| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This whole subject has a lot of ramifications and can take us down a rabbit hole of playstyles and adequacy, etc. I am perfectly ok doing that exercise, and I am sure we will get there later on. And yes, I do know about milestone XP, and have been using it for many, many years ;)
But for now suffice it to say I am considering the possibility of putting this into practice (gold as XP), probably coupled with a dramatic reduction in monster XP value. I read on the www someone suggesting the use of the WBL values to 'measure' measure the amount of loot/gold a character would need to level up, and I found the idea simple and interesting.
A quick look at the WBL shows that a character going from level 2 to level 3, should experience a gain of about 2000gp, so I decided to look at a 'golden oldie' - Crown of the Kobold King. I crunched some numbers on the full amount of available treasure, and arrived at a total value of around 50 to 60k gold pieces, accounting for treasure and magical items.
Meaning, if the group is made of 4-6 level 2 characters as recommended (WBL 1000gp), and they recover.... Let's say 50% of the treasure (25-30k), then each character's share would be approximately 4166 to 5000 gold pieces (6 characters), and be extremely close to the threshold of level 4. Or 6250 to 7500 gold pieces (4 characters), and be well over that threshold. And none of this includes monster XP.
Has anyone ever done a similar exercise? Is my math too 'off'? What were your own conclusions?
Of course there are several variables here - maybe 50% is not the most appropriate percentage of loot accrued by most groups, could be higher or lower. But conversely, maybe it means you can play with bigger parties? That might make the module 'as-is' a cakewalk for a larger group.
Curious about other people's thoughts on this, if any.
Cheers!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about the loot you get, and I'm unsure about your math...
A lot of loot found isn't interesting to the party, and is sold for 50% of its listed value. And consumables are odd to handle, since effectively that wealth simply disappears when used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder adventures usually contain the 'correct' amount of treasure to keep you at WBL, so making that be how you measure level progress would presumably work reasonably well. Though Pathfinder assumes you'll lose some potential WBL by selling items at half price - if you're giving them XP as the full value of items found, that would probably make them level up faster than intended. And they will occasionally give you a legendary artefact item at a low level - not sure how you'd handle that.
But I wouldn't recommend doing this for an Adventure Path at all. The whole point of treasure->XP was that it allowed you to run a campaign with minimal story, just a goal of finding loot in dungeons while trying to avoid danger. (For that kind of game, if you rewarded the party primarily for killing monsters, it would become a game about seeking out danger, rather than one about caution.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing about the loot you get, and I'm unsure about your math...
A lot of loot found isn't interesting to the party, and is sold for 50% of its listed value. And consumables are odd to handle, since effectively that wealth simply disappears when used.
Yeah I am also unsure about my math :)
And those are good points:
- Mundane loot (equipment, weapons armor and such) if sold, will net half the book cost. Conversely, in older school games (as an example) one would not even consider picking up a fallen enemy's longsword to sell. I don't think it was simply done. I have also been playing some AD&D games recently and it is not a thing. Bottom line, maybe you can grab mundane equipment to gear yourself, but maybe selling it should be 'ignored'. Otherwise they could perhaps count as 1/2 WBL XP;
- Consumables... Another good point. Perhaps they could count as (WBL) XP when you first grab them, and that is it.
Pathfinder adventures usually contain the 'correct' amount of treasure to keep you at WBL, so making that be how you measure level progress would presumably work reasonably well. Though Pathfinder assumes you'll lose some potential WBL by selling items at half price - if you're giving them XP as the full value of items found, that would probably make them level up faster than intended. And they will occasionally give you a legendary artefact item at a low level - not sure how you'd handle that.
But I wouldn't recommend doing this for an Adventure Path at all. The whole point of treasure->XP was that it allowed you to run a campaign with minimal story, just a goal of finding loot in dungeons while trying to avoid danger. (For that kind of game, if you rewarded the party primarily for killing monsters, it would become a game about seeking out danger, rather than one about caution.)
Yep, yep. I can see mundane items probably need to be removed from the equation, or valued at half cost/half WBL XP. Makes sense.
