A lack of reward is not punishment

[Quertus]

The idea that a player should get xp just for showing up is them getting a reward for nothing. If a player wants xp, they should do something to earn it. The bard talked the team through an encounter? They get all the xp. A fighter killed the monster before the rest of the party acted? The fighter gets all of that creature's xp reward. The players aren't getting punished because they didn't do anything to earn that xp. It's not a punishment. It's simply a lack of a reward. The reward goes to the deserving.

This mentality is toxic. It will encourage the one **** player who hogs the spotlight and does everything.

Don't do this.

Rewards team players, who let everyone have fun. Give group XP.

RPGs have a bizarrely high number of people that can’t handle losing, or even not getting as much stuff as others.

Back when it was wargamers and college kids, it was pretty good. Around 79/80 I started to see a shift with "serious" role players who were very entitled and opinionated.

War gamers expect and demand balanced scenarios - we're totally CaS in war games. So "not getting as much stuff as others" is a CaS, war game mentality.

Whereas, "can't handle losing"? That's not healthy in the war games side of CaS, or in CaW. That's something different, that has spawned this new age CaS.

The perception that XP is about keeping up is an illusion. Generally, challenges in a tabletop game are going to be bounded by the fact that the GM is trying to make things feel intense while avoiding a TPK.

This assumes CaS - it doesn't work in CaW. This line of reasoning only works to the extent that the encounters are tailored to the party.

(if you constantly put it into raw power, you escalate rapidly and get a game more focused on one-trick ponies; if you put it towards diversity, utility, etc, you're bidding to have a more rounded, cerebral game)

Hmmm... Honestly, I think it's a more cerebral game when the character is less well-rounded, and you have to come up with creative ways to leverage your abilities.

What XP actually does is pretty divorced from how XP feels to a player though. Whether XP denial is punishment or just the absence of reward will depend on how that is being wielded. That is to say, both punishments and rewards are just consequences, with the main difference being in how one experiences them and feels pressure to adapt their behavior in response - moving towards or moving away.

I would guess that the more systematic something is for the rest of the group, the more punishment-like it will feel to not receive it. So in a game where hypothetically only one player each session on average receives a thing, not being the one to receive it due to not being present will feel more like missing a reward (other people also didn't get the thing, even though they were present), whereas if everyone but you receives it then it will feel more like a punishment.

Although I haven't seen this theory in practice, I do believe you are correct regarding human perception.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Gosh I sure am glad I stopped playing D&D.

[NichG]

This assumes CaS - it doesn't work in CaW. This line of reasoning only works to the extent that the encounters are tailored to the party.

At least in systems with D&D's sort of power scale spanning multiple orders of magnitude, encounters are always tailored to the party to greater or lesser degree unless the campaign is expected to end in a TPK. It's just that not every kind of tailoring is obviously metagamey, and that can make it appear that they aren't being tailored. What I mean is, even if it's a status quo world and 'there is a great wyrm red dragon in the nearby mountains' is an established aspect of the setting, the party of eternal Lv1 Farmers is going to use that information in order to make sure that they don't encounter the dragon - e.g. they'll avoid the mountains. If there are really lethal things in the outer planes, the fact that the party is too low level to have access to Plane Shift provides a similar 'natural' tailoring, but it's tailoring nonetheless.

To put it another way, if you have a game make it from Lv1 to Lv20 by the book, the party has fought ~80 battles at or above their CR, none of which was so far outside of what amounts to a relatively narrow survivable power scale for the party at that moment in their development as to guarantee a TPK. That's not going to happen by coincidence in a 'well-mixed D&D' where you just encounter things non-selectively - rather, there's intentionality behind that in making sure to stay within that band on the DM's side, the players' side, or both.

I would believe the argument more for systems with much flatter power curves, but in those systems keeping up is a lot less important because there just isn't that much power to be extracted from XP gain anyhow (compared to e.g. gear, preparing the environment, etc). For example in a recent Changeling campaign, to get the equivalent of flak jackets (which basically anyone can use) in combat survivability would cost something like 20-30 sessions of XP spent on powers (more, if you count the need to raise your Wyrd to be able to even spend enough Glamour to activate those powers). Even if combat is war, missing even 10 sessions worth of XP won't necessarily make too much difference in actual combat performance, and if you do want combat advantage it's going to be more through in-character maneuvering (e.g. in our case, we found a way to summon the thing we wanted to attack into a place of our choosing, rigged the battlefield in advance, called in political alliances to obtain extra NPC combatants, and managed to take down something way above our paygrade with a 3 person party only one of whom had any combat abilities to speak of).

