Missed session catch-up XP

[iserith]

So basically my experience with different levels at the table do not count.

For you, of course it does. In a discussion, maybe yes, maybe no. I'd have to hear more about the context of that situation to decide if I would find that a fair demonstration compared to my own weekly experience for several years now. You're still welcome to your preferences even without that as a stated basis for it. You like what you like and that's cool.

You've basically said "shut up whiner, your experience doesn't matter".

Do you not see that?

"I don’t like ketchup because it’s too blue."

"Ketchup isn’t blue."

"You don’t get to tell me how I feel about ketchup."

I’m not saying your point is as insane as thinking ketchup is blue. I'm saying there is a part of your position that’s up for discussion, however you might feel about ketchup overall.

 

[Oofta]

For you, of course it does. In a discussion, maybe yes, maybe no. I'd have to hear more about the context of that situation to decide if I would find that a fair demonstration compared to my own weekly experience for several years now. You're still welcome to your preferences even without that as a stated basis for it. You like what you like and that's cool.



"I don’t like ketchup because it’s too blue."

"Ketchup isn’t blue."

"You don’t get to tell me how I feel about ketchup."

I’m not saying your point is as insane as thinking ketchup is blue. I'm saying there is a part of your position that’s up for discussion, however you might feel about ketchup overall.

To repeat one recent experience:
My wife and I show up at an epic with level 1 characters. They both die. Twice. We then bring in 4th level characters and they save the group from a TPK. The first set of characters were a waste of time.

In another case, again with AL, we had a new guy join. He's 9th level and we're 5th ... he's destroying the enemy and taking minimal damage while we chink away.

I like a sense of accomplishment when I game. I like to feel that my PC made a reasonable contribution to defeating the bad guys and winning the day. As much as D&D is not a competitive game, I don't want to feel like the junior varsity playing with the pros. Watching from the sidelines while the "real" adventurers save the day is not as much fun.

What really bothers me is that you dismiss my experience as if it didn't happen. I'm just acknowledging what should be an obvious fact that higher level characters, on average, contribute more to the game from a mechanical perspective. If they didn't, why would we bother leveling?

As always, play the way you want, do what makes sense for your group. I prefer to keep people the same level, I see no reason to let some PCs fall behind on the power curve because they can't make every game.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

(TL;DR Not a problem with a PC getting no XP. They make up for it by getting a bit more because of harder challenges to their level).

I'm with [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] (his first post on this thread, #3 point) and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]. If the player misses the game session, then his PC either becomes an "APC" (no, not that, the A stands for Absent...mostly...). A character who is not able to attend, or misses some part of the game (beginning because they had to work late, or the end because they had to do something like pick someone up at the airport, etc), that persons character becomes an APC. While in "APC mode", the character generally is 'ignored' by the world if at all possible. The character hangs at the back and doesn't offer advice, doesn't perform skills, doesn't really do much of anything. If the situation requires the PC's interaction, one of the players makes the decision, with me overriding it if it seems out of character or isn't "necessary"; e.g., they find a chest and it's locked...the APC thief does NOT deal with it because opening the chest is not 'required'; when the player is back, then she can decide if she wants to look for traps and pick the lock).

With regard to combat, monsters will generally attack others first and the APC will try and do non-combat stuff (support or 'watch the hall' or something). But if combat is no option, a player rolls. The one exception to the rules is that the APC gets a free "delay of death rolls" until they can roll it; if the PC's can use some magic to keep the APC alive after the fight, then great. Yes, this does pretty much 'remove' the Death Roll mechanic from affecting the APC a lot of the time (PC's usually have SOMETHING they can do to help a character at 0 hp). EXCEPTION!: If the entire party is killed/removed...then an unconscious APC is automatically "captures" or (usually more likely) killed, resulting in a TPK. All of us understand that this is our rule. This is accepted by everyone at the table and we all think it is fine and makes sense. Yes, on occasion a player has left early only to find out between sessions "Er...sorry, Tracy, Silvia the Slick is dead. The whole party was killed by an otyugh". It is accepted as part of the game in our group.

Now, for PC's that can get to a safe spot (a camp, town, whatever), they are 'safe', because they aren't at the actual adventure (dungeon, etc).

The APC gets ZERO XP if they are 'safe' and not at the actual adventuring locale. Again, we all accept this as a group.

