How do you handle treasure and XP for sporadic players?


Advice


My group is about to start an AP (as soon as everyone is back from vacation). There are four people who will be a part of the core group showing up to all or most of the sessions. There are also a couple people who are either new to the game and aren't sure if they want to play all the time or who have a lot of experience with it and enjoy it a lot but don't have the time to commit every week due to life.
My question is, how should I handle experience and treasure for these players?
I don't really want to end up in the situation where the sporadic players are taking an equal share of treasure and then bailing on the next few sessions, especially if they take some valuable magical loot. I considered increasing the gold (and platinum etc) found during the adventure but that is really not a significant portion of the wealth. But I don't want to increase the actual loot found because I don't want the regular players to take it all and have such a significant advantage.
I also don't want them to drag down the group, a level 3 with a few level 4s isn't going to make a huge difference but if the group is level 12 and the random player is level 7, the level 7 will be nearly useless. I thought maybe I could treat those players somewhat like cohorts, just keep them two levels below the main PCs, but I'm not too keen on just handing out experience so they can keep up.
Fellow GMs, what have you done in these situations?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't use XP. Everybody levels up at the same time.

I don't know your players, but treasure is never an issue 'cause everything goes to the person who can make the best use of it.


Zhayne wrote:

I don't use XP. Everybody levels up at the same time.

I don't know your players, but treasure is never an issue 'cause everything goes to the person who can make the best use of it.

My biggest problem with leveling everyone up at the same time is it somewhat diminishes the reward from leveling that the regular players have earned, whether we're using xp or just leveling at appropriate times.

The treasure of course goes to the people who can use it. No one in the group is going to sell that +1 Greatsword if the 2-hand fighter is using a regular Greatsword. The problem mainly arises when only one person can use the item, but that person is not going to be around for every session and that item could have been sold and turned into useful gear for the regular players.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The reward for playing PF is playing PF. Your player is already getting penalized ... he's not getting to have fun with his friends.


Unless you're playing Kingfinder, I can't think of a single AP that lends to the "occasional" playing team. Most assume you've got 4-6 hard-core players willing to play once a week for eight hours until the entire AP is done.

I've never been at a table with those kinds of people.

I will agree to use "xp-less" playing, leveling when the book says to. For players gone more than one month (2-3 games), I tend to drop them behind one level compared to the regular players. They want to level faster? They'll make every game.

As for treasure, it's based on the battle, not the team. The APs are sporadic on Wealth By Level, even though I am now told they make the attempt to stay standard. Not that most don't. (I'm looking at you, Rise of the Runelords.) So to the winners go the spoils.

What I've had to do is set up a "base" for the non-playing characters to be at while the others are beating down the bad guy(s) in the dungeon/city/castle. They get their downtime benefits, like crafting, skills, spell research, etc. This lets them earn a little coin while the regular players do the grunt work. They might get a +1 to Knowledge: Local, or +1 to Diplomacy in the local area.


In all of my years of playing D&D and Pathfinder, from when I was a wee lad of 6 and my dad was my DM, to now when I run four different groups, I have always had my players (with their permission, of course) level up at my discretion. It has never been a problem. I've found that either the players dislike keeping track of XP because it's just more paperwork, or they're indifferent. I haven't found someone who actually would have the game ruined for them in any noticeable way by excluding that.

This has saved a lot of hassle that I've found in groups I've been a player in where we have XP counts, where someone falls behind because they weren't around to get XP or we find our characters 30 XP behind a level at the end of the session and decide to go do some random thing for the DM-fiat bonus XP (which is the same difference, if you ask me...). And now that 3.P doesn't use XP as a currency for anything, knowing how much XP your character has doesn't really matter in game terms anymore. Compounded with this is the fact that at each point of an AP the designers put in a recommended level for the party, which I use to indicate that the party should be X level after Y encounter.

If your party simply must track XP, you're running into the problem that a lot of DMs (including myself) find is inherent in the system: the paradox of absent players being ever-present. You can have another player play the character that's absent, make them a DMPC, or have them be on an imaginary side-quest where they're getting the same amount of XP solo. As for loot, like Zhayne I've found my parties self-regulate pretty well when I give them a pile of loot and then one piece that a specific character's been hankering for. Everyone else gets a bunch of stuff to sell or use, and the fighter gets his greatsword or the monk gets his amulet.

Also, despite this being the advice portion of the messageboards here, I'll also throw you a couple quickand dirty links from other forum posts elsewhere talking about the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always have avoided the level ups at set times approach to Xp. When a single player does something awesome on his own, he should be rewarded. If a player does not contribute to a fight he should not receive xp. This is fair, but sometimes life happens and the game goes on. My traditional method is to let the player fall behind to a maximum degree of 2 lower than the average party level, or 3 lower than the highest party member, whichever is higher. Now, if you have friends who just have wonky work schedules, you can go a bit softer. Possibly run side 1 player content to help him catch up.


