Orgies Inc.

Others have provided their own observations and critiques of this article, appearing in Dragon Magazine #10, October 1977.

I, likewise, applaud the proposed DnD variant for experience point acquisition.

My purpose in posting this old Dragon article is two-fold: to once again highlight the delicious whimsy of old school Dungeons and Dragons art (the above orgy scene is by the incomparable David Trampier), and demonstrate the inclusiveness and tolerance apportioned to different gameplay approaches during the early years of the hobby.

The idea of rules variants is a big-tent approach to Dungeons and Dragons. The big-tent approach was thrown under the bus as DnD transitioned from game to property (and this happened a lot earlier than some of us would like to admit) and the DnD community was impoverished by it.


Here's the first page from the Dragon article on alternative experience point acquisition. For those of you who are not already familiar with its contents ... enjoy.

Cunning, Comedy, Casual Cruelty?

If your answer to this question was The Dying Earth RPG, you'd be right.

The Dying Earth RPG is a role-playing game intended to emulate the world -- and words -- contained in Jack Vance's Dying Earth series of novels and short stories. You'll note that I did not include "Combat" in my alliterative title. I did this for a very simple reason: The Dying Earth RPG actively discourages you from engaging in mortal combat, and the game system reinforces that by making combat very deadly. You only need to take a couple of blows before your character is out-of-commission, or more likely, dead.

What then is The Dying Earth RPG about? It's about clever repartee, social combat, cunning subterfuge, laughter, and casual cruelty.

Clever Repartee

The principle game mechanic of nearly any role-playing game is the system governing the accumulation of experience points. Experience point award mechanics are important in role-playing games, as they are the mechanism permitting character upgrades. The experience point mechanic of an RPG is thus a powerful communicator of what is expected of a Player. In The Dying Earth RPG, experience points are ONLY awarded for clever repartee. No experience for combat. No experience for treasure. Just witty dialogue, elegantly framed in the Vancian style, and delivered with impeccable timing. Therefore, The Dying Earth RPG is a game like no other: it is a role-playing game to its very core.

Social Combat

I'm not a big fan of social combat systems. My reasoning is that those combat systems either encourage conflict between players (PvP conflict typically happens as a matter of course, but i'm not interested in encouraging it) or govern the interactions between player and DM (in which case, as a "fair" DM, you should be able to judge when you have been verbally bested and concede defeat, without having to resort to a die-roll). The Social Combat system in The Dying Earth RPG is based on dice pools. Each player (and any encountered NPCs) has a dice-pool made up of d6's, and can continue spending dice from their pool until they or their opponent has exhausted theirs. Scoring a 1-3 means failure, while a 4-6 means success, with the 1 and 6 being catastrophic failure and incredible success, respectively. Depending on your roll, your opponent may have to expend more, or fewer dice, to respond to your success or failure. This mechanic feels artificial to me, as I would rather engage in the actual role-playing, of two combatants trying to convince the other of the superiority of their position, but the dice-pool is a reasonable substitute, for those who are uncomfortable "talking with funny voices".

Cunning Subterfuge

Like the characters in Vance's Dying Earth books and short stories, each of the Player's characters are lazy, self-absorbed, covetous, avaricious, and arrogant. So are most of the NPC's they encounter. Therefore, the game resolves around the planning and execution of cunning strategems to gain wealth, comfort, power, prestige, fineries, and delicious food, with as little effort and risk as possible.

Laughter

As was mentioned earlier, experience points are awarded for clever repartee. This is accomplished through a mechanism whereby the DM provides several Vancian phrases to each player, prior to the start of the game session. They must weave those phrases into the game at some point during the session. For those who deliver their line, at an innapropriate time, no experience points are awarded. For those lines delivered when appropriate, but eliciting no positive response from the other game participants, one experience point is awarded. But when the line is delivered, and elicits positive responses, propels the adventure in a humorous or unexpected direction, or garners laughter from the other players and DM, two or even three experience points are awarded by the DM. Therefore, Players are encouraged to ham it up, directing the in-game conversations in such a way as to allow for the delivery of their appointed lines.

