Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jbear" data-source="post: 5792251" data-attributes="member: 75065">[MENTION=88649]perrinmiller[/MENTION] As I'm the player most effected by the decision to split a complete share with Rolyat's charater Davian, as it leaves me a just a few points short of lvl 2, I would like to respectfully challenge it.DalkonClewdin had expressed his concern about Rolyats absence which was consistent from the beginning of the adventure and completely ended 3 encounters? from the end of the adventure. You can check the date of his last post yourself. He did so without advising the DM whatsever. To reward this behaviour with XP seems completely wrong.Also he was actually excluded from the final combat as the quote indicates above.I have seen many DMs state at the beginning of an adventure that absent players will have their characters NPC'd and they won't receive XP for that encounter and if they can't gracefully pick up where they left off they will be dropped altogether. This is Dalkon's first adventure and he doesn't have experience with player management. So as judge I think you are within your rights to make a fairer/better judgement on this issue.Even if the xp/treasure share is split between all Davian should not receive any xp for the encounters he was NPC'd. I think it is also questionable that the final encounter should count as if he was NPC'd. Dalkon didn't have the experience to know to have removed his counter from the map but he had expressed his concern to the group and gave an indication that his character wouldn't participate in the fight. Davian literally stood in the corner.As for the abrupt end, it had little to do with a preference for roll play over role play. jkason mentions part of the reason for making little of the abrupt end. Part of it also was a personal struggle I had engaging with the story throughout the adventure.I respectfully await for your response and thank you for your consideration.CheersJ</blockquote>

Verification