Different levels in the same party, really?


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

mdt wrote:
To Scott, yes, the GM was part of the problem. So was his policy, and so was the player. You talk about punishing people by not giving xp, I say it is not punishment. I say that if you give the same XP to everyone, you are instead rewarding those who do not put forth a reasonable effort to fulfill their half of the social contract we entered into.

Right, and I'm saying that if a player is failing to fulfill their part of the social contract surrounding the game, what are they doing in your group? Address the player's lack of participation directly, rather than with this sort of passive-aggressive "Oh, you didn't show up. No big deal. We're just gonna put you a level behind everyone else. But hey, it's cool," sort of nonsense.


mdt wrote:
I think most of us are talking from a point of view from Pathfinder, or at least other standard RPGs.

The default way of handling group experience in 4e is to give all PCs the same amount, whether they were there or not. The method you use is also mentioned, but so are its drawbacks.


Achilles wrote:
For a fighter: It's not hard to hit AC 10 to assist someone in combat.

Boy, that's how I want to spend my D&D time - rolling against AC 10 to give the party fighter a +2 bonus to his attack.

Woohoo.

I mean, really. That's the support? "Being two levels behind isn't bad! Sure, you might end up doing nothing but giving the fighter little bonuses to attack now and then, but hey, at least you're rolling a die!"


There is nothing wrong with being a support character. Look at bards. They don't have the most powerful arcane spells, BAB is moderate, hit die isn't great. Bard song bonuses go up pretty slowly. Depends on whether you mix it with other classes but they primarily are a support class. Yet there is so much they can do. Combat is a large part of the game but its not the only part. Combat itself is split into opponents that one's character is good against. I remember my ninja in low magic sargava having real difficulty overcoming a construct's DR. This was acually the drunken master's time to shine. The drunken master's AC was pretty good but this thing had such high to hit bonus and damage that I didn't want to risk him going down from being beaten to a bloody pulp. So my character grabbed a glowing torch, speed climbed to its face and proceeded to annoy it by shoving the torch in its eye. Eventually won but you could equate my character's role as being similar to the "aid another"
action. Every class has something they aren't great against. It doesn't always have to be about hogging the spotlight through massive damage or save vs death each round.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
mdt wrote:
To Scott, yes, the GM was part of the problem. So was his policy, and so was the player. You talk about punishing people by not giving xp, I say it is not punishment. I say that if you give the same XP to everyone, you are instead rewarding those who do not put forth a reasonable effort to fulfill their half of the social contract we entered into.
Right, and I'm saying that if a player is failing to fulfill their part of the social contract surrounding the game, what are they doing in your group? Address the player's lack of participation directly, rather than with this sort of passive-aggressive "Oh, you didn't show up. No big deal. We're just gonna put you a level behind everyone else. But hey, it's cool," sort of nonsense.

We are not talking about putting them anywhere, it isn't a punishment in the "take that" sense.

They are at the level which they have been playing, and that they have earned. If they are a level 7, and haven't played any more games, haven't earned the xp to get to level 8, they are still at level 7.

They are not being put into a lower level than what they have, you see it as a punishment for them to be at their level, when others have moved up and on. To the victors (and the players) go the spoils.

To this:
"I mean, really. That's the support? "Being two levels behind isn't bad! Sure, you might end up doing nothing but giving the fighter little bonuses to attack now and then, but hey, at least you're rolling a die!""

Sigh, as if that is all a lower pc can do. If you are a wizard, everyone is level 7, and you are at level 5, you can still throw fireballs, and all other spells in your spellcasting repertoire. If you are a rogue you can always use your skills no matter your level, you will have a lot of them, and an easy mark isn't too hard to find. Keep back and remember the stealth rules if you need to do scouting, don't try to creep under their nose. If a melee, pick up some reach martial weapons and don't face your foes face to face, but attack from flanks, reach charging can be effective, break out the spiked chain, attack and withdraw behind allies and then move around to flank again. Just because you aren't the highest level, doesn't mean you can't fight hard and build your reputation and your character's xp.

Or if you are a bard, play that song, pull out some ranged and shoot the enemies in the face.

Gah, the position of being against being a support character, it is against the very idea of team-play, of working with others. There is no I in team, but there is an I in whine.


Dungeon Grrrl wrote:

I just don't have a problem with this. I mean, it never comes up as a discussion.

My players just want to play. They don't care if they are different levels. I've had games where the group spread form 2nd to 7th level in the same group, The 2nd level characters were more careful, and the 7th level were bolder. And, of course, since the 2nd level players just needed 4,500 xp to get to 3rd, and the 7th level character needed 24,000 to get to 8th, the problem fixed itself in time. Even with more missed games, by the time the 7th level character was 8th, the lowest level PC was 5th and halfway to 6th.

I understand what people are saying when they say "When you dont get to play D&D a given week, the punishment is you didn't get to play D&D. You dont also need to dock the xp."

But for my players, getting to play D&D is the reward, and it doesnt mater what level they are at.

