D&D 5E XP for Absent Players

[iserith]

Sometimes?

It really depends on the social milieu and the individuals, doesn't it; people are neither perfectly rational actors that respond to incentives and disincentives like machines coldly calculating the utility, nor are they Pavlovian dogs that will salivate immediately upon the ringing of the XP bell.

There are certainly people that view D&D as some sort of ... competition, I guess? How do they maximize the benefit to the character in the minimum amount of time?

But I don't know that everyone does. Others view it as an opportunity to get together and have fun playing a game, and creating a shared fiction; the character's progress is ancillary to the creation of the shared fiction.

Of course. People will vary. But I think it's a reasonable expectation to have as DM that you're more likely to get what you incentivize. That's especially true if the DM explains this thinking to the players directly. Which is why for most of my campaigns, I give XP for combat and social interaction and there's almost never any treasure after a fight. You have to poke around and explore for that. This creates an incentive to engage in all three pillars. (You'll almost never see my players try to loot the dead compared to other groups. I don't like that well-known phase of play so I don't incentivize it.)

Given the huge amount of emphasis placed on combat in most D&D games, I'm not sure that having characters slightly less likely to believe that combat is both the alpha and omega of all problem solving is a bad thing; I think a better question is, "Do traditional XP systems overly incentivize D&D's predisposition to cause players to think that every session is just combats loosely joined together by thin bits of narrative?"

I make no judgment as to whether combat is a good or bad thing in the abstract. It's going to depend on the campaign. But the rules set on its own certainly does suggest combat is the cause of and solution to all of life's problems (channeling Homer). That's particularly true of standard XP, especially if the DM is not granting XP for noncombat challenges (DMG, p. 261).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Oh, I agree. Sounds like the fights are tedious! But maybe the problem is the combats, and not the XP system?

Sure, but that's part-and-parcel of 5E. The (failed) attrition model is the number one complaint about the game. For the amount of work required to fix that, it would be easier to just play something else.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Retreater]

And occasionally you have a boss fight, which is relevant to the interests of the characters, and that's fine and engaging. But again, the system isn't set up to support a boss-only campaign. The system is designed around five junk encounters for every one that matters, and failure to support that results in massive character imbalance.

Therefore, I change the system. I use roleplaying, investigation, and exploration to fill up the bulk of the adventure. Then I add in a few flavorful combats with lackeys to set the tone and let the players feel badass as they stomp the opposition. I cap it off with a boss fight, which I usually build with new rules (taking design inspiration from 4E). Then I'm ready to let the characters get rewards - story rewards, treasure, and a level.

XP as it's written feels like bean counting to me. D&D 5E already has a "combat is the way to earn XP" mentality and doesn't properly reward any other aspect of the game. Sure, I could create an XP system of (for example) "engage in good roleplaying = 300 XP, uncover a truth about the campaign world = 250 XP," but at that point, I'm already re-writing the rules anyway. It's easier to through it all out and use a new system at that point.

 

[pogre]

My players love XP in D&D. I do not award XP for missing a session. However, I have a catch up mechanism for players who have missed sessions. I give the normal award of XP for the top level PC present at a session and then a 10% bonus to other PCs for every level they are below the top level. Example: 15th level PC gets 5,000 XP, 14th level gets 5,500 XP, 13th level PCs get 6,000 XP, etc.

I have the luxury of a big pool of players, similar to iserith. And I did do a milestone for our transition for Heist to Dungeon of the Mad Mage - bump up to 5th. However, our experience has been an 11th level PC still has a lot to contribute to a party with an average PC level of 14. Balancing encounters is fairly simple using average party level (much like AL).

Personally, I would be fine with milestone leveling and keeping everyone even, but my players much prefer the XP mechanic.

 

[Kinematics]

I'm surprised by this statement, which seems quite a violent reaction to the OP, Morrus. I'd see it as more a question of rewarding those who prioritise and commit to attending a gaming session, which the DM may have worked hard to prepare, over for example, staying in because you're a bit tired, or attending a work leaving do or some other social occasion. I think there is a clear distinction between unavoidable absence and selective absence. For unavoidable (pre-notified) absences I often cancel the whole session.