Hmmm... Honestly, I think it's a more cerebral game when the character is less well-rounded, and you have to come up with creative ways to leverage your abilities.

Generally when people start on a numbers arms race, it quickly gets to a point where there's only one action or situation that pulls on those numbers. If e.g. it's a defenses arms race, then all fights must follow the form of 'everyone else stand back/make yourselves non-viable as targets, and let the unhittable guy tank'. If it's an offenses arms race, then it tends to be 'lets use the alpha-strike because we know we can win as long as we act first', etc. I've never seen 'I have AC 200' or 'I do 20k damage with my full attack' or 'Time Stop + 3x Delayed Blast Fireball + 3x Quickened Delayed Blast Fireball' or the like lead to cerebral play. Generally they require some thought to initially come up with, but once they're in play it becomes standard operating procedure very quickly, so in effect it tends to overall simplify the game.

On the other hand, I have seen lots of cerebral play when people have a wide suite of ecclectic or idiosyncratic abilities (none of which on its own would make a viable character) and have to figure out which one or combination to use to get a handle on the situation.

[oxybe]

Question: If a player attends a session, but doesn't make a sound, does he get XP? Lets says Little Jimmy does absolutely nothing this session but attend? do you give him XP? Is presence the only determinant in getting XP?

What if all he does is a single attack roll during the one fight, and doesn't participate in the RP? Is he going to get a full share of XP?

Also: I'm sorry I got ill that night and decided to stay home or decided that dealing with real life was more important then the elfgame. Next time I'll make sure to come to the game session when ill with my spew in tow. I'll mix it up by downing a bag of Skittles presession and make it technicolour, for everyone's enjoyment.

[Kaibis]

What do the players say about this? Why not just pass the buck to the players - award the XP to the party and ask them how they want to divide it. It may be that they don't feel like sharing with the guy who skips every third session, or it may be that they are happy to keep things even.

[Kaibis]

The idea that a player should get xp just for showing up is them getting a reward for nothing. If a player wants xp, they should do something to earn it. The bard talked the team through an encounter? They get all the xp. A fighter killed the monster before the rest of the party acted? The fighter gets all of that creature's xp reward. The players aren't getting punished because they didn't do anything to earn that xp. It's not a punishment. It's simply a lack of a reward. The reward goes to the deserving.

Don't reward the bard for doing all the talking.

You end up with the bard who never ever shuts up, takes point on every conversation ("I'm the face"), comments on every single persons combat action ("I am eating an apple, and yelling a comment at you, and doing a little dance"), gives everyone advice on what they should do (because by now they are so used to doing all the talking that they have forgotten to stop), oh and then realise that they seem to be talking so much that it makes sense that they are the leader.... Then they pout when anyone suggests something different to what they want... and then things get awkward.

Oh... and then they complain that everyone else is too quiet.

Silent players are occasionally because there are really dominating players in the group and it is too hard to get a word in edgewise. I am a super chatty active player, but had a group member so bad that I would sit pretty much in silence until my combat turn, because it was just too painful. I tried chatting with the DM but he dismissed my concerns - "The bard is the face" I was told, and I watched player after player leave the group, until finally I left too.

[Corneel]

So how does one play DD without XP? Leveling up implies getting XP. So either you give out XP more or less as intended in the game's basic rules or otherwise you hand hem out in level-sized chunks, without any link to player accomplishment, entirely depending on the narrative needs of the campaign whim of the DM.

I can see systems work without XP - for instance like the practicing of skill system used by the Elder Scrolls games (though I think that is a bit more difficult to set up as a TTRPG system for bookkeeping reasons) or a system where there is no important progression in the character's basic abilities and any progress is through the acquisition of items during adventures - but D&D isn't one of them.

[Deophaun]

So how does one play DD without XP? Leveling up implies getting XP. So either you give out XP more or less as intended in the game's basic rules or otherwise you hand hem out in level-sized chunks, without any link to player accomplishment, entirely depending on the narrative needs of the campaign whim of the DM.