And agreed, this is not aimed at Adventure Paths at all - I won't go into what constitutes a Campaign or a story, because each person has their own perception and preferences about it. But yeah, this would be geared toward an 'open' game (you can call it a sandbox if you will), lots of player agency, and very little in the way of rails. Thus less limited in the way that 'if players arrive at this part of the AP with level 10 instead of level 7, it will be a cake walk for them', but more toward exploration and adventuring.
your methodology is more stream of consciousness than an actual formula or process. Now that you have the information give it another shot.
Never claimed to have any sort of formula. Agreed this needs to be further digested. Love me some spreadsheets.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mundane items aren't really the issue. Some Pathfinder adventures make you (for example) fight a bunch of ogres all with +1 ogre hooks. And you're expected to sell these for half price, and use the money to buy things you can actually use.
If you gave full XP for that, they'd level up really fast. If you gave no XP for that, they'd barely level up at all. So I'd probably give half value XP for magic items in this situation.
Though if you're doing a sandbox, you could just tweak the amount of treasure as you go, to adjust the rate of levelling to whatever feels right for your adventure. A treasure chest could equally contain 100gp or 10000gp...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you considering doing this?
Knowing that might change people's answers.
EG: Are you hoping for players to become treasure hunters that use skills to avoid fighting enemies?
Is it just 'cause?
Maybe you're bored of milestone levelling but don't want to switch to regular XP?
It feels like a lot of work, including trial and error, without any gain that I can see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you considering doing this?
Knowing that might change people's answers.EG: Are you hoping for players to become treasure hunters that use skills to avoid fighting enemies?
I think this nails it down pretty well.
I wouldn't expect players to avoid fighting enemies, I think that should always be their prerogative. And I also think more players would already avoid combat if DMs were a little bit more 'by the book' but that is a different conversation ;)
But I would like to create an environment which rewards exploration and treasure finding (adventuring, in a nutshell) yes, much more than killing bad guys, or waiting around for plot hooks (which will of course exist nonetheless). Earning XP in accordance to the treasure you find as a game mechanic, could prove an incentive to go around poke your head in dark holes, and explore the actual world around you.
On a similar conversation in a different channel, someone suggested perhaps rewards based on exploration - something like you poked around in the wilderness, with its inherent dangers, and you discovered a ruin 'worth exploring' - that in itself could be worth XP. Then you delve in for its riches and treasure if you so desire, or explore some more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Understood.
I feel like my issue lies at a more basal level with the motivations for adventuring. In the days of gold as XP, you would adventure because that is how you progress in the game. It is a fundamental mechanic which dictates the need for constant movement to improve.
More 'recent' games give a higher relevance to story and motivation even before you go adventuring. And unless the motivation is 'to adventure', then at a certain point why would you continue? And that places what I sometimes feels to be an onerous responsibility on the DM to keep providing hooks one after the other, to make sure characters (and thus players) are involved and commited.
Of course, regardless of the nature of the game, it is expected after a while, if you are playing in a living world, and engaging environment, that your characters will surpass the need to obtain treasure simply to survive, but instead to interact with the world in more meaningful ways - like building a castle, go on a crusade, settle a distant land, build an armada, become a ruler, start a thieves' guild, whatever it might be. But in the 'early levels' of their existence, it is a goal/mechanism unto itself for character improvement. When it is part of the game, as it used to be.
Not sure I am explaining myself properly, but that's the gist of it for me. Not saying A is better than B. Simply saying I like the PF1e ruleset, and would like to take it for a spin in this context - might even arrive at the conclusion the PF1e game is really not a good one to use gold as XP with, or the kind of 'adventure game' I have in mind, and that is perfectly fine. But first I need to arrive at that conclusion. So looking for input from others :)
Interestingly I recently started playing in a pathfinder game that decided to use wealth by level to determine when we level. Its mostly dungeon crawling. The treasure value gets calculated based on the loot we get out of the dungeon and into town(whether we spend it or not). The dungeon has 20 levels with an access to every level in one place. higher numbered levels have greater challenge and greater rewards.