When/if a PC ends up lagging behind others...uh...well, never bothered us. Like, ever really. As I've said in other threads about this sort of topic, I've run 1e AD&D games where the PC's can be rather largely apart, level wise, from others. In other words, I can have a 7th, two 5th, a 4th, a 2nd and a 1st level PC all in a party (IIRC, AD&D 1e) and nothing "broke". Yes, the 1st and 2nd level PC's were hard pressed to not die...but that didn't detract from their players fun. In fact, it added an extra level of challenge and RP'ing opportunities as the 'newbs' were in awe at how amazingly heroic the 5th, let alone the 7th, level PC's were. And, with AD&D's XP system, the lower level PC's gained XP pretty dang fast so they were up to 3rd or even 4th in relatively short fashion.

In 5e, with the whole Bounded Accuracy thing...differently leveled PC's isn't much of a problem. The 7th level PC can take on a group of 5 goblins by himself while the 2nd and 1st can work together taking on two or three as a team. (actually, same sort of thing in 1e, but with a bit of a different "hit to damage taken" ratio). A lower level PC will and should get an XP bonus because the challenge is different for them (harder).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[iserith]

To repeat one recent experience:
My wife and I show up at an epic with level 1 characters. They both die. Twice. We then bring in 4th level characters and they save the group from a TPK. The first set of characters were a waste of time.

In another case, again with AL, we had a new guy join. He's 9th level and we're 5th ... he's destroying the enemy and taking minimal damage while we chink away.

Are you overlooking the additional vital context of those games - how the adventure is designed, how the DM runs it, what strategy and tactics the party employed, the luck of the dice, etc. - and settling on it being solely level disparity that was the issue? I mean, I've seen plenty of same-level adventurers die, too. I've seen plenty of same-level characters outshine others in certain areas because of the particular pillar in play or how the dice land. Surely you have, too, given your experience. So I don't think it's reasonable to lay this entirely at the feet of level disparity.

Watching from the sidelines while the "real" adventurers save the day is not as much fun.

My own experience shows that this is simply not what happens, certainly not on an ongoing basis. Unless the player chooses to do that.

What really bothers me is that you dismiss my experience as if it didn't happen. I'm just acknowledging what should be an obvious fact that higher level characters, on average, contribute more to the game from a mechanical perspective. If they didn't, why would we bother leveling?

As always, play the way you want, do what makes sense for your group. I prefer to keep people the same level, I see no reason to let some PCs fall behind on the power curve because they can't make every game.

That characters of different levels contribute differently is a given. My position is that you can still contribute meaningfully despite level disparity.

As to your particular preference, truly I don't care. But I will debate the stated basis of those preferences if they are debatable. In this case, I would say they are. Sometimes people have a preference first and then give a post-hoc justification for it. That's what this looks like to me, for what it's worth. If someone comes along and calls the justification into question, it can be interpreted as dismissing the preference when that's not what is going on.

 

[Mallus]

1. Simple Rule: there is a party XP total. Every PC playing in a session has it.

2. Simpler Rule: there is no XP. PCs level when the DM says so, or after an agreed-upon interval.

 

[Oofta]

Are you overlooking the additional vital context of those games - how the adventure is designed, how the DM runs it, what strategy and tactics the party employed, the luck of the dice, etc. - and settling on it being solely level disparity that was the issue? I mean, I've seen plenty of same-level adventurers die, too. I've seen plenty of same-level characters outshine others in certain areas because of the particular pillar in play or how the dice land. Surely you have, too, given your experience. So I don't think it's reasonable to lay this entirely at the feet of level disparity.



My own experience shows that this is simply not what happens, certainly not on an ongoing basis. Unless the player chooses to do that.



That characters of different levels contribute differently is a given. My position is that you can still contribute meaningfully despite level disparity.

As to your particular preference, truly I don't care. But I will debate the stated basis of those preferences if they are debatable. In this case, I would say they are. Sometimes people have a preference first and then give a post-hoc justification for it. That's what this looks like to me, for what it's worth. If someone comes along and calls the justification into question, it can be interpreted as dismissing the preference when that's not what is going on.

So in other words: my opinion and experiences do not count. Your opinion is "justified by experience" mine is just crap.

As far as the actual topic, this is a mountain out of a molehill. I see no upside to not having people of the same level. Someone that is lower level will, in my experience, frequently enjoy the game less. So no upside, only downside. Hence my decision to keep everyone at the same level.

