D&D 5E XP for Absent Players

[Seramus]

A player recently had his mother die. He had to fly out and attend the proceedings. It makes me physically sick to imagine telling him his character in my game has to be “less effective” because of it.

If a player consistently has bad attendance or is not engaged during the game, I talk to them about it after the game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

Looking at all the posts here from DMs who either don't use xp at all or who always even it out so everyone gets the same, I have to ask what it is you're trying to reward or incentivize.

Simple player attendance? If someone shows up and plays on his phone all night, or does nothing except gabble about hockey instead of focusing on the game, why should that player get the same reward as the person who focuses on the game all night and helps drive the action? There's no incentive to drive the action - in fact there's a disincentive, as the player(s) driving the action is (are) by extension most often putting their characters at greater risk in so doing. This makes the 'optimal' path that of sitting back and riding the bus rather than helping to drive it, because you know you're going to get the same reward anyway; and how is that any good?

Simple "character attendance"? By this I mean a vague in-fiction extension of player attendance. If a character hangs in the back and does nothing of use in an encounter or even an entire adventure, why should it get the same reward as the characters who actually did what had to be done to overcome the challenge? Again, this only serves to disincentivize taking risks and getting after it, as you know you're going to get the same reward no matter what you do...which leads to the same 'optimal' path, that being to take as little risk as possible relative to the rest of the party.

For some folks, standard or milestone XP isn't viewed as an incentive because it doesn't produce the desired behaviors within the group. At that point it's at best a pacing mechanism, but if that pace doesn't line up with the speed of advancement they want for a campaign, then it's not even that. If it's neither of those things, then it may as well be abandoned.

Commonly, people who don't use XP go with story-based advancement in which level is tied to the achievement of story goals without XP as an intermediary, session-based advancement in which level is tied to frequency of game attendance (again, without XP at all), or level by DM fiat, which is when characters level up whenever the DM decides for whatever reason he or she likes. In the latter case, which is very common in my experience, the method incentivizes no particular behavior at all.

So, I get why people don't use it. They just might not think about it too deeply as to why. They might just get a sense that it doesn't work for them and pitch it. And that's fair enough in my view.

Forcing everyone to be the same level? Sorry, but in a 5e (or 0e-1e-2e) environment this one holds no water at all - the system is more than flexible enough to handle some in-party level disparity, and balancing encounters to the party average is - at most - all you ever need.

That is correct in the context of the games you mention. For D&D 3.Xe and D&D 4e, not so much. Some folks DMing D&D 5e may be engaged in legacy thinking in this regard, carrying over presuppositions from other games they have played and, as a result, have not bothered trying to play with characters of disparate levels. Even the D&D 5e DMG comes right out and says it's not an issue, at least when it's just a few levels' difference, so it's not like they have to take out word for it.

 

[Retreater]

I've played in games that use milestone levelling, and it was hot garbage. There's already zero consequences for combat in 5E, since it's nearly-impossible to die and everyone regenerates overnight. If you couldn't get XP for combat, then there would be no reason for combat to exist. It would just be a time sink that everyone tries to avoid.

If all that you get out of combat is XP, then you have a problem with your combats - not milestone leveling. There have to be stakes, connections to the plot and characters, etc.
I think gunning for XP is bad for the pacing. I like to run faster-paced campaigns. Levelling is too slow for our group - considering we get to play only once or twice a month. My game time is too sacred to waste on pointless, endless skirmishes.

 

[iserith]

Interesting- could you elaborate on this?

It has been my experience that regardless of the system (milestone leveling, group XP, individual XP, modified XP systems, and so on) that D&D players tend to focus on combat, and that, if anything, it is often hard to get them to enjoy the other pillars as much.

In other words, because of the nature of most D&D tables, and because of the way the game is structured to emphasize areas of combat (including accumulation of money and magic via combat, as well as resolution of the vast majority of difficulties), I have never seen an issue being that players avoid all combats.

I'm not Saelorn, but I have some thoughts on this as it relates to a campaign I was just in and that recently wrapped up. The advancement method was "level up every session regardless of attendance." So, when you think about it, essentially it was about experiencing content more than anything else. To my mind, that means "work efficiently to experience as much content as possible during the session."

To that end, I was very much willing to have my '80s lizardman G. Gecko stealth around potential combats or awkwardly try to social interaction my way to achieving a goal because combat simply takes longer. I had no incentive to fight in most situations because there was nothing really to gain. If I could steal the treasure without fighting or achieve a goal by talking, then that means we cover more content in a session.

So in my view, and without necessarily agreeing with everything Saelorn is saying, you're more likely to get what you incentivize than not.

 

[S'mon]

I find having a single XP tally makes players think of themselves as a team. It's good for high fantasy. Individual XP leads to more individualist play. It's good for swords & sorcery.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If all that you get out of combat is XP, then you have a problem with your combats - not milestone leveling.

In a normal D&D-type game, the stakes would be survival. You need to efficiently overcome these opponents, because they're trying to stop you, and if you're sloppy then you'll eventually be overwhelmed. It's engaging, because you can't afford to make sloppy mistakes.

Fifth Edition doesn't have those stakes, because the monsters are chumps and everyone gets free healing anyway. The core combat mechanics are critically flawed, in such a way that the only thing holding the system together is the XP reward.

And occasionally you have a boss fight, which is relevant to the interests of the characters, and that's fine and engaging. But again, the system isn't set up to support a boss-only campaign. The system is designed around five junk encounters for every one that matters, and failure to support that results in massive character imbalance.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In other words, because of the nature of most D&D tables, and because of the way the game is structured to emphasize areas of combat (including accumulation of money and magic via combat, as well as resolution of the vast majority of difficulties), I have never seen an issue being that players avoid all combats.

It's less that they avoid all combat, and more that they skip straight to the boss. Boss fights can still be fun, for a variety of reasons: increased difficulty, possible loot, plot-relevance, and the likelihood of triggering an arbitrary level-up flag.

But trap them in a room with a bunch of sand worms, and you'll get nothing but eye-rolls and groans of boredom as they tediously slog through another meaningless fight.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*