On the other hand, it also doesn't come up often except by design. (I played in a game with a 9th level wizard and a bunch of 2nd level characters he was trying to keep alive. That was a blast, but it's obviously a special case.) Our players rarely miss games, and if too many are going to miss one we break out a boardgame instead...

This has been my experience as well. It depends greatly on the nature of the campaign being played; in a loose, casual game, if I'm DM, I'll just keep everyone at the same xp range, even if someone misses a session.

If it's a tight, rules-intensive game, they simply don't get xp if they don't show up. BUT, in intense games like that we rarely, if ever, play if a player can't make it. In a very story-heavy campaign, we won't play if even one player misses. We'll either just take the evening off, or if everyone is already present, we'll play something else. We usually have secondary "back up" games and ideas lying about just for those instances.

Thankfully, our players are all good-natured and understand the importance of family, work, etc. It's not the end of the world if we don't get to game that night.

In other games, there's typically a variance in player's xp, due to rolling up new characters, character death, etc. As long as we're within 2 or 3 levels of each other, it's pretty unnoticeable. Only in extreme situations, like Wishes, Decks of Many Things, or Factotums undoing tons of traps, do we ever see issues with large level differences.


mdt wrote:

I would be one of those players.

I have been in a game with a GM that gave everyone exactly the same XP, whether they were there or not. It didn't matter how much you contributed to the game, you got the same XP. I tell you it is frustrating to be contributing, roleplaying, going back and forth with other people at the table, and all the while there is one guy at the end of the table who shows up late all the time, who never get's into discussions, who reads the books and surfs the internet during the game, and only looks up when combat starts. And yet, despite his basically being an NPC, of never contributing (oh, but god does he complain if a decision is made that ends up ending badly, even though he never contributed to the decision making), he expects all the same xp, expects a share of the rewards even when he's not there at the game, and doesn't contribute anything. And the GM just rolled over and gave everyone the same XP, no matter what. Even when he was gone, or showed up late, or watched the basketball game on his portable TV during the game.

The result? I gave up playing. I just sat there, shrugged, let the GM control everything, and so did everyone else. We went from having fun and RPing with each other and the GM, going out of our way to find new things to explore, to just showing up to move die counters during combats.

You know what? I NEVER want to play in that sort of 'everyone gets the same thing' again. NEVER! I really really hate the idea that equality has to be in the results instead of the equality of opportunities.

EDIT : Actually, I take part of that back. He wasn't surfing, he was playing games on his portable PC. This was back...

I have to ask... Looking back at this situation 20 years later do you still believe that you handled this appropriately? I mean yes. The player sounds like he wasn't any kind of value to the group. Yes, the GM should have done something about it. I agree completely on both those points.

But you had a game that was fun and you apparently were enjoying, that became not fun and not enjoyable after you all mimicked the behaviour of the guy who wasn't getting involved. All because he was at the same level as you when you felt that you should be higher. Changing behaviour in that situation to make the game less fun for everybody (including yourself) seems to be a very disproportionate response doesn't it? To me ignoring that guy and just continuing to play in the way that had been fun would have been a more enjoyable result than what ended up happening. I'm not having a go at you here, everybody has things in their past that they would do differently, just curious from the way this was presented.

The vast majority of my games have been ones where everybody gets the same rewards. The players who do more get there reward in actually doing more, not in getting more experience than everybody else.


Scott Betts wrote:
TOZ wrote:
We don't believe that players need to 'earn' anything.
Bingo.

Hey, if it works with your groups, that's great. I know I'm late to the game(I avoid the internet during weekends, especially holidays) but really, we're back to arguing preferences. Since we are just arguing preferences, we might as well throw in some edition warring just to ice the cake(no, not really).

My groups track XPs, your groups don't. Cool beans. Doesn't effect either of our games in any way. In our case, we're old-school video game nerds. We were born and raised on the idea of "points" and "keeping score." It's where we find our fun, so forcing everyone to ditch one of the things that draws us to the game, just doesn't work.

I tried Scott and TOZ's idea of just leveling at the end of chapters, and it went over like a lead balloon in some groups, and was actually successful in others. Different strokes for different folks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I play my current version of D&D the same way I played it back in '78. You get XPs if you're there at the game session, and you don't if you aren't. It has nothing to do with "rewarding" or "punishing". Those concepts don't even come into play. They never have.

I'm glad I game with people who are there to have fun, no matter what we do. It sounds as if a lot of you have relationships with your players that are somewhat... lacking.


Berik wrote:

I have to ask... Looking back at this situation 20 years later do you still believe that you handled this appropriately?

Yeah, I do. Based on my knowledge and experience level at the time. Also based on the gaming scene back then. I don't know if people who didn't game back in the late 80's even comprehend what it was like back then.

This was not a hobby that people talked about. You did it, but you didn't talk about it unless you already knew someone else gamed. This is back when Mazes and Monsters with Tom Hanks was out, there were religious groups actively burning D&D books.

