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

[MonsterMash]

In the group I GM for I award half XP if the character is played by another player or a small amount if the situation allows the PC to disappear on a side quest, both of which apply on prior notice - an actual no show might be no XP if no contact.

 

[Arravis]

Personally, I always hated that competitive thing in D&D. It has never fit any of the things I look to get out of gaming. I'm looking for well thought out interesting character studies that have depth and feeling. I'm looking for fascinating stories and tales that send my imagination to new horizons. I'm looking for a sense of wonder and amazement.

As a player, I'm not looking to beat the dm or my fellow players and as a DM I'm not against my players or looking to defeat them.

In my game player and DM are working together to tell a good story with interesting people and to have as much fun as we can doing it.

If D&D was just a hack and slash thing about getting XP to me, I would have quit playing a long, long, long time ago.

 

[DonTadow]

But if the group has already decided this, then it shouldn't matter. We make sure that everyone knows if they miss a session and someone else runs their character, they are at just as much risk as the rest of us. If they choose not to place their character at that risk (fade into the background), then they don't get XP.

As I have the most experience in the group (besides the DM) I get the job of running these characters. They are not used as meat shields, are not put in unrealistic danger that they normally would not be in, etc. I run the character to the best of my ability, usually sacrificing my normal character's roleplaying aspect in the process. I work with the DM on any situations that I am not sure what the player would possibly do.

I wish you could have been in the earlier thread. the problem is mistakes happen and I"d rather write and run a game for people there than people away.

But this issue also dwells alot on player styles hack and slash fvs story irented campaigns. StI think in storywise campaigns its harder to have npcs and players there because whereas a player can roll some dice in a fight for a character, he can't say waht that player woudl say for their character. Thats where hte problem comes in with me. There is no way to role play someone elses character exctly like them leaving room for future problems. Its easy enough to say hey i'll play your character while you're gone but when something happens the rules only effect the player whom couldnt make the session, screwing him out of a character for 'the team. I'm all about team play but not at the expence of character's creativity.

 

[howandwhy99]

If experience is only a marker not an award, why not play from 20th level down to 1st? It's not as if you are penalizing players, only decreasing their character's power level, right? Character levels are just a marker.

Better yet, (and I've actually suggested this many times to no avail) why not simply play at the level your group prefers and stay there? I prefer 1st level anyways. Maybe the DM is penalizing me by requiring my character to level beyond 1st, hmmm?

All snarkiness aside, I believe if you remove required PLAYER learning and accomplishment, from the game, you are simply going through the motions. One of the primary incentives is gone.

EDIT: Imagination requires players to be creative. They must create. This means both being in an environment that encourages players to try new things and one where failure is a possibility.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well, I think that my post in the referenced thread quite clearly puts me in agreement with Arravis, (and Mallus, nice post).

I play D&D with adults now. So there are two factors that come into play that aren't true with a juvenile group.

1. Most of the players have families and jobs.
2. Most of the players place a premium on their time. They enjoy D&D and want to play, so when they have a chance to schedule in a game, they very much want to make it.

Because of this, I can be entirely certain that if a player misses a game, it's because something serious came up that prevented them, and that they very much regret not being able to play.

At this point, I could dock the character xp, or I could just award full xp. I don't buy into the whole "you're rewarding people who show up" because as far as I'm concerned, if I as a DM am doing my job, the game itself is the reward for showing up. Being entertained for an evening by RPing a surly dwarf, talking to a lascivious baker who lives next door, fighting the mummies in the ancient sarcophagi...these are the rewards for playing D&D. The xp is, as someone else mentioned, nothing more than a signifier of power level.

Now, there are going to be discrepancies in power level. Mainly due to ability scores (my group likes to roll, though I've always prefered point buy), level loss due to deaths, and raw tactical ability. But no player of mine need ever feel like he's been handicapped at the game table due to events that were beyond his control.

In the end, D&D is a game. It's like parcheesi or, if you prefer, chess. Why should one player have to play without a bishop, just because his daughter had strep throat last week?

 

[jmucchiello]

Does the character get attacked as much as the others? What if he dies? Does that character become the default door opener?

The character is attacked as often as the situation warrents. If he dies, he's dead. (Though we also play with easy, but not cheap, ressurection.) He opens the doors only if he is normally the door opener.

