|
As a player in a Kingmaker campaign and the group's usual DM I have handed the reins over to a newbie. He has done a fine job up to now and we are all enjoying ourselves. Last Saturday's session hit a snag. A small one which the DM wasn't sure how to handle and without reading the adventure I struggled to advise him.
Hence this post however when responding please bear in mind that w e have only done the top third of the map and I'd prefer general suggestions to specifics.
We have had a whole series of random encounters by day and night with wild animals and now a fey, where the Avenging Druid and Oracle of Gozreh have tried to roleplay and not reach for weapons straight away. After a night encounter with a wild cat (which we spent ages convincing the others not to harm until we could try to feed it rations or find some other way to avoid a fight) the game turned into a discussion of xp. The rogue-assassin player was particularly vocal about letting xp "get away".
Our DM would only give xp for kills, which he quoted from the scenario book. The majority of the party wanted the xp and so they would not let any predator escape again. I said that some adventures have encounters where you get some or all of the xp for avoiding encounters but that may not apply to Kingmaker.
I'm a little concerned that we may be headed towards a killing spree. Isn't Kingmaker designed for druids and clerics of erastil too? How do good parties rationalise slotting every creature or is this a necessary evil to be able to reach third level in time for the harder encounters?
Help please. I hope I have explained the issue well enough, if not feel free to ask for more info. This may seem trivial but to us it matters.
Cheers
P.S. As the druid player said, if we kill every wolf/cat/dragon etc then we will be overrun by rabbits and the like in short order.
|
Well it depends on your point of view. The book actually says defeating monsters to gain xp or overcoming challenges. Now many seem to assume that means killing monsters, but to me defeat doesn't mean kill. Killing of course works but so would capturing etc. So I see no reason why the GM couldn't or shouldn't award xp if the PC's can get animals to leave peacefully.
But this really comes down to play style, and what you think the rules mean.
Ouch... that's no good. I'm currently DMing Kingmaker and without trying to spoil anything, there is a fair amount on the random encounter table that can be role-played through, and some leading to pretty bad choices ethically and morally (IMO) if everything is just hacked for XP.
My party just lets animals go unless they are using them for a food source, even going as far as to salvage the hide to sell back at oleg's and not leave any part of the creature go to waste.
Now normally if I roll an animal encounter and they chose not to kill it I don't award xp, same if they try to go around some of the ugly high CR mobs that pop up as well. If a good amount of the random encounters are turning into a no XP opportunity I just "fix" the roll to a mob or two so they can have some hack and slash fun. Now when it comes to story encounters if your DM is telling you that you HAVE to kill everything then well... he is lying.
There shouldn't be a reason that you can't RP your way out from fighting some of the fey, and personally I would reward my players with the appropriate XP for negotiating the encounter. Try reasoning with your DM that not every Fey is evil, and killing them all can have very bad ramifications for the party AP wise.
I'm a little concerned that we may be headed towards a killing spree. Isn't Kingmaker designed for druids and clerics of erastil too? How do good parties rationalise slotting every creature or is this a necessary evil to be able to reach third level in time for the harder encounters?
First off, to get this modern sensibility out of the way: It's not evil to kill animals in Dungeons & Dragons/Pathfinder. Especially when those animals are, for the most part, GOING TO TRY AND KILL YOU FIRST. D&D, Pathfinder, and especially Kingmaker are about a hostile, uncivilized world trying to actively kill you. It's your job to fight back, and kill - no it is not an "Evil Act" to kill an animal, at least as part of a random encounter.
Leaving that aside - your GM is also dead wrong on his interpretation of the XP thing. You don't get XP for "killing monsters." In fact, you get XP for overcoming challenges. In fact, let's go to the RAW:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short).