I lived in a small southern town. It was a college town, so there were some gamers, but I don't know how many. I never knew more than 5 or 6 at a time. It wasn't until the mid 90's that I found enough people to have a game with 6 players. About then the hobby started becoming acceptable. We even had a game store open (briefly) at the mall.

So, in the original situation, I had 5 other people I knew of that played. The guy who ruined the game was the GMs roomie at college, and they liked each other, so there was no way to get rid of him.

You ask as if we decided to just play like him one day. We didn't. He just drug us down. Each and every game was like he sapped a little more of our fun. But we didn't have any other game to play, no other gamers to go play with. So we just orbited around him and the GM in question, and slowly we all settled into the same orbit. Until one day someone at the table got pissed over a GM ruling, and tore up their character sheet and left. The next week, I didn't bother showing up, and neither did 2 other people I found out later, and that was pretty much it. I don't know about you, but I personally find it draining when someone who is not putting in the effort gets the same benefits as people who are putting in a really effort, or even trying to overachieve.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't get the mentality of it being "punishment" for not getting what you didn't earn.

The game says, when the characters do X, they earn Y. A missing player isn't there, and therefore does not do X, yet they get as much Y as those players that did do X (and some Z to boot).

It's not "passive aggressive", the game says, do X, get Y. Don't show up after having not done X expecting to have Y.

To me it is is more of a punishment to the players that did X (and some Z), to get no more for their efforts than those that did neither X or Z.

So, before long those that do X (and some Z), may stop or do less X or Z, because they learned that neither is required to get Y. Heck, even being present isn't required to earn Y.

[sarcasm] Since you don't have to show up, why not just let the GM tell his story later about what happened when no one was present, and tell the group how much Y they got? [/sarcasm]

Some of us feel the pain of missing a game, and it is indeed punishment to not get to play. The majority of people I've come across that miss the most games and feel they should still be on par with the others, are the exact same gamers that only play when they didn't make other plans, instead of those of us that don't make plans that conflict with game night.

I do X and a lot of Z every session, and do everything in my power to never miss a session. If another player shows up every 4th session on a whim, yet is just on par with me, I feel like I am the one being punished. Like all the efforts I put in are unrecognized, when I'm shown that you earn just as much by doing nothing.

@Scott, My favorite edition is 4E as well, and the "everyone levels together regardless" rules are one of those that upset me. The drawbacks mentioned in the book are that it may make people upset, or unbalance the game. To me it screams a sense of entitlement to complain that you should get just as much as everyone else, even though you didn't earn it. If you want as much as the others, DO as much as the others.

My XP is a reward for hard work. It is not punishment to not get it for doing nothing, no one is taking XP off of your character sheet, you just didn't EARN it in the first place for it to be put on there.


Scott Betts wrote:

The default way of handling group experience in 4e is to give all PCs the same amount, whether they were there or not.

I just re-read the "absent players" section of the 4e DMG, and I don't see anything about a rule one way or another. In fact, it seems to be just a discussion about how you might want to conduct your game.

Admittedly, it does say the game "works better" if you level everyone up at the same time, regardless of participation, but that seems more opinion than rule.

But it also suggests that there's "nothing wrong" with characters being a level or more ahead of other characters.

I don't think that either way is the "default" method for 4e. It all seems left up to the DM.

EDIT: It's up to the DM and players. Sorry about that omission.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Re-editing my entire statement.

Scott talks about "punishing" a player that doesn't get the same xp's despite not being present to get them, but what about "punishing" the players that DID show up; those players that hired babysitters, rescheduled work, rescheduled practice, etc, who made themselves available to fulfill that social contract, who are treated on the same level as the player who might as well have been sitting home watching football?

To me, THAT is punishment. "Gee guys, I know you went through a lot to be here tonight, and Billy decided playing Call of Duty was more important than your time, so I'm gonna go ahead and give Billy equal xp and loot. Deal?"

It's an extreme example, but makes my point.


Scott Betts wrote:


Boy, that's how I want to spend my D&D time - rolling against AC 10 to give the party fighter a +2 bonus to his attack.

Woohoo.

I mean, really. That's the support? "Being two levels behind isn't bad! Sure, you might end up doing nothing but giving the fighter little bonuses to attack now and then, but hey, at least you're rolling a die!"

Yeah, that's that jealousy issue I went on about earlier. You've decided you aren't having as much fun as the fighter so it's a bad situation. A more agreeable player might work with the fighter's player to describe their tactics in ways that make the fight feel like Obi Wan and Qui Gon fighting Darth Maul.


Josh M. wrote:

Re-editing my entire statement.

Scott talks about "punishing" a player that doesn't get the same xp's despite not being present to get them, but what about "punishing" the players that DID show up; those players that hired babysitters, rescheduled work, rescheduled practice, etc, who made themselves available to fulfill that social contract, who are treated on the same level as the player who might as well have been sitting home watching football?

