Exp for killing PCs?

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
So, let's say I'm the DM, and one of the players goes traitor, probably at a hugely inopportune time, such as when a dragon is attacking the party. Cleraly the battle became harder, and the PCs will be granted far more exp. But how much is a PC worth in combat? From what I've heard, D&D is not built for PvP (hah) combat. Is there a hard rule, or does anyone have a good idea on how to do this?
There are no rules for this, as it goes against the very nature of the system itself. 
So, let's say I'm the DM, and one of the players goes traitor, probably at a hugely inopportune time, such as when a dragon is attacking the party. Cleraly the battle became harder, and the PCs will be granted far more exp. But how much is a PC worth in combat? From what I've heard, D&D is not built for PvP (hah) combat. Is there a hard rule, or does anyone have a good idea on how to do this?



There are no rules for it because it is not supposed to happen.

Both the DMG and the Player's Handbook place great stress on the fact that D&D is supposed to be a cooperative experience, and that the party is supposed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles.

No extra XP. I would let the party wipe as a result of the betrayal and let the group know that similar acts will end future campaigns in a similar fashion.

We've fought NPCs-built-as-PCs before in a climactic battle.  They were considered to be elites for their level and I think the DM awarded extra xp on top of that figure.
So, let's say I'm the DM, and one of the players goes traitor, probably at a hugely inopportune time, such as when a dragon is attacking the party. Cleraly the battle became harder, and the PCs will be granted far more exp. But how much is a PC worth in combat? From what I've heard, D&D is not built for PvP (hah) combat. Is there a hard rule, or does anyone have a good idea on how to do this?



There are no rules for it because it is not supposed to happen.

Both the DMG and the Player's Handbook place great stress on the fact that D&D is supposed to be a cooperative experience, and that the party is supposed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles.

No extra XP. I would let the party wipe as a result of the betrayal and let the group know that similar acts will end future campaigns in a similar fashion.



Are you saying you would just have the party die, no questions asked? Yes, the battle would be far harder (very likely a complete party kill), but if they did win, that's where this matters.
We've fought NPCs-built-as-PCs before in a climactic battle.  They were considered to be elites for their level and I think the DM awarded extra xp on top of that figure.


I was thinking elites too. Lower HP but far more powerful than elites normally.

An idea I came up with was to have the party fight "clones" of themselves, which gives them a huge advantage (i know exactly what that enemy is capable of), but I have no idea what the "CR" of a party of PCs is. (No I don't use 3.5 but 4.0) 
You don't use the PC rules for creating NPCs.  You use the NPC/monster creation rules and create standard level-whatever monsters.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
You don't use the PC rules for creating NPCs.  You use the NPC/monster creation rules and create standard level-whatever monsters.

This is true... except how could I make "clones" of the PCs without PC rules? Regardless, I'm pretty sure they would feel too different when made with monster rules (different HP, attack bonus, damage, doesn't have all the same abilities or feats, etc...).
There are no rules for it because it is not supposed to happen.


Anything can and should be allowed to happen, it's the spirit of the game and all in how the DM handles it...


Both the DMG and the Player's Handbook place great stress on the fact that D&D is supposed to be a cooperative experience, and that the party is supposed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles.


Very true, and the group should be aware of this point.  Unless the group is a "long time together" group and has had similar experiences in the past where they have not reacted too negatively to a TPK

No extra XP.


It can depend on if the party took out the player who turned, or if the player escaped etc... for lack of a better option, find a foe of their level and tack it onto the XP of the encounter, assuming you didn't heavily modify the encounter to account for the change of heart (see below)

I would let the party wipe as a result of the betrayal and let the group know that similar acts will end future campaigns in a similar fashion.


This goes against the way 4e is supposed to be run.  The DM should never punish a player or the party.  You will quickly find yourself without players if you do that.  Remember, the purpose is to allow everyone to have fun, which may include having a player turn on the party to mix things up.

I would take this on as a challenge from a DMs perspective:

  1. Some prep ahead of time with the player: 

    • Do you have an at risk player for turning on the party?  If so, talk to the player outside of a session, and see if you can determine his intentions.  If he can give you maybe a high level overview of when and why he might turn, then you can have your own story hook to either play along or trump it depending on the situation.