The words used, specifically, are "defeating monsters". That doesn't mean "killing monsters". It can just as easily be chasing them off. It might even mean successfully hiding from them! (Although I'd label this more of a challenge to be overcome than a "defeat[ed] monster", and thus probably award less XP, assuming that was the purpose of the encounter.) So if your Druid or Ranger uses his Wild Empathy to talk the rampaging pack of wolves into leaving you alone? That's a defeated monster.
Edit: I was originally going to have an aside on playing Druids/Clerics of Erastil and how they might think it's not cool to kill animals except in self defense... and then I remembered that Erastil's form is that of a hunter. Erastil kills animal on a regular basis. Now - he doesn't do it for fun... it could be considered profit... but he's certainly not out there slaughtering creatures for no reason. But he's also not trying to make friends and live peaceably with every critter in the forest.
|
I went through something like this on another game campaign.
I think there are a couple of ways to approach your DM about the subject of giving XP only for killing monsters:
In order to make it through Kingmaker, players are going to have to obtain XP. Given the adventure assumes XP from random encounters and given it's a wilderness campaign, constantly losing XP by roleplaying not killing animals is a problem, as eventually this could lead to character death, TPK, character arguments, metagaming or even players quitting because they don't like what they are playing. So it's in his best interest to give out XP for fights you "defeat" even if you don't kill the monster, as otherwise the above is a very real possibility.
If the DM sticks to his guns (which is fine), there may be some other options: Can you knock the creature out perhaps? Only do subdual damage to animals.
If that doesn't count, I'd suggest asking if you can change to a different type of character. Perhaps a druid/cleric of Erastil who makes up for killing each predator they meet by raising a clutch of the animal they killed? Or perhaps the game he plays requires you to wipe out the animals of the local area, and that's the kind of character he was hoping for.
All these thoughts should be explained to the DM, as he's new and probably doesn't realize that sticking to this idea can have repercussions on the outcome of the game.
|
|
Well it depends on your point of view. The book actually says defeating monsters to gain xp or overcoming challenges. Now many seem to assume that means killing monsters, but to me defeat doesn't mean kill. Killing of course works but so would capturing etc. So I see no reason why the GM couldn't or shouldn't award xp if the PC's can get animals to leave peacefully.
But this really comes down to play style, and what you think the rules mean.
You make a lot of sense.
Capturing sounds risky. I can just see the other guys faces when I suggest that one! Ha ha ha. Particularly a wild cat the size of a lion.
I'd prefer xp for defeating without killing, however isn't Kingmaker about exploring and making the hexes safe too? That wild cat will still be around to take on the farmers and travellers that follow to populate our lands in AP2 etc.
Cheers
|
|
Ouch... that's no good. I'm currently DMing Kingmaker and without trying to spoil anything, there is a fair amount on the random encounter table that can be role-played through, and some leading to pretty bad choices ethically and morally (IMO) if everything is just hacked for XP.
My party just lets animals go unless they are using them for a food source, even going as far as to salvage the hide to sell back at oleg's and not leave any part of the creature ......
...... XP for negotiating the encounter. Try reasoning with your DM that not every Fey is evil, and killing them all can have very bad ramifications for the party AP wise.
He is no expert and is trying his best. He will listen to reason. It probably comes down to balance, something which you have handled well by the sounds of it, adding in extra encounters.
Do you give full xp for negotiating with fey?
Cheers
|
|
I'm a little concerned that we may be headed towards a killing spree. Isn't Kingmaker designed for druids and clerics of erastil too? How do good parties rationalise slotting every creature or is this a necessary evil to be able to reach third level in time for the harder encounters?First off, to get this modern sensibility out of the way: It's not evil to kill animals in Dungeons & Dragons/Pathfinder. Especially when those animals are, for the most part, GOING TO TRY AND KILL YOU FIRST. D&D, Pathfinder, and especially Kingmaker are about a hostile, uncivilized world trying to actively kill you. It's your job to fight back, and kill - no it is not an "Evil Act" to kill an animal, at least as part of a random encounter.
