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

[Imaculata]

Ugh, that's exactly my point. Where is the sense of accomplishment if you can miss five sessions only to be told your PC has gone from level 2 to 5 and also, here's a bunch of treasure, and a magic sword, and you are now the mayor of a small village? Whee! At that point everyone should just stay home and enjoy regular reports on how well their character is advancing.

If you miss 5 sessions, I'd say you have bigger problems than the level of your character.

 

[Huntsman57]

The player who misses a session also misses the associated XP, but I will only allow them to fall so far behind the rest of the party. At some point I may level them up to keep their character relevant to that point in the campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

Why would individual character advancement be rendered meaningless with party wide exp? They still level up. The only difference is, everyone levels up at exactly the same time. No one is ever a level behind on the rest of the party. But they still get to do everything else they'd normally do when leveling up their characters. They still roll for hit points, increase their stats and pick new spells as usual.

The real difference, is that any action that rewards exp, now rewards the whole group rather than the individual. How could that possibly be perceived as a bad thing?

Very, very easily.

If a character who does nothing (either due to player apathy, player absence, or player intent) advances just as fast as a character who gets in there, risks death, and gets stuff done that's beyond a bad thing - it's a horrible thing.

You're making, I think, what is to me a very naive assumption: that the characters in the group will always somewhat equally share the risks to earn those xp. That just doesn't happen; and if I'm playing the character who gets in there and takes the risks (which I often am) you can bet I'm going to get pretty resentful when Passenger Joe always gets the same xp that I do *and* doesn't have to keep paying for revival from death or limb restoration. My next action (or my next character) would also become a passenger, to make a point, and if other players followed suit the game would grind to a halt in a haze of "I'm not opening the door; you open the door.".

Bleah.

Lan-"no character is greater than the party, but by the same token no party is greater than its characters"-efan

 

[Satyrn]

Very, very easily.

If a character who does nothing (either due to player apathy, player absence, or player intent) advances just as fast as a character who gets in there, risks death, and gets stuff done that's beyond a bad thing - it's a horrible thing.

You're making, I think, what is to me a very naive assumption: that the characters in the group will always somewhat equally share the risks to earn those xp. That just doesn't happen; and if I'm playing the character who gets in there and takes the risks (which I often am) you can bet I'm going to get pretty resentful when Passenger Joe always gets the same xp that I do *and* doesn't have to keep paying for revival from death or limb restoration. My next action (or my next character) would also become a passenger, to make a point, and if other players followed suit the game would grind to a halt in a haze of "I'm not opening the door; you open the door.".

Bleah.

Lan-"no character is greater than the party, but by the same token no party is greater than its characters"-efan

Her assumption probably wasn't naive, but based on her experiences. I mean, what you describe is something I don't understand. I enjoy playing melee combatants. I want to be in the thick of things, getting my limbs chopped off and dying. That's the way I enjoy playing the game. I don't get the appeal of being Passenger Joe. But I guess it must be fun for those who play that way, and I wouldn't resent them equally sharing in XP and treasure

(if only because I would swear they're missing out on the real fun and purpose of the game by being Passenger Joe; I'd feel sorry for them. And thinking about it, I'd let them have all the gold that's left over after I've paid to restore my limbs. Treasure collecting is one of the things I'm least interested about in D&D, so that gold might as well go where it's wanted)

 

[S'mon]

The player who misses a session also misses the associated XP, but I will only allow them to fall so far behind the rest of the party. At some point I may level them up to keep their character relevant to that point in the campaign.

The old-school approach is "stable of PCs" - players with high level PCs are expected to play low level ones alongside the newbie players with low level PCs. I've done this recently in my Classic D&D Karameikos campaign (my son's MU8 was too powerful to adventure with the 1st level new PCs, so he played the MU8's Clr1 son), and it would work in 5e, but even there now everyone has 6th level PCs I'd bring in new PCs with ca 15,000 XP, half the XP and a level lower than the others. With 5e D&D the main thing is the tier breaks - once you have some 5th+ level PCs I find it's best to start everyone at 5th, whereas 5th in a mostly 8th level party is fine, even in front-line melee - saw a 5e Barbarian-5 dominate a battle played alongside a Rogue-8 and Warlock-8.

