GMs, Favors, and Experience

[BootStrapTommy]

On my birthday, a random gathering of friends resulted in the formation of a weekly gaming session running D&D 5e. The DM was, like most of us, new to the system and things have gone haywire, but it has been fun nonetheless.

Early, we determined the houserule "If you don't show up, no XP for you." However, the winter weather made that a questionable choice, and subsequent sessions have involved bring up stragglers to lowest party level. And soon it was all but abandoned.

As the campaign progressed, it became apparent our DM was having balancing issues, as when we weren't breezing through with our obnoxiously over level magic gear, we were saying "Wait a minute dude, we're only level 5."

To remedy this the DM asked me to run a session, one he could play in. He grabbed an at level character and I ran a campaign which I designed to show him how to present a challenge to the party by playing on their weaknesses and general indecisiveness, without it being beyond their ability. Needless to say, half-dragon kobolds with a cannon holding a long, dark, narrow hallway painted the picture strategy could make up the difference so without out CRing the party.

The next session, the DM returned to his seat and it went well. The only hiccup was the bard trading his character in to play test a home brewed witch for the DM. But tweaking of abilities mitigated that.

At the end of the campaign, however, when the XP was handed out the Fighter mysteriously leveled up. Funny, because bolstered by roleplaying XP I was the second highest in the party. But I wasn't leveling.

When I questioned this, it struck the DM (who is the fighter's brother) as odd. So he fiated "How 'bout we all level then?"

Today I'm accosted over Facebook by the fighter, who points out he got XP for the session I ran, but I didn't. When I pointed out that I had been awarded that XP too, he flipped his lid.

My thoughts, and the DMs, was that that session was me doing the DM a favor. Showing him some pointers, which he got to experience from the view of a player. And the monotony of him having to DM was broken for a session.

So now the fighter has decided to leave the campaign. He's convinced it is some great injustice, even though the DM's afore mentioned fiat effectively ruled in his favor (he now has a few hundred or so XP on me).

And when I pointed out that by his logic, the bard would take a whole level worth of penalty just for agreeing to play test the DM's homebrew and that other players never earned more than 3rd level due to absences, he reverted to insulting me.

TL;DR: Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence resulting from something a player did to help the GM?
I.e. taking the GM reins for a session, testing a homebrew for a session, etc.

[Beta Centauri]

Using in-game rewards (or punishments) for out-of-game behavior (good or bad) is rarely a good idea.

[BootStrapTommy]

Our initial thought was to enforce attendance. In hindsight, not a good idea. But obviously in both cases, the player was in attendance, just in a different role.

[kieza]

This is why I don't track separate experience for each player in any of my campaigns. Just have an experience total for the party, and everyone levels at the same time.

[Maglubiyet]

Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence resulting from something a player did to help the GM?

I don't think this is the real issue here -- it's the maturity level of this player. You seem to be implying that he was cheating (by adding extra XP?), he was fishing for an explanation to allay your suspicions, and he accidentally stumbled on the knowledge that you got XP for a session you didn't control your PC in.

You didn't award yourself XP, the DM did. His anger (if it's real and not just a smokescreen to hide his own misdeeds) is misplaced. You may be better off with him not playing anymore if this is typical behavior from him.

[Beta Centauri]

Our initial thought was to enforce attendance. In hindsight, not a good idea. But obviously in both cases, the player was in attendance, just in a different role.

Right, but D&D players love to take things that were intended for one purpose and try to use them for another purpose, and they commonly misunderstand the mechanism of the intent. "No XP unless you attend" also means "if you attend, you'll get ahead" which appeals to some people, and might supersede the actual intent in their minds. "No XP unless you attend" might be assumed to be as a result of not participating in the mechanism of acquiring XP via in-game actions; obviously you don't get XP, because you didn't kill any monsters.

Either or both of those misinterpretations might be at play here: the player might have been excited about being ahead and was miffed to get that taken away, or the player might have assumed that it was the actual monster killing (or whatever) that got the XP and was miffed to learn that it's more a matter of attendance.

Point being, tread carefully when it comes to incentive mechanisms. You might be providing an incentive you didn't realize you were providing.

[Forrestfire]

TL;DR: Is it wrong for a GM to penalize player's characters for an absence

Yes.

resulting from something a player did to help the GM?

Irrelevant.