So, IMO, characters adventure to be heroes and save the day. Gold, treasure, XP, etc. are all just bonus things you get on the way, and XP specifically is simply a means to track when you should get better.
IMO, milestone leveling is by far the best, it allows the GM extremely strict control over when the player level up, and he can provide as much adventuring as ne desires between levels.
AP's are excellent at providing a hook, and a driving force as to why the characters are adventuring and what their goals should be. Admittedly it requires some player buy-in, but we have found them to be extremely fun and provide great stories.
If we were to go back to XP=GP, then I'm pretty sure we'd just go murderhobo across the entire game map with no care or reason... all in all, just chaotic evil play everwhere we went.
Gold as XP is certainly not the way PF1 is set up for, but you could simply assign CRs to areas for exploration or other activities associated with adventuring that will help you track XP.
Giving the found treasure trove a set CR, and thus XP value, means that whether they sell or hoard they still get the XP.
This sounds like an interesting take - you get the XP for retrieving the loot. What you do with it after is up to you. I like it.
If we were to go back to XP=GP, then I'm pretty sure we'd just go murderhobo across the entire game map with no care or reason... all in all, just chaotic evil play everwhere we went.
We'll agree to disagree on this and several other things - I play in more than one game in which gold=XP, and there are no murderhobos in any of them. The way I see it, 'murdredhoboing' is more an issue with the players and their view of the game, than any reward system. But again, you have your opinion and I have mine :)
Interestingly I recently started playing in a pathfinder game that decided to use wealth by level to determine when we level. Its mostly dungeon crawling. The treasure value gets calculated based on the loot we get out of the dungeon and into town(whether we spend it or not). The dungeon has 20 levels with an access to every level in one place. higher numbered levels have greater challenge and greater rewards.And how has the experience been? I am very curious.
...In the days of gold as XP, you would adventure because that is how you progress in the game. It is a fundamental mechanic which dictates the need for constant movement to improve.
More 'recent' games give a higher relevance to story and motivation even before you go adventuring. And unless the motivation is 'to adventure', then at a certain point why would you continue? And that places what I sometimes feels to be an onerous responsibility on the DM to keep providing hooks one after the other, to make sure characters (and thus players) are involved and commited...
My characters adventure because I want to play the game.
Being involved in a story, helping to build a story, is why I want to play.If I didn't want to play the character any more I would work with the GM to find a way to write them out of the story.
I don't excitedly talk about how much treasure I've found. I might excitedly talk about an impressive fight. (But probably not.)
Getting XP for gold or for killing monsters or for simply exploring has never been a reason for me to play the game.
Playing the game involves going on an adventure therefore wanting to play the game is the motivation to go on an adventure.
That being said, if you want to use Gold as XP, using WBL makes the most sense. My thought on that is to do one of two options:
-Reward XP based on the full gold value of everything found (slightly faster levelling, WBL will be lower than the game suggests)
or
-Reward XP based on the sale gold value of everything found (slightly slower levelling, WBL will be higher than the game suggests)
(For some reason, my brain is telling me that the PF designers expect PCs to keep about half of the gear they find and sell the other half, but I have no idea where I'm getting that from.)
Both of those options include anything the group keeps. Mathematically speaking, A specific XP total should equal a specific gold total* therefore the reverse of that is true and a specific gold total equals a specific XP total.
*EG: Level 10 = 62,000 gp, Level 11 = 82,000 gp therefore 62,000 GP = Level 10, 82,000 gp = Level 11.
...In the days of gold as XP, you would adventure because that is how you progress in the game. It is a fundamental mechanic which dictates the need for constant movement to improve.
More 'recent' games give a higher relevance to story and motivation even before you go adventuring. And unless the motivation is 'to adventure', then at a certain point why would you continue? And that places what I sometimes feels to be an onerous responsibility on the DM to keep providing hooks one after the other, to make sure characters (and thus players) are involved and commited...
My characters adventure because I want to play the game.
Being involved in a story, helping to build a story, is why I want to play.
If I didn't want to play the character any more I would work with the GM to find a way to write them out of the story.I don't excitedly talk about how much treasure I've found. I might excitedly talk about an impressive fight. (But probably not.)