Not to derail, but why punish someone for having things to do besides play a game? During the semester I'll often have a player who can't make it because he's got a paper to write or a test that week. Why make it less fun for them to play the next time because they had to prioritize something above Pathfinder? Additionally, I do reward players for doing awesome things with Hero Points. My players love the system and it leads to some pretty memorable moments. And it seems like you have issues with this @HowFortuitous, but how often do players not contribute in combat? I don't think I've had a single instance of someone not contributing to a fight that they were in, and if they're off doing something else it's always been to advance the storyline in some way (here's some awesome story XP!!!!).

But again, if tracking XP is the way you want to go, my personal preference for how to do this would be to make it so the character that isn't there will always have the base XP required to be the same level as the other characters. They may be 2,000 XP behind the rest, but they'll be level 10 like everyone else. At the very least they'll still be able to contribute and have fun while not feeling punished for being unable to show up.


Considering the Downtime rules I like to do it like this.
If someone is absent and the party is doing a dungeon I track the number of days the party was active while the person was gone. I then allow the person to use the downtime to gain XP or money (at max equal to the amount the party has gained thus far.) This means that if the party spends days doing pretty much nothing that absent PCs can catch up fairly well without issue.

Even at level 1 they are just helping the sub CR1 children clear out rat dungeons to gain the XP. It doesn't need to make sense, but it does help things move along.

In my first session of The Emerald Spire two players didn't show up so we did it with 3 people. It took us roughly 3 or 4 days to clear the dungeon, partially because the DM played it incorrectly--I check so later I can ask if it was purposeful or accidental and offer advice or helpful critiques based thereon--so the absent PCs shouldn't have a problem catching up XP or GP wise.

The Exchange

Generally, if a player can't make it, somebody 'ghosts' them for a session during which they gain half XP. This skirts the obvious dangerous question of what happens if the character of the absent player gets killed, but most of the time the 'ghoster' plays it safe and we haven't had to address such deaths.

I'm well aware of the 'no penalty for no show' approach and I understand the reasoning, but I'm more of a 'simulationist' and it never quite sat right with me that the guy who missed the dragon-fight gets the same amount of XP by curling up with a good book back at the inn. Then again, I tend to hand out 'bonus' XP for particularly outstanding play, so XP counts vary from character to character anyhow; somebody who's missed a few hundred XP has means to draw back level with his buddies with a little effort.


I'm going to second what Zhayne said about leveling. Level the group when the AP says to. Keep everyone the same level, don't bother track xp it is antiquated.

As for treasure in my group there is always one player in the group who is nominated to distribute and manage the groups wealth based according to need. They'll be able to ensure that the occasional players get by with enough gear without stifling the needs of the others.

You have to remember that when those extra players arrive their presence decreases the challenge of the encounters meaning that the need for gear is not quite as pressing. This assumes that you don't adjust statting too much when they are present. The end result is the occasional session with a few more people to talk to where the encounters are slightly less challenging.


In the game I'm currently running, I started off using XP. I was keen to try giving out XP rewards for role-playing, backstory creation, player involvement and probably a few other things I've forgotten. This led to a couple players being interested, and a couple more who either didn't want to spend the time or thought the other players "had more to offer, so we'll fall behind no matter what!" After tweaking, adjusting and altering, I finally just tossed out the whole system. Now, every few sessions I just tell the whole group they've gained a level. No one has complained in the slightest. I find the characters are more interested in leveling than actually tracking XP.

I handle loot the same way. I allow the players to choose their new items according to the Wealth by Level table in the book when they level. They give me their shopping list and I find a story method to insert it into the game asap. This, combined with the GM-fiat leveling, has made sure that everyone is equal in level and equipment. It has led to a much more cohesive, effective and happy group.

I also have a "core" group of 4 players that make almost every game. I have another group of 2-4 players that come most games, but will often be forced to miss a game or two for various reasons. On those nights, I either play without them, or in the recent case where I am stuck on a scene that requires the attendance of two key players who haven't been able to make it to the last two sessions, I run an alternate game. I did a one shot the first time and the second I let a player take the GM reins and played myself for a change. (I am our sole GM otherwise.) So I guess what I'm saying is look into running two games, one for all the players and one for the core group. Play one when all can make it, play the other when only the regulars show up.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
The reward for playing PF is playing PF. Your player is already getting penalized ... he's not getting to have fun with his friends.

