How does EXP work

[Lost_Nomad]

So I was playing a game of D&D and basically one of the encounters involved us being set upon by some Snakes and I believe Naga instead of fighting them, we managed to get through a door and then block the door up so they couldnt follow.

my question is

would we have gotten more exp for killing them all instead of running away?

thanks in advance

[Gastronomie]

Since D&D is not a video game, the answer is really up to the DM.

Most DMs will let you gain XP from successfully escaping a fight through role-play, real-life wisdom, and interaction. The amount differs based on the circumstances, as well as how good you were at the attempt.

[Slipperychicken]

Traditionally, GMs will only give you experience for monsters slain. A more enlightened GM will give you experience for overcoming monsters in other ways (talking past them, sneaking, etc). Few if any will grant XP for running away, because it looks more like a defeat than a victory. When GMs give experience for non-violent encounters, it's often much less than what you would have gotten from slaying all the monsters, although some GMs grant the same amount of XP.


That said, you should ask your GM what his ideas are regarding experience for less-violent encounters. Your GM is ultimately the person who decides both what you get XP for, and how much you get.

[Gastronomie]

Traditionally, GMs will only give you experience for monsters slain. A more enlightened GM will give you experience for overcoming monsters in other ways (talking past them, sneaking, etc). Few if any will grant XP for running away, because it looks more like a defeat than a victory.Really? I thought the main point of table-talk was that you could get benefits from trying to solve problem in non-straightforward ways.

At least in my experience. Or, perhaps, all the people around me are "enlightened".

[Slipperychicken]

Really? I thought the main point of table-talk was that you could get benefits from trying to solve problem in non-straightforward ways.

At least in my experience. Or, perhaps, all the people around me are "enlightened".

In this case, I would be very happy to be wrong. Maybe things are changing for the better. I know that experience for objectives and story-checkpoints are becoming more common.

[2D8HP]

In Ye Olde days the answer would be simple, did you steal any treasure, and bring it to town?
If yes then you got the GP value of the treasure in XP. Nowadays you probably get XP based on how well you role-played your PC's inner turmoil that's due to a tragic back-story or somesuch.
“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).

*checks 5e DMG*

Oh, it's pretty much just up to the DM now.

*whew*

(Note to self: Have DM's who understand that truly immersive role-playing consists of pretending to be a tomb robber, and treasure grabber)

[Kane0]

Depends on your DM, your table and your game.

XP used to be given on a 1:1 ratio to gp looted, but that gave way to XP determined by the challenges and obstacles you overcame. That usually meant killing monsters, but was often also gained from bypassing environmental hazards, social encounters and deliberate traps as well as completing plot points and objectives.

There are tables and XP values in the DMG and MM, but those are more guidelines than anything. Many DMs won't even bother with XP, they'll just tell you to level up when they think you should.

So barring your enemy on the other side of a door probably should give you something, ideally it should be about equal to if you killed the enemy or scared them off.

[Draco4472]

The DM decides how much XP you would receive in every case, which may vary depending on how you deal with the situation, whether progressing x distance through your campaign's plot or completing side quests and objectives in addition to your main one. Your DM might reward you the XP for role-playing your way through an encounter, or since you ran away from the fight, not give you any at all. The DM will always determine when, how, and why you gain XP for your characters, as they act as the 'referee' of the game.

Traditionally XP was rewarded in ye olde editions of D&D by killing monsters and stealing their life savings. Nowadays the DM has much more flexibility in crafting their stories for you, the player, to enjoy.

Hopefully this answers your question.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Personally, I'm inclined to give more experience for defeating encounters in creative ways.

[Zorku]

There's a little suggestion (somewhere, in one of the 3 core books, can't remember more precisely where,) that enemies that run away from a combat still provide full xp to the party.

Handled poorly this does mean that the party might get xp off of the same large beast (boss or midboss type fight,) 3 times or more thanks to fear effects, but sometimes dice are just arses like that. Taking a smarter approach any negotiable enemy that you wanted in the story will probably be easy enough to track down once the help is dispatched, and anything savage enough to be hostile on sight shouldn't necessarily show up again, and if they do it will probably be under very different circumstances.

Now, in practice, a lot of DMs think that xp is directly connected to flesh wounds, and thanks to that a party might think they see big golden dollar signs floating away from them when the goblins try to run off into the brush and hide. It's best to get public clarification that you get xp for runners, and that you probably don't miss out on cool loot if the runner lacks a name or memorable features.

[Sigreid]

The way I see it it depends. You get xp for overcoming a challenge. If they were an barrier to a goal and what you did allowed you to neutralize them as a threat and still achieve the goal they were there to prevent? If yes, xp. If no, no xp.

