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

[Orlax]

Dude being alive is a risk, especially on a game where I can just have your characters get hit by a meteor randomly. We regularly have singular characters that beech every door and always run into the thick of battle, while others hang back and support. It isn't a matter of being passenger Joe, it is a matter of sending in the best for the job.

 

[MG.0]

Who cares?

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

You're characterization is wrong.

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?

You obviously believe not awarding things to absent players is punishment. I reject that notion.

Nevermind that a D&D session isn't a self-contained game and has implications for later sessions in a way your analogy doesn't reflect.

If someone fails to show up for a scrabble or basketball tournament, do you still give them a trophy?

We treat loot and levelling as part of the rewards of play. If you don't play, then no rewards (with the optional exception of allowing your character to be played by someone else and undergo the same risk as the rest of the party).

 

[MG.0]

Why? You are the DM, not the player. You are the storyteller. You don't get to decide how they play their character.

That is only true to a point. Some player/character behavior is disruptive to the game as a whole and should be subject to DM override.

If they choose to play cowardly, that is a valid strategy. Maybe the other players take unnecessary risks, and not everyone is willing to do that. There's a lot of uncertainty when you're a player in a D&D campaign, and not every player responds to that in the same heroic way. Why would that deserve to be punished with less exp? They survived the encounter didn't they? So, full exp. Experience points are not a reward for killing a monster, they are a reward for overcoming an encounter, by any means. If that means a full retreat, then full exp.

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.

 

[fjw70]

I am a DM and not a babysitter nor the fun police. Everyone advances equally and the story moves on. If you miss a session then you miss out on fun and possibly treasure but your character doesn't miss out on advancement.

 

[the Jester]

Let's say a player misses a session. Does his character miss out on the XP of said session?

How do you explain it in-game?

Generally, the pc fades into the background, neither aiding nor being in danger. I only give xp for pcs who are present, again with rare exceptions ("I am going to miss this coming game, can so and so play my character?" type stuff happens occasionally, but only occasionally).

Treasure division is up to the pcs, so there's a decent chance that if the cleric is absent when they find the perfect item for the cleric that they might give it to him anyhow. OTOH they like to wait until there are only a few pcs present to divide loot so everyone gets more (except the pcs that aren't there, of course).

One big exception to my general rule is the 'no escape' clause: If the party is somewhere from which they can't escape, then even if you miss the session, a TPK kills you.

 

[the Jester]

That is only true to a point. Some player/character behavior is disruptive to the game as a whole and should be subject to DM override.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the notion that some pc actions are open to DM override- that's a total and complete dealbreaker for me as a player.

What I would say instead is that some pc actions are open to the boot, i.e. "you're not playing at our table anymore". Not all of these are bad behavior, either- some are simply matters of playstyle ("we play hours of combat with no real talking or rp, that's not fun for you, you're a bad fit for our table, sorry"). But the DM should NEVER (IMHO) overrride the choices the players make vis-a-vis their characters, at least not without some sort of mind control or whatnot.

 

[MG.0]

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the notion that some pc actions are open to DM override- that's a total and complete dealbreaker for me as a player.

What I would say instead is that some pc actions are open to the boot, i.e. "you're not playing at our table anymore". Not all of these are bad behavior, either- some are simply matters of playstyle ("we play hours of combat with no real talking or rp, that's not fun for you, you're a bad fit for our table, sorry"). But the DM should NEVER (IMHO) overrride the choices the players make vis-a-vis their characters, at least not without some sort of mind control or whatnot.

Believe me I do not take interfering with player agency lightly. What I am speaking of is override in the case of players exceeding the bounds of fair/fun play. Yes, booting is at the extreme end of DM intervention, but there can be lesser forms.

For instance, if the party is split and a player overhears something from the other group's play and decides to have his character act on knowledge he absolutely does not possess, then it is within the DM's purview to say that course of action is no longer possible.

In fact, this handling is almost directly form the 1st edition DMG (pg 110):

HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS

Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing
it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be
prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who
pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who
use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be
excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not
invite them to participate again.

Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who
are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types
typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their
characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though
the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being
instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters
would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or
orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible
under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will
then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other
players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable
activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the
game.

Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die,
obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes
by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the
heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of
charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If
these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and
stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a
problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.

 

[iserith]

It sounds like MG.0, Lanefan, and possibly other posters have arrived at their position because of having to deal with (at worst) dysfunctional players or (at best) defective adventurers. To give full rewards to such players would seem unfair.

However, I think both of these things are issues best dealt with outside the context of the game via discussion and consensus-building and not via the game's reward mechanics.

 

[Sunseeker]

It sounds like MG.0, Lanefan, and possibly other posters have arrived at their position because of having to deal with (at worst) dysfunctional players or (at best) defective adventurers. To give full rewards to such players would seem unfair.

However, I think both of these things are issues best dealt with outside the context of the game via discussion and consensus-building and not via the game's reward mechanics.

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.

 

[MG.0]

It sounds like MG.0, Lanefan, and possibly other posters have arrived at their position because of having to deal with (at worst) dysfunctional players or (at best) defective adventurers. To give full rewards to such players would seem unfair.

However, I think both of these things are issues best dealt with outside the context of the game via discussion and consensus-building and not via the game's reward mechanics.

I was just chiming in on that particular discussion. I fully believe in the use of individual XP outside of this, thankfully rare, circumstance of dealing with problem players.

Because my players have multiple characters, not all active at the same time, it only makes sense that they would not all be the same level. For instance, if a character dies and the party undertakes a quest to revive them, the dead character doesn't continue earning XP while dead. The player can still participate by running an alternate charcter, who may or may not be the same level as the dead character. As characters retire (either due to max level or player fickleness) it is easy to continually introduce new characters at low levels as every player has characters along the power spectrum. This allows a continuous rolling campaign that doesn't have to hit the reset button every time characters get too advanced. If you play with a fixed level party, and say they are all level 15...How do you handle a player expressing the desire to try a new character concept? Start them at 15? My players would balk at that. They enjoy seeing their charatcer grow from nothing to world-shaker. The party's constituents in each session ebb and flow organically due to player desire and story needs. Player advancement is taken as a very individual thing, celebrated, and not at all guaranteed. To me, replacing this with a party-wide equality system or milestone based levelling would rip the heart out of the game and replace it with something sterile. Yes I feel strongly about that.