D&D General A History of Violence: Killing in D&D

[Lanefan]

But you were still actually working all those days regardless of if you were more productive some days than others, you didn’t come in, sit at your literal or metaphorical desk, put your feet up and start reading a book doing nothing with the expectation of being paid at the end of the day.

What my bosses didn't know........ (walks away whisting quietly)

 

[Remathilis]

Player: ok, how about I come with the group, but stay in the back and contribute as little as possible to the party's actions?"

DM: " Then you're fine. Welcome to level 2, hero!".

Said character would be dropped off at the nearest town and the group leaves without them.*

If the player insists on that, he might be told not to come any longer. You come and contribute or you don't come.


* Assuming the usual good aligned PCs. If they are not, theyv might just decide to see how much XP HE is worth!

 

[Horwath]

I'm defining fair as meaning that a character played for 6 sessions should level up where a character only played for 3 of those same sessions as a replacement for another character who died 3 session in should not, as it's unfair to the character who was there for all six.

Levelling is not a reward for players sitting at the table, it's a reward for characters in the fiction.

in our games, all PC characters are same level, depending on the progression of the story.
you could go raid an orc village and delete 100 warriors there and if it's not part of the story, you would get 0 XP, sure there is some mundane loot there to sell for few gold if that is what you are there for.

Or in reality, you are there just to benchmark your new abilities.

Even if someone plays 3 out of 10 sessions, we will think of some downtime why the character was absent.

your penalty is that you missed 7 out of 10 sessions and that is more than enough of a penalty.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You do realize you're again doing that thing where you're projecting a campaign management style that hasn't been common in 40 years now, right?

Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you. We all have different playstyles.

 

[Lanefan]

in our games, all PC characters are same level, depending on the progression of the story.
you could go raid an orc village and delete 100 warriors there and if it's not part of the story, you would get 0 XP, sure there is some mundane loot there to sell for few gold if that is what you are there for.

Even when there's a preplanned story (which there is sometimes but not always) I don't tie anything to "the story" like that.

In part this is to preserve player agency: if they want to go do something else in the setting other than whatever I've got prepped I'm not going to penalize them for it by giving them no xp.

To quote Loki: "I consider experience experience". The characters learn by doing (and by training), which is why they're called experience points in the first place: they reflect the character's in-fiction gaining of experience.

If that wasn't the intent they'd have been called something else: advancement points or level points or whatever.

Even if someone plays 3 out of 10 sessions, we will think of some downtime why the character was absent.

your penalty is that you missed 7 out of 10 sessions and that is more than enough of a penalty.

If the player is serious. Casual players might not see this as all that much of a penalty, depending how much fun the had doing whatever else they were doing on those 7 game nights.

Also, just because the player is absent doesn't mean the character disappears, unless by sheer coincidence the party happens to be on downtime that session. In the field it's still there in the party doing whatever it does just like always.

 

[Lanefan]

You do realize you're again doing that thing where you're projecting a campaign management style that hasn't been common in 40 years now, right?

What goes around comes around; and if I can help make that style common again by promoting it then that's what I'll do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most mass produced things are designed so that the most amount of people will buy them.

That doesn't answer my question. If you're right, why bother having more than one RPG? Most people play WotC 5e, so why design anything else?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What my bosses didn't know........ (walks away whisting quietly)

Yeah, I had a job once where I needed to deal with calls that came in at night. I got paid the same no matter how many times the phone rang.

 

[AnotherGuy]

You do realize you're again doing that thing where you're projecting a campaign management style that hasn't been common in 40 years now, right?

We should note, players at his table have multiple characters of varying level, age ...etc
Less conformity is necessary with such a style.

 

[KYRON45]

That doesn't answer my question. If you're right, why bother having more than one RPG? Most people play WotC 5e, so why design anything else?

It does answer your question and we all know you understand how it all works.
Most people aren't all people. What percent of all people does most people encompass? People like to have options. Even the illusion of choice is a comfort to people. There are quite a few games that aren't 5e and people buy them. And those companies seem to do quite well.
I know there is a cadre of people who are opposed to companies making money but that's how business works. When you produce something you want as many people to buy it as will make it profitable. It's all a gamble. Not everyone will like everything.
I believe it was you upthread that said we all have different play styles. That's why there is more than one RPG, more than one video game, more than one card game etc.