How are you handing out XP if you aren't using XP?

[Quertus]

At least in systems with D&D's sort of power scale spanning multiple orders of magnitude, encounters are always tailored to the party to greater or lesser degree unless the campaign is expected to end in a TPK. It's just that not every kind of tailoring is obviously metagamey, and that can make it appear that they aren't being tailored. What I mean is, even if it's a status quo world and 'there is a great wyrm red dragon in the nearby mountains' is an established aspect of the setting, the party of eternal Lv1 Farmers is going to use that information in order to make sure that they don't encounter the dragon - e.g. they'll avoid the mountains. If there are really lethal things in the outer planes, the fact that the party is too low level to have access to Plane Shift provides a similar 'natural' tailoring, but it's tailoring nonetheless.

To put it another way, if you have a game make it from Lv1 to Lv20 by the book, the party has fought ~80 battles at or above their CR, none of which was so far outside of what amounts to a relatively narrow survivable power scale for the party at that moment in their development as to guarantee a TPK. That's not going to happen by coincidence in a 'well-mixed D&D' where you just encounter things non-selectively - rather, there's intentionality behind that in making sure to stay within that band on the DM's side, the players' side, or both.

I would believe the argument more for systems with much flatter power curves, but in those systems keeping up is a lot less important because there just isn't that much power to be extracted from XP gain anyhow (compared to e.g. gear, preparing the environment, etc). For example in a recent Changeling campaign, to get the equivalent of flak jackets (which basically anyone can use) in combat survivability would cost something like 20-30 sessions of XP spent on powers (more, if you count the need to raise your Wyrd to be able to even spend enough Glamour to activate those powers). Even if combat is war, missing even 10 sessions worth of XP won't necessarily make too much difference in actual combat performance, and if you do want combat advantage it's going to be more through in-character maneuvering (e.g. in our case, we found a way to summon the thing we wanted to attack into a place of our choosing, rigged the battlefield in advance, called in political alliances to obtain extra NPC combatants, and managed to take down something way above our paygrade with a 3 person party only one of whom had any combat abilities to speak of).

Hahaha - by natural selection, D&D worlds where all humans get Plane Shift tend to die out. I love it.

Yes, if provided with enough information, characters will avoid things that are completely beyond them. With insufficient information, they must rely on stealth / fight / running / Contingency / etc to escape certain doom - or, occasionally, wits or luck to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Or the party Diplomancer.

Generally when people start on a numbers arms race, it quickly gets to a point where there's only one action or situation that pulls on those numbers. If e.g. it's a defenses arms race, then all fights must follow the form of 'everyone else stand back/make yourselves non-viable as targets, and let the unhittable guy tank'. If it's an offenses arms race, then it tends to be 'lets use the alpha-strike because we know we can win as long as we act first', etc. I've never seen 'I have AC 200' or 'I do 20k damage with my full attack' or 'Time Stop + 3x Delayed Blast Fireball + 3x Quickened Delayed Blast Fireball' or the like lead to cerebral play. Generally they require some thought to initially come up with, but once they're in play it becomes standard operating procedure very quickly, so in effect it tends to overall simplify the game.

On the other hand, I have seen lots of cerebral play when people have a wide suite of ecclectic or idiosyncratic abilities (none of which on its own would make a viable character) and have to figure out which one or combination to use to get a handle on the situation.

How about "gee, we need diplomacy, but don't have that. Well, I can deal enough damage to tunnel through the mountain / divert a river for them to boost trade - that should give us a bonus. You can have the town guard attack you all day and all night without getting hurt, that should impress them. Now, is there any way to leverage 'suddenly, fireballs' to give us a diplomatic advantage?"

[Theoboldi]

I am glad I now understand how much better everything was back in the day.

I hereby renounce my vicious Combat as Sport or War or whichever buzzword I'm playing ways, so that I may no longer feel entitled to play a playstyle I enjoy with my friends.

I'll go and tell them we've been having fun wrong, and that we've been horrible people all along. Thanks for pointing that out to us, everyone.

