XP through non-violence?

[Quasqueton]

The discussion of the old Saltmarsh adventure series (Danger at Dunwater specifically) prompted me to start this thread.

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?

For instance, the PCs are sent to investigate a potentially threatening lizardfolk tribe. They could go into the situation swords swinging and spells blasting, wiping out the lizardfolk. Most DMs would of course award xp for the defeated lizardfolk. But would you give the same xp to a party who found a peaceful way of dealing with the tribe?

The PCs are sent to an old fort inhabited by an orc tribe to find a lost key. Would you give full xp to a party who went in, made a deal with the tribe's chief, retreived the key, and left without violence?

Should a DM give full* xp to a group of PCs who find a way to get around the normal combat-method of overcoming obstacles. Even if the "work around" takes the PCs less time and resources?

*Full: meaning same xp as awarded for killing the opposition.


I once had an adventure where the PCs were to investigate a location within the tribal holdings of a lizardfolk tribe. [Completely unrelated to the Saltmarsh series.] I figured on both a violent and non-violent means of getting into the location. I figured that if the PCs chose to attack the lizardfolk, they would have to kill half the tribe, then the remaining half would flee the area. So when the PCs chose diplomacy and goodwill to overcome the lizardfolk tribe, I awarded xp equal to half the total of the tribe. (It still took the PCs 3 or 4 game days to win over the tribe and the chief and his advisor, including killing off some local predators/threats to the tribe.)

But I've known and read of several DMs through the years that only awarded xp for combat. What do you do?

Quasqueton

 

[Chunklets]

Short answer: Yes, xp should be awarded for non-violent resolution of problems. However, whether that should be "full" xp is another question. In the example of the orc tribe, although the PCs retrieved the key, they did leave the orcs in their fort, to (presumeably) menace the surrounding further. That fact could influence the amount of xp the DM hands out for getting the key. 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.

 

[nopantsyet]

That is what the rules state. Full XP for overcoming the challenge--not necessarily killing another party. They also make specific note of this in published modules and adventures in Dungeon magazine.

As to whether DMs do it or not, that's a different question. I give XP for all significant encounters in my game. Encounters are encounters, regardless of whether they utilize combat mechanics. It's a bit silly to penalize the players for finding alternate solutions.

 

[DelayedReactionMan]

I generally look at the encounter, and whether or not it was completed or not. How it was completed is, in my mind, irrelevant for purposes of XP. If the players managed to find a peaceful solution then they deserve the same XP than if they had slaughtered everyone in sight. In fact, they would probably get more XP for role-playing.

 

[jasper]

Yes. I had an adventure where the party was suppose to clear out kobold tunnels. Instead they plugged all the escape tunnels and killed the head men as they came out. They got full xp for the adventure.

 

[Zappo]

Of course. That's what the rules actually say, so there shouldn't even be a doubt about it; if you overcome a challenge, you get XP. It doesn't matter how you overcome it. If the problem is solved, then you get full XP; if it's partially solved, you get partial XP.

Some DM do not award full XP when sneaking past a monster or dealing with it diplomatically, on the basis that the monster can still come back and cause grief later. This isn't a valid argument IMO. First of all, this game has resurrections, so by this theory you should never get full XP unless you kill your enemy, soul trap him, and hide the soul gem in the deepest layer of the Abyss or something like that. Secondly, if you successfully sneak past a monster, you have overcome the challenge, and that's everything that matters. If the monster hunts you for revenge one year later, that's a different challenge altogether.

And yeah, this means that leaving enemies alive after having defeated them is a good way of gaining XP. Now you know why characters both good and evil do it all the time in the movies.

 

[MerakSpielman]

They didn't gain any experience honing their fighting skills, that's for sure. I usually have a separate award for completing a major task, and they'd get that.

 

[random user]

There is a whole school of DM's that don't award xp for combat.

Really, as long as the DM and the players all agree on a method, any way is fine.

 

[dcollins]

Should a DM give full* xp to a group of PCs who find a way to get around the normal combat-method of overcoming obstacles. Even if the "work around" takes the PCs less time and resources?

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.

I once had an adventure where the PCs were to investigate a location within the tribal holdings of a lizardfolk tribe... So when the PCs chose diplomacy and goodwill to overcome the lizardfolk tribe, I awarded xp equal to half the total of the tribe.

I totally agree with that, it's very close to what I would do. I have also started using the specific recommendations in the DMG under "Challenge Ratings for Noncombat Encounters", by which any goal for a noncombat encounter is assigned a CR rating and given XP appropriately. (Usually one or two levels under the party's own level.)

That is what the rules state. Full XP for overcoming the challenge--not necessarily killing another party.

Guess I see a lot of votes in that direction, but no quote to support it. Here's what my DMG actually states:

As the DM, you must decide when a challenge is overcome. Usually, this is simple to do. Did the PCs defeat the enemy in battle? Then they met the challenge and earned experience points. Other times it can be trickier... It's up to you to make such judgements.

So, defeat in battle: definite "yes". Overcoming encounter another way: "maybe".

 

[Silveras]

Guess I see a lot of votes in that direction, but no quote to support it. Here's what my DMG actually states:

So, defeat in battle: definite "yes". Overcoming encounter another way: "maybe".

I had occasion to quote this in another thread just yesterday:

Encounters, either individually or strung together, reward certain types of behavior whether you are conscious of it or not. Encounters that can or must be won by killing the opponents reward aggression and fighting prowess.
...
Remember, then, that you can offer many different kinds of encounters, including all of the following.
Combat: <description>
Negotiation: <description>
Environmental: Weather, earthquakes, landslides, fast-moving rivers, and fire are just some of the environmental conditions that can challenge even mid- to high- level PCs.
Problem-Solving: Mysteries, puzzles, riddles, or anything that requires the players to use logic and reason to try to overcome the challenge counts as a problem-solving encounter.
Judgement Calls: <description>
Investigation: <description>