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

[Arravis]

Earning rewards is fun, I agree 100%. The players who are there have fun, the player who is unable to be there doesn't have fun. Why should I tack on an additional punishment?

Peter Gibbons says "why would I ever need to actually show up and play?"
Well, because the being in the game IS fun, and not being there isn't. It's as simple as that.

Games aren't like work, why should any of us have the "if you miss work, you don't get paid" attitude? Games are something done in leisure and for fun, it's meant to be the exact opposite of work. I don't want it to be a dreaded responsability or to be taken too seriously. It IS just a game.

Domino says "Why should the player be awarded for not showing up?"
Well, I don't "reward" my players with XP. XP is just part of the game, fun is the only reward I offer.

Crothian says "So, instead I should punish the people who actually make it by giving them the same award of those that don't?"
Exactly how is it punishing the other players? It's not a competition. How is it more fun for the players there if they get ahead in XP of the player who isn't there? How does that add to anyone's enjoyment?

If the player missing the session doesn't want the XP, he's welcome to refuse it. But I leave that decision to them, not to me. I'm not trying to browbeat my players, or preassure them into showing up. If my game is fun, they'll show up on their own. Why would I need to force some kind of incentive like that? XP isn't why I play D&D and I don't need to use it as a motivator. I can't imagine a game so hollow that it's based around what XP the player's get.

If a player misses many sessions, that's a completely seperate issue. A player who continiously doesn't show up isn't in my games anymore. I work hard as a DM, I won't have my efforts based around their characters wasted on players who don't care to show up. Thankfully, though, that's never happened to me. My players show up to my game because they like them, I don't need to give them another reason.

 

[Riggs]

I view it as rewarding the participants.

What we do, which I like, is:

Always be courteous and let people know if you can't make it, so that is just that.

If you don't make it, you are under the assumption that you get nothing except what the party keeps for you (usually treasure).

If you don't make it but your character is used meaningfully, if only partially, then you get half XP.

If you miss it and your character is not used, then no contribution by you=no XP.

If you come but have to leave, or show up late, then you get the XP you got while playing, usually rounding to the half if you didn't get that.


I had this come up, I showed up, had to leave after a bit because my daughter was having a tough time sleeping, was sick, etc. so I leave from no fault of my own. Since my character is no longer helping the party, and they had to make do with CRs planned with me there, then I am completely ok with only getting partial XP. If they chose to play him then fine, but the XP gained there also risks death too.

We see it more like earning rewards or not, not getting punished for absence. And we also have rules for not getting too far behind (you only slide to one level behind max).

 

[StupidSmurf]

I'm firmly in the camp of "withholding XP is not punishment; awarding XP is a reward." If one of my players can't make it, the PC is simply not played. We don't end sessions in media res, so there's never a "OK, let's freeze the battle till next time, whoops so-and-so's not gonna be there." This way, there's always an excuse handy for the non-participant.

"OK, Sir Loin is sick today and can't make it."
"But he's a Paladin! He can't get sick!"
"OK, so instead he's spending the day in prayer and fasting, doing a little spiritual preventative maintenance!"

I refuse to run another player's character. If that PC dies, it's my fault. If I head that off by simply making that PC unable to die, it's clearly not fair to everyone else. I also never let players run more than one PC at a time either.

Frankly, XP should be reserved for those that make the time and effort to come. If you can't make but you really wanted to be there, well, hey, these things happen. That's life. Besides, awarding XPs for no-shows breeds the "Ahhh, I think I'll stay home and play Diablo...it's all the same, I'll still get credit" mindset of abuse.

As for people who fall behind, here's how I handle it. First of all, the DMG provides a formula for awarding XP so that those of lower levels will get more per session. This seems ideal for helping the "stragglers", so to speak, catch up by awarding them a proportionately larger XP haul.

Second, if a player has fallen THAT far behind, it means that for whatever reason, they rarely show up. Well, fine. That's their choice. That leads to my house rule of distinguishing between Core and Peripheral players. The Core players are the people who have the means and desire to make it to the vast majority of the sessions. They've made a commitment to be in this campaign. In exchange, their PCs become the focal point of a lot of subplots and such, and a lot of their backstories get woven into the campaign. The Peripheral players are those who show up once in a very great while. When that player shows up, she's given a free level if she's four or more levels behind the party average level. This level comes with full hit points on the hit die, starts the PC off at the mid-point to the next level, and is explained as "Your character's done some minor odd jobs and exploring since last time she adventured with the party."

 

[Troll Wizard]

I have been playing for 27 years now and for the great majority of games, no show = no xp period. In our current high/epic game and another D20 modern game the rule by player acceptance is no show = no xp.