Leaving that aside - your GM is also dead wrong on his interpretation of the XP thing. You don't get XP for "killing monsters." In fact, you get XP for overcoming challenges. In fact, let's go to the RAW:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game characters advance in level by defeating monsters, overcoming challenges, and completing adventures—in so doing, they earn experience points (XP for short).....Edit: I was originally going to have an aside on playing Druids/Clerics of Erastil and how they might think it's not cool to kill animals except in self defense... and then I remembered that Erastil's form is that of a hunter. Erastil kills animal on a regular basis. Now - he doesn't do it...
In our DM's defense he would buy into us exploring and killing our way around the Stolen Lands.
I intend to link this thread so he can see all this about the difference between defeating and killing.
Thanks for the edited comments on Erastil and I think maybe we are being a bit precious about the animals however it could become a slippery slope with us.
Cheers
|
Our DM would only give xp for kills, which he quoted from the scenario book. The majority of the party wanted the xp and so they would not let any predator escape again. I said that some adventures have encounters where you get some or all of the xp for avoiding encounters but that may not apply to Kingmaker.
Your GM is probably referring to a few lines of text on page 75 of the first volume of the Kingmaker AP which reads as follows (in specific reference to the Greenbelt Random Encounters chart):
GMs should also remember that just because an encounter arises from this chart doesn’t mean that it has to be combat-related: a meeting with spoiler doesn’t have to be anything more than a sighting from a distance, for example. Experience, however, is of course only awarded for defeating such creatures
Your GM is taking this last line quite literally, and depending on your point of view perhaps quite rightly so. Of course, ‘defeated’ is open to interpretation; killing something, knocking it unconscious, or wounding, intimidating or scaring it and forcing it to flee all pretty clearly fall under the definition of having defeated it. Talking to something you encounter then both going your own way? Making some calming gestures and giving it some food then letting it wander off? Perhaps not.
From one point of view, you have cleverly avoided an unnecessary conflict with minimum expenditure of resources or exposure to danger, and you could argue that that should be worth xp. On the other hand, an encounter that is easily resolved through diplomacy or wild empathy puts the party at very little risk, you could argue that it shouldn’t carry the same reward as an encounter where resources are expended and there is a possibility of harm befalling the party.
I know that this is unpopular to say on the boards, but as a DM I feel fine saying that your DM is wrong. You get XP for overcoming obstacles, disarming traps, good RP, accomplishing goals, and avoiding encounters as well. You damn well should have gotten XP for feeding the cat, because you used your abilities and roleplayed to neutralize an opponent. Remind your DM that this is a roleplaying game and that you'll be getting XP for managing a kingdom, for goodness sake. Heck, you get XP for exploring an empty hex!
Only get XP for kills... where do kids these days get these ideas from? Kid, fetch my bourbon!
|
|
I would argue that not giving xp for encounters that are resolved through means other than combat makes for a very specific and narrowly focused sort of game, and potentially makes for serious in-party conflict.
On the other hand, as you point out FW, leaving mischievous fey and dangerous wild animals to do their own thing in lands that you intend to later have all your loyal 1st level Commoners settle in is perhaps asking for trouble – you have avoided a conflict now to leave one for someone else down the track.
Another poster has made some wise comments about Erastil. In this vein, here are some (edited) quotes from the Erastil article in volume 32 that might help you put things in perspective:
Erastil is primarily a nature deity focusing on the plants and animals that farmers, hunters, and ranchers deal with in their ordinary lives. He is also a god of close-knit communities and families and has a protector aspect that only surfaces when such things are threatened … he simply wants people to be able to live their lies in peace …
It seems to me that a priest of Erastil would not (necessarily) be as concerned with keeping an area as untamed wilderness as with finding a way that people could live in the place safely without eradicating nature. However, he or she would probably be wise enough to realize that normal people rarely live harmoniously in close proximity to wild fey or animals. That doesn’t mean that killing them is the best solution, but it probably requires something a bit more permanent and forceful than having a chat or giving them some food. Capturing and re-releasing, driving away or making a deal with intelligent fey or monsters (probably involving bribery or the completion of some quest) all sound like good ways to deal with these sort of things that should probably be worth some xp, as the problem has been ‘defeated’.
