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

[billd91]

I would also like to point out that the whole comparison to other games began with the comment:



So, to now start claiming that you can't compare them seems a bit backpedalling as you brought it up in the first place...

I don't think that's Don's point. The comparison between missing out on some XPs and having pieces removed for whole chess games is invalid to begin with because that's not how chess is played. In fact, the comparison is kind of silly because if one player doesn't show up, the game can't even occur.
I think a better use of Don's original point is asking if there are any other games out there, other than RPGs, in which a player gets any in game rewards for not playing a session? Does a Risk player get bonus armies because he didn't play last time? No. In fact, nobody who played does either. The game starts afresh each time.
In RPGs, one session's results have a legacy, both good and bad. If there some of us who play so that the missing player's PCs don't take part in the game session, they are sheltered from both. That's not a punishment and it's pretty fair regardless of the reasons for being absent.
There aren't many other games that have comparable super-sessional effects to them. I suppose other than examples using chess and pieces, which are really more like straw men than real counter examples.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well I agree that you can't compare D&D to other games. It just doesn't seem fair to say that you don't get rewards to carry over to other games when you arn't present, then to note that comparisons are impossible. In fact, I can't think of any games where you gain a benefit/penalty from making/missing the last session that isn't some kind of competition (tennis player missing a tournament match).

So, I would agree you can't compare the two. It's just that the comparison was made and people were trying to expound on it.

EDIT: I agree that I might be missing the point entirely. Such is not without its precedent.

 

[sniffles]

Why should the character lag behind if he was there right alongside the others, just ran for one session by someone else other than its player?
Why should the team as a whole be weaker long term because someone IRL had a crisis?

Look, to me advancement is not something EARNED at all. its something that happens as the game progresses because its fun. it'll happen at a pace to suit the campaign and thats regardless of whether you win or lose.

Honestly, i don't eben give XP anymore, just announce a new "you level up" when i feel its appropriate, usually once every three months real time. i have found it works fine.

I like this idea. The reward is not getting XP, it's getting to play with my friends. I wonder if I could convince my GMs to do this?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

When you don't show up to any event, you let down the other players. Suppose the bass player doesn't show up on concert night, or Pujols blows off game 7 of the World Series to mow his lawn. There's no way you should be rewarded for that crap.

If you don't show, no exp or even an exp penalty, imo. Of course, I'd make exceptions for a death in the family or something. But I could care less if you have a date that night, you knew when game night was when you asked her/him out or were asked out.

 

[Hammerhead]

When you don't show up to any event, you let down the other players. Suppose the bass player doesn't show up on concert night, or Pujols blows off game 7 of the World Series to mow his lawn. There's no way you should be rewarded for that crap.

Bah, Pujols didn't even get the Cardinals to game 5 of the World Series. Those four games were probably the worst four games they played all season long.

In my game, each character gets their base XP normally. I also award bonus Role-Playing XP; if they don't show up, they don't get the Role-Playing XP. There isn't much of a gap between the XP totals of the characters.

Another game I'm in we get half XP if we're not there. This has caused two characters to drop a level behind myself and another, who have each shown up for every session. I don't think it's a big deal to be a level behind, I've been in similar situations before. Another player, however, whines constantly how it isn't fair that some people are higher level and others aren't.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

That's what I hate about analogies. Once one is introduced, there are certain folks who will do nothing by try to pull apart the analogy, rather than address the issues it was meant to illustrate. :\

The point of my chess analogy was that penalizing a player in xp for not being able to make a game deprives him of the tools necessary to play the game when he does make it. Naturally, one session at no xp isn't going to do anything, but if this is the DM's standard procedure, then over the course of a campaign I can certainly see a PC falling behind by three or four levels.

As a personal example, I was hospitalized while my gaming group moved from 9th- to 12th-level. If I had gotten no experience for that time, my 9th-level character would have been meat as soon as he returned to that 12th-level game. Why should my DM punish me for an event that was beyond my control? I desperately wish I could have made those games, and am more than happy that I can make it now. Where's the sense in the penalty?

When you don't show up to any event, you let down the other players. Suppose the bass player doesn't show up on concert night, or Pujols blows off game 7 of the World Series to mow his lawn. There's no way you should be rewarded for that crap.

I'm not going to pick apart your own analogy, easy enough as it might be. Instead let me try and address the concern you mean to illustrate. I agree, that if a player is blowing off your game for no good reason, something has to be done. But it is my stance that xp penalties are the wrong way to go about it. It's a metagame issue--either the player doesn't value your game enough, or doesn't have the courtesy to adhere to a schedule, or simply has ADD or some other attention disorder.

My own comments are not about players simply "blowing off" a game. They're about players who have legitimate reasons to be absent--work, illness, family trip, etc.--and have courteously informed the gaming group as early as they could. For those people, I see no reason to penalize them for their absence. The absence itself is the penalty.

