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

[DonTadow]

See, its out of a sense of fair play and equality that I tried handing out uniform XP (if you're present or not).

In the (distant) past I've handled XP very differently. Small, common base awards, and then larger, individual ones based on my evaluation of player performance.

But what was I evaluating? I thought at the time I was rewarding 'smart, creative play' and 'superior role playing skills'. And without fail I was merely rewarding play that amused me, or resembled my own. I sadly had to admit I'm no good as an objective arbitrator.

And the only thing I could teach players is how to play like me.

The only fair thing I could do is scrap individual XP awards. Which led me down the primrose path (should that be capitalized?) toward a single party XP total.

I provide uniform XP too for most of your reasons in addition to promoting the cooperative aspect of d and d and the teamwork based accomplishments. Individual accomplishments I award a rpg of the game bonus to the player, but that rpgers is voted on by the players.

I don't see how uniform XP equates to XP for people's characters not in the game? You can accomplish all of the goals of fairness and equality without resulting to free XP for being a member of the group.

 

[Grimstaff]

See, its out of a sense of fair play and equality that I tried handing out uniform XP (if you're present or not).

In the (distant) past I've handled XP very differently. Small, common base awards, and then larger, individual ones based on my evaluation of player performance.

But what was I evaluating? I thought at the time I was rewarding 'smart, creative play' and 'superior role playing skills'. And without fail I was merely rewarding play that amused me, or resembled my own. I sadly had to admit I'm no good as an objective arbitrator.

And the only thing I could teach players is how to play like me.

The only fair thing I could do is scrap individual XP awards. Which led me down the primrose path (should that be capitalized?) toward a single party XP total.

Are you quoting Marx here? I didn't realize he was a gamer, kewl...

 

[Mallus]

Are you quoting Marx here?

Yes. Groucho.

Did I mention I'd never join a group that would have me as a member?

 

[Grimstaff]

Yes. Groucho.

Did I mention I'd never join a group that would have me as a member?

Don't you mean "comrade"?

 

[Mallus]

I don't see how uniform XP equates to XP for people's characters not in the game? You can accomplish all of the goals of fairness and equality without resulting to free XP for being a member of the group.

That's because it doesn't equate. It was the first step in my changing view of XP.

This view was further shaped by the realities of playing as busy thirtysomethings. I want my players to play --when they have the time. I don't want to offer disincentives to play. There's no need for a member of my group to decide whether or not they have the time to 'make the commitment to the game'. If they can make it, they can run a character with as many viable play options as everyone else (I realize that characters of different levels can all be viable in a given group. But I wanted an easy way of establishing a baseline So every PC is always the same level. I like simple).

I don't see it as fundementally different from a weekly drinking night. If you come, you --hopefully- enjoy yourself. If you miss a week, well, you've missed some good booze and sparkling conversation (err, about "Deadwood" and the DC Universe....). You don't automatically start that evening off with less money in your pocket and fewer things to say.

I also allow players to freely swap in/out alternate characters. As one player said to me, 'Your world is so interesting, I keep thinking of new characters that I want to play'. So I let them. The truth is, none of us are going to be increasing the amount of gaming time we have before we reach retirement age. So I let players play what the want without fear of falling 'behind'. Its all about facilitaing play...

In the end I look at XP now as more of a marker that defines certain game parameters (say, like PC abilities and challenges faced). Discussing it in terms of 'free' vs. 'earned' doesn't make much sense to me now, since what I'm concerned with as DM is providing an interesting and challenging play experience during each individual session (well, its my goal, at any rate).

Right now I run a 7th level game. So players start each session with 7th level characters. Simple... did I mention I like that?

 

[twofalls]

I've not read this whole thread, it's just getting to darn big. The methods for awarding xp is varied and is going to work differently for different groups, obviously. The approach I take is unique to my gaming experience (though I'm sure someone else out there has thought of it... a few of my buddies have plagiarized me on it).

I award xp to players, NOT to PC's.

