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

[rgard]

Looking at this again, this seems to be a statement that XP is a status symbol. The more XP you have, the better player you are. Thus, XP becomes important because it is your measuring stick as to your ability to roleplay in a campaign.

You miss the point. Nothing to do about status.

 

[sniffles]

I've got to agree with you there, ThirdWizard. Regular play does not necessarily a good player make. I've been playing with the same group for 10 years, and there's one player who hasn't changed his style of play at all in that time, despite having plenty of examples of things he should probably do differently with this group of people. He's also the *least* likely to miss a game session.

I've always wondered: if one awards XP for roleplaying (not just killing things), how does one decide what to award? Suppose one has a player who has to miss games frequently due to circumstances beyond his/her control, but that person is a fabulous roleplayer and brings a tremendous amount of pleasure to one's experience as a DM. Then one has a second player who is always present and rarely misses a session, but brings very little to the table other than a body in a chair. Does one still give full XP to Mr. Non-Entity because he's there, and withhold XP for the often-missing player?

 

[swrushing]

Not sure I understood you correctly. Are you saying that it should not bother me if the DM choses to "give out" xp to players not attending the game?

from what you said, yeah it seemed like that would be consistent.

if "playing your guy" is the value of the game and why you show up, if being the guy nehind his successes and failures is the fun part, and so forth, then how in the world do what the Gm does with the other player's xp/attendance affect any of those things at all?

How does "joe got 500 xp and he wasn't there" impacting any of those things you listed as important to you?

It has never happened, but in my view it would cheapen the value of xp for the player and his character. I play to see my PC grow/develop/improve, the xp values may be noted on the character's sheet - BUT it is the player that receives the satisfaction in seeing his character get stronger.

and, do you somehow not get stronger, not see your pc grow/develop/improve if joe gets xp as well?

It is an inclusive bond between the character and the player who controls the character; and wants to see it achieve a certain level of success through adventures. I want the xp but I want to earn honestly and expect the same level of dedication from other players.

if the Gm is determining how he gives out xp in his game and the rules apply equally to everyone, he doesn't show favoritism and leaves his rules up from, why then is it not "honestly" done when he gives out xp the way he said he would?

Side question: if joe's character failed a save immediately in the first encounter and was petrified and did nothing for the rest of the session, should joe get xp for the session or would that also be dishonest for him to take it?

 

[rgard]

That hasn't been my experience.

Some players never really get it.

Some players never get good at certain aspects of play (like roleplaying, or tactics). In the case of roleplaying --or more specifiaclly, acting and characterization--, a first-time player could outdo a 20-year veteran (who simply doesn't enjoy that facet of gaming).

With experienced players, it's a moot point. They 'know' the game, and now they play for different kinds of play experiences (my group falls into this category).

And really, since different players want/get different things from the game, in all its myriad incarnations, you're going to have a hard time defining what 'getting good at it' even means.

I'll give you that about some never getting it, but think back to when you first started playing. The folks who missed sessions fell behind in understanding the game...again assuming the individual isn't a genius who has memorized the books.

 

[Mallus]

Suppose one has a player who has to miss games frequently due to circumstances beyond his/her control, but that person is a fabulous roleplayer and brings a tremendous amount of pleasure to one's experience as a DM. Then one has a second player who is always present and rarely misses a session, but brings very little to the table other than a body in a chair. Does one still give full XP to Mr. Non-Entity because he's there, and withhold XP for the often-missing player?

Well put... err... asked.

I wanted to attempt to run a campaign that could accomodate both hypothetical players. Let each take whatever enjoyment they could from the game.

So I did.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Hmmm...take any activity. The more you do it, the better you are at it.

Okay, sure, I don't agree with you, but I won't argue it. I'll give it to you. Now, how does this translate to XP? Say, one person has been playing for 20 years and another just joined the game. You start a campaign and the 20 year veteran misses 20% of the games. You don't award him XP, and I do. This doesn't change his ability to roleplay his character, and since I'm not arguing with your premise, he's a better roleplayer (forever) than the newbie.

Look at it from the reverse...

Your examples disregard my views of what XP itself is.

And more specifically:

Would the gaming experience be more fun if he were a 2nd level wizard in a party of 7th level characters? It wouldn't to me. And, my players can pick up a high level character and play it. We've done one-offs where we wrote up 12th level characters many times. We've done epic play with a one-off as well. To us, levels are just numbers.[/QUOTE]

You miss the point. Nothing to do about status.

When you start saying one player is better than another, and the better players will have higher XP totals, its hard not to see that as a status symbol.

 

[DonTadow]

You miss the point. Nothing to do about status.

I know there are other ways,but it we're talking raw, xp is the literal point system for the game. I know we're hating the anaologies but it would be like saying the score doesnt matter and for some people thats fine no problem with that. NOthing wrong everyone has playing and dming styles and it works for them. But for me, to keep the game a game there needs to be a point system. I derive from it alot, all my pcs get the same ingame xp. My goal is to emphasise story and substance over xp while not throwing away the d and d point system

 

[swrushing]

Hmmm...take any activity. The more you do it, the better you are at it.

no.
this is not necessarily true.
time does not equate to learning.
you can do things a lot and stay just as mediocre as you ever were.

The better statement is "take any activity, the more you learn, the better you are at it." but even that is subject to debate.

Some of my better players were casual. Some of my worst would always show up.

quality does not equal or derive from quantity. its just not that simple.

IMX

 

[Grimstaff]

That is completely untrue, and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

You have no idea why someone with more practice is a better player?
Weird...

 

[Abraxas]

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.

Oh, from your posts I agree we are probably pretty close on how we handle this situation, I was just responding to the posts that seemed centered on competition - yours was just handy and appeared to advocate that

2 levels is about the biggest gap I want to see because when you start throwing those spells with effects limited by hit die it sucks to be the one player who is always getting the short stick.

Its easier for me to hand wave the exp boost off camera than implement an in game xp booster - because then I don't have questions from the always attenders about getting little XP boosters for themselves.

You roll up a 1st level wizard. You miss most of the game sessions, but your GM gives you the xp anyway. You played once at 1st level, twice at 3rd level, once at 4th level. Now your character is 7th level. How well do you know that character? How well do you know his/her strengths and weaknesses, what the spells do, what the ranges are?

The people I game with that aren't novice players have this knowledge down pat. It isn't like its the first time they've played and don't have a handle on the rules. If they get a character level bump - they grab their books and read up on what that new level gives them - and they do just fine.