XP and defeating opponents

[DreadArchon]

Just give them XP based on how fast you want them to advance.

 

[Nail]

Now, if they run away, but aren't really defeated at all.....

This sort of argument doesn't hold up.

Why did they run away? You have to be way more specific than the bad guys "aren't really defeated" before we can judge why XP should not be awarded twice. If it's true the PCs didn't really defeat the monsters...it's a special case, not a general rule. And often enough the special case is better termed "DM railroading".

IOW: In general, award XP twice.....unless there are extenuatuing circumstances.

 

[Brimshack]

I used to count oly those that were killed, captured, or who yielded in some formal sense. Lately, though, I am inclined to simply reduce the CR by one if it got away. If it was defending a position, I give a separate CR for the position, based on its defensive value. I also add 1 to the CR of the largest creature to any battles fought on the sea (gotta keep the boat afloat in addition to everything else). Anyway, I think adjusting CR is a good way to handle stuff like that. It isn't as solid a win as killing or capturing, but the enemy was defeated on some level.

Of course some enemies might not have been that committed to an attack in the first place. It isn't unusual to me to have someone lurking around thinking about harrassing a party without committing to a full battle. I would not be inclined to award x.p. when that kind of enemy ran away. Unless the enemy was committed to the battle in some sense, I would insist on kill or capture as the standard. Running away when it was in the creature's plans to begin with doesn't strike me as a victory for the players at all.

 

[klofft]

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.

I do think this is an excellent point. Thanks for the insights everyone. These are the kinds of reflections I was looking for. Should the occasion arise (as I suspect it will in their present battle in RHoD), I will probably give them XP twice.

If anyone else wants to chime in, I'd be happy to hear.
C

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I have to agree with hong here. If the party fought and drove off two 13-hp orcs, they'd get XP for two 13-hp orcs. What difference does it make if they are the same orc or not?

RC

 

[shilsen]

In view of what you say here:

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).

I highly recommend not awarding XP based on combat or CR or anything else, for that matter. Simply award a sum of XP per session to keep the PCs advancing at the rate that you're comfortable with. Then it won't matter whether the PCs beat the same guy once, twice, or half a dozen times.

I divorced XP awards from in-game events in my last two campaigns (one 2 years long and one that is currently in its third year), and it made life immensely easier for me. It also freed up the players to not worry about whether they are fighting enough enemies or high enough level ones or anything of the kind. They could just focus on playing their PCs, without worrying about how their actions would impact their XP gain. Because they wouldn't.

 

[lottrbacchus]

@Shilsen- that is a radical idea very very worth thinking about. We have the occassional spat about my not rewarding the characters enough for non-combat stuff. "Fine", they say, "we'll just go look for more things to kill and nuts to your story". This *might* be good for our game.

In the same manner of thinking, one DM I had years ago said we were high enough level that money and food and items all the way up to +1 were essentially free for us. BUT there was no spending on powering up items (this was back in 2nd edition btw), and consumables still had to be gained the old fashioned way (no gallons of healing potions for us). Not worrying about little bits of treasure and book keeping for costs really saved a lot of time and focussed the party on the big picture.

 

[mvincent]

With any luck your players might even see the value in *not* killing opponents. If they make an effort to keep alive the more easily defeated BBEG's, the DM can at least re-use some stats (and have a popular, recurring villain). Maybe the villain will even return the favor (should he even actually win).

 

[shilsen]

@Shilsen- that is a radical idea very very worth thinking about. We have the occassional spat about my not rewarding the characters enough for non-combat stuff. "Fine", they say, "we'll just go look for more things to kill and nuts to your story". This *might* be good for our game.

Let me know if you try it and it works. Personally, I doubt I'll ever use any other system again.

In the same manner of thinking, one DM I had years ago said we were high enough level that money and food and items all the way up to +1 were essentially free for us. BUT there was no spending on powering up items (this was back in 2nd edition btw), and consumables still had to be gained the old fashioned way (no gallons of healing potions for us). Not worrying about little bits of treasure and book keeping for costs really saved a lot of time and focussed the party on the big picture.

The PCs in my Eberron campaign (see sig) are at 12th lvl and highly loaded for their level, and I've completely stopped tracking the really minor things. And I've actually stopped tracking (or making them pay for) healing between fights too. I told them, "See - you're rich enough to be carrying around a dozen lesser vigor wands, so if you have a few minutes after a fight, I'll assume you're all healed up." I've been doing that for a dozen sessions now and had no problems whatsoever. Admittedly I run a game where PCs normally have one or maybe two fights at most in a given game day, so attritional encounters just don't exist in my campaign, and it might not work as well for a DM who's challenging PCs based on using up resources. I almost never do that, but they get significantly challenged, with an average of a PC dropping below -10 every alternate session.

BTW, did I mention I took death out of my game too?

 

[DreadArchon]

I used to count oly those that were killed, captured, or who yielded in some formal sense.

Running away with their hands up while screaming like a little girl isn't formal enough for you?

I divorced XP awards from in-game events in my last two campaigns (one 2 years long and one that is currently in its third year), and it made life immensely easier for me. It also freed up the players to not worry about whether they are fighting enough enemies or high enough level ones or anything of the kind. They could just focus on playing their PCs, without worrying about how their actions would impact their XP gain. Because they wouldn't.

Yes, that's exaclty how I do it, and it works great. The PC's are much more worried about in-game effects than how much XP they earn, since they'll earn the same XP either way.