Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DerKastellan" data-source="post: 7724570" data-attributes="member: 6902208">Of course, the aforementioned games have an entirely different gameplay to it. The reasoning of D&D parties at the latest since 3e, but probably since 2e is very simple: Can we beat it? Charge!I'm only half-kidding. Ever since the main and predominant source of XP has been monster-slaying, monster-slaying has become the dominant aspect of the game. In 0e and 1e that could get you killed very easily (at lower levels), so some players wizened up and actually approached situations with a more measured, calculating approach - especially since those monsters themselves yielded barely any XP. If you need somewhere between 1,251 and 2,501 XP for even 2nd level, slaying a 10 XP monster does not seem like a viable strategy. Outwitting monsters and taking treasures was, though.With 2e, the monster awards shot up. I observe that some of my players will assess whether to attack humanoids when conflict can be avoided, but for monsters it's as simple as above. The XP do not really play into it. The most reasoning you will get is whether an encounter is morally wrong (slaughtering a goblin tribe is okay for some and anathema to others, so it often depends on who attacked first) or whether it waste time and resources and might endanger the mission. If the current quest is time-driven or does not allow for resting, players will be more likely to weigh encounters and seek ways around them. Most of the time they however expect to beat encounters and see combat simply as part of playing the game, not something to think about. So, XP to them is this happy thing that eventually leads to level up. Lack of XP award leads to player complaints. But the amount of XP earned is not informing how my players play the game. It simply helps them keep track of when they get more juicy stuff. They are not part of "informed decisions" - usually instead player weigh their own resources ("I'm almost out of spells") and the foes' approximate challenge and the particular mission and that in turn is what informs their decision-making.And frankly, that's perfectly reasonable in-world thinking to me. Seeing the "I get better in doing stuff" reward would be a complete inversion of how people actually think. They think about actual goals - which are defined by the mission or by any loot they see or might find. They have a rough assessment of their own capabilities, as adventurers they have a rough assessment of the enemy's capabilities, and then they make a call. That's good immersion to me, even if sometimes a bit of game babble comes into it. In comparison, if somebody would say "but goblins earn me no XP at this level" (3e...) then I would say that undermines immersion as XP are no viable goal in-game.</blockquote>

Verification