Post/Author/DateTime	Post
skywyze 04-27-07, 09:57 AM	There have been several banes to enjoyable gaming in my past, but over half of them have been directly related to combat. People play munchkinny characters, argue rules and semantics for hours on end and so on. So my solution is simple: Don't give XP for combat (or bypassing enemies in other ways). Instead, give XP based on how something progresses the story. Pros: * Puts less emphasis on combat, hopefully inspiring people to build more versatile, fun and well-rounded characters, instead of always having to make combat monsters. I'm tired of seeing characters who don't seem to exist outside of combat. * Allows the DM more direct control over what rate characters should be allowed to level without being a slave to CRs. I.e. a random encounter on the way to the BBEG won't suddenly make everyone more uber than the BBEG him/herself. * Increases the power of social characters, such as bards, since they can now get the party past guards etc without having the party sustain crippling injuries. In the past this was always an option, but now it's a more intelligent option. * Players who want their characters to grow powerful fast will have to focus on the story, thus driving it forward. Cons: * May not "feel" like D&D if combat is de-emphasized. * Diplomacy may have to be house-ruled or it will become too powerful (though personally, I see diplomacy more as a filter than a game mechanic - a high diplomacy filters out the gibberish coming out of the player's mouth while a low diplomacy filters out the cleverness). I know this would be a very drastic change, but I personally would like to see a campaign where, upon meeting the goblins in the cave at level 1, the characters asked to meet their leader instead of immediately resolving to murder the poor, innocent goblins. That WOULD be the more intelligent solution in my opinion, and definitely the one I would use in real life. Opinions? Experiences? Insights?
Catzilla 04-27-07, 12:03 PM	I'm not big on making D&D a rules heavy combat festival either, but I've run across plenty of players that equate D&D with monster bashing. So, my first advice would be to run your idea by your players. In my own group, I have two players that would probably mutiny if dropped the combat XP, but the other three wouldn't complain. If your going to eliminate XP for combat all together, I would concentrate on story awards that give equal XP to all of the members of the party. If you base all of the XP upon individual role play, the stronger role players in your group will reap most of the rewards. This could lead to the weaker role players feeling alienated. I found this to be especially true with players that are actually great at acting out their role, but are generally shy people. The more extroverted players around them tend to do more role play simply because they're more comfortable 'acting' in front of their friends. The shy players can end up being penalized simply for being shy people. Perhaps you could try more of a middle ground first. If you present the group with a CR whatever monster encounter that would net them each 1,000XP for overcoming it, give them that XP for defeating the monster (remember, defeat doesn't necessarily equal kill. Intelligent monsters won't all fight to the death.), bypassing it or talking their way past conflict with it. That's my :twocents:
UAMDB 04-27-07, 12:23 PM	Cons: Increases railroading. If you dont follow my story you will stay at level 1. DM arbitiraly (sp) gving out xp based on how the PC's advance the story, can make the PC's feel powerless. Also the PC's will not know what will or will not advance the story. They might think option A is a cool thing to do, fits with their back story, but does nothing to advance the story of underground mole people preparing to take over the city. Not tring to be overly critical but D&D was based on a combat system. You can make the game more RP heavy with out doing away with combat. Give xp bonuses to players that help to advance the story.
RobbyPants 04-27-07, 01:21 PM	* Increases the power of social characters, such as bards, since they can now get the party past guards etc without having the party sustain crippling injuries. In the past this was always an option, but now it's a more intelligent option. Well, in standard rules, you get XP for defeating an enemy. You don't necessarily have to kill them. Thus, the example of the bard getting the party past the guards still would grant XP with the regular system. What I would suggest is increase role-playing XP awards. You don't have to remove them from combat. If you feel the PCs are still seeking out fighting over other alternatives, tailor your games so that combat becomes a less viable option. If the PCs have to do something for an extended period of time in a large, well-patroled city, then getting into constant brawls will likely get them thrown in jail.
