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

[MG.0]

I don't see the solutions as mutually exclusive and am currently in a position where I am going to have to start cracking down on one my players. We start at 3pm, plenty of time to get up, get ready, do your chores, and come on over. But what has started as arriving fashionably late has progressed to the extreme yesterday of being 3 hours late and then when he arrived telling us he still had more errands to run. He's a good player and a good person, and I'm not sure why he doesn't value this commitment anymore, it may simply be a matter of neither myself nor the other DM putting their foot down on his lateness.

I would start with asking the player what's going on and explain the problems their lateness is creating. If it continues, you should simply start without them and they miss out on things/loot/XP that happened while they were absent. Either they will correct their behavior or drop out of the game.

 

[TheFindus]

Taking risks can be anything from being the first through a door to standing in against a powerful foe to trying out an unknown magic item to all sorts of other things.

And while most characters try to get involved in most combats I can't count the number of times I've seen players pull their character(s) out of the fray at or above half h.p., leaving other also-hurting characters hung out to dry.

The archer in the back, if archer is all she is, does what she can and risks getting clobbered with area-effect spells just like any other back-liner. But if said archer is being an archer just to be safe when she could instead be just as useful (if not more so) up in the front line, that's annoying.

Here is what I do not understand: a student in high school can only participate a very limited number of times verbally in class because there are other students. In D&D there is a limited amount of magic items that need to be tried out. How does any DM calculate the involvement in such things into XP values given out after every session. My guess is that he/she would only be able to do this in very broad strokes, which does not seem to serve the purpose of XP as a measure of involvement of a player in the game.

All valid questions and points, but none of them excuse the player to whom their character's survival (too often at the expense of other characters' deaths or other sacrifices) is paramount. And if they're going to leave because they get less xp that's maybe not a bad thing, even if it's someone who is otherwise a friend.

And to haul this back toward the original topic, the PC of a player who isn't present is still a PC in the party and is still expected to pull his weight (based on established character). If I've got a character who tends to wade right into combat when I'm playing her I sort of expect that's how she'll be played when I'm not there; and if she dies so be it.

In a game like 5e, the death of a PC can be caused by one stupid roll of the die, especially in earlier levels. I do not understand why a player to whom the survival of a precious PC is paramount should be penalized by recieving less XP as somebody with a more reckless behaviour. I have played both types of PCs (but usually a more proactive type of PC) and both types of PCs are completely within the broad structure and genre of any RPG.
Thinking about what you have posted about the way you handle this in your gaming group, I remembered a situation in a Warhammer FRPG group that I played in around 1990. One player played a Wizard and she did not play aggressively because she was scared her PC might die. Now, WFRP 1st edition is a brutal deadly game in which a series of nasty d6-rolls will kill any PC, no matter how experienced. So her angst was valid. But also, WFRPG is a system in which individual XP could be given according to how well one roleplays the PC (which she was not the best in either. Not really bad, but not good). Others in the group did great, though and therefore recieved more XP. She eventually left because of this and we lost her as a player. I wondered back then if that was really neccessary and I still think that, no, it was not.
The issue of how you play your PC is really not an issue that should be handled with XP. Instead, it something outside of game mechanics and should be discussed to form a common basis on what the behaviour in the group as a whole should be.

So to use your example above, when the dust settles after the Goblin Queen battle Perrina (a front-liner) is lying dead on the floor in large part because Argon (another front-liner) didn't stand in and bail her out; Argon survives and (if group xp are used) gets full xp and a full treasure share while Perrina may or may not get full xp and treasure for that battle but gets nothing going forward and also has to pay for revival at some point - though if a Goblin Queen is a major foe she's probably at a level that can't afford revival spells yet, making her SOL. How in any way is this fair to Perrina and-or her player?

I do not recall the rule that dead PCs do not get full XP or less treasure. I am assuming they still get all the XP because they participated in the fight. And treasure for the same reason. And the fact that revival spells must be bought from the dead PC's pocket is certainly a valid way to handle this. But it is not the only way.
Why not find a way to handle this in which the player does not get the shorter end of the stick? Especially because in 5e death occurs because of a bad die roll in early levels.

