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

[Mallus]

I know, but everone keeps using bad analogies to justify their position, so the imp in me feels the need to use their own bad analogies against them!

Touche...

But its not such a bad analogy in the sense that the X-Mas bonus loot represent 'options' in the 'market'. The guy who received the bonus has a greater number of purchase options than the one who didn't (let's set aside the issue of deserving the bonus).

The same holds true for PC's. More XP = greater level = more options. In my current game (the only one I've ever tried this in), I wanted to establish an equal baseline set of options that every PC has in any given session. I choose to do this by setting eveyone's level equal, regardless of circumstance.

Because I'm far less interested in how players got their options/powers/abilities than in what they choose to do with them in a particular scenario.

I frame it in terms of 'lowering the barriers to entry' to the game experience.

 

[Arravis]

Yes, I agree. If I started giving out equal XP, my players would complain about the fact that they rescheduled their plans just so they could show up and they get the same XP as the guy who cancelled to play card games or hang out with his friends at a barbeque.

Has anyone who gives out XP for players who aren't able to make it ever had anyone complain about it? I've never heard a single complaint, and these are all friends and people I know quite well. Friends who all tend to be brutally honest, hehe.

 

[Mallus]

Has anyone who gives out XP for players who aren't able to make it ever had anyone complain about it?

One of the (very few) times I handed out 'free' XP was to an absent player with a terrible cold.

No one in the group complained about missing out on all the free rhinoviruses (virii?).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

they aren't mine, i used them for years and saw no good come from it that came close to making up for the extra hassle.

So i dont do it anymore.

Yes, I also used to do this and saw a lot of complaining, arguing and bad feelings come about due to rewarding "good roleplaying". Players love to complain that they deserve that 500 xp extra to get to next level because their character is a dwarf who is very antisocial, of COURSE he sat there and didn't say anything the whole session, he doesn't LIKE his party members. Either that or they cause game issues all in the name of "roleplaying".

 

[howandwhy99]

Outside of XP, which brings natural leveling, I allow characters a forum to speak and converse outside of game on the game website. SNIP

Our group just graduated from a freesite to a player run messageboard built solely for the game. I applaud your extra efforts. Having time to contribute between sessions is an enormous benefit. I really think online gaming support between sessions is huge part of RPGs now. Group website and such should be mentioned in the DMG2. Maybe software savvy publishers could even market stuff to us?

-=-=-=-

To clarify, gaining XP awards for your smart play in game is not the sole reason to play. It may not even be a reason for some at all. But to presume otherwise, to make XP no more than a marker (something unnecessary with levels already in the game), is to remove one aspect of the game.

Coming out of wargaming, I believe D&D was seen as more of a contest. Some people thought it was a contest between players to "be the best", but having to work together as a team forced cooperation regardless. It took a little while for some to see the difference. But to be a great player was a lot of the game.

I think I made a mistake bringing up punishments. It's something the original post accused others of, though. And negative experience awards used to be part of the game, but now they are strictly a faux pas. My thinking was: if XP carrot is not offered, perhaps the stick approach was? But I think this was subtly implicating on my part.

What XP does for us is to place Focus on player accomplishments. It's not the Entire focus of the game by any means, but some. Whether a player wishes to pay attention to them is their own prerogative.

On last thing. I mentioned in my first post that I think removing XP takes something from the game. It's your call of course. I enjoy Call of Cthulhu. It's one of the great games. But I have known players who could never understand it. "Why play, if you can never win?" Playing D&D under CoC's precepts, all monsters at Cthulhu level, would change the game. Taking out recognition of player experiences EDIT: with XP also changes the game.

 

[howandwhy99]

In an RPG setting, when this equates to me being a higher level than bob, the difference is he IS negatively impacted. The challenge is based on partly level and bob is now below average.
SNIP
In the DND thing, since the challenges are increased as the other player's capability increases, the value of the combat guys stuff effectively goes down.

From his perspective, he is getting punished.

I do agree that the current system punishes players more than 2 levels apart. This wasn't so much the case in previous editions. Recognizing this I believe the designers adopted the 3.5 XP system and limited XP losses to ensure level disparities could never get out of hand.

Unfortunately, I think what you're referring to are the "appropriate" EL levels based on group average level. If you run the game with every EL challenge from 1-20 as potential to your group, then the onus for character survival is given to the players rather than the DM. If you play under a DM who only uses EL ranges close to your group's average level, AND you are the lowest level character in that group, you do get the short end of the stick.

I can see then why you would think having a lower level character is actually a punishment. I advise letting the players choose their challenges then. Rather than pre-scripted, always level "appropriate" DM ones.
Or simply find another DM.

 

[DonTadow]

You mean he would be clearer if he only agreed with you?

This thread was started by someone who feels that not giving an absent player exp is somehow punishing him. Several people expressed an opinion that they felt differently.

Then a bunch of people chimed in with their House Rules for exp, and why they felt their House Rule was better than the rules in the DMG.

WHy does someone have to "understand" a bunch of arbitrary house rules before they can just agree with the rules as they are already written?

I feel like i understand why some people give xp and why some do not give xp to absent players.

This is not a new debate. And i dont mean its been on the boards before. This debate has existed for hundreds of years and is in several famous papers disecting Pavlov's experiments at mood behavior. Its all about is lack of reward a punishment. This won't be solved on here at all nor anytime this millinium. However I do enjoy seeing the debate and learning why people do things. I actuall yeven learned something from this thread (going to incorporate alterantive characters next month).

 

[Grimstaff]

Experiment #1

For all you doubters who think exp just isn't an important part of D&D on an individual level for your players, try this simple experiment:

At your next game session, announce to your players that you are interested in seeing what they are capable of, role-playing wise, and will be handing out a 20% exp bonus to the player with the strongest chops.

Then sit back and enjoy the shenanigans!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

One of the (very few) times I handed out 'free' XP was to an absent player with a terrible cold.

No one in the group complained about missing out on all the free rhinoviruses (virii?).

LOL, I imagine..we've had people play with colds and stuff before, as long as they keep a safe distance from the rest of us, we're alright. We leave if up to them though, if they think it's bad enough that they shouldn't come, then that's fine. We hope they get better and they can get XP next week, I'm sure they'll catch up eventually.

I didn't complain the one time that someone got XP despite not showing up, because it's the DMs place to decide that sort of thing, not mine.

 

[DonTadow]

Yes, I also used to do this and saw a lot of complaining, arguing and bad feelings come about due to rewarding "good roleplaying". Players love to complain that they deserve that 500 xp extra to get to next level because their character is a dwarf who is very antisocial, of COURSE he sat there and didn't say anything the whole session, he doesn't LIKE his party members. Either that or they cause game issues all in the name of "roleplaying".

That's I avoid this by having the players themselves vote for who gets the role player of the game award. The first time I DM'nd i picked and it would never happen again.

I think a couple of my players would notice if i gave an absent player XP, and it happened a few months ago, not on purpose.

I keep track of xp on the website and hurrying at work to update the xp, i mistakenly gave a character whom was not there 1,000 xp. I didnt notice the mistake ,but an email from my gf and another player clearly let me know about my mistake. It wasn't harsh, it was like hey you did this fix it.

However, the remaining members of the campaign don't even know what their xp id. When i had a web failure and lost the xp count, no one knew and one emailed me and told me that him and his wife didn't really care to keep track of it, wasn't important to them.

I've been thinking of buying a chunk of webspce and charging a small fee to build, run and update websites. I don't know how marketable it is though. I'm going to make a thread and see who'd be interested in something like this