Selgard 04-27-07, 02:08 PM	It sounds like the kind of campaign you want to run is contrary to the kind of compaign your players are used to playing in. IMO: You need to sit down and talk with them about it, and see if they wouldn't mind adjusting some of their actions to meet with what you want. Rather than flat out penalizing them for not playing how you want them to, you should have a discussion with the players and see if you can't get your wants and their wants to mesh a little more seamlessly. It can be as difficult as "lets shift the campaign towards RP" or as easy as "ok guys, this campaign is combat oriented, but the next one is going to mainly be RP heavy -> combat light" or any combination thereof. Anyway, that's my $.02
IronMouse 04-27-07, 03:08 PM	* Diplomacy may have to be house-ruled or it will become too powerful http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html
JulesCARV 04-27-07, 04:14 PM	I say XP rewards don't need a great deal of complexity. If the party was doing something interesting -- whether fighting, talking to NPCs, researching, or whatever -- they get about 7% of the experience needed to advance a level per hour of real-life game time. (i.e., in a three-hour session, if they're level 5, they get about 1000 xp) If someone's behind the usual level of the party, they get a 30% exprience bonus per level behind they are. If the party was really on the ball, using exceptionally smart combat tactics, asking NPCs all the right questions, figuring out the mysteries based on subtle clues, etc, they might all get a bonus of up to 30%. If they spend their time bickering, hanging out in taverns, blundering into combat without any plan or reasoning, missing obvious clues, or arguing out-of-character over the table, etc, they might all get a 30% penalty. In a combat-heavy session, they'd still get plenty of experience, if they fight smartly, but they wouldn't lose experience for finding other, non-combattive approaches. In short, there's no experience for anything in particular, whether combat, social interaction with NPCs, stealthy reconnaisance, crime scene investigation, or anything else. Rather, there's general experience for having a good game that was played intelligently, didn't fall prey to rules disputes and argumetns, etc.
Vaelan 04-27-07, 06:33 PM	There have been several banes to enjoyable gaming in my past, but over half of them have been directly related to combat. People play munchkinny characters, argue rules and semantics for hours on end and so on. So my solution is simple: Don't give XP for combat (or bypassing enemies in other ways). Instead, give XP based on how something progresses the story. Don't let people argue during the game unless it is very, very important. Aside from that, offer situations in which combat isn't a good solution and start giving XP for them. If the players don't bite, they clearly want to play a combat-based game. I know this would be a very drastic change, but I personally would like to see a campaign where, upon meeting the goblins in the cave at level 1, the characters asked to meet their leader instead of immediately resolving to murder the poor, innocent goblins. That WOULD be the more intelligent solution in my opinion, and definitely the one I would use in real life. Maybe your players don't want to play that way. Also, there are easy ways to do that within the rules. One that worked rather well in one of my groups was to confront the first person to squeeze through the entrance to a cave with two goblin guards, both with readied spears. Even the most dense of players will see that combat isn't the best solution here since they'd have to survive the two spear thrusts and two attacks of opportunity (since the goblins will 5-foot step back after attacking) before even getting a chance to act. http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html That does not provide any actual benefit and is more complicated than the actual system. It could also discourage roleplaying. It looks to me like the knee-jerk reaction of someone who allowed a player to misuse the Diplomacy rules.
Ertai Planeswalker 04-27-07, 07:24 PM	Maybe you could just reduce the XP from combat instead of completely eliminating it? I mean, i understand your problem but it is very weired if a fighter learns more about fighting on an evening at the bar then through well, you know, fighting. You could for example, half the xp gained from fighting. That way, roleplaying can be literally more rewarding, but it's not mandatory. You could also divide XP into combat xp and non-combat xp, then give each class a 25/75, 50/50 or 75/25 combination in order to level, with the 3/4 being their main strength. For example, 1st level character would need 1000xp to get to level 2. Let's say it's a fighter. Combat is their main thing, not much else. So he would need 750 combat xp (3/4) and 250 non-combat xp(1/4) before he can level up. Same with the barbarian and monk. If he were a bard, it would be the other way around, 750 roleplaying xp and 250 combat xp. Paladin is tough, either 75% roleplaying or 50/50. Sorcerer, Wizard, Rogue and Cleric all 50/50.
