PDA

View Full Version : Not gaining XP for missing sessions



Reinboom
2008-08-24, 06:24 PM
I just recently had a debate with my DM over this.
Personally, I can't stand being behind due to missing sessions. At all. So, I would like to understand what are other people's stances on this.

My stance:
I'm already getting punished by not being there to play, not getting to have fun with the other players in the game. Why punish my character's experience as well? That is not very fun for me, and detracts my interest in to the game at all less.

DM's stance:
By showing up a session, you are risking your character's neck and thus should get experience for it. When you do not show up, your character is an 'invisible, bullet-proof entity' and thus do not gain experience due to no risk.


Any other stances?

The Extinguisher
2008-08-24, 06:27 PM
I know a DM who plays the character like an NPC in the party for missed sessions.

So they get the XP, but your at a decidely more lethal point than you were before.

Kyeudo
2008-08-24, 06:28 PM
I've always gone with and expected the "No XP for missing a session" aproach. When you don't show, everyone else in the party has to shoulder the load. They work harder because you weren't there, so why should you still get a cut of the XP?

Matthew
2008-08-24, 06:28 PM
I usually let other players run the character, and experience is awarded normally.

Saph
2008-08-24, 06:29 PM
The solution I recommend is a compromise. You get half XP for missing sessions. However, if you're not there, your character can't die. This isn't actually a bad deal in a high-lethality game.

One of the DMs in my other gaming group, though, runs it straight up. Your PC stays right where he is, and if you're not there the other players run him for you. Your character gets full XP, but if you die under another player's control, you're dead.

Means you get a lot more XP, but it also means you dread getting the after-session report. Definitely not recommended if you don't trust your teammates. :P

- Saph

Bandededed
2008-08-24, 06:30 PM
Perhaps you should ask the DM to NPC your character when you're away, or one of the other PC's. With the stipulation, of course, that they try to avoid getting you killed [/understatement]. You will still not be playing, but at least your character will get experience.

Edit: Holy crap! I need to type faster - no less than four ninja's!!

nagora
2008-08-24, 06:32 PM
I'm with Matthew - let someone else run the character for the xps. If you'd rather they are an "invisible bullet-proof entity" then pay the price.

Saph
2008-08-24, 06:42 PM
I've never favoured the 'someone else runs the character for the session' approach, because it can rapidly get ridiculous if you have players who take extended breaks.

In the game I mentioned before, we had one period where the two to three regular players were, between them, running seven PCs. I had to run my druid, my animal companion, and between one and two other PCs as well, each of which had a semi-illegible HeroForge character sheet which was out of date by at least one level and probably more because the player hadn't showed up for a month to update it and what, now I'm expected to level up his character for him as well? Eeesh.

I rarely have the luxury of playing in games where everyone can be counted on to show up regularly. Usually there's at least one player who's missing the majority of the sessions, and I find it really hurts roleplaying for someone else to run the character for him. Eventually I put my foot down and made a blanket rule for all games I DM - if you're not there, your character isn't. It's made things a lot easier.

- Saph

bosssmiley
2008-08-24, 06:46 PM
I usually let other players run the character, and experience is awarded normally.

That has the potential to be like one of the old "Nodwick" cartoons though:

Absentee: "So in my absence you used my low-Dex fighter character as a trapspringer, he was then savaged by dire weasels, killed by something else entirely, and finally he was reincarnated as a pixie. *sigh* Fine."
Player 2: "Oh, that was just the first five minutes of play..."

Most players learn not to mind a session of missed XP after the first time the above occurs. :smallamused:

CrazedGoblin
2008-08-24, 06:48 PM
we just did the whole NPC thing and that persons character became cannon fodder or the object of jokes involving game mechanics

Reinboom
2008-08-24, 06:50 PM
If 'pay the price' is the backing of your statement - then I shall outright disagree with it. It is very against my opinion that a person gets significantly punished for playing a game.

Aside, it may be beneficial if I just copy pasted the AIM chat that led to this:


ReinaSweet (3:30:09 PM): Ok, I can't ask -yet-, but after next thursday I could ask to switch my thursday shift with a tuesday shift
HiddenDMName (3:31:04 PM): That could work, although I'd wait 3-4 weeks to do that.
ReinaSweet (3:31:11 PM): however, I'm still going slower to the "ehn" spot
HiddenDMName (3:31:30 PM): Knowing Murphy's Law, as soon as we set it up so we can all make Thursday, Thursday won't be available anymore.
HiddenDMName (3:31:34 PM): The "ehn" spot?
ReinaSweet (3:31:55 PM): Everytime I miss a single session, I get further behind in character
ReinaSweet (3:32:05 PM): every time my character gets further behind, the less desire I have to play it
ReinaSweet (3:32:34 PM): "ehn" spot is the point of which I don't care if I get chosen to drop or not
HiddenDMName (3:32:48 PM): Well, you haven't missed any sessions lately. I assume you're talking about the lack of sessions recently?
HiddenDMName (3:33:04 PM): That and the birthday one upcoming.
ReinaSweet (3:33:18 PM): no, I mean the ones in the past in addition to the inevitable ones to forthcome
HiddenDMName (3:33:47 PM): Well, I would assume every session you do make pulls you away from the "ehn" spot as well.
ReinaSweet (3:34:06 PM): not really
ReinaSweet (3:34:21 PM): because when I make a session, I'm not catching up
ReinaSweet (3:34:31 PM): I'm just preventing myself from falling further behind
HiddenDMName (3:34:46 PM): So what does allow you to catch up?
HiddenDMName (3:35:08 PM): Some missed sessions are a given in any campaign. You'd need some way to resolve that to play long-term.
ReinaSweet (3:35:43 PM): I don't give "who is playing in the session right now gets experience" in my campaigns for this reason
ReinaSweet (3:36:49 PM): I have the mindset that if missing the session isn't punishment enough, the DM is doing something wrong
ReinaSweet (3:37:43 PM): alternatively, 1-shots to allow players to catch up to the current 'high point' in the campaign (but not beyond it) is a mid point
HiddenDMName (3:37:57 PM): That'd work.
HiddenDMName (3:38:21 PM): My opinion is the lack of XP is a trade-off for "invisible & bullet-proof" PCs during the session.
HiddenDMName (3:38:45 PM): If a player gave their PC to someone else to play during battle & risk dying, they'd get XP like anyone else.
HiddenDMName (3:38:59 PM): But hmmm, wonder if I couldn't adapt something for that... anyway, go on.
ReinaSweet (3:39:16 PM): hmmm
ReinaSweet (3:40:01 PM): I'm not much a fan of that either, since that suggests that ever session is less of a role-playing session and more of a death race 2000 session.
HiddenDMName (3:41:01 PM): My argument is just about any threat to characters' lives eventually culminates in combat.
HiddenDMName (3:41:14 PM): That and I haven't met a player yet willing to let someone else RP their character.
HiddenDMName (3:41:19 PM): Run in battle? Maybe. RP? No go.
ReinaSweet (3:42:05 PM): Thus RPing is more important, no?
HiddenDMName (3:43:58 PM): Perhaps, but RPing is definitely more complex in terms of the goals persued.
HiddenDMName (3:44:17 PM): Combat's pretty binary and easier to run for someone only vaguely familiar with the character.
HiddenDMName (3:44:43 PM): And no player's gonna argue about how they ran their character in combat unless they really screwed up.
ReinaSweet (3:44:49 PM): And... what point does that make of whether a player should be punished or not?
HiddenDMName (3:46:55 PM): It's not punishment, it's risk-for-reward.
HiddenDMName (3:47:31 PM): The player risks their character's neck, therefore they get the XP for combat from the session.
HiddenDMName (3:48:00 PM): However, hmm...
HiddenDMName (3:48:02 PM): *checks total*
HiddenDMName (3:48:26 PM): The thought of catch-up via mini-adventures, I've been debating, though.
ReinaSweet (3:48:29 PM): Then would it not be true that all tanks should get more experience?
ReinaSweet (3:49:12 PM): Alternatively, since this is 4e, would it not also be true that everyone should be getting nearly no experience?
HiddenDMName (3:50:12 PM): I would argue that.
ReinaSweet (3:50:24 PM): I have yet to see a 4e PC die.
HiddenDMName (3:50:29 PM): One, the battles are just as difficult IMO, they just don't have the annoying spiky deaths involved.
ReinaSweet (3:50:30 PM): Or hear of one, for that matter
HiddenDMName (3:50:54 PM): I've heard of a few. Mainly TPKs from people learning the game, mind you.
HiddenDMName (3:51:38 PM): Perhaps, but most of the 3E deaths I remember really weren't... how should I put it...
HiddenDMName (3:51:41 PM): They were abrupt.
HiddenDMName (3:51:52 PM): "You roll a 1 on your save, you go BLACH!"
HiddenDMName (3:52:04 PM): Or "The dragon hits with all its attacks and crits on 2. You're automatically paste."
ReinaSweet (3:52:50 PM): and 4e is the other extreme
ReinaSweet (3:53:31 PM): *long, hard combat* *heals to full* "Oh hey, I only have 4 more healing surges to go"
ReinaSweet (3:54:34 PM): That long hard fight you gave us for the first 4e session? That wasn't hard because we were getting hurt, that was hard because we couldn't kill the enemy fast enough
ReinaSweet (3:55:22 PM): and you just already gave an exception to your point
ReinaSweet (3:55:59 PM): Which allows me to make this statement: Except when your DM TPKs, which is bad DMing figure (usually) anyways, you are not risking your neck in 4e.
ReinaSweet (3:56:47 PM): Risking how many healing surges you still have by the end of the day, maybe.
HiddenDMName (3:58:39 PM): Perhaps, but I'd argue it often feels like it. In the 4E game I play, I remember dipping the single-digit HPs quite often.
ReinaSweet (3:58:54 PM): Does feeling like it matter?
ReinaSweet (3:59:14 PM): When you're knocked out in 4e, you still have til your bloodied hp in negatives to even die
ReinaSweet (3:59:36 PM): you didn't even get to 1/3 of your hp if you were in single digits
HiddenDMName (3:59:58 PM): True, but the fear here is being KOed
ReinaSweet (4:00:05 PM): You said risking your neck
ReinaSweet (4:00:12 PM): risking your neck != KO
HiddenDMName (4:00:43 PM): Being KOed is simultaneously one step closer to risking your neck ala TPK.
HiddenDMName (4:01:07 PM): And a personal fear of the player because it means being taken out of the fight temporarily, prone, dropping items...
ReinaSweet (4:01:50 PM): Then you are paranoid. Being KOd in 4e to me feels more like "Oh, yay, I lost a few turns, guess I'll go have lunch now"
ReinaSweet (4:02:10 PM): Further, YOU have never really put our necks at risk
ReinaSweet (4:02:23 PM): So, why is playing your games risking your neck?
HiddenDMName (4:04:01 PM): Hmph, I would've hoped my combats are difficult enough you worry about it occasionally...
HiddenDMName (4:04:10 PM): In 3E, I'd chalk it up to trouble balancing encounters.
ReinaSweet (4:04:18 PM): If someone does, it's not me
HiddenDMName (4:04:38 PM): In 4E, I simply haven't tossed an equal/challenging encounter your way yet, since I wanted to make sure everyone was used to the system first.
ReinaSweet (4:04:37 PM): and if someone does - then why are the tanks not getting more experience by your risking neck logic again?
ReinaSweet (4:06:30 PM): I felt fear for Nus life in one case,when being cornered in the solo session. When she was her own tank.
HiddenDMName (4:07:56 PM): Because tanks are supported by everyone else. They may have died if the striker hadn't taken out that extra enemy in time, or if the healer made the wrong move. They might be risking their neck a bit more at the time, but so is everyone else, and everyone else contributes to saving it.
ReinaSweet (4:08:43 PM): but when the tank dies, the striker can just high tail it / finish off the enemy given the situation
ReinaSweet (4:08:54 PM): the striker aren't risking their necks
ReinaSweet (4:08:59 PM): they are risking the tanks necks
HiddenDMName (4:11:07 PM): Unless the monsters take the penalties to go after the strikers, or there's more monsters than the tank can handle.
HiddenDMName (4:11:19 PM): And if the tank dies, their risk really rises.
ReinaSweet (4:11:44 PM): If the tank dies, then the tank is dead.
ReinaSweet (4:11:47 PM): Their risk is 100%.
ReinaSweet (4:11:51 PM): The strikers can still live.
ReinaSweet (4:11:59 PM): Thus, the tank is risking more.
ReinaSweet (4:12:17 PM): It isn't just 'tank lives, everyone lives', 'tank dies, TPK'
HiddenDMName (4:12:50 PM): The tank also has more support, while strikers may have to fend for themselves if monsters skirt the tank and hit them instead.
ReinaSweet (4:12:49 PM): "Tank lives, everyone lives." "Tank dies, everyone else lives." "Tank dies, everyone else dies". + other shades of grays
HiddenDMName (4:13:27 PM): Reina, we'll have to continue this later.
HiddenDMName (4:13:43 PM): I need to go eat.
ReinaSweet (4:14:03 PM): You have just discussed a situation that only comes up in specific scenarious of swarming then. Thus, the striker should only be punished for XP when the session they have missed involves a swarmed enemy.
ReinaSweet (4:14:05 PM): Alright
HiddenDMName (4:18:31 PM): Well, then there's area attacks, burst attacks, other occasions when multiple people are injured but the healers have to focus on the tank, etc...
HiddenDMName (4:19:04 PM): The tank might risk his neck the most, but he should also be getting the most support, and he can always pull back if things get a bit out of hand.
ReinaSweet (4:19:15 PM): The healer doesn't have to focus on the others
ReinaSweet (4:19:20 PM): the others can just take a second wind
HiddenDMName (4:19:50 PM): Unless it's more damage than that, or they need to take down a monster or two ASAP.
HiddenDMName (4:19:56 PM): Grr- ending this now! Going to eat!
HiddenDMName (4:19:59 PM): Later.
ReinaSweet (4:20:01 PM): tata


