But, hey, it makes the game more interesting, in fact. There are more directions this could go: maybe the gang will trust them now, or they could work together on something. Maybe they’d be good allies in a time of need. It’s much more interesting than just “the gang hates you and will periodically jump out at you in dark alleys.”

But it still took me by surprise, because I’d taken my own players for thugs.

Do you really want to encourage the kind of play where the players say “Well, I don’t really care for campaigns where the villains come back, and my character would definitely be all for killing the villain while he has the opportunity…but, damn, 150% more experience is hard to pass up!” That’s where the feeling that this is just a bribe to get them to play the way you want instead of the way they want comes from.

But I also think that players play a major part in these situation. I played with people who reacted with backstabbing whenever caught stealing, and with other people that tried to spare and redeem demons & devils.
I can say it is really difficult to set a story with a recurring villain when people on the table ask to roll for initiative whenever the DM sets up an encounter…

I’ve usually had success by combining this with “mastermind” and “consequences to killing him” (politically powerful, so retaliation would have been too great) and one other way:

Cheating death: The villain SEEMS to die, but you can’t find the body. After the killing blow, for example, he might fall in a pit, or the roof could cave in, whatever. Always have an out. It’s fun to reintroduce the villain from the shadows and the realization that he survived is usually great (but you can’t do this TOO often, or else you have to do it as a running gag).

The problem with an unwritten rule is people don’t know about it until you tell them, much better to just write it down.
.-= Zzarchov´s last blog ..A follow-up to Social Conflict Mechanics =-.

Or that bribing them to do something produces good play instead of pandering.

Its to make it a choice not a problem. There is more to gain from keeping the villain alive (at least until you have trial) than to ALWAYS killing.

This allows for those type of games where you have an old villain escape etc, without it being fiat. Fiat is often very frustrating for players if they have no say over it. This allows for more organic gameplay.

And in gameplay, this does work, especially when the numbers get big. Players ask themselves what the best course of action is, and there is more than more than one good option.

They can get 10,000 XP and end the problem of this villain risking them again, or they can get 25,000 XP and risk him getting away.

Thats far different than 25,000XP and end the problem VS 25,000XP and risk him getting away.

The first option is a choice, the second is a very simple problem.

Side note:

Im glad to see you read my blog. Im personally a fan of alot of your work.
.-= Zzarchov´s last blog ..A follow-up to Social Conflict Mechanics =-.

I would suggest that a with foresight and planning, there should always be a bargaining chip to make the prospect of elimination less appealing. For example, the party may be hired to turn in the villain and eliminating them would nullify the contract and jeopardize future contracts. Or it may be a character alignment issue won’t allow that option. Or if the characters are mercenaries or chaotic, the villain may offer something worthwhile in exchange for their life… perhaps a clue for a new adventure… or something to extend the campaign or the release of an important character… something the party would find valuable and justify the continued existence of their enemy.