To me, THAT is punishment. Gee guys, I know you went through a lot to be here tonight, and Billy decided playing Call of Duty was more important than your time, so I'm gonna go ahead and give Billy equal xp and loot. Deal?

It's an extreme example, but makes my point.

But of course, it's not about punishment or reward, it's just about what the characters earned.


What's clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.

Kinda makes me wonder what they'd do in my game, where we don't even track XP at all.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I'm glad I game with people who are there to have fun, no matter what we do. It sounds as if a lot of you have relationships with your players that are somewhat... lacking.

I was just about to say that some of you sound somewhat...curmudgeonly. Really, all this "Gr no room for freeloaders at my table, XP has to be earned" sounds about as much fun as gaming with Red Forman. This whole attitude sounds way too serious to me, because I've never thought of sitting on my butt, playing pretend with my friends, and rolling dice a worthy way of earning anything. I've always used 'earn' in reference to a hard day's work, or weeks spent studying for a test, or other activities more serious than rolling dice and drinking Mountain Dew.

Josh M. wrote:

Re-editing my entire statement.

Scott talks about "punishing" a player that doesn't get the same xp's despite not being present to get them, but what about "punishing" the players that DID show up; those players that hired babysitters, rescheduled work, rescheduled practice, etc, who made themselves available to fulfill that social contract, who are treated on the same level as the player who might as well have been sitting home watching football?

To me, THAT is punishment. "Gee guys, I know you went through a lot to be here tonight, and Billy decided playing Call of Duty was more important than your time, so I'm gonna go ahead and give Billy equal xp and loot. Deal?"

It's an extreme example, but makes my point.

Sounds like Billy won't be part of the group for long, regardless of who's being 'punished.'

A more common example is "Hey guys, Joe's kid is sick so he can't make it today. But his PC is still helping the party, so we're just going to keep everyone on an even keel XP-wise. No need to make Joe's next session less fun just because he's a good parent."


I also want to respond to one of 3.5L's questions, because it really underscores the game-y nature of D&D:

“would a party of heroes really always be the exact same level of ability, no matter what they had done, or that some seemed determined to develop their abilities faster?”

Would a party of heroes really form from disparate and often antagonistic races and professions? Would such a disparate group all just happen to share a written common tongue which they could use to read Help Wanted signs on Ye Olde Tavern billboards? Would such a party really start at the same exact level of experience? When adventuring, would such a party really face challenges that all just happen to be challenging but not overwhelming? (Why is there never a great wyrm red dragon in the 1st level dungeon, or a tribe of mundane goblins in the 20th level one?)

The answer of course is that it’s a game, and we make certain concessions because we want it to be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

What's clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
I'm glad I game with people who are there to have fun, no matter what we do. It sounds as if a lot of you have relationships with your players that are somewhat... lacking.
I was just about to say that some of you sound somewhat...curmudgeonly.

One-upmanship seems to be the theme of this thread, at least from one viewpoint. My point, curmudgeonly as it might seem, is that, until I read the opinions of so many of you who seem to think this is an issue, I never found the tracking of XP to be an issue.

The idea of characters leveling at different rates is such a normal aspect of D&D that it never occurred to me (or anyone else in my multi-generational group) that it might be something to pay attention to.

If thinking you're making a mountain out of a molehill is curmudgeonly, then I embrace being a curmudgeon.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

What's clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.

Kinda makes me wonder what they'd do in my game, where we don't even track XP at all.

It would be competitive if I was trying to 'win', or be better than everyone else. I don't mind not being the top dog, and I don't even mind being the lowest. I'm not the 'pro from dover' type. Actually, my two current characters are a half-elf sorcerer/zen archer (which work nicely together, but isn't a DPR champion), and a dhampir Bard/Oracle healer/fighter who's going Mystic Theurge.

I just don't feel like dragging lead weights around while playing. If you're going to game, then man up and game. Don't sit there playing your nintendo, don't keep your mouth shut until combat starts, don't blow off the game because you want to go watch a movie instead. If you insist on being part of the game, and insist on also not playing, then you should not expect the same rewards that other people get. Just like if you show up at work and don't work, then don't expect to keep your job. If you're trying, you're golden. If you're coasting or doing the minimum to shuffle along, then either accept your just rewards or quit ruining mine and everyone else's fun.

As to your game, where you don't use xp at all, it depends on how you run it. Does everyone get the exact same rewards in character, regardless of participation? If so, I'd probably get annoyed if someone was looking up from their nintendo every couple of hours to get the latest bauble. Which means I'd probably quit shortly.

Shadow Lodge

Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


One-upmanship seems to be the theme of this thread, at least from one viewpoint. My point, curmudgeonly as it might seem, is that, until I read the opinions of so many of you who seem to think this is an issue, I never found the tracking of XP to be an issue.

Well, it isn't. That's why I don't do it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

What's clear from this thread is that some players are just competitive, even in a cooperative game like D&D. 3.5L and mdt especially seem unable to have fun without the opportunity to one-up the other players. Which is cool for them, and eye-opening for me.

