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

[ThirdWizard]

The game doesn't HAVE to move on to fighting harder enemies. It only does so because the PCs get more powerful.
...

I have to increase the challenge or they complain that everything is too easy.

I find these two statements contradictory.

Not being snarky, I understand you. There is no rule that things have to get harder. But, in reality, they do have to get harder. It's just the way the "implied setting" of D&D works. You kill stuff, you get more powerful, you kill bigger stuff, and along the way you get cool new magical items and abilities.

So, over time, they'll fight bigger things. That's just a fact of life for most campaigns, although I accept maybe not in all, but it seems to be in both of ours. If that is the case, leveling is less of a reward and more of a means of the PCs keeping up with the situation as it develops, in my eyes. The culmination of my current campaign, at least as far as it sits now, is going to be a battle

Spoiler

against a ressurected Archdevil.

(spoiler tags just in case) An extreme example, but if they don't level, then that plot arc doesn't reach the end. This has less to do specifically with the subject at hand, and is more a general explaination of how I view advancement, don't take this as a reason to give XP to absentee players. It's just a part of my thought process on what XP is, thus affecting my outlook on XP awards in general.

It might be interesting to note that in my games, getting cool new abilities isn't always tied to leveling, but often to story awards. So, if a PC trains with a mentor, or finds an ancient scroll, or anything else I can think of, they can get abilities like haste as a Supernatural Ability, the ability to make any weapon they hold a holy weapon, spontaneous use of metamagic, etc. In that way, leveling isn't the only mechanical means of improving one's character in my game.

Also, I only give out XP for overcoming challenges with a specific CR. This might include convincing the captain of the guard to give your party an extra thousand gold, or it could be killing the captain of the guard, depending on the circumstance. And, the award is always given to all the players whether they're present for the encounter or not. That last part is most definately not simulationist, and I wouldn't expect a simulationist to do that! I only ask acceptance.

 

[swrushing]

Wow...try that with my players, they'd get bored and leave the table wondering when they can get cool new powers.

Wow, for mine, its one of the manor things.

and they get cool powers too.

but all in all, i thinks me will decline your offer.

 

[howandwhy99]

Originally Posted by Majoru Oakheart
The game doesn't HAVE to move on to fighting harder enemies. It only does so because the PCs get more powerful.
...

I have to increase the challenge or they complain that everything is too easy.

I find these two statements contradictory.

Wow. I hope you don't mind that I snipped 3W's explanation of advancing characters. It sounds like he has a heck of good game. But I have to steal the above example for illustration.

If I run a 1st level campaign where no one ever levels to 2nd, presumably the players would sooner or later improve to harder enemies. Even though their characters were 1st level, I as DM would have to keep raising the bar in terms of challenges. As their tactics improved, so would their ease of overcoming level commensurate combats.

I think this is exactly what I'm talking about. A game that is inverse to so many of the ones where players who have difficulty operating mid-level characters well, but are playing everything up to epic-level ones. I for one haven't heard any stories lately about a 2nd level group overcoming a 10th level sorceror lich. Or similar. This would be an interesting experiment.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I think I wasn't being clear enough. It is the DM's responsibility to present the world. In order to be fair to the players they are going to need to understand how powerful the things are they face. This is normally done through subtle hints discovered IC when exploring.

thats the scripting. With a high level threat, you script in "reasonable" or "sufficient" clues ahead of the encounter to give the PCs time to turn away etc. You don't throw 20th level threats at them the same way you throw 3rd level ones.

The scripting you mention is useful, but I don't find the need when the creature is far beyond the character's ability. If players seek out trouble beyond what they know they can take, they find it.

scratches head. Maybe i am spoiled by my players but i don't recall ever hearing a group say "yeah this one will kill us but lets do it anyway", at least not in seriousness.

IMX if PCs decide to go for the "it will kill us" option its not because they know what they are doing and are just being stupid. its because they have insufficient info. Whatever "subtle clues" i tried to give were insufficient for them to get that "this one will kill us", and not that they got that and wanted to die anyway.

