D&D 5E XP is a major weapon in the DM arsenal

[ccs]

D&D is a role-playing game, which means the mechanics of the game reflect how the game world works. Experience Points represent what the character has learned, in terms of adventuring skills and the ability to fight. Failing to award Experience Points for beating an encounter through violence, just because you're nominally adhering to a court-style theme for the game, would be meta-gaming - you're adjudicating the in-game reality of how the world works (how characters gain skill and become better at fighting), based on factors which are entirely external to the game (your choice to perceive the game as court-style rather than hack-and-slash).

Your perception of the in-game reality cannot possibly change how that in-game reality actually works. Any suggestions otherwise are fundamentally repugnant to the concept of role-playing.

I'm the DM. My perception of in-game reality most certainly can change how that in-game reality actually works.
How, when, & why you get XP is 100% up to me. And there's bonus pts involved if you bribe me with pizza.

 

[ccs]

There are plenty of DMs out there who would grant xp for killing a bunch of orcs by dropping a boulder on them. Can you explain to me what squishing a bunch of humanoids by pushing a large rock would teach my fighter about swinging a sword or my wizard about casting spells?

They're learning to use the right tools for the job. Sometimes that tool is a sword, sometimes a spell. Other times? A big rock is the answer.

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

Another thing you can do is use xp to get players to lean into their Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals. At the end of the session have the group decide if each players Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals came into play in a meaningful or complicating way, if so, they get xp. Or you can also decided right when it happens, and tell them that their actions just got them xp.

I think the first way is more interesting for the DM because it shifts the burden off their shoulders. It gives the Players a little more agency and gives them more reason to pay attention to other players actions. It lets players 'dip their toes' in the DM pool. And it lets you sit back and watch the Players summarize what they just did and express how they feel about it, like a mini after-show.

Or another thing you can do, which could be fun. Is have a player pick an extra Flaw, and they hold on to it for as long as they have to (Be it one session or five). Until they do it in a meaningful or complicating way, they get xp. And next session they pick a new one.

 

[S'mon]

1. Saelorn is best kept on Ignore List.

2. I give XP for player achievements, which may be largely pre-determined in an Adventure Path game, or player-chosen in a Sandbox game. Achievements include defeating monsters, rescuing princesses, finding treasure, exploring new areas (dungeon, wilderness etc). I think the OP point is actually more about NOT giving XP for PCs doing stuff that goes against the campaign theme. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this; if my players want to play dishonourable samurai my normal reaction is to run a Dishonourable Samurai game - the PCs earn XP normally, but their Daimyo probably orders them executed (assuming they fail to commit Seppuku on command). If I were running a courtly intrigue game I would still give the same XP for intrigue as I do in any other game, and I'd still give XP to a courtier XP who defeats a rival in a duel - or even goes down into the ruined sewers for some dungeonbashing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

On a second read, Saelorn's post made a bit more sense to me, but I still disagree. In an RPG there is a game-fiction, a consensus, shared idea of how the world works, and IMO it is more important than the rules. The rules do not determine the game fiction because no set of rules that is concise enough to be usable can also be expansive enough to fully describe the game fiction. When the rules inadequately describe the game fiction, one should ignore the rules and go with the fiction. However, Saelorn assumes that the game-fiction is immutable. This is not the case. A group is as free to change the fiction as it is to change rules, setting, or any other element of the game.

You can certainly choose to play in a different world, with a different "fiction" that is represented by different rules. The major job of the DM is to determine those many things which the codified rules cannot cover. The rules - whether from the book, or as the DM presents their adjudication for each set of circumstances - need only be sufficiently adequate that the players and their characters would make the same decisions for the same reasons.

It's possible that the OP intended to say that, and the point was simply muddled in translation, but it certainly read to me that they were trying to appeal to the player quest for XP rather than actually intending to reflect a different in-game reality.

The major issues are what the in-game reality is, such that the altered XP awards are a better reflection of that reality; and how the PCs are aware of this fact, such that they can legally make decisions by taking it into consideration. If you're playing a court-style game, such that you can only earn XP through non-violent conflict resolution, then why do you get better at swinging a sword or casting spells by talking to people rather than by swinging a sword or casting spells? And more importantly, how does the character know that they'll only get better at swinging swords or casting spells by avoiding violence?

In terms of influencing the behavior of the character - whether you want them to focus on acquiring gold, or getting in fights, or avoiding fights - how the character thinks the world works is far more important than how the world actually works. But if there's any sort of discrepancy between those two - if how the world actually works is different from how the character thinks the world works - then that's just a recipe for frustrated players and characters.

 

[Fanaelialae]

They're learning to use the right tools for the job. Sometimes that tool is a sword, sometimes a spell. Other times? A big rock is the answer.

In your previous post you said you give xp for pizza, so clearly you don't believe that xp must reflect the in game reality of learning things, but rather can be used for rewarding desirable player behavior.

