PC vs. PC XP

[Philip]

I am playing a young female druid, who has led a reclusive life....

I'll say!

I don't know, but your druid has had a particulary brutal childhood if the first thing she thinks of when she disagrees with something is threaten with deadly force, and go throug with it while the other side is still arguing.

And also pretty naive in thinking that a few cure spells would heal the mental damage dealt by the attack.

"Yeah, I know I gunned you down, but you just kept arguing with me, what *was* I supposed to do. I was right and you were not. Besides, I paid for your hospital bill, so we can just be friends again, right?"

In wouldn't even come to the rewarding of XP part, I would have stopped the situation dead cold for it escalated and would ask the player: "Do you really desire a game with intra-party conflicts of this kind?"

If the player answered yes then I would not allow him to participate in my campaign anymore. Its already hard enough to keep a group together without somebody in the party looking for trouble with other party members.

The very last thing I would do is reward behaviour like that.

So, no XP from me, I guess.

 

[October Raven]

You're not revering nature by your actions. Not allowing someone to do something your character would logically do because of a technicality (and yes, it's a technicality, and a petty one too) is being a simple hypocrite.

 

[IcyCool]

Can we talk about the mechanics of awarding XP? Isn't this the "Rules" forum?

This is a rules forum. The mechanics of awarding Xp is a rules question. It appears you know the mechanics quite well. What question are you asking now? Whether or not people think awarding xp for pc vs. pc action is a good thing?

As others have pointed out, WotC has taken a few pains to make D&D a more cooperative game, as xp awards are not individual any more (with DM fiat exceptions). That should give you an idea right there.

But you aren't going to find a rule that says you are right. And you aren't going to find a rule that says you are wrong. Is that a sufficient answer for you?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Then this thing called dialogue happens, and we as players all get to figure out how our characters can get along...

It seems expecting that is considered preposterous in this discussion.

Of course it's preposterous to have that dialogue when you have to pull your sickle out of their chest. I mean, do you really think in terms of hit points and not actions? When your wolf rips out the ranger's throat and you heal him back from the brink of death, is everything gonna be okay? No. Not only no, but heck no. That's crazy talk to think that the ranger would ever even adventure with you again. I'm not berating you for your actions, I'm commenting on the situation in general and that this party is for all intents and purposes finished.

Also, it's pertinent to the discussion because if a player causes the total dissolution of the party, then it should affect the XP awarded, if any. In this case, it would be irrelevant as everyone rolls up new PCs.

Btw, your question per the rules has already been answered. There are no rules on this particular issue.

 

[freebfrost]

But you aren't going to find a rule that says you are right. And you aren't going to find a rule that says you are wrong. Is that a sufficient answer for you?

Yes, I know there is not a rule for that either way, and it is not sufficient because there is no precedent to cover this circumstance.

What I wanted as sufficient answers was what a number of you have posted - why you think it would be something that should be awarded XP as opposed to why it should not be awarded XP. And I think I've received enough feedback to come up with my own answer.

If you are asking why I needed the answer - my next campaign will likely involve a decent amount of inter-player conflict, simply due to the nature of the plot. If this kind of situation arises, I wanted to have thought out how I would award XP, if at all, for this.

Many thanks!

 

[IcyCool]

Many thanks!

If you've gotten help out of this thread, great!

*shrugs* Although you might have gotten a better response turn-out by posting over in the General forum, as this didn't appear to be a rules question. If you are still looking for responses, you could ask one of the moderators to move it for you.

 

[freebfrost]

Of course it's preposterous to have that dialogue when you have to pull your sickle out of their chest. I mean, do you really think in terms of hit points and not actions? When your wolf rips out the ranger's throat and you heal him back from the brink of death, is everything gonna be okay? No. Not only no, but heck no. That's crazy talk to think that the ranger would ever even adventure with you again. I'm not berating you for your actions, I'm commenting on the situation in general and that this party is for all intents and purposes finished.

And who's perspective is that based upon? Yours? Or as a person living in a world where magic is common, dragons fly around, and resurrection and miraculous healing is only a standard action away?

It's easy to sit back and say, well I'd never work with you, because that's against the (modern day) law and our (modern day) culture wouldn't tolerate that!

How would the ranger in that world react to being attacked by the trapper-hating "witch" of the wood? Well, that would depend on how my fellow player runs his ranger in a world of magic and monsters and druids in the woods, and I think I know him well enough to say that we would have worked it out.

Also, it's pertinent to the discussion because if a player causes the total dissolution of the party, then it should affect the XP awarded, if any. In this case, it would be irrelevant as everyone rolls up new PCs.

And that's great, as long as the understanding is that XP comes only from group actions, which most people seem to concur with here. I typically award XP for individual and roleplaying actions, so I wanted to see everyone's thoughts on awards of this type in general so I could figure out what would work for me.

 

[freebfrost]

If you've gotten help out of this thread, great!

*shrugs* Although you might have gotten a better response turn-out by posting over in the General forum, as this didn't appear to be a rules question. If you are still looking for responses, you could ask one of the moderators to move it for you.

And thus my initial caveat about where to put this...

I still think it fits best here, as I wanted input on how XP is awarded - i.e. for what specific actions. I think that in "General" I would have gotten even more static about "you can't run druids correctly,""You are evil personified," etc. rather than insight on why characters are awarded XP period.

 

[Infiniti2000]

And who's perspective is that based upon? Yours? Or as a person living in a world where magic is common, dragons fly around, and resurrection and miraculous healing is only a standard action away?

This has nothing to do with culture, with magic, dragons or anything. It has to do with someone trying to kill me and why would I ever put my life on the line beside that person. I suppose if you want to make the argument that the characters know that they cannot be killed by a sickle (e.g.) and therefore don't view a lethal attack in the same way, go ahead. I'll simply disagree. But, to me, a lethal attack is exactly that -- intended to kill. When you intend to kill someone, you don't go adventuring around with them afterwards.

So, to tie my diatribe back to your topic, I don't think the XP should be awarded in such cases at all because it foster's a non-adventuring environment -- bringing the campaign to a screeching halt. The only for it to continue would be for the characters to become unbelievable.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"Stand still! I just need to 'defeat' you!"

-Hyp.