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

[Eeralai]

All this talk about what happens when a player doesn't show. But what happens when the DM doesn't show? Does the party take the average experience that the DM usually doles out?

 

[Demmero]

Well ThirdWizard, then you've got a sweet DMing deal with some cool, laid-back players!


I originally said :

<<What if he died because the fighter's player didn't show up that night and whoever RPed him forgot that the fighter always looks 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.

I have a problem with this, esp. with the "they should have remembered part." The full-time player's PC dies because the part-timer who ran the protective fighter forgot to protect the wizard. The full-timer pays the price for a part-timer's mistake. Is that fair?

What if the dead wizard actually complains to the DM that "maybe the guy who let the ogre walk right past him to brain my PC would've known how the fighter usually protects me if he'd actually bothered to show up for a few more sessions!" Would he have a legitimate point?

It's my opinion that he does.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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?

If he complained enough, it would be problematic. Just like if he complained about any other Table/House Rule that the group as a whole wanted. Same as if someone kept complaining vehemotly about my level loss from death rule. Now, if it came to a vote, and a majority was unhappy with absentee players getting XP, then it would change. Not for one player, though.

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?

No, it would be circumstance of us not being able to find enough players who fit our playstyle. Just like if I couldn't put together a game because noone wanted to play under my house rules. Them's the breaks when you can't find compatable group members. However, I have run campaigns for years with only two players, so I don't consider that an issue.

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

If I were to start not giving XP to absentee players, all my players would voice complaints. In a civilized manner, of course. You're coming from an angle where most players want it your way, and I'm coming from a situation were most of my players want it my way.

Giving away something for nothing, likewise, is generally not a good thing either.

Someone else here, I'm too lazy to look it up, noted one basic difference in our thorught process. XP is nothing to me, and it isn't a reward for anything. It's movement across a line. You wouldn't want to say the PC is still at the spot on the timeline when last he left off any more than I would want to say that he was still at the same XP as last he played. We have very different views on the matter.

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.

But, this isn't an either or. This is an and. Not only do you have the problem of a missing player's PC having to be run by someone else and the DM having to make story concessions, you also have a player with less XP. I don't believe that no XP for absentee players increases player attendance more than it would be if they got full XP.

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

I don't think it would make up for the entire level loss, but it's always nice to have non-combat awards to counter-effect those things.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I have a problem with this, esp. with the "they should have remembered part." The full-time player's PC dies because the part-timer who ran the protective fighter forgot to protect the wizard. The full-timer pays the price for a part-timer's mistake. Is that fair?

What if the dead wizard actually complains to the DM that "maybe the guy who let the ogre walk right past him to brain my PC would've known how the fighter usually protects me if he'd actually bothered to show up for a few more sessions!" Would he have a legitimate point?

It's my opinion that he does.

Well, there is no right or wrong to this. It's going to crop up whether you have XP awards or not, so it isn't extremely relevant to the discussion at hand. In either case the wizard dies! XP awards for absentee players will never stop that. The difference, I suppose is that the wizard player will feel bad that the absentee player is now higher level than he is? Well, I would personally be a bit more upset with the guy running the Fighter for letting me die than the missing guy or the DM.

This goes far more into how we view character death than anything relevant to this thread. I'll go into it if you really want me to, but I don't want to derail the thread...

 

[ThirdWizard]

All this talk about what happens when a player doesn't show. But what happens when the DM doesn't show? Does the party take the average experience that the DM usually doles out?

They all show up to the next session mystically level 20 with 5 castles and vorpal kitchenware.

 

[DonTadow]

Conversely, what games do you get anything for the next time if you do make it? There arn't any, and that means we're going to have to make up some examples if we're going to actually use the analogy. You can't say "no other game rewards missing players" because no other game rewards present players either! We end up with no point being made at all.

Not neccessarily. Most games are set up to play one time and then thats it. But there are games that you carry over stats. There are several tcgs including magic that include cards that allow you to gain bonus's on your next game or turn.

But to put it more into prospective, dungeons and dragons is a series of games that leads to an ultimate conclusion, each game builds on the one before allowing you to advance. This isvery similiar to a tournament with any game. We'll doo monopoly, since I play monopoly all the time. How much money i get in one game tells me where i'll be our who ill be playing in the next one . Sometimes these tournaments are played out over days. How silly do I look going into round 3 of a game looking for a high place when I wasn't even there in round 2.

