D&D 5E DM Quits The Game

[Lanefan]

I award it on a character basis and I inform the players of their character's xp after the fact. Usually a few days afterward via email.

Ditto, but they find out every few sessions during the session*. The character sheets stay here between games so sending xp via email is just asking for those numbers to get lost.

* - usually when starting a new day; our rule (and I've no idea where this came from but I like it) is that a character doesn't actually get the xp until he or she has slept on it and had a chance to "take in" what was learned.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

And it's individual xp all the way; this to discourage "passengers" or characters who fade into the background and let others always take the risk (which happens all too often).

This I do not understand. In my opinion, not every player is the same. Some take risks, and some play carefully. Some role play a lot, and others are a bit more reserved. I want my players to play the game the way they feel comfortable, without punishing them for it. Instead, I'd rather reward the whole group for individual accomplishments, to encourage the feeling of being a team. This is a cooperative game after all.

 

[RedSiegfried]

* Unless you're paying them a fair wage, players will never be on time for any number of reason you can't control.

In 30 years of gaming I've never heard it put this way before. I like it.

 

[Lanefan]

This I do not understand. In my opinion, not every player is the same. Some take risks, and some play carefully.

And those characters who take more risks should stand to reap more reward; otherwise why take risks? Sit back and let someone else do it.

I'd rather reward the whole group for individual accomplishments, to encourage the feeling of being a team. This is a cooperative game after all.

And if everyone does their fair share the rewards will (or should) spread out roughly even. But if some do more than others you're in effect saying that greater contribution is meaningless, defeating the point.

Lanefan

 

[Imaculata]

And those characters who take more risks should stand to reap more reward; otherwise why take risks? Sit back and let someone else do it.

Maybe your character is squishy, and can't afford to take risks? Should a player be punished for playing carefully? Maybe you are playing a character that is careful by his/her very nature? Should role playing be punished?


These are the reasons why I don't presume to know why my players do what they do. I just let them do it, and do not punish them for it (unless they do something really stupid). I don't want to always encourage my players to take risks, because sometimes caution is called for. How do you reward that? If I get my players into this mindset that they must take risks, or they'll miss out on exp, then that could very well ruin the game. I want my players to role play their characters in the way they feel comfortable playing, and in the way they think suits their character.

Some players play careless by their very nature. I have such a player in my group. He takes rash actions, and risks, and often gets into trouble. Sometimes this works out alright, and sometimes it doesn't.

But another player in my group is a less experienced role player. He prefers to not take risks, and often needs the DM to give him a moment in the spotlight, so that he is not overshadowed by the rest of the group. Should he reap less rewards? Should I punish him for the simple fact that he's not as experienced at D&D as the rest? Do I want him to feel left behind? Do I want him to feel like the lesser player of the group? ...All of these are negative reinforcements.

My take on this, is that I reward the great moments of any of the players with experience for the whole group. I find that it doesn't encourage players to lean on the more pro-active players. Instead, it encourages them to role play too. It makes it fun for the whole group. No one gets left behind. Everyone adds to the reward for the whole group, and this helps to get them to keep working together.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe your character is squishy, and can't afford to take risks?

Squishy characters can still take risks commensurate to their squishiness.

Should a player be punished for playing carefully? Maybe you are playing a character that is careful by his/her very nature? Should role playing be punished?

If that careful play leads to repeatedly exposing other characters to risks they wouldn't otherwise have to face, then I'd say yes - either by the game not giving that character as many xp or by the rest of the party tossing that character to the curb.

These are the reasons why I don't presume to know why my players do what they do. I just let them do it, and do not punish them for it (unless they do something really stupid). I don't want to always encourage my players to take risks, because sometimes caution is called for. How do you reward that? If I get my players into this mindset that they must take risks, or they'll miss out on exp, then that could very well ruin the game.

How?

Some players play careless by their very nature. I have such a player in my group. He takes rash actions, and risks, and often gets into trouble. Sometimes this works out alright, and sometimes it doesn't.

And to make up for the times it doesn't work out - the deaths, the level losses, the adventuring time missed due to being in jail, etc. - the game-based rewards gained for that character should be higher when it does work out...this is my entire point!

But another player in my group is a less experienced role player. He prefers to not take risks, and often needs the DM to give him a moment in the spotlight, so that he is not overshadowed by the rest of the group. Should he reap less rewards? Should I punish him for the simple fact that he's not as experienced at D&D as the rest? Do I want him to feel left behind? Do I want him to feel like the lesser player of the group? ...All of these are negative reinforcements.