Casual Cruelty

Casual Cruelty, or "man's inhumanity to man", is a common theme in the tales of the Dying Earth. You see this in the Liane the Wayfarer stories, or in Cugel's treatment by, and of those he encounters in "The Eyes of the Overworld". The author of The Dying Earth exhorts the DM to insert scenes of casual cruelty (sparingly), establishing the nature of the cruelty, and allowing the imaginations of the players to fill in the horrifying details. He opines that a successful scene of casual cruelty will nag at the players after the game, as they think more fully of the implications.

The Dying Earth RPG allows you to run the full gamet of emotions during a role-playing session, from hilarity to horror. The Dying Earth RPG is clearly not for your typical hack-n-slasher, and is more appropriate for your more cerebral gamer. What I love about this game is its respect for the Vancian source material, and its overt discouragement of mortal combat, which is a refreshing change from the direction Dungeons and Dragons has recently been drawn to.

Vancian Magic? Prattian Magic?

"In a world governed by magic, you may find the Law of Similarity, valid."

What's the Law of Similarity?" asked Bayard sharply.

"The Law of Similarity may be stated thus: Effects resemble causes. For example, you can make it rain by pouring water on the ground, with the appropriate mumbo-jumbo."

"Another is the Law of Contagion: Things, once in contact, continue to interact from a distance after separation."

Chalmers continued. "From the elementary principles of Similarity and Contagion, we now proceed to the more practical applications of magic. First, the composition of spells. The normal spell consists of several components, which may be termed the verbal, somatic and material. In the verbal section, the consideration is whether the spell is to be based on the materials at hand, or upon the invocation of a higher authority. And the verbal component should conform to the poetic conventions of the environment."

However, there is also a somatic component to a spell, subject to more precise regulation. There is some point in connection with this component that eludes me."

(The Compleat Enchanter, L. Sprague deCamp and Fletcher Pratt)

While the old-school D&D magic system is often described as Vancian, it is actually a mish-mash of different magic systems, mixed together in an unholy goulash. Take the magic system described in deCamp and Pratt's magical misadventures of Harold Shea. In that system, spells can be created, without advance study or meditation, as long as appropriate material, verbal and somatic components are combined. While the impressing of spells upon ones mind was borrowed from Vance, the idea of material, verbal and somatic components, central to the magic system in AD&D, comes from deCamp and Pratt.

While I have a deep attachment to Vancian magic's daily spell preparation (from a game mechanic standpoint), I like the freedom of the Prattian magic system: players can produce any spell effect, on the fly, as long as they can come up with a reasonable argument for particular spell components, and can utter a convincing rhyme that would invoke the spell.

Hell, i'd give out experience points for that kind of "player skill" spell-casting.

Experience: Killing Things And Taking Their Stuff

I'm a very infrequent visitor to 4E blogs like Musings Of the Chatty DM. Sure, Chatty has some occasional insights, that can be teased out and used in my old-school games. He even ran and reported on a couple of old-school D&D sessions. That was quite adventerous of him. But by and large, it is 4E mechanics that are being discussed on his blog, something I have little interest in. However, Chatty's recent post on Re-examining the Dungeon caught my attention, and I found quite illuminating what one of his commentors had to say about experience awards in 4E.

"Part of the XP-for-killing mentality is baked into the 4E game set (and a variety of other rule sets). As your character gets better (levels) what do you get better at?

You get better at killing things.

Virtually all your new powers are about new ways to kill things. You may get a slight increase in your skills (the non-killing part of the game) but these are not new powers. Thus it makes sense that if the focus is about getting better at killing stuff, then you are learning from killing things, ie. XP for killing stuff.

Who has a saving-the-princess skill? No one. The reward for a quest, such as saving the princess, is an abstraction that is a package deal for everything you did to get to that part (of which 'killing' is usually a big part) since you can’t go up in an actual saving-the-princess skill.