First rule of the game, Not every person is a fit for every group.

So if you want a Dedicated Group, Then make it a priority to get items!

Sovereign Court

In the past, I played in a campaign where you only got XP if you showed up. In addition, new characters started one level below the lowest-level PC. At some point, a player wanted to try a new character concept, and next session another player wanted a new PC too. And then a PC died. Suddenly we had a level 3-7 party. I was the level 7 character because I always showed up, always survived. I was playing an elven archer hunter-priest, but I had to play the tank because I was so much tougher than everyone else.

My "reward" for showing up all the time wasn't all that rewarding. Having all those low-level PCs along was actually becoming a drag. It's like you're stuck in the adventure for months until the retards catch up again and you can finally progress to newer, more exciting challenges again. Because when you're 7th level, you can't in good conscience embark on a level-approriate quest if you have some level 3s to worry about.

---

How about you level everyone at the same speed, but reward the regulars with a hero point now and then? It's still a nice reward, but doesn't make the party quite so unbalanced.


I just don't buy/get this idea of 'punishment' when not awarding XP for absent players.

If you're late for the bus - you miss the bus.
If you don't attend school as often as you could - you get less marks in your exams.
If you go to the ball game rather than go out with your girl - she may dump you.
If you take a 'sicky' from work - you get less money in your pay packet.

There are consequences for your actions. These are not punishments. It is the 'Opportunity Cost' for your actions/decision. It is the sacrifice that is made because of your freedom of choice.

Surely the clue is in the title - 'EXPERIENCE points' - if you're not there, you ain't getting the experience of the game that the others are getting. Which is what the award supposedly represents. There's no punishment. Its a choice.

However, I see no problem with awarding say half XP for someone else playing your character for you. Or even dropping XP altogether, if it's not relevant to the type of game your group plays. It's a matter for what works for you and your players.


HowFortuitous wrote:
I always have avoided the level ups at set times approach to Xp. When a single player does something awesome on his own, he should be rewarded.

Who says that reward has to be XP?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Galinaar wrote:

I just don't buy/get this idea of 'punishment' when not awarding XP for absent players.

If you're late for the bus - you miss the bus.
If you don't attend school as often as you could - you get less marks in your exams.
If you go to the ball game rather than go out with your girl - she may dump you.
If you take a 'sicky' from work - you get less money in your pay packet.

There are consequences for your actions. These are not punishments. It is the 'Opportunity Cost' for your actions/decision. It is the sacrifice that is made because of your freedom of choice.

Surely the clue is in the title - 'EXPERIENCE points' - if you're not there, you ain't getting the experience of the game that the others are getting. Which is what the award supposedly represents. There's no punishment. Its a choice.

However, I see no problem with awarding say half XP for someone else playing your character for you. Or even dropping XP altogether, if it's not relevant to the type of game your group plays. It's a matter for what works for you and your players.

'I have to work, so I have to miss the game or get fired' is not much of a choice. Real life gets in the way, and that's bad enough by itself. No point adding insult to injury.

Or, to rephrase ... I'm sorry being fair to my friends offends you.


HowFortuitous wrote:
I always have avoided the level ups at set times approach to Xp. When a single player does something awesome on his own, he should be rewarded. If a player does not contribute to a fight he should not receive xp. This is fair, but sometimes life happens and the game goes on. My traditional method is to let the player fall behind to a maximum degree of 2 lower than the average party level, or 3 lower than the highest party member, whichever is higher. Now, if you have friends who just have wonky work schedules, you can go a bit softer. Possibly run side 1 player content to help him catch up.

I find that singling players out for higher/lower rewards can very easily lead to bad feelings and needless drama.


Zhayne wrote:
Galinaar wrote:

I just don't buy/get this idea of 'punishment' when not awarding XP for absent players.

If you're late for the bus - you miss the bus.
If you don't attend school as often as you could - you get less marks in your exams.
If you go to the ball game rather than go out with your girl - she may dump you.
If you take a 'sicky' from work - you get less money in your pay packet.

There are consequences for your actions. These are not punishments. It is the 'Opportunity Cost' for your actions/decision. It is the sacrifice that is made because of your freedom of choice.

Surely the clue is in the title - 'EXPERIENCE points' - if you're not there, you ain't getting the experience of the game that the others are getting. Which is what the award supposedly represents. There's no punishment. Its a choice.

However, I see no problem with awarding say half XP for someone else playing your character for you. Or even dropping XP altogether, if it's not relevant to the type of game your group plays. It's a matter for what works for you and your players.