Depends. If the lack of risk-taking is simply because the player's unsure of himself then no, to begin with. But if it's simply a means to survive while others die then if I'm playing one of the characters who dies (which is my usual situation) I'm going to be a tad cheesed off. And sometimes less-experienced players are the most gung-ho of the lot, so that one to me holds no water.

Lan-"a game where no-one wants to take risks soon becomes very boring"-efan

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, and what I have seen happen in groups that were adherents of not getting XP or treasure unless you were there to play your character is that players don't show up late to or miss a session on occasion - they outright quit the campaign because their schedule might have a couple hiccups over the next few weeks, and they are preempting the "suck spiral" of being behind the group, which often leads to character death...

Not a problem in pre-3e. Because XP to level doubles each level, you can miss a bunch of sessions, or come in at a lower level, and then catch up in level very quickly. 5e has this a bit too - my 5e PCs are rarely more than 1 level apart, even after a guy dies and his new PC has half the XP of the old one he'll soon be similar level again.

In 3e & 4e I tend to find a single party xp tally works best though, yup.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I tend to be really loose with the appointments I make with my players. When we plan a session, we agree on a rough time when we want to start (For example, around 18:00 till 23:00). We also agree on having diner together, and then they usually show up around that time. They may be an hour later, but they usually call me if that is the case. It doesn't really matter if they are a bit late, because I already have the whole evening reserved for D&D, so one hour later, or two hours late, it doesn't really matter. We'll start when they are all here. Fortunately they all arrive with the same car, so it's never just one person who is late.

Real life commitments go first, so people can be late due to circumstances, its fine. But, if one player is consistently late, simply because he doesn't leave his house in time, that should be addressed. It's a shame if everyone except one specific player always shows up on time, and you all have to wait for him.

See that would annoy me if you said let's play from 6pm to 11pm and they constantly didn't arrive until 7pm or later because someone was late.

I don't get to game much as it is, so to lose 20% of my limited gaming time because someone wasn't organised and ready in time for a commitment they knew about well in advance suggests that that person doesn't really see the game as a priority (especially if they didn't really have a reason as to why they were late).

I totally get that real life happens. I've had players late or miss sessions because of real life stuff all the time and we've frequently shifted sessions around either days or weeks because someone had something like a birthday or an anniversary or their kid's school concert on the next scheduled session date. That's totally cool. We all have those commitments and if we all know about it in advance the group can move things around to accommodate.

What isn't cool is blowing off the game or arriving late without letting the group know. It also isn't cool to constantly arrive late or miss sessions for no real reason. It just shows that you don't really value the game or respect the people you're gaming with.

Some people may be a lot more casual and be fine with that, but I'd probably be asking you to find another group if you were in my game.

 

[Imaculata]

How?

I don't want my players to compete for experience points. I also don't want my game to devolve into a sort of tug of war, where everyone feels obligated to play the same high risk way, in order to maximize their character progression (or to have any shot at being rewarded to begin with). In my sessions, experience and treasures are secondary to the story. Plot and role playing come first, and levels and experience are mostly irrelevant.

See that would annoy me if you said let's play from 6pm to 11pm and they constantly didn't arrive until 7pm or later because someone was late.

I don't get to game much as it is, so to lose 20% of my limited gaming time because someone wasn't organized and ready in time for a commitment they knew about well in advance suggests that that person doesn't really see the game as a priority (especially if they didn't really have a reason as to why they were late).

We play pretty long sessions. On average, our sessions last until about midnight, which is a long time to play. If we start at 5 in the evening, that could mean we play for 7 hours straight. Sometimes when my players show up on time, we first have coffee, and chat for about an hour. The exact moment when we start playing isn't that important to me, because the time we spend playing is long enough, even if we lose one or two hours of it.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

We have a player that is routinely about two hours late. It’s frustrating, but I figure he’s the one losing out on time that could be spent gaming.

Do you know why that player is normally 2 hours late?

If it was because he had a pre-existing commitment (i.e. his work shift doesn't finish until 7pm, he has to pick his kids up from basketball practice, he has a university class that finishes late on game night) that's cool. It's annoying and I'd try and find another night to game if possible that worked for everyone, but at least you know and can plan for it.

If it was simply because his time-management skills were so poor that he was just late I'd be asking him to find another group.