Missed session catch-up XP

[Seramus]

I just don't understand that.

Understanding is not necessary. There are countless times in my life where I didn’t understand why my friends were upset, and I still needed to respect their feelings.

That doesn’t mean you need to invite those people to your game. You lay out the rules ahead of time, and they agree to them and abide by them.

 

[iserith]

Right. So my explanation is "debatable example that ignores all other possible factors" that you have never named.

I was referring to the only examples you provided which were scant on detail but big on jumping to a conclusion for a preference you already hold. On its face, that looks like confirmation bias which makes the justification for your preference suspect.

You're just saying my opinion crap ... sorry that my opinion is unjustified crap. Oops. Not valid because it's "confirmation bias". Poe-tae-toe poe-tah-toe.

Or it could just be that we have different preferences, with neither one being particularly justified. I'm OK with that. A lot of things about D&D come down to preference. Some people like sushi. No matter how much you tell me I haven't had "good" sushi even though I've tried it at upscale restaurants, I like my fish cooked.

I've given what I view as a downside to disparate levels and given my experience when I played in games where there was a significant difference. You? You've just said my opinion is wrong because I disagree.

I questioned your stated justification for your preference. I did not criticize your preference. If you had just given your preference, I'd have nothing to question (or criticize). Preferences are unassailable in that regard.

Please stop saying I'm saying things I'm not saying. I am not obligated to defend positions I do not hold.

 

[Oofta]

I was referring to the only examples you provided which were scant on detail but big on jumping to a conclusion for a preference you already hold. On its face, that looks like confirmation bias which makes the justification for your preference suspect.







I questioned your stated justification for your preference. I did not criticize your preference. If you had just given your preference, I'd have nothing to question (or criticize). Preferences are unassailable in that regard.

Please stop saying I'm saying things I'm not saying. I am not obligated to defend positions I do not hold.

I was originally responding to things like

I'm not saying use XP. But the argument for not using XP because "it's not fun to be a level behind" seems odd to me.

Multiple people have explained and given examples. I'm not the only one I tried to explain why some people don't like playing lower level characters.

It's OK that you don't understand. You've repeated that

I just don't understand that ... But feeling "bummed" about this sort of thing is something I don't understand.

You stated

the argument that PCs of disparate levels can't be on the same team and still contribute meaningfully is simply incorrect. And you don't have to take my word for it - try it out and see.

So I gave an example from AL. My wife and I brought 2 1st level characters to an epic. They (and their clones) died. Our 4th level characters kicked ass. First set of characters? Little more than fodder. Second set? Prevented a probable TPK.

But you dismissed my experience as not "borne out by practical experience".

I'm arguing against any assertion that such characters can't meaningfully contribute because of their difference in levels.

I do question preferences that are stated to be based on things that aren't borne out by practical experience.

Then you dismiss my justification and example

But I will debate the stated basis of those preferences if they are debatable. In this case, I would say they are. Sometimes people have a preference first and then give a post-hoc justification for it. That's what this looks like to me, for what it's worth. If someone comes along and calls the justification into question, it can be interpreted as dismissing the preference when that's not what is going on.

And then you continue with an insult.

you have a preference first ("no level disparity") and you justify it later with a debatable example

It doesn't bother me that we hold different opinions. What bothers me is that you're dismissive of other people's experiences and reasons for their opinions. Call it a pet peeve.

I simply see no advantage to have some PCs in the party at a lower level. Some people do not like feeling like they cannot contribute much to the success of the team.

 

[iserith]

I was originally responding to things like

Multiple people have explained and given examples. I'm not the only one I tried to explain why some people don't like playing lower level characters.

It's OK that you don't understand. You've repeated that

You stated

As I recall, there are two main answers more or less to things I've stated I don't understand:

1. Level disparity makes it so some PCs can't meaningfully contribute.
2. I dunno, feelings or something.

For 2, I got nothing. However poorly I might view someone who looks at a fellow player with a better attendance record and, as a result, a higher-level character with resentment, that's just a person I choose not to play with (as [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION] helpfully pointed out). Or generally associate with on any level whatsoever. That can be set aside as a preference without a, let's call it, tangible justification.

For 1, I simply disagree with that position. That was true in D&D 3e and 4e, but D&D 5e is designed in such a way where that's just not the case. AC and DCs doesn't scale up too high compared to other games. I pondered earlier whether this preference was based in part on assumptions brought in from other games which is a common thing in my experience. People treat the current edition of D&D like a previous edition of D&D all the time. Evidence of this can be seen on D&D forums frequently. Especially really experienced DMs. Based on what I've personally seen. I don't think it's out of line to speculate that may be a basis for some people's preference.