Anyone know the page number of the Game Master's Guide where it says what to award XP for? It's not open content, so it's not on the srd.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
Sorry for chiming in a little late. I agree to what the other posters in this thread wrote concerning XP and "defeating" opponents.
Generally I give XP for overcoming a challenge, it being killing a monster, disabling a trap, succeeding in a game of diplomacy/bluffing, befriending fey...
So I would definitely give full XP for your example with the wild cat - if the player(s) are keeping it for training/breaking it in even the better.
I constantly have to fight the attitude "it's a GM-controlled entity, let's put some sharp metal things into it" and encourage other solutions besides killing.
Ruyan.
|
|
So are the wandering encounters and their xp necessary to reach third level before facing the end boss encounters with, I guess, the leader of the bandits?
I have linked this for our DM and I am sure most of the players will read all your useful ideas and advice too. Mothman, I think the conflict between nature and civilization is what I like most about this Adventure Path.
Cheers
Okay, having not read all of the other replies, I'm going to start off by saying that your average wild cat is not going to want to tangle with a well armed and sizable party. Predators are looking for a meal, not a fight. Now, if the animal thinks it can get a meal, it'll take a group on. Though it's probably going to rely on ambush. Attacking entire parties is really the job of magical predators.
Anyway, it's been common wisdom since, oh, about 3E that a group should get xp for overcoming challenges & obstacles, not just killing critters. Your DM is setting up the game to be pretty one dimensional if you can only get xp for killing things.
I would echo some of the sentiments expressed.
There is a distinction between (a) resolving an encounter, and (b) avoiding an encounter. Combat is a method to resolving an encounter. There maybe other methods to resolving an encounter like diplomacy. XP should be awarded for resolving an encounter, but not for avoiding an encounter.
Further, sneaking past the town guard can be either resolving an encounter depending on the situation. It will require good DM judgment to hash out the difference. Asking the following questions can help: did the PC engage in the obstacle? if so, did they resolve the conflict after engagement. So, back to the town guard example. If the party merely teleports past the guard, there has been no engagement and no resolution. Thus, no XP. However, if the party has tried entering the city to only be turned away and then finds a wizard to teleport them past the guards, then there has been engagement and resolution.
Now, let us go back to your example of a wild cat. If the party is beset by animal attacks, resolving the attack, regardless of methodology, should receive XP. After all, there has been an encounter and resolution. Unless the methodology is especially cruel, killing the animal in self-defense (safety or hunger) is not an evil act. However, seeking out to kill animals for the sole sake of XP is the equivalent of an evil act because the PCs are slaughtering for the sake of slaughtering. Also, eventually, killing the animals would lead to no XP as the PCs reach higher levels and there is no actual challenge for them.
From a role playing perspective, your Druids and Priests of Erastil would certainly not condone killing for the sake of satisfying some blood lust. However, death is part of life and part of the balance. So, the followers of nature would accept and understand, as part of the natural order, hunting for food and defending from an attack. They would acknowledge and respect their kills, and give reverence to the life they have taken.
Regardless, role playing should always be rewarded the same as, if not greater than, roll playing. Just my 2 cp.
|
|
I simple used capture as a example of a way to defeat a encounter with out killing it. It is possible a druid could convince a animal to move locations. Especially if they help take out some monsters in a area, so the animals have more room. I was merely saying their is a lot of ways to defeat encounters beyond killing them.
Does your GM realise that awarding XP for kills only he will basically force you to kill everything you need? He basically says that there is no growth of experience (which is more than a number that governs your level-ups, look up the word in a dictionary) unless you kill something.
