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

[Lanefan]

Doesn't that almost, by definition, make PCs more special (cue up anthropomorphic theories of the world).

I mean, I suppose we could all be playing "Ditchdiggers and Drabness," but (for the most part) we aren't. Various tables have incorporated more (or less) of the heroic part of the fantasy, but PCs are special, because the people at your table are playing them. Quite literally, the story revolves around them, and anything else is off-stage.

Sure, but what happens off-stage follows the same mechanics as what happens on-stage; we just don't see it. We focus on the PCs, obviously; but they're still a part of a bigger world and as such have to mechanically and seamlessly fit in to said bigger world.

An analogy, perhaps - you're watching Portsmouth* play Liverpool in the EPL. You're paying close attention to that game; maybe you recognize some of the Liverpool players and as a lifelong Portsmouth fan you've a keen interest in the outcome, so today that's the game that's "on-stage" for you complete with heroes and villains and drama. However at the same time Newcastle is playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, using the exact same rules; and about 40 other games are going on as well at all the various levels of British football. To you those games are "off-stage" - but they're still happening and still using the same mechanics.

Now, to continue this analogy a step further: let's say a player from Luton Town who you've never paid much attention to transfers to Portsmouth in the summer window (or in D&D-speak, the party picks up a new character). Suddenly from your perspective this player has gone from being largely off-stage to being on-stage, but his mechanics don't change: he still plays the same position using the same rules as he did at Luton, and has the same strengths and weaknesses as a footballer. The only thing that changes is how much attention you pay to what he does.

The same sort of thing holds true in a D&D game world...or should.

* - let's assume you've time-warped back to 2011 for this; Portsmouth can't see the EPL with a telescope these days.

Lan-"Pompey boot boys rule right"-efan

 

[S'mon]

How else would that character be able to work in the party, if all the
players are of a much higher level? You'd have to bring that character up to the same level as the rest of the party anyway, or he/she would be a dead weight.

That sounds as if you've mostly played 3e/4e. It's far less of an issue in other editions,
5e least of all.

 

[S'mon]

Take a berzerker for example. They rely a lot on having lots of hit points, and outlasting their foes. So any new character level is important to them, because it gets them better saves and a large pool of hit points. But they are also front liners, which means that they are probably more likely to go down first in a tough fight. They take the most damage after all, and are right in the middle of things. If they are one level behind on the rest of the party, or two levels behind, that is a pretty big deal.

That is definitely not my experience. The main Berserker PC IMC has effectively 120x2=
240 hit points, when the Rogue & Cleric have around 60 each. He could be several levels
lower and still completely able to fulfil his role. A lower level Berserker (different PC) dominated a battle where he fought beside a Rogue & Warlock both 3 levels higher than him.

I have seen the kind of thing you describe in 4e. It does not resemble my experience of 5e at all.

 

[S'mon]

On a broader note, I wonder if some of the disconnect here is tied to whether or not PCs (as opposed to NPCs or the rest of the game world) are special snowflakes in some campaigns but not in others. To me, an adventuring PC is exactly the same as an adventuring NPC, only it has a player attached to it and because of that we see a lot more of what it does in its career. Adventuring NPCs get xp and levels and death and rewards just like adventuring PCs do because the internal logic of the game world cannot (and absolutely should not be able to) tell them apart.

Do you stat all or most of your 5e NPCs using the PC-class rules? Isn't that a pain?

I have NPC 'adventurers' IMC, but they're built using the NPC rules like the ones in the MM - most are adapted from MM NPCs.

 

[S'mon]

Sure, but what happens off-stage follows the same mechanics as what happens on-stage; we just don't see it. We focus on the PCs, obviously; but they're still a part of a bigger world and as such have to mechanically and seamlessly fit in to said bigger world.

An analogy, perhaps - you're watching Portsmouth* play Liverpool in the EPL. You're paying close attention to that game; maybe you recognize some of the Liverpool players and as a lifelong Portsmouth fan you've a keen interest in the outcome, so today that's the game that's "on-stage" for you complete with heroes and villains and drama. However at the same time Newcastle is playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge, using the exact same rules; and about 40 other games are going on as well at all the various levels of British football. To you those games are "off-stage" - but they're still happening and still using the same mechanics.

