D&D 5E XP for Absent Players

[iserith]

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

I wrote a challenging encounter with CR 0 seahorses which do no damage. It can be done.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Looking at all the posts here from DMs who either don't use xp at all or who always even it out so everyone gets the same, I have to ask what it is you're trying to reward or incentivize.

Simple player attendance? If someone shows up and plays on his phone all night, or does nothing except gabble about hockey instead of focusing on the game, why should that player get the same reward as the person who focuses on the game all night and helps drive the action? There's no incentive to drive the action - in fact there's a disincentive, as the player(s) driving the action is (are) by extension most often putting their characters at greater risk in so doing. This makes the 'optimal' path that of sitting back and riding the bus rather than helping to drive it, because you know you're going to get the same reward anyway; and how is that any good?

Simple "character attendance"? By this I mean a vague in-fiction extension of player attendance. If a character hangs in the back and does nothing of use in an encounter or even an entire adventure, why should it get the same reward as the characters who actually did what had to be done to overcome the challenge? Again, this only serves to disincentivize taking risks and getting after it, as you know you're going to get the same reward no matter what you do...which leads to the same 'optimal' path, that being to take as little risk as possible relative to the rest of the party.

Forcing everyone to be the same level? Sorry, but in a 5e (or 0e-1e-2e) environment this one holds no water at all - the system is more than flexible enough to handle some in-party level disparity, and balancing encounters to the party average is - at most - all you ever need.

So, it's individual xp all the way, and by encounter. If nobody's close to bumping I'll let 'em pile up for a few sessions before giving them out; and in any case they're only received after an overnight rest - you wake up in the morning having learned from what you did yesterday.

And a question for those who want everyone always the same level: if a PC pulls the Sun card from a Deck of Many Things and gains 50K xp on the spot, does that PC then have to retire until everyone else can catch up?

You can incentivize behavior using XP without using individual XP.

In my game, for example, whenever someone roleplays well, I add to an "RP pool". The players are of course aware of this. At the end of each session, I multiply the pool by a level-determined factor, and award that much XP to all players (including those who were unable to make it).

As such, players are aware that by role playing well and driving the game forward, they will level faster. However, quieter players don't get left behind by players who enjoy the spotlight. Role playing becomes a team effort, as opposed to every man for himself.

 

[digitalelf]

Yeah, I don't give XP for missed sessions.

And I will never understand all this non-sense about "missing a session is its own punishment". But whatever...

YMMV and all of that.

I run 2nd edition AD&D games.

This is what XP is in a 2nd edition AD&D game:

an AD&D game player competes against himself. He tries to improve his role-playing and to develop his character every time he plays.
Experience points are a measure of this improvement, and the number of points given a player for a game session is a signal of how well the DM thinks the player did in the game—a reward for good role-playing.

This is of course in addition to XP for defeating monsters and such.

So XP (in 2nd edition AD&D) is ALL about rewarding a player for their participation within the game.

Oh, and if a player is going to miss a session, we either:

A). Don't get together that week (provided we know of the absence in advance).

or

B). We do and/or play something else (e.g. video games, board games, or card games).

 

[Imaculata]

I use group exp because I want to encourage a feeling of teamwork. When a player does some really cool roleplaying and earns the party bonus exp, their reaction will be:

"That was a cool moment and you earned us bonus exp, good job!"

...instead of...

"That was a cool moment, and you awarded yourself some bonus xp... why didn't my cool roleplaying moment earn me extra exp too?"

I don't want this to turn into a competition, and since I play 3rd edition, levels matter a lot. It is what I use to determine the challenge rating of encounters.

 

[Lanefan]

You can incentivize behavior using XP without using individual XP.

In my game, for example, whenever someone roleplays well, I add to an "RP pool". The players are of course aware of this. At the end of each session, I multiply the pool by a level-determined factor, and award that much XP to all players (including those who were unable to make it).

As such, players are aware that by role playing well and driving the game forward, they will level faster. However, quieter players don't get left behind by players who enjoy the spotlight. Role playing becomes a team effort, as opposed to every man for himself.

This is exactly the sort of thing I've been railing against - it incentivizes passivity!

If on an ongoing basis player A is driving the action (be it via roleplaying, taking risks, or whatever) while player B is just sitting there riding the bus, how on earth does player B deserve the same level of reward?

That's right - she/he doesn't. But it's given anyway.

And if I were player A in this instance and realized this was how the reward system worked I'd be right gassed off about it.

 

[S'mon]

This is exactly the sort of thing I've been railing against - it incentivizes passivity!

If on an ongoing basis player A is driving the action (be it via roleplaying, taking risks, or whatever) while player B is just sitting there riding the bus, how on earth does player B deserve the same level of reward?

That's right - she/he doesn't. But it's given anyway.

And if I were player A in this instance and realized this was how the reward system worked I'd be right gassed off about it.

Well some players like being passive.
Now if your whole group is passive, you likely have a problem. But if you have 6-7 players and they are all instigating, roleplaying etc like crazy, IME that is usually just as big a problem. IME several less active players actually tend to work well as balast and contrast to 2-3 more active sorts.
I find the more proactive and engaged players usually enjoy earning rewards for the whole group, and don't resent it. They might resent it if a wallflower player really is not contributing in group activities like combat, but I have also seen two very active players clash over contradictory plans, or even the case of one player resenting that other active players have plans of their own and don't defer. Some players like being the Big Dog with a bunch of follower types. It takes all sorts.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is exactly the sort of thing I've been railing against - it incentivizes passivity!

