D&D 5E DM's: what do you do with players who miss time?

[Lanefan]

Why would a DM be concerned with how a player chooses to play his character? If they choose to retreat, that is entirely up to them. I do not think this deserves to be punished with less exp.

Annoying to whom?

Why? You are the DM, not the player. You are the storyteller. You don't get to decide how they play their character.

You've misinterpreted one thing: in this case I'm speaking as a fellow player, rather than as a DM.

If they choose to play cowardly, that is a valid strategy. Maybe the other players take unnecessary risks, and not everyone is willing to do that. There's a lot of uncertainty when you're a player in a D&D campaign, and not every player responds to that in the same heroic way. Why would that deserve to be punished with less exp? They survived the encounter didn't they? So, full exp. Experience points are not a reward for killing a monster, they are a reward for overcoming an encounter, by any means. If that means a full retreat, then full exp.

And someone else is expected to die to cover that retreat?

I don't mind the retreater getting full xp as long as they did something useful before retreating, I just don't see it as fair to the character (and by extension, the player) who gets sacrificed.

I wonder what you mean by that last part, "based on established character".

If the character's been played up till now as a risk-taker it remains a risk-taker when the player's not there. If it's been played as cautious up till now then it remains cautious.

So retreat is not an option, and combat is mandatory. I think I may have found the root of the problem.

Retreat is always an option for the group; but for one individual character to retreat and in effect abandon the others to their fate is - to me - wrong; particularly when it becomes a pattern.

They all get full exp and share the treasure with the party. If Perrina needs to be revived, the entire party finds a way, because they are a team, and they need her. Everyone can pitch in, and why wouldn't they?

Ah. Around here (and I thought this was a common practice everywhere, clearly I'm wrong) revival costs are almost always the responsibility of the person being revived; to the point that just about every time a speak with dead is cast on a party member the first question is "do you want to come back?" and the second is a variant on "how are you paying for it?"

And even if the party cover Perrina's raise and end up giving her a full treasure share, that's still only half the issue. The other half is that if she's died halfway through the adventure (say, against the Goblin Queen) she won't get any xp for the rest of it (so, nothing for the Goblin King and his Troll bodyguard) - unless, of course, we broach the rather absurd notion of giving xp to characters for things that happened while they were dead; as which point you lose me completely.

Lan-"if I'd got xp for what I'd missed due to being dead I'd be about 27th level by now"-efan

 

[Maxperson]

You've misinterpreted one thing: in this case I'm speaking as a fellow player, rather than as a DM.

And someone else is expected to die to cover that retreat?

I don't mind the retreater getting full xp as long as they did something useful before retreating, I just don't see it as fair to the character (and by extension, the player) who gets sacrificed.

I want to see character roleplayed to its fullest in my games. If you are roleplaying a coward, then act like a coward. If your retreat causes someone to die or almost be killed, you will likely be left behind the next time the party leaves town. Coward tends not to be a character type that goes well in a D&D game where the group is playing heroes. Tat said, I'm not going to penalize someone for playing their character and if you survive an encounter, you should get exp.

 

[Lanefan]

I believe I know what Lanefan means. There are players who hang back and let other players risk their characters because they are afraid their character might die. They fail to use their abilities for the good of the group when it might put them at real or imagined risk. They ride the coattails of the group, not because they are playing a cowardly character (which can be done in a non-disruptive way), but because the player is being fundamentally selfish. I've seen players like this.

I understand all that, but how often does that really happen?

All. The. Time.

I have a problem with those players because like you said "they are a team, and they need her", and while I allow any type of character or alignment in my games I have one overarching rule that remains inviolate: "You are part of a group of players trying to have a good time. Doing anything in or out of character that causes difficulty to that end is not allowed." This includes refusing to help teammates in reasonable circumstances, or working counter to the party's interests, secretly or otherwise.

We have no such rule; and inter-party conflict is a time-honoured tradition in our games. I'm cool with that both as player and DM if for no other reason than it's intentional, with a clear action-reaction sequence possible. The coat-tail riders and passenger joes, however, are way more passive-aggressive in what they do; and much harder to pin down by intent.

Lan-"'coat-tail riders and passenger joes' - there's got to be a song there somewhere!"-efan

 

[Sunseeker]

I want to see character roleplayed to its fullest in my games. If you are roleplaying a coward, then act like a coward. If your retreat causes someone to die or almost be killed, you will likely be left behind the next time the party leaves town. Coward tends not to be a character type that goes well in a D&D game where the group is playing heroes. Tat said, I'm not going to penalize someone for playing their character and if you survive an encounter, you should get exp.

Retreating when you feel a fight cannot be won is not the same as being a coward.

 

[Lanefan]

I want to see character roleplayed to its fullest in my games. If you are roleplaying a coward, then act like a coward.

OK, fair enough.

