Why punish a player if they can't come to the game?

[howandwhy99]

The fact that many DMs and players may prefer a growth in power level does not logically prove that a disparity in power level among players, due to absence, is a good idea.

I don't think anyone would agree with disparity in power level being a good idea. I do prefer games were vastly different levels of characters can be in the same group and every player has fun, but that is aside from the point. What I do think is a bad idea is parity in power level where different players commit, succeed, and learn at different rates. Perhaps you are rewarding the players as a group? That makes sense. But tying experience to a player's success gives a greater of realism, IMO. So does having a group which is not always equal.

How does any of this have to do with docking xp for players who can't make a game? These comments seem much more germaine to a discussion regarding whether or not a campaign contains character death and forms of Raise Dead.

If a player isn't required to use their imagination to play the game, they may never learn to do so. Or perhaps they will not try so hard once they realize there is no penalty. And what is the incentive to take risks with the character when you will simply advance as a group anyways. Let one of the others do it. I think when each player has a personal responsibility for their character's advancement, they take it at default that they must work for it.

 

[Belen]

Player 1 has no girlfriend, works 30 hour work weeks, and has few extra social activities.
Player 2 has a wife and child, works 40 hours a week, and is a full time student.

Now, are you going to possibly say that both of them have to make the same effort to make it to a game?

Why is player 2 making the committment to game? If they are that overburdened, then they probably need to find a group that does not game as often. Or work out something with the DM to act as a recurring NPC etc.

In the past, I have had players who would miss the game often. It was not fun for anyone and is was entirely too disruptive.

 

[farscapesg1]

I wish you could have been in the earlier thread. the problem is mistakes happen and I"d rather write and run a game for people there than people away.

But this issue also dwells alot on player styles hack and slash fvs story irented campaigns. StI think in storywise campaigns its harder to have npcs and players there because whereas a player can roll some dice in a fight for a character, he can't say waht that player woudl say for their character. Thats where hte problem comes in with me. There is no way to role play someone elses character exctly like them leaving room for future problems. Its easy enough to say hey i'll play your character while you're gone but when something happens the rules only effect the player whom couldnt make the session, screwing him out of a character for 'the team. I'm all about team play but not at the expence of character's creativity.

I wish I could have been in that thread also

I see your point on a story-based vs. hack-and-slash based game. I personally prefer a story based game myself. However, part of that story requires consistancy of the characters. If I'm playing in a game and one of the characters is regularly missing from the game (the player couldn't make it and no one is running the character), then I don't have as much fun and feel that something is missing. If there is a good reason for that character to be gone (in-story) then I can live with it, but I would prefer for that character (who is part of the story) to be there, even if they aren't handled exactly the same way their player would handle them.

Imagine reading a novel and the heroes are working their way through the dank caverns, when suddenly one of them suddenly has to go back to the church and meditate for a couple days :\ Yet the rest of the characters continue on and a couple days later that lone character manages to find them again and join up with them.

As to all the comments from others about "adult responsibilities", I'm 29 and married. I still manage to make it to games every other weekend. If I can't make it (usually due to the wife telling me to take a break), I let the appropriate people know. I feel that it is a gift that I have a DM who will run the games at his home and players that want to game with me, so I owe them the curteousy of making sure not to affect their enjoyment of the game by not showing up or providing my character information to keep the storyline moving.

 

[Arravis]

Again, I think it all boils down to the kind of players you have. My players simply don't miss a session unless it is "dire" and unavoidable. They don't miss to play Halo or some other nonsense reason (not that I don't love playing Halo mind you, but I have my priorities ).

Mishihari Lord, I hate to sound ignorant... but what is GNS?
*edit* Ignore... my slow-old-self just figured it out. Man, I'm getting dumb in my old age.

