D&D 5E XP is a major weapon in the DM arsenal

[The Crimson Binome]

The in game reality is that modeled by the rules. The rules are those agree upon at the table, and the XP awards are well within the GMs purview to alter to fit the tone of the game. In a Bushido style game where the XP awards are only granted for a fair victory then a Samurai's honor literally prevents him from learning from an unfair victory. Indeed similar rules are quite common in games with a focus on martial honor.

A samurai cannot learn to become a better samurai through acting with un-samurai-like conduct, and the rules should reflect that if it is true. The old AD&D rules certainly did. That's less a question of what rules you want to reflect the given reality, and more a question of which reality you want to play in.

In point of fact XP is a meta-game concept and is entirely external to the reality of the game world with the sole exception of Magic Item crafting under the 3e system.

Your statement is unequivocally false. You are either trolling, or dangerously ignorant of the facts.

Furthermore standard rules for XP commonly address gameplay style concerns which is why you can't level up by the skeleton in a box trick.

You can't level up by killing a skeleton in a box because the rules of the game only reflect the in-game reality, rather than define it. Experience Points represent what the character learns by overcoming challenges, and you can't learn anything by disposing of a non-threatening enemy. The power of the DM to adjudicate experience awards is meant to reflect these concerns.

 

[Andor]

You are either trolling, or dangerously ignorant of the facts.

Indeed, I present a clear and present danger, and I can only hope someone will stop me before I post again.

 

[Fanaelialae]

D&D is a role-playing game, which means the mechanics of the game reflect how the game world works. Experience Points represent what the character has learned, in terms of adventuring skills and the ability to fight. Failing to award Experience Points for beating an encounter through violence, just because you're nominally adhering to a court-style theme for the game, would be meta-gaming - you're adjudicating the in-game reality of how the world works (how characters gain skill and become better at fighting), based on factors which are entirely external to the game (your choice to perceive the game as court-style rather than hack-and-slash).

Your perception of the in-game reality cannot possibly change how that in-game reality actually works. Any suggestions otherwise are fundamentally repugnant to the concept of role-playing.

I disagree. If xp truly represents what a PC learns, then why does my diplomacy bonus increase (via proficiency increase, or perhaps acquiring a feat that trains the skill) in a hack and slash campaign?

You can even clearly see the meta aspect of xp in the history of the game. In 1e, you gained the bulk of xp by returning from adventure with GOLD. 1 gp = 1 xp. While it was strongly frowned upon, if the DM placed a giant pile of gold in the first room if the dungeon with no traps or monsters, the PCs could just grab the treasure, run back to town, and level up. Gygax did this not because gold contained materia-like knowledge, but because he wanted to encourage smart play. If you could trick the orcs out of their gold, you'd gain almost the same xp as if you'd fought them, but at a fraction of the risk.

If that's what xp represent in your game, fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that it is a fairly gamist construct by RAW. In order for it to be as you suggest, xp would need to only improve those features that you actually use.

 

[robus]

D&D is a role-playing game, which means the mechanics of the game reflect how the game world works. Experience Points represent what the character has learned, in terms of adventuring skills and the ability to fight. Failing to award Experience Points for beating an encounter through violence, just because you're nominally adhering to a court-style theme for the game, would be meta-gaming - you're adjudicating the in-game reality of how the world works (how characters gain skill and become better at fighting), based on factors which are entirely external to the game (your choice to perceive the game as court-style rather than hack-and-slash).

Your perception of the in-game reality cannot possibly change how that in-game reality actually works. Any suggestions otherwise are fundamentally repugnant to the concept of role-playing.

This seems a bit harsh. It is a game after all. If the players want to "role-play" with a certain approach as the OP suggested, then tying XP to the successful implementation of that approach seems like a great idea? They're rewarded for playing within the rules they've prescribed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I disagree. If xp truly represents what a PC learns, then why does my diplomacy bonus increase (via proficiency increase, or perhaps acquiring a feat that trains the skill) in a hack and slash campaign?

You can even clearly see the meta aspect of xp in the history of the game. In 1e, you gained the bulk of xp by returning from adventure with GOLD.

It's not metagaming. The whole concept of character levels is about simplification. In much the same way that the Navier-Stokes equations can be simplified down to Bernoulli's principle by making certain reasonable assumptions, we can use levels to represent the progression of a character by making certain assumptions about how they act.

Your bonus to various skills should only increase via adventuring because we assume that you're using those skills in the course of the adventure. In practice, this tends to work out, because players are less likely to invest in diplomatic skills if the campaign doesn't call for them; and even if they did invest in those skills, they're unlikely to affect much in that game. When choosing how to simplify our model, it's not a major loss if things get weird around situations that don't actually occur.

