Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9672802" data-attributes="member: 42582">This seems to be a statement of the dispositions/default actions of certain people. To me, it seems rather efficient/rational for a pseudo-mediaeval castle, but that's a different matter.It's not a planned series of events for play, which I'm pretty sure is what [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] was talking about.If the players avoid the defence of a castle, then the GM's planned disposition of forces won't be triggered. But that does not seem to me to be bypassing or avoiding an encounter. It's choosing to sneak in rather than to assault head on.This is from pp 84-5 of Gygax's DMG:The judgment factor is inescapable with respect to weighting experience for the points gained from slaying monsters and/or gaining treasure. You must weigh the level of challenge - be it thinking or fighting - versus the level of experience of the player character(s) who gained it. . . . Tricking or outwitting monsters or overcoming tricks and/or traps placed to guard treasure must be determined subjectively, with level of experience balanced against the degree of difficulty you assign to the gaining of the treasure. . . . Convert all metal and gems and jewelry to a total value in gold pieces. If the relative value of the monster(s) or guardian device fought equals or exceeds that of the party which took the treasure, experience is awarded on a 1 for 1 basis. If the guardian(s) was relatively weaker, award experience on a 5 g.p. to 4 x.P., 3 to 2,2 to 1,3 to 1, or even 4 or more to 1 basis according to the relative strengths. . . .Such strength comparisons are subjective and must be based upon the degree of challenge the Dungeon Master had the monster(s) pose the treasure taker.Page 106 of the PHB is similar but not identical:Experience points awarded for treasure gained - monetary or magical - are modified downward if the guardian of the treasure (whether a monster, device, or obstacle, such as a secret door or maze) was generally weaker than the character who overcame it.  . . . Monsters captured or slain always bring a full experience point award. Captured monsters ransomed or sold bring a gold piece: experience point ratio awardSo there is no reference to "bypassing" encounters. Rather, XP is awarded for slaying monsters, and for capturing them; and is awarded for treasure looted (and ransoms paid). If the PCs acquire treasure by outwitting its guardians, they get the treasure XP but not the slay/capture XP.As it is being used in this thread it's not a term I'm familiar with.I know what it means for the PCs to go down path A rather than path B on a map, and thus to have encounter X rather than encounter Y. I know what it means for the PCs to sneak in rather than attack head-on, and thus to not get into a fight because they chose not to.But I'm not familiar with reifying some of these possible events at the table, calling them "encounters", and then saying that the players, via their play of their PCs, bypassed them. To me the language of bypassing seems to connect to a concept of prep and planning and GM expectation that I'm not used to.Yes, this is one of the things I was puzzled by.</blockquote>

Verification