Sphyre 04-28-07, 02:50 AM	Instead, give XP based on how something progresses the story. That's exactly what I do. As such my experience tends to be given out a bit faster than the encounters they've faced would have suggested. I don't see this as a bad thing. I mean I calculate the experience from combat to give myself a base-line, and if they did a lot of cool stuff, moved the story forward, solved problems without violence, etc I give them more.
Luis_Dragunov 04-28-07, 08:45 AM	As it was said before, XP is not given for killing stuff. In fact, an encouter doesn't even need to be with monsters. An encounter is something that provides an impediment to the PC's goals and that they have to overcome. Of course, most of these can be lethal, offering a counterpoint and following the "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" philosophy of survival. That said, an encounter can be anything, from negotiating peace with the elves to winning a contest of skill, finding a murderer before X time elapses/he kills another victim, etc. Personally, while I can see the usefulness of the story xp awards, I usually render them little more than bonuses for completing an arc of the campaign, not as the sole source of xp, because it really rips a new one on the sense of veracity in the world. Why? So what happens to creatures who don't follow the storyline? How do they progress in levels? How did the BBEG or that old army lieutenant of the imperial army get so tough? XP is short for Experience, based on the principle that, the more dangerous or edgy the situations you experience are, the more you exercise your skill and you either die/fail, or get stronger. Also, the real problem I see is that your players want to kick ass and experience awesome scenes of battle, really show off their characters' offensive abilities, and you're more inclined to storytelling. I suggest you sit down and chat with them about it.
DreadArchon 04-28-07, 06:13 PM	I don't give XP for encounters at all. I do it like in Feng Shui and give them XP for showing up, regardless of what they do (with a bonus if they do something cool during the session).
Sylian 04-28-07, 06:50 PM	I don't give xp at all, I simply give them levels when I think that they should level. It works very well. Might be a problem in campaigns with item creation, though.
Illithid_Tentacles 04-28-07, 07:21 PM	Wow, I've been looking for a way to further cripple the melee classes. I think this is perfect. I mean, they're so totally awesome in combat AND social situations, since they get so many skillpoints and can afford to burn them on stuff like diplomacy and bluff, in my experience there's got to be some kind of limiting factor on them or they dominate the game.
skywyze 04-28-07, 10:15 PM	Wow, I've been looking for a way to further cripple the melee classes. I think this is perfect. I mean, they're so totally awesome in combat AND social situations, since they get so many skillpoints and can afford to burn them on stuff like diplomacy and bluff, in my experience there's got to be some kind of limiting factor on them or they dominate the game.Is that sarcasm I hear? I never said that combat couldn't give XP, I said it shouldn't be the ONLY way to do it.
Illithid_Tentacles 04-28-07, 11:42 PM	Is that sarcasm I hear? I never said that combat couldn't give XP, I said it shouldn't be the ONLY way to do it. Combat ISN'T the ONLY way to get XP, because you don't get XP for beating the tar out of stuff, you get XP for overcoming challenges. True, combat is generally the most frequent and likely challenge that players will face, but it's far from the only challenge. Convincing the skeptical king and his advisors to take action against the growing hobgoblin army on the other side of the mountain range before they become unstoppable is a challenge, and if the players succeed, they should get XP for it. Rescuing a wrongfully (or even a rightfully) imprisoned ally is a challenge. If the party's path is impeded by a room full of bad-tempered dretches, finding the secret passage that allows them to bypass the room should give them just as many XP as kicking the door in and slaughtering the lot of them (unless thier objective is to get rid of all the dretches, of course, but if thier objective is simply "get past the room," they still get XP for it because they overcame the challenge that the dretches presented).
