I am not arguing with where you came out on Moldvey’s design. But I wonder how have so many people totally missed it, because this is absolutely not the game you play in 3e, Pathfinder, 4e or 5e.
It’s complicated. The “missing it” predates the publication of the game! D&D inherits more from Gygax’s AD&D books (78-79) than it does from Basic set (81). And Basic was handed over to a sycophant of Gygax who had a different idea about the point of the game.
But our point isn’t that one is better, but that the rules shape play and play shapes community.
Howdy! I think it would useful for each essay in the series to link to the other ones; I found this one, and it linked to part 1, but part 1 doesn't link to part 2 (as far as I can tell).
So, without having read the articles in the middle, I'm not sure that xp-for-monsters is being given fair treatment.
> Defeating the goblin, while hideously risky, is not entirely pointless. Hopefully, it advances the character toward their greater goal of treasure and, at least, provides the consolation prize of 5 experience points.
I don't think it's quite fair to claim that defeating a goblin is hideously risky. What's the actual chance that a single goblin kills a party of ~4th level characters? Heck, a single 5th level magic user can blow up dozens of goblins with a single fireball, and have that fireball spell back in the morning.
As far as I can tell from analyzing many of the old TSR modules, XP from monsters accounts for somewhere between 1/5th and 1/3rd of the total XP. The scaling is also interesting: A 4 HD Ogre is worth 125 XP, but does not feel like it's 25x more risky to fight than a goblin.
But to your broader point! Yeah, combat is disincentivized and extracting treasure is emphasized. If you can extract treasure without fighting, you're doing well!
I am not arguing with where you came out on Moldvey’s design. But I wonder how have so many people totally missed it, because this is absolutely not the game you play in 3e, Pathfinder, 4e or 5e.
It’s complicated. The “missing it” predates the publication of the game! D&D inherits more from Gygax’s AD&D books (78-79) than it does from Basic set (81). And Basic was handed over to a sycophant of Gygax who had a different idea about the point of the game.
But our point isn’t that one is better, but that the rules shape play and play shapes community.
Oh sure. I get there’s no judgement. But I do wonder what community would have come to be if we were playing the game you’re describing.
Howdy! I think it would useful for each essay in the series to link to the other ones; I found this one, and it linked to part 1, but part 1 doesn't link to part 2 (as far as I can tell).
So, without having read the articles in the middle, I'm not sure that xp-for-monsters is being given fair treatment.
> Defeating the goblin, while hideously risky, is not entirely pointless. Hopefully, it advances the character toward their greater goal of treasure and, at least, provides the consolation prize of 5 experience points.
I don't think it's quite fair to claim that defeating a goblin is hideously risky. What's the actual chance that a single goblin kills a party of ~4th level characters? Heck, a single 5th level magic user can blow up dozens of goblins with a single fireball, and have that fireball spell back in the morning.
As far as I can tell from analyzing many of the old TSR modules, XP from monsters accounts for somewhere between 1/5th and 1/3rd of the total XP. The scaling is also interesting: A 4 HD Ogre is worth 125 XP, but does not feel like it's 25x more risky to fight than a goblin.
But to your broader point! Yeah, combat is disincentivized and extracting treasure is emphasized. If you can extract treasure without fighting, you're doing well!