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

[farscapesg1]

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.

Well, for our group we plan the next session at the end of the current session. So, when we are wrapping the game up, we pull out the calendar and say "So, two weeks from today, is that good for everyone?" It is up to the players to either make room in their schedules or not.

We don't have a situation where any of the spouses play. My wife used to be in the group, so if we took a trip or something came up, the group was down two players. She dropped the game becuase she wasn't enjoying it as much, and wanted to be able to do other things without causing as much problems with the group. It is a lot easier for the group to keep playing if one player is gone (me) then if two people are missing.

Our sessions are flexible to some point. If everyone can't make it on Saturday (our normal gaming day), then we offer the idea of making it Sunday. If a couple people are going to miss we are pretty easy about just postponing it another week. I think that my DM does a pretty good job trying to make sure that the games are on a schedule that is best for the majority, if not the whole group.

With this statement, I realize our gaming styles are COMPLETELY different. I might end a game session with "Ok, you are all walking down the hallway of the 4th level of Castle Maure, you were about to open the 3rd door on the left when we ended for the night because Mike had to go to work and Dallas needed sleep.

This hits on a completely seperate issue. Our group is similar. When 6 o'clock comes, the game is over as we all have to get back to our normal lives. If we are in the middle of the dungeon, that is where we are whent he next session starts. We have had to end in the middle of a combat even. We either leave everything on the battlemat on the table, or write notes on the mat for where the miniatures are and put them back at the next session.

I've played in a couple groups that insisted on finishing combats or getting to a stopping point, resulting in the game going an hour over. I don't play in those groups anymore becuase it isn't worth the headache of my wife calling me every 10 minutes to see why we are running late and how much longer it is going to be

 

[ThirdWizard]

We have a fundamental difference here.

1) One side sees XP as an incentive to play. To them XP is an important part of gameplay.

2) Another doesn't see XP as important. You just count it up until you level.

For example S'mon said the XP pool is limited. Maybe it is to group #1, but to group #2, it is an unlimited resource. You write 200 and you have 200. You write 500,000 and you have 500,000. There's nothing special about the numbers, they just are. There's little sense in accomlishment in leveling in and of itself, the sense of accomplishment is elsewhere in the game. If you asked my players what their XP totals were, they wouldn't know because I keep track of it, and they only inquire about it out of curiosity every once in a while.

I understand that to a lot of people XP is an earned thing. It is proof of your accomplisments and a reflection of the time you've spent gaming. Those that don't earn it, don't get it. That's fine if its what you like. I just think a lot of people, perhaps on both sides, are completely ignoring the fact that the other group has a totally different outlook when it comes to what XP are.

 

[Janx]

I think some are confusing a lack of reward as a punishment.

If you go to the game you will get the following:
fun
socializing
XP

If you don't go to the game, you won't get anything for it, but you also won't lose anything. You will in fact, stay in place. Relative to the Jones's, of course you are falling behind. however, the fact remains, you're simply not moving, and thus you're not being punished.

A punishment takes something away from you, it sets you back. Not getting any XP for a missed adventure leaves you at the same level you were last week. A real punishment would be to take away XP for missing the game.

Most GMs would prefer to make a missing player's PC disappear for the adventure. In those cases, no XP is likely. Some DM's will NPC the PC or entrust it to another player. That might earn some XP for the PC. That's the mechanical nature of the game and there is nothing wrong with the system of getting XP for what your character did, and thus getting no XP for doing nothing.

Now in the meta-game, perhaps there are some players that get left out more often, and others for whom the scheduling is more tolerant. That's a people problem. If you've got a problem like that, talk to your group. If you've got cancer, for god's sake, work on surviving that and quit worrying about your stupid PC getting XP for a game that is of far less importance than your life.

If after all that, you find your PC is still getting behind in XP, talk to your DM. Perhaps he can run a side quest. A side quest makes perfect sense for a PC that has been disappearing due to an absent player. If the DM has the time, he'll probably be more than willing to prepare something.

If you just came back to the table after surviving cancer, be happy you're still alive. Maybe your group will give you some survivor XP in honor of your accomplishment. Maybe they'll just be thankful to have you back.

 

[Mallus]

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?

So far, so good. I'd never run a campaign this way before, and I'm really pleased with the results.

One player made an alt. and then had to drop out of the game due to his schedule.

Another played an alt. for a few sessions, while his main PC went off to Officer's Training School.

The two other PC's are originals, and their players have no plans to swap them.

Switching PC's does make my job harder, but thats fine. I see it as a welcome challenge.

 

[Mallus]

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.

Until someone catches you up. For free.

 

[Mallus]

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

We do. Then we fight each other for it.

It's not like I'm totally non-competitive.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Seriously, why do you use exp at all? If you dont care whether players actually EARN them or not, why not just say at some point to them, "you gain a level"?

uhh, thats exactly what i did for my three year long dnd game and my almost two year ongoing stargate d20 game. Both have been loads of fun without a single Xp mentioned in five years.

Instead of asking "why not" you might want to ask "why do I go thru the middleman stages of figuring xp, handing it out and them spending it to level up" when all that math could be skipped by me just saying "level up" every so often?