If on an ongoing basis player A is driving the action (be it via roleplaying, taking risks, or whatever) while player B is just sitting there riding the bus, how on earth does player B deserve the same level of reward?

That's right - she/he doesn't. But it's given anyway.

And if I were player A in this instance and realized this was how the reward system worked I'd be right gassed off about it.

It doesn't incentivize passivity. Also, I'm perfectly open about how my system works and none of my players have taken issue with it.

Sure, a player could ride the coat tails of more active players, in theory. I can't think of a time that I've actually seen that happen. They realize that if they contribute, everyone (including themselves) will level faster.

Some players would rather be B.A. than Hannibal or Face (relatively quiet until it's time for combat). I don't have a problem with that. Back when we used individual XP, we did have an issue with multiple people competing to be Hannibal, to the point where it sometimes threatened to become a RL problem. (This is an A-Team reference, just in case anyone isn't familiar.)

I certainly don't see a reason that Hannibal or Face deserve to advance faster than B.A. simply because they enjoy taking center stage in scenes. Driving the action is its own reward (in that you get to steer events in the direction you envision). B.A. does participate, he's just not interested in stealing the show, outside of perhaps during combat.

There are many reasons a player might not really participate. It could simply be because that player is reserved and needs some time to warm up to the group (speaking as someone with rather bad social anxiety, for whom this has been an issue). It could be that this player isn't really interested in the game but just wants to hang out with their friends, and that those friends aren't bothered if he gets a "free ride".

However, if a player really lacks any interest in your game and is bringing down the group as a result, then it's probably something that needs to be dealt with by having a chat outside of game. I can't imagine the player who is completely unmotivated when group XP is involved but suddenly becomes highly motivated as soon as individual XP is used.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It doesn't incentivize passivity. Also, I'm perfectly open about how my system works and none of my players have taken issue with it.

Sure, a player could ride the coat tails of more active players, in theory. I can't think of a time that I've actually seen that happen. They realize that if they contribute, everyone (including themselves) will level faster.

Some players would rather be B.A. than Hannibal or Face (relatively quiet until it's time for combat). I don't have a problem with that. Back when we used individual XP, we did have an issue with multiple people competing to be Hannibal, to the point where it sometimes threatened to become a RL problem. (This is an A-Team reference, just in case anyone isn't familiar.)

I certainly don't see a reason that Hannibal or Face deserve to advance faster than B.A. simply because they enjoy taking center stage in scenes. Driving the action is its own reward (in that you get to steer events in the direction you envision). B.A. does participate, he's just not interested in stealing the show, outside of perhaps during combat.

There are many reasons a player might not really participate. It could simply be because that player is reserved and needs some time to warm up to the group (speaking as someone with rather bad social anxiety, for whom this has been an issue). It could be that this player isn't really interested in the game but just wants to hang out with their friends, and that those friends aren't bothered if he gets a "free ride".

However, if a player really lacks any interest in your game and is bringing down the group as a result, then it's probably something that needs to be dealt with by having a chat outside of game. I can't imagine the player who is completely unmotivated when group XP is involved but suddenly becomes highly motivated as soon as individual XP is used.

Why do your players hate Murdock?

I can't imagine a table where someone doesn't contribute. That seems to be a failure of the DM to engage EACH player, right? A good way that I read recently here on the forums: after describing a scene, the DM might say "What do you do?" but instead of saying that to the whole group, pose the question to a each character: "What does Hrothgar do?" That ensures everyone is contributing on some level.

 

[billd91]

For some folks, standard or milestone XP isn't viewed as an incentive because it doesn't produce the desired behaviors within the group. At that point it's at best a pacing mechanism, but if that pace doesn't line up with the speed of advancement they want for a campaign, then it's not even that. If it's neither of those things, then it may as well be abandoned.

With APs, that's more or less the case - they're pacing mechanisms designed to pace the advancement of the PCs to achievements within the plot. If they take longer to take care of this issue in the plot - they stay at that level longer. If they manage to resolve it quickly, they can level quickly.
And I think that's fair. The incentive becomes resolving the dilemmas raised by the overall plot line, not leveling, per se.

 

[iserith]

With APs, that's more or less the case - they're pacing mechanisms designed to pace the advancement of the PCs to achievements within the plot. If they take longer to take care of this issue in the plot - they stay at that level longer. If they manage to resolve it quickly, they can level quickly.
And I think that's fair. The incentive becomes resolving the dilemmas raised by the overall plot line, not leveling, per se.

Right, this is what the DMG refers to as "story-based advancement" (DMG, p. 261). This is good for event-based games (the DMG's word, I'd prefer "plot-based") because XP is taken away as an intermediary mechanic and replaced with tying leveling up to "accomplishing significant goals in the campaign." This incentivizes focusing only on those goals and little to nothing else which is great if you want to keep the players and their characters on a specific path or plot-line.

In such a game, I would probably be trying to find ways to achieve the story goals in the most efficient way possible while still trying to achieve the goals of play as that is one of the things that is being incentivized. That might include skipping combats or negotiating the party's way through them, provided killing those particular NPCs/monsters are not also story goals. As a DM in such a setup, I would set my expectations accordingly and ready myself for having to set aside content that I spent time preparing.