Since i am the guy providing every ounce of info to them, if tyey have insufficient info and get killed on account of it, its far from them paying for "their own bad decisions."

now, on an individual level, sometimes things just misfire, like when a monk player said out loud "wow that monster just did over half my hit points in a single round" who then decided to stand anf fight for "one more round" to the amazement of everyone at the table and in spite of several strongly worded hints.

but i have never had an entire group all brain fart at the same time. So when that looks like what they are doing, i usually look to what i failed to get across.

I agree. But it's not on the DM's shoulders to save the PCs from bad decisions. This goes back to consequences. While widening the scope of encounters is more work for the DM, it also puts the players in control of who they face next.

see above. with the Gm being the source of all info they base their decisions on, the Gm cannot easily wash his hands of responsibility for their making what he, armed with all his knowledge, considers bad decisions.

IMX if an entire group has the same brain fart, its more likely stemming from the info mismatch between "what the gm thought he said" and "what they heard" and not just because as a group to a man they suddenly "get stupid."

Lower level characters are used to accomplish challenges they can overcome. This is done via the group's decision tho, not the DM's.

the Gm populates the world with circumstance, options and chellneges... so he is not divorced from "the challenges the party meets". he may not be totally in control of it, but its also not fair to ascribe it to the party alone.

When the group faces lethal adversity from many sides each group member's abilities become vital. The little guy can be just as important to success as the big guy. It is up to the group on how to best use everyone.

indeed, i find that with good script, the weaker player's abilities can be critical, even moreso than the others. I just don't find that happening "as a matter of course" but happening when the Gm scripts the challenges to highlight these traits.

Above you're ascribing GM activities to the group.
The players decisions are what mysteries to solve, monsters to fight, wildlands to explore, etc.

which are made within and shaped by and at least severly influenced by if not practically controlled by all those "GM activities" and the info they get from him.

Sorry, and i know some Gms like to think they are referrees who just lay things out and from their its all on the players etc... but that to me in my experience is nonsense. groups of players tend far more often than not to draw reasonable conclusions based on what the Gm gave them and rarely just knowingly decide to be suicidal. A Gm refusing to acknowledge his role in the PCs decisions, good AND bad, is one to be avoided IMO.

But, I am perhaps wierd that way.

I am describing a Referee.

I love referees for competitve wargames, not for rpgs.

in a competitive wargame the forces for both sides, the scneario, circumstance and terrain etc are set up to be competitive. A referee is all you need there.

 

[billd91]

yet, in fact, as we discussed, its often not goin to be the weaker player overcoming a bigger challenge, is it? is the 9th level guy going to be the one in the 11th level party who fells the dragon or does "an even share"?

or is he gonne be the one buffed up more or kept further back while the guys for whom this is an appropriate challenge put themselves "up front" and bear the brunt of the effort?

The weaker guy is likely the one doing less, which is usually less enjoyable.

See from all the XP IS EANRED yar yar yar crowd i don;t get why "i got no xp last week for not showing but this week i show up and do less or even little but i now get MORE so i can catch back up" is the way things ought to be?

For one thing, the PCs are unlikely to be facing a higher challenge every time. So it's not at all clear that the character who missed XPs last session is going to have to hold back.
For another thing, if this is the case with simply missing XPs, wouldn't it be exactly the same with magic item creators who have spent XPs and are now a level or two behind or for PCs who have died? That PC you assume will hold back because the player missed sessions would do the same thing if he was behind for making magic items and would still make more XPs for doing less.
Players make do with what they've got and they figure out a way. It's not that big a deal and, like you profess for your XP giving system, it works fine as well and has for many years.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wow. I hope you don't mind that I snipped 3W's explanation of advancing characters. It sounds like he has a heck of good game. But I have to steal the above example for illustration.

'Tis cool.

If I run a 1st level campaign where no one ever levels to 2nd, presumably the players would sooner or later improve to harder enemies. Even though their characters were 1st level, I as DM would have to keep raising the bar in terms of challenges. As their tactics improved, so would their ease of overcoming level commensurate combats.

Ah, but there's a cap. Eventually the numbers overcome all tactical ability the players might have.