[Breashios]

There are also things you may not know that may or may not result in exp being awarded. For instance, are those naga going to continue to plague the good people of the area until they are killed or driven off, or are they just living "peaceably" in that dungeon? If they are just there, as DM I would tend to give you the XP for getting past them. If they are going to return as a threat that will have to be dealt with later, I would not.

Often, if there is both an immediate goal and a separate long term problem caused by the monsters, I will give half the exp when the immediate goal is accomplished and the rest when the monsters are permanently dealt with, whether that means killing them, driving them off or integrating them into the local society, with probably a bonus for the later.

So, that's how I do it as an example of how it might be handled. As many have said above, however, it is ultimately up to the DM.:smallcool:

[Cybren]

Very well, thank you.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Thank all the powers and their proxies for milestone levelling.

[Sigreid]

Thank all the powers and their proxies for milestone levelling.

Ha! Similar to milestone leveling in our group whoever is DMing tells the group to advance a level when he or she thinks its appropriate.

[MrStabby]

I give out XP at a kind of high level type thing: have you made the world a better place (ok, this just for good parties) or have you advanced towards your objectives.

Killing an evil dragon is a challenge and makes the world (kind of) a better place. So does solving why the harvests are failing, who killed the prince.

If you kill random goblins you get less XP than for killing problem goblins. If you kill bandits, you get the same XP as you would for recruiting them into a better way of life.

Of course my players sometime Chose Violence, but that is their prerogative.

[Tanarii]

would we have gotten more exp for killing them all instead of running away?Did you overcome the challenge by running away? Or did you fail to overcome it?

If you failed to overcome the challenge, then you shouldn't receive any XP. Note that overcoming a challenge doesn't mean 'kill the monsters'.

Edit: obviously if your DM is using XP to promote alternative actions than overcoming challenges, then it's a different issue. And of course the definition of overcoming a challenge is very broad. As others have mentioned, in the o.g. versions of D&D, one challenge you could overcome to get XP was getting loot out of the dungeon.

[MrStabby]

Did you overcome the challenge by running away? Or did you fail to overcome it?

If you failed to overcome the challenge, then you shouldn't receive any XP. Note that overcoming a challenge doesn't mean 'kill the monsters'.

Edit: obviously if your DM is using XP to promote alternative actions than overcoming challenges, then it's a different issue. And of course the definition of overcoming a challenge is very broad. As others have mentioned, in the o.g. versions of D&D, one challenge you could overcome to get XP was getting loot out of the dungeon.

I am guessing they overcame it? The Naga were trying to kill them, they were trying to survive. They did survive, they overcame the challenge? Not if the PCs set on the Naga I might rule it differently.

[RickAllison]

I am guessing they overcame it? The Naga were trying to kill them, they were trying to survive. They did survive, they overcame the challenge? Not if the PCs set on the Naga I might rule it differently.

Trying to take a treasure and retreat after? XP. Trying to make it out after being trapped? XP. Trying to kill the naga? Nope. I would give XP for any naga they killed during the escape.

[Grey Watcher]

Ultimately, as has been said, it's entirely up to your DM. If I were in their seat, I'd probably say if all you did was save your own hides, then probably not: even if you ran farther into the dungeon rather than back out, the Naga and her pals are still a threat that remains un-dealt-with (since, unless you've got a Final Fantasy-style Exit spell, they're going to be there on your way back out).

If you ran from the Nagas, but your goal was, say, "rescue the Prince" or "steal the Idol of Many Hands" and you fled with said MacGuffin in safely in tow, I'd give you the XP for the encounter just as if you'd killed them. Yes, the Naga and her pals are still potentially a threat, but you've accomplished the goal, so you get the reward, and any issues from not killing Team Naga outright fall under the heading of "Potential Plot Hooks". (Similar to what would've happened if you'd killed them and some other NPC swore revenge or something.)

[DragonSorcererX]

I think EXP is not like "You kill it you gain EXP" it is something like it is in Skyrim, you gain EXP by succesfully using (and thus improving) your skills, that's why normally you gain no EXP by failling, because failling means that you haven't discovered something new to make yourself better.

[Grey Watcher]

I think EXP is not like "You kill it you gain EXP" it is something like it is in Skyrim, you gain EXP by succesfully using (and thus improving) your skills, that's why normally you gain no EXP by failling, because failling means that you haven't discovered something new to make yourself better.

I've actually seen a few XP systems where failing a role did earn you a (very small) bit of XP, on the grounds that you learn more from your mistakes than your successes. It's a very fine line to tread though, and it only worked in that context because we were using a homebrew XP system tailored to the specific campaign we were running.

[Sigreid]

I've actually seen a few XP systems where failing a role did earn you a (very small) bit of XP, on the grounds that you learn more from your mistakes than your successes. It's a very fine line to tread though, and it only worked in that context because we were using a homebrew XP system tailored to the specific campaign we were running.