[NichG]

How about "gee, we need diplomacy, but don't have that. Well, I can deal enough damage to tunnel through the mountain / divert a river for them to boost trade - that should give us a bonus. You can have the town guard attack you all day and all night without getting hurt, that should impress them. Now, is there any way to leverage 'suddenly, fireballs' to give us a diplomatic advantage?"

More like 'Alright, lets walk into the seat of government and kill all the heads of state in order until the war stops'...

[Quertus]

I am glad I now understand how much better everything was back in the day.

I hereby renounce my vicious Combat as Sport or War or whichever buzzword I'm playing ways, so that I may no longer feel entitled to play a playstyle I enjoy with my friends.

I'll go and tell them we've been having fun wrong, and that we've been horrible people all along. Thanks for pointing that out to us, everyone.

Although the blue text makes this clear sarcasm, I think it highlights part of the point of this thread: that the way you enjoy playing may be detrimental to the fun of your friends. Not realizing that, if they view the game differently (wrongly), they might consider a lack of XP punitive.

IMO, the value of this thread is to appreciate the existence of multiple PoV on this issue (even if most of them are wrong).

[Quertus]

More like 'Alright, lets walk into the seat of government and kill all the heads of state in order until the war stops'...

I'm not sure if you're describing what you're seen, or what you consider a clever solution to the problem...

[NichG]

I'm not sure if you're describing what you're seen, or what you consider a clever solution to the problem...

What I've seen, in two different campaigns if I remember correctly.

[ZamielVanWeber]

I always hand out XP if the system allows for it because I love that sense of progression. However, handing out exp no absent players varies by system and player. For very large games or for systems where calculating exp is a pain in my butt I hand it out only if they player is present. For smaller games that don't require calculators to do exp I hand it out even if they are absent. I honestly prefer to hand exp to absent players: that way they don't feel like they are forced to come or else. Leads to happier players (in my personal experience).

[Blackjackg]

As a DM, I've mostly stopped using XP for D&D. I still use it for other systems or D&D games that are particularly open and sandboxy. I've also stopped running when some players are missing. It means we wind up skipping a few sessions, but it's more fun if no one feels they're missing anything. That said, whether withholding XP counts as a punishment or not really depends on the general philosophy of your approach to experience points.

The person who described XP as a Pavlovian reward system was nearly right, but Pavlov was about classical conditioning and reward and punishment are instruments of operant conditioning (think B.F. Skinner). A reward or reinforcement is something that you give after a desired behavior to encourage the subject to do the desired behavior again; a punishment is something you do after an undesired behavior to discourage that behavior. Whether you're technically giving something or taking something away is immaterial-- either can be a punishment or a reward depending on whether the subject wants that thing or not. When a parent says to their child "Because you used a naughty word, I will take away your dessert," that is a negative punishment: punishing an undesired behavior by taking away a valued something. When they say "Because you did your chores, I will give you a dessert," it's a positive reinforcement.

Part of the distinction here is whether or not the child had an understanding that they were going to get dessert. If they don't expect dessert, then not getting it isn't a punishment and getting it is a reward. If they do expect dessert, then getting it isn't a reward and not getting it is a punishment. Makes sense, right? I actually have this conversation a lot with parents about things like electronics time. If a child understands that the tablet is theirs and they can use it anytime they want, then the parent taking it away for bad behavior is a punishment. If the child understands that the tablet belongs to the parent and they can earn time on it by meeting certain expectations, then it's a reward.

Part of the trouble is that XP in most D&D games (at least most that I've encountered) serves at least two functions. One is to concretely represent the abstraction of characters learning from their experiences. It accrues as a natural consequence of what the characters, well, experience. When they fight monsters, evade traps, solve mysteries, or whatever, they learn and move toward greater skill and power. The other function of XP is to reward players for behaviors desired by the DM: showing up consistently, good roleplaying, paying for the pizza, etc. Which is legit, but distinctly different from its other function.

In operant conditioning terms, this dual function creates a complication. Some XP is understood specifically to be a reward for certain behaviors and players not getting it because they didn't meet criteria to earn it is hard to characterize as a punishment. But some XP could also be understood as a baseline expectation based on the character's participation in the game world, and withholding it to discourage players from missing sessions could certainly be characterized as a punishment.

As usual, I think the answer is clear communication at the beginning of the game. Tell your players at the beginning of the game what you intend to award XP for. Give them a chance to weigh in on whether or not this works for them.