But this is a fiction, right? You as GM are not actually determining the results of all
NPC-NPC interaction in the game world, surely? You must be fiating it at some level of abstraction. You as GM probably have not determined even the identities of the vast majority of fictional people inhabiting your game world. Whereas IRL those off-stage teams really are playing each other.
This IMO is why rules-as-physics is a dangerous rabbit hole - it's never achievable, and
attempts to do so take you farther and farther away from what should be a focus on
what's best for the at table game.

 

[the Jester]

So does this mean that you'd rather have a player be several levels behind the rest of the party, but it making sense, than have them all be the same level and it not making sense?

Absolutely.

Frankly, I obviously lean towards the latter. "Levels" to me are simply an indication of the power curve of a character. Ideally, the players are all of a similar or equal level, or else the game becomes unbalanced. Their adventures are just an excuse to explain why they are gaining in power, but as a game master I don't really need any excuse for it.

And that's fine- but it's not the playstyle for me or my groups.

 

[robus]

On a broader note, I wonder if some of the disconnect here is tied to whether or not PCs (as opposed to NPCs or the rest of the game world) are special snowflakes in some campaigns but not in others. To me, an adventuring PC is exactly the same as an adventuring NPC, only it has a player attached to it and because of that we see a lot more of what it does in its career. Adventuring NPCs get xp and levels and death and rewards just like adventuring PCs do because the internal logic of the game world cannot (and absolutely should not be able to) tell them apart. I just don't bother running all the numbers for any of 'em until I need to dream up an adventuring NPC right now; I can fill in the back-details later if needed.

This certainly does seem to be the disconnect. I, and others, see the DMs role is to create an experience that lets these snowflakes shine. They're up and coming heroes looking to tell epic tales of derring-do. They're a team, hence the desire to level the team as a unit, and the lack of desire to single out the occasional absentee.

Other DMs appear to see the PCs as a party of mercenaries, in it for individual reasons and personal advancement.

As long as the groups playing with the DM enjoy the particular experience, that's all that matters. Trying to reconcile these two different approaches seems like a fruitless exercise...

 

[S'mon]

This certainly does seem to be the disconnect. I, and others, see the DMs role is to create an experience that lets these snowflakes shine. They're up and coming heroes looking to tell epic tales of derring-do. They're a team, hence the desire to level the team as a unit, and the lack of desire to single out the occasional absentee.

Other DMs appear to see the PCs as a party of mercenaries, in it for individual reasons and personal advancement.

As long as the groups playing with the DM enjoy the particular experience, that's all that matters. Trying to reconcile these two different approaches seems like a fruitless exercise...

I think different genres best suit different approaches - the traditional individual XP approach works best for Picareesque swords & sorcery, the party-level approach works best for high fantasy epic questing.

 

[Maxperson]

Most likely, yes. With an incomplete party, they would probably not be able to defeat the big bad.

So instead of pushing on like heroes and risking failure, they will opt to guarantee failure? That doesn't make any sense to me. Better to risk success or death as heroes, than to assure failure through cowardice.

 

[ccs]

I'm playing devils advocate here a bit, but just suppose you were to rule this the way I do? The players who die still receive full exp for the boss battle. They took one for the team, but they don't get punished for it. Instead, the whole team is rewarded equally for their group accomplishment. While waiting to be resurrected, the player who died temporarily takes control of an npc, but any exp earned by this npc will eventually go to their character. After they've been resurrected, their character receives all of the experience that it would otherwise have missed out on. No sour grapes, the team is rewarded collectively and fairly.

Your problem is that you suffer from a negative viewpoint.
We don't.
It's a glass 1/2 empty vrs 1/2 full PoV.

Your character not earning xp for something they weren't involved in - no matter what the reason - isn't a punishment.
If I were punishing you, you'd earn less XP for the same stuff others gained a full share.