D&D 5E XP for Absent Players

[ccs]

On characters not being played when their player is absent;

Doesn't that kind of blow up continuity in your game, though, to have characters stop functioning mid-dungeon for no obvious reason, and then re-boot for again no obvious reason?

Not really, we simply recap the events for the missing the next week & play on.

Although in the current 5e game? There's actually an in-game reason for why the characters can phase in/out.
The current LV3+arc (based on Out of the Abyss) is the drunken fever dream of the groups Paladin.
In the 1st adventure the PCs (who didn't already know each other) were all in attendance at a wild all night party. {Imagine the wildest frat party you can conjure up, + Mardi Gras, add whatever you want to imagine from the internet, throw in magic, and then try & present this with at most a PG13 rating as it's being played at the local shop....} I'd aimed the party to take two sessions. But the players were having much fun RPing & it wound up taking three.
Well, the paladins player couldn't make the 3rd session. We knew this date prior to the game starting. So HIS suggestion as to why the paladin would be absent in the 3rd week was that he'd passed out in a corner. Oh. OK. What I'd envisioned was to simply focus on the characters whose players were present & he'd just fade into the crowd, no explanation needed. But this is sooo much better. Do not pass out at such a party....
So on the week the paladins player wasn't present, I pitched the idea to the other players that the adventure to follow is 100% in his head as he lies there unconscious. They loved this idea. The catch is that no-one is to tell the Paladins player this. The dream will end, and the campaign reset to the morning after the party, when either his character dies, OOTA concludes, OOTA stops being fun, or the Paladins player catches on that he's dreaming.
And so session 4 started with the characters & several other party goers being captured by the drow & drug off into the underdark. I did it that way, once again because of the paladin. During session 2 he'd remarked how there were no guards & anything might attack during the night.

So, just like in any dream, things might shift in/out, not quite fit logically. In this case it's characters who's players have to miss a session.
Also the Paladin player hasn't yet picked up on that language has not ever been an issue. Despite none of the PCs speaking any underdark language & none of the underdark NPCs speaking any of the PCs tounges.

On players not participating/contributing while at the game;

As opposed to your character's participation and contribution to the party? This can happen just the same with or without a player attached.

That doesn't happen in games I run.
1st, you're there. You're BSing right along with the rest of us. The game isn't only about killing monsters. It's discussing the latest Avengers movie, tales from GenCon, venting about school/work/etc, going on about some other game you've played, etc.
2nd, I'm the DM. I'll make sure your character is actively involved.
What doesn't happen is your character being played & xp earned if your not there.

 

[Horwath]

We use milestone leveling for the past 10 years, so everyone is the same level.

 

[Imaculata]

Everyone is always the same level in my campaign. It doesn't matter if a player is absent, or if their character is not involved in a particular battle. Party exp, always. I see no reason why I would ever want the players to be at different levels. It would make it extra hard for me as a DM to balance encounters.

 

[Coroc]

in my campaign not being there is no xp. Some players starting mid campaign when everyone else was level 5-7 started at level5with one magic item like e.g. A mace that deals acid damage and counts as a magic weapon or a ring of cold resistance.
that would also be the case if a player had to roll up a new character for whatever reason.
my reasoning was that in 5e it is not so important all being the same level plus the incentive. And it works well.
of course you need some thresholds. A level one with level sevens might work but that's no fun imho. So maybe when average is ten the start/restart level becomes 8.

in the campaign where I am player all get xp even for absent but additionally the dm decided to give level ups at certain points instead. I otoh calculate xp in detail for each mob and bonusses for other actions and achievements.

I like it both ways, both are justified and both are fun and playable

 

[sim-h]

Adults have busy lives and families and jobs, and punishing them for not being able to attend social occasions is weirdly manipulative.

I'm surprised by this statement, which seems quite a violent reaction to the OP, Morrus. I'd see it as more a question of rewarding those who prioritise and commit to attending a gaming session, which the DM may have worked hard to prepare, over for example, staying in because you're a bit tired, or attending a work leaving do or some other social occasion. I think there is a clear distinction between unavoidable absence and selective absence. For unavoidable (pre-notified) absences I often cancel the whole session.

Absent PCs damage everybody's enjoyment and add work for either another player or DM to NPC the character. If you join a campaign you make a regular commitment to the other players (including the DM). If you can't make that commitment for whatever reason, then please don't join a long term campaign. Nobody has forced you. Go for single session boardgames or one shots instead!

Similarly I can't stand the axiom 'real life comes first'. My gaming session is real life. I spent hours planning it, because it's my hobby. It's how I spend my leisure time and you spend yours. I'd much rather be doing that than most other things. It is as much real life as anything else I do.

Having said that, absent PCs in my sessions either get parked (zero XPs) or NPCed (full XPs) depending on the point in the campaign that we're at. In town - parked on personal business. Halfway through a dungeon - NPCed.

 

[Imaculata]

Similarly I can't stand the axiom 'real life comes first'. My gaming session is real life. I spent hours planning it, because it's my hobby. It's how I spend my leisure time and you spend yours. I'd much rather be doing that than most other things. It is as much real life as anything else I do.

You know, when people say 'real life comes first', they mean that other obligations (such as attending the funeral of a relative or friend) are more important than a weekly gathering of friends. And they are.

It sucks when such an obligation happens to land right on your weekly D&D night, but that is the inevitable result of it being a weekly (or any other recurrence) activity. And because it is a weekly thing, it is not a big deal to move it, or cancel it for once. Should a player really be punished for not being able to attend?

 

[iserith]

Attendance problems are easily solved by just having more players than seats at the table.

Recruit 8 to 10 players. Limit the table to 5 players per session with a quorum of 4. Even if 4 to 6 people can't make it, you can still play.

The only hard part about this is having that many D&D players in your given geographic region (if you don't play online, that is). And then sometimes more people can play in a given week than seats available at the table, so you'll have to figure out a way to resolve that. The way I do it is I announce a game date and you sign up, first come, first served. But the players also have a general understanding that people who haven't played as much should get some priority, so sometimes they'll swap out if someone's late to sign up. And if you're not playing, you're welcome to hang out, watch, and kibitz.

 

[GlassJaw]

Full XP or milestone leveling.

Penalizing a player that can't make it is wrong in every possible way to me for something that is supposed to be a luxury and fun.

 

[Blue]

I haven't bothered with granting XP for years. They level when I say level, based on what they have accomplished with the story and opening up new vista of that. I believe it's slower than standard XP, so missing a session isn't a "large amount" of change at my table.

If I was granting standard XP, some sessions are heavy on combat and others not so much - have a character drop way behind for a player missing a combat-heavy session and having a different player fall behind less for missing a session where significant plot movement was made but wasn't focused on combat seems ... counterproductive at the least.

Anew player will come in at a level where they can join the stories as a full participant reghardless that they didn't share the danger to get there; I can't see nickling and diming my existing players for when real life gets in the way. If I have a consistent attendance problem, I will address it directly, as an attendance problem.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For me, each of my campaigns are different. If I use milestone leveling for a particular game, then everyone is the same level, regardless of how many sessions they have been at.

If I use XP for a particular game, then players receive no XP for sessions missed, except for a concluding session to a particular adventure (when they receive half-XP.) That session's XP award has probably been bumped up due to the adventure conclusion, so the half-XP is the reward for participating in the several sessions of the adventure up to that point.

If this results in PCs that are separated by a level or two, its not big deal. I don't bother attempting to "balance" my encounters that closely that it would matter.