They presumably play the game for fun, and, if, for example, life got in the way, they lost out on that fun. If someone consistently misses sessions, I would talk to them about it, but overall, the game runs better if everyone is the same level, and it's just cruel to kick some while they're down. Missing out on playing the game is bad enough.

If someone has issues with keeping people on the same playing field, I would think that they should take a step back and ruminate on what the game's actually about, before being a jackass about someone else getting a "free handout".

[BootStrapTommy]

I think the big issue lies with roleplaying XP. My original lead was because he tends not to actually roleplay a character. But the game is about roleplaying, not just killing monsters. I suppose the fear is that removing roleplaying for roleplaying XP would further promote his lack of doing so. After all, why would he when other players do that and he could leech off them?

[Beta Centauri]

I think the big issue lies with roleplaying XP. My original lead was because he tends not to actually roleplay a character. But the game is about roleplaying, not just killing monsters. I suppose the fear is that removing roleplaying for roleplaying XP would further promote his lack of doing so. After all, why would he when other players do that and he could leech off them?

This all seems to have a lot to do with caring about how others behave, and trying to offer them incentives to behave a different way. I hope you're starting to see how that sort of approach can be problematic. It's fine to want people to behave a particular way, but if asking them nicely and clearly doesn't change their behavior then they're not really going to change their behavior. You might be able to employ other means to get the equivalent of what you're after, but you might also be giving them some hidden incentive.

(Hidden incentives and misunderstandings can occur even with direct conversation, but at least then people don't wind up looking disingenuous.)

[BootStrapTommy]

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the DM and him are my nephews.

[Beta Centauri]

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the DM and him are my nephews.

I can't say I'm surprised that this has a relationship element to it as well.

[Karl Aegis]

I've heard that offering an incentive to anything is treating them like a dog.

[Rhunder]

I don't both sides but just from your story, the fighter should have just rolled with it. Its only to his benefit that the whole party leveled. More often than not, I think about the group's well being before myself, because if the group is going strong than more likely than not I am too. Unless there was plans to betray one another, who cares?

[Beta Centauri]

I've heard that offering an incentive to anything is treating them like a dog.

Do you believe that?

I don't both sides but just from your story, the fighter should have just rolled with it. Its only to his benefit that the whole party leveled. More often than not, I think about the group's well being before myself, because if the group is going strong than more likely than not I am too. Unless there was plans to betray one another, who cares?

By that token, the original poster might simply not have raised the issue when the fighter leveled up. Don't they want the fighter to level up?

[Maglubiyet]

By that token, the original poster might simply not have raised the issue when the fighter leveled up. Don't they want the fighter to level up?

Yeah, I agree. What was the big deal that he leveled up in the first place? Maybe I'm missing something, but this all sounds kind of petty, especially since it's family.

[Beta Centauri]

Yeah, I agree. What was the big deal that he leveled up in the first place? Maybe I'm missing something, but this all sounds kind of petty, especially since it's family.

Sometimes people are more petty towards their family.

Well, actually, I guess that's not true. It's more like "lots of the time."

[Maglubiyet]

Sometimes people are more petty towards their family.

Well, actually, I guess that's not true. It's more like "lots of the time."

Excellent point. That might explain a lot here.

[BootStrapTommy]

Yeah, I agree. What was the big deal that he leveled up in the first place? Maybe I'm missing something, but this all sounds kind of petty, especially since it's family.

Well, cheating is generally frowned upon. And the magical appearance of 4000 extra experience points that weren't there before raised an alarm.

[Maglubiyet]

Well, cheating is generally frowned upon. And the magical appearance of 4000 extra experience points that weren't there before raised an alarm.

No offense, I get where you're coming from, but why didn't you just ask him directly? All this later fall-out seems like it's tied to the implied cheating.

The whole matter about whether you get XP when you're not playing is just incidental to the real issue. Anyway, you already established that players who didn't show got XP, so why should the fact that you GM'ed be any different?

[jaydubs]

I'm going to echo some other posters and say - Don't track separate XP. The reward for showing up at the game is getting to play the game.

That applies to roleplaying experience as well. Here are 3 ways to reward roleplaying that don't involve individual experience rewards.

1. Spotlight time. If you're roleplaying, you're the one doing stuff. And when you award experience at the end, specify where it came from as a second round of "applause" if you will.

