />Sometimes monsters carry that treasure, or guard it in their lair. Yep, it happens. But not all treasure is protected that way. And even when it is, my players try hard to get it without a fight (or a fair fight): Sneaking, stealing, charming, extorting, spying, ambushing, laying siege; these are all weapons in my players' arsenal. And of course, the monsters react in an appropriate way, which is only sometimes a straightforward frontal assault.<br /><br />Sometimes my players overreach (whether their current goal is level advancement or something else entirely) and get into unfortunate predicaments with monsters who are much more clever than they anticipated; the monsters set traps, blockade the party's exit, make alliances, or have been biding their time waiting for the party go get to "that place" where the monsters are at a big advantage.<br /><br />Sometimes monsters harass the party and generally makes the "dungeon" a hazardous environment without actually 'guarding treasure in their lair'. And in those cases, my players have sometimes made dedicated forays into the "dungeon" to try to eliminate those hazards (possibly by killing those monsters, but they've also made alliances in these kinds of situations), so as to make their subsequent forays safer.<br /><br />So I've found that dynamic use of creatures in adventuring locales (or more generally: dynamic adventuring locales) works very well with xp for gp, plus the usual modicum of xp for monsters.<br /><br />"If the players spend the entire session dicking around with one monster, they've gained nothing, in game turns, even if they finally end up defeating it."<br /><br />Well, presumably they gained whatever their goal was. After all, they were dicking around with that monster for *some* reason, yeah? (And not all goals need to feed directly into level advancement...)Guy Fullertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12034114718540912559noreply@blogger.com