Xavon 04-29-07, 11:11 PM	I all but did away with the DMG XP rewards, and I am up front with my players about it. I give out the XP I feel they earned for the session, not based on the CR of the monsters they fought plus RP bonuses.
Rustmonster 04-30-07, 01:35 PM	I kinda like this idea, because in my opinion the system is way too combat based. The thing I would suggest is beforehand make a whole bunch of point values for things the party may do. For example, they meet up with some guards at a bricge, and they block the parties path. You may give so much exp for convincing the guards to let you past with your social skills (something that I feel should be stressed just as much as combat) or they may alternatly get so many points for killing the guards. They would probably get less points (or none) for the killing as the guards were just doing their job, and it doesn't matter how rightious your silly adventure is, they did not deserve to die. This would kinda give it the feel of some old timey text adventure , were you got this many points for picking up this, or this many for doing that.
skywyze 04-30-07, 04:11 PM	As many people have pointed out, xp can be given out for bypassing a CR even if it doesn't involve killing them. And as the GM you are the final arbiter on what gives xp and how much. I'm not questioning that. I'm just wondering if anyone has any experiences with holding a game where combat isn't the primary focus of the game. So far, this is what this thread has taught me: If someone gets XP, the whole party should get xp. This way, shy people aren't punished for being shy and other party members would appreciate the person RPing a lot more. As a bonus side-effect, if a shy person were to at one time take a chance, do some RPing and gain XP for the whole party as a result, the resulting popularity and recognition by the other (less shy) party members may help them build social strength and public self-esteem for use outside the game. Give XP for situations where one would learn, regardless of what situation that may be. A fighter may learn from combat, but a bard may learn from talking his way past the guards. Both should be equally rewarding. Make story-promoting xp a solid chunk of the xp, but be willing to *change* the story according to the PCs actions. Railroading is bad, but focusing on building a story rather than mechanics-arguments is a good thing. Any other advice?
Malcadon 05-01-07, 12:43 PM	That soounds like a bad idea. The players will feel cheated after a hard faght battle. I dont have problems with 'munchkinny characters' on my end. But then again, we play some lethal games (little or no healing magic and big-ass monters), so you have to think on your feet! I use Background skills as a way to give more room for non-combat ability, and reputation points help boost their social skills. The players found that mixed skills and good reputation is key to surviving in the world. Not just to hide from the enemy, but to out think them (or at least get some 'old friends' to help out). Out thinking is always good to do. This is like using the enviroment around them, setting an ambush or trap, finding a weakness, or making freinds with them. It still sounds like combat, but with more role-playing. There is nothing wrong with combat, and no man is truly an island (of ass-kicking). Calling 'old friends' and having leadership ability helps out alot (and speeds things up) in a large fight ("Dont worry about the pig-men, we got your backs!"). A good way to dish out XP is to throw out the CR system, and to reward good thinking, good role-playing, and hard earned victory!
skywyze 05-01-07, 01:29 PM	Malcadon, that's exactly the sort of game I'm used to - and exactly the sort of game I'm trying to get away from. Our last game was just like what you describe, where everyone had to be a metagaming combat monster or the whole party would wipe. I want a game where metagaming (our DM also called it "thinking on your feet") is NOT rewarded. A game where the PCs get to shine, rather than just sitting around, waiting for DMPCs to rescue them because there was no way we could survive an encounter on our own, no matter how much metagaming we did. In the end we were stuck with a heal-bot who hated the game, a bard whose sole purpose in life was to sing one song at the beginning of every fight (and who couldn't do jack outside of combat because monsters would never talk) and who therefore hated the game, a wizard who relied on hydra polymorphing and was otherwise a one-shot pony (who didn't hate the game but found it very boring) and a ranger who metagamed so much that in 17 levels we didn't even bother to invent a name for her because it was more important to find and exploit loopholes to make her an unstoppable killing machine because it was more fun to kill stuff by abusing rules loopholes than it is to die in every combat encounter. I want a game where thinking in-character rather than metagaming and exploiting flaws in the D&D combat system is rewarded. A game where every character gets to shine in many different ways and situations - where a bard for instance could rely on spells, diplomacy and such rather than always doing the same thing. A game where roleplaying, coolness and fun is more important than pouring over the book to look for new loopholes and new cheese to abuse. A game where it might even be possible to have a group full of Apostles of Peace and go from level 1-20 without ever being in a fight if that's what the party chose to do instead of constantly railroading people into combat because it means less thinking for the DM. I am tired of having to metagame constantly and play boring, shallow and unrealistic characters just to avoid wiping the party out. Just *once* to find a goblin who isn't a frenzied barbarian with divine rank and more gold than the US treasury in his enormous bag of holding. I'd like a game where the players get to think as their characters do and be creative rather than being obsessed with rules lawyering. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if D&D is the game to do it in, but with enough house rules, I believe that anything is possible. If I mis-read something from your post, I apologize, but that sounds an awful lot like the last game I was in. Especially the whole "thinking on your feet" part.
