Missed session catch-up XP

Oofta said:

I think part of my dissonance with the whole theory of having a low level character joining a high level group and leveling incredibly quickly is that levels are supposed to reflect roughly learning, training and getting better at your job through experience.

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from, but what better experience for a new PC than to adventure alongside some mentors who are further along in their craft? In a fantasy world, I could see the low-level adventurer learning REAL quick when thrown into the fray of some higher level encounters.

Oofta said:

To me there would be no sense of earning those levels, especially if I'm a front-line fighter who does nothing but hide in the back. Since I don't really "earn" those levels, why bother? It feels like filling out unnecessary paperwork with no value in order to be official.

Click to expand...

A very combat-centric view, to be sure. In our game, we award XP for exploration and social interaction too. If the concern is combat squishiness, the character certainly can "earn" their XP contributing in the different pillars of play, while doing their best to not die against deadlier foes in the combat pillar.


Another point to consider: Are the monsters that the party faces in combat all the same level? That would be a dull way for the DM to operate, IMHO. Now, I'm not saying that a party of same-level PCs is dull, but it certainly isn't the only way to conduct a "realistic" campaign.

DM Dave1 said:

I see where you are coming from, but what better experience for a new PC than to adventure alongside some mentors who are further along in their craft? In a fantasy world, I could see the low-level adventurer learning REAL quick when thrown into the fray of some higher level encounters.



A very combat-centric view, to be sure. In our game, we award XP for exploration and social interaction too. If the concern is combat squishiness, the character certainly can "earn" their XP contributing in the different pillars of play, while doing their best to not die against deadlier foes in the combat pillar.


Another point to consider: Are the monsters that the party faces in combat all the same level? That would be a dull way for the DM to operate, IMHO. Now, I'm not saying that a party of same-level PCs is dull, but it certainly isn't the only way to conduct a "realistic" campaign.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just another aspect of the theory that bothered me when advancement is too fast. I have the same problem with the training montage in movies.

As far as parallel combats, I understand why people do it. It just feels like plot armor to me.

Maybe this is in part my approach to the game. I'm more simulation of a fantasy world first then a game mechanics first person. There's nothing wrong with using meta-game info to not kill off the low level PC for example, it's just not my preference. If the bad guys see a weakness (or a weak party member) in many cases logically they should focus on that PC.

If there's a guy sniping in the back while two tanks are not attacking anyone, why would I not attack the sniper? Even if they have partial cover from the tanks?

It's over simplifying things, but I'd rather put story front and center than the mechanical fiddly bits of the game that enable the story.

DM Dave1 said:

I see where you are coming from, but what better experience for a new PC than to adventure alongside some mentors who are further along in their craft? In a fantasy world, I could see the low-level adventurer learning REAL quick when thrown into the fray of some higher level encounters.

Click to expand...

I would say this is a good example of starting with the rules as immutable (in a sense) and then imagining a fictional reason with perhaps some grounding in reality for it to make enough sense that one can accept and move past it. Which I heartily support in both this instance and in general. And which in my view is exceedingly easy to do once you accept the axiom that PCs level up when they get their XP, per the rules. The fiction in a fantasy world is quite mutable that way.

iserith said:

I would say this is a good example of starting with the rules as immutable (in a sense) and then imagining a fictional reason with perhaps some grounding in reality for it to make enough sense that one can accept and move past it. Which I heartily support in both this instance and in general. And which in my view is exceedingly easy to do once you accept the axiom that PCs level up when they get their XP, per the rules. The fiction in a fantasy world is quite mutable that way.

Click to expand...

Which is what I'm saying about putting the game mechanics first and simulation second. There's nothing wrong with the approach, it's just not the one I take.

This has probably been mentioned already, but in any event...

The way I view XPs is that they are party-based so the experience of the party is shared among each of the characters - so even if a player misses a few sessions , the missing PC gains the knowledge/experience of the party during downtime/rests as they share stories/experiences and solutions to difficulties already faced.

There is no reason to penalise players for missing sessions due to RL. There are plenty of ways to reward PCs for great individual roleplay. Usually in 5e this can include treasure, story awards, bonus inspiration and gaining faith/renown and I'm sure many more ways.

