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

[Grimstaff]

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

This is getting really obtuse.
SOmebody please move this thread to the HOuse Rules section!!
My eyes are bleeding ;-)

 

[rgard]

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.



Your examples disregard my views of what XP itself is.



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.

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.[/QUOTE]

If the player can only muster enough sessions to attain 2nd level while the others have made 7th level, why is the player bothering to be part of the campaign?

You mention the 12th level campaign and epic campaigns...for this to work your players had to have played alot prior to rolling up and effectively playing 12th and epic level characters.

That means that showing up regularly has some benefits? Yes it does, and that goes beyond an experience point total.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[jmucchiello]

You must not have seen my posts 5 pages back. After all, they were made only 24 hours ago. Damn this thread has grown quickly.

I am probably the only DM in this thread who has problems with players showing up and sees at as something I am willing to overlook work around

Back on page 3 (or 2) I mentioned that in my weekly game, 50% of session will have at least one absence. Also, the more likely absent players are the 3 DMs. You are not alone, brother.

The best thing I've seen in this thread is the group xp total. That would solve the spells with xp costs and item creation costs problem we've had perfectly.

At some point, I hope people posting in this thread will just agree to disagree. The differences of opinion on here are tied to theoretical underpinings of gaming and really are not that important in the grand scheme of things. This disagreement is no more meaningful than the arguments over whether the ranger got the shaft from 5 years ago.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

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?

Simple, to me it is about role playing. Characters get XP for getting actual combat experience. That's what it's for. They learn more about combat through actually using it. That's why they slowly learn to develop what they know into new, better abilities.

I only give out XP for combat because that is what makes adventurers a step above everyone else. They've learned their lessons from actually disabling deadly traps, disintigrating enemies and being nearly turned to stone. It's also the rules. You get XP for overcoming challenges.

Still, it makes less sense to me that a character who sat around drinking in the bar for the last couple of weeks suddenly gets better at fighting, magic, sneaking, etc. They didn't even USE any of those skills, never mind use them in life or death situations.

It's less about rewarding or penalizing players(although that IS a factor) than it is about the fact that the CHARACTER didn't do anything to deserve XP. I don't hand out XP just because you want to stay in line with the rest of the party. I like to keep out of character reasons out of the game if possible. A character suddenly gaining a level without having done anything at all smacks of metagaming to me, even more than I'm used to.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If the player can only muster enough sessions to attain 2nd level while the others have made 7th level, why is the player bothering to be part of the campaign?

You tell me. It was your example. If I were to venture a guess, it would be because he enjoys playing D&D even if he doesn't have a whole lot of time to devote to it as some other people.

You mention the 12th level campaign and epic campaigns...for this to work your players had to have played alot prior to rolling up and effectively playing 12th and epic level characters.

That means that showing up regularly has some benefits? Yes it does, and that goes beyond an experience point total.

Even if that is true, how does your XP total demonstrate your ability to roleplay effectively based on a total of the 5 or 6 campaigns and who knows how many one-offs that I've run with my core group? You keep saying playing more makes you a better player, and I don't agree, but I'm willing to work with that. So, how does your Wizard's XP total reflect your X years of gaming experience up to that point?

 

[Mallus]

If the player can only muster enough sessions to attain 2nd level while the others have made 7th level, why is the player bothering to be part of the campaign?

Strike that, reverse it.

Ask youself 'If a gaming buddy can only play infrequently (perhaps he just had a baby), why make it difficult --or impossible-- for him to play at all?'

Assuming, of course, you like the person and want them around.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Still, it makes less sense to me that a character who sat around drinking in the bar for the last couple of weeks suddenly gets better at fighting, magic, sneaking, etc. They didn't even USE any of those skills, never mind use them in life or death situations.

Very simulationist. I grok that. In my games, PCs of absentee players are played by other players, with all the bane and boon that comes with it.

 

[rgard]

This is getting really obtuse.
SOmebody please move this thread to the HOuse Rules section!!
My eyes are bleeding ;-)

Obtuse is right! Maybe this is a generational thing.

Rich

 

[el-remmen]

Strike that, reverse it.

Ask youself 'If a gaming buddy can only play infrequently (perhaps he just had a baby), why make it difficult --or impossible-- for him to play at all?'

Assuming, of course, you like the person and want them around.

I guess I see a D&D game a commitment thing.

I have friends who fit the above description. When they drop by I make sure to have an NPC for them to run, or have made a pre-determined arrangement for them to stand in for another player that cannot make it.

 

[Mallus]

It's less about rewarding or penalizing players(although that IS a factor) than it is about the fact that the CHARACTER didn't do anything to deserve XP.

What about a player/character joining a game at mid-level? That character has also done nothing for their XP.