XP and defeating opponents

[klofft]

In the RAW, XP is awarded when the party "defeats" an opponent. Oftentimes, that means killing it. However, most DMs I suspect would agree that driving an opponent away or routing it would also constitute defeat. That's all fine and good.

But what about the case where they drive an opponent away, but the DM knows that that opponent will be back again days or weeks down the road? It wouldn't be right to give XP twice. So when would you give it: at the initial defeat? Or the final defeat?

Thoughts please.

C

 

[hong]

But what about the case where they drive an opponent away, but the DM knows that that opponent will be back again days or weeks down the road? It wouldn't be right to give XP twice.

Why wouldn't it be right to give XP twice?

 

[klofft]

IME, XP is pretty easy to come by. My players tend to level up slightly faster than most pregen adventures seem to suspect, even when I don't modify them at all, and often have XP divided by more characters than the adventure suggests. Giving XP twice, while "fair" in one sense, seems to be an abuse (one could even imagine a group of players - though not likely mine - that would even get in the habit of routing foes and then hunting them down later just to get double XP).

 

[hong]

IME, XP is pretty easy to come by. My players tend to level up slightly faster than most pregen adventures seem to suspect, even when I don't modify them at all, and often have XP divided by more characters than the adventure suggests. Giving XP twice, while "fair" in one sense, seems to be an abuse (one could even imagine a group of players - though not likely mine - that would even get in the habit of routing foes and then hunting them down later just to get double XP).

You, as DM, get to define what constitutes a "challenge". If you feel that players are exploiting the system, you can always define any fights that come about from such behaviour not to count for the purposes of XP.

Besides which, I've never seen anyone deliberately let the bad guys go, just so they can milk the respawn. Letting the bad guys go because the PCs are exhausted, yes. Letting the bad guys go because it's in character to be merciful, yes. But never with the express purpose of getting as much XP as possible.

 

[pawsplay]

If you drove them away such that they no longer represent a present threat, you get XP. Fighting them again later is no different than defeating their avenging brother.

Now, if they run away, but aren't really defeated at all, as their Master Plan continues without interruption and they just ran away because they aren't dummies, that may not be worth XP, or perhaps only half, since fighting an opponent who doesn't want to fight but rather to escape isn't as dangerous.

 

[pawsplay]

Why wouldn't it be right to give XP twice?

The Law of Conservation of XP.

 

[hong]

The Law of Conservation of XP.

Well, it's true that I'm not planning to upgrade from XP to Vista....

 

[James McMurray]

I'd give them the XP. All but two of us in my group are avid WoW players and were avid Everquest players before that, and even they don't try to abuse "respawning" by chasing a monster off.

If you don't give XP for creatures that flee or for creatures that are chased off and then fought again, players might start to see violence as their only avenue of success.

 

[lottrbacchus]

And don't forget that if the baddies are intelligent, they now know more of what to expect from the PCs and can use that against them when they meet again, thus making it more challenging.

 

[Nail]

It wouldn't be right to give XP twice.

I disagree, absolutely and completely.

If the PCs faced two different challenges, then they get two separate XP awards, even if they faced the same person twice.

Giving less XP would not be fair (barring circumstances that would normally adjust EL).