I've been re-reading the AD&D Second Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, as part of my continuing exploration of the concepts of experience and level. I thought it might be worthwhile to take a look at how the various TSR editions of the game handle these matters. In doing so, I was surprised to see this bit of highlighted text:
As an option? What's going on here? Prior to looking at this section for the first time in untold years, I had assumed that, when it came to the awarding of experience points, 2e followed closely in the footsteps of its predecessor, with XP being given for the defeat of foes and the acquisition of treasure. That's certainly how I remember XP awards working in Second Edition. It's also how I remember playing the game back in the late '80s and early '90s. Was I playing the game wrong all those years ago?
Yes, apparently. If you play AD&D 2e by the book, there are only two ways that characters earn experience points. The first are the group awards, earned for "victory over their foes." This type of award has existed in every edition of Dungeons & Dragons since 1974 and is based on the hit dice and special abilities of the enemies defeated. The second are individual awards, given out on the basis of a character's class. Thus, a fighter gets an individual award of 10 XP per hit die of a defeated enemy per level, while a magic-user gets one by using spells "to overcome foes or problems" at a rate of 50 XP per level of the spell cast, among other awards. This second type of award is new to Second Edition.
When you look at the individual class awards, you'll notice something interesting. A class award for thieves is 2 XP per gold piece value of treasure obtained. What used to be a default means of obtaining experience – a "group award" in Second Edition's parlance – is now exclusive to thieves (and other rogues) and at twice the previous rate. I can see the train of logic that led to this element of the new edition's design: if you're committed to the idea of individual class-based awards, it makes sense that thieves ought to be rewarded for, well, stealing. However, the rules develop this notion in a way that completely excludes other classes for benefiting, experience-wise, from the acquisition of treasure.
This is a huge shift away from the design of all prior editions of Dungeons & Dragons, which accepted the implicit pulp fantasy assumption that, to one degree or another, all characters are thieves, in the sense that they all benefit from treasure hunting, tomb robbing, and similar larcenous activities. Second Edition is a tacit repudiation of that conception of D&D, which I suppose only makes sense for a post-Dragonlance edition. The shift toward a more "heroic" presentation of the game was well under way by this point and perhaps this change is yet more evidence of it.
How I somehow managed not to take notice of it, though, is a genuine mystery.
Yeah, the default 2E is no XP for treasure. Even this optional approach doesn't award XP for magic items. In 2E XP is given only for creating a magic item. The monster XP awards are higher, I suppose to balance this out (along with the individual awards). I'm not sure how this worked in practice, since in 1E most XP comes from treasure. I suppose it increased the emphasis on combat, which became even more important in later editions.
ReplyDeleteIt's 50% from overcoming monsters and 50% from story rewards, and I usually counted class/individual rewards as bonus xp.
DeleteThe adventurers don't need to enter combat and kill the monsters to accomplish the "overcoming monsters" goal, and since combat takes longer it was smarter to instead put that session time towards smart ideas that will also achieve the story goal.
Still more reasonable that RoleMaster's approach, where we got XP for every mile traveled, every skill roll succeeded on, every hit point of damage delivered... It's a lot of bookkeeping!
ReplyDeleteIn practice, it doesn't seem to take up much time or energy, at least at our table.