Also, I'm very not fond of someone running my character.

Friv
2008-08-24, 06:56 PM
As a GM, I always give XP to people who miss sessions, because all it does if I don't is potentially screw up the party balance if one player is at every session and another player isn't.

That said, I also only give out XP as a party set, so there you go. And yeah, we do NPC characters, but character death is so rare that it's never been an issue (except once almost, but that was because the party very nearly managed a TPK on themselves while the player with the most common sense was gone.)

Prophaniti
2008-08-24, 07:00 PM
We've done it both ways in our sessions. We have a large group (currently 7 if everyone shows, more if my brother's in town or we have guest players), and it's less common than we'd like for everyone to show. Sometimes, if I feel like running a particularly 'real' campaign, I will ask the other players to play the absent characters, or I will run them myself. Our other main DM prefers the "you are swallowed by a temporal vortex" approach (he watches too much Star Trek), and doesn't award xp if they're absent, unless one of us specifically says we want to run the absent characters. He used to play a lot on a military post in Germany, and it was incredibly rare to have the same group of people show all the time, so he just became comfortable with random characters popping in and out of the party all the time.

I do say, however, that if the character is not played by someone (i.e. didn't participate at all in the session) they don't get xp for it.

I do like to put new players at the same xp as everyone else, though.

Myshlaevsky
2008-08-24, 07:06 PM
I think you put forward a good argument. I would say that it's less a sense of "risk/reward" that your DM is operating from than a sense of you gaining the same reward as the other players, despite not participating. I do, however, believe this is adequately covered by you missing out on loot. I doubt your DM is going to change his mind, though.

Edea
2008-08-24, 07:06 PM
It doesn't really matter whether or not the group/DM decides that absentees still receive XP, as least as far as which one is 'right'; what DOES matter is that, -whatever- manner is chosen, it needs to be established before the first session even starts.

So, was this sprung on the OP -after- missing a session, or was this talked about before the campaign began?

adanedhel9
2008-08-24, 07:07 PM
I'm ambivalent on the issue; I can certainly see it from both sides. But, as a DM and host, my biggest issue is that some players just don't show up when they say they will. I understand that life gets in the way, but could you at least give me a litle bit of warning?

So this is what I usually do: for every 24 hours notice a player gives me that he won't be at the next session, that players gets 10% XP and treasure for the session (up to 100%).

By instituting this policy, I actually curbed the absenteism problem in two ways: more less-than-dedicated people showed to the sessions, and more people let me know when they couldn't come, which gave me an opportunity to plan around them.

Matthew
2008-08-24, 07:14 PM
That has the potential to be like one of the old "Nodwick" cartoons though:

Absentee: "So in my absence you used my low-Dex fighter character as a trapspringer, he was then savaged by dire weasels, killed by something else entirely, and finally he was reincarnated as a pixie. *sigh* Fine."
Player 2: "Oh, that was just the first five minutes of play..."

Most players learn not to mind a session of missed XP after the first time the above occurs. :smallamused:

Was that before or after the KotDT naked barbarian sketch?

Anywho, yeah, the player is expected to play the character, and like any henchmen type, the DM can veto something done out of malice or gross stupidity

I actually let players run any NPC who might be along if their character goes down; they usually quite enjoy it.

Stormageddon
2008-08-24, 07:18 PM
Well The way my DM does it is he runs the charter as a NPC and that charter gets half XP for the game.

Reinboom
2008-08-24, 07:22 PM
It doesn't really matter whether or not the group/DM decides that absentees still receive XP, as least as far as which one is 'right'; what DOES matter is that, -whatever- manner is chosen, it needs to be established before the first session even starts.

So, was this sprung on the OP -after- missing a session, or was this talked about before the campaign began?

The campaign has been going on for a bit.
It wasn't talked about at all until a session was missed.
And then when we switched from 3.5 to 4, I raised it up again. But, the conversation diverted, and how I normally converse with people... I don't really think the DM took it that I tried to make a point on that at all.

I made the point now because I am about to miss another session (since my birthday is this coming Tuesday, the same day as the campaign) and was requested by my fiancee to go out for dinner.

Starsinger
2008-08-24, 07:25 PM
I have 7 players (and 9 or so PCs) in my game. I build encounters for 6 since that's the average I get. I also keep everyone at the same XP total, Why? Because if the encounter is based on 6, and only 4 people show up, that's harder than it should be, so they deserve more XP. If all nine PCs are there, it's easier than it should be and they all get less. I think that's a fair compromise.

FoE
2008-08-24, 07:30 PM
I side with Sweetrein, though not just for the sake of the player. Actually, it's easier for me as a DM if everyone is balanced.

