Missed session catch-up XP

[Tallifer]

In my campaigns, everybody gets full XP whether absent or not; new players (and current players who want new characters) join with the same XP; and journals and art earn bonus XP for the whole party. We are very noncompetitive.

 

[Blue]

Reading the various response here, I'm seeing two big trends that cover a lot of the responses. Not saying this covers everyone - it doesn't. And there are some that seem a hybrid between the two. This isn't judging either of them - both are valid and work for their tables.

1. XP as a pacing mechanism for what the group can handle. Usually indicated by group XP / same XP totals / new characters at the same level.

2. XP as a reward. This is usually indicated by individual XP / XP by attendance / extra XP granted to some for contributions.

A few notable ones these don't cover:

Stables of PCs - usually #2, but since you can play lower level PCs and such it's got a very different feel where individual XP is needed.

Hybrid - grant partial XP for missed sessions, allow "make-up" activities off table, etc. So it's individual XP but aimed at still keeping the group tight in terms of level.

It's really interesting seeing all the different options out there.

 

[schnee]

Our table basically uses Milestone XP now to solve this issue.

We're mostly in our 30's, all with professional careers, and a few with children. So, to make this viable, as adults, we have to be OK with people coming and going. We can't be sure that everyone will make every game, so it's structured around making that situation the most fun.

You know what's not fun? Always being one level behind because you only make 3 out of every 4 sessions because of your kid, and the two 'no kids' players are always one level higher and have much more influence on the game. That incentivizes people not to want to play, because when they do, they don't have as much fun.

I keep track of the number of sessions we've had at certain levels, ignore that 'one dude that plays every session', and when enough players have had (X) number of games, I make the next session really big and bombastic to give a satisfying conclusion, then level at the end.

It works for us.

 

[iserith]

You know what's not fun? Always being one level behind because you only make 3 out of every 4 sessions because of your kid, and the two 'no kids' players are always one level higher and have much more influence on the game. That incentivizes people not to want to play, because when they do, they don't have as much fun.

Why is anyone's fun predicated on having a character the same level as the others? There's very little difference in capability between same-tier characters of disparate levels in D&D 5e. And even characters of different tiers are able to contribute, plus level up fast.

I'm not saying use XP. But the argument for not using XP because "it's not fun to be a level behind" seems odd to me.

 

[Seramus]

Why is anyone's fun predicated on having a character the same level as the others?

Levels bring new class abilities, new spells every odd level, more HP to do more daring things, etc. There are many different things that contribute to the fun in a game, and levels is often one of those things. Heck, many players I know would feel guilty about being higher level than their friends.

But the most important reason? Because this is your friend, he feels bummed, and his boss/kids/life just took a dump on him.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Why is anyone's fun predicated on having a character the same level as the others? There's very little difference in capability between same-tier characters of disparate levels in D&D 5e. And even characters of different tiers are able to contribute, plus level up fast.

I'm not saying use XP. But the argument for not using XP because "it's not fun to be a level behind" seems odd to me.

Yeah. Usually if I'm running a fun game that they are involved in and challenged by things like levels fall into the background and aren't an issue at all. Then again we probably play a more casual game than many on here.

 

[iserith]

Levels bring new class abilities, new spells every odd level, more HP to do more daring things, etc. There are many different things that contribute to the fun in a game, and levels is often one of those things. Heck, many players I know would feel guilty about being higher level than their friends.

But the most important reason? Because this is your friend, he feels bummed about it, and he didn’t do anything wrong.

I just don't understand that. I don't care what other PCs' levels are as a player. If you're a few levels higher or lower than my character, that's just fine! My fun is based on being a bold adventurer confronting deadly perils, usually succeeding but sometimes failing, and helping to create an exciting, memorable tale along the way. To that end, someone else's level is pretty much irrelevant outside of the difficulty the party can handle though that's the same for groups with PCs all at the same level anyway.

It's not clear to me how someone can see it as a penalty to not be the same level as someone else because he or she missed a session. It strikes me as some kind of resentment that I would find unsettling at the table.