Bear in mind that XP is not the reward for killing stuff or for accomplishing goals. XP is a placeholder for the actual reward, which is leveling up.

By taking a look at what a character gains as part of the leveling process, we can see what the actual reward is.

In 4E it is the ability to better kill stuff."

Now, this post could just has easily been a criticism levelled at old-school D&D. After all, i've heard (too many times) that original Dungeons & Dragons was all about killing things and taking their stuff -- as if the mere incessant aping of that trite statement somehow makes it true.

To be sure, there was combat and treasure in original D&D. But, as I hope I have been demonstrating in my posts on experience awards, the bulk of the experience in original D&D was gained from treasure, not combat. It was expected, by the game designers, that the players would find ways to obtain the treasure by cleverness and subterfuge, not by violence and main strength. Not everyone played it that way. And to the extent that they did not, the fault lies with the game designers, not the players: one, the award system was not well communicated; two, the treasure for experience mechanic didn't resonate with those unfamiliar with the swords and sorcery genre.

4E on the other hand has done an excellent job of communicating its' award system. Experience awards are doled out when you kill things. And when you kill things, you level up, thus getting better at killing things.

Was original D&D any different, ask those who killed-and-took-stuff from the beginning, and those who came late to the game, but hear others claim it was always played that way.

Holmes Basic DnD: Experience Points

All this talk on the interwebs about what image most captures your conception of Dungeons and Dragons has me thinking about the Basic Dungeons and Dragons rule set, edited by Dr. J. Eric Holmes.

Published in 1977, the illustration on the box cover of Holmes D&D was the first full cover treatment, that I had ever seen, of a D&D encounter between adventurers and a dragon. It blew my then 11 year old mind, and was the subject of much day-dreaming.

The cover, by David Sutherland III, shows two adventurers -- a blond, pointy-hatted wizard, and a heavily-armed and armored fighter, aiming his bow and arrow -- confronting a roused red dragon lying atop an immense hoard of treasure. The wizard is holding a torch and casting a spell with his wand, as the two stand in an archway made by two pillars. The final encounter in the Dungeon, or at least the most rewarding, if the adventurers are successful and cart all of that treasure back to town!

Holmes D&D is, arguably, the most flexible of all iterations of Dungeons and Dragons. I say this mostly because it is incredibly rules-light, being only 48 pages of rules (for character levels 1-3), compared to the 64 pages for Moldvay, and Mentzer, D&D rules. It's "lean-ness" provides more opportunity to "play it your way", but Holmes is explicit in encouraging that freedom.

"A final word to the Dungeon Master from the authors. These rules are intended as guidelines. No two Dungeon Masters run their dungeons quite the same way, as anyone who has learned the game with one group and then transferred to another can easily attest. You are sure to encounter situations not covered by these rules. Improvise. Agree on a probability that an event will occur and convert it into a die roll -- roll the number and see what happens! The game is intended to be fun and the rules modified if the players desire. Do not hesitate to invent, create and experiment with new ideas. Imagination is the key to a good game. Enjoy!"

Holmes had his own idea of regarding the purpose of adventuring in D&D. He has this to say about the course of an adventure, and the rewards to be pursued.

"Many gamers start with a trip across country to get to the entrance of a dungeon. A trip apt to be punctuated by attacks by brigands or wandering monsters or marked by strange and unusual encounters. The party then enters the underworld, tries to capture the maximum treasure with the minimal risk, and escape alive."

Holmes, like other editors of D&D rulesets, encouraged players to recover as much treasure as possible, while avoiding any associated risks. While no definitive directions were given on the proportion of treasure to be awarded (compared to the amount of experience that the characters were expected to receive as a result of defeating monsters) Holmes does provide us with a sample dungeon, stocked with denizens and loot. In that dungeon you can recover 4500 gp worth of treasure, and obtain 750 xp from monsters, in addition to recovering two scrolls, a +1 dagger and two magic swords. The experience points from monsters equals 15% of the experience points. Therefore, 85% of the experience is derived from the treasure (not counting the magic items).