    • A key here is why the character will do it.  Has the character given the rest of the party enough story hooks or clues that something like this might happen?  Maybe if there have been enough clues, the party itself can prep somewhat for a potential turn?  Maybe the party can spend some resources into determining the characters intent through rituals or whatever other methods they brainstorm up, and play with the responses (make him roll bluffs or diplomacy's against the rest of the party) and then maybe the party buys rope and ties him up every night.



  2. If the player pulls it on you without giving you any indication:

    • Ask him for justification of his actions on the spot.  Make sure he provides a proper roleplaying reason for the other players, otherwise they'll have a bad taste in their mouth and likely won't want to play with such a player in the future.  Feel free to bring up the characters alignment and have the party even give roleplaying reasons why the player shouldn't take such a drastic action.  In the end though, if the player insists on turning without logic or reason, never say no (cause the player is likely riding a ridiculous high at this point) and be ready to pull some DM magic (aka DM cheating - easier with a DM shield)



  3. Assuming you are prepared, you may need to alleviate any concerns from other players.  

    1.  

      • The party has made it clear that the player who did the action is likely not welcome at the table if he is going to do that kind of thing

      • Let the party make the decision to start a new campaign if they choose not to continue with the challenge.  Don't force a new campaign on them, always leave them with the above decision.





    • Ask them for in character responses if they start meta-complaining. (remember talk is free!)

    • If they threaten to rage quit, ask them why.  The likely response will be that they will get killed.  To which you would respond that you still see a living character.

    • If the entire party rage quits, let them.  This give a clear message for a few things



  4. Then finally make it happen with your preparations:

    • Have some story hooks or traps of your own, ready to spring at any time: 

      • First, if it's possible, let the player get off an attack or two and let him have a bit of fun before you make things return to their "normal path".  Have control, while making it look like the players have control.

      • Something as simple as a pit trap with foes at the bottom can keep the player busy.  Have things like immobilizes or stuns with "monster recharges" that conveniently recharge just when you need to shut him down again.

      • If you want to be more elaborate, build a massive arcing story hook where someone steps in and halts the battle.

      • Maybe the god they are all fighting to save comes in with a random power that blinds the turning player or retributes him in some fashion for the damage he's dealing.  

      • Maybe his own god will have a reason to play with him instead, with booming voices of dissappointment and "aura-auto-damage until he surrenders"



    • Get ready to scale the encounter to have the foes die off quicker.  Turn a few of them into minions or reduce their attacks effectiveness by "cheating some crit misses"

    • Make sure the party (plus or minus the turned player) survives.



  5. Then you have the fallout.  Regardless of how it goes, the player will not likely be with the party anymore.

    •  

      • The party will tie the character up and leave him (player rerolls if he wishes to rejoin the adventure)

      • Turned Character escapes the battle during or after the foes are defeated.  Then after that battle, he is running away and triggers another ambush with impossible odds and is killed cause he "split the party" Cool 

      • Character ends up taking on the rest of the party 4 vs 1.  Maybe let them fight it out, get ready to pull some more DM cheating magic (aka traps or story hooks) to make sure the party is successful.





Example: (Without player cooperation on the prep) He tries to get up in the night and slit the throats of the other players and run off with their loot.  Intention is to get a ton of loot, and the other players cannot meta knowledge of his crimes because their newly rolled characters would have no such knowledge of the events.

  • You then deal with this by making it sound like there was an ambush waiting the whole time, and the player is interfering with the ambush so they attack anyways.  They then concentrate fire on the guy standing/turning cause he's the current biggest threat.

  • Only spring enough foes (maybe small amounts of foes in as many waves as necessary) for the player to make up his mind to either continue attacking "allies" (allies now awake, and turned character is now outnumbered / no longer has advantage) or fight the foes and end the encounter.

  • Roleplaying ensues to deal with the turned character.