So I gave an example from AL. My wife and I brought 2 1st level characters to an epic. They (and their clones) died. Our 4th level characters kicked ass. First set of characters? Little more than fodder. Second set? Prevented a probable TPK.

But you dismissed my experience as not "borne out by practical experience".

My question, which remains unanswered, was whether you weighed this evidence for your conclusion against situations in which those same outcomes occurred with same-level PCs. Because those same outcomes that you pin on level disparity can certainly happen in other games that don't have PCs of disparate levels. We also don't know anything about the adventure design, the party tactics, the cohesion of the group, the fairness of the DM, etc. I'm not denying you had an experience. Rather, I'm questioning your conclusion based on that experience.

Then you dismiss my justification and example

And then you continue with an insult.

It's not an insult to observe that you (1) have a preference and (2) came upon "evidence" that justified your preference and possibly ignored everything else other than that evidence. We should all guard against confirmation bias, don't you think? Maybe that's what's going on here. Maybe it's not. It's up for discussion.

For my part, I had a preference for no XP and all PCs leveling up at the same time in D&D 3e and 4e which was based on level disparity being a pretty big problem in those games. That's not a big problem in D&D 5e. So I changed my approach. For this game.

It doesn't bother me that we hold different opinions. What bothers me is that you're dismissive of other people's experiences and reasons for their opinions. Call it a pet peeve.

I simply see no advantage to have some PCs in the party at a lower level. Some people do not like feeling like they cannot contribute much to the success of the team.

It's not dismissive to criticize or question a justification for a preference offered as fact, nor does that criticism or questioning dismiss the preference. I would say someone has to be greatly reading into things to conclude otherwise. I honestly don't care what you prefer with regard to how to award XP and whether you keep PCs at the same level. I'm trying to get at your stated justification for that preference, something you offered which doesn't hold water in my view.

Now, if you feel your preference can't stand on its own once that justification is found to be in error, that's a different story. But that's on you to figure out. I'm perfectly fine with a preference being unjustified as I stated earlier in this post (and upthread as well).

 

[ccs]

In games where I'm tracking advancement via XP, no, I do not give partial rewards for absent players.

A vital part of what earns you xp at my table is you (not your PC) contributing to the RL group. Could be the jokes you tell. The minis you bring. The pizza you chip in for. Could be you chiming in on the plans the characters are making. Offering your insights on situations. Could be YOU learning relevant bits of plot detail. etc etc etc. But without you there? None of that happens.
In fact.... You're absence hinders things. Sometimes I have to adjust plans/encounters. Sometimes we need to do extra work & NPC your character. Sometimes things need to be rationalized in-game as why your PC is absent/inactive/etc. Sometimes, even if your PC is NPC'd, some fights are a lot more difficult as others aren't doing a good job running their character + yours. And so on.
So NO, your absence will NOT be rewarded.

Yes, this has led to a few lv disparities within the group. But no ones particularly fussed about this. The people I play with just take it as a challenge to contribute in more creative ways if they think their PC is outmatched in some encounters. And after awhile? They end up catching up to the rest lv wise.

The only time I hand out "free" xp is when I have to cancel a game on short notice.

 

[Oofta]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION],
Can we agree that a 20th level character is more capable and competent than a 1st level character from a mechanical perspective? That in and out of combat, any time a roll of the dice is called for to determine outcome the 20th level character is more likely to succeed (or survive) than the 1st?

If we can, then level does make a difference. The significance of that difference may not matter to you, it does to some people.

To the OP - the reason I don't hand out XP is for multiple reasons

• One of the main reasons to have levels is so that at higher levels the PCs can take on more difficult challenges. As the story progresses, I want the group to face more difficult challenges.
• I don't want to have to worry about multiple levels. As long as I've been DMing if someone needs to bring in a new character (either to replace a PC that died or a new player) I've made them the same level as everyone else (originally I had them 1 level lower but decided it didn't matter). It just makes it easier as a DM, and I'm lazy. Many monsters that will be a challenge for a moderately high level party will obliterate a low level one.
• Some people will feel like their PC is not a hero if they are completely overshadowed by everyone else. This of course, will vary.
• I have PCs level when it makes sense for the story and based on what the group wants so I don't ever track XP anyway.
• I understand that some people view XP as a reward - I don't. Playing is it's own reward, it sucks enough to miss games. In an ideal world, a player gets a sense of achievement from watching their PC grow, but the world is not ideal. I'd rather have the simplicity of equal levels without the discouragement of falling behind the group because life interferes with play.