Mentzer D&D: Experience Points

Every version of Dungeons and Dragons, along with most of the other competing fantasy role-playing games, provide their own take on the awarding of experience points. I've already covered the rules for awarding experience points in The Fantasy Trip, The Arduin Grimoire, Dragons At Dawn and 4E game systems.

The 1983, Mentzer version of D&D (a series of D&D rulebooks sometimes referred to BECMI) provided another take on the awarding of experience. It is interesting to see the evolution of experience awards. Although Mentzer D&D still focused on experience for treasure and monsters defeated, the explication was becoming ever more specific.

"Did you notice that you get a lot of experience for treasure, and not much for killing monsters? It's better to avoid killing, if you can, by tricking monsters or using magic to calm them down. You can sometimes avoid the risks of combat." (Players Manual, page 12)

As has been explained better elsewhere, the reward systems of early versions of D&D were all about searching for and looting ancient treasure hoards (that were often also guarded by fell beasts). If the looting of the treasure could be accomplished without having to face the "risks of combat", all that much the better.

And speaking of treasure, in Mentzer D&D there was a 1 in 6 chance that treasure would be in an otherwise empty room, a 2 in 6 chance of treasure in a trapped room, and a 3 in 6 chance of treasure in a room occupied by monsters.

Dragons At Dawn: Experience Points

Anyone who has been following the old-school blogs for a while will remember the 2010 release of the Dragons At Dawn (D @ D) roleplaying game. Edited by D.H. Boggs, D @ D is a meticulously researched re-creation of the original fantasy game, as played by Dave Arneson at his gaming table from 1970-1973. That was prior to Arneson's collaboration with Gary Gygax, resulting in the 1974 printing of a little boxed set called Dungeons & Dragons.

D.H. Boggs did an admirable job of re-constructing those early rules and game approaches. Boggs also provided several direct quotes from Dave Arneson, on his approach to running a fantasy game and doling out experience points. I find Arneson's comments and original experience point system instructive, as it reveals just how far removed modern experience point systems are from the original purpose of the mechanic. Here's what Arneson had to say about experience points for roleplaying, as quoted in D @ D.

"The all pay lip-service to the roleplaying part, but they all end just having you roll different dice for different situations. There again, that has taken away from a lot of the spontaneity of actually roleplaying. When I do my games, I give roleplaying points for people staying within their character. If they want to go out and kill things, that's easy to do, and a lot of referees, that's all they do, but there's more to it. The richness is not in just rolling dice, the richness is in the characters and becoming part of this fantasy world." (Dave Arneson, Pegasus Magazine #14, 1999)

Not surprisingly, much of the criticism of later versions of D&D (and those other fantasy roleplaying games that have touted themselves as improvements to D&D) has been the focus, and pre-occupation, with making combat more prominent, cinematic, interesting, or (shudder) verisimilitudinous. Every version of D&D, and most competing systems, seem to spill inordinate amounts of ink creating ever-more elaborate and labyrinthine combat systems. This has culminated in what some players, of later versions of fantasy roleplaying games, lovingly refer to as "the grind", where most, or all of the gaming session is spent on one, or a few, combats.

Original D&D is oft-criticized for it's simplistic 'experience-for-gold-looted' mechanic. A fair criticism, from those who demand verisimilitude in their fantasy roleplaying. It is not realistic, they argue, that a person gains experience for lifting some gold and treasure out of a hole in the ground, don't you know.

D @ D uses a different set of methods for awarding experience points. One of those may be passing-familiar to those who use an 'experience-for-gold-squandered' mechanic.

"Wizards: Experience points are awarded to Wizards when they successfully complete the creation of a spell in the laboratory....Neither use nor casting of spells counts towards experience. If the player continues to make the same spell over and over, the referee may at some point opt not to recognize more experience points for it or give some lesser percentage. Likewise, the referee may opt to award more experience for successful new research.