That's a pretty heavy-handed assumption. It's not about one-upping other party members at all. It's about putting time into the hobby and seeing your character progress for it. Just because some of us track XP doesn't mean we are trying to out-do the other players, maybe we just like keeping marks for things accomplished, like a personal high-score.

EDIT: Submitted to early
For some players, we see XP, loot, gear, levels, etc as a kind of reward for time and investment. We were there; we solved the puzzles, beat the big bad monster, saved the princess, etc etc. It's frustrating seeing someone not have the time or investment in the game, walk away with just as much. It demeans and downplays the investment of the players who did make time for the game and come play.

If we're talking about one player missing one single session due to work, sick kid, etc, of course exceptions can be made. Or in some cases, the game itself can wait until all the players are present. Maybe even special exceptions for players who cannot make regular scheduled game sessions; I have one such player. He informed me at the very start of the campaign he could only make it to maybe half or less sessions due to school, so the rest of us are fine with that.

Really, go with the party dynamic. So many absolutionist extreme opinions in this thread for what's nothing more than an issue to be handled individually by the gaming group. It's really nobody else's business if you track XP or not, and looking down your nose at people just because they play differently is not helping.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:


One-upmanship seems to be the theme of this thread, at least from one viewpoint. My point, curmudgeonly as it might seem, is that, until I read the opinions of so many of you who seem to think this is an issue, I never found the tracking of XP to be an issue.
Well, it isn't. That's why I don't do it.

"Well, I don't do it. That's why it isn't." Fixed that for you TOZ :P

But seriously, not tracking XP and advancing by plot point seems to me to be the sanest way to keep a party at equal level.

If however you do play with xp award based character advancement (I do) and your group is so obsessed as to rub a one or two level difference in each other's faces to such a degree that you have to award missing players with encounter xp just to keep your game from dissolving, then that's a horrible, horrible group, and you should play elsewhere.

I know we're all speaking hyperbolically cause, y'know, it's the internet, but I also have to wonder about a DM awarding experience in amounts that result in a game changing level disparity for one or two missed sessions.

All that said, I'm really with Jerry on this: never was an issue till the thread brought it up.


Same here HD. If someone has missed enough game sessions to cause a level disparity, they've either already quit the game, or at least are going on hiatus. You don't get level differences from one or two sessions missed(barring extremely rare cases of uber-encounters). We get much more xp difference from character death, new characters rolled, etc, and it's never been an issue, except for the one example I used involving a DM awarding trap CR XP solely to the player disarming the trap, in a campaign revolving around a trap-filled dungeon.

Other times it's been The Deck of Many Things, which usually results in killing the campaign anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wow. Long, divisive thread.

I am a player who sometimes misses games (say, 25%) and I would flat out refuse being given experience for a session I missed. I would be made unhappy by being kept up with everyone else. I am fine being a bit behind, or even a lot behind.

Of course, I came up in a game where all new characters are level 1, regardless. So maybe I am used to games where being 1 to 10 levels behind happens routinely. But oir group finds that kind of thing fun (being the apprentice, trainee, underdog, lackey).


Hitdice wrote:


If however you do play with xp award based character advancement (I do) and your group is so obsessed as to rub a one or two level difference in each other's faces to such a degree that you have to award missing players with encounter xp just to keep your game from dissolving, then that's a horrible, horrible group, and you should play elsewhere.

I know we're all speaking hyperbolically cause, y'know, it's the internet, but I also have to wonder about a DM awarding experience in amounts that result in a game changing level disparity for one or two missed sessions.

All that said, I'm really with Jerry on this: never was an issue till the thread brought it up.

You could equally well say "If however you do play with xp award based character advancement (I do) and your group is so obsessed as need to deny encounter xp from missed sessions just to keep your game from dissolving, then that's a horrible, horrible group, and you should play elsewhere."

I just don't get it, probably because I don't see xp as a reward, just as a means to track how long you want to play at each power level.
So you've got a player who isn't as committed as you, who misses some games or doesn't contribute much while he's there and this is fine if his character becomes weaker, but is game ruining if his character stays the same level as yours?

If the problem is the player's behavior, deal with that. Talk to him, rearrange the schedule, find out why/if he's not interested in the game, kick him out if you have to. If his behavior is a problem, then it's a problem. It doesn't become less of a problem if his character is a level lower.

I'm also amused by the parallel claims that being a couple levels lower doesn't matter and that not getting more experience than the slacker is so horrible.

Shadow Lodge

Animation wrote:

Wow. Long, divisive thread.

I am a player who sometimes misses games (say, 25%) and I would flat out refuse being given experience for a session I missed. I would be made unhappy by being kept up with everyone else. I am fine being a bit behind, or even a lot behind.

How would you feel in a game where no XP was given? Would you refuse to level with the rest of the party when the DM said it was time?


As a DM, I don't start out new characters at 1st level, because right now the party is in the 7-8 range. I start new characters at 1/2 the highest level in the game. Right now, new characters start at 4th.

