Non lethal risks should award xp?

[Conradine]

A social challenge were losing means not execution but embarassment, loss of reputation, or simply loss of gain / opportunities

or

a full contact non lethal fight were losing means not death but loss of status and possibly spending weeks recovering from the beating

should still award small xp rewards in your opinion?

[OldTrees1]

Yes
XP is gained from overcoming challenges. If something is not a challenge then it gets no XP.

[Calthropstu]

Yes.

Hell, you can award xp for whatever you want. "I award 2000 xp to the party for having been given cookies."
It's a thing.

[Andezzar]

Don't think of XP as risk compensation, but as earnings for accomplishing a non-trivial task. Then it makes a lot more sense to give XP outside of life or death situations.

The point is however that the task is accomplished. If the task is avoiding embarrassment at court and the PCs don't make fools out of themselves, award XP. If however the task is to gain certain information during that court gathering without embarrassing themselves or someone else, simply avoiding any pitfalls is not enough.

[ComaVision]

I gave some xp to a player not too long ago because he found a d4 I had been missing for several weeks. I'll give xp where I feel it's warranted. This is probably from playing video games but I've always felt the group should get some bonus experience for finishing a quest arc too.

[Big Fau]

Social encounters, such as negotiating a merchant to fund an expedition to a jungle temple, are encounters none the less. There's no reason not to award XP for overcoming a social encounter. I've personally treated social encounters as a CR based on the time spent talking, and awarded either party's ECL +/- 2 or enough XP to level if they were really close anyway.


Just going into town and buying supplies isn't going to be an encounter in its own right, but converting the merchant to your deity would (actually happened, without dice rolls either).

[Telonius]

Players get XP for overcoming challenges. The means they use to overcome those challenges is up to them. They need information from a merchant? That can be a challenge. If they get the information - whether they diplomatize him, bribe him, trick him, threaten him, beat it out of him, or shoot first and Speak With Dead later - they've overcome the challenge.

[NickTheGreek3]

Absolutely. It's not neccessarily the risk involved but how hard/impressive the task is.

For example, our level 9 rogue once tried to pick a DC 40 lock (I think that's the highest non-magical lock you can get) and all the party was staring at him as he added all the Open Lock bonuses to a final sum of exactly 40. :smallbiggrin: The DM looked genuinely impressed and said "You unlock the door and wipe the sweat off your forehead. This lock was the hardest you've ever picked - and you'll probably never pick another like this one."

Other examples could be the party's bard seducing a tavern waitress to ask a favor/information, winning a drinking contest with an off-duty guard to befriend him and get inside info of the Baron's evil activities etc. Good ideas and good roleplay should also be rewarded. :smallwink:

[Rainshine]

Yes, please. I love giving out exp for social stuff, picking up on subtext/questlines, and clever stunts. Seriously helps some players move away from murderhoboing.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Of course. You don't want to reward wrong behavior. If you only award experience for overcoming dangerous or deadly encounters, you send the players a metagame message that the only way you can increase the power of your character is through combat. The players, if they are trying to increase power should then ignore any social encounters, and kill their way through any challenge. <-- Extreme Example

XP should be given out for accomplishing things and overcoming challenges in any way shape or form. If the quest is "Get the chalice out of the Dungeon". And the players bribe their way in, sneak in, and grab the chalice and teleport out, they defeated the challenge and should get experience. If they hire a group of scrubby adventurers and have them do the task, and the adventurers accomplish it, the adventurers get experience, but so do the players for accomplishing goals in whatever manner they desire.

Personally, I don't muck around with XP. I just level the players when I need them to level.

[Honest Tiefling]

I agree with the above that experience should be awarded when the character has overcome a challenge. However, if the 'risk' is minimal (as in, the character has a plan to flip out and kill everyone should they fail or plans to move away anyway) evaluate the experience accordingly. Will giving them the experience help them restrain themselves and enjoy the game? Will it encourage game play others will enjoy? Or is the challenge not challenging enough for their level? Is the solution creative and does it involve the other characters? Or is this a hack n' slash game, where such would be inappropriate?

Then again, like Bouts I too do the 'level when I say so' for a variety of reasons. But I would certainly take social challenges into consideration for when to award a level.

[Necroticplague]

Obviously, yes. You get XP when you overcome a challenge. Whether that challenge is physical ('make it through the night'), social ('try to not get arrested when you're being framed'), economic ('figure out how to avoid getting evicted by the end of the month'), a combination ('hack your way through this dungeon for the useless-but-valuable McGuffin to fence so you can pay rent') or some other type is irrelevant. As long as there's some sort of challenge, and they overcame it, they got experience. Now, figuring out the CR form many such encounters (and thus, XP to award) may be difficult, but there should still be some.

[Thurbane]

A social challenge were losing means not execution but embarassment, loss of reputation, or simply loss of gain / opportunities

or

a full contact non lethal fight were losing means not death but loss of status and possibly spending weeks recovering from the beating

should still award small xp rewards in your opinion?

Haven't you heard about COmmoner Fight Club? Of course you haven't. First rule and all that. :smallbiggrin:

Someone on these forums suggested groups of Commoners get together in the back alleys of a town to have non-lethal fights with each other in order to level up.

How else do you think you get a Commoner 20 in large towns? :smalltongue:

[mabriss lethe]

If it's important enough to do, then it's important enough to get XP for doing it.

[nyjastul69]

A social challenge were losing means not execution but embarassment, loss of reputation, or simply loss of gain / opportunities

or

a full contact non lethal fight were losing means not death but loss of status and possibly spending weeks recovering from the beating

should still award small xp rewards in your opinion?

No, they shouldn't award small amounts of XP . I agree with most that they should offer more than small XP awards. When I DM the majority of XP's are awarded for play outside of combat. This is partially because the groups I play with wouldn't be able to get through enough combats in a single session to level up at a reasonable rate.