Priests: Priests are awarded one experience point for every gold piece worth of treasure donated to their faith or otherwise spent in the service of their religion. Treasure must be gotten through the Priest's personal adventuring and cannot be donated by anyone else. Referees may take away experience points for any behaviour contradictory to the tenants [sic] of the Priest's faith.

All other classes: All other classes are awarded one experience point for every gold piece spent in accordance with the nature of the character. Referee's [sic] and players may develop special interests for the characters if desired, or simply award the points for any spending which is voluntary and not for some unusual project such as freeing a hostage or donating to a bridge construction project. Only cold, hard cash won through adventuring and subsequently spent may be converted to experience points." (page 43)

In the fantasy game originally played by Arneson, it was primarily through the recovery, and appropriate expenditure, of long-lost treasure hoards, that characters advanced in levels. Appropriate expenditure is a critical component for all classes, as it is only through the expenditure of gold (and the Wizard's case, both expenditure of gold for the spell-making materials, and time, in creating his spells) in ways meaningful to the character's motivations and interests that the characters can advance.

If you have not taken note yet, let me draw something striking about this experience points system to your attention now. No experience points for monsters killed in D @ D.

Monsters certainly appeared in Arneson's games, and were an obstacle to the recovery of treasure, but their destruction did not merit experience points.

Imagine removing the benefit of experience for monsters-killed and think just how radically this would change the nature of your fantasy roleplaying game.

The Fantasy Trip And Experience Awards

In the late 1970's, Metagaming Concept's The Fantasy Trip was briefly in the hunt as a competitor to TSR's Dungeons and Dragons.

The Fantasy Trip, comprised of the Melee and Wizard microgames, was developed by Steve Jackson, when he was still a fresh-faced game developer working for Howard Thompson at Metagaming. Steve went on to develop Metagaming's advanced version of The Fantasy Trip: In The Labyrinth, Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard.

While Melee and Wizard started out as straight-up arena combat simulations, the Fantasy Trip franchise morphed into a role-playing game as additional products were added to the line. By the time In The Labyrinth was published, in 1980, experience points and leveling up had become the standard approach to fantasy role-playing character improvement, and appeared in this game. But while D&D was strongly class-oriented, The Fantasy Trip was among the earliest of the skill-based systems.

Experience Awards in The Fantasy Trip were doled out for a host of activities. Here is what Steve Jackson had to say about experience.

"The record sheet is also the place where you keep track of experience points. The GM will award (or subtract) experience points as you play; they are your character's reward for staying in character and achieving his objectives, whatever they are.

The object of this game is the same as that of life itself -- to survive and to better yourself at your chosen pursuits. Experience points are awarded by the Game Master whenever a character does something "well." Any action which would teach the character something (or which shows that he's learned his lessons well) should be worth experience points. Trying a valiant action and failing should also be worth something.

Experience should be awarded as follows:

FOR COMBAT: One experience point for every hit of damage you put on a foe... [and] the person dealing the killing blow to any enemy gets experience points equal to the foe's basic Dex.

FOR CASTING SPELLS: A Character gets one [experience point] for each point of strength expended in trying to cast a spell in a pressure situation. Spells cast in creation of magic items are a special case. Give a wizard 20 xp for each week he spends creating magical items.

FOR DIE ROLLS: Making a saving throw against danger (thus avoiding it) or putting one of your talents to good use (thus learning more) are worth experience. Any character who successfully makes any roll on 4 or more dice will get experience points: 10 for a 4 die roll, 20 for a 5 die roll, and 30 for a 6 die roll.

FOR TIME SPENT IN PLAY: Each hour of real time spent in play is worth 5 experience points to each character actively involved. The GM should not award points to characters who don't participate or who waste time deliberately.

GAME MASTER'S DISCRETION: The Game Master can give out extra experience points (or take them away) whenever he feels it proper. The GM might give out extra experience points to a character who figured out a riddle, defeated or frightened enemies by a cute trick, or even cheated the other players out of treasure. Points should be taken away for actions that are very out-of-character, or for very stupid actions...." (In The Labyrinth, page 10)

Considering that The Fantasy Trip was a skills-based role-playing game, experience awards for making die-rolls makes a certain amount of sense. After all, the player selected the skill, out of a myriad of choices, and then had the wherewithal to use that skill during the game (hopefully in an unexpected and novel way).