DeleteThe text of 2e always seems to chafe under the weight of 1e. Honestly not surprising, given that Zeb Cook is on the record as having wanted to change more than he was allowed to, to maintain as much backwards compatibility with 1e as possible. But if you look at old ad copy hyping up the release of 2e, they sing the same song we heard when 3e came out: "The changes we're implementing are just house-rules that most groups are already using anyway! We're giving you the game you wanted all along!" And I have no doubt that it's true for the time: given that 1e after DragonLance, UA, OA, etc. was becoming a less old-school and increasingly "trad" RPG, 2e was just codifying that. But the clearest examples of the "Gary and the grognards were doing it wrong!!1! are that little throwaway note about XP in the DMG, and the passage in chapter 1 of the PHB admonishing players not to desire high ability scores, because low scores are an "opportunity for good role-playing." 🙄
ReplyDeleteIt still looks like a lot of book keeping! I wonder if they ever did any playtesting to see how leveling compared to the standard monster+treasure of earlier editions? My sense is at higher levels the only way to gain levels would be with higher and higher fiat group "story" awards which I think are also BTB in 2E though not particularly codified (I don't have it with me to check). Though regular pre-2E D&D has the same problem with the need for economy-busting levels of treasure at higher levels (50K+ GP gems and jewelry and the like) to allow any chance of leveling.
ReplyDeleteThere's an insidious bit of clunkiness with the class/individual rewards, in that it's a pita to note in the moment. Very easily a DM could end a session and know how many monsters were killed (their hit points being tallied on some scrap paper), and how much treasure has been accumulated (you bet the players are writing that down) .. but remembering that Bob the wizard had a smart idea (50XP) or that Xart the thief picked a lock? Gahh.
DeleteAt my table, I quickly ruled that the players had to keep track of the activities worthy of class/individual rewards, and usually as more than a simple tally-mark. Not quite to the level of providing receipts for submitting an expenses claim, but close.
The Story Rewards, btw, BTB RAW were to be capped at the amount of potential XP from monsters on that adventure. That, combined with the advice that there should be 5 to 8 adventures per level, meant one could devise an XP budget for an adventure.
I usually figured the class/individual rewards as bonus XP (since they are optional rules), and this further incentivizes the players to keep track of their deeds (and submit their chits at the end of the session).
The real hassle (as DM) is tracking the in-the-moment rag-tag-variety of activity-awards. So don't — outsource that to the players (and watch the fighters insist on combat-as-solution, while the rogue advocates for sneaky-evasion, etc).
As a DM back in the day, I immediately house-ruled the 1E XP for treasure concept into oblivion. Such an award never made any sense to me. Players received XP for combat (proportional to the damage they inflicted on an opponent), solving puzzles, resolving situations through good roleplaying, successfully performing class/order/religious tasks, etc. Of course, this had the unavoidable effect of slowing level progression way down.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. There's a discussion on Reddit about this currently. (There always is!). I recently ran 2e by the book with no optional rules (including no profiencies) and I was surprised how it was basically bx. It's actually a lot of fun! It was the edition I grew up on.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has recently been playing 2e in a two year campaign, the DM tracks the group awards and the players track the individual awards. It was rather simple as a spellcaster to track, as you already are keeping up with your spells memorized and used.
ReplyDeleteAlways used this "optional" rule myself, but at the rate of two gp per XP instead of 1 to 1. It was very much the influence of Weiss and Hickman here I think, aiming for story over game. Nothing wrong with it, just not my cuppa
ReplyDeleteActually the changes make a lot of sense. 1e stupidly assumes 10 sp (or cp) to the pound which would require silver coins the size of modern CDs.....
ReplyDeleteWhy do I mention coin weights? Because trying to move 1000gp which historically weighted 10 pounds is different to (A)D&D trying to move 100 pounds of gold!
Also note that 2e changed the weights of coins. 50 coins weigh one pound which became standard ever since.
So without the nonsense of the minigame required to move around thousands of gold, giving XP for gold didn't make sense anyway. Plus XP for gold does not make any sense for classes that are not interested in worldly possessions or not inclined to adventure for Gold, like Monks, Druids or Rangers.
Could they had figured out a better system? I am sure they could if they tried or were allowed to change more stuff rather than risk 2e not being backward compatible to 1e.
Also what happened in 1e was that players needed so much gold to level up which made no sense. 1.500 gp for 1st=>2nd level training would require 150 pounds of gold, which in current market value would require $25.000*150= $375000. Now try telling anyone that this is OK with a straight face!