Vaelan 05-01-07, 03:34 PM	I'd like a game where the players get to think as their characters do and be creative rather than being obsessed with rules lawyering. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if D&D is the game to do it in, but with enough house rules, I believe that anything is possible. This has nothing to do with D&D and everything to do with the people you play with. Attempting to "solve" such a problem with houserules is either unnecessarily complicated or an incredibly immature attempt to force your fellow players to play your way rather than have fun. Talk to your players. If they want to change the way they play, you don't need to bury them in houserules, you can just play differently. If they don't want to change the way they play, find a new group rather than trying to ruin the game for your current group.
skywyze 05-01-07, 05:33 PM	This has nothing to do with D&D and everything to do with the people you play with. Attempting to "solve" such a problem with houserules is either unnecessarily complicated or an incredibly immature attempt to force your fellow players to play your way rather than have fun. Talk to your players. If they want to change the way they play, you don't need to bury them in houserules, you can just play differently. If they don't want to change the way they play, find a new group rather than trying to ruin the game for your current group.You're not getting the full picture - I'm not the only player who wants a game involving more than just miniatures and dice. What I was proposing was a system allowing for less emphasis on combat and I wanted input on what experiences others have had with similar campaigns. Not to force people to have less fun out of some malicious desire to ruin the game for others. Quite the contrary. If you do not have any experiences with a D&D game that doesn't solely revolve around combat, then you cannot help me. If you do have experience with such a style of gaming, then please enlighten me as to how it worked out, what pitholes I should look out for and so on and so forth.
Vaelan 05-01-07, 08:10 PM	You're not getting the full picture You're right: you weren't giving us the full picture. I'm not the only player who wants a game involving more than just miniatures and dice. I never said that you were. I simply provided an explanation of why you shouldn't just in case you were. What I was proposing was a system allowing for less emphasis on combat and I wanted input on what experiences others have had with similar campaigns. The system is permissive. It suggests that you give XP for overcoming challenges/encounters. It just has more rules for combat and how much XP to give for combat encounters. If you want to play in a different manner, you need to come to an understanding with the other players. You don't need a system. If you do have experience with such a style of gaming, then please enlighten me as to how it worked out, what pitholes I should look out for and so on and so forth. The biggest problem that I have seen in combat-light games is that many DMs neglect to create problems that require a variety of capabilities to solve so that each player gets a chance to contribute. Another common problem is material rewards. XP is pretty easy to figure it out: reward it when people overcome a challenge. What about money, property, and magic items? I've found that most combat-light games tend to swing between extremes since it is quite easy to fail to give material rewards and quite easy to be convinced that the PCs deserve it for something fairly trivial for their capabilities.