I've run games like this for decades, no one seems to miss tracking XP. Ultimately though, you should ask your group what they want to do because different people play for different reasons.

 

[jasper]

This comes down to how APC (absent pcs thanks Paul) are handled. So far it seems the follow
1. Not appearing in this session xp will not be given.
2. Invisible Sidekick. Gets xp and does noncombat stuff. Xp is variable to dm.
3. PC is guest starring by x. X is running the pc. Xp is full.
As other have stated, 5E bounded accuracy does allow a wider spread in levels but only up to a point.
And we are back to the old arguments on how far can the group/player tolerate the spread before it becomes unworkable. Or I think the dm start playing the villains stupid. My current homebrew rules would be FREE XP to get the pc to lowest level of the regular playing pc. Why? I live in a college, military, old fart town. I understand that life is greater than the game.

 

[jasper]

As to pcs dying in epics in adventure league games. I have played in and dm epics. And talked to other dms. The big reason people die in Adventure League. TEAMWORK FAILURE. Because people and couples go in as individuals, and the rest of the table will not try to do teamwork. My first kill in AL was due to the individuals wanting to kill monsters instead of taking two rounds out to stabilize a team mate. About a third to a half of the names of skully are due lack of team work. Either the group did not gel. Or someone tick the rest of group off and the team let the goober do his own thing and die.

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION],
Can we agree that a 20th level character is more capable and competent than a 1st level character from a mechanical perspective? That in and out of combat, any time a roll of the dice is called for to determine outcome the 20th level character is more likely to succeed (or survive) than the 1st?

If we can, then level does make a difference. The significance of that difference may not matter to you, it does to some people.

I've said several times now that there's a difference. My position is that lower-level characters can still meaningfully contribute in parties with higher-level characters and that said lower-level characters will end up leveling up fast enough where those differences vanish very quickly. Anyone who has regularly played with characters of varying level can tell you the same thing. Everyone in my two groups could tell you this. A lot of people in my multilevel one-off adventures could too.

As for whether the 20th-level character is more likely to succeed than the 1st-level character, it depends on the character and the roll. The same goes for characters of any level, even if they are the same level.

On that note, I will also add that if this preference for all characters being the same level is based on not wanting "differences," then that justification is also quickly called into question when considering that even same-level characters are good in different areas. My fighter is not nearly as good in exploration challenges as the ranger and we're the same level. If keeping PCs all with the same XP is the corrective for "differences," then what's the corrective for my fighter being different from the ranger when it comes to tackling exploration challenges? If there is no corrective, then it seems that differences between character capability is not really an issue at all. It's something else.

To wit, and by your own words:

It just makes it easier as a DM, and I'm lazy.

And that's okay! There's really no need for post-hoc justifications for your preference that are easily knocked down.

I've run games like this for decades

Which I called upthread. People import preferences from an old game to a new game all the time, even if that new game has completely changed the basis for having that preference in the first place. In previous editions of the game, it was a pretty big problem to have PCs of disparate levels, enough of one where D&D 4e even had optional rules to deal with it. It's not as big a problem in D&D 5e. But some don't bother to adjust their approaches to the new game and continue operating as if the same problem existed. And, again, that's okay! But let's call it what it is. Which you've done. Finally. So thanks.

 

[Oofta]

As to pcs dying in epics in adventure league games. I have played in and dm epics. And talked to other dms. The big reason people die in Adventure League. TEAMWORK FAILURE. Because people and couples go in as individuals, and the rest of the table will not try to do teamwork. My first kill in AL was due to the individuals wanting to kill monsters instead of taking two rounds out to stabilize a team mate. About a third to a half of the names of skully are due lack of team work. Either the group did not gel. Or someone tick the rest of group off and the team let the goober do his own thing and die.

AL does have issues now and then. After all it's often a random group of people that just happen to show up so you get luck of the draw.

But it can can happen in any game even if the PCs work together if the spread of levels is too high. Any creature, caster or environmental hazard has an area effect that will be a challenge for a mid-to-high level may well kill low level PCs outright. That evil wizard is not going to avoid fireballing the low level guy. He's evil, he'll probably make sure the intern dies first.

Our deaths in the epic were along the lines of fully healed to dead in one turn, it wasn't an issue of lack of cooperation. I had some issues with the way the game and wandering monsters were handled, but that's another story.