And if someone joins the party, they do so at the same level as the rest of the PCs.

Totally Guy
2008-08-24, 07:32 PM
We've just been using 1 player to keep track of XP. Less book keeping. Consequence of this is that a missed session never effects the total, it's still split between everyone. The character just phases in when there is a spell that only they can do. It's a gathering of friends first and a game second.

In the first session I ever did I'd never met the druid. I got my bard Ret-Conned into the game, "yeah, as the portal was closing last session... there was a bard that jumped out of nowhere and followed the party." Druid was bulletproof but we just logged it all as nomal... or at least what I assumed was normal as that was my first session.

Dr Bwaa
2008-08-24, 07:33 PM
I've had similar problems as Saph, although it was always the DM running excess characters, not the other players. This led to me, as DM, getting very tired of it very quickly, and if you weren't there, you either stayed behind if possible, or became an invisible, ghostly entity if staying behind didn't make sense.

People who are not present do not receive XP, since in neither case is the character doing anything important whatsoever. That's the in-game justification. The out-of-game justification is that I got tired extremely quickly of characters showing up once every two months and expecting to be at the same level as everyone else, and then wasting the first hour or more of a game session leveling up three levels and having to be explained everything that happened in his prolonged absence. This is not fun for anyone.

However, I think there is a simple fix that I'm surprised no one's mentioned yet (or maybe I just didn't see it). If someone does miss a session or two, and for whatever reason is falling behind in XP, I will give them ample opportunities for solo (or more-than-solo if a couple people are behind) side-quests in order to get them back up to speed. Alternately, if (especially in the case of a planned absence) the player sets up beforehand where their character is (I had a player's monk leave the party for a while to climb a mountain and meditate up there for a month or so in-game), and then writes me a good description (the monk in question gave me eight pages) of everything that went on since then, when they rejoin the party I will allow them to have average XP for the group, or whatever I feel is appropriate based on the amount of effort they've shown. This approach stays consistent with all my goals (do not give XP without it being earned, and so on), and also keeps the party balanced. I think it's just swell.

Jimp
2008-08-24, 07:37 PM
What most DMs I know, myself incuded, do is if the character is in a position to leave say that they were called away by 'obligation/friend/guild/emplyer X to do Y'. If not then the DM usually NPCs the character in combat and otherwise leaves him catatonic.

TheElfLord
2008-08-24, 07:58 PM
I usually let other players run the character, and experience is awarded normally.

If we are in the middle of something this is normally the approach my group takes and it is the one I prefer. It doesn't make sense having characters appear and disappear in the middle of a dungeon.

If you are in more of a go out on missions each session type of game, it can be easier to leave the character of an absent player behind, but then you run the risk of pushing the character and player into a secondary role. One of the guys in our group uses this method and it normally results in a couple players being the stars and everyone who misses a couple sessions being just sidekicks to the famous main characters, which while fun for the stars, isn't all that fun for the rest of us.

Innis Cabal
2008-08-24, 08:03 PM
Play the character as an NPC or no XP for them. Either or

Rockphed
2008-08-24, 08:24 PM
On the one hand, falling more than 1 session behind XP wise can get really irritating. On the other hand, dealing with characters who aren't there also gets irritating.

I think LordHenry's idea is the best. Either con your DM into giving you a solo session, or try to convince him to let your character go off on some really boring side quest(i.e. one that isn't going to result in anything) and accept a writeup(with appropriate poetry, dialogue or whatever) as payment for the XP.

The 4th edition DMG does give some advice on dealing with players who miss sessions, but I don't have mine with me right now, so I can't point you and your DM at the page.

Wreckingrocc
2008-08-24, 08:30 PM
Uhh... Your DM doesn't NPC you? What the hell... Your game must be messed.... What do the characters think about a teammate just dissapearing into thin air and reappearing sometime later? That must be some wicked strange RPing.

Reinboom
2008-08-24, 08:34 PM
My character does go on solo missions through the DM. She doesn't have to sleep, so, I like to have her actually do things.
I have not gotten XP for this.

Also, for the invisible bullet proof thing I've never seen as much of an issue to this point, usually the character just seems to randomly be off doing something else. We've only dungeon crawled once, and I think it was agreed that nobody likes dungeons. So, we've never really be caught up in a situation that actually makes it impossible for someone to just be 'doing something else'.

valadil
2008-08-24, 09:43 PM
I play with two groups. One plays the absentee by proxy, the other lets their XP slide. I don't feel comfortable taking someone else's character (although that group avoids character death altogether, so it's not really a big deal). On the other hand I don't like seeing anyone fall too far behind. I think I like the latter option if people miss an even amount of time, or if the GM offers a way to catch up. Like, each session XP is given out and then players gain 50% of the way to the max XP. They never recover fully, but they're never more than 1 level behind either.

monty
2008-08-24, 09:49 PM
We go with the "other player takes over" approach. My group is all friends and we trust each other to not do stupid things while baby-sitting, so it works out pretty well.

Curmudgeon
2008-08-24, 10:20 PM
If you're letting the rest of the group have all the risk, they should also have all the reward.

Long-term, missing a few sessions doesn't have much detrimental effect, because lower-level characters advance faster as part of a larger party.

Dr Bwaa
2008-08-24, 10:21 PM
My biggest problem with someone else taking over is that even when I'm the DM and know everything about the character, I generally feel uncomfortable role-playing them or making decisions for them, because the actual player certainly has a better feel for the character than I do.

SCPRedMage
2008-08-24, 10:47 PM
ReinaSweet (3:34:21 PM): because when I make a session, I'm not catching up
ReinaSweet (3:34:31 PM): I'm just preventing myself from falling further behind
This bit confuses me.

In 3.X, at least, lower level party members are supposed to get more XP than higher level ones. I've even been through one particularly intense session wherein a party member two levels behind the rest of the party managed to not only get get those two levels, but even ended the session with just a bit more XP than the rest of us...

Then again, if you're playing 4e (or using the Level-Independent XP Awards from Unearthed Arcana), then everyone would get the same amount of XP...

Reinboom
2008-08-24, 10:49 PM
we're playing 4e, yes.

mabriss lethe
2008-08-24, 11:06 PM
As a DM, I've done both.

It's crap loads easier on me to just ignore occasional absences and just keep things even between the party. I just make sure my players give me a sort of AI to gauge how to play them as NPCs. If the lapse is extended, the character goes on some unspecified hiatus and rejoins the game as a "new PC" at approximately the same level as the rest of the players. The less of a headache for me then the better the game will run.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-24, 11:15 PM
As a GM, I always give XP to people who miss sessions, because all it does if I don't is potentially screw up the party balance if one player is at every session and another player isn't.

This. In our first D&D 3.0 campaign, the druid ended up level 25 when the fighter as 20, the monk was 18, and the paladin was 15, because it was always me, the druid's player, and 1-3 of the others playing.

In level-based games, I've never seen any advantage to holding off XP for players who don't show. They're already screwed enough by not getting a share of loot and magic items.

4E makes this even harder - you don't gain XP faster if you're lower-level. In 3.X, you'd catch up to the rest of the party pretty soon if you were left behind. However, the 4E DMG has some great ideas for how to deal with this, and you should recommend to your DM that he check it out and consider it. (Basically, you stay behind for a session or two, then catch up. This means you may occasionally be a level behind the others.)

'course, in skill-based games like RuneQuest (games where you can't objectively measure the relative power of characters anyway), I don't have a real problem with players missing skill raises because they didn't play - and there's not that many ways to simulate it anyway. (Well, okay, there is in Mongoose's RQ, since you get experience points to blow on raising skills, essentially.) And heck, the guy who missed the last two sessions can be the leader on the next HeroQuest and get sweet skillz that way...

Dr Bwaa
2008-08-24, 11:18 PM
In level-based games, I've never seen any advantage to holding off XP for players who don't show. They're already screwed enough by not getting a share of loot and magic items.

Even if I'm ghosting a player, they still receive their share of lewtz and so on. They're only assumed invisible/untalkative for social situations, and in combat I assume they miss all their attacks, but miraculously take no damage, and so forth.

Arbitrarity
2008-08-25, 12:12 AM
We tend not to award XP for missed sessions, but if characters fall behind excessively (about a level) they are "boosted" back up to slightly below the other party members.

Staven
2008-08-25, 01:04 AM
My DM actually has a system that eliminates this problem almost completely: we have abandoned the xp system completely, and instead worked off of a "game progress" system, if you will. You see, at certain points in the campaign, sometimes at the end of a session, sometimes in the middles, he just tells us to take a level, completely eliminating balance issues within the party. While this does seem like XP communism, it is balanced out by the fact that he designs sessions well and we forget that there was ever a competition for XP.

Now, as for missing sessions, there are a couple ways to go about this. The first, and most obvious way that my group uses is that the character is idle during the session, doing something else, or just taking the day off. The second, used in campaigns with high lethality/danger, is the character is taken control of by the DM, and, while not bulletproof, becomes a western antihero of sorts: if he's ever knocked to 0 hit points or below, he is merely incapacitated, and will get back up eventually, and doesn't talk. He's too cool.

It's an effective, if freeformy, way of playing.

SCPRedMage
2008-08-25, 01:53 AM
Well, when I DM, I have characters created mid-campaign start halfway through the level below the rest of the party; a lot of DMs I've played with would start characters at the beginning of the level below the party. I'd think that a good rule of thumb would be that a character that's missed sessions could never have less XP than what a new character would have. That way, your character is never worse off than a new character would be.