And, as far as situations regarding resurrection are concerned, I treat the starting level as if it was 1st level (i.e., the character can't lose levels to put him below starting level). That keeps players from getting too far behind if they get killed often. (We have a player who consistently makes bad choices in combat, and nobody can afford true resurrection yet!)

And that raises a question: If you don't track XP and you level everyone at the same time, how do you deal with level loss from raise dead or resurrection? Do you just ignore it?

Shadow Lodge

Negative level for a session or two. But can't that be removed via restoration in PF anyway?


In PF, yes, but not in 3.5.

Shadow Lodge

Again, I use negative levels, which can actually be removed now that I think about it.


Not in 3.5. Restoration can't remove levels or Con points lost through raise dead or resurrection. A wish or limited wish might do it, though.


Sorry. I was considering the levels lost due to the spells. Those aren't negative levels. They're just gone.

Shadow Lodge

Right, but I'm talking about my game, not the rules. And while level loss can't be fixed, negative levels can.

Gah, edit wars. :)


I surrendered in the wars. What did the other side win? ;)

Shadow Lodge

Scorched earth and salted fields?


Lol. :D


TOZ wrote:
Scorched earth and salted fields?

You left out poisoned wells.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I'm with TOZ and Scott Betts. I can't be bothered with XP anymore, and I find that "Everyone level up!" is generally more fun anyway.

wraithstrike wrote:
No call no show gets no XP. <---annoys me to no end.
Me too! I find that talking to the player helps.

You know I have had to think on this a lot since it happened recently, and it was a friend that did it.

I think I am going with no XP and just let people level up at certain points. As to those who don't show up and dont call which is my real issue I just have to give them a reason to show up. In my case I don't flip out if someone can't make it, nor do I demand to know why a player can't make it. A simple "I can't make it" is good enough for me, but I could not even get that, and there is no good explanation. I have even received texts or calls 2 or 3 hours before the game started to make sure things were still going to go as planned. There was no reason to though. I always cancel 2 weeks in advance if I have to do so. Maybe I should take those game day calls as a hint next time. Knowing I had to drive an hour and not let me know he was not going to make it is not cool at all.

The only thing I can think of now is to hold them back a level or just put enough gold in for those that actually show up.

Oh that sucks dude! Especially a friend pulling the no-show sh*t and wasting two hours of your time...I've seen friends break up over less.

I've had fraintances (friend-acquaintances) who swear up and down they'll be at the game...and then flake out without telling anyone. Eventually I had to file them in my Non-D&D Friends file, or sometimes I just had to find better friends. Sometimes talking works, sometimes ya gotta move on.

I am mostly venting because I what I want to do is being tempered by the fact that we are friends. He is a cool guy outside of gaming too. I don't however want to give him better treatment than a new player who is to be coming into the game in a week or two. At the same time if I let the friend get away with murder so to speak I will have a hard time justifying myself with any decision I make if the new guy does not cooperate. I will try explaining to him the situation he is putting me in. If that does not work I will simply non-invite* him to another game.

*fail to mention future session, and leave it up to the rest of the group if they wish to notify him.

As of now his accountability is in question so if 3 people + him tell me they are showing up I only have 3 players for official purposes. <--current action until something better can be thought of.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While, as I have already said, I still use xp and only player's that are present get xp, let me make clear where I deviate from some of the others that do this as well.

I give everyone the same xp that was present. It doesn't matter if your rogue did all kinds of cool crap and the monk player hung back and tossed shuriken when it was convenient. Both get the same xp. I don't want to promote spotlight hogging, and so players can't advance faster than anyone else by trying to do a bunch of stuff solo.

Also, I am not avoiding giving xp to people that aren't there due to not wanting them to "mooch off of" the people that were there (did that make sense to you?). Frankly, I don't think the players really care if anyone else gets xp for them doing things. As many have said, much of the fun is by getting to adventure.

I know some have said if a player has a "valid" reason for being gone, then they give them xp and if they don't then they don't. Frankly, I am not the school truancy officer who is making sure that people aren't "skipping". I game with adults and I leave it to them to decide if their reason is valid or not. Maybe they just aren't in the mood to game that day, who am I to say that is not a valid reason? And would I really want someone there that would rather be doing something else that day? I'd rather have them there when they want to be. The fact that their character may not advance during the absence may be a factor to motivate them to show up but I seriously doubt it has ever been a deciding factor.

So, why continue to use it? We use xp as a measure of the personal growth of the character. If one week we have 5 PCs and the next week we have 3 PCs, and each time they faced roughly the same difficulties, then those that were present both times are going to grow more during the time there were less PCs. How do I measure that if everyone gets the same xp? Also, how can your character experience personal growth when they didn't personally grow?