2. Allow roleplaying to solve problems. Players are a lot more likely to talk to NPCs, and try alternate strategies to combat, if those non-combat things are more than window dressing. If they know beyond a doubt that it will come down to combat no matter what, a lot of players will have the attitude (not unreasonably) of just wanting to get down to it.

3. Give extremely short-term buffs. Things that can't be hoarded, and won't change the balance in the long term. Like 5e's very useful inspiration. Or giving advantage on specific checks for being descriptive.

[Talakeal]

The whole concept of XP is a minefield full of social pitfalls. Long ago I realized that it was way more trouble than it was worth and the negatives far outweighed any potential positives.

I don't use XP at all anymore. I especially do not give (or even worse remove) XP for attendance or roleplaying.

Just have everyone be the same level and advance together at the same rate, you will save everyone at the table a lot of headaches.

[BootStrapTommy]

No offense, I get where you're coming from, but why didn't you just ask him directly? All this later fall-out seems like it's tied to the implied cheating.

I did. My mistake was probably doing so during play, instead of after. The DM's fiat was likely a means to defuse the situtation. The fighter's retort, however, didn't come until a day later. No allegation of cheat was made though.

The whole matter about whether you get XP when you're not playing is just incidental to the real issue. Anyway, you already established that players who didn't show got XP, so why should the fact that you GM'ed be any different?

Which was more or less my point. Even when the rule was "attendance for XP", I attended the session as I was the bloody DM. But since XP has already been given out largely without regard to attendance, how was it different. So his argument came out of left field. The more I think about it, the more suspicious it becomes.

That applies to roleplaying experience as well. Here are 3 ways to reward roleplaying that don't involve individual experience rewards.

1. Spotlight time. If you're roleplaying, you're the one doing stuff. And when you award experience at the end, specify where it came from as a second round of "applause" if you will.

2. Allow roleplaying to solve problems. Players are a lot more likely to talk to NPCs, and try alternate strategies to combat, if those non-combat things are more than window dressing. If they know beyond a doubt that it will come down to combat no matter what, a lot of players will have the attitude (not unreasonably) of just wanting to get down to it.

3. Give extremely short-term buffs. Things that can't be hoarded, and won't change the balance in the long term. Like 5e's very useful inspiration. Or giving advantage on specific checks for being descriptive.

In the future I'll keep these in mind.

[Beta Centauri]

Well, cheating is generally frowned upon. And the magical appearance of 4000 extra experience points that weren't there before raised an alarm.

But that's one of the problems with this situation: you thought he might be cheating and you voiced your accusation, however obliquely. No one likes having it implied that they're a cheater, because no one thinks of themselves as a cheater, even if they are one. If you want to stand entirely on principle and treat any discrepancy as a reason to become alarmed and check things over, you're going to run into situations where the social mess that causes is far worse than the potential problems you might have averted by stopping the cheating. Who really cares anyway? As has been pointed out, if the fighter is more powerful that helps everyone, right? Anyway, it's a fighter and I assume you're not playing 4e (which encourages same-level groups) so how powerful can he really get?

[Aspiration]

Take this with a grain of salt, because it's just two cents from a newbie, but... I'm looking at this as a question of why the fighter cares so much about relative level. Is he just foolishly being competitive? Or are there any other possible factors, such as level being seen as a measure of behavior ("Bob is underleveled because he's a bad person who missed too many sessions and doesn't RP well. Don't be like Bob, everyone") or him worrying about his character falling behind compared to others?

[jaydubs]

Take this with a grain of salt, because it's just two cents from a newbie, but... I'm looking at this as a question of why the fighter cares so much about relative level. Is he just foolishly being competitive? Or are there any other possible factors, such as level being seen as a measure of behavior ("Bob is underleveled because he's a bad person who missed too many sessions and doesn't RP well. Don't be like Bob, everyone") or him worrying about his character falling behind compared to others?

He probably cares about relative level because most players care, in some part or another. It's just human nature. It's why a lot of us argue for everyone getting locked to the same character levels. It removes the desire to pull ahead, and the threat of falling behind.

[BootStrapTommy]

Back in our 3.5 days, he wasn't much in the way of an optimizer. So he often felt behind and useless. But honestly that's because he never bothered to pick up a rulebook. 5e has been different for him, so he tends to be hypercompetitive about these things.

