I do not agree Cold Napalm. Killing someone is usually a character issue.
Even if a LE person kills someone for a random reason the solution is to nudge that LE's alignment towards CE. Inform the player of this.
Other solutions:
Having him be a wanted criminal for murder is a decent warning. Having him hunted down, go to prison, and get hanged or beheaded is a good way to end the problem. All in character solutions.On the other hand it COULD be a player issue if the player repeatedly does this. In that case I would suggest the player work on the problem. If the player refuses to work on the problem then stop playing with that player.
It should never been an XP issue.
- Gauss
Yeah! Once the end boss of a campaign was actually another player. Sticking to dnd form, he was a necromancer. He had assassinated the seneschal and left a lot of evidence. Aimed to simply take his place. He got caught by the SWAT team griffon riding rangers. How we dealt with this split the party, one half tried to break him out of jail, the other marched him to his execution. He put up quite the fight.
Free yourself from the chains of XP! XP is nothing but the lingering remnant of a bad idea, poorly executed which leads to ridiculous discussions like this one.
This, so much this. Throw off the shackles of XP and link levelling to plot completion... so liberating.
I'm doing this in a very small game I'm running. Short, they won't wander off too far, stick together and complete the mission. For anything bigger than that, I use xp.
Our DM used the "give levels when DM sees fit" in Council of Thieves. It was one of the few things that worked when playing with him.
3.5 Loyalist: I use 'hidden' XP in my games. I keep track of the XP players have earned, privately. I use it as a vague yardstick of how they have progressed. Finally, I level the group where I feel is appropriate (even if it is ahead of behind where they should have actually leveled).
- Gauss
XP for killing things: According to the Bestiary, a cat is worth 100xp. A hundred cats = 10,000xp. What sort of player behaviour do you want to encourage?
|
Free yourself from the chains of XP! XP is nothing but the lingering remnant of a bad idea, poorly executed which leads to ridiculous discussions like this one.This, so much this. Throw off the shackles of XP and link levelling to plot completion... so liberating.
There are some people who fear freedom, and all the responsibility that comes with it.
Level tied to the plot and when the dm says so is not freedom.
Level tied to everything your character does, with their experience reflecting this, is closer to freedom. Not when a dm says, you have advanced the plot enough, have a level. No, with xp, when your character has earned a level, it has been reached because you earned it piece by piece. You are not delayed until the whole party reaches one point together, you are not given the level early because you quickly advanced the plot. You can gain the level many different ways, through any means that grants xp, you don't have to chase plots or focus on one goal to level. A favourite means to level for me, is to play rogues and level through successful thefts and criminal acts alongside the main story/goal.
With xp, the level and experience of a party can diverge, but there will always be good reasons for this to happen, as in, when one char pushes further, harder and does more than others. XP really works as a part of the rewards for heroes that want to do heroic things and improve themselves. Levels determined by plot satisfaction is about keeping everyone the same regardless of what they do--equality over meritocracy and demonstrated ability.
Back on topic though, accidental monster death xp was coming up more commonly awarded than accidental pc killing? XP for one is more acceptable than xp for another? One is emotionally laden and not right to reap xp from?
That I agree upon, all up to the dm then; doesn't matter what you individually do on the side. Got to adhere, stay the course and follow!
|
Considering that PF has no fumble rules...not sure how you kill another PC on a nat 1.
This isn't quite true, as the GM could be using the Critical Fumble Deck (both I as a GM, and the GM of the campaign I am a player in both use this deck). It is an optional rule, and likely the OP is using this option, though maybe not the cards.
The critical fumble deck is okay, but a good crit chart or crit fail chart can be made by sitting down and chatting to your players.
xp should be awarded. Emotions like guilt should be role played in game by the pc who accidentally killed the ally. Seen a fair number of games where the party was split in half. One half was really pushing it, forcing themselves to be on the clock while the other half took it at a more relaxed pace, with more eight hour rest periods. Unsurprisingly, there was a difference in the speed at which each character levelled. Some players are fine with this but many others are not. I remember one player who in game started sulking and pouting despite taking multiple "breaks" while we were in a zombie infested city. <Sigh>
For ranged combat, an accidental kill shot can be a source of learning, for how to turn that into a deliberate kill shot. Especially if the damage was very high, and it was truly effective.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter what you individually do on the side. Got to adhere, stay the course and follow!
If your character doesn't think what he does matters, you're either not roleplaying him, or the DM isn't showing you that your actions have consequences.
Neither of which has anything to do with using or not using XP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A few sessions ago our party accidentally destroyed an entire town of 400 (killing 330+) through our incompetence and inaction.
Next session I'll start by lobbying the GM for all the experience that we should have been awarded and if he relents I'll start agitating for a huge treasure hoard to bring us up to our proper WBL : )
If the possibility exists that their "accidental" killing might result in them learning something which makes them better at would they do, I would, at the very least, consider awarding them xp. Maybe not full XP, but something appropriate. Unless they "accidentally" killed them by setting off a trap which they miraculously avoided but which crushed some bystanders, in which case xp goes to the trap :)
The vault has gained all of he xps, all of them. unfortunately it died in the attempt and shall be sent off to vaulthalla by burial at sea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what we call "Murder-Based Experience."
It's silly.
Award XP for overcoming challenges. Senseless death oughtn't to teach anything. Uncouple the notion of advancement from the necessity of murder, unless you actively seek a retro/JRPG feel.
He also has an Opium Palace.