That means if you show up you get xp for the game, if not, not. There are a lot of reasons you might not show up for a game, as has been said before, we are adults and life happens. I've had what I feel is great success in having my players showing up, and we have a lot of fun in the game. However, I do build in a means by which players can get their xp's if they don't show up. I call them Consumable experience points.

If someone brings a snack to share with the group I award Consumable XP for it. The fancier the snack, the more xp. This goes into a group pool that is most often used to level up characters that are very close but not quite at the level requirement of XPs. It's also used for item creation, and for catching up characters that have fallen behind in levels. The snack makes the session more enjoyable for everyone... and so does the xp. Win Win.

With regards to players not showing up and their characters being present in the session, I don't allow it. I run a consistent story, and try to avoid plot hooks that focus on any one particular player character unless I know without a doubt they will be there next game session. I fiat PC's in and out of the sessions if the player isn't there. It's not the most realistic solution, but no one is saddled with playing two complicated characters, and it hasn't damaged the game for my other players yet.

 

[Mallus]

Don't you mean "comrade"?

I'm am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party

 

[Grimstaff]

That's because it doesn't equate. It was the first step in my changing view of XP.

This view was further shaped by the realities of playing as busy thirtysomethings. I want my players to play --when they have the time. I don't want to offer disincentives to play. There's no need for a member of my group to decide whether or not they have the time to 'make the commitment to the game'. If they can make it, they can run a character with as many viable play options as everyone else (I realize that characters of different levels can all be viable in a given group. But I wanted an easy way of establishing a baseline So every PC is always the same level. I like simple).

I don't see it as fundementally different from a weekly drinking night. If you come, you --hopefully- enjoy yourself. If you miss a week, well, you've missed some good booze and sparkling conversation (err, about "Deadwood" and the DC Universe....). You don't automatically start that evening off with less money in your pocket and fewer things to say.

I also allow players to freely swap in/out alternate characters. As one player said to me, 'Your world is so interesting, I keep thinking of new characters that I want to play'. So I let them. The truth is, none of us are going to be increasing the amount of gaming time we have before we reach retirement age. So I let players play what the want without fear of falling 'behind'. Its all about facilitaing play...

In the end I look at XP now as more of a marker that defines certain game parameters (say, like PC abilities and challenges faced). Discussing it in terms of 'free' vs. 'earned' doesn't make much sense to me now, since what I'm concerned with as DM is providing an interesting and challenging play experience during each individual session (well, its my goal, at any rate).

Right now I run a 7th level game. So players start each session with 7th level characters. Simple... did I mention I like that?

SO basically your players run "design-your-own" pregens whose power level is comensurate to the level of the adventure you are running. Do they get to pick out their own magic items and amount of gold, too? Or is gold irrelevant and they all get however much gold they feel like so no one enjoys the game less than anyone else?
Let me guess, the issue of losing exp from dying never comes up because dying wouldn't be fun, and no one pays exp for creating magic items either?
SOunds like Munchkin Heaven!!!

 

[Grimstaff]

I award xp to players, NOT to PC's.

That means if you show up you get xp for the game, if not, not.
.
and it hasn't damaged the game for my other players yet.

Amen, brother!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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.

Actually, the bowling analogy is interesting. I like it! You are all on the same team, playing on a regular basis, but bowling is one of those sports where you are always trying to outdo even your own teammates. The ultimate goal is to win against your opponents, but you really want to have the best score on your team as well. Teams sometimes give awards to the best player each game or at the end of the league.

They do this to encourage each player on the team to try their best. I've seen bowling teams get fairly mad at a player for not showing up before, especially their best player as his score is what is needed to win.

This is exactly the type of attitude I have for my D&D game. It is still a game, still for fun, but you use the "score" to determine which one of you is the best. You don't REALLY care what your score it, you could be the last placed person on the team and you would still be having fun. Doesn't mean you didn't wish you were higher and strive to get above your teammates. There is competition, but it is good natured and cooperative. I don't know of a group I've ever been in where there wasn't some bragging about taking out a Troll single handedly or the massive crit that saved everyone's butts. I've had my players argue about who has been the most useful many times before. It IS competative, but it's also good natured.