In my personel D&D home-brew campaign you get full XP for playing your character.
You may ask another player to play your character because you have to miss the game, then the character earns 1/2 xp - because the other player will not run your character as effectively as the character's owner would. Otherwise no show = no xp.
I will not run a PC as an NPC, sorry as a DM for 6-7 players that is enough for me.

One of the biggest issue about running a character whose player is not attending is:
1. PC death, it happens - how would you feel if your character died because of something the alternate player running did?
2. Treasure division, how does the alternate player know what you character really wants? Most times you will get the leftovers or nothing.

 

[billd91]

In most of the games I participate in, if the player isn't there, the PC doesn't participate. They fade into the background and are neither subject to XP rewards or the doom of the rest of the party should a TPK happen.
In the one game where the DM does run the PC as an NPC, they get full awards.
So, the way I see it, if the PC doesn't participate, they don't get the XPs regardless of why the player can't make it.

And in cases where the PC lags significantly behind, the XP system itself has a mechanism for making up the gap. No further tinkering necessary.

 

[Arravis]

"withholding XP is not punishment; awarding XP is a reward."
I always thought it was fun, not the XP. Maybe I've been playing the game wrong?

SupidSmurf wrote "Frankly, XP should be reserved for those that make the time and effort to come.
At least in my game, people always make the time and effort. Sometimes though, things come up. Someone's mother dies, kid's need to go to the doctor, they have to work overtime, etc. What effort should they have put in, that is clearly not good enough for so many of you? Why do you feel the need to judge people's lives in a way that you feel the need to not "reward" them?

It's a game.

 

[Oryan77]

But that's a different situation than if you miss a game because your child is sick, or you're sick, or your boss is making you work overtime, etc. Perhaps these different situations should be treated differently. I certainly would rather have attended the game than been sick in the hospital, but I didn't have a choice if I wanted to live to type this comment. :\

But again my whole point is to not look at it as punishment but rather a reward (that's why it's called an XP reward). Even if it's an emergency, you shouldn't get rewarded for not showing. The reason I wouldn't give the reward is because that PC didn't help out the other player's PCs and there was no risk...the other players put their PC's at risk. It's not their fault the player missed the game due to sick kids or a dying relative and giving free XP has nothing to do with the groups remorse over the missed players hardships. As a DM, I'm understanding to the missed players problems, but me not giving free xp has nothing to do with it. I am always willing to run solo sessions on off days though which can catch them up on xp.

It's not fair to the others. You can look at it as punishing the missing player, or you can look at it as punishing the attending players. If your babysitter had mid terms & couldn't watch your child, I doubt anyone would still pay her. So why would that parent in return expect the DM to pay them XP when they had to watch their child rather than show up for the game?

 

[Remathilis]

In our group, Players who can't show up may elect to have thier PC played by another player. This surrogate PC plays him as though it was his own PC, but rarely does anything more than necessary spellcasting/skills/combat rolls. Any disposable resources (potions, action points, etc) are fair game, but the player is usually conservative. However, the PC is in FULL danger, and death can (and has) come to those PCs when playing under method. However, the PC recieves full XP minus role-playing bonuses.

Otherwise, the PC sits it out and doesn't die, but doesn't gain XP. It works well in our group, since we all have pretty close playing styles and don't take character death too seriously.

 

[JoeGKushner]

"withholding XP is not punishment; awarding XP is a reward."
I always thought it was fun, not the XP. Maybe I've been playing the game wrong?

SupidSmurf wrote "Frankly, XP should be reserved for those that make the time and effort to come.
At least in my game, people always make the time and effort. Sometimes though, things come up. Someone's mother dies, kid's need to go to the doctor, they have to work overtime, etc. What effort should they have put in, that is clearly not good enough for so many of you? Why do you feel the need to judge people's lives in a way that you feel the need to not "reward" them?

It's a game.

Well, it's also a game that continues. For example, if you play Monopoly, you're not going to hold out some property for someone who'se not there are you?

I can see both sides of the arguement, but if you have some players that are say casual players and they see that when someone else doesn't show up and they get full experience points anyway, well, they may take that to mean that they can call off whenever they want to knowing full well that they'll get full experience points.

You have to do what works for your group. There is no one right answer.

 

[jmucchiello]

I'm confused. I thought CHARACTERS earned experience points. Not players. If the character is involved in the seen, the character earns xps. I feel that "punishing" the character because the player is missing horrible meta-game thinking. I also feel that the actual people punished are the other characters in the game. If you reduce the xps earned by the sorcerer to the point that they are lower level then the other party members, then the party suffers a decline in firepower.

In any case, I play with adults and adults sometimes have unexpected time commitments. I've missed the last 3 sessions of our games for a variety of reasons. All characters receive the same rewards to keep the encounter design easier.