[Lorsa]

Can we stop with claims that it is "punishing" players who miss a session by not awarding them XP. Not being there means they don't get a reward for participating. They are not being punished in any way.

If you have a specific situation where you want all your PCs to be the same level, regardless of their ability to attend sessions, then by all means give XP to characters that can't attend. Or drop XP altogether. That's fine. It may, depending on the system, even be laudable, or a better way to play the game. But don't try to twist the language so that not earning a reward, is instead a punishment.

Even though NichG gave a very good answer to this, I will write something of my own anyway.

There are basically two discussions here. One is if it is twisting the language to claim it is a punishment to NOT give players XP, the other is whether or not one should give XP to absent players.

Whether or not something is a punishment or a reward depends on if it is the default assumption or not. Basically, giving something above the default assumption is a reward whereas withholding something from the default is a punishment.

For example, if the default assumption is that you get dinner at home, then NOT getting dinner is indeed a punishment (and has been used by some parents to punish their children for certain behaviors). If you are not expected to get icecream after dinner, then getting icecream can be a reward for good behavior (such as being extra quiet during dinner or whatnot).

Therefore, it is not at all twisting the language to claim that not getting XP for absence is a punishment. It really depends on the core default assumptions. If XP is something everyone just "will get" (like dinner), then not getting it is indeed a punishment. If XP is something more rare, not being the default expectation, perhaps only given out for specific good behaviors, then it is a reward.

So, my counter would be: "don't twist the language by claiming that what is reward and what is punishment is something other than contextual".

As for whether or not one should give XP to absent players, I am firmly in the camp that WILL do so. It does, however, depend a lot on the game itself (omg, another contextual thing).

Personally, I view XP as not being a reward for the player, but rather an abstract way of modeling character progression. So, even if the player was absent from the game, within the fiction, the character probably did something. This something will most likely also lead to some character progression, which is modeled by XP. In many games, it would be very weird if the character of an absent player was not also involved in whatever was going on. Therefore, why shouldn't the character get XP just the same? And if it was not involved, why couldn't it be doing something else?

I can see how in some games, awarding XP to a character with an absent player would be strange. Especially in games where XP is awarded unevenly among the characters based on very specific player behaviors. Also, if a new player entering the group is expected to start with a baseline character, then awarding XP to absent players would also be weird. So if you're in the habit of letting new players have a lvl 1 character with a lvl 18 party, then that's the way to go.

In any case, not awarding XP to absent players comes with a couple of issues, such as the character permanently falling behind the power curve and eventually becoming less and less useful to the party. You can view these things as "no-problems" (again it is contextual), but if you DO seem them as problems, why NOT give XP to absent players?

I agree with whoever said that being absent from the session is punishment enough. Or that being present at the game is reward enough. One does not need to permanently reduced the future fun for players simply because they weren't there. I mean, if someone can't attend a session, there's a good reason for it, and they're usually quite upset about not being there anyway. Why add fuel to the fire?

Or, looking at the question in another light. Why do you have such a problem with players being absent from sessions that you have to reward them for showing up? I mean, the only reason to give a reward for something, is if the behavior is not the expected default. So if you reward presence, then presence can hardly be the default?

[Beleriphon]

More like 'Alright, lets walk into the seat of government and kill all the heads of state in order until the war stops'...

Isn't that the plot of the Stormwatch comics?

[Pleh]

"Tiers don't matter because you can just adjust your playstyle to compensate."

You can find videos online pretty easy that behavioral analysts have confirmed that when animals like ourselves (confirmed in several other species as well as humans) see other members of their group rewarded while they are not, it is upsetting to them and doing this intentionally can easily be perceived as punishment.

The funny thing about punishment is that it's mostly psychological. Therefore, if punishment is perceived, then it is already real to some extent, even if it wasn't intended.

Thankfully, in this context, relieving the perception of punishment is usually easy enough. Communication is the answer. Express compassion, correct the understanding of intent, make your rules to the game clear, if needed, add a peace offering by giving them something nice in the game (XP, magic items, etc) and make it clear you are thanking them for agreeing to the rules going forward. "Failing to communicate my way of running games is on me and I value you as a friend and player, so you can have what you expected (or something equivalent in worth) this time, but in the future I'll expect cooperation with the rules."

