Do you or have you ever penalized characters in terms of XP?

[Herremann the Wise]

Hello Everyone,

Do you or have you ever penalized characters in terms of Experience Points?

I was doing some random pondering regarding the attitude towards killing enemy NPCs. Occasionally with my group, they have killed enemy NPCs without too much thought about the process. Digging a little deeper, I think the main reason for this somewhat cavalier approach is that dead men generally don't seek revenge and so permanently dealing with such NPCs is not only "wise" but passively expected and encouraged (as long as you also get to take their stuff).

Now I don't want to delve too deeply into the morals of this style of character behaviour but in essence when committing murder in a game, I don't think I have every penalized XP - although I do remember instances of deliberately holding back XP in similar situations. However, is penalizing XP too strong a measure in terms of trying to put a little morality back into the game at the expense of killing and taking their stuff? I suppose you can always have local authorites deal with the PC "murderers" but once PCs achieve a certain power level, such action is not going to dissuade them in the immediacy.

I'm just wondering whether introducing XP penalties in such situations where appropriate will encourage players to think: "my character doesn't need to kill this guy".

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Lanefan]

Two different replies in one here:

1. When I read the title of this thread I thought you were asking have I ever penalized a character by giving negative ExP for doing something mind-numbingly stupid - and yes I have, on very rare occasions, given a character -1 ExP (almost as a joke) for pulling a major stupid.

2. But to answer the actual question, yes. If they kill something that is defenseless and-or harmless and whose death serves no purpose, they don't usually get ExP for it. By the same token, however, they sometimes do get ExP for a non-killing encounter that serves a purpose e.g. they talk to something and leave it alive where they just as easily could have waded in and killed it.

Lanefan

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I have given negative XP once. I had one session where only 2 out of the 5 players showed up. I decided it wasn't worth running a game. Rather than give XP to the 2 people that showed up, I docked a few hundred XP from the 3 that missed the session.

I am running the Shackled City AP and the PC's were getting too far ahead of the experience point curve at that point. As a result, the challenges weren't as tough as they should have been. I didn't want to make that worse by bumping 2 of the characters even further ahead of the curve so I decided that negative XP was the best solution.

The players that were docked the XP didn't mind and it was only a few hundred XP so it wasn't a big deal in any case.

Olaf the Stout

 

[DumbPaladin]

As a player, I've been penalized XP in the past in a 2.0 game, and it basically was the start of what led me to leave the group. I think it's a very, very bad idea, but obviously I didn't feel what I was doing -- refusing to heal the party wizard after he had electrocuted me numerous times, nearly killing me, in order to attack an enemy -- was worthy of being penalized.

The DM has so many other tools in his arsenal. The previous suggestion of simply NOT awarding XP for killing people who should not be slain is a good one. But since you are the DM, why not simply have the death of some of these NPCs lead to ramifications? Perhaps when the band of "heroes" goes into one city, the city has received news of how wantonly they slaughter people without due process or a trail.

And maybe the "heroes" aren't quite so welcome there. Maybe the local paladin in their home town no longer offers them his services. There are so many ways to handle it ... XP should be the last possible tool, not the first.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm just wondering whether introducing XP penalties in such situations where appropriate will encourage players to think: "my character doesn't need to kill this guy".

Ugh. Firstly, I'd rather (no. . . I'll only) play with those I like, trust and respect.

Anyway, no, I wouldn't go this route - theoretically - because it doesn't strike me as helpful.* Game world consequences, on the other hand, while not something I'd consider as "punishment" (again, ugh), are something I have an appreciation for, and in fact consider as essential.


* IMO, if you absolutely must muck around with XP in such a hideously "meta" kind of way, the carrot would trump the stick, any ol' time.

 

[Lancelot]

I've penalized XP in the distant past (15+ years ago), but have long since moved to "consequences".

• PCs not acting their alignment? Not a problem. Alignment doesn't really matter any more except as a guide to the DM on how NPCs and monsters should be played. Players should have freedom to roleplay how they like (with consequences...).
• PCs kill a major NPC, derailing the campaign? Not a problem. I only plan the next 1-2 sessions in detail; everything else can shift to suit the new circumstances. And there'll probably be consequences for killing that NPC, too.
• Players don't turn up for a session (or several sessions in a row)? Not a problem. They miss out on magic items and loot, and potential story awards... but their XP is equalized with the other players.

It was the last one that I had the most trouble adapting to (psychologically). I always thought there should be a "reward" for turning up regularly, and a "punishment" for skipping sessions... until I had a revelation that the gaming itself was the reward. You should *want* to be at the game, because you enjoy it. If you're only coming for the reward (or the threat of losing XP if you skip a session), then it's not a hobby... it's a job (like FarmVille, on FaceBook).

 

[Olaf the Stout]

In my game you get 2/3rds XP if you miss a session. I know the carrot is a better than the stick but the system works well for our group and I haven't had any complaints.

My players are pretty reliable and in almost all cases the missed sessions were due to being away for work or holidays or having a uni assignment or exam due close to the session. I think there should be a little bit of an incentive for people to attend regularly.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Redcrow]

I prefer games that award XP based on advancement of the story and staying in character and don't care much for systems that award XP for killing things. Just personal preference.

That said, I have and do give reduced XP awards whenever a PC intentionally hinders the story or does something that seems out of character. Over the years I've had a few players that can't seem to stop themselves interrupting while I describe a scene, often with comments unrelated to the game. That is one of my biggest pet peeves and I will give the player exactly 2 warnings before I begin penalizing their earned XP for each occurence. Luckily this doesn't happen often and the player usually falls in line quickly.

I also penalize earned XP when a PC does something to intentionally derail/disrupt the story. Like indiscriminately killing NPCs without good reason. In addition to reduced XP awards, there is often in game consequences as well.

 

[Plane Sailing]

However, is penalizing XP too strong a measure in terms of trying to put a little morality back into the game at the expense of killing and taking their stuff?

If you are training animals, you get a much better response by giving positive reinforcement to the behaviour you want, rather than negative reinforcement to the behaviour you don't want.

Turns out it works well on people too.

So if you want to put a little morality back into the game, award bonus XP for not killing people, award bonus XP for taking the bad guys to jail, award bonus XP for working in a heroic, moral fashion.

You'll start to see PCs gravitate towards the activity which gets them the bonuses

 

[S'mon]

I'll reduce or give no XP where appropriate, which might include Alignment violations in some games, and I'll give bonus XP where appropriate - giving bonus XP for a knight acting chivalrously would be far more common than giving reduced XP for him acting unchivalrously, though. I've never deducted XP, though.

Overall I much, much prefer bonuses to penalties.