D&D 5E How Do You Reward Attendance and Participation?

[Retreater]

But what do you think about the fiancée's complaint that random encounters and side quests hamper milestone / story advancement?

 

[5ekyu]

My fiancée and I had nearly a three hour conversation about what I should do to improve my next campaign, whenever it comes around.

I have been using milestone XP for several years now, which (I feel) has at least partially contributed to apathy from several players. (Why bother making an effort to come if you get all the character rewards anyway?) Also, it's made players want to rush through content, avoid side quests and exploration, roleplaying encounters, and wandering monsters.

How do you make the game more than just a "greatest hits" of an adventure when using milestone? Or should I go with XP awards and not give XP to those who miss?

The concern is that I'm getting ready to run an AP, and I don't want characters to have to level grind to get to the appropriate level for the game.

I completely divorce advancement from actions and results. We level by sessions.

Since everyone is now going to advance, the only goal is play.

Works great. They do what is important to their charscters. The night " payment" for actions is play, development with NPCs.

 

[uzirath]

I have been using milestone XP for several years now, which (I feel) has at least partially contributed to apathy from several players. (Why bother making an effort to come if you get all the character rewards anyway?)

When I'm a player in a great campaign, I don't want to miss a session because I want to be there for the story. It's not the same when I hear it second-hand from the others. It's like having someone tell you about a great concert. Bleh.

Does it seem like the game plots are too similar? Are the stakes of the game meaningful? Can the PCs lose? (Whether by dying or by failing to achieve goals that will have real consequences.)

Also, it's made players want to rush through content, avoid side quests and exploration, roleplaying encounters, and wandering monsters.

The first few items here seem to be related to the stakes again. Side quests are only compelling when they are interesting to the characters and/or the players. Exploration is only exciting when the world has become real enough that you want to find out what's in all the shadowy places; you must be confident that those shadows hide things that matter to your character and the ongoing story. Same thing with roleplaying encounters. I love roleplaying for its own sake, but sometimes I've played in games where we're just wasting too much time not getting anywhere. I get much more into it once I'm fully invested in the NPCs and their side-plots.

Finally, wandering monsters seem like another sort of thing. Most players I've played with want to avoid wandering monsters as much as possible. Why risk characters' lives and expend precious resources when it's not necessary? What's to be gained by slaying the giant snakes on the way to the evil temple? Much better to avoid their nest. (If PCs only care about XP, maybe it makes sense, but then why not just head out into dangerous territory and just fight wandering monsters all day, like XP-farming in a video game?) This isn't to say that wandering monsters can't be fun. Each encounter should have surprises and add to the enjoyment of the game. If I don't think I can pull that off as DM, then I skip the encounter and just get on to the main course.

 

[iserith]

But what do you think about the fiancée's complaint that random encounters and side quests hamper milestone / story advancement?

If by "milestone/story advancement" you mean story-based advancement, your fiancée is correct unless those random encounters and side quests in some way advance the overall plot.

If you're running a game where the fun is in following the plot (which it presumably is in an adventure path), then it's a good idea in my view to have your character advancement method pegged to engaging with the plot points. If the PCs wander off and do random encounters, side quests, or other activities, they don't advance their characters. So that's an incentive to stick to the plot.

 

[iserith]

I guess I have players who prioritize coming to the game and others who don't. I understand family, work, health obligations (obviously), but some show up late, cancel last minute, or just "forget," etc. When I brought up whether they still want to play, I get excuses, promises to change, but nothing changes.
So I suppose canning the player is the way to go?

I would. But I would also examine what it is I could do better, too.

 

[cbwjm]

That's kind of the point of sports, of which I'm not a devotee, to win. Sports is a team activity where you try to win, and crush the enemy team.

As a side note, I know someone who plays rugby passionately, and she does not just "enjoy the experience".

The point of sports being to win doesn't change the fact that they sound like a terrible coach. But hey, maybe I shouldn't judge them so harshly on based on some throwaway comment which doesn't even really apply to rpgs where the goal is very much to have fun while playing, not just when you "win".

 

[generic]

The point of sports being to win doesn't change the fact that they sound like a terrible coach. But hey, maybe I shouldn't judge them so harshly on based on some throwaway comment which doesn't even really apply to rpgs where the goal is very much to have fun while playing, not just when you "win".

True enough, I suppose.

Liked for clarity.

 

[Don Durito]

It seems to me that if players don't show up to a session than it's either because:
a) they have a good reason and therefore shouldn't be penalised by falling behind the rest of the party.
or
b) they're flakes. In which case, it seems strange to think that giving xp penalties for not showing up is going to impact on the issue, as if they cared that much than well...they wouldn't be such a flake.

 

[ccs]

I guess I have players who prioritize coming to the game and others who don't. I understand family, work, health obligations (obviously), but some show up late, cancel last minute, or just "forget," etc. When I brought up whether they still want to play, I get excuses, promises to change, but nothing changes.
So I suppose canning the player is the way to go?

I think you've mentioned this before, but how many players do you have?

Anyways, I'd keep the ones who were interested in playing & regularly show up. I'd ask them what kind of game/adventures they wanted to play & cater to that.

For the ones who're always late? If they were otherwise worth keeping I'd do one or both of these things:
A) look at if they're late because the start time doesn't work - last year I had two players for whom it just wasn't possible to make it to the game at 5:30/6pm. So we just moved the start time back to 6:30. Problem solved.
B) Lie to them & tell them the start times about 30 minutes earlier than it really is. That way when they walk in "late".... If neither works/is an option I'd drop them.
For the ones who're always canceling or forgetting? I'd just drop them. If there were some reason I couldn't drop them, then I just wouldn't worry about them or what they wanted in a game. If they didn't show? So what. If they do show? Then they can play an NPC (see below*) or run monsters during the combat.

I might have the group decide on & roll up an extra character or two. These would be group controlled NPCs. Except on nights when guests/one of the unreliables showed up. Then it'd be 1st come, first served. Anyone after that gets to help run team monster.
The NPCs lv when the dedicated players do.

 

[ccs]

But what do you think about the fiancée's complaint that random encounters and side quests hamper milestone / story advancement?

That's never really been my experience. But then I don't make it a habit of letting the players know what the mileposts are either.
As for random encounters? That's just variable story elements.