I've actually had this happen before, and it was pretty awesome seeing the look on everyone's faces "How didn't we see this coming?! The clues were so obvious!" (Ah, hindsight). The traitor was waiting for everyone to get really weak. He timed it perfectly. He carefully conserved his resources, while his allies were needing to use their dailies and healing surges like crazy (Helps when monsters don't see you as a target). Then the boss came around (currently built around the fact the party was severely weak), and traitor was like "We know everything you are doing. We've come to stop you. Oh, I mean they have. Here's the key you needed." He pulled out Fancy Key (tm), handed it to boss, and started unleashing on the party.

Party barely survives (even compensating by dropping elite to standard), literally no healing surges left, everyone but one guy above 0 HP, but they were alive, and battle won. As a nice reward, the party split the traitor's stuff, and got treasure on top of it. Player explains his character's motivations, revealing all the clues he left (how I didn't notice is beyond me). Everyone thought it was awesome, and he rerolled a character to better fit the new party (someone had dropped recently, so there were no controllers in the party)
anyone have a good idea on how to do this?

A PC would be about equivalent to an Elite creature of the same level.
anyone have a good idea on how to do this?

A PC would be about equivalent to an Elite creature of the same level.

Cool. Don't think a party of five could stand up to 5 elites...
For five level one characters, five level 1 elites corresponds to ten standards.  That's a 1000 XP or level five encounter.  That's definitely pushing the outer edge of a "hard" encounter as defined in the DMG on p.56-7. 


Personally I'd define a PC as equal to an elite at bare minimum.  PCs do so many things that monsters normally can't, like use healing powers, second winds, and fancy magic items.  If a party looks into a Mirror of Opposition and needs to battle their clones, then I think whomever wins initiative (and therefore AP novas first) should win. 

Good encounter design usually is not dependant on a coin flip ..    
Considering there is no rule regarding this, the question best belongs in the House Rules forum. 
For five level one characters, five level 1 elites corresponds to ten standards.  That's a 1000 XP or level five encounter.  That's definitely pushing the outer edge of a "hard" encounter as defined in the DMG on p.56-7. 


Personally I'd define a PC as equal to an elite at bare minimum.  PCs do so many things that monsters normally can't, like use healing powers, second winds, and fancy magic items.  If a party looks into a Mirror of Opposition and needs to battle their clones, then I think whomever wins initiative (and therefore AP novas first) should win. 

Good encounter design usually is not dependant on a coin flip ..    


Oh, definitely true. Of course, only allowing the players to nova and not the monsters does seem a bit unfair :P
Considering there is no rule regarding this, the question best belongs in the House Rules forum. 


Now we know that :L
Considering there is no rule regarding this, the question best belongs in the House Rules forum. 

Actually, it brings up a fairly reasonable question.

By RAW, if a DM wanted to create a scenario that pitted the PC's against a former ally, he can design the former PC as an (elite) NPC with a class template (DMG p.183). The DM could even let a player run that NPC for him if desired. Ineed, a DM might even allow the player that came up with the idea to also flesh out the NPC stats.

But, yes: a DM that didn't want do through that much effort and just wants to use PC stats is outside the normal rules.
This is true... except how could I make "clones" of the PCs without PC rules?



Pick some of their character's signature powers and adapt them with monster damage and attack bonuses. It's not difficult.  Likewise, monstars have many of the same roles as PCs, so a PC controller becomes a monster controller.



 Regardless, I'm pretty sure they would feel too different when made with monster rules (different HP, attack bonus, damage, doesn't have all the same abilities or feats, etc...).



Likely they wouldn't be identical, but they would be a lot easier for you as a DM to run.  Think about how many powers, feats, and options a PC has...how are you going to keep track of all that in combat?  Most likely you will forget to apply or even use half their powers, or you'll spend ages on the monsters turn trying to decide what you want to do.  This is why individual monsters tend to have much fewer combat options than a PC of their level.  It also vastly simplifies the issue of how much experience you give them and how you're going to balance the encounter.

I think it's much, much more practical to create monsters with the same role and give them a few of the PCs signature moves.  For example, if the wizard has a teleport power that he loves to use, the monster gets an equivalent teleport power.  If the halfling rogue loves to snipe with daggers at range, then create his double as an artillery monster whose powers have roughly the same range.  It will give the PCs enough of a feel that they are fighting themselves without overwhelming you with all the options a party of five PCs has.
If we are talking about an actual player trying to kill the other players, i would say either party would get zero experience for this.

