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

[billd91]

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.

Ah, but you would start without the previous conversation under your belt which might have generated in-jokes, mutual understandings that have been achieved, knowledge of bombshells dropped, hankerings for newly tasted cocktails, and so on. As the participant coming in after a missed gab session, its on your own head to catch up.
The money you bring to the drinking night is probably more analogous to bringing your dice to the game or cash to pool on pizza rather than the inherent rewards of having shown up the previous time.

 

[billd91]

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.

There's another spin that can be put on this as well that can be used for groups where the PC gets no XP when the player is absent.
The bowlers who show up get experience bowling and may get better for it (one game of experience better than the one who missed, more if he misses a lot). They take a higher relative handicap to the one who misses the game to keep the game relatively fair and balanced.
Compare to D&D where the PC in attendence gain a level on the one who missed. So they willingly divide the loot differently (take a handicap on their appropriate treasure division) to give the PC with fewer XPs the gear to compensate.

Of course, once there is a difference in levels, the XP system in 3.5 automatically compensates anyway. But you get the picture.

 

[rgard]

In another thread an issue got brought up that I've never had (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146556). It seems many DM's do not give full XP (or non) if a player can't make it to the game. I don't understand why.

The game is supposed to be about fun, and as a DM, I always saw it as my job to make it fun. Why would I want characters to be left behind? How does it increase the fun? I'm not there to judge the players or be their parents. If they can't make it, they can't make it. Life happens, why would I add an in-game punishment to their problems?

I'm just trying to understand the reasons why this is done. I've always assumed that it was one of those things that goes back to the 70's where the players were competitive with each other and the DM's role was adversarial. It's been a very long time since those days and it just doesn't fit D&D in the way it's been since as far back as I've played (1983).

As a player, I have never expected experience points for a session I missed. As GM, I have never awarded experience points to a player who was not present for the session.

The major draw back to receiving experience points, while not present to earn them is that the player (not the character) learns nothing from the session about how to play the character effectively. The player needs the real experience of playing in order to play the character more effectively.

My 2 cents,
Rich

 

[Kahuna Burger]

On the general topic, I would just say "I'm with Arrvis, mallus and thirdwizard".

But one sidenote that I haven't seen brought up here - For those of you who do "no XP for missing players" can you say with complete self honesty, that your scheduling is evenhanded to all players? I ask because a group I was in did half xp for missing players. One character was way ahead, and this was always justified by the player's great commitment.... But looking in the long haul, I couldn't help but notice that when this player couldn't make it the group was as likely as not to actually reschedule the game to accomadate him, while for anyone else it was "ok, see you next week". And of course no one wanted to play without his character because it was so powerful. So he was getting a more powerful character for playing more, and being accomadated to play more because he had a more powerful character.

If one player is the spouse of the DM, they just aren't going to miss as many sessions as another player with a similar dedication/lifestyle, because the things they would miss for will often lead to the game not being played at all. Is it fair to reward their character for their greater "Dedication"?

I'm not saying these issues will plague all groups with a "less or no xp" policy, but as with the roleplaying rewards that end up being personally biased, its something to think about before you assume your method is fair.

 

[rgard]

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

Perfect response.

 

[el-remmen]

On the general topic, I would just say "I'm with Arrvis, mallus and thirdwizard".

But one sidenote that I haven't seen brought up here - For those of you who do "no XP for missing players" can you say with complete self honesty, that your scheduling is evenhanded to all players?

I think it is the job of the group to work out a basic schedule that is as fair as possible to everyone from the beginning to the campaign.

My group meets every two weeks.

Everyone knows this and has known it from the beginning. Things do come up and if the immediate events of the campaign make it crucial for everyone (or that particular character) to be there we re-schedule - otherwise we play without ther person.

Again, it is up to the players to be adult enough to figure out if they can deal with that schedule at the beginning and drop the game if they think they cannot. I know I have done it more than once as a player - I would never expect everyone else to try to re-arrange everything when I know how hard it can be for adults with jobs and wives and children and other commitments to make the time as it is.