Arduin's Experience Point System

The Arduin Grimoire is one of those rule sets that is hard to take seriously, and yet hard to dismiss. The Arduin Grimoire, Volume I -- the first of nine Arduin Grimoire volumes -- was introduced in 1977. The series chronicled the gonzo Dungeons and Dragons house-ruling of Dave Hargrave. The Arduin Grimoire is notable not only for its odd fusion of fantasy and sci-fi, and being the first published house-rules for Dungeons and Dragons, but also its early disagreement with the "experience points for gold" system employed in OD&D.

Hargrave had this to say about the awarding of experience points, in Volume I of his Arduin Grimoires:

"In the Arduin Universe, the ability to advance to higher levels is based on earned merit and not on the acquisition of treasure. Therefore, points are given for many reasons, but NOT for gold or other treasure. After all, it is the act of robbery, not the amount stolen, that gives the thief his experience." (page 2)

Hargrave had little to say, in the first Volume of the Arduin Grimoire, about experience for monsters killed. Presumably, he agreed with awarding experience for defeating monsters. However, he did provide an alternate experience points chart to replace the "experience points for gold" system, which I provide, below.

Death (with successful revival), reincarnation, curse changed into another type entity -- 400 xp

Being sole survivor of expedition, acquiring the mightiest of artifacts (Satan's own pitchfork, nuclear weapons, phasers, etc.) -- 375 xp

Defeating in single combat, demi-gods or major demons (above and beyond the normal points) -- 350 xp

Defeating in normal combat, any creature that is four times your size or is 20 hit dice or larger (whichever is greater) -- 325 xp

Acquiring a major artifact (machine gun, explosives, staff of black wizardry, wish rings with 5 or more wishes, etc.) -- 300 xp

Doing spells of tremendous magical import (the conjuring of major demon, using a gate spell, raising the dead fully and the like) -- 275 xp

Being cursed, acquiring a cursed item, dying but being regenerated back to life, using spells of major magical import (astral body, teleporting, prismatic wall, etc) -- 250 xp

Acquiring most staffs, major rods (lordly might), using a single wish, acquiring +5 weapons or armour, and doing heavy magic spells (wind walk, phase door, cure disease, raising the dead, regenerate manna points or limbs, etc) -- 225 xp

Acquiring items that are +4, magic items that are unusual (wands of wizardry, slaver's lash, etc), doing difficult spells like: limited wishes, all psychically draining one like: ESP and the like -- 200 xp

Acquiring +3 items, wands, most rings and amulets, and doing spells such as transmuting rock to mud, monster summoning and the like -- 175 xp

Being point man, acquiring +2 items, lesser rings, amulets, etc, doing spells like dimension door, deactivate traps, polymorph self, and the like -- 150 xp

Acquiring single or limited use items (single shot, spell storing rings, etc), +1 items, doing spells like: wizard eye, or throwing a thunderbolt that kills the B.E.M. just in time to save the party -- 125 xp

Being expedition leader, coming within one point of dying, acquiring potions (100 points per dose), scrolls (100 points per level/use), and for doing spells like: create food and water, mass invisibility, etc -- 100 xp

Being rear guard, doing simple detection spells -- 75 xp

Figuring out a trap, tripping one and taking damage, all lesser spell use (locks, knocks, winds) going over half damage, doing extra dangerous and uncalled for acts (checking for secret places, when you know there are traps, etc -- 50 xp

There's lots that can be said about Dave Hargraves alternate experience points system. At the higher levels, the experience points awards seem meager compared to the risks and accomplishments. 375 experience points for recovering Satan's own pitchfork? 300 experience points for acquiring the staff of black wizardry? Apparently Dave was pretty stingy with his experience awards.