Regarding people who regard xp as a reward, I remain firm in my stance. D&D does not reward exemplary play. In our group, I am by far the most tactically-minded of the group. I am the one who comes up with the plans that allow us to defeat armies, or powerful demons, etc. Another player is definitely the most daring. Neither of us are rewarded any more than any other player.

So if D&D does not reward creativity, does not reward critical thinking, and does not reward courage and daring do....then why on earth should it reward mere presence? The reward for being present is getting to actually play D&D, instead of reading about the session in an e-mail. Everything else is tangential.

 

[DonTadow]

I would also like to point out that the whole comparison to other games began with the comment:



So, to now start claiming that you can't compare them seems a bit backpedalling as you brought it up in the first place...

What I was saying was that he had alternative rules for chess. Pieces just don't disappear when you don't take a turn. If you dont do a turn in time (in timed chess) you forfeit a turn. It doesnt answer the question, what game can you not be there and still get money, and game items. The chess response doesnt really answer it. And the way he was using it didn't really make sense because those wernt the rules of chess.

 

[Catavarie]

I don't punish player's for not showing up on game night, but I don't reward them either. My feeling is that when the player isn't there the character is a mindless zombie that follows the group around. So on occasion characters die when the player isn't there, but hey all my players know that this is a possibility and they all accept it. On the other hand occasionally a missing player's character ends up getting a nifty item that the player would want because the group decides to give it to them. It's just one of the perks of being in the group, sometimes things are good for you even if your not there.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

What I was saying was that he had alternative rules for chess. Pieces just don't disappear when you don't take a turn. If you dont do a turn in time (in timed chess) you forfeit a turn. It doesnt answer the question, what game can you not be there and still get money, and game items. The chess response doesnt really answer it. And the way he was using it didn't really make sense because those wernt the rules of chess.

I don't mean to be flippant, but: take a quick look at this. An analogy doesn't mean an exact equivalent. The point I was making--the one you ignored--was amply demonstrated by the analogy presented.

 

[DonTadow]

That's what I hate about analogies. Once one is introduced, there are certain folks who will do nothing by try to pull apart the analogy, rather than address the issues it was meant to illustrate. :\

The point of my chess analogy was that penalizing a player in xp for not being able to make a game deprives him of the tools necessary to play the game when he does make it. Naturally, one session at no xp isn't going to do anything, but if this is the DM's standard procedure, then over the course of a campaign I can certainly see a PC falling behind by three or four levels.

As a personal example, I was hospitalized while my gaming group moved from 9th- to 12th-level. If I had gotten no experience for that time, my 9th-level character would have been meat as soon as he returned to that 12th-level game. Why should my DM punish me for an event that was beyond my control? I desperately wish I could have made those games, and am more than happy that I can make it now. Where's the sense in the penalty?
I'm not going to pick apart your own analogy, easy enough as it might be. Instead let me try and address the concern you mean to illustrate. I agree, that if a player is blowing off your game for no good reason, something has to be done. But it is my stance that xp penalties are the wrong way to go about it. It's a metagame issue--either the player doesn't value your game enough, or doesn't have the courtesy to adhere to a schedule, or simply has ADD or some other attention disorder.

My own comments are not about players simply "blowing off" a game. They're about players who have legitimate reasons to be absent--work, illness, family trip, etc.--and have courteously informed the gaming group as early as they could. For those people, I see no reason to penalize them for their absence. The absence itself is the penalty.

Regarding people who regard xp as a reward, I remain firm in my stance. D&D does not reward exemplary play. In our group, I am by far the most tactically-minded of the group. I am the one who comes up with the plans that allow us to defeat armies, or powerful demons, etc. Another player is definitely the most daring. Neither of us are rewarded any more than any other player.

So if D&D does not reward creativity, does not reward critical thinking, and does not reward courage and daring do....then why on earth should it reward mere presence? The reward for being present is getting to actually play D&D, instead of reading about the session in an e-mail. Everything else is tangential.

But then again, you were gone for quite a bit of time. I have a player like that now in my campaign (he just had a baby and is on wife duty for some months). I"m not going to track his xp while hes not here. When he returns his character wil start a level below the average of the party. Those are special circumstances for. However if a person misses a session a month, there is little chance their going to fall that far down the xp ladder .

This isn't about your reasons for not being there, the point is d and d is a game. Regardless of how it appears in all of our minds. Its a different game but its a game. You can't play the game if you are not there. Now this comes down to if a dm wants to have a character playe as an npc or not. Again, my problem with that is that youre gambling with someone elses creation which, as a writer, I'd never allow to happen to anything i create and don't allow in my games. I know its not the topic of this thread but its verymuch created. I know its not always easy to have a charaaracter fade into the background but nine times out of ten its the best choice.