 

[DonTadow]

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. OFFI SUBJECT Simple... did I mention I like that?

You've really itnruged me now as far as the swapping of characters (not the everyone on the same level xping )

I've toyed around the option of allowing my players to swap out characters (the characters would share xp or take half xp ). It really fits in with my final fantasy campaign How does that work out?

 

[rgard]

On the general topic, I would just say "I'm with Arrvis, mallus and thirdwizard".

But one sidenote that I haven't seen brought up here - For those of you who do "no XP for missing players" can you say with complete self honesty, that your scheduling is evenhanded to all players? I ask because a group I was in did half xp for missing players. One character was way ahead, and this was always justified by the player's great commitment.... But looking in the long haul, I couldn't help but notice that when this player couldn't make it the group was as likely as not to actually reschedule the game to accomadate him, while for anyone else it was "ok, see you next week". And of course no one wanted to play without his character because it was so powerful. So he was getting a more powerful character for playing more, and being accomadated to play more because he had a more powerful character.

If one player is the spouse of the DM, they just aren't going to miss as many sessions as another player with a similar dedication/lifestyle, because the things they would miss for will often lead to the game not being played at all. Is it fair to reward their character for their greater "Dedication"?

I'm not saying these issues will plague all groups with a "less or no xp" policy, but as with the roleplaying rewards that end up being personally biased, its something to think about before you assume your method is fair.

Yes, in all honesty the scheduling is fair. Everybody knows the day of the week and time we play. We all agreed the day and time in advance. If folks in the group decide we need to move the day and or time, we can do that.

Side note...until I read this thread, it never even occured to me that some would want experience points for not showing up. In 28 years of RPGing, I have never had a player ask for experience points for a missed session. I've done solo adventrures for players to catch up on missed campaign time (syncing the timeline)...that would be the only variation...and then the solo adventure only happens if the player shows up for it. Otherwise we've always assumed the character was on the beach someplace, drunk in the bar, kidnapped by prostitutes, meditating in a monastery, went on a nature walk, or got locked in his/her room in the inn and couldn't break the door down; you get the idea.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[DonTadow]

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?

But to bring out a point in yoru analogy about a weekly drinking game, do you pour a glass of liquor for the missing comrade

 

[DonTadow]

On the general topic, I would just say "I'm with Arrvis, mallus and thirdwizard".

But one sidenote that I haven't seen brought up here - For those of you who do "no XP for missing players" can you say with complete self honesty, that your scheduling is evenhanded to all players? I ask because a group I was in did half xp for missing players. One character was way ahead, and this was always justified by the player's great commitment.... But looking in the long haul, I couldn't help but notice that when this player couldn't make it the group was as likely as not to actually reschedule the game to accomadate him, while for anyone else it was "ok, see you next week". And of course no one wanted to play without his character because it was so powerful. So he was getting a more powerful character for playing more, and being accomadated to play more because he had a more powerful character.

If one player is the spouse of the DM, they just aren't going to miss as many sessions as another player with a similar dedication/lifestyle, because the things they would miss for will often lead to the game not being played at all. Is it fair to reward their character for their greater "Dedication"?

I'm not saying these issues will plague all groups with a "less or no xp" policy, but as with the roleplaying rewards that end up being personally biased, its something to think about before you assume your method is fair.

I have seven people in my, we always play if there are four or more players. My gf has had to miss two sessions and we still went on. I just don't see the players falling "that" far behind on xp or level differences. Again, everone in my group has either children, wives, husbands or serious work committments. I got two players out permanently for at least 2 months (one with soccer mom duties and the other a new father). The new father is probably going to come in with a new character but the soccer mom is far enough that by the time she returns she'd only be a level behind. If it becomes a problem she has options.

All my playes have a chance to buy XP out of game to keep up with the party. Players earn "mana" points in which allows them to buy XP among other things. They earn the mana points with character journals, background updates and participation on the group forum. A player's not allowed to buy enough XP to go up higher than one level above the current highest level.