'I have to work, so I have to miss the game or get fired' is not much of a choice. Real life gets in the way, and that's bad enough by itself. No point adding insult to injury.

Or, to rephrase ... I'm sorry being fair to my friends offends you.

Have to agree on this. Personally, I lost all taste for denying advancement to my players when they miss a game after being in a campaign where one of the players wound up being a level behind the rest because he missed two games on account of his mother dying, and needing to go to her funeral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not giving out XP in my game, just leveling up at certain points. We have one player that can only come to half the games. If he had only half the XP it would be a giant PIA and not fun for him because he would really like to be there for all of the games. Instead, if the player is present at certain achievements, they might get a hero point. Or the players present may get bonus skill or hit points.

Edit: this is a game, not work. Playing and having fun is the reward. And it's not fun to be doubly punished. Not being able to make a game is bad enough. Then to come back having a weaker PC than the others on top of that is just rubbing it in.


In pathfinder xp only matters when the rogue disarms traps and the party splits.

In my opinion different leveling successions for each class made the game complicated but interesting in AD&D. I personally enjoyed muscling for more xp as a paladin since each level was a huge gap.


Galinaar wrote:

I just don't buy/get this idea of 'punishment' when not awarding XP for absent players.

If you're late for the bus - you miss the bus.
If you don't attend school as often as you could - you get less marks in your exams.
If you go to the ball game rather than go out with your girl - she may dump you.
If you take a 'sicky' from work - you get less money in your pay packet.

There are consequences for your actions. These are not punishments. It is the 'Opportunity Cost' for your actions/decision. It is the sacrifice that is made because of your freedom of choice.

Surely the clue is in the title - 'EXPERIENCE points' - if you're not there, you ain't getting the experience of the game that the others are getting. Which is what the award supposedly represents. There's no punishment. Its a choice.

However, I see no problem with awarding say half XP for someone else playing your character for you. Or even dropping XP altogether, if it's not relevant to the type of game your group plays. It's a matter for what works for you and your players.

There's a difference between missing the bus and missing out on playing a game with your friends. Missing the bus is an issue of space and time, typically because you didn't leave on time. Missing a game with your friends is usually not due to carelessness, it's because something outside of your control is preventing you from attending a fun night with your buddies. I don't see how it isn't punishment to single out the person who had to work, or had to take care of their kid, or got sick, or had an exam the next day. All of these examples don't seem like choices to me. I doubt most people in consistent RPG groups choose not to attend, because at least for me and my groups we move other things out of the way so we can game.

XP works for games that aren't regulated by a single person at a specific place at a specific time. It needs to happen in games and MMOs where someone can play whenever they have half an hour to hop on their computer or game console. There's no arbiter there besides the game. Table-top RPGs are implicitly social. It's a necessary aspect of their design and it's 3/4 of the format's fun. I can dork around on World of Warcraft or Skyrim all I want instead of going out to a gamestore with five of my buddies to sit around a table and laugh and hang out. Do I want to? No. Because I want to see my friends and have fun with them.

Alienating someone because they couldn't make it to game night is anti-social. It is akin to someone not coming to your usual lunch table one day because they had to stay and talk with a teacher, and you subsequently taking half of their food next time they sit down. You are basically leveraging your fun social interaction against their less-fun (presumably) duties or real-world priorities.


Thanks everyone for weighing in on this topic.
I think, however, that I did not get my issue across completely clearly. When I said that there will be some players who are sporadic, I meant that they will likely play at most 1 out of 3 sessions. The characters will be more guest stars than normal members of the group.
We will be playing Rise of the Runelords and it is entirely possible, for example, that one player will join us for the first half of Burnt Offerings and then not again until the latter half of the Hook Mount Massacre and then maybe somewhere in the middle of Sins of the Saviors and that's it.
They are players that I would like to include in the group (they are my friends, after all) but they just don't have the time to play all that often (graduate school, etc).
I don't want to penalize anyone for missing sessions. I just want to make sure that the core group doesn't suffer for the inclusion of the others.


Galinaar wrote:

I just don't buy/get this idea of 'punishment' when not awarding XP for absent players.

If you don't attend school as often as you could - you get less marks in your exams.
If you go to the ball game rather than go out with your girl - she may dump you.
...
There are consequences for your actions. These are not punishments.
...
However, I see no problem with awarding say half XP for someone else playing your character for you.

If you don't attend school as often as you could and get less marks in your exams, that's a consequence. If you're forced to write lines on a blackboard as a penalty for truancy, that's a punishment.

If you go to the ball game rather than going out with your girl, the consequences are that you don't get to spend as much time with her. If she decides to dump you over it, that's more like a punishment.