 

[Warpiglet]

I'm with Iserith, In my game no attendance= no XP. My game has a spread of about 5 levels between the most frequently attending players' characters & replacement characters for those who died. Those who attend less frequently (due to real life issues like...work) are now 2-3 levels behind the highest level pcs and it hasn't really been a problem.

I don't really get this modern "it's not fun if we aren't all the same level" type of attitude. You earn xp by being present at a session in my games (whether by slaying monsters or stealing their stuff, or my typical by getting a preset amount of xp per session no matter what happens). If you can't make it for whatever reason then tough. It is also not fun sometimes for the rest of the players to be expecting to utilise your pcs skills one week and you aren't there but we accept other things real life events/commitments intrude on game night, shrug and deal with it.

But that being said, the player most effected by crappy work hours doesn't complain about not being the same level as the highest level pc. He simply gets on with the game, rolls his dice, enjoys being present, contributes to the story/game and is not underwhelming or overshadowed by the higher level pcs by any stretch of the imagination- which is one of the strengths of 5e.

Stormdale

I DON'T WANT unearned experience. I am a pain that way. I don't like doing one shots with leveled up characters...

I want to earn it the hard way and if the character dies, they die. I am DMing my pals and there are no shortcuts. We have gotten together 6 0r 7 times and we are 4th level. Everyone earned it. When we hit 5th it will be sweet.

I am probably a bit obsessive about earning it. By the same token, I don't roll until I get what I want...I take what I get and grind. And if I live?

The rewards are sweet!

 

[iserith]

So in other words: my opinion and experiences do not count. Your opinion is "justified by experience" mine is just crap.

Your experiences and mine differ. Your statements do lead me to believe that you have a preference first ("no level disparity") and you justify it later with a debatable example that appears to ignore all other possible factors that created that outcome. That certainly has the look of confirmation bias to me. When reasonably questioned on that, you get defensive and accuse me of saying things I'm not saying.

Look, it's okay to have a preference, even an unjustified one. I'm not dismissing it. I am reasonably questioning the justification you stated for it. If you don't want to discuss that, it's okay. But please don't go around saying that I'm dismissing your preferences or calling your experience "crap." Because I'm not and it's not fair to say that I am.

 

[iserith]

I DON'T WANT unearned experience. I am a pain that way. I don't like doing one shots with leveled up characters...

I want to earn it the hard way and if the character dies, they die. I am DMing my pals and there are no shortcuts. We have gotten together 6 0r 7 times and we are 4th level. Everyone earned it. When we hit 5th it will be sweet.

I am probably a bit obsessive about earning it. By the same token, I don't roll until I get what I want...I take what I get and grind. And if I live?

The rewards are sweet!

I'm happy to play in one-shots (and run them), but as a player, I do like to earn my rewards. It needn't necessarily be standard XP either. I just want to know the thing I have to do to get what is necessary to advance so I can get after it. The "everyone level when DM feels like it" thing doesn't work for me. I get why people do it and it certainly made a lot of sense in D&D 3e and D&D 4e because level disparity could be a problem. But in D&D 5e? Nah, not for me.

I would add that, in my regular groups, all the players are happy when someone else gains a level, even if it's a higher level than they are. One's teammate just got a boost and that helps everybody! Alex being resentful of Sean for being able to play more and gaining levels quicker is totally foreign to us.

 

[Oofta]

Your experiences and mine differ. Your statements do lead me to believe that you have a preference first ("no level disparity") and you justify it later with a debatable example that appears to ignore all other possible factors that created that outcome. That certainly has the look of confirmation bias to me. When reasonably questioned on that, you get defensive and accuse me of saying things I'm not saying.

Look, it's okay to have a preference, even an unjustified one. I'm not dismissing it. I am reasonably questioning the justification you stated for it. If you don't want to discuss that, it's okay. But please don't go around saying that I'm dismissing your preferences or calling your experience "crap." Because I'm not and it's not fair to say that I am.

Right. So my explanation is "debatable example that ignores all other possible factors" that you have never named. You're just saying my opinion crap ... sorry that my opinion is unjustified crap. Oops. Not valid because it's "confirmation bias". Poe-tae-toe poe-tah-toe.

Or it could just be that we have different preferences, with neither one being particularly justified. I'm OK with that. A lot of things about D&D come down to preference. Some people like sushi. No matter how much you tell me I haven't had "good" sushi even though I've tried it at upscale restaurants, I like my fish cooked.

I've given what I view as a downside to disparate levels and given my experience when I played in games where there was a significant difference. You? You've just said my opinion is wrong because I disagree.