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

[ForceUser]

So, instead I should punish the people who actually make it by giving them the same award of those that don't? That doesn't make sense. I give XP to those that make it. Its not about punishing people who don't.

I split the middle on this discussion. All PCs earn XP if they are present in an encounter--a player might miss the 3rd session of a 4-part dungeon romp, but their PC will be played as an NPC while they are gone (and risk death as always). However, I only reward roleplaying XP to players who are present, and RP XP is substantial IMC (usually 100 XP/character level per session).

 

[ThirdWizard]

What I was saying was that he had alternative rules for chess. Pieces just don't disappear when you don't take a turn. If you dont do a turn in time (in timed chess) you forfeit a turn. It doesnt answer the question, what game can you not be there and still get money, and game items. The chess response doesnt really answer it. And the way he was using it didn't really make sense because those wernt the rules of chess.

Conversely, what games do you get anything for the next time if you do make it? There arn't any, and that means we're going to have to make up some examples if we're going to actually use the analogy. You can't say "no other game rewards missing players" because no other game rewards present players either! We end up with no point being made at all.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I don't give XP to people who don't show up, regardless of the reason. I don't play their characters in the game either. I don't like the hassle of having to run an NPC and the game at the same time. Plus, most of the time the players have their characters and they didn't show up.

In certain, specific circumstances, I've allowed a character to be played as an NPC and got full XP for it.

To me it comes down to this: If you are there to contribute to the group with fighting prowess, magic, and such and face the same risk of dying as everyone else, you get XP. You don't get any for not showing up. I also don't want to start trying to compare what is considered "acceptable" and what isn't. We arbitrate things fairly. If you show up, you get XP, if you don't you get none. That way, I will allow each person to consider what they consider a higher priority than the game.

I consider the game to be a lot like a sports team. I played on a curling team, when someone didn't showed up, it meant we had to cover for them. It was harder to win, you have people playing positions they aren't used to. Same thing happens when a player doesn't show up. The party has to face the same challenges with less party members, it becomes harder. They get more XP (it is split less ways) and the person who didn't help gets none.

As has been said before, it is about rewarding people for showing up, not punishing them for not coming. Missing one session isn't going to put you so far behind that you can't play anymore. If you are using the system from the DMG, the person who missed will eventually catch up. If everyone will miss a certain number of sessions due to "emergencies" each year, then in theory, everyone will stay fairly balanced. If someone misses too many sessions, their character falls behind. In my experience, people can make time for a game, if they miss so often that they feel punished, its because they aren't trying to show up or they really don't have time to play.

On the other hand, I don't believe in ACTUALLY punishing people. We had a player miss quite a few sessions in a row because he changed work schedules and couldn't make it to the game time anymore. When his schedule changed again, we gave him enough XP so that he'd be 1 level lower than the lowest level person in the group so he wasn't so far behind as to be ineffective. On the other hand, we had another player who missed nearly every game session for the whole summer, citing the reason "I like to go camping when it's summertime, I will be gone every weekend". He decided he liked camping more than showing up for the game. No problem, his choice. We discussed it though, and since we cancelled the game on a number of weekends due to his absence, we voted to remove him from the group and replace him with someone who had been begging me to play.

As for the chess analogy. It is slightly flawed. Assume instead that you meet weekly for a chess game against someone. You don't show up one week. They win by default, you aren't there to play. You didn't LOSE. However, you had no chance to win either. If winning mattered to you that much, you'd show up. If the games were just for fun anyways, they you don't care that you didn't win that game. You show up for the next game and play, not caring that you are a win behind.

 

[ThirdWizard]

As for the chess analogy. It is slightly flawed. Assume instead that you meet weekly for a chess game against someone. You don't show up one week. They win by default, you aren't there to play. You didn't LOSE. However, you had no chance to win either. If winning mattered to you that much, you'd show up. If the games were just for fun anyways, they you don't care that you didn't win that game. You show up for the next game and play, not caring that you are a win behind.

If XP is your score, then you are right. But, I disagree with that premise, myself.

EDIT: Also, if you don't care what your score is, it won't hamper your ability to win in the future. Not having as much XP as another player will hamper your ability to "win" (since we are looking at it from a competative standpoint).

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If XP is your score, then you are right. But, I disagree with that premise, myself.

EDIT: Also, if you don't care what your score is, it won't hamper your ability to win in the future. Not having as much XP as another player will hamper your ability to "win" (since we are looking at it from a competative standpoint).

Well, it is...as I see it there are 2 (or 3) goals to playing an RPG:

1) To tell a story
2) To gain new abilities in order to keep the game interesting and fight power powerful enemies
3) (optionally) To get together with friends

There's no story reasons to gaining levels unless the story you are playing happens to require it. It's a device so that players have a goal. They want to keep going so they can get cool powers and magic items. Because then they can do more stuff they couldn't do before.

It's a basic premise. It's the reason people play Computer RPGs. It's half of the reason most people play PnP RPGs. I know I would stop playing if I didn't get XP anymore. It's no fun to stay the same level, storyline alone doesn't do it for me.

Missing a couple of sessions won't make you lose enough XP to hinder your ability to "win". So, you don't care if you miss out on it. I accept this in the game I play in, if I can't make it, I can't make it. Same thing happens to me when I miss as happens to everyone else, it's fair that way. Plus, no arguing over what is important enough to miss the session. One person says they can't make it because their wife made them stay home and paint a room when they were doing nothing the next day. Is that important enough to miss the session? Most of my group would say no. Someone says they have an important raid in WoW that their guild planned a month in advance so he HAS to be there. That important enough to miss? Depends who you ask.