Again, use XP or don't use XP - it doesn't matter to me. But feeling "bummed" about this sort of thing is something I don't understand.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I just don't understand that. I don't care what other PCs' levels are as a player. If you're a few levels higher or lower than my character, that's just fine! My fun is based on being a bold adventurer confronting deadly perils, usually succeeding but sometimes failing, and helping to create an exciting, memorable tale along the way. To that end, someone else's level is pretty much irrelevant outside of the difficulty the party can handle though that's the same for groups with PCs all at the same level anyway.

It's not clear to me how someone can see it as a penalty to not be the same level as someone else because he or she missed a session. It strikes me as some kind of resentment that I would find unsettling at the table.

Again, use XP or don't use XP - it doesn't matter to me. But feeling "bummed" about this sort of thing is something I don't understand.

Yep. To me so much of the modern gaming focus is on that sheet and all the fiddly bits that it takes center stage. I read players talk about the game and so much is about leveling, and builds, etc. I want the focus to be on the adventure, the thrills of the exploration of some long lost tomb filled with deadly traps and foes. To make it work better with my group I switched to a simpler system that lacked many of the features of later systems. And I think its helping them to focus more on describing what they want to do and not assuming that well I can't do this because this is covered by feat X. Granted a lot of players love the PC customization game but I'd rather have a mechanically sparse character and let the player describe what they want to try and let me be the referee adjudicating the outcome with the help of my trusty dice and the simple rules. There is a lot less power differential in general in S&W which I run compared to 5e, and especially to 3e. A party with a Ranger 4, Fighter 6, Thief 8, Magic-User 5, Cleric 6 works just fine. In my last 5e campaign there was a 2 level difference between the high and low levels but they pimp slapped Demogorgon all the same. I'm rambling off target now a bit probably so YMMV, IME, etc.

In any event if it works best for a group to have everyone the same level then game on and have fun that way.

 

[iserith]

Yep. To me so much of the modern gaming focus is on that sheet and all the fiddly bits that it takes center stage. I read players talk about the game and so much is about leveling, and builds, etc. I want the focus to be on the adventure, the thrills of the exploration of some long lost tomb filled with deadly traps and foes. To make it work better with my group I switched to a simpler system that lacked many of the features of later systems. And I think its helping them to focus more on describing what they want to do and not assuming that well I can't do this because this is covered by feat X. Granted a lot of players love the PC customization game but I'd rather have a mechanically sparse character and let the player describe what they want to try and let me be the referee adjudicating the outcome with the help of my trusty dice and the simple rules. There is a lot less power differential in general in S&W which I run compared to 5e, and especially to 3e. A party with a Ranger 4, Fighter 6, Thief 8, Magic-User 5, Cleric 6 works just fine. In my last 5e campaign there was a 2 level difference between the high and low levels but they pimp slapped Demogorgon all the same. YMMV, IME, etc.

In any event if it works best for a group to have everyone the same level then game on and have fun that way.

I mean, my groups talk about builds and such all the time. XP is granted after every single challenge during play, so it's a present concern. But Alex getting ticked off that his character has fewer XP than Sean's character on account of Sean being more available to play just isn't a thing. None of the characters have the same XP totals due to variable attendance and some characters are higher level than others. (I think the range is about 2 levels difference in this case.) What's more, I think we're about 2 levels behind where we should be in ToA given the designed difficulty level. And we're still doing fine!

 

[Oofta]

I look at my games as cooperative story telling. I'm setting the scene and setting events in place, the players tell me how their PCs react to and how they want to shape events.

How does that affect leveling? Well, for me it's about the story, not "rewarding" or "punishing" players for showing up or bringing in a replacement PC. That means that the team are all roughly the same competency level and all up to the challenge in front of them. The fighter doesn't have to hide in back because their last PC heroically sacrificed themselves saving the day. If I want to throw a dragon at the party, I don't want to have to take it easy because if I'm not I'll force the player of the fighter to write up yet another PC.

I want everyone to feel like they have an equal opportunity to contribute to the success of the campaign. If a PC is levels behind the majority of the group, they can't contribute as much. Feeling like your PC is incompetent because you have obligations outside of the game is not fun or rewarding for many people.

So I just have everybody always be the same level with roughly the same level of wealth and magic whether it's a brand new member to the group or because someone missed a few sessions because life happens.