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

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I, at least, have come to understand much better since the beginning of this thread. It has been very enlightening for me.

f 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.

My oppinion on the matter is pretty set, but in my mind the issue isn't an extremely important aspect of the game. It isn't going to impact my enjoyment of the game in the slightest. So, if 50% of the players really wanted absentee players to get no (or half or whatever) xp, and the other players were like me, and fairly ambivalent to the issue, the best solution would be to impose the zero-xp rule.

The unfortunate aspect is when both are strongly in favor of their desired way. I can't imagine it being that important, but as this thread shows, I'm probably wrong. To many people this seems like a very important issue, though I don't exactly understand why.

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).

By all rights, I should be extremely upset at players missing games, but then again, maybe I'm so used to it that it has lost its impact on me. I plan each session expecting at least one player to miss the session. These people are busy, and we have more than a few times put off sessions by a week because of absent players. With an official schedule of 2 games per month we have achieved 17 in the past year.

It's frustrating, I admit. I'm not happy with the current situation. We have an alternate campaign that I started we can play instead (those 17 being the main campaign I'm running) when too many people can't show. The alternate campaign is becoming more popular than the actual campaign... but now I'm ranting.

Perhaps, I've just lost all hope of players actually making it to all games. I love my players, they're a great group when they can show. But, it just doesn't work that way. One player even had to drive three hours to make it to the session this summer. That's one way. The fact that she would spend six hours on the road is a testement to how much fun we have at the games, though. It's worth the hassle! But, now I'm rambling.

Now I probably make even less sense? I don't know. I think I have a fairly odd and unique perspective when it comes to missed play, however. I'm not your average gamer in that regard, I know. I'm the oddball among geeks.

I am probably the only DM in this thread who has problems with players showing up and sees at as something I am willing to overlook work around (EDIT: I have had very good talks with my players about it, so overlook isn't the right word here. They arn't missing because they don't want to be there. They are more upset about missing than I am! Work around is much better, I think). When the players who do show said that it was becoming annoying, we started up the other campaign, which is wildly successful as well. I think some other people do that, however.

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.

lol, I admit, I never would have thought of that. I don't think its a likely actual scenario, but if the players perceve it to be important then that is more important than the actual odds of such a thing happening. Again, very player dependant. I suppose, again, that I am in the minority.

EDIT: Night. I want to add that I have found this an enjoyable debate, and I, at least, have learned things from it, which is great!

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

Agreed, tournament play isn't any more applicable to D&D than a weekly game of checkers.

 

[KenM]

On a related not about XP. I got really frustrated in my last game when my character died and got raised, 3 times in one year real time. I know when you get raised, you lose a level. But I got really behind in XP I was like level 7 when everone else was level 9-10. I was thinking "what was the point of playing when all I'm going to do is lose XP every time I get raised?"

 

[howandwhy99]

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?

I don't believe they should. If you have a personal issue, I believe it is best to deal with it outside of the group. And certainly never in character. The mix up here is what was initially hashed out in the beginning of this thread. Some people believe anything less than total equivalence between characters is somehow a Penalty. (i.e. having a character lower in level / XP / GP / magic items / etc. than any other character). Others believe all the examples I listed are Rewards; something which must be earned through play.

I for one am not suggesting an absent player be penalized at all. The turning point is the belief that somehow having a lower level character is a penalty for not playing. I blame the current culture of "All Things in Perfect Balance" for this. Good Heavens! Who would ever play a "weaker" race then? choose a suboptimal build? or feat?

We use the old euphamism of "awarding experience points after the game". If they weren't awards for play, why are they even necessary for the game? As I mentioned before, if the DM simply has all characters at equivalent level advancing in levels in accordance to what "best fits the story", then experience really is another vestigial aspect from long ago. Just as many other aspects of the game have had their original intentions forgotten.

Hence, 1xp == 999xp They are both 1st level characters. Drop XPs from the game, if they have no corresponding value. I would drop XP costs in Wish spells and level loss from death and undead too. These are "unfair" to the players who must play those lesser powerful characters.

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.

Characters can certainly be part of events, if the original player isn't in attendance. The DM can run them, or another player can take over duties, or they can be off to one side until it's important for the character to be there. (in conversation say)

Maybe I"m not remembering what this gulf between DMs and PCs is though? DM's set the world, Players choose the action. If a player's absent, their action is left on hold as best as possible.

Why is XP such a sore point with people? My game isn’t a job, it isn’t the military. I don’t see why you have to “earn your chops” or some other thing like that. It’s simply an activity friends do together. Why are people bothering to compare themselves to their fellow players, seeing how much XP they have and if they “earned” it? I’m not trying to find out who is the “better” player. Why does that matter? How does that add to the fun? Some has said, “such is life, if you miss out, you miss out.” I’m not looking for harsh real-life in my games; there’s enough of that already. The game should be about fun.

I don't think XP is a macho system or one where the purpose is comparing your progress against another player's. It's not a competition.

What XP originally was (and still often is) was a chit-based incentive system. From the kindergartner's star to an adult's dollar sign, these are used in the real world to encourage certain types of success. In RPGs it is the same. It is not the sole purpose of the game (as someone mentioned about MMORPGS), but it has been an integral part of RPGS since their inception. Removing XPs changes the game significantly.

How? I already explained player succeess being represented through experience. But XPs can be considered worthless, if you want see it that way. I remember a scene from "Waiting for Bobby Fischer" (the chess angle again ) where Ben Kingsley piles up the Chessmaster Award sheets in front of his child student. The point was they were only paper. It was the student's actual abilty that was important. All the awards, high levels, and magic items in the game don't make you a good player. That can only be achieved through challenging play.

