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

[Eeralai]

Looks like most everything has been said about this, but I wanted to add another player perspective. My husband is in the domain of no playing = no experience. Before I met him, that was how the games I played in were also. It's a game, it's fun, sometimes I have to miss. Sometimes I had to miss symphony practice which meant I might miss out on all sorts of new bowings, new markings, etc... and if I had an important part, the symphony had a more difficult time practicing without me. But everyone got on with it and it was fine. So it should be with D&D. In my husband's game, sometimes there is a broad range of PC levels. As a group we do our best to make up for weaknesses. I like having PCs on different levels. It makes it interesting to me. Plus, my husband gives us lots of ways to get experience points. I often have to go to bed before the game breaks up. So I write stories later about my character and get a few experience points there to make up for being gone. I get what I put into it. If I have to miss or want to miss, I try to be courteous about it, but I don't expect any reward for my character at that time. If I'm not there having fun, why should my character be

 

[Arravis]

Grimstaff your post was insulting, that's the part you'd be wise to rethink, not disagreeing with me.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

But IMO the player that misses the game should not get a full share of XP. Why should he if he was not there to add to the game?

so would it be correct to say that in your game XP is awarded for present players based on how much they added to the game and not like the usual challenges overcome etc? or is "added to the game" only a criterion for absent players?

I understand stuff happens, but if you miss out, you miss out, such is life.

Actually, such is the decision of the GM, not a fact of life. As seen here, other Gms don't follow that at all. its a choice.

Now, what does your game gain or how is it made better by denying xp to the characters of absent players and setting up level mismatches?

In the last long term game I played in, the DM woulld run the characters not there as NPC's, but he would always make the players that were there the center of the action, as he should. The DM needs to make it fun for the people that show up.

absolutely. I too when a player is absent tend to center the story elements around the personal backgrounds of those present.

How fun would it be if as a DM I planned to have the heavy fighter fight a NPC heavy fighter and the person playing the fighter does not show up that week? How fun would it be for me as a DM to say "ok, Joe could not make it, so for the climax of the adventure this week, you guys are going to watch me play out a fight between Joes fighter and this fighter NPC."

why would the Gm do that?
Why wouldn't he instead run scenes relevent to and focused on the players there?

Or how about if I make a character for your new game, and then I never show up for 9 weeks. Are you going to run my character for the first 9 weeks of the game and then I show up next week with a full share of XP and gold, ect? How fair does that sound?

well, if you started in my game and told me "i wont be able to start for nine weeks" then i would plan on introducing your pc then. You would start at the same level as the other guys at that point in time. Same as if a year into the session someone new joins. they start at the same level as everyone else, not forced to start at the campaign beginning level from a year ago. or is that what you do with players new to your game, make them start back at square one regardless of how long ago that was?

now, if you said you were gonna show and didn;t for several weeks in a row, you and i would sit down and talk and come to an understanding about when you would be playing or whether you should sit this campaign out for a while until your schedule frees up. But, whenever you started you start at the current campaign level, with commensurate loot.

why wouldn't you?

 

[Demmero]

There are a couple issues I’d like to understand

Why should in-game mechanics be used to deal with personal issues in the group?

Common sense and compromise. It would be insane for a DM to kick a player out of his game just because a player has to miss an occasional game due to real life issues. His character earning less or no XPs for those sessions seems like a good compromise to me.

Why do some people have issues with events occurring to PC’s that aren’t present (of course it’s much preferred they be). The characters are an integral part of the story and help me shape my plot and game world as much as I help them shape their characters. I don’t see the gulf between DM and PC that so many seem to. We’re both making the world; we’re both making the character, together.

If DM and player are both making the character together...then both should be present. And if the characters are "an integral part of the story" and help shape the plot, then doesn't not having a PC's player present bring down the quality of the game for the other players and the DM alike?

For example, if a player was playing a character like that Montoya guy from "Princess Bride," chasing around the six-fingered guy that killed his father for half the campaign, and then the session he finally catches up with him that player is absent...doesn't that drag down the game some, make it less fun for the players who DID show up?

I don't see the "gulf between DM and PC" that you mention; I see each job as having its own responsibilities, and one job of the player is to show up at the game.

