Aside from the fallacy in the question, which I'll get to in a moment, No, it doesn't, because the problem isn't really a rules problem.
The thing is, the whole "Murderhoboes" problem isn't encoded in the rules - it's due to a common misinterpretation of the rules, and one that goes back all the way to AD&D 1E, coupled to a lack of mechanical resolution options.
There's no requirement to kill opponents to get the XP for defeating them. If you drive them off or negotiate them off, you still get the full XP for the encounter in almost every D&D rule set since 1978.
Even in Holmes, it's not just kill:
Experience points are awarded on the
basis of treasure obtained and monsters killed or subdued. (Holmes, Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set, ©1977, 1978, Page 11)
Monsters killed or overcome by magic or wits are
worth experience points to be divided among the entire
D&D has always allowed for non-violent "overcoming" of monsters.
This hasn't changed in any edition since Holmes.
It explicitly hasn't been done away with in D&D Next Basic - from Basic DMG v0.1, p.5:
The number of experience points (XP) a monster is
worth is based on its challenge rating. Typically, XP is
awarded for defeating the monster, although the DM
may also award XP for neutralizing the threat posed by
the monster in some other manner.
The issue arises from it being easier to kill than capture by force (which is actually not unrealistic), and from no mechanical way to overcome by talk, excepting Comeliness 25+ characters in AD&D 1.5 (AD&D 1 + UA).
Essentially, the problem arises not from the rules, but from the nature of people... who tend to do what there are rules for doing more than what the GM has to invent or make wild judgements about.