 

[Lanefan]

Her assumption probably wasn't naive, but based on her experiences. I mean, what you describe is something I don't understand. I enjoy playing melee combatants. I want to be in the thick of things, getting my limbs chopped off and dying. That's the way I enjoy playing the game. I don't get the appeal of being Passenger Joe. But I guess it must be fun for those who play that way,

Maybe, but it's not fun for me; as I end up with the expenses.

and I wouldn't resent them equally sharing in XP and treasure

Ah...but in fact Passenger Joe gets more than equal; dead characters get neither xp nor treasure while dead *and* have to pay to come back (never mind any lingering death effects, depending on edition), while Passenger Joe gets a full share of both. Thus, in effect I'm penalized for taking risks and getting on with it, which to me is flat-out wrong.

(if only because I would swear they're missing out on the real fun and purpose of the game by being Passenger Joe; I'd feel sorry for them. And thinking about it, I'd let them have all the gold that's left over after I've paid to restore my limbs. Treasure collecting is one of the things I'm least interested about in D&D, so that gold might as well go where it's wanted)

Where I'd probably end up looking for ways to steal his treasure; most of my characters have a decidedly greedy streak to them, either because they have good places to spend it (stronghold, spell research, etc.) or just because.

Lan-"and now I have Iggy Pop's 'The Passenger' stuck in my head"-efan

 

[TheFindus]

Very, very easily.

If a character who does nothing (either due to player apathy, player absence, or player intent) advances just as fast as a character who gets in there, risks death, and gets stuff done that's beyond a bad thing - it's a horrible thing.

You're making, I think, what is to me a very naive assumption: that the characters in the group will always somewhat equally share the risks to earn those xp. That just doesn't happen; and if I'm playing the character who gets in there and takes the risks (which I often am) you can bet I'm going to get pretty resentful when Passenger Joe always gets the same xp that I do *and* doesn't have to keep paying for revival from death or limb restoration. My next action (or my next character) would also become a passenger, to make a point, and if other players followed suit the game would grind to a halt in a haze of "I'm not opening the door; you open the door.".

Bleah.

Lan-"no character is greater than the party, but by the same token no party is greater than its characters"-efan

I find this very interesting and have a couple of questions regarding this thing:
1. What constitutes "taking risks"? Taking part in combat? Being the first to climb a huge cliff? Does not everybody in your group participate in combat, the most risky operation of the game? And is the fighter in the front not more in risk of death than the archer in the back? How do you calculate - XP wise, mind you, in specific XP numbers - that risk?
2. And what if the Passenger Character (not the player) simply lacks the mechanical skills to accomplish what your more active PC is doing? What if the player plays a highly specialized Passenger Character who can only shine 1 out of 3 times?
3. How do you regard player personality? There are more active players who are very active in the game (I am one of those). And there are more passive players who play for different reasons. Do you not want to play with them, even if there are your friends? Will they not leave if they get less XP? What if the game does not offer the chances for everybody to contribute equally? Everybody cannot shine all the time. I feel that since this is a group effort, everybody has to let everybody else shine, too. What if your (or my) style of play is more compatible with the style the DM is used to? Can this not lead to a situation in which someone in the group gets branded playing a Passenger Character but in reality is simply not challenged in a way that is more appealing to him/her?
4. Is there a discussion at your gaming table about what kind of involvement the group wants to have regarding taking risks (for example: "You are heroes who take risks!", "It seems to me that you, Argon, were holding back in the Orcmine. We really needed your help with that Shaman Goblin Queen but you just waited - we are in this together, so man up!")?

I am really interested in your answers. Thanks.

 

[The Human Target]

I can't believe so many people handle it this way (player character is still there and gets XP).
It seems so obvious that the character would more or less be "AFK". Not present, not in danger, getting no XP.
Having that PC controlled by another player or DM and getting killed seems very unfair.
Additionally, if they are not there to participate why should they get XP?

Who cares?

Why do people seem to take a fun game so seriously like its a cutthroat business?

If someone misses a game of Scrabble do you make them start the next game with less letter tiles?

If they miss a friendly game of basketball do they have to play the next game barefoot?

 

[Lanefan]

I find this very interesting and have a couple of questions regarding this thing:
1. What constitutes "taking risks"? Taking part in combat? Being the first to climb a huge cliff? Does not everybody in your group participate in combat, the most risky operation of the game? And is the fighter in the front not more in risk of death than the archer in the back? How do you calculate - XP wise, mind you, in specific XP numbers - that risk?

Taking risks can be anything from being the first through a door to standing in against a powerful foe to trying out an unknown magic item to all sorts of other things.

And while most characters try to get involved in most combats I can't count the number of times I've seen players pull their character(s) out of the fray at or above half h.p., leaving other also-hurting characters hung out to dry.

The archer in the back, if archer is all she is, does what she can and risks getting clobbered with area-effect spells just like any other back-liner. But if said archer is being an archer just to be safe when she could instead be just as useful (if not more so) up in the front line, that's annoying.