I think this is exactly what I'm talking about. A game that is inverse to so many of the ones where players who have difficulty operating mid-level characters well, but are playing everything up to epic-level ones.

It's not without its drawbacks. I have found that some players have a very difficult time getting into the low level mentality of how dangerous life is after a high level campaign. It's not a problem that persists, however. They learn quickly.

I have done campaigns with XP awards at 1/2 to 1/4 of standard. I agree that they get better at overcoming challenges, mostly because they learn to work as a group better. This spell synergises with this ability, and now they can pull out another extra bit of power in combat, and such. You can't keep that up, forever, though, and eventually you'll start biting of more than you could chew if you keep trying. For this same reason, when taking a break from a campaign and coming back to it, they can't do as well as they used to, because while they might know their characters well, they've forgotten the other characters and how they fit in with the group.

I for one haven't heard any stories lately about a 2nd level group overcoming a 10th level sorceror lich. Or similar. This would be an interesting experiment.

Interesting in the type of way that watching a shark feed is interesting...

 

[Mallus]

The DMG does offer a system for rewarding strictly Combat Encounters...

Even so, the DMG doesn't tell you how to evaluate an individual PC's performance in combat. The XP award is generalised for the entire group, regardless of personal action.

I only brought this up to stress how trying to tie XP more directly to individual player skill/performance/heroism/moxie relies on a DM's judgement, or, as we like to call it around here, DM fiat. Something outside the rules.

I'm not remembering. Do you reward XP or not?

I award XP to the group as a whole. The party has a single XP total. Whenever you play, whatever character, that's what you've got.

And I did this (mainly) so players could freely sub in/out new characters that they wanted to play, without fear of 'falling behind'.

As much as I'd love to run more of my homebrew setting, the truth is, I ain't going to. Don't have the time. So I let characters experiment with new characters that, in a more traditional set-up, would have been played in seperate/subsequent campaigns.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I award XP to the group as a whole. The party has a single XP total. Whenever you play, whatever character, that's what you've got.

I had one question about this. You might of said, I apologize if I've forgotten. With one XP total, what happens when a PC dies? Does everyone get the XP debt or does the character get brought back for free or does all of the player's characters get a negative level or something?

 

[shilsen]

I had one question about this. You might of said, I apologize if I've forgotten. With one XP total, what happens when a PC dies? Does everyone get the XP debt or does the character get brought back for free or does all of the player's characters get a negative level or something?

If I'm understanding correctly, in Mallus' game at any given point the group has a total of, let's say, N experience pts. Every current PC has N experience points. If a PC is killed, when raised from the dead he has N XP. If he's replaced with a new PC, the new PC comes in with N XP. If a player decides to swap out a PC and introduce a new one, the new one comes in with N XP. If a player decides to bring back an old PC who's been on the sidelines for a while, the old PC returns with N XP. In short, the PCs always have the same total, whether they're new, old, returning, or what have you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mallus.

 

[howandwhy99]

Reply to swrushing

Yes, refereeing is a different style of running games. The world surrounding the players has dozens, perhaps hundreds of creatures in it (both monsters and say, sentients). As referee I would place them in as exciting and logical consistent manner as possible. I would also have an eye towards gradual increases in challenges. But it is always the players' option to jump off a mountain, attempt to assassinate the king, and march to the rumored ancient dragon's lair (if they can find it). Yes. I'd like to think they won't do these things. But I don't set up scripts that block the option either.

Yes, there certainly is DM responsibility. I was the one who placed the creatures in the world. I defined their personalities and intentions. And I would play each out to the best of my ability. It is a simulationist environment though. I have placed many, many interesting adventures and encounters in the world, but if the players chose not to follow any of them that is again their prerogative. The only way I think I would have failed then is in interesting the players. But normally such a thing happens when the players have their own ideas for adventure (plans in character - not just handing me some written module). I.E. building their own town and defending it. This is one of the greatest things simulationist games can do. The players are no longer even seeking adventure, but making it for themselves.

I don't believe this method tries to eschew DM responsibility. What I think it does is put the players in the driver's seat. I'm still responsible for running an exciting, logical, and fair game. A lot of times this means scripts as you suggest. Other times it does not.