Having characters fall behind in XP from the other characters doesn’t add to the game. It only decreases the fun. I’ve never seen an intense that it made a game better. The player who is left behind is unhappy, as is everyone else in the group because that character is less effective.

I agree with the first part of this statement. But I'd counter by saying that having one or more players not showing up doesn't help and decreases the fun as well. I don't agree with your last statement. Maybe the player who is left behind is usually unhappy, but I don't agree that everyone else would be unhappy because that guy's PC is less effective. I think several posters have made it clear that many gamers would see his missed games/lower level situation as a cause-and-effect deal and live with the repercussions.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I have to wonder if the d20 ruleset doesn't contribute to the difficulty here. With so much emphasis on "balance" and challenge levels and such, does this just make it easier for some DM's to "bend" the rules to keep the party all at the same level, regardless of participation?

Cutting my teeth on 1E back in the day, it was normal for a party to have a wide range of levels among its members. I remember modules touting lines like "For levels 8-13". Each class had different exp goals to level, too, so being the same level was nearly impossible, no less.

I think Grimstaff is right on the money here. In the good old days it was flat out impossible to have all characters at the same level of power. I still don't think its a big deal if if there are a couple of levels spread in character level. Despite all of WOTC's efforts the relative power of characters still varies greatly with class and build, and even more greatly depending on the nature of the challenge (a cleric who is great at fighting undead might be weak when the challenge is intrigue or stealth). D&D's niche protection makes this even less important than it is in other games. It doesn't _matter_ that the cleric is 10th level and the rogue is 8th if the cleric is primarily casting spells and the rogue is primarliy using his stealth skills. Neither will be able to overshadow the other and impinge on their fun, which is what all of this concern about "balance" is about.

The RAW says that XPs are awarded for overcoming challenges. If you're not there you don't overcome any challenges, so no XP. I've never seen any reason to change this. I've also not played with a group that did in my 25 or so years of playing, which leads me to believe that most people don't see this as a problem. If I was gaming with people who were playing competitvely rather than cooperatively to the point that a party level spread of a few levels was a problem, I would probably find another group to play with.

 

[Demmero]

Good luck, I've been trying to get someone to tell me the actual benefit to the game that not giving xp to absent players gets you, and I havn't had any beneficial effects listed!

There are no beneficial effects. However, there may be detrimental effects if other players in the group see XPs to absentees as a "free ride."

I personally see it in the best interest of the game to put a little more weight on the wishes and opinions of players who show up consistently than on those with a more spotty attendance record. YMMV.

I have a question or three to put to the "same XPs whether the player shows or not" gang. Say the player who plays the PC wizard shows up for every game while everyone else shows up 80% of the time. He uses item creation feats to make magical goodies for all the party members, and thus falls behind in XP to the sometimes-players. Do you allow that or just dump the XP cost from your games? What if he dies and is raised? What if he died because the Fighter's player didn't show that night and whoever RPed him forgot that the fighter always looked out for the wimpy wizard? Fair?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Common sense and compromise. It would be insane for a DM to kick a player out of his game just because a player has to miss an occasional game due to real life issues. Him character earning less or no XPs for those sessions seems like a good compromise to me.

You're acting like those are the only two choices. No XP or kicking him out. What if a player is being disruptive during the game by giving OOC advice during combat (or some other infringement of someone's Table Rules that are close to that). Would saying he takes 10 points of damage be a fair compromise between kicking him out and not giving him XP for the session? Personally, I would talk to him about altering his actions without wanting or needing to use in game discouragement.

I think several posters have made it clear that many gamers would see his missed games/lower level situation as a cause-and-effect deal and live with the repercussions.

I fear some players (none that post here I hope) would feel superior and happy that they get to be more powerful. It just seems to... competative for my tastes. I love competition, I'm an avid video gamer, but just not in my D&D.

And dealing with reprocussions doesn't sound like a fun thing to me. :\

 

[ThirdWizard]

There are no beneficial effects. However, there may be detrimental effects if other players in the group see XPs to absentees as a "free ride."

That would never be an issue in my game, and I have a wide variety of playstyles in my group.

I have a question or three to put to the "same XPs whether the player shows or not" gang.

I'm happy to answer!