Getting XP for gold or for killing monsters or for simply exploring has never been a reason for me to play the game.
Playing the game involves going on an adventure therefore wanting to play the game is the motivation to go on an adventure.
That is fair - I think of it like this:
- There’s a world. In that world are ruins, lairs, towers, villains, and strange mysteries.
- The players engage with the game. And the game says: you advance by getting treasure.
- So, if you want to play, that’s the game — go out into the world and seek gold.
- Of course there are rumors and story hooks, but those are signposts, not rails.
- Kingdoms have politics, cities have factions, evil schemes are unfolding — all of that exists in the world whether you engage with it or not.
- As you explore, interact, and survive, stories happen. Maybe you take down a cult. Maybe you get cursed and want to find the mage who did it. Maybe you build a stronghold, or join a thieves' guild. Or maybe you just die, and the next character walks into the same world — still coherent and alive.
So for me, Gold-as-XP isn’t just a progression mechanic — it’s a gameplay philosophy. It creates momentum and gives players a reason to act. They don’t sit around waiting for the GM to hand them a plot — they go out into the world and make their own.
Just to be clear — I have nothing against narrative-first games or storytelling systems. I play in one regularly face to face, and I really enjoy it. This isn’t about saying one style is better than another.
What I’m exploring here is whether this particular game-first approach — where advancement is tied to treasure, and the world is something to be discovered — can coexist with a system I like, namely PF1e. In other words - can a more emergent, old-school style of play be compatible with a modern, mechanics-rich system like Pathfinder?
That’s the question I’m playing with :)
That being said, if you want to use Gold as XP, using WBL makes the most sense. My thought on that is to do one of two options:
-Reward XP based on the full gold value of everything found (slightly faster levelling, WBL will be lower than the game suggests)
or
-Reward XP based on the sale gold value of everything found (slightly slower levelling, WBL will be higher than the game suggests)(For some reason, my brain is telling me that the PF designers expect PCs to keep about half of the gear they find and sell the other half, but I have no idea where I'm getting that from.)
Both of those options include anything the group keeps. Mathematically speaking, A specific XP total should equal a specific gold total* therefore the reverse of that is true and a specific gold total equals a specific XP total.
*EG: Level 10 = 62,000 gp, Level 11 = 82,000 gp therefore 62,000 GP = Level 10, 82,000 gp = Level 11.
I’m more inclined to the first option, just because it seems simpler and easier to communicate to the players:
You recover loot — you get the XP. Done.Then do whatever you want with it: sell it at half value, keep it, melt it down, equip henchmen, open a general store. Up to you.
So for me, Gold-as-XP isn’t just a progression mechanic — it’s a gameplay philosophy. It creates momentum and gives players a reason to act. They don’t sit around waiting for the GM to hand them a plot — they go out into the world and make their own.
I don't see how gold as XP achieves this any different than killing monsters as XP or exploring as XP.
Being a GM involves coming up with a story, whether the story is "go explore these ruins" or "here's 4 different things happening, which one do you want to do?" or "the mayor of the town is secretly a bad guy, here's the intrigue involved in that" or what-have-you.
And yes, sometimes the story is "the players want to do this thing that I hadn't planned for so now I have to figure out how that works" (be it going exploring for treasure or pulling off a bank heist).
I think I'm having a hard time understanding how rewarding players for getting wealth with XP is any different than rewarding players for getting XP with wealth.
If your players aren't motivated to go out and find adventure there's a different problem and I don't see how using wealth as XP fixes that.
What I’m exploring here is whether this particular game-first approach — where advancement is tied to treasure, and the world is something to be discovered — can coexist with a system I like, namely PF1e. In other words - can a more emergent, old-school style of play be compatible with a modern, mechanics-rich system like Pathfinder?
That’s the question I’m playing with :)
Since WBL exists and therefore the expectation of the game is XP = Wealth Amount then the reverse is true so then Wealth Amount = XP is going to be played out the exact same way.
Being a GM involves coming up with a story...
That's actually one of the places where my perspective might differ a bit.
