Thoughts?

Do people care that much about XP? It always seemed a pretty lackluster reward to me.

Rewards should be best when a player has their character act in character and contribute to an encounter appropriately.

Like say you're up against a magical golem and the party consists of a barbarian, a rogue, and a wizard. If the barbarian keeps the golem's attention in a duel whilst the rogue sneaks up behind the golem and gets up on onto it to open up it's access panel and then the wizard instructs the rogue in how to disable the golem based on relayed information about what is in the insides, everyone should get fat stacks of xp for the encounter even if nothing died.

Didn't we have another thread covering this? If you're a fighter or barbarian and you're having trouble out of combat, it's because you suck as a player.

underrated

It's your key to character advancement in most games, so that alone makes it a pretty big deal.

I've never seen anyone really going out of their way to earn it though. It pretty much always just comes through naturally. It's not like a videogame where you can go grind XP to get past the boss.

This. In a tabletop game, XP comes from expirence

I give bonus EXP for players accomplishing something harder, not just different.

Resolving conflict with combat vs diplomacy gives the same EXP. But with combat you get loot, and with diplomacy you don't risk dying and you conserve your resources.

If the player jumped hoops (not just roll a die) for a diplomatic solution, such as fetching an item, then they'd get a bonus.

Have you tried not playing D&D?
That's exactly why I like burning wheel - character advancement feels very organic and if you always just use violence you won't get anywhere really.

+3 situational bonus for having a tonne of slavering metal, muscle and temper standing there as an implicit threat.

A solution is a solution.
One involves a mound of corpses, and several hours of combat.
The other, a little thought and some RP.

I know which I'd rather go with.

>you receive Double XP for solving a problem (that’s very soon to be violent) with a non-violent solution
>then get the base XP for killing them anyway
>get triple XP every encounter
They'll be the friendliest murderhobos ever

That sounds incredibly shitty. Many classes are much better out of combat than others.

>If you're a fighter or barbarian and you're having trouble out of combat, it's because you suck as a player.

Not really? They do have a lot less they can do, even with the skill system. I'd say it's more 'If you design a game and some classes have vastly less options, you suck as a game designer'.

That wasn't the Veeky Forums consensus in the thread linked.

So? Veeky Forums isn't a hive mind and I say it's a shitty situation to have one class have vastly more non-combat options than another. After all 'The fighter/barbarian can be creative' is something that can be applied just as much to all the spellcasters, unless you bludgeon your wizard players with their spellbook until they can't cast past 9.

"i don't know?"
NOT A FUCKING QUESTION

Shouldn't have played 5e user. Try 4e or don't play DnD at all.

these
good

I'd add 'Challenge the warlord to a duel and defeat him right in front of all his watching men' as a double exp combat option there but yeah.

most people forget that you get no XP from a fight that YOU start

No? That's not how it works in most games. Mostly because the general adventurer job is 'Going places, killing people and taking their stuff'.

>Yo gain XP for each GP of treasure retrieved
Fixed.

So PCs are encouraged to never help protect people unless they can be paid?

Just don't use XP. Have trainers teach the PCs stuff. If they kill people, they get money to spend and possibly favors from the dead guy's enemies. If they find a less violent solution then they get favors from the other guy or at least avoid losing anything in the fight. If you want to avoid murderhobo habits then make legitimate alternatives to XP and loot because that is the source of the habits. Make it non-viable to be a mass-murderer by making fights difficult but rewarding to reinforce murder as a sometimes option but not the immediate response to conflict. Don't base it on diplomacy though because that gets old fast, use other solutions like bribes, favors, debates, impressive acts, or defeats through trapping, banishing, or otherwise removing a threat. Send demons back to their plane, prosecute corrupt officials in court, convince the evil wizard his theories are wrong, and defeat the king by turning his vassals against him.

That would require actually giving individual bits of XP to people, which I've always felt as being annoying and fiddly instead of just saying 'you level up' as a group

>using XP.

Truly

Now now, hear me out for a minute!
DMs directly and indirectly penalize players when they murder their way to the solution. The reason is the same reason why murdering your way to the front of the line at a supermarket isn't practical, with the rewards rarely being worth the trouble.

But XP is all about the knowledge of using your abilities, most of which are violent. Shouldn't killing your way to a problem grant more XP, instead of less?

Here's what I propose:
>Solve a problem with violence = Full XP + Whatever lynch-mob the DM cooks up as a result
>Solve a problem diplomatically = Much less XP + no lynch-mobs in sight

but what if they also manage to kill the lynchmob?
will every killed person cause another lynchmob to appear?

What happens if they kill the lynch-mob? They're branded as mass murderers, and the police move in

What if they kill the police? They're branded as terrorists, and the military moves in

What if they kill the military? They're branded as an international threat, and other countries send their military

What if they eradicate all the world's military like goblins? Nukes!

What if they're still alive after that? Countries around the world build Jaegers, and send them after them

What if they STILL prevail? They become god-emperors of mankind, with every npc wishing for multidimensional providence (in the form of the last pizza) to cause them to kill each other and end this long-drawn out nightmare

Did that answer your question?

That's a pretty arbitrary way to promote avoiding combat. How about you create encounters that are deadlier and make recovery harder? Make armor become damaged in fights, repair can be expensive especially for full plate, when armor gets too damaged it can become irreparable. Healing wounds takes substantial amounts time, wounds can get inflamed if not immediately taken care of.

>Implying that isn't already the case.

>Getting so blown out in one thread he tries to bring it to other threads
Hahaha! You made my day! Thank you!

says so in the rules

>Not a hive mind triple nigger, now go back to what ever shit sight you crawled out off.

The reward for not choosing violence is avoiding a fight that might kill a character (or weaken them for a greater fight they could die at later) and they're less likely to have legal or social ramifications from it. They don't need more XP.

Besides, it's pretty arbitrary; what happens when they try diplomacy or going around an enemy first, but just fail the check? Should double XP really hinder on a single roll?

I mean, I wouldn’t call a successful seduction of the Amazon Chieftess “non-violent” or the resultant fucking, but I’ll definitely take the exp.

Only if you also receive double XP for violently solving non-violent problems.

>using XP for levels and not significant events or achievements

what if they kill themselves?