The only time I've gotten or given xp for killing something is if it advanced the plot or otherwise was an extension of in game rp/events.
Very rarely that was for a player/neutral npc. Never for an ally, and when it did happen, it was not an accident.
Players shouldn't be awarded for friendly fire, and not every experience you learn from needs to grant xp. Knowledge is its own reward.
|
I dont use XP and my players have never felt stifled. They have done all kinds of things they wanted to. Became sailors, merchants, body guards, kings and queens. We have run AP and sandbox games. As I mentioned earlier the main reason we ditched XP was to stop the killing for advancement idea. The second reason was so the players didn't have to seek out xp opportunities or pander to the GM. The result is the exact opposite of what you say loyal. Getting rid of XP has freed us to do as we please. Gaming has never been better.
He also has an Opium Palace.
I had forgotten! I really must visit it more often.
|
|
Free yourself from the chains of XP! XP is nothing but the lingering remnant of a bad idea, poorly executed which leads to ridiculous discussions like this one.
I level PCs up according to plot. They achieve a milestone which means their challenges will increase, they level up to keep the game balanced.
This. IMO, XP is an unnecessary subsystem that adds a layer of metagaming issues that I feel only serve to detract from the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Killing for the sake of killing does not gain xp if the DM says so. However, awarding the PCs with levels when they reach the part of the plot you think is appropriate sounds like a common tool used in very narrative, railroaded games.
It will of course matter depending on the DM running each game, but if I am being awarded in a checkpoint-like system, that is assuming checkpoints exist that are not in my control, and may not be in my own interest to find. If I want to murder a town for XP, I had better become evil if my alignment had not been before, and I am going to soon face the ramifications of my actions(Survivors turning into avenging adventurers, military from the kingdom, forces of good who have noticed the sudden shift in the balance of good and evil or whatever). Why should I not get experience from doing what *my* character wants to do, and why should my character be forced to follow a story made up by someone else in order to level up?
(This is a gross hyperbole of motivations, styles, and methodologies of "railroaders" or something, but the main point is not completely made up)
I am currently wondering why I'm bothering with XP, as my players don't seem at all interested; they never ask ask how much they've earned, or remind me if I haven't given it out yet. Possibly, if I ask them they might say, yes of course they want the XP, but it's not obvious.
I think I'd still keep a rough track behind the scenes though, as I'm making the plot up as I go along.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Check point xp doesn't mean there has to be a set story line point in which you level. I level the party up after a certain amount of encounters. They don't need to be spelled out in advance and really hard or easy encounters will give more or less movement toward the next lvl. I think there isn't really much difference on the average between when you lvl up if your keeping track of XP or just deciding approximately when they should lvl. It just saves the DM alot of work but still coming up to similar results(Obviously some DM's lvl up slower or faster but that in my experience depends on party preference more then dm iron fisted control).
I have done games were we lvl up individually and they never went well. It favors people playing as individuals rather then as a group to overcome obstacles(in my experience this is the goal of a healthy and productive group). It also heavily favors assertive personality types and can alienate less assertive or inexperienced players. It also can screw over a player who has to miss a session or two(if your dm doesn't want to NPC you). The way I see it everyone works toward the group advancing. If one person is doing more then the others its up to the group to find the proper balance not the DM. I want everyone involved not a few people always fighting for the spot light to get that little extra xp at the cost of everyone else.
If you had a spell like murderous command cast on you and you attacked a pc and killed him or her then I think the person that cast murderous command should get the xp not you.
A few sessions ago our party accidentally destroyed an entire town of 400 (killing 330+) through our incompetence and inaction.
Next session I'll start by lobbying the GM for all the experience that we should have been awarded and if he relents I'll start agitating for a huge treasure hoard to bring us up to our proper WBL : )
Well sacking and destroying an entire town is a way to get a lot of xp.
Killing for the sake of killing does not gain xp if the DM says so. However, awarding the PCs with levels when they reach the part of the plot you think is appropriate sounds like a common tool used in very narrative, railroaded games.
It will of course matter depending on the DM running each game, but if I am being awarded in a checkpoint-like system, that is assuming checkpoints exist that are not in my control, and may not be in my own interest to find. If I want to murder a town for XP, I had better become evil if my alignment had not been before, and I am going to soon face the ramifications of my actions(Survivors turning into avenging adventurers, military from the kingdom, forces of good who have noticed the sudden shift in the balance of good and evil or whatever). Why should I not get experience from doing what *my* character wants to do, and why should my character be forced to follow a story made up by someone else in order to level up?
(This is a gross hyperbole of motivations, styles, and methodologies of "railroaders" or something, but the main point is not completely made up)
First you kill the peasants for the xp, then you kill the guards, then you kill the adventurers, then the knights, clerics and wizards. Then you get the xp!
Loyalist...mmm, I think your target priority list there is backwards.
Just throwing that out there.
Sagely advice, yes, wizards then clerics.
Course might need a few levels to take such foes, and perfecting your cut/smash/strike/shot on the peasantry is a good way to start. I am reminded of samurai testing their blades on commoners or bandits thrashing villagers until they got a high rep for viciousness.
Plenty of ways to level. I'm a big fan of assassination missions for that.
If I were a player in a game like this I'd be the first one on a killing spree of every living thing we saw. There wouldn't be a cow, chicken, man, bear or pig (heck even manbearpig) safe from me.
Sorry, but if I was dm, that manbearpig would be a serious challenge and drain wisdom every round you fought it.