We don't make judgement, we just use simple and fair: Make an effort to not schedule things on the game day or choose to miss out on XP if you do. As I've said, it's rarely impossible to move things to earlier in the day before the session starts or to the day before or after.

 

[KenM]

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).

I have not read this whole thread. But IMO the player that misses the game should not get a full share of XP. Why should he if he was not there to add to the game? I understand stuff happens, but if you miss out, you miss out, such is life. In the last long term game I played in, the DM woulld run the characters not there as NPC's, but he would always make the players that were there the center of the action, as he should. The DM needs to make it fun for the people that show up. How fun would it be if as a DM I planned to have the heavy fighter fight a NPC heavy fighter and the person playing the fighter does not show up that week? How fun would it be for me as a DM to say "ok, Joe could not make it, so for the climax of the adventure this week, you guys are going to watch me play out a fight between Joes fighter and this fighter NPC."
Or how about if I make a character for your new game, and then I never show up for 9 weeks. Are you going to run my character for the first 9 weeks of the game and then I show up next week with a full share of XP and gold, ect? How fair does that sound?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, I agree that its not overly important to the game whether one gets XP or not when missing a session. I think that this is a great thought excersise more than anything else to look at how different people here perceve XP and advancement in RPGs. I also realize, and did before this thread, that I am in the minority on my outlook on XP toward the majority of gamers, but I'm okay with that.

Now, your point on it (leveling) being a basic premise is, of course, dead on. If Gygax hadn't put some kind of advancement into the game, I doubt it would have caught on like it did. Kill things, take their stuff, get more powerful, kill bigger things. Like any kind of organized play, you can break it down into its most simplistic components. Usually you just see the kill things and take their stuff part, but if you're not moving on from goblins to ogres, the game loses its luster.

An interesting question might by why is this? But, I think that would go into a whole other direction than this thread about giving xp to absent players. A shorthand answer, however, might be that progress is important. Since you can't beat D&D, you have to have something that you can look at and see that you've accomplished something. It's an interesting look into humanity.

The fact that I look at XP in a very different mannar than most people, however, means that I don't quite understand the point of withholding it. But, I'm going to try to understand the other perspective. This is how I've gleaned others look at XP:

• XP is the quantitative measure of your PC's achievements in the game.
• This measure is directly proportional to how much effort the player has put into the game.
• Those who have put more effort into the game deserve more XP than those who havn't.
• Those who have missed sessions have put in less effort, therefore, they get less XP to signify this.

In this way, XP is used as a kind of proof that the player has played the game. A 10th level character is special because it is earned by the player putting in the time and energy into the game to have earned the 10th level character. A player who puts in less time doesn't deserve to have a 10th level character if they have put in significantly less time than the other one who has.

Concessions are sometimes made, but these are extreme cases, and the player who hasn't earned their character might be looked down upon by the ones that have. A new player joining a game and starting at 9th level might make other players feel that they've been cheated because they had to put in so much more effort for their 10th level characters.

Like I said this goes completely against everything I think that XP is to me. I'm trying to understand where others are coming from. Is this an acruate portrayal?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

On the other hand, I don't believe in ACTUALLY punishing people. We had a player miss quite a few sessions in a row because he changed work schedules and couldn't make it to the game time anymore. When his schedule changed again, we gave him enough XP so that he'd be 1 level lower than the lowest level person in the group so he wasn't so far behind as to be ineffective.

We've done the same thing. If the player isn't there, their character(s) don't get XP...but if they're gone for a long time and come back later, they can be bumped up to at least keep up with the rest of the party.

Brad

 

[JoeBlank]

Great debate, without getting too heated or devolving into name calling.

I think the obvious conclusion it that there is no right answer. We all do what is right for our group. Hopefully, everyone eventually ends up with a group that handles this, and other issues, in a way that is suitable to them.

My preference is that non-present players have the option of pulling their PCs out of the action and earning no XP, or of having them run by another player or the DM and earning half or otherwise reduced XP.

I also prefer that this be a hard-and-fast rule, not flexible. I don't want to be put in the position of judging whether other players had a legitimate excuse for missing the game. We are adults, I don't need a note from your mom. And I don't want others judging whether my reasons to miss are justified either. Always having a "penalty" (or reduced reward) removes the need to judge. We all have different priorities. If a player's situation causes him to miss so much that it becomes a problem for the group then this should be discussed with him. Again, some groups establish from the beginning that they need every player there at every game. I have declined to join a group for this reason. Not judging whether this is right, it just was not for me.

I do feel bad about players who have so many other responsibilities outside of gaming. A person always has to juggle priorities and gaming is rarely one of them when you have a spouse and kids and a demanding job. How much more important than is it to reward those who do make it a priority? How do you judge when a player's character should receive experience even though they could not make it? Whether or not they were simply slacking off or stepping up to their own lives, I mean. That's why we use the 50% rule and offer multiple options when a player cannot attend. XP is given if the character is put at risk when the normal player is absent.

howandwhy99 is one of my fellow players, and one of the reasons I say I play with a great group. Our method may not work for everyone. Find a group that does things the way you like. It's all about having fun.

 

[danzig138]

It's not just the DM's job to make the game fun; it's also the players' job. When a player doesn't show up, the remaining players have to carry the extra burden. The DM has to take on an additional character. To me, this reduces the fun of everyone who did manage to show up, so why should the absent player's character get full rewards?

Now this isn't a hard and fast rule. If a player makes every game for 9 months, and then has to miss a session, I'm not going to sweat it much. But if a player has a habit of missing or showing up 3 or 4 hours late, then he is impacting the fun of everyone else, and should not receive an equal award.