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

[Majoru Oakheart]

I find these two statements contradictory.

Well, they aren't, it's just a difference in thinking about it....even if the net result is the same.

If you think of getting to high levels as inevitable and required, than the XP to get there means nothing. It's just a bunch of numbers that show how close to the end of the campaign you are.

I think of high levels as something people get to either due to skill or pure attrition (as when they die I let them come back as a new character, a level lower than the lowest member of the party. Without too many deaths, in theory, the average goes up.

 

[howandwhy99]

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

This is certainly a presumption in the current ruleset. But I think most challenges would be overcome by thinking outside the box. The players start thinking out to maximize their assets and minimize their liabilities. This has nothing to do with the rules and everything with playing the game.

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.

Yes, it more of an experiment to see how far player competency can overcome rule expectation. It's certainly not something I'd want as a serious game. What I think it could do is give a DM an idea on how far level options can stretch before players could really be "helped" by advancing in level. Rather than gaining powers in place of ones not fully experimented with yet.

What you mention at the end, not having out of rhythm after a long hiatus, is another reason for not levelling that player's character during the interim.

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.

Thanks for the answers.
Yes, the basis for experience awards needs to be shared before beginning a game. The DMG calls them story awards and gives some examples. Players often also pick up on specifics as the game progresses. So you can list things like: riddles, station, magic items, gold, traps, and more in your pre-game document. But in truth an accomplishment will always need a fair judge. Any DM who awards XPs beyond combat does this.

I think this variance is why convention games use combat experience only. But I think it unfairly puts all the importance on combat.

 

[The_Universe]

In another thread an issue got brought up that I've never had (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=146556). It seems many DM's do not give full XP (or non) if a player can't make it to the game. I don't understand why.

The game is supposed to be about fun, and as a DM, I always saw it as my job to make it fun. Why would I want characters to be left behind? How does it increase the fun? I'm not there to judge the players or be their parents. If they can't make it, they can't make it. Life happens, why would I add an in-game punishment to their problems?

I'm just trying to understand the reasons why this is done. I've always assumed that it was one of those things that goes back to the 70's where the players were competitive with each other and the DM's role was adversarial. It's been a very long time since those days and it just doesn't fit D&D in the way it's been since as far back as I've played (1983).

Because experience is a reward, and contrary to popular fantasy, not-rewarding is *not the same thing* as punishing. I reward players who are present, and never punish players who are not. But, if you weren't there to *experience* the game, I really don't know why you'd expect *experience points*

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think of high levels as something people get to either due to skill or pure attrition (as when they die I let them come back as a new character, a level lower than the lowest member of the party. Without too many deaths, in theory, the average goes up.

I've never actually had a game where the PCs didn't rise in levels. Sure, in previous editions of the game, it often took forever to get higher, but still the XP totals climbed up. I've never, for example, had a group that just couldn't get past level 9 because they couldn't defeat CR 9-11 challenges and kept dying.

This is certainly a presumption in the current ruleset. But I think most challenges would be overcome by thinking outside the box. The players start thinking out to maximize their assets and minimize their liabilities. This has nothing to do with the rules and everything with playing the game.

I went on a long tirade here, realized it was pointless, erased it and now I'm trying over.

Suffice to say I disagree. No ability to play or tactical expertise is going to allow a group of 4 2nd level characters to defeat a non-moronic 10th level sorcerer. They can oppose him on a non-personal level, but then it doesn't matter what level/class he is. I will believe it is possible when I see it. And, I've seen too many equal level sorcerers almost TPK a party to conceve of it actually happening.

What you mention at the end, not having out of rhythm after a long hiatus, is another reason for not levelling that player's character during the interim.

I see it as compounding one problem with another, but obviously YMMV.

I think this variance is why convention games use combat experience only. But I think it unfairly puts all the importance on combat.

As an aside about how different my group really is from the norm, I don't give out story awards, and my players still love to engage in story elements. They don't feel the need to go seek out and fight anything, not applying any more importance to combat in the game as what would traditionally be referred to as roleplay (I don't particularly like the distinction because it is perfectly possible to roleplay in combat).

 

[howandwhy99]

Suffice to say I disagree. No ability to play or tactical expertise is going to allow a group of 4 2nd level characters to defeat a non-moronic 10th level sorcerer. They can oppose him on a non-personal level, but then it doesn't matter what level/class he is. I will believe it is possible when I see it. And, I've seen too many equal level sorcerers almost TPK a party to conceve of it actually happening.

I think a really strong group could win. XP charts go up to EL+8. It isn't an impossibility. But it does take a lot of work and practice. I'm not suggesting scripting it into your game. But as a possibility, it should be an option for the players.

As an aside about how different my group really is from the norm, I don't give out story awards, and my players still love to engage in story elements. They don't feel the need to go seek out and fight anything, not applying any more importance to combat in the game as what would traditionally be referred to as roleplay (I don't particularly like the distinction because it is perfectly possible to roleplay in combat).

I think there are a lot of great groups out there. I'm not proposing my style of play is the norm.

 

[DonTadow]

I think a really strong group could win. XP charts go up to EL+8. It isn't an impossibility. But it does take a lot of work and practice. I'm not suggesting scripting it into your game. But as a possibility, it should be an option for the players.


I think there are a lot of great groups out there. I'm not proposing my style of play is the norm.

A strong group or a smart group could win. A run a number of scenerios where i pit the pcs against super level characters, epxecting them to run, but they have often been very tacticle using the evironment and elements to their advantage.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think there are a lot of great groups out there. I'm not proposing my style of play is the norm.

I think I would go as far as to say that you are probably in the majority. The main reason I attribute to having no problems within my group no matter how untraditional I go is that I brought most of my group into roleplaying (besides a little previous experience on some people's part).

 

[DragonLancer]

If a player can't/doesn't make the game then they are not adding to the game, so they don't XP for that session, regardless of the reason. Its not a punishment IMO, its just a case of if your're not there to be involved and add something to the game then that character should not be receiving XP.

Now if it started becoming a problem - say a character slipping far behind the rest of the party - I would try and arrange an evening just for that character. Something to help forward the current storyline that was within their capabilities, so that they can contribute, gain that XP and still move events along.

 

[howandwhy99]

Given the number of interspersed posts like the one right above I think the idea of XP as an award is definitely in the majority.