But that's one of the problems with this situation: you thought he might be cheating and you voiced your accusation, however obliquely. No one likes having it implied that they're a cheater, because no one thinks of themselves as a cheater, even if they are one. If you want to stand entirely on principle and treat any discrepancy as a reason to become alarmed and check things over, you're going to run into situations where the social mess that causes is far worse than the potential problems you might have averted by stopping the cheating.

An accusation of cheating was never actually leveled. I was more concerned with potential accounting errors on either end. He is notoriously bad with math, and I'd done many rewrites of my character sheet (OCD). More over, by the "higher level is better" argument, what I did was actually best, since I bought half the party a level up with my complaint. And in the end he still leads in XP, if just by a few hundred.

[Maglubiyet]

I guess the big question is: Is it more important for you to be "right" and "win" this argument or would you rather have your nephew rejoin the game? What do you hope to gain here?

It seems pretty clear that you didn't do anything wrong. Regardless, though, your nephew is pretty upset about it. Is there a compromise you could come to that might restore harmony? I mean, come on, at the end of the day it's just a game. Is it worth bad blood in the family over?

[NichG]

Its dangerous to use progression mechanics as motivators because it drives the game towards imbalance. Imagine if you have one player who isn't as dedicated to the game as everyone else, so he gets a little less XP. He is going to tend to fall behind, and as a result he may become even more disinterested in the game because he has less and less ability to actually make a difference. So its an unstable thing.

Its a bit better to use incidentals as motivators. For example, here's a silly little system you could use:

- Every game that a player shows up for, they get 1 'style point'
- A player may spend 1 style point to refluff the aesthetics of a specific item, ability, etc: their magic missile spell is actually a swarm of butterflies, they have a weapon that has the mechanics of a long-sword but looks like a naginata, etc.
- A player may spend 3 style points to have the DM introduce a Lv1 NPC with a specific personality, aesthetic, etc (but not specific mechanics). The DM may raise the NPC's level if appropriate. Alternately, a player may spend 3 style points to alter the aesthetic of one of the DM's NPCs when they are introduced (but not their goals, mechanics, etc) - if they want the villain to have poofy hair, then it is so.
- A player may spend 5 style points to reinterpret a specific roleplay requirement of a mechanical game element belonging to their character. For example, a player could alter their Paladin's code. This can be used per situation to reinterpret roleplay requirements of universal mechanical game elements, e.g. 'what I just did doesn't count as Evil this time'.
- One or more players may spend 9 style points to have the DM run a specifically themed game session some time within the next few games - 'I want us to go to an island', 'I want us to get kidnapped', etc.

If you never get any style points, its not a huge deal because they don't really influence your ability to keep up with the game all that much. But if you're very dedicated to the campaign, then your buy-in is rewarded in the form of additional creative control.

[Battlebooze]

Sometimes people are more petty towards their family.

Well, actually, I guess that's not true. It's more like "lots of the time."

I believe the term, "Blood is thicker than water" applies here.

[BWR]

I've never believed in using rewards or punishment for attendance. If people like the game, attendance is its own reward. Punishing people for not showing up just causes bad feelings all around. People have lives outside of the game and punishing people for taking other things more seriously than a hobby is plain wrong, and punishing them for sometimes preferring some other hobby instead is just petty.
Two personal examples: One of my friends works at a job with a lot of responsibility and pressure (he had an explosion in the lab one week after he took over as leader for the department), two small kids, coaches the local kids' football (soccer) team, runs fund raisers for the team, does his militia thing (note that the Norwegian 'militia' is quite a different animal from what you find in the US), and has a lots of friends who aren't gamers. He rarely gets to play more than once a month, and it's more like every 6-8 weeks. Should we punish him for having a life outside of the game? Should we punish and possibly alienate him because he has responsibilities he takes seriously? Hell no!

Or another friend who apart from studies and work is fairly heavily involved in various CCG and video game tournaments around here. Sometimes he'll be a no-show because he has other commitments to other people for those hobbies. Sure, it's annoying if he doesn't show up because he's busy somewhere else and worse if the game has to be cancelled because he thinks something else is more important, but he enjoys the game and the company, we enjoy his company; you just live with it because you like your friends.

Rewarding players merely for showing up is basically the same as punishing no-shows.