XP: When and how do you decide the value of an encounter?

[Reynard]

I was reading through the Dragon Age GM's guide, in which it explicitly suggests awarding XP based on the difficulty of an encounter -- which is assessed *after* the encounter occurs. This got me to thinking about D&D and XP and various philosophies about XP rewards.

Some people (like me!) prefer to establish an XP reward for the encounter during its design -- or, more often than not, let the game determine for me what the XP value of the encounter is. Four orcs? That's 100 XP! (or some variation thereof). If the PCs are unlucky, perform poorly as a team or otherwise end up having a serious problem with those four orcs, thems, as they say, is the breaks.

Other people, when presented with that encounter gone awry, choose to reward XP as if it weren't, for example, four orcs, but four ogres. They gave the party trouble as if they were ogres, and ogres would certainly be worth more than orcs, so it follows that those orcs should be treated, XP wise, as ogres.

And, of course, there are many people who fall somewhere between these extremes, being all snow-flakey and special.

Which one is "right" or preferable leads inevitibly to questions of what XP is, and who is it for. Is it a player reward mechanism? Does it represent some metaphysical force or quality? Is it a simulation of learning? Different answers to these questions will inform how one awards XP, or expects it to be awarded.

In addition, how do other rewards such as treasure fit in? If one is willing to consider an encounter more difficult than it should be for the XP awarded, should the treasure from the encounter not also be increased?

 

[Vegepygmy]

The way I've been doing it recently is to judge the difficulty after the encounter. For example, last session my players fought a wererat (CR 4) and a giant cockroach (CR 2). As the battle wore on (it went 10 rounds), they whittled the roach down to about half its hit points, at which point I decided the mindless vermin's survival instincts would kick in and it scuttled off. The wererat dropped one of the PCs and was close to taking down another, and after that there was at least some chance it would turn into a TPK. I decided the wererat (who had lost about a third of his hit points and could see that all of the PCs were armed with silvered weapons) would rather live to fight another day, though, so he jumped into a river and swam out of sight (none of the PCs daring to pursue him into unknown waters).

Based on all that, I decided the PCs deserved about 1/2 the experience they would have gotten for "fully" overcoming the challenge. I couldn't have decided that in advance, because I didn't know their enemies would flee until the situation developed.

 

[Reynard]

Based on all that, I decided the PCs deserved about 1/2 the experience they would have gotten for "fully" overcoming the challenge. I couldn't have decided that in advance, because I didn't know their enemies would flee until the situation developed.

Interesting. Usually, a suggestion is given to lower XP amounts if the encounter is too easy, or increase them if it is too hard. But you bring up another option: what do you do with the XP reward when the PCs flee? (Although the villains fled in your examples, it was effectively the PCs fleeing since you had them flee to save the PCs -- something I would never do myself, but that's a different thread entirely.)

 

[Nagol]

I set the reward (whatever type) during design time.

Sometimes, encounters get redesigned at the table and the consequences of player actions ripple out and in those cases I'll redesign the rewards as well as the other aspects of the encounter.

One of the reasons I like this approach is it incentises the players to approach encounters with an eye to make them as easy as possible as opposed to simply wade into them.

If the players manage to arrange an easier than expected win, excellent work! Here's a high reward / risk ratio!

If the players manage to turn an encounter into something much much harder than originally expected, then the low reward / work + danger ratio should tug them in a different direction next time.

 

[Reynard]

One of the reasons I like this approach is it incentises the players to approach encounters with an eye to make them as easy as possible as opposed to simply wade into them.

I agree. Relatedly, it is one of the reasons I like the "XP for treasure" of previous editions, despite how illogical it may seem. If the PCs get most of their XP from treasure, they tend to play very differently than if they get most of their XP from monsters. Specifically in the latter case, they tend to kill everything in sight and get themselves killed a lot more.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Which one is "right" or preferable leads inevitibly to questions of what XP is, and who is it for. Is it a player reward mechanism? Does it represent some metaphysical force or quality? Is it a simulation of learning?

It's a right, masquerading as a reward.

 

[Reynard]

It's a right, masquerading as a reward.

That's an interesting way to look at it. Can the right be waived? Does it come with any attached responsibilities? Is it freely given, or must it be earned?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

*Special Snowflake*

I don't give XP anymore. I level everyone up when it's appropriate.

 

[caudor]

I setup XP awards while designing or preparing an adventure. If they flee an encounter, I don't award the XP...at least until they recover and go back to finish the job.

If they never go back, they simply move on to something else and earn XP from some other encounters.

XP is the primary means of progression in game terms, so I stick pretty close to the rules as written. For me, things seem to work out well since I don't often wind up with overpowered or underpowered PCs.

 

[Amaroq]

In general, I write up an XP value as I write the encounter, using the published material for the system.

However, I will adjust these values upwards if it turns out that there was a great deal of synergy built into the monster types, terrain, etc, which make the encounter harder.

For example, a creature which can knock a PC prone on its turn might be worth 200 XP for its defenses, HP, etc. When on its own, knocking somebody Prone is a fairly minor advantage.

Likeiwse, a creature who can unleash a massive attack only against Prone enemies, but knocks Prone only in limited situations, might be worth 200 XP also.

Paired together, those guys might be worth more than 400 XP because the first one's ability to knock Prone highly increases the second one's odds of unleashing its massive attack against a Prone target.

That's not a great example, but it gets the point across - I've certainly tossed encounters at the party only to discover some synergies between the monsters that surprised me in how powerful they are. Typically my players really enjoy the extra difficult encounter that follows, but I do figure its worth more XP, so I bump it up.

We also award an MVP each session, and I grant said MVP an XP boost as well, a bit of a reward for the other players appreciating your talents.