The consequences of not playing a game is that you have to miss out on the fun of the game. Being made to play a weaker character than everyone else is a punishment, and one that doesn't really seem necessary - unless worrying about their character falling behind is the only thing that will motivate them to turn up.

(And I don't see the sense in awarding half XP if the character is there but the player isn't - surely the character still gains as much experience no matter who's playing them?)


Da G8keepah wrote:

Thanks everyone for weighing in on this topic.

I think, however, that I did not get my issue across completely clearly. When I said that there will be some players who are sporadic, I meant that they will likely play at most 1 out of 3 sessions. The characters will be more guest stars than normal members of the group.
We will be playing Rise of the Runelords and it is entirely possible, for example, that one player will join us for the first half of Burnt Offerings and then not again until the latter half of the Hook Mount Massacre and then maybe somewhere in the middle of Sins of the Saviors and that's it.
They are players that I would like to include in the group (they are my friends, after all) but they just don't have the time to play all that often (graduate school, etc).
I don't want to penalize anyone for missing sessions. I just want to make sure that the core group doesn't suffer for the inclusion of the others.

I have an idea. Have you ever seen the movie The Expendables 2? (I know I know bear with me ;) In it, they had the main cast for most of the movie, but every so often Chuck Norris showed up to blow a bunch of stuff up to help them get out of a sticky situation. He really served no other purpose but it was coolentertaining at least.

The main party can level up any way you like, no problem. The friends that can only show up every once in a while can play some kind of rescue team/support that crosses the main groups paths to help out on occasion. They may even be Heroes of Another Story that have similar goals that every few weeks/sessions/hours/whatever align up with the regular attendees. You could remove them from the XP equation entirely. Just ask them to update their characters to the appropriate level before they show up. Allow them to purchase more gear to get them to WBL and have fun!


Zhayne wrote:

'I have to work, so I have to miss the game or get fired' is not much of a choice. Real life gets in the way, and that's bad enough by itself. No point adding insult to injury.

Or, to rephrase ... I'm sorry being fair to my friends offends you.

There is no 'insult to injury' - it's merely the consequences of your actions/choice.

The non-awarding of XP is hardly someone railing against an absent player. It's game mechanics - not punishment.

Why should I be offended by what you do or say? I just don't get/buy the idea of punishment in this topic. It's my opinion in an advice thread.

Therefore to clarify and remain on topic, my advice is to not be intimidated by someone claiming that not giving them XP is a punishment. If you want to issue experience points for just that - experience - then go ahead, adjust it as you see fit.

I must give a nod to 'HowFortuitous' above and his very well thought out and fair system.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
I find that singling players out for higher/lower rewards can very easily lead to bad feelings and needless drama.

Some folks think that some getting and A grade in Maths is so unfair to those gaining a D grade.

I think the bad feelings and drama tends to flow from the players trying to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Good gaming practice rewards good play.

Sovereign Court

Da G8keepah wrote:

Thanks everyone for weighing in on this topic.

I think, however, that I did not get my issue across completely clearly. When I said that there will be some players who are sporadic, I meant that they will likely play at most 1 out of 3 sessions. The characters will be more guest stars than normal members of the group.
We will be playing Rise of the Runelords and it is entirely possible, for example, that one player will join us for the first half of Burnt Offerings and then not again until the latter half of the Hook Mount Massacre and then maybe somewhere in the middle of Sins of the Saviors and that's it.
They are players that I would like to include in the group (they are my friends, after all) but they just don't have the time to play all that often (graduate school, etc).
I don't want to penalize anyone for missing sessions. I just want to make sure that the core group doesn't suffer for the inclusion of the others.

I don't think anyone actually has more fun just because someone is lagging behind. It might seem "fair" or "logical" - they weren't there, so how can they gain experience? But fairness and logic are not as important as having a fun game. Sometimes they help fun, but they're not goals in their own right.

As a regular player, it's nice to be rewarded for being a regular. But as I talked about earlier, it's actually annoying if other players fall behind too much, because the party as a whole gets weaker, and you need to pull their weight for them. So the regular players really aren't served by the "fairness" of denying the irregulars progression.

So I say: give everyone equal XP, and absent PCs somehow earn some loot too. Maybe you can institute a custom that when Joe Irregular shows up, he tells a two-minute story of what his PC has been doing as a side adventure while the regular group was pursuing the regular storyline. That way you whitewash the free XP and loot he's been getting.