Saph
2008-08-25, 05:16 AM
Thinking about it, I think describing it as being punished is looking at it the wrong way. It's not that your character is being 'punished', you just aren't being rewarded. You're not losing anything, you just aren't getting as much as the other players (who aren't getting it for free - they're working for it).

Now, you can see that as risk v. reward, but there's another side to it, as well. As a GM, it's really the regular players who keep your game going. The ones who make every session (or nearly every session) are the ones who keep the game alive; if it wasn't for them the campaign would fizzle out and everyone would find something else to do. So I don't think there's anything wrong with them getting a reward for that.

As for party balance, since I still give half XP for missed sessions, a player has to miss a ridiculous number of sessions to be significantly behind everyone else, like 3 in 4 or something.

- Saph

Grey Paladin
2008-08-25, 05:27 AM
If I may ask, why should PCs be balanced against each other after creation? sure, they need to be within the same league for the game to remain fun, but having one character be slightly more powerful (1-2 levels) then another matters little when they are all specialists from different fields.

BobVosh
2008-08-25, 05:29 AM
Uhh... Your DM doesn't NPC you? What the hell... Your game must be messed.... What do the characters think about a teammate just dissapearing into thin air and reappearing sometime later? That must be some wicked strange RPing.

Our world is strangely plagued...espically PCs. Whenever a player misses a session they gain the dreaded pox of "green apple quick-step." It is a problem of lower intestinal distress. Strangely it seems to have a duration of one session, no matter how long it takes.

I approve of no xp for not showing, as the xp chart curves to balance this. Unless you miss the crazy 20000 xp fight at level 8 or something. Then something went wrong with the DM.

Oh, alternately we have a "character bag of holding." Some of my dms do that, in case it is someone we need or we can't do anything without. Like a rogue in front of a locked door we can't open or breakdown.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-25, 05:32 AM
If I may ask, why should PCs be balanced against each other after creation? sure, they need to be within the same league for the game to remain fun, but having one character be slightly more powerful (1-2 levels) then another matters little when they are all specialists from different fields.

Because there are fields where all the characters contribute, for example combat, and it's where the higher-level character will be significantly stronger.

I usually give around 50% of experience for missing a session, and then slowly fill the gap with additional experience over time, so after several sessions everyone has exactly the same level again. Equal level groups are more fun.

MartinHarper
2008-08-25, 06:05 AM
SweetRein - how far 'behind' is your character, compared to others in the party? Are we talking one level or ten?

SydneyLosstarot
2008-08-25, 06:26 AM
I personally have nothing against players missing sessions.

Although it does get a little awkward when the party is in the middle of the dungeon.

As a second DM, i try to play for one of the PCs in our current game, and it all ended up funny:
that guy rolled a monk and went on an extended vacation. I pretty much hated his munchkin-like playstyle and tried to add some fluff to his character. Eventually, the poor monk turned into the ultimate source of hilarity for the company(AND he's getting releplaying XP from the other DM as well!). Not to mention his unusual combat prowess: i've never rolled that good with my own characters. He basically tore through hordes of monsters where the rest of the party ran away in panic.

I'm still curious whether the other players would ever treat the guy seriously from now on :smallbiggrin:

Koalita
2008-08-25, 07:19 AM
IMHO: Give XP, dont give treasure. The character will be lacking items? Well, the party has them. If they are willing to share, good for them. If not, at least you have the option to keep up with the levels.

Reinboom
2008-08-25, 07:26 AM
Not far behind, 1 level currently. However, the games proceeds very slowly, and the level does show to me. One session loss is significant to pressing it further apart, as does the knowledge that I can never gain what I didn't gain, even when not gaining it is out of my power.


Thinking about it, I think describing it as being punished is looking at it the wrong way. It's not that your character is being 'punished', you just aren't being rewarded. You're not losing anything, you just aren't getting as much as the other players (who aren't getting it for free - they're working for it).

Now, you can see that as risk v. reward, but there's another side to it, as well. As a GM, it's really the regular players who keep your game going. The ones who make every session (or nearly every session) are the ones who keep the game alive; if it wasn't for them the campaign would fizzle out and everyone would find something else to do. So I don't think there's anything wrong with them getting a reward for that.

As for party balance, since I still give half XP for missed sessions, a player has to miss a ridiculous number of sessions to be significantly behind everyone else, like 3 in 4 or something.

- Saph

I would understand this, however, I'm a regular.
The reason for my detraction thus far is from missing a lot of sessions early on in the campaign, however, not currently.
Also, my solo adventures specific to the campaign have no impact on my character. I put in extra for nothing.

ShaggyMarco
2008-08-25, 07:26 AM
An idea I've used in 4th ed is to make an NPC verison of the character with only the highest level Daily, Encounter, Utility powers and 1 at-will-No feats, just NPC magic threshold. Then have either the DM or another PC run them in combat and in RP situations, your character is unusually silent. I also, as DM, try and not have any encounters that hit any of the missing player's character's hot-buttons.

Jarlax
2008-08-25, 08:11 AM
as i DM i have never imposed a penalty of missed xp on any players. the reason for this is simply that doing so only punishes the other players, myself and discourages the people who cannot make it every single week for whatever reason.

i have people who, for personal reasons, cant show up weekly. they might only appear every two or even every three weeks. also we run on fridays and some weeks people have had a hard time at work all week and just don't feel like going out to D&D that friday.

i don't feel like i should have the right to reduce their enjoyment when they can attend by penalizing their XP and therefore, level on that basis. in the end they will just become frustrated and not show up at all, and thats the exact opposite of what i want.

the fact is I don't care if they get XP even if they don't attend, the other players don't care someone is getting the same XP as them even though they are not there that week, and the person who was absent appreciates not being left behind just because they had some event that was more important than D&D that week. so if noone cares why would i do it?

only1doug
2008-08-25, 08:40 AM
the way my current GM runs it is that PC's who's players haven't turned up are available to the other players as NPC's and its up to the other players to decide to use them or not. the PC/NPC's will not die but all measures must be taken to prevent death if they are knocked out (PC/NPC dropped to -20? heal that as quick as possible or he really is dead).

the advantages/disadvantages of using the PC/NPC's are:

advantage:
PC/NPC will get xp
can use characters abilities and DPS

disadvantage:
less xp for the rest of us
need to use resources to heal

generally we leave the absentee's to guard the rear and keep the xp for ourselves.

celestialkin
2008-08-25, 08:40 AM
Well, since I run a much more role-playing oriented style of game I personally do not feel I have to worry about this issue. My goal as a DM is to create a game and world/setting fun, detailed, and immersing enough where leveling and XP are not the main thing on my players minds (and hopefully far from it!).

The way I see it, XP and levels were original meant to be a way for players and the DM to keep track of the mechanics. Namely for a DM/GM to have an estimate of how "powerful" a character is in relation to the fighting encounters the DM sets up.

I personally feel players and DMs who's whole reason for playing is to dungeon grind to "level up" have completely lost track of the original purpose of these forms of games. Gygax did not create Basic and then AD&D to have a mechanical system where he could "hack and slash" imaginary monsters. He took a captivating work of fiction and created a way for people to experience (at least in their imaginations) the kind of mystical and heroic world described in it.

In fact, I try to keep a close watch over how fast characters are leveling, since as soon as they reach 20th level it's automatically over (Epic level games don't really seem my thing. At least not yet.).

My players' characters also tend to accumulate XP at different rates due to missing sessions, which in truth is not a real issue at all. For a DM it just means recalculating encounter CRs. I even have a program that makes it beyond easy. The only problem I see is if you have an "A type" personality where it will drive you mad that your (imaginary) character has one less (imaginary) number next to his (imaginary) class name on his sheet, along with a few (imaginary) class abilities.

Jayabalard
2008-08-25, 08:44 AM
The fact that people keep referring to this is a penalty seems absurd. XP is something you earn by playing the game. If you're not playing you didn't earn it. You're not being penalized. The sense of entitlement that "I'm being penalized" implies is something that I'd expect of very young child, not someone I would expect to be playing an RPG.

If I missed a session and the GM tried to force xp on me that I didn't earn, I'd just ignore it; my character wasn't involved in what was going on, and shouldn't be advancing because of it.

shadow_archmagi
2008-08-25, 08:51 AM
I run it like this:

1. You gave warning less than a day in advance.
Solution: Everyone else plays your character. You get last pick of the loot and have to worry about other people knowing how to use you. You come out considerably poorer, since you only get the loot no one else wanted.

2. You said you'd be gone a few days in advance.
Solution: Your character got separated from the party and went on a side adventure for exactly the DMG recommended amount of XP and loot. You come out a little bit behind since I normally overgold anyway.


EDIT: People referring to it as a penalty do so because it is. Everyone else is now a higher level; and depending on how high you were to begin with, it can be devastating. Imagine playing a level 1 with a bunch of 3's. D&D is a game, and its a social game. Players who miss a session are deprived of fun, and making them weaker than everyone else means they're deprived of even more fun.

Jayabalard
2008-08-25, 08:56 AM
Imagine playing a level 1 with a bunch of 3's. I don't have to imagine it; I've done it. I had 0 problems with it.