For me, the GM’s job isn’t necessarily to come up with a story — it’s to present a world. A coherent, living world full of potential stories, sure — but not one with a pre-written narrative. The story comes from what the players choose to do in that world.
In that light, Gold-as-XP doesn’t just serve as a reward — it functions as a kind of pressure valve. It pushes players to interact with the world without the GM needing to constantly “feed” them story. They’ll still find stories — they might stumble into a ruined temple and learn about a forgotten god, or raid a lair and uncover a map to something bigger — but that’s emergent, not authored.
So while I don’t think gold-as-XP automatically creates agency or energy, I do think it aligns well with a world-driven approach, where the players push the action and the GM reacts, rather than the other way around.
==========
Putting all that aside, I am now pondering what to do with monster XP in this scenario. It would probably need to be drastically reduced.
That's actually one of the places where my perspective might differ a bit.
For me, the GM’s job isn’t necessarily to come up with a story — it’s to present a world. A coherent, living world full of potential stories, sure — but not one with a pre-written narrative. The story comes from what the players choose to do in that world.
What you're describing is a type of story usually referred to as "sandbox".
It is a valid kind of story, not the only story.
And it usually one of the hardest kinds to tell because you have to come up with a lot of options for players to have interesting things happen.
There's generally no overarching narrative, but shorter narratives at individual places of interest.
Personally, while I like it (in theory) as a player, I absolute hate trying to run it as a GM. I much prefer to write a story. Yes it is absolutely a train and you're going to be railroaded and kept on the tracks and if you insist in going off course, I'll try to gently redirect you. And if you don't take the redirection I'll bluntly tell you I have nothing prepared in that "direction" and no intention of preparing anything.
While TTRPG are a collective story telling process, the GM is the one that has to do the most work and preparation for it. And I believe it's the GM's prerogative to define what the frame of the game looks like, and its the players prerogative to decide in that's what they want to be apart of.
What you're describing is a type of story usually referred to as "sandbox".
Correct.
It is a valid kind of story, not the only story.
Never said it was ;)
And it usually one of the hardest kinds to tell because you have to come up with a lot of options for players to have interesting things happen.
There's generally no overarching narrative, but shorter narratives at individual places of interest.
Personally, while I like it (in theory) as a player, I absolute hate trying to run it as a GM. I much prefer to write a story. Yes it is absolutely a train and you're going to be railroaded and kept on the tracks and if you insist in going off course, I'll try to gently redirect you. And if you don't take the redirection I'll bluntly tell you I have nothing prepared in that "direction" and no intention of preparing anything.
While TTRPG are a collective story telling process, the GM is the one that has to do the most work and preparation for it. And I believe it's the GM's prerogative to define what the frame of the game looks like, and its the players prerogative to decide in that's what they want to be apart of.
Agreed on the DM being entitled to define the frame of the game he wants to run. And understood on your preference for railroad-light.
Being a GM involves coming up with a story...That's actually one of the places where my perspective might differ a bit.
For me, the GM’s job isn’t necessarily to come up with a story — it’s to present a world. A coherent, living world full of potential stories, sure — but not one with a pre-written narrative. The story comes from what the players choose to do in that world.
Okay, yeah, being the GM involves presenting the world and what is in it.
If the players decide that goblins have been attacking the town and they want to go and stop them then the GM comes up with challenges and goblins. (If the GM decides goblins are attacking the town then that's the GM coming up with the story, but you don't want the GM to necessarily be the one coming up with things for the players to do).If that's the type of game you're running and the players are going to come up with stuff to do they're going to come up with it whether gold is XP or not. If the players aren't coming up with that type of thing then they most likely want story hooks presented to them and they want a kind of game different than what you seem to want to run.
Either way, I don't see gold as XP making a difference.
Putting all that aside, I am now pondering what to do with monster XP in this scenario. It would probably need to be drastically reduced.
If you're using gold as XP and monsters as XP you'll need to change how much XP it takes to progress through levels.