Note that this whole premise only holds from about 2E and onward. Prior to that, the D&D ruleset wasn't much concerned with the concept of role-playing. For whatever else he may be credited, Gygax was clearly more interested in challenging the players, and possibly telling a cool story, than with presenting an internally-consistent world. If you read back through the Basic rules, he is quite insistent upon that point. It wasn't until he was removed from the project that D&D really became a role-playing game, in the modern sense of the term.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

D&D is a role-playing game, which means the mechanics of the game reflect how the game world works. Experience Points represent what the character has learned, in terms of adventuring skills and the ability to fight. Failing to award Experience Points for beating an encounter through violence, just because you're nominally adhering to a court-style theme for the game, would be meta-gaming - you're adjudicating the in-game reality of how the world works (how characters gain skill and become better at fighting), based on factors which are entirely external to the game (your choice to perceive the game as court-style rather than hack-and-slash).

Your perception of the in-game reality cannot possibly change how that in-game reality actually works. Any suggestions otherwise are fundamentally repugnant to the concept of role-playing.

That's more than a little one-true-wayist. D&D is a game, and a group is free to change the rules any way they want to. I'm a huge proponent of realism in RPGs, but the point doesn't really apply here. There are no such thing as XP in real life. A realistic RPG would award skill advancement mostly for training.

I think the OP was right on. XP are a powerful tool for shaping the type of play you see in a game.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Indeed, I present a clear and present danger, and I can only hope someone will stop me before I post again.

Someone call John Clark!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's more than a little one-true-wayist. D&D is a game, and a group is free to change the rules any way they want to. I'm a huge proponent of realism in RPGs, but the point doesn't really apply here. There are no such thing as XP in real life. A realistic RPG would award skill advancement mostly for training.

I think the OP was right on. XP are a powerful tool for shaping the type of play you see in a game.

There are lots of ways that you could play D&D, but if that way involves meta-gaming, then you're not playing D&D as an RPG. RPGs are a sub-set of games which preclude the choice of meta-gaming. Meta-gaming (playing the game as though it's a game) is mutually exclusive with role-playing (playing the game as though you were the character). If you're talking about using the rules of the game to reward the player at the table, then you're definitionally introducing information that the character is unaware of, and you're expecting that information to change how the character makes their decisions!

Realism is a separate axis entirely. You can play an RPG in a world that isn't realistic, as long as the rules of the game reflect how that world actually works. As long as the character is making decisions based on how they understand the world to work, that's still role-playing.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

On a second read, Saelorn's post made a bit more sense to me, but I still disagree. In an RPG there is a game-fiction, a consensus, shared idea of how the world works, and IMO it is more important than the rules. The rules do not determine the game fiction because no set of rules that is concise enough to be usable can also be expansive enough to fully describe the game fiction. When the rules inadequately describe the game fiction, one should ignore the rules and go with the fiction. However, Saelorn assumes that the game-fiction is immutable. This is not the case. A group is as free to change the fiction as it is to change rules, setting, or any other element of the game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's not metagaming. The whole concept of character levels is about simplification. In much the same way that the Navier-Stokes equations can be simplified down to Bernoulli's principle by making certain reasonable assumptions, we can use levels to represent the progression of a character by making certain assumptions about how they act.

Your bonus to various skills should only increase via adventuring because we assume that you're using those skills in the course of the adventure. In practice, this tends to work out, because players are less likely to invest in diplomatic skills if the campaign doesn't call for them; and even if they did invest in those skills, they're unlikely to affect much in that game. When choosing how to simplify our model, it's not a major loss if things get weird around situations that don't actually occur.

Note that this whole premise only holds from about 2E and onward. Prior to that, the D&D ruleset wasn't much concerned with the concept of role-playing. For whatever else he may be credited, Gygax was clearly more interested in challenging the players, and possibly telling a cool story, than with presenting an internally-consistent world. If you read back through the Basic rules, he is quite insistent upon that point. It wasn't until he was removed from the project that D&D really became a role-playing game, in the modern sense of the term.

I didn't say it was metagaming. I said it was meta.

There are plenty of DMs out there who would grant xp for killing a bunch of orcs by dropping a boulder on them. Can you explain to me what squishing a bunch of humanoids by pushing a large rock would teach my fighter about swinging a sword or my wizard about casting spells? IMO, D&D awards xp for killing monsters because it is a game about heroic adventure and that is what adventure heroes do.

Heck, even 2e had the optional xp rules where rogues got xp for gold.

Sorry, but I disagree. 1e most certainly is a role playing game. And if you've ever opened a 1e DMG, it is obvious that Gygax was quite interested in maintaining an internally-consistent world. While he was heavily invested in challenging the players (as should we all IMO - it is a GAME after all), it wasn't at the expense of verisimilitude. He simply recognized, like the OP, that xp is a powerful motivating factor. Both in the rewarding of certain behaviors (acquiring gold through clever means), and penalizing of them (acting against your alignment).