Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 2550065" data-attributes="member: 707">I think your goals are completely unconnected to the subject at hand.  What exactly are you rewarding players for?  There's a player in my group who plays a cleric that spends most of every combat buffing himself then never entering melee.  He is, without a doubt, the safest character in the group, because he never takes any risks.  There's another player in the group who plays the fighter, who fearlessly engages the meanest-looking critter on the field, every time.  The fighter has come close to death dozens of times, and died several times as well.  Now I ask you, what kind of "player success" has the cleric's player achieved?  What kind of "player success" has the fighter's player achieved?  And do those correspond with their respective levels, of which the fighter's is lower due to his various deaths?So what am I trying to say?  Namely, that there's no such thing as "player success."  There are only players.  Now, a character may have a certain amount of in-game success.  My own PC was recently inducted into a prestigious paladin order.  But tying character level to "player success" is, IMO, an impossibility.I can understand your preference for characters of differing levels.  But I think denying xp to absent players (due to circumstances beyond their control, not Halo,) is the wrong way to go about it.How exactly does this pertain to absenteeism?  Not being there has nothing to do with the kinds of risks you're willing to take, or a personal responsibility for a character's advancement, unless you are referring to the risk of getting fired by refusing a business trip, or the personal responsibility you have to the game over your marriage and kids.</blockquote>

Verification