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

[Mallus]

SO basically your players run "design-your-own" pregens

I don't know what you mean by this.

They play characters. Two guys play their original PC's. One is playing an alternate character for a few session and will return to his initial PC at the end of the current story arc.

Another guy (shilsen around here) will join next session, with --surprise-- a character the same level as everyone else.

Do they get to pick out their own magic items and amount of gold, too?

Each PC started with 2000 gp of gear at L2. Shilsen will start with gear commensurate with his level (7th).

After that, they get treasure the old fashioned way; murder and corpse-robbing.

Let me guess, the issue of losing exp from dying never comes up because dying wouldn't be fun

Nobody's died because I haven't successfully killed any of them yet. It's not for lack of trying...

SOunds like Munchkin Heaven!!!

Actually, that's about as far from the truth of it as you can get.

Its mostly about the roleplaying. Whole sessions have gone by just talking (though sometimes I'll admit, that was a pacing problem on my part). Peppered with moments of absurd violence.

 

[Troll Wizard]

So if D&D does not reward creativity, does not reward critical thinking, and does not reward courage and daring do....then why on earth should it reward mere presence? The reward for being present is getting to actually play D&D , instead of reading about the session in an e-mail. Everything else is tangential.

I believe I see the difference; you and a few other DMs and players here; you socialize with your friends via playing Dungeons and Dragons. Its important(?) for your DM that all the players remain at the same level, regardless of attendance, role-playing effort or any other reasons. You don't want any of your friends feeling their player-characters might be weak compared to another who hangs out with the group more often. You folks come together to socialize and play D&D or D&D is just the excuse to socialize?

I can see that and to a point that happens with all groups. Yet I believe that most (IMO) gamers come together to "play" Dungeons & Dragons. In our games we tend to take the development/growth of PCs more seriously (IMV).
I play in two groups, my current long-term group (mid 30s-45+ old folks) of seven years meets every Saturday, and we do tend to socialize too much, which does frustrate some of the players who want to play their character, see it advance, fight, role-play, find loot, etc... The rule with all the DMs (almost all have been playing for 25+ years) is no show = no xp. Not one person has ever complained as this being unfair. Despite no show = no xp, PC deaths, item creation xp loss, xp cost spells, etc.. the party remains within two levels of each.
No one runs another player's PC, in the high level and epic campaigns with all the spells/abilities the character have; it would be impossible to run them effectively.

The second group which I just started earlier this year meets one-two times of month (also 30-40 olds) came together to "play" D&D. Conversation outside the game focus is usually stopped by some of the players quicky, because the majority of us have children and/or a SO that worries, we can't play late and thus time is a premium for us. "Playing" D&D is the primary goal with this group, which is fine with me. One player did complain about the rule "no show = no xp", so a compromised was reached where you get someone to run your character and earns 1/2 xp for that PC. I could tell that not everyone was happy with this, some players don't like others controling their PCs and potentially putting them in harm's way. It's worked so far, though I worry about the day that someone gets a non-attending player's PC killed....

I guess I don't see the value in giving xp away for free. For me "playing D&D - running my character" is the value, the purpose of getting together. We can always socialize at other times, when we go see movies together, dine out together, etc. I value the time with my PC, I want to control his destiny, I want see his successes and be the one responsible for his failures and death. He is my little paper man, missing some xp because I have to take my kids or wife somewhere is not even a concern for me.

In summary, it seems I see two or potentially three different playing styles for D&D groups.

1. People that play D&D to socialize (getting together to socialize with friends is more important, D&D is secondary or just the means to socialize and have fun)
2. People that socialize to play D&D (getting together to run their PCs in life and death situations, gain xp and loot is the primary goal, socialize only because of the nature of the game)
3. People that come together to socialize and play D&D (getting together to run thier PCs in life and death situations, gain xp and loot and socialize to varying degrees - sometimes they bcome like group 1 and sometimes they move over to group 2.)

I hope this made sense.

 

[Grimstaff]

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

I'm glad I'm not the only one baffled (though fascinated) by this thread!

 

[DonTadow]

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.

My friend we are closer on this subject than you think. Even I don't want players falling 2 or 3 levels behidn, and we just have different ways of handling it. Instead of steping in and giving xp, i give the pcs a way to get it on themselves but still earn it.

 

[swrushing]

I guess I don't see the value in giving xp away for free. For me "playing D&D - running my character" is the value, the purpose of getting together. We can always socialize at other times, when we go see movies together, dine out together, etc. I value the time with my PC, I want to control his destiny, I want see his successes and be the one responsible for his failures and death. He is my little paper man, missing some xp because I have to take my kids or wife somewhere is not even a concern for me.

with this logic, by the same token, shouldn't "getting xp on weeks i miss" also not even be a concern for you?

its seems you are saying xp isn't an issue for me, playing is" and i really get that but don't see how that at the same time translates into so xp shouldn't be given out if i am not there.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm really starting to think that people in this thread are upset because they are seeing people getting XP without playing, and they feel it cheapens their hard earned XP which they've gained in their own games. It's really starting to sound like they feel threatened by the idea of someone else on a message board gaining XP for "free."

Is this accurate?

 

[Grimstaff]

"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"?



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."[/QUOTE]



Munckkinism is being more worried about your characters numbers than with what is going on in the game. A Munchkin is far more worried about how his stats measure up than he is about whether or not is fair that he missed the last 2 sessions and yet still got enough exp to level up.
Again, the DMG covers the situation of missing players pretty clearly. Making alternative exp arrangements (or lack thereof) is a House Rules issue, and should remain in that arena.

Try and justify it all you want, something for nothing is something for nothing.

No amount of smashing your hand in the door will change that.

 

[Belen]

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.

The funny thing is that the thread started as a direct challenge to people who do not give out XP to absent players. The original poster wanted people to justify themselves and implied that if they did it that way, then they were wrong. I think that combative tone set the stage for the entire thread.

 

[Grimstaff]

I'm really starting to think that people in this thread are upset because they are seeing people getting XP without playing, and they feel it cheapens their hard earned XP which they've gained in their own games. It's really starting to sound like they feel threatened by the idea of someone else on a message board gaining XP for "free."

Is this accurate?

No.

 

[Mallus]

In our games we tend to take the development/growth of PCs more seriously (IMV).

So do my players. That isn't contradicted by my campaigns house/table rules regarding XP.

'Growth' and 'development' can be expressed in any number of ways, not only through levelling.

We could talk about character growth through campaign exploits; deeds done, places gone, allies made and (wacky) enemies killed, for instance.

Think about the old Traveller game (the version with no character improvement mechanic at all). Are you suggesting that a Traveller character couldn't develop.

And a character can 'grow' from level 1 to level 20, without experiencing any character growth (in dramtic terms).