A House Rule

[Renshai]

I recently created a house rule that stated if a player couldn't show up to a game, his character would be played by a random player. The person that had to play the extra character got a 10% experience point bonus while the character of the player that couldn't make it got 50% of earned experience and his character could not die unless the entire party died from TPK. I created this rule because our twice monthly game has degenerated into maybe once a month because of one person having to miss the game. (we just canceled when one person missed)

I thought this was a pretty fair rule, but some of players disagree. They stated that because we are all good friends (and we are outside of the game) that we shouldn't worry about bonuses and getting half experience because people only miss when they've got a work obligation. This kind of statement also came up about ECL from time to time. They think that if the other players don't mind that they are playing a more powerful ECL race that they shouldn't be penalized experience, "because we are all friends".

What are your thoughts on this? Am I being unfair?

Thanks,
Ren

 

[ValhallaGH]

Seems fair to me.

 

[wedgeski]

Unfair? No. But the XP penalty thing is usually intended to incentivise lacklustre players who are easily distracted by other pursuits, and if you're all mates and you know that a person hasn't turned up because of genuine commitments that should take priority, it isn't really needed.

The ECL business is trickier. It's a rule of the game (and an important) one. If it saves even a little good-natured bickering about overpowered characters who hog the session, it's worth enforcing, otherwise, what's next? 'Meh, let the mage wear full plate with no penalties, we're all friends here!'

 

[delericho]

It's a fair rule, but not what I'd do. What I do is either have the missing player's PC either act as an NPC for the session, or fall under the control of another player. Either way, the character gains full XP, and the 'replacement' player doesn't get a bonus. However, the character also gains no protection against injury or death. (The 'replacement' player is expected to play the character normally - no volunteering for suicide missions or the like, unless it's what the PC would normally do. But that's just a matter of respect between friends.)

If a player is going to be missing from the game in the longer term, we write the character out of the campaign. When the player returns, he can either bring in a new PC, or level the old one up to match the rest of the PCs, and we'll write him back in. Either way, the PC returns on the same XP as the rest of the party.

The reason we do things like this is that we're all very busy, and so each of us sometimes has to miss a session. I'm fortunate enough to not have players who won't show up just because they don't feel like it, so if a player misses a game it's for a good reason. That being the case, I see no need to punish non-attendance or reward attendance. (Similarly, I don't reward roleplaying with individual XP awards - the more you put into the game the more you get out, so roleplaying is its own reward.)

As for the ECL races... we don't use them. However, if we were to use them, we would use them as per the RAW. A Drow Rogue 1 is considerably better than a Human Rogue 1, and the ECL reflects this. The fact that the ECLs represent a really bad deal is a weakness of the system, and one I hope will be addressed, but it's not something I see an easy fix for. (Though the rules for buying off the ECL from Unearthed Arcana are a good first attempt.)

 

[Renshai]

You see, I didn't really look at it as a penalty. I mean, the player isn't there but he is still earning half of the earned experience for that session. I can see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

 

[Crothian]

You see, I didn't really look at it as a penalty. I mean, the player isn't there but he is still earning half of the earned experience for that session. I can see your point, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

Is the player earning it (the XP) or is his character?

 

[delericho]

You see, I didn't really look at it as a penalty. I mean, the player isn't there but he is still earning half of the earned experience for that session.

It's a penalty because 50% is less than 100%. (Of course, the reverse is also true - it's a bonus because 50% is more than 0% )

As I see it, there are broadly two reasons a player will start to miss sessions: life gets in the way, or they're not enjoying the game.

Now, if life gets in the way, then I can understand that entirely, and make allowances for it. It couldn't be helped, so we just get on with it.

If a player starts missing the game because he's enjoying it less than he should, then the last thing you want to do is start reducing XP earned. If the PC falls noticably below the other characters in ability, that character will be less able to contribute, which almost certainly means less fun for the player. So, he's more likely to miss games, and so fall further behind... and eventually just quit.

(Unless, of course, you don't particularly want this guy as a player. In which case, though, why not just ask him to leave?)

 

[taliesin15]

I'm puzzled that this is not on the house rule forum--but anyway, as a DM I'll usually just play the PC as an NPC, with some feedback from the other players. If a player's absence is a continual problem, rather than penalize s/he, I'll take it up directly with the player.

 

[Mark CMG]

It doesn't matter at this point if a ruling is fair, provided the group agrees to it and abides by the consequences. If anyone has second thoughts down the road it will likely matter, also whether it is fair or not. Might be best to try and put fair rules in place that ignore the specific circumstances as a condition of fairness so that they hold up better in general.

 

[shilsen]

What are your thoughts on this? Am I being unfair?

Not drastically, but I think you are being a little unfair. As has been pointed out above, the character is being docked XP because of something the player is doing (or in this case, not doing) out of game.

And I seriously can't see any benefit to your method. The way I figure it, XP is an almost completely arbitrary system that creates PC advancement because players like their PCs to do so. So trying to come up with the sort of system you are seems unnecessary and counter-productive, IMNSHO. Will the game be improved in any way by having some PCs getting more or less XP than others? I seriously doubt it. Will it be hurt by letting the PCs all get the same amount of XP? Again, I seriously doubt it.

The way I figure it, the best part of the game is, well, the game. Getting to play and enjoy oneself doing so is why I show up and presumably why my players do. So, if they're already losing out on that, why penalize them further by making their PC lose XP?