Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7310108" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Actually no. Not hardly. the part where you lose me is the part where somehow we have timewarped back to 1980 where Xp is earned by killing monsters and gold gained" as opposed to overcoming the monsters etc - unless the monsters are themselves the objectives. Are we back to any living thing the characters see with an XP value in its statblock is shot on sight because, you know, Xp? Are we back to troll-in-a-box?Thats not how i read experience in the DMG. it seems pretty clear that overcoming the monsters by means other than killing, even turning it into a non-combat challenge should give the same rewards as far as Xp goes. So there should be no XP gap or advancement gap in terms of whether they choose a bloodbath or other means to overcome the challenge and reach their in-character goals.if a Gm is somehow deliberately putting that into his game, that is fine and all, but its just a decision of the Gm to somehow try and pit advancement desires (XP) of the player against the success goals in-character which seems to be quite an odd desire to add to a game to me but it takes all sorts.For my games, unless it fits the character objectives and goals just killing some stray "bag of Xp" is not going to be an advancement, obviously and wouldn't be even if i were using experience points. You don't get to level up by finding a cave of bats and trapping them in and buring them out for their 10xp a head.But hey, maybe it is for some.Again, as a GM, i don't try to and dont see a reason to add into my game a player trade-off between in-character goals and out-of-character XP gain (player goals.) it seems an intrinsic flaw in design for a roleplaying game to have its GM build into it a deliberate, intentional opposing aspect between those two things.i do not see that 5e did that even with its regular Xp system.</blockquote>

Verification