As I said, I play with mature players. We aren't going to use the missing character as a meat shield because when we can't attend we don't want our character to be used as a meat shield. Simple.

Basicly the DM/Party is going to be making desisions that the player may not have made and/or the player would have made desisions the DM/party do not.

Actually it's more likely we'll debate what would he have done and reach a concensus based on who knows the player best. (Although since I've been playing with the same 5 other guys for over 10 years, we all know how each other responds to most situations.)

What about magic item selection? Do you pick the item you think the player would want the most? What if s/he says "oh man, I would have picked THAT item instead of this one"?

Always handled in email outside of session. Besides, it's not like once the item is written on once character sheet that it cannot be erased and moved to another character sheet.

And who's fun is being hindered by them not being there? The characters? How can it be fun for a player to have his character level up when s/he is off doing something else?

it's no fun for the DM to make up challenges when an accident or family commitment might cause the cleric to be a level or two behind the rest of the party and now the party is underpowered for an expected adventure. Better to keep all characters at the same xp level.

 

[Belen]

I think the undercurrent of "I play with mature/adults, so my way is right" is hilarious.

 

[Arravis]

DonTadow, my player is VERY heavy role-playing based (as mentioned earlier, we often have games with no combat at all), and a missing player can be catastrophic at times I agree. But, why should I punish (or whatever you want to call it) the player because a real-life situation came up they couldn't avoid? I can choose to either try to "teach people a lesson" or to not do so.

Trying to be Judge Dread is tiring. I'm not here to teach lessons.

Thankfully, that's never been a problem in my games. As stated in a previous post, I think we all fall into either the "mature players" or "selfish players" category. I feel that if you need to set up some sort of reward/punishment system to have people come to a game, something is very wrong.

 

[jmucchiello]

No, it is a manners thing. Everyone else made the effort to show up to the game. They took time out of their busy schedules because it mattered to them. By agreeing to be a member of the group, you have made a committment. If you cannot honor that committment, then you should not be placed on the same level as everyone else that could.

We have a weekly game. I'd say 50% of the time there is one absence. It happens. We understand. One player was working 80 hour weeks for 3 months straight and attended maybe one session during that time. I wasn't offended by his absences. In fact it was a pleasure to have him there the one day he attended. Game went on. He updated that character by 3 levels without playing any of those levels.

Your expectation of commitment just doesn't work when half the players are married and have kids. Yeah, the single guys don't miss too many games. Amazing how that works out. I also suspect that your group doesn't meet weekly.

As I said before, exceptions can exist, but I would expect that person to work with me to make up the lost time.

Make up lost time? Do you also have period exams and report cards? What constitutes making up lost time?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

If experience is only a marker not an award, why not play from 20th level down to 1st? It's not as if you are penalizing players, only decreasing their character's power level, right. Character levels are just a marker.

I have considered this, as a DM. Powerful legendary heroes are struck with a terrible curse that regresses them through time at a gradual, steady pace. They have to find a way to stop the BBEG before they've been erased from Time. The problem is that I could never figure out a justification for why the challenges got easier. If you've got 20th-level enemies at the start of the campaign, why are they going to leave off and let the 10th-level baddies deal with you later, instead of just finishing your sorry behind off?

Better yet, (and I've actually suggested this many times to no avail) why not simply play at the level your group prefers and stay there? I prefer 1st level anyways. Maybe the DM is penalizing me by requiring my character to level beyond 1st, hmmm?

The fact that many DMs and players may prefer a growth in power level does not logically prove that a disparity in power level among players, due to absence, is a good idea.

All snarkiness aside, I believe if you remove required PLAYER learning and accomplishment, from the game, you are simply going through the motions. One of the primary incentives is gone.

If power level in a make-believe game is the incentive to show up, then I have no rebuttal. It's an alien concept to me. Now, within the confines of playing the game, I do enjoy a gradual increase in power, yes. But it's not my reason for showing up, my "incentive." My incentive is to have fun with my friends pretending to be a (in my case) holy warrior chosen by God.

EDIT: Imagination requires players to be creative. They must create. This means both being in an environment that encourages players to try new things and one where failure is a possibility.

How does any of this have to do with docking xp for players who can't make a game? These comments seem much more germaine to a discussion regarding whether or not a campaign contains character death and forms of Raise Dead.