Especially if you're going with "total gold value" since WBL assumes you're selling some of the treasure for half of the total value. (Which, as said earlier, means the group will be behind on WBL because some of their total gold will be sold for less).So now you'll be giving XP out for two different reasons, redoing how much XP monsters give out, calculating how much gold is worth, and redoing how much XP is required for each level.
Yes, all of that CAN be done in Pathfinder. But again, I can't see it making ANY difference to motivating players to play the game.
They either want to play the style of game you want to run (open-world) or they don't.
Okay, yeah, being the GM involves presenting the world and what is in it.
If the players decide that goblins have been attacking the town...
The players would not come up with or decide what is happening in the World - that is the DM's job. The players simply decide what their characters want to do when faced with what is going on around them, as usual :)
The players would not come up with or decide what is happening in the World - that is the DM's job. The players simply decide what their characters want to do when faced with what is going on around them, as usual :)Okay, yeah, being the GM involves presenting the world and what is in it.
If the players decide that goblins have been attacking the town...
Isn't that what happens in games normally?
I assumed you saying "They don’t sit around waiting for the GM to hand them a plot — they go out into the world and make their own." meant you don't want to provide plot / plot hooks and that the characters have to go out and do their own things.With the APs that I've ran, players see what's happening in the world around them and then decide what to do about it, which is what you want the players to do.
Honestly, it sounds like you're looking for an inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.
But if you want to do it, go for it! I wish you the best of luck!
If we were to go back to XP=GP, then I'm pretty sure we'd just go murderhobo across the entire game map with no care or reason... all in all, just chaotic evil play everwhere we went.We'll agree to disagree on this and several other things - I play in more than one game in which gold=XP, and there are no murderhobos in any of them. The way I see it, 'murdredhoboing' is more an issue with the players and their view of the game, than any reward system. But again, you have your opinion and I have mine :)
Suit yourself - assuming gp=xp, and if given the option of protecting the farm from the horde of kobolds who probably don't have gold, and there's probably no rewards form the farmer, or slaying the sleeping dragon who hasn't bothered anyone in decades but has a huge pile of gold, and who the king possibly put a ransom on it's head, I'm probably going to go murderhobo the dragon, since it offers a chance to level up and the other does not....
the only way gp=xp can work is if there are PLENTY of opportunities to gain that gold and allow to the chance to level up often enough, so you can then fill in some time with non xp generating endeavors.
What you're describing is a type of story usually referred to as "sandbox".Correct.
It is a valid kind of story, not the only story.Never said it was ;)
Agreed on the DM being entitled to define the frame of the game he wants to run. And understood on your preference for railroad-light.And it usually one of the hardest kinds to tell because you have to come up with a lot of options for players to have interesting things happen.
There's generally no overarching narrative, but shorter narratives at individual places of interest.
Personally, while I like it (in theory) as a player, I absolute hate trying to run it as a GM. I much prefer to write a story. Yes it is absolutely a train and you're going to be railroaded and kept on the tracks and if you insist in going off course, I'll try to gently redirect you. And if you don't take the redirection I'll bluntly tell you I have nothing prepared in that "direction" and no intention of preparing anything.
While TTRPG are a collective story telling process, the GM is the one that has to do the most work and preparation for it. And I believe it's the GM's prerogative to define what the frame of the game looks like, and its the players prerogative to decide in that's what they want to be apart of.
Well, it's just that your other posts:
For me, the GM’s job isn’t necessarily to come up with a story — it’s to present a world. A coherent, living world full of potential stories, sure — but not one with a pre-written narrative. The story comes from what the players choose to do in that world.
The players would not come up with or decide what is happening in the World - that is the DM's job. The players simply decide what their characters want to do when faced with what is going on around them, as usual :)
Strongly implied your view that the only valid way to GM was to run a sandbox game and make the "story" completely the prerogative of what your players decide they're interested in.
Honestly, it sounds like you're looking for an inelegant solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.
There is, arguably, a problem: it's a lot of work to be a good GM. Especially when you have players who just want to be invested in a story. Creative, imaginative, players make more work for the GM, because they're harder to please than loot-goblins.
