XP through non-violence?

[Mercule]

This is why I started using "story awards" in my game. Everytime an "epidsode" comes to an end (one adventure), I award XP based on the overall difficulty of the adventure.

This award is determined in advance, so that PCs who come up with a truly innovative solution to wrap things up in a single session would still get the full XP for an adventure that I'd planned to be a long ordeal. If they wander aimlessly for a month with something that could have been solved in a single session, they get next to nother for their effect. It's a nice way to reward brains and to not make the players feel like they need to "go Diablo" and clear out the "level" before moving on.

 

[Wombat]

The XP in my games is given for combat ... or avoidance of same ... or for succesful negotiations ... or for good use of noncombat skills ... or for the entertainment brought by your actions ... or for completing a task ... or for whatever else seems appropriate at the moment.

Mererly handing out XP for combat has always felt very limited, much like only handing out XP for how much gold you happened to carry out of a dungeon...

 

[Lokishadow]

Hmmm...

That's not really an easy question to answer. I almost exclusively use ad hoc awards. Basically, I figure on a story award, and regardless of how the PC's get there, they get that award, modified by percentages depending on:

1: how well they role-played (roughly +5% per instance)
2: the number of good ideas they had (roughly +2-5% per idea)
3: the number of meta-gaming infringements (-5% per instance)
4: the degree of teamwork (+5% per instance)
5: miscellaneous other modifiers, basically divided between +5% for a positive, and -5% for a negative.

The PC's do get XP for defeating monsters that present a challenge (i.e. a 3rd level party taking out a juvenile red dragon), but nothing for monsters that are essentially speed bumps (3rd level party vs. ordinary goblins, unless there's a LOT of them).

Overall, the story is more of the focus than the combat. Good ideas or oustanding skill checks result in minor (25-200 points) on-the-spot awards. Meta gaming negates your next award, or at least imposes a penalty.

So, would I give full XP for bypassing the violent threat? In a word, yes. But then, the point isn't wether or not the PC's wreaked havoc, but wether or not they achieved their objective. Even if the objective was not attained, they still get some xp, if only for the learning curve.

 

[Delgar]

I've actually just started giving out flat xp per session, means:

no matter what you kill, you'll get the same xp.
no matter what you bypass, you'll get the same xp.
no matter what you do, you'll get the same xp.

It's all about the fun not the xp!

Anyway, I now also have little laminated bonus cards to reward the players for good play and they just give a little bonus. Plus, I as a DM get bonus cards to use against the players if they meta-game/disrupt play, etc.

It works out pretty good.

Delgar

 

[Zappo]

No. There's a big difference between killing an opponent and making an agreement of some sort with him. In particular -- in one case he can never threaten you again, in the other case he may again pose a challenge for you in the future. My basic theory is that you shouldn't get XP over, and over, and over again for the same opponent, which the "full XP for bypassing" plan allows. It opens the door to degenerate XP-bank type situations.

This only happens if you play D&D like a videogame... "I enter the room over and over again, meet the same monster, bash it unconscious, get out and rest". In real games, the players can't farm XP in this way, first because even animals learn from their mistakes and most monsters are smarter, and second because if the party has a reliable way to overcome a challenge over and over again, then the EL should be reduced accordingly (just as it is reduced or increased to account for ambushes, special conditions, etc.). Bottom line is, two encounters with the same creature are two different encounters and the XP gains should be independent IMO.

 

[Hand of Evil]

XP should be reward for any DC overcome, a challenge is a chanage. Plus I don't really think players should be rewarded just for combat.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Of course I'd give xp for nonviolent ways of overcoming obstacles. That's the whole point of the obstacle in the first place, right? Besides, if they leave some loose ends, that just gives me material to work with later...and generally more interesting material than just throwing new opponents at them (or raising their old opponents from the dead, or making their old opponents undead).

The point is, the complications arising from their solution is my reward: it's what I get to use to create new, more challenging obstacles for them. Them getting past an obstacle I've created, whether by fighting or by some more devious means, that's what they get rewarded for, and I'm not going to dock them points just because they didn't leave a trail of corpses behind them.

Of course, there could also be situations where the PCs deserve more xp for nonviolent resolution than they would get for simply hacking and slashing.

Yes, exactly. And also, generally when they resolve something without violence, they don't get any (or as much) loot, so sometimes it makes sense to bump up the xp reward for finding the stealthy (or diplomatic or smart or clever) way to overcome an obstacle than you'd give if they just beat the snot out of it and took its stuff.

--
not always, but often enough that you'd notice
ryan

 

[MonsterMash]

I give XP for nonviolent resolutions, but the award will vary depending on what's done, e.g. just going a different route to avoid a non mobile threat like some plants or moulds would not get as much as say the example of persuading a Lizardman tribe to move. I do use things like Roleplaying awards or mission awards as well as combat base or equivalents of combat values. Its hard to generalise though.

 

[CaptainCalico]

Last session my players used good role-playing and quick thinking to overcome a challenge that would have been deadly in straight-up combat. They got full xp.

I assign CR's to situations, not individual monsters, and my players get xp for how well they handle the situation. (Using combat to deal with the Don's Spring Ball [CR12] would net 0 xp!)

 

[Arnwyn]

Say the PCs find a diplomatic, or other non-violent, solution to an adventure -- should they get experience points equal to overcoming the "enemy" by force?

Yes - I certainly give XP for overcoming the challenge (whether it's full or not depends on what the final results are).

If the "work around" takes less time and resources for the PCs, then I feel that they are actually entitled to more XP, rather than less (I reward efficiency).