XP Awards for Driving Off Opponents

[Li Shenron]

I think the DM should weight the Xp considering which is the intent of the enemies and which is the goal of the party, although they may not be aware of their own real goal .

Clearly, if the enemies are making a hit-and-run attack, and the party doesn't kill a single enemy, they shouldn't be awarded any Xp. In this case the party's goal could be to capture or kill the attackers (even if the characters may believe that making the enemies fail the attack was their goal, instead the DM knows that the attackers meant to run away).

If the attackers' intent is to kill or capture or pillage or whatever, and they are forced by the party to retreat without accomplishing their mission, then the party has achieved a goal even if no enemy was actually killed.

It rather matters on who really "won" by achieving their goal in the attempt.

 

[Will]

I find these issues very bothersome and interfere with running the damn game...

Myself, I just give story awards and find that things run muuuuch more smoothly.

 

[CCamfield]

I have to agree with Pax, that not awarding XP unless the enemy is taken out in combat is contrary to the way the system is supposed to work. Then again, I also agree with Will - story or session-based XP awards are SO much simpler than micromanaging the XP award for this many CR X creatures and this many CR Y traps...

 

[Li Shenron]

For what it's worth, nowadays I just ask my players when they feel like it's a good time to level up, and it works even perfectly.

But if I had to DM with new people, or run a tournament, I'd do as I did before, that is I would take into account what I said in my previous post.

 

[Staffan]

I'd say it in part depends on who's "in control" of the retreat.

If you're trekking through a forest, and the spirits keep popping out of hiding, taking potshots at you, and then disappearing again - you haven't driven them off, that's just the way their tactics work.

On the other hand, if you come upon a group of these spirits, attack them, and they flee - THAT's a victory. YOU drove them away, they weren't planning on leaving.

 

[Staffan]

I'd say it in part depends on who's "in control" of the retreat.

If you're trekking through a forest, and the spirits keep popping out of hiding, taking potshots at you, and then disappearing again - you haven't driven them off, that's just the way their tactics work.

On the other hand, if you come upon a group of these spirits, attack them, and they flee - THAT's a victory. YOU drove them away, they weren't planning on leaving.

 

[James McMurray]

I agree. That's why I'd treat the hit and run raids like traps. They are designed to be one round (or less) encounters which result in the party losing a portion of their resources. However, at the end of the road its likely that the spirits will have to engage in true combat if they haven't managed to stop the party and still want to. At that point if they are forced to run, full XP should be awarded.

 

[Coredump]

There was an article in an old Dragon (I believe) that spoke on this. It suggested treating the entire forest as one encounter, and determining abilities and special abilities and extraordinary abilites (2e) for it. For 3e, would have to decide on a CR for getting through the forest in one piece.

Now, the players may chose to make it harder on themselves by insisting on fighting and killing every single entity. Or may make it easier on themselves by doing some research, or pooling all their money for a carpet of flying. But the same can be said for just about any encounter.

.

 

[EPRock]

People should be arbitrarily adjusting Encounter Levels as they note how well the party is faring against the creature. If the creature is decimating the party by lucky rolls and the like the EL should be raised, or if the party defeats the opponent in 2 rounds it should be reduced.

As a DM you have total control of the rate that the party gains experience. You should be adjusting it on the fly allowing easy fights less xp, and tough fights more xp. makes characters desire the tougher encounters.

 

[jessemock]

People should be arbitrarily adjusting Encounter Levels as they note how well the party is faring against the creature. If the creature is decimating the party by lucky rolls and the like the EL should be raised, or if the party defeats the opponent in 2 rounds it should be reduced.

As a DM you have total control of the rate that the party gains experience. You should be adjusting it on the fly allowing easy fights less xp, and tough fights more xp. makes characters desire the tougher encounters.

I think you mean the opposite of arbitrary here, because you're actually offering a rule, but, yes, I agree that, if it has been demonstrated that the EL is off, then it should be changed.

On the other hand, I very much disagree that lucky rolls provide such evidence. This makes characters not desire lucky rolls.