Also, your reply sidesteps the question rather than answering it. Right tool for the job, great. Still doesn't explain why my wizard can suddenly cast fireball (having gained enough xp for level 5) after physically pushing a boulder onto some orcs in the reality of the game. Did I somehow impress the spell into obeying me with the act of prowess? I suppose that explanation might work for some campaigns, but certainly not all. However, as a meta construct to reward proper behavior (slaying orcs) it makes perfect sense. I play the game the way it's supposed to be played and am (eventually) rewarded with new and better abilities for my character. It's also why I grant xp for things like negotiating with or sneaking past the orcs in my campaign, because I like to encourage the players to find solutions beyond simply resorting to combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

2. I give XP for player achievements, which may be largely pre-determined in an Adventure Path game, or player-chosen in a Sandbox game. Achievements include defeating monsters, rescuing princesses, finding treasure, exploring new areas (dungeon, wilderness etc). I think the OP point is actually more about NOT giving XP for PCs doing stuff that goes against the campaign theme. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this; if my players want to play dishonourable samurai my normal reaction is to run a Dishonourable Samurai game - the PCs earn XP normally, but their Daimyo probably orders them executed (assuming they fail to commit Seppuku on command). If I were running a courtly intrigue game I would still give the same XP for intrigue as I do in any other game, and I'd still give XP to a courtier XP who defeats a rival in a duel - or even goes down into the ruined sewers for some dungeonbashing.

I think the point is to establish boundaries in advance, with buy in from your players. If the players want to play an Honorable Samurai game but one guy (you know the one I'm talking about) wants to be a dishonorable samurai, that can cause serious issues for the campaign. This addresses that problem by saying, "If you act in a dishonorable manner you won't get xp." In many cases, that is better than trying to force the majority of the party to accept the character that their characters would otherwise be strongly opposed to associating with, but are forced to associate with on the very meta basis that he is a player character. The guy who would otherwise play that dishonorable samurai is disincentivized from doing so. He still could go down that path (soft limit) if the story interests him, but sooner than not he'll want to retire the character or regain his honor, because he won't be getting xp.

I don't think the OP's idea is intended to strong arm players into playing a style of game that they won't enjoy, but rather to establish parameters for the style of a given campaign, in order to promote and reward the game play desired by the group

 

[S'mon]

I think the point is to establish boundaries in advance, with buy in from your players. If the players want to play an Honorable Samurai game but one guy (you know the one I'm talking about) wants to be a dishonorable samurai, that can cause serious issues for the campaign. This addresses that problem by saying, "If you act in a dishonorable manner you won't get xp." In many cases, that is better than trying to force the majority of the party to accept the character that their characters would otherwise be strongly opposed to associating with, but are forced to associate with on the very meta basis that he is a player character. The guy who would otherwise play that dishonorable samurai is disincentivized from doing so. He still could go down that path (soft limit) if the story interests him, but sooner than not he'll want to retire the character or regain his honor, because he won't be getting xp.

I don't think the OP's idea is intended to strong arm players into playing a style of game that they won't enjoy, but rather to establish parameters for the style of a given campaign, in order to promote and reward the game play desired by the group

In the example you give (which I had experience of last year, a PC turned murderous) I would rather it be dealt with in-world by the good PCs hunting down their evil ex-comrade (or player quits that PC & makes a new one). I would never expect the good PCs to have to tolerate an evil PC for metagame reasons.

But I'd still give the evil PC XP.

 

[googleUser]

I think the OP point is actually more about NOT giving XP for PCs doing stuff that goes against the campaign theme. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this; if my players want to play dishonourable samurai my normal reaction is to run a Dishonourable Samurai game - the PCs earn XP normally, but their Daimyo probably orders them executed (assuming they fail to commit Seppuku on command). If I were running a courtly intrigue game I would still give the same XP for intrigue as I do in any other game, and I'd still give XP to a courtier XP who defeats a rival in a duel - or even goes down into the ruined sewers for some dungeonbashing.

I was unclear, probably because of my examples, which were at the top of my head, to be honest.

My point was, indeed, that XP gain could be tweak depending of the campaigns if it serves the story and overall tone of the setting. You could imagine XP bonus instead of XP penalty, for instance.

My take in your example would be: if in the setting you're sandboxing with your group, a Dishonourable samurai is the way to go, XP penalty shouldn't apply for treacherous victories. If the whole group is honorable except one player and you're happy with it, because of the dynamic it provides in the story, then you shouldn't tweak anything either.
About the "court style", if the group and yourself are happy with some good old violence and bashing, then you don't need to tweak anything. And, in your example, even if i would use XP penalty for violence, I would certainly give XP for a duel won using proper etiquette, or even for using violence indirectly (hire ninjas is sometimes a simple, yet costly way to deal with a problem), if it fits the tone I'm looking for

The only point is the idea of using XP award as a tool for DMs, for story purpose.

Let's be perfectly clear: I don't think DMs should absolutely do it, or would be wrong not doing it. I'm just brainstorming options ^^


Perfidius

 

[Fanaelialae]

In the example you give (which I had experience of last year, a PC turned murderous) I would rather it be dealt with in-world by the good PCs hunting down their evil ex-comrade (or player quits that PC & makes a new one). I would never expect the good PCs to have to tolerate an evil PC for metagame reasons.

But I'd still give the evil PC XP.

A valid choice, but not every group wants (or is even willing) to have to kill other PCs or force them into early retirement. For these groups this is a useful rules option, because it makes problematic behavior the problem of the player who engages in problematic behavior, rather than the problem of the entire group. This of course assumes that these rules are clearly stated before the start of the campaign. If you spring them on the player, he will justifiably feel singled out.

It's useful even outside problem behavior by clearly expressing what a given campaign is about (for which you presumably have player buy in). You don't get xp in a romantic Knights of the Round Table for burning down an orphanage because that's not what such a campaign is about. Note that you CAN do it, it's simply that it is unlikely to benefit your character in any way (which is a fairly significant disincentive).