I've allowed the following:

If a player is going to miss a session he may have another player run his PC. The absent PC gets 1/2 XP. I've found that with a party of players who are unfamiliar with each other (like my last party which was advertised through the local game store) it shows a level of trust of the kind you want in your game.

A player can also keep a copy of his character sheet with the DM and leave a standing order that if he can't make it someone else can run the PC.

Aside from showing trust, another benefit is that the absent player is more involved in what he missed than if his PC wasn't there at all. As a DM, having all the PCs in the session, even if all the players aren't, means that it's easier to make encounters meet the challenge level I'm looking for.

I also have new PCs start no higher than level 3. If the party has level 5+ PCs then new PCs are level 3. Otherwise all PCs start at level 1.

It can be an issue with (as others have mentioned) some PCs having awesome level 5 abilities and others... not. This is the same reason that when people ask about multiclassing in a charop thread many of the replies often advise getting to level 5 in one class before switching. However, differing levels makes the veterans feel like, well, veterans if the player started the campaign before another player. It also rewards actually showing up and playing the game.

I can't get on board with the idea that getting no XP for not actually playing the game is a penalty. XP is an incentive for participating in the particular things for which XP is awarded. That means showing up and doing adventuring stuff (or completing goals/quests if milestone XP or whatever). And since a lower-level PC can meaningfully contribute in a group of higher-level PCs, not earning XP for missing sessions is really no big deal.

This objection seems similar to an argument that it's a penalty to not get paid for failing to show up to work. The money is an incentive to come to work and do your job. Granted, this is a game, not work, but the thinking is largely similar in my view.

Please note this comment not an argument against awarding XP for absent players. I really don't care about that. Rather, it's an observation on seeing not rewarding XP for absent players as a penalty.

I was hesitant to give XP to an absent player whose PC was still participating until I saw how good of a job it did to keep the player engaged in the story and adventure.

I've seen it as a DM and seen it as an absent player. Twenty something years ago I was playing with my then college friends in my best campaign ever. I moved away but the DM liked my PC so much he kept him around. I eventually back to where I was only 130 miles away instead of 2,000 miles so I could drive up on weekends and continue to play. The fact my PC was still in game meant I was so much more connected to the goings on. As a DM I see it, even if the absence is only one week, when a player is excited to find out what his PC did.

I had an interesting situation come up recently. I have DMed since 2e and have always subscribed to the "modern" view of, "the true penalty is not getting to play." So players in my games have gotten full xp when they miss a session (no treasure though).


About a year ago my weekly group imploded and I needed a break from DMing. One of my surviving players got a new group together and one of the new people (Millennial) wanted to DM ToA under AL rules, so no xp if you missed the session. Everyone was fine with that. Since I was hosting, if I was unavailable there was no game so I always had the highest xp the group. One of the other players (Gen X), who is about my age, also subscribes to the modern view, so whenever he missed a session he would just use his AL DM rewards to pump up his character to my character level.


After ToA ended I was excited to DM again and have been running a homebrew campaign. Millennial wanted to do classic xp while Gen X wanted to do modern. Wanting to make everyone happy, I told all 7 players they could chose individually whether they wanted to play under classic or modern sensibilities. Every player has missed at least one session due to life stuff. Millennial was the only player who didn't take xp for the session he missed, while every other player has been happy to take the xp for their missing sessions.


Two sessions ago Millennial gave up. As Gen X, who missed the week before, was taking his xp for the prior session, Millennial sighed and said he would take the xp for the session he missed previously. I could tell he didn't want to take the xp, but he wanted to be level 5 in a party where everyone was level 6 less.

I don't know if there is a lessen here, but if there is, I assume it is: 1) its great to play in a game where everyone is the same level; 2) its great to play in a game where there is a level discrepancy between multiple players; 3) it sucks to be the only guy who is under leveled compared to everyone else in the party.

iserith said:

This objection seems similar to an argument that it's a penalty to not get paid for failing to show up to work. The money is an incentive to come to work and do your job. Granted, this is a game, not work, but the thinking is largely similar in my view.

Click to expand...

Missing a day of pay because your child got sick feels terrible. And continuing the work analogy, it sounds like your players are Hourly and ours are Salary.