I think the D&D experience system has a lot to do with my players being murder hobos.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Depending on the theme of the game I'm running, I give XP for playing to established character ties (similar to DW) and for overcoming noncombat challenges such as exploration or social interaction. So, if we're in a dungeon crawl and you find a secret door, XP is accrued. If you make manage to negotiate an alliance with the kobolds against the goblins instead of slaughtering them, XP is also accrued. If you play up that you implicitly trust an ally you established as being trustworthy to the end, then you get some XP. All such XP goes into a party pool and is divided equally.
Celebrim
Legend
In my game, you get as much XP for converting something to be a loyal ally as you do for hacking it to pieces.
You also get a lesser amount of XP for evading something or chasing it away.
None of that I think lies outside the notion of defeating or conquering a foe so if it is a variant, it's only a mild variant.
I'm not convinced that the XP system is what causes players to act like murder hobos; they acted like murder hobos when we played a different system as well. I think players often enjoy acting like murder hobos.
There is also the role of the GM in this. In my experience as a GM, it's very hard to avoid introducing monsters that don't ambush players and fight to the death. If you try to use monsters as more optional encounters, and the players don't act like murder hobos, there is a tendency for the encounter to be something of a time waster that didn't add much to the story. There might be some challenge in evading monsters that didn't particularly want to fight you in the first place, but its not a lot. And there might be some story in evading conflict with things that weren't particularly hostile in the first place, but it's not a lot. So if you put a monster on stage, there are very few functional roles other than antagonist. And even if killing the thing doesn't earn a lot of XP, there are very few more functional responses most of the time than killing something and taking its stuff, because stuff.
This often leads to the approach, "We're friendly, but if you won't help us, then we might as well kill you."
Add to this problem that some GMs often load up NPCs with lots of nice stuff either the make them 'cool' or to make them worthy challenges, and killing whomever you come across can often be not only fun but profitable.
If you want to blame this on system, I think you can go much deeper than simply blood = XP. I think the basic problem is that D&D makes combat one of the most fun if not the most fun things you can do in the game.
NotActuallyTim
First Post
Stop giving XP for murder, only give XP for ranching.
PLAY FARMVILLE!
PLAY FARMVILLE!
Fanaelialae
Legend
You could always give less XP for combat and more for non-combat. In one (non-5e) campaign I reduced encounter rewards to 10% normal but awarded large amounts of XP for goal completion. Getting the bandits to stop harassing the farming village would earn the PCs a big chunk of XP, but massacring the bandits would only add a little bit more XP on top of that. While combat wasn't rare in that campaign, the players didn't go out of their way fight things. A combat encounter was often a delay in getting to the real XP. It was really just a goal-oriented version of the old school XP-for-gold approach.
I will add that if you don't want players to fight everything, you should make it clear to them that they get the same XP if they overcome the encounter using non-combat methods. Negotiating or sneaking past an encounter is much more worthwhile if you get the XP for it. Reducing the amount of XP from a single encounter simply makes it less painful to award full encounter XP for a group stealth check, especially if someone can cast Pass Without Trace.
I will add that if you don't want players to fight everything, you should make it clear to them that they get the same XP if they overcome the encounter using non-combat methods. Negotiating or sneaking past an encounter is much more worthwhile if you get the XP for it. Reducing the amount of XP from a single encounter simply makes it less painful to award full encounter XP for a group stealth check, especially if someone can cast Pass Without Trace.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
D&D's experience system is actually pretty flexible, historically. Different authors (and thus, DMs) have awarded XP based on what they thought was important, whether that was the accumulation of treasure, killing foes, overcoming obstacles (which doesn't necessarily mean killing foes) or RP-specific things.
Come up with what you think should advance the characters and then it's just a matter of rewarding characters for doing whatever that is. But specific useful advice really requires you knowing what you'd like to reward instead.
Ath-kethin
Elder Thing
Since everybody levels at the same rate now anyway, what really is the difference between planning encounters with an XP budget and "milestone" leveling? Seriously, you know when the party will level based on the challenges you design - why not just make a note to have them level at that point and skip the middleman?
Fanaelialae
Legend
It could be an issue if some players don't attend every game, and therefore miss out on XP. I've found that 5e handles level disparity fairly well.
Even if the party effectively shares an XP pool, a some players just like XP.
Croesus
Adventurer
The issue comes up in troupe play, which I favor both as a GM and as a player. Troupe play means players have multiple characters which can be switched out depending on the specific adventure or the preference of the player. For example, when the main party was away sacking one of the elemental temples in PotA, the secondary characters had to defend their main base when it came under attack. It was one way I tried to communicate to them that stuff happens in the world even when the main characters aren't around.
Similar Threads