Meanwhile, during actual play, it's possible to earn hero points for doing awesome stuff. Hero points are nice to have and a good single-person reward for bringing the awesome. You can't stockpile too many of them, so you can't slowly get ahead of other players with them. People who play all the time have more opportunities to earn them, but if Joe Irregular is particularly awesome whenever he does show up, he gets them too. This way, you can still reward your regular players, but in a way that doesn't get out of hand the way a lead in XP can.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Have to agree on this. Personally, I lost all taste for denying advancement to my players when they miss a game after being in a campaign where one of the players wound up being a level behind the rest because he missed two games on account of his mother dying, and needing to go to her funeral.

Surely special circumstances, such as you outline, always merit a thoughtful and compassionate approach. Good gaming practice, yes? But it doesn't require a complete removal of the XP system. Unless that's your personal preference.

The XP system is a 'rewards' system - not negatively judgemental. No one loses anything. They just don't gain it in certain circumstances.


eakratz wrote:

I'm not giving out XP in my game, just leveling up at certain points. We have one player that can only come to half the games. If he had only half the XP it would be a giant PIA and not fun for him because he would really like to be there for all of the games. Instead, if the player is present at certain achievements, they might get a hero point. Or the players present may get bonus skill or hit points.

Edit: this is a game, not work. Playing and having fun is the reward. And it's not fun to be doubly punished. Not being able to make a game is bad enough. Then to come back having a weaker PC than the others on top of that is just rubbing it in.

Having half the XP is unlikely to make any difference to that players HD in the game - unless everyone else has leveled up. And there must be many ways a GM can conjure up situations to enable him/her to regain XP relatively quickly.

Alternatively, as you say, just don't use XP. And that's possible without anyone having to claim it's a 'retribution monster'.


Puna'chong wrote:
...I don't see how it isn't punishment to single out the person who had to work, or had to take care of their kid, or got sick, or had an exam the next day. All of these examples don't seem like choices to me. I doubt most people in consistent RPG groups choose not to attend, because at least for me and my groups we move other things out of the way so we can game...

Thanks for your thoughtful response. How can it be a punishment for a circumstance the GM is unlikely aware of, or is not part of the game scenario? The respondent may 'feel' its a punishment, but it never was - merely system mechanics.

I was under the impression that applying a game mechanic is never supposed to be a ritual that lacks understanding for certain circumstances. But to throw a whole system aside under the claim of 'singling people out' is in my view unrealistic.


Matthew Downie wrote:

If you don't attend school as often as you could and get less marks in your exams, that's a consequence. If you're forced to write lines on a blackboard as a penalty for truancy, that's a punishment.

If you go to the ball game rather than going out with your girl, the consequences are that you don't get to spend as much time with her. If she decides to dump you over it, that's more like a punishment.

And writing lines is the consequence of swearing at the teacher. The girlfriend may not be punishing you, merely walking away from a bad relationship. It may 'feel' like punishment. You could say that going to the ball game instead of meeting the girlfriend is punishing her. I guess it depends on your intention.

Quote:
...Being made to play a weaker character than everyone else is a punishment, and one that doesn't really seem necessary - unless worrying about their character falling behind is the only thing that will motivate them to turn up.

Missing a few XP is rarely/hardly 'weaker' - unless the player has been missing weeks/months of games. Then it's questionable whether they want to play at all.

Quote:
(And I don't see the sense in awarding half XP if the character is there but the player isn't - surely the character still gains as much experience no matter who's playing them?)

It's an alternative various folks have used when a player has requested their character continue to help keep the game going. I don't see the sense in rewarding a player for not being present at the table, while someone else does the work, and makes the decisions for him. And if his character dies, you can be certain he'll complain loudly and cry unfair.

If he's going to get the same experience, present or not, then you might as well drop XP and just level up at specific scenario points.


The reason a lot of us do without XP is that we feel it's unnecessary. The players level after a certain amount of XP is gained, at the discretion of the DM who technically decides how much XP he's going to be throwing out, correct? Seems like me telling my players that they've leveled after reaching a certain critical mass within a campaign or overcoming a big challenge is the same difference. We've all stated how we feel, and it's been rehashed probably a million times throughout the history of RPGs. Neither side will budge, and that's fine, because it is a system inherent to the game. It just feels like an antiquated one that has the potential to cause more problems than it's worth.

So, if the problem is how to deal with XP, an option can be to remove it and level through fiat. There are good workaround in this thread, though, if you still want to tally XP. I personally like the idea of the characters doing stuff offscreen that nets them a decent amount of XP and minor amounts of gold/gear so they're a little behind but don't feel behind.

Good talk guys! So nice.


Partially at my urging, my group has wandered away from traditional XP and started using a percentage system, 100xp equals a level up, this session you earned 5/10/30 experience. It's a lot easier to track for everyone involved. We have also been using the DM says you level approach which has worked out just fine as well.

