XP for Gold: Clearly Defined Lines

After wrapping up his Watchmen stint, superhero/evil genius Ozymandias was kind enough to leave this comment on my post about XP for Gold: Reputation and Confidence:

How do we delineate when gold acquisition counts for experience?

The argument I've seen often goes to the extreme end right away: If I find a chest of gold on the side of the road (fell off the back of a merchant's caravan), do I get experience for it? Clearly the answer is 'no.' There was no danger. There was no trial. There was no test of the character's skills. But what about the party that avoids the dragon to lift a few choice items from its hoard? What about using diplomacy or trickery to get the orcs to leave their lair unguarded? What about a thief who spends a few days playing the crowd?

The problem with XP for GP is there's no clearly defined line when it comes to assigning the bonus. And I've been all over the 'net looking for justification or explanation; it seems the task is too difficult for people, so most of them just drop it.

If you're looking for no grey areas, play Chess. Or better yet, Go, as Go never ends in a draw (as so many Chess games do)

An RPG is a reflection of the real world, and just like the real world, there are grey areas. And the only way to deal with grey areas, whether in the rules, or in the real world, is to draw on your life experience and good judgement, and make a call.

The problem Ozymandias sees with XP for GP simply isn't a problem - the DM looks at the situation, and makes a call.

Remember that even in the most artificial and restrictive RPG ruleset imaginable, the *bulk* of the game still comes down to simple DM fiat at the end of the day (Why did that chest fall off the caravan? Was there a way to avoid the dragon? How many GP in that horde? Are the orcs willing to talk? How many orcs are there? Is the King a nice guy? Is the Vizier banging the Queen?).

The point is, *everything in the game* lacks a clearly defined line. How many orcs is too many? How many HD for the dragon are too many? How much treasure is too much? Why is the King *this* nice, and not nicer? Why is the Vizier risking everything to be with the Queen?

You can lay down endless guidelines for all of this stuff (and people try, I seem to recall 4e dictating not only how tough the monsters should be but also how many magic items the players should be getting!!!), but you can *never* get away from the fact that the DM is making the world, running the world, and that the DM is a human being, and therefore necessarily fuzzy, fallible, and not really designed for clearly defined lines.

I mean, you can ask that question about anything in an RPG. So you get XP for killing monsters. Do you get XP for killing a beggar? Maybe? What about a child? What about the blacksmith - he could defend himself. What about an orc if you're a level 10 character? The orc is certainly no more threat than a child is to a Level 2 Fighter. Where do you draw the line?

And please, don't suggest that the rulebook covers it. The rulebook can *never* clear up all of the soft edges. It can never leave a clearly defined line. There will always be grey.

And that's why we play RPGs - for the grey. For the fuzziness. For the *realness* that can only come from dealing with another human being and all the vast complexities of their mind.

That lack of a clear line isn't a flaw, it's the *whole reason RPGs exist*.

XP for Gold: Trade

Trade is a little trickier to handle, and I think the notions of personal bodily risk and martial skill will be helpful in determining whether or not to give XP for wealth gained through trade.

Two polarized scenarios present themselves immediately.

Milanese Trader

The first is a wealthy merchant living in Milan. He inherited an estate, a large sum of coin, and five ships from his father. Now, obviously he does not level for his inheritance.

But neither should he level from the profits he reaps from shipping finished suits of armour to England. There is no factor of personal bodily risk, and no application possible for martial skill.

Medinan Caravan Leader

The other is a caravan leader from Medina, carrying spices to Egypt. The caravan leader personally accompanies every caravan, and plays a part in defending the camel train from the numerous bandits on the way.

In this case, the caravan leader has taken on personal bodily risk, and demonstrated martial skill. These are the things which are being represented by the XP for gold mechanic, and therefore the caravan leader should be receiving XP towards his character class not only for the bandits killed and driven off along the way, but for the net profits reaped by the sale of the spices.

Note that only the net profits should be used for the calculation - otherwise you're potentially giving XP out for the same gold twice! Imagine our leader had obtained 1000gp from a dungeon delve (and received XP), sunk that whole 1000 into a caravan laden with spices, and sold the whole lot for 1250 in Egypt. Our dusty caravan leader would only get 250XP for the sale, as he's already received XP for the initial 1000gp investment.

Grey Areas

I think that by applying the tests of personal bodily risk and demonstration of martial skill, the GM should be able to intelligently make rulings on grey areas. Consider on one hand a trade route where a caravan is almost certain to be waylaid by well-armed and organized bandits or dangerous monsters, and another where there is no risk of banditry or creatures, and interpolate between the two.

XP for Gold: 20th-level Kings?

There have been Kings who have been great warriors. Richard I comes to mind. Henry VIII took his martial arts pretty seriously, if I understand correctly.

But they don't have mad levels in Fighter because of their enormous incomes.

That's because gold for XP only really makes sense for plunder. The inherent assumption in the system is that the gold in question was *guarded*, whether by traps, tricks, or monsters. It required some skill - whether in cleverly avoiding the threats, or by battle, etc. etc.

On the other hand, the income coming to a landed knight, baron, earl, count, king, etc. is due to the office, and requires no special skill, ability, or even action on the part of the earner. Similarly, if someone's father dies and leaves the 2.5 million gp, that person doesn't suddenly skyrocket 5 levels (or even one, if you're playing that you can't go up more than one level in a go). That's because they didn't do shit for it.

Windfalls, rent, investment incomes - none of these should generate XP in a gold for XP system.

Because of that, kings should be modestly levelled, if at all. An average man-at-arms or landed knight would likely have more Fighter levels than a king. (That reminds me to rant about the 0-level man-at-arms - the idea that a professional fighter doesn't have a few levels of Fighter is laughable).

King-as-class

At this point, some may be tempted to say, "OK, so kings aren't 20th-level Fighters, but maybe they're 20th-level Kings!". Well, let's examine that.

What class abilities would a King have? What do Kings do? Well, they drink and feast and hunt and whore, but those are well within the reach of anyone who has the wealth. Those don't need to be class abilities.

They conduct diplomacy, and manage the affairs of the kingdom. Or they appoint someone to do that for them. You could maybe argue that levels in King increase reaction rolls and increase kingdom revenues.

When you come right down to it, though, being a King is pretty much just being a normal guy, only richer. I have a pretty hard time accepting there's enough for a whole class there.

Where does that leave us?

Well, kings are just normal guys. They get power not through class levels, but through the dignity of their office and through the vast wealth and incomes that come with the title.

Gold is its own reward. Gold brings its own power.

You don't need to add personal power on top of the economic power wealth provides, unless there's some factor of personal bodily risk.