D&D 5E DM's: what do you do with players who miss time?

[TheFindus]

To me, the question about giving PCs XP if the player does not show up has different aspects.

First there is the question about what XP are: a reward, as many posters have said, or rather a pacing mechanism.
XP lead to leveling up, so the PC gets better, hits harder, casts more spells, knows more maneuvers etc. And that can be a reward. But in itself, XP are not a reward, especially not an immediate reward. In 3rd edition, XP were a reward, because they were the currency with which a PC could construct magic items. I do not know of any such mechanism in 5e. Instead, XP now are a tool to measure how long it takes a PC to gain a reward. XP are a pacing mechanism.

Besides, there exist a number of real rewards that are immediate and work really well, namely gold and (magic) items.

If this is so, then why should a PC whose player cannot participate in the game not get XP? Is that PC not taking part in the pacing of the game itself? Especially because in most cases it would seem rather silly that the PC would just disappear. Now, if there is a plausible reason for the PC not to be there (for example in a game which consists of dungeon raids and every game session is about one of those raids) then this could be explained in-game. But green clouds (if that idea was meant to be a serious one to begin with) disturb my sense of believability immensly. YVMV.
However, if the PC is part of what is being played at the moment, he/she needs to take part in the pacing somehow. And since XP are a pacing device, the PC needs the XP, regardless of the fact that the player is not there.

The second thing about a missing player is whether the PC should be played as if that player were (was? grammar? Somebody tell me, please) there, with all options included (for example loss of limbs or life).
In my opinion this is a practical question that needs to be answered by the table. I know that it is possible to play two PCs with all the consequences at the same time. If the PC takes part in everything why not suffer the consequences? In our games, every PC is needed oftentimes in order to move further, so the option: "the Paladin just stands in the corner" simply does not exist.
This is something that should be handled according to what the table needs. And I am assuming that any player wants to show up and has a good reason not to (like when other, more important things in life than gaming get in the way).

If a player does not show up on a regular basis and cannot participate regularly anymore, it is something not related to the XP-issue. IMO there should be a discussion with that player and everybody else at the table about how to deal with this situation. In my current game, a player cannot participate for job reasons because he is in a different sity during the week. He does not play right now and we have found an in-game reason for his PC to not be around either. The DM has changed the combats and the pacing accordingly.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

In 5e?

No, I haven't seen that result in 5e because I haven't used differing XP totals in 5e - I see no point in doing something I indentified as causing problems editions ago.

In practice 5e plays very differently from 3e & 4e, it doesn't need PCs being the same level

It's not about what the system needs, for me, but about whether or not the choices I'm making reduce player enjoyment.

That said, I think any group where XP is seen as an entitlement (so not getting XP is 'punishment') or "pacing mechanism" for linear AP-type play will want to keep everyone on the same XPV. If you're in the habit of
handing out XP every session and players don't see it as a specific reward for specific achievements, then yes give everyone the same. If they can go several sessions with minimal XP then get a big score - and especially if they get to choose their challenges rather than play through what the GM sets them - individual XP works best.

I disagree. My players choose their challenges - they drive the entire campaign - and yet we still prefer XP to be shared equally among all characters, even those of absent players, because the alternative of disparate levels of ability (no matter what the system "needs" or "can handle") is unappealing to us.

 

[Imaculata]

I disagree. My players choose their challenges - they drive the entire campaign - and yet we still prefer XP to be shared equally among all characters, even those of absent players, because the alternative of disparate levels of ability (no matter what the system "needs" or "can handle") is unappealing to us.

Players often split the party, it simply happens. And when it does, chances are that some players get into a fight and earn exp, when others do not. And then the players that miss out lament that fact, and they may feel encouraged to look for trouble just to get into a fight, and catch up on exp.

I don't think the idea of personal experience levels is good for role playing. I don't want my players to be upset when combat happens and their character isn't there. But because I use party-wide exp, I can now choose to allow absent players to temporarily take control of an npc and still take part in the fight. Once combat is over, their original character still earns exp from it, even thought they were playing the part of the npc during the fight.

I don't want game mechanics to steer the role playing actions of my players towards combat. I don't want them to feel encouraged to solve everything with violence, just because that will allow them to catch up on the exp levels of their fellow players.

I think party wide experience is objectively better, and it amazes me that this isn't a core rule yet.

 

[TheFindus]

That said, I think any group where XP is seen as an entitlement (so not getting XP is 'punishment') or "pacing mechanism" for linear AP-type play will want to keep everyone on the same XPV. If you're in the habit of
handing out XP every session and players don't see it as a specific reward for specific
achievements, then yes give everyone the same. If they can go several sessions with minimal XP then get a big score - and especially if they get to choose their challenges rather than play through what the GM sets them - individual XP works best.

XP as a pacing mechanism work independent of the kind of play, whether this is AP-type, sondboxy or "Story Now". I would say that in most games people want to experience leveling up on a regular basis (whatever "regular" means to the table) and fighting against tougher, more interesting challenges. Also, people want to go ahead mechanically (hit harder, know more spells, that sort of thing).
That is what the pacing is about.