Saph
2008-08-25, 09:12 AM
I would understand this, however, I'm a regular.
The reason for my detraction thus far is from missing a lot of sessions early on in the campaign, however, not currently.
Also, my solo adventures specific to the campaign have no impact on my character. I put in extra for nothing.

That does sound a bit unfair, then. If you're putting in the same amount of total game time, it'd be a good solution to give you the same amount of XP, or some sort of equivalent bonus.

If you use 3.5 XP rules then missing a lot of sessions early is automatically balanced out, as later encounters both give more XP and give a higher fraction to the low-level PCs. 4e doesn't have this . . . on the other hand, 1 level in 4e is worth a lot less than 1 level in 3.5.

- Saph

Asheram
2008-08-25, 09:17 AM
Dude. Whatever you do, Never EVER put your character on autopilot for an adventure.

A friend of mine did that during an overnight campaign. I passed out somewhere in town while he endured a bit longer and walked out into the woods with another player.

Now, this is his mistake. The player that he was with is known as quite the... eccentric.

Anyhow. He walks out with him in the forest before he feels that he's passing out. He waves at the other guy.. "I'll follow him around..." Then passing out.
When this guy wakes up again, the other guy is dead and have already rolled up a new character. He himself is trapped in this big orc fortress and the orc chief is quite upset at him over some things the other guy did and is preparing the torture equipment.

... Never Ever put your character on autopilot.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-25, 12:27 PM
If I may ask, why should PCs be balanced against each other after creation? sure, they need to be within the same league for the game to remain fun, but having one character be slightly more powerful (1-2 levels) then another matters little when they are all specialists from different fields.

Seriously. Level 25 druid with level 20 fighter, level 18 monk, and level 15 paladin. Campaign where you only got XP for being there.

That's not fun for anyone, in the end. The druid would be as powerful as the rest of the party even if they were all the same level, but an epic-level druid with a bunch of non-epic martial characters was ridiculous. "Okay, so the [monster of the week] attacks. What do you do?" "I shapechange into a gold wyrm and harm it, then bite it." "We watch him do that."

It's a mistake I'll never make again. Screw rewarding or penalizing players, I just want to be able to run a campaign where no PC dominates the action all the time. It was hard enough to balance encounters in 3.X without that level imbalance.


Like I said, the 4E DMG had some great stuff (pages 121-122) that can work across games. The recommended default method is that all PCs gain XP at the same rate, whether the player is absent or not. If you don't want to do that, the recommended method for catching up is to award players the XP they missed at the end of the next session - so they're behind for one session (an entire level behind if the others gained a level last time). If a player misses more than one sessions, they'd get the missing XP after they've participated for as many sessions. (So if you miss three game nights, you get the XP you missed out on after you attend three in a row.)

Arbitrarity
2008-08-25, 12:32 PM
But... the paladin gets 32! times the Xp the druid gets. Wut?

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-25, 12:46 PM
But... the paladin gets 32! times the Xp the druid gets. Wut?

3.0. XP awards were based on average party level. (That, or I was doing it wrong. Same difference.)

Gareshra
2008-08-25, 12:59 PM
I don't let players get EXP for missed sessions, and I don't like players controlling another player's character in their absence. However, a player who is even one level lower gains a significant boost to exp, which means that the problem is self-correcting. Generally, though, I tend to give players who only miss a session or two a chance to get bonus exp through feats of daring or good roleplaying, so they can make up for it.

However, the reason I'm against exp for players who miss sessions is that in the last campaign I was in a players showed up to 1 out of 9 sessions, and another showed up to 2 out of nine sessions. What was left was a level 6 binder and a level 6 Thri Kreen ranger trying to push through a dungeon with CR 6 and CR 7 baddies, which was just outright painful. This went on for several sessions, and eventually we started pulling more and more players in...

By the end of the campaign, we had 8 players in it and an average of 2 players per session, with an occassional bump up to 3. Maybe I'm a bit "hardcore" or something, but I feel like if you're gonna play a game as involving as D&D you gotta show up if you expect to get rewards. And no, I'm not a munchkinizer. I do min-max and optimize to a great extent, but only so I can play crappy classes (such as swiftblade) without sucking. =p

edit: Oh, and one more thing...I was in a campaign where we had a party with a level disparity of up to 3 levels, and it really didn't affect things that much. Unless you're being incredibly competitive, a level or 3 shouldn't be a factor. Everyone can contribute.

Tormsskull
2008-08-25, 01:22 PM
I use the old standard of if you aren't there, you do not get exp. If your character disappearing would break reality (in the middle of a dungeon), I NPC your character until the soonest available time that your character can break free safely.

Secondly, SweetRein, it seems to me that you are being awfully unfair to your DM.


HiddenDMName (3:31:34 PM): The "ehn" spot?
ReinaSweet (3:31:55 PM): Everytime I miss a single session, I get further behind in character
ReinaSweet (3:32:05 PM): every time my character gets further behind, the less desire I have to play it
ReinaSweet (3:32:34 PM): "ehn" spot is the point of which I don't care if I get chosen to drop or not


Translation: If I drop even further below in exp than the other party members I am not going to want to play. Drop me if you want, I don't care.


HiddenDMName (3:35:08 PM): Some missed sessions are a given in any campaign. You'd need some way to resolve that to play long-term.
ReinaSweet (3:35:43 PM): I don't give "who is playing in the session right now gets experience" in my campaigns for this reason
ReinaSweet (3:36:49 PM): I have the mindset that if missing the session isn't punishment enough, the DM is doing something wrong


Translation: Yeah, see, its really your fault for DMing it wrong. When I DM, I do it totally different for this very reason.


HiddenDMName (3:38:21 PM): My opinion is the lack of XP is a trade-off for "invisible & bullet-proof" PCs during the session.
HiddenDMName (3:38:45 PM): If a player gave their PC to someone else to play during battle & risk dying, they'd get XP like anyone else.
HiddenDMName (3:38:59 PM): But hmmm, wonder if I couldn't adapt something for that... anyway, go on.
ReinaSweet (3:39:16 PM): hmmm
ReinaSweet (3:40:01 PM): I'm not much a fan of that either, since that suggests that ever session is less of a role-playing session and more of a death race 2000 session.


Translation: DM - Explanation of why rule is the way it is, tells SR that maybe he can adapt something if she feels it is causing a real problem, asks her to please continue. SR - Nope, I don't find your reasoning valid.


HiddenDMName (3:44:43 PM): And no player's gonna argue about how they ran their character in combat unless they really screwed up.
ReinaSweet (3:44:49 PM): And... what point does that make of whether a player should be punished or not?
HiddenDMName (3:46:55 PM): It's not punishment, it's risk-for-reward.
HiddenDMName (3:47:31 PM): The player risks their character's neck, therefore they get the XP for combat from the session.
HiddenDMName (3:48:00 PM): However, hmm...
HiddenDMName (3:48:02 PM): *checks total*
HiddenDMName (3:48:26 PM): The thought of catch-up via mini-adventures, I've been debating, though.
ReinaSweet (3:48:29 PM): Then would it not be true that all tanks should get more experience?
ReinaSweet (3:49:12 PM): Alternatively, since this is 4e, would it not also be true that everyone should be getting nearly no experience?


Translation: SR - Wow, you are an idiot. How does that have anything to do with what I was just talking about? DM - Explanation, followed by once again showing understanding of the problem and willingness to utilize one of SR's ideas. SR - Your explanation is horrible. If that's how you look at it then x, y, and z MUST be true.

And it goes on. Maybe I am looking into this too deply, or maybe you and your DM have this kind of relationship. But I'll tell you one thing, a reasonable DM that is willing to work with his players is a thing to be treasured. I'd give that DM a gold medal based on this convo log.

Tadanori Oyama
2008-08-25, 01:36 PM
I've always had complex view of this problem.

If a player informs me ahead of time they will be missing the section than I give them the opinion of having their character NPCed by me or another player. If they choose to be in the game, they gain XP as normal. If they choose to stay out of combat they gain half XP from encounters but full XP for story rewards.

If the player does not inform me they are missing the session than the other players decide if they want the character NPCed or not and the character gains no XP from combat. They gain story/quest awarded XP as normal.

Grey Paladin
2008-08-25, 02:50 PM
Tsotha-Lanti: Note the 'same league' (Auto disqualifies Fighters) and 1-2 levels of difference part.

Reinboom
2008-08-25, 11:49 PM
My aggressive day has settled and past, and yes I was being unreasonable to my DM. The druid and I are doing submissions to catch up I believe - as our working out point.


I am still not fond of non linked XP due to:
As a DM:
1. It's easier for players to get drastically out of reach.
2. It's more difficult to balance.
As a player:
1. I still feel as though I'm getting additional negatives in addition to missing days. Due to...
2. I feel that the reward for running an adventure is having a great time with friends, XP and character position are just conduits into structure for such and are most fun when there is a sense of equality.*
3. It becomes discouraging when there is legit reasons to not miss sessions.

(* My logic: Imagine you had a group of friends, you all went to an amusement park every summer since little. You have the little kids rides, the kids rides, and the big kids rides. You were sick for a summer, so, you couldn't ride the normal kids rides. When you came back, and your friends were riding the big kids rides- they wouldn't let you, because you hadn't ridden the normal kids rides yet all the way through for last summer.)

Talic
2008-08-26, 12:05 AM
My take on it is that it depends.