I guess I would say that I see it more as the story of the characters and their development as well as the narrative of the journey they are on. While the development of the story is important, the development of the characters is more. That is why I'm a bit against just leveling everyone up at the same time when the story hits a certain point. As if the story was driving character development and not the other way around.


wraithstrike wrote:


I am mostly venting because I what I want to do is being tempered by the fact that we are friends. He is a cool guy outside of gaming too. I don't however want to give him better treatment than a new player who is to be coming into the game in a week or two. At the same time if I let the friend get away with murder so to speak I will have a hard time justifying myself with any decision I make if the new guy does not cooperate. I will try explaining to him the situation he is putting me in. If that does not work I will simply non-invite* him to another game.

*fail to mention future session, and leave it up to the rest of the group if they wish to notify him.

As of now his accountability is in question so if 3 people + him tell me they are showing up I only have 3 players for official purposes. <--current action until something better can be thought of.

I sympathize with this problem. It's a royal pain to deal with unreliable people, especially when it's a hassle on your end: long drive/rework the game plans etc.

But, I've just got to say that the passive-aggressive non-invite thing sucks too. It's almost always better to confront the issue. I say this because the passive-aggressive thing is very much my tendency if I don't force myself and it never works out well.


I, too, give the same XP to everyone present, regardless of activity. This has less to do with not wanting to reward spotlight hoggers than it has to do with the fact that I have one or two players who really aren't any good at roleplaying, and only really shine during combat. This isn't "mooching", it's just a lack of roleplaying skill.

I am not averse to giving XP to a character whose player isn't there, if he's given someone the authority to run the character in his absence. But that means the character is at risk, and the player needs to understand that. (I am reminded of an incident where a mistimed critical convinced an absent player that he would never let another player run his characters ever again.)


Count me in for the "xp to all present, but all present get the same xp" train. I've played in too many games where bonus xp's were tossed around to DM favorites, out-of-game favors(cigarettes, beer, etc) and the like, and it's horribly skewed player levels. I'm no fan of players competing for bonus xp, so there is none in my games. I'll toss in little extras for well-deserved activities; minor permanent skill increases, tailored-gear, hero points, etc.

Whatever bonus a player gets for accomplishing some great task, will be in theme with whatever that task was, ie if they spend time helping tend to sick and wounded, while having no ranks in the Heal skill, I'll toss them a permanent skill rank in Heal to reflect the learning.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am mostly venting because I what I want to do is being tempered by the fact that we are friends. He is a cool guy outside of gaming too. I don't however want to give him better treatment than a new player who is to be coming into the game in a week or two. At the same time if I let the friend get away with murder so to speak I will have a hard time justifying myself with any decision I make if the new guy does not cooperate. I will try explaining to him the situation he is putting me in. If that does not work I will simply non-invite* him to another game.

*fail to mention future session, and leave it up to the rest of the group if they wish to notify him.

As of now his accountability is in question so if 3 people + him tell me they are showing up I only have 3 players for official purposes. <--current action until something better can be thought of.

I sympathize with this problem. It's a royal pain to deal with unreliable people, especially when it's a hassle on your end: long drive/rework the game plans etc.

But, I've just got to say that the passive-aggressive non-invite thing sucks too. It's almost always better to confront the issue. I say this because the passive-aggressive thing is very much my tendency if I don't force myself and it never works out well.

You do have a point. I will just inform him that he is now considered to be unreliable, and I won't run any other games with the intention of him showing up. What that means is I will make plans as if he says he can't make it whether he says he is showing up or not. When he decides to start calling people to let them know he can't/won't make it I will change things.

He has also canceled just before a game was supposed to start in the past. My patience is about gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am in strong favour of everyone having the same XP and if anyone needs personal rewards, it's in something less essentially crucial to the progress of the game, like luck/hero/whatever points.

I am often in a situation where I can't make it to the game for medical reasons. I'm not fully disabled yet, but I can't drive due to problems, I'm often too weak to go anywhere and some days I just can't show up.

I don't want to be part of a game where I'm marginalised and vilified for my own disabilities, and being made the cohort is just one way of highlighting how much trouble I have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:

I am in strong favour of everyone having the same XP and if anyone needs personal rewards, it's in something less essentially crucial to the progress of the game, like luck/hero/whatever points.

I am often in a situation where I can't make it to the game for medical reasons. I'm not fully disabled yet, but I can't drive due to problems, I'm often too weak to go anywhere and some days I just can't show up.

I don't want to be part of a game where I'm marginalised and vilified for my own disabilities, and being made the cohort is just one way of highlighting how much trouble I have.

Having had a player who was battling stage 4 colon cancer, I can say truthfully that I sympathize fully, and would never give someone in a medical issue issues about their disabilities affecting their gameplay or their ability to be at the game.

There is a huge difference between being disabled/fighting cancer/fibromyalgia/etc and just wanting to go to the movies this week, or forgetting about the game (yes, I have had people forget about a weekly game).

I know this get's bandied about a bit, but.. find a new GM. Seriously. You need one who has some human empathy.


Umbral Reaver wrote:

I am in strong favour of everyone having the same XP and if anyone needs personal rewards, it's in something less essentially crucial to the progress of the game, like luck/hero/whatever points.