As for xp, we don't calculate it down as finely as you are looking for here. If a character gets involved in a combat it gets xp for it (unless it dies, in which case it gets half); a character who does nothing gets nothing.

2. And what if the Passenger Character (not the player) simply lacks the mechanical skills to accomplish what your more active PC is doing? What if the player plays a highly specialized Passenger Character who can only shine 1 out of 3 times?

That's a different thing entirely; if a character is a passenger for two encounters because it can't usefully do anything other than toss daggers, but then it blows away the third encounter almost singlehandedly, I'm cool with that; it's doing its bit where it can. (Illusionists in an undead-heavy dungeon are my usual example here) It's the characters who *could* do more on a regular basis but don't that annoy me to no end.

3. How do you regard player personality? There are more active players who are very active in the game (I am one of those). And there are more passive players who play for different reasons. Do you not want to play with them, even if there are your friends? Will they not leave if they get less XP? What if the game does not offer the chances for everybody to contribute equally? Everybody cannot shine all the time. I feel that since this is a group effort, everybody has to let everybody else shine, too. What if your (or my) style of play is more compatible with the style the DM is used to? Can this not lead to a situation in which someone in the group gets branded playing a Passenger Character but in reality is simply not challenged in a way that is more appealing to him/her?

All valid questions and points, but none of them excuse the player to whom their character's survival (too often at the expense of other characters' deaths or other sacrifices) is paramount. And if they're going to leave because they get less xp that's maybe not a bad thing, even if it's someone who is otherwise a friend.

And to haul this back toward the original topic, the PC of a player who isn't present is still a PC in the party and is still expected to pull his weight (based on established character). If I've got a character who tends to wade right into combat when I'm playing her I sort of expect that's how she'll be played when I'm not there; and if she dies so be it.

4. Is there a discussion at your gaming table about what kind of involvement the group wants to have regarding taking risks (for example: "You are heroes who take risks!", "It seems to me that you, Argon, were holding back in the Orcmine. We really needed your help with that Shaman Goblin Queen but you just waited - we are in this together, so man up!")?

In different words I've had almost this exact discussion with other players in a game, getting a response largely consisting of (paraphrased) "I'm not going in where I'm probably going to die! I'll stay back here, thanks." The logical conclusion, of course, is if everyone starts thinking like this we might as well call it a day and go back to town.

So to use your example above, when the dust settles after the Goblin Queen battle Perrina (a front-liner) is lying dead on the floor in large part because Argon (another front-liner) didn't stand in and bail her out; Argon survives and (if group xp are used) gets full xp and a full treasure share while Perrina may or may not get full xp and treasure for that battle but gets nothing going forward and also has to pay for revival at some point - though if a Goblin Queen is a major foe she's probably at a level that can't afford revival spells yet, making her SOL. How in any way is this fair to Perrina and-or her player?

Lan-"apologies for any incoherence above but it's late and I'm falling asleep"-efan

 

[Imaculata]

And while most characters try to get involved in most combats I can't count the number of times I've seen players pull their character(s) out of the fray at or above half h.p., leaving other also-hurting characters hung out to dry.

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.

The archer in the back, if archer is all she is, does what she can and risks getting clobbered with area-effect spells just like any other back-liner. But if said archer is being an archer just to be safe when she could instead be just as useful (if not more so) up in the front line, that's annoying.

Annoying to whom?

It's the characters who *could* do more on a regular basis but don't that annoy me to no end.

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

but none of them excuse the player to whom their character's survival (too often at the expense of other characters' deaths or other sacrifices) is paramount. And if they're going to leave because they get less xp that's maybe not a bad thing, even if it's someone who is otherwise a friend.

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 to haul this back toward the original topic, the PC of a player who isn't present is still a PC in the party and is still expected to pull his weight (based on established character).

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

In different words I've had almost this exact discussion with other players in a game, getting a response largely consisting of (paraphrased) "I'm not going in where I'm probably going to die! I'll stay back here, thanks." The logical conclusion, of course, is if everyone starts thinking like this we might as well call it a day and go back to town.

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

So to use your example above, when the dust settles after the Goblin Queen battle Perrina (a front-liner) is lying dead on the floor in large part because Argon (another front-liner) didn't stand in and bail her out; Argon survives and (if group xp are used) gets full xp and a full treasure share while Perrina may or may not get full xp and treasure for that battle but gets nothing going forward and also has to pay for revival at some point - though if a Goblin Queen is a major foe she's probably at a level that can't afford revival spells yet, making her SOL. How in any way is this fair to Perrina and-or her player?

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?