There is definitely a difference between unavoidable absence and "I don't feel like it today" absences. Those are two entirely different issues.

I have encountered both in my time. Unavoidable absences are far more common. Things like being called in because someone at work was sick, or swapping shifts so that you can get the vacation days you want next month. Family events, such as taking children to scout meetings, family deaths, family visits, etc. Or just plain old being sick. With just a half dozen people at the table, you're going to encounter these things numerous times per year. You can't grant XP to "incentivize" people to not get sick.

On the other hand, there are those who join the game, play a bit, then decide that they're not feeling up for gaming today, and then next week, and then drop out, and then complain that you haven't invited them to the next game you start up. They casually miss games because 'reasons'. In that case, XP is (usually) not your solution, because the problem runs deeper than game attendance.

The only time I've found that rewarding attendance is relevant is in something like an MMO, where you need to organize people to show up to events on a regular basis even if they don't have any personal stake, or keep attending after they've gotten what they came for. It's the subtle shift from playing a game to working a job. It's that thing that you are given to get you to keep showing up even when you don't really want to. And if that's how you're treating your D&D game, I don't want to be a part of it.

So I feel that the idea that XP be used as an incentive for attendance is wrong from numerous perspectives. Either it's not actually an incentive, or it's an incentive for the wrong purpose.

I will note, though, that this is a different issue than the question of standard XP vs milestone advancement in game. There are different play styles that might prefer one or the other. However the choice should be made for in-game reasons, not out-of-game reasons (ie: reward/punish attendance).

Of course, "should" doesn't mean "must", either. I'm aware of highly unreliable players that you're still trying to get to be part of the game, that may require unusual design decisions to accommodate. Players who spend too much time on the phone, or constantly interrupt the game to tell some "amusing" story, or otherwise just don't want to contribute (perhaps only being interested in combat, for example). Finding solutions for that type of thing isn't always easy, and perhaps an XP punishment system is useful to you. However I'd consider those specialty cases, and not examples for a general rule.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But trap them in a room with a bunch of sand worms, and you'll get nothing but eye-rolls and groans of boredom as they tediously slog through another meaningless fight.

That sandworm fight is going to suck, regardless of the paltry XP I get.

Wait, is there something wrong with Sandwyrms that I'm missing? The party of level 11 to 13 adventurers in our campaign just pulled up on an enormous beach on the island they need to explore. Sandwyrms in the Tome if Beasts are 2300 XP each, so, yeah, I was planning that maybe a few of them pop up. Plus, they have Spine Traps, Jerry. Spine Traps!

EDIT: sorry, i misread. you were talking about sandworms, not sandwYrms. We'll be ok. Phew.

 

[Mallus]

For the past... oh lets round up to 20 years, I've either used full XP for absent players or no XP all at (the party levels when I say & are all the same level).

The exception to this is a 2-year long AD&D campaign, where I counted every XP to the best of my ability, out of a combination of nostalgia and OCD.

 

[Oofta]

I've used some combination of story/session/milestone leveling since 3.0 was released and finding incentives for the players has never been an issue. I set up conflicts and obstacles, the group figures out how to overcome those obstacles. I don't care if that's "kill 'em all and let the gods sort it out" or an elaborate plan to gain allies and foment a revolution.

If the story we are telling as a group is not compelling enough to get together and be engaged, then I need to adjust something so that they are engaged. I get that some people are motivated by shiny, shiny XP but I want the flexibility to run one session where all the action is social or exploration and the next is a combat filled extravaganza.

As far as encouraging specific behaviors or styles of play, I don't. NPCs will react in ways I think appropriate, events will unfold based on action or inaction, but as long as you're not playing an evil character (something I just don't want to deal with) I will adjust my style to try to fit my players. I've hit a couple of players over the years that my style didn't work for them, but not every DM will work for every player.

As far as 5E not being lethal, I'll have to tell my players that. They'll be quite relieved the next time 3/4 of the party is unconscious and the wizard is down to a handful of hit points and relying on cantrips while the barbarian will fall over dead if she stops raging. D&D 5E is as deadly as you and your group want it to be.