To suggest it isn't a problem is oversimplifying. Just because it can be fixed doesn't mean it isn't a problem (rather, it proves such a problem exists).

[Tanarii]

Also: I'm sorry I got ill that night and decided to stay home or decided that dealing with real life was more important then the elfgame. Next time I'll make sure to come to the game session when ill with my spew in tow. I'll mix it up by downing a bag of Skittles presession and make it technicolour, for everyone's enjoyment.

Clearly DMs need to provide 2 sessions sick time and 2 sessions vacation time for a years worth of weekly sessions. If employers can do it, it's the least DMs can do.

What do the players say about this? Why not just pass the buck to the players - award the XP to the party and ask them how they want to divide it. It may be that they don't feel like sharing with the guy who skips every third session, or it may be that they are happy to keep things even.

Makes sense to me. But the issue isn't getting XP vs not getting XP vs not using XP. It's people claiming that not getting XP for absenteeism is a punishment.

Similarly, a claiming not getting it for actual non-contribution is punishment would not be correct. If you choose to have your character wander off and not even attempt to contribute to a party's success in an adventure at all, you're Being a Richard, but you're not being punished for that if you don't get any XP.

This mentality is toxic. It will encourage the one **** player who hogs the spotlight and does everything.

Don't do this.

Rewards team players, who let everyone have fun. Give group XP.

Despite the lack of blue text, I'm fairly sure that poster was attempting to build a strawman extreme argument. Or be sarcastic.

This assumes CaS - it doesn't work in CaW. This line of reasoning only works to the extent that the encounters are tailored to the party.

It certainly does. Games certainly don't have to be tailored to the level of the party. Not doing so will not automatically result in a TPK. In D&D in particular, Sandbox, megadungeon, and west marches games are a thing for a reason. They usually have level appropriate zones, but parties are free to go where they want and risk their lives as much as they choose, with (hopefully) commensurate rewards based on danger.

Although the blue text makes this clear sarcasm, I think it highlights part of the point of this thread: that the way you enjoy playing may be detrimental to the fun of your friends. Not realizing that, if they view the game differently (wrongly), they might consider a lack of XP punitive.

IMO, the value of this thread is to appreciate the existence of multiple PoV on this issue (even if most of them are wrong).

Exactly. Claiming a game mechanic intentionally designed to be a reward, to instead be a punishment because at your specific table you have a situation in which you don't want anyone to "fall behind", means the general rule is a punishment, is misrepresenting the intended use of the mechanic.

Not to mention falling behind is generally a perception problem, not a mechanical problem. I don't personally know of any game in which the mechanics of a game can't handle at least a 2 level difference without problem. Certainly not any TSR, WoTC, or Palladium system.

Not to dismiss people's feelings in reaction to "forever being behind". Feelings are valid. But let's not mix them up with mechanical justifications that aren't valid.

[Lorsa]

Exactly. Claiming a game mechanic intentionally designed to be a reward, to instead be a punishment because at your specific table you have a situation in which you don't want anyone to "fall behind", means the general rule is a punishment, is misrepresenting the intended use of the mechanic.

Uh, that really depends on what you see XP is being a mechanic of.

To me, XP is a means to abstract character development (as I said). That doesn't inherently make it a reward. It just IS.

What it is that makes you think that XP is a game mechanic intentionally designed to be a reward rather than an abstract way to provide character progression?

[JoeJ]

Here's a wacky notion. What if the group had an OOC discussion and came to an agreement on what to do about missing players? Not just xp, but also what happens to their character during that session; whether they disappear, are played by another player, temporarily become an NPC, or whatever. Also, whether it's possible for a character to die when their player is absent. That way, nobody can (reasonably) feel punished if the group follows whatever rule everybody agreed to.

[Tanarii]

To me, XP is a means to abstract character development (as I said). That doesn't inherently make it a reward. It just IS.

if you want to view gaining XP as a measure of a characters experiences, then not getting it for absenteeism is still not a punishment.

[Blackjackg]

Uh, that really depends on what you see XP is being a mechanic of.

To me, XP is a means to abstract character development (as I said). That doesn't inherently make it a reward. It just IS.