 

[TheFindus]

I believe I know what Lanefan means. There are players who hang back and let other players risk their characters because they are afraid their character might die. They fail to use their abilities for the good of the group when it might put them at real or imagined risk. They ride the coattails of the group, not because they are playing a cowardly character (which can be done in a non-disruptive way), but because the player is being fundamentally selfish. I've seen players like this. I have a problem with those players because like you said "they are a team, and they need her", and while I allow any type of character or alignment in my games I have one overarching rule that remains inviolate: "You are part of a group of players trying to have a good time. Doing anything in or out of character that causes difficulty to that end is not allowed." This includes refusing to help teammates in reasonable circumstances, or working counter to the party's interests, secretly or otherwise.

I most definitely award XP on an individual basis, I might award less XP in such a case to get my point across, but I definitely would have a talk with that player regarding their behavior. If it doesn't change, I will boot them from the game.

I understand all that, but how often does that really happen? And is this rare incident reason enough not to give XP for any PC who cannot be played (properly) because the player is missing a game? This is what I do not understand. This technique does not save you from people who are unengaged during the game. Even if they get less XP, you still won't be pleased with the way they play. The only thing that does, it seems, is talking to them about it.
Also, to me the question comes up whether any player actually argues with the DM that they played better than the XP they received reflect? Cause I think that can take a lot of time arguing after the game. Why not save the time and just go home after a halfway decent gaming session?

 

[Imaculata]

If anything, I'd say that this technique encourages players to become even further disengaged from the game. You have a hypothetical player who misses appointments, supposedly not due to circumstances beyond their control, but due to their unwillingness to show up on time... and you think that giving no exp and loot will encourage them to stop this behavior?

I think talking to them is by far the better approach. But by trying to punish them in-game, I think you drive them further from the game.

 

[was]

DM runs the character who gains full XP, but no share of the wealth or treasure.

 

[S'mon]

Who cares?

Why do people seem to take a fun game so seriously like its a cutthroat business?

If someone misses a game of Scrabble do you make them start the next game with less letter tiles?

If they miss a friendly game of basketball do they have to play the next game barefoot?

Why is it so important to you that everyone have the same XP? It's just a game - lighten up!

You can make the same "just a game" "who cares" argument either way.

 

[S'mon]

If anything, I'd say that this technique encourages players to become even further disengaged from the game. You have a hypothetical player who misses appointments, supposedly not due circumstances beyond their control, but due to their unwillingness to show up on time... and you think that giving no exp and loot will encourage them to stop this behavior?

I think talking to them is by far the better approach. But by trying to punish them in-game, I think you drive them further from the game.

It's more about rewarding the players who do show up on time & participate - not that I
usually do this, other than that in my individual-XP campaigns you only get XP for sessions
you played. I do have one flaky player (he once even likely caused a TPK by forgetting
the game) and occasionally he's so late he clearly didn't contribute enough to get a full
share of the XP.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MG.0]

If anything, I'd say that this technique encourages players to become even further disengaged from the game. You have a hypothetical player who misses appointments, supposedly not due circumstances beyond their control, but due to their unwillingness to show up on time... and you think that giving no exp and loot will encourage them to stop this behavior?

I think talking to them is by far the better approach. But by trying to punish them in-game, I think you drive them further from the game.

Like I said, I'd recommend talking to the player first and figuring out what is going on. Missing out on rewards is a next step if the behavior continues. The final option is to boot the player from the game. I've rarely had to go that far, but it has happened.

My personal opinion is that if things weren't resolved during the talk, booting will probably be the eventual result, but it's probably worth a few in-between measures in some cases.

Note: None of this is really related to the situation where a player misses the occasional game.

 

[MG.0]

I understand all that, but how often does that really happen? And is this rare incident reason enough not to give XP for any PC who cannot be played (properly) because the player is missing a game? This is what I do not understand. This technique does not save you from people who are unengaged during the game. Even if they get less XP, you still won't be pleased with the way they play. The only thing that does, it seems, is talking to them about it.
Also, to me the question comes up whether any player actually argues with the DM that they played better than the XP they received reflect? Cause I think that can take a lot of time arguing after the game. Why not save the time and just go home after a halfway decent gaming session?

Dealing with troublesome players has nothing to do with handling XP with regard to players who miss the occasional session.