kgauck 05-02-07, 05:47 PM	My last campaign was almost entirely non-combat. From what it sounds like, skywyze, the people you play with want a more rounded game with the focus taken off combat and on to interaction and other things. That really is 90% of the battle if you are the DM. If the DM wants a game like you describe, and the players want it, you really can play any system, as Vaelan suggests. From what you have described the DM is running a combat-heavy life-or-death kind of game, and you are looking for something different. If the DM wants that kind of game, they will tend to produce it now matter what kind of incentives you suggest. Nothing I have read suggests that the players need new incentives, I read a scenario where the DM is not giving his players a good time. I never saw a need to change what sources produces rewards. What proved a powerful incentive in our game was that the consequences of negotiation tended to add to your stock of social capital (friends, allies, contacts, repuation) while combat tended to decrease it (more enemies, feuds, plots), and social capital was important. It was important because the world was small, the characters were rooted, and friends made and enemies made were nearby no matter what. If the campaign involves a party that wanders the world never to enter the same town twice, then you can act as you please, and until powerful forces decide to deal with you, there are no consequences. If you are rooted, anyone you kill has friends, family, and a lord to come seeking revenge, compensation, and justice, in some mix. Another significant difference in a campaign based on interactions rather than combat is that the game is very articulated in combat. Its very vague in interaction. Some will regard this as liberating, and others as a serious problem. In a rooted campaign, Intimidation and Bluff are not good strategies, because a lot of times people find out after the fact, and don't trust you again. This makes Diplomacy as super-skill which dominates the whole game. Articulating Diplomacy so that DC's float, so that checks are opposed, other skills become important to interactions, and developing extended diplomacy checks rather than relying on a single roll for a single skill all the time. One of the common situations that developed in my campaign, that the standard write-up for Diplomacy totally fails to object is the friendly refusal. Ask a friend if you can borrow his car to drive to Hawaii. He's your friend, he likes you, he thinks a trip to Hawaii is a fine idea. He still won't loan you his car to drive there. Sometimes people who already like you and support your main goals disagree with your tactics. Perhaps the friendly wizard who hates the fell necromancer won't loan you a ring of invisibility because he believes that a direct assault on his tower to premature. In my own case, I would conduct an extended check based on Knowledge (Arcana) to prove to the friendly wizard that you understand the magical traps, animated dangers, and other magical challenges the party will face. Sure you could bluff the wizard, but if things come off badly, you have basically defrauded the wizard out of a magical item. He's not so friendly any more. Using knowledge skills for arguments with people who are already friendly and supportive broadens the skills used in interactions. Certainly if this debate happened at the local temple, Knowledge (Religion) would be the core skill. And so on with every other knowledge skill. Victories and defeats will be measured in friends won and enemies unpersuaded. Right now Diplomacy has no downside, its pretty much either a improvement of conditions or you maintain the staus quo. Yet, negotiations do fail, and people who share intersts fail to trust one another. Consequences for failing key diplomacy checks should be bad, rather than neutral. Here are some thoughts and I hope they help.
kgauck 05-02-07, 05:55 PM	Another common problem is material rewards. XP is pretty easy to figure it out: reward it when people overcome a challenge. My solution for material rewards was for people to give gifts to characters for solving problems. You can use the same value of rewards that you would collect for loot, but the source of the reward is a gift given by some interested party, or a patron.
JulesCARV 05-02-07, 06:09 PM	IRL, of course, the people who get into combat a lot and the people with great wealth are virtually mutually exclusive. Bill Gates and Sam Walton haven't done much sword-swinging adventuring, and not many soldiers are very wealthy. There may be some exceptions, such as drug dealers. However, translating the ways people get rich in real life without combat would probably be a bit too involved for a D&D game.
kgauck 05-02-07, 08:19 PM	IRL, of course, the people who get into combat a lot and the people with great wealth are virtually mutually exclusive. Bill Gates and Sam Walton. Citing examples from a post-pillage world isn't very convincing. As late as Napoleon's Marshals, who made fortunes on pillage, and back much earlier, pillage was the fastest way to make a fortune. Any system of war before the developement of professional soldiers and officers has to rely on war paying for itself because its lucrative. The real world only offers contrary examples for the past two hundred years.