Otherwise, it encourages players trying to kill either other at times that they feel it would easy xp.  Lets face it, if this was allowed, any PC would kill another player that was low hp so they could get the xp for solo killing an elite (or whatever xp you wanted to award).  Regardless of the interaction of the players, this just is not accetable.

If this is a 'tag along' npc that eventually 'turns' on the players, they should be built like all NPCs, exactly the same as monsters.  If your players cant deal without meta-gaming the abilities, class, etc, then you are giving away too much information and need to keep some mystery.  Simply tell them that you made up a new class for this character, etc.
I can already predict how the battle will go when a PC betrays the party to the Solo boss monster and you use PC stats.

Round 1: All the PCs massacre the traitor who doesn't have nearly enough defenses to survive
Round 2-X: The rest of the battle goes as all Solo battles. Perhaps at some point someone will remember that there was a traitor, and that's why Bob hasn't said anything the last hour

And that's why you rebuild the traitor as an NPC, who has 3-5 times more hitpoints.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.


Round 1:  Traitor NOVAs and kills at least 1 player outright
Round 2: The rest of the PCs massacre the traitor who doesn't have nearly enough defenses to survive
Round 3-X: The rest of the battle goes as all Solo battles. Perhaps at some point someone will remember that there was a traitor, and that's why Bob hasn't said anything the last hour.



Fixed!
When heros fight amongst themselves nobody gains... thats my philosophy
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

When heros fight amongst themselves

... the DM wins; the player's salty tears feeding his cold, black soul.

Otherwise, it encourages players trying to kill either other at times that they feel it would easy xp.  Lets face it, if this was allowed, any PC would kill another player that was low hp so they could get the xp for solo killing an elite (or whatever xp you wanted to award).  Regardless of the interaction of the players, this just is not accetable.



I would never give full exp in a situation like this. Same as if the party came across a bloodied dragon.
So, let's say I'm the DM, and one of the players goes traitor, probably at a hugely inopportune time, such as when a dragon is attacking the party. Cleraly the battle became harder, and the PCs will be granted far more exp. But how much is a PC worth in combat? From what I've heard, D&D is not built for PvP (hah) combat. Is there a hard rule, or does anyone have a good idea on how to do this?



There are no rules for it because it is not supposed to happen.

Both the DMG and the Player's Handbook place great stress on the fact that D&D is supposed to be a cooperative experience, and that the party is supposed to work together as a team to overcome obstacles.

No extra XP. I would let the party wipe as a result of the betrayal and let the group know that similar acts will end future campaigns in a similar fashion.




eh.  "supposed" ?

I always thought the thing about D&D was that nothing is "supposed" to happen, b/c what happens is up to the players and DM.  

Of course, I'll grant that a inter-party combat is almost certainly a very rare occurence, and that the rules were not designed to handle it, and that it is contrary to the cooperative experience that the game tends to (and was designed to) foster.  But to pontificate about what is and what is not "supposed" to happen seems dictatorial.  I ran a very memorable campaign in which one of the PCs was working secretly against the party, and whether or not the rest of the party discovered the treachery strongly influenced the course of the plot.  Once discovered, the lone PC could obviously not stand his ground against an entire party of equal level adventurers, so the challenge then was whether the party could stop him from fleeing.  Once they discovered him and managed to detain him, a very interesting RP encounter proceeded, and it was memorable for all.  I awarded XP for discovering the traitor as if it were a major quest.  If the traitor had managed to escape, he still would have been permanently out of play, but he would have returned as an NPC villain (with NPC appropriate stats).

In a different campaign, a friend who had moved away was in town visiting, and wanted to guest-play for a single evening.  Whenever a new PC joined the party, the other PCs had always been bizarrely trusting, especially in comparison to how they regarded random NPCs that they happened to meet while traveling.  I thought this was a great opportunity to teach a lesson about meta-game thinking.  I talked to the guest player, and created two sets of stats -- one, as a PC, for most of the night when he would fight alongside the party, and another, as an NPC, for when in the final encounter he would dramatically switch sides at the most inoportune (for the rest of the party) moment.  It was a lot of fun for everyone, very memorable, and it indeed taught a lesson about meta-game thinking that helped improve everyone's roleplaying (including and especially my own, as it made me rethink how I would play NPCs that happen to come across PCs while traveling).