If a player is missing a game for a justified reason (medical issue, work, special occasion such as birthday, anniversary, etc), then full xp, and a "somewhat" bulletproof shield... I.E. It's not likely you'll be hurt.

If you're missing for a different socialization (such as going to see a new movie, going out on a date, etc) then no xp. It detracts from everyone's enjoyment when party members skip out. If you dont have a reason, then there is a penalty.

In either case, there's no RP experience.

Pink
2008-08-26, 01:11 AM
Hmmm...I'm personally dealing with this problem a little with my own game. Right now if they miss, I'm giving a percentage of the exp they would've got. I'm experimenting a little to find a good value that doesn't leave them too far behind.

When it's actual game time, if a player doesn't show up, their character is not there. Or rather, I try to make a reasonable and somewhat useful explanation (You know that monster you killed with the valuable pelt last session? K'ruel is taking it back to the ship while you continue on to the mountain) that doesn't place them within combat. Thus far it's worked out alright, and if they get a little lowered leveled, well they just get more exp when they show up for the next session.

infinitypanda
2008-08-26, 01:55 AM
I used to run it (back in my younger and more vulnerable years) that if not all the players could show up, we just wouldn't play.

Worked out great with half the members in the school jazz band, yup.

Nowadays, I run a West Marches-style campaign, and the problem sorts itself out. I seriously suggest trying just a few games of that style of campaign, since the PCs only go on adventures they sign up for, and if they can't make it, then we just assume their character broke a leg and couldn't afford healing, or some other thing like that.


However, in the Vampire campaign I'm a player in, my DM rules that if you are absent, it's no XP. But that's not terrible, because there's less difference between a fresh character and a character who's been through five sessions than there is in DnD.

Devils_Advocate
2008-08-26, 04:14 AM
Tormsskull, there is a big difference between

"I don't like this. Here is why."

and

"You're doing it wrong, stupid."

even if it's mainly in tone.

Tormsskull
2008-08-26, 05:42 AM
"I don't like this. Here is why."
and
"You're doing it wrong, stupid."


Are you now translating one of the translations? I'm not sure what spot specifically you're speaking of to be honest, since you didn't quote it. That's the handy thing with quotes or spoilers, you show the context, then you respond to it. Really works wonders.

But, all of that is moot of course, because SweetRein said they moved beyond it, which is great. Good luck in your campaign SweetRein, I hope it all works out for you.

Mc. Lovin'
2008-08-26, 08:37 AM
When someone misses our sessions we usually just punish them by drawing on their character sheet and stuff. It can produce some neat results :smallsmile:

I think it should be subjective to the reason as to why you're skipping it.

For example, if you blow your group off to do something else, then you shouldn't get exp, but if you're ill or are unable to attend through no fault of your own, then you should get it.

only1doug
2008-08-26, 10:04 AM
When someone misses our sessions we usually just punish them by drawing on their character sheet and stuff. It can produce some neat results :smallsmile:

I think it should be subjective to the reason as to why you're skipping it.

For example, if you blow your group off to do something else, then you shouldn't get exp, but if you're ill or are unable to attend through no fault of your own, then you should get it.

Hehe, when the party "leader" in our WFRP campaign didn't turn up we altered his name: Lord Otto Psycho* Von Schloshenburg...

*the guy has been going around murdering prisoners who had surrendered to him, while the rest of us shout "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo"

Weezer
2008-08-26, 10:11 AM
I dont give players that missed a session any xp, but if they get more than 1-2 levels behind then I keep them at about 2 levels behind by giving them extra xp to keep up.

nagora
2008-08-26, 11:19 AM
I dont give players that missed a session any xp, but if they get more than 1-2 levels behind then I keep them at about 2 levels behind by giving them extra xp to keep up.
Well, this is partly an issue with the rate of levelling in 3e - in 1e if someone falls two levels behind then they've probably been gone so long that the group will be surprised to see them again (or they're a Barbarian).

FMArthur
2008-08-26, 12:17 PM
If a player doesn't show up at a session with my group, odds are good that the party has a new 'tank' that session. :smallamused: Attendance is rarely a problem. We don't care if a d4 HD character can't tank well, it's just an illusion of protection that a human shield provides.
"I can't do that because I don't trust the other players..." <- That's the whole point. Distrust of other players makes missing a session into a very deadly risk. Actually, we don't really distrust each other; we trust that they will do their best to use your character to block attacks, distract powerful enemies, and set off traps. If the DM is feeling kind, then the player's character won't recieve the same attention that the present players do. If the DM doesn't really care if someone dies, then that person will usually die charging a dragon unarmed while the party heals.

monty
2008-08-26, 12:25 PM
stuff

That seems...cruel.

Leon
2008-08-27, 02:14 AM
My way of dealing with it is varies on the situation.
If the party is in the middle of a adventure and a Player cant make it the PC will still get XP and perform actions as needed determined by me (and this can lead to a better played PC that otherwise would happen...) but will be for the most part be kept out of harm unless unavoidable and left at a safe location such as town when they next go back.

If the Player is going to be away they ask me to NPC the PC along and accept the full risk that entails for the benifit of having the XP reward and possible loot rewards (those in Attendance still make the choice on what they want so a Fighter may lose a sword to a mage if they are not around to counter such choice)

Otherwise the PC is just left in stasis for however long the Player is away for, if this results in a large gap in Lvl they will have to live with it and will catch up soon enough (if they survive...)

SCPRedMage
2008-08-27, 01:05 PM
Translation: If I drop even further below in exp than the other party members I am not going to want to play. Drop me if you want, I don't care.
I'm sorry, but how, exactly, is this being unfair? Did SR sign some sort of contract that says she MUST play? Because if she hasn't, if the game stops being fun for her, then simply not playing is a totally reasonable response, IMO.

FMArthur
2008-08-27, 01:13 PM
That seems...cruel.

It is. But the group I play with that does that doesn't play all that seriously, so we're not all that attached to our characters. We start off at the same level as the average party member.

"Ian falls dead from the trap's vicious poison."
"Man, we were lucky. Someone could've been badly hurt if it wasn't for Ian."

next session...

"The party immediately comes across a lone traveller. His name is..."
"Taveres."
"Taveres is looking for a party."
"We accept him into the party in exchange for everlasting servitude."
"Okay, moving on..."

So nothing was really lost. It is frowned upon to just reroll stats for your last character and slap on a new name to take his place, but we do allow it. :smallwink:

Tormsskull
2008-08-27, 01:31 PM
I'm sorry, but how, exactly, is this being unfair?

I'm not going to use her specifically as that situation has already been resolved.


In general terms, I think each of the players in a campaign has a responsibility to each other and to the DM. This is coming from a live-action perspective, mind you. I'm told that in PbP's it is common for people to drop off as their schedules change, they stop liking it, etc.

As an example, in my current group we have 4 players and a DM. If 1 of those players can't show up, no big problem, we play without them. But if 2 of them can't show up, we will postpone (because frankly its not much fun playing with only 2 players).

So if a player is not going to show up, it isn't impacting just them, it is impacting the group. If a game starts being "not fun" for you, then you should tell the DM and try to figure out what it is that's making the game not fun for you anymore.

Personally, I don't consider the reason "My character isn't as mechanically effective as this other player who is on my team" to be a legitimate reason for not having fun. To put it bluntly, it seems very selfish. YMMV.

Dausuul
2008-08-27, 03:08 PM
Here's a possibility: PCs do not get XP for missed sessions. However, if, at the end of a session, a PC is lower-level than the highest-level character in the party, the lower-level PC gains a level.

The result of this is that you suffer some penalties for not showing up, but they aren't permanent and you do catch up fairly quickly.

Now, if you're a really unreliable player, you'll be behind pretty much permanently... and yes, that's something of an incentive for such players to leave. That's fine by me. I don't want players in my game who are going to be no-shows half the time. As Tormsskull says, that causes problems for the rest of the group too.

MartinHarper
2008-08-27, 03:33 PM
I don't consider the reason "My character isn't as mechanically effective as this other player who is on my team" to be a legitimate reason for not having fun. To put it bluntly, it seems very selfish. YMMV.

I think it's legitimate, but in 4e a one-level difference is less than the difference caused by differing amounts of optimisation, or use of tactics. If we were talking about a five level difference I'd be more sympathetic.

SCPRedMage
2008-08-28, 12:33 AM
In general terms, I think each of the players in a campaign has a responsibility to each other and to the DM.
Responsibility? We're talking about a game here, nothing more. You play it because it's fun; if it's no longer fun, and you don't think that's going to change, you shouldn't have to bore yourself half to death just so your friends can have fun.

So if a player is not going to show up, it isn't impacting just them, it is impacting the group. If a game starts being "not fun" for you, then you should tell the DM and try to figure out what it is that's making the game not fun for you anymore.
Yes, you should talk with the GM and figure out a way to make it fun again. It's just the smart thing to do. But you have no obligation to continue playing. Unless they start paying you, the other players have no right to your time, and to think otherwise is just an unjustified sense of entitlement.

Personally, I don't consider the reason "My character isn't as mechanically effective as this other player who is on my team" to be a legitimate reason for not having fun. To put it bluntly, it seems very selfish. YMMV.
Well, to be honest, we're not talking about just not being as effective. We talking about a point where you're so far behind the rest of the party you're really not contributing, and that REALLY isn't fun. And if I were to decide that I didn't want to play in that situation anymore wouldn't be selfish; expecting me to continue playing in those conditions, now THAT would be selfish. I mean, come on, you're talking about me dragging myself to a game I don't find fun anymore just so it won't inconvience you...