Some games, such as guilitine allow players whom win previous rounds to get specialbenefits in the next round such as first pic or extra cards. Again, if i dindt play in the first round why would i look forward to getting something in the subsequent round.

 

[Demmero]

You're coming from an angle where most players want it your way, and I'm coming from a situation were most of my players want it my way.

Not really. I'm more arguing the point of the thread starter who can't understand why others don't see the matter the way he does. If all the players agree that same XPs no matter what, then you have no problem. I'm saying that if the group is split on that, an XP penalty solution seems like a wise compromise, even if it is in-game. If my group of players split 50/50 on that issue, I'd generally side with those who show up every week, simply because players not showing DOES disrupt the game to at least a small degree.

Someone else here, I'm too lazy to look it up, noted one basic difference in our thorught process. XP is nothing to me, and it isn't a reward for anything. It's movement across a line. You wouldn't want to say the PC is still at the spot on the timeline when last he left off any more than I would want to say that he was still at the same XP as last he played. We have very different views on the matter.

Yep, and I'd wager we have different views on the effects that a PC absence has on the game. Your views are more realistic and story-based; mine are more practical/game-based/DMing style. DMs who can't be bothered running a couple of absent PCs and send them on guard duty are within their right, IMHO. And I don't think it a stretch that such DMs might not want to award ghosted PCs who do nothing in a session the same amount as those PCs present who have to battle a beholder (perhaps a bit short-handed).

But, this isn't an either or. This is an and. Not only do you have the problem of a missing player's PC having to be run by someone else and the DM having to make story concessions, you also have a player with less XP. I don't believe that no XP for absentee players increases player attendance more than it would be if they got full XP.

Your point is valid; your logic is correct. I guess I just look at things from the other side of the same coin: I don't believe that giving the same benefits to players whether they show or not does anything to discourage absences. You see more damage to your game from having disparate levels; I see more damage to my game from player absences messing up storylines and planned encounters. And I only have disparate levels when playing by my method if one or more players have a significant number of cancellations than others. I don't think either way is wrong--just different.[/QUOTE]

 

[Demmero]

Well, there is no right or wrong to this. It's going to crop up whether you have XP awards or not, so it isn't extremely relevant to the discussion at hand. In either case the wizard dies!

Not necessarily (if you use my XP method)! If I have an encounter that would net the party 3,000 XPs (750 for a full party of 4) but only three players show up and their PCs defeat that encounter alone, they'd get 1,000 XPs each. If that happens enough time (or even just at the right point in a character's XP total), the show-up-all-the-time wizard might've leveled and survived the attack that killed him in the same-XP-for-all campaign.

 

[Demmero]

This goes far more into how we view character death than anything relevant to this thread. I'll go into it if you really want me to, but I don't want to derail the thread...

Crap...saw this part of your post after the fact. Good point. Eyes are tired...must go to bed.

Part of Arravis' thread-strarter was the following quote:

<<It seems many DMs do not give full XP (or non) if a player can't make it to a game. I don't understand why.>>

My short answer: because players not showing has all sorts of repercussions, the biggest of which is that it makes the game less fun for the other players and probably the DM as well. Some DMs don't want to make it seem like they have no qualms about players not showing for games out of fear that that will encourage other players to "take nights off."

I think some of the examples I gave detailed some repercussions of no-shows.

Bed...now.

 

[Abraxas]

Late to the party but the "compare to other games" analogy is interesting.

posted by DonTadow
But to put it more into prospective, dungeons and dragons is a series of games that leads to an ultimate conclusion, each game builds on the one before allowing you to advance. This isvery similiar to a tournament with any game. We'll doo monopoly, since I play monopoly all the time. How much money i get in one game tells me where i'll be our who ill be playing in the next one . Sometimes these tournaments are played out over days. How silly do I look going into round 3 of a game looking for a high place when I wasn't even there in round 2.

Some games, such as guilitine allow players whom win previous rounds to get specialbenefits in the next round such as first pic or extra cards. Again, if i dindt play in the first round why would i look forward to getting something in the subsequent round.

Well, it appears you are comparing a D&D session to a game where the players are competing against each other. I don't know anything about the D&D sessions you participate in, but in the ones I am involved in, the players are on the same team and not in competition. A better comparison would be to bowling - xp awards for an absent player's character are like a handicap. Why do they have a handicap in bowling? So that bowlers of different skill levels can compete on an even field - in D&D an xp award for an absent player's character allows the characters to participate on an even field.