As for OP's problem, have them level with the group, like another person said, assume that their characters are out doing their own thing and occasionally have them cross paths.

Treasure is a bit stranger, since they aren't actively playing, they wont be getting AP treasure, but you shouldn't give them full WBL of their choice, that'll make them significantly stronger than the core group.

Some suggestions i have would be to either give them a gold value equal to 50-75% of the groups to spend as they wish, or have them write a wishlist of gear, and give them a sprinkling of that along side some random consumables/wondrous items to make up the difference.


Doing without XP for one-shot/same night adventures, or one AP book over say a couple of weeks, sounds reasonable to me. And I agree the whole recording of XP would be pointless in these circumstances.

Where you have a sandbox/ongoing campaign world, then I think monitoring XP is more appropriate. Perhaps its the 'immersion' thing. Some folks like the detail, others would rather skip it. And that's what appeals to me about RPGs - you can tailor them to your own/groups needs and expectations.

I don't feel XP is any more antiquated than using multi-sided dice, or character sheets, or reading a hard-copy of a rulebook. I don't consider it to have been a problem either. It's players attitudes to it that seem to cause the ructions. A bit like when their favorite character dies.

Downtime seems to be a great idea to tackle some of the issues raised in this thread for absentee players. As long as you don't mind the record keeping :-)

Liberty's Edge

Da G8keepah wrote:

Thanks everyone for weighing in on this topic.

I think, however, that I did not get my issue across completely clearly. When I said that there will be some players who are sporadic, I meant that they will likely play at most 1 out of 3 sessions. The characters will be more guest stars than normal members of the group.
We will be playing Rise of the Runelords and it is entirely possible, for example, that one player will join us for the first half of Burnt Offerings and then not again until the latter half of the Hook Mount Massacre and then maybe somewhere in the middle of Sins of the Saviors and that's it.
They are players that I would like to include in the group (they are my friends, after all) but they just don't have the time to play all that often (graduate school, etc).
I don't want to penalize anyone for missing sessions. I just want to make sure that the core group doesn't suffer for the inclusion of the others.

Yeah, this is a completely different issue than what everyone is discussing. If they're only going to be at a few sessions, and you know that ahead of time, that is something entirely different than having a player whom you rely on but doesn't show up.

These players could be "important NPCs"—not NPCs from the book, but characters that when the players are absent, they become regular NPCs in town. When the players rejoin, just keep the characters at the same level as the same group.

The other option is to have the characters remain with the group and have other players run them in their absence. It would be more work for the players, but at least you wouldn't have to invent reasons why a character suddenly just shows up.

In any case, you could email a recap to the absent players so they're able to keep up with the story.

Or just have the absent players' characters get murdered in their sleep so you don't have to worry about it.

Lantern Lodge

Running Kingmaker with players that may not be able to attend due to work or family commitments.

XP:
I award full XP to all players present and half xp to those that can't. Half xp is half of what a present player get individually.

Gold and Loot:
All gold and loot found is part of the "party loot" list. Players may take out items, use gold, etc. Everything is part of the party, so characters that do leave just returns the items they took to the party loot.
Players do start out with 1k of individual wealth.


You're not punishing the sporadic player by withholding experience from him, you're actually punishing the rest of the group when you let a character who has fallen behind in levels play in a session. One level of disparity is not that noticeable but a character that is two levels below the rest of the party is generally a liability rather than an asset. Lower level characters can't hit things as well, the skill DC's they can achieve are lower, their wealth and resources are lower etc. The party will be have to rest more often, have to protect and/or heal them more and there may be things that they simply can't overcome due to the DC's involved. That or the GM can cater to the character that is lagging behind, leaving the rest of the party under-challenged.

Having a character significantly behind the rest of the party is just as detrimental as having that one super-optimized, munchkin game-breaker whose character far outstrips the others at the table. In recognition of this, my DM makes a habit of ensuring that the lowest level character just gets a bump up to the next level if they ever fall two levels behind.

The thing I don't understand about some of the positions in this conversation is why you would want to punish your reliable players by making them carry laggards through a dumbed-down adventure that is catered to your sporadic attendees rather than them. Shouldn't you want to reward your regulars by having a game that is attuned to them while occasionally accommodating that one guy you like to play with who can't show up as often as the others?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everyone levels up at the same time.

Loot goes to whoever puts it to best use and is considered available for group use because the PC is still there even if the player is not (and the PC does nothing special, except healing if he is the only healer in the party).

In other words, I do not like punishing my friends when they are kind enough to take some time for me by coming and playing my game.


