XP and defeating opponents

[James McMurray]

And, as often happens with such threads, the above argument just underlines why awarding XP based on potentially nebulous, and often arbitrary, concepts such as victory and overcoming an encounter is a fairly lousy idea.

Only if you don't understand the meaning of the word challenge. XP is given for overcoming challenges. Someone that runs waay when they see you isn't a challenge, ergo grants no XP. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[shilsen]

Only if you don't understand the meaning of the word challenge. XP is given for overcoming challenges. Someone that runs waay when they see you isn't a challenge, ergo grants no XP. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm sure it does. But, as this thread, and myriad others like it indicate, different people have very different understandings of the same terms. Which sometimes becomes a problem if XP awards are dependent on such an understanding.

If, however, you completely divorce XP awards from in-game actions, then the players (and the DM too) don't have to worry about such issues, but can simply focus on acting as they think their PCs should. Success gets rewarded in-game, by whatever results their actions and choices have, just as failure gets punished in-game, also by what results their actions and choices have. There is no need for a necessary correlation with a mostly metagame issue like XP.

For me, awarding XP based on combat success (or even plot-related XP or roleplaying XP) seems far too much like grading PCs/players. I'm already a professor in real life and have enough grading to do. I don't need to grade my players based on whether their imaginary characters managed to adequately achieve an imaginary goal. Since my players do like their characters to get more powerful and able to take on greater challenges, I have them achieve higher levels over time. I could do that just fine without XP, and only retain it because of XP-draining spells, item creation and other such XP-related factors. But I could do that just fine without using XP, and probably will do so in my next campaign.

In short, I don't think XP awards, or XP for that matter, is really a necessary part of the game.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I personally prefer the concept of XP rewards for the achievement of story milestones on route to the ultimate goal for that adventure.

That would mean that a party with a Ranger who makes a few lucky rolls in order to cross the Dark Forest without incident gets the exact same experience as another party who might stumble into several ambushes. The goal is to free the captured princess, the Dark Forest is an obstacle along the way, and it is purely the PCs problem if that is hard or easy -- the DM just has to make a reasonable guestimate and no need to sweat the details.

But this is not quite how the RAW guidelines were written. And it does not necessarily work easily if the adventure does not have a clearcut goal with discernable milestones along the way.

 

[James McMurray]

If, however, you completely divorce XP awards from in-game actions, then the players (and the DM too) don't have to worry about such issues, but can simply focus on acting as they think their PCs should. Success gets rewarded in-game, by whatever results their actions and choices have, just as failure gets punished in-game, also by what results their actions and choices have. There is no need for a necessary correlation with a mostly metagame issue like XP.

So you prefer the arbitrariness of "I'll give you what I think you should have" to "I'll give you what you've earned." Sort of like taking out grades and letting anyone who shows up for class pass the course. It wouldn't work for me or my group, but if it works for you that's cool.

 

[pallandrome]

So you prefer the arbitrariness of "I'll give you what I think you should have" to "I'll give you what you've earned." Sort of like taking out grades and letting anyone who shows up for class pass the course. It wouldn't work for me or my group, but if it works for you that's cool.

Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but since that is a faily insulting way of discribing a practice you do not subscribe to, I'll comment.

As a GM, I control, in it's entirely, the game. If I want to kill the characters, they will die. If I want them to live, they will live. When you get down to brass tacks, everything that happens in DnD is either allowed or banned by the GM, including what enemies are defeated and why. Continuing this line of logic, the enemy never runs away unless I want them to, and always runs away if I want them to. Now, we've established that the players cannot control if the baddies run away or not. Why, perchance, would I want to punish them (i.e. withold xp) for something they cannot control?

Furthermore, your submission that ad-hoc xp is akin to lazy teaching just makes no sense. I'd rather have players that follow the story I'm weaving for them than ones who follow some arbitrary rewards system. I didn't complain about your play style, please do me the same favor.

 

[James McMurray]

I'm only using his words to describe it. If the word choice is insulting, it's not my fault.

Why, perchance, would I want to punish them (i.e. withold xp) for something they cannot control?

When did I say you should punish the players for having the bad guys run away? I've said all along that if there was a challenge, they should get rewards for it within the challenge rating system.

I didn't complain about your play style, please do me the same favor.

No, you didn't complain. But others did. I responded to them. Personally I get up and walk away the moment I think the DM is wanting me to "follow the story he's weaving," which is a big reason why I said this method wouldn't work for me or my group. YMMV.

I'm just discussing things here, not trying to force anyone to agree with me.

Question: do you give the exact same amount of XP every week no matter what happens in game?

 

[DreadArchon]

No, you didn't complain. But others did. I responded to them. Personally I get up and walk away the moment I think the DM is wanting me to "follow the story he's weaving," which is a big reason why I said this method wouldn't work for me or my group. YMMV.

No, you responded to shilsen, who said that he had divorced XP from in-game actions, which would actually allow characters to do whatever the hell they wanted without penalty (suppose the DM wanted them to go fight a dragon but they wanted to go mine for fish, for example).

Ridley's Cohort was the one who suggested suggested the "Chimes and Bells! Quest Completed!" XP, but you weren't responding to him (not even indirectly, what with his idea being different from shilsen's).

Question: do you give the exact same amount of XP every week no matter what happens in game?

I usually go by how long the session was, actually, but I don't know about shilsen. At any rate, a system resembling Feng Shui (which gives about the same amount of XP every week, with possible bonuses at the DM's discretion) works fine. That's why some games use them.

 

[Presto2112]

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.

I'm rather surprised there hasn't been an OotS strip regarding this subject yet.

Belkar's about to lay the killing blow on some intelligent monster when V tells him to let it go.

B: What are you nuts?

V: Well think about it, you've already displayed superiority over the pitiful creature. if you let it go, it will plot its revenge and likely come after you again, thus creating an additional encounter. Should you inevitably defeat the same creature again, you'd effectively double the XP from the creature!

B: *whining* But I wanna kill it NOW!

 

[James McMurray]

No, you responded to shilsen, who said that he had divorced XP from in-game actions, which would actually allow characters to do whatever the hell they wanted without penalty (suppose the DM wanted them to go fight a dragon but they wanted to go mine for fish, for example).

y first response was to Shilsen, who was one of the ones speaking out against CR based experience points. You can tell this because I quoted him.

Then pallandrome said something about players folowing the story he wove. I then responded to him. You can tell this because I quoted him.

Ridley's Cohort was the one who suggested suggested the "Chimes and Bells! Quest Completed!" XP, but you weren't responding to him (not even indirectly, what with his idea being different from shilsen's).

That is correct. I was in fact not responding to Ridley's cohort. Did I somehow give the impression that I was, despite having been fairly consistent in quoting the people I was responding to?

I usually go by how long the session was, actually, but I don't know about shilsen. At any rate, a system resembling Feng Shui (which gives about the same amount of XP every week, with possible bonuses at the DM's discretion) works fine. That's why some games use them.

I'm glad it works for you, but the question was primarily directed at pallandrome. I couldn't tell from his posts whether he used Shilsen's "completely divorce XP awards from in-game actions" method or something more closely involving his desire to "have players that follow the story [he's] weaving for them."

For the record, this entire post is a response to DreadArchon. you can tell this because I quoted him.

 

[Fortain]

@Presto2112

Actually, there already is, kinda:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0021.html