On the other hand, there are some interesting observations here. Giving extra experience to the expedition leader, point man, and rear guard is a good idea. Experience for figuring out a trap -- assuming it was done with "player skill" -- is also appropriate. Experience points for magic spells cast is more problematic for me, since it is a character skill, and players already get experience for monsters killed by magic.

Other than slowing down the awarding of experience, all that the Arduin experience point system has done is to replace experience points for gold with experience points for magical treasure. If one can criticize xp for gold as being unrealistic, would the same criticism not apply to xp for magic items?

Doling Out Experience Points

I picked up the new 4E Dungeons and Dragons Starter Set ("4E Red Box") on the weekend. It was my first in-depth look at 4E, and it was illuminating to see just how far Hasbro's 4th Edition D&D game has strayed from the roots of original D&D. Nowhere is that more pronounced than in the doling out of experience points.

I'm a firm believer that systems matter, that rewards matter. The systems of rewards that a game employs sends a message about what is expected of its players. If a game rewards players for staying in character, they will focus on that. If it rewards them for looting ancient treasure-hoards, they will do so. If it rewards them for the completion of quests, they will seek them out. If it rewards players for engaging in combat, they will pursue that activity.

Tom Moldvay had this to say about experience points, in the 1980 Basic D&D rulebook:

"Experience points are given for non-magical treasure and for defeating monsters. For every 1 gp value of non-magical treasure the characters recover, the DM should give 1 XP to the party. Experience points are also given for monsters killed or overcome by magic, fighting or wits. The DM may also award extra XP to characters who deserve them (fighting a dangerous monster alone, or saving the party with a great idea) and less XP to characters who did less than their fair share." (page B22)

"The choices [of treasure] should be made carefully, since most of the experience the characters will get will be from treasure, usually 3/4 or more." (page B46)

B/X D&D allows for the earning of experience through combat, but also permits players to gain the equivalent experience points by overcoming monsters through magic and clever play. However, according to Moldvay, most (3/4 or more) of the experience points are intended to come from the recovery of treasure. Therefore, the main goal of characters is to seek out and recover treasure, and, to a lesser extent, fight monsters and use the player's wits.

Compare this to the new 4E Red Box. If I understand the rules correctly, you obtain experience in 4E by performing two activities: completing encounters and concluding quests. Following the experience point guidelines, in the adventure supplied in the 4E Red Box, the players obtain 80% of their experience from encounters (combat) and 20% from quests. Therefore, the 4E D&D players are expected to do two things: battle monsters, and, to a lesser extent, investigate and resolve the plot-hooks laid out by the DM. And while there is monetary treasure to be had in 4E D&D, i'm not sure what purpose it serves, since the characters get no experience from treasure, and never seem to need money to buy things in 4E.

In B/X D&D, characters get the same experience points, whether they defeat a monster by magic, combat, or clever play. But in the example adventure supplied in the 4E Red Box, if you avoid combat with a White Dragon through clever play (ie. rolling some dice during a skill challenge), you get only 300 xp for the encounter, rather than the 750 xp obtained for defeating the dragon in combat. Therefore, the message to players is that they should engage in combat, rather than role-play an encounter.

It's no wonder, then, that many people, who have played D&D since first edition, express bafflement at the direction the game has taken. It was drilled into our brains, from early on, that combat was dangerous. It was to be avoided if possible, and if it could not be avoided, players made sure they stacked the deck in their favour, prior to the commencement of hostilities. On the other hand, 4E encourages combat, discourages role-playing (since it punishes those who use skill-challenge rather than martial solutions), and rewards players that allow themselves to be led by the nose towards the satisfaction of pre-determined quests.

My FLGS had at least 100 copies of the new 4E Red Box on display over the weekend. Clearly, people are buying, playing, and enjoying, 4E D&D. I wonder if they are aware of, and agree with the system of rewards built into 4E? Is it okay with them that the 4E system explicitly discourages role-playing, rewards combat over all else, and encourages passive acceptance of pre-determined quests?