 

[jmucchiello]

It is very obvious that someone who misses a game (unless for emergencies) have not made the same effort to be there as everyone else. If they made the same effort, then they would not have missed the session. If they gave me advanced notice, then great. (emphasis added)

This is why we are butting heads here. My group has not had a no show without an advanced call in like 5 years (and that call came one hour into the session - car broke down and had no phone). You see, playing with mature adults means you don't have the mystery no show. This is why I say the person who can't make it made the effort and something more important took presidence.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Why is player 2 making the committment to game? If they are that overburdened, then they probably need to find a group that does not game as often. Or work out something with the DM to act as a recurring NPC etc.

In the past, I have had players who would miss the game often. It was not fun for anyone and is was entirely too disruptive.

Ah, I get it now.

I play with friends. We game together because we enjoy playing D&D together, now we're not a beer and pretzils type group, but we want to play with friends. I've met people through gaming and enjoy their company, but either way, I game with people whose company I enjoy outside of the game.

When a friend misses a game, I don't take it personally. I don't see it as this horrible thing. The player is missing a social engagement, but the game itself goes on, centering around some other character perhaps, though their character is still present for combat engagements. Missing a game, to me, is not disruptive behavior in and of itself. How the player and group deal with the inevitable missed sessions are more important than quantity of missed sessions. If a friend could only show up to 25% of the sessions, they would still be welcome at my table, and have been.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What I do think is a bad idea is parity in power level where different players commit, succeed, and learn at different rates. Perhaps you are rewarding the players as a group? That makes sense. But tying experience to a player's success gives a greater of realism, IMO. So does having a group which is not always equal.

I think your goals are completely unconnected to the subject at hand. What exactly are you rewarding players for? There's a player in my group who plays a cleric that spends most of every combat buffing himself then never entering melee. He is, without a doubt, the safest character in the group, because he never takes any risks. There's another player in the group who plays the fighter, who fearlessly engages the meanest-looking critter on the field, every time. The fighter has come close to death dozens of times, and died several times as well. Now I ask you, what kind of "player success" has the cleric's player achieved? What kind of "player success" has the fighter's player achieved? And do those correspond with their respective levels, of which the fighter's is lower due to his various deaths?

So what am I trying to say? Namely, that there's no such thing as "player success." There are only players. Now, a character may have a certain amount of in-game success. My own PC was recently inducted into a prestigious paladin order. But tying character level to "player success" is, IMO, an impossibility.

I can understand your preference for characters of differing levels. But I think denying xp to absent players (due to circumstances beyond their control, not Halo,) is the wrong way to go about it.

If a player isn't required to use their imagination to play the game, they may never learn to do so. Or perhaps they will not try so hard once they realize there is no penalty. And what is the incentive to take risks with the character when you will simply advance as a group anyways. Let one of the others do it. I think when each player has a personal responsibility for their character's advancement, they take it at default that they must work for it.

How exactly does this pertain to absenteeism? Not being there has nothing to do with the kinds of risks you're willing to take, or a personal responsibility for a character's advancement, unless you are referring to the risk of getting fired by refusing a business trip, or the personal responsibility you have to the game over your marriage and kids.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

It is in weekly rat-bastard chess!

heh.

 

[Arravis]

Why is player 2 making the committment to game? If they are that overburdened, then they probably need to find a group that does not game as often.

I game with my friends, not some group of strangers that I only meet to play D&D with. It's something we enjoy together, and if we weren't gaming we'd be doing something else together.

As for commitment, just because someone has a busy life with many responsabilities doesn't mean that they can't have some fun with D&D when they are able to. I'm going to guess that a situation you haven't been in yet, and let me tell you it sucks. It's great to have a group of friends who like you enough to be a little flexible and bend a few rules to make sure everyone has a good time.

 

[el-remmen]

/me slips on mod hat.


Hey all, let's all take a deep breath and a step back and cut down on the heated comments and ascribing motives and thoughts to others.

We are just discussing how we handle a portion of the game and how the social aspect affects the mechanics aspect some time. . . No need to get huffy.

You stand warned.


EDITED: for grammar's sake