Everything means every NPC you meet.
A lot of the basics have been covered regarding what should merit XP and what shouldn't, and I think your DM has gotten some good advice. All of that said, I have just a couple of points to make:
1) Your mission in Stolen Lands is to prepare the land for eventual settlement. You can easily make the case that to do so effectively, any natural predator bold enough to attack humans needs to be dealt with in some way. That way doesn't have to be killing it, but it should involve some way of ensuring it does not become a danger to eventual settlers.
2) The intent of the module is pretty clear that you shouldn't be given XP just for avoiding an encounter. However, there are some encounters that should be avoided in the AP if your party wants to live, and there are also encounters that are intended for solutions other than combat. IMHO these encounters do justify XP reward if they are dealt with via character skill/roleplaying rather than avoidance. Example, if the druid uses wild empathy to calm the wolfpack and convince them to move their hunting grounds elsewhere it would get XP. If on the other hand, the party just avoided the wolves, no XP.
|
Edit: I was originally going to have an aside on playing Druids/Clerics of Erastil and how they might think it's not cool to kill animals except in self defense... and then I remembered that Erastil's form is that of a hunter. Erastil kills animal on a regular basis. Now - he doesn't do it...
Exactly:
"Erastil (eh-RAS-till), also known as Old Deadeye, is an ancient deity
from before the Age of Darkness, when early man began to domesticate
and dominate his natural surroundings. Pastoral legends claim that Old
Deadeye crafted the first bow as a gift to mortals so that they might learn to hunt and survive in the dangerous world."
|
|
This isn't about bashing the GM. He is running his first ever campaign (as a favour to me because I have a second bundle of joy keeping me away from the game books so much). Kingmaker isn't an easy first adventure so I have loads of respect for him and I can see he is getting it.
The problem is not one of killing only, its Kingmaker is about exploring and then colonising, so if you meet a predator with that in mind what should you do? Surely it should be fair game.
I guess a cleric/druid of Erastil would try to follow Mothman's template of conservancy, making organic changes to the environment. Moving the worst of the predators away, makes sense to me.
However Kaeyoss et al I mentioned a slippery slope and you have described the end point succinctly. When we discussed this on Saturday, I eventually asked what alignment everyone was playing and found that most of us are neutral and the last one, our half-drow rogue royal assassin wannabee, isn't probably such a "good" guy.
If we are not careful, our party could become a right bunch of safari hunters with trophies on every wall.
Cheers and thanks for all the responses.
Ouch... that's no good. I'm currently DMing Kingmaker and without trying to spoil anything, there is a fair amount on the random encounter table that can be role-played through, and some leading to pretty bad choices ethically and morally (IMO) if everything is just hacked for XP.
My party just lets animals go unless they are using them for a food source, even going as far as to salvage the hide to sell back at oleg's and not leave any part of the creature ......
...... XP for negotiating the encounter. Try reasoning with your DM that not every Fey is evil, and killing them all can have very bad ramifications for the party AP wise.
He is no expert and is trying his best. He will listen to reason. It probably comes down to balance, something which you have handled well by the sounds of it, adding in extra encounters.
Do you give full xp for negotiating with fey?
Cheers
sorry for the delay in response. There is an encounter where negotiating with the fey is a much better idea (IMO) and the AP gives you full exp for doing so. After that encounter i took off the fey from my random encounter table unless they were in a really remote area of the greenbelt where news might not have spread of the negotiation. Then i would just have them RP it out, or if necessary fight. Generally i do give full exp for negotiating through an encounter.
My 2 coppers, you should get your xp for defeating your wild cat weather you kill it or not. Defeating it can mean turning a violent situation into a nonviolent situation ie feading it rations :) Any encounter can be xp not just fight encounter, as long as its a plot encounter :) You out wit a Dragon you get full xp. You beat a fey you get full xp. Fey are nasty tricters and many stories are about people outwiting them just to survive :)