If your retreat causes someone to die or almost be killed, you will likely be left behind the next time the party leaves town. Coward tends not to be a character type that goes well in a D&D game where the group is playing heroes.

True enough, but this can be much easier said than done when said coward is a player's prized character and any attempt to leave it behind will generate at the least a whole lot of whining. I've DMed this, and had to put up with the whining - it wasn't much fun.

Tat said, I'm not going to penalize someone for playing their character and if you survive an encounter, you should get exp.

As long as you're part of the encounter and do at least something to contribute and-or put yourself in harm's way, yes. If all you do in a particular combat is hide behind a rock you're not getting xp for it; one could easily argue that your risk-free survival is your reward. But if you hide behind a rock and shoot arrows at the foes, or if you hide behind a rock and someone sees you and fireballs the rock, you get xp.

Lan-"it's funny how life lasts longer when you're dead for so much of it"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Retreating when you feel a fight cannot be won is not the same as being a coward.

Debateable. It depends on whether (and how) you committed to the fight in the first place. If the discussion going in went something like:

Auger: Let's just wade in and take down these giants. The left one's mine. <pulls out sword, buckles on shield>
Perrina: Sure, I'm in - give me the one in the middle. Carrie, yours is on the right; and Henrik can cover us with his spells. <out comes the 2-hander with a flourish>
Carrie: Right. Got it. I'll finish mine first, then I'll help you two. <pulls out axe and starts sharpening>
Henrik: OK, but all of you remember to keep your heads and metal weapons down 'cause I'm bringing the pain up high! <pulls out spell components as the other three charge in>

Then Auger* really has no business retreating out and leaving Perrina to her fate once things take a turn for the nasty; nor slowing his charge and hanging back so others can take the first few blows - both of which I've seen done far too many a time.

* - for this purpose I'm assuming all the front-liners are losing h.p. at about an equal rate thus Auger's health relative to anyone else's is not a factor.

Lan-"and Henrik, being a true member of the can't-aim-worth-a-damn wizards' union, probably fries all of them anyway"-efan

 

[The Human Target]

Why is it so important to you that everyone have the same XP? It's just a game - lighten up!

You can make the same "just a game" "who cares" argument either way.

I don't disagree with that in theory.

But if a player is only missing the game once in a while, what point does them having slightly less XP even serve?

Why bother with the distinction?

 

[Sunseeker]

Debateable. It depends on whether (and how) you committed to the fight in the first place. If the discussion going in went something like:

Auger: Let's just wade in and take down these giants. The left one's mine. <pulls out sword, buckles on shield>
Perrina: Sure, I'm in - give me the one in the middle. Carrie, yours is on the right; and Henrik can cover us with his spells. <out comes the 2-hander with a flourish>
Carrie: Right. Got it. I'll finish mine first, then I'll help you two. <pulls out axe and starts sharpening>
Henrik: OK, but all of you remember to keep your heads and metal weapons down 'cause I'm bringing the pain up high! <pulls out spell components as the other three charge in>

Then Auger* really has no business retreating out and leaving Perrina to her fate once things take a turn for the nasty; nor slowing his charge and hanging back so others can take the first few blows - both of which I've seen done far too many a time.

* - for this purpose I'm assuming all the front-liners are losing h.p. at about an equal rate thus Auger's health relative to anyone else's is not a factor.

Lan-"and Henrik, being a true member of the can't-aim-worth-a-damn wizards' union, probably fries all of them anyway"-efan

No plan survives the enemy, but if the guy who led the charge feels the battle cannot be won, unless it is in character for him to bail on the party, he should at least give an order to retreat.

 

[Maxperson]

Retreating when you feel a fight cannot be won is not the same as being a coward.

I didn't say it was. However, most fights aren't clearly lost when still at half or more hit points. What he described was most likely cowardice.

 

[Imaculata]

Ah. Around here (and I thought this was a common practice everywhere, clearly I'm wrong) revival costs are almost always the responsibility of the person being revived;

If that is common practice, its a terrible one. You are a team, and so it is in the interest of the whole team to have their deceased party member back. Why wouldn't everyone chip in?

And even if the party cover Perrina's raise and end up giving her a full treasure share, that's still only half the issue. The other half is that if she's died halfway through the adventure (say, against the Goblin Queen) she won't get any xp for the rest of it (so, nothing for the Goblin King and his Troll bodyguard) - unless, of course, we broach the rather absurd notion of giving xp to characters for things that happened while they were dead; as which point you lose me completely.

Does that happen often? A player dies during an adventure, and the rest of the party finishes the entire adventure without her first, before resurrecting her?

Suppose she died during a boss battle, but she died before she was able to kill the boss. Does this mean she gets no exp for the boss being killed by the party? She took part in the battle didn't she? But she wasn't around when the boss died, she was dead on the floor. But I would still give her full exp.