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

[TheFindus]

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

I feel the same way. I agree.

 

[MG.0]

Does that happen often? A player dies during an adventure, and the rest of the party finishes the entire adventure without her first, before resurrecting her?

Not a lot here, but sometimes it is unavoidable. Players in my games typically will pull in one of their other characters if the story will allow, or play one of the party's NPC henchmen for the rest of that session otherwise.

 

[Maxperson]

Does that happen often? A player dies during an adventure, and the rest of the party finishes the entire adventure without her first, before resurrecting her?

Not in my games. Raising is very rare in my games. That said, it still didn't usually happen in games where it was common. If you could go raise them quickly, it was done. If you couldn't due to time pressures or whatever, then the person just made a new PC. The adventure would often take weeks of real time to complete and nobody wanted to wait around for possibly a month or two to play again.

 

[MG.0]

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.

We have no such rule; and inter-party conflict is a time-honoured tradition in our games. I'm cool with that both as player and DM if for no other reason than it's intentional, with a clear action-reaction sequence possible. The coat-tail riders and passenger joes, however, are way more passive-aggressive in what they do; and much harder to pin down by intent.

Let me point out what might not be clear: Inter-party conflict of characters is absolutely allowed in my games. You'll notice my rule applies to the group of players, not characters. What this means in practice is that if for instance your rogue wants to steal from party members, you must get acceptance from the other players (not characters). If the players don't think it would lead to fun roleplaying opportunities, then it doesn't happen, period.

This is one of the rare cases where I limit player control of characters. If your choices have a negative impact of the rest of the party's fun, then "no" you cannot do it. This keeps the game fun for everyone and not just one person's selfish indulgence.

I've found that in practice, the only players who complain about this type of limit are precisely those who deliberately try to create tension in the group.

 

[Demorgus]

The character just fades to the background for the session the player is not there. I award the absent pc 1/2 the xp earned by the group, but none of the treasure.

 

[Jacob Marley]

If that is common practice, its a terrible one. You are a team, and so it is in the interest of the whole team to have their deceased party member back. Why wouldn't everyone chip in?

Some of my players' characters would agree with this position. Some of my players' characters would not. Part of our enjoyment comes from having these debates in the campaign. It helps weave an interesting and complex narrative.

Does that happen often? A player dies during an adventure, and the rest of the party finishes the entire adventure without her first, before resurrecting her?

This is context-dependent. Occasionally the situation requires the party to continue to advance; backing off equates to the failure of the adventure.

Suppose she died during a boss battle, but she died before she was able to kill the boss. Does this mean she gets no exp for the boss being killed by the party? She took part in the battle didn't she? But she wasn't around when the boss died, she was dead on the floor. But I would still give her full exp.

I'd give her experience. She took a risk, made decisions, and otherwise participated in the battle. To me, that's worthy of experience regardless of if she died during the conflict.

 

[Orlax]

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

This. All of it, characters that are being played by the DM have no wants or needs.

 

[the Jester]

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.


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 just need to point out that characterizing not awarding xp for things you didn't do as 'punishment' is one of the big divides here. You see withholding xp as a punishment, whereas I (and I suspect Lanefan, and others) see awarding xp as a reward. From one perspective, everyone is entitled to the same xp; from the other, nobody is, and it must be earned actively.

As usual, this divide boils down to a difference in playstyles. Neither is objectively right or wrong, but one might be wrong or right for a given group.

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.

Well, partially, but encouraging certain behaviors is exactly what xp does. Players are far more likely to do things that get xp rewards. They tend to look for ways to get more xp, whether by fighting bigger, badder monsters in a system where xp come from monsters, by accumulating treasure in an xp-for-gp system, by working towards completing the story or plot they're running through in a system that awards xp for advancing the story, etc.

I'd say that (for those of us using xp) it's well worth looking at what activities provide xp, and if we want to encourage a certain playstyle, to bear in mind that xp are a great tool for motivating players toward that playstyle. Skipping xp and awarding levels at milestones falls under the same principle; it's pushing the players to follow the story or hit those milestones (whatever they might be).

 

[the Jester]

But if a player is only missing the game once in a while, what point does them having slightly less XP even serve?

Why must it serve a point at all? It's simply the way it is.

A pc who does less adventuring than others has less experience. There is a consistency of concept here- if you get xp by adventuring, you don't get xp by not-adventuring. There's no purpose behind one character having more or less xp than another; it's simply the consequence of their activity. Just like if a 2nd level pc retires for 2 years in game, then rejoins his now-10th level companions. There's no reason why he should have gotten a share of the xp they got facing that black dragon, nor should he have gotten a share of their hard-earned treasure. It's not that they don't like him; he wasn't on the job, just like if I go on an unpaid vacation I don't get paid.

I think my sandbox approach is coming through pretty hard here. My games don't have a central, unchanging group of pcs that they revolve around; they have a world with a plethora of characters (pc and npc) running through them. There's no need to keep the team at even levels, because sometimes the team doesn't even exist outside of a specific adventure.

 

[Imaculata]

Why must it serve a point at all? It's simply the way it is.

A pc who does less adventuring than others has less experience. There is a consistency of concept here- if you get xp by adventuring, you don't get xp by not-adventuring. There's no purpose behind one character having more or less xp than another; it's simply the consequence of their activity.

Its a progression mechanic, and a reward. Whether it is realistic for a character to earn experience for something they may or may not have been involved in, is irrelevant. Most players I presume want their character to progress, and I think most players would agree that they'd like their character to progress at an equal rate as that of their party members.

So why even bother to hand it out on an individual basis? Don't you want to encourage teamwork? Isn't it a cooperative game?