2 for 1 seems a reasonable ratio for hard earned XP. I like it! Thank you also for the example! In a way it reminds me the Feats of exploration of 3d6 down the line show. All but violence. Like it
I use XP for gold in all my games, but I don’t do 1 for 1, I do 2gp for 1xp in my games. I also use Palladium’s experience system in my games too, so it stops from the whole murder hobo. Here’s an example that I can quickly link to show you (not mine) https://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/rifts/rifts_experience_chart.pdf
The treasure tables from Appendix A of 1e DMG, have a tendency to generate piles of 1000 cp/level (25%) and 1000 sp/level (25%).
This has been criticized as being a “gotcha”, but it serves several purposes. For beginner PCs, the risk/reward dilemma is present from the beginning. For higher level PCs, a pile of copper isn’t worth enough towards progression, meaning that it remains available for the newb crew to pick up on Thursday’s game.
Gygax assumes that DMs will be running multiple sessions per week, with different players, in the same dungeon.
This also makes treasure maps lucrative for players to sell to other players. Now tell me that mapping the dungeon is a waste of time, eh?
I run ACKS II, so the whole idea is quite familiar and normal for me and my players. But I really like how you explain it. Hopefully it will bring more people to this way of playing. It just works better.
In my view when a mechanic exists primarily to manipulate what players choose to do, something has gone wrong in the design or in the way the game is being run.
Worse, the mechanic introduces another unseemly side effect. Greed. I have watched players slowly transform into little more than burglars because the system pushes them in that direction. Every decision becomes about extracting treasure rather than exploring a world, solving problems, or engaging with the situation at hand. The campaign turns into a repetitive cycle of infiltration and looting. The richer the hoard, the more experience points are gained, and the more the players are encouraged to repeat the same behavior.
Often, this problem appears alongside another one. Many groups that insist on gold for experience also abandon several other rules that were designed to balance the system. They stop awarding experience for defeating monsters according to the guidelines in the rules. They often ignore encumbrance entirely. They ignore that gold is only meant to count for XP once deposited in a bank or party base of operations. Once those constraints disappear, the game degenerates into mining vast quantities of treasure from beneath monsters in amounts that would require dump trucks in real life. Characters rocket through levels with little actual player learning taking place. Advancement becomes mechanical rather than experiential.
When the rules of First Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons are actually used as written, this behavior is already controlled. Experience for monsters scales against the level of the characters. When high level characters defeat low level monsters they receive only a fraction of the normal experience award. This discourages farming weak enemies for easy gains. The system pushes players toward challenges appropriate to their ability rather than rewarding indiscriminate destruction.
The original game also assumes that logistics matter. Encumbrance, transport, timekeeping, and supply all impose natural limits on how much treasure can be recovered and how quickly characters can operate. Removing those constraints while keeping gold for experience destroys the internal balance of the system. Treasure becomes weightless advancement currency rather than an object embedded in the fictional world.
Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine both published numerous articles from experienced players and DM's who recognized these problems decades ago. Many of them experimented with variants that increased lethality, slowed advancement, or introduced alternative reward structures that reflected actual accomplishments in the campaign rather than simple accumulation of wealth.
In my experience, the guidelines already present in the rules are more than sufficient. The Dungeon Master can award experience for effective role playing, clever puzzle solving, successful tactics in combat, and meaningful progress toward goals within the campaign. These methods reward what actually happens in play rather than bribing players to behave in a predetermined way.
More importantly, they preserve one of the core principles of the original game. Player agency. Characters pursue goals because they want to pursue them, not because the rules are leaving a trail of experience breadcrumbs pointing toward piles of gold.
When that principle is preserved, the campaign becomes something much richer than a treasure extraction exercise. Players negotiate alliances, solve mysteries, undertake dangerous expeditions, and make meaningful choices about risk and reward. The world responds to their actions rather than funneling them toward a single economic incentive.
Gold for experience therefore strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. When the rest of the system is functioning properly it is unnecessary at best, and when other parts of the system is ignored it actively encourages the worst habits at the table.
I remember the days of gold for XP... I thought I was only imagining it for a while, so thank you for confirming it was a real thing! On a general note, I really enjoy these articles. They've helped me to refine some of my approach to the game, and I've already incorporated some of it -- most major example: better and simpler character sheets (I design all my own stuff). Simpler really does feel better!