These situations are unusual, without a doubt, and in general, if the party is fighting one another and their isn't a great story reason, something has probably gone wrong (though if people are having fun, there is a sense in which nothing has gone wrong).  Whether or not the 'murder mystery' intrigue atmosphere of this sort of thing suits the players is obviously a judgment call, and even then it should probably occur less frequently than once per campaign.... but my point is that there isn't a 'supposed to' element in D&D, at least not for experienced groups with the same basic expectations.  If it isn't a core part of the story, it is less likely to be fun and interesting for everyone, but as with everything in D&D, your mileage may very.  

If you start placing boundaries, though, on what players can and cannot do, what they are 'supposed' to do, what motives they are 'supposed' to have, you take away one of the most magical elements of D&D.

DMing since 1994.

 

Gaming tools I currently use:  Maptool, google docs, dundjinni, mumble

 

My 5e maptool framework (updated March 2015):  bit.ly/1NWSkaP   (Monster and NPC token library, with all stats and macros programmed): bit.ly/1NWTe73

 

Lost Mines of Phandelver (Maptool file with all maps, vision-blocking, statted monsters):  http://bit.ly/1wgrIqF

 

HotDQ Episode 8--Castle in the Clouds (Maptool fie with all maps, vision-blocking, statted/macroed monsters, flavor text, treasure, traps):  bit.ly/1BfXk0c  

If we are talking about an actual player trying to kill the other players, i would say either party would get zero experience for this.




In my game, if an *actual player* tried to *kill* the other *players*, I would probably call the police.

DMing since 1994.

 

Gaming tools I currently use:  Maptool, google docs, dundjinni, mumble

 

My 5e maptool framework (updated March 2015):  bit.ly/1NWSkaP   (Monster and NPC token library, with all stats and macros programmed): bit.ly/1NWTe73

 

Lost Mines of Phandelver (Maptool file with all maps, vision-blocking, statted monsters):  http://bit.ly/1wgrIqF

 

HotDQ Episode 8--Castle in the Clouds (Maptool fie with all maps, vision-blocking, statted/macroed monsters, flavor text, treasure, traps):  bit.ly/1BfXk0c  

Otherwise, it encourages players trying to kill either other at times that they feel it would easy xp.  Lets face it, if this was allowed, any PC would kill another player that was low hp so they could get the xp for solo killing an elite (or whatever xp you wanted to award).  Regardless of the interaction of the players, this just is not accetable.



I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed."  I hope you don't ever tell your players that they can't take whatever actions they would like to take.  In any event, you can always be a judge of whether a particular encounter or interaction actually contributed to a particular character's 'experience' and training.  And in no case should the process of awarding XP be mechanical (I can think of some pretty hilarious 'knights of the dinner table' cartoons in which henchmen get slain for those extra 20 "eee-pees").  This is especially true if meta-game thinking is the motive behind a player's actions (i.e., he knew that if he killed the other wounded PC, he would get an XP award).  But as with most forms of problematic player behavior, it is usually a teachable situation, and the best corrective to an in-game problem is an in-game solution.

I don't see how this situation is as inevitable as you think it would be were it to be 'allowed,' whatever that means.  First, the PCs own moral code probably prevents this sort of behavior regardless of how incentivized it is -- and though as a DM you shouldn't regulate the decisions your players make about their PCs' actions, you should regulate what PCs you allow in your game, and if you don't want PCs with an evil or chaotic evil alignment, then don't allow them.  Of course, a PC can always have a change of heart, but if so than there is a specific story reason that should itself be an opportunity for adventure.  