So in a non-linear kind of game in which the player pick the challenges themselves as best as they can and without the DM preparing a plot (AP or otherwise), they still want to make sure that they are ready for any specific challenge. To give an example: I as a DM do not prepare plots or play APs. We use Eberron as a campaign world. The players know that one of their opponents hides in the Demon Wastes and is very powerful (which translates into: very high level). They have decided that they cannot face him right now (translate: not enough levels), so they chose to do other stuff first until they are ready to face him. They did not only make that choice for story-reasons (which I have nothing to do with since I only respond to what they do and where their PCs are going). Making this choice is about pacing, too. They know they need more XP, which - in-game - translate into: we need more information, which maybe person A in location B can give us.. let's go there.

 

[MG.0]

Players often split the party, it simply happens. And when it does, chances are that some players get into a fight and earn exp, when others do not. And then the players that miss out lament that fact, and they may feel encouraged to look for trouble just to get into a fight, and catch up on exp.

I don't think the idea of personal experience levels is good for role playing. I don't want my players to be upset when combat happens and their character isn't there. But because I use party-wide exp, I can now choose to allow absent players to temporarily take control of an npc and still take part in the fight. Once combat is over, their original character still earns exp from it, even thought they were playing the part of the npc during the fight.

I don't want game mechanics to steer the role playing actions of my players towards combat. I don't want them to feel encouraged to solve everything with violence, just because that will allow them to catch up on the exp levels of their fellow players.

I think party wide experience is objectively better, and it amazes me that this isn't a core rule yet.

The parties in games I run are all over the place with regard to XP. No one in my games has ever identified a need for everyone to be at the same level. Maybe it worked that way in 3rd/4th...I don't know because I never played those editions and they hold no appeal for me.

Limiting XP to party combat is silly and I could indeed see it encouraging characters to do stupid things. Characters in my games are regularly awarded with XP on an individual basis for all sorts of things (and combat is no guarantee of XP) - excellent roleplaying, ingenious problem solving, and even just plain good or fun ideas. No one bitches about Johnny being a level and a half ahead or Bobby dragging up the rear. Everyone knows how to get XP and it isn't tied to what everyone else is getting.

I disagree STRONGLY with your earlier claim that players should be entitled to loot and XP when absent. It is as much a reward for playing as narrative enjoyment. That said, I pointed out that players who are absent through no fault of their own have the option to still gain loot/XP in my games, but at the same level of risk as the rest of the characters. I would never play with party wide XP...individual character advancement is rendered meaningless thereby. You might as well play a board or video game.



Edit:

This brings up an interesting point: My players often run multiple characters in the same campaign. One may be off on downtime tending his shop or doing magical reasearch while the other adventures. Occasionally, but not too often, a player with play two characters simultaneously in a session (one as a apprentice or squire to the other). As such even though my main group only consists of eight core players, the party at any given time consists 16-20 characters, many of whom are off doing their own thing. As such character levels vary quite a bit. I've been playing this way since 1st edition. I fail to see how any kind of "party wide experience" would make our experience better and can easily see it ruining our games.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You might as well play a board or video game.

That doesn't even make any sense - the play experience of those are nothing like the play experience of an RPG, whether it is with everyone receiving their own individually determined character progression or with everyone contributing to a shared character progression.

 

[MG.0]

That doesn't even make any sense - the play experience of those are nothing like the play experience of an RPG

Exactly. Being able to see/control that individual progression of your character is what sets RPG's apart. Making all advancement automatic and linked to a group regardless of what you actually do in the game (or even if you show up!) turns it into something akin to those other experiences, where characters are either completely static, or on a predefined level up curve that you honestly have no real control over. There are some board and video games that fall outside this depiction, but the vast majority do not. Regardless, my point was that individual advancement is an important piece of D&D.

 

[PnPgamer]

Player cannot show up, we dont play at all. It is a group experience anyhow.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Exactly. Being able to see/control that individual progression of your character is what sets RPG's apart.

That's not even near the only thing.

Making all advancement automatic and linked to a group regardless of what you actually do in the game (or even if you show up!) turns it into something akin to those other experiences, where characters are either completely static, or on a predefined level up curve that you honestly have no real control over.

That is nonsense.

Regardless, my point was that individual advancement is an important piece of D&D.

That's not really accurate.

 

[Imaculata]

I disagree STRONGLY with your earlier claim that players should be entitled to loot and XP when absent.

I didn't say they were entitled to loot.

I would never play with party wide XP...individual character advancement is rendered meaningless thereby. You might as well play a board or video game.

Why would individual character advancement be rendered meaningless with party wide exp? They still level up. The only difference is, everyone levels up at exactly the same time. No one is ever a level behind on the rest of the party. But they still get to do everything else they'd normally do when leveling up their characters. They still roll for hit points, increase their stats and pick new spells as usual.

The real difference, is that any action that rewards exp, now rewards the whole group rather than the individual. How could that possibly be perceived as a bad thing?

I've been playing this way since 1st edition. I fail to see how any kind of "party wide experience" would make our experience better and can easily see it ruining our games.

It could only improve the experience, and I highly encourage you to give it a try the next try you DM a campaign. Regardless of how many characters the players play, it is great to always have them be at the same level. It makes bookkeeping a lot easier, and ensures all players are always at the same power level. No one is stronger than another, and it promotes team work, while discouraging grind (killing monsters for bonus exp).