Note: The "you" in this post is meant to be in general, not you...

SoD
2008-08-28, 02:31 AM
My personal XP rule: anyone who misses the session has their character become a DMPC for the session, gaining half XP. I'll try not to kill you, but no promises.

Tormsskull
2008-08-28, 08:04 AM
Responsibility? We're talking about a game here, nothing more. You play it because it's fun; if it's no longer fun, and you don't think that's going to change, you shouldn't have to bore yourself half to death just so your friends can have fun.


Monopoly is just a game, where you get together and play for a few hours and then it is over and done with. D&D is an ongoing game, and as such, requires some kind of commitment from the players & DM.

If you joined a bowling league that went from September to April, and stopped having fun in October, would you quit your team? "Yeah guys, I know I signed up to play until April, but I'm just not having fun anymore. C-ya."

If you do, it isn't impacting just you. Its impacting your entire team. Just as in D&D, if you drop out, it isn't impacting just you, its impacting all of the players & the DM.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-28, 08:08 AM
I never knew that RPGs are competetive games, and that by leaving your roleplaying group you make it weaker against others.

SoD
2008-08-28, 08:11 AM
Which was entirely not the point he was making. Tormsskul was comparing DnD to Competitive Bowling on the point of an ongoing thing, rather than a one-off, and, similar to bowling, you sign up for a campaign/season.

Tormsskull
2008-08-28, 08:17 AM
I never knew that RPGs are competetive games, and that by leaving your roleplaying group you make it weaker against others.

I never knew that by completely pulling things out of context, you can change their meaning. Oh wait, yes I did.



Which was entirely not the point he was making. Tormsskul was comparing DnD to Competitive Bowling on the point of an ongoing thing, rather than a one-off, and, similar to bowling, you sign up for a campaign/season.


Exactly. Thank you.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-28, 08:31 AM
Let me explain my point, then.

If you join a bowling team that will take part in competitions with other bowling teams, then leaving it prematurely is unfair, as it weakens your team. However, such competetiveness is not a part of RPGs.

If you join a bowling team with the purpose of having fun, and it's not going to take part in any competitions, then there is nothing wrong in you leaving when bowling stops being fun, or not attending when circumstances prohibit you from doing so.

Tormsskull
2008-08-28, 09:13 AM
If you join a bowling team with the purpose of having fun, and it's not going to take part in any competitions, then there is nothing wrong in you leaving when bowling stops being fun, or not attending when circumstances prohibit you from doing so.

Let's use this example then. You and three friends decide every other Friday night is going to be Bowling night. Your write it on your calendars, in your pda or cell phones, whatever.

But the catch is, one of you has to reserve the lanes each week by filling out an application that takes 4 hours (= DM planning). Also, if too many people don't show up, its no fun, and no one wants to play.

Now, if you show up the first week, and everyone has a blast, and then show up the second week and don't have any fun, would you stop showing up at Bowling Night entirely?

At the very, very least, you should be informing the guy that's filling out the application each time, and the other players, in case your not showing up is going to make it no fun for them.

Honestly, not trying to be rude, but if the concept of having respect for other people, and other people's time is foreign to some, I think that's a real problem.

only1doug
2008-08-28, 09:22 AM
Let's use this example then. You and three friends decide every other Friday night is going to be Bowling night. Your write it on your calendars, in your pda or cell phones, whatever.

But the catch is, one of you has to reserve the lanes each week by filling out an application that takes 4 hours (= DM planning). Also, if too many people don't show up, its no fun, and no one wants to play.

Now, if you show up the first week, and everyone has a blast, and then show up the second week and don't have any fun, would you stop showing up at Bowling Night entirely?

At the very, very least, you should be informing the guy that's filling out the application each time, and the other players, in case your not showing up is going to make it no fun for them.

Honestly, not trying to be rude, but if the concept of having respect for other people, and other people's time is foreign to some, I think that's a real problem.

In this case i feel your reply and example is out of context, to extend your example to a meaningfull fashion.

If you show up for the first 3 weeks and everyone enjoys it, and then for the next month you are unavailable for personal reasons, the month after you are able to attend again but you are no longer enjoying it as your friends have become much better than you and it feels humiliating rather than fun.

Is it unreasonable in these circumstances to no longer attend when you aren't having fun? Yes you absolutely must tell the organiser that you will no longer be joining in, it would be very rude not to! but if you really aren't haveing fun why should you spend your time doing it.

Not that i'd quit, last time i fell behind i just made sure i caught up by attending all the time until the gap was negligable (as XP in DnD scales)

Tengu_temp
2008-08-28, 09:22 AM
It's without question that you should inform them beforehand that you won't be going, and why. But attending something that's supposed to be entertainment and nothing more and not having fun is just wasting your time.

Knaight
2008-08-28, 06:07 PM
But the catch is, one of you has to reserve the lanes each week by filling out an application that takes 4 hours (= DM planning)

And if somebody doesn't show up, the application can effortlessly be shifted to next time. That and its more like an application that takes 10 minutes, and thats for GMs that don't totally wing it. Although third and fourth edition D&D do make winging it difficult, so most D&D GMs are probably in the 10 minutes+ range.

Reinboom
2008-08-28, 11:54 PM
I see a bit of missed information jumping in this argument going.

One side is assuming the other does not at all infer "inform the GM first".

I think that is one thing that everybody agrees on, that the GM should be informed. (Exception being: You can't. When my sugar drops and I just pass out - then there is no way I can inform the GM that I will be late/won't show. etc.)


With that - and knowing that both sides are also assuming "inform the GM first" - the argument appears to be:

Side A: The game is intended as a conduit of entertainment. As such, players should be a consistent leveled basis in order to make a field of which all players have the same basis to channel their method for enjoyment through.

Side B: Due to the game in question being a team based effort, or a group effort at the very least, each player is as a leg to a larger goal and each provides an extra passage of which to channel the aforementioned conduit of entertainment. Thus, when a player is not present they detract from the whole and thus should not be given a reward as the other players have.

Have I said this correctly?

Knaight
2008-08-29, 08:04 AM
Thats about right.

Jayabalard
2008-08-29, 08:17 AM
Honestly, not trying to be rude, but if the concept of having respect for other people, and other people's time is foreign to some, I think that's a real problem./agree


And if somebody doesn't show up, the application can effortlessly be shifted to next time.Only if you call off the game for that night, in which case, missing xp for that session is not applicable, so that's not the situation that we're talking about.


That and its more like an application that takes 10 minutes, and thats for GMs that don't totally wing it. Although third and fourth edition D&D do make winging it difficult, so most D&D GMs are probably in the 10 minutes+ range.There are plenty of GM's that prep for 4 hours (or more) for a game. I feel kind of sorry for anyone who's never been involved in a game with a GM who really takes time to prep.

sparky22
2008-08-29, 08:57 AM
Having read some of the first page of responses, our dm looks extra bad because of it!

We have someone else or the group as a whole running the absent persons character and they don't get any xp from it.

Although, in saying that, the person who is normally missing isn't someone who puts a lot of thought into roleplaying.
He dozes off during sessions, doesn't pay much attention during the game, will happily take any character made up for him by the gm (the rest of us create our own), is prone to rolling the wrong dice and isn't bothered in the slightest that his character is 2-3 levels behind the rest of us!

Dausuul
2008-08-29, 09:24 AM
There are plenty of GM's that prep for 4 hours (or more) for a game. I feel kind of sorry for anyone who's never been involved in a game with a GM who really takes time to prep.

I've been prepping a lot for my current campaign; I'd say that all told, I probably put in 3-4 hours per session. In previous games, I put in less time, maybe about an hour. But ten minutes? I can't imagine running a game with ten minutes of prep per session. I have never known a GM who put in less than an hour of prep time, and I've been playing since 2E.

As for attendance - players who don't show up half the time are a real nuisance. As DM, you can't work them into an ongoing plot, because you can't count on them being there for events where their characters are central. As a fellow player, you have to make sure you have a way to cover their roles when they aren't there. (This is especially a problem in 4E, with its increased emphasis on teamwork.) And their unreliability puts that much more pressure on everyone else, because if too many people bail, the session is apt to get cancelled, and then the people who were able to show up don't get to play.

Now, sometimes circumstances conspire to keep people from attending, and that's fine. I certainly don't ask that everyone be there every session. I do ask that everyone be there most sessions. If someone is going to miss half the sessions, I'd rather that player pulled out of the game altogether and came back later when s/he was able to make a commitment to attend.

And that's assuming the player gives advance notice when s/he isn't going to be there. A player who just flakes out and doesn't show, without a damn good excuse (like "I was hit by a bus and spent the next three days in a coma"), and who does this more than once, is not somebody I want to game with and quite possibly not someone I want to be friends with.

So... if you repeatedly fail to show up, and fall way behind as a result, you do in my opinion have a legitimate reason to not want to play any more. However, I consider that a desirable outcome.

prufock
2008-08-29, 10:17 AM
its more like an application that takes 10 minutes

I've never run a session without doing at least an hour's worth of work. Usually it amounts to 3-4 hours' work, sometimes more depending on the length and the complexity of the session. I can't see any DM doing 10 minutes of prep unless they're running a completely hack/slash session.