What it is that makes you think that XP is a game mechanic intentionally designed to be a reward rather than an abstract way to provide character progression?

There were previous editions of the game (at least 2e, maybe some others) where it was explicitly recommended that the DM award bonus experience to players who contribute to the fun of the game rather than detracting... and in any case, it's fairly common practice to award bonus XP for stuff like having a great idea or roleplaying really well. Not that this negates your point, but it does mean that XP can be used at least two ways.

[Slipperychicken]

Can we stop with claims that it is "punishing" players who miss a session by not awarding them XP

It is punishment. You're setting people behind in-game over something that happened in real life.

[Blackjackg]

if you want to view gaining XP as a measure of a characters experiences, then not getting it for absenteeism is still not a punishment.

Unless you're a group where the character remains present even if the player is absent. Which seems to be a lot of groups, since we don't like having to write a character out in the middle of an adventure.

Also raises the question of how you handle quest/milestone experience for quests that the player participated in, but was absent for the awarding of XP? Or even just one who was present for part of an extended quest, but not all of it? What if the game has to break in the middle of a long combat?

[Forrestfire]

The way I look at it, if someone is missing a session, that's already punishing enough.

After all, everyone in the group is there to have a fun time hanging out, playing, and roleplaying together, right? If someone is forced to miss a session they lost a session. That's huge! That's painful. So in a D&D-type game, why would you go out of your way to make it so that in later sessions, they probably have less fun (by being behind the group and less able to contribute) or you as the DM probably have less fun (by having to balance encounters around disparate levels while still giving everyone a fun time, which doesn't work well in any edition of D&D).

Sure, there are particular player types who don't mind being behind everyone else for no reason other than non-game-related scheduling screwing them over, but like.... the "punishment" isn't "you didn't get XP when everyone else did."

It's you are now permanently behind everyone else, and this will probably make you have a harder time contributing and less interesting things to do, entirely because... what, someone had an emergency that kept them from getting to the session? They were sick? Work ran late?

Viewing it only as a matter of the XP given to other people is... silly. This is about more than XP, it's about the DM's choice to leave someone out because of things they very likely could not control. And if you're playing with friends, why would you do that? They're not your child or your dog. There's no need to "discipline" them by lessening their later ability to contribute. They're there to have fun. You're there to have fun. Why not take steps to maximize the fun later, given that they already lost a lot of fun by missing the session itself?

I just don't get it.

(As a note, this is specific to games like D&D, GURPS, and the like, where the "XP" you get from a session directly increases your later contributions in the campaign, and generally is difficult to recoup without spending a lot of time behind or getting an extra handout from the DM to undo the punishment itself. A lot of games handle XP differently and this wouldn't apply to them).

[Koo Rehtorb]

I like the way Torchbearer handles missing a session.

There's two different advancement methods in Torchbearer. Skills all progress independently by using them in play, use a skill enough times and it levels up. And then there's also character level which gives you bonuses like extra spell slots or armour training, or that sort of thing, you get those by gaining and spending fate and persona points from doing things like achieving personal goals or being the MVP of the session.

If someone misses a session then at the start of the next session they have a chance to describe where their character was when they were absent. If they do that then they get to mark one test for any skill they want to. It's less than the number of tests you'll probably get for attending a session, and they obviously don't get any fate/persona at all, but it's a little token to keep pace a bit. And it's a test you can focus on a specific thing you want to level up as opposed to actually having to roll that thing.

[Tanarii]

I like the way Torchbearer handles missing a session.

There's two different advancement methods in Torchbearer. Skills all progress independently by using them in play, use a skill enough times and it levels up. And then there's also character level which gives you bonuses like extra spell slots or armour training, or that sort of thing, you get those by gaining and spending fate and persona points from doing things like achieving personal goals or being the MVP of the session.

Which makes me wonder: how do people that don't like XP in systems designed for it, and do leveling without XP instead, handle systems that advance levels purely on individual activities taken in session? How do they handle skill advancement based on using skills? Do they just not play games like Warhammer or Runequest?

[Boci]

Is you miss a session, and next time the DM brings a donut for everyone except you after promising to do so the previous session, will you just shrug and say "a lack of a reward is not a punishment"? Because I would not do that as a DM, because I imagine most people, me included, would feel like it was a punishment.