Running an old-school game where the characters are trying to find gold in dungeons is a lot easier than one where I have to track factions, plan set-piece battles with complex goals, develop complex NPCs, plant secrets and clues, or whatever it is I think will keep the players happy.
Now, a lot of GMs are strongly motivated and excited to be creating their great narrative adventure (whether sandbox or linear). But sometimes I'm tired and burned out, and it would be much less work for me if the players just wanted to plunder the hoard of the lizard-king.
XP for gold makes it clear that's the kind of game you're running. You have a simple goal, and the story is whatever happens along the way.
But sometimes I'm tired and burned out, and it would be much less work for me if the players just wanted to plunder the hoard of the lizard-king.
XP for gold makes it clear that's the kind of game you're running. You have a simple goal, and the story is whatever happens along the way.
"Hey, players, I don't want this game to be a big, complex thing so it's going to be more of a hack-and-slash adventure."
I went from running Hell's Rebels, which fits your first description to running Mummy's Mask, which fits your second because I needed a palate cleanse and it worked great.
Talking to your players about what kind of game you want to run instead of changing how XP is rewarded works wonders.
Strongly implied your view that the only valid way to GM was to run a sandbox game and make the "story"...
Maybe I miscommunicated - never meant to say the only valid way to GM was to run a sandbox game and make the "story" completely the prerogative of what your players decide they're interested in. At all.
Simply that I am interested in running a game for which I design the world, events therein, places of mystery, intrigues, villains, so on and so forth. And then I want to drop the PCs in that world, and let them explore it with full agency. They are free to decide what content to engage with, and what not to engage with.
I don't push them along a 'story arc' or a specific direction. They may decide to help the farm and midway decide they don't want to do it anymore - will that make them loved in the region? Maybe not. Will it allow the kobold incursion to push further and perhaps become more relevant than expected. Sure. They find a crypt, they go in. They take a beating, and decide to move away for greener pastures with whatever amount of loot they managed to amass. Do they return to it in six months? Maybe. Will it have already been cleared by others, or perhaps it grew into something worse than before? Who knows? Maybe it stayed exactly the same.
That is the DM (me) deciding the frame of a game he might want to play :)
I would be interested in trying a gold as XP approach, and I was wondering how and if I could make it work for PF1e. Thus my request for input form others who might have tried it, or might have some advice on it.
That is/was the gist of this thread.
As a disclaimer - in spite of some of the patronizing and dismissive remarks I have seen flying around about what people find makes sense or not, I have ran many types of Pathfinder games in my life: APs, standalones, intro adventures, one-shots, attempts at campaigns and sandboxes, was strongly invested in PFS for a while, etc. Never said any of those are bad or wrong, mainly because I do not think they are. I am simply trying to experiment with something different.
I welcome people dropping by and saying - 'that does not make sense for me for reasons A, B and C. You should try D, E and F' - but saying it once is enough :)
Interestingly I recently started playing in a pathfinder game that decided to use wealth by level to determine when we level. Its mostly dungeon crawling. The treasure value gets calculated based on the loot we get out of the dungeon and into town(whether we spend it or not). The dungeon has 20 levels with an access to every level in one place. higher numbered levels have greater challenge and greater rewards.And how has the experience been? I am very curious.
Its a bit early to say. we've only had 2 sessions so far and we meet fortnightly. fought a shark that was swimming in the air. when we killed it we noticed it was still floating in the air(actually rising up). In other campaigns probably would have been like this is weird and ignored it. In this campaign my thought drifted towards I wonder if we can sell this.
oh the GM has also actually been using the treasure entries in the creature statblocks to generate loot.
Granted my overall mindset going in though wasn't for taking this game as having a serious or much of a plot even before the GM revealed they were doing a wealth by level advancement. I made a shield champion brawler/hunter gestalt named Roger Stevens with a falcon companion.
I welcome people dropping by and saying - 'that does not make sense for me for reasons A, B and C. You should try D, E and F' - but saying it once is enough :)
You're right.
I've said my piece, I've pushed back too much, and I'm not helping this conversation so I'm stepping away.As I said earlier, I hope this works out for you and I wish you the best of luck.