How do you handle exp subtractions from magic item creation, death, or negative levels? Do you ignore this too?

for magic items, i required special components, ala the DMG, instead of Xp.
For death, i took con points not levels.
For level drains, i replaced those with diseases, attribute hits, curses, poisons and the like, as i really have never liked mucking with levels much at all and much prefer undead to be more in sync with their traditional themes. it tended to increase the variety of undead too and encourage a lot more planning since you don't just need restorations but many other effects too.

again, it played wonderfully.

and for five years nary a moment of brain power, design time or game time wasted on counting up experience.

happy me!
happy mine!
we have a winner!!!

If players dont have to be present for their character to gain levels, why not just write a summary of next weeks game, attach exp, e-mail it to everyone, and skip the game. Or is the game more like acting out a play?

A totally flabbergasting question.

the answer, of course, is "because the playing is the part they show up to do, because the playing is the fun part."

your question only makes sense if you read into it "because getting xp is the primary reason to show up" which is an alien concept to me.

my guys show up to play.
calculating xp isn't playing and the more i cut out the "not playing" parts the more "playing parts" they get.

I honestly can't make sense of your house rule here. DO you players all have the same hit points? Do they get mad if one guy has a better Will save than the next?

I would suspect probably not, because different classes of character treat different traits at different scales. however, the whole package is supposed to play more or less on par with others, whereas if there are level differences, that ceases to be true..

Why, specifically, do you think its "no fun" for characters to be different levels?

i think its less fun because then you have someone who more or less across the board lags behind and cannot do as much as the others from mechanical standpoints. Now, its not a biggie, but its there and since i don't see a GAIN in having different levels, why should i take it? What do i gain by inflicting varying levels on my group?

I mean, look at it this way, if you slam the door on one of your fingers, its not terrible and not as bad as slamming it on an entire hand, but why would you deliberately slam on the finger at all? Where's the gain for the pain?

Why do you feel having guys at different levels is "more fun"?

Is there some serious Munchkinism going on and no one wants to have less feats or something?

I don't think its "munchkinism" to want to be on par with the other characters, or has somehow "munchkin" now been morphed to include being balanced with your compatriots?

in my neck of thw woods at least, munchkinism is used to denote wanting to be more powerful than the others, not staying on par.

i guess its different in your woods?

 

[Abraxas]

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.

With the examples you provided It seemed you were concerned about an unfair competetive advantage given to someone who didn't participate. Since D&D isn't a competition between players, I didn't agree with your examples. If that wasn't your point - sorry.

With the handicap, it depends on the league rules, but in general you don't have to be significantly lower to get a handicap - you just have to be lower. (in fact WIBC/ABC reccommends that higher handicap percentages be used for more equalized games.)

Yes, D&D is a game, no I don't want to put it on a pedestal, yes you have to play to participate, but unlike almost any other game, the referee gets to select the conditions of play, the conditions of "winning" and the equipment the players get to use. Why is setting the powers (level) of the playing pieces (characters) so different?

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.

Hmm - I must have bowled on different leagues than you - I was never trying to outdo my teammates, just outdo myself (and our opposition). I wanted to get the best score to help my teammates, not be able to show them I'm a better bowler than they are. Same with D&D, I play my characters for my own satisfaction and provide the most help to the team, not be able to say I have the most powerful character.

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.

The bowlers that show up and get better take a lower handicap - if their bowling improves thay get a higher average and have a lower handicap.

As for dividing loot differently - that doesn't happen in our groups. We divide it based on overall effectiveness in the party - so an an item that would be best in the hands of a PC who's player didn't make that session would be held by someone else's character and then given to that character when the player returns - that way the use of the item is not lost . And yes, if players know they aren't going to be able to attend a session they trade items to other players who would be able to use them.

As for the 3.5 xp system compensating - it seems that a number of people here like to compensate before xp is applied.

This thread has been interesting.
And since some may get the wrong impression - I don't award XP for absent players until a level disparity happens that would negatively impact the player's ability to participate in the game. The people I game with get together to get together. We have a set schedule of playing every 2 weeks. If someone can only play once every five sessions, so be it - their PC isn't going to be the focus of story arcs, but I'm not going make them play a 3rd level character in a party of 8-10 level characters (and 2 levels is about the gap I accept as reasonable). And yes I will award magic and treasure to keep them on par. If something in life comes up, I'm not going to provide a disincentive for the player to return to the game.

As for level disparities for other reasons
1) character death - player chooses to come back or not. If coming back would put him more than 2 levels behind that is his choice and the 3.5 xp system will quickly make up that difference. Or they can choose to roll up a new character who won't be more than 2 levels behind.
2) item creation - player choice, plus they are compensated by the added power their items provide (and I have in game ways to avoid the xp loss).
3) level loss - Almost never happens after level 7 (Thats what restoration is for - and if it does = instant player hook. In addition, the player can choose to retire the character and create a new one.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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'd say yes, I have the same evenhandedness in my gaming times as I do in my XP policies.

We game Saturdays at 3 pm-10 pm every week. We will cancel the game only if we have less than 4 of the 6 players show up for the session, generally. I make this point known to my players before they agree to play in my game. The game is on the same day each week, we play whether you show up or not, you get no XP for missing.

If people are not going to make a reasonable attempt to show up for at least 80% of the games, then we will likely replace you. We come to play a game and I've spent too many sessions sitting around waiting for people to show up or talking about WoW instead of playing to have too much patience left.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I always pour one for my dead or missing homies.