2 for 1 seems a reasonable ratio for hard earned XP. I like it! Thank you also for the example! In a way it reminds me the Feats of exploration of 3d6 down the line show. All but violence. Like it
I use XP for gold in all my games, but I don’t do 1 for 1, I do 2gp for 1xp in my games. I also use Palladium’s experience system in my games too, so it stops from the whole murder hobo. Here’s an example that I can quickly link to show you (not mine) https://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/rifts/rifts_experience_chart.pdf
The treasure tables from Appendix A of 1e DMG, have a tendency to generate piles of 1000 cp/level (25%) and 1000 sp/level (25%).
This has been criticized as being a “gotcha”, but it serves several purposes. For beginner PCs, the risk/reward dilemma is present from the beginning. For higher level PCs, a pile of copper isn’t worth enough towards progression, meaning that it remains available for the newb crew to pick up on Thursday’s game.
Gygax assumes that DMs will be running multiple sessions per week, with different players, in the same dungeon.
This also makes treasure maps lucrative for players to sell to other players. Now tell me that mapping the dungeon is a waste of time, eh?
I run ACKS II, so the whole idea is quite familiar and normal for me and my players. But I really like how you explain it. Hopefully it will bring more people to this way of playing. It just works better.
Hello Kate,
In my view when a mechanic exists primarily to manipulate what players choose to do, something has gone wrong in the design or in the way the game is being run.
Worse, the mechanic introduces another unseemly side effect. Greed. I have watched players slowly transform into little more than burglars because the system pushes them in that direction. Every decision becomes about extracting treasure rather than exploring a world, solving problems, or engaging with the situation at hand. The campaign turns into a repetitive cycle of infiltration and looting. The richer the hoard, the more experience points are gained, and the more the players are encouraged to repeat the same behavior.
Often, this problem appears alongside another one. Many groups that insist on gold for experience also abandon several other rules that were designed to balance the system. They stop awarding experience for defeating monsters according to the guidelines in the rules. They often ignore encumbrance entirely. They ignore that gold is only meant to count for XP once deposited in a bank or party base of operations. Once those constraints disappear, the game degenerates into mining vast quantities of treasure from beneath monsters in amounts that would require dump trucks in real life. Characters rocket through levels with little actual player learning taking place. Advancement becomes mechanical rather than experiential.
When the rules of First Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons are actually used as written, this behavior is already controlled. Experience for monsters scales against the level of the characters. When high level characters defeat low level monsters they receive only a fraction of the normal experience award. This discourages farming weak enemies for easy gains. The system pushes players toward challenges appropriate to their ability rather than rewarding indiscriminate destruction.
The original game also assumes that logistics matter. Encumbrance, transport, timekeeping, and supply all impose natural limits on how much treasure can be recovered and how quickly characters can operate. Removing those constraints while keeping gold for experience destroys the internal balance of the system. Treasure becomes weightless advancement currency rather than an object embedded in the fictional world.
Dragon Magazine and Dungeon Magazine both published numerous articles from experienced players and DM's who recognized these problems decades ago. Many of them experimented with variants that increased lethality, slowed advancement, or introduced alternative reward structures that reflected actual accomplishments in the campaign rather than simple accumulation of wealth.
In my experience, the guidelines already present in the rules are more than sufficient. The Dungeon Master can award experience for effective role playing, clever puzzle solving, successful tactics in combat, and meaningful progress toward goals within the campaign. These methods reward what actually happens in play rather than bribing players to behave in a predetermined way.
More importantly, they preserve one of the core principles of the original game. Player agency. Characters pursue goals because they want to pursue them, not because the rules are leaving a trail of experience breadcrumbs pointing toward piles of gold.
When that principle is preserved, the campaign becomes something much richer than a treasure extraction exercise. Players negotiate alliances, solve mysteries, undertake dangerous expeditions, and make meaningful choices about risk and reward. The world responds to their actions rather than funneling them toward a single economic incentive.
Gold for experience therefore strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. When the rest of the system is functioning properly it is unnecessary at best, and when other parts of the system is ignored it actively encourages the worst habits at the table.
I remember the days of gold for XP... I thought I was only imagining it for a while, so thank you for confirming it was a real thing! On a general note, I really enjoy these articles. They've helped me to refine some of my approach to the game, and I've already incorporated some of it -- most major example: better and simpler character sheets (I design all my own stuff). Simpler really does feel better!