I am often in a situation where I can't make it to the game for medical reasons. I'm not fully disabled yet, but I can't drive due to problems, I'm often too weak to go anywhere and some days I just can't show up.

I don't want to be part of a game where I'm marginalised and vilified for my own disabilities, and being made the cohort is just one way of highlighting how much trouble I have.

I will give a different perspective from mdt. If you are only able there part of the time, then you should expect that your character is not going to be a main character in the story of the game. Yes, your character is going to be a supporting cast character. There is no shame in being a supporting cast character, who doesn't love Scotty or Sulu? But it isn't reasonable for the game to treat your character as a central figure if each week it may be that you will be there or you won't.

You shouldn't be made to feel guilty missing (which I really don't like about people having to justify a good reason to be gone and a bad reason), it is a game! But honestly, if you know that you will gone fairly regularly, should let your group know that and they should act accordingly.

Now in my games, you wouldn't be the same level as everyone else, you'd probably drop a level, maybe two depending on how regularly you had to miss. When you showed up, I'd make sure you weren't too far behind and we'd bump you up closer as necessary and probably give you some extra funds. But your character wouldn't be on par with the regular players. That isn't a punishment though, their characters are who the game is about, you are guest star or supporting cast. That doesn't mean you can't be cool or fun, and heck knowing my players, they'd probably give you some awesome item they just got from the encounter you were in.

But I can tell you as GM, it really isn't worth it to try to keep characters that are only there on occasion as primary focus of the game. It is frustrating to the GM, it is frustrating to the other players, and ultimately it is frustrating to the player that isn't there all the time because they feel extra guilty about missing knowing that their character was crucial to the story.

But really it would depend on how often someone could come. Miss 1 in 4 game sessions, you probably wouldn't even notice the difference in xp/levels. Miss 1 in 2 game sessions, yeah you are going to notice and your character probably is going to become more support. Miss 3 in 4 sessions, then "your character" is probably going to be a party NPC that you get to play on those times you can make.


Interesting topic. I run 3.5. I give XP to all players who attend a session. I rarely give bonus individual XP awards unless a player does something exceptional .

If a player does not attend a session I give them the option of allowing another player to run their character and gain XP on one condition, they may perish like anyone else at that session. If a player does not attend I find a way (via the plot) to keep their character out of the action so they will not perish. So if a character does not share an "experience" with the other players, they don't get any experience.

This policy (among other things) has resulted in the characters at varying levels. However, characters who are lower level actually gain more XP than their counterparts who are higher level because the dangers they face are more difficult for them. Over time the characters should all even out provided the ones who fall behind do not continue to miss games.

I have made exceptions for players who miss large chunks of time for personal reasons bringing them a level behind the rest of the group in such instances.


wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am mostly venting because I what I want to do is being tempered by the fact that we are friends. He is a cool guy outside of gaming too. I don't however want to give him better treatment than a new player who is to be coming into the game in a week or two. At the same time if I let the friend get away with murder so to speak I will have a hard time justifying myself with any decision I make if the new guy does not cooperate. I will try explaining to him the situation he is putting me in. If that does not work I will simply non-invite* him to another game.

*fail to mention future session, and leave it up to the rest of the group if they wish to notify him.

As of now his accountability is in question so if 3 people + him tell me they are showing up I only have 3 players for official purposes. <--current action until something better can be thought of.

I sympathize with this problem. It's a royal pain to deal with unreliable people, especially when it's a hassle on your end: long drive/rework the game plans etc.

But, I've just got to say that the passive-aggressive non-invite thing sucks too. It's almost always better to confront the issue. I say this because the passive-aggressive thing is very much my tendency if I don't force myself and it never works out well.

You do have a point. I will just inform him that he is now considered to be unreliable, and I won't run any other games with the intention of him showing up. What that means is I will make plans as if he says he can't make it whether he says he is showing up or not. When he decides to start calling people to let them know he can't/won't make it I will change things.

He has also canceled just before a game was supposed to start in the past. My patience is about gone.

I think this is the best solution. Just be sure to be frank with him about why you can't depend on him. Maybe even get a little blunt with him, to let off some steam and really drive home your point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I will give a different perspective from mdt. If you are only able there part of the time, then you should expect that your character is not going to be a main character in the story of the game. Yes, your character is going to be a supporting cast character. There is no shame in being a supporting cast character, who doesn't love Scotty or Sulu? But it isn't reasonable for the game to treat your character as a central figure if each week it may be that you will be there or you won't.

It's hard to take this as anything but incredibly insulting. I play RPGs to escape from the constant horror of existence. I am not in a good way.

If that means I'm only ever allowed to play the sidekick due to my disabilities, then I say **** you, GM. I am glad I've convinced the local GMs to allow me full rate along with people that don't have their debilitating conditions keeping them from the game.

Silver Crusade

Yeah, gonna have to side with empathy on this one.

Life can be tough. Why put the screws to those that are dealing with more than enough already?

201 to 250 of 382 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Different levels in the same party, really? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.