Suppose you're DMing a game, and you just had a bunch of NPC thugs demand some money from the PCs. They're way weaker than the characters they're trying to extort, and if the PCs want, they can kill these guys with little effort.
Would you give them more XP (or equivalent if you're playing a system without it) for
A) Killing all the thugs for their presumption
B) Intimidating them into scurrying off?
Both approaches solve the problem, same exp
Bonus if they roleplay either well
I don't do EXP, I level everyone up at appropriate plot points.
A, mostly because B yields 0.
I'd give them the same amount of XP for completing the encounter, no matter how that completion occurs, with a bonus for creative or entertaining twists thrown in.
>We kill bandits - 150 xp
>We roll to intimidate bandits into running away - 150 xp
As opposed to:
>I offer them a skin of "wine" oil and have the ranger shoot it with a burning arrow, then we slaughter the burning bandits - 200-350 xp
>The bard delivers a rousing and heartfelt speech about the perils of banditry, and convinces the thugs to amend t heir ways/join the party/commit sudoku - (you get the point) xp
Same either way. Any other rewards/consequences come as in-universe things and depend on the specifics of what they did.
Kill half of them, thus intimidating the other half into running away.
This, XP is too much of a pain in the ass. Plot-based leveling feels more natural.
>You killed the boss, saved the town, and got the girl, everybody advances to level 3
Feels more satisfying than
> a few of you finnaly murded enough shit to get that last drop of XP, the Cleric and Fighter level up but Rogue and Druid still need to kill more
The real question is - if they do both, do they earn sum or average of each option?
C) Paying them the money, or something similarly unexpected
No, that's a retarded question. If you intimidate them and then chase after them and kill all of them anyway, you might as well just have killed them in the first place.
But if you killed them right away, you wouldn't have practiced your intimidation.
I don't give XP for encounters.
It's a dumb idea from an uncivilized age.
>thinks XP is only gained by killing shit
hoo boy
Depends on what kinda town they are in, are they locals.. Does the town watch tolerate violence.. What if said thugs bribed the watch
Its an encounter. For solving this thugs encounter I give 100xp for example. Doesn't matter if they choose violence or diplomacy. They get full exp from both for completing the encounter. If its creative an unexpected I give more exp.Sometimes I even give full exp for running away.
Or you can do what anyone that plays with experience does.
>we distribute the experience when we are on breaks / at the end of the session
Thus no one has to think about experience save for the DM during playtime.
I give them equal experience for either. Same as who isn't an idiot like .
I don't normally use XP. if I did, there are a lot more options than just that. I'd award XP based on how well they roleplay and stick to their characters. If they just use the most immediate, easiest choice a PLAYER would make, rather than a CHARACTER, well, you just get standard XP. if it's grossly out of character, you might get none (the monk that has a code to never murder a living creature intentionally murders a thug) or a penalty.
Rolled 12 (1d20)
I'd attempt to charm the thugs to fight for us
Resolving the encounter by any means is valid and should give equal XP.
Why? Not all resolutions are equally desirable.
That causes a narrative difference, which has no relation to players actions.
People love rewards and will usually perform the acts that are most rewarded (or which makes them feel rewarded). Which is why you can count on people to conform to the standards they are being judged by.
XP is a reward that represents character growth and power growth. It can be used to incentivize good roleplaying by rewarding more XP and it really should be rewarded for when there's some actual growth or change.
I'd say the scenario yields the same amount of xp for both end results, but clever ideas or good roleplaying adds to that.
Also consider the rewards in-game and the punishments.
It is better to respond through the world to an undesirable or a desirable resolution. Killing the thugs brutally might attract the town guard and disturb whatever the PCs were doing. Redeeming the thugs might get the PCs some allies and/or sources.
Good roleplaying does not necessarily correlate with desirable resolutions.
Neither. They don't get XP for resolving a situation that they can easily overcome. XP is meant for actual challenges and not merely any situation.
This is why you cant level to 20 just by killing dire rats. At some point you become so good at killing them you learn nothing from the activity.
C: delivering the thugs to local authorities
this
I just give out XP at the end of a session depending on what they faced in general. As long as the problem is solved they get rewarded and unless you do something really amazing or your character is falling behind the rest of the party you don't get any bonus xp.
This is the correct way of doing it. Dubs confirm for truth.
This is how you should never do it.