*

As for XP for missed sessions, it's varying issue. There are a number of options:

1- Skip the session altogether. Usually only happens if a central character's player is going to be absent, or if more than one player is going to be absent. Not desirable, but it eliminates xp differences. Bad if someone's missing a lot of time, though.

2- No xp. This is usually what I do. Unless you're missing a whole lot of time, you aren't going to fall more than 1 or 2 levels behind, and you catch up because lower-level characters get more xp. I'm also open to solo side-quests to help catch up. More often than not, the missing player's character will have some other obligation to attend to, and thus be written out of the session. That other obligation can become a side quest or turn into part of the next session (rescue missions, for instance).

3- Partial xp. The DM (or another player, less often) runs the character to help maintain group dynamic. I've done this, it works sometimes. Problem is a different player running your character will mean the character is roleplayed somewhat differently. When the DM does so, there's a certain level of shielding from actual risk. Whoever does it, they should attempt to run the character intelligently.

4- Full xp. As above, but without the shielding. I've never done this.

5- Write the character out of the story. Only happens if someone is missing a lot of time. At a certain point, they become "occasional players," and usually make a character (at the lowest level of the party or one below that) from scratch as a one-session shot, though they could be recurring. I don't like doing this so much, since it throws off group dynamics, but it can work.

Edit: (I just re-read your entries and found that you're only 1 level behind)
If 4e (I haven't played yet) is like 3.5, lower-level characters get more xp for the same encounter than higher-level characters. You will eventually (somewhat slowly) "make up" for missed sessions.

Knaight
2008-08-29, 06:51 PM
There are plenty of GM's that prep for 4 hours (or more) for a game. I feel kind of sorry for anyone who's never been involved in a game with a GM who really takes time to prep.

I've been in games where the GM really takes time to prep, and it hasn't helped much, and it even seems to encourage railroading(because seeing hours of time going to waste sucks). GMs who are highly adaptable and have a real vision as for the setting are much better, the only time prepping really comes in is when it is a game which works better with preparation in regards to combat, and a lot don't. Its hack and slash sessions that take the preparation, and as a GM who mostly wings stuff, I hate them. I can wing combat, and monster stats in most systems easily enough, but just letting the repercussions of the characters in the world, including non-player characters, with lots of personalities just works better, and I can do that reactively as the game goes on. Hack and slash sessions are the ones that take the most prep, unless you can't remember characters well.

As for your second point in fourth edition you don't really make up for lost sessions, because of how experience works. The level gap typically drops, but the experience gap doesn't.

Crow
2008-08-29, 08:58 PM
If 4e (I haven't played yet) is like 3.5, lower-level characters get more xp for the same encounter than higher-level characters. You will eventually (somewhat slowly) "make up" for missed sessions.

Nope, the encounter just has an experience "budget" which gets divided evenly among the characters involved.

Thrud
2008-08-29, 09:11 PM
I've been in games where the GM really takes time to prep, and it hasn't helped much, and it even seems to encourage railroading(because seeing hours of time going to waste sucks). GMs who are highly adaptable and have a real vision as for the setting are much better, the only time prepping really comes in is when it is a game which works better with preparation in regards to combat, and a lot don't. Its hack and slash sessions that take the preparation, and as a GM who mostly wings stuff, I hate them. I can wing combat, and monster stats in most systems easily enough, but just letting the repercussions of the characters in the world, including non-player characters, with lots of personalities just works better, and I can do that reactively as the game goes on. Hack and slash sessions are the ones that take the most prep, unless you can't remember characters well.

As for your second point in fourth edition you don't really make up for lost sessions, because of how experience works. The level gap typically drops, but the experience gap doesn't.

Wow, that's so sad. And I am not trying to get into a fight or anything here, but you have been in some terrible games.

WHen I DM, I have to look at the entire world, figure out what is going on where, and see how they interact. Then the PCs are inserted and like hummingbirds on crack they flit around from place to place messing with as much stuff as they can. Then I take all of that into account for the next weeks session, and once again have to figure out what is going on in the whole world.

If the only DMs you have ever had are the ones that sit down and spend 4 hours designing a single adventure, and then force you to go there because they spent all the time designing it, then that really sucks for you. A DMs job is never to force a player to go to one place or another. A DMs job is to keep in mind at all times the events that are occuring in the world, and then modify those events depending on the PCs actions.

Yes, it can suck if you are convinced that the players are going to head one place, take the time to really flesh it out, and then at the last second they decide to go elsewhere. Oh well. It happens. You deal with it, and save the work for a later time when they might go back there, or retool it into something you use elsewhere. That is just how gaming works.

Which is why most DMs that are 'Sandbox' DMs think of their players as hummingbirds on crack. And sometimes ADHD hummingbirds on crack.

Of course, that is part of the fun of DMing, too, trying to figure out what the PCs will do next, and if you can't then adlibbing it till next week.

chiasaur11
2008-08-29, 09:11 PM
It's without question that you should inform them beforehand that you won't be going, and why. But attending something that's supposed to be entertainment and nothing more and not having fun is just wasting your time.

I agree with this product or statement.

Deth Muncher
2008-08-29, 10:06 PM
Really guys, there's a simple fix to this, and I'm not quite sure why it wasn't fully supported: Sub-quests.

Say you miss a session. Unless you're in a dungeon crawl, you can, concievably, meet with the DM do a Sub-Quest to get your character back up to speed. ESPECIALLY if you warn the DM ahead of time, so that he knows that Such'n'such won't be here, he can tell the rest of the party that Such'n'such is doing a bit of scouting, or research, or whatever!

An alternative to this, if you feel that by your not being there, you will hinder the party by having some awesome ability that they just HAVE TO HAVE, is the PC Bag-o-Holding (not to be confused with the Bag of Holding). Say you're a rogue. You miss a session, and unfortunately, the party comes to some kind of locked...thing. Say a door. Well, the party reaches into the PC Bag-o-Holding and out pops the rogue! The DM (or a predetermind player, as set my the missing player) rolls whatever needs to be rolled, then back into the Bag you go!

This even works for latent abilities. Say that there's but one Dwarf in the party, and something comes up where it would be nice to notice that there's a discrepancy in the stone. DM says "Dwarfy McDwarfington says that there's a discrepancy in the stone!" Or even just have the DM roll some sort of persecption check for Dwarfy.

Knaight
2008-08-29, 10:23 PM
Wow, that's so sad. And I am not trying to get into a fight or anything here, but you have been in some terrible games.

1. WHen I DM, I have to look at the entire world, figure out what is going on where, and see how they interact. Then the PCs are inserted and like hummingbirds on crack they flit around from place to place messing with as much stuff as they can. Then I take all of that into account for the next weeks session, and once again have to figure out what is going on in the whole world.

2. If the only DMs you have ever had are the ones that sit down and spend 4 hours designing a single adventure, and then force you to go there because they spent all the time designing it, then that really sucks for you. A DMs job is never to force a player to go to one place or another. A DMs job is to keep in mind at all times the events that are occuring in the world, and then modify those events depending on the PCs actions.

3. Yes, it can suck if you are convinced that the players are going to head one place, take the time to really flesh it out, and then at the last second they decide to go elsewhere. Oh well. It happens. You deal with it, and save the work for a later time when they might go back there, or retool it into something you use elsewhere. That is just how gaming works.

4. Which is why most DMs that are 'Sandbox' DMs think of their players as hummingbirds on crack. And sometimes ADHD hummingbirds on crack.

Of course, that is part of the fun of DMing, too, trying to figure out what the PCs will do next, and if you can't then adlibbing it till next week.
Note: I added numbers to the above post to make it easy to see where I was dividing up paragraphs.
1. Thats what I do, although the PCs have a tendency to add stuff too(I really don't see whats difficult about the concept of a circle that can hold spirits that don't have a physical form, and why its a bad idea to cast additional spells to give them the ability to attain one after summoning them into said circle, but it happens, and figuring out how powerful rampaging shapeshifter spirits fit in is part of the fun), as well through their antics. I just don't do prep work.

2. First its a slight tendency, second thats not the only GMs I have. Third I normally am the GM. But back to the first and second point, its more likely that the material is going to be inserted, somewhat less subtly than the GM thinks, somewhere else in said game, and not even all of it. Its a slight thing, but its an annoying tendency encouraged by prep time. When the same GMs don't prep, it doesn't happen. And they are typically pretty fun games nonetheless, I'm just more comfortable behind the GMing chair. I have had the grand total of 2 horrible GMs, one of whom was a passive GM who let the other players just take over the game(destructive players, school group I eventually quit. Bunch of power gaming munchkinizers making broken builds, and the GM couldn't handle it, stopped caring, and was never good with worlds or stories to begin with). The other just ignored the rules, so character skill and such didn't matter at all, it all came down to the dice. And it was a railroad GM.

3. The obvious retooling is the annoying bit in many cases, although there is also a little railroading. And I know how to GM, and know that I'm a better GM when I don't prep, as are most GMs I play under. A well prepared game is not necessarily a much better game, which is the point I was making, and a lot of the games, when not prepared, are really memorable. The statement was really just a matter of me understanding, as I said I do GM and I know that feeling. This was back in novice GM days though, I quit preparing and just worked things out in my mind ages ago, and keep with that method.

4. Thats a very accurate description. Although occasionally you get the stupid ADHD hummingbird on crack.