And in any event, even the most chaotic evil of characters don't go around slaughtering their allies whenever they are injured, both in real life and in the fictional game world.  Why not?  It isn't because a DM has to intervene to prevent them from going on a killing spree.  Rather, no one wants to work with a guy who tends to attack his associates.  And moreover, the good guys tend to go after these sorts of people.  Town guard, militia, paladins, etc. go after these sorts of characters like it is their job (it *is* their job).  

If you have a player doing things like this and you feel forced to take some sort of action, you always have a metagame-DM option (e.g., "No, you don't do that. Try again.") and an in-game-DM option (i.e., make the world react to an anti-social character exactly like it would -- society, by its very nature, is good at deterring and punishing anti-social behavior without a deity intervening to stop it in the first place).

Of course, as a DM, you have to be aware of the general tenor of the situation with your players -- is the fun of everyone else being disrupted by one? if so, deal with it as best as you can (and as quickly and effectively as you can).  But as a general rule, when you deal with things, do it in-game.  Let the players know that they can do whatever they want, but that there will be consequences and that above all they need to roleplay coherently.  If you do that, both your good and your bad situations will be more fun than if you don't.

DMing since 1994.

 

Gaming tools I currently use:  Maptool, google docs, dundjinni, mumble

 

My 5e maptool framework (updated March 2015):  bit.ly/1NWSkaP   (Monster and NPC token library, with all stats and macros programmed): bit.ly/1NWTe73

 

Lost Mines of Phandelver (Maptool file with all maps, vision-blocking, statted monsters):  http://bit.ly/1wgrIqF

 

HotDQ Episode 8--Castle in the Clouds (Maptool fie with all maps, vision-blocking, statted/macroed monsters, flavor text, treasure, traps):  bit.ly/1BfXk0c  

Otherwise, it encourages players trying to kill either other at times that they feel it would easy xp.  Lets face it, if this was allowed, any PC would kill another player that was low hp so they could get the xp for solo killing an elite (or whatever xp you wanted to award).  Regardless of the interaction of the players, this just is not accetable.



I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed."  I hope you don't ever tell your players that they can't take whatever actions they would like to take.  In any event, you can always be a judge of whether a particular encounter or interaction actually contributed to a particular character's 'experience' and training.  And in no case should the process of awarding XP be mechanical (I can think of some pretty hilarious 'knights of the dinner table' cartoons in which henchmen get slain for those extra 20 "eee-pees").  This is especially true if meta-game thinking is the motive behind a player's actions (i.e., he knew that if he killed the other wounded PC, he would get an XP award).  But as with most forms of problematic player behavior, it is usually a teachable situation, and the best corrective to an in-game problem is an in-game solution.

I don't see how this situation is as inevitable as you think it would be were it to be 'allowed,' whatever that means.  First, the PCs own moral code probably prevents this sort of behavior regardless of how incentivized it is -- and though as a DM you shouldn't regulate the decisions your players make about their PCs' actions, you should regulate what PCs you allow in your game, and if you don't want PCs with an evil or chaotic evil alignment, then don't allow them.  Of course, a PC can always have a change of heart, but if so than there is a specific story reason that should itself be an opportunity for adventure.  

And in any event, even the most chaotic evil of characters don't go around slaughtering their allies whenever they are injured, both in real life and in the fictional game world.  Why not?  It isn't because a DM has to intervene to prevent them from going on a killing spree.  Rather, no one wants to work with a guy who tends to attack his associates.  And moreover, the good guys tend to go after these sorts of people.  Town guard, militia, paladins, etc. go after these sorts of characters like it is their job (it *is* their job).  

If you have a player doing things like this and you feel forced to take some sort of action, you always have a metagame-DM option (e.g., "No, you don't do that. Try again.") and an in-game-DM option (i.e., make the world react to an anti-social character exactly like it would -- society, by its very nature, is good at deterring and punishing anti-social behavior without a deity intervening to stop it in the first place).

Of course, as a DM, you have to be aware of the general tenor of the situation with your players -- is the fun of everyone else being disrupted by one? if so, deal with it as best as you can (and as quickly and effectively as you can).  But as a general rule, when you deal with things, do it in-game.  Let the players know that they can do whatever they want, but that there will be consequences and that above all they need to roleplay coherently.  If you do that, both your good and your bad situations will be more fun than if you don't.