So yes, XPs can be considered worthless. Our group keeps them around as they are a nice recognition of our accomplishments in game. And it keeps the focus on those accomplishments. If you prefer to toss them aside, what do you think will happen to the drive to succeed at the game?
(I think this is a group decision BTW. But I felt you wanted to know why XPs were vital to the game.)

I don’t see XP as a reward, only another game mechanic to progress the story along. The important contributions I’m looking for from my players is them adding to the overall gaming experience. They do this by having interesting characters that are well role-played, not how many spells were cast or what monsters they happened to kill. In my games, I’m looking for a sense of wonder not XP. If all I wanted to see were the numbers on my character sheet go up, I’ll go play one of a million CRPGs.

If this is your desire, then I would suggest awarding experience based off of what you prefer to see in game. Just post 'em up front so players can judge if that's the game for them. It certainly isn't necessary to award XPs for every goldpiece, or every monster killed. If these aren't the focus, than change the incentive.

Aside: you mentioned wanting a sense of wonder. IME, this is best engendered by using the unknown (just like in a horror game). I think a lot of the wonder from olden days came from not being able to know what was in the gaming books and adventure mods. Publishing practices have changed significantly nowadays, but you can still keep much of your campaign world a mystery to your players (and their character alike). Than you can slowly reveal the wonderment of it as players/characters explore. (exploration being the most basic fantasy trope IMO)

EDIT: In this example you would reward experience points primarily for learning more about the world.

 

[S'mon]

The XP pool is limited. The PCs who participate & run the risk of death deserve to drink from the pool.

 

[S'mon]

I actually have a variety of strategies. If player is absent but PC present (ie we have the character sheet), PC is treated as cohort, played by another player, gets a half share of the XP. Players who notify me well in advance can have their PCs off 'doing stuff' and get XP separately, typically an amount similar to the half-XP share above. Player absent w/out notice & no sheet means PC absent, no XP.
However for playability reasons no PC can be more than 1 level below the highest level PC; eg if the highest PC reaches 5th, any 3rd level PCs are automatically bumped to 4th, with minimum XP for the level.

 

[howandwhy99]

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 [edit]instance 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 don’t see what it buys you.

This does sound like a problem. Who wants to be the weakest character right? The justification for this unhappy situation comes from both the need for consequences and realism.

#1 I mentioned before players needing the possibility of failure for their accomplishments to mean anything. If a player can sit and do nothing and their character keeps advancing up in level charts, what incentive is there for them to risk their character anyways? Moreover, if death is meaningless in game (PCs always come back at the same level), then why bother to even keep them alive other than the affinity for the character? I believe, if there are no consequences for failure, than there is no game. It is only practice and pretend.

#2 Through the natural course of play characters are going to differ in levels. It's inevitable just as in life. And corresponding this way to life it becomes more realistic. Just as having potential Encounters ranging from 1-20 available to the characters at all levels. In the real world, you can get yourself killed quite easily. No one is "balancing" encounters for you. Just as in life, your PCs need to be on the lookout to keep themselves alive.

Our group does require new characters to always start at 1st. This is considered fair as all character are required to earn their place in the party. This is pretty tough even for my tastes, but I understand the reasons behind it.

What is often misunderstood though is the fact that all the characters, regardless of level, are equal in terms of playing the game. Each faces challenges, each receives awards, and are treated equally by the DM. There is no favoritism. Players choose as a group how to maximize their group's individual assets. So even a 1st level rogue is going to see as much play as a 10th level wizard. It's the earned power that is different.

EDIT: I do agree the current system does make it difficult for characters of vastly divergent levels to work together. A lot of the built in assumptions work against troupe style play and more towards your own.

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!

Do you think the barbarian's player might feel his sacrifice was cheapened, if he were awarded experience for the unselfish act? Or if he was brought back at a higher level than the other players? It sounds like you have a great player there. If he knows the consequences of his actions, why would you want to hedge them?

Player expertise is not the same as character level. Your best player might be playing the lowest level character (1st) and your least experienced player might be playing the highest level character (20th). The point of experience rewards focusing on player success is so that the least experienced player might have learned something through 20 levels of advancement.

Having to start over after sacrificing your character for the greater good doesn't deny the value of rewarding players. It validates it.

 

[DonTadow]

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



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.

I wasn't comparing the "competing part" of the games as much as I was to show that there are games that carry over stats since Third said you can't compare d and d to normal games because stats do not carry over. However, just about any agme can have a league type format that carry's over stats for team play. However, in every league i'm in, you don't get a handicap until it is neccessary to put you on part with everyone else. Meaning you have to have to be significantly lower to have a handicap. You can't just bowl 5 or 10 away from the average, you have to bet 20 to 25 or more. D and D wise, you wouldn't be too far away from the party in xp unless you miss a significant amount of time.

D and D is a game. I know we all want to put it on a pedestal, hold hands, and chant KUmbaya around it, but its still a game with many elements of other games. A game you play. A game you haveto play to participate in.

 

[Grimstaff]

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

 

[DonTadow]

On a related not about XP. I got really frustrated in my last game when my character died and got raised, 3 times in one year real time. I know when you get raised, you lose a level. But I got really behind in XP I was like level 7 when everone else was level 9-10. I was thinking "what was the point of playing when all I'm going to do is lose XP every time I get raised?"

Which brings up this point for people who give xp despite? what do you do when a character dies, makes items, or loses levels from spells? There's no real difference between these things and not giving an absent player xp. Heck, if all your characters have the exact same xp don't you think there is something wrong? Do you just go ahead and give him enough xp to be on equal starting ground.

My DM style emphasis's XP a lot less while focusing on the story. If a character falls 3 or more behind the party I'd recommend as a DM they should roll up a new character and we start him off a level behind the rest of the party.