In Rune Quest when you succeeded in a skill you put a little check next to it. Later the DM would tell you to check for skill advancement and you would roll percentile against your current skill level (percent based system) and if with attribute modifiers you rolled higher than your current skill, you got to increase it some. If you rolled lower, you didn't learn enough new to improve. I thought it was a pretty good way of doing it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In Rune Quest when you succeeded in a skill you put a little check next to it. Later the DM would tell you to check for skill advancement and you would roll percentile against your current skill level (percent based system) and if with attribute modifiers you rolled higher than your current skill, you got to increase it some. If you rolled lower, you didn't learn enough new to improve. I thought it was a pretty good way of doing it.
I'm not a terrible fan of systems like that because I think they have too much of a video game-y feel. Remember standing and jumping for twenty minutes in Oblivion to level Athletics? My general preference is for milestone-based leveling; that saves you from having to haggle about individual challenges.

[mephnick]

I just level my group up when I think they've done enough to earn it. I kind of keep a mental tally of "that was a pretty tough situation they dealt with/got out of, it counts." or "they didn't really deal with the problem or exercise their own skill in any way, doesn't really count." I think most DM's do the same, but actually track the XP to go along with it. So, yeah, it depends on the DM.

[Hamste]

I'm not a terrible fan of systems like that because I think they have too much of a video game-y feel. Remember standing and jumping for twenty minutes in Oblivion to level Athletics? My general preference is for milestone-based leveling; that saves you from having to haggle about individual challenges.

I don't know about you, but if I exercise (i.e. jumping) I tend to become more athletic. I feel skills from leveling or from point systems is better but it is even more video gamey than use a skill have a chance to become better at it.

[Grey Watcher]

I'm not a terrible fan of systems like that because I think they have too much of a video game-y feel. Remember standing and jumping for twenty minutes in Oblivion to level Athletics? My general preference is for milestone-based leveling; that saves you from having to haggle about individual challenges.


I don't know about you, but if I exercise (i.e. jumping) I tend to become more athletic. I feel skills from leveling or from point systems is better but it is even more video gamey than use a skill have a chance to become better at it.

I think the key distinction is that in real life, practicing a skill generally makes you better at that very specific skill and only somewhat better at a very short list of other skills. Note: I've never played Oblivion, so I don't know what specifically falls under Athletics in that game. So if I spend an hour a day doing jumping exercises (https://youtu.be/6plch_qzYLU), it's not going to help at all with my ability to do, say, bicep curls (https://youtu.be/mebsnWJRasA). There is some slight overlap in terms of developing raw stamina, but if my arm muscles are worn out, it doesn't much matter if my heart and lungs haven't even gotten started yet.

[2D8HP]

In Rune Quest when you succeeded in a skill you put a little check next to it. Later the DM would tell you to check for skill advancement and you would roll percentile against your current skill level (percent based system) and if with attribute modifiers you rolled higher than your current skill, you got to increase it some. If you rolled lower, you didn't learn enough new to improve. I thought it was a pretty good way of doing it.
In Runequest, they called abusing the skill gain rules 'Golf-Bagging' - the idea was that your character carried a golf-bag full of weapons and used each one until they hit, then tossed it and drew the next one.

I don't know if anyone actually DID it, but the concept definitely existed.*cough*
Someone did (sorry!).
Never underestimate a desperate player's determination to gain a small advantage.

[Sigreid]

I'm not a terrible fan of systems like that because I think they have too much of a video game-y feel. Remember standing and jumping for twenty minutes in Oblivion to level Athletics? My general preference is for milestone-based leveling; that saves you from having to haggle about individual challenges.

Well, Rune quest was well before video games got quite that complex. Also, you had two ways of increasing a skill. You could use it in a stressful situation with risk associated, or you could train. Using a skill "under fire" was much faster than training.

[Zorku]

I think the key distinction is that in real life, practicing a skill generally makes you better at that very specific skill and only somewhat better at a very short list of other skills. Note: I've never played Oblivion, so I don't know what specifically falls under Athletics in that game. So if I spend an hour a day doing jumping exercises (https://youtu.be/6plch_qzYLU), it's not going to help at all with my ability to do, say, bicep curls (https://youtu.be/mebsnWJRasA). There is some slight overlap in terms of developing raw stamina, but if my arm muscles are worn out, it doesn't much matter if my heart and lungs haven't even gotten started yet.

I don't really like applying that kind of skill development to a game. The fact that, in real life, the only latent abilities that make you at all exceptional, can only be realized via mind numbing repetition, is almost the antithesis of fun. Milestones are a nice compromise for granularity, and percentage based incremental development could work (especially in ways like what was just presented, where the bookkeeping is really simple,) but I've got some pretty heavy MMO fatigue to overcome before I want to even go near something like that.