I guess 'allowed' is a bad description of 'giving xp for killing other players'.

If you do this, it generates all kinds of bad scenarios.  If you give any xp for this, per the rules, you would have to divide with all other enemies in the party, IE solo monster, divide by two, etc.  I dont think there is any intention of the character who is the traitor form continuing as he would be dead in this scenario.  As far as xp for pk actions in the future, this could harbor a player to try to do it 'sneaky' to get xp and blame it on someone else etc.

If we are talking all about RP, well this kind of RP could be done without any XP bonuses from killing party members, if this is a players character, and the way he wants to play this character, then no xp won't affect it at all.

As such no xp is a much better way to deal with pk action then giving xp for killing a player.  As such in this situation, as mentioned before, just make the player a monster, award xp for that.  The players know the situation (you might even explain it), and that killing other players does not award xp.  If they still want to do it for RP reasons, then thats thier option, but knowing that it will not be awarded with XP will remove any pks because of non-story driven objectives.
By the rules, there is no xp for killign PC's because there are no rules for killing PC's.  The system is built for no PvP combat.  You can (of course) house rule anything you want, but that's not a rules question.

If you feel compelled to deal with PvP in a system where there are no rules for it, simply state state that the instant a PC became an enemy, he became an NPC.  Build (hopefully you had advance warning) an NPC as close as you can to the former PC and YOU (the DM) control him from now on.  The character you attacked the party has to make a new character as his is gone (in terms of being a PC).

Is there any rules justification for doing this?  No.  There are no rules in 4th Ed for PvP, so the simplest explanation is it can't happen.  Since most people don't want an online game style attack prevention to exist, it becomes the simplest way to deal with something the rules does not cover. 
anyone have a good idea on how to do this?

A PC would be about equivalent to an Elite creature of the same level.

Cool. Don't think a party of five could stand up to 5 elites...



You'd be surprised, in my game I put the party at one point against a group of five elite creatures and they won.  Wasn't even extremely hard for them either, and the monsters were...I believe their level or maybe a level above.  I want to say they were level 9 I think...no maybe 10.
This is a great question. So great I've decided to cover it on my blog Level & Class. Hope it's helpful
I'm always so happy when I ask a (thinking it is) simple question and it becomes a full-blown discussion. Thanks for all the feedback.

Also, it definitely feels different that someone created a blog note because of me :L 
You can't equate a PC to a monster.  Monsters have controlled levels of ability, while PCs have radically different levels of ability at any given character level.  An optimized striker - who can kill another PC in one round with little difficulty if it wins initiative - is quite different from a controller focused on a wide range of powers that might do little damage, but could frustrate the other PCs for a while.

Regardless - I would give no experience.  Why bother?  It isn't going to happen over and over, so the situation isn't going to have much of an impact on PC experience points.  It isn't worth figuring out.
D&D & Boardgames If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?
Just to point it out: Elites are generally equivalent to +3 or +4 levels according to the experience tables.  So, a Level 11 party fighting 5 elite level 11 monsters is going to have it about as tough as a level 11 party fighting 5 level 15 monsters.  That shoud be a difficult match, but it should be one the PCs should win most of the time.
D&D & Boardgames If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?
I could really see the exp come down to what that PC had left in his arsonal.

Meaning, did they have all their daily's left?
Did they have a AP left?
What class were they.
Did they have all encounter's left?
What level were they vs the rest of the party?

It really comes down to alot of questions.

If they had their AP and their dailies left, I would clasify them as solo+3-5 PC lv range. Since they could possibly take out one pc in almost one go. Specially if they are a Striker.

Biggest problem like most people already said, the PC can just Nova the other PC's down and they just gets the crap kicked out of them lol.

It all comes down to this, your the DM.
You could give the PC's the exp of the player they killed, with one rule in mind. If this happens again, they all loose exp equal to who they kill. Because this really is a game of co-opperation. You don't want people to play greedy or be holding back in case another ally turns on them.
Unless your playing a murder mystery DnD game.... which could be fun lol.
Just because were not talking in person does not mean you have to be an @#$%^&*
Sign In to post comments