Handling XP when the PCs bypass the enemy rather than facing it.

[Treebore]

From reading the thread and considering the comments, I agree with those who said it was appropriate to award XP. In this case, they PCs were travelling to reach a certain point, and the ambush was aimed at preventing that. The PCs bypassed the enemy and reached their destination.

Now, I think I may have allowed to PCs to get away to easily, but that's a different question.

Still, the quantity of XP is still a question for me. Should it be full XP based on all the monsters involved the ambush? (THere were several leader NPCs who didn't engage, as the PCs got away before all of them got involved) Should I determine a story award that is independant of the Monsters involved (or atleast one that considers other factors)?

Of course at the end of the day it's somewhat arbitrary how much XP PCs get and the improtant thing is to run the game enjoyably. I'm just trying to get a handle on how best to apply the rules.

Award xp based on the level of threat. IE what was directly threatening, because those higher level opponenets never became a factor or direct threat during the actual encounter.

 

[italianranma]

I think the biggest question here is what did everyone (including you) feel about it? In my gaming group, I would've given them xp based on the encounter level of all the direct threats (so just the bowman) to be divided evenly, and a 25% xp bonus to the driud. I wouldv'e also told the driud that s/he was getting a bonus for "smart thinking" and "saving the party" (I think those are throw-backs to 2nd Ed. experiance table) That's because I like combats that are quick, decisive, and show some unusual cleverness on the part of the PCs. So I'm rewarding them for playing how I like them to play, and as long as they had fun they would feel that the combat was rewarding. If you feel like the PCs cheated themselves into some easy XP points then don't reward them.
It's one of the perks of being a DM; you can't force them to play your way, but you can definitly shape them into it.
Also make it clear, whatever you decide, and inform the PCs if you give equal or disproportionate xp for resolving combat without combat.

 

[clash429]

If the party was creative enough to bypass completely (relatively) an encounter meant to deplete their resources and hinder their progress without engaging the enemy, award them the full e.p.'s for the encounter, wether all their opponents engaged or not. But, I would use this event to bolster your monster tactics for future encounters. Fair is fair.

 

[shilsen]

If they did not have any specific goal or objective, and merely wanted to avoid the combat, then they should get only minimal experience, as there is nothing that they have really learned from the encounter.

Actually in that case they achieved their short-term objective (avoiding the fight) and learned that quick thinking and using a spell creatively can allow the group to avoid unnecessary fights.

This is why I ultimately got rid of monster-based XP.

From a player perspective... 'so we don't get XP for being world-appropriate and smart? I guess we should just look for fights from now on.'

Same here.

 

[Jixan]

We've talked about this a fair amount in my gaming group. Basically it boiled down to a compromise that was satisfactory to the DM and the players. What we decided was that players get experience for encounters not just combat.

First off, we always give full XP for overcoming an encounter through non-violent means (e.g. diplomacy) as long as the results of the encounter meet the encounter objective. For example, killing a guard and taking the treasury key from him should be worth the same as talking him into opening the door for you and having him help you pack your bags with gold. However, sometimes beating encounters through non-violent means trivializes the encounter to some degree and therefore should, in my group's opinion, be worth somewhat less.

Also, in circumstances similar to the original post, we decided that if you find a way around a big encounter, you still overcame an encounter, but the encounter was ultimately easier than if you stuck around and ground it out and as such is worth less experience. So, the party would gain XP, but just not as much as they would have by fighting. The amount of XP gained would be a portioin of the original XP based on how much easier the DM figures it was. It's still subjective, not a black and white, but it works for us fairly well.

I guess my point is that we believe encounters have varying degrees of difficulty depending on how you approach them, not some static value. Hence, XP should be based on the relative value instead.

-Jixan

 

[Terath Ninir]

In this case, I'd give them xp for only the bowman they faced, but also give them bonus xp for being smart and avoiding a pointless fight. Well, pointless to them -- I'm sure *you* had a point to it. You might even make the bonus xp close to what the rest of the encounter would have been, if you think it was really clever. I'd make it about half, myself, but that's just a judgement call.

 

[Otterscrubber]

This is why I ultimately got rid of monster-based XP.

From a player perspective... 'so we don't get XP for being world-appropriate and smart? I guess we should just look for fights from now on.'

I agree. Why penalize a clever caster for using abilities to survive a tough encounter. You should not have to kill everything within a 100ft radius and drink its blood to get xp. I think they should get full xp for that encounter, perhaps even awarding extra to the druid for solving a life threatening problem without using the standard hack and slash method. This will encourage your players to be resourceful in the future as well.