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

[el-remmen]

I have to ask, what is the benefit of not awarding xp to a particular character? Do you believe lack of an xp award would make him more likely to make it to sessions or at least give more advanced warning? Was this case of not wanting to award xp more emotional than not, and wouldn't such a decision be more in line with my "punishment for not showing to show the player who's boss" explaination for not showing?

He is still getting XP.

But if he is just short of the next level afterwards he would know it was his own fault and perhaps work to fix it - by one means (being responsible) or another (extra effort for some other aspect of the game).

It is not about who is "boss" - it is about what I consider being consistantly inconsiderate.

Then again, I think PCs can have a range of 1 to 3 levels and all be cool - not everyone needs to be the same level at the same time.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That wouldn't sound right, but it's also not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about taking something away that the PC already has (like taking away the bishop). We're talking about them not making some experience points and that's a different thing. Not making the same number of XPs over time means they don't advance at the same time as the PCs played by more regular players, but we have yet to see this turn into a difference of more than 1 level or so. I fail to see that as being in any way analogous to losing a bishop for missing a regular chess game.

Then say you start with 5 pieces and get one every game instead.

 

[Crothian]

Let's say Player A calls you and tells you he can't make it. He is really sick but otherwise would be there. He sends you his character sheet by e-mail. You use the character as an NPC for the night, either you as the DM run it or another player does, and is only used in combat and/or used for abilities such as disable device or read magic.

Does the character earn XP? Remember, XP is not awarded to the player, it's given to the character because they are earning life experience from all their adventures. The PC in question was there, they just only were used in combat. The player wanted to make it but couldn't. What would you do in that situation?

Well, then he better not complain if the character gets killed. he would gain XP for things killed, but none for role playing and none for helping out the party. I give XP for three different things, only one of those is dependant on the character, the other two I reward for the player. In my game the player is awarded the XP for what he does.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Than the RAW is wrong.

The problem with that is that the player roleplaying the int 6 half-orc barbarian won't be getting as much xp as the player who is also playing an int 6 half-orc barbarian, but playing the character intelligently.

Then again, I think PCs can have a range of 1 to 3 levels and all be cool - not everyone needs to be the same level at the same time.

The ironic thing is that not awarding xp for a session can cause that PC to end up with more xp than the rest of the group next session if the DM plays it by the rules.

 

[leporidae]

Strange, I've been playing D&D for over 25 years, and I've never given or received XP specificially for a session I didn't attend, or even heard of it before reading about it in some recent threads. (Though one time catch-up awards are common if someone has had to drop out of a campaign for a significant period.) In fact, my group tends toward the opposite - GMs will award XP for people showing up, even if we didn't end up playing in their campaign (actually, they'll usually set out poker chips for the amount of the award, and we'll play hold'em for XP).

Some of the arguments have half convinced me that it isn't as wierd an idea as I thought at first, but I don't think it would work for my group. It would seem too much like the GM is taking ownership of the character, like where the character fits into the story is more important than any input you as a player might have. But that's us.

Still I disagree with the suggestion that maturity means no one ever misses a game session without warning. Maybe we're overly nostalgic, but we frequently think back fondly on gaming in our teens and early 20s when we didn't have spouses, sick children, elderly parents, bad backs, or businesses to run/manage/be on call for, to cause us to miss game night without much warning. It seems even stranger to parse the XP award based on the reason for absence, it's been a while since anyone asked me for a doctor's note.

 

[el-remmen]

The ironic thing is that not awarding xp for a session can cause that PC to end up with more xp than the rest of the group next session if the DM plays it by the rules.

I don't understand. . . But maybe that is because I only give out XP every 8 to 12 sessions.

 

[Arravis]

It is not about who is "boss" - it is about what I consider being consistantly inconsiderate.

I believe there are better ways of doing that. Talk to the player, let him know it's a problem. If he continues being inconsiderate, ask him to leave the game. I don't see why a game-mechanic would be used to deal with what's essentially a personal problem between player and DM.

 

[howandwhy99]

None of those particulars has to do with making it to a game, though. They are in character activities, quite different for ascribing XP based on the meta-game. Basically, I don't see the connection, myself. I acknowlege that they might be similar to others, but to me, they are quite different.

I think I answered most of this in the last paragraph to Lord Pendragon. I understand no one wants to "penalize" another for not attending when they have justifiable reasons.

Players who are there already have a one up on players who miss because of this very fact. Say a present PC decides to seek an alliance with a local wizard guild. Now he has new friends in the wizard guild who the missing player hasn't had a chance to form. He gains a benefit that cannot be measured in XP or the like. But, this has nothing to do with not giving XP to missing players as far as I can see.

I guess the difference is we award experience for all in-game awards. If you acquire an ally, steal gold without a fight, or discover a key peice of information, then your PC gains experience. Some of these benefit the whole group, even those who did not attend.

 

[DonTadow]

He is still getting XP.

But if he is just short of the next level afterwards he would know it was his own fault and perhaps work to fix it - by one means (being responsible) or another (extra effort for some other aspect of the game).

It is not about who is "boss" - it is about what I consider being consistantly inconsiderate.

Then again, I think PCs can have a range of 1 to 3 levels and all be cool - not everyone needs to be the same level at the same time.

Its not a benefit, its just he wouldn't there. Would you set a dinner place for your son if he's away at college?

I don't want the character in the game at all if the player isn't there unless its absoloutely neccessary. I consider myself to be a narrative dm, and I don't want to deal with killing a pc who doesnt have a player attached to it. Its something dispicable about it and , (again referring to that thread where a player's character died while the player was absent) it doesnt seem like fun for the player to put his character at risk without him there. Its like someone gambling your money while you're not there. Its great when you're winning xp but it really reall ysucks when you lose it all (die)

 

[farscapesg1]

I don't understand. . . But maybe that is because I only give out XP every 8 to 12 sessions.

I hope your group plays every week. For my group that would be every 4 to 6 months!!!