Say the player who plays the PC wizard shows up for every game while everyone else shows up 80% of the time. He uses item creation feats to make magical goodies for all the party members, and thus falls behind in XP to the sometimes-players. Do you allow that or just dump the XP cost from your games?

Before today, I never considered having a group XP pool for everyone. My players have different amounts of XP. For example, the sorcerer has a rod that lets him cast a spell as if it were on his list. He only need spend 100 xp to put the spell in the rod. So, he is around 100 xp behind the current highest xp holder.

So, they do have different totals in my game. The player who spends the xp on item creation has to weigh the benefit of outfitting his party members, thus aiding himself consequently, and being a bit behind in xp. The item creation rules and the new 3.5 xp awards make this insignificant in my eyes, however. 1/25th gp value is a very tiny amount, and I've never had it make much difference.

If I were doing group xp totals where everyone is the same, I would probably drop the xp cost.

What if he dies and is raised?

Then he loses a level, which we have House Rules for. (Same % into lower level as you were into the current level). Man I'm nice. In fact, we've had the barbarian in the party behind in a level now for around 8 sessions due to two untimely deaths.

What if he died because the Fighter's player didn't show that night and whoever RPed him forgot that the fighter always looked out for the wimpy wizard? Fair?

Perfectly fair. They should have remembered. I might have nice rules for character death, but that's only because I don't hold back when things get tough for them. Dying is a fact of my games, and the players live with it.


Here's an interesting tidbit, though. The player whose barbarian has died twice so far in the campaign played his character extremely well! He didn't have to die. He died to save the others, he stayed in combat knowing that his sacrifice would ensure the survival of others. His "reward?" Being lower level than the others for over half of the current campaign. There's one reason it is difficult to see XP as some kind of reward for good roleplaying and play. By all rights, if XP represented him playing his character, he would be the highest level in the group istead of having the lowest XP total!

 

[Demmero]

You're acting like those are the only two choices. No XP or kicking him out. What if a player is being disruptive during the game by giving OOC advice during combat (or some other infringement of someone's Table Rules that are close to that). Would saying he takes 10 points of damage be a fair compromise between kicking him out and not giving him XP for the session? Personally, I would talk to him about altering his actions without wanting or needing to use in game discouragement.

No, I'm not suggesting just two choices; I gave pretty much the exact opposite of "go with the flow, everyone gets the same XP even if they don't show." Compromise pretty much means middle ground.

Let me try to make my point with another example. If only one player (the one who shows up every week) in a group whose players otherwise go for the "same XP" deal decides that's unfair...does that make him a problem player? Or does he have a legitimate point?

Hypothetically, let's say he complains enough that he DOES become a problem player and a result gets booted from the group. A few months down the line, the game gets cancelled because the DM decides that not enough players are showing up (instead of just the occasional person with RL issues, now you have that person AND Mr. Dependable But Problem Player. Would it be fair to blame the game's collapse on the problem player leaving?

My original point is that maybe an out-of-game approach might cause more trouble in such a case.

I fear some players (none that post here I hope) would feel superior and happy that they get to be more powerful. It just seems to... competative for my tastes. I love competition, I'm an avid video gamer, but just not in my D&D.

And dealing with reprocussions doesn't sound like a fun thing to me. :\

I agree with your first statement. As for being "competitive"...yeah, that's not a good thing, generally speaking. For me, though, same XP whether you show or not is way too cavalier. Giving away something for nothing, likewise, is generally not a good thing either.

Repercussions from having a slightly underpowered character isn't usually a fun thing. Having someone else run another player's character or having him drop from the story for a session generally isn't fun either. Pick your poison.

 

[Eeralai]

Here's an interesting tidbit, though. The player whose barbarian has died twice so far in the campaign played his character extremely well! He didn't have to die. He died to save the others, he stayed in combat knowing that his sacrifice would ensure the survival of others. His "reward?" Being lower level than the others for over half of the current campaign. There's one reason it is difficult to see XP as some kind of reward for good roleplaying and play. By all rights, if XP represented him playing his character, he would be the highest level in the group istead of having the lowest XP total!

Actually, I'm surprised your experience system does not allow for him to have more experience points because of the way he died. Good roleplaying like that should show in XP points despite death. But I guess that is a debate for another thread