You should take a few minutes and have a discussion with your players about how they want to handle absences. What to do about xp is only part of the problem; you should also come to some sort of agreement about what happens to the characters when the player doesn't show. Do they mysteriously disappear, or is somebody else assigned the task of playing them?

If the character just disappears for a while, it makes sense that they wouldn't get any xp. OTOH, they also can't be hurt or killed. If somebody else is playing them there's a risk that the character will get killed/injured/negative levels/sundered or stolen gear/etc. The PC in that case should reasonably get some xp - half, full, or whatever the group agrees to.

Whatever you come up with, I think it will work better if it was a group decision and not something imposed by GM fiat.

As for dividing up the treasure, when I GM I don't play any part in that at all, unless there's an NPC who wants a share. However the PCs split things up is entirely a matter of their role playing among themselves.

TL:DR Talk to your players.

Sovereign Court

Da G8keepah wrote:

Thanks everyone for weighing in on this topic.

I think, however, that I did not get my issue across completely clearly. When I said that there will be some players who are sporadic, I meant that they will likely play at most 1 out of 3 sessions. The characters will be more guest stars than normal members of the group.
We will be playing Rise of the Runelords and it is entirely possible, for example, that one player will join us for the first half of Burnt Offerings and then not again until the latter half of the Hook Mount Massacre and then maybe somewhere in the middle of Sins of the Saviors and that's it.
They are players that I would like to include in the group (they are my friends, after all) but they just don't have the time to play all that often (graduate school, etc).
I don't want to penalize anyone for missing sessions. I just want to make sure that the core group doesn't suffer for the inclusion of the others.

If this is the case then just let them play as leveled equals. This is a friend of yours and it is not that they are blowing off the game because they don't wanna play. Life commitments come first.

If everyone else is also a friend of yours then there will be no issue especially if you make sure teh regulars don;t get screwed over becasue the sporadic player shows up.


yeah talk to your players is good. i have a couple of slightly irregular players too, one is about 50% and the other 80.

fortunately i do run a campaign that has room for PCs to come and go - its not endless dungeon crawls or what have you.

its a chance for that person to develop their character in different ways - what goals do they have that differ from the main groups? my 50% guy is currently collaborating with his PC's brother to smuggle an army of mercenaries into the capital city under the guise of refugees. the other PCs know nothing of this (email is a wonderful thing) but it will allow him to do something really dramatic at some point, and keeps him involved.

i typically award half exp to players who dont come to sessions for advancing different goals of their own. they also gather new or different resources (said merc army being a good example). so far there is only a levels difference across the party, and if i have to fudge things to keep it that way i will.

i also like to email before a session about what their PC has been up to, so it can come from them if or when the question is asked.

someone above mentioned if they are going to be really irregular then the sort of SWAT team helps out the PCs approach can work too.

just talk to them :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Puna'chong wrote:

Not to derail, but why punish someone for having things to do besides play a game? During the semester I'll often have a player who can't make it because he's got a paper to write or a test that week. Why make it less fun for them to play the next time because they had to prioritize something above Pathfinder? Additionally, I do reward players for doing awesome things with Hero Points. My players love the system and it leads to some pretty memorable moments. And it seems like you have issues with this @HowFortuitous, but how often do players not contribute in combat? I don't think I've had a single instance of someone not contributing to a fight that they were in, and if they're off doing something else it's always been to advance the storyline in some way (here's some awesome story XP!!!!).

But again, if tracking XP is the way you want to go, my personal preference for how to do this would be to make it so the character that isn't there will always have the base XP required to be the same level as the other characters. They may be 2,000 XP behind the rest, but they'll be level 10 like everyone else. At the very least they'll still be able to contribute and have fun while not feeling punished for being unable to show up.

In my games I give bonus Xp out as a reward. Normally, this just means that a player might reach a new level a session or two earlier but it has happened that the divide has grown bigger. Most of this bonus Xperia comes from players doing things like coming up with really good ideas, great rp, or the occasional solo job. Sometimes I've had parties split up as well. If everybody is kept to the same Xperia level, then bonus Xp is not worth pursuing. If people get full Xp for not even being present, it tends to grate the other players the wrong way as they had to suffer increased risk due to being down a player.

As for not contributing in fights, it mostly hasn't been a problem in some time, but I did once have a player who was a low level wizard and would literally do nothing in mook fights. Not even a sling or crossbow. There were a few other examples going back to a monk in a d&d who would hide in fights and leech Xp to get to higher levels without risking himself, and a rogue who did something similar in 3.5.

Being behind a level doesn't mean you can't contribute. It just means you are a touch behind and have to find ways to catch up.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How do you handle treasure and XP for sporadic players? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice