D&D 5E XP for Absent Players

[Mort]

If I was doing regular XP, I would still award it to absent players. I have yet to see anyone trying to metagame their absences, people play because they want to play.

Yes, exactly. I play with friends and they make it if they can - missing the game is its own punishment, I don't compound it.

As for 5e being more forgiving of level differences - I'm not sure I 100% agree.

5e has jumps in power. 3-4th isn't that different (but there is a jump - what with a feat/ASI etc) but 3-4th to 5th is very large (3rd level spells, 2nd attack etc.). Same goes for 7-8th vs 9th etc.

Basically, If you tier jump (4th vs 5th, 10 vs 11th etc.) the difference is huge - even for 1 level.

This last Gen Con I played quite a bit of Adventurer's League. Level differences in the party were not fatal - but they were quite noticeable and reinforced my choice to not impose that onto my group.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why do your players hate Murdock?

I can't imagine a table where someone doesn't contribute. That seems to be a failure of the DM to engage EACH player, right? A good way that I read recently here on the forums: after describing a scene, the DM might say "What do you do?" but instead of saying that to the whole group, pose the question to a each character: "What does Hrothgar do?" That ensures everyone is contributing on some level.

Our resident Malkavian hasn't had much time in the past few years to game with us (single dad). His presence is missed, but we've never found anyone who can quite fill his shoes.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

If you PC is involved they get XP. We used to always play it that PC were there and ran as NPC even if the player didn't show. Now we are running it where if you aren't there your PC is back at base camp if at all possible. That way you don't get killed when you aren't there, which has happened several times. But its sometimes unavoidable as in their current side quest.

 

[iserith]

Yes, exactly. I play with friends and they make it if they can - missing the game is its own punishment, I don't compound it.

As for 5e being more forgiving of level differences - I'm not sure I 100% agree.

5e has jumps in power. 3-4th isn't that different (but there is a jump - what with a feat/ASI etc) but 3-4th to 5th is very large (3rd level spells, 2nd attack etc.). Same goes for 7-8th vs 9th etc.

Basically, If you tier jump (4th vs 5th, 10 vs 11th etc.) the difference is huge - even for 1 level.

This last Gen Con I played quite a bit of Adventurer's League. Level differences in the party were not fatal - but they were quite noticeable and reinforced my choice to not impose that onto my group.

What mitigates concerns about cross-tier capability differences is the certainty that they won't exist for very long, sometimes not even an entire session, particularly if the challenges are geared toward the higher-level PCs. The lower-level PCs wrack up the XP. My experience with players in this regard is they LOVE it. It's the fastest they'll ever level, particularly in that D&D 5e "sweet spot" with dramatically slows progression.

What also offsets these concerns in my view is simply that the PCs aren't in competition with each other. They're on the same team. So I'm glad Ragnar Two-Tier with his two attacks per turn deigns to adventure with a lowly mook like me. He makes our team better. And soon I'll be able to be better on offense, too, thanks in no small part to the vicious monsters he slays for which I gain experience at a very high rate.

So, really the only objection that holds any water in my view is "I just don't like it." And that's fair enough - everyone likes what they like (or doesn't as the case may be). But after every D&D 5e campaign of mine having level and tier differences, these oft-touted concerns are really a bit overblown in my opinion.

 

[Lanefan]

It doesn't incentivize passivity. Also, I'm perfectly open about how my system works and none of my players have taken issue with it.

Sure, a player could ride the coat tails of more active players, in theory. I can't think of a time that I've actually seen that happen.

Where I see it constantly, even though we use individual xp for the most part.

They realize that if they contribute, everyone (including themselves) will level faster.

Some players would rather be B.A. than Hannibal or Face (relatively quiet until it's time for combat). I don't have a problem with that. Back when we used individual XP, we did have an issue with multiple people competing to be Hannibal, to the point where it sometimes threatened to become a RL problem.

I'd posit that's a better outcome (provided people can keep in-game and RL separate; and if they can't then it's time for new players); unless most of the group happen to be roleplaying quiet characters there's naturally going to be some conflict.

I certainly don't see a reason that Hannibal or Face deserve to advance faster than B.A. simply because they enjoy taking center stage in scenes. Driving the action is its own reward (in that you get to steer events in the direction you envision). B.A. does participate, he's just not interested in stealing the show, outside of perhaps during combat.

Taking the A-Team into hypothetical territory for a moment: what if B.A. didn't do much in combat either?

There are many reasons a player might not really participate. It could simply be because that player is reserved and needs some time to warm up to the group (speaking as someone with rather bad social anxiety, for whom this has been an issue).

Fair enough, but if that player's character is contributing in other ways and taking its share of the risk then all is good.

It could be that this player isn't really interested in the game but just wants to hang out with their friends, and that those friends aren't bothered if he gets a "free ride".

Coat-tail riders bother me...not so much if I'm the DM (I can remain neutral and let the players sort it out), but certainly as a player: if, say, I and another player (let's call him Joe) are driving the action and taking the risks while the other two ride our coat-tails and do everything they can* to minimize the risk to their own PCs then I bloody well expect Joe's and my characters to advance faster than those of the others - if only as a trade-off to the fact that because we're the ones taking the risks it's much more likely that our PCs will be the ones who end up dead.

* - and this can IME often include just hanging in the back and doing nothing.

However, if a player really lacks any interest in your game and is bringing down the group as a result, then it's probably something that needs to be dealt with by having a chat outside of game.

Fine if I'm the DM, but not so easy if I'm just another player.

I can't imagine the player who is completely unmotivated when group XP is involved but suddenly becomes highly motivated as soon as individual XP is used.

My take goes the other way: group xp is extremely DE-motivating for the active players, eventually leading to a lowest common denominator situation - and a rather dull game.

 

[Mort]

What mitigates concerns about cross-tier capability differences is the certainty that they won't exist for very long, sometimes not even an entire session, particularly if the challenges are geared toward the higher-level PCs. The lower-level PCs wrack up the XP. My experience with players in this regard is they LOVE it. It's the fastest they'll ever level, particularly in that D&D 5e "sweet spot" with dramatically slows progression.

Unfortunately, AL has a different way to level (basically 1 advancement point per hour played, 4 points per level needed levels 1-4, 8 points 5+ (or something like that) - though I understand they're changing that for the next season), you don't benefit from faster leveling, you slog through exactly the same regardless. It would be the same if you used milestones, no? Everyone levels, but the ones behind never actually catch up, unless the DM arbitrarily levels them up faster (in which case we no longer have a discussion).

What also offsets these concerns in my view is simply that the PCs aren't in competition with each other. They're on the same team. So I'm glad Ragnar Two-Tier with his two attacks per turn deigns to adventure with a lowly mook like me. He makes our team better. And soon I'll be able to be better on offense, too, thanks in no small part to the vicious monsters he slays for which I gain experience at a very high rate.

The players are not in competition with each other, true, but there is the irritant of watching Ragnar "Hey y'all watch this" as you provide cover. And again, depending on leveling method (as with AL) you may not actually catch up.

Was it a huge problem? Not really, and with AL, I think it's unavoidable. But it reinforced my preference to keep players the same level in my home game.

 

[Lanefan]

I can't imagine a table where someone doesn't contribute. That seems to be a failure of the DM to engage EACH player, right? A good way that I read recently here on the forums: after describing a scene, the DM might say "What do you do?" but instead of saying that to the whole group, pose the question to a each character: "What does Hrothgar do?" That ensures everyone is contributing on some level.

DM: "What does Hrothgar do?"
Player: <no response, didn't hear DM, is busy on Wastebook>
DM: "Hey, [Player]! What does Hrothgar do next?"
Player: <looks up from phone> "Oh, I don't know - what's the situation?"
DM: >facepalm< "I just described it..."

I see this all the time...but, while annoying, it bothers me far less than this:

Situation: the PCs for whatever reason need to get into a cave. They know there's a monster in there that's bigbad enough to be a serious threat and quite possibly cause death or other serious problems e.g. level drain.

Player A: "We know it's in there, we've got to take it out because there's no way in hell we're gonna sneak past it. There's not much room for open-field tactics, all we can do is buff up, sneak in as far as we can, then charge and hope for the best. Best if we can bottle it up and not give it too much room to move."
Players C, D, and E: <general agreement, along with some good suggestions and ideas etc. as their PCs prepare to stand in>
Player B: <in full knowledge the party's main tactic is to try to pin the foe in its cave by force of numbers> "I'll stay out here in case it tries to escape."
Player A: "How does that help us - if it escapes that means we're all dead, and if you're out here you're one less body to help pin it in the cave."
Player B: "You can all go in there to die if you want, I'm staying out here where I'll be safe."

<some argument follows, after which the PCs of Players A, C, D and E enter the cave, pull off their plan, and kill the foe (at cost of C's PC's life and some expensive gear owned by D's PC) with no help at all from Player B's PC>

Please tell me how or why Player B's PC deserves ANY xp for that battle. And while you're at it, tell me why Player C shouldn't be rather gassed off with Player B (be it in or out of character, either way works), whose participation in the battle would likely have made enough difference to keep C's PC alive.

And the above example is a rough paraphrase of a conversation I've actually had at the table, more than once (though in different in-game situations that don't always involve a monster in a cave), in one of the Player A, C, D or E positions.

No risk, no reward. It's only fair.

 

[iserith]

Unfortunately, AL has a different way to level (basically 1 advancement point per hour played, 4 points per level needed levels 1-4, 8 points 5+ (or something like that) - though I understand they're changing that for the next season), you don't benefit from faster leveling, you slog through exactly the same regardless. It would be the same if you used milestones, no? Everyone levels, but the ones behind never actually catch up, unless the DM arbitrarily levels them up faster (in which case we no longer have a discussion).

It depends on what you mean by "milestones." The DMG definition still has milestones tied to XP which is granted for completing "certain events or challenges." Since those are pegged to the same XP as a hard or medium difficulty encounter, those will scale and lower-level PCs will level up faster.

What most people mean when they say "milestones" is what the DMG actually calls "story-based advancement," which I discuss in a few posts upthread. In that scenario, since levels are tied to completing story goals with no XP as an intermediary, then yes, you ain't catching up. In this scenario, it's probably likely the DM is going to keep everyone the same level.

According to what you say about AL advancement, that sounds like a variation on what the DMG calls "session-based advancement" which essentially incentivizes attendance. That makes some amount of sense if you're trying to drive people to show up to the gaming store.

 

[Mort]

DM: "What does Hrothgar do?"
Player: <no response, didn't hear DM, is busy on Wastebook>
DM: "Hey, [Player]! What does Hrothgar do next?"
Player: <looks up from phone> "Oh, I don't know - what's the situation?"
DM: >facepalm< "I just described it..."

I see this all the time...but, while annoying, it bothers me far less than this:

Situation: the PCs for whatever reason need to get into a cave. They know there's a monster in there that's bigbad enough to be a serious threat and quite possibly cause death or other serious problems e.g. level drain.

Player A: "We know it's in there, we've got to take it out because there's no way in hell we're gonna sneak past it. There's not much room for open-field tactics, all we can do is buff up, sneak in as far as we can, then charge and hope for the best. Best if we can bottle it up and not give it too much room to move."
Players C, D, and E: <general agreement, along with some good suggestions and ideas etc. as their PCs prepare to stand in>
Player B: <in full knowledge the party's main tactic is to try to pin the foe in its cave by force of numbers> "I'll stay out here in case it tries to escape."
Player A: "How does that help us - if it escapes that means we're all dead, and if you're out here you're one less body to help pin it in the cave."
Player B: "You can all go in there to die if you want, I'm staying out here where I'll be safe."

<some argument follows, after which the PCs of Players A, C, D and E enter the cave, pull off their plan, and kill the foe (at cost of C's PC's life and some expensive gear owned by D's PC) with no help at all from Player B's PC>

Please tell me how or why Player B's PC deserves ANY xp for that battle. And while you're at it, tell me why Player C shouldn't be rather gassed off with Player B (be it in or out of character, either way works), whose participation in the battle would likely have made enough difference to keep C's PC alive.

And the above example is a rough paraphrase of a conversation I've actually had at the table, more than once (though in different in-game situations that don't always involve a monster in a cave), in one of the Player A, C, D or E positions.

No risk, no reward. It's only fair.

Player B is violating the implied contract at the table that all players contribute to the fun of the group. This in no way means all players are in agreement all the time, it just boils down to "Don't be a jerk."

If Player B tries to pull the "well that's how my character would act" routine then the DM and the players need to remind Player B that designing characters that don't work with the group is also being a jerk. If the player changes, great, if not, well they shouldn't be invited back (I suppose that's a form of not giving them xp).

 

[Lanefan]

Player B is violating the implied contract at the table that all players contribute to the fun of the group. This in no way means all players are in agreement all the time, it just boils down to "Don't be a jerk."

I guess I see "being a jerk" as something that has to be intentionally done; you can't be a jerk by doing nothing - even though you can at the same time be annoying.

If Player B tries to pull the "well that's how my character would act" routine then the DM and the players need to remind Player B that designing characters that don't work with the group is also being a jerk. If the player changes, great, if not, well they shouldn't be invited back (I suppose that's a form of not giving them xp).

And here I'll - perhaps paradoxically - come to the defense of Player B. "That's how my character would act" is perfect defense for absolutely anything a character does provided it's true to the character as previously played. Full stop. No debate.

BUT: the rest of the players are also fully entitled to respond accordingly in character, be it by kicking B's PC out of the party, forcing it to pay for C's revival and D's lost gear, or whatever. In other words, actions have consequences.

That's all in character. Metagame, the system should reward and incentivize taking action; and in this example giving B's PC xp for that battle does the exact opposite.