[Jack_Simth]

... wow. 14... err.. .make that 15 (counting this one)... posts in a row on the Internet, and it's a UNANIMOUS yes? Yikes. How often does that happen?

[Conradine]

Really? Ok, so I vote for a "no".

XP should come only from killing things.

[Ashtagon]

Really? Ok, so I vote for a "no".

XP should come only from killing things.

I'm now imaging a campaign in which XP only comes from resurrecting things or otherwise bringing life into the world.

[Red Fel]

Really? Ok, so I vote for a "no".

XP should come only from killing things.

So, what was the point of this thread?

I mean, you opened this thread by saying, "Should non-combat encounters award XP?" The answer was universally, "Yes." The SRD explicitly states that this is so (see e.g. xp rewards for overcoming traps).

And your response is, "Yeah, but nope."

... So, close the thread, we're done here? I mean, you haven't offered an argument, just a conclusion, so it's not like we can debate the merits of your position. And it's not like we need to, either; you've made your position, and it doesn't sound like you care that we disagree.

So... we're done here?

[Inevitability]

So, what was the point of this thread?

I mean, you opened this thread by saying, "Should non-combat encounters award XP?" The answer was universally, "Yes." The SRD explicitly states that this is so (see e.g. xp rewards for overcoming traps).

And your response is, "Yeah, but nope."

... So, close the thread, we're done here? I mean, you haven't offered an argument, just a conclusion, so it's not like we can debate the merits of your position. And it's not like we need to, either; you've made your position, and it doesn't sound like you care that we disagree.

So... we're done here?

I believe he was semi-funnily trying to break the unanimous streak mentioned in the post above his.

Then again, I might just be too optimistic, and Conradine may actually think killing stuff is the only thing that gets you XP.

[Conradine]

So, what was the point of this thread?

I mean, you opened this thread by saying, "Should non-combat encounters award XP?" The answer was universally, "Yes." The SRD explicitly states that this is so (see e.g. xp rewards for overcoming traps).

And your response is, "Yeah, but nope."

... So, close the thread, we're done here? I mean, you haven't offered an argument, just a conclusion, so it's not like we can debate the merits of your position. And it's not like we need to, either; you've made your position, and it doesn't sound like you care that we disagree.

So... we're done here?


I was joking, Red. :smalleek:

Personally I liked the old system where combat awarded little to none and xp were calculated on basis of how much gold was plundered.
I also like the almost-unknown concept of gaining xp through training and studying. Although it isn't ideal for gaming purposes.




The SRD explicitly states that this is so (see e.g. xp rewards for overcoming traps).

Since traps can kill or maim, this is an inappropriate example.

[Inevitability]

Since traps can kill or maim, this is an inappropriate example.

Not all of them, though. There's more than enough traps in the SRD that aren't directly harmful. Net traps, tripwires, Ghoul Touch traps...

[Red Fel]

Not all of them, though. There's more than enough traps in the SRD that aren't directly harmful. Net traps, tripwires, Ghoul Touch traps...

The point is that a trap is, in reality, a skill or ability check. Skill check, in that Disable Device is a thing. Ability check, in that if you fail your skill check, you make some sort of saving throw or pay an HP toll. It is also an obstacle, in that it must be overcome or bypassed to reach your objective.

And that's just it. Traps are not the only skill check. Pretty much any non-combat encounter can fit that bill. Trying to persuade the king to support your cause? Roll Diplomacy. Trying to trick the bandits into leaving you alone? Roll Bluff. Trying to sneak through the Kobold warren undetected? Hide and Move Silently.

If xp is only rewarded for killing things, then necessarily every encounter must become about killing. Trying to persuade the king to support your cause? Kill his men until he yields. Trying to trick the bandits into leaving you alone? Trick nothing, kill 'em. Trying to sneak through the Kobold warren undetected? Sneak nothing, kill 'em all. Even the children, they're worth fractional xp.

The game is objective-oriented. And there are many ways to reach an objective. Negotiate with someone, kill something, use some skill checks, there are plenty of ways to do that. Saying that the PCs only get xp for doing it one way (i.e. killing things) sends a very specific message about the type of game you're running, and disincentivizes anything but that.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Hell, once I got xp for solving a player created "encounter".

One PC dead from an unknown disease. No one will touch the corpse, but half the party won't just leave him by the wayside. I rationalize that the corpse is still food for something so I cast Purify Food and Water on the "food".

DM considered it an encounter. Gave xp to anyone that aided in the "ritual" I performed.

[Conradine]

If xp is only rewarded for killing things, then necessarily every encounter must become about killing. Trying to persuade the king to support your cause? Kill his men until he yields. Trying to trick the bandits into leaving you alone? Trick nothing, kill 'em. Trying to sneak through the Kobold warren undetected? Sneak nothing, kill 'em all. Even the children, they're worth fractional xp.

Yeah!

Kill things and take their stuff.
That is playing D&D.

[digiman619]

Yeah!

Kill things and take their stuff.
That is playing D&D.

No, that's Munchkin. Says so on the box.

[Beheld]

There are a lot of monsters that aren't lethal risks. If you run into a CR 3 Fihyr, it does 1d4-1 damage on attacks, and it doesn't even hit that often, but every time it makes an attack it forces a save against panick for everyone that sees it.

That monster is never going to kill anyone, but it could send the entire party screaming, and so you are never going to die from it, but you obviously still get XP from beating it.

Similarly, lots of monsters, like Snakes, are built on the assumption that they will do ability damage or some other long lasting status effect that just isn't lethal, and then you kill them. "Losing" to a snake is getting poisoned and then killing it. Beating a Snake is killing it without getting poisoned. It's not supposed to be a lethal risk.